Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—(Deputy Davin.)

Dr. O'Higgins

Before the adjournment I was deploring the fact that it has become the fashion for Ministers to walk in here with important Bills, many of them Bills calculated to cost the country considerable sums of money, without either understanding or studying the Bills themselves, and certainly without giving Deputies any information with regard to them. I instanced one in particular. The peculiarity is not confined to one Department. On general questions of broad policy of the greatest magnitude, and of immense importance to everybody, but of particular interest to thinking people, we have a deliberately calculated policy to try and withhold from the people, as much information as possible. We had the comedy of the various Defence Votes in the Dáil, where so much was said by the Taoiseach, and practically every statement made by him was contradicted subsequently by the Minister in charge of the Department of Defence, and finally we had a kind of weak and watery compromise, apparently between two conflicting points of view, put to the country; and in exchange for the watery compromise, that was really a conspiracy to tell nobody anything, we were asked to put up the biggest individual sum ever asked for in the history of this State.

In response to that weak and watery compromise we were in the position of asking the people, not only to give money which they can ill afford to give, but to give their sons as well. The position is this—and both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence happen to be present—that it is within the memory of every Deputy that, on what I may call the first big defence debate we had some six or nine months ago, we had an announcement from the Taoiseach to the effect that neutrality, or a policy of neutrality, for this country was so much nonsense; that it was utter folly, and not practical politics if we proposed to continue to export food to Great Britain. I think on that occasion the Taoiseach was congratulated from this side of the House for having faced up to facts, even though these facts might be unpleasant, and for having laid down, in the face of facts, a plan or proposal or theory that might be politically awkward or politically difficult.

Subsequently, and at a later stage of another debate with regard to the same subject, we had the clear cut policy put forward by the head of the Department of Defence, that the policy of the Executive Council, and the defence policy of the country, was a policy of neutrality. If we were to accept the words of the Taoiseach, that is a policy of folly. None of us has the amount of information that is at the disposal of either the Taoiseach or any of the Ministers, and I am not staking any Minister, or attempting to stake him to one particular line or one particular policy, but I am entitled to ask on such an important matter of broad national policy, which is the policy of the Government, and what are the reasons in support of that particular policy? If the original statement made by the Taoiseach is correct, then there is no justification for the immense demands that are being made on the country.

If neutrality is a policy which it is merely politically expedient to preach, but which, in our hearts, we believe is merely a very temporary policy, and if, as the Taoiseach said, the export of food to a belligerent country would be regarded as contraband and that we would be involved in the war, then it is a policy we are entitled to try, for no matter what very limited or very short space of time; but at the expiration of that short time, we are entitled to know what country or what combination of countries would be likely to attack us. A soldier fighting without arms is useless; a soldier fighting against his conscience is worthless.

Because of political expediency, we are drifting into a very serious position in this country. We are drifting into a position where, whether they be many or few, every second man joining the Volunteers is joining with a different aim in view, with a different outlook, and with a different interpretation of Government policy. I know that five Volunteers within the last fortnight were asked: "If a war comes, do you think we will escape?" and the answer of all of them was "No, we might escape for a month or so, but we would be involved, we would be into it, certainly within a very short time." They were then asked against whom they would be fighting. Two of them said Ulster, one of them said Great Britain, and two of them said the Axis Powers. I believe it is nothing short of sinful to be recruiting young men in blinkers to that extent.

We in this country, irrespective of the sides we are on, have, or should have, a higher conception of the gravity of taking human life than is found in many countries. We have a certain teaching, that in war we are entitled to take life provided our conscience directs us in that direction. On that particular question we have what I, at least, consider is a studied and deliberate attempt not to take either the Parliament or the public fully into our confidence. We are talking about air-raid precautions and the dangers that are threatening our country, but we are afraid to say from where. From what point is danger threatening?

I believe, and the same responsibility is not on me as on people sitting opposite, that in a world war there is only one danger point as far as this country goes, and that is attack from central European Powers, because of our immense value to Great Britain in supplying her Fleet and her Army with food in time of war. Popular or unpopular, I am prepared to say that that is my belief and if I were sitting on the opposite side of the House I would be recruiting men specifically to make provision against attack from that direction. I would not humbug myself or allow anybody else to humbug me to put on a soldier's uniform and a soldier's belt by appealing to sentiment along the line that we were going to await our opportunity to attack our traditional foe, or to use our arms to invade or attack the Irishmen in Ulster.

Whether with or without the knowledge of the Government, whether with or without the approval of the Government, three conflicting doctrines are being preached at the present moment. A perusal of the speeches made from the Government Front Bench will lend strength to any one of the three gospels. On that all-important matter there has never been a courageous, clear-cut statement of policy, never a clear statement of what are the most obvious or the most likely dangers. If the recruiting is not as rapid as any of us would like, I want to put it to the head of the Government, to the Minister for Defence, that it is not because the youth of this country are selfish; it is not because the youth of this country are cowardly, but it is because the youth of this country, the same as the youth of any other country, are entitled to know, before they prepare for fight, against whom they are going to fight and alongside of whom they are going to fight.

The Taoiseach

A new theory.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Taoiseach may smile, but he knows as well as I do, every bit as well if not better, that I am painting a perfectly fair picture and I am not painting it in a Party way and I am not springing it on the Government. In every debate since danger appeared clearly on the horizon, I put exactly the same point of view and I have asked exactly the same questions, and only on one occasion did we appear to get an answer, and that was from the Taoiseach himself. Every statement, every speech made since, was a repudiation of that answer.

Deputies here, and the people outside, parents of children, and particularly the young men, are entitled to get a clear answer. They are entitled to know whom they are likely to be against, and if there is any secret recruiting on the basis of the starting of another civil war, this time against people who are as Irish as ourselves but different from us in religion, that should be clearly discouraged and definitely repudiated.

I can see nothing but harm to the country, nothing but harm to the hopes of the people who wish to see us all living our lives in harmony as a reunited family—I can see nothing but harm resulting from the whispered propaganda of a coming civil war or a conflict between ourselves and the people in the North. If such a situation did arise, it would not matter a thrauneen who won that civil war; we would be a more permanently divided country at the end of it than we are at the moment. Whatever divisions are there at the moment are antiquated historical divisions and modern artificial divisions, but there is no real division. Nothing would make a greater division than by bringing the quarrels of a century ago up to date and starting off another century with the bitterness of a civil war. It is true that throughout every county of the twenty-six that whisper is going round, and I raise the point in order to get the whispering discouraged. I am not suggesting that that whispering is emanating from a Ministerial chief or from a Party organisation. The whisper, however, in itself, is assisting in the mental confusion that there is at the moment on this important question, and the Taoiseach's silence and the contradictory statements from the Government Front Bench are further encouraging and lending countenance to the whispers.

Now, every debate on defence over the last 12 months can be diligently thumbed by the staff of the Taoiseach. I have listened to most of them, and I have read every one of them, and I have never got one statement that clearly stated what would be the likely position in which we would find ourselves in the event of war, or, in the war that appears to be imminent, whom we are likely to be opposed to. On the one hand, we are told that we cannot hope to be left out of that war, that our food supplies are too important nowadays. On the other hand, on a subsequent occasion, we are told that our policy is neutrality. Now, it appears to me, at least, that the two statements are contradictory to the mind of the man in the street. Any statements can be reconciled by quibbling in a debate.

This whole matter, however, is a lot too serious for verbal word-spinning, for evasion, or for quibbling; and there is a responsibility on the Government to be frank, open, and candid with the people, and there is a very particular responsibility on them when they are asking the youth of the country to join the Army, or asking the parents to send their children into the Army. Now, I should like to be taken in that respect as speaking purely as a citizen, and not as a speaker from a Party bench. This morning, by post. I got a couple of circular notices, asking me to stick them on my motor car, and the effect of these notices was to ask the youth to join the Volunteers. I want to say frankly, whether it be popular or otherwise, that I would not ask one Christian boy to join any army in the whole world, at a time when war appeared to be imminent, without knowing on what side that boy was likely to be called upon to fight. Not only that, but I would go further, and I would say that, as a matter of conscience, anybody that is in at the moment in a voluntary capacity, if he did not get an answer to that question, should get out. If they have any deep convictions, or if they have any deep principles with regard to the things that appear to be at stake, they should not be left for one moment in doubt as to whether or not they are fighting in defence of those principles. We heard all those speeches here in this House, and we heard speeches outside the House, and we have heard speeches across the radio night after night. I should like to invite anybody to point out to me any one of these speeches, whether made inside or outside Dáil Eireann, which took the public in any degree into the confidence of the Government on that important matter. So much for that.

I said, earlier in this debate, that it struck me as rather extraordinary that, at a time like this, the Vote for the head of the Government should be introduced without availing of the opportunity to give any announcement with regard to policy, to give any explanations with regard to the failure of policy or policies, or to give any hope whatsoever to the people at a time when many hopes had been blasted and when most of the people were either completely disillusioned or absolute doubters. It is the first time that the Taoiseach introduced his Estimate, I think, since the cessation of the senseless economic war. In itself, it would appear to be an occasion when we are entitled to expect some statement of policy or plan.

In the past, there seemed to be a lot of confusion between promises and policies, and I think that both the members of the Party opposite and the great mass of the public outside have learned at least this much: that there is a vast difference between a mass of promises and either a sound policy or a considered plan. The period of what I might call enthusiastic ballyhoo and dumb support has passed—definitely passed—and with the passing of that period the time is gone, too, when any Minister, no matter how influential in the past, can afford to come in here and ask this Assembly to vote money without having a good case in support of that claim; but we had the Taoiseach's silence here to-day. There was another occasion, or other occasions, when he had very full opportunity for giving some particulars with regard to his policy. We have just gone through a contested by-election in the capital of this country, and the Taoiseach was an active participant, just as we ourselves were, and he was facing the first contested by-election of this Parliament. He was facing that by-election at a time when every one of his promises had become a joke, when every one of his plans had collapsed. I notice that the Taoiseach smiles. There were references here by speakers, such as Deputies Davin, Norton and others, to the fact that when the Taoiseach took over responsibility as head of the Government we had an unemployment problem, and that, even according to the Taoiseach's own estimates at the time, we had 60,000 unemployed human beings in this country. We had that deplorable situation, according to himself and admitted by us; but at least we had it at 60,000, and we also had emigration to America—not to Great Britain—down to the figure of about 9,000 per annum. We also had a trade figure, which was considered unsatisfactory by Deputy de Valera, as he then was, in 1931, when he was over here on those benches; and we had a taxation figure which he and his lieutenants said was crippling trade and industry and bending the backs of the strongest men in this country.

That is just seven years ago. We have to-day an unemployment figure of over 100,000. We have the crushing taxation increased by roughly 40 per cent, and we have emigration multiplied by 4, but into Great Britain, and we have a shrinkage of trade of from 40 to 60 per cent.

The Taoiseach smiles when I make a suggestion that the promises have not been kept or that the plans have not been a success. Assuming for a moment that the promises were sincere and well intentioned, then the only other explanation is the complete collapse of the plan or plans. Let us be sufficiently charitable to say that there were plans, and in an equal spirit of charity allow that the plans miscarried. One would think that, either here or outside, there would be something put before the people either by way of explanation or apology for the present situation and the present facts that cannot be disputed; but on the two occasions when the Taoiseach had an opportunity of addressing the electorate in the City of Dublin there were no further promises, there were no further plans either to stem the hæmorrhage of emigration, to reduce the numbers of unemployed, to relieve the pressure of taxation or to increase the volume of trade. There was the old attempt of the cheer-raiser, the last desperate effort to introduce ballyhoo once again into Irish politics. We were told that the only two things that remain to be done were the ending of Partition and the revival of the Irish language. I would say this, that if there was one foul blow struck at the hopes for national unity inside and outside our shores, it was when any political leader, particularly the political leader who happens to be head of the Government, attempted to make Partition an issue here in Southern Ireland. There are people outside our shores who read our news, who are not as closely in touch with things here as we are, and when they see any political leader calling for support for that purpose, what is the implication? The implication is that the others are opposed to that. There is no division down here in the South between any Parties or any classes or any creeds on the desirability of ending Partition and unity, and it is a foul thing for anybody for political advantage——

The Taoiseach

To misrepresent the attitude.

Dr. O'Higgins

——to attempt to imply that there is division on that question. Let us get down to brass tacks with regard to Partition. We are all agreed that it is a very important and outstanding problem. We are all agreed that it is a state of affairs which it is highly desirable to terminate. The Taoiseach has been sitting over there for nearly eight years. During those eight years what has been his contribution to the restoration of the country into a territorial unit? What is his contribution to the reduction or termination of Partition? At least this can be said, that before we changed places here there was a very determined and continuous effort being made to bring about conditions here which would be better than the conditions which existed on the other side of the border. There was a very continuous and courageous effort, in spite of all the clap-trap that was poured out then from these benches, to keep the taxation per head down here lower than taxation per head in the North, to keep income-tax down here at a lower figure than obtained up there, and generally, to bring about greater conditions down here than existed in the North, and failing all that, at least, to erect no new barriers between this portion of Ireland and the portion of Ireland that is cut away. The Taoiseach says unity is the one supreme issue ahead of us. What has been the seven years' contribution made by his Government? We have the cost of living of every family down here artificially forced on to a considerably higher plane than the cost of living of a family in the North. Leaving politics on one side, does any thinking man believe that you are going to induce any Northern family to come in here on the plea that by coming in it will cost them very much more a week to live than it costs them up there? His Ministers, every single month since they became Ministers, have been laying one brick on top of another brick, building a high impassable tariff wall between this country and the North.

Does the Taoiseach think, in all fairness, that the industrialist up there, who has no tariff barrier in his way when he is purchasing his raw materials from abroad, is going to come in here in order to spend his time trying to jump a tariff barrier, in order to pay more for his raw materials, in order to reduce the profits of his industry? Does the Taoiseach think, when he and his Ministers scoffed at the proposal to take the rates off the land in Éire, that the Northern farmer, who has no rates to pay, is going to be induced to come in here in order to have the pleasure and benefit of paying rates to this Parliament? The Taoiseach may argue that as against rates there is a reduction of annuities. As against the reduction of the annuities there is a loss down here—and well he knows it— that will never be equated, even if there was complete abolition of annuities. The contrast between the farmer north of the Boundary and the farmer south of the Boundary is as great a contrast as that between black and white.

Let us take the economy on the farm. We all sell in a common market, the farmer in the North and the farmer in the South. We have an artificial state of affairs brought about here by political experimenters, which produces the result that for feeding stuffs or any of the raw materials that go to produce our export article, the farmer down here has got to pay twice as much as the farmer in the North.

It may be argued that those things were desirable, that they were even necessary, but ask any sensible person, as far as the ending of Partition goes, what was the effect of any one of those things towards achieving that particular end. Leaving political acrobaties out of it entirely, leaving aside the political strife and the political tension that have been deliberately introduced down here in the last seven years, can the Taoiseach or any of his Ministers point to one practical step, even one, or one piece of legislation that would have the effect of bringing unity nearer or shortening the duration of Partition by as much as one minute?

I have enumerated a number of things that at least make the ending of Partition more distant. We have created an immense vested interest down here whose material outlook would be against the abolition of Partition. Now, it is all very well for any of us to go out and make cheap political speeches dealing with the matter of the national importance of a united country, but sincere people want something more than speeches. It is actions that impress people rather than speeches, but at the end of seven years under the men who had a plan, the plan boils down to this that "We will tell the world about it." The world heard of the Partition of this country before ever they heard the yells of the Fianna Fáil Party, and in spite of the world knowing of it ever since it was first effected, there was very little assistance from the world towards terminating it. No matter how we squeal to the rest of the world we would be giving greater evidence of sincerity, greater evidence of our detestation of Partition, if we made some little contribution ourselves, some little sacrifice, or some little practical step calculated to terminate Partition.

One of the most shameful things in a bad record of seven and a half years is, that the Government have exploited Partition and used Partition for selfish political purposes, but, behind the smoke-screen created by fiery speeches, practically every second action can only have the effect of making Partition more permanent than it appears to be now. We heard a fair statement from speakers on this bench and on my right with regard to the state of affairs existing at the moment, with regard to how much conditions in this country have been worsened in the last seven years. We heard a speech by Deputy Childers—a new and enthusiastic member of the Government Party—warning the Government as to where they are going and giving them 12 months to get on the correct road. Speeches of that kind have been made from these benches for six and seven years past. Seven years ago—six, even five years ago—there was a tendency on the Government Benches to scoff at that type of speech, to make a jeer out of any warning, to pour derision on the man who attempted to suggest that the path of the Government was the path of the rake. It is far more impressive now to have that coming from a Deputy of the Government Party, and it is particularly valuable that that particular declaration from that particular point of the compass should have been made in the presence of the Taoiseach on the Taoiseach's own Estimate. I would ask the Taoiseach to be more expansive in winding up this debate than he has been in opening it.

Mr. Davin

He did not say much.

Dr. O'Higgins

I would advise the Taoiseach to urge on his Ministers the advisability of being more expansive on their particular Votes and Bills, and I would warn the Taoiseach that, as he probably knows at the present moment, this country was never so near violent reaction against Government as it is at the present moment.

Mr. Dockrell

I would like to make a few remarks on this Vote, and would like to say at the outset that I was greatly disappointed that the Taoiseach did not see his way to make any explanation in introducing this Vote. We, on this side of the House, are left, unfortunately, in the position that we can only guess at what the opinion of the Government is on matters that they ought long ago to have made up their minds on. Now, the first point that apparently arises—and I do not know whether the Government have yet made up their minds about it or not—is our attitude in time of war. I take it that our people do not want to sacrifice their children to Moloch. We would like to get out of a war if we can do so and keep our self-respect. Nothing has been said from the Government Benches as to the moral issue in a time of war. I think that if war were threatened here this country ought to try to look at the moral aspect. I do not profess to look at it from any higher standard than any other Deputy in this House; but I merely mention that the question of whether a war would be right or wrong has apparently not entered officially and publicly into the Government's conclusion.

I would like to ask the Government if they have made up their minds that —no matter what it involves us in—we are going to supply Great Britain with food in time of war. I think, having regard to the figures of our trade, we would be left in the position that, involve what it might, we would have to supply food to Great Britain or leave it to rot here. That brings us to another matter which, in my opinion, is equally important. Where have we arranged for supplies of goods essential for our industries to come from in time of war? In this debate there seems to be a ghastly air of unreality hovering over the whole discussion, because certain things that are perfectly obvious have not been admitted.

I do not profess either to be a strategist, or to have any information which is not available to any Deputy, but I think it quite certain that, on the outbreak of a major European war, ships from any country other than Great Britain would largely disappear. Where are we going to get our essential supplies? I do not mean so much food as things like rubber, turpentine and various other things that come in via Great Britain. It seems to me that the Government ought to have made some calculation. I know they have made a calculation in respect of being anxious to see stocks of many essential commodities increased here, but I put it to the Taoiseach that apparently no provision has been made for the insurance of these goods against the air attack when they are here. The Taoiseach may argue that things are not going to be in great danger here, that this country is really a backwater and that we are quite safe, but if the Government, on the one hand, are urging people to hold bigger stocks and have not made up their minds as to how security for the trader against air attack is to be provided, on the other hand, it lends an air of unreality which I think the Taoiseach will agree requires to be dealt with. One has only to stand on one of the bridges and look at the ships arriving in the river and ask himself: "Are these all coming in for fun? Could they all be prevented and could we do without them?" to arrive at the conclusion that the major portion of these supplies would be essential in peace or in war.

In the last war, most people can remember that certificates were issued according to priority, but that only people for whom it was important to get supplies got them. If the British learned anything, we will find that what it took them months in the last war to make up their minds about, they will make up their minds about now in minutes, and that from the very outbreak of a major European war, unless this country has come to some bargain with somebody as to essential supplies, we will be starved industrially. I am not throwing cold water on what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has done in the way of promoting industries, but everybody engaged in industry knows that all one can hope for is to advance things by stages, and that the finished product of one trade is the raw material of another. There are hundreds and thousands of things in respect of which, from the outbreak of a major war, this country would be slowly starved into either making some bargain or exporting all its exportable man-power. There is another matter which lends itself to this air of unreality. I will merely refer in passing to the Air Raid Precautions Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Air Raid Precautions Bill is actually under way and should not be discussed. The Committee Stage of that Bill has been ordered for next week.

Mr. Dockrell

I merely want to say that the Government have suggested that the Dublin Corporation should prepare air raid precautions schemes. Surely the Government have a mind of their own? I accept your ruling, Sir, and I am not entering into any discussion on this matter. I merely say that apparently the Government do not know as much about war and warlike preparations as the Dublin Corporation, and I am not throwing any aspersions on the Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Cooney

Where is Deputy Belton?

Mr. Dockrell

I will conclude with the one remark that, in ancient times, everybody was fighting, and we have now reached the stage in which the position seems to be something like that, because somebody has said that people who may not be in the frontline trenches may well find that they are in the line of fire. Apparently, men, women and children, in modern warfare, may well find themselves in the line of fire, and I ask the Taoiseach to give us some line as to the Government policy on these essential matters: Are we going to send our food away; are we going to get our supplies in, or make the best bargain we can?

Mr. Esmonde

I want to raise one point which concerns the attitude of the Government towards the reception of foreign diplomatic representatives in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

It should have been raised on the Vote for External Affairs.

Mr. Esmonde

I think I can show you, Sir, that it comes under this Vote. Questions have been addressed to me on the subject, and that is the only reason I raise it. I do so, not so much in the spirit of criticism, as for the purpose of eliciting information. I am entirely in favour of anything that raises the status of this State, and which shows that it has a complete and separate independence of its own, dissociated from any other State, and therefore I consider that the reception of foreign representatives here is one of some importance as showing our position and status, both towards these representatives and as far as we ourselves are concerned. The question which has given me some difficulty is that, so far as I can make out, after the Napoleonic wars, and as a result of the Treaty of Vienna and the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, foreign diplomatic representatives were divided into three classes which, since then, international usage has adopted.

First of all you had the ambassadors and nuncios who were in the same class —legates or nuncios. You then had ministers and envoys accredited to the sovereign heads of the State. You had three classes. You had the resident minister and lastly you had the chargé d'affaires who was accredited not to the sovereign head of the State but to the Minister for External Affairs or whatever was the name of the Minister to whom he was sent.

During the past year or so we have had an official head of this State. We now have the President who came into being as a result of Article XIII of the Constitution which was enacted by the people. He is the first citizen of this State and one would naturally assume and be entitled to assume that when a Minister is accredited to the State from a foreign State he would present his credentials to the first citizen of the State—the President here. It was with considerable astonishment that I and a number of other people— in fact a great number of people who have taken an interest in the matter— saw that when a foreign representative was being received here it was not by the head of the State. He was received by the head of the Government —by the Minister for External Affairs, the Taoiseach. I think it is due to these foreign States with whom we have an international change of representatives that we should be told exactly where we are in a matter of this kind, and to assume that the status of the Minister who comes from a foreign State to this country is that of a Minister accredited to the sovereign head of this State. I suggest to the Government that the proper person to whom he should present his credentials and the person who should receive that Minister on his arrival here is the President and not the Prime Minister or Taoiseach, because I think it lowers our status and the status of the representatives coming in here if they are treated as chargés d'affaires only; and that appears to be the way they have been treated. It might be said that the Taoiseach in receiving Ministers from foreign States is receiving them as head of the Government—as Prime Minister.

I only rise on this Vote to try to elicit information as to whether the Ministers of foreign States are first of all being received as Ministers accredited to the head of the State or merely as chargés d'affaires and if they are received as Ministers accredited to the sovereign head of the State whether they should be received by the President or by the Minister as head of the Government or Minister for External Affairs.

The Taoiseach

I have a complaint to make on this occasion, similar to that which I had to make on two or three occasions of the same kind, namely, that a convention which had been more or less accepted here in the past has been departed from; that was a very useful arrangement, by which the Government would be told in advance what was the main subject of criticism. In that way an opportunity would be given to the Government to examine the details which might be expected to arise on such an occasion. That has been discontinued this year and for some years.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, I beg the Taoiseach's pardon. I, personally, was approached by the Chief Whip of the Government Party who asked me what were the particular matters to be raised, and my reply was that as far as we were concerned they would be economics and finance. Two-thirds of the points raised by me were economics and finance. We are not responsible for the Labour Party. I am sure that the Chief Whip of the Government Party will not deny that that was the information given him.

The Taoiseach

"Economics and finance" do not give much information as to what the chief points were to be. The Deputy might as well say Government policy, and Government policy covers almost every activity of this State. Is it to be expected that there could be anything like a reasonable debate, lasting over a reasonable time, in which we could treat such matters? These are questions, every one of them, which would deserve close debate, not wild statements, but close debate in which facts and figures would be adduced by the speakers in support of their arguments and not wild assertions. We have had raised to-day a series of questions, every one of which on account of its importance might justify a debate lasting a day or two. I do not say for a moment that we would not be better employed discussing these questions than dealing with many other matters that might arise here.

General Mulcahy

I take it this side of the House would be prepared to adjourn this Estimate and give the Taoiseach an opportunity of replying to the points raised.

The Taoiseach

That is not the point at all. The point is that I would have to speak for several hours to deal adequately with the points that have been raised, many of which could have been very well put down as Parliamentary questions and to which answers could be given. Let us try to have a survey of some of the things that have been raised here on this debate. First of all, there has been the suggestion that I should have given at the start, if I had followed the custom, a general outline of Government policy. That has never been the case so far as I know and I have been longer in the House than Deputy Dillon has been. The usual procedure has been that of having the Vote formally moved with, perhaps, a few remarks on the items of expenditure, explaining a reduction here and an increase there in the various items. It was left to the Opposition, in their criticism, to outline a particular subject from a particular angle.

To-day I have been accused, first of all quite wrongly, of departing from custom, and another complaint made was my absence from the House. I am always at the disposal of the House. There has never been a question addressed to me of which I have not myself personally taken charge. If a responsible Minister is here in charge of a Bill he represents Government policy. He puts Government policy before the House on that particular matter and he is quite competent to do it. The policy behind the measure has been discussed by the whole Government. He is the Minister responsible for the administration of the particular Department concerned with the Bill and he speaks on that matter with the voice of the Government. What would be the point of having two voices? If the House wants me at any particular time, they know very well that I am in a room here all the time while the House is in session.

There is no point in two people sitting down here, particularly when anybody interested in the debate has the Official Reports available to him. That being the case, there is no point in a second Minister sitting here doing nothing. If the Official Reports were not available for consultation there might be a point in the complaint made. If the Official Reports were not available it might make a difference, as possibly Government policy might be raised. But that is not the position. Every member of the Government who wants to know what has been said during a debate on any particular measure has only to go and get the reports on any particular matter in which he is interested. There is, therefore, no point in the criticism or complaint that I am not available for the House. I am always available.

With regard to the criticism about the introduction of the Vote, I say this is and always has been an occasion in which the Opposition has taken the lead in criticising Government policy. My main difficulty this evening has been that the debate has ranged over every possible topic of importance. If I were to give anything like a satisfactory answer to the questions raised, I would have to take a whole day after adequate preparation of the details, to answer even a small selection of the points raised.

The whole history of the past has been raised in the allegation that we have broken our promises. I deny that we have done so. According to custom, it is only what was done in the past year which should be under discussion, but I deny that we have broken promises made in the past. I claim that we have a record of achievement within the past seven years which is strictly in accord with our programme as published during the different elections. Our programme had political, social and economic aspects. We have worked out the political side of our programme to the point that, as I said in a recent speech referred to this evening, the big national objectives which still remain concern the ending of Partition and the restoration of the national language.

Mr. Davin

Why not unemployment?

The Taoiseach

That will be dealt with in its own place. The question of unemployment is part of the national work. Whatever Deputy Davin and others, who think only of the material side, may hold, it is the people with national ideals who made it possible for this Parliament to deal with unemployment and other matters. Our attitude has been that, in the work to be done by this Government or any other Government that may come to office, there are certain objectives which can be classified. I have been accustomed to classify them for many years and I shall repeat the classification. These objectives have political, social, economic and cultural aspects. I have said, with regard to the political and cultural aspects, that our programme has not been completed so far as the Irish language and the ending of Partition are concerned. Because I pointed out these as national objectives, it was stated this evening that I was trying to make Party capital out of them. I have never denied that there are people on the opposite benches as anxious for the restoration of the Irish language as I am. My great hope was that that was one of the things in respect of which there would be common agreement. We might not agree about methods but, so far as the objective was concerned, I took it that, if put to a vote, that was a thing on which we should have a larger majority than on anything else. I have said the same thing with regard to Partition. I have never denied that the ending of Partition is an objective about which members of the Opposition are as anxious as we are. That does not prevent me from having to say, as Head of the Government responsible for the settlement of national objectives, that the restoration of the Irish language and the ending of Partition form part of the objectives which this Government or any other Government which may come into office would seek to attain.

Before we got to that point, there were a number of other things to be done, things that were dividing our people, things on which those on the opposite benches had very different views from those which we held. I regard as a very great achievement, indeed, that we have been able to bring about a situation in which we have finished the quarrel with regard to certain other things and in which we have arrived at a common level with regard to the main national objectives. Again, we may differ about the means of achievement. We have removed the oath of allegiance. We have ended the position in which our Supreme Court was not supreme at all. We have ended a number of other things which created difficulties in the past between us and we have got to the point in which, as regards the main national political objectives, there is agreement. That was not possible until we had done the work which we have done during the last seven years. I do not want to go into that because there has been a very strong difference of opinion with regard to methods and with regard to the desirability of what has been done. But it is ridiculous to say that this Government has failed in its promises in that regard. The fact is that we have fulfilled every one of them. We have, in fact, gone farther than we said we would go. We have a Constitution which, admittedly, is an Irish Constitution, made by the Irish people themselves—submitted to and approved by the people. That does give us a basis for unity and united action which was quite impossible before. Why will people exaggerate to the extent of saying that the promises we have made have been set aside and broken?

Let me pass on to some of the other questions. It has been said here this evening that I said we had a plan for ending unemployment. I have nothing whatever to say against the speeches that have been made here to-night on that subject. I think that this is a most important and serious question. From the economic point of view, it is the principal question at the moment. I welcome at any time criticism of what the Government is doing, or not doing, or suggestions from anybody as to how the problem should be solved. Before we came into office, I have been reminded that I said there were 60,000 unemployed. That was the number mentioned here to-night. I have not had time to look the matter up and see if that is an accurate representation of what I said at the time. My own recollection is that we were able to point out that if we were able to build up industries which, we thought, ought to be established here, there would be employment in these industries in producing goods which we needed here, and which were being unnecessarily imported, for a greater number than the number of unemployed at the time. What do we find? We find that some 74,000 persons have been absorbed in employment. There are 74,000 more people employed now than there were when we came into office. If there were, at the time, unemployment to that extent, there is no doubt that what I pointed out then to be possible has been proved, in fact, to be possible. Somebody mentioned a figure of £6,000,000 which I gave at that time. The close approximation of these figures, given in anticipation to what has actually happened is remarkable. Deputies will find that production in industry has gone up from £18,000,000 to £25,000,000, roughly. There has been an increase in output to that amount, and increased employment has been given in industry to the amount I have indicated. It is true that, notwithstanding the figures of employment in the protected industries, which I pointed out as a cure for the then existing number of unemployed, we have an unemployment problem to-day. If we want to tackle that problem, we must know the facts. There is no use in quoting as comparable figures which are not comparable.

The figure of 106,000 or 107,000 was mentioned to-day: As a matter of fact, the present figure is about 93,000. Everybody knows that the basis of these figures is different from that which obtained when we were talking about 60,000. The figure of 60,000 was given before 1934, when the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed. Everybody knows that, under that Act, the State took responsibility for keeping a register of all persons out of employment or only partially employed, and that it includes classes that did not appear in any register before that at all.

Before we came into office, to a large extent, no note was taken of rural unemployment. It was only those who were entitled to unemployment insurance who were registered. There was no inducement to register under the old conditions at all. The number we have to-day reveals not only unemployment amongst wage-earners, as it used to, and those who were in insurable occupations, but it represents underemployment in a number of other ways, which were not revealed formerly. I am not saying for a moment that it is wrong to reveal these. I think it is right, but again let us face this problem as it is, and let us examine these figures exactly for what they are worth without exaggeration. It is said that we have no cure for it. I admit without any hesitation that we have not solved that problem, and the difficulty is that there is no country apparently that has been able to do it. We have here not exhausted all channels through which employment might be provided, because there is some £20,000,000 worth of goods coming into the country even yet which I think might be substituted by home-produced articles, and the substitution of which by home-produced articles would give more employment. I do, however, agree that we have skimmed the cream of the employment that is likely to be created through the development of industry here, but it is along these lines that you can get a satisfactory solution.

People tell us about productive employment being available if we use it. The Government has been looking in every direction for the productive employment to which these people can be put, but it is not there. It is not easy to get it. Where are these people to get it?

Mr. Hickey

Even housing.

The Taoiseach

As regards housing, the Deputy knows full well where the Government stands. If there is any Government that has a proud record in that matter, it is this Government. I think in the seven years we have been here, we have built roughly 100,000 houses.

Mr. Hickey

That is not saying much for those who went before you.

The Taoiseach

The fact is that it is being done as quickly as it is possible to do it.

Mr. Davin

It is held up at the moment.

The Taoiseach

We may be held up at the moment because there are a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Davin

What is the principal one?

The Taoiseach

One of the principal factors is the question of general organisation in order to deal with it. I have seen all the people who were interested in it. I personally interviewed a number of them and told them of our policy, that we expected that those particular individuals or groups who were going to benefit by our programme would make some contribution towards it.

Mr. Davin

Is money not your trouble?

The Taoiseach

As regards money, it is very easy to talk about money as if it could be turned out by printing presses. Just try the printing presses for a moment and you will see what will happen.

Mr. Hickey

There is no question of printing presses at all.

The Taoiseach

If Deputies want to have a full dress debate on the Banking Commission and the question of credit they can have it. Let them put down a motion to have a full-dress debate. We are quite prepared for it. That is the Government's business. We were courageous enough in the middle of a serious economic war, when our people were under a severe strain in order to get what was their right— something which we felt should not have been given away—to set up a Banking Commission—I think it was in 1934—to examine the whole position of national finance and economy. We did not pack it in either direction.

Mr. Davin

You put a few bankers on it.

The Taoiseach

We put people of all shades of opinion on it. We had representatives of Labour on it as well as others.

Mr. Davin

You had a few bankers.

The Taoiseach

The trouble about these things is that when you hear an exaggeration from one side and when you want to blow this exaggeration sky-high as it should be blown, you put yourself in a position in which you may be misrepresented by the other side. I believe in certain fundamental principles in regard to social economy and the regret I have in regard to the whole Banking Commission Report is that some of the questions which ought to have been put in for early discussion, were only put in at the end. Some of them should have been debated before that. Particular questions that were only knit on the last day of the commission should have been put in and knit earlier, and the result is that we have not got for the guidance of the Government, and definitely knit, issues which were raised between the Minority and the Majority Reports. We have got a Minority Report which, according to the chairman's report, was only put in at the last moment and which they did not have an opportunity of discussing. We have to knit the issue between these separate reports.

I want to say quite definitely, as far as Government policy is concerned, that the principles that were, for instance, enunciated in the third report are based on fundamental social principles which in general we accept. It is quite a different thing, however, to admit general principles and fundamental principles and to accept some particular scheme which is put forward and which is said to be in line with these principles—to accept that as a practical good solution. We have to deal with the matter from a practical point of view. If the Labour Party or any Deputy wants to have a full dress debate on social credit and the policy of the Government, we should like to have it too. We should like, of course, to have a certain amount of notice, but we shall get that if the motion is put on the Paper in the ordinary way. Let us hear in a close-knit debate all that is to be said in favour of it.

The fact is that I feel that these things have been put forward and statements like these have been made by people who do not seem to think that the Government have any responsibility and that it should go blindly ahead on this matter. These people talk wildly on what is one of the most difficult and serious subjects that one could talk about. That is the sort of thing that annoys anyone who tries to get a serious solution. That must not be taken as indicating that the fundamental social purposes which some of the people describe in the Minority Report are not our purposes. They are. We have stated that many a time. Many of the principles that have been set out in these reports have been stated by us time after time on public platforms as representing the viewpoint of the Government, on what the good of the community should consist in and as representing the viewpoint that animates our work.

Mr. Davin

Put them into operation then.

The Taoiseach

Let the Deputy put down a definite motion on the matter.

Mr. Davin

Will you give us Government time?

The Taoiseach

We shall give you Government time. I think it is high time that some of these questions were examined closely and not left in the vague condition in which they are at the moment. I have been led into this digression from the main line of the discussion because of this question about money. I do not want to spend the whole of the debate on that question, but I challenge the Deputy to put down a motion and we shall talk about money as closely as he wishes us to talk about it.

But the problems are problems of productive employment: of finding means of using the existing wealth in such a way that when it is used there is more after it has been used and not less. The difficulty is to get these means. Looking over these reports of various kinds in the complete report of the Banking Commission, I myself have been rather disappointed that the fact as to how these means are to be got has been glossed over. As well as I remember, we have been told about forestry. Since we came into office we have been trying to get as much land reafforested as it was practicable, and to make headway. We have made remarkable progress in that. We could have a very useful debate here on the whole question of reafforestation: as to how far it is practicable and as to how far it is economic. When I say how far it is practicable, I want to know what the difficulties are so that we may be able to let the people know the difficulties there are in acquiring suitable land: whether it is, or is not, a fallacy to think that you can plant the whole of the western seaboard, and whether those areas which some people think should be planted can, in fact, be planted, and whether, in fact, they will grow trees. I myself have been personally in contact with the expert who is directing reafforestation. His sole instructions are to try to find ways by which some of those areas will be planted. I know what his views on these things are. If anybody thinks that we should get other experts and obtain their views for confirmation of this we are quite prepared to do it. Our desire is as strong as that of anybody who mentions forestry here to acquire suitable land, and to reafforest as soon as possible. We think it would be a good economic proposition to reafforest suitable land.

We have been told again that there are questions like the question of the reclamation of land and of the bogs. We have put the development of peat as one of our policies. Various methods for the practical utilisation of peat have been considered. I may say that a remarkable development in that particular line has taken place. This is one of the things that I have been personally trying to push. I believe that as rapid progress has been made in that direction as is possible, having regard to the fact that there had to be at the start a good deal of experimentation. As far as the reclamation of land and of the bogs is concerned, it certainly does not seem to me to be a practical proposition to revert to some suggestion that may be found in the report of a commission that sat many, many years ago—some suggestion such as taking the high bogs and making them available for agricultural purposes. I think that would be a waste of our economic resources. Our aim is to use the bogs, in the first instance, for the fuel which they contain—to use the peat which is the source of power, and leave behind you, as much reclaimed land as you possibly can. The work in that way would have a double value.

We have been told about drainage. Everybody in the Board of Works knows perfectly well that I have been pressing for the development of drainage schemes since we came into office. As regards drainage, we know from past experience that it cannot be done in, a haphazard manner: that if you want good work in regard to drainage, and if you want to get real results, the work has to be done in accordance with a definite plan. In the first place, it has to be examined as an engineering proposition. There are quite a lot of difficulties to be considered as everybody who knows anything about drainage is aware. We have set up a commission precisely for that purpose. Yet, we are told that there is no question of planning of any kind.

These, as well as I remember, exhaust the examples of productive employment which we were told was available. I know of course, that we could increase the amenities for the whole community: that we could bring water supplies into villages, that we could have better sanitary accommodation in small towns and so on; but does anybody think that that is productive in the ordinary sense? It is not. It helps, if you like, to increase the amenities for the community, and as such it is a thing that ought to be undertaken if the resources of the community permit it. Are the resources of the community being used to their fullest extent at the moment? I do not want to say that they are. But what I do say is this, that the people who talk about these not being used ought to show us exactly in what way these resources are available.

We have been working within the system. I have said, on a previous occasion, that if we cannot, within the system, get a solution we will have to try without it. But I have never said, or suggested for one moment, that trying without it was not going to be a matter of considerable risk, and that anybody who attempted to do it would have to carefully consider what was going to be the result of his experiment because it would be an experiment. We have had experiments of this kind tried in various places. It is perhaps too soon to pass judgment upon them, but my own feeling in regard to these things is that fundamentally it is not merely a money matter. There is something else much more important than money, and that is the matter of organisation. I know that one often hears the argument "Oh, well, you cannot travel in a train if you have not got a ticket". If it is necessary for one to have a ticket to travel in a train, then certainly you must have the ticket in order to travel, but what good is a truck-load of tickets to you if the train is not there to take you? So that organisation is as necessary as money. If you are able to get the proper organisation, in my opinion the money would be forthcoming within the system. I may be wrong about that, but I have yet to come up against the situation in which I will find that the money is not available within the system.

Now, with regard to the amenities, there obviously is a limit to which we can go. Suppose that you liken the nation to a large family, and that this large family owns an estate. They cannot hope to last indefinitely if they spend their time simply beautifying the estate, in making avenues, fish-pools and all the rest of it. All that may improve the general appearance of the estate and make it more beautiful. It may add to the amenities of the estate, but they cannot last indefinitely unless there is some production out of which they are to be maintained. As I have said, I would rather deal with all these matters on a definite motion. I can only touch on them slightly in a general debate of this sort.

Coming back to unemployment, I admit frankly that it is a problem. I have not said that at the moment we have a solution for it, but I say that nobody else is going to show us a solution for it either. I believe that we all are anxious to attain the objective, to work in accordance with principles that we have enunciated many a time here, and some of which, for instance, find themselves in those minority reports. I believe that we are as anxious and are trying as hard to solve it as any other people could. If the people of this country are to be asked to decide between us and our method of doing it at any particular time and others, the usual opportunities will be afforded to the people, and the Labour Party if they have a solution that they can stand over are quite free to go and give it to the people. We, at any rate, will go as fast as we can go with safety. That is with reference to the criticisms from one side.

We then meet with criticisms from the other side because we have gone a certain distance in trying to give effect to our social ideals in regard to the right of the community to have certain amenities given to them. We, in common with the Opposition and the Labour Party, agreed here that it should be the national policy to try to secure work for everybody, or else that there should be maintenance. In regard to the maintenance, all the time, like the amenities—I do not want to suggest that getting necessary food is merely an amenity; it is not—the same sort of argument has been used against us, that we have not given to those who are unemployed as much as would be necessary to give them a decent standard. We can only plead that, even to the extent to which we have gone, we are putting a very heavy burden upon the community. Of course, with every step we go in that direction, we have people on the other side pointing out: "You are putting the country to such and such expense." The trouble here is that every individual, except those who are on the Government side and committed to a definite policy, can talk from his own angle in criticism. Those who want to criticise because certain things are not done can point out the things which have not been done. Those who want to criticise from the point of view of expense will tell us what has been the cost of doing the things we have done. There is no objection to the cost being considered if it is considered in relation to the things that have been done. Things cannot be done without cost. There are two sides to the account always. In regard to everything that the Government does, there will be two sides to it—the advantage to be gained from what has been done, and the disadvantage that will follow in the nature of costs to the community. The Government, as the main guardian of the common good, has to try to get the best balance it can. It has to balance the cost of the disadvantage and the cost of the advantage that is to be secured, and, having balanced the advantage and the disadvantage, to see whether it is, in their opinion, in the interests of the community that the disadvantage should be incurred and the advantage gained.

If people want to criticise Government policy properly, and if they want to talk of the increase in taxation, they must at the same time take account of the services that have been rendered to the community. They must take account of the disasters, perhaps, from which the community has been saved, and ask themselves whether in fact those advantages could have been got at a lesser cost. If they can show that, they are making a genuine argument. If they think only of the cost, and close their eyes to the advantages that have been gained, then they clearly are not arguing to the point at all. They are not arguing as they would argue if they themselves were members of the Government.

This debate, as I have said, has ranged over everything. I could spend an hour probably in replying merely to the questions which have been raised on the side of our external relations. Those, I should have imagined, could have been raised on a recent debate in which I was the same person, the same Minister. In those matters, when I am Minister for External Affairs, naturally I cannot dissociate myself from being also the Taoiseach and the Head of the Government. Those questions could have been raised quite properly at that particular time, and I could have spent much more time in answering them than I can now.

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach has an hour and five minutes.

The Taoiseach

I am afraid I will only have begun when the hour is over. There is other business. There is also the question that there are certain limits in people's power of listening, and certain limits to people's power of talking also.

Mr. Norton

We will stick it out.

The Taoiseach

Let us take a few of those questions which have been raised. I do not know whether it was Deputy Dillon—I think it was—who spoke about the passport as some gross deception of our people. I do not know how he makes that out. That passport is an expression of the fact that the Government, in accordance with the Constitution, is the responsible authority for external policy, and that in regard to it there is an External Relations Act which settles certain things. But if the Deputy only goes to the trouble of reading that particular Act he will see that the question of passports does not come in. In fact it is questionable, from the moment the Constitution was passed, whether the old form of the passport was legal at all, or in accordance with the Constitution at all. I know it can be argued the other way—that there is just a question of a doubt about it— but the existence of the passport in the other form was constantly used to misrepresent our real international position. If nothing else were to be gained but a clarification of the fact that external policy is a matter for the Government, that in accordance with the Constitution it is by or with the authority of the Government that external acts are done, and that the External Relations Act applies definitely to a restricted number of things, it is an advantage to have the passport in its new form.

It is not in an unusual form. It is in precisely the same form, for example, as the passport of the United States of America. The passport of the United States of America is issued in the name of the Secretary of State; it is not issued in the name of the President. Our passport, therefore, is quite in accordance with a recognised form. If it prevents misunderstanding, should it not be welcomed by everybody? I was very glad indeed to be able to put it in that form, and to put it in that form without any practical loss to our people. I am sure that the people who did not want the altered form, or a number of them, did want some of the advantages that we have at the present time in getting—in places where we have not our own representatives—assistance for our people from British representatives. If the people do not want that, the Government is free to use other methods. I think, instead of suggesting that it was some attempt to deceive the people, Deputies on the opposite side, if they were anxious to try to get a greater degree of unanimity of opinion here about various matters, would have welcomed it. They would have said: "That is another cause of disagreement amongst us, and misunderstanding here at home, gone." I was very glad on a previous occasion when every Deputy in the House, on a matter of vital importance to the country, supported the Government in the attitude it was taking. I was hoping that we might get rapidly to the time when—whatever criticism there might be of ways and means—in certain fundamental things there would be a general welcome of an advance which means unity here, and is of tremendous importance for the development of the country. So much for the passport.

The question of my visit to America was raised. I must say that I thought the speech which was made at the beginning was a very petty contribution indeed. It went on very petty, poor lines. Considering the big questions that had to be raised, it was petty to talk about the army of officials I was supposed to be taking to tour America. I was taking no army of officials with me, highly paid or otherwise. I was taking the minimum number that would do the work which I had intended they should do. The Deputy who spoke like that knows as well as I know the work that was to be done and that remained to be done by me in the United States. The larger section of the Irish race outside this country is in the United States. They were the section who helped us when we wanted help, and the section of all others on whom we can rely if we are in any difficulties to give us their moral, and if we should need— I hope we will not—their material support. Anybody who wanted to think fairly at all would realise why I was going to America and would see why every single official who was to go with me was chosen to accompany me. I was taking with me people who knew the United States, people who had previous experience of it and who had met our friends there. I knew perfectly well that if we were to have proper contact with our friends there on a short visit of that sort I could not be expected myself to establish all the particular contacts that had to be made.

I am asked why we were taking the Director of the Information Bureau. Then there was a ridiculous talk about the things the Information Bureau was supposed to do. The head of the Information Bureau, as the Deputy knows, is the chief contact we have with the Press, with the foreign as well as with the home Press. He is there to co-operate with the Press. But, if we have a hostile Press that tries to misuse the Information Bureau, because the Information Bureau will not give information that it is not in the public interest at the moment to give, it is abused. The head of the Information Bureau is the principal contact we have with the Press. It would be of tremendous importance for him to have met first-hand on a visit to the United States the Press people there. He has met some of them already here and to re-establish these contacts would be of great national advantage. In the United States, besides those I was going to meet directly and have personal contact with, or whom I might address at a public meeting, there were a number of others who would not be in the particular cities I would be visiting and who would only be got in touch with by the Press. Anyone who wanted fairly to criticise the Government and get an explanation why I was taking certain people would see very clearly why the Director of the Information Bureau should be one of the group.

As I say, the main purpose I had in the selection was to have those with me who would be able to complete the contacts which I personally could not hope to do in the short time at my disposal. I make no apology of any kind for the people who were to go with me. Neither do I make any apology from the national point of view for undertaking that visit or that tour. It was a tour which was to be undertaken in the national interest. Any Deputy who knows what was done in the past and who knows the help we got and the help we can expect to get if we are in any difficulties can appreciate full well why it was that that tour was going to be undertaken. The circumstances at the moment were of such a serious character that I was not able to go, but I hope to go in the autumn, and I hope to go as part of a definite Government policy with regard to establishing contacts with sections of our people who are outside this country. It was said that this Vote would have to be moved in my absence. Everybody knows that it would not have to be moved in my absence, as I hoped to be back before the session closes.

With regard to the functions of the Information Bureau, I think I explained them when it was being established. These functions have been continued. I sum them up mainly as being the principal contact between the Government and the Press, and, through the Press, the public, in regard to matters which formerly were dealt with by individual Departments with loss of time to the officials. Now we have it centralised so that any information which the Press want to get they can get it if it is in the public interest to give it. Sometimes it is not in the public interest, before a thing has matured and is ripe, to publish it. If there are negotiations with other people, if there are a number of things of that sort, whether internal or external things, which are not completed, sometimes it may not be in the public interest to give information before the time is ripe when it can be given profitably from a public point of view. As I have said, the points raised by the first speaker were of a petty character, things which could have been more properly asked in a Parliamentary question, and I do not think I should spend any more time on them.

Mr. Davin

When they were asked information was refused.

The Taoiseach

I never remember any question put to me as to which there was not clearly something which it would not be in the public interest to give——

Mr. Davin

That is a good excuse.

The Taoiseach

It is undoubtedly a good excuse. If I asked the Labour Party, for instance, when they would be in council about some particular matters, or dealing with some other group, to give an account of what they had in mind, or what they were doing about them, they might say that it was not in their interest to give it. The Government have an interest in the public welfare. We have to be the judges of whether the public welfare would be served by premature, communications or not. Some of the communications which have been given have been harmful because they were premature. It is an excuse that is very rarely given by me. In my whole seven years in office I can remember at the moment only one occasion on which I had to say definitely that it was not in the public interest to give information for which I was asked. As a matter of fact, I try to go to the utmost limits to give information to Deputies whom I regard as equally responsible with Ministers for the public welfare—perhaps not equally, because they have not immediate responsibility, but having a share in it and having a right to get information which would enable them to decide certain things they might have to decide—I am always sympathetic with that point of view and do try to give it. We do the same with the Press. But the Press are more or less the sleuth hounds who are all the time looking for some advance information. They want to know everything in advance, whether it is or is not in the public interest. Their interest is not the same as the public interest. Their interest is to get information of one kind or another, and the more sensational it is, and the more premature it is, the better from their point of view. We cannot, therefore, always satisfy the Press. They hear that something is going on. They add more than two and two—they add two and two and make five of it very often.

Mr. Davin

Would the public interest be prejudiced by giving to the House information in connection with the running of the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company?

The Taoiseach

I do not know the question to which the Deputy refers.

Mr. Davin

I was refused information about that.

The Taoiseach

I am talking about matters generally on this question of information. I, therefore, can pass no judgment on that at all. But I do assume, if it were asked in good faith, and if it was not given, there was some good public reason for its not being given.

Mr. Davin

Information of a similar nature was given to Deputy Dillon in 1936.

The Taoiseach

The information in 1936 and the information to-day may not be the same thing. This does not happen to be 1936. I cannot judge whether the point the Deputy mentioned was a good one or a bad one. I say that 1936 is not 1939. The position might be different from what it was in 1936. There may be other circumstances. The position is that I would want to know all the facts before committing myself to an opinion one way or the other.

In regard to external affairs, I was asked about another important matter, the answers of the British Government in regard to our Citizenship Act and in regard to their Act. I pointed out at a very early stage that as long as the British Government took the view, in accordance with their law, that they were taking, and that we took a different view, there was bound to be a clash in certain circumstances. There is a clash. In examining the question, it would be well for all concerned to see it clearly. We have the right to determine who are our citizens. As a recognised international right, we exercise that right in accordance with our Citizenship Act. I used rather harsh words, I think, when the Act was passed, in describing the attitude of any Government that would take it upon itself to regard our citizens other than as ours. I am not in a position to change British law. That does not mean that I accept British law. It does not mean that their decision is the right decision. There is a clash of views. We have made our protest, and that protest will be continued in regard to the fact that the British Government, under the title of "British subject", assumes to make their law applicable to our citizens. That is on the question of the way in which it is done. If, for instance, the British Government had passed a conscription law to apply to all people who were for a certain time resident in that country, I do not think we would have any particular grounds for complaint. If people go to any country and become resident there for a certain length of time, there may be differences of opinion as to what length of time would justify residence, and therefore identifying themselves with the community, but I think most people will admit, as a matter of common sense, that if people go to another community, live there for a considerable time, and identify themselves with that community, they cannot have it both ways. If they are getting the advantages of living, as members of that community, they cannot expect to escape the obligations. I want it to be clearly understood that, while there might be justification if the British passed an Act, applicable to all people resident there, whatever country they came from, and resident there for a particular period, and said that they were going to conscript these people, we might have differences of opinion, and negotiations and consultations as regards the length of time. But that is not the position. The position is that they have assumed to claim these as British subjects. We have made our protest in that regards, and I want clearly to have our protest distinguished from what our protest would be, and what our case would be, had they proceeded on different lines. If they said of people ordinarily resident for a certain period, no matter where they came from, that they claimed the right to make them undertake the obligations of citizens, when they accepted the advantages of citizens, we could understand that. But the difficulty is of a different type. The difficulty is the question whether the Act, which is restricted in its application to British subjects, should be binding under that title on our people. We claim that it should not.

Deputy Norton was anxious that we should make other nations understand our position in that regard. I should like to point out that these countries have their Ministers here. We are responsible for our laws, and if there is any question of our citizens being at any time involved it is we who make the representations. For example, there was the case last September that Deputy Norton mentioned. The position is that we would immediately make representations that these people were clearly our citizens. If we were able to prove that they were our citizens, had any attempt been made to retain them, we would have made representations immediately. I do not think other countries would worry at the present moment. Except they took steps for some other purpose they are not going to take steps in that matter. In a case of that kind we would rely on our international position as we see it. The Deputy seems to think there is some court to which we could appeal to settle a question of that kind. Unfortunately there is not.

Mr. Norton

I know that there is no actual court there.

The Taoiseach

There is no way that I can see. That reminds me of suggestions that were made formerly about trying to bring the question of Partition to the League of Nations. There are certain questions that the League of Nations will refuse to deal with. They have enough problems which definitely and clearly come within their scope, but it would be extremely difficult to get them to deal with that. In regards to matters of that kind, there is no use trying to move unless you can see your way to success, and get your cases properly brought forward. It is not enough to say that there is a case if you cannot get them to deal with it. Consequently, I do not think there is any solution along these particular lines. You would have to get the agreement of both parties, probably, to allow it to be brought forward. There is no international court able to enforce its will on two international States if there is disagreement, or if one appears and the other refuses to appear. There is no way that an international court can impose its decision, and, therefore, it is vain to try in matters like that to begin in that particular way. We have to try another way.

Those who were interested in the Citizenship Act know that because of the privileges and advantages our people got by being treated in Britain without discrimination between them and citizens of Britain, we have provisions by which there are mutual reciprocal concessions. It is along lines of reciprocal concessions of that kind we have to deal with this question. We cannot expect to have it both ways, any more than we will not allow others to have it both ways. The only way you can have an arrangements is to have an international agreement on the lines of reciprocal arrangements. If they give advantages which we consider are useful to our citizens, we can give reciprocal advantages of a similar type. That is the line on which we are trying to solve the question.

The next question, more or less international, was the whole question of defence. I cannot hope to deal with that here as part of several questions. On a previous occasion I spoke on defence, and the Minister for Defence on more than one occasion dealt with the subject. However, the statement made by Deputy O'Higgins was a very serious one. He raised a question of principle, and raised a question of importance and of practical bearing.

In regard to principle, I do not agree with him at all. I cannot imagine an army of a State being built up on the basis that the soldiers were to be told in advance what particular use was going to be made of them. I think that would be impossible. It is quite impossible to foresee clearly what are the circumstances under which a State might have to use its army. I think that foolishness is behind a lot of the difficulty which has arisen here with regard to the Government's attitude. There are people prepared now, in advance of the circumstances in which an outbreak might take place, to say what the national attitude should be. I have indicated what the Government policy will be, and that is that we will try, in so far as it is possible—the aim of all our policy will be—to keep this country out of a war, to save this country, if we can, the horrors of being in a war.

Once we are clear about that, that that is to be genuinely the aim of our policy, we have to go into it and consider a number of other matters around it. But, before I talk in this connection—and now that the matter has been raised, I suppose I had better deal with it—I want to talk about the general principle on which the Army is based. The Army is the instrument of the Executive, and the Executive is subordinate to the national control in connection with all questions of the use of the Army. Is that clear? That is what it is, and what it must be. If you tell any members of the Army that they are enlisted for this, that or the other purpose, then you are going to make the Army, sections of the Army, the people who are going to determine whether or not they will allow themselves to be used as an army. That is clearly putting the Army above the civil authority.

Any army, whether it be a volunteer or a regular army, must be the servant of the Executive, just as the Executive is the servant in a representative assembly of this sort—the servant of the Parliament as a whole. This Government cannot have any policy which will not have the approval of the majority of the elected representatives of the people. If we are clear upon that basis, we can talk about other things, but I desire that we should be clear upon that. If we are asking for recruits to join the Army, it must be clear that they become soldiers when they join and that they are there to carry out the orders given to them by their legitimate authorities in regard to any defence that there may be of national interests.

I think Deputy O'Higgins, by his talk, is helping to create a tremendous amount of confusion in the country on that particular head. Nobody should join—and I believe the people have a duty to join—with the idea that he will be used for this, that or the other purpose, because then you would have a purely sectional army and you would have an army that was not at the disposal, as it must be, of the Executive, in the defence of national interests in accordance with the judgment of the Executive, which itself has to submit its policy and judgment to the Parliament as a whole. I hope, then, that everybody in the Army itself, and outside the Army, will remember that in this matter they are not the judges. The judges of how the Army is to be used are the members of the national Parliament, and that is so in accordance with the Constitution, and it is in accordance with the general practice wherever we have really representative government.

A soldier cannot determine for himself what is the particular type of action in which he will engaged and what is the particular cause that he will defend. In general, he surrenders his will in that regard to the Parliament and the Executive. As an individual, there are certain moral questions which arise which a man can determine at his own risk from the disciplinary point of view. But he will run a very big risk. There are certain questions from a moral point of view in which he has to be the judge and master, in which, according to his own conscience, he has to be the judge and master. If he was asked to do something against which his conscience directed him, he would do it at his own personal risk. It would be quite impossible to have an organised army, to defend the national interests, at the disposal of an Executive, if each individual were to have the right to be the judge of what particular cause he would or would not engage in.

It seems to me that the views put forward by Deputy O'Higgins, in so far as I understand them in that regard, are completely disruptive and would make any sort of real army impossible in any country. With regard to the rumours that he says are going around, I do not know whether they are or not. But if he says we are asking people to join because we want to use the Army against the North, there is no ground whatever for that suggestion. I think the attitude of the Government in regard to the application of coercion, as far as any section of our people in the North are concerned, has been stated for many a long year and we have never departed from that position. Our trouble with regard to Partition is that there is at this moment a coercion which is not justifiable, a coercion of a certain section of our people, and we claim that, in regard to these people, by no right whatever should they be coerced. We claim that they are coerced and held against their will by a small minority of people in an area to which they do not want to belong. I do not want to go into the whole aspect of Partition here again. I have already done so in the Seanad, and what I have said on that occasion I stand by, and if any Deputy wants to know my views, they are there to be read.

With regard to any definite and immediate plan, if you rule force out of it, I think there would be no plan, because I have the same views as to what would be the result, finally, as the Deputies on the opposite benches have. But if you talk of any particular and immediate plan, I do not think anybody can point definitely to a plan that will inevitably produce this result. We have done many things in our time— I mean many things were done in the time of members on the opposite benches as well as here—but a definite plan that could make certain of ensuring results could not be pointed to. You had to move in a certain direction, taking advantage of certain circumstances that arose, to advance you along the line you wanted to go. Deputies opposite say that some of our actions put us backward rather than forward. That is a question on which we will agree to differ. Our plan has been to try to get issues, on which we were divided here, removed, on the political side, as quickly and as far as possible, and we have done that very largely, and we have almost isolated this as being the specially remaining political objective.

We think this can be said, that we have a common objective, that there is nobody arguing that it should not come about. We may argue as to whether the steps we are taking will advance or retard the day we all hope for. We have done this, we have put this as the supreme objective before the Irish people, whether they are here or in any other part of the world, in other places abroad where prejudices that have been fostered are not as strong as they are here, immediately at home, in the northern area particularly. We hope that these will be of help to us, in breaking down the prejudices that exist here. The fact that old Unionists abroad are proud of Ireland is going to be a great help to us in breaking down these prejudices. They are anxious to see the Irish nation figuring as largely as possible in the world. I am talking of those living abroad, who were in the past associated with what used to be the Unionist element, but what is now, unfortunately, the partitionist element. Everyone of them has an interest and a pride in this nation as a whole and they know that, with any division, that pride which they can take in this country and its achievements cannot be as great as if we had a united Ireland.

I have never held out undue hopes, and I think Deputy Dillon was wrong in that, and misrepresented me—and it was not the first time that I called his attention to the fact that he was misrepresenting me. He said that I held out hopes to the people at the time of the British Agreement, hopes which I knew could not be fulfilled. I was most careful at the time not to do anything of the kind. I wanted the British people and the British Government to realise that this was a fundamental issue as far as the relations between the two countries were concerned. I had to put it in the forefront because, in fact, it was the most important issue that was dividing the countries. How was I going to do it? Was I to keep silent about it? Because I put it in its proper place, some people misrepresented my attitude and suggested that I had put it there in order to hold out false hopes to the people in the North that I knew could not be fulfilled. I said that I would make no agreement if that agreement was going to retard the unification of the country, and, we accepted agreement because we believed that it did not retard the unification of the country. It is quite false, however—I do not want to use any stronger words—to suggest that, because I put that in the forefront as one of the things that was an issue between Great Britain and ourselves— the most important issue, as it was— I was holding out, by doing so, hopes to the people of the North that there was going to be an ending of that question. I was trying to do my best to make it an issue, if I could, and to get it settled, if I could; and I think that the British Government were very foolish in neglecting it and not giving it the prominence it deserved instead of more or less avoiding it, because as long as the issue remains it shall be the duty of Governments here and the interests of the people here to bring about a settlement of that issue and to see that any possibilities of doing so will not be neglected.

I do not think I should go into the question of Partition any further, but I did touch on the question of defence, and I think I should continue on with it a little bit further. I tried to point out what an army has to be and to point out that the members of an army —those who join an army—must surrender their right to judge as to what cause they should fight for. Now, there will be people who will say: "Oh, well, then, we will do our best to prevent people from joining an army for national defence on that basis; we will tell them that, unless the Government is going, in advance of all the circumstances that may arise, to tell them exactly in what particular manner they are going to be used, they should not join." As I have said, if the Government were to do so, and if circumstances came around that they had not anticipated, and a world war took place—of course, some people may think that they can judge of these things in advance, but I do not claim that clairvoyance and certainly will not claim to say what may be the circumstances connected with a world war of that magnitude—the Government policy and aim will be to try to keep this nation out of war, if it can. It would be all a simple matter if our will were going to determine the matter and if what we want to do in connection with defence were going to settle the matter once and for all, but everybody knows that neutrality is effective only if you have the power to defend it: if you are strong enough, in other words, to prevent anybody interfering with you or to prevent anybody from making you side with them rather than with somebody else. The difficulites of that situation can be seen by anybody who has studied the last war and considered the position of the smaller countries in the north of Europe, when each of the two contending parties in such a war, as in the last war, will be striving to use all the resources, or the armies, if you like, of the neutral countries and trying their best to get the neutral countries on their side.

Again, with regard to the rumours, I have said that there is no justification whatever for the rumour that this Army is being recruited with a view to engaging against our people in the North. There is no basis whatever for that suggestion. The main purpose, and the only purpose—the comprehensive purpose, I meant to say—for which the Army is being recruited is for national defence, defence of this nation's right to maintain whatever policy the nation decides to be in its own interests. That is what the Army must be recruited for, and for nothing else. Deputy O'Higgins says that he wants to recruit an army to be used against the Axis Powers. I say that our Army should not be used against the Axis Powers unless they attack us. If they did attacks us and interfere with us and our liberty of action, then we would have to defend ourselves and, under these circumstances, there would be action by our Army against whatever nation might attack us to that extent. Is there any other direction in which they could possibly be used? I say that they are there as a protection to this State, so that the State will not be involved in a war in which it does not want to be involved, in so far as our added strength would enable us to keep out of war and enable us to prevent our being used in a way in which we do not want to be used— again, in so far as our strength would make that effective.

Now, with regard to goods or trade, I think it was Deputy Dockrell who mentioned the question of whether we are going to continue our trade with Great Britain in the case of a war. My view is that that trade is essential for the life of this nation—absolutely essential. Deputy Dockrell pointed out that the cattle we sell to England would have to be killed off or destroyed if there were a war, if that was not undertaken as a war measure. That trade is our ordinary mode of trade, and whatever Powers might be at war with Great Britain might hold that that trade would be detrimental to their hopes of winning. The Central Powers have been mentioned, but I prefer in these discussions, as far as possible, not to mention particular countries. However, if it were held by say, Great Britain, that the continuances of our trade with some other country was detrimental to their hopes of winning the war, it is possible that they might try to stop it; but that trade is our life, our economic life at the moment, and we would insist on our right, in the first place, of sending out these goods that are necessary for the continuances of our economic life, and we would try, naturally, to have a bargain so that the goods which we need, in return for the goods we send out, would be got in the only way in which they are being got at present, which is mainly through Great Britain, that is, the supplies of certain raw materials and so on.

Dr. Hannigan

In those circumstances, how is it proposed to maintain our neutrality?

The Taoiseach

I shall discuss that. Give me time and I shall come to that in a moment. I say—and I made it quite clear on the first occassion on which I spoke on the subject—that that was a thing we would have to do. We are not going to be the people who are to determine whether or not that can be done. It is not we who will be responsible for determining whether we are to be permitted to do that. Clearly the British will not object to it. At least, I do not think they are likely to. Those who might be at war with Great Britain might object to it. We hold, however, that it is essential to our life, our economic life, and that the hardship that would be caused to our community by anything that would stop it would be so great that we would have to resist and continue it. If that is made an issue we will have to defend our right, that is all.

Dr. Hannigan

Is the Taoiseach aware of the fact that the supply of food to Great Britain in the event of that country being at war with another European power would be interpreted as an unfriendly act?

The Taoiseach

Why is the Deputy so sure of that?

Dr. Hannigan

I am quite sure of it.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy is quite certain. Any other Deputy in the House can take any view of his own and déan deimhin dá thuairim fhéin— make certain of his own opinion. His opinion is only his own opinion. It is possible that the Deputy may be right but what we want to do is, by having as strong a force here as we can, to make it unprofitable for an enemy to try to interfere with our right in that regard. They may regard it as an unfriendly act, but it is not in fact an unfriendly act. It is the continuing of what, in the circumstances of the location of our country and the conditions of our economics, is a necessity of our life. It is we who would have the grievance, not they. The fact that some people on the globe may be at a disadvantage to other people is no reason why those people should be wiped out. Consequently, as far as we are concerned, we intend to regard the maintenance of these things, which are necessary for the continuance of our life here, as normal trading relations, which have taken place in peace time and which, as far as we are concerned, would have to be continued in war. If any other power chooses to quarrel with us on that basis we will have to do the best we can to defend ourselves on that issue. You have to put yourself in the position of another power in a case like that and any power which is going to think of that will have to balance the pros and cons and, if they think the advantage would not be worth while they may not do what the Deputy suggests, but we have to put ourselves in a position in which we are best able to defend our right.

I believe in talking very frankly and freely and I have never hesitated to talk frankly on this matter. At the very first time it was mentioned I pointed out that some people have got the foolish notion that merely declaring your position of neutrality will preserve it. That is a foolish notion. You must be able to preserve it and put yourself into a position in which it will not be of advantage to the enemy to interfere and try to compel you to change it. It is for the general defence of the national interest, to put the nation in as strong a position as possible to maintain its right, that we want to have our Army as strong as we can make it, in accordance with our resources.

I do not know if there is any other aspect of the question that I have to deal with. The point is that I am not going and the Government are not going and no sensible body of people with responsibility, in a time like this, are going in ahead of time to anticipate and say that, under all sets of circumstances we are going to do so and so. That would be ridiculous. It would be dishonest because, as a matter of fact, you cannot determine in advance of all the circumstances what it would be in the national interest to do. We are here to safeguard the national interest at every period of time at which we are in office and we have to give account of our stewardship to the majority of the House. I hope that it will be clear to everybody here and to any people who may read what I am saying what the Government attitude is in regard to this whole matter. Our aim would be to keep this country out of war if we can and our chance would be improved the stronger we are to maintain the position we would regard as our right. That ought to be clear, I think, to everybody. It has been said that the most we can do would not be sufficient. It is an old argument to do nothing because you cannot guarantee that all you can do would be effective. The truth is, of course, that if there should be big hosts arrayed against each other—I hope there will not—but if there should be, in comparison with any one of those, our strength would be a small matter. But, the two hosts will not be against us—that we can hope for at any rate.

Mr. Dillon

I hope not.

Mr. Gorey

We would have no chance against that.

The Taoiseach

One of them would be against the other, to a certain extent neutralising each other. They will want all they can get for their own hostings and I do not think any of them would be particularly interested in detaching a body of men that would be able to deal with a small force here. Therefore, there is good commonsense reasoning why we should ask the people of this country to undertake the obligations for defence which every other nation in the world has to undertake. My chief criticism of the Opposition—I am not talking about other criticisms outside—is that they are making it difficult for the nation to get at this particular time the forces that may be absolutely necessary if we are to maintain that which we have secured at a very great cost.

Mr. Dillon

What is the Opposition doing to embarrass you?

The Taoiseach

I do not think for instance, that the speech of Deputy O'Higgins was particularly helpful in that regard. I think that speech will raise confusion as to what are the obligations of a soldier when he enters in an army. He preached a doctrine which would not allow any army to be built up anywhere. That was not helpful. I do admit that when he said at one particular point that he was raising this matter to give me an opportunity to dispel the doubt he was doing useful service.

Mr. Dillon

I was involved with the Minister for Defence in intending to lead an attack on Ulster behind the Prime Minister's back. However, I take it the Minister for Defence denies it?

The Taoiseach

The point is that the Minister need not deny any silly allegation of that sort. It is like Deputy Norton asking us to go and tell other Governments this, that and the other thing when the other Governments know. They well know our position, and if they take any action which would be contrary to the position as we state it, they will do so because they want to take up an unfriendly attitude against us or to ingratiate themselves with other people and adopt a friendly attitude towards some other power.

Mr. Dillon

All the best recruits you got are supporters of ours. Most of those who were supporters of yours had to be thrown out.

The Taoiseach

That is in line with the Deputy's other wild assertions. The point is that some people listening to Deputy O'Higgins and the appeal he made would get it into their heads that he wanted to have all the Army with a particular viewpoint, which happens to be the Opposition viewpoint. That might be a serious matter too, you see. When views like that are put forward one ought to look and see what would be the consequence of anything of that kind. I would not like to see a partisan army here. I would not like to see an army established here that would consider that it had duties if one set of people were in power and did not have duties if another set of people were in power.

Mr. Davin

We had too many of them.

The Taoiseach

At any rate, the point is that there ought to be no doubt now of the basis on which an army should be recruited here at the present day.

Mr. Dillon

Nor is there any doubt.

The Taoiseach

I hope not.

Mr. Dillon

It is on the basis of unqualified obedience to the elected Government whatever that Government may be.

The Taoiseach

I know Deputy Dillon has that view.

Mr. Dillon

And I vouch for all my colleagues.

The Taoiseach

I am accepting that, too. As a matter of fact, it was proved. One of the best things and one of the things that will stand out in the history of this country is the fact that when there was what would appear to be a revolutionary change of government here, such as probably has not happened in any other country in the world, there was not a question from the moment we got into office of the loyalty and obedience of the Army— there were rumours and distrubing rumours for perhaps the first week or so of office—but there was no question of the loyalty and obedience of the Army. I think it is a thing that we as a nation can be proud of from the point of view of representative government, and I hope it will be that way and continue to be that way no matter who is in office. Now, I do not know whether I have dealt with all the points that have been raised or not, because I have had to run from one point to another according as they were raised. I do not know how many other points I have left untouched. I was trying to distinguish between the external matters and the internal matters. On the internal side I am quite willing to admit that the serious problem which we have got to face is the problem of unemployment. That is easily the foremost and most important problem.

Mr. Curran

What about the farmers?

The Taoiseach

With regard to the farmers, the position which they are in and the position of the unemployed are not the same. I do not think that the Deputy will contend for one moment that the average farmer— there may be occasionally cases of very grave hardship—is, or ought to be, an immediate care of the Government, except in so far as his general prosperity is concerned. The more important problem, to which the Government must lend its attention, is that of ending unemployment.

Mr. Curran

And that is the root of it.

The Taoiseach

That, again, is only a partial statement.

Mr. Curran

I am only just making the suggestion to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I do not forget that. The Government, until it has the solution for a problem, does not come and tell of its anxiety and of the efforts made to solve the problem before the actual solution is put before Parliament. The fact that a solution has not sometimes been produced is not to be taken as an indication that the Government is careless about these things. It is not careless. With regard to our agricultural industry, all we want to claim is that, in relieving the agricultural industry of its share of the big burden which was pressing upon the community as a whole—of which the agricultural community is a part—and which was particularly affecting the farmers of this country, the burden of £5,000,000 per year—or at least the £3,000,000 which was the real burden on the farmers—we have given a great relief to the farming community, a relief which has gone into every single farm and which was probably the best form of immediate relief that might be given. If there is any way in which we can stimulate production in agriculture, we will do it. That is the business of the Department of Agriculture and it is at it every day. But, you cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Curran

What about the losses of the farmers over the past six or seven years?

The Taoiseach

The community and the farmers would have been losing £5,000,000 a year if the previous Government were in office.

A Deputy

Look at the statistics.

The Taoiseach

Statistics alone do not prove anything. Are you going to say that that fight should not have been fought; are you going to say that we should have continued paying the £5,000,000 per year, not only over the last few years but for the next 60 or 70 years? Do you think we would have been relieved of that if we had not fought for it, and if we had been beaten in the fight it was goodbye to any chance of having a fiscal policy of our own. We cannot have it both ways.

There are Deputies in this House who want to have it both ways. They want social services and do not want to pay for them; they want works of national importance and do not want to pay for them; they want industries established and do not want to pay for them. They complain of the increased cost of living, of the increased cost of certain articles because we are protecting those industries here and are giving employment. If we had opened the gates and allowed the wholesale dumping of products of other countries, every industry in this country would have been ended. We are in a better position now with regard to flour milling and a host of other industries; but if Deputies on the other side of the House want to open the gates and want to have a free trade policy, let them have it: we do not stand for it. If the majority of the people stand for the policy of the big ranch in which modern farming is carried on with tractors, the big ranch with its herds of cattle and herdsman, people who have capital will be able to buy cattle and get a quicker turnover. But that policy, as it was the policy in the past, did not bring any good fruits. We have heard many people talking about that policy and showing the difference in the present situation to what it was in the past and how that policy brought destruction to our nation. If people think that we must concentrate only on trying to compete in foreign markets, if they are thinking only of raising cattle. I say that the present population of this country cannot be maintained in that way, and if there is a reduction in population it will be the fault of that policy. I say you cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Keating

I say that the farmers did not get it either way.

The Taoiseach

I am willing to admit—and have admitted before— that the present economic state of the farmers could be better. From the point of view of prices they are not getting the best of it, but they are not getting the worst of it. There is a depression in the agricultural industry all over the world.

Mr. Keating

Not at all; I do not agree with that.

The Taoiseach

Then let the Deputy look at the state of affairs in America, for example. Deputies who are talking like that clearly know nothing about it. The fact is—and it is an incontrovertible fact—that we have here in this country, taking it as a whole, from the point of view of the world to-day, one of the communities which is best situated in the world: I was going to say one of the most prosperous, but I do not care to use so strong a word. Yet we have been listening to the jeremiads that we have heard from Deputy Dillon and the rest. In this country for the last seven years, when we have been trying to save this money for the people, they were trying to break the will of the people by those jeremiads.

The farmer got, as a result of our policy, £9,000,000 for wheat during that period, the stabilisation of prices gave him £5,000,000, and in regard to beet there was, I think, over £7,000,000. Deputies have made no allowance for that, nor for the help that the farmers have received in the remission of the land annuities. If they think that they can have a paradise on earth I say we cannot do it and we have not pretended that we could do it. As compared with the problem of the unemployed, the farmers' problem—while it is serious—is not the most urgent.

Mr. Keating

How many votes do you expect by that?

The Taoiseach

Those who want to get votes can do so. With regard to the farming community, it is the principal productive industry of this country and is of supreme importance. I am not denying that. I am talking about the urgency of certain problems, and the one at present engaging the Government's attention—the most urgent and most vital—is the question of unemployment.

With regard to emigration, I do not think that anybody here will contend —if he is fair—that, if you have an exceptional position in a neighbouring country where attractive wages are being offered for attractive work, you can stop that sort of emigration. You cannot. There is an abnormal position in certain directions on account of the British desire to build up their armaments, and there is an abnormal demand being met by offering high wages.

Mr. Dillon

You used not to say that about the American emigration.

The Taoiseach

That is true, because I do not think the American situation was quite the same.

Mr. Dillon

It was a damn sight more attractive than England.

The Taoiseach

Most people who went to America went to stay. They broke entirely with this country and had the idea in their minds that they were going for ever. The Deputy knows the scenes which took place at the trains when young people were leaving their parents and going to America. Those were sad scenes. I say, however, that they are not being duplicated to-day. Why? Because the circumstances are different. They do not now feel that they are going away for all time, they are going only for a temporary period and they are being attracted only for a temporary period. It may happen that, when they get into their new surroundings and begin to establish themselves there, they may continue there; but the fact is, that the circumstances are of a different kind and of a different character from those which obtained in the case of the old emigration to the United States. I do not want to make a big point of this, because I know it may be argued that there were a good many features of similarity.

I see that it is now half-past-ten and the question is whether we will take the Vote or not. I think it would be better to end and let the Vote be taken. I am prepared at any time to deal with any of the matters that have been raised.

Motion to refer back withdrawn.

Vote put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 40.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William J.
• Broderick, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Little and Smith; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Estimate Resolutions reported and agreed to.

Excess Vote Resolution reported and agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 15th.