I understand that the Dáil is to adjourn until 17th November. That is, as I think will be admitted by everybody, a very long period of recess. I do not know if it is the longest on record in the last 16 or 20 years.
Adjournment Debate.
Mr. de Valera
I think it is about the same as last year. I think we adjourned last year from July to October.
Mr. de Valera
Is that so? I did not think there was any adjournment of that length. Certainly the Adjournment that took place when we first came into office was considerably shorter. I am not, however, going to find fault with the Government for proposing that delay because I think that the Government, considering the manner of its composition, will require that length of time to adjust the differences that must exist between the various elements of the Government if we are at all to believe their professions when they were before the electorate.
Some time ago when a question was asked with regard to the Government's programme, reference was made to the "ten points". I have these points here in front of me as they were published in the newspaper. All I can see in the majority of them is just pious aspirations. The Government say that they are going to seek to implement increased agricultural and industrial production. I do not think there is anybody in this country who would not agree on that as an objective and as a purpose. When I see something like that it reminds me of Poor Richard saying about being "healthy, wealthy and wise". We all undoubtedly agree that that is an aim, the achievement of which would merit an effort, but even Poor Richard suggested a method by which it was going to be done.
I think we are entitled to demand from the Government that they should show us precisely how they intend to implement this particular objective of increased production. It is by that that we are going to judge them, by the methods that they are going to adopt to bring about this increase in agricultural and industrial production. We hope that the period of the Recess will give them time to settle down to that problem. They are no longer in the position in which they could claim to have been for some time past, just getting to know their Departments. They have behind them a body of welltrained civil servants, men who have been engaged in trying to get the facts of a situation on which decisions have to be made. For a number of years past we were trying to look ahead to the position that would arise when the war terminated and to have, as far as possible, plans ready for meeting the situations that would arise. All that material is ready for the Government. A number of White Papers, as Deputies know, have already been published. The Government have all the information on which decisions have to be taken. We are entitled to expect that when the Dáil reassembles after the Recess we will have something more than mere objectives in front of us, that we will have a reasonably detailed plan as to what exactly the Government propose to do.
With regard to production, both agricultural and industrial, there is the question of deciding what is the type of production we are going to have, what is the policy that will be pursued in the main. Are we to proceed, for instance, in agriculture on the old beef policy and, if we do, how will it fit in with the ideal of trying to maintain as high a rural population as possible and how far will it fit in with what has been accepted generally as the best type for us to follow—the general idea of mixed farming? What steps will be taken in view of the fact that high prices are almost certain to prevail for meat? How are we going to see that that does not result in a relative depression of our dairying industry, and what steps do the Government intend to take so that what is the fundamental part, and what must remain the fundamental part, of our agricultural industry is properly preserved?
Most of the problems with which the Government will have to deal, as was pointed out already by a speaker in the course of debates here, will be the question of a very nice balance and a sure judgment as to what particular line should be pursued. During our whole period as a political Party, Fianna Fáil has held—and we hold by it as strongly to-day as at any time previously—that the main aim of our agriculture, its first aim, should be to supply the home market with the food for our own people and to try to supply that at such prices as will make it possible for the community to purchase it. That can only be done by efficient production. We want, then, to see whether the present Government agree with that view and what steps they propose to take so that that aim will be properly achieved.
We have, of course, to have exports to purchase the necessary imports. What particular commodities are we to rely on for that purpose? If we are to have exports of an agricultural type it is desirable to get for them the highest possible price, but in achieving that highest possible price we may very well have the situation indicated by the Taoiseach, when he was speaking this morning, that if you rely, for instance, on beef exports and if you get the highest price that is obtainable for those exports, you may create a situation here in which you will have very severe hardships imposed on a very large section of the community through inability to pay the ruling high prices.
What steps do the Government propose to take in order to achieve, if possible, the two aims, to get the highest price that is desirable from the point of view of the export—getting for it the highest return we can get in goods— and at the same time to see that our own people, in times when very high prices can be got for that produce abroad, will not suffer? On the other hand, we should like to know the steps that will be taken to deal with the dairying situation. These are things about which we would expect, when the Government come back after the Recess, they will have something more to tell us than merely to indicate an aim.
I repeat that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe we ought to use the resources of our land to the utmost extent to feed our own people. That is a good policy under all circumstances and particularly a good policy to meet times of crisis. I wonder whether the present Government will have a similar view. If they have, all we will want is an answer to some of the questions I have already put, and to learn to what extent the attitude which was so frequently expressed by the present Minister for Agriculture when he was in opposition is going to be maintained by the Government. The Minister for Agriculture said last night that there was no position he coveted so much as that of being Minister for Agriculture. I think it is not an unfair inference to draw, that he wanted that position in order to put into practice some of the ideas he has expressed so frequently in public. Is that really going to be Government policy? I think the people are entitled to know.
With regard to industrial production, our view was that it was essential for the well-being of this country that we should develop our manufacturing industries to the utmost extent possible. We were quite satisfied that that could not be done without protection. We were a relatively undeveloped country, so far as manufacturing processes and production were concerned, and it was obvious to us that we could not stand up against the competition of well-organised, powerful industrialised nations such as the United States or Britain, or such as Germany might have been in the past; that it was absolutely necessary, if we were not to become simply a grazing ranch that we should develop our manufacturing industries. We wanted to develop them from the point of view of giving employment here, from the point of view of safeguarding ourselves in times of emergency, so that the things that were vital for the well-being of our people would, so far as possible, be produced here and would not have to be imported, under conditions of war, from abroad.
To what extent does the present Government adhere to that view? Do they, in fact, hold by that view, and, if they do, what are the steps which they will propose to take and what is the amount of protection they will give? We on our side believe that the amount of protection should be sufficient to induce those who are prepared to enter into industry to go into it, to put their capital into it, and to devote their energies to the development of it, but the situation should be carefully watched so that the privileged position they get, by reason of that protection, will not be abused. I take it that the present Government will, in the main, have the same view, but we are anxious to have more detail.
One of our objections, for instance, to the agreement which has just been approved is that we wanted to get in as early as possible the equipment which would enable us to go ahead with that programme and that we are not getting it. It is quite obvious to me, and, I am sure, to every other Deputy, that, if we are to maintain our population here, we will have to proceed rapidly with the development of our manufacturing industries. A commission has been set up, I understand, to examine the facts in relation to emigration. There is, in my opinion, very little need to set up a commission to examine that matter. The facts are fairly well known. What is required is some method by which this drain of our people can be stopped. The only solution we saw for it was first, to see that as many economic homesteads as possible were established upon the land, to divide up the land into reasonably-sized farms to the extent economically justifiable. Accordingly we want to know what is to be the policy of the Government with regard to land division. We understand that there are 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres of land yet to to be divided, and, as a means of establishing and keeping a rural population, it is obvious that the programme of land division is one which ought to be pursued with all rapidity.
I have on a number of occasions been dissatisfied with the progress being made by our Government in that regard. Difficulties were put up by the Department concerned, and particularly the fact that we had a congested area in the West which was crying out for readjustment and that that was a slow process. It is a programme which ought to be carried out now and which ought to take priority over any other, but at the same time it is obvious that, if we want to preserve the rural population and to get into a sound position as quickly as we can, we ought to try to go ahead with our land division programme and establish as many homesteads upon the land as is economically possible. There the question of the size of farms and so on will arise, but it is foolish to think, as I have pointed out previously from the other side of the House and at public meetings, that that, of itself, will stop emigration. It cannot do it. The moment you reach any stable situation on the land, a situation in which the land is divided as much as it ought to be, there is bound to be migration or emigration from the farms.
If there are five people in a small farmer's home, only two on the average can remain on the land. Three will have to go off the land and will have to seek employment in the towns or in the countryside, or emigrate. How far can we provide employment for them in the countryside? The difficulty confronting the farming community at present, and particularly in regard to the dairying industry is the difficulty of getting labour. Those engaged in the industry say that they are not able to pay labour the amount required to keep them in that industry, instead of going on to others or leaving the country and it is obvious that, if we are to preserve the dairying industry, provision must be made to deal with that problem. Will the Government, when they come back, have for us some programme, some line of action which they propose to take, to achieve some of these results and help to stop emigration?
The next matter is the matter of housing, and, so far as I can see, there is no difference of opinion as between those on this side of the House and the other with regard to that particular aim. One of the things the previous Government did some time ago was to set up an organisation to deal with constructional work and to see that the building of houses for the people got priority as a prime necessity. Those who are now in the Government accused us of not making rapid progress and we shall be entitled to ask, when they come back, what precisely is the progress they have been able to make which would not have been made had the line of policy which we adopted been pursued. The priorities given were such as to guarantee the building of houses as a first requirement—anything else was relatively trifling. There was a consideration, an important consideration, namely, the building of factories which would give employment and produce. It is a nice balance as between building houses for the people and the necessity of providing work for them. The two things ought to go together.
If my recollection is correct, there was a fair priority, a necessary priority, given to the building of houses and next was the priority in respect of building which would give employment and produce the goods required by the community. We will naturally expect to get from the Government, after the Recess, an indication of what they propose to do, or are doing, about this matter of the building of houses. I think they are likely to say that we still have not got all the necessary skilled labour, equipment and materials, the grounds on which they have excused themselves for lack of progress so far. The same conditions obtained in the previous Government. If they have got into office on the ground that they have cures for these diseases, we are entitled to know what the cures are and exactly the extent to which they are being applied.
The next point is the "reduction in the cost of living." Everyone would like to see that, but it is not an easy thing to do. You have demands on one hand from labour for higher wages and demands on the other hand for higher prices for produce, both that produced at home and that coming in from outside. We had that difficulty and recognised it as a difficulty. We are entitled to ask the Government, when they come back, having had 15 weeks to adjust their problems and fix their differences, what precisely are the steps they propose to take regarding these particular matters. We will be entitled to criticise them and to question whether the steps they propose are likely to achieve the results they say they have in view.
Again, they talk of "Taxation of all unreasonable profit making." That was also the aim with us, but it is one thing to have that desire and another to get effective means to secure it. We will not be content, on this side of the House, with pious aspirations. We will expect from the Government a definite programme to secure the results. We can admit that they have these aims in view. Every member of the community would agree with them, except some few individuals who might want to make excessive profits. Therefore, they will get from us and from the community as a whole, support in any measure that will effect those results. That is true for practically every item in the list.
We now come to the "Introduction of a comprehensive Social Security plan to provide insurance." We have yet to see the complete plan. Everyone knows that a Department was set up and a Minister put in charge, purposely to investigate that problem in a way in which only a Minister could investigate it. A great deal of the preliminary work was done by us before the present Government came into office. The road was clear and all that is necessary now are the decisions. These decisions will not be easy to make. I do not pretend that the Government has an easy task. My complaint with the former Opposition was that they were talking about all these things as if they could be done by the wave of a wand. We know they cannot, we know that every solution proposed has certain shortcomings and that it will be a question of trying to decide, as wisely as we can, the best course to take to get the maximum benefit for the country as a whole. However, we are entitled to get decisions from the Government in regard to these matters.
There is here "The removal of recent taxes on liquor, etc." That is a thing that has been done. We admit that, as a point in the programme, it has been done. We do not agree with a number of things which the Government have done in that or in other matters, but at any rate we have no doubt as to the Government's attitude on it.
We have as the next one of the ten points "Immediate steps for the treatment of sufferers from tuberculosis." We, the previous Government, wanted that also. The steps we were going to take do not differ materially, so far as I can judge since I came home, from those that have been taken. If I am wrong, I would be glad to know it. Steps were being taken by the Minister responsible in our Government to try to deal with that matter. There were difficulties in providing sanatoria owing to the shortage of building and other materials. In the question of using other existing institutions, you had to balance between changing about for example persons who were mentally deficient. Was it right that this should be done?
We have next "the establishment of a council of education." That has been done, I believe.
Not yet.
Mr. de Valera
I am anxious to know the constitution of it. I would like to see it defended, as being a better system than the one which actually operated. The Minister for Education always had a number of bodies with which he could consult, and did consult. The only thing that had to be done was to bring representatives of these particular bodies together, perhaps adding some outside people, to discuss educational matters in general. These matters have been discussed by every Minister for Education with all the bodies concerned. He had advisory bodies and representative bodies of teachers and headmasters with whom he could confer regarding the details of his programme and the general policy he was pursuing. He could if he wanted to have brought all the bodies together for discussion at the same time if it would have helped.
Next we have "immediate steps to launch a national drainage plan." The national drainage plan had been agreed upon by the former Government, and an Act had been passed. The preliminary work of investigating various rivers and catchment areas was taking place and priority had been determined by the fact that we would like, from the engineering point of view, to begin with drainage of a particular type that would not present very great engineering difficulties. The necessary investigations had been made regarding the flow of water, and so on, in the particular area where it had been decided work was to commence. There was a difficulty about certain machinery and there were difficulties about engineering staffs.
I am talking now with reference to what we would expect from the Government when they come back. We have heard a good deal of what they are doing in the Estimates, and so on. I am anxious to get from the Government, when they come back, a programme which will indicate the steps they propose to take in such a way that it can be constructively criticised. I think that there is a reason on this particular occasion that that should be done even if it is departing from a precedent. We should be presented with a programme when the Dáil reassembles, because nobody honestly can know at the present time what steps are likely to be taken by this Government or what compromises they are likely to make, one section with another in order to arrive at agreement.
As the final, the tenth point, we have the "modification of the means test, etc." From the Bill that has just gone through we have some idea of what the Government has in mind in that regard, but it is only part of a wider plan which we ourselves had in mind for social services and social security and which it was intended to examine and as soon as possible to implement. The main consideration on that question all the time was that while we would like to have very substantial social services and a high degree of social security, we are limited by the fact that our community must produce very much more than it is producing at the present time to justify or maintain such a standard.
There again comes the question of how we are going to get this increased production. We could get increased agricultural production for our towns if we were to turn the whole countryside into ranches by mechanisation and very large farms, but that I take it is not the national objective. In order to get the highest possible degree of production from our people we must strive to have the most efficient methods we can find to produce food, to eliminate waste and to see that the time which is spent at labour is spent in the most effective way. We are up against this problem that naturally, as human beings, we all like to have a reasonably easy time; none of us want to work to the point of exhaustion; we want as many holidays as possible and as short hours of labour as possible, but everybody realises that if you carry that through too quickly before other things are made right you come to the point where you lower production. There is a point at which you do not lower production. If you labour too many hours a day, in the long run you do not get as much done as you would with reasonable hours of labour, but the question of what are reasonable hours has got to be fixed. We must combine the desire to give to every individual in the community as reasonable amount of leisure as possible with the desire to enjoy social services which we must earn by production. There is no other way. There is no other pool from which we can draw and you cannot have it both ways. If you cease production or produce little you cannot enjoy social services. There is no limitation to the desire of any Government in this country, I take it, to provide social services, but there is a limitation to the amount that is available from production.
We want, therefore, to get from the Government their compromises in these situations. We, in opposition, believe that we have just as important a part to play in these questions by means of proper criticism as the Government. We are deprived of the ability to decide as we think right, but we have an obligation to criticise and to criticise constructively. For instance, there was, apparently, a complaint regarding our criticism of the agreement. As I conceive it, the members on the Government side made the best case they could for it. That is natural. They have to defend. Our duty, on the other hand, is to examine where the agreement leads, what harm it might do and to present the people as a whole with the other side of the case.
There should be no dissatisfaction or resentment on the part of the Government if we perform that function properly. In international matters it is important that that should be done. In every case of an international agreement it is important that the objections should be carefully put before our people. We in the Opposition will always endeavour to the utmost of our ability to see that the other side of the picture is clearly seen before a decision is arrived at in this House.
There are before the nation a number of very important problems which await solution. I have mentioned some of them. From the broad national viewpoint there are two problems outstanding before we can claim to have achieved the things for which our people suffered in the last generation, to say nothing about what was suffered in the generations past. Before we consider these problems, however, we ought at least know where we stand at the present moment. I think that is only right. Deputy Cowan asked two questions here the other day.
For the same reason.
Mr. de Valera
I have not found any fault with the Deputy for asking those questions. Two questions were asked here and surely we should be able to decide what the answers to these two questions are. I think that the answer to them is so obvious that there should be no hesitation about answering them. It will mean a great deal for us in the country if we can agree about the present position. If you are going to any objective whatever and want to plan your path you want to know the two ends of the road, where you are going and from what point you started. The outstanding political problem at the present moment, as, I think, everybody will admit, is the reunification of our country, to bring about the ending of Partition. That brings us at once to our relationships with the States of the British Commonwealth. What are our relationships with the States of the British Commonwealth? What is our present status in this part of the country? I say without any hesitation whatsoever that we are here a Republic. I deny that anybody here can give one substantial reason to the contrary.
I answered the other question about three years ago. That question is: Are we or are we not a member of the British Commonwealth. Three years ago I said that that was a difficult question to answer.
And did you answer it?
Mr. de Valera
If the Minister will just wait——
Did you answer it?
Mr. de Valera
I answered the question giving the position as it was at the time. I will develop the explanation and make it as clear as I can. Three years ago this was a difficult question to answer and I gave the reasons. The point was this, what is the essential characteristic of that group of nations the British Commonwealth? How do they define themselves? The only definition that I knew of was the one which appeared in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926. Speaking of what it called Great Britain and the Dominions, that report said:—
"Their position and mutual relations may be readily defined."
And here was the definition:—
"They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs——"
"though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
We had repudiated any such thing as allegiance and, if that were to be the test, I said, we were not a member of the States of the British Commonwealth. But, this peculiar thing had happened, that, although that repudiation was on record and that action of ours was on record, and although our new Constitution was enacted, nevertheless on the day on which that Constitution came into force, the British Government issued a statement to the effect that our position as a State of the British Commonwealth remained unaltered.
My position was this: If the definition I have read stands and it is held that allegiance is the bond, we are not a member. If it is not so held, if since 1926, in the 22 years, a further development has taken place and that now in fact the attitude of Britain and the Dominions was the Commonwealth relationship was one of those relationships that it was just as well not to define, I said, that if allegiance was gone it did not really matter, whether we were in or out.
You had one leg in and the other leg out.
Mr. de Valera
No, that was not the position. It does not matter a thrawneen if allegiance were gone whether we were in or out. The association was the same.
You were, though.
Mr. de Valera
I do not understand the Deputy. We had repudiated allegiance and were not a member if that were the test. I answered the question, therefore, and there is no doubt and there is no use in pretending otherwise, the position was as I have stated. We were associated as a member or not.—(Interruptions)—I had hoped that we could in this deliberative Assembly argue these matters and argue them on a fair basis of fact.
We will be big enough to do it.
Mr. de Valera
Do what? I am not making any point but this. I am looking to see that we do know where we stand now and that as to this question of "development" which was referred to by the Taoiseach, that we might realise what it is and how it has come about. I said, three or four years ago, for the reason that they had issued that statement, that if there is no allegiance, and if there is no question of being within the British Empire, which was also involved, we could be regarded as being in the Commonwealth. If there is allegiance and there is inclusion in the British Empire, then we are outside. I left it to them to decide which of these two it was going to be. They have decided, as is clear from recent transactions, that it is better to regard us as associated but outside.
As far as the British are concerned, we might look at their position and, if we are associated with the States of the British Commonwealth externally, as it is now accepted, it is no harm for a moment to consider it from their point of view. There were in that association States of quite different origins and character and with quite different historical developments. There were some of the States in which the great majority of the people unquestioningly accepted allegiance, accepted inclusion in the British Empire, and the rest. There was no difficulty with these. We were not a State of that sort. We had not grown up in the particular way that other States had grown up. We could not, nationally, accept their position, even though, otherwise, association with them would not be objectionable. But, we are not alone in our position. South Africa, in my view, has been and will be in a similar position. Britain has lost Burma and I believe that Burma could have been associated either in the way we are associated or even associated internally if allegiance were not the test and inclusion in the British Empire. I may be wrong in that. I believe India's position would be the same. These nations, like ourselves, might not object to association simply, on the terms of free association without allegiance. That free association might not have been objected to but it will be objected to, necessarily will be objected to, by these countries as long as by demanding allegiance it is made to conflict with their national ideals. That was our position.
Our position then, was this, that while we were not objecting to free association with the States of the British Commonwealth, we were objecting to inclusion in the British Empire and to the obligations of allegiance. If these were not in question, it did not matter whether we were regarded as in or out. If I had been asked the question that was put to the other side of the House the other day as to when this happened and when we left the Commonwealth, I would have answered, not that it was a matter of gradual growth but that it happened the day that we formally repudiated allegiance, that is, if allegiance was held as essential.
What day would the Deputy say that was?
Mr. de Valera
I would say, roughly, when the Constitution was enacted. That was really about the time in which it was most definitely clear what our position was. The position had been put before the people a number of times. We had stood upon it. It had gone before the people and, as far as the Irish nation was concerned, its decision in the matter had been made abundantly clear.
Why did you not declare the republic?
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy can ask parrot questions as long as he likes. I am arguing to sensible men, I hope. I say then, if we are looking ahead either to the solution of Partition or to any question of our external relations, the point from which we start at this moment is—that we are an independent republic—or as stated in the Constitution, a sovereign independent democratic State, which, in this instance, is a republic, and that we are associated with the States of the British Commonwealth in the peculiar form in which we are associated, that is as an external associate.
Now comes the question of the use of the King of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the rest, for the signing of credentials of our envoys. That arose from the fact that when we, in 1936, got rid of the King Articles, as they were called, in the old Constitution, there was a problem to be solved. We had to take action very quickly, as Deputies who were here will know.
We were called by telegram.
Mr. de Valera
We had a number of foreign representatives here; the question of their being possibly withdrawn. The situation that would arise had to be considered.
We met the situation this way. We brought in an Act which enabled us to use the same organ as the States of the British Commonwealth were using for the accrediting of their representatives. What is the position in that regard to-day? When we left office, the position was that we had an Act which enabled us to do that. It is very important for anybody who wants to understand our whole position, to realise that our Constitution has in it no constitutional fictions. There are fictions in certain constitutions where the president or the king, as the case may be, is regarded as the fount of authority or is regarded as having vested in him all executive authority, and he exercises this authority through ministers. That is not the position with us. Ours is the complete reverse of that. With us, executive authority resides in the Government, with those who are elected or appointed here as a result of the Dáil's selection and approval. It is in the Government so appointed that executive authority lies. It is by their authority, acting directly or by their appointed agents, that executive acts are done. Whoever acts, acts on their authority. Any body or any organ that acts, is an instrument of theirs.
Whoever acts with executive authority—it may be the President, exercising that power if he be given that function in addition to the functions which are given him under the Constitution—must act deriving his right from the authority of the Government. The External Relations Act is purely permissive. It allows the Government to use the King, who is the King for Canada, Australia and so on, to sign letters of credence. But his authority comes from the Government. He does no more than to sign of course. The letters of credence are always drawn up by the Government or the Minister for External Affairs. He signs them. Anything that is derived from that signature is derived from the authority of the Government here.
Is that obligatory?
Mr. de Valera
The Act is not obligatory. I said it was permissive. What I am coming at is that at the present moment the Government in my opinion can authorise anybody to act in their name. They can authorise the Ceann Comhairle, for example, to sign the credentials. I am not a lawyer and I am quite ready, if that opinion is disputed to consider the argument but it is not an opinion hastily arrived at——
Would the Deputy say——
Mr. de Valera
If the Deputy will be patient, he can ask questions at a later stage. I say that the Government can delegate or can arrange with the Ceann Comhairle to sign these credentials if the other States are prepared to accept that. There should be no reason why they should not but sometimes you do not get other States readily to accept changes. The point is that it is not obligatory to get a king's signature and that the Government can appoint anybody.
Curiously enough, the only person for whose appointment in this way legislation would seem to be necessary, is the President and the reason for that is that the Constitution lays down the powers and functions given to the President and says that he can be given further powers and functions by law. In exercising such functions, he must exercise them on the advice of the Government. It would appear to me that it would be an evasion of the Constitution if the President were appointed by the Government for this purpose without legislation. But I think you could appoint the Ceann Comhairle, the Chief Justice or practically anybody else. The Minister for External Affairs or the Taoiseach could act, having been appointed by the Government for the purpose, if the other Government is prepared to accept that. If, however, you want to appoint the President it would be necessary, in my opinion, to bring in a Bill for the purpose.
I have referred to this situation at length on account of the harm and confusion that has been already created and which need not have been, in my opinion. It seems to me, on account of the confusion and the play which has been made for political purposes with it here, that it might have been well to bring in a Bill, put it to the Dáil, and say: "All right, we will transfer this function to the President". You would not want, in my opinion, a Bill for anybody else, but if the President is to have this additional function given to him, in my opinion it would be more in accord with the Constitution that a Bill should be brought in here authorising the President to sign these letters.
If the present Administration want to do that they will not find any opposition over here. I should have liked to have had in the past, in reference to a number of things I had to do, an Opposition that would deal with me in that spirit. I think the good that might be done by the Act has been counterbalanced by the mischief of the propaganda that has been carried on in regard to it. Can we now stand here on this, that we are a republic, and if anybody says that we are not, then I am quite prepared to do anything myself—and I am sure that I speak for every member of the Party——
Man the trenches.
Mr. de Valera
I feel perfectly sure that there is not a single member of our Party who will vote against any measure that is brought into this House to clear up any doubts or difficulty that might be in that regard.
Having created the doubt yourself.
Mr. de Valera
There is no difficulty in my mind in regard to the situation, but if there is a doubt about it, if we cannot come to agreement on where we can start from, then I say to those who have any doubt about it: "Let us resolve that doubt." I have my view and I will not change my view. My view is one I believe that will stand. If, however, there is anybody on the other side, members of the Government, or other members who are able to influence the Government, if there is anything necessary to make sure that the present position is that we are a republic—and that we are not a member of the British Commonwealth——
I accept that.
Mr. de Valera
Then we have one point in common. Let us try to get the other point resolved. As I say, I do not feel that there is any need to resolve it but, if people on the other side will try to hold the opposite position, let them come along with a Bill that will resolve it and I will support it.
Why did not you do it?
Mr. de Valera
It does not matter what I did. I am here on these benches now and I have not the responsibility for introducing legislation. I am prepared to play my part here as I did on a previous occasion and, if God gives me life, perhaps I will be on the other side again.
Mr. Boland
If you went to the country to-morrow, you would.
You have your guard of honour.
Mr. Boland
I do not want any guard.
Mr. de Valera
I do not mind in the slightest. I have just as important a duty to perform here. One thing that we are deprived of by being on this side of the House, and the only thing we are being deprived of, is the power to make what we regard as decisions which are effective. We have not a majority at the moment and we cannot do that. We have, however, all the other privileges and we are not upset in the slightest by the fact that we are here, except for that one thing.
You had 16 years in which to do it.
Mr. de Valera
If the others had 16 years to look forward to and they did as much they would justify themselves. We shall have to leave that to history and we are quite prepared to abide by its judgment. We have done the things that we have done and we are able proudly to state here that we are a republic in this part of Ireland, that we are not within the British Empire, and that as long as we can work to get a republic for the 32 counties of Ireland we are going to work for it. That is our position and always has been our position.
It was not in 1937.
Mr. de Valera
It was always our position and we never departed from it. Deputies can go on talking, but the facts of the position are there for the people to see. I did not want to introduce heat into this. I wanted to examine the position in which we stand so that we might at least have one end of the road in common. Have we the other end of the road in common? How many people in this House are prepared to stand and work for an independent republic for the 32 counties as the national objective?
Deputies
Everybody is.
Mr. de Valera
That is splendid. We have two terms now to the road. We know where we start and we know where we are going.
Where are we?
The Deputy is entitled to speak without interruption.
Mr. de Valera
We know where we start. I hoped to be able to talk to a deliberative Assembly. I had hoped that we would get agreement as to the point from which we start. If there is anybody who does not agree with my view as to the starting-point, we can bring about a situation in which there can be no doubt and no disagreement. Let that be done if anyone is in doubt.
Would it not be better that there should be no doubt?
Mr. de Valera
I should like to have it that way, but the point is that those who have any doubt should act. I have no doubt.
You did not act.
Mr. de Valera
I might have acted. There are very few things which I said I would do that I did not try to do. Let those who deny that the position is as I have stated act and I will support them and I believe everybody else in this House will support them. I should also like to be sure that there was agreement as to the other end of the road. Suppose there is. Then we have this problem of Partition. It is going to be a very difficult problem with these two ends defined. But, if those two ends of the road represent the views of the majority of the representatives of the Irish people and if they represent the views of the majority of the Irish people, then I think that majority rule should hold.
We have heard a lot about the people in the Six Counties and the concessions we should make here and the concessions we should make there. Those who are talking of concessions to them and so on have no higher regard for them individually than I have, or, if you are to use the word love, in reference to this community, one to the other, none has it in a higher degree than I have. I want to say that they will get the equality to which they are entitled. They ought not, however, to be looking for privilege. We should say: "We want you to come in; any right of Irish citizenship to which you are entitled you will get to the full." But democracy in any country is impossible unless you have majority rule and we will have to have that if we are going to be a democracy here.
It is said that there must be no coercion of "Ulster". There is, over a great part of Ulster, coercion of the people who want to be with us. We are entitled to say that that coercion must cease and our aim ought to be to expose that situation as the first step. There is coercion of our people there and that coercion ought to end. Let us pass from that problem. What I am aiming at is to try to know where is the beginning and where is the end of the road, and at least to indicate the first steps forward.
Let us now come to another problem, the question of the restoration of the national language. Can we find out where we stand there? How many in this House really desire that the language should be restored? How many believe that it is one of the national objectives, just the same as the establishment of our independence was?
A Deputy
Are we hypocrites?
Mr. de Valera
We all want to know where we stand on that. I take it that we are not hypocrites. Unless there are people who definitely say that they are opposed to it, I take it that the restoration of the language is also a national objective. A good deal of the foundations have been laid and we should try to secure the ultimate goal. Unfortunately, these two problems are not ones that can be easily solved by any Government. The restoration of the language depends more upon the attitude of the people outside than upon the attitude of public representatives here. Public representatives can do a tremendous lot in giving a lead, in helping the people, in explaining to them the importance of this matter as a national objective.
Unfortunately, again, it is not one of those things which a Government can do by a wave of the wand. There are people who talk about this as if the Government by using compulsion of one kind or another, could succeed in that. There are vital steps that have to be taken in trying to create the possibility to succeed. Some foolish people think that you can bring about the speaking of the language once more by some act of the Government. I say that compulsion is just completely stupid. It cannot be done in that way. There is one way of restoring the language, and that is to get the people to have the will to see that it lives where it exists and where it can be revived. In that matter we have to depend largely upon our schools. Anybody who examines the problem will have to admit that the schools are the principal means by which the language can be restored if it is going to be restored at all.
What policy then is to be used in the schools in order to make effective the purpose that is behind it? You hear a lot about talking Irish to children. Any person who has paid any attention to the way in which languages are learned knows that the important years for learning a language as the vernacular, so that it will be used naturally and not as a foreign-acquired language, are the years between three and eight. If we are serious about learning the language so that it will be spoken as a natural language we must in our programme try and see to it that the children at those ages are given the opportunity of speaking the language. That was the basis of the original programme as it was put forward and that is a sound basis.
But, again, you have to depend on the teachers. If they do not know the language themselves they cannot teach it properly. If a person has not a fair knowledge of the language himself he certainly cannot teach it as a vernacular. Therefore, we are dependent on the ability of our teachers to teach it. We must, as part of our general programme for the achievement of that end, see to it that we have competent teachers, and that they get the training which will enable them to be competent in the teaching of Irish.
These are some of the principal points to which I wished to draw attention. They deal with the principal national problems which we in this House have got to face. We have a very serious responsibility on us in this generation with regard to these two problems, and very much so particularly with regard to the problem of Irish because if we do not in this generation take the steps that will enable the language to be revived, then it cannot be done in a subsequent generation. Therefore, there is on every one of us here a very solemn responsibility, if we believe that it is in the national interest that the language should be revived, to try and play our part to the utmost to get it revived.
I have dealt with these two outstanding problems. The next is the problem of emigration. It played a very big part in the election speeches. A commission is being set up to examine it. In my opinion, the main factors are already well known. The fact is that when a number of people go off the land, as they will from our small farms, they have to try to get employment in any way they can in their own neighbourhood or in the towns or else they have to emigrate. We have got to find employment for those people. There is the problem of finding new employment for about 20,000 individuals each year.
I do not ask the House to take that figure as being absolutely accurate, but let us say that that would be about the figure. We had, by building up industries, arrived at the stage in which in our industries we were finding employment in the factories and in the towns for about half that number— about 10,000 a year. We had got only half way, so that the remaining 10,000 represents a serious drain.
I am not speaking of the war situation which was purely abnormal and had to be dealt with as a special phenomenon. As far as a long-term problem is concerned, we have got to find, by building up further industries, employment for something like an additional 10,000 in the year, assuming that my first figure is right. How are we going to do it? I hope that the only method which we could see of doing it will be continued—that is by continuing to build industries which will give employment to the greater number of these young people who are looking for employment for the first time. Can we do it? The first thing, obviously, is to look over the list of imports, to pick out the ones that are likely to give the most employment and that are the most suitable. Obviously, those which are most suitable are those for which we have the raw materials ourselves. Any industry that is founded upon the products that come from our own soil is obviously the industry that will have the firmest foundation if it can be established. We ought, therefore, try as far as possible to develop all the industries that are ancillary to the land.
Such as the transatlantic airways?
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy is not going to put me off with a question like that. That is all very well for elections, but let us in this Assembly try and do some constructive work and see how far we can agree on it. As I was saying, the position is, how far can we develop our industries so as to give that necessary new employment which is required to end emigration? If you can do that, then you do not want any other type of examination of the problem. No examination will give you a solution, in my opinion, unless you can do that. It is the only solution that is available to us. We all believe that this nation would be a stronger nation if we could retain the natural increase of our people. The population which we could maintain here could be considerably bigger than it is at present. I think we are all agreed on that. In my opinion, the only way in which we can maintain the natural increase is by building up our manufacturing industries. That, necessarily, implies a certain degree of protection. That is a warning for all those who are dealing with external affairs—not to commit themselves, in the case of this small nation, into entering into some arrangement for universal free trade. We are not at present in a position in which we can completely accept that.
It is all right for the U.S.A. to want this but when the United States was building itself up it did not stand for free trade. It built itself up quite differently. Great Britain was for free trade when Great Britain was at the top. Every nation that is a great industrial-producing nation and at the top will want free trade. Free trade takes with it—if it is to be what its advocates hold—free movement of capital and free movement of persons. It means that nationality, so to speak, is wiped out. There can be no national boundaries of any importance; we must forget national divisions before we can stand firmly for that policy. We in this country who are only just beginning to develop our industries cannot commit ourselves at all to this completely free trade policy. As an ideal and something to be worked for—in so far as nations can retain their individuality as nations and work it—well and good. I think every proposal in that regard should be examined carefully. The test is whether it is going to prevent us from that development of our resources and industries which is absolutely essential if we are to maintain our population in this country and survive as a nation. Let that be the test. From an ideal point of view I think that the less restrictions there are the better.
I agree with regard to external affairs also that it is desirable, if we can, to be associated—I have no hesitation myself in saying this—with the States in the British Commonwealth in this way provided that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the people who are dealing with it. I think that a wider association is also desirable. I always believed in the Briand idea of a United States of Europe.
When I was Minister for External Affairs I remember that I examined the questionnaires that were sent out to the various Governments in regard to it at the time. I have some idea of the complexity and the extreme difficulty of the problems involved. Every nation will have precisely in its own regard some such difficulty and some such caveat as I have mentioned just now. It is extremely difficult but what is the alternative? The alternative is such that despite all the damage and disaster that its adoption would cause to a variety of nations, it would be ultimately less than the damage that would be caused if we were to have another war. The nations of Europe have to balance very carefully these two dangers—the danger of destruction of their own particular individual life as a nation and the danger on the other side of a war if they do not compromise their nationality. I agree with the Minister for External Affairs on the question of sovereignty. Only the powerful States can, in any sense, regard themselves as completely sovereign and, you deprive yourself of the means of doing as you please the moment you sign any international agreement. As in the case of every other agreement, so in the trade agreement just approved, for example, we have now deprived ourselves of certain liberties of action which we would otherwise have. However, we do that with our eyes open.
It was one of the considerations we had to decide here. If it was bad for us we will rue it and if it was good for us we will have the advantages of it. In the same way, if we enter into international agreements of one kind or another, to that extent we deprive ourselves for the duration of the agreement of the freedom of action we would otherwise have. I take it that as an intelligent people you do that for a purpose and you think that the end you have in view justifies the steps you have taken and the restrictions you have imposed upon yourself.
We must then, if we are to deal with this question of emigration, pursue with all the energy in our power the building up of our industries. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will, I am sure, admit that a great deal of examination had been done by the former Government. I was aware that a number of plans had come into the Department. Questionnaires were sent out to various firms who were willing to expand and so forth, and their plans came in. Therefore, the moment we can get the raw materials and the equipment we ought to be able to make rapid progress. As the former Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out, if we avail of it and if we can get the materials we are in a fairly good position to start off. We are in a very much better position than we were in before the experience of a number of years was gained. I think everybody who is reasonable will admit that. We ought to go ahead with all possible speed in the development of these industries. It is the only cure that I can see for the problem of emigration. If there should be other cures, I shall be delighted to know of them.
I am afraid I have kept the House so long that I think it would be quite unfair to talk about all the problems that have, naturally, occupied my mind for a long period of time. I only put it to the Government that during these 15 weeks in which they will be free from the questioning here and the necessity to attend here they will devote themselves to adjusting the differences which must exist. Looking at the opposite side, one cannot but be aware of these tremendous differences in outlook. They have to adjust these. They ought to come to the Dáil with a programme dealing with these particular problems in which it is fair to ask them for a programme.
I admit that in some cases it might not be fair to do so but you can take a number of steps. It is not always possible to say: "This will lead to that and that will inevitably lead to something else and finally we will come to the end of the journey," but I would urge you to make a start on something which you know must of necessity help you to reach the end. I, for one, would be quite satisfied if the Government would give us indications of what they propose to do in that regard. When I was sitting on the other side of the House I made several resolutions. One was that if ever I got to this side of the House there were subjects on which I would speak and about which I could not speak while I was on the Government side of the House. If I had spoken about them from the Government side of the House I would be accused of having an axe to grind. That cannot be said now.
Feathers.
Mr. de Valera
There are several things about which I and my colleagues here will be able to talk now and to which, if we had spoken of them from the Government Benches, no attention whatever would have been paid——
Such as Partition.
Mr. de Valera
I have never failed to deal with Partition, but there are other matters about which my arguments would have been regarded as special pleading.
You were not so definite about the republic.
Let him finish.
The Locke Distillery finished you, anyhow.
Mr. de Valera
We expect, therefore, details, when the Dáil comes back, of programmes and not merely an indication of the aims ahead.
Deputy de Valera has discoursed at length on our relations with the British Commonwealth of Nations and has sought to define what our international status is as a nation. In the course of his discourse he built up various "Aunt Sallies" and beguiled himself subsequently in the recreational task of knocking them down. I do not want to follow Deputy de Valera by entering into a discussion on our international status or on our relationship with the British Commonwealth of Nations. Whatever they are to-day I suppose they were the same six months ago; and I think a discussion at this stage on the matters raised by Deputy de Valera would be an unprofitable one from every standpoint. But there are certain things that emerged from what Deputy de Valera has said which call for some comment. One is that, although we have had a Constitution now for 11 years, apparently our constitutional position is still cloudy and it is still necessary to explain to our own people and to the world what exactly our international status is. If there is any cloudiness about it, any ambiguity about it, or anything wanting clarification about it the responsibility rests upon those who did not clearly define the status of the country in an international sense in the Constitution when it was first being enacted and who did not take steps to amend the Constitution by ordinary legislation, as could have been done within three years of the enactment of the Constitution by the people.
Mr. de Valera
The Constitution does not need to be amended.
All right—let us take that. If we want, as Deputy de Valera wants this evening, to make it known to the world that this portion of Ireland is an independent republic, was it not a simple matter to have put one word more into the Constitution— which, Heavens knows, is wordy enough? Should it not have been possible to put the word "republic" into the Constitution?
Mr. de Valera
It was not necessary.
It was not necessary? We shall come to that, too. Here, 11 years after the Constitution was enacted by the people, 11 years during every one of which we have had the same dissertation by Deputy de Valera, when he was Taoiseach, as to our international status, we are still trying to explain to our own people what kind of country we are, what international status we have and what our relationship is with the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Constitution is so muddy and so cloudy as to the whole position that even to-day we are finding it difficult to get our own people properly to apprehend the position. If Deputy de Valera, as Taoiseach, wanted to make it clear to the world that he desired this country to be known internationally as the "The Irish Republic" the way to do it was to put into the Constitution the simple declaration that this portion of Ireland "is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic". Why was the word "republic" eliminated?
Mr. de Valera
It is not even in the Constitution of the United States and nobody is going to deny that that is a republic.
But the United States does not use the British King, or any other king, to accredit its representatives to a foreign country.
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy is in a position now to rectify the position, if he wants to.
I shall come to that and you will be sorry about it. I remember the days when the last British King abdicated and I remember, as Deputy Davin reminded the House to-day, the days when this House was called together by telegram. For what? To feed the people? To raise the wages of the workers? To improve their conditions of life? To make life better and happier for them? Not at all. We were called here by telegram, by the Fianna Fáil Government, to pass the External Relations Act.
Mr. de Valera
Two Acts, please.
One was the External Relations Act.
Mr. de Valera
Two Acts.
I spent two days then trying to persuade the Government of the day not to do any such thing but to leave things as they were. I am sure that Deputy de Valera will recall the point of view I advanced then on that particular Act and even before the Act was introduced—namely that the British have no right to expect us automatically to appoint their king as the king of this country.
Mr. de Valera
He is not the king, and he has never been the king since then.
Let us come to that in time. In the past we knew of a constitutional position in which when the old British monarch died the next automatically took his place. But here we had the position that a king had virtually gone on strike, that he had and there was no responsibility on us to do anything about either the departed king or the new king. All we had to do was to sit tight. The king had gone and we need assign no duties to the new king. What happened? That would not please Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil was lonely for a king then. And the result is we got the king imported into our legislation by the External Relations Act. I voted against the External Relations Act. Every member of the Labour Party voted against the External Relations Act. I think as little of that Act now as I did then. I think of it now what I thought of it then—namely that it is a dishonest subterfuge by which we use the king—permissively, if you like—and build up a code of precedents by using the king to accredit our representatives to a foreign country. We have got a President in the Phoenix Park. We have a Minister for External Affairs. They are by-passed and we use the British king to accredit our representatives to foreign countries.
Mr. de Valera
You can change it now.
One second—we shall come to that. Does Deputy de Valera claim that this country is a sovereign, independent republic?
Mr. de Valera
I do.
Does Deputy de Valera know of any country in the world which uses a foreign monarch to accredit its representatives to another country? Does the United States of America do that? Does the French Republic do that? Does any republic in the world deliberately take up a king of any other country to accredit its representatives to a foreign power? It does not. This was one of the unique constitutional somersaults of Deputy de Valera in which he succeeded in the independent Irish Republic in finding a king to accredit our representatives to a foreign power. I said then, and I say it again now, that this was a subterfuge. I think the External Relations Act is a fraud on the people.
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy could say all that on this side of the House. Now, let him act.
I said it then and I repeat it again now. I say now that I think it would do our national selfrespect good both at home and abroad if we were to proceed without delay to abolish the External Relations Act.
Mr. de Valera
Go ahead.
That was my view then on the position as I saw it. That is my view to-day.
Mr. de Valera
You will get no opposition from us.
It ought to go and I think our national honesty would rank all the higher if it were to go. Deputy de Valera raised the question also of Partition. So far as Deputy de Valera is concerned, he is lecturing to the converted in this House so far as Partition is concerned. Every single Party in this House stands for the abolition of Partition. Every single Party wants to make its contribution to the solution of the Partition problem by ending Partition and reintegrating the Six Counties with their natural motherland. So far as the Government is concerned, it stands unequivocally for taking any and every possible step that can be taken to bring Partition to an end and restore the historical unity of this country. Nobody can allege that this Government is in any way negligent on the question of advocating the ending of Partition. The Ministers of this Government have already discussed that with the British Ministers. It has been made clear to Britain, and Britain is in no doubts as to the viewpoint of this Government, that we regard the ending of Partition as a problem of first-class national importance. Every effort which this Government can make to find a solution to that problem and to bring Partition to an end will be eagerly availed of by this Government in its effort to end the partition of our country.
Deputy de Valera raised some other matters, mainly economic matters. I take it from the way in which he approached the problem and from the interrogatory character of his speech that the Deputy does not want detailed answers to these questions to-day, but hopes that, by the time the Dáil reassembles in the autumn, he will be able to get a more comprehensive statement in respect of Government policy over the range of subjects covered by him in his speech to-day. Deputy de Valera said this Government promised it would endeavour to increase agricultural output and agricultural employment. That is the policy of this Government and every step that can be taken towards that end will be taken. One very substantial step has already been taken as evidenced by the negotiation of the recent agreement with Great Britain. Under that agreement, certain guaranteed prices are made available for live stock and live-stock products. These prices are better than anything we have got in the past. The provision of live stock and live-stock products for a better market in Britain ought to provide greater employment for our people. I hope that it will do more. I hope that it will provide a better standard of remuneration not merely for the farmers in the country but also for that most necessary adjunct of efficient farming, the agricultural workers.
I hope, therefore, that in this connection alone substantial additional employment will be provided but, in any case, the Deputy may take it as the policy of the Government that Irish land will be utilised to the fullest extent for whatever purpose that land is suitable, to yield not merely wealth to the nation in the form of agricultural and dairy produce, but to yield at the same time employment for the maximum number of persons and especially for those in the rural areas where agriculture is the main source of livelihood.
Deputy de Valera raised the question of the Government's policy in relation to the home market. I think everybody realises, and especially those who have given any thought to the subject in this country, that the home market in the long run is the best market so far as the Irish producer is concerned. Number one, it is not subject to all the wintry economic blasts which blow across the foreign market. In the home market we can regulate the quantity of goods which we consume, the price at which these goods can be sold, and the labour content of the article which is produced. If we were to rely entirely on an external market, we would have to rely on a market over which we have no control so far as price fixation is concerned, a market in which we cannot regulate the quantity of goods which we can sell. The home market, therefore, has obvious advantages over the external market and so far as this Government is concerned its object will be to supply as far as possible the home market with the goods produced by our own people, and not merely to provide the market for our own people, but to supply goods for our own people at prices within their capacity to pay.
Exports are, of course, necessary. It is only with exports we can pay for imports and so long as we have to import considerable quantities of goods not produced here, and some of which can never be produced here, the export market is inevitably a part of our national set-up. That export market is being watched carefully and vigilantly, as is indicated by the recent trade agreement. The Deputy can feel assured that, so far as the home market is concerned, we will encourage our producers to produce goods to satisfy that market in full. On the other hand, in order to finance our imports we shall endeavour to step up home production in the field of agriculture and industry so that, with the export of surpluses from these fields of activities, we may be able to finance the purchase of other goods which we cannot produce here.
The Deputy asked what is the Government's policy in respect of the development of industry. We have reached the stage in this country when there is now no free trade political Party. Every Party accepts an obligation to protect and foster Irish industries. The way in which that should be done, the degree to which it should be done, the safeguards which have to be provided for the consumer and for the worker, are matters for consideration, matters upon which there might be shades of disagreement, but the basic fact still remains that every Party in this country is anxious to develop Irish industries, to encourage their promotion, to produce here the goods which are now imported, to foster these industries by reasonable protection in the form of duties and quantitative restrictions, and to ensure that these goods are produced by the best type of machinery in the best type of factory, paying the best classes of wages and safeguarding the consumer all the time against the possibility of being exploited by irresponsible and unresponsive monopolies.
In that field of national endeavour no decent industrialist need doubt the honesty and the genuineness of this Government in desiring to protect his industry, protect it not merely for his own enrichment, not merely that he may get rich quick, not so that he can amass enormous wealth, but these industries will be protected as part of a national consciousness that there is on us an obligation not merely to produce wealth for the nation, to be diffused in wider and growing measure, but to provide employment for our people as well. If the industrialist is an honest and a good industrialist, who wants to serve the nation by producing wealth and securing a reasonable return on his invested capital, he need never doubt the genuineness and the willingness of this Government to protect him. The Government will take every step to protect existing industries, and promote the establishment of new industries, and I hope when the time comes for it to render an account of its stewardship, the inter-Party Government will be able to point to numbers of new industries which have been established and are flourishing here because of the assistance which those who established the industries have received.
Deputy de Valera raised a question about the Government's policy in respect of land division. I think there should be no doubt as to what the Government's policy is in that respect. Nobody wants to see large ranchers employing a small man and a big dog, staying our agricultural economy. There is the general viewpoint amongst all Parties that our national objective ought to be to divide the large and badly used ranches among those anxious to obtain land, to settle as many people as we can economically on the land and in conditions that will give them a fair chance. That is the policy of this Government and the very fact that its implementation is in the hands of Deputy Blowick, the Minister for Lands, who is acutely conscious of what over-crowding agriculturally means in the West, is the best assurance the nation can have that that policy will be pushed forward with earnestness and vigour.
The Deputy also asked what progress was being made in housing. I think he will realise that this Government came into office in February and it was then only a few weeks away from facing the Dáil with a new set of Estimates to finance this year's Governmental activities, Estimates prepared by our predecessors. While the expenditure for us was prepared the wherewithal to finance the activities was nowhere obvious to us. We had to set about revising the Estimates, avoiding wasteful expenditure and raising sufficient funds to finance the national activities during the ensuing 12 months. Between that, the Budget and the passage of the Estimates, I think it will be generally conceded that this Government has had very little time to devote to a detailed examination of many matters which deserve early and earnest consideration. That is particularly so when it is remembered that the House for many weeks sat for four days a week from early morning until late at night.
The Government has not had all the time it would have wished to have for the purpose of examining matters in detail, but, on the subject of housing, may I say that it is the Government's earnest desire that every conceivable method of building houses should be employed, so as to get our people out of the city and town slums, and out of the rural slums as well, to give them decent homes at rents within their ability to pay, homes which will be a credit to the nation, and to give them not merely a home but all that a home means? That task is under the control of the Minister for Local Government and that fact is, in itself, an assurance that no punctilio will be allowed to stand in the way of providing the people, with the utmost expedition, with the houses of which they are so sadly in need to-day.
The question of the drainage plan and the Government's intentions in relation thereto were also raised by Deputy de Valera. Already we have got under way one of the main schemes which was to be a part of the national drainage plan. The Deputy will recollect that, when the Bill was going through the House, it was mentioned that it would take seven years to get the machinery ready for implementing the scheme and that 28 years would elapse before the scheme of national drainage was completed. We are endeavouring to take short cuts to the objective of completing the national drainage plan, and, for that purpose, every possible step is being taken to speed up the implementation of drainage schemes in various parts of the country. We are not without very substantial hope that the periods of seven years to get the machinery ready and 28 years to complete the job will be substantially reduced.
The Government's attitude towards the cost of living has also been raised, and that matter, to some extent, has been discussed to-day in connection with the trade agreement. This Government has definitely said that its aim is to bring down the cost of living.
Mr. de Valera
Everybody in the world will say that.
And it is doing it. It has brought down the cost of living.
Mr. de Valera
The figures do not show that.
Notwithstanding certain wage increases which have taken place, especially over the past six months, we have been able to hold the cost of living approximately at the point at which it was this time last year. That is the cost of living. It is not our index and is not a cooked index figure. It is the last Government's index figure. We are living in circumstances in which the cost of living is often something different from the cost-of-living index figure and we have held the cost of living to the figure at which it was 12 months ago. We have, however, done more. The new index figure which Fianna Fáil created eliminated cigarettes from calculations in respect of an increase in the cost of living. We have brought down the price of cigarettes and tobaccos. We get no credit for that in the Fianna Fáil index figure. We get no credit for such reduction as has taken place in the taxation on beer in the index figure.
These are items which enter into the lives of many ordinary mortals in this country. The very fact that these taxes have been brought down has meant for the people a reduction in the cost of living. They are paying less for these commodities to-day than they were paying after the Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget, and, to the extent that they are paying less, we have brought down the cost of living in these schemes.
On the whole, we have held the index figure at a point not higher than it was 12 months ago. That is not a bad beginning and I hope it is only a beginning. I hope that, during the Adjournment of the Dáil, the Government will be able to concentrate its endeavours on enforcing, if necessary, reductions in the cost of living, because, as was said to-day by Deputy Larkin during the discussion on the trade agreement, the prices of certain commodities ought to be broken, and I hope the Government will give a lead in the breaking of these prices, so as to bring them down to a point within the competence of the people to pay. Deputy de Valera, having regard to the record of his own Government in respect of the cost of living and the associated problem of wages, is certainly not the best person to express any concern as to the Government's attitude towards the cost of living.
Mr. de Valera
I simply asked for the Government's plans to implement its ten-point programme.
The trouble with the Deputy is that the Government is implementing its ten-point programme with distressing speed, so far as he is concerned.
Mr. de Valera
No.
We promised to reduce certain taxes imposed in the Fianna Fáil Budget, and we did it the second day this Dáil met. We promised to modify the means test, and we have done it. We did not in the ten-point programme promise to increase old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions, but we have done it. So far as promoting increased employment in industry and agriculculture is concerned, we have done that, too, by the recent trade agreement with Britain which gets better prices for our agricultural produce, on the one hand, and enables us to penetrate the British market with industrial goods which we could not have done under the Fianna Fáil trade agreement of 1938, on the other. All this is evidence that this is a live, an alert Government, a Government which not only makes promises, but intends to keep them. Whether it is a melancholy achievement, so far as Deputy de Valera and Fianna Fáil are concerned, I hope that, before the Government comes to render an account of its stewardship to the people, not only will all the ten points have been realised, but the Government will have started on a new programme, exceeding even in its accomplishment and achievements the ten points on which the inter-Party Government agreed as the target when this Government was established.
Deputy de Valera said the Opposition were under an obligation to criticise legislation, and to show the country what the other point of view was. Nobody will deny to Deputy de Valera or Fianna Fáil that obligation to criticise any and every measure brought into the House, and, so far as the Government is concerned, they will get all the facilities they desire, for the purpose of criticising legislation.
There is a new feeling with regard to the status of this House here and in the country. In the old days, when a Minister brought in a Bill, everybody in that Minister's Party was silent, except the Minister. That is not the position now. Here we have a number of groups constituting this inter-Party Government and not a single restriction is placed on any member in the matter of his participation in debate or the views he expresses, with the result that the Dáil, for the first time perhaps in 25 years, is to-day a consultative and deliberative Assembly, something it has not been for the past 25 years.
In the Dáil now there is a new right of expression, a new enthusiasm to express views, and, so far as the Government is concerned, every facility will be afforded to Fianna Fáil to express any views they care to express on any legislation which may be introduced. We are, however, I think, entitled to impose one condition, that the criticism ought not to be purely destructive, that it ought not to be of a sabotaging type and ought not to be the kind we got when we were negotiating the trade agreement with the British Government in London. When we ought to have had the charity of Fianna Fáil's silence we did not get it. They were concerned with playing mischievous politics, instead of giving the negotiators a chance of negotiating the best bargain they could with the British Government.
That is not the kind of criticism that will do this nation any good, or send up the political stock of the Fianna Fáil Party. Fianna Fáil is welcome to fulfil its full functions in this House in showing to the people whatever defects there may be in legislation introduced by this Government, but that ought not to rule out the possibility of its criticism being constructive and, when good legislation is forthcoming, it ought not to be capriciously criticised and condemned, and, when this Government is doing good things for the nation, it is not unreasonable to expect that it will get some cooperation from the Opposition.
I wish to oppose the length of the adjournment—from now to the 17th November—as being too long, particularly as there are very vital matters for consideration. I want to express my concern for the position in regard to housing. In the City of Dublin, and particularly in the part of Dublin—Dublin North-East—that I represent, thousands of houses are required. There are thousands of families living in slum conditions, in over-crowded tenements. Many families are separated—the husband living in one place and the wife compelled to live in another. While that problem remains to be tackled, I oppose any long adjournment such as is proposed here this evening.
In the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate, I advocated to the Taoiseach that this Government should introduce legislation to enable the Minister for Local Government to solve the housing problem within a reasonable time. I am satisfied that that Minister has the best will in the world, but I am equally satisfied that, under present legislation, he has neither the power nor the authority to solve the housing problem, and I suggested to the Taoiseach that that power and authority should be given to the Minister for Local Government by statute of this House. The introduction of that legislation is a matter of the greatest urgency and, therefore, I oppose an adjournment for 15 weeks. There is no doubt about it, since we did start to work, since the general election, this House has worked pretty hard, and I have consideration for the members of the staff of the House and for the Deputies and for myself. We do require a reasonable break, but a period of 15 weeks, when there is such a grave and pressing problem to be solved—a problem that cannot be solved, cannot even be tackled properly, without the authority of new legislation—this period is too long.
There is a further consideration. The world is in a very serious state at the moment and, though I repeat what I have said on one of the Estimates, that in my view there is no danger of war, nevertheless there are all the factors that could result in war and, that being so, the Adjournment should be as short as possible, so that in the event of any dangerous situation arising, the Government might have the benefit and assistance of this House in dealing with it.
Arising out of that, whether this recess is long or short, I put it to the Government that it is the desire, the command and the demand of this House and of this country, that whatever steps can be taken by the Government and by the Minister for External Affairs to maintain the peace of this world should be taken. Everyone will agree that it is the unanimous desire of the Irish people that the Government should do everything possible to avoid the horrors of a third world war in our time.
I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution this afternoon, dealt with this very important matter of our constitutional position. I am one of those who cannot accept the contention of Deputy de Valera that we are an independent republic. I should like to be able to accept that contention. I should like to be able to stand forth in this House or in this country, or in any other country in the world, and say that I was a citizen of the Irish Republic. I acknowledge freely the steps that have been taken by the Fianna Fáil Government, under the direction of the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, to advance our constitutional position towards the objective of an independent republic. I am satisfied that, in law, we have not achieved that position; and what I have been endeavouring to do, in questions I have put to the Taoiseach, is to have a clear understanding of what our present constitutional position is, so that whatever obstacles remain to the achievement of our ideal of a republic may be removed by this House, by unanimous determination. I feel that when there is any doubt as to our position, it is much better that it should be approached in that way. I admit that Deputy de Valera is speaking absolutely honestly and saying what he believes.
Mr. de Valera
Not merely what I believe but from any advice from a legal point of view that I got.
I accept that he sincerely and honestly believes that. It is an unfortunate position, in regard to Deputy de Valera's personality, that in the past he has always been able to get the advice he wants. I mean that as a compliment to him.
Mr. de Valera
It is a very backhanded one.
The same as the compliments Deputy de Valera pays.
Mr. de Valera
When I pay them, they are deserved.
I want to explain that remark. Everybody in this country, and every member of the Irish race, recognises and acknowledges that Deputy de Valera is an individual of outstanding personality. There can be no doubt about that, whether one agrees or disagrees with him. The trouble with people who are of outstanding personality is that they generally get the advice that suits them. That is an extraordinary fact, but let any person go right back over history and he will find that those outstanding national figures always got the advice they wanted to get.
Some yes-men.
I would not want to say that but that is the fact. That is one of the great disadvantages of being great.
This morning we were discussing an agreement, the agreement of 1938, and that agreement was entered into subsequent to the adopting of our Constitution. I think that the Constitution was 1937 and the agreement was entered into with Britain in 1938. The first or second page of the printed copy of that agreement shows where our Ministers, Deputy de Valera and, I think, Deputy Aiken, Deputy Boland and Deputy MacEntee, entered into an agreement with the British Government to amend the Treaty in respect of two of its provisions. In other words, even after the passing of our Constitution it was acknowledged by our Government that the Treaty of 1921 between this country and Great Britain still had operative effect. That is an aspect that is overlooked and that is why I say that in my view we have not yet achieved the ideal of an independent republic. Our relationships with England are still governed by the articles of the Treaty of 1921, except where it has been amended by agreement.
In so far as I have been able to follow up this constitutional matter, our courts have held that the Free State Constitution had its validity in the British Free State Constitution Act. That was generally accepted by our courts. Our law flowed from the Free State Constitution Act and it was within the power granted by that Free State Constitution that our new Constitution was passed.
Mr. de Valera
No, there was a revolution at that point. In British law there was no right of the people to enact anything.
That is where Deputy de Valera and I disagree and that is probably the fount of our disagreement. I think that we are agreed right up to that.
Mr. de Valera
There was a quiet revolution when the people of this country enacted the Constitution because there was no power for that under the British-imposed Constitution. Reference to the people was made deliberately for that purpose.
I accept that Deputy de Valera believes that and I accept that he intended that, but the trouble is, I feel, that he did not achieve what he intended to achieve or what he set out to achieve.
There was a referendum.
There was. All we can do, however, in this House is to express our views honestly across the floor of the House to one another. If the Taoiseach had been able to give me the same answer to my question as Deputy de Valera would have given if he were still Taoiseach——
Mr. de Valera
And I would be pleased.
—it would undoubtedly mean that a very big proportion of this country and certainly two successive Governments had taken a viewpoint which in history and in the constitutional position would be of importance, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the present Taoiseach, and apparently the present Government, take a different view from what Deputy de Valera and his Government took two or three years ago.
Mr. de Valera
You are now in the happy position that you can deal with it. You can be sure of support on this side of the House.
The difficulty is that probably less than half the people believe that Deputy de Valera is right —and I am trying to see the point in its proper perspective—and more than half the people believe that Deputy de Valera is not right.
Mr. de Valera
I doubt that.
That being the case, I would suggest—and I am sure that Deputy de Valera would agree with me —that this matter should not be the plaything even of discussions in this House. No amount of argument can convince me that we have achieved this ideal and consequently we are not going to solve the problem even by a vote in this House.
Mr. de Valera
There are people who can be characterised by the phrase "there are none so blind as those who will not see."
I do not accept that. I will put it briefly. We have a Supreme Court in this country. That Supreme Court is vested with certain powers regarding our Constitution. I would like this matter to be referred to our Supreme Court to decide as the Supreme Court of this country what is our constitutional position. Would Deputy de Valera accept that?
Mr. de Valera
My own belief is that anybody who reads the Constitution and who knows how the Constitution was established can have no doubt whatever in his mind.
I know how it was established, but the great difficulty we are in is that the President of the United States does not accept this Constitution of ours.
Mr. de Valera
That is not so.
He will not accept an ambassador or representative sent over to him unless he is accredited by the British King.
Mr. de Valera
I would not like to say that that is true or that it would happen if the Dáil passes an Act entitling the President or if the Government entitled the Ceann Comhairle for example to sign the letter of credence. I would like to see it tested.
I think that in status our highest representative abroad is the representative to His Holiness the Pope, but he was accredited to His Holiness by the king.
Mr. de Valera
The king's name was put in in accordance with the External Relationships Act. It need not have been. The ambassador was accredited to His Holiness with the authority of the Government and that was the fundamental thing. We used the king's signature at that time solely as a mark of our association.
I understand the Deputy's argument, but while that position remains, while the present representative of this country has to be accredited to His Holiness the Pope by the English King, the Vatican cannot possibly believe that we are an independent republic.
Mr. de Valera
You do not have to go to the Supreme Court as you suggested. All we have to do is to accredit our representative otherwise.
I do not know how many representatives have come to this country who were accredited to the king. We had a representative from the Argentine the other day. I have not seen the authority he carried with him or to whom it was accredited, but I take it that we will see it in this House in time, certainly after the Adjournment.
Mr. de Valera
It need not have been addressed to the king.
Well, we felt it necessary to accept the machinery of the British King. It did, in my view, show clearly that the Fianna Fáil Government was alive to the fact that, even under the 1937 Constitution, we were somewhat less than an independent republic.
Mr. de Valera
No. It was a matter of external policy. We chose to do that as a matter of policy for the time being, a matter of policy that could be changed any time it was suitable to change it.
As I say, Deputy de Valera has expressed a point of view, the Tánaiste has expressed a point of view, I have expressed a point of view.
Mr. de Valera
The Tánaiste did not express any point of view. He took care not to express a point of view. He simply attacked me for not doing what he says he wanted, which is not expressing a point of view.
He did not accept the Deputy's contentions.
Mr. de Valera
No, he did not. What he did was, he attacked me about some previous position, why I said this or that, why the Fianna Fáil attitude was this or that. He did not express any opinion as to the constitutional position.
At this hour, on the last day of the session, when everybody is anxious to get trains and to go home, I am not going to continue this because Deputy de Valera and I could continue this till midnight or beyond it.
Certainly, up to midnight, and I do not think that we could come to terms.
Mr. de Valera
Precisely because there was confusion created unnecessarily, I had come to the conclusion, as Minister for External Affairs, and head of the Government, that it was probable that although there was an advantage in the policy, the disadvantages now outweighed the advantages and that it should go.
What I feel is that the adoption of any status, whatever it is, should be a positive act of the people and the Parliament——
Mr. de Valera
And so it was.
——without any doubt whatsoever, because the words that are in the Constitution of being free, sovereign and independent, could relate to types of Government other than a republic. When I was speaking on the Department of External Affairs, I used the word "member" of the British Commonwealth. I have discovered since that, constitutionally, that word "member" was wrong, because even within the British conception of the Commonwealth they used the phrase "association." I admit that in the 1926 definition the word "member" is used.
Mr. de Valera
It is about the only definition you will find anywhere.
The word "member" is used in that definition. I forget the exact terms of the definition.
Mr. de Valera
"Freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth."
Autonomous communities, all free and independent, associated with one another—I do not know what the phrase is.
Mr. de Valera
If the Deputy likes, I will read the whole paragraph for him. They are "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
The king is the chief citizen, is not that so?
I am obliged to the Deputy because the important phrase in that sentence is, "in no way subordinate one to another". So that, even in the 1926 conception—and it was a constitutional theory and a constitutional law—it was considered a substantial advance that you could have a community of free and independent nations forming one commonwealth such as the British Commonwealth of Nations was. However, I believe that in accordance with the law of our own courts, the Treaty of 1921, except in so far as it has been amended by positive agreement of the two countries, is still in existence.
Mr. de Valera
It would be interesting to see what is left of it.
I know, but, nevertheless, unfortunately, our courts, I believe, would hold that. Now, that being the position, I would like to see the steps taken that would cut the painter entirely and, in so far as it may be necessary, in so far as I have any voice in the present Government— unfortunately, I do not think I have very much—or in so far as I have any say with the present Government, I certainly would press them to end this entirely unsatisfactory position, to cut the painter and declare positively that we are a sovereign independent republic. I am glad to know that in the carrying out of that declaration—I do not think there is any doubt—we would have the support of every member on the opposite benches and that that constitutional advance would be taken unanimously by this House and, being taken unanimously by this House, there is no one in any part of the world who would doubt our position then.
I would be glad if Deputy de Valera would enlighten me a little on this question of the republic which has been raised here by Deputy de Valera and referred to by the Tánaiste and raised again by Deputy Cowan. I take it that it will be agreed by every Deputy that, had the 1937 Constitution declared that this portion of Ireland was a republic, there would not be any doubt at all about it now, in 1948. I think that much at any rate is quite clear.
If there were not parties interested in trying to suggest the opposite, it would.
That may be but I think it will be conceded that, had that declaration been made in the Constitution in 1937, there could not be any doubt about it to-day.
There would have been quite a lot of people throwing doubt upon it for political reasons.
If it had been declared in the Constitution that Eire is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic, I am putting it to the Deputies opposite and the Deputies on this side that there could not be any mistake or misunderstanding or confusion about it.
There would have been people denying it for political reasons.
I want to remind Deputy Aiken and Deputy de Valera that if there is confusion to-day it is confusion that is of their making.
No.
I want to remind them further, that when that particular Article of the Constitution was being discussed in this House, Deputy MacDermot put down an amendment in which he asked that, instead of having in that article that Éire is a sovereign, independent, democratic State, the Constitution should declare that Éire is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic. He did not claim that he wanted to see it a republic, but he moved that amendment and he said he was moving it for the purpose of finding out why the then Taoiseach was against it and the then Taoiseach gave his explanation. I am quite prepared to accept that it was a perfectly honest, sincere explanation. He gave an explanation as to why he did not want to call it a republic and as to why he did not want a republic declared at that particular time, why this question of a republic should be left entirely outside the Constitution and should be decided at a later stage. I wonder does Deputy de Valera remember that?
Mr. de Valera
I do.
I have the Dáil Official Debates here for 1937, Volume 67-68, columns 971-2 973-4. An amendment was moved by Deputy MacDermot to delete the word "State" and substitute the word "republic". Deputy MacDermot said:—
"I have put down this amendment for the purpose of eliciting the reasons which induced the Government to abstain from using this occasion to declare a republic."
I should like Deputies to listen to the reasons which Deputy de Valera then gave why the Government of the day, a Fianna Fáil Republican Government, were abstaining from using that occasion to declare a republic. The reasons of President de Valera as he then was—he was not Taoiseach until after the last Constitution was passed —were:—
"The thing to be aimed at in this Constitution, in my opinion, as there is an acute difference of opinion of such a character that it would mean that we would not get acceptance of this Constitution by a large section of the people, was to leave this matter to be decided as a separate and independent question."
I do not think there is any ambiguity about that. I do not think there is any confusion in that sentence. The aim of Deputy de Valera as President, when he was talking to that amendment, was to leave this question of the republic to be decided as a separate and independent question at a later date. He went on to state:—
"Whether you take one view or the other view, you will have against this Constitution a number of people who, otherwise, would not be against it. In the same spirit as we tried to meet Deputies on the opposite side, where it is at all possible, I think we ought to leave this matter also outside it. It can be decided outside the Constitution and put as a separate and independent question."
Again is there any ambiguity in that sentence? The view of Deputy de Valera then, and I take it also as the view of Deputy Aiken, was that the question of a republic was to be left entirely outside the Constitution and was to be put to the people, in Deputy de Valera's words, "as a separate and independent question." The reason he was doing that was, as he said, that if he did not so do, there would be a certain amount of disagreement and he would not get people behind the Constitution that he wanted to get behind it—a perfectly fair case and a case put at that time in clear and unambiguous language.
I want now to ask Deputy de Valera when was this question put to the people as a separate and independent question, because a few years ago when Deputy Dillon, as he then was, asked the Taoiseach a question regarding our constitutional status, with the assistance of dictionaries, Deputy de Valera defined the position and he defined it as having its roots in this Constitution. Now he was either not honest with the people when he gave that reply to Deputy MacDermot or he was not being honest when he gave the reply to Deputy Dillon. He was quite clear in his reply to Deputy MacDermot that it was going to be left as a separate and independent question but in reply to Deputy Dillon he said that it had its roots in the Constitution.
I think if Deputies will appreciate what were the views of Deputy de Valera when that specific question was put to him at that time, they will see that there is a great deal to be said for the views expressed by Deputy Cowan, that there is still confusion and that as long as that confusion continues we, as a nation, are going to suffer in prestige and dignity. I do not like the position as it is. I said that before in this House. I do do not like, if I am asked by a person from America or any other country whether or not we are a republic, to have to reply that I do not know. That is the position to-day.
I think that this Government is particularly fortunate in having as its leader and as Minister for External Affairs, people who by their professional training, are capable of looking into this question, two eminent senior counsel——
Mr. de Valera
It is more than a question of law. There is a question of the constitutional development which takes place in every country.
I was merely going to say that I am very glad that we have, and that I think this Government is particularly fortunate in having, two eminent senior counsel to look into the question, after all the confusion which has been created. It has been created by Deputy de Valera, Deputy Aiken and other Deputies on the far side. I think that confusion should be ended as soon as possible.
I want to make this further statement. I think the important thing, as far as we are concerned in 1948, is to aim at the unification of this country. I am not sure that it is terribly important what you call the country, whether you call it "Éire" or "Ireland" or whether we are a republic or not. If we are a republic, well and good, but let us know when we became a republic, how we are a republic. Let us assume that we are a sovereign, democratic republic, but it was not fair to put anyone in the position of saying to them in 1937: "There is the document on which you are going to vote. I am telling you that I am leaving the question of whether we are a republic or not outside all that document to be decided as a separate and independent question and to be put as a separate and independent question", because that is what the people were told then. That is what Deputy de Valera told them. I merely referred to this matter because Deputy de Valera was not prepared to accept my word that I was reading history when I said to him that he was not in 1937 putting this question of the republic to the people. These are his own words.
I do not know whether the Minister for External Affairs intends to intervene in this debate. I should like to express the hope that he will and I should like to hear some firm declaration as to what is the intention of the Government regarding this whole matter. As I say, it does not help us nationally or internationally, so far as prestige or dignity is concerned, to be left in the position we are now in and in which we have been since Deputy de Valera had recourse to dictionaries some years ago. I do not think anyone on this side of the House will take the slightest exception to what Deputy de Valera said regarding the national objectives that he outlined. I think we are all agreed that every Party in this State will do its utmost to secure the abolition of Partition.
I think that every Party in this State will support a Government which is doing its utmost to revive the Irish language. I was particularly glad to hear the words of Deputy de Valera to-day in relation to the language movement. I want to say to him that he expressed my views exactly and the views that a number of the Deputies of these benches expressed on the Estimate for the Department of Education, that no matter how much force and compulsion you try, unless you can educate the people and inculcate in them a love of the language and a desire to learn it from patriotic, national or other motives, or at any rate put into them a desire to learn it, compulsion is no good and you might as well drop it. That is perhaps put a little more crudely than the Deputy put it, but I think it summarises the views expressed by Deputy de Valera, and I should like to record my agreement with them.
I understood from Deputy Lemass to-day that this debate was to centre round the ten-point programme. We have gone rather away from that in going into the constitutional question. I want to make this claim for the Government: that each of the ten points of the programme read out to-day by Deputy de Valera has received the attention of this Government in less than six months of office. Many of them have received attention to such an extent that they are well on the way to fulfilment already in less than six months. A certain amount of jeering has been indulged in because this Government removed the taxes on beer, tobacco and cinema seats imposed in the Supplementary Budget. That was one of the promises made by this Government to the people and was one of the points in the ten-point programme. In doing that the Government did, in fact, effect a real reduction in the cost of living, because they reduced the taxes which people had to bear by £6,000,000 or £6,500,000, as Deputy Davern admitted, for the first time for a Fianna Fáil Deputy, when speaking on the Social Welfare Bill. Every person in this State, rich and poor alike, had to bear the taxes which were imposed by the Supplementary Budget, because the average person, at any rate, either smokes or takes a drink. The cost of living has been reduced by the removal of these taxes.
The Tánaiste has dealt with other matters which were raised by Deputy de Valera. I just want to finish on a note which should appeal to Deputy MacEntee, if he were in the House. Deputy MacEntee is fond of perusing election addresses and newspaper files. In relation to the question of emigration, Deputy de Valera said that there is very little need for a commission, that what was needed was a method of stopping the drain of emigration. I should like to call Deputy de Valera's attention to Fianna Fáil plans for stopping emigration as disclosed by one of the active cumainn in the constituency represented by Deputy MacEntee. According to the Irish Press of 29th October, 1945,
"a very successful inter-cumainn debate was held under the auspices of the Fintan Lalor Cumann of Fianna Fáil in the Rossa Hall, Rathmines, when the motion, ‘That conscription is the only cure for emigration' was passed."
Is it necessary to add that the secretary of that meeting was the person who stood as a candidate with Deputy MacEntee in the recent election?
I was very glad to hear the discussion as to our constitutional status. It is gratifying to know that such a question as this can be fairly and freely discussed. We are now adjourning for quite a considerable period. I do not think it is much longer than the normal adjournment, but we are adjourning somewhat later than usual. At a time like this it is important that Deputies should try to emphasise to a Government what they think are the most important matters that should be attended to. I want to say quite candidly that, in common with many people all over the country and many public bodies, I am highly disappointed with the progress of building. The stoppage of emigration is one of the ten points in the Government's programme. I want to say that the shortage of houses is contributing very largely to emigration. Therefore, I would ask the Government as well as the Minister for Local Government to see that some definite effort is made to show people at any rate that there is a hope of houses being built. It is a sort of insult to the people, it certainly depresses them a good deal, that the Minister for Local Government should be continuously on the run from one county to another, from one board of health to another, and from one city or town to another holding meetings and examining this whole question of building and yet nothing being done.
That is not true.
I do not see any evidence of any building by local authorities. I see private houses being built, but I see no evidence whatever of cottages being built.
We are building them in Wexford.
I think that from the moral and other points of view, the Government, who have a reasonably good majority, and have had quite a long time to consider and think over matters, should put their heads together and get these things done. When the previous Government started to build houses they had to face very great difficulties, but they got over them. I see no reason why this Government should not be able to get over the present difficulties and commence the building of houses.
We have been told that the cost of living is going down. That is not the case. The cost of living is going up and depression is increasing. The circulation of money has rapidly decreased and unemployment is rapidly on the increase. These are some of the matters which this Government should look into and try to find a remedy. They talk about employment being provided. Quite a number of people are unemployed. Some little work is being done on the roads. I see men cutting weeds and doing other trifling jobs to pass the time. Why is it that they cannot get proper work? Most of these men tell me that they would be much better off if they are working at something which would give good results. In a great many cases the main roads and the by-roads are in want of repair.
After 16 years of your Government.
What sort of years were they? They were years when you were well fed and happy.
That is what you think.
You were well looked after and protected. They were years of terrible strain for any Government. I hope this Government will not have such years of strain and such trouble and difficulty as the last Government had. The Deputies opposite know quite well that they would not have been able to get over those difficulties. The times are easy enough now and there should be no great difficulty.
Will the Deputy tell us about the 1914-18 War?
The Chair will not again draw the attention of Deputy O'Leary to his interruptions.
The Deputy should take his medicine. I am giving the facts. We were told by the Minister for Finance that he was going to break down prices. There has been no breakdown so far. Wages are getting less and prices are going up. I hope the members of the Government will be thinking over these few points during the holidays.
I would not have intervened in this debate except for this, that I feel some Deputy should protest against the way in which the House has been lured by the leader of the Opposition Party into a morass of blatherskite. He skimmed lightly over the ten points in the programme of the inter-Party Government, and then he plunged joyfully into the morass that surrounds our constitutional position. I think that the Deputies who followed the leader of the Opposition into that morass were more foolish than himself. What difference does it make to anybody whether this country is a republic or not? If we were to declare this country to be a republic to-morrow, and if we were to satisfy Deputy Cowan that it is a republic, is that going to stop emigration, is it going to increase output in the agricultural industry, is it going to provide work for our unemployed workers, or will houses spring up all over the country to supply the needs of the working classes? These are some questions which I would like to put to the House.
And you would not even commemorate the men of '98 in your native county.
That, I think, is a most outrageous insult to offer to any Deputy in this House. I have taken part in every demonstration that was held in commemoration of '98 in my own county and in the adjoining counties, and I think the Deputy should withdraw that, because there is not a Deputy in this House who has more respect for the people who suffered for this country in the past than I have. But I do not believe in humbug and in lawyers' humbug. We have got too many professional politicians here, too many legal gentlemen who like to twist round knotty constitutional points and to develop them to such an extent that they torture not only themselves but everybody else by getting tied up in the knots.
The legal men have the same right to be here as you have.
The things that we have to concentrate on are, to a large extent, summed up in the ten points of the inter-Party Government's programme. I support that programme without reservation or qualification. We want to expand production in agriculture. This nation cannot live, whether it be a republic or a dominion or anything else, unless we get increased production in agriculture. I am not satisfied that enough is being done in that direction.
Deputy Cowan protested against the long Adjournment. As a Deputy, I do not think I have ever failed to attend the sittings of the House, and I am not protesting against the Adjournment because, while we may have done a lot of useful work in the Dáil in the last six months, I believe that a new Government coming in with new Ministers ought to get a chance to grapple effectively with the problems that face the different Departments of State. I think that a three months' recess will give our Ministers the opportunity of doing very valuable work.
Deputy Cowan suggested that legislation is urgently needed. I do not accept the child-like faith that some people have in legislation as a solution for every possible problem. I think that one of the mistakes made by the previous Government was that they put too much confidence in legislation and not enough in tackling in a real way the problems that confronted them. We all know that the attempt that was made to iron out completely our transport problem by legislation failed ignominiously.
During the next three months something will have to be done, and done in a vigorous way, to assist agriculture to face the difficulties that confront it. There is a kind of foolish idea being spread around that agriculture has nothing before it but prosperity, prosperity that can be had just for the taking. There is a kind of view being circulated that the farmer is the one lucky man in a depressed community. The plain fact of the matter is that every farmer in the country is just struggling to live, even the best-off farmers, while there are large sections of the farming community who are not able to extend their industry because they have not the necessary capital or credit resources to enable them to do so. As far as I know, there has been no proposal to do anything about that, but I am sure that when our Ministers get down to it during the recess they will see how necessary it is to provide increased credit for agriculture and to make it available to the farmers who really require it—not the well-to-do farmers that the Minister for Agriculture spoke about who have bank deposits or who are in the position to bring in two good securities to a bank to enable them to get whatever credit they require. The people who want credit are those who find it difficult to get it either from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or the banks. That credit must be placed immediately at their disposal because the poorest land in the country is owned by farmers who have not the necessary credit to enable them to improve that land. If we are to expand agriculture in the way that is necessary for this country we must assist those people so that they will be able to get increased supplies of fertilisers for the land and will be in a position to reclaim their waste land. In that way we can expand the area of land which can be used productively in the best national interest.
What is true of agriculture is also true of industry. There must be a real drive to get existing industries expanded and new industries established, wherever possible. I hold that it is wrong to denounce every man, who happens to be a manufacturer, as an industrial racketeer. That attitude is foolish. There are manufacturers and manufacturers just as there are farmers and farmers. I hold that any man who is going all out to put his capital and brains into the manufacture of goods to be used by our people or to be exported is the most valuable asset that we have in the country, and that he must be given whole-hearted support.
We have still the drain of emigration. There is one thing that depresses me in connection with that more than anything else and it is the breaking up of homes in the country. We have the position in which the bread-winner of a family has to go across to the other side to earn his living. He has to leave his wife and family at home in this country. I think that is a deplorable state of affairs, a thing that should not be allowed to happen. Neither should we have the position in which young men of outstanding ability, whether they be educated or be manual workers, would be driven out of the country to build up other nations when it is so urgent to build up our own.
I said that there is a tendency to exaggerate the prosperity of the agricultural industry and, following on that, a tendency to exaggerate the prosperity of the farmers. At the moment there is a kind of ramp being encouraged in this country to impose additional burdens on the farmers by compulsory means. We have a demand for compulsory holidays and a demand for the shortening of the working week, demands which will add to the farmer's burden, disrupt his business and slow down production. We ought to face up to the fact that if we want to extend the agricultural industry we ought to do it not by compulsion but by cooperation and by encouragement to those who are engaged in the industry. Let the Government do what the Minister for Agriculture has suggested and keep outside the farmer's fence as far as possible. The farmer will then deliver the goods.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that three hours were allocated for this debate. The three hours are up. I practically nodded to Deputy Dunne that I would hear him, so I suppose it is only right to give him a few minutes. The debate began at ten to four.
I have been waiting in the House for a couple of hours to take part in this debate, but I will be as brief as possible.
The House then adjourns until the 17th November —in case there is any doubt about it.
That is, if the motion is carried.
I have listened with great interest to this debate and I must confess that I am no wiser now than I was before as to what the Constitution really is and as to where we stand. I disagree with Deputy Cogan when he says it does not matter what this country is known as or what our status is. I still think that the word republic has a connotation in this country which is of importance and associated with that word and name have been tremendous sacrifices by large numbers of people. I believe that this Government should not lose any time in proclaiming to the world that we are a republic in fact and in law. So far as our powers at present extend we should endeavour to establish that. I do not think that anybody in this House and very few in this country will disagree with that statement. We can never have any kind of reasonably good relations with Britain until such time as there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever regarding the sovereignty of the Irish nation. Enough, I think, has been said about that particular matter. I want to refer to some other matters.
When this Government was formed it was stated quite clearly that the various Parties came together on the understanding that there would be no restriction of criticism by any Deputy in any part of the House. That is a right which I regard as a very dear one and it is one which I intend to exercise to the very limits, as far as I think it is desirable. I want to exercise it now in respect of some statements that were made in the Seanad some days ago by the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Cogan has touched upon the matter to which I intended to refer when he raised the question of the weekly half-holiday for the farm labourers. This is a matter which I regard as being of fundamental importance. It is not a matter, I think, which any Minister should treat in a jocose fashion, because anybody who is in touch with the agricultural labourers of this country knows full well that there is nothing dearer to their hearts than the idea of getting some few hours off during the week during which they can carry out the normal duties that are required by every householder and every father of a family.
Deputy Cogan has suggested that if the agricultural labourer is to be allowed holidays or a half-holiday it is going to have ill-effects upon Irish agriculture. That, I believe, is a most reactionary view and a most reactionary statement. If Deputy Cogan or the present Minister for Agriculture considers that any improvements in Irish agriculture are going to be made upon that basis then such considerations are entirely false, because the agricultural worker in this country has had a sad history of bad treatment and low wages. I think that any Government—no matter what Government may be in power—with any sense of decency would lose no time in introducing legislation to ensure that this worst-treated worker of all would get the fundamental right of four hours off for 54 hours worked and annual holidays which every other class of worker has. The Minister for Agriculture on a number of occasions has said that he believes these rights should be accorded to the agricultural worker but he does not, apparently, accept the view that legislation should be introduced against, as he stated himself, the will of the majority of the Irish people. That was the reference he made to this question during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. I do not for a moment consider that the farmers of this country who wish to refuse this right to their worker represent the majority of the Irish people. I think there is a great ignorance amongst the majority of the Irish people as to the manner in which farm labourers have been denied this fundamental right. Statements were made by the Minister in the Seanad to which I have referred in another place which, I think, are contemptible. The history of this fight for the half-day and the week's holidays for farm labourers goes back a greater distance than the lifetime of either myself or the Minister for Agriculture. I think that enough has been said on this matter; enough verbiage by the Minister and by everybody else has shrouded this question. It is time for action and it is time that this was placed on the statute book of the country. I want to make it quite clear that my attitude towards the present Government will depend upon the amount of progress that we make in connection with this matter. Deputy Cogan, in referring to this matter, as I said before, prognosticated ill-effects of an appalling nature if this measure were introduced. If Irish farmers are not sufficiently efficient to provide their workers with a half-day in the week then they do not deserve the services of the workers.
I should like to refer to the very vexed question of tomatoes. There is at the present time a glut of tomatoes in this country. Nobody will admit more readily than I that in past years the supply of tomatoes was exploited by unscrupulous people and that they were undoubtedly put outside the reach of the ordinary working-class people in the cities and towns. The only people who could buy tomatoes were those who could afford to go into a high-class restaurant and pay 1/-apiece for them. Now, we are going to the other extreme. In my constituency they go in largely for growing tomatoes and the bulk of the tomatoes in the City of Dublin come from my constituency. The present situation represents a veritable death-blow to the growers. I am speaking now of the small men, most of whom do the work themselves and their families in this industry and do not employ any labour.
The present situation is disastrous for them. There is a glut of Dutch tomatoes in the City of Dublin. The price of Irish tomatoes is falling day by day. I understand that the Irish growers are forbidden to export and they are trapped in the position of having to sell their tomatoes at a dead loss. In no circumstances would I advocate that any price other than a reasonable price should be paid for tomatoes to either Irish or foreign growers. I do say, however, that the present wholesale price in the markets will spell the death-knell of this industry if it continues. It is attributable in no small degree to the import of Dutch tomatoes. Despite what the Minister for Agriculture told the House, Dutch tomatoes are subsidised by the Dutch Government and the Dutch growers have a guaranteed price which enables them to carry on their business successfully. From the economic point of view they could not export tomatoes to this country and sell them at 1/- per lb. if they were not subsidised. Some steps will have to be taken during the recess to remedy the position. First of all, profiteering must be cut out. I entirely agree with that, but at the same time steps must be taken to ensure that the home industry will not be strangled and a decent price must be paid which will enable the producer and his family to live.
That can best be done by controlling the industry in a proper way. I do not accept the theory of the Minister for Agriculture that the solution for this problem, as for every other problem, will be found in free competition and that by competition everything will find its own level. That is an old capitalistic dog-eat-dog philosophy. Economically it is totally fallacious. It is something which can do irremediable harm in this country.
I shall hear Deputy Byrne for two minutes. To-day he intimated his intention of rising on this. It is a pity he did not get in sooner.
Mr. Byrne
Two minutes will be quite adequate. I would ask the Ministers of the various Departments during the next couple of weeks to make inquiries in their Departments and find out what the lowest paid wage earners in the Departments have. I understand that there are men employed as messengers, janitors, packers, porters and so on. I have been told that there are several of them who are married men with three or four children. I have been told that they earn as little as £3 10s. 0d. per week. No Irish Government should offer a married man with a family £3 10s. 0d. per week no matter what his work is. Such men are worthy of decent wages in order to keep their families in frugal comfort.
I earnestly urge upon the Minister for Local Government the necessity for putting a little pressure on the authorities in the City of Dublin to speed up housing. Only to-day I had visitors to the Dáil complaining that they found it impossible to get a house. There is not a room vacant in the City of Dublin. The Minister for Defence is well aware of that. The House and the corporation asked him to help by staying evictions, and we asked him on more than one occasion to pay discharged soldiers living in married quarters their pensions and deferred pay. I ask him now to do something to remedy the position. I think the Army authorities should either build or buy houses for those soldiers they are anxious to dispossess.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th November, 1948.