I suppose there is no one who can find fault with the aim of the Government, as indicated by the Taoiseach, to make us all healthy, wealthy and wise.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).
Mr. de Valera
I do not think I said anything about making people wise. That is beyond me, however about making them wealthy.
They will be wiser the next time.
Mr. de Valera
I think you might have completed poor Richard in the matter and added the "wise". I do not think it is possible for any human being to will ill to himself and I suppose we can acquit the Government of wishing ill to our people. If there should be such a Government in a democratic State they would be driven back to consider themselves and their own position. So that I think the Taoiseach could have taken it for granted that we would all agree with the aim even if he wishes to confine himself to making us wealthy. It is not with the aims so much that we are concerned, because I think we would all have these same aims; it is with the method by which the Government intends to proceed to accomplish these aims.
There are for this country, at the present time, three or four outstanding problems. There is the problem of trying to bring about the unity of our country and to restore its real independence. There is the problem of bringing back again to be the normal spoken language of our people the Irish language, the national language, and there is the problem of endeavouring so to shape our economy that we will be able to keep here the natural increase of our population until that population has reached an optimum figure, and I do not think that anybody, even those who sneered at a remark that I made many years ago in the belief that that optimum might possibly be two or three times our present population, will say that our present population is the optimum. Anybody who considers the matter would say that our optimum population would be considerably above our present population. The test of retaining our population—the test of every Government—was applied ruthlessly to us when we were the Government and under conditions which were altogether abnormal, applied to us when we were endeavouring to maintain our freedom and independence and our right to be neutral in a catastrophic struggle. We think that those who said there was a ready remedy ought now, after one and a half years in office, be able to point to some remedy.
The Taoiseach quotes figures which indicate certain advances in industry. I would like to think that these were not merely the results of the ordinary law of inertia—the preserving of the momentum given to it before the present Government took office. A start had been given. A trend was established and that trend inevitably would continue for a period of years unless the Government, by wrong views and unwise action, interfered and changed the trend. Before we left office the Minister for Industry and Commerce was able to say that our population was higher than it was in 1938, that our marriage-rate was higher, that our birth-rate was higher, that our industrial production had gone up by 10 per cent. and that there were at least 100,000 people in employment more than there had been when we came into office. Surely, that being so and the world war at an end, with every nation producing the things which it was denied through the years of the war, it was obvious that conditions would make for industrial progress and material advancement. I do not think the Government has much to boast of in allowing that trend to continue.
The Taoiseach says, and rightly, that the main basis of the wealth of this country is our land. We want to see the land of this country used to the best possible purpose and to see that land made as productive as possible. It is true that drainage, for example, is important and that money can be spent selectively on improving land by draining it, but the test in all these cases, so far as the investment is concerned, is whether, when you deplete an asset to invest it, it will give you, when invested, a higher rate of return than it gave before. If we are going to spend our wealth, such wealth as we have, on the land, we ought to have an examination and see whether the money spent is going to give an adequate return. We examined that question back in 1932. It is quite true that a number of things prevented the selective process which I indicated as being the right one from being adopted and applied, but we did later have a land reclamation scheme designed for precisely the same purpose as that for which the Taoiseach says their scheme is designed. I would suggest, however, that if we are investing existing wealth or credits, obtained by borrowing, we should see that they give a proper return and, if borrowed, make provision for repayment. We have not been shown what is the provision that is being made for repayment and we have not been shown how the money which is to be spent is to be reproductive in accordance with the test I have given.
There is a way—and it has been urged upon the Government and certainly should be taken into account by the Government—the improvement of the good land. It is one thing to try to bring land into productivity, land of a marginal character which, when it is brought into productivity, will not produce at its best a great deal, and quite another thing to try to restore good land which has been deprived of certain minerals and needs only the restoration of these minerals for its full productivity. The drainage scheme would appeal very much more to me had it been accompanied by an all-out effort to improve the productivity of those lands which are already, in their very nature, good lands.
As I have mentioned the word drainage, may I for a moment refer to arterial drainage? I should like to suggest to the Government that they should have an examination—an examination which I had hoped we would have made before we had gone too far with our scheme—of the possibility of controlling the river flows by reservoirs on some of the tributaries, designed to regulate the flow on the main arteries, to be used for power purposes when possible and as a safeguard against the dangers which lie in indiscriminate draining. I think Deputy Aiken said here some time ago that water should not be regarded as an enemy but as a friend, to be controlled and used properly. I suggest then to the Government that, side by side, with the arterial drainage scheme as operated at the moment there should be a further examination to see whether it could not be modified, so as to provide for the control of the waters by having reservoirs in connection with some of the tributary streams—the larger tributaries, in any case—to hold back these waters, to control them and have them at your disposal so that you can let them out at any rate you want and when you want. I mention that merely in passing.
The main point is: by what methods are we going to increase the productivity of the land? When I spoke of land, I did so simply in connection with the idea of its being the real basis of the wealth of the country, and in that connection there is the problem of the migration from the countryside to the cities which is taking place in practically every country. What is happening with us is not an unique phenomenon. It is a world wide phenomenon. I think I heard one of the Deputies on the opposite benches say that that was to be deplored and that it should be the aim of the Government to do its utmost to change that trend. I, for one, would heartily support any such effort. When we were the Government, we had two methods. One was to increase rural amenities, so as to make rural life still more attractive, because it is attractive. Unfortunately people who have been brought up in the cities and who have not appreciated country life at all are not able to see or appreciate the advantages in country life; but there are undoubtedly certain attractions in the city and these attractions have to be counteracted. What are the methods by which these attractions can be counteracted? One is the bringing of such advantages as supplies of water and electric light to the country homes to the utmost extent we can.
Another is to improve county roads so that people will not, as they have to do very often at present, step from their houses, into mud and walk along a muddy boreen for, perhaps, some half mile or so, for example, on their way to Mass. All these are things which ought to be done and done according to plan and done gradually because—and this is one of the things which we have constantly to keep in mind—we must not take the people away from the productive work of the farm. We must not attract people, who can from a national point of view do better work on the farms, to work on the roads. But if there is unemployment it ought to be possible to get the two things done. We were then aiming towards improving rural amenities so as to diminish the attraction to the cities. The fundamental urge however that drives people from the country to the town is the desire to get work or more congenial work. They are foolish sometimes in only looking at one side of the account. They hear of the wages that are given to tradesmen and others in the town and cities but they forget that side by side with these wages are increased expenses. They rarely go to the trouble of studying the two sides of the account and of asking themselves how much they will be in pocket in the end when the balance is struck. They rarely ask themselves whether they would not be more in pocket in the country where if there are lower wages there are less expenses.
However, there is a need for increased rural work. We tried to remedy that situation by decentralisation of industry. I do not want to pretend for one moment that that went as far as we would have liked. The difficulties are that where you have a big concentration of population you have a large market and diminished transport costs and, accordingly, inducements for every manufacturer to establish his factory near such a market. Advantages must be given to those who establish industries in the country or in the small towns, to offset this. We tried to do that. We succeeded to a certain extent but we did not succeed to the extent that I had hoped. The establishment of industries in the country, decentralisation, is however one of the methods by which you could hope to keep your population more closely in touch with the country.
I think somebody mentioned in this debate, and I agree with him, that the growth of this city—until there is in it one-sixth or so of our whole population —is a menace. Not everybody, perhaps, has the same social outlook as I have and will agree with me in that. However, I believe that that statement is true and that the most important single thing that could be done at the present time for the country would be to keep the rural population in the country. Somebody has suggested also that by the departure of our people from the country we will lose the widespread knowledge of how to work the land— and that is a precious tradition. It can be lost. We saw ourselves how even the knowledge of how properly to grow wheat was almost lost. Certainly the equipment was not there and the tradition of growing that cereal was almost lost. There are a number of agricultural activities which by tradition have become almost instinctive, and it is important that they should be fostered.
One of the problems we have in the country at the present time is the problem of agricultural labour. We have often been talking about the milk problem. One of the difficulties farmers have is the getting of the necessary help to perform the milking operations. These operations have to be performed Sunday and Monday. There is no question of taking holidays. Some effort must be made to get help which will do that. Milking machines are all very well for the larger establishments but it would take some time, I take it, before we would be able to get them into the smaller farms and, even there, we are going to have a certain amount of difficulty because the machines will also need attention. Although the owners of the farms may be able to operate these machines there will be a constant tendency to give up the particular occupations which require outside help.
With the time at my disposal I am afraid to get into the many details associated with this problem and with the general problem of how to prevent emigration and get employment for our people as a whole. I was twitted with having said about 20 years ago that we had at that time facing us a solution which other countries did not have. We were altogether undeveloped as an industrial country. I remember making certain calculations as to the number of people who could be employed in industries here and the number of people who were available.
The figure remains in my mind as something about 80,000—there was something about that number of unemployed in the country at the time. It was not a very difficult calculation. Textiles, shoe making and a number of other industries could be established. I was working on the figures of the day and I was able not merely to talk about it in general but to find out what was the employment that could have been given in such industries if we had the will to establish them. I did not say, of course, what the present Minister for Industry and Commerce said. I never said that every unemployed man in the country could be employed overnight. He said that in this House not on one occasion but after the lapse of a year he repeated it and said that all that was required was the will. I did not say that but pointed out that there were industries that could be established, and that when established would give the required employment. The figure I have quoted at the beginning, that there were 100,000 more employed in industry at the time we left office as compared with the time when we entered office, shows that what I predicted could be done and was, in fact, done.
It is suggested that during our period of office we learned things. Those who do not learn are very stupid. Like most people, we encountered difficulties which we had not anticipated. When we saw some time ago the programme which Clann na Poblachta put forward, we knew from our own experience—we were as anxious to do these things as they could have possibly been and we pushed as hard as we could in that direction—that the difficulties were of such a character that they could not be overcome all at once and that the way to proceed was to go on steadily, keeping the aim in view, and pursuing it steadily over the time necessary for the efforts to fructify.
I do not think really this should have been turned into a debate in which Fianna Fáil was under examination and not the present Government. We have passed out of office and the responsibility now rests on other shoulders. The aim of this Dáil should be to see that those on whose shoulders the responsibility now rests do their work in the best possible way from the national point of view. I have indicated the main outstanding problems and I am reminded that we are pressed for time.
If the Deputy wishes to have a little more time, I will be able to finish in less than an hour.
Mr. de Valera
I do not want to encroach on the Taoiseach's time. However, with regard to Partition, there is nobody in this House—I challenge anybody in this House—who can give a solution for it. All that can be done is to move in a certain direction. We believe that we have right on our side; we believe that, by bringing to the notice of fairminded people what the facts are, we will get them on our side. I cannot say definitely that we will be able to do that in any period of time and I do not think that any member of the Government can say it either. Therefore, I am not going to say to the Government: "Here, produce out of your hat a solution for Partition"—because they have not got it and there is nobody here who can do it.
If we were strong enough militarily to do it, then there would be a question as to whether we should do it in that way or whether we should not bide our time and by various methods try to bring about a situation in which they would come in voluntarily. What we ought to do at the moment—and I think we are all agreed upon it—is to bring the facts to fairminded people everywhere and hope, at any rate, that no matter how it is going to end, that was going to be a good beginning. I do not think I need say any more. There is nobody on this side who is attempting to make any political capital out of the problem of Partition. If anybody is trying to do that, either on this side or the other, he is, to say the least of it, acting unfairly and acting unwisely.
On the second problem, the restoration of the language, again there is no cut and dried solution. If the people of Ireland at the present time had the will to do it—and this is a case where will would be all-powerful—they have the power to restore the language. It is not going to be easy, of course. Most of us who are doing work which involves verbal expression will naturally tend to work in the way that is easiest and those of us brought up with English as our vernacular will naturally find it irksome to a certain extent to have to use a language with which we have not been as familiar as we are with English. But the question is: "Do we want to restore the language?" There used to be a time when there was no doubt as to what the view of the Dáil was in that matter. I wonder if it is the same to-day? I would like to get—and I am not challenging the Government at all in asking this—from the Government an assurance that anything they can do they will do to try to restore the language.
The obvious thing to do is, first of all, to get it taught in the schools. There is a difference of opinion as to the best method of teaching it, whether it is wise to teach it to children or not. Most people who have examined this question and understand the psychology of children have come to the conclusion that the years in which a language can be learned easily and become a vernacular is between the ages of five and eight. These are the important language years. It was with a view to utilising these years, to give that vernacular knowledge of the language, that it is taught in the earlier stages to the children. Of course, that is completely defeated if you teach it in any way except as a spoken language. The insistence in the schools should be on the speaking of the language; that is what we want; the other things will follow. In the earlier stages, much will depend on the enthusiasm of the teachers and the encouragement of parents. Of course, it is absolutely stupid to suggest that, because a child has learned Irish and has not learned as much English in the same time as he otherwise would the child has not made progress. I happened to read a report on bilingual schools in Britain and I saw a stupid test applied and an unfavourable report because the children with the second language did not know as much English as the children with English only. There was no taking into account the extra mental development and that they had a second language. I believe that, if our children are sympathetically taught and if their parents are sympathetic, they can rapidly get in the earlier years a knowledge of the language which will enable them to understand simple expressions and develop in the use of the language as a vernacular. We have very many instances in this country of that. The question, however, is: is it the policy of the Government to proceed in that way? Is everybody here in this Parliament of the opinion that we ought to restore the language?
Surely there is no question about it.
Mr. de Valera
It would do no harm to get a reiteration of it if that is so and I believe it to be so. I would only be glad to get it, I assure you. I am not putting this to get a negative answer. I want to restore the position when it was felt by everybody that the Government desired the restoration of the language and helped towards it. I want that to be known throughout the country. But unfortunately the Government cannot by its own action restore the language. No Government can do it by itself. This thing, the restoration of the language, has to come from the will of the people themselves, from the parents, from the teachers and from the ordinary people. You have to have abroad a spirit like the original spirit of the Gaelic League if you want to do it. If we do not do it in this generation it is never going to be done. That is the second problem.
The third problem is, as I have said, that of keeping our people. There again there is no one way in which you can do it but you can by a multiplicity of ways. Everything that gives productive employment should be availed of. I have given the test of productive employment. For employment to be productive, whatever assets are spent should give a return of increased assets. But there is more in this than the narrow economic view. We on these benches never took the narrow economic view of the problems. The problems are fundamentally social and the economics are to be judged good or bad according to the social results that follow from them. We wanted to create in this country conditions in which as many Irish people, men and women, as possible could live in this island in reasonable comfort and happiness. The things that would contribute to their comfort and happiness are the things that ultimately matter and material things are of value only inasmuch they lead ultimately to happiness. In increasing the material wealth of the nation, in building up our industries, in increasing the productivity of the land, we are providing the material basis for a good existence, but, as everybody knows, you can have considerable material wealth and exist miserably. You can have people and a community with considerable wealth behind them and yet living in a miserable condition. If you try to find out what makes for content and happiness you are driven to consider mental states. These are influenced by the condition of our surroundings. If people are living in squalor and have imagination or intellect they cannot help comparing their conditions with the conditions of other people about them and necessarily they become discontented and unhappy. If people are in houses which are not fit really for human beings to live in it is too much to expect that these people could be happy. We have got therefore —and in our time we saw to it as best we could—to provide as one fundamental necessity decent homes for the people. When we came into office there was an appalling task to be faced.
We had a condition, I remember, in this city where a quarter of the population were condemned to live in a single room to the families. People could not be happy or contented under conditions like these. Nobody could. We had, therefore, to see that proper houses were provided for those people. The war intervened and slowed things up, but I think that 140,000 houses were provided in our time. Towards the end of our period when the war was ending we examined the situation to see how quickly we could get off our mark and continue with the programme which had been interrupted. Before the change of Government we had planned for the new conditions. We had plans laid for housing and forestry. Forestry has been mentioned in the debate. I remember that in 1943 or about that time I had a conference with the officers of the Department with regard to the development of our forests. I was informed of the difficulties that obtained at that time. We set as a fairly reasonable target to be aimed at in the first year or so after the war about 10,000 acres. We were assured at that particular time that that was a target which was reasonable or which at least was not impossible. Of course, if you take in, as was pointed out here to-day, land which is not suitable, you can increase this acreage but it is waste, the same sort of waste as I objected to recently in another connection. I believe that there are too many useful things that can be done and that can be done with profit to contemplate even for a moment doing things which mean absolute loss. There is nobody who will deny that it is absolute loss to go to the trouble of planting trees on land which is known to the experts to be unsuitable and which in the end will not yield a reasonable crop.
This debate, of course, suffers, as it always has suffered, from the fact that it is so wide that to deal with it at all would require very many hours. It would require some hours for each individual speaker if he were even to deal with only the things he himself deems of prime importance. I could for a considerable period talk about a number of other things we had planned to do and that we think the Government can do, but there are other occasions on which that can be done and they have probably been pointed out by others.
Before I sit down, however, I want to say something about the External Relations Act. My attitude and the attitude of our Party towards the External Relations Act has been made clear both inside this House and outside this House. I am not going to go over it again. It is there on record and everybody can see it. I stand, personally, by everything I have said. It was suggested that in the recent election in Cork I said—I do not think I used the words attributed to me——
That you could not say whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.
Mr. de Valera
I did not say "I could not say." I said "I was not saying."
I was listening to him and what he did say.
Mr. de Valera
I looked up one paper.
The Cork Examiner.
Mr. de Valera
I did see the Cork Examiner and it is not what the Mininster says, the reason being that I was dealing with a question which was apart altogether from the merits, quite irrespective of whether it was a good thing or a bad thing it was certainly not a right thing for the Government to do without——
What does that mean?
Mr. de Valera
It means what I am about to say—that it was not a right thing for the Government to come in suddenly and deal with a matter of that sort without the people's prior knowledge.
It was before this House.
Mr. de Valera
In elections I have constantly denounced the depriving of the people of this country of one of their fundamental democratic rights. The people have the right not merely to select their representatives from which a Government is to be formed, but they have the fundamental right to decide questions of major national policy. That is a fundamental matter. I say that the Coalition, that all coalitions, deprive the people of that fundamental right. The Deputies in Clann na Poblachta have been excusing themselves for not carrying out their programme on the basis that they did not get a majority. Each Party can go and promise the people and tell them anything they choose and then form a coalition and carry out a policy quite independent of anything the people may have expected or desired. I was attacking the fact that this step was taken not merely without consultation but in contradiction of the expressed pledges that were given and of the whole policy that had been indicated by certain Parties.
If that is the view of the Leader of the Opposition why did the Leader of the Opposition not ask to have a plebiscite taken on it?
Mr. de Valera
Why? I have lived through one split; I have lived to see the British Government and Britain taking advantage of our difference here and I was determined that, as long as I lived anyhow, I would not be a party to doing anything which was going to split this nation in face of a British attack. That is why. There were many criticisms that I could have made against the maladroitness of the methods that were used, and I refrained from doing it because during that time I believed that it would not have been in the national interest to do it.
But there were other members of the Party.
Mr. de Valera
The other members of our Party who held fundamentally different views, who believed that it was a wrong thing to do, who believed that it was a nationally bad thing to do, were, I believe, induced to refrain from that during a critical time simply by these considerations. It does not make for co-operation or for help. There used to be a saying that those who sup with the devil need to have a long spoon. It makes it particularly difficult to work with certain people when the things that are done in the national interest are used to try and hamper you and prevent you from speaking when you have the opportunity and the right to speak in the national interest. We were silent when it was necessary to be silent.
You were not.
Mr. de Valera
We were silent. The point is that if we wanted to do it this country would have been split and we know perfectly well what would have happened if we from the other side of the House had brought forward those proposals. I was not dealing with the merits however, because it was not germane to the argument that I was using. The same thing happened here when Deputy O'Leary interjected a remark a short time ago. I put him aside and said what I had said at another time did not matter because I wanted to keep to the point that I was dealing with. I might as well have been asked the old gag: "What did Gladstone say in 1886?" It would be just as germane to the issue as that stupid remark, and I just waved it aside. It was argued to-day and suggested that I did not want things that I said before to be examined. Anything that I have said is open for consideration at any time. However, that was only an interlude.
The important thing in this debate is to consider major questions of national policy. I would like to say that I agree with the Taoiseach that it is more appropriate to have the Statistics Branch associated with the Taoiseach's Department than with any other Department. I would not say that there is anything very significant about it except that there is to be an increase of staff. That is significant and I am glad of it. The Statistics Branch has been associated with the Department of Industry and Commerce. It was more or less in an independent position however and its work was available to all Departments. In my opinion, what is proposed now is not particularly significant, but I do suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be regarded as having special significance if I had done it. I can imagine the Taoiseach, for instance, speaking from these benches and twitting me on having appropriated the Statistics Branch.
You would have got a wildly enthusiastic welcome for it.
Mr. de Valera
I can only hope so now. May I make another suggestion to the Taoiseach? I have felt for some time that the transport section of the Department of Industry and Commerce—it is a section that serves all sections of the community, the Departments of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, the ordinary citizen—should be associated with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I think it would mean better governmental organisation. It is a thing that could be done without increasing the number of Ministries. It would not mean an extra Minister. As I say, I think that the services which the transport section in the Department of Industry and Commerce renders to the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Industry and Commerce itself, to trade as well as the services that it gives to the ordinary citizen ought to be detached from the Department of Industry and Commerce. I believe that the task of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in developing our industry is sufficiently large. I do not agree at all with the idea that a committee can co-ordinate better than a single individual. I have never held that view. I believe the committees are very largely a waste of time. As a rule, you find one directing mind and there are occasional meetings for talks but if there is not one directing head co-ordinating and seeing to the execution of the work then very little work will be done. I want to say that I believe that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce or any Minister for Industry and Commerce that would be worth his salt, ought to be a better co-ordinating machinery for the development of industry than any group.
Mr. Connolly rose.
The arrangement was that the Taoiseach was to be called on at 4 o'clock.
I only want to speak for a moment.
There may be others who will then want to intervene. There was agreement that the Taoiseach would be called on at 4 o'clock. He gave way to allow Deputy de Valera extra time. I am just informing the Deputy of the agreement. If he desires to break it, I have no power to prevent him.
I have no desire to break it. I am merely claiming the indulgence of the Taoiseach.
I have no objection if the Deputy is dealing with but one topic.
I wish to refer very briefly to a matter which, I believe, will find agreement in all parts of the House. I wish to direct the Taoiseach's attention to a special matter. I ask for an assurance in reference to the crisis that has developed on the Great Northern Railway, and particularly in reference to the railway workers there, whose employment will be in jeopardy from 1st September. The House will not be here to consider the matter until 26th October. Perhaps the Taoiseach will give some consideration as to whether, without disturbing Government policy or making any prior announcement in the very delicate situation which has arisen, it would be possible to give us an assurance that the livelihood of these workers will have priority in any plans or emergency measures that the Government may find necessary in this particular crisis.
At the outset of the remarks I have to make in reply to this debate, I think I am entitled to say that we have reason to congratulate ourselves this year on the tone of the debate, to some extent on the level of the debate and, with some few exceptions, to the absence of personal attacks, personal bitterness and sallies of one kind or another that we have occasionally had here in the past. We have had a debate which has ranged over a considerable number of topics. In view of the tone of the debate, to which I have referred, I propose to take the advice of my friend, Deputy Peadar Cowan, and, however alluring the prospect, to refrain from hitting back at Deputy Lemass for some of the things he said yesterday. I would have, I must confess, enjoyed myself thoroughly in taking up some of the challenges put to me by Deputy Lemass. I would have enjoyed myself very much less thoroughly in replying to some of the things that were said to-day about me by Deputy Boland.
But, I take my friend Deputy Peadar Cowan's advice and, having taken that advice, I find very little, if anything, to answer in Deputy Lemass's speech. He rather reminded me of a fly at a window-pane. We have often seen a fly buzzing up against a window-pane, hitting it and going back again in spite of the fact that he has been hit, seeming to think all the while that there is no obstacle there in that window and that he can get through. Deputy Lemass devoted practically the entire of his speech yesterday hitting himself up against the proposition that there was no rift in the inter-Party Government. He said: "I can see it; there is one; there is some split in that Government; there is a rift there in that Government; it cannot be true that they are united and that there are no rows going on between them; I can see it, because of the speeches they are making." He hit himself up against the hard fact again and again that in this Government the Parties supporting it are solidly united in purpose and in policy.
He referred to a variety of queer little characteristics that he found amongst certain of my colleagues and he did not even spare myself. Fair enough. He spoke about the personal laziness of some of my colleagues. My trouble, I want to tell the Deputy and the House, for the last 12 months was to see that all my colleagues did not work as hard as they have been working and did not injure their health. That is what has been giving me trouble in the last 12 months, and not personal laziness on the part of anybody. He said the Minister for Industry and Commerce ought not to have been sent to an international conference, that the Minister for Finance ought to have been sent. Of course, if the Minister for Finance was sent to a European Economic Conference or to this international conference held in Paris a few weeks ago, we would have heard Deputy Lemass thumping the table, working himself up into a range and asking: "Why was not the Minister for External Affairs, whose job it is to deal with international conferences and Foreign Affairs, sent instead of the Minister for Finance?" Surely, Deputy Lemass will agree with me in his heart, if not actually.
I know there is a concentrated attack now, on the part of the Deputy and those supporting him, on the Minister for External Affairs. Having failed in their attack over some months on the Minister for Agriculture, who rated them bell, book and candle, by his words and actions and acts, they now concentrate their attack on the Minister for External Affairs. I want to say one thing about that Minister. In the last 15 months he has attended international conferences in various parts of the world. He has brought prestige to this country. He has brought respect for this country amongst the diplomats of the international comity of nations. He has raised our status and brought recognition of the fact that, small nation though we may be, we have force and influence in international affairs, and possibly we may be able to give some assistance in the difficult problems that await solution in connection with international relations and international economic co-operation.
Then Deputy Lemass turned his fire on his successor in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I thought that he showed in that respect, if I might be pardoned for doing it in the presence of my colleague, Deputy Mrs. Redmond, some of the characteristics of a jealous woman. It was perhaps too much for him to hear the figures I read out yesterday indicating, coldly and dispassionately, the success that has attended the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce since Deputy Dan Morrissey became Minister. Where was the basis for that irritation that Deputy Lemass referred to about the Minister for Industry and Commerce, because industrial progress was not sufficiently fast for him? I gave the figures yesterday of the industrial progress, a record in industrial production, a record in industrial export, a record in industrial employment in 12 months under the leadership of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce.
A record every year.
Then he went even further than that, because he repeatedly drew attention to what he had already said some time ago—the occasion I do not know. He said he had charged, or gone very nearly to the extent of charging, the Minister for Industry and Commerce with something which, if I were in a court, I would describe as being a charge of fraudulent delay in order to bring about a situation where he could say that Córas Iompair Éireann was a bankrupt concern.
He continued his remarks by saying that I possibly might regard it as discourteous of him if he suggested I had acquired in the last 18 months an elementary knowledge of Irish national economics. I might recall to the Deputy a statement that was made to me and some of my friends in University College, Dublin, a considerable number of years ago, a greater number of years even than have elapsed since Deputy de Valera made the famous speech recalled by Deputy Cosgrave to-day. It was made by a professor of French during the last lecture we got in French in the University College before we sat for our examination. He told us that we then knew enough French to learn French. I have never forgotten that. He was a very wise man. The longer I have lived and the more experience I have gained in law, politics or economics, the more I realise how little I know and how much there is still to be learned. May I commend that little lesson to Deputy Lemass. I do not suffer under the illusion that I know everything. When I was charged with the responsibility of my present post last year I took the precaution of gathering around me the best men and the best advice available here on Irish economic affairs so that I might be the better able to discharge the task this House placed upon me.
That was the kind of speech made by Deputy Lemass. He then went on to try to show that there was a rift in this inter-Party Government, that we were all speaking in different voices and that, although we were all saying that there was no fly, nevertheless there must have been some kind of fly on the window pane. He said that my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was telling fairy stories. That was the contribution made to this debate on general Government policy by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce. I had given figures to the House, figures which speak for themselves, on the industrial progress of this country and recalled to the memory of the House figures that the Minister for Agriculture had given in reference to increased agricultural production.
If there was any case to be made against that and if our balance of trade position, which I had explained, was not in the healthy condition in which it is, I do not think the former Minister for Industry and Commerce would have wasted his time talking about the personal laziness of Ministers, the alleged division in the Irish Cabinet, the fairy tales of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or my elementary knowledge of Irish political economy. He had not a single answer to the case that was made here that the policy pursued by this Government, the underlying principles of which I outlined in my speech yesterday afternoon, was beneficial to this country and that, if we get a chance to carry out our policy, we shall be facing a position where we can and will, I hope, bring a considerable degree of material benefit and prosperity to every section of our people.
That was the type of speech that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce made. It was the best tribute that could be paid to the general policy I outlined yesterday. I gave the figures. May I supplement them now by figures that were published last night? The trade returns from our own statistical branch are not yet available. They will be published very shortly. They come out a few days after the British trade returns because they are compiled on a somewhat different basis and there is a time lag of two and a half to three days between the compilation of the British trade returns and our trade returns. The figures from the British trade returns, which I propose to quote, do not present as rosy a picture as I believe will be presented when our own figures are available in a couple of days. The figures relate to the first six months of 1949 and I shall compare them with the figures for 1948. For the first six months of 1948 our exports to Great Britain of live animals amounted to £4.86 million; for the first six months of this year £7.41 million were exported. Deputy de Valera and, I assume the former Minister for Industry and Commerce will agree that one of the methods for rectifying our balance of payments position and of increasing our national wealth is by the export of our surplus agricultural products. There is an increase of almost £3,000,000 in six months. For the first six months of 1948 our exports of tinned beef represented £225,000; for the first six months of this year the figure is £379,000, an increase of over £150,000. Dead poultry represented £557,000 in the first six months of last year and £840,000 in the first six months of this year. Eggs represented £2.9 million in the first six months of last year and £4.6 million in the first six months of this year. Beverages last year totalled £2.57 million; this year the figure is £3.37 million. In the first six months of 1948 exports of fish totalled £21,000; in the first six months of this year the figure is £310,000. Are these striking figures? Do they speak loudly of the effects of Government policy in the last 12 months?
But that is not the whole story. According to the British trade returns the value of exports from this country of live animals to Britain was £1.19 million as compared with £445,000 in June, 1948, an increase of nearly £750,000. According to the British trade returns, and we believe the figure will be increased and show a better picture as soon as our trade returns are available, fat cattle in June, 1949, were valued at £500,000 as compared with £20,000 the year before.
That is the picture presented by the trade returns given last night by the British. Compare those figures with the situation that existed during the decade from 1930 to 1939 when the Fianna Fáil Government was in office. During that period the national income was stationary. It made no progress. During the same period the British national income was increasing at a normal rate, even though at that time there was considerable unemployment following the depression. I understand that 1½ per cent. is supposed to be the normal rate of increase. During that period of ten years prior to the war the national income here remained stationary and agricultural output was also practically stationary. A difference of 5 per cent. one way or the other was the very most. That is the figure compared with what we have done. Is it any wonder that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, opening this debate for the Opposition, could only refer to the personal laziness of Ministers, rifts in the Cabinet and the fairy tales of another Minister with a few little gibes about irritation and the suggestion of a fraudulent course of action on the part of one Minister.
That was the greatest tribute that could have been paid to us. He could say nothing except to make these particular statements to which I have referred. He asked what our transport policy was. He accused us of delaying our transport policy. He spoke about this White Paper that he seems to have on his brain.
But not on the desk.
I want to tell Deputy Lemass that the White Paper will be produced when the Government thinks fit to produce it and not when Deputy Lemass wants it. We will do it when we have the matter examined and when we have it properly determined. No amount of niggling, if I may use an Americanism, on the part of Deputy Lemass will have the slightest effect on me or my Government.
That is obvious. I have exhausted myself trying to do so.
The fly on the window-pane is exhausting itself again, battering up against a thing that is not there; the White Paper is not appearing because there are divisions in the Cabinet. So proceed with your niggling and you are battering yourself needlessly against a nonexistent obstacle.
Deputy Cowan made a constructive speech and one with which I find myself very nearly in complete agreement. He referred in the first place, I think to housing. In obvious sincerity and with a very deep knowledge of the difficulties involved and the problems to be met, he suggested that a state of emergency should be declared. I think I am entitled to say that profound as the knowledge of Deputy Cowan is of the housing conditions in the City of Dublin, wide as his experience is, I am nearly as familiar with those conditions and the problem as he is. If I have any personal bee in my bonnet in connection with Government policy or anything else, I have it in connection with housing. It is the one thing that, so far as I am concerned as a private Deputy of this House, I have had the most experience of. As a city Deputy I have had people coming to me day after day and night after night with stories that would rend your heart. It does not require the production of a play in a theatre to bring home to us the heart-breaking problems that are involved in the housing conditions in this country.
Deputy de Valera told us this afternoon of the target that his Government had set when they came into office. A wise man stated to me the other day while we have a very serious problem to solve in connection with housing, while we have to concentrate on what we have to do, it is worth while thinking of what, in fact, has been done since this State was set up. Go through the outskirts of the City of Dublin and you will find the contribution that has been made by successive Governments, the Cosgrave Government as well as Deputy de Valera's Government, to the solution of the housing problem. I want to say to Deputy Cowan and to Deputies here that everything that can humanly be done to solve the housing problem in the county of Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland will be done by this Government. While I appreciate the idea at the back of Deputy Cowan's suggestion that a state of emergency might have been declared—I think Deputy Fitzpatrick made the same suggestion some time ago in a question—I do not believe in these tags and labels being put upon situations. I do not think it will help the problem.
I had many consultations and conferences with my friend and colleague, the late Minister for Local Government, about Dublin housing. He had some conferences with the housing committee, Mr. O'Mahony and the Dublin City Manager. We have had consultations since with the new Minister for Local Government. I can assure the Deputy that everything that can humanly be done will be done to secure houses for the people who require them in the City and County of Dublin and elsewhere. I do not say that the machinery is perfect. I am inclined to think myself that it is rather too complex. There is the local authority, the county council, the Dublin Corporation, the city manager, the housing committee manager and the housing committee of the Dublin Corporation and all the complex machinery that has to be put into motion for the acquisition of land. It is possible that may be simplified. If that requires to be done in order to solve the problem then I think we will try and see that it is done.
Let me, for the comfort of Deputy Cowan and the other members of this House and particularly Dublin City Deputies, give some indication of the progress that is being made at present. Last year, not very much progress was made for a number of reasons such as difficulties of supply and, above all, difficulties in connection with getting skilled labour. That was one of the problems that the late Minister for Local Government had taken into his control to solve just before he died. A few days before he died we had a conference in my office about that. At all events, whatever lack of progress in the provision of housing may have occurred during the last year this is the position at present. On the 30th of June this year there were under construction here in the Dublin Corporation area 2,973 houses. I think that is a little progress from the figure that Deputy Cowan gave in his remarks yesterday.
Six hundred, completed.
At the present moment there are 2,773 in the process of being completed, 607 housing tenders have been accepted or invited. In 2,044 cases site development is in progress and the number of skilled men employed is 1,453. The total number of men employed is 2,898.
In Dublin alone?
Dublin Corporation. As regards the position that existed at the end of last year, there were 1,507 houses under construction. Tenders had been invited for 578 and the number employed was 1,150. So that, in the six months the number of men employed has risen from 1,150 to 2,898. While that is some evidence of effort, we hope that the position will become even more satisfactory as time goes on. In the case of all local authorities throughout the country the number of houses that were in process of construction on the 30th of June of this year was 9,534.
Deputy Cowan also spoke about the position as regards the unemployed. For those people of whose existence we all know, the young people leaving school and looking for employment, the only cure is more industrial activity and more industrial employment. That constitutes a very serious problem. The only thing I can say to Deputy Cowan is that so far as the activities of the Government and of the Minister for Industry and Commerce are concerned, they have been all directed to the creation of new industries and to the promotion of new concerns that will give employment of a productive character. It was for that reason primarily that we set up this Industrial Development Authority to advise us as to what new Irish industries could be established. Deputy de Valera criticised that at the end of his speech and said that a Minister could direct that policy in preference to a committee, as he called it. The Minister is in full control of the situation. He is still charged with full responsibility for Irish industrial development but he has at his disposal four of the best men we could get in Ireland to advise him.
I do say, with all respect to the experience of Deputy de Valera, that a body of four men of that kind working as they are at present working and as they will continue to work, with complete independence of Civil Service methods and Civil Service procedure, is far more likely to produce results quickly than if we were dependent on the kind of routine stuff that went on in the Department of Industry and Commerce, examining accounts, examining propositions, creating files, having interviews and wasting time to a very large extent. We want to cut that out. We set out to get four men of independence, integrity and, above all, of proved ability in industry and finance. We have got them and we have great hopes of them, but during all the time the Minister is responsible and the Government is responsible. This is our effort to get expert examination of proposals and expert views in regard to what new industries can be established. We have had to provide productive employment for our people, not merely the patchwork, casual employment which had existed previously. We hope to do at least something for those people about whom Deputy Cowan, as well as ourselves, is so much concerned.
Deputy Cowan spoke about the cost of living. My Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cosgrave, answered that this morning and I, in reply to an interruption from Deputy Lemass, who asked why the cost-of-living index figure has not gone down, stated that it has gone down ten points. The cost-of-living index figure, calculated on the old basis, has gone down by ten points. This is the lowest point reached since May, 1947.
The latest published index figure in respect of clothing shows an increase.
What are you talking about?
The Parliamentary Secretary was talking about clothing.
The Parliamentary Secretary was not talking about clothing, but what he said, and what he proved, was that we had made a serious contribution towards bringing down the cost of living. The Minister for Finance, in the Seanad and here also, drew attention to what had been done here in the last 12 months to remove the legacies of injustice which we inherited from our predecessors and the contributions we had made towards amelioration of these injustices. He pointed out that we had given increased salaries to civil servants, guards and public servants and had secured increased wages for workers in every branch of industry.
Although the cost of living had gone down?
In spite of that, the cost-of-living index figure calculated on the new basis has remained stationary, which is a miracle performed by the Government, and the old cost-of-living index figure has gone down by ten points. What Deputy Cosgrave proved was that even the old cost-of-living index figure, which was a manufactured one, and from the calculation of which we have taken beer, spirits and tobacco, has gone down by ten points and the new figure has remained stationary. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out that, while wages and the cost of raw materials had increased, we had kept the cost of living stationary and that, in fact, in certain respects, it has gone down. Moreover, the price of a large range of commodities, as indicated by Deputy Cosgrave, has been decreased and the items to which he referred in that range of commodities are not taken into account in computing the cost-of-living index figure. We have reduced the old official cost-of-living index figure by ten points and we have removed a number of commodities from the list, such as beer, spirits and tobacco, because they were subject to taxation. We have secured a reduction in a large range of commodities which do not enter into the computation of the cost-of-living figure. That is some contribution, at all events, but we are not satisfied with that. We intend to do more if we can, because we think it is essential. We have kept away a third round of applications for wage increases and we intend to bend our energies still further in that direction. When we hear the sort of nonsense that is talked about the ten-point programme, to the effect that we did not carry it out, then we answer back and answer back effectively in the way that Deputy Cosgrave has done and in the way I have done to-day.
Deputy Lehane, Deputy Cowan and, I think, to some extent, Deputy Childers referred to the question of employment. Deputy Childers jibed at Clann na Poblachta and Labour because, he said, it was part of their policy to secure full employment for our people. That is part of our policy, too, but, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out to-day, one would think from the propaganda circulated by Fianna Fáil, and by Deputy Lemass in particular, that we had promised to fulfil the ten points of that programme the very day after we came in here. We were not here a week until it was said that we had not fulfilled that programme. That, of course, is good political propaganda; it is perfectly legitimate and I have no objection to it but, as I said in Galway last week, we should see, in playing a political game, that it is not played at the expense of the general good of the community. We put forward, as a Government, a ten-point programme but we never said we would carry it out in a given time.
Oh, yes, immediately.
In fact we have carried out the whole programme. Deputy Cosgrave went through it item by item.
He did not. He stopped at No. 3.
Even if he stopped at No. 3, according to Deputy Lemass, we have not carried out one single item. If I had time I could quote the whole ten-point programme, point by point, and show that we have carried out every one of them or will carry them out in process of time.
Mr. de Valera
That is a safe promise.
Deputy de Valera says it is a safe promise.
You are a good judge of making safe promises.
I accept Deputy de Valera's statement that it is safe to say that, because we are going to stay here until we do it. "Increased agricultural and industrial production"—Deputy Cosgrave dealt with that. "Immediate all-out drive to provide houses for the working and middle classes at reasonable rents.""Luxury building to be rigidly controlled"— that has been carried out. "Reduction in the cost of living"—that has been carried out. "Taxation of all unreasonable profit making." We stopped unreasonable profit making. We stopped that class of looting that was being carried on by a section of the community. Deputy Lemass spoke about a speech I made at a meeting of the Irish Federation of Industries. That speech was made by me after very careful consideration, and it in no way conflicts with what Deputy Norton said. There were a certain few people here who gave a bad name to the decent industrialists of this country. I have repeatedly stated while in opposition and I have said it since I came into Government, that any Irishman, Irishwoman or Irish firm that invests his, here or their money in Irish industry and takes the risk attendant upon a certain enterprise will get every encouragement from me and the Government. They are entitled not merely to a fair return but a good return on the capital expended by them, provided they give reasonable service to the public and consider the people whom they employ. They must consider the quality of the goods; they must consider the people they employ to produce those goods; and they must consider the community that buy the goods from them. Provided these three matters are attended to, then any Irish industrialist, as I said, will have nothing to fear but everything to gain from the Government.
There are, however, a number of people to whom I referred during the election campaign last year as the new rich. Everybody knows who the new rich are. Everybody knows that these new rich are not representative of the entire personnel of Irish industrialists. May I say also that it would seem from the remarks made by Deputy de Valera a few moments ago that Irish Industry and the Irish industrial revival started in 1932? It started long before 1932. Some of the best industries that we have at the present time were started under Deputy McGilligan when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Name one?
I suppose I will be told that I have only dealt with four of the ten points. The fifth is: "Introduction of comprehensive social security plan to provide insurance against old age, illness, blindness, widowhood, unemployment, etc." That will be carried out in our time and, as I said, not at the "Dáil Reporter's" request or Deputy Lemass's request or the request of the Irish Press. The sixth is: “Removal of recent taxes on cigarettes, tobacco, beer and cinema seats.” Has not that been done?
Only one of the six so far.
Deputy Lemass's breeziness is a by-word in Irish public life. Let me go back. (1) Have we increased agricultural and industrial production. (2) "All-out drive to provide houses"—I have given the figures. (3) "Reduction in the cost of living." That has been carried out. (4) "Taxation of all unreasonable profit-making." That is being carried out by taking away unreasonable profits, profits which they are not allowed to make. (5) "Introduction of comprehensive social security plan." That will be carried out. We will leave that aside. That is four out of five. (6) "Removal of recent taxes on cigarettes, tobacco, beer and cinema seats." That has been carried out. (7) "Immediate steps to provide facilities for the treatment of sufferers from tuberculosis." Will anybody suggest that is not being done by the Minister for Health, Dr. Browne; that he has not achieved a success far beyond what he, even in his enthusiastic drive for the treatment of sufferers from tuberculosis, ever thought he would achieve? (8) "Establishment of a Council of Education."
Put that aside.
No, we will not. The Deputy will be disappointed to hear that it will be set up very soon.
It has not been done yet.
No. That is six out of eight, even leaving aside the council of education and the national drainage plan.
That is four out of nine.
I really would advise Deputy Lemass to consult Deputy de Valera who is, I understand, a mathematician; at least, I am sure he can add up, but Deputy Lemass cannot. (10) "Modification of Means Test as at present applied to Old Age, Widows' and Orphans' and Blind Pensions." We have gone further than that. We said we would modify the means test. In addition to that, we have increased old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and blind pensions. On my calculation, no matter whether you like it or not, that is seven out of ten in 16 months. I am proud of that achievement. We have five years to go. There will be eight out of ten in a few months.
That was the immediate programme.
You had 16 years.
Where did the Deputy get our immediate programme? The Deputy is pushed off the immediate programme. This is what the programme is headed—not the immediate programme——
That was the immediate programme.
Will the Deputy just try for one moment to stick to the truth and the facts? If he cannot stick to the truth, he should, at least, stick to the facts. The heading is: "The following are the main features of the policy of the Irish Government."
As published.
As published. That is an exact copy of what was agreed between us when we became the Government and nothing that Deputy Lemass inserts will change it. We have done more. Do you think we are confined to that ten point policy? We have reached such a measure of agreement between us on a variety of other matters that we need not bother about our ten point programme and the country will find the advantages and the benefits, notwithstanding everything that Fianna Fáil propaganda may produce.
We will find that out at the next election.
We will go to the country when we have our job done— I said that last Friday—and then the people can give their verdict. If we fail, they will be in a position, under our democracy, to pass judgment upon us, and to give effect to their verdict. We will not go even to please those people who are so anxious for a general election when they are talking about it, but who say, "We hope to God there will be no general election."
There are a few over there who will never come back again.
Deputy Briscoe asked me for some figures. I must say, and I am saying it with all sincerity, that, so far as the speeches of Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Aiken are concerned, I welcome them as constructive efforts. I am pleased to see that topics of this kind can be approached in the way they were approached. I do not know whether Deputy Aiken will regard me in the way of the old Greek aphorism about Greeks bearing gifts—will regard me as having some sort of design upon him in giving him a passing word of praise. Neither Deputy Briscoe nor Deputy Aiken need have the slightest apprehension. I told Deputy Briscoe at a function some time ago that I hated him with intense political hate. I will apply it to Deputy Aiken also, if it is any balm to his soul after giving him a meed of praise for his contribution.
With regard to the figures asked for by Deputy Briscoe, some of these figures cannot be given. It is obvious that it would be impossible to give tourist figures on a monthly basis. The other figures that he asked for with regard to volume of imports could not be given either, because the value is the common criterion of all statistics. Volume varies from tons to gallons, dozens, etc., and it would be impossible to give the figures that Deputy Briscoe asked for.
Having said what I said about Deputy Aiken, I could not let him go with the idea that I agree with everything he said. He produced the old tag that we had increased taxation by £8,000,000 instead of reducing it by £7,000,000. That was in strict conformity with the Fianna Fáil philosophy and propaganda since the first day they were conceived and were born for the misfortune and misery of this country. If you say a thing often enough, it will be believed no matter how ridiculous it is.
I would refer Deputies to the speech that was made by the Minister for Finance in the Seanad on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. That statement was produced in the Seanad by the Fianna Fáil Leader in the Seanad in all its glory exactly as it was given by Deputy Aiken here. Deputy Aiken must have passed it on to him. It was such a good thing, it had to be given in the Seanad and repeated here to-day. The Minister for Finance described the allegation as not merely being untrue but as an assault upon truth. Anybody who wants to see the actual answer to this will find it all set out in Volume 36, No. 10, of the 30th June, of the Seanad Debates, column 1278. I would like and wish that I had time to read it out because it is a most effective answer but, as I have not time, I will content myself with doing what I did in West Cork when this thing was being spattered all round West Cork that we had increased taxation by £8,000,000. I brought down the two Books of Estimates on the last day I was there and referred to this matter of an £8,000,000 increase instead of £5,000,000 decrease and I showed that in the 1948-49 Book of Estimates prepared by our predecessors and which we had to take the figure is £70,520,477.
You added £5,000,000 since.
In this year's Estimate that is £65,406,570. I asked any person down there in West Cork to say how on earth, with those two figures, we succeeded in not merely decreasing taxation but increasing it by £8,000,000. We had put on the face of this book of ours a figure of £65,406,570, which was £5,100,000 odd less than the previous figure and in addition to that we had taken £6,000,000 that even Deputy Lemass, who will not admit anything, admits has been taken off beer, tobacco and cinema seats and £1,500,000 off the income-tax payers and some other reliefs to the extent of £250,000. By taking £7,250,000 off taxation, by reducing this figure on the outside of our book, we had, by some extraordinary process of mathematics—again perhaps Deputy de Valera will advise upon it— increased taxation by £8,000,000 and at the same time given £2,250,000 to old age pensioners.
Mr. de Valera
Will the Taoiseach tell us how much money he took out of the pockets of the people and how much he proposes to take?
It was a most remarkable achievement if we did it and all I can say is that those people who have to bear the burden and pay the taxes are the people who know whether we increased taxation or not. Deputy Aiken may juggle with figures and may be advised by the mathematician in the Opposition. Deputy Aiken was a Minister for Finance and is entitled to certain respect for having carried that somewhat heavy burden upon his shoulders for some time. But it does not in any way give me any greater respect for the figures that he produces when they capsize my intellect.
Mr. de Valera
A simple question: how much did the Government take out of the pockets of the people?
Deputy de Valera never knew how to answer or pose a simple question in his life, certainly not a mathematical one. That is what we are supposed to have done anyway. I cannot dwell any further on the figures but what I am prepared to do is to stop anybody on the street outside and see whether we increased or reduced taxation and we will abide by that result. That is a fair test, provided he does not come from Upper Mount Street.
You will travel very fast when you are going through the street, I am thinking.
I have exceeded the time and consequently I give that justification for not being able to deal with all the other matters that were raised. I would like to deal with some of the points made by Deputy Con Lehane, who made a very constructive speech in the course of this debate. Deputy Lehane asked is it wise to maintain our present link with sterling —a horrible question to put in the present circumstances. I am not either a mathematician or a financier and I dislike at the present moment abstruse consideration of high financial policy about devaluation and the link with sterling.
Did the Minister for Agriculture yesterday speak Government policy?
I want to refer to what was said by the Minister for Finance and Professor George O'Brien on the subject in the Seanad a few weeks ago. It was in the same debate that I have already referred to. Then I want to add my own contribution for what it is worth. I do not approach the consideration of our maintenance of our link with sterling with something akin to religious fervour nor do I consider the question of breaking the link with sterling as something in the nature of a crusade. I regard this in the way I would regard any other problem I have had to face in the course of my political career, as a strictly practical proposition. The one test that we would apply in connection with this matter is, what does the national interest require in the given circumstances?
Mr. de Valera
That is what we all would apply.
At present the national interest requires that we do not do anything in connection with this matter. We are in a position now here where we are a strong, creditor nation as a result of the savings of our people and our exports over the last considerable number of years.
Sixteen.
We have built up external assets to the extent of nearly £400,000,000 gross. It is incumbent upon us to preserve that position. That puts us in the position that we are, with Switzerland, at the present moment, the only creditor nation in the entire of Europe and we must maintain that strong creditor position because it is vital to our national economy and national interests. We must maintain that position at all costs and watch it very carefully indeed. We have to supplement our political independence with our financial and economic independence, and these external assets are the bulwark on which we can rest in that connection. There are numbers of other matters.
Did the Minister for Agriculture yesterday speak Government policy? Was that Government policy?
I assure Deputy Lemass that he will not either by crossexamination or by any other method inveigle me into anything.
Was that Government policy?
Government policy is well known.
Too well known. That is what is troubling him.
I have to apologise to Deputy Lehane, Deputy McQuillan and the other speakers because I have not time to refer to certain matters but I would like to say, in conclusion, that if we have, as I have indicated, reached the position where our agricultural exports are of the volume and kind and trend to which I have referred, if we have in the year that has just passed reached the highest level of industrial employment, the highest level of industrial production, the highest level of industrial export, if we have by the policy that we have adopted gone some way at least to rectify the very great adverse balance of trade and payments that were against us when we came into office, we regard that as an achievement to be proud of. If those are the achievements of a team such as Deputy Lemass stated we were yesterday, a team pulling different ways, playing different games, I do not know what achievement we would have if we all pulled together the way Deputy Lemass thought we should.
Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 74.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.
Question declared lost.
I move:—
That the Estimate be reduced by £10 in respect of sub-head A (Government Information Bureau).
I should perhaps explain that the amendment to reduce the amount to be voted under sub-head A of the Estimate by £10 is solely for the purpose of directing the attention of the Dáil to the administration of the Government Information Bureau. I hope to persuade the Dáil that the administration of the Government Information Bureau is unsatisfactory. If I do, the Dáil will presumably pass the amendment. Its passage, however, will not merely mean that the Government will have an obligation to reduce the petty cash expenditure of the bureau by £10—it will mean that the Dáil desires the Government to abolish or to reform the Government Information Bureau. I have not much hope that I will secure a majority for the amendment here. If my faith is not strong enough to move the Social Welfare mountain I can hardly expect that my arguments will move the Government majority on this amendment.
Any more flies to knock down off the window?
Your lies will not change anybody's faith, either.
Ascribing lies to a member of this House is not in order.
It is well known that he tells them.
That is no excuse. Discussion in this House is based on the assumption that everybody tells the truth. The Minister for Social Welfare must withdraw the word "lies".
I withdraw the word "lies" and I substitute therefor "untrue statements".
My case is that the Government Information Bureau is subject to criticism under three main headings. First, it has been administered in a partisan manner—and I mean in a Party manner. Secondly, it has frequently been inaccurate and consequently tends to mislead instead of to inform the public and thirdly it is inefficient. I do not propose to occupy a great deal of the time of the Dáil in this regard—not as long as I could—but I will give sufficient material to Deputies to enable them to determine that these allegations against the Government Information Bureau are well founded.
On the 11th May last Deputy M.J. O'Higgins addressed a question to the Taoiseach—a question which was very carefully framed, probably in consultation with the Taoiseach to state the number of occasions upon which statements had been made by the Government Information Bureau or otherwise concerning the accuracy of reports which appeared in Irish daily newspapers. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Deputy did not ask the number of occasions upon which the Government Information Bureau or a Minister thought it necessary to correct the accuracy of reports appearing in newspapers. His question merely concerned the accuracy of reports. The Taoiseach gave a reply in which he indicated that in the case of the Irish Press there were 26 such statements and in the case of the other daily newspapers a very much smaller number. Following that reply of the Taoiseach an effort was made to extract from the Government Information Bureau particulars of the 26 cases in which it was alleged statements were issued concerning the accuracy of reports in the Irish Press.
On a point of order. The line pursued by Deputy Lemass, I think, suggests a matter of some importance from the point of view of order in this House and the propriety of dealing with certain matters. Deputy Lemass will, I think, admit that he is financially interested in the Irish Press inasmuch as he is the general manager. The point of order arises, in my submission for consideration by the Chair, as to whether a Deputy of this House who has a financial interest in a business concern is entitled to use this House for the purpose of raising matters relating to that business concern.
The Chair has no means of deciding these matters. The Chair has no means of discovering or of knowing what business concern any Deputy in the House is concerned with. Deputy Lemass is quite entitled to raise anything he considers desirable or necessary— within the rules of order—in respect of any expenditure that is to be incurred by any Minister of State.
The Government Information Bureau was reluctant to give particulars of the 26 cases on the ground that they were not responsible for the calculation and that the reply had been prepared in the Taoiseach's office. Finally, however, they did supply particulars of the 26 statements.
I am informed that you got the information immediately.
No, there were some preliminary negotiations.
Are you suggesting that there was any avoidable delay?
At first there was an intimation that as the question related to matters outside the concern of the Government Information Bureau it was not for them to give the information. However, the information was supplied.
Was not that correct? I want to make the point that there was no avoidable delay.
The information supplied was that of the 26 items 15 were statements issued by the Government Information Bureau. I have had them examined. This is my charge against the Government and the Government Information Bureau: that they have been for some time past directing a campaign against a particular newspaper in this country—a newspaper which is politically opposed to the Government—for the purpose of discrediting it in the eyes of the public. I will content myself by saying straight away that of the 15 statements issued by the Government Information Bureau 12 of them were produced not by the inaccuracy of the reports in the Irish Press but by their accuracy, and represented attempts by the bureau to confuse the public mind concerning these statements by the issue of partisan propaganda about them. One of these statements, for example, concerning the accuracy of reports in the Irish Press relates to the contradiction of a completely false statement that was broadcast over Radio Éireann concerning the procedure previously followed in the presentation of credentials to the Spanish Government by the Irish Ministers to Spain.
It will be within the knowledge of the House that Radio Eireann broadcast a completely false statement in that regard. The falsity of that statement was demonstrated by the Irish Press, and the Government Information Bureau issued a statement in which they admitted that the Radio Eireann statement was false. That is one of the 26 statements issued concerning the accuracy of reports in the Irish Press. Three of the statements were concerned with correcting reports in the Irish Press which may not have been accurate. One related to the inadvertent use of the term “unemployment assistance” instead of “unemployment insurance”; one concerned an inaccurate statement that the electricity supply under the rural electrification scheme to a village in Donegal came from the Erne, when everyone knew, or should have known, that the Erne station was not yet completed; one related to a report concerning the possible acquisition of the new Córas Iompair Éireann bus depot in Store Street, concerning which there is still some element of doubt. Every other one of the 15 statements was produced not by the inaccuracy of reports in the Irish Press but by their accuracy, and was concerned to explain away the statements or confuse the public mind regarding them.
It is quite apparent that in the Government Information Bureau the Irish Press is read from cover to cover and that every single paragraph in it is noted, with a view to issuing some statement concerning it if the slightest inaccuracy appears; and I allege that the bureau does not follow the same tactics in relation to other papers.
They do not believe the Irish Press.
Let us see if they believe the other papers. I have here some copies of the Irish Times. In this issue for January 6th, under a three-column heading across the front page, appears: “White Bread Scheme Abandoned.” It was not true. No contradiction, however, came from the bureau. In another issue of the Irish Times, in a three-column heading, there was “No Coal to be Sold Without Firewood.” It was not true, but no contradiction was issued from the bureau. I could keep producing these all night. Here is another one: “Imports of Boots and Shoes to be Restricted,” given at a time when that was not true—and no contradiction appeared.
It was intelligent anticipation.
"To be" restricted.
That is a phrase which the Taoiseach used when the Irish Independent published a series of news reports concerning the Government's intention in relation to transport before the public or the Dáil had been informed—“intelligent anticipation”. But if the Irish Press attempts to use intelligent anticipation there is a spate of statements from the Government Information Bureau forthwith. That is an important charge against the bureau, that it is being directed on a partisan basis, deliberately used as an instrument by the Government to destroy public confidence in the reliability of reports appearing in a newspaper hostile to the Government, and that it is not being used, even when the public interest requires it, to contradict false reports when they appear in papers which are favourable to the Government.
I said they are inaccurate. Last year, the Minister for Industry and Commerce received a deputation from the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and subsequently a report of the proceedings at that meeting was issued to the Press by the bureau. In the report, there appeared a statement, attributed to the president of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, to the effect that the statement made at the meeting by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was
"the most important statement made about Irish industrial development for the past 20 years."
Now, the publication of that report naturally caused a certain amount of dissension and discussion within the Federation of Irish Manufactureres, which is a non-political organisation. It was revealed there that there was no journalist present at the meeting, that there was no evidence of any report being prepared, and that the report issued by the bureau must have been prepared subsequently. At the meeting of the council of the federation, where the matter was discussed, the president of the federation—who is, as the Minister for External Affairs knows, not now a supporter of this Party—denied that he made that statement. It is an extraordinary use of the Government Information Bureau if it can be made the instrument of attributing to people who occupy important positions in various organisations such as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, statements which they did not make and the publication of which as having been made by those individuals is bound to cause, not merely embarrassment to them but dissension within the organisations for which they speak.
I do not want to refer at any length to the issue by the bureau of the document concerning "the Man of Destiny". That has been discussed here; but I think that most Deputies who heard the Taoiseach's explanation as to how that statement came to be published must have been appalled at the evidence of inefficiency within the bureau's administration. Is it true that the officers of the bureau have no responsibility for checking the accuracy or the suitability of any statement that they issue? Can any Minister or any civil servant of any Department send a document, particularly a long document, to the Government Information Bureau requesting its publication and secure its publication without the director or any officer of the bureau taking the precaution of reading it and reporting to the Taoiseach his views as to its suitability for publication? Is there any shifting process in the bureau? The Taoiseach is responsible to the Dáil for it. He should at least ensure that the officers of that branch of his organisation have got specific instructions as to the use that is to be made of that service. It seems extraordinary that, in error, an official of the Department of External Affairs could arrange for the stencilling of a long document of a contentious character, relating to the Minister for External Affairs, transfer it to the Government Information Bureau for circulation to newspapers and have it circulated, without there being somebody at some stage of the process whose duty it was to check up on the suitability of that document for issue by the bureau. I hope that, as a result of that incident or as a result of this discussion, there will be instituted in the bureau some more regular system of supervision which will prevent a repetition of that incident in the future. Mind you, it has not, so far as I know, occurred yet because we had some other statements from the Government Information Bureau this morning in relation to matters affecting this House, no doubt prepared by the Minister for External Affairs, and issued by the bureau that the News Agency Bill——
Prepared by me.
In that case the Taoiseach should have taken the precaution of finding out the facts before it was issued. There never was any talk between Government Whips and Fianna Fáil Whips with regard to giving facilities for the News Agency Bill. There was talk of the possibility of finishing the business of the Dáil this week.
Including the News Agency Bill.
And there was an expression of opinion from the Fianna Fáil Whips that it would not be possible to conclude the business this week if the Committee Stage of the News Agency Bill were to be taken.
That is a different thing from saying that there was no question of the News Agency Bill.
There was no question of our being asked to grant facilities for the News Agency Bill.
You were asked to grant facilities to conclude this week the business, including the News Agency Bill, and you could not do it.
We could not when it was proposed that the Committee Stage of the News Agency Bill should be taken. We were quite prepared to grant facilities and did facilitate the conclusion of the Dáil this week. There was no question of our refusing facilities. It was a question of our granting facilities.
It is a nice distinction.
When the Government Whips indicated that the Committee Stage of the News Agency Bill was not going to be proceeded with we granted facilities for which the Government Whips should be grateful and which made it possible for the business of the Dáil to be concluded this week. If there is to be misrepresentation of our position; if it is said that we obstructed and prevented the Committee Stage of the News Agency Bill from being taken in this session, I repudiate that completely. As far as we were concerned, there was no reluctance to remain in session here until all the business which it was desired to do was completed. It was the Government Whips who wanted to conclude the business this week. I do not say that we were averse to the conclusion of the business, and as soon as that became practicable by the contraction of the Government programme we did give facilities to the Government Whips. I object to the Government Information Bureau being used as an instrument by which a completely misleading statement is issued, whether it is prepared in the bureau or by the Taoiseach. I cannot think that the Taoiseach had any protracted consultation with his Parliamentary Secretary or with the Government Whips before it was issued.
Anyway, that is the sum total of the case I am making against the Government Information Bureau. I think it is desirable that the Government of this State should have some organisation for supplying the people and the newspapers of the country with impartial and accurate information, but that organisation becomes a menace when it is used for the other purpose of supplying partisan statements and inaccurate information. I submit that the evidence I have adduced here provides proof without doubt that the Government Information Bureau was used as an instrument in partisan controversy and was inaccurate in some of its statements and that there were defects in the organisation which should be remedied and which obviously permitted of the issue through it of a statement which even the Taoiseach admits should not come from it. Unless he gives us an assurance that the defects and weaknesses in the Government Information Bureau are going to be remedied and remedied at once, there is no alternative but to divide the Dáil upon this motion.
Deputy Lemass used the phrase a moment ago that that was the sum and substance of the charge against the Government Information Bureau. There was neither sum nor substance in the charge. The charge was founded on an answer given by me to a question put down by Deputy O'Higgins on the 11th May. Deputy Lemass with his usual suggestio falsi suggested that that was done by Deputy O'Higgins in collusion with me. It was not. The answer was prepared by the officers of one section of my Department, which was not the Government Information Bureau. What is this charge against the Government Information Bureau? That the officials read the Irish Press from cover to cover daily? They earn their money very hard indeed if they do that every day.
They must be the best informed officials of the Department.
That is what he has complained of. That was the sum of Deputy Lemass's charge against the Government Information Bureau, that it was apparent that the Government Information Bureau read the Irish Press from cover to cover every day. He said that with venom in his voice. I am very sorry for my officials who have that chore to do every day. They have to do that, as they have to read every other daily newspaper and provincial newspaper as well. That is their job, or at least it is the job of some official in the Government Information Bureau. That is the charge.
Mr. de Valera
Surely not.
That is why the Government Information Bureau is supposed to be partisan. Deputy Lemass based his charge on that and on inquiries about the 26 cases of inaccuracy in the Irish Press. What evidence is there of partisanship? I cannot follow it. If there were a criminal charge of this kind, if a judge were hearing the case and if it had to be referred to a jury, he would withdraw it as there was no evidence. I do not know what the evidence is on that now.
With regard to the "Man of Destiny" article, I explained that in an answer that I gave on the 17th May to a question put down by Deputy Boland. The Minister for External Affairs wrote a letter to Deputy de Valera the minute he heard of the mistake that had taken place.
Mr. de Valera
The moment it was mentioned in public.
Deputy de Valera apparently will not give even that little credit to the Minister for External Affairs of doing a thing decently and of doing it at the proper time.
Mr. de Valera
If I had got it in advance I might.
I take it that Deputy de Valera does not give the Minister credit.
It was issued by the bureau.
It was issued by the bureau and I am going to deal with that. When I gave the answer to the question which was put down, Deputy de Valera did not make any comment. He waits until this motion is on to bolster up an unsustainable case put up by Deputy Lemass. I referred to a supplementary question by Deputy Boland as to whether the Director of the Government Information Bureau had responsibility. Certainly he had responsibility to make inquiries, and he did so. He was told that the reason he had to do it was that it was the Minister for External Affairs' direction and he did it because it was the Minister's positive direction. He did his job as a civil servant, and he is a civil servant. He saw that this was not the type of thing that should be issued by the Government Information Bureau and he issued it only because of the fact that when he drew the attention of the official involved to it he was told that there was a direction and he acted on the Minister's direction.
Is he responsible to the Minister or to the Taoiseach?
He is responsible to me. Does Deputy Lemass think that if a civil servant gets in touch and is assured that it is the Minister's order he has not done his duty?
I think not.
I think he has and let us leave it at that.
He is responsible to his own Minister.
That is the only case the Deputy made.
He came on to another question, that of the communiqué issued last night. It was issued by me, in consultation with my colleagues, but I took the initiative and I take the responsibility. I suggested that the Bill had been held up because of Fianna Fáil obstruction and that is why we did not go on with it.
That is not true.
Deputy Lemass always likes to go on with his verbal gymnastics, but I cannot follow verbal gymnastics. I speak the plain truth. I say exactly what is in my mind and I say what I mean. But here we find Deputy Lemass using a quibble in connection with this matter—that they were prepared, when the Government Whip intimated that the Government were going on with this Bill, to facilitate the Government. The Government Whip intimated no such thing. His instructions from me were to try and get the Bill through if possible before the Adjournment.
Mr. de Valera
Not this week?
It would not be through this week or next week or the week after. It was stated here on the conclusion of the Second Reading debate that the Opposition were not going to allow the Bill to go through except after weeks of discussion. Is that not so?
Mr. de Valera
Are those on this side of the House to give up their constitutional rights?
Deputy Lemass said that the Bill could be taken next week but that it would not be finished next week.
That is quite right.
Mr. de Valera
That is your business. There are people on your side, too.
It would not be finished next week, the week after or the week after that.
Mr. de Valera
Are we supposed to scamp public business just to allow Deputies go on holidays?
There is no question of scamping public business. We regard this Bill as one of the steps in our policy on Partition. That is the reason why the Bill was brought forward.
Why not go on with it then?
Because you will not give us the facilities. You want to keep Deputies here during the whole month of August.
Interruptions.
Deputy Lemass tried to get away with it that they had not refused facilities.
Mr. de Valera
We had not.
Was it not clear that when the Parliamentary Secretary went to you and said: "We want this Bill; will you give it?" and you said: "No", that you would not give it? The public will have to know that this Bill would not have been given next week, the week after or the week after that.
Mr. de Valera
Surely we are entitled to use our constitutional rights to oppose the waste of public money.
Every stage of this Bill would have been opposed.
Are we not entitled to oppose a Bill?
What is the use in saying that we were given facilities when the plain fact is, as is stated in the communiqué issued by the Government Information Bureau, that we were refused facilities? We have it now for the public that this Bill, if it were to be taken at all, would be taken next week, and perhaps would not be finished until September or October. We felt that we wanted the Bill. The Minister for External Affairs indicated, and the Government agreed with him, that this was one of the steps we should take in connection with Partition.
Mr. de Valera
It is a queer step. Do not be pulling that on the people.
We wanted it for no other reason than Partition. For that reason we wanted to get it before the holidays. If it were not possible to get it, because of the indications given in this House that there would be protracted speeches on it, we could not ask Deputies to come here day after day during the month of August to facilitate the Opposition in their obstructive tactics. Therefore, I stand over every word in the communication that was issued last night. Most of that communication was drafted by me, and it was issued on my instructions with the consent of every one of my colleagues. I knew that my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, wanted this Bill for Partition and nothing else. If Partition had not been involved, we would not have considered an official agency Bill at all. Deputy Lemass spoke as a writer in the Irish Press and defended the Irish Press, stating at the same time that it is a hostile organ to this Government. Surely, we are entitled to watch the lies, the propaganda and the slanders that are disseminated by the Press. This official bureau will, while I am here, try and do its job impartially and give impartial and fair information to the public.
Mr. de Valera
As long as it is impartial it is all right.
That hostile Press is endeavouring, by every means it can, to sabotage the useful work that this Government is doing for the country.
Why use public money for your propaganda?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eannon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finncane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.