Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 1955

Vol. 45 No. 4

Appropriation Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed), Committee and Final Stages.

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

With the permission of the Chair, I should like, first, to repeat my apology for not raising this matter in apparently the usual manner. The only point I want to make is that yesterday Senator Professor Hayes stated he was under the impression that when I raised the matter of school punishment in the Seanad I put a point of order at the end for the purpose of preventing the Minister from having his full time. In fact, what I wanted to do was to refer to page 2 of the rulings and proceedings of Seanad Éireann where it is stated that, "by agreement of the House, the half-hour permitted may be extended, if it is not unduly so, and the Minister is given adequate time to reply." The point I was trying to make—and which I mentioned to you afterwards privately, Sir—was that I wanted to give the Minister all the time he required, and I felt the House would agree to that. My point of order was not for the purpose of lessening the time at his disposal, but for the purpose of trying to lengthen it.

I should like to give a résumé of the case that seems to me to have to be made with regard to the question of punishment in schools. First and foremost, we must distinguish between punishment under the regulations and what the pamphlet issued by the association and what Senator Sheehy Skeffington call beatings. The case made is to be found in this pamphlet which is called "Punishment in Our Schools", which was issued with an introduction, a foreword, with the name of one person only.

There is no name on the pamphlet.

There is the name of only one person given and that is the name of the lady——

There is no name.

Her name is not even given in this.

No, it is not given.

It is common knowledge.

The case is to be found in this pamphlet, this completely anonymous pamphlet, and in the general indictment of teachers and the schools which Senator Sheehy Skeffington gave here on the Adjournment and in the further documents which he proceeded to quote yesterday. There are some things to be said about that. The document is anonymous—it gives no names of places or persons. It gives a general indictment not only of the school teachers but of the school managers, of the Department of Education and of the inspectors. Senator Sheehy Skeffington in his statements here on 30th June praised the pamphlet. We must, therefore, assume, I take it, that having read the pamphlet and having brought it to our notice, he agrees with what is in it.

He said on 30th June in this House at column 102:—

"I should like to say at this juncture that I think tribute is due to the organisation and to its secretary, Mrs. O'Connell, for their courage, their persistence and public-spirited calling of attention to the whole question of what, in fact, is going on in relation to punishment in these schools."

I want to remind the House that the phrase, "what in fact is going on" is a typical line of reasoning—or should I say, lack of reasoning?—on the part of Senator Sheehy Skeffington. He gives certain allegations; after a bit he calls them evidence; and further on he calls them facts.

This document is a general indictment of teachers and managers and I should like to call attention to a quotation, some of which I think I gave last night. At page 5 of this pamphlet we find:—

"To administer in this unhappy situation we have thousands of teachers ..."

The precise number, I think, is 13,000, 3,000 of whom are religious and 10,000 lay teachers of different religions. There are about 400,000 children attending primary schools.

"... school managers and attendance inspectors, numerous officials, inspectors and high executives of the Department of Education and a Minister for Education. 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."

We further have the statement that the teachers as a body——

Would the Senator finish the paragraph?

It is not necesary to finish the paragraph. We have therefore an indictment of all the teachers and all the attendance inspectors appointed by local bodies, of the school inspectors and of the managers—these are all in a united front to prevent any criticism. The teachers are divided into two parts—those who beat children unlawfully and those who take part in preventing criticism of the ones who do the unlawful work. That is the general situation. Senator Sheehy Skeffington himself explained that he was not indicting all the teachers, but he subsequently said that you could go into any school and any boy or girl in the school could tell you that the rules were being broken. He also said that beating was rife and I take it that, when beating is rife, it is general.

The case is that a bundle of letters asked for by an anonymous association has a certain meaning. This bundle of letters means that the regulations are generally broken in every school. Senator Sheehy Skeffington accepts that and that the teachers who do not themselves break the rules join in a common front with those who do, against criticism. That surely is a misuse of language. Similarly, the pamphlet is full of exaggeration. It speaks about "chaotic conditions in the schools," of "thousands of children in a state of extreme suffering" and at one point blames the primary schools, and therefore, of course, the primary teachers as a body, for juvenile delinquency. "Under existing conditions the first thing a little child learns at school is fear"—we find that on page 7. "As it grows older, this develops into bitterness and resentment which in turn wind up in defiance. Truly a very natural process for a perfect delinquent". In fact, the pamphlet suggests that the first kind word a child gets is in the Children's Court. It is on that kind of a document, that absurd exaggeration, that absurd and malicious exaggeration, carefully calculated exaggeration, that Senator Sheehy Skeffington depends and which he adopts and asks us to believe in.

On a point of fact——

Senator Hayes is in possession and the Senator must respect that situation.

I suggest that Senator Hayes has misquoted the reference to the Children's Court.

He must be permitted to make his speech in his own way. Nobody interrupted Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he was speaking.

He has wrongly paraphrased in relation to the Children's Court.

This university lecturer does not know the difference between misquoting and wrongly paraphrasing. We have to use the English language and we must use it accurately. If the Senator tells us that 13,000 teachers are all wrong, the least we might do is to use the language we are using in an accurate way or learn another one. Here is the quotation in full:—

"We are convinced from our observations that the unfortunate child who finds that the first kind word it has experienced from anyone in authority is when it appeared in the Children's Court..."

It does not say "all children".

"... is when it appeared in the Children's Court, can lay the most blame for its unhappy circumstances at the altar of our present primary education system."

There you are. There is the document which lays juvenile delinquecy at the door of the national teachers and of the managers, Catholic and Protestant, the priests and the vicars and the Methodist ministers and the Presbyterians and all their teachers. They are responsible for juvenile delinquency. That is the plain meaning of it. I have neither misquoted nor paraphrased wrongly.

You suggested that it implied that it was the case for all children.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington wants not only to make a speech but to make "n" speeches, where "n" is any number over 100. He does not want anyone to speak but himself. This document lays the whole guilt of the juvenile delinquency in this country at the door of the national teachers and the managers, the clerical managers of our national schools, forgetting all about parental control and about the thousand and one other things which may contribute, and, as we know, do contribute, to juvenile delinquency. The clear intention of this document and of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's speeches is to shake confidence in all kinds of primary teachers.

He indicts all the teachers and he says that punishment is rife, that these beatings are rife and therefore general, and this document says that all the teachers are united to prevent any criticism. Does that not surely indicate a clear intention to shake confidence in all our primary teachers, whether they are lay or religious, whether they are Catholic or Protestant? Is it not clear that that is one intention?

The other intention is to change the managerial system by promoting an agitation. Every one of us knows here that Ministers are very accessible. I have often thought that Ministers of all Parties have been too accessible for a number of years. Every member of this House and of the other House has been to see Ministers, either of his own Party or of another Party. These people who start this agitation, and Senator Skeffington himself, do not use the method of private conversation—just as Senator Skeffington to-day wants to make his point in public and give no private notice to the Chair. They use the method of public agitation and that agitation is intended to shake confidence in teachers and to shake confidence in the managerial system. Senator Skeffington himself has done what seems to me to be a disgraceful act, when he himself, a member of the hierarchy of teachers, a university lecturer, writes to the newspapers to ask children to write to him their complaints about their teachers.

On a point of personal explanation——

Senator Hayes is in possession. The Senator must remain seated.

It is a disgraceful thing to do.

I do not mind being misquoted——

The Senator must listen to other people.

Not to misquotation of himself.

Yes, even misquotation. The Senator is not now in a slick debating society: he is in a House of a Parliament. This is something more than a debating society and the Senator will have to learn a great deal more before he can bring these tactics into operation here. I want to repeat—as a university professor, as a public man and as a teacher— that it is disgraceful to write to the newspapers and ask children in schools to write their complaints about their teachers to a public man, to the Houses of Parliament.

To say whether or not the Minister was misinformed.

I say this is a disgraceful state of affairs. I think it is a most irresponsible thing to do and shows that Senator Skeffington is interested in agitation and not interested in children.

Interested in truth.

The Senator writes to the newspapers to ask the children to write to him to Leinster House.

To say if the Minister was misinformed.

To write to him to Leinster House their complaints about their teachers.

Not their complaints.

That is what he did.

If the Minister was misinformed——

The Senator must permit Senator Hayes to make his speech or the Chair will have to pass another judgment on the Senator's behaviour.

The Senator wants to get away from what he has done. What he has done is to write to the newspapers to ask pupils in primary schools to write to him what they want to say against their teachers. It is a short step from there to the other well-known step of asking children to furnish members of Parliament with complaints against their parents. It is the same style of thing.

I do not want to go any further, except to say that of course we are not discussing corporal punishment in schools. That is another question altogether. Since there are 13,000 teachers, not all teachers could possibly be guilty of breaches of the rules or of shielding those who break the rules; and in the same way 13,000 teachers cannot be all perfectly behaved at all times and for various situations. If there are any breaches of the Minister's rules—with which everyone agrees—those breaches are very few. The way this association has taken and the way Senator Skeffington has taken are not the methods by which an improvement can be achieved. As a matter of fact, this association, I think —and certainly Senator Skeffington— have much wider horizons than the treatment of children in our schools. They have aims and objects which have nothing to do with the treatment of children. They are out for agitation, they are out for criticism of teachers and managers, they are out to create distrust and lack of confidence, they are out to upset our system of primary education and our confidence and the confidence of the parents in that system.

They want to replace it by something else about which we get no information but the nature of which is in some way indicated in this document Senator Skeffington so much admires. Perhaps I should quote it again. Page 8 says:

"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——"

The "maintenance".

"——who ably assisted by parish committees could effect the necessary control and administration——"

That means control and administration of the maintenance of the schools.

"——that is now, in many cases, non-existent."

That is a general statement that in many cases there is no control and no management of our schools.

Over the maintenance.

No, this refers to the schools, not maintenance. It does not refer to school buildings. That is just another slick twist of ordinary words into different meanings.

It specifically referred to maintenance, in the paragraph just quoted.

It referred to the "necessary control and administration".

In relation to maintenance.

No, in relation to schools generally. Senator Skeffington, you see, was so glad of an opportunity to rush in to agitate that he had not time to read this document, to think it over—and even the English that he learned in school does not last long enough with him to enable him to read this stuff. He had to come in and make a speech before he had the document read. This statement adds that in many cases there is no control over administration, in many cases it is nonexistent, "due to being vested in persons already overburdened and inexperienced in managerial functions".

The plain import of that paragraph is that we need a complete change in the managerial system—which at present works for all our people, which gives complete satisfaction to those who are of minority religions and which enabled the Ministers of Education of various Parties over a period of years to make the most remarkable arrangements and provisions at considerable financial loss for minority religious groups.

I do not object to discussion on the managerial system, but if there is to be such a discussion let it be a straight and a clear one, let it not be introduced in this exaggerated way.

Let it not be done in this rather dirty method, which smears all the national teachers and all the clerical managers of every religious persuasion in the way this booklet does and in the way Senator Skeffington's speeches do. If there is to be discussion, let it be straight and clear, let it not be by way of hysterical, exaggerated accusation.

Let it not be by way of appeal to the emotions of parents which you have here, the picture of thousands of children suffering acute unhappiness, let it not be by way of asking children to write to a public representative to accuse their teachers. Let any agitation about the managerial system be honest. This is a democratic country, I agree, and we can discuss anything we please. If we have to discuss the managerial system let whatever defects some people think it has be brought out here and discussed. Let us be honest about it, using words in their normal meanings and not hiding anti-religious feeling and anti-religious sentiment behind a thin veil of sympathy for the alleged woes of children.

If the Bill which we are considering is to be implemented in full, it will be necessary to raise a portion of the funds required by borrowing; and I would like to comment briefly on this subject.

The Central Bank, in its report for the year ended 31st March last, on page 12 draws attention to the fact that during the past five calendar years the total amount of capital raised by public issues made in the State amounts to £112.9 million, or an average of some £22.6 million per year. In his Budget statement the Minister indicated that the State would require to borrow £31,000,000 during the current year.

The average amount of £22.6 million raised yearly by issues on this market is a great sum to issue in a small country like this; and there is, I think, some reason to suggest that it is more than the market can absorb without strain. In column 1657 of Volume 151, No. 11 of the Dáil Debates the Minister mentioned that in the year 1951 the yield on Government securities here and in Britain was virtually similar and, so far as I can recollect, this was the position for several years previously. From 1952 until early this year there was a difference of approximately three-quarters per cent. in the yield obtainable on Irish and English Government securities, this change being due, I think, primarily to the fact that in order to attract subscribers to Irish loans a high yield had to be offered. It is true that at the moment there is little difference in the yields on Government securities in both countries, but how long this position will obtain in the face of heavy borrowing remains to be seen.

Table A.5 of the Statistical Survey for 1954 shows that savings or the formation of physical capital here for the year 1954 is estimated to have been £69,000,000. It would, however, be false to assume that this sum was available for subscription to issues made here. By and large, I think one may take it that the profits retained by manufacturing industry are required by it to pay for the replacement of plant and premises and to finance raw materials at their increased price together with other commitments which follow on a general increase in prices. Savings from agriculture are, one would assume, devoted to the purchase of better equipment and capital works carried out on farms.

In view of the high level of taxation, it is surprising that in 1954 deposits in post office and savings banks rose by nearly £6,000,000 and the sale of Savings Certificates by approximately £1,500,000 since one would have thought that the burden of taxation was such as to preclude savings by the individual. When one looks back on the effects of inflation during the past 40 years, it is difficult to see what inducement there is for individuals to save. I do not know the actual figure but I would hazard a guess that the purchasing power of the £1 in 1915 was equal to about £5 to-day. Is there much attraction to save when, as the years go by, money set aside purchases less and less? In view of the growth of hire purchase it looks as if some of the community are more anxious to mortgage the future rather than to save for it.

Everything I have said so far is on the black side of the picture. There is, however, a brighter side. I can quite see that insurance companies, particularly those engaged in life assurance, have very substantial sums available for investment. Pension funds accumulated by industrial companies are another obvious source and there may well be others which have not occurred to me, but I find it hard to believe that all these are sufficient to absorb the volume of securities offered for subscription annually. The adverse trade balance, though happily it is falling, seems to lend support to this view. I am sure it is the Minister's desire to cut down expenditure, both of revenue and capital, so far as it is prudent to do so and I wish him success. After what was said in the House yesterday, it does occur to me that, in speaking on finance, I may be running counter to the custom of the House.

I wish to preface the few remarks I want to make to-day by, first of all, drawing attention to the praiseworthy efforts that have been made by all Irish Governments to date in order to encourage trade and industry and to build up an industrial and agricultural economy here that will employ our people gainfully and give us a good standard of living. But I do not want to take up the time of the House to-day in saying all the praiseworthy things. An occasion such as this is one on which we should examine our conscience. The Opposition, of course, do it in order to embarrass the Government. I am a supporter of the Government and anything I say I wish to be taken as of a constructive nature.

Many good things have been done to help business. We have had a very big programme of protection here. We are always hearing in regard to private enterprise the necessity for freedom. The very essence of the success of private enterprise is freedom, freedom for those engaged in industry to work freely and use their ingenuity in every possible way, to make a success of their business and create employment in this country. When we were building up our industrial economy, it had to be very highly protected in the infant stage in many ways. Unfortunately, when the Government gives protection to individuals or groups of individuals, I quite see they have the responsibility of demanding certain things in return and certain control over the actions of the people so protected.

Having said that, I feel that in this country we have gone beyond what is necessary. Industrialists and business people generally are being hamstrung by a multiplicity of all sorts of unnecessary restrictions, tribunals and so forth. Recently, the Taoiseach in his speech on the Finance Bill in the Dáil, appealed for more production of goods. He pointed out that our balance of payments position was causing anxiety. In fact, it has always caused anxiety in varying degrees at different times ever since we had native Government established. At the moment, it is particularly necessary that we should keep our balance of payments in good order and the only people who can do that are business people, agriculturists and industrialists. It is only by hard work in producing goods that we can find the necessary commodities to offset by exports what we import. Therefore, I feel it is all the more important that those engaged in business should be given as much time as possible to concentrate upon their businesses.

Unfortunately, we have in this country a small vocal section whose main interest seems to be to discredit anybody with anything but particularly those people who are engaged in business. I suppose we should call them Socialists as distinct from Labour people. I am afraid there is sometimes confusion in this country as between the interests of Labour and the interests of the Socialists. Many of these tribunals, price control restrictions, under which business labours at present, are set up to placate the outcry of what I believe to be a small group of people, sometimes misguided people, but sometimes groups of people who are very definitely guided from one place or another.

I feel there is need for clarification as to what is the difference between the interests of genuine Labour people and Socialists with their effect on Government policy and on the setting up of these restrictions of all kinds. Socialism is, in fact, the enemy of trade unionism in the long run because if Socialism is brought to its logical conclusion, as we have seen happen in other countries, the trade unions merely become the tools of the Government and are not the instruments of organised labour, or of the individual man who supplies labour. They are not free; they lose their freedom. The fact is that the trade union movement owes its very existence to the existence of the private enterprise system, because it is only in the private enterprise system that the trade union movement can function properly and according to its mission.

That being so, I feel and I hope the Government will not at any time let itself be influenced too much by people who are really Socialists, and will at all times resist any cries for more nationalisation or semi-nationalisation where it is possible to find private enterprise to do the job in question. On that point, it will be remembered that in the 14 points on which this Government was founded and in which I am glad to say the Labour Party is a participant with many people like myself who are representatives of private enterprise, point 5 says:—

"The Government believes that private enterprise should provide the country with the industrial development it requires."

It goes on to say:—

"It recognises, however, that private enterprise may not be able, alone, adequately to develop the nation's resources and that accordingly State encouragement and stimulation will be necessary."

It says only "encouragement" and "stimulation". Therefore, that also postulates that the State should give encouragement and stimulation to the private enterprise system as it works in industry.

I submit that many of these tribunals we are setting up—for instance, in connection with price control and restrictive trade practices and many other tribunals which we have at present and which are costing a considerable amount of money—are wasting not alone much public time but the time of businessmen who have to devote their attention and energies to handing off what are, in fact, attacks on them. Many of these attacks are made only to placate people who are merely politically minded and have no real interest in the industrial development of our country or even in the welfare of our workers. While I feel that certain things must be done, that certain inquiries must be made because the Government have given protective barriers to people working in industry and therefore have responsibilities to see that a proper job is done and that the public are not taken advantage of behind the protective barriers, I submit the number of State tribunals now functioning is unnecessary and wasteful of money and time which could be better employed for the general good.

They are doing execllent work.

Last week you may have seen in the papers that, at the Congress of Irish Unions conference, there was a resolution submitted calling for more rigid price control. I was very pleased to see that a very old and seasoned warrior in the trade union movement, no less a person than the secretary of the Congress of Irish Unions himself, pointed out that this price control business could be overdone, and he himself—he happens to be a member of the Price Control Committee representing Labour—gave an instance, which we must all know is a case he had met with, where prices had been held down by the tribunal and it was afterwards shown that the workers themselves protested that the prices set were uneconomic, and that they would, in fact, lose their jobs as a result of the action taken on this particular occasion. That is something I am glad to say comes, not from my mouth as a representative of business people, but comes from a man who is secretary of the Congress of Irish Unions.

In any case, it is always claimed, even by people who are most in favour of the prices commission that has been set up here that it is not doing its work properly, that it is not rigid enough, and so on. The fact is, it cannot be any more rigid. It has worked very hard, examined a lot of cases, and in very very few cases has it been able to bring a single price down. That is not because it is not rigid enough but because it finds that nothing can be done about the matter. We should realise now, that it is mostly wasting time trying to please people who cannot be pleased.

It may be a matter of interest also here to note that last September—in 1954—when the British Labour Party had its annual conference, an article in the Irish Times of that period stated: “Even the British Labour Party voted, at its conference last week, against the reimposition of price controls if Labour should be returned to power.” They felt that the best way to control prices was by reasonable competition. By and large, there is very keen competition in this country at present in all branches of trade and industry.

What about resale price maintenance?

I am not going to go into a long dissertation on that because I think we would find something like the schools punishment debate developing, with probably the same good results in my favour as we saw against Senator Sheehy Skeffington on the other question. I do not think it would be wise to waste the time of the House at the moment in going into that particular restrictive trade practice. I am merely making the general case at the moment that I think the Government should examine the whole question of the number of tribunals set up at present by the State and see if, in fact, they are necessary, if they are worth the trouble they are causing and worth the time and money they are costing the country and the industry of the country. I think we would all be better employed in getting down to the job of building up our industrial economy, both workers and employers, than in wasting our time talking.

I do not want to say much more in this particular debate. If I can succeed on this occasion in merely drawing the attention of the Government and the people to the unnecessary waste of time involved in these things, I think I shall have done a good job. I would like to quote again an old friend, the I.B.E.C. Report. I persist in coming back to this because I feel it is something of which we should be reminded, in regard to this particular question of encouraging industry which is of such great importance and which the Taoiseach also referred to when he spoke of building up the capital of this country, both by our own national capital, and where national capital cannot be found by inviting foreign capital in here. I think that is a very sound policy. Already, during the term of the last Government, Mr. Lemass, and during the term of the present Government, the Taoiseach, and the present Minister for Finance the other day made reference to the necessity of encouraging outside capital to come in here to do the job which we cannot find the money to finance ourselves.

On that point I would like to quote what the I.B.E.C. Report at page 93 says. In the second column it states:

"If Ireland were to establish a general economic climate favourable to private initiative, with institutions that provided strong incentives for investment in the modern capital equipment upon which high productivity depends, an equally attractive reward for managerial and worker performance, development of the more promising lines of manufacture would follow almost automatically.

"Foreign capital likewise could be attracted at a considerable volume to what would amount to a haven from the State-imposed restrictions so widely prevalent in Europe."

We should try at all costs to get rid of State-imposed restrictions on our economy in all its spheres and branches. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance to bring this question before the Government to see if we have not already got too many restrictions of all kinds fettering trade and industry. This Government have given a promise in the agricultural sphere to keep away inspectors and unnecessary Government officials and I would like if the Government would do the same thing in industry.

Arising out of the Vote for Primary Education, I should like to renew a plea which I made on previous occasions here on behalf of a very deserving section of the community—the ex-teachers who retired on pension prior to the 1st January, 1950. They have not, up to the present, been awarded the full lump sum gratuity to which their services over a long number of years entitled them. I know the Minister is well aware of the case. It has been put to him on many occasions and put to the Minister for Education but, as the Minister for Finance is here, I take advantage of the special opportunity of pressing the case on him as he will be the principal factor in implementing it. I would ask him to reconsider more favourably these ex-teachers' case at the first available opportunity. They are people who worked for the benefit of their own country and who gave valuable service.

The question of punishment in the schools has been dealt with at great length and I do not wish to dwell at length on it. Senator Hayes dealt with the matter very efficiently. However, I should like to approach the matter in a different way and deal with it from a more general viewpoint. No one has yet said during this controversy that a parent has no right to chastise or punish his child and no one has made any regulations or suggested any method as to the form punishment should take or how it should be administered by parents. There is only one overriding principle and that is that such punishment must not be excessive. There is nothing governing the action of parents in dealing with their own children. No one, as I have said, has made any regulations as to when or how punishment should be administered by them; it is a definite parental right.

It is that right which a teacher has because the teacher is in loco parentis; from the parental right he gets the right to inflict reasonable corporal punishment such as a prudent father would inflict. About 25 years ago, I attended an educational conference in Scotland and listened to an address by a very distinguished K.C. Extracts from that same address have been republished during the last two months. They deal with this right of the teacher to administer reasonable corporal punishment and, with the permission of the Chair, I shall read an extract from this address which was published in the Scottish Educational Journal on May 6th, 1955. The address was given by a gentleman named the Rt. Hon. A. M. MacRobert, K.C. It reads as follows:

"Certain rights attach to the position of a schoolmaster or schoolmistress. Among these rights is the right to be treated in loco parentis to the child during the period when the care and charge of the child is entrusted to him. The teacher in such circumstances is vested in the rights of a prudent father. He may punish the child. He may inflict corporal punishment. He may punish for misbehaviour committed not only within the precincts of the school but outside. He is not liable civilly or criminally unless the punishment has been improper and excessive. There is an undoubted common law right of teachers in Scotland to administer reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes. That right derives and can only derive from the fact that in entrusting a child directly or indirectly to a teacher, a parent is presumed to delegate certain of his own inherent parental power of reasonable chastisement. The teacher's right in this matter is an inherent and fundamental one enjoyed by him, and it is not competent for an educational authority to deprive him of that right by a simple resolution.”

I should like to say first of all that that is the position in Britain and, of course, we know from conditions here that the rights of parents in this country are treated with much greater respect in a great many ways than in the neighbouring countries.

A great deal has been said here about certain regulations issued by the Department of Education and about alleged breaches of these regulations. I would ask the House to note that last sentence I quoted from the Scottish authority: "It is not competent for an educational authority to deprive him of that right by a simple resolution." That would seem to imply, and I believe it does imply, that it is questionable whether the Department of Education has a right to make regulations which would limit the right of the teacher to administer reasonable corporal punishment and, therefore, deferentially, the right of parents to delegate that right to the teacher. But let us look first of all at these regulations of the Department. They are a modified form of regulations issued over 50 years ago by an authority which was an alien administration in this country. The fixed policy of that administration at that time and for long before was always to distrust and humiliate the teacher whenever that could be done.

These regulations are there and they have been quoted at great length. The first of these regulations says: "Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgressions." What is a grave transgression? Who has defined what a grave transgression is or what minor transgressions are, in the everyday work of a school teacher? Who is to say what is and what is not grave under certain circumstances and what is minor under other circumstances? The second regulation issued by the Department demands: "In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons."

This is one thing on which this agitation has been built. What exactly does failure at lessons mean? It may mean a lot of things. The failure may be due to deliberate negligence on the part of the pupils. This regulation has been quoted a few times in the famous letters read out here. It has been said that this is one of the things for which a great deal of punishment is meted out. We know the traditional method by which religious instruction is taught in the primary schools—by question and answer. These questions have to be learned off by rote and if a child is given two or three questions as his homework, he has to learn these questions off by rote and he must know them in the morning. If it is plain in the morning that he has made no attempt whatever to study the questions or to bother his head about them, he is not punished according to the new law; he is not to be disciplined in any way; he is to write to certain public people and tell them he has been punished for failure at lesons. There are other instances of failures at lessons which are different altogether. There is such a thing as punishing a boy because he is backward and is unable to understand what is being done.

Another rule says: "Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment..." What is a light cane or rod? Rods and canes are of various sizes and of various weights, and who is to decide in any given circumstances whether the punishment is correct or not? These are things which must be left to the discretion of the teacher. This attempt to create chaos, discontent and uneasiness in the schools is, as Senator Professor Hayes said, only for the purpose of injuring or undermining the whole system of education.

The last regulation I wish to quote says: "Only the principal teacher, or such other member of the staff as may be duly authorised by the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment." This again may very well be an interference with the right of the parent who entrusts his child to the teacher and expects from him that he will be properly trained and disciplined.

I am sure that Senators have heard of the phrase "working to rule", which has been practised in some industries. If those, say, who are operating on the railways want to slow down the whole system, they work to rule. Could you imagine the teacher working to rule, waiting to weigh up whether or not the rod or cane is a proper instrument with which to administer punishment or whether the offence is a minor or a major one? Working to rule might very well upset the whole educational system.

We must remember that teachers undergo a rigid course of training in the practice and theory of their work during a long period. They have studied the psychology of the child mind and many other subjects connected with their work. We must assume that they are reasonable people. Of course, there may be exceptions but there is no use in reasoning—and I am surprised at the extent to which the Senator reasoned in this way—from the particular to the general. A few cases may be quoted and then we are told that this is happening all over the country; it is a general rule and punishment is rife.

These teachers, who are painted in some of these documents as sadists and almost monsters, who are they? Where do you find them in the country? How have the people risen up against these teachers? They have made them captains of their football teams. They have put them on their county councils and urban councils. They have put them into the Dáil and Seanad. That is the way these parents, who are supposed to be suffering from the teachers, have treated them. I do not wish to dwell at any great length on this matter although I could go into great detail indeed on it. I happened to be the first who drew public attention to this famous—if I may use the word—pamphlet and on two occasions I publicly challenged the bona fides of the people who are supposed to have published it. But we do not know yet who they are or anything about them.

There is just one other point made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington with which I would like to deal, because what he has said has been fairly well dealt with already. He issued a challenge to the Minister for Education that if he examined all the members of this body, both as to their nationality and religion, he would find nothing wrong. Of course, that was an easy challenge because neither the Minister nor anybody else knows who they are. Therefore, they could not answer the challenge.

He made sweeping statements about them.

Nobody knows who they are, although on at least two occasions I challenged them publicly. The teacher is exercising his right in administering reasonable punishment and I would go as far as to say that these regulations are not such as could be dealt with by a court and are not, in fact, dealt with by a court. They are not statutory regulations. If a case is brought before the court the duty of the court is to determine whether the alleged punishment has been excessive or not. That was very clearly brought out almost 40 years ago in a famous case which occurred in Dublin shortly after these official regulations came out. A teacher was summoned for alleged assault on a child and the case was heard in the Petty Sessions Court. It was found that there was no grave assault of any kind but that the regulation was not complied with, and therefore the case was given against the teacher. Finally it came before a court of appeal and it was laid down there that the matter was quite irrelevant, that it was one for the Department itself and not for the court.

In connection with these letters allegedly written to this association or to anybody else except those in authority, let me say that if a parent writes complaining about a teacher to the manager of the school, to the Minister for Education or anybody else in authority, that letter is a privileged document. So long as he can show that it is written in good faith and without malice, even though the complaint may not be justified, it is not actionable. Although it may be a libel it is not actionable. But if that same person writes the letter to the secretary of this protection association or to Senator Sheehy Skeffington, then there is no such privilege attaching to the letter. If the letter should be made known and the person about whom the complaint is made should see it, or even if a friend of his sees it and is able to swear he has seen it and has got a copy of it, then the writer of that letter may be sued for libel.

I do not know whether the people who invited these letters are deliberately or unconsciously—I do not know which it is—inviting people to write libels. Some of these letters are, I am quite satisfied, libels and that is why we have no names to them and no references. That is why we did not hear the names or references yesterday evening although I was anxiously waiting to hear one quoted from some of the pupils who were invited to write and complain about their teachers.

As Senator Hayes has pointed out, these are familiar tactics; and the purpose of all this business is to create chaos and discontent in the schools and among the teachers. Naturally, if there is discontent, education is bound to suffer, and other results will flow from that. Certain people can come in then and say that that discontent, with its resultant chaos, is due to a different cause altogether and not due to anything that was done by them or anything arising from other causes. I do not wish to dwell upon this at any great length but it is essential that we should expose the tactics of these people. I think sufficient attention has now been directed to them and I think the teachers and everybody else concerned will know as a result of that attention exactly what value to place upon them.

Táimid tar éis a bheith ag éisteacht lena lán Seanadóirí ag chur síos ar cheist seo na scoileanna. Ní main liom-sa páirt a bheith agam sa díospóireacht seo agus nior mheas mé go gcloisfinn an oiread sin ar an gceist seo. Ar ndóigh, ní raibh orm-sa páirt dá laghad a bheith agam san rud seo ach tá taithí agam ar na scoileanna agus tá colas maith agam ar an obair atá dhá dénamh ag na múinteoírí. Tá eolas maith ag éinne a bhfuil suim aige san scéal faoi an obair thábhachtach atá déanta agus atá dhá déanamh ag na múinteoirí i gceist na teangan. Tá na múinteóirí ag déanamh na hoibre seo chomh maith leis an obair eile atá le déanamh acu ins na scoileanna.

Déanfaidh mé tagairt beag anois don cheist seo faoi léasadh páistí ins na scoileanna. Dúbhradh anseo go raibh an léasadh sin ar siúl go ginerálta ach tá daoine ann a bhfuil a mhalairt de thuairim acu agus fágfaidh mé an scéal mar sin. Maidir le cúrsai oideachais, tá rudaí eile gur mhaith liom caint a dhéanamh futhu. Ceann acu sin is ea ceist seo na scrúduithe. Ceapann a lán daoine go bhfuil na scrúduithe ins na Meán Scoileanna ró-dheacair agus gurb é cuspóir na scrúduithe fháil amach cad iad na rudaí nach bhfuil eolas ag na páistí orthu seachas fháil amach cad iad na rudaí go bhfuil eolas acu orthu. Ceapann a lán daoine gur mar sin atá an scéal agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil an t-am tagtha anois chun scrúdú a dhéanamh ar an gceist. Ceapaim-re féin go bhfuil na scrúduithe ró-dheacair agus gur bhfearr do na páistí dá mbeadh na ceisteanna níos símplí. B'fhéidir go bhfuil Seanadóirí anseo nach bhfuil ar aon aigne liom ach sin é mo thuairim féin. Mar shompla, cheap mé go raibh na ceisteanna san bpas-pháipér i scrúdú na h-Ard-Teistiméireachta i mbliana níos deacra ná mar a bhí siad sna páipeír le onóireacha in aon scrúdú cheana.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh anois do rud eile seachas oideachas. Bhí a lán rá ag an Seanadóir Ó Buachalla ar an cheist seo faoi tionscail a bhunú sa nGaeltacht agus ba mbaith liom-sa cúpla focal a rá faoin rud chéana. Bhí na rudaí adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Buachalla chomh beacht agus chomh h-iomlán san nach raibh orm-sa rud ar bith a rá faoin scéal seo, ach ceapaim-se go bhfuil an t-am tagtha anois nuair is ceart scrúdú ginearálta a dhéanamh faoin Gaeltacht agus faoina tionscail a mba cheart a bheith ann. Chuir an tAire Talmhaíochta Bille os ár gcóir le goirid darab ainm an Bille um Tháirgeadh Síolta, 1955. Rinne an tAire tagairt do shíol prátaí nuair a bhí sé ag tabhairt freagra ar an díospóireacht, agus ba mhaith liom-sa anois a rá go mba cheart a chur ar fáil do mhuintir na Gaeltachta síol prataí a bheadh feilúnach don Ghaeltacht agus don sórt talaimh atá acu ansin. Dúirt an tAire go bhfuil marga don saghas sin síl ach sílim-se go mba cheart don Rialtas féachaint chuige go mbunófaí an tionscal so agus pratái síl mar sin do chur ar fáil do mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Sé mo thuairim gur féidir é sin a dhéanamh. Ní féidir le muintir na Gaeltachta iad fhéin rud mar sin a dhéanamh gan cabhair a fháil ón Rialtas.

Táim á chuimhneamh leis go bhféadfaí tionscal na bprátaí do leathnú i slí eile, is é sin, prátaí luatha do chur ar fás sa Ghaeltacht. Tá ceantar na Gaeltachta an-oiriúnach dóibh sin, mar ní chuireann an sioc isteach ar na prátaí san áit san cois fairrge in aon chor, nó, má chuireann, is beag é. Tá tionscail den tsórt sin in áiteanna i dtíortha eile agus tá margadh le fáil acu. Cuirim i gcás na hoileáin atá amach sa fairrge ó Shasana ar a dtugtar na Channel Islands. Tá tionscal na bprátaí ansin agus gheibheann siad pingin mhaith airgid air. Molaim é sin don Aire agus don Rialtas.

Ach, ní ceart dúinn bheith sásta leis an méid sin. Ba cheart dúinn machtnamh doimhin a dhéanamh féachaint cad iad na tionscail eile a fhéadfaí a chur ar bun san áit. Dar ndóigh, is beag an mhaith bheith ag cur síos ar conas ba cheart dúinn deireadh a chur leis an imirce agus mar sin de. Bímid ag cur síos ar an imirce agus, go deimhin, tá an imirce fá lán-tseoil faoi láthair. Ach, is beag an mhaith bheith ag trácht air mura bhfuil leigheas éigin againn nó mura lorgaimid leigheas éigin.

Dá bhrí sin, táimse ar mo chosa anso inniu chun a iarraidh ar an Rialtas machtnamh a dhéanamh ar scéal san na Gaeltachta. Tá cuid déanta cheana féin. Ná beireadh aon duine leis nach bhfuil aon rud déanta ar son na Gaeltachta. Go deimhin tá. Tá oibreacha áirithe ar siúl sa Ghaeltacht cheana féin, oibreacha a cuireadh ar bun, tionscail a cuireadh ar bun roinnt blianta ó shoin faoi stiúradh Rialtais Fhianna Fáil agus cuid fen Rialtas a bhí rómpa. Cuireadh scéim ar bun le h-aghaidh trátaí d'fhás in áiteanna áirithe sa Ghaeltacht agus bhí coinne againn go leathnófaí an scéim sin, ach nuair a tháinig athrú Rialtais níor leathnuíodh é.

Is amhlaidh bhí lucht áirithe polaitíochta ag magadh faoin scéim ach, fé mar is clos domhsa, is tionscal maith é sin agus gheibheann na daoine sna háiteanna san pingin mhaith airgid as.

So much has been said in English in this debate that my remarks in that language will be brief. We are at a disadvantage in dealing with this Appropriation Bill because we do not know exactly what the present policy of the Government is or what their future policy will be. It is usual on occasions like this for the spokesman of the Government, whoever he may be, to give an outline to the Oireachtas, whatever House of the Oireachtas it would be, of the plans that the Government have in mind for the advancement of the country's social and economic welfare but neither on the occasion of the introduction of the annual Budget nor subsequently, did the Minister give us any indication of what the policy of his Government is in relation to the many problems that face the country to-day.

I went to the trouble—of course, it was not very much trouble—of reading the speech of the Taoiseach when he presented his Estimate to the Dáil and I could not find anything there either that would indicate that the Government have any plans in mind for the solution of the country's problems.

Reference has already been made to some of them. The question of rising prices, of course, has been debated fully here and I do not want to tire Senators with any lengthy reference now to it. All I will say is that it appears that the Government have given up the ghost as far as controlling rising prices is concerned and that the position now is that they seem to be content that prices are not rising further. It is not now a question of bringing down the high prices of essential commodities. They seem now quite content to be able to say that the price index figure has gone up by only three points.

That is a complete change from the former position when they accused their predecessors of deliberately keeping prices up. One would imagine by the way they spoke in former days that there was a ready remedy for the control of rising prices. Now they say they made no promises but, even if the spokesmen of the present Government never made a promise, there surely was an implication in the way they went around the country condemning the Fianna Fáil Government because prices were so high that they themselves had a remedy if they would only get the chance from the people. The people have given them the chance. In what way are they utilising it to bring down the cost of living?

Another problem has arisen now in connection with the very same thing, that is, the increase in the price of coal. This is a problem that the Government will have to give very serious attention to.

Would the Senator state what particular Vote he is alluding to?

The Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not want to go into these matters in detail. If one were to go into all of these Estimates in detail we should be here for months. I am only just referring en passant to a problem that presents itself to the country to-day in connection with the rising price of coal, which, I understand, is due to a fall in production in Britain. Unfortunately, we are in a position here in which we have to suffer the repercussions——

Do not forget that there has been an increase in the wages for miners in Britain. We have no control over that.

In all probability the miners are entitled to their increase.

They are.

However, I am quite certain that if the position were reversed and if certain people sitting over there were sitting over here they would charge the Government with being too complacent about this matter. They would accuse them of not finding a remedy for the solution of this problem, because a problem it is. If the price of coal keeps ever-soaring —as it has been and as it is—I fear it will be beyond the resources of the poor people of this country to have any fuel for the winter.

Undoubtedly, it is a serious problem. It is a salutary reminder to us that we should turn our attention more and more to the development of our own fuel resources. The development of our own fuel resources was always the policy of Fianna Fáil. Among many other things, they were always mindful of the potentialities of our country and the development of our own fuel resources was one of these. I remember, however, that, when they advised the people of this country to save more turf and to fall back more and more on their own fuel resources, they were treated with contempt by certain politicians. Now, I think the time has come when the whole position should be reviewed in the light of what I have described as the serious position in regard to imported coal.

I was intrigued to hear Senator McGuire talk about the policy of the present Government with regard to inspectors. It was well known, he said, that this Government were not out to use inspectors. However, if he were here quite recently—I think he was but may be he has forgotten, because sometimes people have short memories—he would have heard the Minister for Agriculture speak on the Seeds Bill, which is now an Act, and talk of the provision he was making for the employment of inspectors to look after the farmers in the care of their seeds.

There is a difference between making provision and using it. He will not have to use it unless he wants to. It is an all-time power.

Surely it would be strange for a Minister to come in here and seek authority to do a certain thing if, in fact, he did not mean to do it? I want to say a few words now on the subject of agriculture in general. I do not pose as a great agriculturist but I think the time has come when we should examine our whole position regarding this industry. The volume of production from the land of this country has gone up very little especially in comparison to what has taken place in other countries. It is about time we examined the whole position to find out how we can improve it.

I should like, now, to refer to the bringing of scientific research and demonstration to bear on farming in this country. A beginning has already been made in that direction but this Government cannot claim much credit for it. There is great credit due to Macra na Feirme for their good work and also for the idea of the pilot farm. In my view, the idea of the pilot farm is very good and should be extended with more encouragement from the Government because a pilot farm in one part of the country would not suit other parts of the country. It is a practical idea that farmers would take to. They would pay much greater attention to it than they would pay to the leaflets and pamphlets that might be issued from time to time by the Department of Agriculture. I do not want to detain the House any longer as already a good deal of time has been taken up on this debate.

Last night we were taken on an oratorical flight above the clouds by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. Not having any professorial appendages to my name, perhaps, as an ordinary man in the street, I might be allowed to say I was amazed at the attack made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on a very noble profession. Every member of this House and every man and woman in the country owes a vast amount to our teachers whether primary, technical or secondary. Senator Sheehy Skeffington must be a distinguished man to occupy the position which he does, but he distinguished himself in another way last night and I must confess I was very disagreeably surprised. His attack on the teaching profession simply amazed me and my personal view is that that attack on those members of a profession to whom we all of us owe so much for the way in which they inculcated the rudiments of our education was a horrible exhibition, coming from a man occupying his position.

We soared above the clouds last night in a plane of oratorical fury and I propose now to plunge down to earth and to concern myself with the more mundane facts of everyday life.

I hope the Senator has a parachute.

I propose to come down to earth because I do not wish to wander around subjects which I am incapable of understanding. On the occasion of a debate such as this at which the Minister for Finance is present, the opportunity is always availed of to attack the Government. The Opposition always avail of the opportunity to attack the man who occupies the prominent position of Minister for Finance, which is one of the most prominent in the whole Cabinet, because he is the guardian of the nation's finances and the custodian of the nation's purse, but we on this side realise that we have in the present Minister a young man who is shouldering the very onerous duties that devolve upon him in a way which has earned for him the complete confidence of the people.

The Minister realises that it is not the money of Senators he is spending but the money which comes out of the pockets of the plain ordinary people. A mandate has been given to the Government to tighten the purse-strings, for the simple reason that the people feel that we have gone far enough in the direction of excessive expenditure and the Minister is spending their money in a way in which we would spend our own money. That is the mandate given to the Government and any Government that deviates from that line will find it ticked off against itself when the occasion presents itself in three or four years' time. When that time comes, I have no doubt that the people will show their confidence in this Government as they have shown it on many occasions in the past.

This Government intends to live within its means, because a Government is like a business or a profession, and if a businessman does not live within what he can afford there can be only one result—bankruptcy. The days of wildcat schemes have gone and any schemes embarked upon by this Government since they came into office have been good schemes, and every member of the Government is actuated by one ideal only, to do his best for the people who reposed confidence in that Government 12 or 14 months ago.

The rural electrification scheme and the withdrawal of the subsidy has been mentioned by many Senators. It is amazing to see in my part of the country the vast network which has sprung up and which has resulted in electricity percolating, so to speak, into very far away places, bringing amenities to people who live long distances from towns. That scheme was one of the finest schemes ever started and it is a matter of satisfaction for those of us who have been supporters of this Government for a long number of years that it is no longer referred to as the "white elephant" of days gone by. It has brought happiness to many homes and it is grand for those of us who travel our constituencies at night to see all the lights and the most modern appliances being used. As to the withdrawal of subsidy, according to the returns which we were given within the past few days, the E.S.B. has shown a very fine profit of £900,000 odd for last year, and in relation to a concern like the E.S.B. which has shown such a return, I do not blame the Government for deciding to let it stand on its own feet for the future.

The present Minister is doing a very fine job and he is to be highly commended on the stand he took some months ago when the bank rate in England was moved up and he did not agree that the Irish banks should follow suit. Business people who may have to go to the bank for anything from £500 to £50,000 realise that an increase in the bank rate places on their shoulders a very serious impost and the Minister, in my opinion, did the right thing in the action he took. It may seem a small thing, but in the case of large industrial concerns which may want £50,000, £100,000 or £200,000, a 1 per cent. increase in the bank rate means a lot and, in the end, is bound to increase the cost of the products they produce.

Another tribute to the Minister and his Government was the success of the National Loan floated some five or six months ago. The ordinary people show their confidence in a Government when they are prepared to put their hands in their pockets. That is the acid test. We hear people, politicians and others, saying that there is no confidence in this Government, but I take it as an indication of confidence when a man is prepared to invest in a National Loan which is floated for the betterment of the people.

These debates are inclined to become rather like a gramophone record, with members of the Government Parties eulogising the Minister and the Government—and I feel that they are very deserving of these eulogies—and the Opposition, who, when on this side of the House, took credit for everything, criticising the very things for which they perhaps were responsible. The criticism we have listened to yesterday and to-day reminds me of a gramophone record, with the music going round and round, and I feel that whoever will be here in ten years' time will find the same record being played.

Reference has been made here to the nice of coal. It must be apparent to us that we have nothing to do with the increase of 12/6 which took place in the last month or two. It was due, as any businessman knows, to the costings at the other side. There was a time when coal was imported in my home town, Youghal, and I remember schooners of 200 or 300 tons coming in and carts being loaded at the quay side with five or six tons at £1 per ton. Those days are gone and we must realise we are living in a different age, for better or otherwise. I think everyone is more prosperous and contented nowadays. Throwing the blame at the door of this Government for increases in the price of coal at Garston or the Bristol Channel, is not cutting any ice.

There is something to be proud of here in the last 12 months in the unemployment figures, which have reached the lowest for many years. There is far more employment than there was seven or eight years ago. There are now 40,000 unemployed, according to the last document circulated by the Statistics Office. Many of that 40,000 are unemployed through physical disability or because they are otherwise unable to work. There is no use in the Opposition trying to state otherwise. There is far more employment now than ever I can remember— and I can go back 30 or 35 years, to when I was a young fellow, down in the South.

It is practically impossible to get a man nowadays in the towns in my constituency, as there is full employment. That is not due to any Government, although Governments have taken the credit for factories started in the last eight or ten years. I want to make it clear that no Government ever started a factory or put a man into industrial employment. The people responsible for starting industries, giving decent and lucrative employment to the boys and men and girls in their own towns, are the promoters of such concerns and the plain people who had the foresight and business acumen and above all— the acid test—the courage to invest their cash, their hard earnings over 25 or 30 years, in concerns that would give work to their own countrymen. Let us cease to play politics about this. Let us give credit to those to whom it is due, to those who started the factories.

It is wonderful to see, in our drives up to Dublin and around the country, the factories everywhere giving decent employment. It should be the ambition of us all to see that it is not necessary for any man to leave our shores to seek employment in foreign fields. It is rather disturbing to hear those who speak for the West say that the same picture does not obtain down there. I have heard here—as I heard in the Dáil for six and a half years when I was a Deputy — the representatives from the West dealing with this problem. I have travelled through Connemara and I have wondered how the people could make a living in such places, with holdings of only two or three acres and rocks strewn around. Something must be done about that problem. No one wants to see the West of Ireland denuded of its population. It is far too serious a problem and it needs the united brains of all Parties. It is far too serious a matter for any political Party to try to cash in on.

Members of all Parties should unite to do something to prevent any further exodus from the West. We now have professional politicians in this country who never start anything but just talk about it and talk is the only contribution they ever make. We must give credit to the men who are prepared to do their best. I do not wish to delay the House or be placed in the category of a gramophone myself. The Government should be given credit for anything it has done. No one can deny that this country is experiencing a period of prosperity never achieved before. All the signs are that we are set for a bountiful harvest and that there is a bright future in store for the country—and for that thanks be to God and no one else. We must give credit to the Government where they deserve it, whether on the Fianna Fáil side or this side. There should be no pin pricking because the cost of coal goes up in England.

Reference was made to turf a few minutes ago. Some of us have unhappy memories of the turf problem some years ago, when turf was described in the Dáil as lumps of wet mud and when the people were rooked right, left and centre. It is no wonder the name of turf is nauseating to some of us. I say to the Minister: "Carry on with your job, sir; you have undertaken a big job, but it is not too big for a man of your calibre and you, as a representative of this Government, are carving out a niche in the affections of the people that will keep this Government in office for many years to come."

Everyone will agree that Senator O'Gorman has paid a very eloquent tribute to the Government. In order not to change the trend of the discourse, I would like to add an even greater tribute to the present Government by declaring that one of the best things they have done so far is that on broad fundamentals they have followed very closely on the programme marked out by their predecessors. It is only to the extent that they have departed from that policy that they have gone wrong.

A debate such as this gives the House an opportunity of reviewing the policy and the achievements of the Government for the past year and it gives the Government and their spokesmen an opportunity of outlining what they propose to do in the coming year. It might be of some advantage to all of us if I were to give now a short quotation from an editorial which appeared in the chief organ of Coalition opinion in this country on this very day. In the editorial in the Irish Independent to-day it states:—

"There is a tendency among some sections of the public to assume that all is well with the national economy. This is an attitude which is not justified. It is true that agricultural and industrial production has risen appreciably; and this is something of consequence. But there the ground for complacency disappears."

I am not going to quote the entire article, but it goes on to deplore the extent to which the indebtedness of the nation has increased and the insecurity that appears in many aspects of the present economic position.

In the statistical survey for 1954 it is made clear that the national income has continued to rise steadily. That is a fairly good index. It has also made clear that the number of persons employed has been increasing since 1952. That is significant because there were people who told us that the policy of Fianna Fáil in 1952 would bring ruin, decay and disaster upon the nation; that no further economic progress would be made and that employment would decline as a result of the action taken then. But the figures for employment increased in 1953, clearly showing that the policy of the Government had not that effect. They continued to increase in 1954 when there was no change or reversal of that financial policy. I am sure that when the figures for the present year come to be published they will show that that trend has steadily continued. Thus, the policy of 1952 has produced beneficial results.

Let us put it the other way—the Government would like, perhaps, to put it in a more disparaging way to their predecessors—the policy of 1952 has not prevented an upward trend in employment, national income, agricultural and industrial output.

But employment fell in 1952 and 1953; it was only in 1954 that employment got back to the 1951 levels.

Employment was increasing in 1953. There was a steady upward trend.

No, it was still below the 1951 level.

If the Minister looks up the employment figures for 1953, he will find that they show a marked reduction as compared with 1952. I have not got the figure at the moment but if the Minister looks the matter up he will find that the employment figure for 1953 is very considerably reduced as compared with 1952.

The Senator said the employment figures were greater. They are not as good as the 1951 figures.

The trend there was very apparent. Employment was increasing. In 1953 agricultural output increased, industrial output increased and there is also the significant fact that in each year since 1952 the——

The Senator said he had not the figures. Would he like me to send them across to him? He will find that the percentage in 1953 was 9.6 as compared with 9.1 in 1952. It went up.

I have the figures for the total number employed and they do rather contradict the statement made by Senator O'Gorman a moment ago. The figures in regard to agriculture and industry are not combined. In agriculture there has been a decline each year practically down through the years. I will deal with that later. Let us take the figures for 1952. The total in industry in 1952 was 221,000; 1953, 224,000; and 1954, 228,000. That looks to me very like an increase.

What about the 1951 figures? They were just about 226,000. They dropped back 5,000 and it was not until 1954 that the lapse was caught up with.

Is it not quite clear from that that since 1952 the volume of employment has been increasing steadily? The Minister wants to know why the volume of employment dropped in 1952 as compared with 1951. Does the Minister not think that there is a very clear and definite relationship between that figure and the figures of the balance of payments and external balance of trade for 1951? In 1951 there was a deficit in our balance of payments of £61,000,000 brought about by the most extraordinary and enormous imports that this country has ever experienced. Could it be possible that such a phenomenal increase in imports could take place without it having an effect upon industrial employment and commercial employment?

Hardly on building, for example. The buildings could hardly be transported here.

Materials are very essential in building and if you have a heavy import of building materials it is absolutely certain——

Was there not a national reason for stockpiling?

I am not condemning the stockpiling in the least. I am just saying we did import enormously during that year for reasons which appeared to be good at the time. We happened to be facing a third world war. I am not talking of Government stockpiling but of national stockpiling. Every businessman tried to import all he could during that period but that stockpiling led to a recession in business, commerce and industry which was absolutely inevitable. It happened not only here but in Great Britain. It happened probably in other European countries as well. It was absoluately inevitable. I think it is now accepted that in the existing circumstances the then Government did what was best for the country.

If they were wrong, their successors would immediately have taken steps to rectify the wrong. If the Government were wrong in imposing some additional taxation on certain commodities such as beer, cigarettes and petrol and if that increased taxation had an adverse effect, then the first action of their successors would have been to remove those taxes. If the Government in 1952 was wrong in reducing expenditure on food subsidies then their successors would have restored those subsidies in full and I think that is quite apparent to everyone. But they have not done so; they have in fact endorsed the policy that was adopted then, and by endorsing it acknowledged that in their opinion it was right.

Where the present Government did make the mistake—and it is a mistake that is having repercussions upon the people themselves and the country at the present time—was in misleading the people into believing that a mere change of Government would bring about a substantial amelioration of the conditions of the people in regard to the cost of living in particular. I think it was wrong to deceive people in that way. I have no sympathy with hardened politicians on the Government side who endorsed the promises that were made by the Coalition Parties prior to coming into office. They did not believe, perhaps, that those promises were genuine, but as live members of their Parties they were as anxious that their Parties would get into power as were the leaders. The people who were wronged and the people who were made to suffer were the people who honestly believed that by merely marking their ballot papers in favour of the Coalition Parties they would get a relief or a reduction in their family outlay. Those people have been cruelly deceived and cruelly wronged and those are the people who are walking the streets to-day.

The strike among the assistants in the licensed vintners' trade is just one example of the reaction of the decent middle class and working people to a cruel deception that has been played upon them by those who are now in office. If the change of Government had brought relief it would not be necessary for other sections of the working community to consider, as they are now considering, taking some action to improve their position.

It is, of course, as we all agree now, utterly false to accuse Fianna Fáil of being responsible for the high cost of living. It is higher to-day than it ever was during the Fianna Fáil régime and in this I am taking up what was said by Senator O'Gorman. He was anxious that we should not seek to make party points. If he is honest in that standpoint let him and those who think like him, come out and confess they were wrong when they accused Fianna Fáil of increasing the cost of living. The cost of living went up almost 12 points in the last 12 months.

About three points since this time 12 months.

If Senator L'Estrange would exercise some control over his bumptiousness I would explain the position in simple language.

We like the truth.

The cost of living went up nine points in the period of six months prior to May, 1951, in the last six months in the life of the first Coalition Government. It was up two further points almost before the incoming Government had got down to work in their various Departments and during the next three years it rose a further 13 or 14 points.

I think it would not be fair—and I am prepared to give this to the incoming Government also—to charge the incoming Government with increases of at least two points which took place almost before they had taken office, but we will take the official figures if you like. It went up nine points in the last six months of the first inter-Party or Coalition Government—to give them their correct title. In the 15 years and the three years their predecessors were in office—

Where do you get the nine points in the last six months?

The six months prior to May, 1951.

What is the 15?

The increase took place between September and the period when the Coalition went out of office.

That was during the period that you were supporting us.

Oh no—I was never a supporter of the Coalition. I was an Independent Deputy as the Minister must know and I think it is no harm to drive that point home at the present time. Those of us who were Independents never regarded ourselves as being supporters of the Coalition.

But you always voted with them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That matter should be left aside because it does not properly arise on the Bill.

The point I am making is that that trend was continuous. It happened during the first Coalition. It happened during the Fianna Fáil administration and it has continued during the present Government's time —an upward trend in the cost of living, brought about by a number of factors some detrimental to this country such as the increase in the price of imports and some beneficial to this country such as an increase in the price of agricultural exports.

Imports fell by over 30 points from 1951 to 1953, from 324 in September, 1951 to 289 in September, 1953.

I do not know——

These are the figures in the official statistics.

I do not know whether the Senator prefers to make his speech by way of interruption. I understand he is prohibited from speaking in the ordinary way and he may have to do it by way of interruption.

Might we inquire why he was prohibited? Who prohibited him?

That is what I understand.

He seems to be making his points anyway.

That is the position at the moment.

It is very far from it.

We have now an acknowledgment on the part of those who are supporting the Government that their predecessors were right. We, on the other hand, are generously prepared to acknowledge that the members of this Government are right in so far as they have followed in the main the policy of their predecessors. We have given our approval to most of the items contained in the Book of Estimates and to the provisions of this Bill. There is a certain amount of agreement on both sides of the House but there is some constructive criticism which must be offered and I think we, on this side of the House, are entitled to make that criticism. In doing that we are not following what Senator O'Gorman has described as "the old routine" or "the old record". That is not so at all. It is the duty of those who are not tied to Government, who are free to contribute to debate in a deliberative assembly, to put forward their views as fairly as they can and as moderately as they can. We consider certain actions or decisions taken by the Government over the past year absolutely and completely wrong. On a previous occasion here the Minister questioned my right to defend Fianna Fáil on the ground that I had not been long enough a member of that Party. I certainly think I have a right to criticise Fine Gael because I have been critical of that Party, as the Minister knows, since 1954 when he and I were engaged in controversy in the public Press.

Early 1955 and the end of 1954. If the Minister wishes to have the quotation I can give it to him. He and I were engaged in public controversy in regard to Fine Gael at that time. I will not say anything about the Labour Party——

That is the only Party the Senator has never been in.

I have been a long-term opponent of Fine Gael.

Except when the Senator was looking for preference votes in Wicklow.

I do not know whether the Minister is in order in bringing election propaganda, or anything else, into this debate. I have always been lucky enough in elections to secure more preferences from Fianna Fáil than from Fine Gael. If we go back over the years, I have been elected on more occasions through Fianna Fáil rather than through Fine Gael.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

With that explanation, the Senator will now return to the Bill.

The Senator and I privately will look at these statistics at some other time in deference to the Chair, and my words will be proved right.

We shall have some fun. Two main decisions were taken by the present Government in relation to our main industry, agriculture. The first was the decision to reduce the price of wheat. The second was the decision to increase the price of feeding stuffs for pigs while, at the same time, taking action which resulted in depressing the price of pigs. I have already dealt with the price of wheat to some extent. The Minister for Finance showed a certain amount of good sense on the Finance Bill because he did not support the Minister for Agriculture in his denunciation of wheat growers as racketeers. The Minister is perhaps too well informed and too intelligent to be deceived by the kind of propaganda that was disseminated at the time the price of wheat was reduced, namely, that the growing of wheat at the fixed price then operated had led to a system of racketeering in wheat growing.

We all know that racketeering is both dishonest and unjust. If there was something in the policy of growing wheat or in the price of wheat that led to injustice, fraud, dishonesty or racketeering, as it was so described, then there was certainly something to be condemned. But I think everybody realises now that there was no truth whatever in the suggestion that there was widespread racketeering in wheat growing. Large acreages of wheat were grown and the man who has the courage to invest money in growing wheat on the land of Ireland instead of investing that money in British colonial development, or in British or foreign enterprise generally, is to be commended rather than condemned.

The only thing that would be wrong in relation to the growing of any particular crop would be the growing of the same crop on the same land for a number of years. The extent of such malpractices would represent less than 1 per cent. of the total acreage grown for farmers do not, as a rule, mine their land of its fertility. The average farmer will not do that. He will make sacrifices rather than do it. I said then, and I repeat it now, that it was a slander on our farming community as a whole to accuse them of mining their land in order to reap a fair price for wheat. The Minister for Finance shifted away from the ground that had been muddied by his colleague.

Of course, the Minister for Agriculture never said what the Senator has just represented him as saying.

The Minister for Agriculture stated most emphatically that there was racketeering on a wide scale.

That is different from what the Senator said first.

He said there was racketeering on a large scale and that as much as 1,000 acres of wheat were grown by certain people. Will the Minister dare to say that there is anything wrong in growing 100 or 1,000 acres of wheat if the land is available for that purpose? Is it not better for a man to put his money into growing wheat on the land of Ireland rather than invest it in the development of some other country? It is not true to say that these men who grew large acreages were racketeers and speculators; in most cases they were the enterprising sons of farmers—in some cases they were businessmen—anxious to embark on an enterprise which would bring them a return; and, remember, the return was of a very questionable nature. It was doubtful as to whether or not they would get any return at all. They had a spirit of enterprise and they had energy; and I think they should be commended for that.

I do not know any Irish farmer who is a Jewman.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

All Senators will be given an opportunity to speak in this debate and Senator Cogan must now be allowed to continue without interruption.

I resent any attack being made upon any Irish citizen's religion, or, indeed, upon any person's religion. If a man embarks on an honest enterprise, which is legal and justifiable and beneficial to the nation, no one should question his religion; and this enterprise of growing wheat was beneficial to the nation. That accusation was made. The Minister for Finance departed from that. He took a different line. He said there was a danger of over-production, a danger that we might produce more wheat than we could consume here, and that was the real reason that moved the Government to reduce the price. He said there was even a danger we might have to export wheat. If the Minister looks back over the records he will find that we never once approached the position in which we were producing enough wheat to supply even our own needs. We require 450,000 tons. We have never gone anywhere near producing that amount and there never was the slightest danger of our having an exportable surplus.

What about the 250,000 tons we had to take from the international pool?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange will be given an opportunity of speaking whenever he desires to do so. Senator Cogan must be allowed to continue his speech from this on without interruption.

The Minister considered the point an important one; he said there was a real danger of our having an exportable surplus. In order to have an exportable surplus we would need to produce 600,000 acres. I think we did produce that in some years. If the Minister looks back over the records, he will find that in each of the years prior to 1954 the yield per acre varied from 18 cwt. down to 15 cwt. That would be green wheat. Removing the moisture from that wheat would further reduce the amount of wheat. On these figures it will be seen that, even with the very high acreage grown in 1954, we did not go anywhere near producing enough for our needs. I do not know if the figure for dried wheat in 1954 is yet available. I think the total amount of green wheat delivered to the mill was considerably below 360,000 tons. At least one-fourth of that amount must be taken off for loss of moisture. At least 50,000 tons must be reserved for seed.

When the Minister's predecessor made an estimate of 300,000 tons of dried wheat he was estimating fairly what we would be likely to produce at the price then obtaining. In 1954 the acreage rose to a very high level. We all know now that a number of factors caused that increase in acreage— factors which did not occur before and are not likely to occur again. There was, in particular, the uncertainty that prevailed in regard to the future of the cattle trade following upon decontrol. The situation that existed then may never occur again.

Why should the Government, because in one year there was a fairly substantial acreage, take action to reduce the price? There was not a very high production and, of course, the Government now say that the fact that there was not a very high production was due to the abnormal weather conditions. They will not admit for one moment that the high acreage was due to abnormal trade conditions. They want to have the best of both sides of the argument, but they cannot be allowed to get away with that.

If the price of wheat had remained at the level of £4 2s. 6d. the acreage would have declined this year. There is no doubt about that. The acreage will settle itself in or around the area which will reach the target at which the Fianna Fáil Government aimed, namely, 300,000 tons per year. As a result of the rather savage cut in the price of wheat, there has also been a reduction in the acreage under beet. Beet and wheat go together. The farmer grows beet in order to clean the land he intends to use for wheat growing in the following year. The return from beet is not very big but it is a valuable crop because it improves tillage land and it is, therefore, closely linked up with the growing of wheat.

We have now a substantial reduction in the acreage under beet, a reduction of 20,000 acres. That will have a detrimental effect upon our national economy. It will reduce the number of men employed in the sugar factories. It will reduce the number of men employed in transport. It will reduce the number of men employed on the land and it will add to our external trade difficulties. I think the step taken by the Government, drastic and savage as it was, was taken without due consideration. But that decision has now been taken and I presume it cannot be altered.

I said that the Government took a strange and utterly undesirable decision in relation to pig production. Over the years, the present Minister for Agriculture has always claimed that he was in favour of cheap pig feeding for those engaged in pig producing and at frequent intervals he denounced the giving of reasonably good prices to farmers for barley and other feeding stuffs used in pig production. Nevertheless, one of the first actions of the present Government was to sanction an increase in the price charged by the millers for wheat offals. No attempt was made to justify that increase. It had the effect of forcing up the price of feeding stuffs for pigs from £29, the price at which it stood when this Government took office, to £33 per ton, the price which obtains to-day. That must represent a very severe burden on those who are engaged in that particular branch of agriculture, as are most of those who own farms, particularly those who own small farms. The small farmer does, and always has, depended to a very large extent on pig production but the cost of his feeding stuffs has been increased over the past year from £29 per ton to £33 per ton as a direct result of Government action deliberately taken.

I know there was a reason for taking this action. The reason was to better the position of the Minister for Finance in regard to revenue, to reduce expenditure, if you like, on the bread subsidy. That was the reason, I understand that was behind this proposal to increase the price of feeding stuffs. At the same time, the price of pigs has been depressed and I would say the Government has a considerable share in the blame for the reduction that has taken place in the price of pigs. It is not, of course, due to any action by the Minister for Finance except in his position as having collective responsibility in the Government but I think it is due in the main to action taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

There was a continual barrage of attack upon the bacon curers and the association to the effect that they were making excessive profits and the threat was made that steps would be taken to reduce the price of bacon. They retaliated by reducing the price of pigs, so that the price of pigs, which was 240/- per cwt. dead weight when the present Government went out of office is 215/- per cwt. to-day. With an increase of £4 per ton in the price of feeding stuffs and with a reduction of 25/- per cwt. in the price of pigs, it is easy to see that pig production must decline.

There is a slogan which we used to hear very often in this House and elsewhere: "Keep one more sow." But nobody, I think, utters that slogan to-day because every hour of the day, every day of the week, one can see one more sow making its way to the nearest bacon factory, to emerge in due course as somebody's delicious skinless or skin sausages. The sow population and the pig population generally are going down and must continue to go down because farmers have now reached a stage in their development— whether it is as a result of the education they received in the primary schools, the further education that they received elsewhere or as a result of corporal punishment—where they are not prepared to work for nothing.

There used to be in rural Ireland a kind of female drudge who fed pigs for the pure love of it; there were sometimes womenfolk, members of the farmer's own family or sometimes employees, who got very little in the way of remuneration apart from their food and who were satisfied to feed pigs for no wages at all. In that way pig production was made economic, but that day has passed. Nobody will continue to work for nothing in this country as long as we have within a few hours' journey from us another country where people will be paid for working. As a result, the pig producing industry is being brought to a standstill.

When we consider that the whole future of this country depends upon our ability to provide an improved livelihood for our people, that it depends in the main upon our ability to make the small farm economic, in the sense that a family can live upon a small farm in reasonable comfort— when we consider these things and consider how important the pig-raising industry is, would it not be possible and desirable for the Government, acting in co-operation with the bacon curing industry, to fix a fair minimum price below which the producer would not be expected to sell pigs?

It may astonish some members of this House who talk about the prosperity of the Irish farmer to know that, while the price paid to the Irish farmer for bacon pigs is £10 15s. per cwt., the price across the Border or in Great Britain is £15 8s. per cwt. That is almost £5 more per cwt.—not per pig; the price per pig would probably be about £8 more. That price is paid to the farmers in Northern Ireland; yet we talk about ending Partition. How can you expect the small farmers of County Down, County Armagh and other counties of Northern Ireland to come into a State where they will receive £8 less for each pig produced on the farm there?

As a result of this disparity between the price paid to our producers here and the price paid in Northern Ireland, there has developed a peculiar racket. We used to hear a great deal about rackets but there is nothing more amazing than the present racket in regard to pigs. The adventures of Count Curly Wee are nothing to the adventures of the ordinary bacon pig. He is first smuggled across the Border, becomes, if you like, an invisible export; he is branded there and a very substantial subsidy is paid on him. He is then smuggled back across the Border; he becomes an invisible re-import, so to speak, and he travels to an Irish bacon factory where he is killed and cured. If he is a first-class pig he is then sent, perhaps, across to Great Britain as a visible export. He goes through all those stages.

Senator Tunney wants to know the economics of this. The economics are that there is a subsidy paid by the British Government and the Government of Northern Ireland on pigs sold in a public market in Northern Ireland. Once they are sold they are branded so that the subsidy cannot be paid twice within the same country. The pig does not become eligible for a second subsidy in the Six Counties but, if the subsidy is left out, he is worth a little more in the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, he comes back to be sold to an Irish bacon factory at a price slightly higher than the unsubsidised price in the Six Counties. After that, he can be dealt with in any way. He can be exported as bacon or consumed within this country. That is a matter that the Government must take note of because I do not think it is benefiting this State inasmuch as that you have a number of pigs being exported alive out of this country coming back and glutting a market which is at present over-supplied.

I should have mentioned the last chapter of that pig's history. If he does happen to be exported to Britain, he carries on his back a subsidy from the Irish bacon consumer, which is the strangest thing of all. At the present time, the bacon curers are operating a system under which exports to Britain are subsidised out of the price charged to the Irish consumer. In other words, two-thirds of the bacon produced here is consumed at home, one-third is exported and the bacon curers charge a sufficiently high price for the bacon they sell at home to enable them to sell the exports at a low price on the British market. Everybody who consumes bacon here is helping to ensure that the people on the other side of the water or across the Border will get a cheaper rasher than they otherwise would have. That is a matter which deserves immediate attention.

The whole policy of the Government in regard to the matter was utterly wrong, utterly incompetent. There is urgent need for a reorganisation of the whole bacon curing industry in some way or other, first of all, to give security to the home producer, a guarantee of a fair price over a period of at least one year. Consideration was given to that matter in the past but somehow or other it did not come about. After that, every precaution should be taken to ensure that the margin between the price paid to the producer and the price ultimately charged to the consumer would be as narrow as possible. There should be maximum efficiency in the whole industry to ensure that.

It is wrong that pigs exported from this country, if they are to be subsidised at all, should carry an invisible subsidy. If the export of bacon is to be subsidised, let it be done openly in the broad light of day. Let us not have this two-price system under which the bacon curers sell bacon cheaply in Great Britain and sell it at a higher price on the home market.

The Government should take their courage in their hands and endeavour, in consultation with the producers' organisations, the co-operative bacon societies and everybody concerned, to get this matter straightened out. We cannot afford to let the pig-producing industry die. It is too important. Whatever measures are required to reestablish it should be taken, even though they may involve drastic changes.

In the debate on another Bill I was endeavouring to put forward a few constructive suggestions to the Government in regard to the joint problems of unemployment and emigration and found that I was out-stepping the rules of order to a certain extent and that the matter could be dealt with more appropriately on this Bill. I am one of those who hold that there is no point in bandying words between one side of the House and the other as to which Party or which Government has provided the most employment or under which Party the greater measure of unemployment has developed. The unemployment figure, to a great extent, is governed by the volume of emigration. If there is a high figure of emigration then there will be a low figure of unemployment here.

If anything should happen to interfere with the free export of human beings from this country, our unemployment problem would become very, very serious. That is something to which every Party in this House must give attention, apart from the fact that it is a deplorable thing and a serious reflection upon our prestige and reputation as a well-developed nation that we should have to depend for the solvency of our economic system upon the export of the entire natural annual increase in population, to the extent of 25,000. As the matter is so serious, all Parties should be prepared to cooperate in tackling the problems that must be tackled boldly and courageously if we are to provide employment here for our people.

You, Sir, yesterday, dealt with one particular industry which has been closed down. It is a pity that any hasty step of that kind should be taken. It is a pity that people should get up in this House and talk disparagingly about Irish peat, as Senator O'Gorman did to-day. We all know that we suffered during the war by reason of a certain amount of inefficiency that existed in the peat-producing industry. A good deal of that has been remedied through bold and courageous action in setting up a company to develop our bogs by mechanical means. A great deal still requires to be done and the Government would be doing useful work in trying to see how a fine spell of weather, such as we have had in the past few weeks, could be utilised to add to our fuel supplies. There should be someone on the alert at all times to take advantage of such a period. Turf production, like many other big branches of development in this State, is, to a certain extent, dependent upon weather conditions. We have, perhaps, the most deplorable kind of climate in the world. At least, I feel that we have, very often.

References were made to the increased profits that were earned by the E.S.B. last year. These increased profits were made by the E.S.B. while on the other hand, farmers suffered from the awful weather conditions that we experienced. The downpour of rain practically all the year round almost completely destroyed the agricultural industry, whereas it conferred a substantial benefit on the E.S.B. It is a good thing that we have one business, at any rate, that derives benefit from such a national disaster.

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

At this stage I should like to amplify a figure which I gave when speaking before business was suspended. The Minister for Finance appeared to be rather unwilling to accept an estimate which I made of the possible quantity of wheat per acre that would be supplied to mills. I have here figures showing the amount of wheat delivered to the mills in each of the years from 1949. In 1949 the yield was 6.7 barrels per acre; in 1950, 5.6 barrels; in 1951, 5.3 barrels; in 1952, 6.2 barrels and in 1953 the yield was 7.3 barrels per acre. If one averages those figures I think it will be found that the average yield is about six barrels per acre. Therefore, estimates that are based on one ton per acre of green wheat delivered to the mills are completely wrong. The figures which I have just read out are official figures which I secured from the Statistics Branch some time ago. As they appeared to me to be rather low I had them re-checked and I was informed that they are absolutely true figures of the amount of millable wheat per acre delivered to the mills.

On the basis of those figures, it will be seen that, in order to produce the 300,000 tons of dried wheat which the Fianna Fáil Government set as their target, it would be necessary to grow in or about 500,000 acres. When you consider that there is a substantial reduction in the weight of dried wheat as compared with green wheat and, further, that a substantial allowance must be made for seed for the following year, it will be realised that a target of 500,000 acres would have been quite reasonable. I think the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture hoped that the acreage would hover between 400,000 and 500,000 acres. He never laid down any rigid upper limit but the target aimed at was 300,000 tons of dried wheat. If, over a period of years, we were exceeding that amount then it might be necessary to take action but there was no foreseeable likelihood that it would be exceeded. I think the case made about over-production must, therefore, fall flat to the ground.

Before I leave the question of wheat I want to say that when the price of £4 2s. 6d. was fixed by the Fianna Fáil Government it was roundly denounced by committees of agriculture throughout the country, particularly those dominated by the Fine Gael Party. A strong deputation to the Minister for Agriculture at the time from the Westmeath Committee of Agriculture—if I remember rightly, it was led by Senator I'Estrange—denounced the Minister for having dared to fix such a low price as £4 2s. 6d. Now, no doubt, he will claim that that was an excessive price. However, these things will happen and I leave the question of wheat at that.

The problems of emigration and unemployment are the really serious issues, to my mind. Leaving aside all the other questions of dispute between the different Parties, we always come down to our failure to solve this problem of providing employment for the natural increase in our population each year, and I should like to remind the House of the Commission on Emigration and Population which sat for a considerable number of years examining this problem and to suggest that the recommendations that commission made, such as they were—and they were not as comprehensive or far-reaching as one would have hoped— should be considered and something done.

With regard to industry, I think there is, under the present Government, a tendency to go slow. I do not say that in any bitter or contentious spirit, but I feel that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not got the drive of his predecessor. He is not prepared, if you like, to take risks, and risks must be taken.

What sort of risks?

Risks are necessary. The Minister's predecessor took grave risks when he set out on the development of turf and the setting up of the Turf Development Board, or Bord na Móna, as it now is. These were grave risks, but they were taken in the public interest, and if there is to be censure in respect of any step taken like that, any bold, imaginative step, we will never get anywhere. So far as Senators on this side are concerned, we would be prepared to forego criticism of any bold or imaginative project set on foot by the Minister. I think, however, he is inclined to err on the side of caution and to confine himself to making pious statements in regard to what is desired and desirable, but not going beyond them.

With regard to the making of provision for an additional rural population in agriculture, serious attention must be given to the recommendations of Most Rev. Dr. Lucey, Bishop of Cork. He drew attention to the fact that nearly one-third of the land of the country is held by a very small number of people and is in holdings of over 100 acres. I heard a Deputy saying in the Dáil—a Fine Gael Deputy— that 80 acres are not an economic holding, and, if we were to accept that as our guiding principle, we would never succeed in securing the settlement of an additional population on the land. The aim of the State should be to promote the establishment of smaller holdings, not always by direct action, but in many cases by incentives. Incentives should be given to the larger farmer to divide his holding between his sons, provided he does not divide it down so small as to make the holdings uneconomic.

In addition, we should go all out to give added encouragement to industries associated with the smaller farm. If we can make the smaller farmer more prosperous and raise his standard of living, we will be doing a good deal to keep the present small farmer population on the land and to promote the creation of an additional number of small farms. It is a source of bitter regret to many people who have promoted the establishment of economic holdings in the West to find that in some cases these holdings are being abandoned by their owners who go across to England to earn a better living. The standard of living of the small farmer must be raised. I have quoted figures relative to the difficult position of the pig industry and the same is true practically of the poultry industry. These are the industries of the small farms. Dairying must be developed more intensively amongst the small farmers. In other words, the types of industry which give the highest gross output per acre must be concentrated on, so far as the smaller farmers are concerned, even though they entail more employment but that does not affect the farm which is family owned and worked.

Another suggestion I would make is that the Government should consider setting up a land development and utilisation authority which would deal, in the first place, with lands which are held by the State. There is at present a very large acreage of land owned by Government Departments, local authorities or State companies of various kinds. This land has been acquired for a variety of purposes, but there is always a considerable acreage which is not being utilised to the best advantage. If the Minister were to put his head out through the window behind him, having first opened the window, of course, he would see a small patch of land which is growing the most atrocious weeds it is possible to grow on Irish land. I presume that that little patch is owned by the State and it is typical of hundreds and thousands of acres of lands which are owned by the State throughout the country.

There are large tracts of land owned by the Department of Defence and the Department of Forestry often come in on tracts of good land which are not to be planted, but of which it is difficult to dispose by way of sale or making them available to landless men and uneconomic holders. In the same way, the Board of Works and other bodies have considerable quantities of land scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country. It might not be entirely uneconomic to work that land, if one worked on pure figures of economics, but it is desirable that the State should set a headline to the entire community in regard to land utilisation.

Is the Senator setting a headline in his speech?

We must have a more intensive effort to develop every inch of land throughout the length and breadth of the country. People in the Six Counties used to have a slogan "Not an inch." Our slogan should be "Every inch"—every inch of Irish land should be developed to the fullest extent, and the same applies to every national resource that we have. There should be a spirit of intensive development in relation to them all.

I would like, if I had time or if Senator L'Estrange were not so impatient, to point out another factor in this matter. There is a large number of people on the unemployment register. These people should be divided as between those who are married and those who are single. For married men, if they cannot find employment immediately, certain relief schemes should be provided in the immediate vicinity. For single men a bolder scheme is required, the setting up of vocational colleges where boys and young men would receive a period of training. Instead of having to tramp or cycle to the nearest labour exchange, they would go to a vocational training centre where they would be given work to do and while doing it would get beneficial training, specialised training, which would enable them to get out of blind alley occupations and find a permanent place in society at a decent rate of pay. I would have liked to make some other constructive suggestions, but I wish to give other Senators an opportunity of speaking.

I am anxious to say a few words about Section 3, in which we are asked to authorise the Minister to borrow £71,000,000. It would be interesting to know on what credit we are going for borrowing this sum. I take it that the credit of this country is based on the capacity of our people to produce goods and services. Why, then, should we give that credit to a private group of people on which they are charging heavy interest? We could be talking here for another 12 months —the last speaker took an hour and 25 minutes—without getting any idea as to why we should give the borrowing of this £71,000,000 over to a private concern. What about the Central Bank? I am suggesting that the Central Bank should be empowered to issue whatever money and credit the Government wants in relation to the output of production, the people's capacity to produce wealth. Until we face that problem we are just wasting time.

About a week ago I made a reference here to something similar and talked about our having to pay £16,000,000 to service the national debt. I said, and I repeat, that that money should not have been paid if this Government or the last Government did their job, which they should do when they took over Government. We started our State without a pound of national debt and to-day we have to provide £16,000,000 as a first charge on it. That is a burden of taxation on the masses of the people, money that should not be paid if we were to assert our right to govern credit and to govern our money system.

The last time I spoke, the Minister for Finance made this statement:—

"In the modern world in which we live, interest is an attribute of our economic systems everywhere and one which the Senator might feel should be done away with. The only place that I know of where its complete abolition is advocated is in the Koran in the Moslem world. I would not like to pick that example out of our Moslem friends' advice only—I think that would be somewhat unfair.

I do not think we can accept the Senator's suggestion that we should repudiate our liability to pay interest on the various national loans that have been floated from time to time and that will be floated in the future. Certainly, so far as I am concerned and so far as the present Government and Governments formed from that side of the House are concerned, the people can rest assured that there will be no such repudiation by any Government that is likely to come here in the foreseeable future."

I did not advocate the repudiation of any commitments we made, but I am advocating—and will continue to do so —that the only people who can authorise the issue of credit are the Government of the day elected by the people.

I want to tell the Minister and everyone else that I am not taking my views or convictions from any outside influence. My views on money control and the control of credit are based on Catholic writers and on the Encyclicals of the Pope. In order to convince people of that, I want to quote what Pope Pius XI has said:—

"Control of financial policy is control of the very life-blood of the entire economic body... immense power and despotic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few ... this power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that very reason supplying, so to speak, the very life-blood of the entire economic body and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will."

I look upon these as very severe and understanding words and I have much pleasure in echoing and quoting them here.

No member of this House and no Minister or anyone else should insinuate that when I make this viewpoint here or elsewhere it is someone far removed from this country that we have in mind. I remember making similar statements in the Dáil and the then Tánaiste said: "We are not going to sovietise this country." We had statements from the ex-Minister for Finance a few weeks ago, when we tried to have certain independence here about the bank rate. He said that making the banks continue the existing rates of interest amounted to sovietisation of the banks. I think that is unfair. It is an attempt to thwart us in expressing some viewpoints which it is necessary to express. I want to make it clear that on this policy on the control of credit I have my own views and they are based on certain documents and statements issued by certain people who know what they are talking about.

I am sorry Senator McGuire is not here to listen to this quotation—I suppose he will read it—from the Archbishops and Bishops of Australia, made in 1948:—

"The Church recognises that under present conditions there are certain forms of enterprise and industry which are of quite extraordinary importance to the community, and which may legitimately come under public control in one form or another although not necessarily by means of nationalisation.

Among these are banking and insurance, the manufacture of steel and heavy chemicals, rail, sea and air transport, public utility services, electricity and gas.

It is also out of harmony with Christian thought

—and here is what I want to emphasise now:—

"that the control of credit policy as distinct from administration of credit should be in private hands. This is a basic function of the public authority. Whether credit is dispensed by banks or insurance companies— which are to-day often more powerful financially than the banks—it is opposed to right order that the sovereign power which vests in formulating the credit policy of the nation should be in the hands of private individuals."

I think that is sufficient evidence that when I talk about the right of the Government elected by the people to have control of money and credit I am basing my arguments on the Christian teachings of the Bishops and Archbishops of Australia as well as on the Papal Encylicals published from time to time. I think it is unfair to the people that we are not prepared to face up to the problem. We had a Banking Commission in 1938 which issued majority and minority reports. Nothing has been done since then. I saw during the week where the President of University College, Dublin, said that the financial position of the college was in a desperate state. The Chairman of the Cork County Council, when elected last week, said they were faced with the most grave financial problem to carry out the business of the Cork County Council. As a member of the Cork Corporation, I know the problem we are faced with in so far as finance is concerned.

The Central Bank Report was referred to. What are we doing? We have the materials to build houses; we have the men, the lime, the bricks and everything else. Are we to be told that we must not go ahead with building houses for our people who are living in slums and hovels? I suggest that we are facing a grave position in this country. I noticed in the paper this morning that Senator Buckley said yesterday that if the present trends in Britain continued, he could see a situation in which there would be a further devaluation of the £ and, if that was to happen, it was obvious that we would be well advised to be in a position to provide as much essential feeding stuffs from our own resources as possible. I should like to quote this for the benefit of the House as well as for the benefit of Senator Buckley.

I have here a statement made by the British Chancellor on January 29th, 1952, in his speech on the financial and economic position in the House of Commons. He referred to the "harsh truth" that our economic position has been deteriorating for about half a century. Since the war the balance of payments question has developed into a crisis every two years, and it is generally conceded that the outlook is even more serious than in 1947 or 1949.

I am suggesting that we are facing a grave situation because the English £ is going down in value every day. Unfortunately, we are tied to the English £. We have no separate currency of our own. For years since 1942 we were given to understand that we have a currency because of the Central Bank Act and that the Central Bank has certain powers in this country. I challenge any Minister to quote one solitary banking transaction that our Central Bank is responsible for since 1942. Therefore, we are going to borrow £71,000,000 and we have a Central Bank which is not called in. Is there anything wrong in demanding that the Central Bank should be empowered to do the ordinary banking transactions of the Government and to issue money, especially in loans to State sponsored organisations? I suggest that the time has arrived when we will have to face a very serious situation.

We had recently a statement from the secretary of the Dublin Stock Exchange. He said:—

"The value of securities had increased from £70,000,000 to £250,000,000. Most of this was made up of Government loans, but £30,000,000 had been diverted into Irish industry. The stock exchange had thus played a great part in the development of Irish industry."

He was speaking at a meeting of the Presbyterian Association at 16 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin. He went on to talk about the great part the stock exchange was playing so far as the development of industry was concerned in this country. I should like to put on record what a certain very learned gentleman said about the stock exchange in general. He said that the stock exchange is a place where you buy what you cannot get for money that you have not got, and then sell what was not yours for more than you did not pay.

I see here this evening that we are going to give authority for the Minister to borrow £71,000,000 odd from the bankers who lend nothing except what pen and ink can create because they have the State for their guarantee. Those bankers do not grow any barley or wheat about which Senator Cogan spoke for the past hour and 25 minutes. These are the matters we should discuss. We should try to find out how we are going to reduce the taxation of £16,000,000 for the national debt and over £3,000,000 for the municipal debt. How many more millions are being paid in interest by the industrialists? I want to say this—the Minister can correct me if he likes—that there are industrialists in this country getting money from the London banks at 1¼ per cent. less than they can get it from the Irish banks. Most of that money is money transferred from the Irish banks to the London banks. We have completely lost control of our money. Will anybody tell me whether there is less difficulty in transferring money from London to Dublin or Cork than there is in transferring it from London to Liverpool? Let us face the humbug and cant we have been listening to for years past.

We were told by the last Taoiseach that we had authority in this country to deal with it. Deputy de Valera, when he was Taoiseach, made a statement in 1952. He said:—

"... In the case of monetary control we have such a body ...

Mr. Hickey: Beyond that, they have no power to do anything.

The Taoiseach: They have powers and they can exercise them in a certain way. I was in at the framing of the Central Bank Bill and I know the circumstances in operation then. I know my own views in regard to it and I am aware that every power necessary in order that they should do their duty properly was given to them."

That quotation is from Volume 141, column 240 of the Official Report, dated 23rd April, 1952. It is a very interesting coincidence that on the 23rd April, 1942, the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, said this in relation to the Central Bank Bill:—

"However, this Bill is not put forward as a Bill that will enable the bank or the Government effectively to control the volume of credit."

Let us realise what that means. He went on to say:—

"It may influence it, and if there is co-operation it can influence it tremendously, but it is not designed to effect it by coercive measures. It is based on an attempt to get co-operation between the three bodies interested, the Government, as representing the community, the Central Bank as being the body that has to manage it from day to day, and the commercial banks."

We know that the Central Bank has no authority over the commercial banks. I am not interested in the commercial banks. Let them function as they wish. I want the Government to give the necessary powers to the Central Bank to issue credit and currency based on the capacity of our people to produce. What has happened is that we are not in control. We have lost complete control and then we have people crying out about taxation. There is the cause of the trouble.

I listened to Senator McGuire and I found it impossible to understand what he was trying to convey to the House. He advised the Minister not to be influenced by socialists and he was drawing a line between socialists and Labour men. I found it very difficult to see what he was coming at. He brought in socialism and there is certainly an insinuation there. Then he said the trade union movement flourished more under private enterprise. I want to be quite serious and quite honest in talking about this matter and I could not agree with Senator McGuire that private enterprise is all that he says it is.

There is a place for private enterprise but private enterprise has failed in many cases. For instance, it failed so far as our transport services are concerned. The State had to come to the rescue, if we were to have transport services in this country. I am satisfied we would have no sugar company, if it depended on private enterprise. I am satisfied we would have no electricity supply services like the Shannon scheme had not the State come to the rescue. Does it mean that our post office service is a failure? Who would hand over the supply of water to private enterprise having regard to the position as it is? Is there anything wrong in corporations and municipal authorities undertaking the collection of refuse and the cleaning of streets? Does anybody object to our parks and libraries and such services? What does the Senator call that system? He can call it what he likes, but if that is socialism I find no fault with it and I would like to know who does.

I am not interested in that aspect of the case, but I claim that private enterprise has failed so far as dealing effectively with the standard of living of our people is concerned. Private enterprise has given us the slums and sunless horrors and it falls to the public purse to treat the victims. Who can deny that? Bad housing and many other bad conditions have created T.B. among a great many of our people, but it is the public purse that has to build the sanatoria to treat the victims.

I can give many instances where private enterprise has failed. It has been a failure in regard to money and credit because we have allowed a group of private individuals to take control of our money and credit. I have hopes that the Minister will bring a fresh mind to bear on the matter. He is a new Minister for Finance and he will have the voices of at least 90 per cent. of the people demanding a change. The people who are in the Central Bank are no less deficient of control over the credit and money of this country than any of the directors of the commercial banks of this country.

I am asking the Minister to give power to the Central Bank to deal effectively with our money and credit. If we do that, and get back to our programme of 1918—perhaps Professor Hayes was one of those who subscribed to that programme in the first Dáil as a democratic programme—I believe we shall have an era of prosperity that we will not, and could not, otherwise have.

I would hardly intervene in this debate at all were it not for something to which Senator Hawkins drew attention yesterday. Senator Hawkins invited members of this House to travel on the train which leaves Galway and connects with Mayo at three o'clock any day and see the amount of people who are leaving the country. He sort of hinted this was because of the present Government. I would like it to go on the records of this House that Senator Hawkins must be very forgetful. I would like to remind him that during the regime of the Fianna Fáil Government more people left the West of Ireland than ever before during any similar period. Very many people were forced to leave South Mayo. The proof of that is that there were previously five Deputies in the Dáil for that area and because the voting power was reduced by 16,000, one seat had to be taken away from Mayo. We know that a great number of people were forced to leave the West during the Fianna Fáil régime, and I am satisfied they are not going now at the same rate.

If they do go now, it is too bad— nobody likes to see them leaving their country—but those to whom I have referred went at an older age than they are going now, because they were all voters. The same applied to Galway We have no knowledge that the population is now going down at the same rate as at that time, or that it went down at the same rate under the previous inter-Party Government. Where did they go under the Fianna Fáil régime? They were forced to go to Britain. And what was their work? They were making implements for the destruction of life. If these implements could not be utilised to destroy property or life they would be dumped into the Atlantic Ocean. Why could we not give these people employment in their own country producing something for the betterment or the happiness of humanity? Yet, I have to sit here listening to a statement such as that made by Senator Hawkins, when at no time ever was there the same opportunity as there was then for giving employment to our people in their own country.

Everybody regrets that people have to leave their country but the time of which I speak was the worst period, probably, because not only were their lives in danger over there but their very souls were also in danger, were it not for the good Irish homes from which they emigrated.

In answer to Senator Cogan's remarks in connection with wheat growing—as one who would give second to none so far as practical farming is concerned, I challenge Senator Cogan to say that genuine farmers are not reasonably pleased with the present price of wheat, because through the measures that have been introduced by the present Minister for Agriculture for the liming, fertilising and improvement of land, farmers are getting better returns. There is certain land in this country and if you were to put all the fertiliser and farmyard manure in the country on it it would not be suitable for wheat growing, but with the improvements in other lands and the encouragement and help given by the Minister for Agriculture through fertiliser and lime schemes, I am satisfied that the yield will be so much increased that the genuine farmers have very little regret over prices. If the present price is guaranteed, I am satisfied that a reasonable amount of wheat will be grown. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact—and I challenge anybody to contradict me on this statement—that if you continue to grow wheat on any land, no matter how good, without putting back something to replace what is taken out of it, you will take away the fertility of that soil.

One of the greatest forms of security we had during the last war was that bank of fertility that was embedded in the soil of this country. It meant that we could produce crops for our people. It means that if at any time in the future ships could not come into our ports with food we would not die of hunger, so long as we had this fertility in the soil and had horses, men and ploughs ready to till that land.

Senator Cogan drew the Minister's attention to weeds growing on Government property. I, as a practical fanner, would remind Senator Cogan that weeds do not grow overnight. Neither do weeds come in one season and I am sure if the present Government is long enough in office they will get a lot of the weeds removed. On the general question of the policy of the Government, I would like to thank the Minister very sincerely for the statement he made on the last occasion he was here with us in connection with the help and encouragement he felt people should get in order to provide their own houses. I again would like to make a most special appeal on behalf of those people because, while I agree with Senator Hickey that local authorities should provide certain sections with houses, there are numerous people who are not able to provide their own homes. I feel sure many would like to do so if they were given the proper encouragement. This is one of the points on which I am in agreement with him.

It is a terrible state of affairs that, if somebody saves up a couple of hundred pounds to deposit and gets a loan of £1,500 in order to buy or build his own house, at the end of 35 years he has paid more than double the amount. I think that is a shame. We have still in this country a number of people with that bit of pride which suggests to them that they should own their houses. But these people should not have to pay £1,800 in interest alone on a £1,500 loan over 35 years. I appeal to the Minister with all earnestness to see that these people get that money for at least half the price.

In passing, I think it is no harm to draw attention to the sort of landlordism we still have in this country. It is a new form of landlordism which, in my opinion, is much worse than ever British landlordism was here and I speak as one who fought landlordism. I am talking now about the system of ground rents in operation in the country. Take a piece of land in Finglas or Lucan. Before water and sewerage were brought along by the corporation or council that land was let for grazing—I am being generous in the figure—at £12 per acre. Then the water and sewerage were brought along and the owner of the land paid no more towards these services than did anybody else in the district; but he immediately set out the land for building sites at the full price of say from £100 to £150 a site, plus £12 or £15 a year ground rent for all time. I say that is wrong and shameful and I hope the Minister for Justice will deal with it and will bring forward a measure under which people, along with owning the house, will also own the ground.

In connection with the spending of public money, I would like to say that I am one of those who would not prevent anything likely to give employment of value, but I still believe that there should be more rigid over the expenditure of public money in certain directions. Take the Dublin Corporation, a very generous body as far as the spending of people's money is concerned. They are replacing the old Finglas road and I challenge anybody to tell me where the new road is going to end or where it is beginning. It is leading nowhere. The laying down of this road must have cost already £50,000 to £70,000. Yet it is a road that could be done without because £1,000 would have made the old road passable and serviceable. They go out there with an elaborate scheme and take over convent grounds and other fertile lands. Surely there should be some check on the spending of public moneys so that this type of waste could not occur. I think it is an absolute crime.

On the general question of roads, I have very strong views. I think schemes like the Bray road and the spending of up to £1,000,000 for ring roads are nonsensical in a country like this where you could get from one end of the country to the other on a push bicycle on one day. All this squandering of public money on big new link roads should stop. Take the other example of the Ashbourne road which is at the moment a first-class road, greatly to the credit of the people responsible for laying it down. Now the corporation has begun a new scheme there to make another road involving going in through fertile land and destroying it as well as private houses. All that type of expenditure should be curbed. I say all this despite the fact that I am not against any expenditure on reasonable works that give a certain amount of employment. I do not, however, stand for wasteful expenditure which I think is criminal.

Neither will I stand for unnecessarily destroying fertile land. We all know of cases where the corporation engage in house building schemes. They employ about 100 lorries and what is their occupation? They are employed taking away and dumping into quarries the fertile soil of that land. They are paid 15/- an hour for doing that. I am not saying that the lorry men are overpaid, but I hate to see the fertility of land wasted in that way. It is wrong and it should be stopped.

I think I have covered the points I wished to make. There is, however, one point made by Senator Cogan to which I should like to reply. Senator Cogan referred to a statement made by me regarding certain Jewmen taking over land for the growing of wheat as an attack on the Jewish religion. I want to make my position very clear. I respect everybody's religion no matter what it is. The religion a man professes is God's Will but the one person for whom I have no place is the person who has no religion. I should like that Senator Cogan would not misunderstand me as far as that is concerned. When I mentioned Jewmen I did not mean the reference to be interpreted as an attack on their religion. I hope I have made myself clear on that matter. In view of the fact that the Minister is anxious to get in, I shall not hold up the House further.

I shall be very brief. I notice that in the Estimates for the Public Services, in Vote 51, a sum of £150,000 is provided towards capital expenditure for the G.N.R. Board. I would like to express the wish in that connection that if the money is provided it should be spent this year. I say this because of the difficulties with which that board is faced because of the losses it has had. I feel it is necessary that there should be re-equipment in this organisation as quickly as possible. The G.N.R. had a name some years ago of being a very efficient public transport undertaking and it is regrettable that at the present time it is being allowed to run down. I recognise that there are difficulties in regard to this particular undertaking in that it is managed by a joint board and, in effect, is managed by two separate Governments.

Whatever the policy of the Government in Northern Ireland is in regard to the G.N.R., it seems that its general public transport policy there is to allow the railways to run themselves down. I do not want in this House to criticise the policy of the Northern Ireland Government in respect of Northern Ireland, but in regard to that portion of the G.N.R. which is in the Republic, the Minister should see to it that it is not allowed to be run down any further. The position at the moment is that there are not enough wagons to take the traffic offering and as far as I can understand, nobody seems to know when the necessary wagons will be built to avail of the business. I hope that as money has been included in the Estimate it will be spent as quickly as possible so that the railway will be in some way reequipped soon.

The second item in the Estimates I want to mention is Vote 59. I notice there, and I am glad to see, that provision is being made again this year for £5,000 as a contribution to the United Nations' Children Fund and a further £5,000 as a contribution towards the Technical Assistance Programme. I wonder have the Government given consideration to this country's joining U.N.E.S.C.O. because, of course, no provision is made and we are not, up to the present time, a member of that organisation? Senators will be aware that we are not members of the U.N.O. as such, but that does not prevent us being a member of U.N.E.S.C.O. I know and I appreciate that it would cost some money, but in view of the very fine attitude of the present Minister in regard to foreign relations and our participation in international affairs, I do hope the Government will give early and serious consideration to this country's joining U.N.E.S.C.O.

I notice that, as in previous years, provision is made for a contribution to the O.E.E.C. I do not see that any provision is made for the Economic Commission for Europe. I am informed that that is now largely superseding O.E.E.C. in importance and in work, and I understand that Ireland has been asked to join the executive of that body, but a reply was not forthcoming. I do not know if that is quite correct and perhaps the Minister could clear up the matter.

I hesitate to delve into all the problems that have been raised here, but I would like to touch on two general points—first of all, in regard to the cost of living. The Opposition have been talking a good deal about the cost of living and the promised reduction in the cost of living. A point I wish to make is that the cost of living is relative. What is important is the relationship between the cost of living and wage rates and agricultural income. It is a fact that at the present time real wages are somewhere about 10 per cent. lower than they were in 1939. The index on prices has gone up from 100 in 1938 to approximately 232 now, whereas wage rates in Dublin, according to the Taoiseach, have gone up from 100 to 211.

From these figures it is apparent that there is a gap between wages and prices, a gap which needs closing. That gap between wages and prices, as Senator Cogan knows, was very wide from 1939 right up to 1950. In 1950 that gap between wage rates and the cost of living was closed so that the cost of living bore less heavily on wage earners in 1950, in that they had compensation at that time for the change in money values, for the increase in prices. Unfortunately, since then prices have risen by another 22 per cent. That was largely due—and this cannot be denied—to the 1952 Budget. The compensation which wage earners received was only 9 per cent., in that wage rates since 1950 went up by only 9 per cent., prices by 22 per cent.

It is because of that gap between wages and prices that we have the present industrial unrest, an industrial unrest which, in my opinion, is not very severe. I was wondering if that little industrial unrest is the cause of some Senators referring to socialism and warning the Minister of the dangers of socialism.

I think Senator Hickey has adequately dealt with the point in regard to the public ownership of industries and he has shown that nobody with any sense can challenge why these industries should not be publicly owned or municipally owned as the case may be and that they did not in any case impinge on private enterprise.

There is no movement here by anybody to do away with private enterprise. But that, as I said previously, does not prevent Parties, Senators and individuals advocating more industrialisation, more public enterprise, to make up for the way in which private enterprise has failed to expand. If an attempt to recover for the wage earners the amount they have lost since 1939, between wage rates and prices, is socialism, then I am afraid the Minister can be seriously warned because that will definitely happen.

The trade unions, as he must know, are now engaged on a campaign to recover for their members the ground which has been lost since 1938, ground which was recovered in 1950 during a previous inter-Party Government and ground which was taken from them again largely by the 1952 Budget and developments since then. They think they are quite entitled to recover that lost ground; and, on the basis of the change in the cost of living and the more important change in prices and wage rates, it is generally calculated that in order to recover the 1950 position there would want to be round about an increase of 10 per cent. generally in wage rates.

There is another point, and it is one which, I think, might be overlooked, possibly by a number of people: that is, that productivity in this country has fortunately improved substantially. It is now reckoned to be about one-third higher as compared with 1938. I am not now talking about production; I am talking about productivity, output per worker. We now find that output per worker is one-third higher than it was in 1938. As I have shown, however, the workers are getting lower real wages as against 1938 and they are therefore producing more for less wages.

Perhaps it borders on socialism to mention that increase in productivity or to hint that the workers should, because of that increased productivity, be entitled to any higher standard of living. It is accepted without question that the argument is not that individual workers are working one-third harder than they did in 1938; the increase in productivity is largely due to capital investment and to improved techniques —that is not denied—but it is argued that the worker is entitled not alone to recover his previous standard but to a continuing improving standard of living because of that increased productivity in industry. I trust the Minister will not be too alarmed because of the warnings of socialism. If these warnings are directed towards a campaign by the trade unions to improve the standard of living of their members and to recover for their members a proper standard of living, then we are quite definitely on the road to socialism and that campaign by the trade unions to recover that standard of living will be successful, I hope, with the least possible industrial strife.

I shall not threaten the Minister with socialism. I want to ask him one question in the hope that he will refer to the matter in his reply. In an earlier debate this year I raised the question of the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway and the Minister, in his reply, said that there was no provision in the Book of Estimates but that the matter was under consideration and, when that consideration had been given, he trusted that even I would be satisfied.

I think the Senator is misquoting me.

I am prepared to refer to the official report of what the Minister said on an earlier occasion. I am raising this question now in the hope that the Minister will make a statement as to what it is proposed will be done in relation to the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway. This body, like the county council, is one of the biggest employers in County Leitrim and I am anxious that the Minister would make a statement which will satisfy me and many others who are interested. Many people are anxious to have a statement in this matter because, so far as I can learn, there is no decided policy in relation to the Sligo-Leitrim Railway.

No Minister replying to this debate could possibly know where to start because of the number and variety of points raised affecting almost every Department of State. Not that I have any complaint in that respect: even if I had a complaint, I could not voice it because I remember I adopted exactly the same procedure when I was a member of this House and, therefore, I cannot possibly object to that procedure being adopted now so far as I am concerned. The House will accept, however, that it would be impossible for me in the time at my disposal—and, indeed, impossible for anyone—to deal individually with all the points raised in relation to every Department of State. I propose to deal with as many as I can and I hope that, if any member feels I have not dealt with any point he raised, he will not be in any way offended by that omission; if he so desires, I will take the particular matter up with the Minister concerned and discuss it with the Senator later. We had at one time a system here by virtue of which individual Ministers were brought here on notice when the Appropriation Bill was under discussion. I have a vague recollection in the back of my mind that I was one of the people responsible for that system being changed because I brought too many Ministers here. I am hoist now on my own petard.

To deal with the last point first, Senator O'Reilly mentioned the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway. He said that on an earlier Bill —I think it was the Central Fund Bill—I told him there was no provision in the Estimate for that railway this year. That is not so. As far as I remember, the Senator on that occasion himself suggested that there was no provision. He said there had been a provision of £40,000 in the previous year, but it had been omitted in this year's Estimate. I explained to him at the time that that £40,000 did not affect the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway at all and that he had, in fact, misread the Book of Estimates because the provision for the railway in which he is interested tins year is the same as the provision made last year, namely, £3,500 in each case.

There are problems affecting that particular railway under consideration at the moment. The matter is being dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and no doubt, when the consideration of the problem has concluded, he will inform the body concerned as to what conclusions have been reached. The Senator will remember that on a previous occasion he confused the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway——

That is what the Minister thought I was doing.

The provision of £40,000 last year to which the Senator referred was made in relation to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, and that provision was omitted this year. The position of the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway is exactly the same this year as last year in relation to the Estimate.

Senator Stanford suggested that we are only spending £34,000 out of a total expenditure of £105,000,000 on the arts and that that was not enough because of their inherent value. I can appreciate the Senator's point of view. If one takes any single sector of public expenditure there will always be some person who will feel that his particular sector is the most important and that it ought to get a far higher percentage expenditure. Unfortunately, it is a question of trying to cut the cloth according to the measure. That, I am afraid, is all the proportion that we can afford at the present moment.

The Senator also complained about the delay in the publication of the third report of the Arts Council. He suggested that the first report was published in March, 1953, the second in 1954 and that there was none for 1955. I think the Senator is making a slight mistake there. The reports in each year were in March and this year there has been a report in March but, by the time they were printed and reached the Library downstairs in the ordinary way, it was usually the fall of the year. This year's March report will reach the Table of both Houses, I hope, some time slightly before that of last year, which was published in October of 1954.

Senator Stanford also made reference to a token Vote in respect of Thomas Davis. In actual fact, what is happening in that respect is that certain provisions have been transferred from one Vote to another and the token Vote is merely left there this year in respect of part of the work in connection with the plaque. It will be transferred next year to the Office of Public Works, which is a more proper place for it to be brought to the Dáil and Seanad than in the Bill. The reduction is no more than that.

The Senator continued with a plea, an eloquent plea, for modern art. I am afraid, quite candidly, I cannot set myself up at all as a judge of art, modern or otherwise, but it does seem to me that one of the things that have been a great pity in respect of modern art is that there has been no attempt made yet to relate it to industry. The old workers and craftsmen produced things of great artistic merit and design and if we were able to do something in regard to modern art to relate it to the product of industry, we might be doing something that was really satisfactory. I think there is an opening for industry to harness modern art to its aid and to assist in its design in that way, assuming, of course, that one appreciates modern art. There are some examples of modern art which, I am afraid, I am not sufficiently cultured to be able to appreciate. Everybody has a different taste and I am afraid my personal taste does not go that way. That is not to say that my taste is not at fault. It is a matter of individual opinion.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington, when he was speaking, referred to the delay in the report of the Department of Education. I agree that there is a delay in the publication of that report. In fact, we hope this year to cut down the delay somewhat. There has been a long time-lag running in respect of these reports for a variety of reasons. That time-lag, not merely in respect of the Department of Education but in respect of other Departments too, is being gradually caught up with and I hope that, as time progresses, we will be able successively to show each year an improvement in the promptitude of publication.

I hope nobody has been slapped for that lateness?

The Senator would be wiser not to make that sort of asinine interjection. If the Senator wishes me to deal seriously with the serious points that he raised, I will deal with them. If, on the other hand, he does not, it would be, I am sure, quite satisfactory for the rest of the members of the House if I did not pay him the courtesy of answering him.

Capitation grants for secondary schools were increased substantially quite recently. In the case of junior pupils, they were increased from £7 to £11 and, in the case of senior pupils, from £10 to £16. I think these increases, which are substantial, should go some way, at any rate, to meet the gap and, with the school fees received, should cover the costs associated with the provision and upkeep of schools.

The Senator also mentioned the Report of the Council of Education and inquired what was being done in respect of it. The Report of the Council of Education was circulated by the Minister for Education to many of the bodies who are interested, with the request that they would submit suggestions and comments on the report by the 1st May last. Some of those bodies felt that they wanted a longer time to study the report and asked for an extension of that time, which the Minister gave them. It is only proper that a report such as that of the Council of Education, which is prepared with care, should be studied with the same care, not merely by the Department but by the bodies interested and that study is proceeding.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington or some other Senator—I think it was Senator Sheehy Skeffington—mentioned music in schools. Music at the certification examinations, that is to say, the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations, is intended mainly for pupils who desire to continue their musical studies after the completion of their secondary education, with a view to a professional career in music. The number who take music in the examinations, when it is intended as the basis for that professional career, cannot be regarded as a criterion, therefore, of the extent to which music is taught in secondary schools. Encouragement is given in these schools to choral and orchestral studies by the payment of bonuses. In the current school year, I might add, 225 choirs and 65 orchestras were presented for examinations for these bonuses. Every secondary school now must make provision in its programme for singing.

The Senator also inquired why there was no oral examination in Irish for the intermediate or the leaving certificates. Where it is practical, in the case of preparatory and training colleges and examinations for scholarships to secondary and vocational schools, there is such a test for candidates. In these examinations the number of candidates is limited and arrangements for the tests can be made but, in relation to other examinations, apart altogether from the practical difficulties which are inherent in the number of pupils being examined, there are other considerations which must be borne in mind. Not the least of these considerations is the fact that the inclusion of such oral tests would be a further association of compulsion with Irish and I think it would be accepted by everybody that inducement is far preferable to compulsion and that it is better to encourage it and foster it through the payment of special grants to pupils in secondary schools for excellence in oral Irish rather than that we should go along the road of compulsion in that respect.

When Senator Sheehy Skeffington had dealt with those specific problems in regard to the Department of Education, he then passed on to another subject which has been discussed here at some length by other people. I do not propose to discuss it at very much length, at all to-night. I just want to say this: Senator Sheehy Skeffington has thought fit, himself, to adopt an anonymous publication. It is a publication written in the plural. I had already, in spite of what he had said, read the Adjournment debate. The Senator announced the name of the secretary of the association. He told us yesterday he did not know the names of the others: all he knew was the name of the secretary. I do not propose in this House or anywhere else to deal with anonymous documents of that nature. If people have sincere convictions and mean by those convictions to further the cause in which they are interested they should, in ordinary honesty, put their names on the face of documents which they circulate so that people may be in a position to judge whether they are persons who have an adequate experience of the problem that is in hand. I am not, therefore, going to make any comment at all about the document itself.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington is, however, in a different position. He has thought fit, himself, to make serious charges. He thought fit in the debate on the Adjournment to raise this matter in the manner in which he did, publicly and in, shall I put it mildly, unrestrained language. People who are members of the Oireachtas have privileges but they also have duties. They should regard the duties as coexistent with the privileges. Any Senator cognisant of his responsibilities would have known that there was a way —a way in which it would really further an interest which he had at heart like this—of dealing with that interest rather than in the manner in which he did.

I happen to have had the privilege of being at the university which Senator Sheehy Skeffington represents. I regret very much that it was a representative of that university who dealt with the serious problem in this manner. I do not regard Senator Sheehy Skeffington as a foolish person. I think there must have been some deliberate intent that it was done in this way, some deliberate intent in which, in his speech in public in this House on the Adjournment and yesterday, he deliberately tried to mislead the people who would read what he said on both occasions.

Yesterday, when he was speaking, Senator Sheehy Skeffington tried to slide in quotations from letters he had received or that he said he had received—we do not know whether or not they were received because he would not give us any facts in regard to them—about schools at present when the documents he was reading from, on their face, were not referable to schools at present but were referable to what had happened in the times of parents and must, therefore, have been happening, shall we say, at least 15 to 25 years ago. That is not the way to deal with a problem like this.

Those parents have children at these schools now.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington must permit the Minister to make his speech without interruption.

If those quotations were accurate and honest quotations, two out of the three read by Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred solely to what had occurred when they, the parents, were at school and not in respect of their children. I went to the trouble of reading the typescript afterwards last night——

The very first one was about a present school and concerned the son of the author.

With a view to misleading this House and, through this House, the public, Senator Sheehy Skeffington said he had received some 40 answers in response to his public request. He read out——

I was prevented from reading all of those I wanted to read.

There are practically 500,000 school-going children in this country—493,000, to be exact. Let us take it that there are 400,000. Forty out of 400,000 represents .001 per cent.

If the Senator knew anything about public life and had any experience in it——

——he would know the type of mail bag that a genuine complaint of that sort would have brought to Leinster House. I believe that the very fact that he received only that number of letters—and some of those letters, on the Senator's own quotation, did not refer to the present generation—makes it clear beyond question that there is no justification whatsoever for the words the Senator intemperately and without responsibility used—and in putting it at that I am being as kind as I possibly can be to him—when he said that beatings of this sort were rife in our national schools.

For minor offences: slapping and beating.

I read it before but I read again to-day the report of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's speech on the Adjournment and also the report of his speech yesterday. He has not produced one tittle of evidence worth anything for any inquiry. He has not gone about this matter in a manner that gives any evidence, on his own showing——

I have sent 32 cases to the Minister.

——of any real interest in the problem. He has gone about it in one of three ways— intemperately and rashly, not knowing where he was going, or purely from a sense of seeking notoriety or for another reason, perhaps, such as the one which was suggested by Senator Professor Hayes. I am only sorry that a person representing the university at which I had the honour to study should have so misused his position in this House.

Senator Ó Buachalla made a long speech yesterday—not that I am complaining about the length of it in any respect—dealing with the grass meal project and I think it is only right that I should deal with the matter now. He gave us some figures which had been put to him and which, at the time, I interjected were not capable of substantiation. However, before he did that he alleged that the directors of Min Fhéir Teoranta had not been given an opportunity of making their case and putting the facts before us. I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as I am concerned and so far as my colleagues in the Government are concerned, we are the people who took this decision. We took it in pursuance of our responsibility as a Government and we are not trying in any way to hide behind the report of any inter-departmental committee or of any civil servant.

It is obviously impossible for Ministers individually to examine every problem. They have to get—and that is what the Civil Service is there for— information. They get the civil servants to procure information for them but when that information was before us we took the decision. I do not want anybody to suggest that any responsibility for that decision rests anywhere except on our shoulders. I am glad to be in the position of being able to say that because I am quite clear, beyond question, that the decision we took was the correct decision.

Senator Ó Buachalla suggested that the directors of Min Fhéir Teoranta had not been given an opportunity of expressing their views. Let me make it quite clear that that is not true. The directors were given every opportunity of submitting their facts and their figures so that their estimates could be examined at the same time as we examined other estimates and other figures. They were, however, an interested party and it would have been an extremely wrong thing for us to do if we, as a Government, had shelved our responsibility and had allowed them to take a decision which it was ours, as a Government, to take. We asked for, and got, information from them and we, in pursuance of our responsibility, assessed the value of that information, as we assessed the value of other information to our hand. I suggest to the Senator that there is nothing discourteous whatever in doing that.

I do not want to make any charge or any suggestion against the directors of Min Fhéir Teoranta, or against the manager or any of the staff. I want merely to state what I consider to be the facts in regard to the proposal at Glenamoy. I am quite satisfied that when these facts are put before the House and before the people, the people will accept that our verdict was the right verdict on those facts. We did not wait, may I point out, until after the local elections to disclose our decision about Glenamoy. We quite deliberately disclosed it before the elections, so that the people in that area would not feel that we had, in any way, taken advantage of them and I am happy to say that the verdict of the local elections there showed that the people in that part of Mayo endorsed our view.

There are two questions to which the Senator adverted in respect of this factory. One was the production of grass meal, with which I will deal in a moment, and the other was the ultimate user of the bog and the benefit there would be arising from that user. Let me make it quite clear. There is no difference between anybody on either side of the House as to what would be the optimum results in the future of the user of such bog. We all want to see resources which at present are treated, or in the immediate past have been treated, as useless wastes brought into really profitable production. The carrying power of that bog as rough grazing before was so small that I am prepared to take it as being nearly waste, but where Senator Ó Buachalla and I, and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party and I, part company is in regard to the manner in which that will be achieved. I think there was no chance of achieving that desideratum by the grass meal project. I think there is every chance of ensuring, with the plans we are putting into operation, that it will not merely be a success at Glenamoy, but that Glenamoy will act as a pilot scheme which will enable us in the future to utilise our blanket or shallow bogs to advantage as they have not been utilised before.

This project, Min Fhéir Teoranta, was set up primarily for the purpose of producing grass meal. It was set up with most specific terms of reference to that end and was set up with most specific terms upon which there could be capital grants given to it, but by the statute there could not be annual subsidy payments. If, therefore, the grass meal scheme was to succeed towards the ultimate end visualised by Senator Ó Buachalla, then it had to be that the grass meal project per se in the intervening years and in the future was going to be an economic and paying proposition. I am satisfied beyond question that it was not and I am satisfied beyond question that the information given to Senator Ó Buachalla about the market available for grass meal is entirely wrong and that the costings given to him are entirely wrong.

In saying that, I am not casting any reflection on the gentlemen concerned, nor am I casting any reflection whatever on the work which has been done at Gowla. There is an entirely different problem—in the one case, on deep bog and in the other, on shallow bog; but the real thing which we, as a Government, had to consider first in respect of Glenamoy was whether there would be a market available for the product.

Grass meal, as many members are no doubt aware, is incorporated in compound feeding stuffs for poultry and pigs, principally, I think, to provide the carotin from which Vitamin A is produced. It also provides other nutrients, but it has to have certain standards, and that was why I asked the Senator yesterday for the grade of the product in Great Britain which he was quoting. It is sold at varying grades of 13 per cent., 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. protein. I think the Senator will find that the price he quoted of £23 would be in respect of a grade of 20 per cent. protein. The ordinary percentages for poultry and bonhams would be 15 per cent. protein, and, for cattle or swine, at least 13 per cent.

One of the things that must be remembered is that compound feeding stuffs for pigs and poultry must not contain more than 7 per cent. fibre and grass meal contains a very large percentage of fibre. It varies, but I think that 22 per cent. is considered a pretty good average fibre content. The Senator's suggested figure in relation to a possible market here, I think, completely ignored the fact that, because of its fibre content, it is not possible merely to substitute it for other feeding stuffs but that it must be used as a balancer in the mixture. The Senator quoted the amounts being used in Great Britain. In Great Britain, with their industrial population, they have a type of city poultry keeping which we do not have here and they do have a type there which would utilise a concentrate of this sort and other concentrates in a way in which we would not. The fact remains that all the best expert advice we could get was that the total available market for grass meal in this country, at present or in the foreseeable future, was likely to be of the order of 8,500 tons per year.

The total existing plant in the country, without in any way calling on the full complement of production from Gowla and without putting anything in for Glenamoy, is 8,200 tons. Gowla has a maximum capacity of 2,000 tons. The present demand is 6,500 tons of meal, the estimated demand in the immediate future is 8,500 tons and the existing capacity is 8,200 tons, which includes 500 tons from Gowla. There is a further 1,500 tons capacity in Gowla if the market is there. Therefore, it was perfectly clear to us that the market was entirely saturated, before anything whatever was produced in Glenamoy. It was agreed on all sides, including the directors of Min Fhéir, that there was no export market available. The directors of Min Fhéir were not visualising an export market.

Senator Ó Buachalla yesterday, coming to the question of price, suggested that, on a yield of 2 tons to the acre, the cost would work out at something less than £23 a ton. I think he has made a mistake in the information supplied to him. One basis of costing made that to be a cost on a production of 2½ tons. No such basis of costing was ever put up to us on a 2-ton basis. We believe that 2 tons is a much more accurate estimate and we believe, further, that the costings, which made a price of £22 17s. 6d. on a production of 2½ tons, were not sufficiently accurate. For example, they did not allow anything to maintain and to keep, as they should be kept, the drains through the bogs, year after year. Drains that are made through bogs, even blanket shallow bogs, as we all know, will not maintain themselves; they will have to be maintained and probably have to be re-ploughed pretty often and there will be a good deal of work of that nature. We felt that the costings that were submitted on that basis—even if 2½ tons was feasible, and I do not think it was—were such that the figure of £23 was quite out of the question. A figure of £30, perhaps running as high as £33, would be a more accurate estimate, in our view, of what was likely to be a realistic figure.

Let me give some comparisons of grass meal, on that basis of protein content, with other feeding stuffs that are available, so that the House can realise that the margin of favourable price is not there at all. If grass meal, with an average fibre content of 20 per cent. and with a protein content running somewhere half between 13 and 20 per cent., were to cost somewhere about £30 a ton—I am putting it slightly lower, to be as conservative as I can, in the Senator's favour—the approximate cost of a unit of protein would be £2. Fish meal, with a protein content of 63 to 65 per cent. and an average price per ton of £63 10s. retail, would give a cost of the unit of protein of only £1 per ton. Meat and bone meal, with a protein content of 45 per cent. at a price of £40 retail, would give a price per unit of 18/-. Separated milk is another great source of protein, though on a very low percentage, but even with the very low percentage it would still work out at a cost of less than half the unit of protein of the grass meal.

That does not mean to say that I am suggesting that grass meal is not any good. It is—for its particular job; but I mention these costings so that we may clearly understand that it is fit only for its own particular job—as a balancer into compounds—and that it cannot be used profitably as a substitute for other feeding stuffs. If the position was, therefore, that the existing market was 6,500 tons and if the best estimate we could get was that there were likely to be another 2,000 tons on top of that, and if the existing plant capacity was going to be well in excess of that and perhaps running up to 10,500 tons, which would be the maximum that those able to advise us would see in the forseeable future, then we were going to be placed in a position in which we would have at Glenamoy a unit producing grass meal which it was not going to be able to sell economically. We would have a unit so producing uneconomically but under a statute in which the then Government of the day specifically provided that it must carry on on an economic basis; so it was inevitable that there would be a collapse of any project that was on so insecure a foundation at Glenamoy.

In those circumstances, we decided that there was only one way in which the long term user of these blanket shallow bogs could be met and that was to stop a project that was entirely uneconomic and to switch into something that would have real, permanent and lasting effects. We accordingly decided that we would utilise the drainage work that had been done already. I have no complaint of any sort against the drainage work that was done there. The complaint I have is against the Government of the day, that put these directors in this position, without putting as a director a person with a knowledge of agriculture, a person with a knowledge of the use of this meal and of the market availability for it. They had done drainage work, useful drainage work. We decided that it was in the public interest that we would take that bog on which they had done that work, so as to advance by a year the date of the experiments that we were going to start there. Those experiments are for agriculture and for forestry.

One of the things that we were most particular to ensure in this change over was that no local person at present employed at Glenamoy would lose his employment. We felt that if we did not ensure that, we might sap the belief of the people in the future of development of blanket bog. We have provided that. In fact, we have already absorbed the existing personnel and, as our schemes go on, we will be able to increase our employment in the area. If this five year experiment that we have initiated at Glenamoy is a success—and I believe it has every hope of being a success both from an agricultural and a forestry point of view— then we will have gone a long way towards the solution of what to do with many of our thousands of acres of waste bog. There are about 3,000,000 acres of bog in this country. Exactly how much of that is blanket, shallow bog I forget at the moment but it is a very substantial amount, indeed. It will never be utilised for fuel.

It will be a wonderful chance and opportunity if we can ensure, as a result of these agricultural experiments there, that we will be able to convert that into arable land over the process of time. At the end of five years of these tests that have been undertaken by the Minister for Agriculture, we will know whether it is possible to do it or not. We are going into the experiments in the belief that it will be possible. We are going to plant approximately 500 acres of the 2,750 acres that have been taken over from Min Fhéir so that we can carry out this test contemporaneously with the ordinary agricultural tests so that we can test whether bogs of that nature can grow timber that will withstand the western winds.

Again, forestry of that sort is a vastly superior project both as regards employment in the future and as regards the production of wealth. We would have been operating only for a few years and then we would have found it was uneconomic and we would be unable to dispose of its products. In the interval we would have made no real progress towards the final user of blanket bog in the way all of us would wish.

Senator Ó Buachalla, when he was speaking, likened this to the attack that was made on part of the dieselisation idea some years ago in respect of C.I.E. Let us get that also in proper perspective. The old C.I.E. decided that they would buy certain types of diesel locomotives. It was against the type of diesel locomotive that they proposed to buy, and did buy, that the attack was launched. It was not that we were criticising dieselisation in itself. What are the facts in regard to our criticism? The day is gone now. The facts and figures are there and it is possible to see the result.

At that time, the then Board of C.I.E. decided that they would buy six main line locomotives of between 1,630 and 1,830 horse-power. The total cost of these six main line diesel locomotives was £463,800. These locomotives were designed for a speed of 85 miles an hour with a six coach passenger train and 40 miles per hour with a 700 ton goods train. The axle load was 21 tons. The locomotives were capable only of operating on the Dublin-Cork line. No other line in this country could have taken them with their axle load. Even on that, the maintenance of the permanent way for locomotives of this type travelling at high speeds would have been out of all proportion to what we could have had here.

Apart from that, you could not run a 700 ton goods train at 40 miles an hour without vacuum brakes and the board at that time—Senator Ó Buachalla deliberately brought this into the debate; I did not bring it in—ordered those six locomotives knowing that we could not utilise vacuum brakes on our goods trains. The axle load was too heavy. They were entirely unsuitable for here. Not merely that, when the new Board of C.I.E., which we set up in the previous inter-Party regime, tried to sell these anywhere throughout the world, they could not find any railway company prepared to take them because of the very defects they had as regards our own permanent way.

What bad they to do? They had to make up their minds whether they would scrap them altogether or try and utilise them otherwise. They utilised them by dividing each of the six, that cost, as I said, £463,800 or £77,300 each, into two units. They divided them into two units so as to decrease the axle load and make them workable on our permanent way here. To do that meant that they had to spend another £326,000 on them or a total of £912,000 in all for these six main line locomotives. They will develop with superchargers about 915 horse power. The 12 of them cost £912,000, working out at a cost of £76,000 apiece.

There was bought by the new C.I.E. Board diesel locomotives of a proper size—a size fit for our permanent way here and fit for the circumstances of our country. Taking the figures that they paid for them and adjusting them to the horse power, having regard to the fact that these are about 915 horse power, it would look, on the basis of their contract, that a fair average to take for a locomotive that would do this work of a horse power of 915 would be about £45,000. Thanks to the decision taken before the inter-Party Government came into office in 1948 what could have been got even in 1953 or 1954 for £45,000, when prices had increased very much, as a result of the foolishness of the earlier decision which Senator Ó Buachalla brought into this discussion yesterday, are costing our transport undertaking £76,000 each, or £31,000 apiece, for 12 locomotives, more than was necessary. You could do a lot with £350,000 other than see it going down the drain in that way.

Senator Hawkins, in his opening remarks, referred to rural electrification and to the decision that was taken by the Government to transfer to the E.S.B. the cost of rural electrification. Let me be crystal clear with regard to this: so far as this decision is concerned, it is a decision which will not in any way affect the cost of the provision of electricity in rural Ireland. It will not affect the cost of the electricity that is being made available to the rural areas. The capital cost of erecting transmission lines and so forth, and bringing current to the outlying areas is fixed—as possibly some members of the House know—on a criterion ratio. It is a ratio of the capital cost to the amount of the fixed charge that arises in respect of the bringing of the supply to the individual premises.

This decision will not change that in any single iota. This decision, notwithstanding the aside that I heard from Senator Walsh, will not change the cost of electricity in rural Ireland. This decision, on the contrary, is accompanied by a decision by this Government at the present moment, that we will expand and increase substantially the rate of development of the rural areas so that those in the areas not yet connected will have, as a result of our plans, a much greater chance of getting electric current at an earlier date than they would have had under the plans in operation before.

As most members of this House know, in respect of rural electrification, the country as a whole is divided into some 770 areas. In 1954—and when I speak in terms of years I mean the year ending in March of that year— the E.S.B. developed 60 areas. Last year they were speeded up and developed 75 areas, but in this current year, that is to say, the year ending in March, 1956, and in March, 1957, and 1958 and 1959 we are going to step up the development from the 60 areas a year that was reached in the last complete year of the Opposition Government, to 100 areas a year, so that we hope that the entire country will be practically completed in 1959.

In 1954, which was the highest year up to that point—and I mention that so that Senators on the other side of the House will not think I am trying to pick out a year favourable to my point of view; I am picking out the best year from their point of view— 23,477 rural consumers were connected. Last year 29,812 were connected and in each of the coming years we anticipate we are going to be able to push that figure up to 40,000 a year, and we are going to do it. Why? Because we believe that bringing current down through the country is one of the ways not merely of dealing with what Senator Hawkins mentioned, but one of the ways of ensuring that there will be more productivity and greater production in Irish agriculture.

It is very natural that we should be anxious to do this in any Government which includes the Party to which I have the honour to belong, because if anybody goes back on the old reports —I had to read them recently because of a most unjust and unfounded attack made by my predecessor in the Dáil and to which I replied in the Dáil—in connection with the Shannon Electricity Act of 1927 and goes back on the reports of Siemens Schuckert submitted to the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and the reports prepared by the four experts appointed at that time—I forget their names for the moment—it will be found that in all those it was visualised that there would be rural electrification here based on the Shannon for the purpose of ensuring that the benefits of electricity would get out to agriculture, primarily to aid and assist agriculture, once the network——

Surely the Minister is not seriously suggesting that the Shannon scheme would at any time be in a position to provide rural electrification for this country?

If the Senator takes the trouble to read those reports he will find that was the basis of all electricity development here and that rural electrification was visualised on the basis of the Shannon——

——basis of the Shannon in 1927, and the pity of it is, that the Government which Senator Hawkins supported came in in 1932 and did not proceed along the lines that are there set down in the reports for the Senator to read. If they did, we would have had in this country the transmission lines for that developed at pre-war costs and therefore at much lesser costs.

Before the Minister passes from this particular accusation against me, I would like to suggest to the House that I am prepared either now or in the future to provide an opportunity for this House to have a general discussion on the provision of electricity supplies in this country as based on the 1927 Act.

That will be perfectly all right. The only thing I would say about that is that I would wish it would be in the other House so that I could make my predecessor, Deputy MacEntee, swallow his words when he said there was a report in the Department of Finance dealing with the Shannon scheme and criticising its output—which there was not.

I am afraid there is other business and although there was a great number of things to which I intended to refer, I do not want to delay the House. Senator Hawkins, however, referred to one other matter to which I must make reference and that is the question of the flour used in confectionery, etc., for exports.

Exporters of biscuits and flour confectionery have been given an undertaking that, by means of a system of rebates on exports, wheaten flour would be made available at a net price no higher than that paid for flour of a similar quality by manufacturers with whom they would be in competition on the export market. There was one type of run flour that they are using and a new type has been agreed upon with them. On this new percentage they are operating now on the export market. The exporters concerned have been told to produce evidence in support of their contention of the comparative price at which they should get their rebate or drawback in respect of their exported goods so as to put them in a position of equality with their competitors.

That evidence has not yet been made fully available to the Department of Industry and Commerce and the people concerned have been told in the interval to take records of their transactions so that, when they are able to agree, the amount of rebate to be operated in respect of exports can be fixed. I think it is far better that the scheme should be worked out in that way even though it might involve some delay rather than that there should be fixed an arbitrary figure which would not meet the particular difficulties attached to these exports. Our anxiety is to ensure that they will be in the position of competing on terms of equality with their competitors in the market to which they are exporting.

I am very grateful to the Minister for having given this information in reply to a question I asked because a number of people in the confectionery and biscuit manufacturing businesses are keenly interested. I would also like to have from him some indication as to when a firm decision will be made by the Department of Industry and Commerce so that it can be conveyed to the persons concerned.

The position at the moment is that the Department of Industry and Commerce are waiting for information from the exporters concerned. It is the exporters who have not been able to get the required information. As soon as the Department gets the information it will be made available.

We have agreed that we must subsidise these people who have been carrying on an export trade in these particular lines. There was a necessity to do that as a result of the decision made by the Government to remove the subsidy on the flour used by these particular manufacturers.

We are doing exactly the same as has been done for some time in the case of the sugar utilised in the manufacture of export goods.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share