Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jul 1955

Vol. 45 No. 3

Appropriation Bill, 1955 ( Certified Money Bill ) —Second Stage

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

The Appropriation Bill is a recurrent annual measure and this year's Bill is in the usual standard form. It does four things: (1) It authorises the issue from the Central Fund of a balance for 1954-55 which was granted too late to enable it to be covered by the Central Fund Act, 1955; (2) it authorises the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted for supply services for 1955-56, that is to say, the full amount less that already authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1955; (3) it empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to the limit of the issues provided for in the first two headings; and (4) it appropriates to the several supply services the sums granted by the Dáil since the Appropriation Act of last year.

The explanation of the individual sections and schedules of the Bill may be summarised as follows:—

Section 1 authorises the issue of £478,350 from the Central Fund to cover eight Supplementary Estimates for 1954-55 which were taken too late to be covered by the Central Fund Act, 1955. The Supplementary Estimates in question were partly token and partly full supplementaries. Agriculture, Local Government, Forestry, Transport and Marine Services and Defence Supplementary Estimates were token ones. The National Gallery was for £300, Industry and Commerce, £250,000, and Posts and Telegraphs, £228,000.

Section 2 authorises the issue of £70,928,093 from the Central Fund, thus supplementing the issue of £34,560,000 already authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1955, and bringing the total of authorised issues to £105,488,093, which is the amount estimated to be required to meet the cost of supply services for the current financial year as shown in the Estimates Volume already published.

Section 3 empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to £71,406,443, being the total of the amounts authorised by Sections 1 and 2 to be issued out of the Central Fund. The Minister is already authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1955, to borrow up to the limit of the sum authorised by that Act to be issued from the Central Fund for 1955-56, that is to say, £34,560,000.

The object of the provision about the Bank of Ireland is not to confer any special privilege upon that bank but to place it in the same position in the matter of lending to the Government as other banks. Under Section XI of the statute of the Irish Parliament (21 and 22 Geo. 3, c. 16, A.D., 1781-82), under which the Bank of Ireland was established, the bank is liable to forfeit any moneys advanced or loaned by it to the Government unless the advance or loan is specifically authorised by Parliament.

Section 4 appropriates to the specific services set out in Schedule B the sum of £109,925,454, which is the aggregate of the amount required for the supply services for 1955-56 (£105,488,093) and the Supplementary and Additional Estimates of 1954-55, amounting to £4,437,361, which have not yet been appropriated because they were introduced after the passage of the Appropriation Act, 1954. The section also authorises the use of certain departmental receipts as Appropriations-in-Aid of the specific services mentioned in Schedule B.

Schedule A gives particulars of the issues out of the Central Fund authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1955 and the present Bill. Schedule B sets out in detail the specific services to which the sums granted are to be appropriated and so forms the basis of the audit of the appropriation accounts carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Bill before us this evening affords a further opportunity to the House of examining and giving its views on the moneys that are collected from the taxpayers and the expenditure of these moneys. Some years ago we had here an arrangement by which the House was afforded a wider basis for discussion on this Bill and by which members were invited to put forward, more or less in the way of motion or question to the various Ministers, any of the matters to which they might wish to draw the attention of the House. For some reason, that system did not seem to work out so well and we have the Bill now presented to us as it was presented to-day.

The Minister has pointed out that the Bill makes provision for the appopriation or allocation of the moneys to the various Departments and it affords us an opportunity to examine and look into the working of these various Departments and express our views on them. I would like to refer to what, to many of us, seems secondary but what is a very important Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce.

In the Dáil the Minister, in introducing his Estimate, gave a review of the activities of that Department over the years. I am sorry that, having looked over that review and examined it, I have failed to see there any hope or any proposals that would hold out any hope to a large section of our people who look to that Department for greater activity, particularly in the field of developing our industries. As a matter of fact, many of us have the view that there is a general slowing-down in this particular field at a time when we should be devoting all our energies to providing employment, by building up our industries for those people who are compelled to seek employment elsewhere.

The first thing, then, naturally, to which I would wish to draw the attention of the House—and it is one to which we would look for possible solution of much of our difficulties—is rural electrification. When this project was first set afoot, the E.S.B. put before the then Minister for Industry and Commerce its views on the provisions necessary for undertaking this very essential work. Having considered the case made by the board, it was decided by the then Government that this was a very essential project, one that was going to help to build up industries in rural Ireland and one that was going to retard somewhat the flight from the land into the cities. If we were to have industries in rural Ireland the first essential was that we should have power and that that power should be made available as cheaply as possible. In order to do that the Government undertook to provide money to cover 50 per cent. of the expenditure undertaken by the E.S.B. on rural electrification.

Much progress has been made and we now find that while there was a provision in last year's Estimate of £84,000 for this purpose it has been decided that that sum is no longer to be provided——

It is no longer a white elephant.

The question is then that while progress has been made, the more remote areas in the country have still to be catered for and, therefore, to my mind, it is just at the time when we should be anxious to give more encouragement and assistance to bring this very essential service to rural Ireland and to the more remote parts of the country that this decision has been taken. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce both assure us that this will not retard progress——

Has any indication been given that electricity will not be brought to the remote parts of the country?

——and that progress will be maintained. The 1927 Act which established the E.S.B. laid down conditions that so far as it was possible— as has been the case with many boards that have been set up—it must pay its way. But now we are putting an obligation on the E.S.B., by the removal of the subsidy and of a guarantee given to the board by the previous Government that, if it undertook the project, the Government and the people of this country would come to its aid by providing 50 per cent. of the moneys involved. That is the position, and if the Senators on the other side of the House are quite satisfied that this step taken by the Minister is taken in the best interests of rural Ireland, and of those in remote areas particularly, then there is very little that I can say here that can change their approach or possibly the Minister's approach. Time will tell, and at some further stage this week, probably before we adjourn for this session, we shall have an opportunity of referring to this matter again.

I do not wish, therefore, at this stage to dwell overlong on that particular point but I have mentioned it first because, to my mind, it is one of the most important decisions made in recent times. That decision affects the possibility of giving to rural Ireland an essential for the establishment of industries. Not alone were we giving that to them but we were taking steps to ensure that it was being given to them at a reasonable cost. It was something that might be a further inducement to industrialists to come in and build up industries and provide our young people with employment. We shall have a further opportunity of referring to that.

The next matter is the question of removing subsidies on flour for biscuits and confectionery. The last day when I made reference to this question it was taken very lightly by some members on the other side of the House. I do not think it should be taken so lightly; I think it is a very important question. We have had during the past number of years advice and inducements held out to our people to build up exports. We have had in this particular field a number of people engaged in certain industries. They have built up export markets for these industries. In fact, in recent years, some of them built up quite large export markets for their produce. We went to the trouble of setting up an organisation to encourage the development of Irish industries for the purpose of export, and we were prepared to spend thousands of pounds in doing so.

Now we have placed many of these manufacturers in a very difficult position; our refusal to renew the subsidies on flour for biscuits and confectionery has resulted in a situation where it is now possible to import both confectionery and biscuits at cheaper prices than they are put on the market by Irish manufacturers, because the majority of the ranges of biscuits have had to be increased by from 4d. to 5d. a lb. Similar increases have had to be sought for the various items of confectionery. Having done that, without having given due consideration to it, we now find that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has said in the Dáil that there is under consideration a scheme to subsidise these manufacturers in so far as their output for export is concerned.

It is now practically three months since the withdrawal of the subsidy and the system of subsidy has not been evolved yet in the Department of Finance; those people have not yet been made aware of this new scheme of subsidy about which we have heard.

Not the Department of Finance.

The Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible. Perhaps the Minister for Finance thinks his Department is much more efficient than the Department of Industry and Commerce and I grant him that.

The Minister for Finance gets enough kicks on his own.

Three months is not a long time in a Government Department.

Unfortunately, it is very long for those people who have gone to the trouble and expense of building up an export trade in these commodities and who have not yet been informed of what this new scheme is. They are still waiting for information from the Department of Industry and Commerce as to the lines on which this particular subsidy on export will be based. The question now is, has it been worth it all. I referred to another aspect which affects the smaller confectionery manufacturers, and that is that they will not be in a position to draw their supplies of flour from the ordinary millers. The ordinary millers, who manufacture up to 80 per cent. of the flour for ordinary use, are not now in a position to mill the grade of flour required for the biscuit and confectionery business and, therefore, those people must now change their trading system and take their supplies of flour from the larger flour millers who undertake the manufacture of the particular type of flour required.

Much has been said about price control and we were told during the general election and many times in this and the other House that there would be a more effective and efficient body set up to replace the present Prices Advisory Body instead of making that body more active. If such a proposal would provide a more comfortable blanket for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it might be worth it, but here again he has made a reduction of £1,000, regardless of the fact that we were promised a more effective and active body than the present one is. The Minister knows, of course, and the House knows, that the fact of setting up such an organisation, no matter whether it is a prices commission or an advisory body, is not going to have any big effect on prices in general. The Prices Advisory Body was first set up as just something the Minister could fall back on as an excuse when it became apparent to all that a decision had to be made and that such a decision would have to be on the lines that prices of certain commodities must be increased and that these increases had taken place notwithstanding all the promises that had been made.

The Minister for Social Welfare was quite candid here this evening in his introduction of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The plea he put before us was that the weekly payments provided for under that Bill—the increased weekly payments—were essential because of increases in the cost of living in recent times. Of course, the reason for that is that prices have been allowed to rise and nothing has been done about them. The effective machinery which we were promised has not been put into operation. The Prices Advisory Body is still the same body as it originally was and we have had no new proposals before us for the setting up of any new body to supplant it.

There is another serious question, one which the Minister and the Government should consider very seriously. That is the decision to increase the price of coal. It has already been increased by 13/- or 13/6 per ton in the City of Dublin and throughout the country. There is every indication of further price increases. The Government should direct attention to the position which obtained last winter which would have been very difficult, had it not been relieved by the fact that we had these much despised stocks of coal in the Park. It was from these stocks of fuel that we were able to provide supplies during a period when there was great difficulty in getting coal. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that everything possible is being done to ensure that our coal merchants and those others who are charged with the duty of providing adequate supplies of fuel next winter will do everything possible in that direction.

We have had, in Bills of this type in the past, much discussion on the possibilities of finding an outlet for our people at home by creating new fields of employment and industry. About two years ago many of us were invited to see the great progress that was being made in a project undertaken by the Irish Sugar Company in Connacht at a place called Gowla. Those of us who went to see that project were very pleased because we saw great prospects for the future and we saw great encouragement there for our small farmers from the point of view of land reclamation. We were all delighted when steps were taken, as it were, to extend that project to Bangor Erris. There it was proposed to reclaim some 2,600 acres of bogland and, by drainage and so forth, to convert them into arable areas suitable for the production of grass meal. The proposal was to have this land brought back to a state in which it could be cultivated.

This was an area where there was much unemployment. The district comprises small holdings of much the same type of land and as an experiment, one would have thought this was a move in the right direction. There was an Act passed through the Dáil and through this House approving of the project and setting up a company. State moneys were made available and a great part of the development work had begun. As a matter of fact some 2,400 acres of this land had been drained and ploughed and all the necessary preliminary works, as far as these 2,400 acres were concerned, had been undertaken and undertaken at a much lesser cost than was at first estimated.

We had a change of Government and the matter was, we are told, re-examined and a decision was communicated to the persons responsible, the directors, that this work should cease. Some reasons were given in the Dáil by the Minister but the members of that House have not had an opportunity afforded them of deciding for themselves in regard to the decision made, on the recommendation of an inter-departmental committee composed of members of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce, that this work should not be proceeded with and that the land should be taken over by the Department of Agriculture on the one hand and the Forestry Branch on the other hand for the purpose of development works. I have no objection whatsoever to the Department of of Agriculture and the Forestry Branch undertaking schemes of this kind but there are thousands of acres both in Mayo, Galway and in the West generally where these experiments could be carried out rather than that this project should be abandoned just as the other schemes were abandoned —the Inchicore scheme, the purchase of an Irish air fleet, the Lockheed industry and all the other projects that have been closed down.

This is one thing against which we must set our face, that because a particular Party have undertaken a certain scheme, the next Party that comes in after a change of Government must immediately sit down and try to bring about some change in that for the purpose of saying it was not a worthwhile scheme. One of the arguments advanced by the Minister in the other House in relation to the decision to close down this project was that there was not a market at home or abroad for the produce of the factories. You cannot have a market for any commodity until you have the commodity to sell and it is only when that commodity is made available——

It has been sold elsewhere.

It is because it is being sold and has been sold that it was thought worthwhile to set up this organisation so that it would be made available to a greater number of our farmers. It is no new idea. It has been a success not alone in regard to the undertaking in Galway but it has also been a success in the hands of private enterprise.

Yes, in several places.

On land that can grow grass.

In the Book of Estimates we have provision made for, I think, a sum of £70,000 for this project. When the Book of Estimates was being prepared this project was going ahead. The Minister and the Department concerned had before them the proposals and practically all the information, I am sure, they had when they came to this decision. There has been provided, not in the Fianna Fáil Book of Estimates but in the Book of Estimates provided by the inter-Party Government, a sum of £70,000 for this project which they have now abandoned. The Minister tries to satisfy his supporters in Mayo and elsewhere by saying: "No unemployment will be created as a result, because the Department of Agriculture, on the portion of land which they are taking over, is already having that land developed and the Department of Forestry will also carry out work which will provide employment for those people."

It was not exactly to find employment for the 29 or 30 people or the 75 or 175 people who might get employment in the production of grass meal that this industry, as we might refer to it, was set up. It was to reclaim the land and also to prove to farmers throughout the country with land of the same type what could be done. It was hoped that, at a stage when the company had succeeded in proving what could be done on the lands they had taken over, they could, either by lending, renting or hiring out their machinery, as in the Gowla bog, go into the holdings of the small farmers around this particular belt of Bangor Erris and put them into production of this commodity as they did for themselves. This scheme has been abandoned and abandoned for no other reason than that it was one of those schemes started by Fianna Fáil.

Part of these lands we are told is being taken over for afforestation. We have heard quite a lot about afforestation, why it should be encouraged, the employment it would give and the industries that would follow the expansion of afforestation. But when one examines the provision made in the Book of Estimates to go more speedily ahead in this field of afforestation, we find that there is there a reduction of £60,000 in the sum provided for the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes. Even Senator L'Estrange will agree with me that you must have the land to plant and you must acquire the land before you can plant it. If there is less money provided in a particular year for the acquisition of land then you will have, either this year or next year, less land planted.

There may, of course, be some connection between the taking over of the 2,600 acres in Bangor Erris and the reduction in the Estimate for the acquisition of land for afforestation. It may be that by handing over this land for afforestation it can be suggested that we have now more land on our hands for afforestation than we can cope with and that, because of that, we need not purchase any more land. I would like to make one plea to the Minister in connection with this question of afforestation. It is almost 20 years now since the price was fixed at £10 per acre in the case of those who were anxious to plant an acre of their own land. The value of land has increased considerably since then. Whether or not that is the result of speculative wheat growing I do not know but, if it is our intention to encourage afforestation, the Minister will have to increase that figure by 50 or 100 per cent. in order to make it worth while for the private individual to plant an acre of land. If we are to achieve our goal in relation to afforestation, we will have to give more encouragement to the ordinary land owner to plant a certain amount of his own land and that objective will only be achieved by increasing the grant and making it more commensurate with the value of money to-day, the cost of living and so forth.

There is provision made under this Bill for the Office of Public Works. Where moneys are provided by the taxpayer for the carrying out of certain works, we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that these moneys are used for no purpose other than the providing of employment for our people in the carrying out of essential works. If that is done, the dangers to which I referred earlier will be avoided. If the Minister is anxious that those dangers should be avoided he will have to take very active steps to ensure there is an immediate reversion to the position that obtained in the past, namely, labour must be recruited for such schemes through the local labour exchanges. The persons employed on these schemes should, as far as possible, be registered unemployed. There should be no question of political patronage on the part of any member of the Oireachtas, on the part of any Parliamentary Secretary or Minister.

They were recruited from the Fianna Fáil cumainn for a long time.

I am in two minds as to whether I should follow the Senator up that avenue or ignore him.

It is better to ignore the remark.

In 1932 a decision was taken and that decision was that all labour recruited for works, particularly those for which moneys were supplied from the Central Fund, should be recruited from the local labour exchange. All I ask is that that system will be rigidly enforced in the future. I could, if I wished, dwell for quite a long time on this matter and I will be only too pleased to do so if that is Senator L'Estrange's desire.

The question arises now as to when these works should be undertaken. Public works should not be regarded as relief works. I do not know if the Minister has seen the correspondence, but correspondence has issued from a Department of State in relation to drainage works. It has been suggested to local authorities that these works should be undertaken in the months of January and February. Everyone will agree that in order to carry out drainage successfully, work must be done in this kind of weather rather than at a time of year when it is virtually impossible for the employees to do the work efficiently.

If we must have relief schemes, let them be relief schemes and let everybody know they are schemes for the purpose of relieving unemployment. Let it not be suggested that public utility works are being carried out. I think it is a bad headline to local authorities and to those responsible for carrying out such works to suggest that it would be better to hold them over until such time as their implementation would remove from the unemployment register a few names or numbers. That is the only interpretation that can be given to that suggestion. Important drainage works should be carried out at the most opportune time; that is, under weather conditions in which they can be most efficiently carried out.

That brings me now to the problem of unemployment. There is nothing in this Bill, there is nothing in the Book of Estimates and there is nothing in any of the statements made by the Minister which offers any consolation or assurance to the unemployed that their position will be any better in the future. It is not sufficient to say that the number of unemployed has been reduced by 5,000 or 6,000. It is not sufficient to say, as a result of a very sudden realisation of the position, that the unemployed register does not paint a true picture. It is not sufficient to say that numbers of those people are unemployable. These statements were not made during the general election campaign. Now, these statements are being offered by way of excuse: the numbers have been reduced by some thousands and the figures cannot be taken as a true indication of the position; many of these people are unemployable; many were never employed in their lives; they would not take employment if it were offered to them.

The position is that these people are drawing public funds. There are from 47,000 to 50,000 unemployed and that figure does not take into consideration the people who have left the country to seek employment elsewhere. The young people are leaving and if the Minister or any Senator wants to see a true picture of what is happening, particularly in the West of Ireland, he can go down to Galway and travel back by train on Wednesday morning; it will not serve the purpose if he goes by car but, if he takes the train back to Dublin, he will see what is happening in the West of Ireland.

More left when Fianna Fáil were in office than at any other time.

Our young people are leaving the country. No provision has been made for them. There is no allocation of funds in this Bill for the purpose of providing employment for them at home. No hope is held out that more employment will be created. As a matter of fact, we have reached the position now wherein emigration has been accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government as a safety valve for unemployment.

The Parliamentary Secretary never said anything of the sort.

If the Minister will look at the Dáil Debate——

I know exactly what he said. Will the Senator quote him? He should not misconstrue him.

If the Minister looks at the debate of 16th February, 1955, he will find there—remember, it was not I who wrote these debates—the verbatim report of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. Deputy O'Donovan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, said in Dáil Eireann on the 16th February, 1955:—

"...it certainly is the major objective of the present Government to create, as far as possible, full employment. After all, we have what has been called the safety valve of emigration. Whether or not you call it a safety valve does not matter a great deal, but at least it does help in the problem of creating full employment."

It is not a question of what I or anybody else did. It is a question of facing up to the position as it is to-day. I am asking the Government if they are now prepared to fulfil the promises they made to end unemployment and to bring down the cost of living and the cost of Government.

I was indeed more amused than surprised when I heard the members of the Labour Party speak in this House on the particular Bills I have referred to. Never once, during their references to the many matters contained in the Bills and never once in their long speeches, did they refer to the increase in the cost of living or ask the Government what steps they were taking to end unemployment and emigration. They seemed to be satisfied with the position. However, the leaders of trade unions were more innocent—I might put it that way— than the Labour members in this House or in the other House because they must have taken their leader's promises seriously. In recent weeks we have had statements by responsible trade union leaders that their patience is now exhausted, that they expected active steps would be taken by the Government to fulfil their promises to reduce the cost of living and the cost of Government and that, as the Government had failed in that direction, there was no avenue open to organised trade unions but to make an immediate demand and back up that demand with all the force at their command and with the only weapon they have at their command. As we know, it is an effective weapon. We see, to-day, results from the pictures painted by persons who now form the Government and from promises made by them which they are not in a position to fulfil.

We have heard about a reduction in the price of butter. We have also heard about a blank cheque which was given to Tea Importers to continue the importation of tea until September. I understand that now, for some reason or other best known to the Government, a new decision has been made and a new extension of time has been given from September to November to Tea Importers. A new direction has now been issued to the effect that Tea Importers may continue to import tea until next November and the banks are authorised to give them the necessary accommodation. We have not been told the full story in this matter, as in other matters. We have not been told at what rate of interest the banks are advancing this money or what the ultimate cost will be. Again, it is a question of living in the hope that something might happen: if you take chances long enough in that direction then, some time or another, you will probably choose a winner.

I want now to refer to a most extraordinary speech made by the Taoiseach when moving the Estimate for his Department. In some lines of that speech, one would think the Taoiseach had suddenly become a speaker from the Fianna Fáil Benches. From a position in which it was wrong for Fianna Fáil to talk about the advisability of being careful in the matter of the conversion of our external assets, the outlook now seems to be that it is a very proper matter for the Government to pay particular attention to. The Taoiseach drew the attention of the House—and, through the House, of the public—to the fact that we are now importing at higher prices and exporting our commodities, particularly our cattle, at reduced prices and that we cannot hope to continue such a situation for very long without, as he said himself, a position of chaos occurring. However, having warned the House and the country in this connection, the Taoiseach did not indicate what steps the Government propose to take to guard against any of the difficulties that might be created as a result of the increased cost of our imports and the reduction in our exports. We hope the Minister will give us some indication, when he is replying, of the steps the Government propose to take in these matters.

The Bill before us authorises the Minister to borrow. It seems to have become part and parcel of Government activity to borrow and to borrow and to borrow. We hear pious expressions that, as a nation, we should foster private enterprise, that we should engage in private enterprise and that private enterprise should build up our industries. How long can we continue to borrow huge sums? I fear that a continuing attitude of Government policy will be that we must borrow these huge sums of money annually. I submit that we cannot have moneys to build up private enterprise when the Government go into very serious competition with people who may be anxious to promote private enterprise. It is bad from the point of view of fostering private enterprise if the Government go into serious competition with them in order to get the money in Government securities. It would be a different matter if, such money having been borrowed by the Government, we were getting any beneficial results. It would be a great help if we felt we were even on the road towards solving our problems. What about finding employment for the 20,000 to 25,000 young persons who come on the employment market annually? What about taking some steps to end emigration? Is anything being done to satisfy people living on the land and who are contemplating emigration that there is a living at home for them? If the moneys which we are borrowing were making some little contribution each year towards solving these grave problems then we could say we are doing something useful. Such, however, is not the case. The Government seem to have made up their mind that they can sit quite contentedly and that they have this "safety valve" of emigration.

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

In our economy, I believe the way we use the money which we raise each year will be a vital factor in deciding whether or not we make a success of the various things which we all set before us as necessary objectives. The problem which requires the greatest solution in our time is the problem of unemployment and, what it begets, emigration. The last census showed the first arresting of the decline in our population since statistics were recorded in this country. That should not give us grounds for complacency. We have been investing a considerable amount of money in capital development and, in that process, we have been repatriating large amounts of our external assets. Unless we devote the moneys which we take from the people in the form of taxes to production we will eventually reach a stage where we shall have exhausted so much of our resources that the tasks before us will be almost insurmountable.

On the Finance Bill, a Labour Senator said he doubted if we could afford the amount of money we were spending on roads. To some extent, that will be the basis of my argument here this evening. Can we afford to invest any but a meagre amount of our resources on facilities which are not wholly productive? I contend we cannot. Looking over the summary of the Public Services Appropriation Accounts for 1953-54, we will be amazed to see the number of items that go to make up the round figure of £116,000,000 that are truly productive in their essence. With the building up of an organisation of State and a public service, I am afraid we have created and built an edifice of a vested interest in waste which this or succeeding Governments will find it difficult to remove. These people will have to be continued in employment until they reach a certain age and then superannuated when they retire.

In his speech in Dáil Eireann, when concluding the debate on the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach on the 14th July, the Taoiseach gave a very fine summary of our economic position. It was referred to here this afternoon by the first speaker on behalf of the opposite side. I would suggest to him and to all other members of this House that a mere reading of the Taoiseach's speech is not sufficient. It contains a wealth of very up-to-date material based on statistics which have been compiled and arrived at very recently. The Taoiseach does not paint a picture of any easy road to prosperity. He paints a realistic picture of the true state of our economic situation. His emphasis is based in a clear and unequivocal way on production. He summarised the increase in the national income and gave figures showing that the increase is something around 1.3 per cent. per annum. He also showed the conclusion that the employment position is twice as good as it was in 1937. The unemployment percentage in 1937 was 15 per cent. which, in 1954, had fallen to 8.1 per cent. That means, in effect, that the percentage is almost half and it is very important.

There is one passage in the Taoiseach's speech which, I think, I ought to read because it sums up his views, the views of the Government and the views of all thinking people in this country on this question of our economic progress. He said:

"Instead of engaging in indiscriminate deploring of emigration, we should draw the obvious moral from what has taken place. We must attempt so to arrange our affairs as to make it possible for a growing number of the annual natural increase in population to be employed in productive work at home. For many years a large part of our population was under-employed, in the same way that a large part of our natural resources are still under-employed. By under-employment we mean that persons are engaged in work which does not make the addition to real wealth which their labour would contribute if it were productively and fruitfully employed.

Work in itself has no economic virtue unless it is productive in the sense of creating goods and services which will be of benefit to the workers themselves and to the rest of the community.... We must direct that investment of capital where it will provide the most useful return. Our agricultural industry is potentially the industry which can give the most spectacular return from new capital."

He quoted from reports of the O.E.E.C. and other international organisations and I think gave sufficient authorities to prove that we must get down, as other European countries have got down, to raising the productivity of everybody employed in the country, and, in addition to improving productivity, that we must improve the return on the capital invested. He said that over £80,000,000 of new capital has been ploughed into industry in this country, and, if a good return is not given for speculative investment here, we will find it hard to encourage people to save, in the first instance, and, in the second instance, to get them to invest their savings here.

It would be a pity if we were to consider relief schemes as of real importance. There is a tendency amongst urban councils, county councils and bodies of that nature to ask the Minister to pass relief grants, as if these were of any real importance, and we find them asking if they could get more money for their roads and for their boreens. We have been led to believe that if we can get these things from the Government, which has a bottomless purse, we will be able to help our towns and cities, but we are not going to improve the national economy in any respect by that form of economics. We are, in fact, as I believe, hindering it, because we are focussing our attention on the provision of employment on nonproductive work. We are raising rates and raising taxes and hindering the people who are engaged in production, taking from them the money they should use and could use very much better than we can use it for an expanding industrial and commercial economy.

That, I believe, is the message of any of our economists who have looked at the Irish economy. There was a group brought over from America to investigate our economy some years ago by the previous inter-Party Government and the conclusions to be drawn from their report, the I.B.E.C. report, are similar to those which the Taoiseach drew in his speech in the Dáil last week. I ask the Minister for Finance, in framing his Budget each year for the five years of office of this Government, to place more emphasis on the giving of money to Departments which will improve the productive effort of the country. The land is the most important and I ask that he consider that Department more favourably than other Departments.

I should like, in passing, to refer to the Department of Lands. I feel that we should have a more enlightened land policy than we have. Our present land policy is aimed at the relief of congestion and it has caused a considerable amount of ill-feeling in certain parts of Ireland by reason of people being brought in and planted down amongst people whom they do not know and who are not their friends. I believe that one group of people who ought to be given land are the second and third sons of farmers who know their job. The families of these young men would be prepared to help them in stocking the farms and in making a success of a vocation they know. What is happening is that these young men are being driven over to Birmingham, London and Manchester to find employment, while there is much land which is not being worked as intensively as it could be.

One of the reasons for that, I think, is that the land policy is largely dictated by agitation. If there is an estate lying semi-derelict and nobody moves to have it acquired, the Land Commission will do nothing about it, but if, near that estate there is a smaller holding and if, for spite or any other reason, somebody writes to the Land Commission and asks that it be inspected, with a view to acquisition or resumption, the Land Commission will take action. In my own County of Tipperary, three or four years ago, 120 acres of land were taken from a progressive young farmer. It was land which he worked intensively and to the improvement of his holding. A statute mile from that holding was a large estate, the owner of which was retiring from farming. His wife had died and he had no family. His nearest relative had about 1,200 acres, and, when retiring, he said to the men working on his estate: "I suppose the Land Commission will take this estate. I asked my cousin to take it, but he has so much land that he does not want the burden of it. I know the Land Commission will pay me its market value."

He said: "I am quite satisfied." I brought this to the notice of the Land Commission. The Land Commission still proceeded to take the land from this young Irish farmer who was doing a good job and the man with the 1,200 acres still has the 1,200 acres. There are very many young men of excellent character and outstanding ability in South Tipperary who could work that land and who would be prepared to make a contribution towards getting it and stocking it. They would make a success of it and probably would produce four or five times as much as was produced before on it, yet the Land Commission does nothing about it.

That is why I say that if what is happening in our county is true up and down the country, the policy of the Land Commission should be overhauled, in such a way as to increase the productivity of the country. We are getting some increase in agricultural output. The latest statistics available show there has been an increase in quantity of something over 10 per cent. That is some achievement in the last few years, but it is nothing like the achievement that can come. Given the proper conditions, our agricultural output could easily be increased by 50 per cent. by the end of this decade. If that were done, our agricultural exports would increase in far greater proportion, since a large percentage of our present output is taken to supply the needs of our own 3,000,000, while all the increase would be available for export. I would ask the Minister for Finance to look into the question of an enlightened land policy and its effect on agricultural production as one of the long-term policies of this Government.

With regard to industry, much has been said about tariffs, that industrialists want high protective tariffs. By and large, what the industrialists want is a large share of this small market. A high tariff has the effect of making industry inefficient and raising the cost of living; and it defeats its main object. I wonder if in many cases a quantitative control on imports would not have a much more beneficial effect. Take a small industry, manufacturing for this market. It cannot give the same variety as would be given in Britain, supplying a 50,000,000 market or a 100,000,000 market in export. The manufacturer here would make four or five lines where the manufacturer in Britain may be able to make 50 or 60 lines. A very great variety can be offered by a British manufacturer against the Irish manufacturer. A quantitative control on imports might be more effective than a tariff and, if properly devised, it might not cause any great increase in prices, as happened heretofore.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to a very interesting article which appeared in the spring issue of Studies. It deals with the problem which the Taoiseach dealt with in the other House, the problem that must confront us in the Appropriation Bill. By and large, our success or failure depends on how we appropriate the £116,000,000. If we make good use of it, we shall be successful; if we make bad use of it, our economy will be poorer. We will not be able to solve our emigration problem if we cannot produce an expanding economy, which is the only thing that will help us to employ an increasing number of the natural increase in our population—which, thank God, occurs every year.

I would like to quote briefly the last paragraph of "The Irish Economic Prospect", by Patrick Lynch, lecturer in economics in the National University. I think he puts in the proper order of priorities, on what we ought to spend the money which we have. He says:—

"The primary economic needs of the nation are, therefore, more saving and a greater volume of productive investment. This investment must be undertaken largely by the State or indirectly with its assistance. To secure a substantial increase in the real national income and in exports the more investment that takes place in agriculture the better; in no other sector of the economy is the need so great or the result so promising. An imaginative policy for public investment might formally recognise the essentially uneconomic character of a great deal of present outlay. The Government's adoption in 1950 of a dual Budget placed a new emphasis on State investment financed from borrowing. It is time now to distinguish clearly between categories of investment and to devise a practical policy for increasing current saving. The fundamentally static condition of the economy shows that public investment alone is not enough. Greater attention must be directed towards the choice and size of projects financed from public funds, and towards this end capital outlay undertaken by the State might be classified into such groups as——"

and he puts them down in the order in which he considers most of the State money should be spent:

(1) directly revenue earning (e.g. electricity development),

(2) potentially revenue earning (e.g. land development),

(3) desirable on social grounds (e.g. houses, schools, hospitals), and down at the very end he has:

(4) entirely unproductive (e.g. most relief schemes open or disguised).

A list of categories on these lines might lead to a system of priorities having regard to national needs and to the level of current saving. It might also compel the conviction that, if proper economic tests are applied, the projects included in category (4) should in normal times be financed from current taxation. Their exclusion from the capital programme would be dictated less by doctrinaire considerations than by the wasteful consequences of financing them from borrowing at the present stage of economic development."

I believe that Mr. Lynch—in that article which he wrote for Studies as a result of a request by the editor of that very fine journal—and the speech made by the Taoiseach in the other House last week, emphasise the need to conserve our resources towards production rather than towards the granting of relief. The resources and external assets we have, in my view, should be invested almost entirely in projects which will give an increasing and expanding production. In that way alone will we be able to solve the problem of reducing unemployment and improving the whole economic picture of this country.

Tá dhá phointe i gceist an tráthnóna seo a mba mhaith liom tagairt speisialta a dhéanamh dóibh. Rinne an Seanadóir Ó hAicín trácht ar scéim an leictreachais agus an chosúlacht atá ann go bhfuiltear le gearradh anuas ar an gcabhair atá le fáil ag an mBord.

Tá achainí le déanamh agam ar an Aire ina thaobh sin. Ins an nGaeltacht thiar, san áit a dtáinig mé féin as, táthar ag iarraidh ar an mBord le scathamh an leictreachas do chur siar go dtí dhá cheanntar a bhfuil pobal an-líonmhar ar fad iontu—Cois Fhairrge agus an Cheathrú Rua. Tá iarracht déanta cúpla uair ag an mBord i measc muintir na háite le iad a chlárú mar chaitheoirí nó úsáideoirí aibhléise. Chomh fada agus is eol dom, d'éirigh go h-an mhaith leis an gclárú sin. Deirfaidh an Bord, b'fhéidir, nach bhfuair siad ach, abair, 60 fáoín gcéad ins an áit agus go rabhdar ag súil le 75 faoin gcéad, mar gheibheas siad in áiteacha eile.

Is dóigh liom nach ceart don Bhord, beag ná mór, breathnú ar an scéim le haghaidh na gCeantracha gCúng ar an dul céanna a mbreathnóidís ar an scéim sna ceantracha eile. Má fhághann tú 40 faoin gcéad san áit a bhfuil pobal an-líonmhar d'fhéadfadh sé bheith go bhfuil an figiúir sin i bhfad níos mó ná mar a bhéadh in áit eile a bhfuighfeá, abair, 75 faoin gcéad.

Táimíd ag iarraidh dúthaigh na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn. Teastaíonn an chomhacht aibhléise uainn le go gcuirfear feabhas ar chúrsaí talmhaíochta san áit. Sa dá cheanntar atá luaite agam, tá scéim na dtithe gloine ar bun iontu. D'fheileadh sé go mór go mbeadh an aibhléis le fáil ag na daoine a bhfuil tithe gloine acu. Mar is eol do go leor Seanadóirí, tagann na milte daoine gach aon bhlian isteach go dtí na ceantracha sin mar chuairteoirí agus mar lucht foghlama Gaeilge. Tá a fhios ag daoine chomh scaipthe is chomh fiáin is atá na háiteacha seo. D'fheileadh sé go mór an aibhléis a bheith le fáil in a gcóir siúd chomh maith.

Thar aon rud eile, impín ar an Aire spéis a chur sa scéal seo mar gheall ar an méid atá an Coiste Oideachais Ghairme Beatha, Contae na Gaillimhe, ag iarraidh a dhéanamh leis an oideachas gairme beatha agus an oideachas teicnicúla a chur chun cinn ins an dá áit san. Tá scoltacha breágha tógtha againn iontu. Tá líon an-mhór scoláirí ag freastal ar na scoltacha, idir buachaillí agus cailíní. Tá slí ar fáil sa gCeathrú Rua go speisialta agus i gCois Fhairrge chomh maith le haghaidh meaisíní innealltóireachta agus meaisíní adhmadóireachta. Ba mhaith linn go mór go mbeadh ar ár gcumas an t-eolas teicniciúl a chur ar fáil do bhuachaillí óga, agus fir óga na Gaeltachta. Ba mhaith linn go bhfaghaidís an tréineáil ar úirlísí innealtóirachta de gach sórt, díreach chomh maith is bheadh le fáil ag gasúr in aon áit eile. Tá scóip agus géar-ghá sa tír le daoine atá oilte ar a leitheidí sin de ghléasanna. Thar aon aicme in Éirinn bheadh fonn ar na daoine sin fanacht in Éirinn dá bhfaghaidís an tréineáil a chuirfeadh ar a gcumas dul isteach mar theicniceoirí ag Bord na Móna agus fondúireachtaí eile sa tír.

Ar an gcaoi chéanna, mar gheall ar na cailíní atá ag freastal na scoltacha sin, ba mhaith linn go mór go mbeadh an deis acu, mar imeoidh a lán acu— pé rud a dhéanfaimíd—agus ba mhaith linn go mbeidh siad oilte ar na gléasanna uile tís—gléasanna cócaireachta, gléasanna iarnála agus mar sin—ins na scoltacha.

Tá mé ag impí anois ar son an Choiste a bhfuil mé mar leas-chathaoirleach air, agus ar son sagart an dá pharaiste, agus ar son na ndaoine ins sna háiteanna sin, atá ag impí le fada an lá ar an mBord an cúnamh seo a chur ar fáil dóibh. Tá ceist eile ann a bhaineas go mór leis an nGaeltacht, chomh maith.

The second point I want to deal with has also to do with the Gaeltacht areas and Gaeltacht development. It was referred to this evening by my colleague, Senator Hawkins. The matter arises out of references in various Votes, Vote 50 in particular, and I think it is one that we might profitably discuss because it received some attention, though not sufficient attention, I think, in the other House.

Senator Hawkins did his best to give a picture of a certain industry and of its possible fate here this evening. I would like to amplify what the Senator said. I want first to make it clear that what I have in mind is this decision which I hope to see revoked with regard to Min Fhéir, Teoranta. I think it is only fair to say that the board in this case has been treated with anything but courtesy. I am sure the Minister for Finance would not be a party to treating these distinguished Irishmen, these very competent Irishmen, in the way they have been treated.

Senators who were members of the House some years ago will remember that from this bench I made a very strong and vigorous protest against the treatment of a certain other board. To be definite, it was the case of the Board of C.I.E. whose affairs were investigated by a commission. What I protested against then was that the commission had investigated the affairs of that board over a considerable period and had prepared an extensive report on the operations of that board without once going into consultation with the board whose affairs they were investigating.

I make the same protest here this evening. I think that that board should have been met, that that board should have been heard. I think its views on this matter should have been canvassed, that it should have been summoned to Dublin and there asked to give its side of the picture so that its views might be put in the scale against the views of the members of the inter-departmental commission which, I understand from the Dáil Report, reported against the project of which they were in charge.

Let us get some idea of what the position was, because I think we must be fair to these men and to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government who took the step to establish that industry. Senators here—there are some of them in the House still— who recall the speeches they made, when that Bill was in this House, in favour of the Bill, and the high hopes that were inspired in them by the reports that were given to them in regard to it, must feel very uneasy and very unhappy this evening when they think of the fate that is in store for that board. I am interested in this because I come from a Gaeltacht area. I am interested in it because all my life I have been trying to find out something that would help to ease the difficulties of the Gaeltacht areas; I am interested in it as an economist and any views I express this evening will be based on economic considerations, not on Party, and not on political considerations.

In the County Mayo alone there are 300,000 acres of bog. Most of that bog is in the Bangor Erris area. This company was set up and it took over about 2,400 acres from Bord na Móna. Senator Hawkins made a slip which caused the Minister some anxiety here this evening——

No, I wanted to know whether he was talking of the total area of bog in the district or of the area the company had taken over.

I appreciate that and also that the Minister was in some difficulty. I am sorry the Senator did not see the point and correct the figure he had given. The board took over 2,600 acres. The board had approximately six months in which to operate—no more, practically, than six months. Of the 2,600 acres, they proceeded to develop 2,400 acres. They developed it by plough draining. I am aware of this because the whole question of bog development is one in which I am very keenly interested. I am in a position to compare one with another and I know a good deal about Gowla. I am particularly interested in Gowla because as Vice-Chairman of County Galway Vocational Education Committee, I know we have had very close cooperation with the Gowla authorities in the provision of technical education of a very high order for the men engaged on the Gowla project.

I know something of the work that they have put into that bog; I know something of the work they have done to develop suitable machinery and suitable gear for the development of the industry there. No words of mine, or of any person in this House, could adequately convey to General Costello and the people associated with him the thanks that are due to them for what they have done at Gowla. Two thousand, four hundred acres were plough drained, so far as I know, and from 500 to 700 acres were drained by what is called deep draining. Remember this company operated for only six months. They had to do a reasonable amount of levelling. The quantity of levelling is not very great in the case of a blanket bog but, on the whole, it lends itself to levelling and development. The company in its six months erected 2½ miles of protective ditch around that bog. So far as I can make out—it is clear that I am not in a position to get precise details but I can get reasonably good averages— I think I am safe in saying that the total cost of all that work to the company was under £15,000 in all. If you take £15,000 as the cost, you will find that that company drained and ditched—that is, protectively—and developed to a considerable extent, 2,400 acres which would work out at approximately £6 10s. per acre to the best of my recollection.

The position when the company entered that undertaking was that the best it could do in the maintenance of stock would be to take about 40 head of cattle. As a result of the development—I venture no figures but I think I would be safe in saying—as a result of their labours it would carry many hundred per cent. more. This area, as Senator Hawkins pointed out, is a populous area, and unemployment has been very rife there. As far as I have been able to make out, the unemployment in that area was running between 500 and 600 persons a year. You may say, and the Minister will say, that Min Fhéir Teoranta would not have done a lot to ease that problem. Min Fhéir Teoranta had calculated to employ, on its 2,400 or 2,600 acres, 75 persons wholetime, the whole year round. They felt they would be in a position to employ about 150 persons for seven months of the year. When you take in that area the employment of 75 persons for the whole round of the year and the employment of 150 people for seven months of the year, I want to say that I believe that it would make a very important impression on the economy of the area.

I was glad that Senator Hawkins referred to the further development that we envisaged as a result of that scheme, that is that as the company got under way and got its equipment, as it dealt with the area it had itself taken in to develop, it would then be possible to go out into the holdings that were on the perimeter of its particular area. I understand there would be about 750 holdings in that area, with, perhaps, two or three acres of cultivable land at the moment, but these holdings would have attached to them, maybe, 100 acres of bog.

We visualised this development taking place—that the company itself would go in just as the Gowla authority envisages the taking over of, say, 50 acres of bog, allotting it to the smallholders and developing that for grass production, buying the grass from these people, turning it into cash crops and taking the crops into the factory for conversion into grass meal. Is it not quite clear, if there is any reasonable basis in the contention of the directors, that that would have a very important effect on the economy of that area? And remember it was all-important that we should have that development take place in Gleann na Muaidhe. We had looked forward to this as a maritime project on the Mayo coast. We would eventually have got a series of formulae in five, six or seven years that would enable us to apply the principles to all the other bogs throughout the country and, as my recollection goes, we have about 3,000,000 acres of bog throughout the country.

The Senator is making an excellent case for the decision we have taken.

If the Minister will make a better case I can assure him that I shall be the first to acknowledge that he will have beaten me in this debate. There are 3,000,000 acres of bogland in this country. In view of all the talk of developing our livestock and agricultural production in the form of beef, whether on the hoof or the carcase, if we could get the raw materials to increase the protein content of the feed given to that stock and get that increase from our own resources, we would be doing a great day's work. I am not an alarmist but I do not look with any great reassurance on the trend of world affairs to-day. We know what is happening in Britain in the matter of costings and prices and we know that what happens in Britain is not a matter of indifference to us. If things go on as they are going in Britain, I can see further devaluation. I hope it does not come.

If it were to come, and even if it were not, we cannot, in the condition of our economy to-day, neglect making every endeavour to get as much as we can of the animal feeding stuffs from our own resources rather than continue to get them as we are from outside sources. I wanted to deal with this matter particularly because it arises out of some remarks made by the Minister in the Dáil on this matter. There will be this difference between the Minister and myself: the Minister will rely on the advice of the members of the inter-departmental committee——

Oh no. The Minister will take his own decision. The Government are not shirking behind anybody or any committee. We took the decision and the Senator will please attack us and not the members of the committee.

The Minister must get his information from some source because I cannot visualise the Minister for Finance going down to Gowla or Gleann na Muaidhe and investigating for himself the conditions and the possibilities of the project. The Minister must rely on advice tendered to him by his experts and when I say that, I am not attacking the gentlemen who advised him; I have time and again paid tribute to the Civil Service and I have been particularly generous to the higher civil servants. I am pointing out what will be the essential difference between the Minister and myself—that he will rely on the advice given by the inter-departmental committee.

I think I can reasonably infer that from the Dáil Report. I will rely on the members of the board. I do not know all these men, but I know one or two personally and the rest by repute. Some of them are highly trained, highly skilled technical engineers. As far as I can make out—all I can give will be estimates which I do not think will be very far out—there will be an average production of two tons an acre for the area in question. That would not seem unreasonable particularly in view of the experiences at Gowla. That would be 5,000 tons for the whole area in question. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the experiences at Gowla will enable them to avoid the mistakes made at Gowla. They would also be in a position to avoid many of the costs undertaken at Gowla. We would be able to produce grass meal at about £23 or less per ton.

£23 or less per ton.

Of course, if the Senator makes his costings on that basis it is no wonder he comes to queer conclusions.

The Senator has declared without any hesitation that he is prepared to back the opinion of the experts, some of whom are very distinguished graduates of the National University. I have the opinions of the gentlemen who act as directors of the board, men who have achieved great success in their business and professions, men of the highest integrity and probity. In Gowla they were able to sell the product at £30 per acre. On Saturday last—and this is the latest information I have been able to get— the price of grass meal in England was £25.

I thought that market was gone. What is the present price of grass meal in Ireland?

I am making the statement that the wholesale price of grass meal in England according to the latest reports is £25 a ton.

Grass grown on first-class land of course.

What protein content?

I just cannot declare the protein content.

It is graded and therefore it is essential to know that.

The figures I am going to give will be pretty approximate and may err in one way or the other. If the product of the Gleann na Muaidhe project were sold at £28 a ton—I am taking £28 a ton because it gives a difference of £5—it is clear it would realise a profit of about £25,000 per annum. I grant you that would not happen this year. This is a matter that would, I reckon, take about five years to develop properly but I believe that eventually it would realise a profit of £5 an acre. The Minister has given figures in the Dáil of the possible market in Ireland for grass meal and I have tried to check up on it. I have spoken to a number of people interested and they tell me that the market for grass meal here is in the region of 50,000 tons but that that market would be an expanding one. People are slow to take these things at the beginning. We know how slow they were to spray their potatoes in the beginning. We know how slow they were to apply various chemicals to their cereal crops to protect them, and so on, and there will be a certain slowness in adopting these things here. But the market—and I understand this is a conservative estimate—is 50,000 tons.

In 1954—this is the latest figure I have been able to get—the English production and consumption of grass meal was 300,000 tons. On inquiring this morning it was mentioned to me— I believe I was given the name of the company but I do not remember; in any case it would not be quite relevant —that one English company engaged in the compounding of balanced rations had already booked from the society promoting grass meal production in Britain, an order for 100,000 tons for this year. As I say, the market is an expanding one. There is no use in telling me that the market is not there at the moment. The market was not there for our shoes when we started to make them. Was the market there for anything we started to make? We know even the prejudice that existed for a long time against using beet sugar. Many people thought that that sugar could not be good since it was not derived from the cane. Many of the industries that were sneered at in the years gone by have now become a great success and are earners of external currency for us.

I am in favour of grass and of tillage. I think the two things go hand in hand. I want to see the grass supply supplemented by the bogs and I want to see something done for the Gaeltacht areas. The Minister will say that timber will pay better than the bogs. There may be something in that but I would refer the Minister to the reports of a conference that was held here last year in regard to the science of bog development. There was a gentleman there, a Dr. Loddesol, a very distinguished doctor of agriculture and a director of the Norwegian Bog Association. That report must be available to the Minister. I notice in that report this declaration of his that Norway—granted there will be climatic differences and certain other differences but the figures are worth noting—has cultivated, up to now, 285,000 acres of bog and is bringing in bog at the rate of 9,000 acres per annum. That is important but I think this is more important. As regards crop yield valuation in terms of money, he worked it out at £17 10s. per acre; as regards timber he reckoned that the 250,000 acres brought under timber would yield annually £1 per acre. In other words the advantage in favour of grass and other forms of tillage, of course, in the rotation, was in the ratio of 17.5 to 1.

The Minister may question these figures I am giving. All I ask is this, that, before this final act in the drama of the closing down of this company is played, the Minister would step in and inquire as to what extent my figures are worthy of consideration. I would ask him that, in order to see that, he should call on the board of directors to give their views, that he should call on the very distinguished agricultural scientist who is in charge of the scheme to indicate how he has arrived at whatever costings he has arrived at.

There is this further consideration. All this work on the bog is done in the Irish language. The records there are in the Irish language, which is the language of the industry. It is true that at least some of the directors are not Irish speakers but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that those who are in contact with the workmen, with the technicians, and so on, engaged in the operations of the bog should have Irish. Therefore, I would suggest to the Seanad that there is a proposition that held great economic prospects, a proposition that I believe would have done a great deal for the Irish language.

I do not wish to take the Senator short when I am replying. Did he mean the figure of two tons to the acre of grass meal?

Because I now see from where the Senator is getting his figures. That is not the estimate of the director of Min Fhéir. I think the figures the Senator has given are based on a two and a half ton estimate.

I may not be correct in my estimate but I want to stress this point, that I think it is unfair, indeed I think it is wrong, that that company should have been condemned without hearing the directors of the company. I do not know what sort of case they would make other than they have made through reports to the Department but I think it would be very important that these men would be summoned before the Minister and questioned on the forecasts and the estimates they had prepared. Their estimates would probably be better than the ones I am giving because I am trying to be careful and conservative.

Not on those figures. You could not have two tons of grass meal. You might have two tons of grass.

All I can say is that as far as I can learn—and again, I am admitting, not from an inside source but in a general way—Gowla is paying and that in spite of the frightfully bad year last year, and an equally bad early season this year. With all the advantages of the Gowla experiments available to the new company at Gleann na Muaidhe I do not see why they would not do at least as well as soon as the drainage had been completed. Anyway, I am interested because of the Gaeltacht, because I think it was an economic proposition well worth a trial. If it had failed, what would we have to complain about? We would have failed in a noble effort.

I was particularly interested in this because I regarded it as the first indication we had of any possibility of stemming emigration. In mid-June I attended a conference in Tralee and there a very distinguished member of the Church, giving an address, declared that, as far as he knew, the present figures for emigration were 25,000. There is no use in saying that emigration went on under Fianna Fáil. That is not an answer. The fact is that emigration is now very high. Despite the fact that a certain gentleman declared he had a cure for emigration, it was subsequently shown that he had no better cure than the setting up of a commission which, from its first meeting to the presentation of its report, occupied six years. What did we get from that commission by way of recommendation for the Gaeltacht? Two short paragraphs or so relating to the congested areas and to the Gaeltacht. What was the recommendation? That the problem is a very difficult one and they recommended the setting up of a board to seek a solution. There was no indication as to what that board would do. There was no indication as to what the difference would be as between the activities of that board and the various Departments already engaged in trying to find a solution for the Gaeltacht problems at the present time.

I want to say now, and I mean no disrespect to any Minister or higher civil servant, that I would rather place my reliance in these matters on the men out in the fields. I do not think the Minister was a member of either House of the Oireachtas at the time when the Transport Bill was going through. On that occasion I pleaded here—I think somebody said I had set up a record because I was two hours on my feet in one instance—for dieselisation of our railways. I produced reports to show that dieselisation had come and that the solution of the Irish rail transport problem lay in dieselisation. How many people on the other side "guffawed" on that occasion? What jeers I had to tolerate! A new board was appointed and valuable time and valuable wealth were lost to the nation before it was discovered that dieselisation was the solution of our rail transport difficulties.

And valuable money was lost by the wrong type of diesel engine being bought—very valuable money.

It is all very well for the Minister to crow now and make the best case he can. It does not give me any pleasure but it is indeed strange to see the people who despise that proposition now, mar a dearfaí i nGaeilge é, a baint na sálaí dá chéile le bheith chun tosaigh a moladh na n-ineall ola.

I hope I have not spoken in any heat. I have tried to be as reasonable as I could in presenting the case. Perhaps I have taken up a good deal of time, but the problem of the Gaeltacht is a very urgent one. It is a terrible sore and it needs attention. I think we are making a very grave mistake in closing down on this grass meal project. I am all in favour of afforestation, but we have an abundance of bogland throughout the country which can be used for afforestation purposes. We have a good deal of experience now in the utilisation of these bogs for afforestation purposes. There is no reason why grass meal production and afforestation should not go ahead side by side. Possibly the Minister will not hearken to my appeal but, nevertheless, I appeal to him before it is too late and before this company closes down, to inquire into the matter again and not to close it down until he sees and hears the directors. The possibility is that it will be closed down, but I make this prophecy: just as the diesels came on to the Irish railways, so will grass meal production come back again.

I had no intention of taking part in this debate but, having listened to the criticism and the attack made by Senator Hawkins on the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I feel I cannot let this opportunity slip without reply. I am told it is an established fact that the Minister is doing a good job. Having listened to Senator Hawkins this evening, I am convinced that he must be doing an excellent job. The Senator shed salt tears. He was very disturbed because no provision had been made in the Book of Estimates for rural electrification. I must remind the Senator— he should know it—that the E.S.B. is to-day a paying concern. I do not think the Minister will take any exception to my saying that rural electrification will continue apace and that in time the remotest rural districts in Galway will see the light; and may I hope and pray that Senator Hawkins will see the light too.

That would be the greatest miracle since Moses struck the rock.

To-day, the Shannon scheme, the hydro-electric schemes and the big factories are not the white elephants that Senator Hawkins and his colleagues designated them some 25 to 30 years ago. I do not know anything about Bangor Erris beyond what I have read about it. I was told that the establishment of a grass meal factory there was a Fianna Fáil ramp and a huge joke. If it was a ramp, it should never have happened. If it was a joke, it was an expensive one because there was a loss of something like £33,000 for the short time that attempt was made there.

I do not like interrupting the Senator's eloquent speech but, when he is quoting figures, I would like him to try to keep a little to the point. The money provided for this project at the outset was £33,000; 2,400 acres of land had been reclaimed for something less than £15,000.

Senator McCrea is more accurate than Senator Hawkins was.

I am giving the figures of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a man in whom I have implicit confidence.

It was only quite recently that confidence emerged.

Senator Hawkins, for the peace and order of the House, will permit Senator McCrea to make his speech.

I did not interrupt the Senator. The Senator will sit now and take what is coming to him. He has spoken about the cost of living. I have always heard that it takes great nerve to be a good politician and I think the Senator must have great nerve when one considers that from 1951 to 1954, under Fianna Fáil, the cost of living increased by 15 per cent. Since the present Government took office the cost of living has increased two points.

The Senator referred to unemployment. After 12 months there are 4,000 or 5,000 less people queueing up outside the labour exchanges than there were when the Senator's Party was in office. During the next four years I am sure that another 15,000 or 20,000 less people will be queueing up outside the labour exchanges because of the policy and programme which this Government is implementing.

My remarks on this Bill will be confined to Votes 14, 43 and 46. These are the Estimates for various methods of promoting the arts, the visual arts, in Ireland. The chief objects of these Estimates are the Arts Council, which receives £20,000, the Estimate for Science and Art, Vote 43, which receives a little over £14,000, and the National Gallery, which receives, I think, something like £11,000.

Some of the Senators may wonder what the question of the arts has to do with practical politics. I think there is some cynicism about this in some quarters and I should like for a moment to try to meet that implicit criticism.

What have the arts to do with practical everyday politics in Ireland to-day? Well, at the lowest level, I may reply that we spend a certain amount of money every year from our taxes on the arts. It is a small amount of money —£45,000—but yet it is spent by deliberate Government policy. Governments do not spend even that amount in stringent times, such as we are told the present times are, without reason. I, personally, was glad to see that there were no severe cuts in this small amount. So, I say, the first reason why we should pay attention to the arts is that we spend money on them in Ireland from Government sources.

The second reason is because they mean a very great deal to our tourist traffic. No one here, I think, will deny that a great many of the visitors to our country want to see such objects of art as the Book of Kells, the High Cross at Monasterboice, and some of our modern paintings and modern buildings. Tourists want to see these, sometimes before anything else, sometimes even before the famous beauties of our landscape and if we neglect our arts we are neglecting our tourist traffic quite directly.

At the highest level, I would suggest that a great deal of the prestige of our country in Europe is due to the high artistic tradition of Ireland in the past. Much of the honour which this country enjoys is due to such works of art as the Book of Kells, the High Crosses, the old churches, and so on, and if we neglect that heritage of art in the present and in the future we are going to diminish the prestige of Ireland. So, I think, we in the Seanad, as legislators, and the Government, as governors, have a clear duty to do all possible to foster the arts in Ireland both for the honour of our country and for its prosperity.

I ask the question, are we doing enough at present? Is £45,000, approximately, out of £105,000,000 a generous allowance for the arts in Ireland—so small a proportion of our revenue? When we think how much we owe to the arts of Ireland in the past, I think we can only answer that question by saying, "No, it is not enough". If we consider the educational value and the political value and the financial value of the arts, it is not enough.

Here may I say, in parenthesis, how much I, and I think many others, have appreciated the efforts of the Taoiseach to regain the Lane pictures for our country? It has been—I think many agree—a grave injustice that Ireland has been deprived of this magnificent collection of modern art. The Taoiseach has been doing much and another Minister has been doing much. Many people welcome that. I shall return to that in a moment, for there is another side of this effort to regain the Lane pictures which is not so happy.

We spend, then, some £45,000 a year on the arts. The money is devoted to three institutions mainly. The first is the National College of Art—one can see the building through the window here—which receives approximately £14,000; the second is the National Gallery, which receives something over £10,000; the third is the Arts Council, which receives £20,000.

I should like to pay a tribute here to the work of the Arts Council. I have the first two reports from that body. These show a genuine effort to foster the arts in our country. I hope it will go forward. I should like to ask the Minister a question. Perhaps he could find the answer soon for me: Why is there not a third report on the Arts Council? The first report was produced in March, 1953, the second in March, 1954. May we know why there has not been a third in March, 1955? Many people take very great interest in this body and we would regret to find that they were falling behind in any way.

Now, I say that these three bodies are doing good work. But I make one reservation. I make one general criticism. There are two kinds of art. There is the academic, conventional, traditional art and, on the other hand, there is the experimental, the unconventional, the modernistic kind of art. We need both kinds. We need the traditions and conventions of the past. But we also need the new ideas, the new techniques of the present and the future. And I do say, and say after serious consideration, that the second kind of art, the progressive, modernistic kind of art, is not receiving enough attention in our country. It is not receiving enough attention in the National College of Art, and not receiving enough attention in our galleries.

The National Gallery, just across the lawn there, is not able to foster modernistic art because it is prevented by its regulations, I understand, from showing works of living artists, so they cannot be blamed in a matter of policy of this kind. But I do suggest that some gallery ought to do more to foster this advanced, experimental kind of art. And there is another institution in this city which ought to be doing its duty in this matter. I refer to the Municipal Gallery of Art in Parnell Square. It is controlled by the Dublin Corporation, not by the Oireachtas, but it is a national asset. It is visited by tourists. It is visited by our citizens frequently. I do say that they have failed regrettably to show examples of advanced, modernistic art—regrettably in connection with the Lane pictures, for Sir Hugh Lane, one of the greatest Irishmen of our century, was essentially and primarily interested in modern, contemporary art. His paintings at the time were the most advanced paintings of that particular period. He wanted Dublin to have the best possible examples of the modernistic type of art, and the reason why we did not get those pictures originally was because no suitable gallery was provided.

Now the Municipal Gallery has a room for those pictures. It is a very effective piece of propaganda when visitors from England go to the gallery and find a vacant space and the statement, "This is for our Lane pictures"—most effective. But what are we to say when we find that this very gallery is refusing pictures of that kind from other sources? And I say they are refusing to do it to the great detriment of the artistic life and the artistic work of our capital city and of our country.

Let me give a specific example. One of the outstanding masters of religious painting in Europe to-day is the painter Georges Rouault. In 1942, his famous painting, "Christ and the Soldier," was purchased by the Friends of the National Collection of Ireland. It was offered to the Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin, in 1942 and was refused by their advisory committee. It was then offered on loan to and accepted by the authorities of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. There it now hangs. But it is as clear to the authorities of St. Patrick's College, as it is to us, that that is only a temporary expedient. Naturally, not so many tourists or citizens can see it there as here in Dublin. But they have been refused facilities to see that magnificent painting here simply by a decision of that committee.

Take another example. Henry Moore is one of the outstanding masters of sculpture in Europe to-day. In March, 1954, the Friends of the National Collection of Ireland, generous benefactors of our city and country, purchased his piece of sculpture called "Reclining Figure". They offered it to the Municipal Gallery in October, 1954. This offer was rejected. They tried again in February, 1955, to get the Municipal Gallery to accept this notable piece of modern sculpture. It was still refused. They sent a letter to the corporation, backed by an appeal signed by 22 of our academicians. It was still refused. The matter is now, I understand, being reconsidered by the corporation and no decision has yet been arrived at.

What I want to emphasise is that, by the action of the Municipal Gallery's authorities and for various other reasons, the citizens of Ireland and of Dublin can see no example of the art of Georges Rouault or of Henry Moore in this country, whereas nearly every other respectable capital city in Europe and America, so far as I can see, has examples of their art.

I ask, then, is Dublin, our national capital, and is the country at large to be deprived of an opportunity of seeing works of this kind? I say it would be a very great pity. It would be bad for the education and the culture of our citizens in general, and particularly bad for art students who need to see examples of the best modernistic art.

In the light of these facts, I appeal through the Minister to the Minister for Education and to those members of the Government who are interested in the artistic work and the artistic life of the country to do more for the knowledge and practice of advanced art in our country; to do what they can to break this dead hand of tradition—one might even call it reaction —which is preventing our students and our citizens from seeing this type of art.

In Vote 43 I notice certain token Votes. I think they are pathetic. But they show a certain inclination. I will mention them. We find £10 in aid of arts and crafts exhibitions—£10; £5 token Vote for the purchase of works of art—a princely sum if it were literally that. If it is a token Vote I hope we will implement it soon.

The Senator realises that a token Vote does not mean that only £10 or £5 will be devoted to the object. It means that more can be given.

I thank Senator Hayes. I should have made it more clear. I hope the spirit behind these tokens will become more manifest in the near future. That is what I should have made more clear. It implies an attitude of patronage, a desire to patronise the arts, but I would like to see that in action rather than in the form of tokens.

One other is a token Vote of £15— a reduction of £10 from £25—which is quite a large percentage, I understand, on a mathematical basis—for the centenary celebration of Thomas Davis and the Young Ireland movement. Poor Thomas Davis and the Young Ireland movement! His statue, I am glad to say, stands side by side with that of Pádraig Pearse in the Dáil Chamber. There he has his memorial. But would the Minister ask the Minister for Education is there any chance that we will go beyond an annual Vote of some £10 for that object? When can we have a public statue worthy of Thomas Davis and the Young Ireland movement?

I would go further and relate this to what I have been emphasising. When that statue is commissioned, can we hope that it will not be of some conventional, traditional, dull kind, but something modernistic, something in the spirit of the present time, something that will encourage the young artist in Ireland to do his best work?

We want, in other words, examples of experimental art in Dublin and Ireland and we have not got them. The fault is partly that of certain authorities, the trustees of the Municipal Gallery; it is partly that of public taste. I hope the Government will do something to amend that. It is their duty to see that the arts do not become stagnant, as there is a risk of their becoming stagnant through ignorance or neglect of new techniques and new ideas.

I say we have a duty to the present generation. We have also a duty to future generations. The artist of the Book of Kells took his techniques from countries as far away as Greece and even, may I say in a whisper, perhaps the artist of the Book of Kells took some of his techniques from Russia. He took techniques from the most advanced sources he could find at the time. If our artists are denied the opportunity to study the most recent developments, art will decline. At the moment the student of art who wants to see the latest types of artistic development cannot see them. I appeal to the Government and I appeal to the Senators to do what they can to see that, in future, both art-loving citizens and artists will have a better chance in this respect.

I propose to be very brief but I would not like to let the occasion pass without availing of the opportunity that this Bill gives Senators to review certain Government services.

Senator Hawkins, this evening, prefaced his remarks by deploring the Government's action in dropping the subsidy of £1,000,000 to the E.S.B. for the extension of rural electrification. Senator McCrea, during the short time he spoke this evening, stated that the reason was pretty evident as to why that was done, namely, that the E.S.B. is now a paying concern, has been for some considerable time and that to subsidise a service that is earning a substantial profit would be bad business.

Looking over the returns for the E.S.B. since 1946, I find that in only one year was the service operated at a loss and that, from 1946 to 1951, over £1,500,000 profit was made. We know there is a surplus this year of £928,000, that the E.S.B. has a reserve fund amounting to over £12,000,000 and, in addition, that they have almost £2,000,000 in the contingency reserve, fuel cost reserve, and others. To subsidise a service that is operating so successfully and so profitably would certainly be very bad business.

The debate on the Appropriation Bill could not pass without references being made from the other side of the House to promises, although, as has been said here on several occasions, those responsible for hurling the accusation of promises across the floor of the House should be the last in the world to mention promises, considering that they got into power in 1932 as a result of a policy and promises none of which was performed.

I happened to take a rather prominent part in the 1954 general election and during that time I came across certain people who are now Ministers and in no case did I hear any one of these making a promise other than the promise of good Government, and, since they came into power, I think they have given evidence of their ability to give good Government and of a desire to attend to the most deserving sections of the community first.

There was a reference by Senator Hawkins also to what interest was being charged as a result of the Government's action in keeping down the cost of tea. The question of interest rates is of considerable importance to the people and certainly members of local bodies, which have to borrow money to carry out installations of waterworks and for housing schemes throughout the country, feel very grateful to the Minister who for the first time in the financial relations of this country with England succeeded in keeping down interest rates in this country at a time when the English banks decided to raise them.

I should like to avail of the opportunity which this Bill gives of referring to a few items of considerable interest to local bodies. I think I will be within my rights in referring in relation to Vote 28 to the conditions imposed on local bodies to carry out extensive repairs of main roads and the making of recoupment by Local Government contingent on the local bodies spending a certain amount of money on the maintenance and improvements of such roads. It is the general opinion of the members of the local body to which I belong that expenditure on the main roads in my county in the way of cutting alleged dangerous corners would be more usefully spent on building up the condition of county roads which at present carry traffic for which they were never intended. I hold, and it is held by many of my colleagues in relation to this talk of safety on the road—I referred to this before—that the Local Government Department, in encouraging the cutting of alleged dangerous corners, are helping to make safety on the roads impossible because many of the worst accidents take place on the straight. I really think that local bodies should be allowed to spend more money on the upkeep and improvement of county roads and should not be compelled, in order to earn a certain recoupment, to carry out improvements on main roads which they consider unnecessary.

Another matter to which I want to refer is the extraordinary delay that obtains almost always in the matter of the designing of schemes by architects for the extension of certain social amenities throughout the country. I know that at present in my own county waterworks extensions which have been carried on for the past nine years are still incomplete and I know of no case where the estimates of the architect or the consulting engineer in the beginning have not been exceeded. I think that in matters of that kind the representations made by local bodies should make some impression on the Department of Local Government.

I conclude by referring to the case made for a continuation of Min Fhéir Teoranta by Senator Ó Buachalla. I was impressed by the case he made but I will say that I am quite satisfied that the Government responsible for discontinuing that experiment would not do so if they had not an alternative to put forward which will be productive of earlier and better results.

I should like to start by saying that I have sympathy with the Minister for Finance in the necessity in which he finds himself of being present and attempting to answer, as it were, for the whole team.

"Information, please."

He has a most difficult task in a sense and I hope he will forgive those of us who shower questions at him which are outside his own particular bailiwick. It is obvious that we cannot in this House repeat the Dáil debate or have separate debates on each Estimate and consequently we must, as it were, compress the various points we want to make into a single speech. I propose to confine myself this evening to talking about one Department, the Department of Education. I have had, as the House may remember, differences of opinion on other matters, on particular matters, with the Minister for Education, and to these I shall refer in some detail later, but I should like to start by saying that this Department, this Ministry, as I think most of us will agree, is a fundamental Ministry. It is one of the most important in the country. It is the one which most justifies expenditure upon it, and the one which has least need to apologise when it goes to the Minister for Finance and asks for money, because every penny well spent on education produces in the future a dividend in skill, knowledge and human well-being.

I do not want it to be thought that because I differ from the Minister on certain matters—this question of punishment and so on—I am simply taking this opportunity to criticise the Department in general. I should have made this kind of speech, apart from the reference to punishment, entirely apart from that question. I feel bound to say that I am disturbed that this important Department has only recently produced its report for the year 1951-52. We have in hands this morning the report of the E.S.B. for the year ending 31st March this year. The same sort of thing is the practice with many Departments, with not quite that alacrity, but to have placed in our hands now a report about what happened three years ago, I think is profoundly unsatisfactory. I should like to ask the Minister if he can offer an explanation of what seems to me an unwarranted delay in laying the facts about education before the country. I do not think there should be a time lag of three years.

In regard to secondary education, the Department is not directly responsible for it, but it enables capitation grants and incremental grants to be paid. The capitation grants to secondary schools have been increased recently. While that increase is very welcome, I think the amount of the increase is insufficient because it was so long overdue. The Minister should consider whether these capitation grants are really enabling secondary education, based as it is, to do the very important task which it has to do.

It is quite obvious that to-day the increments of secondary teachers must be increased if we are to keep these teachers in the country at all. These increments are given only if the teacher has a diploma in education. After getting that full qualification, apart from the Irish qualification, he or she has to teach for a further full year, with all those qualifications, before getting any increment at all. Is it any wonder that many of them are tempted to go to England or the North of Ireland, where they will be paid the increments straight away upon qualification?

Then there is a system of a certain quota of recognised registered teachers per school, which must not be exceeded. I wonder if that might not be revised. There are many fully qualified teachers, with the qualifications necessary for registration, who are prevented by that contingency from becoming incrementally paid teachers.

Again, it is time that the Department consider paying to secondary schools some sort of building grant for extensions or even for the building of new schools. In the North, two-thirds of the cost is paid by the Government to any secondary school that cares to apply for it, whether it be a Catholic school or a Protestant school. We do not find that possible here. I would ask the Minister for Finance to pass on to the Minister for Education my suggestion that the Minister for Education should ask the Minister for Finance for more money—and I trust that he will pass on the message in strong terms.

I now turn to primary education. A basis for a discussion on that is a document which has not been discussed very much either in this House or in the other House. I refer to the very long report of the Council of Education. It is a document prepared with a good deal of care. Obviously a lot of thought went into it. One might criticise certain portions, one might wonder whether the long introductory historical part was really necessary, but one cannot say that it was not prepared with care. I wonder if the Minister has really paid very much attention to any of its recommendations.

On page 208 they recommend that the size of the classes, the ideal number, should be about 30 and certainly should not exceed 40. Could the Minister tell us what precise steps he is taking about that? He has told the Dáil already, unfortunately, that he is not going to alter his policy of dismissing well qualified women teachers when they marry. I feel that it is a tragic loss to the educational system of our country, when we are short— visibly, perceptibly and demonstrably short—of trained teachers, to get rid of the women teachers who get married.

On page 184 there is a reference to the teaching of music:—

"The co-operation of the Department and the teachers in this field is deserving of the highest praise."

What are the results? In an editorial in the Irish Independent on the 27th June last, entitled “Music in the Schools” the writer says:—

"Everything is always going well in the eyes of the Department of Education. Take the case of music. ...The latest report of the Department touches on this subject... and the burden of the reference is that the officials of the Department are delighted with the number of students who now take music as a subject.... This is most encouraging. But unfortunately those who are curious enough to inquire into the facts may find that the evidence does not quite bear out this statement of the case. In 1952—the Department's statistics are not more up-to-date than this—2,366 girls presented themselves for the Leaving Certificate. Of this number only 57 took music as a subject. In the Intermediate Certificate out of 5,753 girls only 146 took music. In the case of boys the story is even more unsatisfactory. In the Intermediate Certificate 5,293 boys went forward —eight of them took music, less than a fraction of 1 per cent. In the Leaving Certificate, of 2,962 boys only nine took music. And the Department is quite satisfied."

The leader writer of the Irish Independent is not notoriously influenced by alien ideas, or a foreign atmosphere, and is not led to criticise the Department of Education from any feeling of bitterness. It is done simply on the facts, which do not appear to be satisfactory, but about which the Department, as the leader writer says, is very easily satisfied.

I should like to turn to what the Council of Education says on page 150 about the teaching of oral Irish:—

"Oral expression should take precedence over all other sections of the Irish programme. The first and paramount care of the primary school in relation to Irish should be to secure that the child can speak it."

I will not read the rest of the paragraph—it simply demonstrates how strongly that view is held. Surely that is a logical point of view. If we are to teach Irish at all, it must surely be taught as a living tongue. In fact, as an educational subject one of the obvious incontrovertible advantages it has in schools, particularly for Irish children but even for any children, is that it is a living tongue. It is not a dead language. It is not a language that has passed completely from the lips of people. It is not like Latin and Greek, which can teach a certain discipline and attitude of mind, but which cannot teach the facility of framing one's thoughts in a second language—which is the necessary basis for the learning of any third or fourth language by any learner.

I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that the children and the teachers in our schools are extremely examination-conscious. They have to be. They will know what will be asked in the examination if they can possibly guess, they will aim to satisfy the examiners. That is perfectly natural, it is quite right that they should. What does the State say, in the two major State examinations, the Intermediate and the Leaving Certificate, in relation to this vitally necessary subject of oral Irish? The State says: "You need not bother: as far as the examination is concerned, you will not be examined in spoken Irish." What is the lesson for the children and for the teachers who are preparing for these examinations? The lesson is, I am afraid, that the speaking of Irish, the learning of the spoken tongue, the practice of getting up on one's feet and putting one's thoughts into a second language, will be neglected, because it will not score marks in the examination.

I would ask the Minister for Finance or his representative to try to ascertain from the Minister for Education just why he thinks it impossible to hold oral examinations in Irish, and, indeed, in the other spoken languages in the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate. I am not prepared to accept, I am afraid, the answer that the arrangements would be too difficult for the thousands of children involved. I am familiar with similar examinations in France: the Baccalauréat, which is in two parts like the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate, and where the numbers of children involved are hundreds of thousands. There they have a system admittedly of eliminating perhaps 30 or 35 per cent. on the results of the written examination, but all the other thousands of them go up regularly for an oral examination not only in French but in any spoken living tongue. I do not think it is very surprising that examination authorities in France should treat a living tongue as if it were a living tongue, but I think it is surprising, with all we say about Irish, and all that is said by a responsible Council of Education about the value of oral Irish, that the message, as far as the Minister's examinations go, is: "You need not bother."

I notice also on page 242 of this Council of Education Report it is stated that primary education in Ireland "is, in effect, an insufficient minimum education under modern conditions." That is a solemn document. It is not a wild, revolutionary pamphlet. They decide that the present educational system in primary education in this country is "an insufficient minimum". What is the Minister doing about it, apart from publishing the report of what took place three years ago?

I should like to quote also the fact mentioned on page 254 of this report, that, of our secondary school children, only 5 per cent. are aided by scholarships from public funds. I wonder are we satisfied with that "5 per cent."? I wonder is the Minister satisfied? If he is not satisfied, I should like to know what future plans he has in that respect. The last quotation from this document is quoted in one of the minority reports, and is taken, in fact, from the Notes for Teachers issued by the Department. It relates to infant teaching. It says, on page 305 of the report:—

"Infant teaching to be successful must be based on the young child's instinctive urge to play, to talk, to imitate. The children should be made to feel happy in school. Brightness and joy are their right".

These are very fine words. I should like to feel that they were related in some way to the conditions not only in the infant schools, but in the primary schools in general. That brings me to the question, which I said I would mention, of punishment in the primary schools, and, indeed, also in some of the infant schools.

I brought this subject up before in the Seanad, as you will remember, and I said I was concerned at the amount of corporal punishment, beating and slapping for minor offences that is going on in our national schools. I asked the Minister, who was present and listening, if he was aware that his departmental regulations, which I quoted with full approval, were, in fact, all too frequently being flouted. I asked him whether he proposed to make some change in them, was he going to come forward and say: "My rules cannot be worked; I am going to suggest changes and modifications". I asked him whether, if he was proud of them—as it turned out later he was, since he quoted them back to me— he would take steps to see to it that they were generally applied. I asked him did he know what was going on in this regard, what were the sources of his information, how did he know and how did he set about finding out?

I mentioned the booklet that was published, the main content of which was letters from 70 parents headed: "As the Parents See It". I asked him what was his reaction to the booklet and to these 70 parents writing in as they did. I mentioned that I was informed by the organisation which published the booklet that 33 out of these 70 cases had, in fact, already been reported to his Department over the past year and I inquired, quite simply, what had he found when he investigated these cases, and had he found that any action was necessary, and, if so, what action?

I got, I am afraid, to these various questions, no satisfactory reply. The Minister confessed complete ignorance of any but the rarest breaches of his regulations, which specifically condemn the use of corporal punishment in schools for anything but grave transgressions. He told us that he could not identify the 33 cases, and appealed to me, quite seriously, to help him to identify the cases on his files.

Furthermore, in the Dáil, he was questioned about the matter and he answered—I am quoting from Volume 152, No. 4, column 469 of the Official Report:—

"I am surprised at Irish journalism opening its pages so freely to the verbal expectorations in relation to certain subjects. All this agitation is deliberately and maliciously stirred up."

On that point, I would just like to say that that reference to a very prominent Dublin newspaper which specialises in a kind of open forum for the free expression of opinion in the form of "Letters to the Editor", was uncalled for and unmerited. I believe that the paper does a public service by permitting people to debate matters freely, and, I think, without scurrility in its columns. The Minister in the same column, but a little later, said:—

"When I consider ... the way in which it has been treated by the only individual who raised this matter in any kind of formal way, namely, one of our Senators, my only feeling is that it is a disgusting proceeding, deliberately and maliciously entered into by people who are not of this country or of its traditions."

And he added again in the same line that it was an attack "made by people reared in an alien and completely un-Irish atmosphere".

I am inclined to speculate, in parenthesis, if the ancestors of General Mulcahy had been on the shores of Ireland when St. Patrick endeavoured to make his landing, what kind of a reception he would have got from the Mulcahys of that day, on the grounds that St. Patrick was reared in "an alien and completely un-Irish atmosphere."

There is a second point I should like to make and to make more seriously. The suggestion was, in this accusation, that these people who had published the pamphlet, the School Children's Protection Organisation, were in some way foreigners. It has not yet become, as far as I know, an indictable offence in this country to be a foreigner or even, very occasionally, to read foreign books, or to be influenced by foreign ideas. I think it is in fact in the best tradition of this country to be prepared to take what is good from outside. But I noticed that the people in question issued a challenge to the Minister to name a single member of their organisation who did not possess all three of the following qualifications: (1) that they were Irish nationals living in this country; (2) that they were born and educated in this country, and (3) that they were sincere, practising Catholics. They challenged the Minister to substantiate his accusation against them, made in their absence under the privilege of the Dáil, or to withdraw it. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to advert to that challenge.

The Minister referred to the way in which I brought up the matter. I was under the impression—one's impressions about oneself are, perhaps, apt to be faulty—that I raised the matter in an orderly manner within the terms of the procedure of this House which does not permit of putting down questions to Ministers, and that I presented my case without notable loss of temper. I endeavoured to use my perfectly legitimate right as a member of this House to put questions to a Minister about the actions in the past of himself and his Department, questions, I think, which the Minister should have been in a position to answer.

In that regard I would like to defend myself by quoting from an essay on representative government, the very essence of what I think modern Parliaments, if they are democratic, stand for, by John Stuart Mill. He said, in speaking about the office of a representative Assembly—and I quote: "Is to watch and control the Government, throw the light of publicity on its actions, to compel a full exposition and justification of all them which anybody considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable."

I am afraid I make no apology for quoting John Stuart Mill although I can see the impact on Senator Hayes was somewhat severe——

How does Senator Hayes come into this? I did not catch it.

I was just suggesting that the impact of the name of John Stuart Mill seemed to have perhaps a startling effect on the Senator.

It merely made me smile.

I heard the smile; it was a very loud smile.

An emphatic smile.

I make no apology for quoting John Stuart Mill, although he was admittedly an alien and brought up in an entirely un-Irish atmosphere.

It was upon those grounds that I put questions to the Minister; and I failed to get an answer. I wonder has it occurred to the Minister that if he were a national schoolboy, and so demonstrably unable to answer questions, his fingers might well now be tingling if not bruised?

He saw fit to go on to say at column 471:—

"But we find a Senator taking this up and saying he will prove case No. 16——"

a thing which I never said, as the record clearly shows

"—and that there are 33 cases and when that Senator is challenged by the Minister for Education to produce the facts of Case No. 16, to produce the facts of the 33 cases he said he had examined——"

which I never said, as the record will show

"—he runs away from it and goes to an Irish newspaper or newspapers and asks the parents to send him in the information."

That paragraph, I am afraid, is the result of a too-ready reliance by the Minister on a faulty memory. I should have preferred him to look at the text and to see exactly what I did say, even if under the stress of perhaps pardonable emotion he was not able to take it all in at the time.

I am afraid, as I said, I did not take entirely seriously his suggestion that he could not identify these cases in a file, which he had assured us contained less than 12 complaints in any given year, but when I saw from the Dáil speech that he did mean it seriously I made it my business to go to the School Children's Protection Organisation and get details of these 30 odd cases and I have sent the Minister a table of 32 cases—not 33 because one of them was in fact reported twice, without apparent success on either occasion.

I have again asked for the information for which I asked in the Seanad. I should like the Minister for Finance to use his good offices, perhaps, to see whether we could stimulate the Minister this time, now that I have helped him with his files, to give me an answer as to what he found in those files and in relation to what he did. I have been able to quote for him his own departmental acknowledgment of 24 of these cases, and in the other cases to quote the date on which the complaint was sent to him. His own departmental acknowledgments for 24 of these cases cover the period from May 5th, 1954, to May 3rd, 1955, a period of almost exactly a year, despite the fact that the Minister assured the Seanad that he got less than one a month of such complaints of any kind.

In the Seanad, to my suggestion that there was this type of beating and slapping far too widely in national schools for minor offences, the Minister said—and I quote him in the Seanad when he said in Volume 45, No. 1, at column 109:—

"There is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that outside the very clearly defined spirit and letter of the regulations with regard to corporal punishment in the schools there is either excessive or any, in any but the most isolated cases, kind of corporal punishment outside the rules and regulations."

When I heard the Minister say that I was amazed. I stressed my amazement and threw in a question: "No beating for failure at lessons?" But the Minister persisted, and so, in face of what I thought was the Minister's genuine ignorance in the matter of what was going on, I wrote to the papers and asked parents, pupils and ex-pupils to tell me whether or not the Minister was correctly informed when he said there was no beating or slapping in the national schools for failure at lessons, or for minor offences, except in the most isolated cases. I asked them to write to me in the Seanad, and I now repeat that request.

The Minister did not like my doing that. I wonder why, if he were satisfied that the parents would disagree with me? What sort of response did I get? Some people told me I would get very little because people would be lazy or reluctant for one reason or another. Since the publication of my letter, on July 4th in one paper and July 5th in another—it was published in two papers only—from then until to-day, the 19th July, a fortnight, I have had exactly 40 communications from 40 different parents, ex-pupils, pupils and some teachers, from 17 counties in Ireland. They did not come from just one place.

All cranks.

Let Senator L'Estrange say they were cranks. I hope to be able to convince him they are not. I think it right to say that in every single case the people were writing in a disinterested and detached way. However, I hope I will be given a chance to illustrate that. These communications came from 17 counties, all of them confirming that there is widespread beating and slapping in national schools for failure at lessons and for other minor offences. The letters are still coming in. I got 40 in a fortnight as I have said. It may be said that it is not many. It is nearly three a day. The Minister says he gets less than one a month.

What in fact do these people say? I quote from one letter from a father who says: "I was forced to threaten court action against my young son's teacher to obtain proper treatment for him, while another school in the City of —— is known as ‘the slaughterhouse' because of the conduct of the teachers in it." That letter is from a father, not from "a soft mother". Another father says in his letter to me: "The Minister is not correctly informed about what is happening in our schools. Press on with the good work and get the old sore healed up." I do not think that that is a reference to the Minister. Another letter, this time from an ex-pupil, says: "I swore when my son was born no master would inflict the suffering on him which I went through and I mean it." Another letter, from a mother this time:—

Does the Senator really suggest that is an argument against any Minister or any system in this generation? It is nonsense?

It is not an argument; it is a demonstration that this is widespread.

As a demonstration that it is widespread the small number of the complaints shows the reverse to be the case.

If the Minister will allow me to continue I think I shall be able to tell him it is not so small in amount as he probably quite genuinely thinks. An ex-pupil, a girl, writes that she has now a child attending the school where she suffered some time ago. She writes: "Every child, with the exception of a few children who had rich parents, were treated in the same way. If we could not grasp a point instantly we were pulled by the face and hair and struck with a stick over the body. After leaving —— school I was a boarder in the Mercy Convent —— and in St. Louis Convent —— and I never saw a girl recieve punishment. We were treated with kindness and love."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is the procedure in the House that when documents are read, references are given.

I understand that in relation to official documents that is so, but I understand that in relation to confidential letters there is no obligation on a Senator to give the name.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It has been the practice that when letters have been quoted in this House references are given.

I am afraid that in many of these cases I have not the permission of the writers to quote their names and addresses and I have been careful not to give the names of the school in any case.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Unless the Senator is prepared to give the references he may not read any other letters.

I accept your ruling. I am sorry you did not stop me one letter later, because it is one that startled me. It relates to something which occurred on the 5th July of this year. I hope I shall be able to mention it to the House at a later date, because I intend to try and have action taken on it by the parents. It involves the beating of a little boy of four. I will not quote any more letters. I would remind the House again that I have received them from 17 counties, Cork, Dublin, Kilkenny, Westmeath, Clare, Tipperary, Leitrim, Donegal, Kildare, Waterford, Wexford, Kerry, Galway, Mayo, Laois, Cavan, Carlow. These 17 counties are represented in the correspondence I have received during the past fortnight.

In conclusion, there are a few remarks I should like to make. The reason why I raised this matter again on the Appropriation Bill is that I am if anything more concerned now than I was before the Minister got into, shall we say, a not very good humour with me in the Seanad, and indulged in his long distance evasive tactics later in the Dáil. Perhaps the Minister for Finance might be able to persuade him that he would be more convincing to the public if he were to answer frankly. I referred to him 30 odd cases which he has on his desk, and for 24 of these cases I gave him his own departmental acknowledgments. I think it is of great importance. I do not think myself, and I said so in the Seanad, that the severe cases are numerous, but I do believe beating is commonly going on for minor offences and I think it is wrong. I do not think any Senator will disagree with me that there cannot be any argument here as to whether beating for minor offences is good or bad, even in moderation. I think it is a very bad thing. But whether it is or not is beside the point to-day because it is specifically prohibited by the Minister's regulations. So there is no good in a Senator getting up and saying "an odd slap will not do children any harm," and I do hope no Senator will get up and say he was beaten and that it did him good because, of course, it leaves the question open. His friends and colleagues may be of the opinion that he would be even more shiningly virtuous if he had not been beaten and frightened as a small boy. However, the justification or not, the value or not, of being beaten in schools is not the point at issue. Corporal punishment is prohibited in any circumstances for "mere failure at lessons". Therefore, if the Minister believes that his rules are good I think he should see to it that they are applied. It is explicitly prohibited, and the Minister does not think that it happens. Irish parents and Irish children think that it does happen in the ordinary way.

The ordinary parent is most reluctant to make complaints, to remonstrate with the teacher, to remonstrate with the manager, or to write to the Minister. The Minister ought himself to be able to find out what is happening in the primary schools without all that, but he is not apparently. He does not know. And it is consequently the duty of all parents in the country whose children are being slapped for minor offences, apart entirely from severe cases, to protest to the teacher that the Minister's rules are being broken, to remonstrate with the manager, if need be, that the rules are being broken, and then, if the slapping for minor offences continues, to write to the Minister and give all the facts, and be sure to mention that the parent has already seen both the teacher and the manager, or else all the satisfaction you will get from the Minister is a letter telling you to write to the manager.

Many parents—it may seem odd but it is true—do not even know who the manager of some of the big city schools actually is. I would suggest, and I do not think it is a revolutionary suggestion, that the name of the manager of any primary school should be publicly and clearly posted up in some prominent place in every school, together with the hours at which he or she is free and available at the school to speak to parents. I believe it would be a good thing if parents were to be encouraged, as they are in many secondary schools, to discuss not just complaints but problems about teaching, with the manager of the school. I believe that public relations should be improved between parent and teacher. I believe that the setting up of parent-teacher committees would be a good thing. I notice that the Council of Education Report on page 218, paragraph 334, suggests that:—

"Local or parochial control of schools requires that each locality should bear its due share of the cost of building and maintaining its primary schools. Every form of local co-operation designed to further this end should receive active encouragement from all interested in local welfare. Such co-operation would produce in turn greater interest and pride in the schools...."

I see no reason why that suggestion of greater parochial control and interest by the parents should not be adopted, and why there should not be set up in relation to primary schools parent-teacher parish committees. The School Children's Protection Organisation suggested that, and it was one of the things which made the Minister almost blow up. But I see no reason why the parental duty to the child should not be carried into the school to a greater extent even though the present running of the schools remains pretty well what it is to-day.

The Council of Education recommends this encouragement of local interest and I see no reason why the Minister would not at least adopt the suggestion of his own Council of Education even though he does not want to adopt what seems to him the far more extreme step of giving locally elected people some interest in the control of the schools. I want to know— perhaps the Minister for Finance would put the question to the Minister for Education—is the Minister prepared to encourage such parish committees as——

Soviets? No. I do not think they could be termed soviets and I do not think that is what the Council of Education had in mind.

The Council of Education had nothing in mind about the management of schools by local committees and it is a complete misrepresentation of the Council of Education Report to say so.

I am sorry, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

I said the setting up of parent-teacher parish committees for the discussion of problems connected with education, and I repeat that for the State-directed schools to say to the parents: "You shall not have these committees" or "You shall not come in on any advisory committee" seems to me to be going against the ordinary recognised duties of parents in relation to the education of their children. As for the suggestion that this would be setting up soviets, I am afraid I cannot take that very seriously, though I do see in such a suggestion the same kind of evasive action, and failure or refusal to see that ordinary Irish parents could help ordinary Irish teachers if they were to come together and meet occasionally in parent-teacher associations, as they do already in relation to many secondary schools without being called soviets by anybody.

The Senator has been a master of evasion this evening.

If I might be allowed to put my final point, it is this, that the encouragement of such parent-teacher associations, call them what you like, parish committees if you like, would make, in my opinion, for a wider understanding of the situation not only in regard to the views of parents but to the problems of the teachers. I started my speech in the Seanad the other day with a very clear statement that I realised exactly how difficult we as a society make the problems of the teacher, by insisting that they teach in overcrowded schools and frequently underpaying them. I believe if we could encourage the teachers to discuss the problems arising, and on the other side, find out what parents think, it would be a valuable thing for the smoother running of the whole system. Possibly to ask that the parent should play some minor, submissive, subordinate, humble rôle in contributing to our educational system is not an entirely revolutionary idea. Whether it is or not I make the suggestion, and I believe that a happier school atmosphere would result for all children in infant schools and in primary schools in this country. I believe that with the active co-operation of the parents it would help us to go forward at least towards the first essential stage on the long educational road which we have yet to tread, and that first essential stage is the education by the parents and the children of the teachers and the Minister for Education.

Before the Senator sits down, the Senator asked me to ask the Minister for Education to substantiate something said by the writers of that pamphlet "Punishment in our Schools". I will not answer any such question about anything that is anonymous. Will the Senator name the writers here?

Certainly. I know the Minister for Finance is a very busy man and did not, perhaps, read the speech I made on the Adjournment. I made it perfectly clear who the secretary was.

I am speaking about the writers of the pamphlet.

I can tell you who the secretary of the organisation is, and that is all I know about it.

On a point of order. I understand the Senator has concluded in reply to the Minister's question. Does the Senator intend to speak until 10 o'clock?

The Senator cannot relate what he has said about a series of people to one person. The Senator is disproving himself out of his own mouth.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hayes.

On a point of personal explanation——

I do not propose to hear anything. The Senator has spoken for just over an hour. He has made a variety of allegations against national teachers, against the managers of our primary schools of all religious denominations, against the Minister for Education, against the pusillanimity and cowardice of the parents of our primary school children and now he does not want anyone to speak before 10 o'clock in order to make any kind of reply.

The Senator says he is concerned about punishment in our schools. I deny that: the Senator has no concern with punishment in our primary schools. He is concerned, and so are the people who wrote this pamphlet, with something entirely different; he is concerned about the managerial system and about changing the managerial system by this rather obvious and rather dirty sidewind. It is with that he is concerned.

On a point of personal explanation. That is quite untrue.

These are the old tactics. The Senator has the right to speak, and nobody else. Now I have some knowledge of schools, a greater knowledge than the Senator has, and I have a greater knowledge of children than the Senator has; and I have a wider, longer and more varied experience of every kind of school than the Senator has. I also happen to have the right to speak here, and I intend to exercise that right.

In the first place the Senator is not concerned about children who are punished. He is concerned about using certain people for the purpose of making his own case, which, on his own statement this evening and on the statements in this pamphlet, shows clearly an intention of altering the managerial system in our schools.

That is quite untrue.

Now I intend to prove that. I want to say something about the origin of all this business. The documents are there—"Punishment in Our Schools"—and all the so-called proofs are in his pamphlet, with the exception of the further ones the Senator tried to inflict on us here this evening. This pamphlet is entitled "Punishment in Our Schools." It is issued anonymously, except for the name of the secretary; and the secretary tells us herself in the foreword that when she wrote a letter to the Evening Mail under the name of “Catholic Mother” and got certain answers, she then formed the School Children's Protection Association. Further than that, there is not a single word in this document to show who the members of the School Children's Protection Association are, what their names are, who the president is, who the secretary is, who the treasurer is, or where the money came from to produce this document. That is one piece of evidence— so-called evidence.

The next is that Senator Sheehy Skeffington exercising his democratic right, and we do not need to have John Stuart Mill quoted to us to know what his democratic rights are, raised this matter on 30th June in this House. He spoke for about 20 minutes on that occasion and he did not want to let the Minister for Education use the ten minutes left to him for reply; he wanted to interrupt him and, again, characteristically, at the end he wanted to make a point of order which would give him the last word.

On a point of order. My intention was——

That is not a point of order. The Senator's intention has nothing to do with order. As well as knowing something about schools, I am rather by way of being an expert on order. The clear intention of all this agitation——

On a point of personal explanation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hayes must be allowed to speak.

Senator Hayes has made a false statement about the matter.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Sheehy Skeffington will resume his seat.

Here is this document—"Punishment in Our Schools", Here is what Senator Sheehy Skeffington said in the Seanad. We all heard him. We heard him this evening, and the clear intention of this whole business is not to improve the lot of children in our primary schools: it is to promote agitation in the schools, shake confidence in the whole body of primary teachers and bring about changes in the managerial system.

That is quite untrue.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington began this quite plausibly. He is following a special technique. We all know it, and he is quite good at it. But it does not work. He starts off by saying on 30th June at column 100 of the Official Report:—

"My sympathy goes to the teacher."

The Senator's heart is always bleeding for somebody.

"I myself am a teacher; I am the son of teachers, and I do not want anything I say subsequently to be taken as a sort of general attack upon the teaching profession."

That is his first statement. He goes on to say at column 101:—

"If one were to tell any schoolboy or schoolgirl that he or she must never be beaten for mere failure at lessons, every schoolboy or girl can tell you that you are misinformed..."

The Senator said that if it were announced that the rules are being broken there would be a sensation. There are two points at issue here. There is the question of punishment under the rules and the question of what Senator Sheehy Skeffington calls "beatings". Senator Sheehy Skeffington charges that the rules are being broken to the knowledge of every child in every school. Surely that is an indictment of all the national teachers, Catholic and Protestant.

On a point of order. I have been misquoted by the Senator.

I will quote it all. "Such are the regulations." This is column 101.

Would the Senator quote exactly?

I will quote what I like.

Will the Senator quote it correctly?

I am not quoting John Stuart Mill. I am only quoting Skeffington.

Leave Hayes out. Just quote Skeffington.

This is column 101:—

"If one were to tell any schoolboy or schoolgirl that he or she must never be beaten for mere failure at lessons, every schoolboy or girl can tell you that you are either misinformed..."

Exactly— they "must" not be beaten.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hayes.

Which means that every schoolboy and girl knows that the Minister's regulations are being broken. That is what I said.

The quotation says the children do not know the regulations.

I listened to the Senator for a whole hour. He was very wearisome, very boring and very elusive. That is the position. He has indicted the whole body of teachers, and other people too. There has been no attempt by this association or by Dr. Sheehy Skeffington to make an approach, based upon evidence, to the teachers or to the managers, to the Minister or even to members of the Oireachtas. Everyone here knows that we are constantly getting documents from various people. We do not always agree with those documents; but every single document we get shows the name of a chairman, a secretary, a treasurer and a committee. The Irish national teachers, the licensed vintners and the assistants of the licensed vintners, who are out on strike at the moment, write to us. Local government employees, pensioned teachers, the Congress of Irish Unions write to us. We had a circular quoted here recently from the Federated Union of Employers with regard to profits in industry and taxation on these profits. Now, whether one agrees with these representations or not, they all bear the name of the committee and secretary. His credentials are available and everyone knows who the particular people are. But in this particular instance there is no such information and Senator Sheehy Skeffington does not know who compiled this booklet, with the exception of one particular lady. Not a single one of these letters bears the name of the place from which it issued, a date or a signature. Furthermore, this document has on the back of it a big red query mark—"Isolated Cases"; in other words, the implication in this document is that punishment is universal in our schools, that it is common. That is what the Senator says. This is a joint indictment of teachers and managers based on no evidence of any kind.

Senator Skeffington, on the previous occasion when he spoke here, read out some of these letters. These letters are not evidence and Senator Skeffington, this evening, produced no evidence. He produced a number of accusations and what he did in his previous statement here was, he made accusations. After a bit he said he was giving evidence. After a further bit he said he was stating the facts and then he asked us to remedy a certain set of facts about which he had given no evidence whatever. Surely, Sir, it is a general indictment. Every schoolboy knows.

Further, let me quote column 104 of the Seanad debate on the Adjournment:—

"Senator Skeffington:... I, personally, from this booklet and also from a great number of conversations with ex-pupils of national schools, am certain that beating of children is rife in primary schools to-day."

Perhaps I am not as well educated as Senator Skeffington but, if something is rife, it is surely general and, if it is general, everybody is doing it and, if that is so, the teachers are, as a body, indicted in this booklet and by the Senator, that is to say, indicted for beatings, not punishments under the rules.

In column 102, Senator Skeffington comes along to say that "Punishment in Our Schools"—that is this document—he read "Punishment in Our Schools"—"which to me adduced disquieting evidence about what is happening in our schools."

The Senator is a university man. He represents an ancient university in this House. He is a university lecturer in a modern language, with which I have some acquaintance, and surely he does not think that the word "evidence" can be properly used about these letters.

Yes, I do. There are 70 of them.

There is not a single word of evidence anywhere. Surely it is not evidence for a court. Surely it is not evidence for a teacher. Surely, in my capacity as professor, I am not able to accept everything that everybody writes to me, everything a parent writes to me about his son or daughter. This is not, surely, evidence. The Senator is really misusing words in a disgraceful way—in a disgraceful way.

He says, for example, early on in this matter, in column 102, that all these letters had the ring of authenticity and truth.

Does Senator Skeffington seriously tell us, as grownup people, that when we get a letter with a ring of truth we should accept it? I wonder does Senator Skeffington tell his students that when he teaches them the history of literature?

If you get 70 letters——

Senator Skeffington wants to be talking all the time. He can listen to nobody. This is freedom —democracy—à la John Stuart Mill but Senator Skeffington has made great progress since John Stuart Mill. He tries to do all the talking. If he had his way, he would not let me talk at all.

You are asking me questions, but you do not like my answers.

I cannot teach the Senator. I cannot even teach him English. But, surely, Sir, he does not suggest that he tells students in his university that, when they find a document that has a ring of truth, they should believe it. Those of us here who have been receiving letters for all our lives, practically speaking, know that you get letter after letter where the complainant appears to be absolutely truthful, appears to be labouring under an immense grievance and, when you make the slightest investigation, you find the whole thing disappears. It is quite common. There is no such thing as saying that, because something has a ring of truth, therefore, you are to accept it.

Take this document and see its real intentions, while I have a little time left. The document, like the Senator, produces no evidence. It simply produces a number of letters from parents, with no names of places and no signatures, but it does do this—it says, on page 4, that "thousands of children are enduring the most extreme sufferings". Is not it extraordinary that there should be thousands of children in this country enduring the most extreme sufferings and that not one member of the Oireachtas, no member of the Labour Party, no member of the Fianna Fáil Party, no member of the Fine Gael Party, nobody in the Oireachtas, but Senator Skeffington, has a heart which bleeds for these thousands of children who are in a state of extreme suffering?

One Labour Deputy did.

Let me give you the final point. I would like to tell you a little more about this, Sir. This booklet suggests that beating is general and not isolated, that there is widespread failure to observe regulations. This document speaks of "chaotic conditions". It speaks of "thousands of children in the most extreme suffering" and it also speaks of the teachers. The teachers, they say, have a united front, a united front of antagonism to criticism.

Is that a quotation?

The teachers can be divided into two parts—the teachers who habitually beat children, contrary to the rules; the other teachers, who do not, but who unite with their colleagues in objecting to criticism and preventing any inquiry.

Would you quote the full paragraph about the teachers?

Where is it? I have been bullied so much that I am really embarrassed. It is on page 5, I think. "We soon learned..."—we do not know who "we" are, by the way. This is the lady who writes in the plural. I find on page 5 of this document:—

"We soon learned that all these bodies appeared in the most part to have one thing in common and in which they always presented a united front by an antagonistic approach to any voice raised in criticism."

Is that right? That is a united front among the teachers and the managers to any voice raised in criticism. The managers are Catholic parish priests and vicars and Methodist clergymen and Presbyterians and, I think, Rabbis, and they are all united with the teachers to beat the children and let nobody say a word. That is so much for the general indictment.

At the very end of this document there is this—there is also an indictment of the teachers—the parents are afraid to go to the teachers and the managers. I do not understand that, I must confess. I have met a great many parish priests in my time and a certain number of vicars. Some of them were a little bit crotchety but that the people were afraid to talk to them, it is not my experience, at any rate. But there is a "Conclusion." For what reason is all this agitation got up? Why was not some approach made in a more reasonable way? I suggest the reason is to be found on page 8 of this document, where they make a suggestion for improvement.

They make several suggestions. Read all the suggestions.

Why should not I read what I like? Senator Sheehy Skeffington is a born tyrant. I shudder at the time when Senator Sheehy Skeffington will be in charge of something, directing something. I gave him assistance to make his speech because I happen to be Leader of the House and alive to my responsibility. He does not want to let me speak at all.

This is the concluding paragraph:—

"Finally, the most drastic suggestion, yet probably the best, is that the maintenance of our national schools be administered by the local borough or county council——"

"——who ably assisted by parish committees could effect the necessary control and administration that is now, in many cases, non-existent, due to being vested in persons already overburdened and inexperienced in managerial functions."

Now, Sir, that appears to me to be a clear statement that the people who are now managing our national schools are overburdened and inexperienced and that they should be removed and that they should be replaced by the county council or by a local borough council. That is an accusation against all of these people.

The managerial system is something which works in this country, which is of immense value to us in this country, which satisfies the people who belong to the predominant religion, the Catholics, and every Protestant denomination and the Jews as well. That is a very valuable possession of ours and what this document—this anony-the purpose of substituting something mous document, which does not produce a shred of evidence—asks us to do is, in response to this hysterical, exaggerated and anonymous document, to get rid of the managerial system for else, to which they have given no thought but to which, I am sure, Senator Skeffington has given ample consideration.

I should like to say something more about this but, unfortunately, the time is up and perhaps you will allow me to move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th July, 1955.
Top
Share