Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1973

Vol. 76 No. 6

Appropriation Bill, 1973 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

The purpose of the Appropriation Bill is to appropriate formally the amounts voted by Dáil Éireann for the supply services and this year's Bill follows the general pattern of previous Appropriation Acts.

Section I appropriates to the specific services set out in the Schedule to the Bill the sum of £791,362,840 which comprises £47,489,840 in respect of the 1972-73 Supplementary Estimates which were not included in last year's Appropriation Act, and £743,873,000 to provide for 1973-74 Estimates; the last mentioned sum is made up of the Estimates Volume total of £707,964,000 plus Supplementary Estimates amounting to £35,909,000. The section also authorises the use of certain departmental receipts amounting in total to £54,542,357 as appropriations-in-aid. These are also detailed in the Schedule to the Bill.

This Bill gives the Seanad, as is customary, an opportunity to discuss not alone the details of expenditure contained in the Bill itself but also Government expenditure and financial policies in general.

On this occasion, I wish, myself, to avail of the opportunity presented by the Bill to discuss the general economic situation in the light, in particular, of external events bearing on it, especially developments in the oil situation.

As of now, the Irish economy is in a thriving condition—1973 has been a very good year for economic growth. Moreover, prior to the recent oil crisis, there was a prospect of further good growth in the year ahead. Unfortunately, storm clouds are now gathering on the economic horizon for this country as well as for most other European countries and, much as we would like to, we cannot isolate ourselves. It is, indeed, unfortunate that these adverse developments should come about at this particular juncture when the economy, after its striking progress so far in 1973, was on a steady and sustainable growth path.

First of all, to put the debate into proper perspective, I shall briefly refer to the Government's successful record to date in the handling of the economy in 1973.

When the present Government took up office, the real growth of the economy was running far below its potential for the third year in succession; unemployment was higher than it had been for many years and inflation was becoming an increasingly serious problem. We decided that the appropriate course to follow, in these circumstances, was to adopt an expansionary budgetary stance that would lift the economy on to a higher growth path. In this way, under-used productive capacity would be taken up, employment would be increased and greater overall prosperity achieved. The necessary fiscal action took the form mainly of an increase of about £200 million in the combined current and capital budgets over the 1972-73 level. I might say, in passing, that the Government did not have economic growth, per se, as its sole pre-occupation; we showed as well our concern for the poorer sections of the community by providing really worthwhile increases in social welfare benefits costing the Exchequer about £50 million in a full year.

The economic indicators so far available for 1973 show that our economic policy has been fully justified. The Government's growth-oriented demand management policies have been singularly successful within a fairly short space of time. The growth rate has moved up sharply from about 3 per cent in recent years to a level of moving towards 7 per cent at present. Concrete evidence of the success of this year's budgetary strategy can be found in the increase of more than 6 per cent in real terms in gross domestic product, the fall of 7,000 in the number of persons unemployed and the increase in real terms of almost 5½ per cent in non-agricultural income.

Exports have risen by 34 per cent in value and perhaps the most encouraging feature of this rapid expansion was the performance of industrial exports which rose by more than 40 per cent. The strong upsurge in industrial activity, given normal conditions in external markets, would have meant a prolonged period of growth and greater prosperity for the community as a whole. Agricultural incomes showed a very substantial increase—by about 40 per cent, in fact—because of very high price rises for farm products resulting from the world shortage of beef and the EEC Common Agricultural Policy. The outlook for next year is very promising particularly since stocks now stand at record levels.

In the period January to November, while exports amounted to £789.9 million, imports amounted to £1,051.6 million. A significant factor in the increase in cost of imports was, of course, the speed and extent of world-wide increases in commodity prices. A further element in the increase in value of imports was a very substantial increase in the purchase of capital goods for industry and the building-up of stocks and the purchase of raw materials for processing and use in manufacturing and agricultural industries directed towards re-export. Our external reserves increased from £418.3 million at end-January to £422.2 million at end-November. Thus, while there is naturally cause to be concerned about the growth in imports, the situation would not in ordinary circumstances be serious. Having regard to pending trading difficulties, however, there is now a need to reduce imports. This is particularly true of non-essentials as the balance of trade will tend to worsen next year in view of the very considerable increases in the prices of fuel and other essential imports.

While we have been successful, so far, in managing the economy and the fruits of our budgetary policy have been most heartening, we cannot overlook the dangers looming ahead which may seriously alter the present very favourable picture. These dangers which threaten our entire economic future, are the oil crisis, inflation and the problem of soaring interest rates.

Probably the most immediate and serious of these problems is that presented by the oil situation. Indeed, the prospects for the economy in the year ahead are very much dependent on the assumptions about how this situation develops.

There are two separate aspects to the present crisis, the first being the recent very large increases in the price of crude oil. These increases will, of course, lead to increases in the price of various oil products such as petrol, motor oil, fuel oil, and will, in addition put upward pressure on the prices of a large range of goods which are dependent on oil for their production. As a result, there are likely to be very sharp changes in the balance of payments positions of oil-importing countries vis-a-vis oil-exporting countries. This is liable to lead to major structural changes in foreign exchange markets as we know them today. Foreign trade prices will also be affected as will capital flows on which we depend for so much of our development.

The second aspect of the oil situation is the—problematical—supply position. This is very difficult to assess at present and, from a demand standpoint, the supply prospects are extremely important for an economy such as ours which is so heavily dependent on oil. While at present the cut-back in supplies is not having any serious economic impact here, recent information given to the Minister for Transport and Power, to the effect that oil supplies in 1974 could in some cases be as much as 30 per cent below current requirements, would have very unfavourable economic implications for the Irish economy and consequential hardship for many people. However, because of the uncertainty about the composition of the cut and its duration, it is not possible, at this stage, to forecast accurately how the situation will develop.

There are, however, some broad indications as to how the economy will fare in the coming year. Even before the emergence of the oil crisis, it was recognised that, while there would be substantial progress next year, there would be some slowing down from the very high economic growth rate achieved in 1973 since growth this year included a substantial element of recovery from the low level of recent years. Current developments abroad are accentuating this trend towards a slackening of economic growth. In particular, the power cut-backs and austerity measures introduced in Britain, which takes some 55 per cent of our exports, are likely to mean a less buoyant demand for Irish exports at least in the short-term and will, in combination with other adverse trends, inevitably affect employment possibilities and living standards in this country.

There is scarcely any market to which Ireland is exporting, or from which she is importing, which will not suffer substantially from the oil crisis and other adverse economic constraints. This means a loss of purchasing power in these countries and higher prices for many of the products which we have to import.

This radically alters the prospective 1974 conditions for Ireland. The economic factors to which I have referred have already had unpleasant repercussions on the economies of all countries of western Europe, North America and Japan. The drastic steps which Britain has been forced to take within the past week or so to save herself from economic disaster speak for themselves. Germany and Japan, often described as "the economic wonders", are affected to such a degree that they expect a growth rate this year of zero or less. In these circumstances, we cannot expect to come through unscathed.

In view of this situation one must be realistic about what the economy can afford by way of income increases without doing serious and lasting damage all round. The proposals for the national pay agreement were drafted in good faith at a time when it was felt that growth prospects for 1974 were good. The situation has now obviously changed for the worse. This is worrying since the combined effect of rapidly rising domestic costs and a sharp upward trend in oil and raw material prices could again boost inflationary pressures, slacken demand and lead to unemployment and hardship.

The extent to which we can escape at least some of the undesirable consequences of the world economic crisis will depend directly upon our readiness to moderate our expectations and be prepared to make short term sacrifices for long-term security. Even though our progress may be temporarily halted, we can prevent ourselves slipping back if we have sufficient commonsense to mark time.

Another serious problem facing us all—and one that will be exacerbated, as I have mentioned, by the oil crisis —is that of rising prices. While this problem is plaguing the world at present, we are more vulnerable than many other countries. In 1973, the consumer price index rose, on average, by 11.4 per cent, principally due to enormous inflation in the earlier part of the year. A reduction in the rate of inflation was and is one of the priorities in the Government's policy programme. In particular, we were concerned about the impact of rapidly rising food prices—due to factors outside the Government's direct control—on the poorer members of the community and we decided—as well as increasing social welfare benefits substantially—to remove VAT from food. In the six months ended mid-November, food prices rose by only 1.7 per cent as compared with 14.1 per cent in the previous six months. While figures released by the Central Statistics Office last week show a rise in consumer prices of 12.6 per cent over the figure for November 1972, I should point out that this very high rate of increase reflects the very rapid rise in consumer prices in the first half of the year and conceals the improved trend in the second half—the rise in the index between May and November 1973 was 5 per cent as compared with 7.1 per cent in the previous six months.

Yet another major problem confronting the economy arises out of the continuing increase in interest rates. In common with other countries, the drift of interest rates in this country in 1973 has been strongly upward. Increases in February and March were reversed to some extent in April and June but in August there was a fresh upsurge with further increases in September and November. The Associated Banks' prime lending rate is currently 12.5 per cent, an increase of 3.5 percentage points on July and 5 percentage points higher than a year ago, and other lending rates charged by these banks under the term loan system range up to 16.75 per cent. The lending rates of the non-Associated Banks have increased in a similar manner, as have Central Bank money market rates and rates on the Dublin inter-bank market. As it is recognised that very high interest rates are inappropriate to the Irish economy at the present time, every effort has been made to keep increases as low as possible. Some response to events abroad and particularly in Britain, however, was unavoidable, in view of the openness of the economy; otherwise a heavy loss of funds would have been experienced by the banks through capital outflows. I have pressed in the European Economic Community and in the World Bank for international action to reduce interest rates. But this is a complex problem requiring co-operation from many quarters and an early solution can hardly be expected.

In view of the implications of high interest rates for home purchasers and for the building industry and in order to ensure that the Government's target of 25,000 houses a year would not be endangered, a State subsidy was, for the first time, provided to enable the building societies to offer investors 7 per cent while still maintaining a 10 per cent mortgage rate. In October the societies were obliged by virtue of climbing interest rates at home and abroad to increase their rates to 8 and 11.25 per cent respectively, but, if the Government's subsidy were not being paid, borrowers from building societies would currently be liable for an interest rate of 12.5 per cent.

While interest rates are much higher than we would wish, they are not out of line with rates in other countries. As I pointed out recently in reply to a parliamentary question. prime overdraft rates in other EEC countries have ranged up to as high as 14.5 per cent. The corresponding rate here is 12.5 per cent. We will continually watch the interest rate situation and will ensure that interest rates are brought down as soon as the situation warrants it.

In a nutshell, we must realise that we have a problem and it is more straightforward and sensible to grapple with it now than to try when it may be too late to deal with it by blunt fiscal and other measures against a background of disillusionment and resentment. The Government are confident that they will have the support and co-operation of the general public for a fair and responsible approach to the difficulties now facing the nation.

I have now sketched out the general economic background against which this year's Appropriation Bill is being introduced and I look forward to a useful and constructive debate.

I now commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Mr. Lenihan

I doubt if in any democratic parliament in the world, particularly in the European Economic Community, at the present time having regard to the very serious economic and monetary difficulties facing the world generally one would hear such a totally inadequate speech on the part of the Minister responsible for the economic direction and guidance of any community. I can well imagine the sort of derision—I do not intend to go into this—with which this sort of contribution would be greeted in any other democratic institution.

I do not propose to go into that area because I feel the matter is too serious and I hope to deal with it on a serious basis rather than what I would regard as the contemptuous manner in which the Minister for Finance has treated this House on the occasion of a major debate on the economic and indeed the general state of the nation.

When one considers the seriousness of the overall problem facing the world and the inadequacy of the treatment on the part of the Minister for Finance, it amounts to nothing else but a total contempt for this democratic institution—the elected democratic institution of the State— Oireachtas Éireann. I have no doubt that before the resumption of the Houses of the Oireachtas the Minister will have to say much more meaningful things and take much more meaningful action than is contained in this particular piece of waffle with which we are presented.

In addition to that—and again I am afraid it is rather indicative of the personality aptitude of the Minister— we have petty political point-scoring which does not really take into account the seriousness of the situation facing our economy, and indeed the world economy, or contain any respect for the democratic institution in which we are all present at the moment.

There is no point in talking in a flippant way about the consumer price index going up in one part of the year and rapidly changing in another part of the year. The Minister is not confusing anybody in regard to this. The facts of life are that we are living in a world of inflation and we have to do something about it. The world did not change when the Minister became Minister for Finance last March. That is irrelevant. If that is an important point in the Minister's petty way of looking at things, that is his privilege. We are dealing with a far more serious matter. We are dealing with the Irish economy and the social improvement of the people living in our community. We are dealing with jobs in our community and we are dealing with planning ahead.

I would make an appeal to each Government Minister to forget about the fact that he is in a political party; and to remember that he is a Minister of a Government with a very serious responsibility to the country. We want Ministers, in a constructive way, to face up to their responsibilities. This piece of waffle is no contribution to that whatever. I would have expected on this occasion that we would discuss the serious aspects of the nation's future. In such a very serious period of the history of the world I would have expected something better than this from the Minister for Finance. We will not be resuming in either House for some six weeks and events may have passed us by between now and then. Therefore I thought that there would have been some reference to the basic problems facing not alone this country but the world at large at this present time.

The basic factor in inflation is what the Minister has referred to himself. Having referred to the period from January to November, when exports amounted to £789.9 million, he refers to the fact that imports amounted to £1,051.6 million. This is basic. The consumer price index rose by 11.4 per cent in the year. There is no point in saying that it was due to enormous inflation in the early part of the year. The Minister is not fooling anybody by making an addendum of that kind. The Minister is well aware that inflation is general. The Minister should come clean with the House. He is dealing with an intelligent audience here and I would expect that we should be treated in an intelligent way. This is neither the time nor the place at this stage in our history and in the world's history for scoring petty, political points.

There are far more serious matters, as the Minister is well aware, facing the country than trying to score points of that kind. We have rampant inflation. A large amount of it is imported inflation. What is the major factor contributing to the imported inflation to which the Minister refers? We have imports exceeding exports by £250 million from January to November. One of the main factors responsible for this is the policy pursued by the Government, as enunciated in the budget and in the Finance Act of this year, which was geared to a mushroom situation—mushrooming on the basis of a euphoria-like notion of where we were going, a gambling attitude.

Fundamentally, the budget deficit, and the whole approach by the Government in attempting to sell their social conscience to the people within 100 days of being elected instead of behaving like a Government, has been a major contributory factor to the situation we are now facing where from January to November imports have exceeded exports by £250 million.

The other contributing factor is that there is a degree of importing inflation involved in that, but a major factor in contributing to that situation has been the Government's approach in seeking to nail their popularity flag to the mast within 100 days of becoming the Government. In the course of nailing that popularity flag to the mast they nailed down the media, a highly uncritical media, to also contribute to a total euphoria in regard to our whole social and economic development.

There is no point in seeking to do what the Minister for Industry and Commerce sought to do last Sunday, that is, blaming everything on the energy crisis in the world today. Again, that is an external fact over which the Government have no control but, fundamentally, the whole weakness in Government planning has been an attempt, through the mechanism of the budget and its implementation in the Finance Act, to meet heady euphoric commitments made during an election campaign, which there was no need for the Government to meet immediately, beyond the mere shallow attempt to gain immediate and paltry popularity.

They are now faced with the facts of Government. I am sure the Minister for Finance now realises what Government is all about. Irrespective of the energy crisis, this Government would have been faced with precisely this problem in the budget in three months' time—I agree that the problem has been aggravated by external factors— which could have been anticipated and planned for, were it not for a euphoric attitude which will leave our financial situation, vis-a-vis our own stock-keeping and housekeeping, in very serious straits come the next budget.

I do not have to tell the Minister for Finance this. I am certain he is getting plenty of good advice along these lines. I am certain that, if he is responsible to a minimal degree, this is the kind of thing he will be saying to his colleagues in Government. In other words, the party is over and the time for scoring petty political points is over. The Government are not in Opposition still. They are in Government and scoring petty political points off Fianna Fáil is no substitute for policy. In a statement of this kind, coming from the Minister for Finance, I regard it as outrageous that it is full of petty political scoring points and does not, in any way, seek to get to grips with the real situation in the Irish economy at the present time.

The real situation is quite plain and quite direct. We cannot continue to import at that degree with inflation rampant, as it is throughout the world. Next year we cannot afford to take the gamble of a gross budgetary deficit. In the budget of next year there will have to be some very serious thinking about where our economy is going. There is no point in engaging in euphoria about social improvements and social justice, unless we have got our economic base right. The Minister is well aware of the fact that we will not keep our economic base right on the basis of this type of approach. Unless it is spelled out loud and clear that the Government are concerned about controlling and guiding the economy in the right direction, and unless the measures which the Government propose to take in this respect are spelled out loud and clear, there is absolutely no future for this country.

I believe that the Government— and I have this much respect for the advisers to the Minister and the Government—will probably do something about this situation between now and the middle of February. I would have thought that this House at this stage—or the Dáil last week— would have been the place in which to spell out the measures designed to guide the economy along the right rails so that it would continue to expand in a guided fashion, so that we would be safeguarded in regard to jobs and in regard to what we want to do in respect of social improvements. I thought democracy at least deserved that. The British Parliament had an exposé of their position during the week, and every other Parliament in the European Economic Community at present are anxiously debating these matters, but our Minister comes in here with a lot of waffle, anaemic hogwash, and no real contribution to the solution of a very basic problem.

Fundamentally, it comes back to the fact that the present Government have not yet got used to the idea that they are in Government. The same kind of fudging attitude and ambiguous approach can be seen in the Sunningdale document as well, the same sort of ambivalence and desire to please, bringing over 200 members of the media to Sunningdale, giving a leak at an early stage of the debate-whether deliberate or otherwise, a leak which subsequently put the Government representatives in a very weak position, leading eventually to the production of a document which is meaningless, on any analysis of the document. While we in Fianna Fáil, having started the whole movement towards rapport and rapprochement are in agreement with the general principles of power sharing, the general principles of a Council of Ireland and the general principles of getting together in a unified attitude, we believe very strongly that ambiguities of the kind contained in that communiqué are totally frustrating and, by reason of giving rise to wrong interpretations and wrong impressions, can only cause further difficulties and further frustrations.

It is indicative of a Government attitude of mind which is not coming to grips with the real situation in regard to Northern matters, which is that there are real problems involved. There is no point in fudging these problems. There is no point in running away from them. There are real problems in regard to the status of Northern Ireland. There are real problems in regard to the specific powers that will be devolved on the Council of Ireland from the two sovereign Governments in London and Dublin. There are real problems in regard to the common law enforcement area. None of these problems was faced up to in the communiqué from Sunningdale which was wrapped up in a gaudy package and presented to the public through a large number of media representatives who sought to present this matter—and the Minister for Finance on television contributed to this—in some sort of euphoric manner, as if it was the answer to all our problems.

This is not the answer to all our problems. It is a first faltering step in the right direction. We want to see that spelled out specifically to a greater degree and, to put it bluntly, have no more messing about it. As long as the ambiguities and ambivalence continue in regard to whatever relations we have, and whatever way we seek to go on the path towards reconciliation and unity, they will do far more harm than good. In this day and age, when diplomacy has to be open, there is no point in Northern people talking to their constituents on radio and television, Southern people talking to their constituents on radio and television, and British people talking to their constituents on radio and television, all of them saying different things about what is contained in a document that is supposed to be a document of agreement.

Nobody is codding anybody. That might have been all right in the age of secret diplomacy and all the rest of it, but everybody in these two islands can switch on radio, or turn on television, and hear the British Prime Minister give his interpretation, the Irish Prime Minister give his interpretation, and hear Mr. Faulkner giving his interpretation, and can hear anybody else concerned in the negotiations give his interpretation, all of which are different interpretations.

To treat the people in this manner shows an appalling lack of basic understanding of the age in which we live. The ordinary person looking at his television screen after the Sunningdale communiqué was issued and hearing Mr. Heath, Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Faulkner in succession talking about the communiqué was listening to three totally different agreements. Now, it is agreed each of these was talking to his respective constituents. But in a situation where you have radio and television, and the total openness with which the Government are supposed to be so concerned, surely it is treating the people with an enormous lack of intelligence to think for a moment that they do not see the total falseness and the total inadequacy of approach in a situation of this kind.

I mention that because, again, this is an area where the Government have to get down to business. The days of gimmickry are gone. We want to see the specifics and not just generalities. We want specifics in regard to what we are agreeing to and what we are not agreeing to in regard to our future relations with Britain and in regard to our approach towards reconciliation and unity in Ireland via the Council of Ireland. We want to see specifics there.

We want to specify, as I have already said, in regard to our economic progress. We want to see specifics and hear specifics in regard to where we stand financially. There are people who are concerned about this. There are people's jobs involved on the economic front; there are people's lives involved on the other front. Ambiguity is not going to improve the Northern situation neither is ambivalence going to improve the Northern situation. Ambiguity and ambivalence are going to give rise to further strife.

Similarly, on the industrial front, ambiguity and ambivalence and inadequacy of approach to the economic problems and a fudging of the whole area that is really at issue are similarly not going to improve matters. The people have to be told loudly and clearly where we stand on these two fronts. The people have to be told loudly and clearly where we stand financially, where we are going economically, how we are dealing with inflation and how we are dealing with prices. The people have to be told where exactly we are going on the political front vis-a-vis Northern Ireland and our relations with Britain.

These are basic concepts and I would ask the Government in total honesty to get off the political hobbyhorse and get down to the basic of giving leadership to the Irish public, telling the Irish public in so many basic terms where we stand and whither we are going.

Another part of the present Government structure is the whole approach of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to European Regional Policy. I do not blame the Minister for everything that has happened in that area. I know that conflicts are involved but, at the same time, there has again been an element of overselling, an element of racing here and there, giving Press conferences after meetings and generally overselling, overheating, overtelling, overtalking. This is not what Government is about. Government is not about fancy public relations. It is not about fancy gimmickry. It is about getting on with the job. All my information is that much more quiet diplomacy on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Europe would be far more effective than the gimmickry which, on my information, has totally antagonised the Foreign Ministers of Europe and totally antagonised Europeans generally.

That is not the way things are done in Europe. Things are done in quiet ways; things are done by personal contact. Things are not done by opening up to the Press as soon as one goes out of a meeting. The Minister for Labour, in particular, has been disgraceful in this particular attitude. He has made a joke of the Irish Government in going across to Europe and, for blatant domestic political reasons, attacking the social action programme inaugurated, expanded and developed by Commissioner Hillery. That does not wear in Europe and the sooner the present Government realises it the better; it does not wear in Europe no more than this type of document before the House wears here. This sort of carry-on is only making a joke of the present Government.

I do not like to see Ireland being made a joke of and it has been made a joke of every time the Minister for Labour goes out from here and proceeds to have Press conferences after walking out of a Council of Ministers' meeting, deploring the social action programme solely on the basis of domestic consumption at home and to score petty party political points. Commissioner Hillery is no longer a member of Fianna Fáil; he is a Commissioner of the European Economic Community. That is all the Europeans think about and the Government should realise that. If they are scoring points here they are losing points out there.

If the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks he is scoring domestic points through the manipulation of the media here and through the public relations and Press agency system adopted by the present Government that is all right on the domestic front but it is losing Ireland points all the way on the European front.

Politics and Government are a very responsible and constructive business. It is not about Press agencies. There is no question about it, the present Government have been excellent in regard to Press "agentry"—I call it that; I do not like any of the other fancy words. Press "agentry" is another word for general manipulation by all sorts of devious and subtle means of the media. It has been done very well, excellently indeed, by the present Government. I want to give them one bit of advice. This is a very slippery slope because media, rightly, in order to survive as an extra estate in any democratic community, must sometimes start being critical. In order to survive themselves they will shortly wake out of the cloud of euphoria and start being critical. When they start being critical, then the public will finally see that people do not govern a country in 100 days.

If this Government had a titter of wit, to use a Northern phrase, they would not have courted unpopularity and, if they had not given goodies right across the board in every area that one can think of, if they had not pandered to public support by the media as they did, they would now be in a position to face the storm clouds that are coming up on the economic horizon. They would then be in a position to present, not maybe next year but in another year, a budget that would be indicative of real social and economic progress. They have thrown everything out the window and there will be no point in coming along here on the next Appropriation Bill blaming the world situation and blaming the oil crisis.

The whole strategy of the Government, the whole approach by the Government, in every aspect of economic and political development here has been the development of a mushroom euphoria. This has been a major contributory factor and they themselves have contributed to inflation to a very large extent. There is no point in putting the blame on the world situation. We had that once before and the people gave their verdict in March of 1957 when the then Coalition Government tried to blame all their troubles on world-wide inflation. It is not good enough when the present Government, by their own policies and because of their own psychological attitude have been a very big factor in this development. The Government will get no thanks for this. It is most important to keep the economy on a balanced keel and developed in a balanced way. The only way that can be done is by devising a long-term strategy and not going for short-term gains. The short-term gains of this year's budget are already turning sour. Short-term gains are no answer to real national and economic progress, whether it be on the economic front or the overall political front from the point of view of our general political relations.

These are basic facts and, if I have hit hard, I had no intention of doing so and I hope I am interpreted as speaking not in a partisan way but as an ex-member of Government myself realising the problems that face a Government. A basic fact of being a member of the Government is unpopularity, as one has to do unpopular things and one does not go about looking for favours and handing out goodies, trying to be a smart boy and a popular boy. I offer that piece of advice.

Mr. Markey

In his speech the Leader of the Opposition here used the words "waffle", "contempt", "party political points", and "ambivalence" on at least three occasions. When a person accuses somebody of committing those sins he should not commit them to an even greater extent. His own speech has been full of waffle and contempt for the Seanad.

The Minister for Finance has given us this morning a resumé of the activities of the Government since they took up office last March. He set out before us figures indicating the extent of the success of the Government in implementing part of their 14-point programme and also figures pointing to the dangers which exist for the economy. The Leader of the Opposition did not make any attempt to refute any of those figures or to produce alternative figures as to what could be done by the Opposition.

The Minister is right to come before us and indicate the dangers which lie ahead. We must all face up to those dangers. It is going to be a long haul to get over them but they have only come to the surface in the past two months, due particularly to the energy crisis. No matter what energy crisis or world-wide inflation is at our door, nothing can take away from the performance of the Government since last March. The Minister says on page three of his introductory statement:

The growth rate has moved up sharply from about 3 per cent in recent years to a level of moving towards 7 per cent at present. Concrete evidence of the success of this years budgeting strategy is indicated by the increase of over 6 per cent in real terms in gross domestic product, the fall of 7,000 in the number of persons unemployed, and the increase in real terms of almost 5½ per cent in non-agricultural income.

That is quite an impressive performance after only nine months in office. The Government does not exist in a state of euphoria, as stated by Senator Lenihan. The Minister for Finance tells us this morning "so far, so good" but we have a different ball game ahead of us now due to the energy crisis and to world-wide inflation.

Senator Lenihan accuses the Minister for Finance of not pinpointing what exactly the Government are going to do. I would remind him of what the Fianna Fáil spokesman for Transport and Power indicated in Dáil Éireann should be done when the energy crisis first came to the surface. He suggested that rationing should be introduced immediately. That is about two months ago. Why should we have imposed the bureaucracy of a rationing system on our people for the past few months when, with a certain amount of inconvenience which the people can put up with, we can forestall such a rigid system as rationing would demand?

We have survived this far without rationing. We may have to introduce it in the New Year. If so we will make the best of it. The Minister was correct in indicating the part played by the removal of VAT from food in keeping the cost of living index within reasonable proportions. In the six months ended in mid-November food prices rose by only 1.7 per cent as compared with 14.1 per cent in the previous six months. The withdrawal of VAT from food was criticised by the Opposition both at election time and since, but the figures are there for all to see.

Senator Lenihan accused the Government of ambivalence regarding the Sunningdale agreement. It is strange to hear such a word coming from the Opposition, as it was part and parcel of their doctrine for the past number of years. I welcome Senator Lenihan's remark that it is the first faltering step in the right direction. Even though this is a grudging admission on his part, it is something the Government found hard to draw from a Fianna Fáil spokesman in the other House last week in the discussion on the Sunningdale agreement. We are not a Government of 100 days as Senator Lenihan stated. We will fulfill our office. We do not live in a state of euphoria. We face up to situations and do not panic. If we did introduce the rationing system, no doubt Fianna Fáil would regard it as a panic measure.

We will deal with the energy crisis or inflation as it arises without panic. The Opposition wish to divert attention from the implementation of many parts of the 14-point programme which the Coalition laid before the electorate last February. It is worth while to mention a few of them and have them written into the record.

In the case of social welfare services, Fianna Fáil stated before the general election it was impossible in the case of old age pensions either to reduce the pensionable age or ease the means test. The National Coalition Government have done both. The budget provided that service for the people. There is no need to dwell on the improvements in children's allowances, widows' pensions, disabled persons' allowances. All these matters were crying out for attention over the past number of years and were pointed to by the then Opposition as matters which could be dealt with in a satisfactory manner, but Fianna Fáil refused to do so.

As from next April, the Government have committed themselves to grant to all free hospital treatment, free inpatient and outpatient services, free maternity service and infant welfare services. The cost of medicines has been curtailed. The Minister has indicated steps taken to keep to a target of £25,000 in the housing schemes. This is the subsidy given to endeavour to stop the position deteriorating so that people could not raise money to build their own houses. This Government will not satisfy Fianna Fáil, as they have in the first months of their being in office accomplished things which the Opposition neglected. They are a united Government.

The Minister for Finance is correct in warning us. He would be wrong to spell out at this moment the detailed measures which may have to be taken to cope with any deterioration in the economic situation. He is correct in stating we should mark time and not take the steps in the wrong direction which would put us further back. I welcome the Minister's statement this morning. It is a commonsense approach to the problems confronting the nation. He is right to take credit for the work done by the Government during the past eight months, which has been appreciated by the electorate of the Monaghan constituency. This can be put down as being a cross-section of the electorate. Most by-elections are looked upon in that light. It is an expression of a vote of confidence in the work done by the Government.

Mr. Killilea

You never won a by-election by such a narrow margin in all your life.

Mr. Markey

I will clarify that point. The Monaghan constituency has for long been a marginal one and the issue has been decided by——

Mr. Killilea

Mid-Cork was marginal.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Markey

——300 votes in the past three elections in that constituency. Fine Gael won two seats out of three in 1969 by 300 votes. We lost——

Mr. Killilea

Last year it was the other way round.

Mr. Markey

——one seat in the general election last February and we won back——

Mr. Killilea

It was the other way round last year. You won last month by 125 votes.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Markey

May I point out to the Senator that 300 votes has for long been the deciding margin in the Monaghan constituency?

A Senator

The Senator said it should have been 3,000. That is a credit to the Government.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Markey to continue on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Markey

We will always give the Seanad an opportunity of making comments on the state of the nation and the performance of the Government. The people of this nation will commend the Government for their actions dealing with their various responsibilities over their past eight months in office. The electorate and the people of this nation are confident that the Government will continue in that way to meet any problematical situation economically or otherwise that may confront this nation.

Mr. Keegan

If we are to have a healthy democracy and Parliament, we must have debate and criticism. Any Government party at any particular time must be prepared to accept criticism. That is a democratic exercise and it is disappointing to hear Government Senators objecting to criticism. That is a function of democracy.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Keegan

I intend now to deal with the Appropriation Bill. We are dealing with the different categories of financial allocations for every facet of Government activity for this year. I will deal as briefly as possible with the different aspects of that financial allocation. The Minister referred in his speech to the increase in farmers' incomes during this year. It is disturbing for the Minister and all of us to know that farm costs have outstepped farm incomes this year. If we are to have a continuance of growth in our agricultural incomes the farming community must seek increases for all agricultural produce in 1974. If those increases are not forthcoming farming will not be a profitable profession.

It has been stated that livestock numbers increased during 1973. That increase did not just happen during 1973. Anybody associated with rural Ireland knows full well that it takes long-term planning to build up the herds. Therefore, no Minister can claim credit for an increase in our cattle numbers during 1973 because that planning took place in 1971 and 1972.

The latter half of 1973 has been disastrous for Irish agriculture. Cattle prices failed to increase. They failed to maintain the levels which farmers were receiving in the early part of 1973. The same applies to potatoes. Potatoes were a scarce and dear commodity during the early part of 1973 but farmers are unable to find a market for their potatoes at the present time. That, in itself, will result in a serious loss to the farming community this year of income which they badly need because of the huge increase which has taken place in farm costs. Farm machinery, for instance, has increased by 100 per cent, approximately, in two years. The same applies to fertilisers, spare parts and building materials. When people talk about taxing the farmers they forget that the farmer has paid a greater share in the form of taxation during 1973 than ever before because of the introduction of VAT on all agricultural purchases. When people say that the farmer is not pulling his weight and not making a contribution to the Exchequer they should bear in mind that he has already made a major contribution this year through the huge increase in costs of farm machinery.

It is important that the Government ensure that adequate oil reserves are made available if the farmers are to continue to progress during 1974. As a farmer I can say that the farming community are having difficulties at the present time in securing an adequate supply of diesel oil. The situation is so bad in the midlands that farmers have to swop five-gallon drums of oil in an effort to keep going. Diesel oil is not available to them. If we realise the importance of agriculture to our national economy steps must be taken right away to ensure that the farmer is guaranteed a supply of diesel oil, lubricating oil and the other items he needs in order to continue in agricultural production during 1974. We must remember that he is more dependent on oil than other sections of the community because of the complete mechanisation which has taken place on all farms over the past few years. The day of the horse is gone. I do not know if anybody would be capable of working a horse at the present time. Therefore, it is important that enough diesel oil be made available to ensure that the farmer can keep up production in 1974.

I should now like to refer to interest charges on bank advances and on house loans. My opinion on house loans is that when you introduce a subsidy in order to provide cheap money for a section of the community you are giving money at a false price. It is like subsidising something and asking somebody else to pay for it. The Government should have taken action to provide money without having to bear a subsidy because the subsidy has to be met by taxation and, therefore, when you open the door you have to continue subsidising. The only way to continue subsidising is to take more and more out of the Exchequer. This sets off a chain reaction and it is very difficult to know where it will end. It is a serious problem for the person building a house at the present time. The cost of servicing the loans they need in order to provide themselves with homes is very high. An easier way would have been to increase the grants for house building. We all know that building grants bear no relation whatsoever to the costs of providing the house. Those grants have not been increased for many years. The Minister for Finance should—in fact, must—increase reconstruction grants, new house grants and all forms of housing grants, in the very near future. A better way of assisting house builders would be to give them low and subsidised interest rates. Not only can this be done, it must be done. The small building grant bears no relation whatsoever to the cost of providing a house at present.

Great play has been and is being made of the huge social welfare increases that were given in the budget of 1973. The people got nothing in the different categories except what they expected. Promises had been made before our entry to the EEC and they expected everything they received. The disturbing feature of the whole thing is that the increases have proved of no value because continued inflation has superseded any benefits which would have accrued from the increases in social welfare. Therefore, there is no use talking about the benefits through social welfare. Those benefits are long forgotten. It is the duty of every Government to ensure that the weaker sections of the community are looked after. More must be done for the old age pensioner residing alone, the widow, the orphan and all the other social welfare recipients who are so dependent on social welfare benefits at present. Those increases have been of no benefit whatever because prices kept rising all the time.

A great deal was said about the reduction in food prices. There was no mention whatsoever about the increases in rates, in rents, in the cost of fuel, in the cost of footwear and of all types of clothing, whether outer wear or underwear. Those items are just as essential to daily living as food itself. The removal of VAT from food has not brought about a reduction in prices. We all seem to forget that one of the most basic of food items is the loaf. We are now buying a smaller loaf than we did a few months ago. Most people seem to have forgotten that: the loaf is smaller. The idea was to take a slice off the loaf, the public would not know and if the price was right, there would be no objection to the smaller loaf. However, the people do know they are buying a smaller loaf, that there is a slice less on that loaf, and that it is costing more money. The removal of VAT from food was an unwise step because it caused an increase in the cost of administration and nobody appeared to benefit from the exercise.

At the moment a great deal is being said about the Sunningdale talks concerning Northern Ireland. I will not deal with that matter but we all know quite well that there will never be peace in this island nor real progress until the last British soldier is removed from this territory. That is something that we must all work for and the goal we must all endeavour to reach. When that day comes there will be real peace and progress in these islands. In dealing with the Sunningdale talks, which were covered by Telefís Éireann, we should refer to the cost incurred. I do not know what the cost was but perhaps the people will know later. Was it a good exercise to move the entire staff of Telefís Éireann to cover the Sunningdale agreement? As regards Telefís Éireann in general, I believe—as I have said before when I was a supporter of the Government then in power—they have failed in their obligation to the people. They have failed to give the type of programmes they desire; they have failed to give them "the good and true"—I think those were the words used when Telefís Éireann was inaugurated. If Telefís Éireann cannot give the people a better service there is only one thing to do and that is to hand the entire organisation over to a private organisation or to somebody who will endeavour to run it on the same lines as a newspaper; who will run it on more democratic lines and strike a better balance between the various sections of the community and the various interests of the different sections of the community. That will have to be done at a later stage. The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has completely manipulated the activities of Radio-Telefís Éireann. That cannot be good or healthy for any society or for any democracy. It cannot be done as it is presently structured; an improvement cannot be made until it is handed over to a corporation or group who will run it on more democratic lines.

We do not try to blame the Government for the energy crisis. However, most of us are convinced that some form of rationing should have been introduced. Only this morning, I stopped at five different filling stations in an effort to secure some petrol. I saw long queues of cars on this very wet morning. If rationing was introduced we would all know where we stood. I am convinced that thousands and thousands of people have millions of gallons of petrol stored away——

A Senator

Hear, hear.

Mr. Keegan

——when others of us only have what keeps us going from day to day. We hope the crisis will pass. We do not want to add fuel to the fire at present but a great deal of inconvenience is being caused to us all. I mentioned the difficulties in getting diesel oil for agriculture. I know a milk haulier who uses his truck to transport milk to a local creamery. He was offered 20 gallons of diesel oil last week—20 gallons to last him until 1st January, with a truck on the road every day. Something has gone wrong and the present state of affairs must be rectified. There is no use pretending there is no scarcity. If we had rationing, we would all know where we stood. Whether it were five gallons or four gallons a week, we would know what we were to get and would have to plan our activities in accordance with the supply of petrol issued. There has been hoarding and there is no use pretending otherwise.

With regard to the activities of the Government in general, people expected a great deal from them because they were conditioned to the belief that if they changed the Government they would have available to them a huge reserve of new expertise, of new talents and skills which were unheard of before. The people have given them the chance to demonstrate their superior ability; they have given them an opportunity to demonstrate their political skills. They may have the political skills but perhaps it is a different matter to get down to the basic realities. The people have given the Government those opportunities but I am convinced that they have failed to live up to expectations. I do not deny that the Government have problems but when their predecessors were in office it should have been realised that they had many problems. The media were critical of the Government then and so were the Opposition. People were led to believe that nothing stood between the way to prosperity and the people except Fianna Fáil.

The people exercised their democratic right and got rid of Fianna Fáil. We accepted that decision being true democrats. However, we now have the Government which promised so much failing to fulfil their obligations to the people despite the assertion that they had superior intelligence, new skills and expertise which were unheard of before. The Government may have their problems but they should demonstrate to the people their alleged expertise. The Government should carry on with the work and Fianna Fáil will be constructive in their opposition. Fianna Fáil will assist the Government in time of crisis and will endeavour to help the country to overcome their problems.

We will have many serious problems in 1974 but we hope they will not be as great as they now appear. We hope too, for continued progress, more job opportunities for our young people, greater prosperity in agriculture and an extension of house building. Let us hope we can achieve this. With reasonable co-operation many of the problems which are international will be overcome. In so far as it is possible, we will help the Minister to overcome those problems which were not of his own making.

Mr. O'Toole

I should like to welcome the Minister's statement this morning on the current position of the economy. Senator Lenihan, leader of the Opposition, was less than factual in his comments on the contents of that statement. The Minister has given us a brief outline of the results of Government policies over the last nine months. This is a factual statement of the situation. He has given us a broad outline of the position in the social, economic, industrial and agricultural sectors. He has also tempered his statement with a warning. This is what can be expected of a Minister of the present Government—integrity and honesty. It represents a genuine effort on the Government's part to tell the people of the problems which face this Government, and the Governments of western Europe, at present. There is no ambivalence about this statement. There is no ambiguity in it. It is a factual attempt to get across to the House the real problems.

As the Minister has said, the economic indicators show that the policy pursued by the Government in the past nine months have proved their worth. We have had a substantial increase in industrial exports, agricultural incomes and production, and the creation of approximately 7,000 new jobs. This nine-month period is one of which any Government could be proud at present.

The leader of the Opposition mentioned the word "Press-agentry". I presume it is a newly coined word which may, or may not, find its way into the Oxford Dictionary. To me it means that the Government wish to keep the public informed of every step they are taking in implementing their policies. This was not the style of the last Government; they preferred to hide certain things which they felt would be unpalatable to the public. This Government have always told the people what they were doing and they have made some statements which they knew would not be to their benefit. I recall the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries making a statement some months back warning the farmers that their would be a fall in the price of cattle. This, the Opposition must admit, was outside the control of the Government. The Minister, Deputy Clinton, need not have made that statement at the time, but he felt it was his duty to do so, knowing that this situation would come about.

The Minister for Finance has also made statements today which he need not have made. He feels, however, that it is his duty to warn the public that there may be difficulties ahead. The leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he suggests that we are too much "press-agentry" orientated, while, on the other hand, he blames the Minister this morning for not telling us enough. There is a certain ambivalence and ambiguity in that statement.

We on this side of the House are prepared to accept criticism but we prefer it to be constructive. If those who castigate and try to demolish the policies outlined by the Government would suggest alternative policies it would be much more constructive and, therefore, more acceptable to the Government.

The Sunningdale talks were mentioned. As Senator Markey mentioned, and I am glad of this, there was a certain admission, although it was a begrudging, painful and reluctant one, by the leader of the Opposition, that there is something worthwhile in the Sunningdale agreement. This is a little more than was admitted in the Dáil last week. The volume of media personnel which attended this conference at Sunningdale has been criticised but the Government have no control over who goes to a conference. The number of media personnel in attendance there is indicative of the importance they attached to this conference. Sunningdale was something about which the people should be informed. Sunningdale is something which was long overdue and would not have come about, in my opinion, but for the change of Government on 28th February, 1973.

For the first time in the last 50 years there are delegates from north and south coming together. At the beginning of the four days they were poles apart but at the end of the four days they were cemented together in a resolution to work out an agreement for the good of the two parts of this country. This is something for which we can be thankful. We can thank our negotiators who went there. Having said that I think that a certain amount of gratitude is also due to some members of the last Government in having held out on their straight road to reconciliation and to peace in the North because they were under pressure within their own party to capitulate to the hawks. Sunningdale took place because of their integrity and because of their perseverence to see it through. These members of that Government are to be thanked.

Senator Keegan mentioned housing, the subsidies and the availability of money for the provision of housing. He has said that a subsidised interest rate is not the right way to go about helping people who are in need of houses. He said that this subsidy would have to be paid for. Again, this is an example of shallow criticism. Can Senator Keegan tell me or anybody else how any Government can provide money for housing, or for any other purpose, without somebody having to pay the price, be it by way of direct rent, loan, subsidies towards interest rates and so on? From the way in which he would wish the statement to be interpreted I think he is naive enough to think that an increase in a housing grant need not be paid back. This is a ludicrous suggestion. I presume this is what he intended.

The Government were very quick to the rescue in this crisis. The increase in interests rates was forced on this country. It came about from pressures from outside. It stemmed from increases in rates of interest elsewhere. Building societies and banks here were forced to adjust their rates upwards in order to hold capital in this country. The Government did a very wise thing because the system they applied was equitable. They got their priorities right. They realised and they have always said this even in their years in opposition, that there was a housing crisis. For that reason they gave this their immediate and urgent attention. The Minister for Local Government did the right thing. To show the determination with which Ministers in this Government are prepared to tackle their problems the Minister for Local Government made an unpopular approach by clamping down on the availability of the moneys for second-hand houses for a period. This was not popular but he was prepared to take that risk. The situation has become brighter in this field and we are now able to give more money as a result of his foresight and as a result of the implementations of this policy.

The Government's record in the social field is worthy of mention. Senator Keegan mentioned that the increases were overtaken by the rate of inflation. This is again a generalised statement which has no basis. Can Senator Keegan tell me that the increase of £1 on a £5 pension, which is a 20 per cent increase, is overtaken by inflation? These are statements which are not factual. They might sound good and make it appear as if the Government did nothing but when they are broken down and looked on in their proper light they prove to be nonfactual.

It was amusing to hear Senator Keegan appealing to the Government to do something more for the unmarried mother, the widow, the orphan and the old age pensioner. For 16 years, when Fianna Fáil were in Government, the Opposition appealed and clamoured for action in this field. It took the National Coalition to come into office and give these people, the underprivileged of our society, their first real break for many years. This has been appreciated. I know of many people in my constituency who are in receipt of social welfare benefit and who appreciate the increases that have been granted. I think that Opposition members will admit that in their own constituencies they will find that the increases—in the old age pension, in children's allowances, allowances for deserted wives and, for the first time, in allowances for unmarried mothers— show that they have a social conscience and that they have got their priorities right. It is something that should have been done many years ago.

The Government are not in any state of euphoria as the leader of the Opposition seems to suggest. They are hard-headed men who realise the job they have to do. They realise the difficulties that confront them. They also realise that many of these difficulties have now been aggravated by factors outside the control of the Government.

If the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition is anything to go by, I believe this Government will be in office for many, many years to come. There was not one iota of constructive criticism uttered by Senator Lenihan. He seems to think that the job of Opposition is to criticise for the sake of criticism. If that is the way he wants it then he can have it that way, but it will not pay dividends in the long run. An Opposition, in dealing with a matter as serious as this, should be prepared to discuss these matters seriously and in a constructive way.

The Minister has issued warnings. The position with regard to the oil crisis is not of our making. It is something over which we have no control, but it is a crisis with which we will come to grips and make the best of in the coming weeks and months. The attempts to make it into a political issue—to use a phrase of the Leader of the Opposition—is not "on" because the Minister will not be dragged into that trap. We are facing a time of danger in our economy. This is freely admitted. It is because of the oil crisis and anything that can be done to avert serious trouble or to make the situation less serious is most welcome. We can rely on the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that we will suffer as little as possible during the crisis that seems to be coming our way. I wonder, if things get worse in the months ahead and if prices rise as a result of the shortage of fuel, will the Opposition cease to play politics with the situation and admit that the upward trend in prices can be traced to the shortage of fuel which is outside the control of the Government? I shall await with interest their attitude then.

The Government have now been in office for nine months. Much has been expected of them and much has been accomplished by them. At present we are just toddling but when we get into our full stride we will, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, deliver the goods.

Mr. Killilea

Yesterday evening on leaving this House I was under the impression that I should be here this morning at the crack of dawn to hear what every Senator in the House expected to hear, that is, an announcement to the nation through the democratic process of this House as to the plight of the nation now and the remedies offered by the Minister for Finance to get us out of that plight. I rose early and came here early but I have been disappointed with this document which has been read to us by the Minister for Finance. The document which was to refer to the state of the nation at the present time told us nothing at all.

In the first three pages of it, we heard about the achievements of the Government. We were given the impression that the garden was full of roses. However, on eight lines of page 3 we were told the sad facts but no remedies were suggested. On page 4 we had the problem connected with the oil crisis defined in two different ways. There was no mention of a remedy nor was any alternative way suggested. The help of the Members of this House or the people of the country was not sought. We were just told that there were two separate problems.

I should like to deal with the second problem because we had Senator Markey telling us from the opposite benches that the Government were right regarding non-rationing of fuel and that our suggestion of rationing made two months ago, was wrong. There are two matters involved in this. First, I should like to ask the Minister if he can clarify a rumour that is at present circulating. The rumour has arisen from the policy brought to the Houses of the Oireachtas 16 or 17 months ago by the then Fianna Fáil Government in connection with the storage of fuel oils for this nation. The House and the other House gave permission willingly to the then Minister—who is the Leader of the Opposition here today, to erect storage tanks for massive storage of oil for the nation. We then went out of office.

I wonder if the present Government have filled those fuel storage tanks since they came into office in the knowledge that this oil crisis was just around the corner. If storage space was not available it should have been made available in the last nine glorious months of the Coalition Government. In the city of Galway there are a small number of fuel storage tanks and, to add further momentum to that rumour, it is suggested that those tanks are full to the brim and that ships came into Galway Bay laden with oil and were turned away because there was no room for it. That is only rumour, but rumour should be stopped and the Minister for Finance is the person who should stop it. If there is a price increase granted this week or next week those tanks will be a very profitable proposition. They will be, not for the benefit of this country but for the benefit of the few who at the present moment have sufficient in their coffers to survive any fuel crisis.

Secondly, I refer to Senator Markey's statement that everything has been rosy regarding the fuel situation and that nobody has gone without. Very few have gone without because they have acted illegally, totally illegally. Senator Markey should drive, as I have to drive from the west of Ireland to Dublin, to perform the duties we were elected to do. Then let him negotiate his way home from this city begging a miserable 50 pence worth of petrol. I am at a stage at this moment that my car cannot possibly take me home and I cannot get petrol. I have a friend, and I welcome him to this House because it is my first opportunity to do so. He is the Parliamentary Secretary and if I am in trouble I am sure he will see to my needs.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Kenny)

Arrange that through CIE.

Mr. Killilea

I cannot do that because the services of CIE are not available to me.

Mr Kenny

We will make them available.

Mr. Killilea

That is good. We should have rationed fuel. Take, for instance, commercial travellers who get their bread and butter by their work. What plight are those men and women in today? How will they undertake the journeys necessary in conducting their businesses? How can they safely say that they can go from A to B and be sure to get to C from there? Those people are in a desperate state. If rationing had been brought in and if the coupons had been circulated, every single person in this country driving a motor car would know exactly where and how far he could go so that he could return to his base.

There are men going around this country today with gallons of petrol in their cars hoping that they will not be caught because this is illegal. Should the Government not have moved? Should the Government not have said: "You are a commercial traveller. You are entitled to X amount of petrol so that you can come home." I ask, even at this late stage, that the Government act on this and give everyone his fair share. If everybody gets a fair share and nobody seems to be getting more than anybody else, then the problem will ease itself. There may not be enough petrol to go around, but certainly it will not be as it is now where there is nothing less than pandemonium.

There is one other point. In the last fortnight in my county—and I suppose this prevails throughout the country—any farmer buying a new tractor will not get diesel oil. Something must be done to protect him also. I know several men who have bought new tractors and they cannot get diesel oil. I know of garages that have to return deposits or the cash for tractors because they cannot get diesel oil. It must be made available. There must be some system where equality and fair play prevail. I would like the Minister to consider doing something positive even at this late stage.

Now I come to other matters which come within the scope of this debate. We have heard a lot about rising prices. We have heard a lot about the cost of living. There is no need for any man from now on to talk about the increased cost of living because every man, woman and child knows it has more than doubled in the last 12 months. I will give instances. Senator O'Toole seems not to believe me. I know a man who has a shop in Galway city and who told me that in the underwear business alone, if he had bought his stock last March, closed his shop for three months and re-opened it now, he would have made 160 per cent profit. That is a fact.

Mr. O'Toole

The man does not live on the sale of underwear alone.

Mr. Killilea

That man does live on the sale of underwear, a surprising thing today. That is a fact of life— 160 per cent profit in three months. It may be laughable, but it is a fact.

I shall give another instance. Grain was last bought for from £27 to £30 a ton. One year's crop sells the next year. I ask the Government and the Minister for Finance to explain to me how the millers who bought that grain for £27.50, dried it, which cost £5, and resold it today at £56 to £64 per ton to the farming community from whom they bought it. What profit is that? What profit is that to be allowed to any section of the community? This is a fact and Senator O'Toole knows it.

What about the food compounds? The material that went into the food compounds was bought from the Irish farmers at an average price of £36 per ton, was compounded by the millers and resold to the farming community at prices ranging from between £70 to £105 per ton. That is a fact. What answer is there from the National Coalition Government or from the Minister for Finance regarding those two facts? In addition to that insult, farmers had to pay increased value-added tax on the re-purchase of that produce in compound form. The millers got off scot free and from indications regarding the price of feed stuffs for next year, based on the price paid for their grain this year, they will have exactly the same profit next year, and no move by the Government to try to stop them.

Senator O'Toole stated that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made unpopular remarks particularly regarding the price of stock, and particularly beef. Senator O'Toole did not tell us the reasons why Mr. Clinton made this statement but I will tell the House why. The leader of the farming community, Mr. Maher, said: "Get rid of your stock quickly" and Mr. Clinton had to say: "The bottom will not fall out of the price of livestock." That is the reason why Mr. Clinton made the supposed unpopular statement. It has not been proved if he is right or wrong.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Brosnahan)

The Minister.

Mr. Killilea

Sorry, the Minister. Neither has the leader of the IFA been proved right or wrong. We were told during the Monaghan by-election campaign that the difference in the price of cattle in the corresponding year would be a drop of £3 per cwt. Last Monday cattle were sold at the mart in Tuam—10½ cwt. at £143.50. I still do not know whether the leader of the IFA or the Minister was right. To add injury to insult, on Friday last the Minister said: "Do not worry. Cattle prices are rising." The Minister should pay a visit to our county. Since he made that statement the price of cattle has gone down further. I am a farmer and I am hoping the Minister is correct in his statement. It is essential to me as well as to the entire farming community to have stable livestock prices. The Minister will say he has maintained the French market for lamb and that it has remained open. If cattle were sold at £10 or £11 per cwt., I wonder would the lamb market in France remain open? I doubt it, and this has been proved over the years. When beef is cheap so also, as sure as day follows night, will mutton be cheap. I make these statements to inform Senator O'Toole in case he is not paying his usual trips around the prosperous parts of Mayo where these facts of life prevail.

I must say something about the two little babies we have in our town, the beet and the potato factories. When the Coalition took office the Minister for Finance rushed to our factories. We were to be saved and taken out of our dilemma, or so we thought. He arrived down in the morning and met all the folks. At lunch-time in the news bulletin it was stated to the nation that the Minister for Finance on his visit to Tuam factory said: "If the farmers of the West of Ireland are not prepared to put their backs to the wheel, I am afraid nothing can be done for the Tuam beet and potato factories." Then, I suspect, the political wolves of Connacht located the Minister on the road between Tuam and Galway and in the 6.30 p.m. news bulletin on television that night we had a different story. Things were not so bad after all and the Coalition Government would help Tuam. Understanding the special position of the west of Ireland farmers, the Government would see that everything possible would be done for the Tuam beet and potato factories.

Earlier this morning Senator Lenihan spoke about the Press and television. How did it happen that on the same day over the national network the Minister made two different statements on one subject? Maybe I am not blessed with a high IQ or a lot of grey matter, but I am not so green as to believe that somebody here in Dublin as is usual was not got at to make two contradictory statements.

Last year I made a positive contribution in this House and further positive contributions outside this House concerning a potato marketing board. I knew I was right then, and I am still right. The outgoing Government knew I was right and the Government know I am right but, rather than admit I was right, they have tried in every feasible way to beat around the bush and put into action a properly structured potato marketing board.

As early as last July in a very loosely worded statement to the Press the Government announced that there would be a market price for potatoes of £16 per ton but they did not tell the farmers that that price was applicable only to potatoes of a quality equal to those for export. That would not take into account one-third of the Irish crop and so that was false information. Following pressures from potato producers the Government took a further step recently. Why not grasp the nettle and set up a proper potato marketing organisation so that everybody will get a fair deal and know what exactly the position will be the following year? Potatoes from the Tuam plant could be processed and sold on the open market at twice the price. I suggest it is up to the Government to act quickly and set up this potato marketing board. It is needed now more than ever before.

Last week a symposium was held in Tuam which concerned the Tuam plant. This plant is vital to the town in which I live. The symposium was organised by the chamber of commerce. The views which emerged are not, I fear, the answer. The big guns from St. Stephen's Green House, that eight storey block in the centre of Dublin city owned by the Sugar Company, attended. They spent hours telling the growers what they wanted, particularly the beet growers because they were a little worried. That same week we had the Minister for Finance saying in the Dáil he would stop the scandal in beet pulp. I will deal with that later.

Co-operatives in the west cannot work because too many small farmers are involved. To sell to co-operatives is a different thing. Co-operatives on the basis of smaller numbers to cover a large tract of land should be formed. I agree with the suggestion that beet and potatoes should be handled by co-operatives. The fact is that beet will be grown in the west if the Sugar Company will pay a reasonable price for it. In this day and age of rising prices surely £7.50p to £8 per ton for beet is not a realistic price. Account should be taken of the fact that in my county, for example, 80 per cent of the farmers have valuations of less than £16. I ask the Government at this belated hour to do something positive for the small farmers of the west if they want them to survive these days of trial. Their backs are to the wall. They have proved it in the sugar beet industry, in the pig industry, in the potato industry, in tillage and in milk. The only price that has risen is the price of sheep. That was because of the previous Government's policy aimed at increasing the stock of sheep. The Minister announced today proposals for a stock of beef unparalleled in Europe and never dreamt of in this nation. I feel sure that the Government cannot claim responsibility for that in their nine months in office. Surely that must be credited to the previous Government or else my grey matter has gone crazy altogether.

Mr. Kenny

That is for sure.

Mr. Killilea

To get back to the beet situation, I would say to the Government at this late stage to grasp the nettle now. The farmers of the west, under their peculiar circumstances, need at least £4 to £5 per ton direct subsidy from the State. Then we can talk about the viability of the Tuam plant. I will be quoted in history as saying on this day that, if the Government do not take some action, they will witness the closure of the Tuam plant. I know a man who lives quite close to me in Dunmore who will be a little bit upset should such a situation arise. I am sure when he reads this statement he will tell himself he had better get up in the Dáil, say that Senator Killilea was right and get the Government to take action.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a west of Ireland man and I am delighted he is present in the Seanad today. I would ask him to impress upon the Government the need to take action. Hollymount and Ballinrobe and other places in his constituency have always been good supporters of the Tuam plant. He knows the facts and the only reason they are not growing for that plant is because they are not getting the price.

I now want to deal with the scandal of beet pulp. Merchants and other people are supposed to have made millions from the sale of pulp. I should like to inform the Minister for Finance that he can include me amongst those people who are supposed to have made millions from pulp. I, and my father before me, sold surplus pulp from the Sugar Company when they failed to sell it and when the growers refused to take it. When it was suggested in 1939 that the surplus pulp should be used to make what are referred to as bridges in the bogs of Connacht, it was then that individuals said they would try to help. The BGA were the first to sell pulp. They failed. The Sugar Company had obviously failed. Then individuals came to the rescue of the Sugar Company with their stockpiling of pulp.

Let us give thanks to those people who took them out of trouble. I know that it was in the Minister's statement and I know that he was not well aware of the situation that prevailed in regard to pulp. He was silly enough to pay heed to the people who sent over the memorandum from the Sugar Company and to make this statement. I know the Minister for Finance and I gave him due credit; he must depend on the semi-State organisation for guidance. However, I should like to let the Minister know that there was never a scandal in pulp. Any man who ever needed beet or grew it for any of the sugar factories, or who needed pulp, was never refused it; he could get it at first cost. People who bought pulp, stored it and sold it, on an average in two years out of every three, lost money.

It is easy to speak this year when the price of other foodstuffs has rocketed. The farmers all want their pulp, and good luck to them for making a dollar now on it, and I hope that they make more money on it, because they are the people who grow the beet for the factories and are the first people who are entitled to make profit on the pulp. Dare any man come into either House of the Oireachtas and say that up to this year there were scandals in the sale of pulp. That is far from the truth. I have made my remarks regarding the beet and potato plants. They are quite short and sharp; pay the price and you will get the commodity. If you do not pay the price you will not get the commodity. It is as simple as that. Senator O'Toole said that the position regarding the housing programme for this year was rosy. Last year we built 25,000 houses. We gave over 200,000 grants for reconstruction, water and sewerage. Have we heard the facts regarding this year? They say that everything is rosy without telling us what the rose is. Is it not true to say that the target for this year's houses will not be completed? The target for the payment of grants for reconstruction and for water and sewerage will not be completed. Hundreds of people have been left in a serious position as a result of the decision not to grant loans for the purchase of secondhand houses. I know several. There is no point in supposing that the opposite is true. They are the people who know this is true because they are the ones who are implicated. Pious talk to people who know the situation is of no use. The go-slow by the engineers in every council area, particularly in ours, has held up payments of grants. In addition, it has held up the workings in our county. I am a member of the General Council of County Councils and I know that problems exist in all councils.

What are we going to do about the miserable amount of money granted us by the Government under the local improvements scheme? What are we going to do about the more miserable amount granted in relation to amenity grants? The go-slow in regard to the allocation of this miserable amount of money has stopped progress. Schemes are held up and the money will have to be returned if not utilised. Why has the Government not acted on this ridiculous go-slow or work-to-rule by the engineers? Ratepayers are suffering right, left and centre, and the matter is very serious. Young married people who received bridging loans at an exhorbitant price have been delayed up to four and five months because of the work to rule, and sanction for loans and grants were not completed. It is pious talk to say that progress has been made. Progress has not been made. There are young married couples in a terrible plight today. We know the bank interest rate. We know how delighted and lucky they are to get the bridging loan. Yet they have to pay 12½ per cent interest up to six months for that loan. Why does the Government not intervene in this difference of opinion between the county manager and the engineer? I fail to understand it. I hope the local councils will be put into the terrible position next March of being asked to return to the Minister for Finance their LIS and amenity grants moneys. It would cause pandemonium. If the Government do not increase these grants by at least 50 per cent, it will be another 25 years before they will be in government after the next election. That is not supposition.

Mr. O'Toole

Pure supposition.

Mr. Killilea

I do not know if Senator O'Toole is a member of the Mayo County Council. Are the facts about the engineers' go-slow and the allocation of grants wrong? No, they are not wrong. They are right. Pious thoughts and acclamation will not get us anywhere. This State has spent too much money on education to think that the people do not understand those facts. There is an intelligent race of people in this country and they are able to use their education.

We had Senator Markey speaking of the creation of new jobs since the Coalition Government came into power nine months ago. The Ministers of the Coalition Government were very busy men opening factories and extensions to premises throughout the country, and finalising IDA grants. They boasted of these achievements with great aplomb. Of course, 8,500 jobs have been created: the factories are completed and ready for the workers, but they were not all built in nine months.

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance, through the Chair, to explain to the House why there has been a falling-off in the number of trips to open factories in the country in recent months. The green tapes and scissors have been stacked away. They do not seem to be in use lately. (Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

I hope 8,500 jobs will be created next year. If I am alive. I shall be the first in the House to acknowledge it.

I should like to comment on Senator O'Toole's remark that we, as an Opposition, were not suggesting alternatives to the Government but were critical of the Government. Senator O'Toole should be aware that it is not our job to tell the Government what to do. It is the Government's job to tell us what to do and then we will criticise it and oppose it if it is wrong.

An Cathaoirleach

I should point out to the Senator that it is now the time at which we customarily adjourn.

Mr. Killilea

I hope notice will be taken of the suggestions I have made and that the year ahead will be a prosperous one with not too much emphasis on the oil situation as something on which all the wrong-doings and setbacks which may occur may be blamed.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Moynihan

We have here for our consideration this afternoon the budgetary proposals for 1973-74 running into the approximate figure of £800 million. We should examine this vast sum of money from two aspects, first, the responsibility of the Minister for Finance to collect it and, secondly, its distribution and spending subsequently by both himself and his Government colleagues. As far as collection is concerned, any form of taxation is generally resented. Where those who have to bear a particular form of taxation feel it is unjustly imposed or obliges them to carry too great a share of the burden it certainly causes grave uneasiness. Income tax is something that is causing grave uneasiness, and has done so for a number of years, among the rank and file of wage and salary earners. Income tax was never intended to be a hardship in the first instance. I also believe that income tax is possibly the fairest basis of taxation provided it is equitably and justly implemented. Wage and salary earners feel that the system of income taxation that has continued in this country, especially when we compare the wage and salary adjustments to the inflation that has occurred, is basically unjust. The personal allowances and earned income reliefs have not kept pace with the inflationary trends.

Substantial numbers of the population are not covered by or brought into the income tax code. I do not intend to tell the Minister for Finance who is escaping the income tax net because this is a Government problem but the wage and salary earners expect that the system of income taxation will be placed equitably and justly on the shoulders of every citizen. It should be placed in accordance with a person's level of income. That level should be a reasonable one where the full costs and other commitments of the person or business are taken into account. I am sure the Minister, and the Government, accept that some change will have to be made in the present position.

Public representatives could have no greater illustration of the hardship caused by our income tax system than in the case of retired county council road workers. At the end of their working days they are awarded a small county council pension and a social welfare pension but some of their pensions are syphoned off by the income tax people. In my opinion income tax was never intended to include the pensions of such people. We all look hopefully to the Minister for Finance, and to the Government, to restructure the whole income tax code with a view to ensuring that we will finally bring into this country an equitable system in this vital field of tax collection.

I would draw the attention of the Minister to a very valuable asset the Minister holds in my area of Killarney. I refer to Muckross House and the Bourn Vincent Memorial Estate. Muckross House, since it was donated to the nation by its late owner, remained a closed and beautiful edifice until 1965 when the then Minister for Finance handed it over, by temporary lease, to the local Muckross House Committee. That committee has done excellent work by turning it into a folk museum and restoring the ancient crafts of Kerry and Ireland for all to see. It is now a focal centre for educational tours and this year Muckross House was visited by 75,000 tourists. This is an indication of its popularity as a tourist centre. I appeal to the Minister, when the lease expires, to have no hesitation in renewing it for the benefit of Killarney and Irish tourism.

A very substantial volume of public money collected in tax is expended on the health services. I congratulate the Minister for Health, and the Government, in finally extending the free health service to all wage and salary earners. Heretofore, we had an anomalous position. We had an income ceiling for insurance that gave one the right to free hospitalisation. With the frequent changes in money values, and with the frequent changes in wages and salaries over the last ten years, many people did not know whether they came within the scope of the free hospital service. In their ignorance they were faced with very substantial bills for hospitalisation. Now a clear-cut decision has been made and everybody knows whether he falls within the scope of the scheme.

In the operation of the health services there are some facts we should bear in mind. I do not think it is just that if a qualified person—be he a farmer of under £60 valuation, an insured worker or a salaried worker of under £1,600 a year—decides to avail of a semi-private or private ward in a public authority hospital he should lose all his entitlement to the national health service. It is not outside the capacity of the Minister for Finance and the Government to make regulations to cover such people. In many cases it may be a medical recommendation that their treatment would require hospitalisation within a private or semi-private ward. I agree that there should be some specific extra charge of which the patient is notified and agrees to pay but it should not disqualify him from the free services of surgery, specialists, drugs and X-rays. This is what is happening under the health regulations.

Every public representative is repeatedly faced with problems in this regard. People approach us after leaving hospital and say: "I am an insured worker"—or it may be that the patient was his wife—"so why am I charged the full bill not only for maintenance but for specialist fees, drug charges and X-ray charges while the Minister and the Government tell us that we are entitled to free hospitalisation?" This is a matter that can be and should be rectified.

There is another important aspect to this problem. On many occasions a family doctor will recommend a patient to a private hospital but he will not take the precautionary measure of advising the patient what the ultimate cost of that treatment will be, vis-a-vis against putting the patient into a health authority hospital. People have been disillusioned in the past. They have been faced with considerable bills for hospital charges and they blame the health authority or the Government as a result. A policy to educate the public regarding their rights within the health services should be embarked upon immediately. There is a need for circulars or posters to be displayed in all hospitals, dispensaries, clinics, libraries and public buildings so that the people will know what services they are entitled to under their insurance. They should be left in no doubt, if they opt to go into a private hospital, as to what services they will be obliged to pay for as a result.

The 1971 Health Act guaranteed a free choice of doctor. To my knowledge this does not operate in practice because many young doctors who set up practice in small towns cannot register their patients as medical service patients without prior agreement with other colleagues in the area. In my opinion this is not a free choice of doctor system. It does not give equal opportunity to all the citizens of the State. I respectfully ask the Minister and the Government to have another look at this aspect of the health services.

The previous Minister for Health in his restructuring programme set up eight major health boards. These are administrative structures that are far too big for the administration of a proper health service to the community entrusted to them. Having regard to the necessity for the prudent and efficient expenditure of money, I ask the Minister and the Government seriously to review whether we can afford such duplication of effort. We have these eight boards sitting, huge administrative structures, who prepare their estimates and proposals and these have to be vetted by the Custom House. We cannot afford such duplication. These people have no say in determination and naturally when the Department are providing the money, it is unlikely that they ever will have a say. These boards are far too large properly to operate a national health service. What we want for a national health service is a blueprint that could be applied with half the present administrative structure. What we want for the patient when he is ill is a hospital, a doctor or a specialist, an ambulance and so on and it is into these services that most of the money that is available for health services should go and not be put into unnecessary administration.

One branch of medicine that is of particular importance at present is the psychiatric service. Our ratio of patients in institutions continues to be very seriously out of line with what is prevailing on the Continent and elsewhere. There is a backlog of neglect and a lack of availability of answers to such problems as the high incidence of unemployment and other serious social problems especially along the west coast.

The time is opportune for the Government and the Minister for Health to take a major step in the alleviation of this very serious illness that is costing so much in worry, in loss of productivity and in many other fields. The emphasis now is on home treatment rather than on treatment in institutions. There should be major investment in domiciliary psychiatry in the medical and nursing field with a view to reducing the numbers in institutions down to manageable proportions. This would be most helpful to patients who must be cared for in institutions. The vast majority of psychiatric patients can now, due to drugs and therapy which are available, be treated within the community, retained in the community and not be put into institutions. Domiciliary psychiatry in the medical and nursing field should be given priority by the Minister and the Government.

At the moment much criticism is directed at the Department of Transport and Power. In the months ahead this Department will be of vital importance, having within their control CIE, the largest semi-State body, with the largest number of employees in this country, I want to refer to this body briefly because there is a subvention to it of some £12 million from the Exchequer. The wage structure of CIE is not favourable and never has been. Very many of the wage scales there are exceptionally low. Wages can be adjusted through the trade union machinery but there is one major aspect to which I would draw the Minister's attention and that is the absence of any retirement provisions for CIE workers who have to retire before the age of 55 because of ill-health. It is a sad reflection on the Christian outlook of this board that there is no pension provision whatsoever for such workers. An employee could spend 36 years in the employment of that board, fall into ill-health that could possibly be related to his duties and still all he would receive when leaving CIE, if he was less than 55 years of age, would be a refund of his contributions.

I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. As there is State money involved, this is something in which the State should take an interest and ensure that the conditions of retirement of men with 35 years service, who must retire because of ill-health before they reach 55, will provide for compensation for that service. It is not enough to refund the money already paid in. The pensions of those who reach the age of 65 in either the bus or rail service are static and, therefore are not adjusted to money values. This is something which should be remedied.

The Estimate for the Department of Justice represents a formidable sum. The growth of crime in our community is very worrying. Vandalism was mentioned repeatedly by Senators last night. Vandalism in itself is bad and there is a very serious crime growth in this field. Obviously the first necessity is to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána. There is nothing as effective as adequate Gardaí on the beat to combat those criminals who would injure the citizens in either their lives or property. There has to be a very substantial increase in the number of gardaí. At present, it is a very high risk to bring a car into Dublin city. This is a sad state of affairs. There are repeated assaults on property and persons and this is something we cannot ignore. We have to accept that this is the situation and I am sure the Government will take steps to remedy it. The best way to remedy it is to increase the Garda force, a force that have given splendid service to the people. Having regard to modern techniques being used against them, there would have to be a big increase in their numbers.

We have got good service from the gardaí. We can only expect a continuation of that if we accept that they have tremendous responsibilities, that they are facing considerable dangers and that they are making a wonderful effort to try to cope with increased duties, night duties, Sunday and bank holiday duties. While most people are enjoying themselves the gardaí are still working, suffering inconvenience to themselves and their families and a disruption in their social lives. Until recently, we have not been too generous in seeing that they are properly rewarded. The Minister should see to it that at least their rewards for all such duties should be not less than those given to industrial workers in regard to overtime compensation, special allowances, et cetera.

Much has already been said about local government housing targets. We, on this side of the House, are very happy that there is a statement of intent in this budgetary proposal to make a major contribution towards eliminating the housing problem. Senator Killilea mentioned that the Fianna Fáil Government built 25,000 houses last year. This is something which must be proven but the records, as I have read them, do not support that figure. The Minister, Deputy Tully, and his colleagues are not there to create records; they are there to build houses which are required for people living in bad conditions. We hope that the target will be met. The intentions are there and the money is there.

Housing authorities have not been conscious enough of the necessity of getting adequate land banks for future housing development. The present situation has been caused by laxity in certain areas in this matter. Had the necessary land been available for building or had serviced sites been available for people prepared to build their own houses, this situation would not have arisen. It is something that the Minister for Local Government cannot overlook.

In eliminating the housing problem we should not create a new one. In the planning and layout we should not have a second Ballymun with all its psychiatric problems, all its congestion problems and all the medical problems that are there. We should plan to have adequate playgrounds and open spaces with fresh air.

The existing position relating to ground rents should be changed. Legislation to do away with this evil appears not to have been passed. I suggest to the Minister and the Government to have it terminated from now on. In the proposals to bring in amended planning legislation it should be made an absolute condition that no housing developer seeking planning permission will propose to receive any ground rents.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not open to Senators on the Appropriation Bill to advocate amendments in legislation or to advocate new legislation.

Mr. Moynihan

I am asking that some steps be taken to eliminate the evil of ground rents from our society.

An Cathaoirleach

It is open to the Senators to discuss administrative actions on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Moynihan

We are also pleased that the health charges have been removed from rate-payers. For many years municipal authorities and county councils have advocated this. Their removal places at the disposal of the local authorities the money they collect in rates which will be used exclusively in the development of housing, water, sewerage, lighting, et cetera.

In many small towns the social welfare recipients are still dependent on the services of part-time officers who have 30 to 40 years' service behind them. In those days there was not much employment and little social welfare insurance. The position has changed and both the officer's conditions and the accommodation provided should now be much improved. We qualify in many towns for full-time officers and substantial improvements in the accommodation provided.

Information from the Department of Social Welfare should be forthcoming on the pay-related benefits in respect of unemployment and disability which will come into operation from the 1st April next. This is vital information to those concerned. There is the continued desirability for the Government to introduce a national industrial retirement pension.

Vocational education is a field in which there is need for major expansion. There is the problem of inadequacy of teachers in certain fields, especially metalwork and woodwork. I urge the Government to expand the training of such personnel. Large sums have been put into vocational education and without the full complement of a teaching staff much of this will go to loss and children will not get the opportunity of qualifying for trades.

The Sunningdale Agreement was looked upon from our side of the House as a very historic occasion. The Press were not invited but the media realised the magnitude of the occasion. These negotiators brought back a basis of agreement which is a stepping-stone towards a desirable conciliation among our people, especially in the North, to end the tragedies and murders which must have shocked every person, and which still continue to shock. We on this side of the House are fully behind that agreement in so far as we feel it is providing a basis. We will give every encouragement to our colleagues in the SDLP and the other parties in the North who have done so much in order to arrive at this stage. Protestant and Catholic workers and employers have declared themselves willing and ready to sit down and work out a basis, without murders and trageties, for a Council of Ireland and, from that, complete reconciliation of both sides in our community.

Dr. Martin

I should like to concentrate on the area of the Appropriation Bill with which lam most competent to deal and that is the whole subject of education.

I should like to place emphasis on one aspect of education which of late has been neglected in favour of other elements. I am referring to the teacher, who is the prime, active element within educational progress. It is a good thing to envisage marvellous structures, comprehensive schools and regional colleges and highly sophisticated audio-visual aids, which are all very welcome, but if you have not a teaching force whose morale is high, whose sense of vocation is high, which is prized by the community it serves and which is adequately paid, all the expenditure which goes into schools can be frittered away and lost.

I will tell a cruel joke which applies to myself. It says most teachers die at the age of 40 years but they are not buried for many years afterwards. That is an international joke, not just an Irish one. It has some kind of substance behind it. I have worked in Ireland as a secondary teacher for about ten years and as a university teacher for another eight years. I am thinking of the situation where a man or woman who enters the teaching profession at the age of 22 and continues in that profession until the time of retirement at 65 years of age. The situation has been that that teacher teaches the same kind of subject in the same type of school, with only a marginally changing curriculum, for all those years. It is expected of that teacher that he or she should be dedicated, hard-working, communicative and, indeed, inspired. That is what we, as parent, ask of teachers. There is something unreal about this situation if the teacher is not very well paid and has not been given the opportunity to develop in new ways and the new techniques in education which are constantly being made available.

What I have to say about this falls under three proposals. First, there is the recognition of teachers who have had experience abroad. Secondly, there is the question of refresher courses and, thirdly, a more radical idea about which I am very enthusiastic. It refers to a sabbatical year for teachers and I am thinking particularly of post-primary teachers, after they have served for a period of ten to 12 years.

These proposals deal with the idea of morale. I was speaking today to Senator Tim McAuliffe, chairman of the Board of Management of the Athlone Regional and Technical College and chairman of the vocational committee in County Westmeath. He gave me one example.

At the moment I am speaking about service abroad. There was a man with a doctorate with ten to 15 years service who wanted to come back to teach in Ireland and Senator McAuliffe and his colleagues were extremely keen on getting him. However, if he was to have come back to Ireland he would have had to take his place on the incremental scale with a graduate coming straight out of the university that year. In other words, this man with enormous experience in England, having taught in a variety of schools there and holding a Ph.D., would have had to take his place with the raw postgraduate student stepping into the educational field. I do not think I have to argue about this point. The injustice there is self-evident. I should like, however, to spell out the implications of it. The implications for the community is that an adventurous teacher—and the bulk of our teachers are of an extraordinary high calibre—going into that field and who wanting to make teaching his vocation, goes abroad— as a young doctor, a young engineer or a young scientist would go abroad— to gain experience in the testing-house of another country or in a highly developed educational country like Britain must do that strictly at his own cost. A doctor, an engineer or a scientist comes back with an enhanced reputation and can bargain for a high position on any scale but the teacher I am referring to has to accept a lower salary. He has to accept a lower social status. He has to accept a lower position within the hierarchy of that school. He will be taking orders from somebody with a post of responsibility and that person may be five or ten years his junior in age and 20 years in terms of experience. This seems to me a glaring injustice and something contrary to what the present Government are arguing towards.

Place that in the context of the EEC. A teacher who goes to Europe and gains similar experience there is subject to exactly the same injustice. He comes back a brilliant practitioner of French, Italian, German or maybe all three languages—but he comes in at a point on the scale which is implicitly humiliating for him. Is this what we want? It clearly is not. It does not need a change in legislation. It needs a change in the arrangements of pay. The case to be made here is self-evident.

The Minister for Education is in a better position to know about it than anybody else. He was a very fine secondary teacher for many years and he has gone on record before his period as Minister as saying that he had compiled a dossier on the subject and he assured the teaching profession as far back as 1971 that "as a former practising teacher I am very much in favour of the extension of incremental recognition for worthwhile experience gained abroad". He claimed that when he came into government he would press very hard for this.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has made a quotation. Could he supply the reference for this?

Dr. Martin

The quotation is from a letter written by Deputy Richard Burke, the Minister for Education. It was published in full in The Irish Press a fortnight ago. The date, alas, was not picked up on the copying machine. Perhaps I will be able to supply it.

An Cathaoirleach

That is sufficient reference to allow it to be identified.

Dr. Martin

It was in the public Press. It has not been rebutted and I can supply the reference afterwards. The Minister for Education has said that this is a matter of extreme concern. I do not doubt it. I am not casting any aspersions on the integrity of that promise and I hope and trust that he will act upon it. It would not involve a lot of money. It is not a pie-in-the-sky suggestion in the sense that it is estimated at the moment that there are between 150 and 200 returned teachers at work in Ireland. The discrepancies of pay between them and their colleagues could be as much as £1,000 or as low as £100 a year. As a conservative estimate I would say that £40,000 out of the Exchequer would go a long way towards remedying this situation. I will not labour it any further. I would merely like to reiterate that it is bad for teaching and it is out of line with the present policy of the Government towards creating a community in Europe. If our teachers go to Europe and gain experience there, why should they be penalised? Does the Common Market mean anything at all? I am pointing out what is demonstrably an anachronism. If this is not corrected I am going to devote every possible opportunity in the future inside and outside the House to have it remedied.

The second point I should like to make relates to the question of refresher courses. I will not dwell very long upon it. I have already pointed out the position of a teacher who say, enters the profession at the age of 22 years and continues teaching to the age of 65 years. I am sure Senator Quinlan could testify to the fact that the development, say, in the area of science within those periods would be quite remarkable and the position would be the same with regard to mathematics. The new maths caused an enormous convulsion within the Irish teaching scene. In Holland refresher courses every year are compulsory. Teachers have to attend them but they are very well paid to do so. They are not funded anything like as miserably as are teachers in Ireland attending refresher courses. The prospect of staying in a boardinghouse somewhere on a very bad allowance does not attract Irish teachers. Not as many people as should attend the courses but we have no right to make them compulsory.

I suggest a massive expansion of this refresher course idea because it will mean that the teachers will meet each other. They will grapple together with common problems in the teaching of their subject. They will become better acquainted with, and more enthusiastic for, their subject when they meet other dedicated teachers interested in the promotion of that particular subject. This is demonstrable and true but it is not happening at anything like the scale at which it should be. Most of the refresher teaching is done by subject associations which are voluntary, like the Association of Teachers of English of which I have been twice chairman and am at present chairman. It is being done on a voluntary basis. It is not well subsidised by the Government.

For the moment let us forget about the child-centred, building-centred and audio-visual centred education. Let us think about the teacher-centred education because if the teacher goes sour the job goes sour. One of the examples of this that has been roundly abused in the Press in the last couple of days is the fact that secondary teachers are claiming pay if they attend a parent-teacher association. Horror has been expressed at this. People have thrown their hands up. Are they not willing to meet the parents for an evening without being paid? My answer is that they are not very well paid anyway. They have to fight their corner every possible way they can. Their terms of employment are not particularly attractive. There is a low morale in certain areas of the teaching world for which the teachers are not responsible. The community is responsible for it. There is a very strong case to be made for lavish increases both in pay and, above all, in vocational motivation for the teaching profession.

This brings me to the third point I wish to make and it is one that will perhaps be seen as less reasonable. The two previous points I made are so reasonable that they are self-evident. I presume it is only a matter of a very short time until they are remedied— one immediately by the stroke of a pen and the other by a developing policy. The third point is one at which the Cathaoirleach will certainly smile when I suggest a sabbatical year for teachers after ten or 12 years. I will begin in the post-primary area. It has been a crying shame in our universities that we cannot get the sabbatical year. You can work in an Irish university for 20 years and you are never allowed one year free from your duties. I am talking about a paid year to go and make yourself a better teacher.

It is assured that if you get a sabbatical year, you will not waste that year. I am not arguing for the universities and I may not make friends among my colleagues for this, for two reasons. The HEA has more or less a responsibility for that anyway. The university teacher is better off. He has a greater variety of courses. He has, at least on paper, longer holidays and he has better chances for research and for mobility in his job than the secondary or vocational teacher.

I will make my case from my own field, Literature. I am thinking of the case of a teacher who is teaching literature for ten years, say, in a secondary school. That course inevitably becomes routine. His motivation to learn more becomes blunted. He finds himself day in, day out, seven classes a day, five days a week. teaching students, many of them not particularly interested in what they are being taught in overcrowded classrooms. A good teacher—and I spoke to many of them—would give his right arm for a chance to go back to university for one year, or to some research project, say, in a training college. I would demand that anybody who opted for a sabbatical year would, say, take something like a third year honours course in one of the universities, re-study the literature, recharge his batteries, purify the springs of his inspiration, find out what is happening, what is new, increase his enthusiasm and come back a better man.

Would that cost a lot of money? I do not know. It is impossible to know, because I am not sure how many people would take it up. In terms of mobility, perhaps, not too many would. A man will not move with his family from the provinces to a university city if the difficulties are great. There are many unmarried people who would do it or young married people who would do it, or fairly affluent people farther on in the scale, with their children reared, who might do it. It would certainly be worth trying. It would involve a certain amount of screening, but the pay-off from that would be enormous. To improve education, you have to improve the morale, the inspiration, the knowledge and the commitment of the teacher. On this Appropriation Bill, I would strongly suggest that the emphasis at this stage in our development should be on the raising of the teacher's morale, the raising of his salary, the raising of his status, and the raising of the intellectual commitment to what he is doing.

Consequently, I would summarise by drawing attention once again to the three points that I wish to make. First of all, foreign service should be adequately remunerated. It should be remunerated at the same incremental scale as home service. By doing that you would encourage it. Secondly, I would argue for a massive and enlightened extension of refresher courses drawing, perhaps, on the Dutch experiment and experience for inspiration and for a model. As my most radical suggestion—but one which I think is by no means unreasonable—I would suggest that public funds be spent on retraining of teachers. That is ultimately what it is. Industry has accepted the sabbatical year as an axiom long ago—that is a year off with pay. There should be an insistence that that teacher would go to a university college, take a suitable course and sit for the examination. There would be no swinging the lead. Such a teacher would certainly come back to his vocation with his batteries recharged, his enthusiasms enormously enriched, and his capacity as a teacher acutely sharpened.

Mr. W. O'Brien

As we heard this morning, our economy is in a thriving condition at the moment. So far, 1973 has been a good year. Nevertheless, we are now facing a period in which our progress may be stemmed due to circumstances outside our own control. The drastic steps already taken by Britain are an indication of what they are expecting. The Minister mentioned Germany and Japan which very often are described as economic wonders. They are also aware that they are about to be affected. We cannot expect to continue to live without making a sacrifice. However, I am quite confident that the Irish people will meet the challenge. While people and parties may now and again try to score political points, I am sure that when the time comes the people, irrespective of political parties, will throw their weight behind any Government in power to overcome this challenge.

Nevertheless, we are entitled to review the performance of the Government over the past eight months. On the social welfare aspect, the Government have been doing a good job. The Minister found himself in the happy position of being able to put an extra £50 million into social welfare. Senator Keegan said that that was to be expected. The people probably did expect it and I am delighted that we did not disappoint them. We are all happy about the unemployment figure. It has been reduced by 7,000 which, in itself, is an indication that we are going in the right direction. Our exports have risen by 34 per cent in value and our industrial exports by 40 per cent. Agricultural income has increased substantially. That is a step about which we are all happy.

Housing, which is my pet subject, was mentioned here today. For years people from each side of this House and from local councils have been agitating about the necessity for more houses. The Minister for Local Government, while, perhaps, not being 100 per cent successful, has started off in the right direction. While I appreciate what he is doing, to be a good politician you must also recognise what has been done by other Ministers and other Governments. I am happy to say that people on the other side of the House have been doing their best to improve the housing conditions. Nevertheless, we had a figure for 1973-74 of £68 million, compared with £46 million in 1972-73. That is a big difference. Let us hope that that will reflect in no uncertain way in housing the people who are so badly in need of houses.

Today reference was made to subsidisation. Any form of subsidy made available by any Government or any local authority to house the people who are not able to house themselves is welcome. The vast majority of the money being put into this will also help those who are making an effort to build their own homes. Many young men and women would qualify for a local authority house but, because of a waiting list which they cannot afford to wait on, they are forced to get a few pounds together and try to build their own homes. I am delighted that the Minister saw fit to raise the loan ceiling from £3,300 to £4,500. This is a help but the loan must, of course, be paid back. People are proud to own their own homes. I am glad that the supplementary grant ceiling has been raised. While the actual money has not been increased the grant ceiling will help the man who has £19 or £19.50.

Reference was made to Sunning-dale and the cost of the conference there. Peace is cheap at any price and, if these negotiations save even one life, we shall have achieved a great deal. I hope the conference will result in success. I hope the years ahead will be as good as those that are gone.

Mr. Yeats

This debate takes place at a very important time in the history of this nation. We are debating this Appropriation Bill in the context of an economic and financial situation which shows every sign of becoming very grave. As the Minister said, the storm clouds are gathering on the economic horizon. We are faced with a situation where next year may be one of great unemployment, reduced growth or even what the economists unfortunately call, zero growth. There is a great deal of public anxiety about the future, the oil crisis and the effect it may have on our economic life. This is the context in which this debate is taking place.

Before the debate began, with that sheer sense of information timing when it comes to publicity matters that the Government have shown so frequently since they came into office, the word was spread around that we would hear an important speech from the Minister for Finance on the economic condition of the country. As we heard this morning, the Minister for Finance had nothing whatever to say about the policy of the Government, nothing whatever to say about how the Government proposed to deal with the very serious problems which now face us and nothing except a few statistics, some of them unfortunately rather garbled, and a little bit of advice and a fair amount of propaganda.

We had a good deal of cheerful information about the success of Government policies, in particular, about what the Minister considers to be the great success of his budget this year. We heard the remarkable statement:

The Government's growth oriented demand management policies have been singularly successful within a fairly short space of time.

I do not know what demand management means in this context or what the Government have done in regard to demand management. What they have done is to inject an additional £200 million into the economy, thereby naturally increasing demand, conqentially increasing imports, increasing prices, increasing inflation, increasing the balance of payments deficit and reducing the ability of the economy to deal with the types of problems we may meet next year I would not describe that as demand management, certainly not a successful demand management.

The Minister gave us some strange information about the trade figures for this year. One of the problems with this Minister for Finance is that his statistics are only too often mixed up with political considerations. A speech of this kind, coming particularly at such a time, would be far more useful if it were more candid, if we were given statistics with equal facility irrespective of whether or not they seemed favourable to the Government.

Here is an example of what I mean.

The Minister said baldly:

Exports have risen by 34 per cent in value.

That is very nice. Immediately afterwards he tells us that exports amounted to £789.9 million and imports amounted to £1,051.6 million. There is nothing about the percentage rise in imports, neither is there a single word about the amount of the expected trade deficit this year. I should have thought that this was a valid type of information which we should receive. It is highly relevant to the economic condition of the country. In the 11 months up to the end of last November, the visible trade deficit increased by £95 million as compared with the previous year. This is not stated in the Minister's speech. Nothing is stated with regard to the amount of increased imports. We are merely told in cheerful language, for which the Minister is famous, that exports went up by 34 per cent; so they did, but imports went up by a much greater amount.

Allowing for the fact that in the first 11 months of this year the visible trade balance was approximately £95 million higher than in 1972, this would suggest, and if the Minister feels I am wrong he can give a more accurate figure when he is replying, that the balance of payments deficit in 1973 looks like being around £160 million. That is an enormous figure for a country of this size. It is vastly greater than has occurred in any previous year in Irish history.

The Minister rightly points out that this situation is greatly eased by the fact that our external reserves at the end of November were some £25 million higher than at the end of January 1973. The difficulty is that one cannot, as the Minister I am sure will accept, depend on a continuance of this kind of situation in our external reserves. If they should start moving the other way we could be in very serious trouble with this enormous type of trade deficit where one is wholly dependent for survival on increases of this kind in our external trade reserve.

The Minister suggested that the balance of trade would tend to worsen next year in view of the very considerable increases in the price of fuel and other essential imports. He also suggested that we are likely to have problems in increasing our exports in the face of a lower growth or no growth in the countries to which we hope to export.

As the Minister pointed out, not merely in Ireland but in other European countries, in the United States and Japan and the whole of the developed world, there is likely in this coming year to be a slackening of economic growth where economic growth occurs at all. This will occur particularly in Britain. The power cut-backs, the emergency measures which have already been introduced will make it much more difficult for the British public, to whom some 55 per cent of our exports go, to buy our goods. These adverse trends in other countries must affect our employment possibilities and living standards. As he said, there will not be any market to which we export that will not suffer to some degree or other from the economic crisis that is coming about as a result of the oil situation. There will be less purchasing power to buy our exports, and our imports from these countries on which we depend so much already are rapidly increasing in price and will continue to do so, even faster.

Such problems are, to a large extent, outside the control of the Government. I am not in any way blaming the Government for this situation. It is one which they could not prevent. Why are we told nothing by the Minister about what he proposes to do or what he feels might be done? There are no suggestions of any kind as to what action the Government may be able to take. He says at the end of page 3A:

Having regard to pending trading difficulties, however, there is now a need to reduce imports.

There is a very great need to reduce imports. But just saying it will not reduce them. What does the Minister propose to do to reduce imports? In pinpointing the need to reduce imports I am concluding that it will be the policy of the Minister and of the Government to try to bring about a reduction of imports. It is quite clear that, because of our membership of the European Economic Community, the usual way one might have used in the past of putting on tariffs, quotas, import restrictions is no longer open to us. It could be done obviously by reducing demand, by having a less inflationary budget, by, perhaps, increasing taxes, by reducing Government expenditure. Does the Minister propose to do this? I think we should be given some indication as to what the Government's financial and monetary policy is likely to be. Merely to say: "Having regard to pending trading difficulties, however, there is now a need to reduce imports" and going on to say:

This is particularly true of nonessentials as the balance of trade will tend to worsen next year....

is not very helpful.

There are a few questions that the Minister should try to answer. We do not know how the oil situation will develop. It is quite clear that even if it does not get any worse than it is now, even if our present imports of oil were to continue at the present rate, there will be very serious problems. The Minister has already told us that the Minister for Transport and Power believes that oil supplies may be as much as 30 per cent below current requirements in the coming year. On page 4 the Minister says:

Foreign trade prices will also be affected as will capital flows on which we depend for so much of our development.

These are the capital flows which have so far enabled us to ignore this enormous balance of payments deficit that we are faced with this year. If there is, indeed, a change in the direction of these capital flows on which, as he says, we depend for so much of our development, we could be in real trouble. I would ask the Minister could he give us some indication of what trading deficit he envisages for next year. How does he think our exports or imports are likely to go? What kind of trading results does he think we may have? How much greater than this year's total is this deficit likely to be? What affect does he think all this will have on capital flow? Will there be a flow away from this country, so that our external reserves may fall even more rapidly than would be suggested by the possible results of a very big trading deficit? What will the effect of all this be on our reserves? What does he think the size of our reserves, on which we depend so much to finance the deficits that we traditionally run, will be by the end of 1974? How does he propose to reduce imports? What is he doing about all this and what is the policy of the Government?

The Minister told us something about prices. As usual, he was a little bit selective in the figures that he gave us. He told us on page 6:

In 1973, the Consumer Price Index rose, on average by 11.4 per cent, principally due to enormous inflation in the earlier part of the year.

That is a nice sentence and, of course, it conveys an impression of an incompetent, inefficient Fianna Fáil Government creating this enormous inflation in the early part of the year and being replaced by the eager beavers of the present Coalition Government who are able to solve all these problems. Senators opposite might be interested to hear what are the figures, which do not quite coincide with what the Minister was suggesting in his speech.

If one takes the 12-month period up to February, 1973—these are official figures provided by the Minister's Department—the cost of living rose by 10 per cent. If one takes the 12 months up to May, 1973, it rose by 11.6 per cent. Then there was a marginal improvement. In the 12 months up to August, 1973, the cost of living rose by 11.4 per cent. In the last 12 months up to November, 1973, as the Minister himself told us this morning, the cost of living rose by 12.6 per cent. A disimprovement between August and November from 11.4 per cent in the previous 12 months to 12.6 per cent took place at a time when, with much propaganda from Government sources, we had the VAT taken off food. Despite that, because of the larger amount of VAT put on all other items that the ordinary man or woman in the street has to buy and because of general inflationary trends, we have a considerable worsening of the situation. We have what even a few years ago would have seemed to us to be an extraordinary and appalling situation —an almost South American situation —that in the last 12 months the cost of living rose by 12.6 per cent.

It would be more candid if those figures were given to us by a Minister for Finance in a debate of this importance rather than the kind of statement which tells us that in 1973 the cost of living rose by 11.4 per cent on average principally due to enormous inflation in the earlier part of the year. This is simply not true. The Minister then went on to say: "A reduction in the rate of inflation was and is one of the priorities in the Government's policy programme." Of course, it is nothing of the kind. A reduction in the rate of inflation was not at any stage a priority in the policy put before the people in the last general election. What was put before the people in the last general election, as part of the 14 points, and what may well have won this Government the election, was a categorical, clear, coherent statement that the cost of living would be stabilised. There was no question of a reduction from, perhaps, 10 per cent to 9 per cent or anything like that. Prices were to be stabilised. That was the clear statement made and I think it was an effective statement. In fact, the situation is that in the last 12 months the cost of living went up by 12.6 per cent. The Minister added that things are likely to get worse.

This rather odd statistic produced by the Minister for Finance is rather typical of his general approach to statistics and to figures of this kind. Reading through his speech and listening to him deliver it, I felt that it was prepared on the basis that one would read one page at a time and promptly forget about what appeared on any other page because we have some contradictory pronouncements on the same subject in different parts of his speech. It all depends in what direction the particular statements are aimed.

For example, the Minister is worried about food prices. We read: "In particular we were concerned about the impact of rapidly rising food prices" and then "due to factors outside the Government's direct control...." That is a straightforward statement but on another page we read: "I should point out that this very high rate of increase reflects the very rapid rise in consumer prices in the first half of the year and conceals the improved trend in the second half". Here we are back again to the good old theory that the wicked Fianna Fáil Government caused the rise in consumer prices which on page 6 was stated to be outside the Government's control. Earlier, it is supposed to have been forgotten by this time, we read, as part of the build-up of all that this Government have done for the Irish public, the cheerful statement that agricultural incomes showed a very substantial increase—as, indeed, they did—of about 40 per cent because of very high price rises for farm products resulting from the world shortage of beef and the EEC common agricultural policy. On one page of his speech we have the Minister moaning and groaning about rising food prices that the Government had to do something about, while on a different page, when addressing a different audience, he calls up as an achievement of the Government the rising incomes of our farmers due to the high prices for food, which, of course, accrued to their benefit.

The truth about all this is that the Government, since coming into office, have done nothing to deal with prices. In accordance with their election promise—and I believe a very foolish election promise—they took VAT off food. This was unwise because, apart from the fact that it unnecessarily complicated the whole process of administering VAT by the introduction of another zero rate, the only effect was that an extra £5 million were placed by the Government on other items in a full year over and beyond what they took off food. I suspect that if you were to go into the street or into a supermarket and pick out any 100 people at random and asked them if they had noticed any reduction in food prices as a result of the removal of VAT, I doubt if you would find three who would say they noticed any reduction. It was a very unwise step which caused considerable complications and it has resulted overall in an even further increase in the cost of living because whatever deflationary effect there was in taking VAT off food was far exceeded by the effect of increasing the price of hundreds upon hundreds of other items. The overall effect was increased prices rather than reduced prices.

In addition, the Government made still more difficult the whole process of trying to cut down on the price increases by their highly inflationary budget. The Minister made a great deal of play in his speech about the extra £200 million that is being spent in this financial year. Of course, he is right in saying that this has created more employment. He is right in saying that it has increased incomes. He is right in saying that those who have received increased social welfare payments have gained. This is true, but these benefits must also be put beside the inevitable inflationary consequences; the pressures on resources which have helped to increase prices, the problems with increased imports. It is worth while in regard to the amount of our balance of payments deficit this year to consider it in budgetary terms.

It is generally accepted by economists that for every extra £1 that the Government spend in this country, because of our very open economy, approximately 60 per cent of it is spent on imports. If one takes the extra £200 million that the Government injected into the economy, it is likely that somewhere in the region of £120 million will go in extra imports. There is a very big increase in the trading deficit this year: it may well be wholly due to the injection of this money into the economy.

One interesting factor about the promise the Government gave, in the election, to reduce prices is that they have done nothing to change the price control system they inherited from the Fianna Fáil Government. Indeed, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said two or three days ago—he made a very interesting statement in another context—that the price control mechanism at his disposal was one of the best in all Europe. He was speaking, I think, somewhere on the Continent and he was pointing out to other countries that of all the countries in Europe we had the most efficient price control system. It is that price control system that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government inherited from Fianna Fáil and upon which they poured so much scorn at the time of the last general election.

We come now to the oil crisis. This is, of course, very serious for the country and not merely for our country but for the whole developed world. As we know, in no conceivable way could this be a fault of the Government. The Government are not to be blamed in any way for the fact that it exists, but even here, even in this vital sphere in which nobody can be blamed, which is not a political matter but a matter which we must all accept as a serious national crisis, what did the Minister do? He comes in here and suggests that the oil shortage is to be blamed on Fianna Fáil—a ludicrous proposition. His point apparently is that if, as he puts it, the Fianna Fáil Government had been more efficient for the last three years or so the country would be more prosperous, that more oil would be used and that we would have 30 per cent more oil than we now have.

Leaving aside the obvious fallacies in that whole proposition, there is an even more obvious fallacy that I should have thought a child could have seen. Even if we did consume 30 per cent more oil than we do at the moment, the cuts we are suffering from would hit just as hard. It is not the amount of oil that the country consumes; it is the amount we are losing as a result of the cuts from the oil producing states. It is typical of this Minister for Finance that instead of getting down to it and suggesting to us how this matter might be dealt with, how the limited supplies of oil might be distributed, he has to blame Fianna Fáil.

We must accept that no one is in a position to say what exactly the extent of our oil imports in the coming year will be. The Government probably know more about this than the rest of us do but we do know that we are at the moment receiving less oil than at the same time last year. It does seem very, very likely that at least for some months, and perhaps for much longer, there will be continuing cuts in our oil imports. This is a matter with which one must deal. If this continues for any length of time the effects will be very considerable on employment, with considerable cuts in income due to jobs being lost, short time working and loss of overtime, and which will cause a very considerable cut in the extent of national growth with possibly even zero growth or less.

I do not think I need stress to anyone the kind of effects that a situation of no growth can have. It is about 16 years since this situation last faced us, just as the last Coalition were leaving office. I am not making a political point about this. Again I say that this situation is not the fault of the present Government. We can cast our minds back to the kind of situation which arose when we were for a while in a time of zero growth. We had an enormous number of unemployed; a terrible national depression, great financial problems of State and very considerable cuts inevitable in Government spending. These are the kinds of things that face us.

I thought, when we heard that the Minister was coming in to make an important speech, that these were the kind of factors that we would be considering, that he would tell us now how we could save fuel. The Government should act now to try to save fuel. It is not merely the direct consumption of oil that is involved, though oil is at the bottom of all these problems. For example, I wonder why the Minister said nothing about the already announced decision by the Dublin Gas Company to ration gas. Why had he nothing to say about the decision, which I understand has been taken, that the ESB will ration electricity.

The Gas Company is, of course, a private concern but I should certainly hope that they would consult the Government before embarking on a gas rationing scheme. I would have liked to have heard the Minister say whether he approved of this particular scheme. I do not use gas myself, but many people do. I would have liked to hear from the Minister whether the Government had been approached about this, whether they approved of the extent of the cuts, what their views were, whether it will have any deleterious effect on industry or employment. In particular, I would have liked to have heard and the public would like to have heard from the Minister about the possibility of electricity rationing, the extent to which the ordinary consumer will be cut, the extent to which it will be possible to maintain ordinary supplies for vital industries, for all sectors of the economy involved in the provision of employment. If electricity rationing is to start, as is rumoured, on January 1st, it seems quite extraordinary that a debate of this kind should proceed without any word from the Minister for Finance on this subject.

Does the Minister, or his colleague in the Government responsible for the matter, propose to do anything about a reduction of consumption of petrol on the roads? It seems to me that there are various ways one could deal with that. There is a great deal to be said for a straightforward decision to bring in rationing. Anyone who today saw the incredible length of the queues outside all the garages, the sheer frustration of people trying to get £1 worth of petrol and the length of time wasted, must realise that a decision on this cannot be delayed much longer. While the strain and frustration suffered by the ordinary householder who drives a car in and out of town may be considerable it is, of course, far worse for those who depend on a car for their living— lorry drivers, taxi drivers, commercial travellers and others of that kind. Clearly something should be done to end the uncertainty of the present position. Even without the introduction of straightforward rationing there are things that could be done. It has, apparently, been decided that it is not possible to prevent people motoring on Sunday because they have to go to church and that sounds a reasonable proposition. They also have to go to sporting fixtures.

I feel a great deal less certain about the necessity for that in view of the very serious national situation. At least it should be possible to do what has to be done in other countries—to require each motorist to state a day on which he will not use his car. I understand that there is a system whereby you are given a card which you put in the front of your car stating the day on which you will not use it. That at least would cut down considerably the consumption of petrol. There is a system they have embarked upon in Australia, which has the advantage of considerable simplicity, where you go by the registration number of the car and if it ends in "1" then on the 1st 21st and 31st of each month you are not allowed to use it. If it ends in "2" you are not allowed to use it on 12th, 22nd and so on.

There are things like that which can be done even without introducing rationing to reduce the consumption of petrol. The Government are carrying on in this situation in the hope that things will improve, even though the likelihood seems to be very remote. I would suggest that, at a time when we are still getting fairly substantial supplies of oil, it would be more sensible to embark on a general rationing system now or, at any rate, to take steps to bring about a considerable reduction in consumption in order that later on, if things get really bad, some of the potential loss of employment and income might be alleviated. One gets the impression that the Government are merely trying to prevent our oil reserves from falling any further. I suggest that they should try to bring about a situation where our oil reserves might increase. Some guidance should be given to the public about what the situation is likely to be or what the Government proposes to do.

The Minister, having dealt with the problem of oil, interest rates, etc., has a paragraph in his speech which states: "In a nutshell we must realise that we have a problem, and it is more straightforward and sensible to grapple with it than to try when it may be too late to deal with it by blunt, fiscal and other measures against a background of disillusionment and resentment." That is precisely what I have been saying to the Minister during the past few minutes. I wish he would take steps to grapple with it now rather than try to deal with these matters when it is too late.

But there is no grappling in this speech of any indication of what the Government propose to do. The Minister's speech is a major disappointment, not merely in the context of this debate but, more important, it will be a disappointment to the public who are genuinely worried. Many people do not yet realise the real extent of the dangers facing us nevertheless, people are worried about what their own position will be, how their employment will go, how the prosperity of the country is likely to fare in the next few months or years. They expect some kind of lead from the Government, some kind of a suggestion that there is some straightforward and coherent policy being carried out. That is what we did not get in this speech.

Mr. McAuliffe

I should like to compliment the Minister, firstly, for his statement on this Bill. He put into eight pages concisely the facts the people are looking for. He gave us great hope by stating that the economy is in a tidy condition and that 1973 has been a very good year for economic growth. He goes on further to state that it was approximately 6 per cent, whereas in the three years prior to this it was only 3 per cent. He also mentions what has been done for the poorer sections of the community. The sum of £50 million was allocated to people with large families and those depending on social welfare benefits. I assure the Minister that that was well received by those concerned.

Our industrial exports rose by more than 40 per cent and our external reserves increased from £418.3 million to £442.2 million. The Minister also spoke about the oil problem and we all have reason to worry about this situation. It should be remembered that there was a six days' war in the Middle East not so long ago and the Government at that time took no precautions to see that proper storage facilities were provided for oil although they knew well that another war was likely to erupt in the Middle East.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of order, that is not quite correct. A Bill was passed in this House to give authority at that time to do so.

Mr. McAuliffe

They did not do it.

Mr. Russell

They refused to do so.

Mr. McAuliffe

In France at present they have a full year's supply of oil because they provided storage. The Government who took up office last February did not have time to go into that serious business.

I am worried about the reference to the national pay agreement. The Minister stated, in reference to this matter: "The proposals for the national pay agreement were drafted in good faith at a time when it was felt that growth prospects for 1974 were good". I would not like the Minister for Finance, or the Government, interfering with the national pay agreement. Months of hard work have gone into working out an agreement on this. If the new national pay agreement is accepted at the special conference next month and does not come into operation, there will be a great deal of industrial unrest. I hope that statement is not a threat that we may not be able to implement the national pay agreement.

The Leader of the Opposition this morning made the worst contribution to any debate I have ever heard. It was a slagging match. He did not discuss any of the figures contained in the Minister's speech. He did not say any figures were wrong or that there are 7,000 fewer unemployed this year compared with last year. He did not discuss any of the figures given for social welfare, exports or imports. It was a poor show on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to come here completely unprepared to challenge the Minister on his statement.

Senator Lenihan also stated we were the Government of 100 days and that we were not used to being in Government yet but he must have been hibernating for at least 200 days since he was elected to the Seanad. All that is wrong with him is that he is not used to being in Opposition. If he was he would not have put up the show he did this morning.

On the question of income tax I should like to ask the Minister to do something about it during the coming year. If he wants a revolution in this country it will happen if there is not a change in the income tax code. There are too few paying too much. We have people with hundreds of acres of land, whose wives are nurses and teachers, not paying a penny in income tax. We also have the farm labourer paying income tax while the farmer is not. We must collect money from those who have it, otherwise we will be in serious trouble next year.

There has been a good deal of talk about prices. It is peculiar that during the by-election in Monaghan this was not an issue. The Fianna Fáil Party tried to make it one, but there was only one issue there—law and order. The people were satisfied that the present Government were looking after law and order.

Mr. Garrett

They were satisfied with helicopters.

Mr. Killilea

They were cruising around.

Mr. McAuliffe

There was an amount of opposition by the building societies, et cetera to provide money to build houses but the Minister for Local Government subsidised them and kept the interest at a certain rate and, consequently, the houses are being built. He attended a county council function recently and sent us home in good heart when he said that if it did not suit us to have certain parts of the Planning Act in our particular county we could be empowered to make certain changes to suit the situation. Before this we were held up on a five-year period. Now we are not being held up any more. We can change the plan if there is a good and sufficient reason for doing so.

I should like to compliment Senator Martin on the very important point he raised with regard to the situation of teachers who come home from abroad and who are not given credit for their service there. As chairman of the board of management of the Regional College in Athlone I can assure you that we have lost many good teachers because their service would not be recognised and they would not be placed on the right incremental scale. The sad thing is that they are all Irishmen who wished to come from the United States, Canada, Germany, England and as far away as New Zealand. Yet when they come home they will not get recognition for the period they have spent abroad. This is something that should be remedied.

On the subject of regional colleges, a huge publicity campaign would need to be mounted to bring their value home to the people. Of late the type of pupil going there is the one who cannot get to the university. We are not getting the top grade. Universities are bursting at the seams. A total of 104 applicants applied for a position as a teacher of English and History in a county quite close to me recently. We advertised for a teacher of Irish and Geography the following day and we had 37 applicants for that job. People who send their children to study Arts in the universities are just wasting their time. It is almost impossible to get a good teacher of mathematics at present. Engineers are in short supply but Arts teachers are nearly two a penny. It is tragic to get letters every day in the week stating "I have a degree in History and English and my H.Dip., is there any possibility of getting a job in the vocational school or the regional college?".

It is something we will have to face up to. We will have to show the value of the regional colleges and the fact that there is a future for people attending them. We will have to get the industrialists of Ireland to say "We have places for so many people next year if they come out fully qualified." The NCEA issued their first report recently and I should like to put it on record that I compliment them on the excellent report they have produced. Last year teachers and pupils were in the wilderness. It was the year for getting certificates. When they had got these they were told that unless they had a certain number of credits they could not do their diplomas. Fortunately, as a result of pressure put on by the boards of management of the various colleges the Department of Education agreed to let anyone who got his certificate go forward for the diploma but that will not happen any more. The NCEA are going to insist that not only will the qualifications of the college be recognised nationally but they will be recognised internationally. We have a slight bit of trouble at present in connection with the H. Dip. not being recognised in England. It is claimed that people here have not enough teaching experience at the time they take the examination. There could be something in that because the H.Dip. has been obtained in one year but it is the intention of the universities to make it a two-year course in future.

When I listen to arguments which arise on television whether about religion, morals, health, or law and order, I find the sentence "something should be done about it in the schools" keeps cropping up. Yesterday, when we were talking about vandalism in the telephone kiosks, Senator Quinlan said something should be done about it in the schools. In other words, the teachers have to take the blame for all the evils in this country. Teachers have to give lessons on health education. They have to tell children to wash their hands, wash their teeth, flush the toilet, and keep their nails clean. This has to be done for the reason that the real culprits and those who insist that something should be done about it in the schools are not sufficiently conscientious of their own duties. Psychologists tell us that a child's basic character is formed by the time he reaches the age of five years. If this is true what hope has a teacher of teaching that child to say, for example, "a cold day" or "shut the door"! He will say it is a "could day" and "shut the dure" because he was taught the latter from the very day he was able to speak. How would you tell a child to wash his teeth when the parent did not think it worth his while to buy him a toothbrush? This is what national teachers come up against every day.

Psychologists also emphasise the importance of testing a child on admission to school to detect word blindness. Many people do not understand that such a thing as word blindness exists but it is very common in a national school. You get a child who will read a word backwards. He cannot read it forward. If he is asked to read "was" he will say "saw". Care and attention is needed in a case like this. That child requires special treatment from a psychologist. We are also required to detect other mental disorders. All this poses problems for teachers, parents sometimes claim that the singling out of a child for special treatment is an effort by the teacher to degrade the child or the family in front of other children. This has happened in schools throughout the country. We send doctors and dentists to schools and surely this indicates that the parents are not looking after their own duties and responsibilities.

At present there is a move being made by the Minister for Education to set up a new system of management of schools. He says there will be a parent-teacher structure, along with the present management system. There is nothing really wrong with the present management system except that they get no money. They get a few pounds for heating and cleaning and must show the Department that a similar amount of money is received locally before they get the miserable grants for heating and cleaning schools. If one compares the system with the vocational schools or the regional colleges, one sees that the vocational schools get all requirements. At every monthly meeting there are requirements for the school and everything such as equipment, is bought.

In the national schools during the past two years each teacher received £12. In Scotland and England, £3 per child is paid. If there were 100 children in the school you would get £300 instead of £36 between three teachers here. Under the present system there are not sufficient funds for supplying equipment for the schools. We have a new curriculum at present which is a reproduction of the Scottish one, word for word. There is one aspect of the curriculum which was ignored, and that was the cost of putting it into operation. Teachers must keep records of how they spend the yearly allocation of £12. The only way that I could see the new system operating would be to allot an amount per pupil, because £12 per year is totally inadequate.

Finally, I should like to compliment the Minister on his excellent statement. We hope that the clouds are not as dark as they appear to be and the Jews and the Arabs will settle their differences and that the oil will flow again. If it ever flows again, provision should be made for adequate storage of oil.

Professor Quinlan

This Bill gives us an annual opportunity of having a look at the budget and administration in general. It is a pity that we could not have had this debate much closer to budget time. I would ask the Minister if it would be possible to revert to the practice that prevailed until about four years ago when the Appropriation Bill was considered in the Seanad in July. I know that the reason for the change at the time was that the Estimates for Departments were running late and could not be finished in time to have the Appropriation Bill discussed in July. It thus dragged on up to Christmas.

During the previous two years we devised a way of avoiding a Christmas debate by passing the Appropriation Bill without debate. We were then given the right to debate it on a motion in the following month. That procedure could be reverted to but why not take the motion on the contents of the Appropriation Bill which is available for all once the Book of Estimates has been published? Why not take that motion at some convenient time in June and July? Then the Appropriation Bill could be given a formal passage whenever required by the Dáil. It would be much more realistic if we could have a general debate at that time. It is rather late to debate details of administration now. It is only right that we should debate those as soon as possible after the details have been made available, that is, when made available in the Book of Estimates.

It is timely, however, that we should have the present opportunity of having a look at our situation in general. On the one hand, the country has had a very satisfactory growth pattern. Reinflation of the economy produced the desirable effects in stimulating employment, production, et cetera. There has been an increase of 7,000 in numbers employed, which is excellent. Now we are facing the harsh realities of what is happening in the world at large and thus our planning for the year ahead must be changed a bit. We must go deflationary and we will have the unpleasant consequences of having to implement that policy. Everybody recognises that this is not due to our planning. On examining our situation any rational economist would have encouraged an expansionist approach once we were in the EEC. It is unfortunate that in the months ahead we will be forced to check that momentum. At least, let us hope that in checking the momentum we will check it with an eye to re-expansion at a future opportunity. We will gamble that the present difficulties are not going to last very long.

In other words, we should adopt a policy that is based on the assumption that we can get back again on a more even keel after, say, a year or so. This will condition quite a bit of our approach to the question of employment, for instance. The measures that the Government will probably have to take early in the New Year will undoubtedly restrict the economy and will, perhaps, result in some unemployment. It will be much more difficult to create the new jobs that are necessary to provide for our increasing population and our increasing work force at this stage.

I would suggest that we should avail of this opportunity, if there is a slackening in employment, to treat it as a training period in the coming year. For instance, we see the excellent work that is being done by AnCO in the training and retraining of our people. There was a very informative visit by Members of the Oireachtas to the AnCO headquarters; everybody was very impressed by what he saw and the approaches adopted but more especially by the increased capacity over the last two years. In the coming year every effort should be made through AnCO and such organisations to ensure that people who are temporarily unemployed will be given training to equip them for work. The reduction in the wage packet was almost nil under the AnCO schemes because very liberal provisions were made. This is the first suggestion I would make.

Secondly, we have the energy crisis. It is inevitable that as soon as the mechanics of rationing get under way it will be introduced. Everybody would feel more satisfied with its introduction. I can understand that it takes time to get the operation started but I hope it will be introduced shortly in order to conserve vital supplies both for industry and agriculture. Industry cannot function without adequate supplies of oil, but agriculture would be completely hit. You can put industry on a three-day basis but you cannot put cows on a five-day week instead of seven. They are not nearly as understanding as industry. Therefore, agriculture must have its oil requirements to ensure its basic work is carried on.

In the coming year we will become more dependent on agricultural exports in order to help our balance of payments difficulties, or to offset the increases which we must pay for many of our imports. We can take some comfort from the fact that the difficulties we are likely to experience in agricultural exports will not be nearly as severe as what our competitors will experience. They are much more dependent on imported foodstuffs and fertilisers. Consequently, increased prices in those essential inputs to modern agriculture will have a far greater impact on our continental and British competitors than they will have here at our present stage of development.

We all agree that one effect of the scarcity of petrol has been the opportunity to rethink a rational transport policy. People now realise that the usage of private cars and so on can be cut very considerably. Public transport is beginning to come into its own. The cities are beginning to breathe. You can now get through the cities as easily as you did five to seven years ago. This present year—before we again have more liberal supplies of oil —should be used to fashion the basic elements of transport control within our cities. It may now appear quite feasible to leave cars or other private transport at convenient locations outside the city and to complete the journey by public transport. There would also be a much greater utilisation of public transport. It is a golden opportunity for people to seize before we again have more generous supplies of petrol.

In trying to cope with increasing prices, we must be made aware of the great wastage which is occurring everywhere. Cartons, containers, tins and so on are discarded after being used once. That is a system of waste that is crying to heaven for vengeance. When you consider all the bottles which are thrown out, the plastic containers only used once, and all the —discarded wrappings that have become a feature of our modern world, there is obviously need for some new approach to the problem. It should be possible for the purchasers to have their own containers. In this way we can recover from the extravagance we have become accustomed to in the past ten years. The recycling of tins and so on is practised to some extent in the United States. We should adopt this practice here as soon as possible.

We are beginning to realise that many things which we thought to be essential—for example, that milk should be delivered once a day and not every second day—are not necessarily so. We can look at many aspects of our life critically and profit from this exercise.

Undoubtedly there will be, as happened in Britain, a sharp cutback. It will hit at capital expenditure, trying to shelve schemes which can be postponed. On this question of capital I want to cite one of the main users of capital at present namely, the agricultural industry where we are trying very hard to increase the numbers of cattle so as to utilise our land to its full capacity. We have this report, which came out yesterday, by the IFA and the Agricultural Institute. It gives figures to show that we could double our agricultural production for an investment of £100 million a year.

The point I want to make about investment in agriculture is that this is a type of investment of which we can afford a great deal, because it has to be made by the people concerned investing their increased earnings. At the same time, the product they are buying is home-produced, by and large, over half the investment in agriculture is for increased stock. Last year we held back at an abnormally high rate of 11 per cent. We should at least aim at between 7 to 10 per cent for the next decade. It will fit into the general pattern to encourage such stock investment or building up of stock numbers in the year ahead because selling difficulties are likely to be encountered in the case of beef. Therefore, it should be an opportune time to build up the breeding herds on our farms. This can be done without any great increase in inputs because much of our pasture is under-utilised and under-grazed even without using fertilisers to boost its production. This is a facet that we should look at and we should seize our opportunity to push ahead.

I want to deal with a few other aspects of administration over the past year. To return to the education scene, I am happy to welcome the new approach based more on consultation. The previous Administration were in office for too long and had become exceedingly arrogant in their approach to educational bodies. The previous Government allowed the Department of Education far too much control and far too much authority over the educational bodies. There was a very strong element of dictatorship in the approach which successive Ministers for Education failed to change despite their good intentions. That pattern has been reversed. There is more genuine consultation and more respect for the opinions of the local groups. I hope that process will continue and deepen and develop, and that some of the consultative bodies we have been promised, especially the examinations body, will take shape without too much delay.

On the university front, I was rather disturbed by a banner headline in a Sunday paper about six weeks ago which said that the Minister for Education had his staff going full steam ahead on reactivating the merger—that unfortunate gimmick introduced by the late Mr. O'Malley in his time as Minister for Education. The people concerned—the academics —will have to be given credit for having the good of higher education at heart. They know their business far better than any official in the Department of Education, having served in the ranks, having been students in the universities and postgraduate students, getting junior staff positions and being promoted up along the line. They know what is required and they have come together in recent years.

I am very happy that I was involved with the group drawn from NUI and TCD which brought about reconciliation, got the two universities together and fashioned the agreement which is now known as the NUI-TCD agreement, based on a type of rationalisation based on co-operation here in this city. I would ask the Minister to use all his power and influence in the Government to see that that basis of co-operation is built on, and that we get a sound educational edifice based on that.

We will not get a sound approach by putting the clock back to the merger days because there is a vast difference between university education and business mergers. It is a difference that is obvious to those who work in the system. It is not so obvious to those outside of it. The Minister and the Government can be assured of the fullest possible co-operation from university staffs at all levels in making the greatest possible use of our scarce resources and in providing the best possible training for our university students and our future leaders in Government. We can point with pride to many members of the present Government and to the Minister who did the university proud by having been associated with him.

I am hopeful that in the approach to the second level education the co-operative spirit will Continue to prevail. I am made rather uneasy by some straws in the wind which seem to be emerging and which seem to suggest that some of the more anti-consultation people within the Department are beginning to reassert themselves a bit too much. What we need, in all cases, is a community of schools. In other words, a sharing out of the facilities at a local level rather than this idea of: "Send in the bulldozer; knock down everything, and build up one mammoth community school to do the job." The scarcity of finance will probably put a very salutary curb on such extravagance in the years ahead, despite the fact that some of it is coming from the World Bank.

It is wise to listen to those who have laboured long in our secondary school system, to realise that they have overcome many difficulties in the past and that they stand ready to give of their best in the future as they have always done in the past. I hope the Government will continue with the community and consultation approaches to education. If they do so they will get every co-operation from the organisations concerned.

I should like to refer to another aspect of administration. It is an aspect about which many people are worried. I refer to the institution we created in 1960, Radio Telefís Éireann, which to many seem to be very much at variance with majority opinion in the country and to take a delight in insulting and affronting some of our most cherished ideals and beliefs. I find it hard to understand how their approaches can be reconciled with the Act of 1960 which laid down the duty of the impartial presentation of affairs. Many of their recent presentations were anything but impartial. Take, for instance, their approach to the Bill on contraceptives. The vast majority of commentators in RTE take it upon themselves to be the proponents of this idea. We have seen flagrant examples of biased chairmanship in the "Late Late Show" recently where Mr. Gay Byrne came out solidly in favour of contraception and tried to make those who were opposed to it, or even dared to register a murmur against it, appear old-fashioned idiots.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think it is in order for the Senator to anticipate the debate on a Bill.

Professor Quinlan

We give them some money in the Book of Estimates and I see red every time I realise how badly spent it is and how much out of step RTE are with everything we hold dear. You would think their main mission in life was the furtherance of the permissive society.

Mr. Russell

He did not do so well with Mr. Paisley.

Professor Quinlan

I would like to get a TAM rating sheet on the appearances of Members of the Oireachtas. It would be very interesting and I do not believe we would be long in guessing who would fill the first two places. After that the rest of the Members of the Oireachtas would all tie for places because they never appear on television.

Mr. Russell

The Senator and myself.

Professor Quinlan

I do not think that is an impartial approach. In 1960 I suggested that television was something we could do without for many years.

I should like now to refer to the Sunningdale agreement. I am sure everyone here was delighted with the coming together of the Official Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party in this power-sharing Executive in the North. That was a dream come true. It was a dream that 12 months ago nobody could have envisaged would come true. Not alone did that dream come true but the spirit in which it came true, as shown by the subsequent behaviour and utterances of the parties concerned, made it all the more wonderful still. I believe that a new era is starting in Northern Ireland. This is added to very much by the Sunningdale agreement which was a real triumph for reason and for the constitutional approach to problems. The members of our team and all the others who took part deserve the greatest possible congratulations on what they achieved. They deserve the greatest support in the years ahead in implementing the agreement and in building up trust and confidence between the two communities in this island. We should also pay a handsome tribute to the work of the previous Taoiseach and his Government for the part they played leading up to Sunningdale.

It was not easy to get away from the past and doctrinaire statements to the practical situation where it is recognised that unity must be achieved by consent and that that consent involves the consent of the majority in the North. That is a very big step forward and all the authorities here deserve the greatest credit for it. When we come to power-sharing, which has now become a fact of life in the North, I would like to feel that, as the Council of Ireland develops, our approach here would develop very much towards power-sharing. Power sharing here means the development of an adequate committee system in the Oireachtas. I hope that the new Government will give this matter much more attention in the year ahead. We have looked for it many times in the past but we did not get far with it.

We should look at an example such as Holland where you have very well organised committees attached to parliament. There is the committee on agriculture. There may be two or three committees on education. There is a committee on industry and so on. In these committees they have representatives from all the political parties who are making a special study of the matter in question. They are not merely sent there for prestige reasons by their parties. They work hard at their jobs in typical committee style. They have full access to the civil service and they can ask civil servants to come and meet them and take part in the deliberations of the committee. These committees can investigate, on their own initiative, any respect of the area with which they are concerned. They can investigate the matter, see whether new legislation may be required, or new incentives, and then inform the Minister concerned that they propose to conduct this type of study or investigation. They would ask for and get all the co-operation necessary from the Minister concerned, eventually new legislation would be suggested and would be sent to the Minister together with a recommendation.

On the Minister's part, he could ask them to investigate anything, or if he proposed new legislation he would acquaint them of the fact that he was proposing this new legislation. Details of the heads of the legislation would be sent to them for study and comment before ever they became public. It could pass back and forth quite a few times and at the end of it would cut down very much on the time that has to be spent in the old style parliamentary process of having everything fully discussed in Parliament. We would find that most measures coming before Parliament had been agreed on by the committees concerned. That is power-sharing, although one might say that it was merely a modernised approach to Parliament.

I have often said here that if Parnell came back he would be at home in either House within ten minutes of arriving, because he would find that nothing had changed since his time. He would find the same approach, the same type of British parliamentary system that was adequate for the last century but is inadequate today. As a priority, we need to do something about that. The agreement on the Council of Ireland gives us the necessary spurt, because we cannot ask and expect agreements on power-sharing and on co-operation and so on if we cannot set an example from here. We can set that example and I hope that in the year ahead, which I believe will be a difficult one, with many difficult national decisions having to be taken by the Government, the Government will enlist the Opposition to the fullest extent and that we will get the greatest possible measure of co-operation and consultation on measures that have to be brought in, and that we will be spared the spectacle of the obviously —shall I say—dishonest speeches made in Britain by the Opposition attacking the measures the Government of the day had to bring in this last week. It was obvious to any impartial observer viewing it from here that politics was simply being played there at a time when the threat to the nation from many sources was much more severe and dangerous than, I hope, any threat we have to face in the next 12 months.

I would appeal to the Minister in the year ahead to make more use of the Seanad both from the point of view of introducing legislation here and of drawing on the Seanad personnel for committees that may be set up. I do not wish to take up any more time at this stage of the year but I do want to wish the Minister and all concerned a continuance of their good work in the New Year. I hope that by united effort in the country we will get over the difficulties of the next 12 months and that we will use the period to plan for better times ahead when we will be able to resume our efforts to build up our economy, to expand employment very considerably, and so to fulfil the ambitions of all of us to make this a country where all who wish to can live in decent comfort and enjoy what the country has to offer, which I believe is something that is very precious indeed.

Mr. Russell

Before I deal, I hope constructively, with the scope of the Appropriation Bill I should like to comment on one or two remarks that were passed during the course of the debate this afternoon. Senator Yeats made considerable play of the continuous rise in food prices in particular. Something should be said about that before we proceed to say anything directly on the Appropriation Bill. That gimmick is pretty well played out, as Senator McAuliffe pointed out. Indeed, Senator Yeats's party should be the last to bring the question of food prices into any debate. I am long enough associated with the Houses of the Oireachtas to recall that it was the Fianna Fáil Party who first removed subsidies from food, who put the turnover tax on food, who doubled the turnover tax on food and then finished off the saga by replacing turnover tax by VAT, which the then Minister for Finance assured us would not lead to any increases in the prices of food. We all know what happened thereafter. I hope the question of food prices and feed prices which were introduced into the recent by-election will now be a dead letter. People are far too intelligent now not to appreciate the accusations against any Government—I do not mind which side is in power at the time—that they are responsible for the increase in food prices and indeed in almost every article of human consumption in regard to what people eat or what they wear or what they use. We are caught up in a vortex of world inflation and there is very little we can do in this country.

The Government are to be complimented on the steps they have taken to at least slow down and control price increases which cannot be avoided. Any businessman or industrialist or shopkeeper who had endeavoured to seek justified increases based on increased prices of raw materials will confirm how difficult it is to get the necessary sanction from the Minister concerned. In fact, in some cases recently things have got to the stage where if increases had not been announced it would have meant a shut-down of certain businesses and industries throughout the country. I am satisfied, and I think most fair-minded people are satisfied, that the Government are taking every possible precaution to control, within their powers, increases in the prices of all necessities of life. That should be accepted, and we should take the question of prices out of the political arena and face up to the realities of the situation.

I think Senator Yeats said the Minister had accused the previous Government of being in some way responsible for the present oil crisis. I do not think that is correct. When he comes to reply the Minister will refute that. Senator McAuliffe made some reference to the lack of action by the previous Government in providing facilities for the storage of fuels, particularly oil. Senator Killilea jumped up and refuted that and said that the then Minister had, in fact, introduced a Bill in the Seanad some short time ago to assist the fuel situation. I am sure Senators will recall the incident. It was in February, 1971. A Bill was introduced by the then Minister, now Senator Brian Lenihan, to control in an emergency, supplies of fuel in the country—in other words, to commandeer for the public good any fuel supplies that might be in the country and might be required in the national interest.

At that time I spoke in the debate and said that there was not much point in bringing in an emergency Bill to control or commandeer supplies of fuels if fuel supplies were not there to be commandeered. I suggested that steps might be taken to increase fuel supplies within the country, facilities for storage tanks et cetera, and I suggested that one obvious location for the construction of tanks for the storage of fuel is the Shannon estuary. which could take tankers of 200,000 tons and over in complete safety and without any trouble.

I also suggested that the Minister might consider setting up an advisory national fuel council to co-ordinate the various interests in the fuel industry and advise him on the existing and the future world situation with particular relevance to the needs of this country, should an emergency arise. I may have sounded pathetic at the time as I have just been reading back over the Seanad Debates of February, 1971, nearly two years ago, but what I stated and what other Senators who supported my viewpoint stated at the time has unfortunately come to pass.

Subsequent to that Senator Alexis FitzGerald put down an amendment to this Fuel Supply Bill asking the Minister to set up a council to advise him but the Minister did not accept the amendment on the grounds that he was constantly in touch with all the fuel interests—importers, distributors and others and that he had a day-to-day and week-to-week knowledge of the situation. That is oil under the bridge now but if we had shown a bit more foresight 18 months or two years ago perhaps we would be in a better position. However, I do not wish to indulge in hindsight, which is a fruitless exercise.

This year the Appropriation Bill is clouded by the current international situation particularly the fuel crisis. It is salutary to look first of all at the enormous figure of the Bill. We are passing a Bill of nearly £800 million which is an enormous sum for this tiny country. One of the significant facts is that, included in that large figure, is a sum of almost £50 million to cover supplementaries for the previous financial year, 1972-73. These figures alone and the fact that we have such an enormous supplementary requirement is indicative of the inflationary age in which we live. It is impossible for a Minister, and I state pointedly a Minister for Finance, to bring in a budget that he can with confidence state will cover the country's requirements for the 12 months ahead. It is almost certain we are going to live in an era of supplementary budgets because of these continuing inflationary pressures for many years to come.

We may be entering an era when we will not have one but several budgets in one year to keep up with the rapidly changing situation. The Government are entitled, as the Minister did in his speech, to take credit for a very satisfactory year in 1973 under all heads. The Government's policy of introducing an expansionist budget early in the year to provide an extra £200 million for current and capital expenditure has been justified by the substantial increase in employment of some 7,000 people and by the increased tempo of the national economy from 3 per cent, which it has been for the previous three years, to 7 per cent, which is highly encouraging.

The humane side of the Government's proposal, in which they increased the amount available for social welfare benefits to the poorer sections of our community by £50 million, is an indication of their concern for the less fortunate members of our society. The Government might, with justification plead that they could not hope to control prices completely effectively. Under all headings 1973 has been a remarkably successful year and hopes are high that this will continue into 1974.

Recent events have clouded those optimistic forecasts and we are now living in a situation where we must look at matters realistically, and make the necessary provisions to tide our people over what appears to be an extremely difficult future in 1974, a year in which we could suffer severe restrictions of all kinds, a year in which we could see high unemployment, a year in which we might see diminution of our export markets, particularly in industrial goods built up by great enterprise and tenacity over recent years. There is no use our putting our heads in our hands and saying "This may never happen, God is good". This is a popular expression in this country but in the year 1974 it will be unrealistic.

In his introductory speech the Minister made some comments on the question of external trade to which I should like to refer, since that to a large extent holds the key to whatever decisions the Government are now going to take. I agree with Senator Yeats and other speakers that the Government will have to take difficult and unpleasant decisions very quickly. The Minister was asked why he had not produced these proposals today. I read into the Minister's speech that he is putting before us very bluntly the situation in which we are living, that we can expect difficult times ahead and that the Government propose to take certain measures which will be highly unpopular to deal with the situation. Today was not the appropriate time to spell out those proposals but it was the appropriate occasion to warn us all to expect hard times ahead.

Our external trade up to the end of November was running at the rate of almost £2,000 million per year, a highly creditable performance, of which exports accounted for £790 million and imports £1,052 million leaving an import excess of £262 million, a very substantial figure. Translated roughly into annual figures it would appear that the country is facing a deficit of some £260 million which may, as a result of recent events, go nearer the £300 million mark. That is a very serious situation. Up to now we have always managed to ride out any trading deficits up to, say, £100 million due to our satisfactory inflows of capital and in the older days, remittances, allowances and income from investments abroad.

The time is obviously arriving when these invisible earnings will be insufficient to close the gap. Therefore, if action is not taken to rectify the situation we could find ourselves eating into our external reserves very quickly. At the moment they stand at approximately £400 million, which is a very comfortable figure. If we were to have net deficits at the rate of, say, £100 million a year they would not last very long. We can anticipate that in 1974 unless drastic action is taken the balance of payments deficit could be even greater than £100 million. Obviously, something must be done quickly.

The Minister referred to a curtailment of imports which concerns me as it concerns every other Senator. We are an open economy. We rely so much on imports of capital goods and raw materials for processing and re-exporting that any suggestion of restricting imports is one which would cause us very deep concern. It is true that the Minister qualified his statement by referring to non-essential imports. Perhaps he might give us some information, when he is replying, as to what he means by non-essential imports. In the context of the EEC are we entitled to restrict by way of licence, import duties or tariffs the import of goods from other EEC countries? I believe there is some provision there that if the balance of payments gets into trouble certain short-term measures can be taken. I am not too clear on that point. Perhaps the Minister might give us more information in his reply to the debate. Imports are so essential to our economy and our export trade that I am sure the Government will give very careful consideration to any limitation of imports certainly beyond those described as strictly non-essential.

Another factor which the Minister did not mention in his speech on Second Reading as far as I can recall but which is relevant to our current difficult situation is the enormous increase that has taken place over the past 12 or 15 months in the price of all commodities, particularly grain, protein meals et cetera for which there was a world shortage last year. This resulted in enormous price increases in those types of raw materials which are essential to the agricultural processing industry, in particular the cattle and dairy trade. The enormous increases had an impact also if not directly certainly indirectly on prices. This was something over which we had no control. There were high hopes that 1974, which indicated very satisfactory harvests in the exporting countries, particularly the United States, would see a reduction in prices of commodities. If that had happened we could look forward with confidence to a reduction in the rate of inflation and a reduction generally in prices, particularly in food and feeding stuffs. It is true that there were bumper crops in the United States and elsewhere but we are now in the unique situation in which as prices have fallen, say, in the United States, the fuel crisis has sent up the cost of freight to an enormous extent and, furthermore, has caused grave dislocation of shipping services, particularly across the Atlantic and from other countries that supply us with raw materials. It seems as if the gods are against us at the moment. When we had hoped for some lowering of the world commodity prices which would have started a general levelling off or even reduction of prices it will now be negatived by the current fuel crisis.

Dr. Browne

Is the Senator saying that capitalism has no answer to this?

Mr. Russell

The Russians were the biggest buyers last year. You could hardly call those capitalists. They are the people who shoved up the prices more than anybody else. Whether it is capitalists or socialists or any other "ist", the fact remains that prices of commodities are going to stay up for a long time. There is nothing we in this small country can do about it. They are the hard facts of economic life.

The Minister said in his speech, and I should like to refer to it again and emphasise it, as speakers on both sides of the House have done, that our economy in 1974 is going to be under severe pressures on several fronts. We have a fuel crisis, inflation, and soaring interest rates. In addition, we will be seriously affected by recent drastic measures taken by the British Government. These must affect our exports to the United Kingdom, in the first place, and conversely, affect our imports of industrial raw materials in particular from the UK. Commodities, like steel and semi prefabricated goods will affect industries here. I need not spell out the industries. We are all sufficiently conversant with the type of industries I have in mind. Anybody using fabricated steel, steel bars and even the car industry are all going to be affected if there is any restriction in industrial production of these particular types of industrial raw material in the United Kingdom. That poses a very serious threat for our industries.

Having more or less repeated what the Minister has said, with possibly some additions from my own knowledge of circumstances we now come to the question of what we should do about it. On that theme I do not know what the Minister's reaction is —he has been longer in the House than I have been today—but it was singularly disappointing to hear so many Senators, particularly on the opposite side of the House, criticising the Government on the grounds of high prices et cetera and criticising the Minister but making no positive suggestion whatsoever as to what might be done in the present crisis. I hope to offer some suggestions which may or may not be practical.

Firstly, we can do nothing and hope that the coming events will not be as bad as they seem just now. Secondly, we can take sensible and positive steps to adapt our economy to meet the very serious threat to our way of life which exists at the present time. There are certain steps that the Government might take. In the short-term the obvious answer is the conservation of fuel and all forms of energy. This may require an early decision on rationing if appeals for moderate demands are not successful. Some positive steps should be taken for the better utilisation of all forms of transport—road, rail and sea. I believe Senator McAuliffe made that point also. Even in this severe fuel crisis it is amazing the number of cars one sees with one passenger. Buses and trains are not even a quarter full. Trucks pass full one way and empty on the return journey. This is not an easy thing to do. It needs a degree of regimentation that our people may not accept. It is a fact that there is enormous wastage in all forms of transport at the present time. Maybe this did not matter in the good old days when petrol was in plentiful supply but now with the severe shortage of this and other fuels an all-out effort must be made.

An appeal might produce some results but effective action to produce results must be taken if voluntary restraints are not exercised. There is scope for saving of essential supplies of fuels and the cutting out of all unnecessary activities which utilise energy for their motivation. There are many we can think of. Some may be providing limited employment but in the present emergency they cannot be tolerated because they could seriously injure other and larger industries and possibly lead to a deepening of the fuel crisis. In the medium and longer term a greater emphasis will have to be placed on the export of agricultural products. If anything, this crisis has shown us that the most valuable type of industry we can have at the present time is the one that draws its raw materials in the main from this country. Every effort should be made to increase and develop new methods of processing agricultural produce, new factories for meat, milk, vegetables or anything that can be grown here because they are all almost 100 per cent export and would have the very best reaction in our economy, particularly in the rural areas. Every effort should be made by way of incentives to manufacturers of agricultural produce to increase their production and sell their products abroad. The time has come when more selection will have to be made of the type of industry that is coming to this country and getting grants and fiscal aids.

I may be treading on dangerous ground when I suggest this but we all know certain types of industry that are taking advantage of what could be a very transient situation. We have a labour force in this country: they have a market abroad. Their market could disappear in changing world circumstances, the factory can be closed and they can pull out. The type of factory I should like to see getting the maximum encouragement to stay here are those that would (a) process local raw materials, or (b) would carry their production a stage further than merely a semi-processed operation, as a number of factories are doing at present. In other words, we want to encourage the industry that will come and stay here, use our raw materials and employ our people. That is an ideal type of industry. Sooner or later some kind of selectivity will have to be exercised to encourage the best type of industry, and to discourage the other type which merely wants to take advantage of what I consider might be a transient situation.

Another way an incentive could be given is a revision of the taxation system. This has already been mentioned. I can think of nothing that would be more welcome than a revision of the personal allowances, particularly for workers, and to encourage married women to stay on in industry. We are reaching the stage where we may suffer severe labour shortages in certain types of industry, and every encouragement should be given to make people stay on. In the case of married women, encouragement should be given to get them to stay on after marriage.

A better drive could be made to sell our agricultural produce abroad. Bord Bainne, and the other boards, are doing a good job but it could be improved. I should like to see private enterprise entreprenuers getting into that business, going abroad and selling Irish manufactured products. Every encouragement should be given to what I describe as the merchantman to sell. He might be in a better position to do it than a small industry or small co-operative enterprise. It might be better to get one expert, or an expert firm, to sell for groups of industries. If incentives were given to those types of people, or groups, it could have a dramatic effect on the sales of Irish products abroad.

On a larger scale, I should like to refer to the development of our latest natural resources, of which the Shannon Estuary is an outstanding example. I speak with more personal knowledge of that area than other Senators but we have there what was once described by an enterprising English journalist as "the neglected emerald". The Shannon Estuary is possibly the most unique waterway in these islands. Ships of over 200,000 tons can be taken with safety there and with a little expenditure the mouth of the Shannon could take ships in excess of 500,000 tons. If a ship of one million tons could be built, it could lie off the mouth of the Shannon today in perfect safety.

The day will come when that natural resource will be recognised, when ships, which are too big to sail up the English Channel will, with safety, anchor in the Shannon Estuary. It is an ideal location for heavy industry, without polluting the area. Pollution will only occur if we allow it to occur. If proper stringent steps are taken, there is no reason why we should not have the type of major industry that would lead to, say, petro-chemical industries located there, without giving offence to the beauties of the area or polluting the atmosphere or the river itself.

I do not know if it is sensible to suggest that this small country might make a direct approach to the countries restricting crude oil supplies at present. It may be a flight of fancy, but one of the deficiencies at present is refining capacity. If we could come to an arrangement with some of these gentlemen to refine crude oil in the Shannon Estuary, or elsewhere on the south or south-west coast, it might be possible to work out a firm arrangement that would ensure long-term supplies of fuel energy for this country.

Finally, I should like to refer to the development of other sources of energy. I should like to know what progress we are making in regard to the provision of nuclear power. I know that the Minister has recently given the go-ahead for the provision of such a power station, but that will take some years. The Government could take more positive steps to encourage the exploration of offshore prospecting for oil and gas. More incentives could be given. The time to give incentives is at the exploration stage, where the risk is greatest. When the rewards are secured, it is easier for the State to take some of those rewards, and rightly so. In the initial stages the Government should be prepared to assist in what is the risk-taking stage, and that is the exploration for resources. Strangely enough, that has never been done.

Returning to the question of the balance of trade and the balance of payments, the time has come for a drastic revision of the trading arrangements with countries with which we have an unfavourable balance of trade. There are dozens of them. Examining the monthly returns in respect of those countries with which we have a hopeless balance of trade one is greatly surprised. The time has come for us to say to those countries: "You have to buy from us, or we shall not buy from you". I know we cannot do that in regard to such items as tea or tobacco, but in other instances we should be able to force a hard deal.

The Minister should also encourage his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, to take a hard look at our lack of a ports policy. Many people are not aware that our present ports policy was initiated in 1930, when a commission was set up by the then Government, and followed years later by the Harbours Act, 1946, which is the Act which still guides the workings of Irish ports. As an island country, we have been neglectful of our ports. Shipping, ports and harbours have been the cinderella section of the transport system. We are now beginning to realise that, as an island country, we cannot trade with the outside world without efficient ports. I hope Deputy Barry, our new Minister, who is already showing initiative in matters of transport, will take a careful look at the situation in regard to our ports and give the same assistance for them as he is giving to other sectors of our transport system.

I am not by nature a pessimist and therefore I want to finish on an optimistic note so that I cannot be excused of making a speech in a completely negative manner. We, as a people, will overcome these difficulties. The Irish people have never yet refused to react to a challenge. I am confident that the Government will give the necessary lead in this respect. The people should be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If we have to tighten our belts and if those who have most have to give more, which is only right, it will be a salutary lesson for our country.

Senator Quinlan referred to the shocking waste of raw materials in consumer goods. The United States has probably been the outstanding example as a waster of natural and national assets. They are beginning to realise there that they have been burning their valuable natural resources. We have been doing the same thing on a smaller scale. This temporary setback will bring home to us the facts of life and make us more conservation-minded in the sense that we have certain things which we want to preserve in order to provide employment for our people and to ensure a better way of life. This emergency will have served a useful if salutary purpose if it brings about the desired situation.

Dr. Browne

In discussing the Appropriation Bill I have so many options open to me that I must exercise my usual restraint in confining myself to just a few points.

There is no doubt that for a long time a number of us have felt that nothing which we said in this House or in the Dáil was particularly important because we could not exercise any influence. In recent years this impression has grown more and more. Those of us in the Labour Party who regretted and resisted the enthusiasm of the two major parties for the Common Market—what many of us knew to be a great diminution in sovereignty, power, authority and prestige of this House, for what it is worth, but more important still, of the Dáil which is the representative Parliament—have become very saddened at the speed at which our objections and the case which we made in the Labour Party—Deputies Keating, Corish and others at the time —against the decision to enter the Common Market have been justified.

At first the picture of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, going round and round in ever-increasing circles in Europe had the element of crude farce. He seemed to be the epitome of the Skibbereen Eagle. The poor man believed that what he said or did would be of some importance and affect some decision. I am sure he believed it would be of benefit to the country. The element of farce has gone out of the picture now. It is no longer a joke. It has become very serious and frightening. Quite obviously it does not matter what we decide in the Dáil or Seanad. It is becoming clear that it does not matter what they decide in the House of Commons. What is even worse, it does not matter what they decide in Brussels. The power has left the Common Market. There is more authority now in Beirut than there is in any of these centres. For that reason it is difficult to rationalise any attempt to contribute in discussions of this kind, but we have had the privilege of being elected to these institutions and, therefore, we must discharge our function as best we can, even as a critic of the formation of the National Coalition, as I was.

I am not going to go into the essence of my criticism, which is not what is usually accepted by people. My criticism was simply against the terms on which the Coalition was formed and the parties between whom it was formed. The terms "war", "economy", "crisis""no reason for panic", "rationing", "possibility of food shortages", "massive unemployment", and "uncontrollable price rises" are commonplace in the vocabulary of the various Ministers in the National Coalition. I expected this would happen but I must confess that I had no idea that I would hear it so soon from most of the Ministers, the most important of them in this context, being the Minister for Industry and Commerce who recently used all those words. This Minister of all the talents now finds himself facing all of these situations—gas rationing, petrol rationing, high unemployment and rationing of food by means of prices. That is effective rationing—by means of shortages.

I read of him also indulging in an insufferable piece of insolence in the other House the other day in which he congratulated the Fianna Fáil Party on their responsibility in understanding all the difficulties of the Government in these critical times. I also recollect the attitude of the different members of the Opposition in the last Government in which there was none of this understanding. The general attitude was that everything that went wrong, and I contributed to this as I was one of the people who did these things that I am talking about and criticised them in the most uncompromising terms for their failure in all of the aspects of Government for which they had responsibility, was attributable to the then Government. I was joined in this criticism by the men who are now claiming clemency, understanding and a sense of responsibility from the Opposition.

They have to make all these claims in the context of their claim to the election which succeeded in defeating the Government of that time. They have to take whatever they are saying now in the context of what they said at the election which defeated the last Government, the most important one of all being in relation to price control. It is not such issues as contraception or legal abortion that are worrying the housewife at present. Her main worry is the increasing cost of living. It was on prices that the Fianna Fáil Government were defeated and what on earth has come over them that they now develop this sense of responsibility? It defeats me but that is none of my business. They should show this understanding to people who went in on a categorical undertaking to the public that they would stabilise and control prices. They are now asking for pity, understanding and consolation in their present agonies. I do not give two damns about the Government but it is a matter of concern that the public, whom they misled on this issue, are now suffering so much and this is only the beginning of our suffering and of the agony which we will endure in the next year or two.

When I was asked to subscribe to this particular document in relation to price control I specified to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce that in an open economy such as ours prices cannot be controlled and, therefore, that they had no right to make this promise. It was dishonest to have such a promise because it cannot be fulfilled.

I do not know about the other people in Fine Gael. Possibly they believe in the free enterprise economy and the market prices which were referred to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other day when he said that market forces can control prices. I think Senator Russell, who is a very consistent, conservative and utterably honourable Senator, now accepts that market forces cannot control prices. In this type of economy there is no controlling them. I am not concerned in the slightest about what promises were made by the Fine Gael Party. That is their business. I am only concerned with with the promises made by my own party—the Labour Party. Those of us who are in opposition have a moral responsibility—I am using that word in a considered way and not in the lighthearted way in which it has been used over the years—to try to bring some sense of responsibility into the art of professional politics or whatever it is. When we make statements in public, if we are to achieve any sense of respect or concern for ourselves, we have to speak within certain limits of truth and lies.

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

Dr. Browne

We find this Government coming to the end of their first year of office and using this very frightening language. With the use of a word which I heard commonly over the years in public life, it is realistic of them to be very frightened. They have every right to be very frightened but, unfortunately, that is no consolation to anybody who is the victim of the mistakes they have made and that we anticipate they will make in the very difficult months ahead.

Although we are naturally concerned with all the Ministers, I am not particularly concerned, nor do I have any right to be, with the activities of Ministers other than the Labour Ministers in the Government. In the controlled hysteria of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other day, listening to him talking and using these very emotive words of panic, scarcities, high unemployment, crisis, and shortages, I could detect a note familiar to me because I had heard it before many years ago. It was the kind of think that you got during the war where you went into a shop or an office for a service or goods and the people seemed to get a certain pleasure out of saying: "I cannot do anything to help you because you must know there is a war on". That explained everything.

It strikes me that the incidence of the so-called oil crisis or power crisis is a Godsend to the Labour members of the National Coalition because it is now a question of "Don't hit me with the power crisis in my arms." We have had this example of their appeal to the Opposition Party to understand their dilemma. The great tragedy, of course, is that the Labour Party are effectively silenced in this terribly serious crisis of our existence.

Everybody is agreed that all over Europe we are now facing a very serious crisis and, from the point of view of making a systematic objective analysis of it, much as I might try to do that myself, I have no illusions about my own limitations in that regard. We certainly had quite outstanding members of our party who would be capable of bringing critical minds to bear on this situation if they were in a position to do it in an objective way. Unfortunately, they are now part of the Executive and they must accept the decisions of the majority in that Executive. That Executive is extremely conservative and unlikely to accept—as we know they have refused to accept—the rather radical thinking and radical solutions which it seems to me must become inevitable in time. It just depends on how long they take and how much suffering is endured by the ordinary people until it is accepted that the ordinary methods of handling this situation will not be effective, the methods of ordinary private enterprise capitalists or Senator Russell's well meant, I have no doubt, Micawber method of waiting for something to turn up.

There is an element of dishonesty in that. It is opportunist, of course, but there is an element of dishonesty in this waving the crisis at us every time there is a new price rise because most of us know—and, above all, the Minister for Industry and Commerce knows—that the main propulsant in driving high prices higher, the prices which he complained of when Fianna Fáil were in office—the main propulsant in driving those high prices to their extraordinarily high level at the present time and still on their way up as far as we can gather, was membership of the Common Market, the EEC. Nobody made the case that price increases for food, drink, clothes, services—food, drink and clothes obviously would eventually mean the inevitable increase in the cost of services—were the inevitable sequel to our joining the Common Market, with more conviction, and expertise, and skill than did the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating.

He advised the present Minister for Finance when they were on opposite sides. He warned him in the many interesting contests between the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, and Deputy Keating, before we went into the Common Market. I may have been prejudiced but I think the general feeling was that Deputy Keating made a very compelling case for the inevitability of the steep rise in prices. I have one quotation from what Deputy FitzGerald said in the Dáil. I gave it before and I will not repeat it. The effect of it was to say that on his best analysis or assessment of the situation we would not get the very high price rises forecast by the Labour Party and in particular by Deputy Keating.

Now we know that Deputy Keating was correct, that the Labour Party were correct and that the first and prime cause of these food prices, drink prices, clothes prices, services prices, cost of living, all the inflationary consequences of these about which we hear every day in the newspapers, was our entry into the Common Market, our entry into the EEC, as forecast by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating. The extraordinary sight that we now have to watch is the ideological cartwheel —it can only be called that—of the Labour Party Ministers, led by the most dexterous of them all, because of his special talents, Deputy Keating, Minister for Industry and Commerce as the leading apologists for the inevitability of inflation and inflationary price rises. They were inevitable as soon as we went into the EEC—now they have become a very frightening reality. I think it is pertinent to ask the Minister to tell us what the Government feel they have gained by this decision taken by the Fine Gael Party, and supported by the Fianna Fáil Party, to go into the Common Market, the EEC. Nobody will deny that the one certain aspect of our lives which has changed is this uncontrollable inflation, as a result of going into the EEC.

We have now seen the indifference —not unexpected really when you think of the people we are dealing with—of these international capital bankers and financiers and I do not blame them. With their ideology, with their outlook, why should they care what goes on in Donegal, or Connemara, or Clare, or anywhere else? They do not care what goes on in the backward parts of their own countries, never mind in other countries and, in particular never mind our country, and the western seaboard. You now have this pathetic spectacle of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garret FitzGerald ferretting around. I have to use that word because it seems to me to describe him extremely well: the extraordinary activity of the man, the extraordinary dynamism and drive of the man, but he just seems to go round and round and round and never seems to get anywhere. However, at last it appears that, after enormous activity on his part, very great work on his part, the now-on/now-off regional fund appears to be effectively off. It certainly will not provide the kind of money which might have made it desirable for us to go into the capitalist cartel, as if we were ever likely to get any serious help from them.

To me one odd aspect of his bowling his begging bowl around Europe —and I made this criticism before of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch —is this total absence of any sense of—I am not a great nationalist either—national self-respect, concern for the fact that other people might wonder what the hell you were doing going around Europe asking for money to make your own people more prosperous, or less hungry, or to employ your unemployed, or to look after the old people, or to care for and heal the sick. Speaking as a socialist, my answer is clear, but these people, speaking as capitalists, are concerned only for themselves.

Why should they be concerned with what is happening in the west in Connemara and Donegal, in Italy and now in parts of England? Having got a promise of a pittance from these people there is this extraordinary sense of exhilaration on the part of our statesmen when they come back to their airport interviews, with the obsequious interviewers not asking any difficult questions but giving them every possible assistance to create this absurd sense of euphoria which has permeated all their activities in the last nine or ten months.

Having brought back the outdoor relief from Europeans who worked very hard for their money and made great sacrifices for it, they organise their society so that they have this surplus to give. There is no sense of shame or self-criticism amongst our statesmen, our people or our political commentators. After 50 years we still have to look for money from complete strangers. Do they really owe us a living? On what grounds do we base this claim especially in the light of the attitude of the present Government and their predecessors? There is a miserly, mean, utterly selfish attitude on the part of the present Government as there was on the part of their predecessors in regard to their contribution to the Third World. It is absolutely scandalous. We are not a bit interested in what goes on in the poverty stricken areas of the Middle East, of Africa, of India or anywhere else. Occasional private donations are made but, as a State, we are not greatly disturbed about the Third World or what takes place there. Now we have a pretty good chance of finding out at first hand what it is like to be part of the Third World and now we are beginning to be rather frightened of it all, and understandably frightened since it is dreadful to be a pauper in the Third World. But that has not worried us up to now.

The present position is that the Government are apparently satisfied, although the satisfaction is somewhat muted I suspect now with their activities in the EEC. The continued display of the empty begging bowl on television despite—if I may use the description of a colleague of mine, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald—the racing commentary type of comment he makes when he arrives back. Despite this and the empty begging bowl it does appear that the people are at last beginning to understand that there is precious little in the Common Market, that it is not wonderful easy living for everybody.

On top of that you now have the very little talked about Social Fund. We were going to revolutionise the whole social structure and fabric of the State. The old people were to have the best living conditions, marvellous domiciliary services, greater allowances, pensions, et cetera. We were going to be better off than ever before with the Social Fund. Now we know that that was also an empty promise.

They were wrong about prices. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was totally wrong about prices. He was clearly wrong about the Regional Fund. He was wrong about the Social Fund and so were his colleagues, but he was the chief PRO for these. We all listened to him telling us what marvellous benefits we would get. The only counter-argument put forward was by Deputy Keating. Deputy FitzGerald was misled, or mistaken, whichever you like. Is it going to be any consolation to anybody to know he was stupid or foolish. These are unkind words and I would rather not use them. He must have been intellectually limited to have believed that the EEC meant all these things and to have gone around with such conviction as he did at every opportunity, at every crossroads, at every microphone, at every television camera telling us that we were heading for a land of milk and honey if we joined the EEC. Does anybody believe that any more? It was a disastrous decision to enter the EEC. We are only beginning to suffer and the suffering we will have to endure will be more severe than anybody realises.

The tragedy is that the mass of the people will suffer. Deputy FitzGerald or Senator Russell, who tells us to tighten our belts, et cetera, with all respect to both of these, they will not have to tighten their own belts very much. They will get by. But there are people who will have to tighten their belts and these people are being led into a new developing line now. We got a preview of it from Mr. Heath. This business of union bashing—I got echoes of it in Senator Quinlan's speech earlier—and his talk of a threat to the whole fabric of the State by the miners and the railwaymen— good luck to them and I hope they win out. The nation is in danger and it is all hands to the pump. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently appealed to the Opposition to be understanding and considerate and to remember the national interest, et cetera. This seems to be the beginning of the soft line to be associated with the prospect of a new National Wage Agreement.

The workers must make up their own minds what they will do but I, for the life of me, cannot see why the workers should show any restraint or accept any restraint whatever unless they get a guarantee that that restraint will be equally shared. There is no sign whatever—nor has there been during the lifetime of this Government—that it is intended that this restraint should be shared.

I spoke about this during the last session and recounted—I am not going to repeat it now—the financial pages of the papers linked to the editorial hurrahs of the leader writer praising the marvellous achievement of Irish industry in making such marvellous profits, in declaring such wonderful dividends, in giving return on capital as never before. I saw Ranks increasing their dividends, Guinnesses and all of these people increasing their dividends, increasing their profits, and sending in to the Minister for Industry and Commerce an appeal for an increase in price. The insolence of it is quite blinding, but it has gone on for a long time and so I tend to become accustomed to it. I do not get as upset by it as I used to. I just hope that in time the irrationality of this kind of thing going on will percolate into the national consciousness and we will find that somebody will call a halt to this kind of thing.

The banks, whatever their function used to be, are now plain, ordinary usurers—money lenders—and they appear to be able to do what they want. There appears to be no control over the interest rates they can declare, and the case they make for increasing the interest rates does not seem in any way to them to be made to look ridiculous by the enormous profits they are already making on the existing interest rate. They are flaunting their wealth in the most extravagant and cruel way in my view by erecting luxury buildings of all kinds all over the country, while there are people living in overcrowded conditions. Recently we had the Allied Banks declaration that they are going to build a luxury village in the heart of Dublin in the RDS grounds. Has the Minister no power? Is the Minister unconcerned about these things? I frequently deride these places as talking shops. I have done it for many years, but in the bottom of my heart I sometimes have a feeling that there is some little thing that a Minister can do when he is sufficiently outraged by the behaviour of these people, that at last he can mobilise his colleagues and say that this must stop and that he can exercise some power. This goes on year after year here, and up to 1969 there was no opponent voice at all until we in the Labour Party then came and put forward certain attitudes, certain policy proposals, as an antidote to the irresponsible and apparently uncontrolled, ostentatious display of wealth by the minority in the face of the great need of the mass of our people for housing, care in old age, education and for health services.

Unfortunately, these ideas which are as valid today as the day they were made are now silenced by the fact that these talented men are now members of a Government dominated by the very conservative capitalist attitudes which have made it imperative for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garrett FitzGerald, to go round Europe with his begging bowl looking for a few halfpence here and a few pence there, because we are a chronically bankrupt society.

But one has this feeling that surely there must be a Government or a Minister within a Government who would feel that there must be an end to this. I hope that we will not get the lectures on wage restraint that are being given to the unfortunate miners and the railway workers in Britain, and I sincerely hope that they will be rejected if we do get them. Everybody knows that we could have arranged, because of our relative poverty, to make a different agreement—a form of association with the Common Market which could have obviated not all but many of the frightening repercussions in price inflation which we have seen here. I have little or no influence in the trade union movement, but I think that the Government is dealing fortunately with a very much more highly literate worker, particularly the industrial worker and to a considerable extent the agricultural worker as well, than they ever did before. I do not think it is going to be quite so easy to make him swallow the medicine this time as he has done year after year, just because he is asked to do so in the national interest.

It is about time somebody else shared this concern for the national welfare and the national interest and in that I will say include the industrialists, businessmen and the bank managers or whoever controls or owns the banks. It is quite obvious that this uncontrolled interest rate permitted to the banks, fed into the economy, has resulted in an important part of the cost, a component of the end-cost of any commodity in our society. Even the private enterprise businessman who must borrow at a high interest rate will pass it on.

But much more seriously, this high interest rate, if not used directly in relation to the most important aspect of our social life, in financing housebuilding, has had the other indirect effect of helping to propel the interest rates of the building societies at such a rate that now the price of a house is so enormous many young people starting life are simply unable to find the money for the down-payment or to finance the subsequent mortgage rates.

There is, therefore, a great social evil resulting from these uncontrolled interest rates permitted to the banks, and then inevitably passed on to the building societies.

There were fine plans for housing in the Labour Party's 1969 document. Even in the National Coalition programme housing was to become an emergency operation and the housing programme was to be initiated. I do not think anybody believes or protests that that did happen. In fact, little or nothing has been done to increase the 20,000-25,000 level which Deputy Molloy, when Minister for Local Government, initiated. Certainly, nobody has any impression in our society that there is in the mind of the Government a sense of urgency amounting to a need to declare an emergency for the thousands of families who are living in inadequate, grossly overcrowded and inhumane conditions, as a result of the rash of luxury office buildings, which to me is probably the major scandal in our society.

All over Dublin luxury office buildings are being put up, while at the same time there are thousands waiting for houses. How can a Government responsible to the electorate continue to behave in this way and get away with it? That is one of the achievements of the communications service, the fact that it concealed from the mass of the people the Government's lack of interest in the welfare of the majority and their prior concern for the wealthy minority. Otherwise, it would not be allowed to go on.

One of the things that always fascinates me is to watch building workers on an office building site and to see the marvellous craftsmanship, tradesmanship, workmanship and labour involved in putting up these enormous buildings. Why is it, the trade unions do not declare that they will not go on providing these office buildings until the needs of the ordinary worker in relation to houses are first provided for?

Certainly, that should be true in relation to the Allied Irish Banks luxury village in the RDS grounds. But it seems to me that Fine Gael are being true to themselves. I do not blame them for that: I have always complimented them for that. They are always conscientiously right-wing conservative, capitalists; they believe in that; they have always preached that. Except for a short period, when Deputy FitzGerald was wooing the Labour Party—and I think practically he, alone; I do not think any other members of the Fine Gael Party indulged in that exercise—we are getting conventional, right-wing, conservative, capitalist government. The extraordinary thing, if you look at it from the point of view of the democrat is that they have no overall right to give us these policies. Electorally they have no overall right to give us these policies, and they are only doing so with the consent and support of the Labour Ministers who have betrayed their socialist principles in giving them this support.

To some of us the 1969 period was not, as it apparently has been to others, an academic exercise in L and H or Hist. or Phil. politics; it was a real conviction on our part that very serious changes had to take place in a society, very profound changes had to take place in the fabric or the structure of our State, if we were to achieve the objectives, even in the 11-point or 13-point programme, housing, social concern, health, education, all of these things. They could not possibly have been achieved, if there is any meaning in these points at all, if they were not merely mouthing of words—as they obviously were—without fundamental restructuring of the whole fiscal and financial basis of our society. This has not been done. Until it is done, these objectives—egalitarian, socialist attitudes in education, health, old age, housing and so on— will not be achieved.

Fortunately, it is relatively unimportant that a tiny little place like Ireland still potters along in the control of people who have these totally discredited views about the possibility of manipulating the capitalist system in order to provide a just society. Does anybody seriously believe this any more? Anybody? Ireland, England, America, any part of the European states? It is one of the wonderful satisfactions of my life to spend 25 or 30 years talking about this and being ridiculed, as we necessarily were, because we kept on saying it: capitalism is in crisis, and it was not in crisis, but we kept on waiting for it to come into crisis. This is really what must be the happiest period of my life, to watch it collapsing.

The only qualification I would make is that the people who will, unnecessarily I fear, inevitably get hurt, are the people for whom I have worked all my life in politics—the ordinary people, the mass of people: it is they who will suffer, because of the obstinate recalcitrance of the politicians in these various countries who, I am certain were as convinced of the ideological merits of a socialist case as I am, with infinitely better intellectual apparatus than I have but continued to potter on and make pragmatic decisions hoping that, as Senator Russell said, something might turn up until the inevitable calamity. A little country like Ireland does not matter very much. But this will obviously have very serious repercussions for everybody and it will take some time before the revolutionary situation develops. Most Senators would agree now that it is not such an unlikely possibility as it used to be.

I will not deal at any length with the interest I have in mineral wealth because I hope we will get an opportunity of dealing with that in considerable detail. As I said to the Taoiseach when he was here last, whatever conservative attitudes the Fine Gael Ministers have had, they must now seriously reconsider, in the light of the frightening possibilities facing us all of high unemployment, industrial collapse and all the social consequences of these things in any economy, their very serious responsibilities in regard to mineral wealth in the Navan mines. Whatever easygoing attitude they may have had in this regard and the need to look after their friends or to allow it to be developed by private enterprise, capitalism, they now have a very serious responsibility to do everything they can to see that not a penny-piece goes anywhere except to our people. They know well how this can be done. We cannot spare anything in the siege economy which the Minister for Industry and Commerce talked about on Sunday, the war economy. We cannot afford the extravagance, the waste, the squandering, of private enterprise, the capitalist approach to this wonderful wealth which we have in the country.

In some ways the oil crisis is fascinating to me because of its implications in this regard, the manipulation of scarce materials by a poor country of the Third World to achieve its political ends. This is an obvious thing but unfortunately we do not appear to have accepted its possibilities except in so far as we did way back when we simply denied a very obvious thing—friendship—to people in County Galway. Boycott. How enormously powerful that was as a weapon. I would beg the Minister for Industry and Commerce—I know he does not share my views but I have never thought any the less of him for that—in the light of the very serious situation to try to ensure that this badly needed wealth is used for our people in order to mitigate as far as possible the considerable suffering which most of us agree is facing us in the months ahead. It is one source of wealth which is our own and for which we need not be beholden to anyone. The whole question of the disposal of mineral wealth, oil and gas, has assumed a completely new meaning for our society. It would be completely unforgivable if the Government allowed their preoccupation with doctrinaire and conservative ideological attitudes to deprive our people of this very badly needed wealth.

The power crisis is a subject of considerable delicacy and complexity. Ghandi's liberation of the whole subcontinent of India by his wonderful disobedience campaign was probably the greatest human achievement since Christ was on earth. They say that war is diplomacy by other means. We are now facing another war but it is a very civilised and sophisticated war. It is a very humane war if one takes it in the context of the dreadful wars —Auschwitz, Buchenwald, napalm bombing, blanket bombing, Coventry, Hamburg and Dresden. Living through it and suffering as we will, it is worth bearing in mind that it would be an advance for humanity if we could—ideally not make anybody suffer—but if we feel very strongly about a point that we could do it this way rather than in the way in which Mr. Heath was brought to the conference table at Sunningdale the other day. Nine hundred poor people were blown to bits before he saw sense. I was surprised at the compliments paid to him; the insolence to the former Taoiseach when Deputy Lynch asked for the right to discuss the matter with him and then because they eventually became terrorised he came to the conference table. That is by the way.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, referred very briefly to the Israeli conflict of 1967 and what our attitude will be in this war—the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating, has called it a war. Are we clear on the position we intend to take up on the matter? One of the many causes in which I have become involved over the years was that against any kind of anti-semitism. At the same time, there is the question of Israel, of its militarism and its expansionist attitudes. Its origins were the expropriation of a state in order to solve the guilt feelings of a post-war European world. We are now paying for that. The Palestinians did not feel that they should have their country expropriated and, understandably, we share that feeling about forcible expropriation.

One has to remember the fear of the Israelis of the various commando attacks. It is not a simple question. I do not want to dwell on it at great length, but they obviously were frightened of their neighbours, too. It appeared that no formula was arrived at for giving them the boundaries behind which they could feel secure. I believe that the post-1967 stalemate was that the militarists in the Zionist cause appeared to be unduly exultant and unwilling to negotiate.

That is seen at one level. From the other level, of course, there is the struggle between the United States of America and the Soviet Union in the Middle East. What is our position in that very difficult state in the light of our present moral commitments? There is a moral factor involved in it. It is easily as tangled as our own Partition question. What is the position of the Government? Are they, wittingly or unwittingly, playing a part on the side of the United States of America? The United States of America have committed themselves to support the Israelis in this conflict. They have invested enormous amounts of wealth of different kinds—military wealth mostly.

On what grounds are we taking our stand in relation to the Israeli conflict? What will satisfy our Minister for Foreign Affairs to the extent that we have to be satisfied at all? We have to be, to a certain extent, because there is considerable goodwill for us in the Middle East. Most of these countries, Algeria, Libya, Tunis, Egypt, have suffered occupation by the Imperialist powers in the last 200 to 300 years. For that reason, from my short acquaintance with some of these people from those areas, I know that their attitude is one of considerable sympathy for us.

To what extent are we going to keep it clear that we do not wish to be involved in the US v. USSR struggle? What position do we take up if there is, in the Common Market, the question of whether we share our supplies because the Dutch have a pro-Israeli policy? Do we accept that point of view? Is this another of the disastrous consequences of any reprisal the Arab nations may apply in relation to what they consider to be a recalcitrant western European country such as Holland? Is there any limit to which we will go? Are we to be unlimited in our support for whatever stand is taken in the EEC? Are we, the one non-colonialist state, with our hands clean from this kind of colonial exploitation, in a special position? Can we, in the entanglement of the EEC, use that special position to try to mitigate the hardship on us of the, to me, perfectly legitimate tactics of the Arab states in the present situation?

Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs any intention of sounding out these various countries? I have not got great faith in him, as I made clear during my contribution, as a negotiator but, at the same time, I recall that in the time of the last Government a number of us were asked to go to the Middle East to look at the question of Palestinian refugees whose plight is particularly terrible. It can be the only explanation for the dreadful things the Palestinian underground movement are doing in the various parts of the world. Deputies Cooney and Cluskey were two of the people who went, as well as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I understand that the contacts made there were particularly friendly and there was considerable sympathy. Can that be used in the present crisis?

Regarding Sunningdale, I presume we will have another chance of dealing with it later. One has to compliment the Fine Gael Party and Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach, on complete consistency. Cumann na nGaedheal Fine Gael always believed in a Partition State. In going over 50 years after the original Treaty negotiations to ratify the acceptance of a partitioned Ireland, it seems to me that Fine Gael were acting completely in character in doing this. Whatever compliments are in order for that they are welcome to.

The whole Sunningdale episode was a considerable achievement in public relations because so little was achieved in addition to what was already a reality in relation to Partition. We could have had a Council of Ireland any time during the last 50 years. It was just our own whims or our own foolishness or whatever reason that kept us from forming it. The politicians of that period had their reasons no doubt.

After that what else has been achieved? We have registered the right of the British Army of occupation in part of our country. It seems to be a mix with the United Nations. It is an extraordinary comment on the 50 years of failure of Government since the State was formed that now the right of a group within the State to opt out should be conceded to them on foot of a case made by them and I might say on foot of a good case made by them. That is the sad part of it. I do not know if there is a precedent—if there is a precedent the historians will tell us—for an invading occupying army long after it has lost its imperial and colonialist power claiming the right to the continued exclusion of the group which, in the first instance, established its right to possession by the force of arms. Everybody will agree that the absorption of ethnic groups is a perfectly normal historical process in the formation of any nation. Most of us, I think, would claim to be a polyglot, ethnically at any rate. I myself am Anglo-Norman-Spanish-Irish and I think that would be a reasonably common finding within our society.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Agus labhaír tú Gaeilge comh maith.

Dr. Browne

Tá sé agam ach níl Gaeilge agaibh anseo, b'fhéidir, agus sin é an fáth nach bhfuil mé in ann í a labhairt anois. Gabh mo leithscéal.

It seems to me that a very important principle has been conceded here, that is the right of this ethnic group to opt out of the absorption process which in relation to the rest of the groups which have come in here and taken us over throughout the centuries—the Scandanavians, Normans, English, Danish and French—eventually were absorbed into the Irish nation. With all its warts it is an independent entity and this is something of which one can be proud. A man that most of us respect, John Whale of The Sunday Times—he is an experienced commentator on Ireland and spent a lot of his time in the North during the last four years—has commented to the effect that the odd concessions made were sugaring the pill of Partition for the Irish delegation. Of course that is precisely what the agreement did.

It is a measure of the extraordinary arrogance of the British, now in their post-colonial bankrupt days, that they should have their last imperial outpost in our country and that our Ministers, Fine Gael with the Labour Ministers, should have conceded the right to them under the provisions of the Sunningdale agreement to have the British Army of occupation and Union Jack flying over the North with all the irritant, obnoxious and objectionable repercussions this means for the Irish people who live there. Again, of course, Fine Gael are consistent. They have never really held differently to this but the extraordinary change is the change of the Fianna Fáil Party, with the exception of a couple of their members.

I am on the record as being opposed to the use of violence in the resolution of our problem of Partition but that is a long way away from conceding the right of a British Army of occupation—a right conceded deliberately by us in a form of words—to occupy six of our north-eastern counties. Fifty years after the establishment of Parition this has ratified the act of Partition and I do not think anybody seriously doubts that. The tragedy, of course, arises from the fact that they have a good case to opt out. Because of the failure of successive Governments here since 1922 and, in particular, because of the failure of Fianna Fáil who had major control in our State we created a society here which nearly made Sunningdale inevitable. Sunningdale was an admission of the existence of Parition. In international terms, whatever we might say about the logical process of the ethnic absorption which we see in the United States, Canada and many other countries— these are new countries unlike ours which is a very ancient country—that argument does not stand in international terms at the United Nations or wherever you like when the counter case is put by the Northern Unionist Protestant that this southern State is a theocratic State, that most of the beliefs they hold are antithetic to the views we hold. Ideologically, they are opposed to our views. Conservative as the Unionists were they were more radical than the Southern Republicans and in a society such as a United Ireland, with the Southern Republic, we would not have their freedom of conscience.

There would be no international court. I recollect many times when we asked Mr. Eamonn de Valera to submit the question of Partition to the United Nations his answer was invariably "no". It was only later on that I understood his reasons for this: we would lose at the United Nations in an objective assessment of the question.

I suspect that the Fine Gael Party, the original Cumann na nGaedheal Party, never at any time wanted the kind of pluralist society inevitable in a united Ireland. The Fianna Fáil Party never created the possibilities for a pluralist society in a potentially united Ireland. On the contrary, we have Mr. de Valera's sectarian Constitution with its divorce provisions and various other reflections of the predominant position of the Catholic Church in our State. It was we who supplied the case that was made against these people in Sunningdale which was unanswerable, I suspect.

This Government have now been almost a year in government and they know as well as I do the objections that there have been on the part of the Unionist Protestant minority and many of the Catholics as well. The obvious physical deficiencies in our society and the lack of a welfare society—the welfare state which over the years I have frequently advocated and have had rejected as being a Communist plot, unthinkable in a society such as ours—meant that the standard of living for the Northern Catholic and Protestant was considerably superior to ours in relation to education, health, care in old age and to a lesser extent, housing and jobs. It was superior to what is available down here.

If we had been serious about the ending of Partition this is the work to which we should have applied ourselves. This is the type of work needed to create an egalitarian state down here. If they brought us to the United Nations, they could have said "You cannot expect us to go in there to take those old age pensions, that fifth-rate health service, these conditions of unemployment, emigration, education, and so on." Instead we had continuous complaints about gerrymandering in Tyrone and Fermanagh and various other parts. I knew the speeches off by heart. I knew Mr. de Valera's speeches and other speeches off by heart in the early 1940s and mid-1940s and even before that.

Meanwhile the work was there to be done and it was not done. We asked them to accept second-class citizenship in a fifth-rate nation from the social point of view. On top of that, we gave them the prospect of a state totally dominated by the social and economic thinking of a very conservative, obscurantist Irish Catholic Church that is quite clearly falling apart now in the various decisions of the people and in relation to Article 44 in the Supreme Court this morning. We should remember that a Government fell on this kind of issue. They were mature, sophisticated, experienced politicians but so frightened and such rabbits.

To what exten do we still live in an ideological or political rabbitry? We have other jobs to do in order to eliminate the differential. Is it the Ministers' secret intention or secret hope, now that they have got this nagging irritant of the six north-eastern sundered counties, as they are called in emotive language, off their hands, that there will be no need to do anything about it? It is like Mr. de Valera in his time feeling there was no need to do anything about these issues which they knew quite well— divorce, Ne Temere, religion of the children in mixed marriages, adoption, censorship, homosexuality, contraception, and therapeutic legal abortion which I will deal with later on.

Enlightened attitudes about social issues individually are of only relative importance to relatively few people in some cases. The important basic issue is the right to private judgment in an individual person's morality and the acceptance of the mature adult's right to decide whatever he likes in relation to his own, private, personal life. This is an important part of the struggle.

One of the most consolidated conspiracies, with certain minimal exceptions, as long as I can remember has been the agreed silence on these subjects. The attitude to them is that they simply do not exist and there is no sense of grievance. I recall only 18 months ago when I made a speech about three or four of these issues and said that they should be debated, I was repudiated that night on television by my party and disciplined two or three days later. I had asked that they should be discussed in a national debate.

This is now the position. Is it that the National Coalition—the Government—have decided that they can evade this debate? Why is it that Senator Robinson had to bring in her Bill? If she could do it, why could the Government not do it? It could have been a test case of their bona fides about this. We know the Opposition position well. They rejected a similar Bill in the last Parliament. We saw their complete and cowardly refusal to face these things seriously as components of the Partition problem. They are not the whole Partition problem; they are components of the Partition problem. They, together with the sense of social deprivation, the privileged society, the wealth, where 75 per cent is owned by 5 per cent, the extravagant, vulgar display of consumer wealth in our society, are components of the problem. Many who grew very wealthy were of ordinary, simple, peasant stock like ourselves.

They grew wealthy and grew away from the needs of ordinary people in that 50 years. We have paid in Sunningdale a bitter penalty for their indifference and their cowardice and for their disinterest in their responsibilities to a society.

We have now been told we may all exercise private judgment. Here we are in 1973 after all the incidents in the Republic, the excommunication of the republicans, the absurd incident of the mother and child scheme and the various adoption schemes. I remember a Minister coming back to the Cabinet and telling us that the bishop or the archbishop told him adoption was not on. It was not my business at the time.

Mr. Whyte

Past history.

Dr. Browne

Past history! It is two or three weeks ago or a month ago that they told us—in this most insolent reflection on the north of Ireland through Cardinal Conway—that it was in some ways a morally inferior society. These are our own people in the north of Ireland, who are morally inferior simply because they have this right to private judgment. These are people who look after the aged much better than we do, who house the homeless much better than we do. They care for the sick, they educate their children. Is there anything they do not do better than we do down here and have done for the last 50 years? That is the past history.

Surely a most deliberate attempt has been made to influence a decision once again in relation to this proposed Bill by Senator Robinson but fortunately times have changed. The caravan moves on and there is a new generation, less frightened, less cowardly, less poltroon-like, who will not take it any more. If that generation try to do something about Partition, to change our society here so that one could put forward a reasonable and valid case against these people opting out, denying them the right to opt out which is contrary to all historic experience, but is justified, we place them in a dilemma by creating this sectarian, theocratic State down here, knowing as we know how deeply they felt on these issues.

Any generation who tries to change our society in order to end this Partition of Ireland will be faced not only with the first Treaty but now with Sunningdale and all its undertakings and with the blessing of the United Nations—an international admission of the British right to Partition. May I say congratulations to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party? It is completely consistent. But what of the Labour men brought along, as John Whale said, to ratify for all time the Partition of Ireland? Nobody who knows the record of the Fine Gael Party since they began in public life seriously believes they had any intention of making the fundamental, social, fiscal, economic, cultural and moral—if I may use that loosely used word—changes in the Twenty-six Counties which will make it possible to undo the damage of Sunningdale. That, secretly, was the intention of the Taoiseach when he negotiated that agreement, that it would obviate the necessity for making changes which he felt would be politically damaging for his party in the South of Ireland—so hang Partition.

Mr. Harte

Before I make my humble contribution on some important social aspects related to the Book of Estimates, since Senator Browne chose to make reference to the body which nominated me to run for office in the Seanad, it is right that I should say to him that he should not be too worried about the trade union movement. We are fairly big boys and we are well able to take care of ourselves in the trenches.

Dr. Browne

You can take care of yourselves but will you take care of the workers?

Mr. Harte

The Senator should not get too worried. I listened to him for two hours and he can listen to me for 20 minutes. I could go a long way with some of the statements made by Senator Browne but when he expresses concern about the trade union movement it is natural for me to take him to task. Many of the trade union officials whom he choses to criticise in a rather strange way, and in a way which gives cause for great concern to those he criticises, are dedicated and sincere men who often give their lives to the trade union movement. Very often they sacrifice their health also.

If Dr. Browne were in a position where he was dealing with day-to-day problems he would realise you must play the situation by ear. We did not create the society. We put forward proposals on many occasions to change society but the people chose not to do so. In accordance with that, trade union officials, when faced with a problem, must play it largely by ear. If Senator Browne knew anything at all about negotiations he would understand, having regard to the type of society we live in and having regard to reality, that the basis or the strength of any compromise you get from negotiations depends on the power each side can exercise on the other.

I have had the honour to be involved in both wings of the Labour Movement for the past 25 years and I and every other trade union official who enters this House can hold our heads high. I go a long way with some of the statements made by Senator Browne but, when he grows concerned about trade union leaders, I grow a little bit concerned about Senator Browne. I left school at 12½ years of age so I cannot lay any claim to either omnipotence or omniscience. Had I gone to college and got a Ph.D. —I do not know if that is what you call the particular scholastic achievement—I do not think I could ever claim those qualities.

Criticisms have been made here. I do not object to criticism. That is what life is all about and the worst type of fear is the fear of criticism. There is no question of my fearing criticism. When somebody puts a particular slant on his criticism that might be for the purpose of giving the impression that he was omnipotent and omniscient, I get scared then because to be in the presence of that type of person is really frightening. I do not think the only Person I know of Who has those particular qualities is physically amongst us.

I should like to speak now on the Book of Estimates and make some pertinent points. In making my contribution I hope I will be able to distinguish between the acqusition of wealth and well-being. The areas I want to deal with are education for trade union people, discrimination against women, and the detention centre at Shanganagh Castle. I promise the Chair that it will not take me two and a half hours to cover these points. It has been a long day and it has been a hard day for everybody.

On the question of education for trade unionists, I see that the Minister for Labour has allocated £45,000 as a grant for trade union educational advisory services. This is a big step forward. I welcome it but, in doing so, I should like to raise a few points for consideration by the Minister for Labour which may result in his having to put pressure on the Minister for Finance for more money. Having regard to the technological developments in the community, the changes that have taken place, and the way the industrial relationship between worker and employer is developing, a great deal more needs to be done in this field. Each specific union of the Trade Union Congress have their own training system. They have courses for shop stewards. They have courses for beginners and advanced students. These are financed from their own resources to a large extent. The allocation money given now by the Minister means that there will be some hope of their getting something back. In my view the amount is not sufficient, but I welcome it nevertheless. We live in a society and, whether we like it or not, we live with the realities of that society and we have to work within that particular system. In a situation in which the level of wages is low compared with western European standards something must be done, but not in a way that will cause conflict. I believe you can be in conflict and co-operate at the same time. To develope that particular point, there is a natural conflict on the question of wages because there is never argument as to whether workers should get a wage increase; the argument is always as to what size the slice of the cake should be. Side by side with that conflict, on the basis of enlightened self-interest, trade unionists give this co-operation. It is becoming increasingly difficult because many people like myself left school at a very early age and have not been back since. We were not mitching. We just did not get the opportunity of going back. The person who should benefit from the grant should be the man on the floor who has developed himself and wishes to develop himself further. I do not wish this to be done on the basis of Government interference. I should like to stress that point. The greatest achievement the trade unions have ever realised in this country, and when we look across the water we have the proof of it, is that they have always come to terms with the facts of any general situation in sufficient time to keep the third party out of it.

I would never wish to see the Government involved in the collective bargaining process. I am sure many other Senators would not wish to see that either. There are many workers in the provincial and rural areas where trade union organisation is poor, or the economic conditions create difficulties for the workers in a particular area, and there are inevitably low living standards. Low living standards are economically negative. They restrict purchasing power.

I should like to see the Department of Labour taking a greater interest in the question of education for trade unionists. We do not wish the employers to educate us. We do not object to attending seminars held by them and we do not mind experts as long as we are not bound by their advice. One side of the industrial field is catered for to a great extent by grants for building and for training. To a great extent the other side of industry where people on the floor wish to become more involved, particularly in view of the fifth directive, is not adequately catered for. The trade unions have to place a greater degree of emphasis on educating their members. The desire to participate in these courses is there on the part of the workers. At one time the situation was very difficult. The trade unions had nothing and they had to rely on the Peoples' College and the College of Industrial Relations, as it was called then. Nowadays, within the trade union movement, we have managed to start educating our own people; but there is a long way to go and there are a great many people to be catered for. The Government have an obligation in this, particularly when it is remembered that for years the Government were not engaged in industrial relations at all. In regard to the strike record since 1970 actually we were engaged in a civil war. We are now trying to get away gradually from industrial relations of that type and I do not want any of my socialist friends to get scared when I talk about a fusion of societies. This is necessary to give stability to the very good industrial relations we are enjoying at the moment and to help them to continue.

There are many demands on the economy and, therefore, there must be some limit set. However, we can say "Thanks for the £45,000". In view of the way things are developing on the industrial front and the need for our people in the trade union movement, particularly at shop floor level, to be more resolute in their commitment to trade unionism and apply it in an ordered way, we have an obligation to get as much as we can. The Government must recognise this and they must have regard to the very good position that we find ourselves in now. They should do everything in their power to see that we do not go off the rails in the sense that we have not been able to bring the shop floor along with us. Through education by means of courses we provide the structures.

The criticisms I heard today were very well meant. However, I do not think there are any Santa Clauses, good fairies, or benevolent uncles in the Department of Finance or in any other Department. I believe that, when a case has been put forward for the first time, it emphasises the need for a development in the educational field. There is an obligation on those responsible to see that some effort is made in this direction, because it is for their good as well as for the good of everyone else. We do not want to lean on anyone: we will lean on ourselves. In this way we can create the type of personality that is necessary to carry on the work done in the trade union movement. The people coming after us will get the benefit of whatever little experience we pass on to them. Now, when you are educating people, there is a great deal of equipment involved. I do not have to tell the educators here what I mean— visual aids and so on. On occasion you may, depending on the type of course, call in outside advice.

These are the reasons why grants for the educational advisory service in the trade union movement are very necessary and the growing development within industry clearly indicates that another look will have to be taken at these grants. I hope this will be taken into consideration by the Minister for Finance and by the Minister for Labour.

The trade union movement has made approaches to the Government with regard to the implementation by 1975 of equal pay for work of equal value. Nobody should be confused about this. This will not solve the problem: it is merely equal pay for work of equal value. I hope that it will be understood that, if women are discriminated against and are not allowed the opportunities to which they are entitled, they will become a burden on the economy through having to live off their husbands and the State. Discrimination against women that might make them a burden on the economy is not a very desirable situation. I should like to emphasise that point first. It is on that basis that the question of discrimination against women should be looked at; it may not be the best basis and, if a woman were making the case, she might make it on a different basis. However, in the long run, most things come down to economics, and I should like to make that the main point.

Women comprise more than half the population of Europe but they are also the poorest population. Notwithstanding the expressed wishes in regard to the rights of women, many of the well-intentioned statements have not been implemented and, consequently, women, because they are denied the opportunity, belong to the poorest section of society. If they remain second-class citizens they hamper the overall progress of the country, because they are left out of so many things. To deny them the opportunity of making a contribution towards the economy is a wrong concept. It arises largely from an attitude of mind adopted by most of us that a woman's place is in the home. We shall have to get away from that concept. Many women have proved themselves in many fields, such as in education, health, technology and even in the legal field. I do not know if Senator Mary Robinson falls into that category, but I am not speaking for her benefit alone: my remarks are meant in a general way.

In bringing women into the scheme of things with the objective of equal pay for work of equal value, that there should be some kind of scientific approach to the question of examining what the projections for employment are likely to be. The stage has been reached when the burden of old people dependent on the State is increasing If the school age is raised it will be an added burden because there will be no young people working. We should not reserve those monotonous jobs for people who leave school early.

Women have proved their worth in many different sectors of the economy. Traditionally women are mainly found in the educational and medical fields. They did not enter these positions through any right but because the women already in these posts had achieved a status in society and therefore other women followed suit. If the proper climate is created and the conditions are right, many working-class women will aspire to higher positions. A day may come when there will be women members of the Cabinet. There is no record of women members of the Cabinet, and it is not something of which we should be proud. It is indicative of the fact that there is discrimination against women in the country.

Long ago women played a part in the economy because they did washing, knitting, sewing, spinning and weaving, in order to supplement their meagre incomes. It is probably still happening. I do not wish women to keep chickens or rabbits to supplement their income. Money should be provided to improve their position so that they will contribute to the economy rather than be a burden.

In regard to prisons, Shanganagh Castle is a place where young offenders are afforded an opportunity to be rehabilitated. Assistance must be provided for this purpose. I am glad to say that moneys have been allocated in 1972-73 and also in 1973-74 when there was an increased allocation of £26,000. I should like to remind the Senators present that it is a deserving cause, and if enough help is given it will be an encouragement to young offenders, instead of being sent to St. Patrick's indefinitely, to be assessed for rehabilitation in an open prison. If offenders are treated properly in suitable surroundings, with good counselling services and an opportunity to learn, it will have the effect of making them good citizens. Of course you must also guard against those who might abscond from this open place of detention. If offenders were given psychiatric treatment and an assessment made of their capabilities, it would be found that more of them would qualify for open prisons. This would require more money for the provision of additional buildings, workshops and so on. If these methods of treatment were adopted you would make the offenders good citizens and develop in them a degree of trust. At present they are confused and do not have this confidence.

The only quibble I have with it is the question of selecting the lads from St. Patrick's rather than making a psychological assessment of them. Possibly, by making that service available more people would qualify to come into the open institutions. There would then be the necessity of having some after-care service provided. Again we are talking about money; as I said earlier, it is not a profitable discourse. We are talking of the after-care situation where the boy chosen merits this trust, even though he may have a relapse here and there and possibly the reason for that may be found in the open prison—perhaps something happened to him while he was there or perhaps there is some other explanation. The service making the assessment of him at St. Patrick's could also do this research and this would facilitate the visiting committees so as to afford them an opportunity to make recommendations that would bring about changes to help circumvent the possibility of a lapse back into the world of crime.

One of the difficulties in dealing with young people, from my experience of having dealt with a lot of them, is that initially they abhor crime even though they get involved in it. Then they begin to tolerate it and, eventually, if they are not taken to a place like St. Patrick's fairly quickly they embrace it as a way of life. We have a great social function to perform because these will be the future citizens. They are largely from the under-privileged classes and for this reason I thank the Minister for having provided the increase in money, £26,000 this year. I do not think the total money went solely to Shanganagh but to St. Patrick's and Shanganagh and for the maintenance of prisoners confined in the district mental hospital. However, it is a good sign that it has been increased. Having regard to the good work that has been done and the fact that the boys' attitude and general behaviour are very good, I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that this is a worthwhile thing and more money should be provided in the future.

Mr. R. Ryan

I wonder if the Leader of the House has any views about whether we are sitting tomorrow or whether we propose to sit late tonight?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think if it is possible we should complete the business this evening and that the Minister should get in not later than ten o'clock.

Mr. E. Ryan

We would agree to that but we would not like to sit late tonight and still have to sit tomorrow morrow also.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is agreed then, that the Minister will get in not later than 10 p.m.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Ba mhaith liom ar an gcéad dul síos mo leithscéal a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Noel Criostóir de Brún toisc gur chur mé isteach air nuair a bhí sé ag caint. San am gcéanna ba mhaith liom mo ghearán a dhíriú ar an mbochtanas.

I want to say, as a new Senator, who has just arrived in this House, that I find it disappointing that so few people are present to participate in and contribute to this discussion, on one of the few occasions when Seanad Éireann might operate as a useful forum. Let me refer, for example, to the third paragraph of the Minister's speech:

This Bill gives the Seanad, as is customary, an opportunity to discuss not alone the details of expenditure contained in the Bill itself but also Government expenditure and financial policies in general.

In other words, we could have discussed anything. The fact that we have discussed so little is an indictment of this Chamber. I look, with respect, at the people who are opposite me. Why are those benches so empty?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

May I interrupt the Senator for a moment? With respect, many people have been here since 10.30 this morning. The number present at the moment, in the Chamber is not a fair representation of the attendance.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I respect the observations on time.

Mr. W. Ryan

Was the Senator here this morning?

Mr. M.D. Higgins

May I resume?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You may, on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

The Appropriation Bill, 1973 allocates the funds indicated in the budget. I remember the occasion of the budget also, when there were only a few people present. It did not seem to enthuse many people that a huge amount of money had been allocated to social welfare to relieve people from the extremities of distress and from the extremities of poverty. I believe there is a problem of poverty in Ireland that can never be reduced through the strategy of social welfare. It is true that the Government, and this Bill, will allocate funds which will help the people in advance on everything that went previously. In other words, I can say that what is contained in the Minister's speech is an advance on ineptitude, on impracticality. But if this society is to commit itself to humanity it must realise, once and for all, that not only must it provide social welfare provisions but redistribution provisions so as to redistribute the wealth of society in favour of the community.

For that reason, when I speak as a member of the Labour Party and as a socialist and when I say that I apologised in my opening remarks for interrupting Senator Noel Browne, I must also say that while I may not agree with most of what he said I have the utmost respect for the half century of sensitivity to poverty which he represents. Not only that, but I point my finger in condemnation at those people who insist on the structure of society which makes poverty necessary. Let us be perfectly clear what this Government have done. I could have quoted in detail when the regulations on different aspects of social welfare were relaxed, when different regulations were relaxed in relation to pensions. Practically half a million people were suddenly brought under the protection of the State. Certainly this was a major advance. The advance of the present Government is an advance in the face of the savage neglect of the previous Government. Let me be perfectly clear about that.

I suggest that the economy be organised in the interest of the community and I hope that the Minister present in this Chamber will commit himself to a policy which will ensure that the wealth of the country will be distributed in the interest of the many. Let me say this bluntly. The day that the leader of the Opposition group in Seanad Éireann would walk in protest with the racketeers who were taking the mining wealth of Ireland is a sad day for Ireland. I hope that I will not be involved in politics when I will be forced to do such a thing. The Government have been castigated for many things. The Government have been castigated for things over which they have no control. For example, the management or the construction of a socialist economy and a socialist society is impossible under the external conditions which prevail at present. Let me be perfectly clear about this point. Whose side are you on? You, Sirs, on that side of the House are lining up in favour of the robber barons. You will be the people who will castigate Justin Keating— you, you great democrats. You, who walk at the head of paid workers into the headquarters of the Department of Industry and Commerce. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Everyone says that the Labour Party have sold out in their relationship with Fine Gael but the test of the Government is what they can deliver. What they have delivered has been a huge redistribution in the case of social welfare, for example, in the case of deserted wives. People long neglected have been recognised and their rights have been recognised. In the case of pensions people who were, by definition of categories, excluded have now been included. More than that, through the social welfare development the contrast between the present Government and the last Government is a Government interested in social welfare and a Government that wanted to operate on the raw terms of savage private enterprise.

This Government have but made a beginning. We will only mark true advance in our society when we have put an end to the people who will march at the head of bribed workers in the interests of the mining companies, when we have a Government, as we have now, who have been elected by the people to redistribute our wealth in the interests of the entire community. Looking back at their history the previous Government showed themselves bankrupt, not only in financial terms but in intellectual terms, for they were a Government of no people.

When I began my speech I apologised in Irish to Senator Noel Christopher Browne and said this was his position. I say that we are at the beginning of an evolutionary term when I hope Seanad Éireann will resume its respect. Let us realise that it has recently discovered its disrespect. When will people see me walking through the streets carrying a placard saying: "I love Pat Hughes". Christ knows, I know how I earn my living. People know how they earn their living. Let those people line up. Let them take their stand.

This Appropriation Bill, which transfers funds of the State towards social welfare, represents a step—I hope it is only a step—in the direction of managing the economy in the interests of the community. Let this cavalier attitude of these people who want to have it every way, who want on the one hand to be polite to mining exploiters and an the other hand suggest that they are interested in the economy, be seen for what it is. My position in politics is this; I believe in all of the sentiments expressed by Senator Browne on the mining issue but more than that. In his discussion of neo-imperialism, he did not mention eduation. If we look at assemblies in Europe we will see not only parliamentary assemblies in crisis but we will see the discussion within those assemblies in crisis.

In the case of education, I suggest that the present discussion is more bankrupt than most. This is a reflection on all of us legislators. I shall give an example of this. Who is an educated person? Am I to point my finger around the front bench of this Assembly? I do not do that. I ask the question: What is education and how much money is expended on education? The behaviour of the last Government—and should it be continued by the present Government I would condemn it—in relation to higher education was cavalier. For example, what has constituted the argument on education today. People are asking: How much will we spend on secondary education or on primary education or on third level education or how will we spend it? Nobody has asked the question: What is education itself? What has masqueraded as education in our country has been the systematic degradation of a population to an exploitative economic system.

We had, for example, people in opposition who while pretending to have an interest in the Irish language, exported our people. When I say "exported" I mean they exported them at the lowest price. My experience is the experience of one who has not inherited wealth. I have participated in the educational structure and I worked in the educational structure at the third level. I suggest that any funds allocated for tertiary level education should enhance the personalities of people. Communities are involved. When one is expending money universities should be a series of task forces. An individual should have a series of units of education available to him as a matter of right, so that he could, at any stage of his life, avail of these. We could have, for instance, in the university in which I work, not only a person who is interested in teaching German but also a man who is a professor of boatbuilding. This is the kind of imagination which is constitutionally denied by all of the conservative people and the worst criticism that could be made of the present Government was that it was as conservative as the last.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Brosnahan)

We appreciate and admire your philosophical approach to education but the Bill before the House deals with the appropriation of moneys for the purpose of expenditure by the Government. I would appreciate it if you would confine yourself to that only.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I thank the Chair for its guidance. In so far as the Minister in his speech invites us to a discussion on the expenditure of the State, and in so far as this invitation has not been accepted by the Opposition, I want to conclude by saying that there has been a major advance in social welfare in this country. The capital budget has increased in extent and in scope and represents a major innovation.

I am availing of this opportunity, with respect to you, Sir, to use the Seanad as a forum of debate. It is a forum of debate or it is not. The point is, bluntly, when you say you appreciate my philosophic comments on education, education has to be paid for. I pay taxes, you pay taxes, and the Minister pays taxes, and we are entitled, surely, on this one occasion to ask for what? What I am suggesting, in conclusion, is that there are people on this side of the House far more numerous than those on the other side of the House who would line up against people who should not pay any taxes at all for the greatest fraud perpetrated in the history of the State. Where is Senator Lenihan now? He should come and justify his comments to me.

Mr. W. Ryan

On a point of order, Senator Lenihan is in Brussels.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

He speaks often in the interests of the development of humanity.

Acting Chairman

In fairness to Senator Lenihan, it has been pointed out that he is in Brussels.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Thank you. I am quite well aware that we have joined the Common Market. I was very involved in the issue, as you know. I intend to use my position as a Member in the Seanad to critically analyse Government proposals, to indicate philosophically some pointers in education—after all I am educationalist.

May I also take this opportunity of welcoming the Minister to this House? I realise that the future of Ireland is dependent, above all else, on the amount of money which the Department of Finance will release for education. It must release it for education on liberal grounds. It must enable the radical mentality to emerge. How did they emerge and survive so long? They emerged because the educational system was furbished to a conservative mentality. The choice facing Ireland at present is this: does it have the courage to be Irish? Does it have the courage to allow the radical mentality to develop?

I suggest that when the Minister considers his subventions to education, that he errs on the side of giving the universities more power and giving the tertiary levels of education less power. I could put it like this: we are all dreary victims of a conservative society. The decision to break the mould, to move into a new society, has been institutionally taken by the Government in their decision to abandon the concept of economic growth and to spend so much on social welfare. I have suggested that this decision to spend so much on social welfare is an insufficient answer to the problems of the country, a point to which I will hold.

There is much in the Minister's speech that I compliment but I want to invite those people who own property to consider this: there is no such thing as poverty. There is such a phenomenon as inequality. Inequality exists. Inequality creates the conditions of poverty. Poverty is a dependent variable on inequality. I am proud and glad that the party to which I belong, the Labour Party, have set their faces against inequality. In their last document, "Poverty in Ireland", the opening statement reads:

The facts of poverty in Ireland are statistics of shame.

In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it, no more than the people parading in front of Justin Keating's office.

At world level, at national level, we either make a decision that there will be a floor below which nobody will fall or we do not make that decision.

The present Government in many cases represent an advantage. It is disconcerting that on the one occasion in the year when we might discuss everything there are so few people present. Is it that we are bankrupt? Is is that parliamentary democracy is bankrupt? Is it a fact we are now the victims of multi-national corporations? I thank the Minister for his courtesy in being present. I compliment my colleagues who are present but the Appropriation Bill represents a beginning in the transformation of society. We have to make the decision that nobody who is old will die in hunger or in poverty. We now make the decision of saying that we can reduce the regional imbalances in poverty. We have, if I interpret the Minister's speech properly, moved from a concept of growth economics to the concept of welfare economics.

No longer are we comparing our growth rate internationally. No longer are we saying we have had a growth rate of more than this. Now we are saying we are tearing more from people in various ways in our social welfare measures. Let me tell the Members of the Seanad this: it was my unfortunate experience to lecture in economics at the third level and I watched and saw people pin their hopes on growth economics. Everyone of them has been proved wrong. The only thing which has been proved right is the present crisis on fuel to which so many Opposition Members adverted. It represents the confrontation between the most vulgar and the most deprived societies. It represents a confrontation between the United States and the third world. I am glad the Government are behaving responsibly. The departure away from what is our rate of growth this year and our rate of growth last year is welcome. We should allow our educational institutions to be free, in the sense that they fit man to develop his full potentiality. When they are free in the sense that they are not conditioning instruments or occasions in the span of life, it is only then that education will be a liberating experience. When this happens one of its most proximate consequences will be the establishment of socialism in Ireland.

Mr. Deasy

I intend to be brief. First, I should like to endorse what was stated by Senators Martin and McAuliffe about the recognition of teachers who have service abroad and who return to this country. This is a most unjust penalty for those people who go abroad, often to broaden their outlook, but more often because of economic reasons.

I was once such a teacher. I had no option but to emigrate as the best job I could get here on leaving the college paid £280 per annum. It was easy to obtain a salary of £850 in England so it was not a difficult decision to make. A great many teachers have done the same over the years and many of them have not returned. The removal of this penal clause in the employment of teachers is long overdue. I support Senator Martin in this.

It seems to have been the general opinion that we could not afford to educate people and then let them leave the country. That clause was introduced in difficult times. I would suggest that we are a well-off nation as things stand at present.

There is a restrictive practice which forces people who win a scholarship or a grant from the county council or from the corporation to teach for some years in this country. This is an inward-looking system which should be removed. Teachers are entitled to go abroad and broaden their outlook and obtain better qualifications if they so wish.

At the moment a teacher must reach the age of 65 years before he can retire on full pension, if I am not mistaken. It is time we had a system corresponding to that obtaining in the Army where one can retire on full pension after 20 to 25 years service.

In the teaching profession the conditions are steadily deteriorating. I refer to larger numbers in classes, especially in secondary schools. Syllabi are changing every couple of years requiring intense study by the teachers. When a teacher goes on a refresher course, as stated earlier by Senator Martin, he is left badly out of pocket as he is not compensated in an adequate way.

A few years ago I went on such a course which was 70 miles away from my home. I received something over £7 expenses for five days. This is not conducive to getting teachers to avail of these courses.

Perhaps the greatest disadvantage to the teaching profession is the increasing laxity in discipline resulting in a much tougher job. I live in an average provincial town where there are four good secondary schools and I do not know one teacher who has survived until 65 years of age. A high proportion of teachers suffer from nervous disorders at a relatively early age. Forty-four to 45 years of teaching is far too much. They should be allowed get out after 20 or 25 years and enter some branch of industry or some other profession.

I wish to refer to a subject which has not been mentioned so far today and that is our fishing industry. I have heard many comments about our mineral wealth. People have referred to mines, oil and gas, but the national wealth of this country surrounds it and will surround it forever. We have made very poor use of it. We are the most ill-informed and quite often uninformed people in regard to what we have around our coasts, and that is the potential of our fishing industry.

Nobody in our society is more negligent in this regard than the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. People talk about attracting industry to this country. We have it on our doorstep, if we only had the will to develop it. It is well within our compass. Living in a coastal area for years, I can see the Spanish and the French perpetually fishing off our coasts. The Belgians, the Germans and the English are there quite often. At times we have the Russians and the Poles. Even this year we had the Japanese, and yet we cannot afford to build up fleets to fish the very same ground. We are being terribly lax in this respect.

Coming closer to the shore, I should like to refer to what has become known as the salmon licence controversy. We have an outcry from the public for restriction on drift-netting around our coasts and in our estuaries. The opinions expressed are largely ill informed ones. We have tremendous wealth in our salmon and trout fisheries. They are not being properly exploited. I would suggest that we should as a country pay much more attention to them. I do not suggest that there should be any serious reduction in the number of salmon licences but I maintain that the restrictions which should be imposed have not been imposed. They urgently need to be imposed. The salmon licence is supposed to be issued to a traditional salmon fisherman. Unfortunately, every commercial tycoon and large operator has been cashing in on this in the last couple of years. A restriction has come in, but overfishing is still prevalent because proper restrictions have not been enforced.

Large trawlers which fish miles and miles of nets are allowed to block off whole harbours and do not give fish a decent chance to go up the rivers. Besides ruining the future prospects of this lucrative employment for a large number of people, this is also a serious setback to our tourist industry which largely depends on fishing. The tourist industry is our second largest industry and fishing is one of its major attractions. I would suggest that before it is too late laws should be brought in to restrict the length of nets being used at the moment, and not so much the number of licences. I have known of people using nets equivalent to the amount of nets used by 50 traditional salmon fishermen. This must be stopped at once. On the rivers one finds wholesale poaching. For the past three months we should have had a closed season. It is quite common around the countryside at the moment to have salmon offered for sale.

The amount of poaching going on at the moment is incredible. The boards of conservators are obviously not being financed to the proper degree. They have not got the manpower to control these fisheries and these rivers. The people employed are grossly underpaid at the moment. I am looking forward to a vast improvement in these conditions because if the fish cannot get up the river to spawn without being poached the whole business will be killed at its very foundation. The whole aspect of fisheries in Ireland, whether it is around our coasts or in our rivers— especially the salmon fisheries—should be treated as a matter of urgency before the whole stock is wiped out. Some people are doing very valuable work in this respect. They have been abused for doing it. We must use common sense. The short term gain some people will get out of this is just not good enough. We must conserve these stocks.

I should like to compliment the people who have objected to the British claim on the island of Rockall and the seas surrounding it. It is not good enough for the British to put a landing party on such an island for a few hours and then claim it. Ireland is the nearest mainland to this territory. I suggest that we fight tooth and nail to retain it. I would agree with previous speakers who said we are too apologetic in our foreign policy at times. We should be a little more aggressive. I would hate to think that the British would pull the wool over our eyes in this special case. Peruvians and Brazilians have already imposed a 200-mile limit around their coastline as regards fisheries. The Icelandic people imposed a limit of 50 miles. They hope to impose a 200-mile limit. If it is possible for us to impose such a limit within the context of the EEC agreement we should do so in order to conserve our fisheries before they are completely fished out by these foreign fleets.

Mr. Halligan

As the Minister is getting in at 10 o'clock. I will just make three related points as quietly as I can at this late hour, in deference to the Minister who has sat here so patiently throughout this most important debate for the whole day. I should like to endorse his prognosis with regard to the economic growth to be achieved next year. That was the most important point taken out of his speech by speakers during the course of the day. As the Minister stated, it is regrettable that at high point of economic growth we should now find ourselves in a situation where next year, for reasons totally outside of our control, there is a possibility of no growth. The wonder economies of Japan and Germany are now expecting negative growth rates next year which is economist jargon for deflation, depression, increase in unemployment and redundancies. The same is true of the United States and practically every other developing economy.

In that situation the fiscal policy should not have resort to deflationary measures. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the editorial in The Economist published about three weeks ago which analysed in great detail the whole world economic theme and made a very relevant point from the McKinseyian point of view that if all the developed economies because of balance of payments problems resorted to deflationary measures they would confound the situation even worse. That is something we learned from the last world economic depression and it is the only scale of reference we have to the situation in which we now find ourselves. The situation will not be corrected by deflationary policies on the part of any Government and will not be solved internationally by every Government resorting simultaneously to the same policy.

That editorial made the point that no Government should panic in the face of balance of payments difficulties, that they should have resort to the IMF for special SDRs. I would hope that we would have the courage to hold to that policy ourselves, as a Government. I hope also that inside the IMF and other international agencies, where economic policies are discussed at international level, we would pursue this policy.

The Economist of last week, on page 15, made the point. It said:

The world will suffer a recession, but sooner and deeper than had been forecast ...

which was the Minister's point about the immediate future. The balance of payments will be more difficult to improve but, in a context where most other non-Arab countries will be running a large deficit, it may be gradually recognised as unneighbourly to try to rectify one's own balance of payments. It is simply the case that we are deflating demand and every other economy is deflating demand simultaneously, and we are all chopping away at one another's exports, thereby destroying our respective export industries. We know the value of that.

The Economist in the same issue, at page 16, puts the case very succinctly when it says:

The alarming debate on economic policy——

——that was in Britain——

——now is between those on the one hand, who think that a fall in production through oil restraints will reduce supply by more than demand, so that demand should be cut further....

Regrettably, an unfortunate, and I believe disastrous, policy was resorted to by the British Chancellor earlier this week and by those, on the other hand, who see that a recession is not the right time to cut demand but who, in a recession, are impeded by the belief that in a crisis you do everything that is nasty. I hope that we do not do what is nasty simply because we are in a recession, but that we will see that the way out of it is to maintain a consistently high level of Government expenditure. Admittedly, there will be physical constraints in terms of supply that impinge upon fiscal policy. Nonetheless, in so far as it is possible to get resources moving, we should do so.

If the Arabs choose to run a large trade surplus, the Arabs themselves will pick up most of the bill. They will hurt the world grievously, but in balance of payments terms their capital account will move in the opposite direction to their trade account. This is an economic truism that political and newspaper commentators and those of us who are only peripherelly involved in economics may miss, but it is a profoundly important point because one man's deficit is another man's surplus. Those economies which are in surplus will eventually be in as much trouble as those which are in deficit, as both the Germans and the Japanese have discovered. The Arabs will not long be able to hold up the international monetary system to ransom if they persist in their present unenlightened and misguided policies.

The second point I should like to make is that today we have seen a return of the petrol panic. I am intrigued to note that the petrol famine has been described in many continental commentaries as being more or less confined to these islands. It is significant, of course, that we share the one petrol market with Britain. Even The Economist, which is hardly a left-wing radical journal, raised two points: were the companies hoarding (a) in anticipation of higher prices which they have got in Britain, and (b) as an attempt to push out the independent retailers? There is an interesting point there for monopolies control because oil shipments were supposed to be running at pre-embargo rates until quite recently. If that was the case, why the famine?

Lastly, in the field of international policy, we find a very close relationship between the attitude that has been adopted by our own Government in conjunction with the other eight in relation to the Arabs and a bounce-back in terms of our own economic policy. Perhaps the resolution adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers in relation to the Arab attitude was far too weak and, in the long run, it defeats the very purpose they were trying to achieve. I am convinced that the more one gives in to the Arabs at the moment, the more they will look for— they will keep raising the ante. They are already looking for more technological aid, they are looking for financial aid, they are looking for arms.

I do not think there will be any limit to their demands until they have achieved the aim of the PLO, which is in essence the destruction of the state of Israel. I do not believe that the limited war aims of Sadat and Assad, which they ascribed to the beginning of their war, are in fact the real aims. I believe it is even more than a return to the 1967 and 1948 frontiers. In fact, I believe it is the aim of the PLO, as stated: The restoration of the legitimate right of the Palestinians. That is the quotation from the Council of Ministers resolution. The Israelis and the Palestinians both understand that to be precisely the same thing: that is, the destruction of the state of Israel. We would be better off if we were to stand up to the Arabs and to say that we are prepared to accept some economic sacrifices. Economically Europe is strong; we can withstand a certain amount of compulsion, and I would think that by the end of the year they would begin to come somewhat to their senses. In the meantime, we would have suffered, of course, but I am convinced that we would have created the conditions where we would not be perpetually held up to ransom until such time as we find a substitute fuel for oil.

I am particularly making the point that in the field of fiscal policy the Minister would stick to the very courageous attitude he struck in last year's budget of going for deficit, of budgeting for growth. I am confident that if he takes that particular attitude over the next three very difficult months, when many people will be telling him to do the opposite, he will deserve the best thanks this time next year, not only of the workers but of the entire community.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

I am most grateful to the House for the manner in which they received and participated in today's discussion with the exception, I am sorry to say, of the leader of the Opposition. I am sorry he is not here because what I propose to say about his remarks I would say even if he were present. The general tenor of the debate was not helped by the particular onslaught which he made at the commencement of it. The fact that others were not tempted to follow him is an indication that they did not think his contribution was worthy of the occasion.

My contribution this morning, which has come under a certain amount of criticism from the Opposition benches, was one which set out to identify a number of problems, not to offer solutions. At the present time, we do not know exactly the extent of the problems that we will be called upon to solve. We do know that we are threatened with several very severe difficulties. Until such time as they present themselves, it would be quite wrong to start applying remedies in respect of diseases which may never occur.

At Cabinet level and throughout the whole public administration, we have established several hard-working and continually meeting committees which meet, sometimes daily, to consider the latest energy situation and general economic position. As soon as action is required in any particular sphere we will take it. My contribution today was to sound a note of realism. That realism requires that we keep a watch on the situation, and that we do not create for ourselves any greater anticipation than we are likely to be able to remunerate in the forthcoming year.

Fears have been expressed from all sides of the House—and I think very rightly—about the difficulties which face us. As long as we, as a nation, keep our "cool" and do not panic, it will be possible for us to meet any difficulties and restrictions which may face us. The reality of the moment is that we have, probably at best, a fifty-fifty chance of seeing a serious deterioration in the economic situation in 1974, compared with what was originally forecast. That is not a pleasant thing to anticipate. We would be very unwise to calculate, at this stage, that other than that is going to be our fate but it should not depress us. If we fix our goal on that basis, that we have in fact to stand still, that we may have to mark time for a while, then if we do better than that we will have a massive improvement in the real income of our people. We will be in the position to provide tax reliefs and other benefits which people are crying out for.

I accept the excellent point which Senator Halligan used at the conclusion of the debate. I speak for my Government when I say that I do not believe in applying fiscal policies which are going to add depression upon depression. We are going to have difficulties because our external markets are likely to shrink and it is not in keeping with our economic thinking that we should add to those difficulties by further restriction here at home. It is economically unwise to do so in the short term because you only aggravate the current difficulties. It is also foolish in the long run. If you bring about retrenchment you also bring about a situation, in the modern economy, in which you under-use your capacities, in which you have capital equipment lying idle, in which you shove up your costs. That is what has happened in this country on various occasions in the past when that particular remedy was applied. Costs shot up because we used the wrong mix. I speak in that tone now. Maybe I speak bravely, but I am speaking my thoughts. I can only hope that, when the budget situation reveals itself in some months to come, I will not find any reason to change my economic approach to the situation.

I identified a number of the difficulties which we face but I am tempted, by the declaration which was made last night by the IRA that they intend to continue their warfare against the people of this island and the adjoining island, to identify in economic terms the consequences of this appalling warfare. We have all recounted again and again the appalling human suffering, the bloodshed, the deaths, the deformed people who must live out their lives with one or more limbs less and with various other disadvantages. We have not identified the economic cost to our own little State of the Republic of Ireland. It is worthwhile dwelling on this so that we will really see who are the enemies of our people.

In the provision of extra security alone, by way of increased Army and Garda personnel and activities, the cost to date exceeds £33 million. That is no small sum. This £33 million which could have been devoted to social welfare, to an increase in economic activity, had to be spent on what any sane society would regard as a priority in time of difficulties but what in a truly sane society is not regarded as a necessary expense at all because, if it is sane, it does not need to defend itself against enemies from within whatever about enemies from without. We will have to spend a great deal more on ensuring our own security.

In economic terms we have probably already lost to date something far in excess of £200 million in our gross national product. This is a loss which is likely to continue as long as the enemies of our people continue to wage war against our people, claiming, without authority, because they have been rejected by our people, that they are answering some need of our people. Those who continue this warfare, for whatever cause in this island, no matter whether they plead that they are serving the cause of Irish unity, or that they want to get rid of the British or keep them, are doing damage of that dimension to our economy. We have again and again counted the cost to Northern Ireland which runs into many more millions. Perhaps some of those who pretend to love their country might begin to count the cost and see the consequence of their folly which, apart from the unforgiveable human suffering, is very serious and will be even more serious at a time of very substantial economic restraints which will be imposed upon us.

This year we had an 11½ per cent increase in gross capital formation which indicates that there was great confidence and that people were investing for the future of the country. Much of that represented inflows from outside. What are the prospects of capital inflows and foreign investment in Ireland next year or in some years to come, if the depression in western Europe, the United States and Japan continues, areas from which we have drawn massive investment over the past ten or 12 years? I do not think they are particularly good. I am throwing out the question to the House and Senators can answer it themselves. This is a further reason why we must be very cautious about our approach to next year.

Senator Lenihan made very little contribution to this debate except to spread around as many abusive comments as he was capable of thinking of, and he has a very generous vocabulary in this regard. I will chase him along that particular line. He applied some of his unfortunate adjectives to the Sunningdale communiqué which has been welcomed by every sane person in this island. When we see the Sunningdale communiqué attacked by Paisley, Blaney, William Craig and Noel Browne, it is no wonder that it has been endorsed by the massive sanity of the Irish people. These people were joined today in a rather peculiar way by the leader of the Opposition in the Seanad who spoke at variance with the leader of the Opposition in the Dáil. I cannot see how Senator Lenihan's remarks today could be regarded as being in keeping with those of Deputy Lynch in the Dáil.

Senator Lenihan said that the Sunningdale communiqué showed waffling, evasion, ambiguities, ambivalence, fudging, and an anaemic approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. If it displayed all of those things it displayed what Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, said was the culmination of his policies towards Northern Ireland over the past four years. I wonder, when Senator Lenihan comes back from Brussels, will he tell us whether he is amongst the hawks or the doves in Fianna Fáil, or is he the cuckoo who likes to lay its eggs in another bird's nest and has no sense of responsibility? I suspect that is really what he is.

Senator Lenihan and Senator Browne made an attack upon the Taoiseach. I thought that Senator Browne was rather cruel in his attack. I will say this for Senator Browne. He is sincere every time he speaks. He often praises people, even people with whom he disagrees, for their consistency, but the one thing about Senator Browne is that he is never consistent. Two years ago he embarrassed his own Labour Party by coming out and being the lone voice in that party at that time in support of Deputy Lynch's policy of live and let live and allowing the people of the North of Ireland to decide their own fate. Today he said he was against the use of arms and the use of force but he condemned the Sunningdale communiqué because it provided and recited the only logical alternative to force, that is, to recognise the right of people to express their opinions freely. One cannot have it both ways. I do not question Senator Browne's sincerity but I certainly question his logic.

I must question Senator Lenihan's sincerity. He condemned the Sunningdale communiqué today in the terms which I have already quoted. He did not offer any suggestion as to how it might have been re-drawn. He did not offer any new draft. He did not make any suggestion as to what proposals we should take to the second and formal stage of the Sunningdale conference. I wonder whether, if he had spoken his thoughts, would they have been those which he expressed in the Daily Telegraph of 5th June, 1968, when he said that if the British Parliament had backed Gladstone and given Ireland Home Rule, a limited form of self-government which would have satisfied many of the Irish people, then much of the bitterness between Ireland and Britain would never have arisen? Or has he changed now? Who is he courting? Is it Deputy Haughey or Deputy Lynch? Or is it the cuckoos, the daft people in between? It is time that the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad showed some sense of responsibility and consistency so that at least those behind him or those who are trying to follow him would know in which direction they should move.

I should like now to turn to the economic situation and in particular to the energy crisis. A number of Senators, Senators Markey, Keegan, Killilea, Russell and others, suggested that it might be desirable to introduce rationing rather than have a continuation of panic buying. The nation now knows that only 15 per cent of our total oil imports are used in vehicles. The balance is needed for more essential use in industry and for power generation. It is in this particular area that our people have gone stark raving mad. This is probably because the motor car seems to generate a certain amount of insanity in all of us. Put the most rational and polite person behind the wheel of a motor car and he or she will go beserk. We have the same attitude in the panic buying of petrol.

Rationing of petrol for motor cars has so far been introduced in only one country, Roumania. It may be introduced in the Netherlands who are suffering a very severe embargo because of utterances by their Foreign Minister, Meinher Max Vanderstol, at the commencement of the recent Middle East war. There may be rationing in Sweden and in Austria. Those are the only indications that we have that rationing in respect of petrol for motor cars is being introduced. We are not failing to make preparations to issue forms to motorists of whom we have 470,000. To process those forms when they are returned, we have already recruited, both from within and without the Civil Service in the last month, 370 people to handle this new work load. We have had to provide accommodation for them. This was no mean step to take. These are the things about which people do not stop to think. They think that the Department of Transport and Power ought to "slosh" out the petrol coupons right away. Personnel are needed to do this work. Everything has to be organised and we have been doing just that. If the decision is taken to introduce rationing we will have to have an additional 120 or 150 personnel to operate the system. We are moving along these lines in case that should be necessary. If it is necessary, it will be only because of the folly of so many people creating so much panic.

I do not propose to go into our budgetary policy again. I gave it in detail this morning and I think the facts fully justify themselves and there is no need to repeat them either on the economic or social welfare front. I would like briefly to refer to the allegations from the Opposition benches, those from Senators Lenihan and Yeats in particular, that I was selective in choosing my statistics in my opening speech this morning. I cannot help it if the statistics happen to embarrass Fianna Fáil and operate to the credit of the present Government. The reality of the price moves this year shows that the main jump in prices was in the last half of the year and, since then, the rate of increase has been falling. We are not satisfied with what is happening. What is doubly significant is that the rise at the beginning of the year was at a time when world prices were not multiplying at the rate at which they are now multiplying.

Although my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Government are coming under a certain amount of attack because prices are still rising and the overall situation over the year was not good, we have succeeded in cooling the rate. I know this is not something that would readily occur to people when they go about their daily shopping, but it is something which will tell at the end of the year and, if we can maintain this progress, we will be a long way towards increasing the real incomes of the people.

We are not worried at the moment about the overall trade deficit because, in terms of visible trade, it has not increased very significantly compared with last year. Last year our growth rate was only 3 per cent; this year it is touching on 7 per cent. If you are going to feed a growth rate of 7 per cent you must, of course, import more. If, as we had over the last three or four years, a run down of stocks, including stocks of essential raw materials to feed industry, these must be purchased to correct that rundown; we are now purchasing them, sometimes at prices two and three times higher than they could have been bought over the last year or two, and naturally there will be a much higher figure shown in respect of imports.

Against the growth in imports we have had a most satisfactory performance in exports. We have also had considerable growth in our invisible exports. Our tourism is up £22 million on last year. The overall situation is good and, as I pointed out this morning, our external reserves over the last 11 months have grown by £23.9 million. All this indicates that the economy is operating very, very soundly indeed.

I was surprised to hear Senator Keegan make the allegation that grants in respect of houses have not been increased. I think he has forgotten that there has been a change of Government because, while there were almost 23 years between increases in some house grants during the previous Administration, we have, in fact, increased the loan and income limits in respect of house purchase loans and supplementary grants over the last few months. When we got into power there was an income limit of £1,800 in respect of local authority loans. That income limit has been raised to £2,350. There was a limit of loans of £3,800 in the major urban areas and £3,400 elsewhere. We have increased those figures to £4,500 all over the country. We identified that which Fianna Fáil apparently did not know, namely, that it is sometimes dearer to build a house in some parts of rural Ireland than it is to build one in the city because, in the city the houses are built by speculative builders in large numbers, with system buildings, but in many parts of rural Ireland the cost of building houses has become prohibitive. We have increased the maximum loan limit from £3,800 to £4,500.

In respect of supplementary grants we increased the income limits from £1,500 plus £100 for each of four dependants to £1,950 plus £100 for each of four dependants. I hope that Senator Keegan will read this debate on Christmas Day after his dinner and that it will help his digestive juices. I believe that if he and others would only remove the blinkers from their eyes they would see that the Government have made very massive strides in housing, notwithstanding all the needling criticism that has come from the Opposition.

I was interested also in what Senator Keegan had to say about the social welfare increases. He was not inclined to thank the Government for them because he said that they were no more than what the people expected and no more than they were entitled to get and, in any event, the money for them came out of EEC funds. That is in conflict with what his own leader, Senator Lenihan, said because he said that we were irresponsible in giving these comparatively small increases in social welfare benefit within 100 days of getting into office; we should have been responsible and we should have withheld them.

I do not know what Senator Lenihan means when he says that the task of the Government is to be unpopular and that we should live up to our responsibilities and, apparently, we should not discharge what we regard as an essential commitment to the most impoverished and deprived people in our community. We did what we did and we make no apology for doing it and, if we have the money, we will do it again whether we are a month in office or 12 or 16 years in office. Senator Lenihan said it was time that we realised that it was the task of Government to be unpopular. I do not like to be personal, but I think Senator Lenihan is known, and will be forever remembered, for his incapacity to say "No" to anybody when he was a Minister. He was the man who always said that there was no problem, he would do anything for everybody. He never said "No" to anybody who approached him but he very seldom served up the goods at the same time.

Mr. Hanafin

I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister but, he must agree that he is making a personal attack on Senator Lenihan. He is not dealing with just the debate.

Mr. R. Ryan

I said what I was going to say if Senator Lenihan were here. I have no doubt I will have the opportunity to say it again. Senator Lenihan was not particularly sensitive of the skins of other people when he spoke this morning.

Mr. Hanafin

I appreciate the Minister's point, but I feel he is making a personal attack.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should leave the control of the debate to the Chair. The Chair has been listening carefully to what has been said and has not heard anything which does not come under the heading of political charges, which are admissible under the Rules of Order. The Chair will take great care that any charges made against a person, in his personal capacity, are not allowed to go unchallenged.

Mr. R. Ryan

Thank you, a Chathaoirleach. I shall endeavour as always to stick to the rules of fair debate. Once again we saw Fianna Fáil's paranoia about the Press. Senator Keegan led the attack on the Press because they dared to be interested in, and provided a service to the people of Ireland about, the Sunning-dale Conference. They served the public well by being in touch with the most significant event to affect our people for the last half century. I was at the conference. I do not know what coverage was given because there was little communication between the Press and those involved in the conference. But if they were there they were there to inform our people. I think that was a good thing. The better informed our people are the better. Senator O'Toole dealt very effectively with that particular point.

Senator Moynihan and Senator Russell and others spoke about the need for alleviation and greater equity in the income tax code. I am sure they know that they were pulling a string which finds response in my heart. This is something that we are very anxious to achieve, but because of years of neglect in this field the cost of giving even a small relief is great. To relieve as little as £20 of a person's income— which would only leave £7 extra in the person's pocket at the end of the year —would cost £5 million. The cost of giving any significant income tax relief across the board is obviously very, very great. Nevertheless, this is something we will endeavour to do. I believe it is something which we will have to do by small steps, but if these small steps had been taken over the years we would not now be in the income tax mess we are in at the present time.

There is an organisation of income tax payers who are concerned with reform and who have issued a pamphlet calling for reform. It is very hard to say that the request is not a reasonable one, but the cost of giving it would be about £95 million. If anybody can indicate where the Minister for Finance can find alternative revenue of £95 million, I suggest the he comes to me. I would instantly apply it, provided the alternative is not any worse than the existing code.

Senator Moynihan mentioned Muckross House, Killarney. I am sure my Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind his worthwhile suggestion that the existing lease should be renewed as soon as it expires.

Senator Moynihan also spoke about the health services and his remarks on the health services I will bring to the notice of the Minister for Health, who is very sympathetic. I am inclined to agree with Senator Moynihan, from my own experience, that the so-called reorganisation of the health services has produced far too much administration, far too heavy a bureaucracy, which has not produced greater efficiency and, in fact, has created strain and misunderstanding between the elected representatives and the medical profession involved in the health services. The principle was good and I, in common with many others on both sides of the House, supported a great deal of what was initiated in the reorganisation of the health services some years ago, but we should now have a look at it and see if, in practice, our hopes have been fulfilled.

Reference was made by Senator Moynihan to CIE pensioners. I have great sympathy with what he said, because many is the Parliamentary Question I asked about this when I was in opposition. It is only recently that a scheme has come to me for approval in relation to CIE pensioners. A number of technical difficulties arose in relation to it which were referred to the board of CIE. We are at present waiting to hear from them, but I hope these difficulties will be overcome in the not-too-distant future. Unfortunately, even with the amended scheme the pensions will not be as generous as we would wish them to be. We will have a look at this, because CIE are at present operating at a loss of £16 million a year. Obviously, this loss is too great. Perhaps out of the ill wind of oil shortage will come a saving for CIE. Already I understand that their passenger traffic is up by 10 per cent. This, I can assure you, is of some consolation to the Minister for Finance who looks gloomily upon a drop in revenue from oil sales, but it may be that CIE will be able to attract more traffic. It is something we will have to have a look at if any question of further reorganisation in CIE should arise.

Senator Killilea referred to what he called the beet pulp scandal, particularly as it affects the Tuam factory. This matter was raised very recently in the other House and I gave an assurance that I would take up with the board of the Sugar Company the complaints which had been voiced in this connection. I have done so, and I hope it may be possible to bring about some improvement as a result.

Senator Killilea also spoke about housing. As I already mentioned in reply to Senator Keegan, we have provided very substantial increases in housing finances this year. We have increased, for instance, the public capital involvement in housing from £45 million to £66 million. That is a massive increase by any standards. It is worthwhile emphasising that last year's housing output was not 21,000 houses, as has been claimed by the former Government, but was in fact about 19,000 houses. By including in their statistics for 1972-73 about 2,000 house completions which had in fact occurred in the preceding financial year they made a false claim of 21,000 houses. The real figure is something nearer 19,000 houses but, notwithstanding the fact that they misled us as well as misleading the people, we are well on the way towards achieving our target. There is difficulty in financing such a target at any time particularly where you have such rapid and massive growth. It is particularly difficult in a year when capital is scarce right across the world. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, we are matching up to them, and housing has not been held back because of lack of money.

A number of Senators, led by Senator Martin, who was followed by Senator McAuliffe and Senator Deasy, spoke about the teaching profession and, in particular, the need to recognise teaching service abroad. This is a matter about which many of us now in Government spoke with some sympathy while in opposition. There are a number of administrative difficulties involved in it and the cost is much greater than has yet been identified by people who are seeking this reform. However, we all accept that we need to broaden our education and, indeed, it would be to the benefit of our education if we could entice more graduates who went abroad to come back and teach here. We would expect that it might be possible to make some improvement here. I am not making any promise. I am just saying that the matter is at present being very carefully examined.

Senator William O'Brien was generous in his appreciation of what the Government are doing, but he correctly emphasised that there was no section of the community which was not better off and that the Government have achieved their main target to spread the load. Senator Yeats, in tone with other Senators, questioned the wisdom of taking VAT off food. I gather from this, as I have gathered from Fianna Fáil comments in the Dáil, that if by any chance they should ever come back to power again they would re-impose VAT on food. A number of Fianna Fáil Deputies in the Dáil have specifically said that. I think the people should be warned against it. Fianna Fáil believe in increasing the price of food by 6.75 per cent. We do not. We took taxation off foodstuffs for the first time in ten years. We make no apology for doing so. It will continue to be our policy.

Senator Quinlan spoke about the desirability of having this debate near the budget so that there could be a discussion on budget policy. Perhaps he is right, but perhaps there is also some advantage in discussing the consequences of the budget six, seven or eight months after the policy has gone into effect. I have an open mind on this point. It is obviously a matter primarily for the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

As and from 1975 the budget debate in the Dáil will probably be in January or February because the financial year will be from 1st January, 1975, to 31st December, 1975 and similarly thereafter for each financial year. There might be an opportunity in this changing climate to re-arrange the whole programme.

Senator Quinlan, supported by Senator Russell, said that we should concentrate on building up our agricultural exports at the present time because they are not as dependent as other activities on imported inputs. There is a great deal in what he says, but even here, as we know, agriculture has been affected by world commodity prices—if we did not know it before we learned in Monaghan that the price of inputs had certainly risen. Many of the inputs in fertilisers come from the countries that are imposing restrictions in respect of oil supplies. If they can stand on the oil pipelines they can probably close off fertiliser supplies as well. I am not throwing that out as a suggestion to them, however. There are difficulties, and I think we ought, as a community here, get back into some of the activities in farming in which we used to engage when we were less dependent on foreign supplies than we tended to become over the last year or 18 months.

This is a time for using our own resources to the maximum extent possible. There is a massive increase in investment in agriculture. The old fear of the farmer against putting his money into farming is going. The growth of the Agricultural Credit Corporation is illustrative of this. In 1968-69 they lent £6 million to farmers; last year they lent £29 million and this year they will be lending £50 million. A Bill was passed recently increasing the borrowing power of the Agricultural Credit Corporation from £70 million to £120 million.

Senator Quinlan made a point which is a valid one and one that is now occupying all our minds, and that is the desirability of re-cycling waste. We all know the problem we have in trying to get rid of the daily newspapers. There was a time when you could earn an honest shilling for a bale of waste paper. For years past, we have not been able to do this. You could not get the wastepaper merchants to take the paper off your hands but now, within the last couple of months, this market is being generated again. Perhaps, again, out of the ill-wind blowing from the Middle East, we in Western Europe may derive the benefit of becoming less wasteful than we have been. We have tended, like the Americans, to develop a waste-making society and I believe there is a great deal of material now being dumped which could be re-cycled with great advantage.

Senator Russell began by emphasising that the keynote of this debate was that it was impossible to forecast the year ahead. He said that we may need several budgets to deal with changing situations. I would not like anybody to think that the Government are contemplating bringing in mini-budgets from time to time. We do not think that is desirable. We will take such corrective action as may be necessary from time to time. As you know, there are many powers available to Ministers and if we see any developments which we regard as undesirable taking place we will not hesitate to use the powers we have to correct them.

We identified many dangers today. We were faulted because we did not say what powers we were going to use and when we were going to use them. I emphasise again that what we identified were the risks and the uncertainties. The undesirable consequences have not yet really settled upon us. If and when they appear to settle with any serious consequences, then we will take action.

Senator Yeats suggested that I alleged that Fianna Fáil were responsible for the oil shortage. I have accused them of many things, but this is not one of the things I lay at their door. What I did say in the Dáil was this, and I think it is an argument that stands up to any criticism. If they had operated our economy with the same confidence, the same enthusiasm, the same expansionist approach that we deliberately set about in our budget of this year, then we would not have been dragging along with a growth rate of 3 per cent and 2½ per cent over the last three or four years. We would have had a growth rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent. If we had a growth rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent over the last four years then our oil consumption would be up 12 per cent higher than it is at the moment and we would be starting from an oil base which would be 12 per cent higher than the base which the Arab countries are now using to calculate the future ration of oil to be supplied to us.

That is an argument that stands up to any criticism. It is a valid one. They let us down over the last few years and the consequence is that although we have this massive increase in output this year, our oil intake is being related to a time of depressed economy. Even if it was to remain static, we would not have enough to feed the demands which we now want to meet. So it is that we are going to be far less well off than we otherwise would be no matter what cuts might be imposed upon us.

Senator Russell also referred to the desirability of making a direct approach to oil-producing nations. Senator Browne also took this up. A number of members of the present Government, including myself, have visited Arab countries in the past and have rendered service to the Arab cause. We have very good relationships with several Arab countries; they are aware of these. As you know, they have already declared that they would treat Ireland as a friendly nation. Notwithstanding the fact that we are being treated as a friendly nation, the Arab countries have simply reduced their own output. So, even if we get the maximum of what they are giving, we will have to get along with less. They have suddenly realised that oil in the ground is probably of greater value to them than oil sold today. That is not merely a political consequence, but also an economic one because they have discovered, and many other people have discovered that money saved today is money eroded because of the very high rate of inflation.

When people like Senator Browne condemn increases in profits and increases in dividends I do not think they can overlook the fact that the person who saves and invests in a company must also get some kind of hedge against the erosion of money. If a person gets a dividend of 10 per cent or 11 per cent or 12 per cent today, that dividend no more than keeps that person standing still and he has to get a higher dividend before he can begin to make profit. That is a consequence of world inflation. It is not desirable; it is imposing an enormous burden upon our industry and is something which we want to correct. But we cannot hope to escape from the consequences of world wide increases in interest.

I am not going to follow Senator Browne along the lines he travelled in regard to many matters. His attitude, I think, was more reminiscent of the days of the dinosaur than of the second half of the twentieth century. He chastises other people for having what he called a preoccupation with doctrinaire economic attitudes. I leave it to Senators to decide who in this debate today, or any side of the House, showed himself preoccupied with doctrinaire economic attitudes. I think it was the person who flung the accusation at others.

Senator Harte spoke about the substantial amount of £45,000 which the Government had given towards the education of trade unionists. I accept that we would like to increase this but it is too early yet to say what we might do next year. We see the great benefit of this. It is something which operates to the benefit of trade unionists themselves and to the economy and society as a whole. We believe it is money well spent and we will not be niggardly in our approach to this in the future.

He also spoke of the need to end discrimination against women. I think he knows the Government are committed to end discrimination against women. We received with enthusiasm the Report on the Status of Women but I would like to emphasise that that report itself drew attention to the necessity to implement improvement in the status of women by degrees. We must all accept that women received shameful treatment in our society in the past, but to implement, for instance, equal pay in respect of women would bring about an increase in the cost of living of 3.6 per cent.

This figure is contained in the report of the commission and I do not think our women, who were referred to by many Opposition Senators today when speaking on the cost of living, would welcome a situation where overnight the cost of living would be increased by 3.6 per cent. We are moving in the right direction and the new national wage agreement is another progressive step in this direction.

Senator Higgins spoke with great personal conviction about the need for equality both in social standards and education. We can readily accept the philosophy which he put before us.

Senator Deasy spoke about restrictions on salmon fishing. I will bring his remarks to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He also spoke about Rockall. I am not sure to what Department we would bring that to the notice of today, whether it is Defence or the "Department of Aggression" or the Department of Transport and Power or Conservation or the Department of Foreign Affairs but all these Departments have a function in it. As the Senator is aware, we have already expressed our views on this. While it may seem a futile exercise at the moment to be fighting over a barren rock away out in the Atlantic, God only knows what riches are off its shores. We will attend to Ireland's rights in this field as we must also attend to the urgent need to develop our oil and gas resources in the Celtic sea. This is having the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. These are tremendous problems which will require great capital investment and we will need a great deal of know-how. We will not solve them by the application of doctrinaire economic philosophies. We will need to get plenty of know-how and plenty of good hard cash but you can be certain that this Government will see that the main advantage in the development of our off-shore resources, as in respect of our mines, will flow to the Irish people.

I trust I have dealt with most points raised in the debate. If I have omitted any, Senators can be assured I will bring them to the attention of the Ministers concerned and if they bear on my responsibilities I will bear them very much in mind.

I conclude by wishing all the Senators a very Happy Christmas. The economy is booming at the moment and there is no reason why you should not enjoy yourselves.

To the Opposition I give the comfort that they can enjoy this, their first year in Opposition for many years, in the knowledge that it will be a long time before they are disturbed at Christmas by the problems of government. In the New Year, while we have today identified risks and possible dangers, this Government will do all in their power to keep those dangers and disadvantages away from our shores. If we keep our "cool" and prepare, as we are preparing, then we will get over the worst without too much difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to Dáil.

An Cathaoirleach

Before the House adjourns I should like to express to the Members of the House all good wishes for the Christmas season, the New Year and the recess, however long that may last. I should also like, on behalf of the Members of the House, to express to the members of the staff of the Seanad office and the members of the joint staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas our thanks for all they have done for us during this session. We have to thank them for their services from the day we were elected, when they counted the votes, up to today, when they have served us well during a long sitting.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.40 p.m. sine die.