Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1970

Vol. 250 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3 : Department of the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

This is, in effect, a debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate and at this time of the year is used for the purpose of a general debate on Government policy. Traditionally an Adjournment Debate at this time is devoted to a review of the economy generally during the year and a forecasting, so far as this is possible, of the likely economic trends during the year ahead. I propose to follow precedent on this occasion also.

The year 1970 can be regarded as a mixed year for the economy both as to the actual experience of the economy and the feeling evoked by those events. There are four main heads under which economic policy and performance are generally considered: the growth in output, which serves as an indicator of the rise in living standards; trends in employment, which tell us what progress is being made towards halting emigration; the balance of payments account, which sets out the extent to which we are achieving balance in our trading with other countries; and movement in price levels, which shows whether domestic monetary stability is being attained.

On the first of these heads, growth and outout, it is now estimated that our 1970 overall growth rate will be in the region of 2 per cent. This compares with a rate of over 3 per cent in 1969 and an annual rate of some 4 per cent during the sixties. Viewed in this light this year's figure will be regarded as unsatisfactory whereas ten years ago a 2 per cent rise was regarded as a rather high and ambitious target. It is a measure of the success we have achieved in the past decade that we should have so raised our sights and that we should be eager to resume quickly a more rapid rate of expansion than that experienced in the current year.

The main causes for this temporary setback were the prolonged industrial disputes in the cement and banking sectors which resulted in lost output in other industries adversely affected by these disputes plus a substantial number of man days lost in the affected industries themselves. Apart from the economic damage which protracted stoppages of this nature cause, they also engender social problems and damage our economic reputation abroad. These destructive consequences are now widely recognised and, rather than indulge in futile recriminations, I would hope that we, as a people, can profit from this experience.

A healthy democracy requires that all sections of the community should have freedom to pursue their legitimate interests by every legitimate means, but the well-being of democracy also requires that this freedom be exercised in a mature and responsible manner, with a proper regard for the rights and interests of others so that freedom for the many is not subverted into the tyranny of the few. In this field of industrial relations we have had to learn this lesson from painful experience, but I would hope that the lesson has been learned. The Government, for their part, have sought and will continue to promote the development of a balanced and enlightened attitude amongst all groups and, if the earlier months of this year had their black spots, it is only fair to recall that recent weeks have shown some positive developments to which I shall refer later.

Under the heading of employment the experience has likewise been mixed. On the positive side employment in industry in the first half of the year was 5.000 above the level for the first part of 1969. A large part of this increase was due to our industrial development programme and, since many further projects were and are in the pipeline, a further rise in employment from these sources can be expected to have taken place in recent months. While there are reasonable grounds for satisfaction with these figures, this satisfaction must be tempered by the knowledge that a further fall in agricultural employment took place during the year and the target for new industrial jobs must be in the region of 10,000 to 12,000 per year if we are to bring involuntary emigration to an end. In 1969 the target was reasonably well attained and we had some 11,200 new industrial jobs, but it is interesting to note that, although the growth in industrial employment was slower this year than it was last year, the available indicators suggest that emigration was somewhat lower this year.

On the balance of payments, the available data show that the external trading position improved slightly during the year. Imports and exports both show marked increases in the first ten months of the year in comparison with the same period in 1969. Imports were up by £46 million, but exports rose at a more rapid rate and showed a heartening increase of £50 million. It is worth noting that industrial exports accounted for over half of the total value of exports, reflecting thereby the extent to which our economic progress in recent years has been depending on industrial expansion. Agricultural exports also recorded a healthy increase.

Tourism presented the least happy picture. A variety of reasons, both economic and political, have been put forward to account for tourism setbacks and I do not propose to engage now in a post mortem exercise. I should like to say, however, that whatever effect general political events may have had on the flow of tourists, I see no reason why tourism, as such, should be turned into a political football. I would have thought that all parties could agree that the way to welcome tourists to our shores is not by lamenting or bickering over experiences in the past.

The overall outcome for our external trading this year is likely to be some fall in the balance of payments deficit from the £69 million level of 1969. This improvement is welcome and can be taken as another sign that 1970 was a moderately successful year. A further improvement will be necessary in 1971 because deficits in the region of £60 million to £70 million are too much to be sustained for any period of years. Some deficit may be expected to continue while we are pushing ahead with industrial and commercial development, especially when foreign firms are investing here, but it would be preferable to halve the recent level of deficit before a satisfactory result could be claimed in this field.

The fourth, and final, general economic indicator is that of prices. In many respects this is the area which has caused most concern in recent times. Earlier this year I told the House that I regarded inflation as the most important economic problem facing the country. I do not think there is anybody who would pretend for a moment that we were happy with a situation in which prices rose by about 8 per cent per annum, as they have done in the past 12 months. I pointed out at the same time that one important cause of inflation was the rapid growth in pay and other forms of income and that any success in moderating inflation would require, as an essential prerequisite, moderation in the size of income increases. The summer and autumn months brought little grounds for optimism on this score and when the newly formed employer/labour conference failed in its initial attempts to produce an agreement the Government was compelled in October to announce legislation aimed at bringing about an orderly development of incomes in a manner which would lessen inflationary pressures.

At all stages, both before and after the announcement of this legislation, I and other members of the Government, made it clear that our preference was to see an acceptable voluntary agreement and that our action was made necessary in the absence of any such agreement. Consequently, when we were asked by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to suspend our proposals —rather, I should say, to modify the provisions of the Bill—in order to facilitate further negotiations, we readily acceded to their request. The result of these further discussions is that the preparation of a voluntary agreement acceptable to all parties has now reached an advanced stage and there are reasonable grounds for expecting that a satisfactory outcome can be attained. Such an outcome seemed impossible two months ago and it is a tribute to the responsibility and painstaking efforts of both the unions and the employer bodies that such progress has been made. This augurs well for the future of industrial relations and I believe it will be possible to develop a mutual understanding which will enable problems to be resolved in an enlightened and peaceful manner.

The overall picture which emerges is a mixed one. Although the rate of progress may not have been as rapid or as extensive as we wished it would be, there are nonetheless solid achievements which can be recorded. Despite the cement strike, for example, the level of house building for the year should approach the 14,000 mark.

Mr. Clinton

It will not.

The Taoiseach

I said it should and it likely will. That will be much more than double the figure reached ten years ago. I think, as well, it will be close to the figure reached in 1969. In other areas, satisfactory progress has also been made. There have been substantial improvements in social welfare benefits. There have been further rises to record levels in the numbers of students in post-primary and higher education and improvements in hospital facilities and other health services. It is these barometers of our social progress which are our best indicators of whether or not there has been any true economic progress. They remind us that the object of economic expansion is not to head some international league table for growth or to have the strongest balance of payments position but to provide the basis for improving the material wealth of our people.

In addition to the general economic trends in the economy it is proper that reference be made here to the opening during the year of negotiations on our application for entry to the EEC. Apart from its economic implications, membership of the EEC will also have social, cultural and political consequences—the House has already had an opportunity of debating this matter specifically; that debate is not yet concluded so I do not think I need at this stage dwell too long on the implications of our application for membership of the EEC. However, I should say there are grounds for believing that satisfactory entry terms can be agreed, in which case we shall likely find ourselves embarking on the course of adapting to a very different climate in our trading and other relationships with the member countries in a short time. It is important that, in shaping our policies and actions in the coming months and years, we should recognise the likelihood of membership at an early date. We are now at the stage of entering substantive negotiations. The Government intend to keep the House and the people fully informed as to progress. In the meantime, arrangements are going ahead for the issue of a series of informative documents commencing as quickly as possible in the new year, to assist in the making available of necessary information.

With regard to the outlook for 1971, viewed in the wake of the October budgetary measures as well as the settlement of the bank dispute, the underlying trends in the economy appear more encouraging as we approach the end of the current year than they did earlier in the year. There has been an improvement in the balance of payments. Exports, particularly industrial exports, continue to be buoyant. Unemployment is being contained. I think then we can look forward to 1971 with guarded optimism. Nevertheless, the usual caveat follows that we cannot afford to be complacent. The favourable trends at the end of 1970 and the increased momentum of the economy will continue throughout 1971 only if a climate favourable to growth is maintained. Price rises must be kept in check if our external competitiveness is to be maintained. Otherwise, if there is a deterioration, the competitiveness of Irish industry vis-à-vis other exporting countries which we have experienced in recent years will continue. Any such continued deterioration would have grave consequences for our prospects of achieving a steady increase in employment and a rise in living standards.

There is no doubt but that the economy has the underlying capacity and strength to grow at a satisfactory rate in the coming year. While uncertainties always exist as to the most likely course of future events, it is clear that a prerequisite for substantial expansion is that prices and income increases be contained within tolerable bounds. There are grounds for cautious optimism that this can in fact be achieved. This would enable a proper balance to be restored and would diminish the risks that are now apparent in the economy.

If the danger of inflation can be avoided, and the upward momentum strengthened, we can secure the foundations for even greater economic growth and social advance in the years ahead.

In more ways than one, the year coming to an end has been an eventful one. So far as the situation in the Six Counties in the north of Ireland is concerned, we can all welcome the period of relative calm which has obtained there in recent months and express the hope that this situation will not only continue but improve. I should like, again, to express the hope —which I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House will share—that the pace of the reforms still to be implemented by the Northern Ireland Government will be quickened in 1971 and that the quality of these reforms will not fall short of expectations and of what we know to be necessary.

When this point is reached—and my earnest hope is that it will soon be reached—we will, I believe, have entered a new era in North-South relations and in our relations with the British Government and people. Such a relationship can only be beneficial to all sides. Failure to achieve it now can only result in a situation even worse than any which we have experienced before.

So far as events during the year in this part of the country are concerned, the Dáil has had a number of opportunities already to debate these events, political and economic, and most recently we had a wide-ranging debate on the Vote of Confidence at the beginning of last month. I see no purpose now in covering this ground all over again. The Dáil reaffirmed confidence in the Government on that occasion. As recently as two weeks ago, that confidence has been reaffirmed by the people, as the outcome of the by-elections in Donegal-Leitrim and South County Dublin firmly demonstrated.

There is, however, one topic which I should like to deal with briefly and that is the statement issued on behalf of the Government last Friday week, 4th December, 1970, on the possibility of invoking Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940. In view of the amount of ill-informed comment, I want to state again that a decision to introduce Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act has not been taken by the Government nor has a decision been taken to use the powers of internment which this piece of legislation gives. I want to refer again to the Government's announcement relating to this matter on December 4th and to my statement here in the Dáil on 9th instant and that is that until the Government become satisfied that the threat—about which we received the most reliable information— has been removed, then the possibility of introducing Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act remains. Until the Government are satisfied beyond any possible doubt that that threat no longer obtains and that plans for the perpetration of such acts of madness have been finally abandoned, only then will the possibility of invoking Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act disappear.

This threat of kidnapping is not something that the Government dreamed up. We have had experience of this in many countries, in South America, North America and more recently in Europe and in a number of these cases they resulted in the deaths of the unfortunate victims. One can only hope that commonsense and reason will prevail over what can only be acts of sheer lunacy. No matter how high the price in terms of popular support will be, the Government will not shrink from what it knows to be the only and proper and responsible course of action to take in the national interest.

I want to say again that nobody has been interned and it is not the wish of this Government to intern anybody; but if such a solution is forced upon us the Government, knowing where their duty clearly lies, will not flinch in the face of it. The year now ending has been a testing time for the Government and the country also.

The problems facing us in the new year are not likely to be less formidable or complex, but no matter how formidable or complex they may prove to be we have no reason to face them other than with full confidence in our ability and capacity successfully to overcome them. The Government's confidence in their own and in the country's capacity to solve these problems is substantially reinforced by the strong evidence of a true sense of responsibility and maturity which was so clearly shown by the people during the year that has now passed. The people have shown that they were quite capable of looking at all these difficulties and events, of putting them in proper perspective and of arriving at their own independent and responsible judgments on them. They were not, and could not be stampeded, no matter how great the pressure or how gross the misrepresentation. I think this is a lesson which the parties opposite would do well to learn.

Mr. Cosgrave

The truest remark the Taoiseach made, I suppose, was that this was a mixed year for the economy and certainly for the country. This must be one of the most extraordinary end of session debates the country has ever had. The events that have occurred during the year have had their repercussions and reactions in a variety of ways and undoubtedly affected the economic well-being and welfare of the people. The effect on the economy, especially on the tourist trade, has been quite serious. No amount of talk or any comment that was made on the situation could alter the simple facts. The facts are that a situation developed in which tourists from other parts of the world were fearful of coming here and in many cases cancelled their bookings. That affected industry to such an extent that in a recent interview given by the President of the Hotels Federation he expressed alarm at the prospects which faced the hotel industry. He expressed alarm on two fronts: there were not sufficient guests to fill the hotels and there was not money available to meet the commitments hoteliers had entered into.

This situation did not arise by chance. It happened because of developments inside the present Government resulting in dismissals and resignations. These dismissals and resignations occurred because of internal conflict, not external factors, not because of criticism expressed or speeches made by Deputies on this side. This was an internal matter generated with complete and wanton disregard of the public interest. It is a tribute to the stability of the foundations of the State that it was possible for this Dáil and the country to live through that period and it is no tribute to the Fianna Fáil Government or Party.

For a long time there has been concern about the apparent weakening of respect for the authority of the Dáil and the tendency of the Government to by-pass it by making major announcements of Government policy. Whether these are major announcements is sometimes hard to know, because no sooner are they made than they are reversed or rescinded or deferred. To take the most recent one first, last Friday week an announcement was made about the Government's intention to invoke Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act. That announcement came after the Dáil had adjourned. It was made through the Government Information Bureau or through an announcement by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government and circulated through the normal media. It naturally aroused concern and comment. Most people were anxious to find out how this situation had developed, what had occurred to urge the Government to take such rapid action in such a panicky fashion.

It is our duty, therefore, to examine what has happened over the past 12 or 18 months. No one is more deeply devoted than we are in this party to the maintenance of the institutions of State, to respect for the Army and the Garda and to the prevention of crime. This situation did not develop overnight. Some months ago an event took place in Mullingar in which an armed group discharged volleys at a funeral. What action was taken? What directions were given to the Garda in respect of this? If the Garda reported the matter what action was taken on their report?

Property was burned in Meath and other areas over a period. Again, what action was taken to apprehend the culprits? Everybody regrets the circumstances in which people meet their deaths, whether it is through their own fault or being involved in those incidents. A few weeks ago a funeral went through Dublin. Shots were discharged outside the GPO. What action was taken by the Garda? What instructions were given to deal with that form of activity?

In one specific case a person was apprehended, brought before the courts, convicted and sentenced but was afterwards released. On whose recommendation was that person released? Numerous cases going back for eight or ten years on a whole series of incidents were recorded in this particular way. The convicted person was released. There are only two ways in which people can be released. They either appeal to the court at which they were convicted or to a higher court and get the conviction quashed or the Minister for Justice, acting on behalf of the Government, remits the sentence. In the particular case I have mentioned, so far as the country is aware, it was the latter which operated. The Garda authorities were opposed to the release in this case. In another case, because of a defective warrant, the convicted person got out.

That is a brief history of the events of the past 12 or 18 months where people were either apprehended, convicted and released or when they were seen to do something the Garda, not because they did not want to do their duty, did not apprehend them. We may as well be frank about this. It will be said that the Garda were told to do their duty but a nod is as good as a wink. The Garda knew, because of the political implications, the Government did not want action taken. In the case I mentioned the person who was convicted was released on Government intervention.

Over the last 12 or 18 months there have been cases of burning of property and property attacked by people, possibly believing they had some political authority or national duty to perform. No action was taken. If one group take the law into their hands it is the beginning of anarchy, and it does not matter how people argue, or what sentimental slobbering goes on to justify those activities.

Some of those incidents which took place considered in isolation may not be of great gravity, but when they are pieced together and when you go a little further each day or on each occasion and no action is taken then, of course, respect for the ordinary law of the land is weakened. The Government, during that time, took no positive action. Nobody is suggesting that the exising law in present circumstances is not adequate to deal with the situation.

The Tánaiste went to a meeting in Wexford and made certain comparisons between what has happened recently and what happened some years ago. He said he took the trouble to look up the newspapers to see what happened in 1957. His memory is either defective or his research was very limited. What happened in 1957? When we were in Government in 1956 we had the responsibility of dealing with this. The ordinary machinery of the District Court was employed and functioning. Early in 1957 Fianna Fáil came into office and later in that year they introduced Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act. The Minister for Health commented on the fact that people were killed. He did not say that when Fianna Fáil were in opposition they gave tacit approval to this. He did not tell that two members of his party attended one, if not two, funerals in 1956 and subseaquently they became Ministers in the Fianna Fáil Government. It is not enough to be against crime when you are in Government and give tacit approval to it when you are in opposition. That is the difference between the attitude which was adopted by us and that adopted by the present Government.

When we were in Government we did our duty and when we were in opposition we did not criticise or oppose those who had the same responsibility to ensure that the people's rights were defended and vindicated. On this occasion we have seen this series of events over a protracted period where no action was taken or if action was taken and a conviction secured the person was released. It is difficult in those circumstances to believe the Government have approached this in a responsible, national manner. If the Government have not confidence in the courts or in the Judiciary they have hardly anyone to blame but themselves. All the appointments, with a few microscopic exceptions, were made by the Fianna Fáil Party. As one paper rightly pointed out, judges are paid to do their duty. If they do not do it then this House and the country have a remedy.

The real danger in the Government's approach is the fact that the announcement that was made, like all Government announcements recently, is not really meant. Since the announcement of the threat or the intention to introduce Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, the Government have been at pains to say they do not intend to do it unless they are forced to do it. Some two months ago the Government announced a policy in respect of prices and incomes, a policy in respect of the problems that were affecting the economy and causing so much concern.

This announcement was accompanied shortly afterwards by the introduction of a Supplementary Budget. Within a few days it was announced that there was to be a thaw in the arrangement in respect of the price and wage restraint. We discussed for some weeks in this House a Prices and Incomes Bill. Side by side with that we discussed the Finance Bill to implement the Supplementary Budget. What has characterised the Government's attitude to all this? They say one thing today and reverse it or modify it tomorrow.

We have consistently argued that a prices and incomes policy to be successful must be secured by agreement. The Taoiseach announced this morning that it is a tribute to the two sides involved in these discussions, the employers' representatives and the trade unions, that it looks likely that an acceptable agreement will be reached. We have consistently argued that this is a matter that must be achieved through negotiations and discussions, and that you can lead people but you cannot compel them in this field.

We have also said—and this must be emphasised—that the time to get agreement in these matters is not in the middle of wage claims and wage demands, or salary negotiations. About 18 months ago the then Minister for Finance announced that there was a crisis situation. He announced that at the end of one of the most serious strikes that ever affected the economy here, the maintenance strike. That was the time to seek an agreement and to get an arrangement which would operate a prices and incomes policy which would be acceptable to all parties, but what happened? Political expediency intervened and the short-term political advantage of winning an election was put in the forefront, and the national advantage of a long-term agreement on wages and prices or prices and incomes was jettisoned.

Since then we have had the fantastic experience of a Government in which one member has been conspiring against another, or one group has been set against another. Now, of course, an effort is being made to try to get an agreement, but that is not the way to run an economy. A sudden switching from doing too little to doing too much, or threatening to do too much, is obviously an ill-thought-out policy. In fact, it is a policy of thinking out from day to day what may be acceptable or what can be got away with. Under pressure of public opinion, and particularly trade union opinion, many parts of this arrangement have been abandoned or jettisoned.

We are now rapidly approaching the position in which the crisis that existed in October will have vanished. Legislation is not necessary except in one sphere, a most important sphere. Legislation was passed through this House, and has now gone to the Seanad in the shape of the Finance Bill, that will have a most serious effect on the finances of many companies. Every single report of every company in this country that has issued in recent months, with a few isolated exceptions, shows a decline in profits and difficulties in marketing, some of them of crisis proportions. There is the case of the situation in Clara. There is the case of some boot and shoe companies. This morning we had the serious announcement by Nítrigin Éireann. These can be multiplied. It does not matter whether the company is a State, a semi-State, or a private company. The graph the whole way shows a decline in profits, a decline in exports in some cases, or a decline in competitive capacity

In that situation to impose, as has been imposed in the Finance Bill, an obligation on companies to reopen their accounts and to go back over accounts that have already been closed to make available for tax purposes a sum of money that will absorb in some cases up to 24 per cent of the profits— perhaps in some cases even more—is placing on them an obligation that will put many of them into serious difficulties. That has happened because of the fact that in this proposal which was initially introduced as a package deal, the Government have abandoned, or postponed, or deferred, one portion of it but have proceeded with the other. That has been pointed out to the Government not by this party or by Deputies in the Labour Party, or by any other politician, but by the Confederation of Irish Industry and by the representatives of the different organised commercial groups. In that situation it is obvious that the Government have no idea what they are trying to do, and no idea of where they are going.

We believe that this must be approached in the only way in which it is possible to get agreement, that is, by direct discussions between the representatives of industry and the representatives of the trade unions. Of course the Government have an obligation to provide leadership and to indicate what should be done. The cement strike lasted for months and it is quite obvious that the figure of 14,000 houses cannot be reached this year. That is obvious for two reasons: one because of the protracted cement strike, and the other because of the fact that the maximum loans now available from the Local Loans Fund amount to £3,000 and in many cases houses are costing double that.

We are given here the statistics for the number of loans issued this year by the Dublin County Council and there was a catastrophic decline in the number of loans accepted because of the inability of borrowers, or people anxious to avail of the SDA schemes, or whatever scheme they operate under, to avail of that facility. In those circumstances the Government decided to introduce and persisted in passing a proposal yesterday that will put a tax on mobile homes. No words are necessary to describe the approach to that matter. It is crazy economically; it is crazy socially. It is bad from the point of view of the people involved; it is bad from the point of view of the local authorities trying to deal with the problem; and it is bad in the national interest. It is again evidence of a bureaucratic mentality that applied a blanket system and took in all mobile homes without differentiating between those used for holiday or luxury or part-time residence during a limited period and those used as substitutes for houses.

This situation has now deteriorated to such an extent that the criticism that is being made of the Government is not coming solely from this side of the House or from the Labour Party or from outside. Deputy Haughey recently went to a meeting and he said that the time has come to climb out of the mud on to firm ground. Who put the country into the mud? Who but his own colleagues. One can sympathise with Deputy Haughey's comments. He is obviously working his passage home, even via Brussels, but that is not a situation that other Government Ministers or those who still stay in the Government can regard with tranquillity. The Tánaiste said and I quote from the Irish Press of 7th May:

It is the strength of a great party that it can purge itself and I think it is perhaps rather unfortunate in a way that we have not demonstrated this more often because there has not been the reason for it.

In his speech in Wexford—I quote from the Irish Press of 12th December, 1970—he said:

There should be no complacency arising from the by-election and at a general election the people would expect Fianna Fáil to have overcome all internal conflict by ensuring that there were no silent dissidents biding their time.

He, of course, was aware of what had happened and aware of the comments that had been made by some of his colleagues. I do not know whether the Taoiseach's and the Government's concern at the situation was because of the statements that were made by a number of Deputies who have given their votes in the House, if not their verbal approval, to the Government. When the recent arms trial concluded Deputy Blaney—I quote from the Irish Press of 24th October—when asked if he wanted Mr. Lynch to resign said:

I couldn't care less what he does.

Deputy Haughey said:

I have been in the past a potential candidate and I am not ruling out any possibilities at this stage.

That was in reference to his interest in being Taoiseach. He declined to comment on the future of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, saying that it was a matter for Deputy Gibbons and the Taoiseach but he did say:

I think this whole affair has done this party a great deal of damage.

This is not criticism from opponents of Fianna Fáil. These are comments by Fianna Fáil Deputies. How they vote is a matter for them, but is it any wonder that people are concerned and are anxious about the future?

We have advocated here repeatedly that action should be taken to investigate thoroughly public expenditure. We have advocated the establishment of a Dáil Committee to investigate the expenditure and activities of State companies. I notice from a statement made by the Minister for Transport and Power that it is still the subject of consideration by the Government. There have been notable examples in recent months, particularly CIE. It is the one that comes more frequently before the House than any other State company and in regard to which there is an overwhelming case for an investigation by a Dáil Committee. There is now the question of Nítrigin Éireann.

The only people who can bring in the legislation and have the power to pass it are the Government. If legislation is brought in to establish a Committee it will get willing support from this side of the House.

I want to refer to an even more fundamental question of Dáil business. There has been a lot of discussion about the inability of the Dáil to get through the business that has been ordered. Reference has been made to the idea of establishing Dáil Committees. Most of us who have sat on Dáil Committees over the years realise that many Committees perform useful functions in examining specific questions and in reporting and recommending either amendments of the law or action in other spheres, but there is a limit to the committee work that can be done. Most of those who talk on this, either from the sidelines or even Deputies, have no experience of committees or have only limited experience. Some of us have sat on many committees dealing with many different topics, either Public Accounts or Select or Special Committees established to deal with specific problems. These committees can do useful work. There is a strong case for a Committee on State and semi-State companies analogous to the Public Accounts Committee. There are vast areas of legislation of a technical character that can be examined critically and dealt with in Committee.

However, committees can only function if it is possible at the same time to carry on in the Dáil other Dáil work; and it is not possible to have a proliferation of Dáil Committees and, at the same time, expect the Dáil to work effectively. It might be possible to establish a system under which, instead of having Deputies designated to a particular Committee, Deputies of the whole House would be entitled to come and go. I am not sure whether that is possible under Standing Orders, but I believe the time has come when a small all-Party Committee should be set up to consider and make recommendations. It is idle to imagine that we can suddenly change a system and that a whole wave of reforms can be introduced that will put everything right. A small Dáil Committee should be set up. This is a problem that affects all parties and affects Government and Opposition alike. It is not possible to get through legislation and Estimates in the time available with the volume of public business being done, if at the same time Deputies, or some of them, exercise their right—to which they are entitled, of course—and if they try to outdo each other in making lengthy speeches. There is no doubt that a Deputy is entitled to talk at length, but if business is to be got through it will not be done by dragging it out through excessively long speeches. Most of us who have been here for some time know that this is not common only in this Dáil, in other Dáils Deputies indulged in this sort of thing too and eventually had to abandon it. It is a mistake to imagine that problems can be solved by excessively long speeches. At the same time, there is a variety of problems not being discussed because of the overloaded timetable.

The time has come when in the interests of getting business done there is a case for an all-Party Committee to make recommendations on revised procedures, on the establishment, where practicable, of Dáil Committees and possibly the introduction of some limitation, except in designated debates or in particular circumstances, on excessively long speeches in normal debates. That would be in the interests of getting business done. We cannot expect to discuss every topic at length or to imagine that merely because people are talking at length that they are, as the late Deputy Bill Norton said, distilling their thoughts and conferring on us some sort of wisdom that we have not had in the Dáil until the advent of some new intellectual process that in some way or other is superior to anything that went before.

Parliamentary democracy can only function if it is used and modernised to deal with the situation as we find it. Undoubtedly the establishment of particular committees to deal with State enterprises and State companies is probably the most urgent, but there are other ways in which it could be done. It should be possible to get, through an all-Party Committee, recommendations that would make the present system more efficient and more expeditious. The parliamentary system of government, with all its defects, has been described as the worst until you try the others. On the whole, this Parliament has functioned effectively and efficiently. It could be more efficient if we put our minds together in order to change the system to meet the demands of the present.

The debate which is normal at this time of the year is coming at the end of, in many ways, one of the most extraordinary years this country has ever had. It is a reflection on the Government and on the lack of real purposeful leadership that a situation has developed in which we have enacted very little legislation, discussed very few major Estimates, primarily because of the amount of time devoted to discussing the internal problems of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party. The recent by-elections showed, as the other by-elections this year showed, that if the trend continues, and there is every reason to believe it will continue, whenever there is a general election there will be a change of Government. So far as this party are concerned we have put forward our policy.

The Taoiseach

We heard that before.

Mr. Cosgrave

We have never been prepared not to accept responsibility for forming a Government or of accepting responsibility to do our duty either in government or in Opposition. We do not connive at disregard for the law when we are in Opposition and give verbal approval to the maintenance of the institutions of State when we are in Government. I said before, and I want to repeat, that this Parliament and this country are not the property of any political party. We are only here as the temporary servants of the people for whatever period we are here. We have an obligation to hand on these institutions and act as trustees for those who will come after us.

We have behaved in a most responsible and restrained manner throughout the whole of this crisis that has besmirched the name of the country, a crisis that has prevented people coming here and which has produced serious problems for the small hotelier and for guesthouse owners, for industry and other sections, and which has resulted in a situation in which there are thousands of people not only in the city of Dublin but in my constituency and in nearly every constituency looking for houses, looking for homes, looking for proper health services, looking for their ordinary right to live as Irishmen and Irishwomen in Ireland. They are concerned at the way things have gone. They do not want to see this country deteriorate to the extent that the Taoiseach says that kidnappings, such as happened in South America or elsewhere, are a possibility. If that situation develops it is because of the subservience of the Government to the Tacateers and the Tacateer influence.

We want to see this country continuing to prosper and continuing to provide the peaceful attraction that would make it possible to get all the people of Ireland to live together in harmony and peace. We welcome the change that has occurred which recognises the traditional policy we have preached and practised of trying to secure through agreement and cooperation common ground that will make it possible for people, irrespective of their religion or of their political beliefs, irrespective of their backgrounds, to live together and to give allegiance to Ireland.

There has been far too much slobbery talk and sentimental verbiage about one form of Republicanism or another, the type of confused thinking that was displayed in speeches by some Fianna Fáil Deputies, in some speeches made by some of them in the heat of the moment when they were knocking around the Four Courts, or even in this House, or at political gatherings. The plain truth is that the majority of the people want the institutions of this State to continue to serve their interests, to make it possible for people to get a better standard of living, to get better economic and social conditions, to get a situation in which the elected representatives of the people will put the people's interests first and party and personal interests last. So far as we are concerned, we have never failed to do that.

The fact that we have not secured sufficient votes to implement that in practice is not our fault, but it does not mean that we are going to lower our aims or abandon our principles or waver in our determination to vindicate and assert what we believe are sound policies. We are prepared to seek public support for it and to cooperate generously and reasonably with those who are prepared to go along the same path. We are confident on the pattern of results established this year, where we have seen increased support in every by-election for our candidates and our policy, that whenever the general election occurs— the quicker the better—it will be possible to provide a Government which will command respect because of its personnel and its capacity and, above all, because of its patriotism.

Mr. Tully

May I start off by saying that I believe all Deputies and all parties in this House believe that they have been sent here for the purpose of improving, as far as possible, the standard of living and the development of the State. Where we differ is in the ways in which we do this and the ways in which we accept our responsibility for doing what is considered to be the right thing.

The Taoiseach at the commencement of his opening speech referred to a number of items and I propose to deal with them during the course of my address here. Before I do so I should like, Sir, with your permission, to make a rather unusual comment in view of the fact that a precedent was established elsewhere. The Leader of the Seanad, Senator Ó Maoláin, yesterday claimed, according to reports in the papers this morning and on the radio last night, that because this House was held up and did no business the Seanad could not meet. He said the Opposition was responsible for the delays. It was not the Opposition who initiated the arms trial; it was not the Opposition who dismissed Ministers; and it was not the Opposition who caused all the hullabaloo we have had over the past 12 months. I agree with Senator Ó Maoláin that no business has been done in this House but the responsibility for the ordering and carrying through of business is surely a matter for the Government of the day. No amount of whitewashing by Senator Ó Maoláin or anybody else will remove the guilt for this from the Government. I know it is not usual to refer to the other House here but in view of what was said there I think we are entitled to defend ourselves against unwarranted attacks by people who must know they are not stating facts. I leave the matter at that.

The Taoiseach referred, perhaps rightly so, to the upsets and losses which occurred to the economy of the country and to individuals and firms as a result of strikes, particularly the bank strike and the cement strike. May I repeat what I have said here on a number of occasions : to lay the blame for strikes in every case, as appears to be the popular thing to do, on the backs of the workers is not quite correct, particularly because it has been proven time and again that strikes in most cases have been caused by the unreasonableness of management. If anyone wants proof of the truth of that statement all they have to do is check with the original offer made by management and the final offer made by management. In 99 cases out of 100 it will be found that the final offer made is very much closer to the original demand made by the workers than the original offer. Employers here have built up a system of horse trading where wages are concerned which is no credit to them. They offer the least possible amount they think they can get away with, and indeed in many cases they offer much less than that, and then they bargain and bargain and bargain and eventually after the workers in the firm, the general public and in many cases the management themselves, have suffered severe losses they eventually come up with a realistic offer which is accepted and the strike ends. Is it possible to get across to them that this is a very stupid thing to do?

As a trade union official I have negotiated with a number of English firms and while I do not propose to say that the English businessman is a better businessman than the Irish businessman, it is far easier when you make a case for an increase in wages, if it is a realistic one, to have it accepted by the English employer than by a native employer. I wish employers would learn that the idea of bargaining with losses to everyone is not the way to carry out negotiations.

The Taoiseach has said that the employment figure this year is up on last year. Might I remind him that unemployment is substantially up on last year and that even with the bit of manoeuvring which the Department of Labour and Social Welfare did the figure is still over 60,000. The Minister for Labour, a few months ago in reply to a question from me, said that these 60,000 people are unemployable. I asked him why the jobs which he was bragging about having in the country, but which could not be filled, were not being filled by people who lived here and were on the unemployment register. He explained that the people on the register were not the type of people who would fit into the job. I am sure he was not suggesting they were all craftsmen's jobs. What he was saying was that people on the unemployment register here need have no hope of the Government ever doing anything for them because the Minister for Labour and the Government think they are unemployable. This is a deplorable situation.

In addition to that the Department of Labour and Social Welfare have carried out a manoeuvre which, while benefiting some people, has reduced considerably the number of people signing on at the employment exchange. They have introduced what they call a retirement pension at 65. This means that people who are over 65 years of age and have an average number of stamps on their cards can, if they are unemployed, decide not to seek employment again, retire and draw the same amount of money from the local post office as they would from the employment exchange. This has effectively reduced the number of people on the unemployment register. I would be grateful if the Taoiseach, when he is replying, would tell the House how many people were actually unemployed last week or the week before. I think the Taoiseach should answer this question in the House.

The Taoiseach has said, although he offered no evidence to prove it, but I accept his word if he is giving his word, that emigration this year is lower than last year. No comparison was made and I am always suspicious when a politician, particularly a member of the Government, refers to something without giving comparative figures. The Taoiseach said it appeared that the number of people who emigrated this year was lower than last year. The evidence we have does not bear out the Taoiseach's statement.

The Taoiseach referred to imports and exports. When he says there has been an increase in industrial exports would he tell the House if the £23 million or £24 million of that represents mineral ore? Is the big increase in industrial exports in fact mineral ore? Is it not true that this has been brought about by the action of people in this country, who have not asked for Government grants or anything else, and that manufacturing industry is not exporting to the extent we are led to believe they are?

Deputy Cosgrave referred to what is happening about Nítrigin Éireann. I quite agree it does appear extraordinary that the Government were not aware of what was happening or, if they were aware of what was happening, made no attempt to try to protect Nítrigin Éireann by preventing the dumping— it is a strong word—of fertilisers from Britain and the Continent. Surely the Government should have been aware of this? Surely it was brought to their notice and, if it was, why did they not do something about it? Must we wait until Nítrigin Éireann come along and point out that they are in the same position as a number of companies which have recently gone burst and the Government say they are very sorry but they cannot do anything to help because the amount involved is too big and the company has to close down?

Deputy Donegan and Deputy Treacy asked some questions yesterday about the boot and shoe industry. I do not know whether the Government are really serious, but they seem not to be aware of the fact that the boot and shoe industry is being killed by imports, not alone by valid imports but by illegal imports as well in the Taoiseach's own city of Cork. Is the Taoiseach aware that a Polish ship at present in port, as far as I know, has been freely selling boots and shoes at £1 per pair? Is he aware of that and, if he is, why is something not done about it? It is a case of thousands of pairs and not a couple of pairs. Why is this allowed? It is bad enough to have, under the Free Trade Area Agreement, imports of boots and shoes and other things strangling our own industries, but when we have this blatant smuggling under the noses of those who should prevent it, surely it is time the Government wakened up and did something about it?

Where tourism is concerned we have had the sort of inept appeal: "Don't hit me now with the child in me arms." No one should say a word about tourism because it is such a great money spinner. It should not be attacked by anybody. Is it not a fact that, despite everything that has been said, the arms trial and the unrest in this part of the country did more to damage tourism than all the riots in the Six Counties? Is it not true that people abroad heard of this and is it not equally true that as recently as a couple of weeks ago the Taoiseach's reference that he proposed, if certain things happened, to reintroduce the Offences Against the State Act brought plane loads of newspaper correspondents here to watch the civil war? I do not know whether they brought special insurance, but the whole thing is becoming utterly ridiculous when, even as close as Britain is, they do not know there what is happening and think apparently that at any moment the Whole country will blow up.

The Taoiseach has been careful, following his original announcement, to say that the Offences Against the State Act has not been reintroduced and it is not proposed to reintroduce it unless certain things happen. I am amused at his suggestion that the kind of kidnapping that occurred in places like Canada, Brazil and Spain could occur here. We all know that the neighbour a mile down the road cannot do a darned thing here but we know all about it. That is the pattern in towns, cities, country districts, or wherever you are. We are a very small country in which everybody knows everybody else's business and to suggest that what happened in Canada, Brazil and Spain could happen here is just too ridiculous for words.

With your permission, Sir, I should like to read the sections of the Act because it was passed in 1940 and a great many people seem to be unaware of what it lays down. Because of that I think it should go on the records of the House now so that those who want to can read what, in fact, the Offences Against the State Act provides. In section 3 of Part II subsection (2) provides:

If and whenever and so often as the Government makes and publishes a proclamation declaring that the powers conferred by this Part of this Act are necessary to secure the preservation of public peace and order and that it is expedient that this Part of this Act should come into force immediately, this Part of this Act shall come into force forthwith.

Does the Taoiseach suggest we have reached that stage? Subsection (3) provides:

If at any time while this Part of this Act is in force the Government makes and publishes a proclamation declaring that this Part of this Act shall cease to be in force, this Part of this Act shall forthwith cease to be in force.

The Government must put it into operation by declaration in Iris Oifigiúil and also, by declaration in Iris Oifigiúil, revoke its operation. But the real trouble is that subsection (1) of section 4 provides:

Whenever a Minister of State is of opinion that any particular person is engaged in activities which, in his opinion, are prejudicial to the preservation of public peace and order or to the security of the State, such Minister may by warrant under his hand and sealed with his official seal order the arrest and detention of such person under this section.

Subsection (2) provides:

Any member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant any person in respect of whom a warrant has been issued by a Minister of State under the foregoing sub-section of this section.

Subsection (3) provides:

Every person arrested under the next preceding subsection of this section shall be detained in a prison or other place prescribed in that behalf by regulations made under this Part of this Act until this Part of this Act ceases to be in force or until he is released under the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act, whichever first happens.

Subsection (4) provides:

Whenever a person is detained under this section, there shall be furnished to such person, as soon as may be after he arrives at a prison or other place of detention prescribed in that behalf by regulations made under this Part of this Act, a copy of the warrant issued under this section in relation to such person and of the provisions of section 8 of this Act.

In other words, he is entitled to be told that a Minister has ordered his arrest. That is all that will be stated because the particular form of the order is here and it gives no information as to why the person has been arrested. I could go on, but it certainly appears to me that is is asking this House, and this Parliament should know this, to give to Ministers, some of whom I would not trust, authority to arrest any person they may wish to arrest. All they have to do in their peculiarly twisted minds is to get the idea that the person might do something with which they might disagree. How ridiculous can we become? This might be all right in war time but it is certainly not all right in 1970.

Deputy Cosgrave said, and I agree with him, that we have the courts to deal with these people. We, in this party, are entirely opposed to bank raiding, post office raiding or to anything which is not allowed by the law of the land. There is a rather odd situation in that the courts have failed to deal with the people who have been brought before them. There is a fundamental right for any accused person to be tried by a court of law, and having been tried, to be sentenced. In one or two cases in which sentences have been imposed they have been dealt with in such a way that the thing becomes somewhat farcical. One man has been released and people have said he was released because he spilled the beans on someone else. Another man was arrested for driving a getaway car and the judge who tried him suggested that he was not really at fault at all; he had been persuaded by somebody or other to drive the car and he did it on the spur of the moment. Again, how stupid can we be if we accept that kind of thing?

I do not agree with what the Taoiseach calls the necessity to introduce the Offences Against the State Act. So long as the law of the land is there and the courts are capable of dialing with these matters then these matters should be dealt with under the normal law. There is one other thing laid down in the Offences Against the State Act. I refer to the tribunal by which appeals will be heard. It is provided in the Act that there will be three members of the tribunal, one of whom will be an Army officer. I have great respect for the Army. I have great respect for Army officers. I do not think a judicial court is the place for an Army officer. I believe this is one of the things which did cause a lot of trouble before. We do not want military tribunals or this sort of thing happening in this country, and there is no reason for it so long as the courts are there to deal with them. If the courts will not deal with them, we should change the people operating the courts. If the judges are either afraid or too tender-hearted to deal with lawbreakers, we should change the judges. But the one thing I do not want to see happening, and which this party does not want to see happening, is gardaí doing their job as they see fit and finding, when they bring people to court and produce evidence against them, that those people get away scot free. This is what is causing the trouble —completely disillusioning men who are risking their lives to uphold the law. This is a matter on which there can be no doubt in anyone's mind in this House. Every sane-minded person should be prepared to back the enforcement of the law of the land as enforced, first, by the Garda and then by the judges and justices who are appointed and well paid to do their job. I would suggest that when people come before the court for serious breaches of the law those breaches should be dealt with as serious breaches of the law. Nothing makes the people who take them in there so disillusioned as the fact that it is being treated as a trivial matter and that law breakers are allowed out as if they were first offenders, many of them people who have broken the law again and again and again.

The Taoiseach said that, of course, the prices in this country were going up. He said they went up by 8 per cent in the past year and that it was the increases in wages that was forcing up prices and would continue to do so if we did not try to be more moderate about it. Before referring to the Prices and Incomes Bill, I should like to give four tables which I have here and which will prove that what the Taoiseach is referring to is not quite correct. Take the industrial wages in a number of countries, the 1970 gross hourly wages converted on the basis of local purchasing power. The German International for November, 1970, says that the percentage increases in real wages between 1964 and 1970 in the following countries were as follows: Germany, 32; Netherlands, 25: Belgium, 27; France, 29; Italy, 34 and Ireland, 24. So much for the case that wages are forcing up prices in this country.

With regard to exports, the percentage increase in exports in a number of countries in 1968-69 is as follows: Japan, 23.75; Belgium/Luxembourg, 23; Austria, 21.25; Netherlands, 19.5; France, 18.25; West Germany, 17; Switzerland, 16.5; Sweden, 16; Italy, 15.25; Denmark, 14.5; United Kingdom, 14; Norway, 13.75; Ireland, 11.6 —the third last from the end of the table; Canada, 9.5; USA, 9.5. The source is Vision, November, 1970.

Similarly, the annual rate of erosion in currencies in 1969-70 is as follows: Belgium, 4 per cent; Denmark, 5.2 per cent; France, 5.4 per cent; Germany, 3.6 per cent; Holland, 4.1 per cent; Ireland, 7.4 per cent; Italy, 3.7 per cent; Japan, 7.5 per cent; Sweden, 5.8 per cent; United Kingdom, 5.3 per cent; USA, 5.7 per cent. So, with the exception of Japan, the erosion in currency in this country, which is .1 per cent under Japan, is far higher than, nearly double, that of the remainder of the countries I have named. Is it any wonder, therefore, that there is no increase in the standard of living of so many people in this country? Is it not true that, no matter what happens, because of mismanagement at State level, the people of this country are now worse off than they were last year or the year before?

Let me give one final quotation which is very significant in relation to the GNP and market prices per head of population for 1968, the latest available date: Sweden, $3,320; Switzerland, $2,790; Denmark, $2,540; France, S2,530; Norway, $2,360; Germany, $2,200; Belgium, $2,160; Netherlands, $1,980; United Kingdom, $1,860; Finland, $1,710; Ireland, $1,033. I suggest that this proves that, with the possible exception of Spain and Portugal, which are not included, we are definitely at the bottom of the league. Incidentally, this is with the compliments of the Confederation of Irish Industries, Economic Trends, 8th December, 1970.

With regard to the Prices and Incomes Bill, which is on-off—it is like Mahomed's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth—I feel that the Taoiseach is now caught in a cleft stick. He has promised the ICTU that he would defer it. The constituent members of the Congress said, in effect, "We do not want it deferred; we want it withdrawn. We will sign an agreement, which will operate, on condition that it is definitely withdrawn." The Taoiseach discussed the matter on a second occasion with them. There has been no change on the union side. They have instructions to sign a reasonable agreement which will be accepted by them, by the employers and by the Government, on condition that the Prices and Incomes Bill is withdrawn. The employers apparently want something written down in legislation. When the negotiations took place and the agreement was made, this was not part of the agreement. The agreement was made without any guarantee being asked that it would be written into the law of the land and most certainly the trade union movement will not accept State control of this particular item. Therefore, the Taoiseach, who says he has not had an opportunity of making up his mind, must do so pretty quickly because unless it is clear, almost immediately, the constituent unions of the ICTU will feel free to negotiate— and rightly so—on their own for wage increases. They cannot wait any longer. After all, some of their agreements expired on 1st October, 1970. They were, in fact, in the course of negotiating new agreements when the bombshell was introduced. They are not prepared to wait any longer.

I think it must be agreed that trade unionists in this country have been terribly patient in waiting for people to make up their minds. Nobody can blame them if they are not prepared to wait any longer.

The introduction of the Prices and Incomes Bill was a drastic mistake in the first place. I referred to it as "Colley's folly"; my words have been proved correct. It was introduced because, apparently, Professor Chubb said he could not reach agreement. Extraordinarily, the same gentleman was able to come back a few weeks afterwards and was prepared to preside over a further conference. Did he or did the Government jump the gun? Surely these things should be dealt with in a reasonable way? The agreement has now been made. Most trade unionists will say it is much less than they had hoped to get as compensation for the fantastic cost of living increases; nevertheless they are prepared to accept it but if the Government do not withdraw the Prices and Incomes Bill the sky is the limit and on the Government's head be it.

Section 4 of the Offences Against the State Act says that whenever a Minister of State is of opinion that any person is engaged in activities which in the Minister's opinion are prejudicial to the preservation of public peace and order, he may take certain action. I wonder would it be considered that if people go on strike against a Prices and Incomes Bill, which is brought in and passed here against the wishes of the trade union and labour movement, it is prejudicial to good order? Could these people be arrested and interned? Is this a two-edged weapon which the Government are attempting to use against the workers? It appears that this is what is at the back of it, not the so-called kidnappings or threats to murder to which the Taoiseach referred today.

The Taoiseach can be very devious and his Ministers appear to be prepared to take extraordinary steps. It appears that something like that might be at the back of their minds. If they think the threat of internment will frighten the trade unionists they have another think coming.

The Taoiseach said 14,000 houses would be built this year. I wonder where he got the figures. Was he referring to local authority houses, SDA houses or to all houses? Perhaps somebody has done a quick count around the country and any house that looked new——

Mr. Power

He counted 15,000 in Donegal.

Mr. Tully

He did not look at the houses, did he? If the Deputy looks at the houses in Donegal he will be ashamed to refer to Donegal in this House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Geoghegan

Take it easy; the day is long.

Mr. Tully

Donegal is one county in which houses are badly needed. I do not quarrel with the decision of the Donegal people to elect anybody they like. I am sure Deputy Dr. Delap will be an excellent representative for them, but I should like to know if he has as his top priority houses for the people of Donegal because it was admitted in this House that, with the exception of Mayo, Donegal is the worst housed county in Ireland.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. O'Donovan

He will butter their bread on both sides.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully, without interruptions.

Mr. Tully

I do not know how the official stenographers cope with this problem but I find it very difficult to understand the accent of some of the Deputies who do not speak very often. It is difficult to know what they are saying when they do speak. Perhaps they are talking through their noses; I do not know.

Mr. Geoghegan

We shall have to get the Deputy a hearing aid.

Mr. Tully

In regard to housing, I am rather perturbed about the delay in the Department when a local authority applies for sanction for a housing scheme and for permission to borrow from the Local Loans Fund to build. If the Department think they are fooling anybody they are not. Every local authority interested in building houses has been frustrated by the delay which occurs. A scheme is sent up to the Department; they will ask questions or send it back if they want a slight change in design. I understood this had been done away with years ago. I was told about three years ago in this House that in order to streamline local authority housing the Department had agreed that in future all the planning, up to the question of final sanction, would be left to the local authority. Yet, I find that if the scheme is sent up to the Department they send it back for checking because the ceiling is half an inch too high or a room half an inch too big or the chimney flue is too big or too small.

After it has gone back and forwards for several months it is eventually sanctioned, tenders are invited, one is accepted and sent to the Department. They then write and ask: "Could this not be changed? Why is this so dear?" After about six months the scheme may have to be readvertised and will cost a couple of hundred pounds more than it did originally. When it is finally sanctioned the Department are asked for permission to borrow from the Local Loans Fund and then we have all the usual cod that goes on until finally, about 12 months later, it may be possible to get permission to build. This is no credit to the Government. I am quite sure this is a direct instruction from the Government and that no Minister for Local Government, whether we like him or not, is doing this deliberately.

Last night we had a very intelligent intervention from Deputy J. Lenehan on the matter of caravans being used for houses. The number of caravans used by people who have no other place to live is enormous and the number is growing because sites and houses are so expensive. Many newly-weds are buying caravans and using them as temporary homes until houses become available. Deputy Lenehan made a point which I took up but which we could not proceed with at the time. His statement was that the Minister for Local Government had announced that the Department were prepared to pay the full cost of traditional housing for itinerants. This is not correct. If a local authority wants to build a house for an itinerant they are told they are building a house for a person and they get the normal grant.

It was wrong for the Minister to make a statement that could be misunderstood by people like Deputy Lenehan. It would be much better if he stated clearly the type of housing accommodation to which he was referring. This point should be cleared up as soon as possible because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among people who felt they were covered and who are not covered by this particular section.

The officials in the Department must be driven crazy by the failure of the Department to pay grants. Perhaps it is because they are short of staff or short of money but whatever the reason people who have been building or repairing houses or adding water or sewerage, cannot get a hearing from the Department of Local Government. There is something wrong when this happens. I have a letter here from a man who says he has been waiting six months. Last May somebody inspected his water and sewage job and he was told that if he fixed up a few little things it would be all right. He did as he was asked but he has not heard a word since from the Department. Are there not sufficient inspectors or sufficient clerical staff? Is it the old idea that if you do not inspect the job, you do not have to pay and so the Government will save money for a period. This problem should be dealt with quickly.

I know a man who built a house and was promised the higher rate of grant. He was promised £400 and because the local authority were giving the same amount he proceeded to build. He had to borrow some money but eventually he finished the house. When the final inspection took place he was notified by the Department that as his wages had increased in the meantime he was not now eligible for the higher rate of grant. This means the man is £200 short. This cannot be allowed to happen. If he was officially informed of his position and proceeded on the basis of the amount of money he was to get, he is entitled to get that money and the position should not be changed. I mention these matters because we were given the impression by the Taoiseach that everything in the garden was lovely.

I must mention some other points which should also be dealt with because they prove that the Taoiseach and his Ministers are not doing their jobs. We had the question of an increase of wages which was granted during the year to employees of local authorities and State employees, the first part of 50s granted from the 1st April and the second of 34s from the 1st January next. Is the Taoiseach aware that local authorities did not get from the Department of Local Government the necessary money to pay their share by way of grants of that 50s and 34s? Is he aware that local authorities had to do one of two things? They either had to lay off a considerable number of employees, as I fear will happen in your constituency, Sir, or they will have to make up the money themselves, as they did in my constituency. My county council provided all the extra money needed. Instead of having to provide for £17,000 they had to provide for £34,000 because the Department of Local Government did not back up their grant and they knew well the result of the wage increase would be that money would be short. This is the sort of thing which should not happen if the Government were doing their job and facing up to their responsibilities.

The same thing happened in regard to employees of the Office of Public Works who will be laid off next week because there is not enough money in certain maintenance schemes to carry on. The money was budgeted for, a wage increase occurred and as the extra money was not provided we are told those people will have to be laid off. There is one very interesting thing in this. While all the outdoor staff, the men who are actually doing the job, are being laid off, I am not aware of any layoff which is likely to occur in regard to clerical staff, engineering staff or managerial staff. It only applies to the fellow with the shovel. It is too bad this has happened. The Departments concerned should face up to their responsibilities and make the necessary money available. There is no point in giving them a wage increase and because of the fact that you lay them off reducing the amount of money which they will earn for a 12 month period by at least 25 per cent.

The Minister for Health has been very noisy, not alone in the House but around the country, about the new health scheme. Some questions have been asked about the way it is to be administered, particularly the question of one particular health committee who apparently have found they were able not alone to decide the site of the office but also to do a number of things which no other health committee has been able to do. Of course, the fact that an election was in the area and there were more votes to be got in the town they were taking it to than there were in the town they were taking it from seems to have been the qualifying criterion here.

Mr. Davern

We still won the election with an increased majority.

Mr. Tully

I grant you you are good at this sort of thing. If you are proud of it, then good luck to you; you are entitled to be proud of it. I would not be proud of it.

Mr. Davern

It is better than a Fascist protest.

Mr. Tully

The Fascist protest must come from your own side because the only Fascists I know in this country are operating from the Fianna Fáil benches. Do not draw me any further on that. You had your share of them and you will get a few more of them before this debate is over.

Mr. Cluskey

That is a terrible thing to call Senator McGlinchey.

Dr. O'Donovan

Are they getting back into form?

Mr. Tully

It is not actually getting back into form. They have lost some pieces of the machine. They feel, like the fellow who took the watch to pieces and put it back again, that it is working all right. Is it keeping time? That is the question.

Mr. Meaney

You are not getting on too nicely yourself.

Mr. Tully

We are not doing too badly. We did not attempt to put anybody in jail yet.

Mr. Power

When you took the watch asunder there were too many wheels.

Mr. Tully

That is what happened Fianna Fáil. They felt there were too many wheels and then they threw some of them out. Then another bit fell out and they let it go. You are now attempting to carry on without it. It is not keeping too good time but it is ticking over.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Tully

The Minister for Health tells us he regrets it will not be possible to bring in the choice of doctor from the 1st April next because the doctors will not take the cut price they are being offered. He says if they do not do that he cannot do anything about it. I suggest the Minister for Health should realise this is a question of negotiation. If he does not know how to negotiate he should get somebody who will do the job for him.

Recently I received a letter concerning a case in the Monaghan constituency, which is represented by the Minister for Health. Part of this constituency comprises a portion of County Meath which was formerly represented by me. The letter I received stated:

This meeting is totally dissatisfied with the strength of the representation made by Mr. Childers, TD, on Oliver Halpenny's behalf. We strongly protest against the gross dishonesty of members of the Department of Justice in misrepresenting the facts of the case. Passed unanimously by the Fianna Fáil cumann in Drumconrath, County Meath.

This was signed by the Secretary and sent on to me asking me to raise it in this House. I have raised it in this House.

The Mr. Halpenny referred to was a young garda who got first place in the passing out examination. He was their best recruit. He came of a very decent family and had everything in his favour. Subsequently, as an all-night guard, he was in a room which was covered by an armed military sentry outside. Somebody came in and alleged that he had dozed off. He was summarily dismissed from the force. The Minister for Health was asked to make representations on his behalf. Apparently the Drumconrath cumann of Fianna Fáil are not satisfied with the representations he made. Maybe this would suggest to him that he could raise the matter again. Mr. Halpenny was treated disgracefully. The fact that this happened to him and the fact that misrepresentation was made, as the secretary of the Fianna Fáil cumann so rightly suggests, calls for an investigation into the matter. He was protecting the Taoiseach and some people alleged he had a gun and he fell asleep with it in his hand. This is a terrible thing to have happened to a young man at the start of his career.

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Deputy alleging that you do not get anything unless you are in Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Tully

This man was not in Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is talking about the secretary of the Fianna Fáil cumann.

Mr. Tully

The secretary of the Fianna Fáil cumann felt so bad about it that he wrote to me. His people were supporters of mine and apparently this is one of the reasons why the Minister for Health did not think it was important. The man's local cumann seemed to think it was important.

Mr. Power

Is it not extraordinary that his people felt they should go to the Minister for Health first. The Deputy said they were supporters of his.

Mr. Tully

It was the Fianna Fáil cumann who raised the question. His people then raised it with me. I do not propose to read all the correspondence.

Mr. Briscoe

We see the point. The Deputy can leave it at that.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Geoghegan)

The Deputy can read all the correspondence.

Mr. Tully

It would suit the Fianna Fáil Party well because I understand they intend to put in people who will speak a long time in order to cut short the time left for the rest of us.

Mr. Geoghegan

We do not mind if you keep going until 6 o'clock tomorrow evening.

Mr. Cluskey

It is 7 o'clock.

Acting Chairman

Deputies should not interrupt. The Deputy in possession should be allowed to make his speech. Other Deputies will have an opportunity later.

Mr. Tully

You have the Minister for Health saying that, because matters cannot be fixed up with the doctors, the choice of doctor cannot come into operation on 1st April next. This has been promised again and again and now we are back at the point where we are not going to get it again. Will the same thing happen in regard to the hospitals? When Deputy Seán Flanagan was Minister for Health a couple of years ago, in answer to Deputy Carter, he said that it would be 15, 20 or 25 years before the new scheme could come into operation, but when Deputy Childers became Minister for Health he reduced the number of years to ten or 15 and said that some sections might come fairly quickly. I imagine when the time comes, like the case of the doctors' fees, it will be deferred because agreement cannot be reached.

With regard to social welfare benefits I believe there is a great shortage of staff in the Department of Social Welfare. I want to make it clear in regard to this and the other Government Departments I have referred to that I have received nothing but courtesy and co-operation from the staffs of those Departments, but I cannot expect miracles. If I ask the Department of Social Welfare, or the Department of Local Government, or any other Department, to do something and the people who should do it are just not there, I cannot blame them if it is not done. The person who is waiting for the payment will blame them and will probably blame me and other public representatives because it is not done properly.

It is a pity that it appears that what was formerly regarded by young people down the country as a plum job is no longer so regarded. Everyone used to want to get into the Civil Service. Nobody seems to want that now. Is the reason that the pay is too low or are the conditions too bad? Whatever the reason, surely it should be corrected. I am told that senior officials are wasting their time doing jobs which could be done by people who have just left school, if the thing were handled properly. The only people who are really suffering are the people who are waiting for payments from the Department of Local Government or the Department of Social Welfare.

It is very annoying to get a letter from somebody who says he has not got his benefit for five or six weeks and, on checking up, to find that there has been a small slip-up. I am not blaming the officials. They cannot do it if they have not got the staff. It is only fair to say that. Over the past 12 months we have been promised on at least half a dozen occasions that the £1,200 limit for insurability will be raised. All we have been able to get is a promise. First of all the Minister said it would require legislation. Then he said he would make an order. Then he said it was being investigated. The last time I asked him about it, about three months ago, he said it would be done soon. I asked him how soon was soon and he said he felt it would be within a couple of months. The couple of months are up and we still have not got it.

I am rather surprised at this. Unless again there is a shortage of staff, there is no reason why £1,600 should not have been introduced as the limit because the number of extra people who would be paying insurance would make a big difference. There are many people who want to be included mainly for retirement pensions or because they want to hold on to their claim. In fact they would be paid sick pay. I believe that the number of claims which would be made on the Department would be relatively small and, for that reason, I think the Department are losing money. I would ask to have this matter dealt with fairly quickly.

I want to refer to two other matters concerning the Department of Social Welfare on which the Minister should take a stand. One is related to the question of appeals. It has become the practice that if somebody who has been working gets married, works after marriage, qualifies for maternity benefit, has a baby, stays out for a few months, is anxious to resume work again in her old job but it is not available, and signs for unemployment benefit, she is refused benefit and if she appeals it seems to be the standard practice that she is refused on appeal.

I asked a question about this a few weeks ago because I understand it is fairly widespread. Would the Parliamentary Secretary who is directly in charge of this section talk to these people? I am not prepared to accept the statement made by the Minister. In answer to me he said that the job of an appeals officer was a statutory job and that he could not interfere. That is a lot of arrant nonsense. If that is so, an appeals officer can make up his mind to do anything at all no matter how crazy it is, and carry it out. I believe this should be stopped.

The second thing which I think is wrong is that when people who are drawing disability benefit are complained about by some of their neighbours who do not like them, even if it is an anonymous letter or a complaint made without any substance whatever, the first thing the Department do is to stop the payment. Perhaps months afterwards it is discovered that the unfortunate person——

Mr. Geoghegan

If I am not mistaken that has been somewhat changed.

Mr. Tully

It has not. The Parliamentary Secretary would want to check on that because I am aware that it has happened recently. The fact that there is a name on the letter does not mean that that person wrote the letter.

Mr. Geoghegan

Agreed.

Mr. Tully

Apparently there is a loophole in the change to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. That should be corrected. A person is entitled to live. When one goes into a house to see a person who has been in receipt of disability benefit or unemployment benefit for a number of years, and who probably has a wife and family as well, and whose benefit has been stopped, one sees the utter misery of that family with no income whatever for a period of weeks and sometimes of months. Eventually there is an apology and the payment is made. The person who gets it is supposed to sing a song of praise. They do not feel very much like singing. Usually they owe all the money they get and, if the local authority have given them a couple of pounds to keep them going in the meantime, they have to pay that back. That is the way it goes. These things should be cleared up by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister and they should be dealt with fairly quickly.

One of the things which came up in the House recently was the question of Christmas cards. I do not believe that personal matters affecting Deputies should be raised here but, if we reach a stage where in one Department it is difficult to get any action because the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are busy and have important things to do, and it is admitted that the staff of that Department are engaged on sending out 17,000 Christmas cards, not to people who would be affected by the activities of the Department but to the constituents of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister I think this is a scandal. The £600 paid for the cards is a relatively small amount compared with the amount of valuable time wasted which is paid for by the State. We all send out a certain number of cards. We buy them and we post them. We write them ourselves.

Mr. Geoghegan

And we do the same.

Mr. Tully

There may be certain exceptions. A number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries stated that they were not doing this and I give them full credit for it. Nor would I complain if a limited number of Christmas cards, or any other type of greetings, were sent out by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to business connections where that is the thing to do. For a Member of this House to prepare and post at public expense 17,000 Christmas cards for the purpose of trying to gain an advantage over a Parliamentary colleague is wrong.

Mr. Cluskey

Does the Deputy mean a Deputy of the same party?

Mr. Tully

Naturally. I am worried about Deputy Davern.

Mr. Davern

Do not worry about me.

Mr. Meaney

Where are all the cards going anyway?

Mr. Tully

I am quite sure they will not come to me or to the Deputy. The Deputy can be sure of that. I am sure Deputy Davern will not get one either.

Mr. Geoghegan

I had intended to send one to Deputy Tully but I will not now.

Mr. Tully

If the Parliamentary Secretary pays for it himself I will be glad to get it and I will send him one. There have been various complaints here. Some people have complained about the cost of postage. I would not complain so much about the cost of postage, but I would complain about the way it was introduced. It is wrong that the postal services should be told they must pay their way. Costs have gone up in every other Department and they are not expected to pay their way. This is an attempt to cut down on the employment in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That is wrong.

It is the same in relation to phone costs. I do not know whether anyone else has had the same experience— there must be some reason for it; again, is it a shortage of staff—but the number of wrong numbers one gets at present, or the number of numbers where after dialling someone else comes in and says: "Excuse me, you are on my line" after one has been talking to somebody for two or three minutes, is ridiculous. Whether we are talking to friends or enemies, or whether it is a business discussion or a private discussion, the phone service should be a private and confidential service. If we want a party line we will ask for it. I understand it would be a lot cheaper. We do not want a party line when we are dealing with confidential matters.

Before the last general election I had the experience of dialling a number— perhaps I was wrong to do it but I could not resist the temptation for a minute or so—and listening to a member of a Fianna Fáil cumann arranging to nail another member who hoped to be a candidate in the general election.

Mr. Davern

Do not tell us it does not go on.

Mr. Tully

I can give the Deputy the names afterwards if he likes. This fellow did stand. He said he would walk his feet off up to his knees in order to canvass all the houses——

Mr. Davern

That is the game of politics and the Deputy knows the act better than anybody else.

Mr. Tully

He finished up very low down in the poll. It should not be possible for me to hear it. It should not be possible for anybody to hear a private conversation.

Recently telephone services have been breaking down. A friend of mine in Balbriggan, which is only 20 miles from the city, tells me that they have been cut off from any telephone service except an intermittent one for the last three or four weeks. I am sure the post office linesmen have also been doing everything they can to repair it, but it does not seem to be possible to fix it up. He said, I suppose by way of a joke, that it was bad enough for the road between Balbriggan and Skerries to have fallen into the sea but in addition their telephone service was now cut off completely. These are things the Minister might take an interest in. He would be much better employed at that than doing things such as acting as election agent for candidates who, like ourselves, do not always make the grade.

Mr. Geoghegan

I did not think Balbriggan was in the Deputy's area.

Mr. Tully

It is close enough to it.

Mr. Davern

There is no Labour Deputy for that area, is there?

Mr. Tully

There is a Labour Deputy for the area and he is an excellent one. Deputies will hear him in about an hour and a half. If you want to know how good he is ask Deputy Burke.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan))

Deputy Davern and Deputy Cluskey should allow Deputy Tully to make his speech.

Mr. Tully

The question of whether there has been a crisis in this country over the past six or 12 months has come up again and again. It is common knowledge that the Taoiseach stated that, even if the courts discharged the two ex-Ministers, he felt that there was an illegal attempt to import arms. He removed from office two senior Ministers, two capable Ministers, on that charge, the courts having cleared them. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that, as far as that charge is concerned, he should either put up or shut up because what he has been doing is blackening those two people and saying: "I know they were illegally importing arms" and the court says they were not guilty of a conspiracy to illegally import arms. It does appear from watching around the House here for the last couple of weeks that one of them seems to be making fairly good ground. He was sailing against the wind for a good while and he did not seem to be making much headway—perhaps he said a few stupid things after the court case—but he is making headway now.

I will be very interested to see the result of this inquiry which is being set up to investigate the £100,000 because, in my opinion, while that appears to be only a drop in the ocean of the money involved, at the same time it will be a pointer as to what actually happened. I should like to ask the Taoiseach which does he want to do: does he want to find out what actually happened the £100,000, does he want to prove that there was no money misspent out of that £100,000; or does he want to nail ex-Minister Haughey who appears to be coming up the straight pretty fast behind him and who may, if he is not careful, be sitting on the seat in which the Taoiseach has been sitting for the last couple of years?

Mr. Davern

Does the Deputy not want an inquiry?

Mr. Tully

I would like that inquiry to be pretty quick. I am long enough in this House to see political manoeuvres being well played, the political ploy that gets one off the hook without anybody else seeing it.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is very adept at it.

Mr. Tully

I am long enough here to have seen this going on for a long time. Do not get angry. I am only starting on this.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not getting angry. I am admiring the Deputy's talent for leaving out important words when he is making charges.

Mr. Tully

This debate goes on until seven o'clock tomorrow evening and I would be delighted to hear Deputy Briscoe including the important things I have left out. That is his privilege.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Davern will have an opportunity later on as will all Deputies.

Mr. Tully

He will not be allowed to by his party. That is the trouble with those fellows. The only time they get a chance of saying anything is by way of interruption.

Mr. Briscoe

You fellows have been occupying the time of the House since 11 o'clock this morning.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Briscoe must allow Deputy Tully to continue without interruption.

Mr. Tully

The position as far as this inquiry is concerned is that it was suggested by Deputy Corish here—I am allowed to mention his name— that the Dáil should prepare and arrange for an inquiry by a special committee set up by this House. The Taoiseach would not have that. He said the Committee of Public Accounts is set up for this purpose. It went before the Committee of Public Accounts and if my reading of the political situation is correct the report which that committee put in here yesterday evening means that they feel they are unable to deal with it and they want a special committee of the House constituted to deal with it with powers which the Committee of Public Accounts do not have. The Taoiseach was asked whether he would introduce legislation for the purpose of allowing this to be done. He was most apologetic this morning and said that after all he only got it last night and only had an opportunity of giving it to the Attorney General and was waiting for advice on it and it might take a long time.

Why did it only come to the Taoiseach last night? Because the committee was only set up a couple of days ago and it could have been set up much earlier if the Taoiseach so wanted. It appears to be very nice timing, a nice political manoeuvre. We all know that the Árd Fheis is coming along. I wish I could find out what exactly the Taoiseach wants. Does he want to clear Deputy Haughey so that he will be able to take over at the Ard Fheis or does he want to ensure that he will never again hold Ministerial rank? I am not sure which it is, but it is one or the other.

I had great admiration for both Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney in this House. I felt they were very efficient as Ministers. Outside I would not admire them so much because Deputy Blaney, particularly, has been preaching a particular type of Republicanism. Now we know what the Taoiseach considers to be Republicanism. We got that from the Irish Independent over the last couple of weeks.

Mr. Geoghegan

Did he make a statement in the Independent?

Mr. Tully

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is just being mischievous.

Mr. Tully

Everybody here is a Republican. We are citizens of a Republic. All of us want a 32-county Republic eventually. Nearly everybody in the country wants that. The difference between some of the Republicanism being preached here and the type of Republicanism which we preach is that we do not believe there should be bloodshed for the purpose of making it effective.

Mr. Davern

Neither do we.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy is speaking for himself.

Mr. Briscoe

Party policy.

Mr. Davern

Party policy since 1927.

Mr. Tully

If the Deputy says that Fianna Fáil in its entirety agree with that, then the Taoiseach, who objected to the action taken by some of his people here, does not appear to agree with him.

Mr. Davern

The stated Fianna Fáil policy is peaceful means.

Mr. Briscoe

Is Deputy Tully one of the real socialists or what is he?

Mr. Tully

I am a Christian Socialist. The Deputy might not understand that.

Mr. Briscoe

We understand more about it than the Deputy does.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputies are becoming disorderly now. Deputy Tully must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Tully

The question about this is not whether we want a Republic but whether we want to shed blood for it again. Unlike some of the people who have been so noisy about Republicanism here, when this State wanted people to take arms in case the State had to be defended I was not afraid or ashamed to do so. I hear people talking about Republicanism and about their desire to serve the State but they had not got that desire when they were needed. Some of them who talk like this should look back a bit and see where they are lacking. I am not now referring to the gossoons.

The other part is that as far as the Labour Party are concerned we have always been in favour of a 32-county republic. The leader of the revolution was James Connolly, the founder of our party. It seems to be misunderstood by some people that this House, and the Seanad, under the signature of the President, are the people who will make decisions as to what should be done or what should not be done about the national boundaries. If at any time— I want to repeat this—the Parliament of this State, the Oireachtas, decide that they are going to change their attitude towards the North of Ireland as to what they should do, then we will row in as we always did. We will not come along and say "No, you are not entitled to do that. Even as a minority party we do not think you should do it". The trouble with some people is that they want to have it both ways. They want to be in Government and they want to have their salaries, as indeed did happen when the IRA raids were being carried on before and some people in very cushy jobs were sending gossoons out to carry out raids in the north but they were still in their own cushy jobs and were not interfered with.

The same mentality seems to be operating among some of the people here. They are great republicans provided they still have their jobs and can have it both ways. Under the Exchange Control Bill which we discussed yesterday I was tempted to ask a question, but unfortunately forgot about it at the time. It was when we were talking about how difficult it is to get large sums of money out of this country and convert it into the currency of another country where we are going to buy something. How was it managed when they were buying the arms? Somebody had no difficulty in doing that. I hope that whatever committee is investigating this matter will do something about that too.

We were accused in the newspapers and by a lot of people here, of rowdyism in this House over a protest last week. I should like, Sir, to make this point which you are aware is correct. We had one speaker on his feet making a case and he was ruled out of order by the Chair. He remained on his feet and the Chair was entitled then to have him named. If it remained at that, each of these speakers on their own, there would have been no rowdyism in this House. The rowdyism was caused by back benchers of Fianna Fáil who insisted on trying to shout and roar and hurl insults—they were the people who hurled the insults, not Deputy Paddy Burke or Deputy FitzGerald or myself, as was suggested—at the speaker or anybody else they could do it to. It is important to remember that this House can be run without any rowdyism if the people who are so loud in their protests about obeying the Chair obey the Chair themselves. It has been known in every parliament in the world for people to make protests and to be suspended for doing so and there is a procedure laid down in Standing Orders for doing this. Any rowdyism caused here last week, I repeat, was caused by the rowdyism of the Fianna Fáil Members, including some of the Front Bench who could not keep their mouths shut but wanted to get in on the act to prove that they——

Mr. Geoghegan

The Deputy should be fair.

Mr. Tully

I am being very fair.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

This protest brought to notice the fact that things were wrong, and we had the Taoiseach coming in afterwards and saying that he had not introduced the Offences Against the State Act. This was the first positive statement he made. Before that it was like the father who wanted to threaten the child and he cut a switch which he hung up and said: "If you do that again it is there," and the result was that the child was afraid. This is what the Taoiseach was trying and then he backed down. He broke up the switch and threw it into the fire when the protest was made. There is a statement in the second Budget which I should like to have clarified. When that Budget was introduced a certain amount of extra taxation was imposed and since then a further amount of money has been required, £3 million, to help CIE. I am not objecting to that but I would like the Taoiseach to tell us where the extra money will be coming from. The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech said there was a saving of £7 million but where is that saving? We have not yet been told. I should like to know and I should like to know on what he proposes to cut back for the purpose of saving that £7 million. I should like to conclude by saying that Fianna Fáil should remember——

Mr. Geoghegan

The Deputy is not concluding?

Mr. Tully

Do not tempt me. Fianna Fáil should remember that they have not a monopoly of patriotism and that on every side of the House you have people who are as good patriots as any people on the Fianna Fáil benches, and in many cases a lot better. The only difference between the Fianna Fáil Party and members of the Labour Party, and I am sure of Fine Gael, is that we are prepared to admit that there are patriots in the country but we do not believe that burning or bank raiding or, if it goes to that, assault or murder, is showing patriotism. Fianna Fáil may say that they do not believe in that either but can they say that all of their members do not believe that some of these things can be done with impunity and a blind eye turned to them?

After some of these things had happened you would be amazed at where you would see them and you would be amazed at the comments. The man who by his action, either by burning hay, burning a house or blowing up some monument, does anything which will result in a charge being put on the rates of his fellow citizens is no patriot. The way to deal with him is to put him behind bars. If he does not learn his lesson outside he should be put where the lesson will be taught. The State should take over compensation for this type of thing because at present the insurance companies will take your premiums but when it comes to making a claim they will back out. I also think that where people can be identified as having caused malicious damage it is not sufficient to bring them to court and fine them a couple of pounds or send them to jail for a couple of weeks; they should be made pay, even if it takes several years for them to do so. Why should decent people be asked to pay compensation for the blackguards and that is all they are? The sooner the State take a firm hand and decide that they will not allow this sort of thing to continue the better. The State have responsibility to the citizens to protect them.

The Minister for Justice was not prepared to agree with me last week when I said, and I think my figures are correct, that in the last decade the number of gardaí has been reduced by 1,000, that there are 1,000 fewer gardaí now than there were a decade ago. I got the figures some time ago and I hope to get the figures again in the new year to prove that what I am saying is correct. At present they are overworked. They were promised a reduced working week and they were promised a whole lot of concessions, extra holidays for the time they worked and so on. They have not been able to get that, not because they are employed full time trying to keep down the lawlessness which has occurred throughout the city and the country, but because they are at the behest of the banking organisations. They stand outside banks for hours, protecting the property of those banks. If anything happens to the bank the person who has lodged his money must get his money back. I believe the banks do need control, but they should ask the State to provide armed military to guard the banks, who would be able to deal with the fellow who comes along with a gun. The unfortunate gardaí with a baton tied to his hip can do very little against four or more fellows who come down with a sawn off gun to raid the bank. If the banks want protection they should pay for it. The gardaí would then be brought up to full strength and able to do the job for which they were trained and for which they are required. If this were done we would have less of the petty lawlessness which we have, particularly in this city, and in many other places throughout the country.

One thing which seems to be laughed at is the question of stealing of cars; it is called the taking of cars. How many cars are taken in this city every night? Is it not a sad reflection on the way the State is operating here that an advertisement in a column in the evening newspapers has recovered more cars over the past couple of weeks than all the efforts of the law? This is something which must be dealt with by the State.

It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to stand up here and give us one of his usual "softly, softly " speeches, saying nothing and taking not too long to say it. It is not good enough for the head of a State who has been involved in so much trouble over the past 12 months and who appears to be heading into another period of serious trouble, and who has got numerous Votes of Confidence in this House, to think that the Members of this House are not entitled to be told what is happening and that any important announcement is made, as the former Deputy Dillon used to say, at a dinner or a dog fight of Fianna Fáil rather than in this House.

Mr. Meaney

The Adjournment Debate allows wide scope for discussion. The mood has changed a great deal during the past month and certainly the Opposition seems very quiet this morning. I suppose it is the festive season.

Mr. Briscoe

I have not wasted my morning; I shall be coming back to give these fellows a few answers.

Mr. Tully

I am sure the House is very grateful.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Meaney should be allowed to make his contribution.

Mr. Meaney

Our balance of payments have improved somewhat over the last 12 months, but there is still a long way to go. We must not become complacent, especially in. view of our anticipated entry into the EEC.

As the Taoiseach has said, this year has been a fair year with the usual ups and downs. Over the last two years we have had many inquiries from firms about whether they can set up factories in rural areas. The trend is to move out of big cities because firms have found with traffic congestion and so on they cannot carry on business in the heart of a city.

The Opposition keep saying that Fianna Fáil have failed to solve the unemployment problem and the emigration problem. When Fianna Fáil took over from the coalition Government in 1957 they made certain promises. It is only right and proper that the progress which has taken place over the last 13 years be recorded. In 1957, as everyone knows, there were approximately 100,000 people unemployed and emigration was running at the rate of 60,000 a year. There are approximately 60,000 people on the unemployment list in 1970 and emigration is running at the rate of approximately 15,000 a year. The population has increased by at least 100,000. This is something about which the Government can be proud. It is not enough; we know it is not enough. But the Government will see to it that the position will improve further as time goes on.

Deputy Tully dealt at length with this. Everyone seems to doubt the facts, but the Taoiseach stated that the housing programme continued satisfactorily in 1970 despite the cement strike. The Taoiseach stated that up to 14,000 houses will be built. Everyone who travels around the country can see the large number of houses which have been built in the past decade. It should be pointed out that the type of house being built has improved a great deal over the last ten years. The small house and the bothán are at last disappearing. The Minister for Local Government is doing his best to help people to build their own homes. This is the proper way to alleviate the housing problem. Individuals should be given more and more help to build their own homes.

Mention has been made of the Prices and Incomes Bill. The Bill was brought in because unions and employers failed to reach agreement. This party have always believed that wage agreements should be settled by free negotiation and free bargaining. Despite complaints that a great deal of horse trading goes on, it is much better to have that than to have Bills here which make things mandatory. Since the Bill was first introduced the two sides have met again and from what we hear they are making good progress in coming to a final settlement. They have discussed their problems with the Taoiseach and the Ministers responsible and that is the way it should be. I do not think we should dwell too much on the fact that this did not happen earlier. As deliberations are near conclusion, we should wish both sides the very best.

I hope unions will become much stronger in this country. We have often seen unions making agreements and then finding it very difficult to get acceptance of that agreement from a minority of their members. If the unions are to survive they will have to become stronger. As negotiating discussions are at a delicate stage I do not think it would be proper to discuss the matter further at the present time.

The year 1970 was a fair year for the agricultural industry. It should be noted that cattle prices have never been higher. In the years in which cattle prices were a bit depressed, the Opposition parties continually taunted us and told us it was the Fianna Fáil Government who were responsible for the poor prices and for the suggestion that farmers could not sell their cattle at a fair price. Now, when prices are very good—even a suckling calf is making good money—no one on the Opposition benches lays the responsibility for this happy state of affairs at the door of Fianna Fáil. The fact is that the farmers are now getting a fair return for their cattle.

In the past 12 months the Government have provided more money for the subsidisation of milk production. Very often the subsidy does not go back to the producer. However, that is a problem it is very difficult to solve without giving more subsidy. We shall be discussing this in greater detail when the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is before the House.

We should always, when talking about agriculture at the close of the year, give thanks that our country has been preserved from all sorts of diseases. So long as we can keep our cattle free from disease so long shall we have access to world markets. The Department should ensure at all times through the medium of stringent regulations that disease is prevented from entering the country. If it did enter it would be a calamity because we would lose our world markets, especially the market in the United States, and it would take years to recover them.

There has been a great deal of debate on the Taoiseach's announcement that it might become necessary to re-introduce Part II of the Offences Against the State Act if certain people do not desist from carrying out certain threats. It is the duty of the Government to ensure the smooth working of the democratic system and if any group, no matter how small, are out to upset that system, then it is up to the Government to safeguard the interests of the ordinary people.

Deputy Tully suggested that the banks could be guarded by armed soldiers. We have always believed in an unarmed police force and we should try, I think, to hold on to that system. If the Taoiseach and his Government have certain information that certain people will carry out threats—be it shooting, looting or kidnapping—then it is, as I say, the duty of the Government to ensure by every means at their disposal that these threats are not carried out.

Deputy Tully tried to suggest that this Act would be used to intern workers if they went on strike against certain legislation. That, of course, is utter fantasy. I can understand how the minds of the Labour Party are working at the moment; they are sore because the workers are not supporting them. The great majority of the workers support Fianna Fáil and the present Government and the workers can rest assured that, so long as Fianna Fáil remain in power, that eventuality will not occur.

Deputy Cosgrave appeared to be very perturbed by the shootings, raids and so on. I do not want to be personal about a gentleman with whom I am very friendly, but a member of his parliamentary party not so long ago went on a bit of a shooting escapade. Deputy Cosgrave should tell us what he intends to do about him. It is no harm to mention this matter.

Last week we had the position here that the Dáil could not conduct normal parliamentary business. It will be a very sad day when Parliament fails to function. It is no good Opposition speakers coming in now and saying it was Fianna Fáil back benchers who caused all the upset—that they were responsible because Parliament did not function as it should. Parliament was not allowed to function because Labour Party Deputies would not obey the Chair. That seems to be becoming very fashionable at the moment. I think it is a disgrace. I cannot understand how any leader of a party which behaved as a certain party behaved here last week could ask the electorate to give him responsibility for forming a government considering that he himself will not subscribe to normal parliamentary practice and procedure. Members of the Labour Party were suspended and the business of the House could not be conducted in a proper manner. If these people got their way everybody would be supposed to bow down before them and we would have minority rule. The fault for what happened last week can be clearly laid on the Labour Party. When the first motion to suspend Deputy Corish was moved nine members of the Fine Gael Party voted that he be not suspended. That was a little strange. They did not vote on the second motion. Their leader says he believes in law and order but he has not made any statement about these nine members and the way they voted. I think he should because he cannot go out and tell the country he believes in law and order when nine of his own party vote that the Chair's ruling be not carried out.

There has been a good deal of talk about legislation not being enacted. How can legislation be enacted when Members take five or six hours to make speeches. They seem to suffer from verbal diarrhoea and cannot stop once they start. The leader of the party should have his say. So should the shadow Minister, but it is beyond the bounds of reasonableness to have two or three members of the same party each taking five or six hours to say what they want to say. It is impossible to get on with business in such conditions. Most of what they say is repetition. If business is not being done the fault can be laid at their door. Look at the records and calculate the hours. I do not want to curtail any speaker's right to speak, but there will have to be a responsible approach if we are to get on with legislation.

The people returned Fianna Fáil at the last election. At that stage the Labour Party announced they would "go it alone". Since the election there has been some new thinking and we are now faced with the prospect of a coalition once again between Fine Gael and Labour. Will they come out and tell the electorate before the election the terms of the coalition? The Labour Party stated in Cork last Sunday that they would wait first and see how the people voted and then do what they liked.

Mr. Kavanagh

I do not think that is true. I was at the conference and I did not see the Deputy there so I do not know how he can make that statement.

Mr. Meaney

It was reported. The Deputy can contradict me later. Labour would decide what to do after the election. There would be a meeting of the administrative council and the parliamentary group. Is that correct?

Mr. Kavanagh

Untrue.

Mr. Meaney

That is what was reported. What will Labour tell their party workers in the event of a general election? Will they tell them to use proportional representation and, after voting for the Labour Party, which candidates they will vote for next? The same applies to Fine Gael. They will have to say whether they want Labour. Both parties will have to make up their minds on their attitude to the EEC and to the nationalisation of our big firms and industries. It is well known that Fine Gael are the conservative party in this country and are great believers in private enterprise while, on the other hand, there are members of the Labour Party——

Mr. T. O'Donnell

We are not half as conservative as Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Meaney

——who state that the big concerns in this country should be nationalised. Surely you will not ask people to vote for a coalition government without first settling these matters? It is really up to Fine Gael and Labour now.

The two by-elections within the past month have shown that the people still staunchly support the Government. Their verdict is a fitting reply to the shouting and the taunting from the Opposition benches since last May about what the people would do to Fianna Fáil when they got a chance to express themselves through the ballot box. There was a huge increase in the Fianna Fáil vote in the Donegal-Leitrim constituency and it is obvious that if there was a general election in the morning Fianna Fáil would get back their seat in the South County Dublin constituency. The people have shown in no uncertain fashion that in a general election they would return Fianna Fáil to power.

At the last election the Labour Party said that Fianna Fáil were depriving people of their rights. Labour Party speakers were urging that there should be an equal division of wealth and said that Fianna Fáil were making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Fianna Fáil believe in equal opportunity to acquire wealth. Let me compare the Labour Party attitude on the equal division of wealth to a class of nine or ten children: the lazy scholar who would not bother to learn would get the same marks as the most brilliant child in the class. Fianna Fáil believe in equal opportunity for every person to advance himself or herself as far as they can. That is why Fianna Fáil have been returned to office time after time after time.

I will not detain the House because I believe that as many speakers as possible should be given the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I congratulate the Taoiseach on showing that he is a strong Taoiseach. He is as good a Taoiseach as this country has ever had. Let me avail of this opportunity to wish the compliments of the season to the members of the parties on the Opposition benches as well as to everybody on the Fianna Fáil benches.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

We return the compliments.

Mr. Creed

I want to reply to certain points made by the previous speaker, Deputy Meaney, who comes from the same constituency as myself.

Mr. Davern

A sore point.

Mr. Creed

It is not. It might be a sorer point in Tipperary than it is in Cork. Deputy Meaney has challenged the Fine Gael Party to state clearly before the next election their attitude to coalition. If Deputy Meaney can influence his Leader to give the people an opportunity soon of voting in a general election, we shall state our attitude well in advance. He also asserted that nine Fine Gael Deputies voted last week in favour of uproar and unruly behaviour in this House on the subject of the threatened implementation of Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act. Fine Gael decided on a free vote and, in a democratic way, nine Fine Gael Deputies availed of the opportunity to voice a protest.

It is a pity that the duration of this debate is limited because it covers the wide spectrum of Government activities during the past year. Two days does not give ample opportunity to every Deputy who wishes to contribute to the debate in detail.

The best way one might describe this Government is that it is one which is inclined to talk big and to act weak: what is introduced one day is dropped the next day. The Taoiseach's explanation of his threat to implement Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act is just a bit of a joke. I am not satisfied with that explanation. This is there as a threat.

I am deeply concerned about agriculture and about the great disregard exhibited by successive Fianna Fáil Governments towards this vitally important industry. I am glad to note that we have made some progress in industrial development especially as it provides job opportunities for some of those leaving the land and who can no longer be accommodated in agriculture. I am very concerned about the manner in which our farming community have been treated over a long number of years. I have some questions on the Order Paper today on the subject of farm prices and farm incomes. There has been a gradually increasing deterioration there in recent years.

Deputy Meaney mentioned that the price of cattle had risen to an all-time record. This is quite so. Were it not that cattle made a good price steadily in the past 12 months our farmers would be in a worse position today than at any period during the economic war here in the thirties. Were it not for the price of cattle, our farmers today would have an appallingly low income in relation to the cost of living. I am concerned particularly about the plight of our dairy farmers——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Tunney)

Perhaps the fact that Deputy Meaney was given permission to discuss the price of cattle might be taken by the Deputy as a precedent but, as I would see it, this question and the observations would be more relevant to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Creed

What are the limitations on this debate? Deputy Meaney dealt at length with the income of the farming community and I believe I am in order in dealing with what Deputy Meaney discussed.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry that we should appear to be taking issue on this, but the fact that Deputy Meaney spoke for a total of 22 minutes would suggest that he could not have dwelt very long on any subject. I heard him for a time during which he did not make any reference to farming. A passing reference to dairy farming and the price of cattle might be relevant but I cannot see the relevance of dairy farming and the price of stock on the Taoiseach's Estimate.

Mr. Creed

This is an Adjournment debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate. However, I shall deal briefly with the matter and confine myself to a passing reference. That does not mean that I shall be pushed off this topic. I do not intend that to happen. I am concerned with the income of the farming community at present. Both the ICMSA and the NFA have again decided, in order to attract Government attention to the plight of the farming community, to take strike action. That is what I am most concerned with. We all remember a time when the farming community some few years ago decided to march to this city. No matter what we say about the farming community they are a law-abiding section. I want somebody from the Government benches to enlighten me about this: on the previous occasion when the farmers demonstrated outside the gates of this House, and marched in front of the gates carrying placards, the black marias arrived and the farmers were arrested. Could somebody on the Government benches tell us why no action whatever was taken by the Government since that time when there were protest marches outside those gates and people with placards demonstrating.

Do the Government regard the farmers as second class citizens who will accept anything from the Government? I should like the Government side of the House to explain this position. Will the Taoiseach say if there is one law for one section and another for a different section? We have reached the stage in this country where, thank God, the farmers are better organised and will not accept in the future what they have suffered in the past.

Deputy Meaney said it was the Government's duty to protect the Irish people and property. I agree fully with the Deputy that this is the function of the Government and the job they undertook when they were given a mandate to govern 12 months ago last June but they have completely fallen down on this. We are most concerned at the manner in which law and order are breaking down at present. All over the country and in the south particularly the incidence of crime is rising, with armed mobs and thugs roaming the country carrying out bank robberies and other armed robberies and assaults. People are living in a state of terror. Take just one aspect of crime, the stolen car. In the south, particularly, I notice that every day of the week you have six and 12 cars stolen to do particular jobs, robberies or something of that nature. The cars are found but I have never seen the culprits found or anybody brought to court as a result. This is what is so frightening. I want to lay the blame particularly on the Government because I am convinced that there is too much interference with the gardaí in the carrying out of their normal duties.

Mr. Davern

Shame.

Mr. Creed

It is a fact: there is too much interference with them. I should like to pay particular tribute to the Garda but I am concerned about interference with them in carrying out their duties. For this reason some members of the force do not know whether it is better to apprehend culprits and bring them to court or to leave them. This is responsible for the breakdown of law and order. I know of a case quite near me where the secretary of a Fianna Fáil cumann had the cheek when reprimanded by a garda to say that if he took action he would find himself transferred to some bog station. While this is happening and while you have interference with the gardaí they will not be able to do their duty. If they were allowed to do their duty they would be able to apprehend culprits and bring them to justice.

I wish to refer briefly to another alarming situation which seems to be another Government policy of recent origin, the closing of rural Garda barracks. This is happening against a background of the increasing incidence of all kinds of crime including crime which, five or six years ago, was alien to this country. This is the most frightening aspect of it. Crime now is of a well-organised type and yet you have rural Garda stations being closed down. Listening to the Minister for Justice when my colleague Deputy Barry had a question to him on the Adjournment recently, one would think that this was being done to give a more efficient service to the people. That is a joke; the Minister cannot be sincere or honest when he says this is intended to give a more efficient service because if there is a garda in a village or at a crossroads he is a deterrent and gives a certain amount of security to people in the area just by being there.

I know the case mentioned by my colleague although the debate will not allow me to go into detail about it and I know that in this area after 5 o'clock in the evening you cannot contact a member of the Garda: they are about 20 miles away. This is not good enough. The Minister for Justice himself will be protected and the people in this day and age expect more from him. He should reconsider his attitude towards the closing of rural Garda barracks and should strengthen the force instead in those areas. This is the only way in which criminals can be deterred and, if crime is committed, in which it can be detected. I share the alarm and concern of many at the high level of undetected very serious crime at present. I am not talking of armed robberies in Dublin or bank raids or the loss of life that has occurred but I am talking of a lesser type of crime that is increasing. You have people roaming the country late at night carrying out these crimes in a highly skilled fashion. That is what I am concerned with. If the Minister for Justice is serious about this he will discontinue his policy of closing the small rural Garda stations. I want to confine myself to the rules of debate and I do not want to clash with the Chair. However, I want very briefly to refer to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Minister in charge of that Department. The Minister introduced his Estimate recently.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy must realise that this Estimate has already been introduced and there will be ample opportunity to speak on that subject in detail. Since Deputies may be anxious to speak on matters more strictly relevant to the present debate, I would ask the Deputy to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Creed

I will be very brief. We are about to enter the EEC and, as far as agriculture is concerned, that is a major step. I believe the Government have not done enough to prepare our farmers for entry into the EEC. We have very hard-working farmers and, once we enter the EEC, I believe there will be a rich harvest for them. However, I am concerned that members of the Government have gone out of their way to criticise people who have spoken against our entry into the EEC. There is no effort made on the part of the Government to enlighten the Irish people with regard to what is involved in membership of the Common Market. The news media would be better employed in giving at various times some form of information which would enlighten the people who are against our entry into the EEC.

My party believe we have no alternative but to go into the EEC once Britain go in. I am convinced this is what we have to do. However, in fairness to the people who have criticised our entry, and who are trying to get more information with regard to the attitude of the Government, I believe the only people who took a constructive step to enlighten our farmers was Macra na Feirme when they invited Dr. Mansholt to come to Tralee to speak to the farmers' organisations. I had the pleasure of attending this talk and I was very impressed by him. The people who thought that Dr. Mansholt was the type of man who devoured small farmers found out that he was a very Christian man and a very humane person. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should arrange for more talks like this so that the people who because of lack of information are so critical of our entry into the EEC will change their view.

I want to refer briefly now to the crisis.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Andrews)

What crisis?

Mr. Creed

The crisis within the Fianna Fáil Party. The Government have been in a crisis since last May. The Parliamentary Secretary must be very naive if he considers there is no crisis. The Taoiseach at the start of this crisis, on the subject of the resignation of Deputy Ó Moráin, when asked by Deputy Cosgrave if this was the tip of the iceberg or if we could expect further resignations, said he had not a clue as to what the Deputy was talking about. I believe the Taoiseach has been dishonest in all this since last May. I believe the only thing for this country is for the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil. He should go to the country and give the people an opportunity of expressing their opinion in the ballot boxes. I can assure the Taoiseach that, if they get that opportunity, we will have a change of Government.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Keating.

Mr. Davern

Could I protest at this stage? I have been here since 11 o'clock this morning. The Deputy who has been called came in only a few moments ago. There are 75 Members in the Fianna Fáil benches and there is a total of only over 60 on those benches: yet we do not get knock for knock here. This is discrimination against this party.

Acting Chairman

I can assure the Deputy I am maintaining the tradition which seems to allow one, one, one and in the exercise of that tradition the speaker next should be from the Labour benches.

Mr. Moore

It is a bad tradition.

Mr. Keating

It is true I came back into the House recently but I was here from the beginning of proceedings this morning and I listened to all of the Taoiseach's speech. I listened to it initially with a certain sense of outrage and anger that many of the things I felt should have been referred to at the end of an important session were being skated over and then with some sense of amusement at the enormity of his pushing under the carpet the real situation. It then started an echo in my memory which I was finally able to place.

I wonder if the House recalls what the Taoiseach's speech reminded me of? It was a comic song, a duet between Frankie Howerd and Joyce Grenfell. Frankie Howerd was the butler and Joyce Grenfell was my Lady Montmorency. As the song went on, Lady Montmorency was away on holiday and rang up the butler to find how things were going on. The butler reassured her all the time that everything was absolutely fine. In the course of the song it turned out that every conceivable evil had befallen the Montmorency home during my Lady Montmorency's absence, including the fact that it was burned down. The butler kept suavely reassuring her all the time that everything was magnificent and in particular that the peaches were absolutely splendid. As I heard the Taoiseach rolling blandly on through his anodyne speech I was reminded inescapably of Lady Montmorency's butler assuring her over the telephone that everything was absolutely splendid, even though the house had burned down, and that in fact the peaches were absolutely magnificent.

The divergence between the real situation of Ireland and the summing up of it as delivered by the Taoiseach was so enormous as not even to be irritating any more. It was just ridiculous and in the end was downright funny. However, let us make a few remarks about what he said before going on to offer the House some thoughts on the three major events of this Dáil Session. The Taoiseach addressed himself first to the state of the economy. He discussed output in Ireland, as is conventionally done from the Government benches, as if Ireland existed in a vacuum. In fact, under Fianna Fáil the economy has become more and more open with every passing year, and more and more defenceless against every change in the general economic climate of the western world. It is true that we have had growth in the past decade, with a very remarkable and striking parallel, if anyone cares to look at it, with the growth of the western world, at a slightly lower level, but parallel. When there was a general downturn we quickly had a downturn.

The suggestion that the level of economic growth in Ireland had anything to do with the efforts of the Fianna Fáil Party when it so strikingly paralleled, at a slightly lower level, the growth rate of many western countries —and, in any case, when all of the first initiatives emanated from the Civil Service and not from the Fianna Fáil Party—is surely a deception of the people.

Mr. Andrews

Rubbish.

Mr. Keating

The documents are there to be read. "Rubbish" is a nice interjection.

Mr. Davern

In other words, the country does not need a Government.

Mr. Keating

It needs a Government very much.

Mr. Andrews

It will not get it arising out of the display by the Labour Party over the weekend, with great respect—the so called socialist party. Tell us when you are going to coalesce? Before or after the next general election? How many seats will you get?

Mr. Creed

Is the Parliamentary Secretary afraid?

Mr. Andrews

I am delighted. I am thrilled.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating.

Mr. Andrews

I do not think the people will accept it.

Mr. Creed

That is a matter for them, not for the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating has the floor.

Mr. Keating

I was dealing with the rate of economic growth and saying that the vaunted economic interventions of the Fianna Fáil Government, which are supposed to impress us, have in fact produced growths parallel to the growths of most west European countries, but at a lower level. That is the point. As an undeveloped country we need special interventions to guarantee at least a comparable level, and preferably a higher level. The complacent claiming of the little growth we have seen, when we were towed along behind a west European boom, as being due to the brilliant economic interventions of the Government, who are noticeably short of any economic ideas, is misleading the people.

The Taoiseach referred to the balance of payments. He pointed out that revenue from tourism was less healthy for a variety of reasons, economic and political. It is a very short period since I can remember the Minister for Transport and Power on the front benches of the Fianna Fáil Party vigorously repudiating any suggestion that Irish tourism this year was not at least up to the standard of previous years. I was particularly struck by the Taoiseach's phrase that in regard to tourism earnings he did not propose to hold a post-mortem at this stage. That is an interesting word because in general a post-mortem occurs after death. I wonder which death the Taoiseach had in mind in this context? We could speculate.

Mr. Andrews

Would the Deputy deal with the Labour Party laugh-in on the 7 Days Programme last night? He should deal with a serious issue concerning themselves. He should look into his own heart and discuss the Labour Party laugh-in on RTE last night.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating.

Mr. Andrews

It was the funniest thing I have see on television for years.

Mr. Keating

I was discussing the Taoiseach's Estimate and the closure debate. I would be perfectly happy to discuss that other matter with the Parliamentary Secretary anywhere he wants to discuss it.

Mr. Andrews

This is the place to discuss it.

Mr. Keating

I would be ruled out of order very rapidly, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows. He is a stickler for procedure when it suits him, but he conveniently brushes it aside when it does not. It is a nice flexible double-think arrangement which is typical of himself and his party.

Mr. Andrews

I do not. I am very much in order in this House. I have never at any time had any difficulty with the rulings of the Chair.

Mr. Keating

We can take that as we take all the statements of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Andrews

Four Members of the Labour Party are missing from the House.

Mr. Keating

It is greatly to their credit that they are missing from the House. We will deal with that in due course.

Mr. Andrews

Deal with the Labour Party laugh-in and the four Members of the Labour Party who are missing from the House.

Mr. Keating

I want to turn now to the Taoiseach's economic review. He dealt with the matter of prices and said —I hope I am quoting him accurately: I wrote it down as he said it—that he had earlier told the House that inflation was the most important economic problem facing the country. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. The diametrically opposite to that statement is the truth. In the absence of Deputy Haughey, then Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach introduced the Budget in this House and he was assailed from the Fine Gael benches and from these benches on the grounds that the Budget was inflationary, and that the threat facing the Irish economy was an inflationary threat with which the Budget totally failed to deal.

This was the substance of the charge made unanimously against the Taoiseach's Budget, the Budget of a Government of which he is the Taoiseach and which he himself introduced. He read the speech in this House at the end of April. Now, with this characteristic double-think, this characteristic bending of words to mean anything that their utterer wants them to mean, so that we end up by totally disbelieving anything that is said from the Fianna Fáil benches, we are blandly told that inflation is the most important economic problem facing the House.

The Taoiseach was told so ad nauseam all through the first three-quarters of this year. He sat on his hands and the Government sat on their hands. In fact, when they introduced any economic measures they were such as to increase inflation. The Opposition were unanimous and all of the experts were unanimous. Everyone told him there was an inflationary crisis. Far from doing anything about it, he introduced a Budget which made it worse by increasing the turnover tax.

Therefore it is hypocrisy now to say blandly: "Earlier I told the House that inflation was the most important economic problem facing this House." We told him. He did not believe it and he would not act on it. When the crisis got worse and worse, month after month, we went on telling him and then he took a panic decision designed to disrupt the whole structure of the ordinary trade union negotiation. This history of gross economic mismanagement in the face of advice from every possible source is now dishonestly, in my view, presented to us as a previous warning to the House of the dangers of inflation. The exact opposite to what the Taoiseach says is the truth.

He also said that their preference is to see a voluntary agreement between the employers' side and the trade unions' side. When this was being negotiated with considerable hope of success, the rug was pulled out and the statutory obligation of the right to free collective bargaining was introduced.

Mr. Davern

That is not true. The talks had broken down.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy can say that lightly but I can assure him that if he reads the facts he will see that that is not the case. The settlement now about to emerge is the settlement that would have emerged two months ago anyway. If he likes, the Deputy may say that is not true. He can take either side he likes. He can take the trade union congress side, or the employers' side, or the side of Professor Chubb who was the fall guy in the middle. He can talk to any of them and he will find out that the net result of all this hooha will be the building of a profound distrust, the undermining of the authority of trade union leadership, and exactly the same settlement that would have emerged anyway. He can familiarise himself with that from any side he likes to ask but it is far from the Government's preference being to seek an acceptable voluntary agreement at talks proceeding in a voluntary way.

Then the Taoiseach in the next sentence—this double-think every inch of the way—pays tribute to the responsible and painstaking efforts of the unions and employers. If they were not quite extraordinarily forbearing this ridiculous action of introducing a wage freeze which was then abolished, which was then suspended, would have undermined all trust in all possibility of voluntary negotiation. This foolish action—panicky, ill-judged, ignorant and now misrepresented to us—was the worst possible thing to have done if we were seeking an acceptable voluntary wage restraint in what everyone agrees is a difficult situation. We first got a total freeze, then it was a partial freeze, and now it is suspended but not withdrawn. God knows what will happen next. Perhaps it will be withdrawn completely or perhaps it will be kept as a club behind the Government's back on the basis: of course you may have voluntary negotiations but if you do not negotiate voluntarily we will beat you into submission.

Mr. R. Barry

And whatever happens will happen when the Dáil is in recess.

Mr. Keating

Of course, we take that for granted. We see the profound contempt for Parliament and the undermining of it at every possible step of the way.

Mr. Davern

After the Labour Party's display last week?

Mr. Keating

I shall deal with that at some length. I want as many people as possible to get into this debate, but if Deputies want to push these issues I shall answer every one of them.

Mr. Davern

Like Declan Costello's talk of revolution in the streets?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating.

Mr. Keating

I want to turn now to something the Taoiseach said about the Six Counties. The Official Reporters may have got a more precise version but, as I wrote it down, he said that he welcomed the period of relative calm in Northern Ireland and that he looked forward hopefully to a quickened pace of reforms in 1971. These are aspirations we all echo, but let us look for a moment at what Fianna Fáil policy has done to Northern Ireland over the last half-year.

When we had an arms conspiracy it confirmed everything that Paisley and Craig and people like that had ever uttered about the Dublin Government: that they could not be relied upon to tell the truth. Every bigoted, militant Unionist, the very worst strand of the Unionist Party was strenthened, was put in the ascendancy, was given a validation of their most bigoted ratings; and the sector which is surely the hope for any sort of progress in Northern Ireland was ground away. All those people with a Unionist background, whether Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist or whatever, all those who were moving into a central position, who were deserting the old hatred and the old extremism, found themselves exposed to attack by their own Paisleyites. The centre, the bridge, the common humanity, the common Irishness, regardless of whichever strand one came from, was ground away.

Now we have the other side of it. We have the statement from the Taoiseach of approval for Mr. Chichester Clark, as I can only read it from the things he said in New York this year and the willingness to introduce internment without trial. This can only grind away all those sections of what are conveniently called the minority, the Catholics who were trying to move away from traditional hatreds, trying to build a bridge to another community, trying to look on people as fellow Irishmen regardless of ethnic background or religion.

The actions of Fianna Fáil, playing two sides of the road as usual, have been lo drive both communities back 50 years in thought: the process of regression to the attitudes of the bitter past. Far from helping in the killing of hatreds and animosities, they have stoked the fires of these things, both by the arms conspiracy and the subsequent secrecy on the one hand and by the introduction of internment without trial on the other. Both these actions will have disastrous effects in the North of Ireland on the building of a unified community. If we say—and I take it that everybody says it sincerely in the sense that I do not think anybody is lying in this House—that we all want unity, surely we also feel that that unity must come not just in geographical terms but in terms of the healing of hatreds and animosities? How then can we defend the actions of a Government all of whose activities this year have served to deepen those animosities? When the Taoiseach can blandly say that he welcomes the period of relative calm and looks forward to a quickening pace of reforms in 1971, his welcome may be perfectly genuine for all I know; but the activities of himself and of his Government this year have contributed to making the problem more intractable than ever and have played into the hands of extremists on both sides.

That is in the real outcome of this panicky, ill-judged, foolish, contradictory, secret and frequently hypocritical action, playing both sides of the road, doing two things at the same time, making soothing noises at one time and having a large part of the Government participating in a conspiracy on the other hand or, in the case of internment without trial, making soothing noises that it has not been introduced while in fact threatening to introduce it and thereby implying that the ordinary legal process is not adequate to deal with the situation.

The Taoiseach, again blandly, like Lady Montmorency's butler, made reference to the Vote of Confidence in his Government in the Dáil. It is interesting to distinguish between realities and forms. In a formal sense he got a Vote of Confidence but the reality was that he got it from people who had expressed very shortly beforehand their profound lack of confidence in him and who were only doing it to ensure their own political survival so that they could live to fight another day.

That was the Vote of Confidence the Taoiseach got. He may call it confidence if he wishes: words do not revolt when distorted meanings are put on them. It was as far from confidence as it is possible to go. It is a distortion of language. It was a formal vote from people profoundly disgraced who gave him that Vote of Confidence with their feet when it was not in their hearts. It had nothing to do with confidence. It was just a degradation, not just for the Fianna Fáil Party but for the whole country, for all of us, because we all participate in that shame to which the Taoiseach is pleased to refer blandly as a Vote of Confidence.

On Friday, 4th December, a day on which the Dáil would not be sitting, a statement was made that Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940, by declaration could be reintroduced if the necessity for doing so arose. Let me say that we have made strenuous efforts over many years—the late Seán Dunne made them most recently in the last Dáil—to have this Act removed from the Statute Book.

It was brought in in 1940 at the beginning of a war, and I believe that our party in fact voted against it even in those circumstances. One might advance an argument in the circumstances of possible invasion, in the circumstances of our neutrality in a wartorn world, that this was justified; but there is no possible justification 30 years later for such an enactment. We have opposed this strenuously and we will continue to do so regardless of whether threats are made to reintroduce this or that section. The whole of such special wartime legislation— emergency legislation, to use the euphemism—is undemocratic and unacceptable so far as we are concerned.

The Taoiseach has talked in the most general possible way about what the danger was. Indeed, we are accustomed now to hear these generalities, which mean nothing, from him. We got them at the time of the original crisis debate in May; we got them at the time of the confidence debate in October and we have had them again in early December. We expect him now to stand up and utter words which mean nothing. Somebody once said that words were invented for the purpose of concealing one's thoughts. No doubt that was said cynically, but it is profoundly true in the case of the Taoiseach. He stands up and utters a certain number of words for a certain period but they totally conceal his thoughts, and of course it is their objective to do so. We know nothing about what the threat is that would permit this extraordinary thing to happen in these times, the extraordinary thing being the internment of people without trial. It is somehow not so bad if it has not yet been done. We just have a threat. We have Government by threat all the time. It is the new style. Everybody has a style and Government by threat is the Taoiseach's style. It worked with his own party and it may have worked with the Prices and Incomes Bill. He hopes it will work with internment without trial. Of course, nobody takes his promises or assurances on trust any more.

Mr. Davern

That is a general statement which is not true. I take them on trust.

Mr. Keating

I thank the Deputy for that touching affirmation of faith and I withdraw the statement that nobody takes his statements on trust any more. There is one person who has now said that he does so.

Mr. Davern

And so do the people in Donegal-Leitrim.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy's statement is a general one——

Mr. Davern

15,000 of them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be much better if Deputies reserved their comments for their own contributions and allowed the Deputy in position to make his contribution.

Mr. Keating

We are, therefore, left to speculate why this should be done at this time and against whom it is aimed. Before coming to that speculation I want to add my comment to those of others in regard to the whole Judiciary of this country. We have a system of courts and judges; we have a police force and we have a number of special branches of one sort or another, and we have a number of sorts of secret police, perhaps in conflict, but plenty of them, and we are now asked to believe that all this mechanism, after 25 years of peace, is unable to deal with the activities of—if it is Saor Eire—the activities of some 30 people. Probably half the number dealing with this are members of the Special Branch anyway.

I do not believe this assurance that the ordinary processes—the police, the courts, and the judges—could not deal with these things. If it is true it is a very remarkable commentary on all of these institutions. It is a very remarkable commentary on the degradation that could have been wrought in a legal system by the method we have adopted for so long in making political appointments to the bench. I deplore the method of making appointments; I deplore the invasion of the Judiciary by political considerations. But rotten and all as it is as the system of appointment, I do not think our judges are that bad. I do not think the judges or the Garda are incapable of dealing with the present threat, whatever it may be. They are perfectly capable of doing so were they permitted to do so. I think there is another reason. We have seen in the court cases of September, in the attitude of the Taoiseach right from the eruption of the crisis—Deputy Andrews asked "What crisis?"—from the eruption of a non-crisis in May, the total unwillingness of the Taoiseach to reveal facts in his possession. We have seen this continuously.

The beauty of Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940, is that you can put people in jail without their getting into a court and without having the right to state their point of view and their defence. In other words, by shutting them in you shut them up. One motive for the introduction of internment without trial is to get people behind bars and out of the way lest they might sing too loudly and embarrassingly if they were brought to court. That is a very good reason for not bringing people to court, because you are afraid of what would come out in the course of the proceedings. If the Taoiseach repudiates this as a scandalous imputation on my part he has a perfectly simple cure and that is to tell the House and the country more than he is currently telling them. He is bound to have thoughts like this being uttered if he pursues the course of unnecessary secrecy about everything, a course of contempt for Parliament such as that he is now pursuing.

That leads me to refer briefly to this matter of contempt for Parliament. The Taoiseach threatened the introduction of Part 2 of this Act simply by making a statement outside the House on a day on which the Dáil would not be sitting, a Friday. To make an announcement of this importance is profoundly contemptuous and the effort to sweep it under the carpet and say "Oh, well, you may debate it on the debate on the adjournment" is also profoundly contemptuous of Parliament.

The Labour Party are using a technique which has honourable traditions and honourable precedents. The continuance of Parliament as a forum where ideas are expressed is vastly more important than the small print of parliamentary procedure at any particular moment. Parliament is a national forum. That has been its evolution and role in different western European countries for over a thousand years. We shall defend that role and use it in that way even at the cost of breaking the formal rules. We shall suffer these expulsions and the absence of our Members for the prescribed period because where there is a conflict between the proper use of Parliament and the rules of procedure of Parliament we put the proper use first. We accept procedure as a mechanism for getting on with the business, but we do not elevate procedure to being more important than the fundamental national reason for which that procedure has been evolved.

I am very proud of the role the Labour Party played in getting this matter discussed. The Fianna Fáil Party should be ashamed of the misuse of Parliament involved in the threat to introduce this outside Parliament and the refusal of the right to debate it. I am also very proud of the part we had in using the technique of protracted debate in order to hold up the Prices and Incomes Bill. If the Prices and Incomes Bill is not now implemented we shall claim, as a result of our use of parliamentary tactics, with pride some part of this outcome.

Mr. Moore

The Labour Party will be very dishonest if they do.

Mr. Keating

I said "some part". The three great issues of this session over which the Taoiseach skated extremely lightly were the question of the arms trial; the question of the Prices and Incomes Bill and the question of internment without trial, under a wartime Act of 30 years ago.

In regard to the arms trial there is a vast amount which has not been brought to light but which will be pursued. There is the interesting case of a question asked by my colleague, Deputy O'Connell, on 18th November, 1970, when he asked the Minister for Finance under what Act of the Oireachtas the Minister for Finance was empowered to waive Customs regulations on the importation of goods. He received an answer which indicated that the Revenue Commissioners were bound to obey instructions from the Minister for Finance. That was not the question; the question was under what Act of the Oireachtas the Minister for Finance had the power to issue that instruction to the Revenue Commissioners. There was no answer to that question because no Minister, whatever the psychological identification of party and State which Fianna Fáil has now attained, and no party has the right to issue any instruction to any public servant which is not in accordance with the law of the State.

There is a great deal more to be pursued and a great deal more to be said about the arms trial. We can only deplore the amount of secrecy and the failure of the Taoiseach in his promise to this House last May that the full facts would be brought to light because they have not been brought to light. We must also deplore the instances of misleading the House by the Taoiseach and other Ministers which took place during that debate and which have never been explained away or apologised for. They still stand as acts of misleading this House by Ministers. Deputy FitzGerald has listed six and I am aware of at least one other. In circumstances where ordinary parliamentary traditions prevailed any one of those seven would have been sufficient to cause the dismissal of the person perpetrating that piece of misleading information. In circumstances where normal parliamentary traditions obtained the seven together would have inevitably involved the dismissal of the whole Government and a general election. We are not now in circumstances where ordinary parliamentary traditions prevail. We are in circumstances where a whole party of people, selected over many years for their reliability, are acting as lobby fodder and rubber stamp whatever decisions are taken by a Cabinet, in which they have the sort of touching faith we have just heard reposed by one of its Deputies.

In regard to the Prices and Incomes Bill we have this ludicrous on-again off-again situation. The Minister for Finance put down his foot with a great show of determination and promptly started taking it up again. At this moment we do not know how far up. We are awaiting the Taoiseach's decision on that, which may indicate that no action whatsoever will be taken and that the whole proceedings were completely unnecessary. The only other effect they could have had would be to make the ordinary process of free negotiation more difficult. This would undermine the normal communication channels of existing trade union structure and undermine any sort of trust. To have done that in any circumstances is totally impermissible. We, as a party, are very proud of our opposition to it. To have done it and then undone it is not only impermissible but ludicrous. It is an example of the sort of confusion and vacillation which has characterised so much of the work of the Government.

On the question of internment without trial we now have the ludicrous situation where, according to the Taoiseach, we welcome the relative period of calm in Northern Ireland and look forward to the quickened pace of reforms in Northern Ireland in 1971, yet we in the South are behind the North in regard to many basic civil liberties. We like to point a finger at the Unionist Government and accuse them of gerrymandering. We cannot do that when we have the spectacle of a Government majority with a minority of votes. We are masters of gerrymander. This Dáil is a gerrymandered Dáil. If there is not a parallel arrangement between votes and seats under PR there is gerrymandering. Fianna Fáil have a majority of seats with a minority of votes as a result of a careful gerrymander of which the Fianna Fáil Party are proud. How then can we reproach the North for gerrymandering? We have the spectacle all over the West of Ireland, where the identification of party and State is such that we cannot point a finger of scorn at Unionists who fiddle housing distribution and local government jobs. We are masters of that all over the West of Ireland.

On the matter of the basic civil liberty and who gets put in jail we have opened the road for the Government of Northern Ireland, if they choose to follow it. We are behind them in this respect; we are worse than they are in this respect. We have had this Act on the Statute Book since 1940 and we are now threatened with internment without trial. We are told this is not so because it has not actually happened yet. It is just hanging over us.

In this respect we are worse than Northern Ireland at this moment. We are losing the right to point the finger at Stormont, and the Taoiseach and his Government, who are responsible, are losing the right to welcome in 1971 the possibility of improved conditions in that part of our country. The Taoiseach should be more concerned with reforms in the Republic in 1971 because that is where his jurisdiction lies. He might now devote his mind a little to that because the results of his actions and his statements have been to drive both communities back into their traditional positions, to increase animosity and destroy any prospect of any real unity of hearts and minds. He talks about reforms in 1971. That is the same hypocrisy. It is the same double think. If he wants that why does he not pay attention to things down here, where he can control things, and make the situation better instead of worse, as he has been doing? This is why I listened to the Taoiseach with incredulity, later with anger and, ultimately, recalling my Lady Montmorency's butler—though the house is burning down the peaches are magnificent—with rueful amusement. With every passing day the Taoiseach loses any little tatter of credibility that may have remained with him.

Mr. Davern

Once more we have had to listen to this sort of cynical speech by Deputy Keating. He seems to have set himself up as a judge of Fianna Fáil and of the country. In the Donegal by-election support for the Deputy's party was cut by 50 per cent. At the same time the voters endorsed the policy of Fianna Fáil and of its leader. Deputy Keating irresponsibly stated that the Taoiseach is no longer believed or trusted by anybody. Will the Deputy believe 15,500 people who voted for the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil in the Donegal by-election? Labour polled 800 votes, half the number they got in the general election.

We heard a great deal about the tremendous beating we would get in that election. What happened? We won Donegal hands down, an overwhelming victory and, in Dublin, we had a moral victory. That is the fact whether Deputies opposite like it or not. Fine Gael were only 1,000 votes ahead of us in No. 1 preferences. With all the cockcrowing on the Opposition benches one would think Fine Gael had slated us. We showed the Opposition what we could do and we will show them again when the next general election comes, in our own time.

Dr. O'Connell

In a few months?

Mr. Davern

There have been queries as to what was happening in Fianna Fáil and references to the Taoiseach not being fully supported by the party. A very interesting thing happened in Donegal town on the night of the Fine Gael rally. Mr. Declan Costello, ex-Deputy, was on the platform with Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Harte, the director of elections. Deputy Harte was dismissed from the front bench of the Fine Gael Party last year. Deputy Harte does not like Deputy Liam Cosgrave as leader of the Fine Gael Party and, with another 11 members of the Party——

Mr. Bruton

A familiar number somewhere else.

Mr. Davern

——challenged him at a recent meeting——

Mr. Bruton

Eleven must have a mystical significance for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Davern

Eleven Fine Gael Deputies, with Deputy Harte, challenged the leadership of Fine Gael. Why was Deputy Cosgrave's name never mentioned on the platform in Donegal? Fine Gael are trying to get out of their internal troubles by arguing that Fianna Fáil are in trouble. We have had our difficulties but we have overcome them and after the next general election we will come back with a bigger majority.

With regard to the Special Powers Act——

Mr. Bruton

That is the Northern Ireland Act. The Deputy has his jurisdictions a bit mixed.

Mr. Davern

——this is a very serious matter——

Dr. O'Connell

It is a very serious matter and this is the 26 Counties.

Mr. Bruton

And the Deputy is not the Unionist Party.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

It is assumed that reintroducing the Offences Against the State Act is pointless. May I point out the incidents in the last two years? We have had a total of 19 bank raids by armed men. The life of the Taoiseach has been threatened. As everybody knows, there is a security guard on him and on senior Ministers. If this kind of thing happened in certain other countries a state of emergency would be proclaimed immediately. The Taoiseach does not want a security guard and neither do the Ministers, but they are forced to accept because of information received. Some of this information came from London, some from Dublin and some from other parts of the country.

Dr. O'Connell

Some from London.

Mr. Davern

That was last April. The Opposition assume they are the judges of what should or should not be enacted. The Fianna Fáil Party have not been informed as to the information received and neither has the Opposition. The reason for secrecy is very obvious. I doubt if any Deputy will question that. Opposition Deputies may for the sake of political expediency. Fair enough, but no one would seriously suggest that the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice should say who gave the information, what the information was and how well it was backed up. Some Opposition Deputies said that the explanation had better be good. This was stated by two members of the Fine Gael Party. Who are they to say that it had better be good? Who is the governing party? Who is the party with a majority? Who is the party who got a mandate from the people? Fianna Fáil.

Dr. O'Connell

That does not give Fianna Fáil the right to dictatorial powers. It is our duty as an Opposition to question these things.

Mr. Davern

Your powers will not be dictatorial.

Dr. O'Connell

I will not take that from you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will address the Chair and avoid speaking to each other across the floor of the House.

Mr. Davern

Members of the Fine Gael Party implied recently that, if the people had the audacity to elect Fianna Fáil again, we would have a revolution. Is that a pointer to the kind of stable Government the Opposition benches would provide? They cannot get rid of Fianna Fáil and so they will try to have a revolution. On a television programme recently members of Saor Eire appeared, men with machine guns, automatic rifles and grenades. Yet, the Opposition say there is no threat. Would the Opposition prefer to see diplomats and members of the Government shot or kidnapped?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

The people who appeared on the programme to which I referred said they were not raiding banks; they were only commandeering the money. These people go into places like Rathdrum and hold up the whole village, threatening the lives of bank clerks who may be the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters or friends of Opposition Deputies. They can threaten the customer innocently coming in to make a lodgment. That kind of danger cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Desmond

That comes rather oddly from a Deputy who himself had such close connections with the IRA for a number of years.

Mr. Davern

I had a cousin interned —I do not deny it—and he would be interned again if he did the same thing today. That is my view.

Mr. Desmond

Your political attitudes changed alarmingly.

Mr. Davern

My father was a member of the Old IRA, a fact of which I am very proud.

Mr. Desmond

I am not referring to your father. I am referring to your family.

Mr. Davern

I am not a member of the IRA and neither am I a member of any illegal organisation in this country.

Mr. Desmond

The Taoiseach was reluctant to ratify your nomination.

Mr. Davern

That is nonsense. There are many decent rural Deputies on the Fine Gael and Labour benches but there are a few others too. The point is that there are no provisions in this country to bring a person to court before he commits a crime.

Dr. O'Connell

Any more than in England.

Mr. Davern

Or anywhere else. If knowledge lies within the Government, from a diplomatic or other source, that an act will be committed, surely this is a very serious matter? It is the duty of the Government to protect the people and to protect democracy in this country.

Dr. O'Connell

What about bank robberies in Britain?

Mr. Davern

Previously we have been told we acted too late. Now, when we act early, the Opposition Deputies say, in effect, that we must wait until somebody is shot, until some widow is grieving at the graveside.

Dr. O'Connell

Surely there is a police force?

Mr. Davern

I had the greatest laugh last night at the "7 Days" programme about the Labour Party——

Dr. O'Connell

——since the felon-setting charge by Mr. Kevin Boland.

Mr. Davern

People are interned only on very reliable information. They have a chance to appeal and the Government must put it before the commission which will be set up. That commission will consist of an Army officer of not less than seven years standing; a member of the Bar who must, again, be of not less than seven years standing——

Dr. O'Donovan

They will not be told why they are being interned.

Mr. Davern

Habeus Corpus applies and they can appeal the minute they are interned.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputies please allow Deputy Davern to proceed without interruption?

Mr. Davern

The third member of this commission shall be a member of the Judiciary or an ex-member of the Judiciary.

Dr. O'Connell

You are getting ready to introduce it.

Mr. Davern

The Labour action is one of total irresponsibility. They are trying to get cheap publicity as we saw in their disgraceful carry-on here last week. Fianna Fáil intend to preserve democracy in this country, the democracy for which our forefathers and the majority of the people in Fianna Fáil people fought——

Dr. O'Connell

Are you bringing this in? They do not know what they are doing.

Mr. Dowling

That is ridiculous.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

In Cork last Sunday the Labour Party, according to one of their own members, went back on their avowed principles in an effort to get positions in a coalition Government. This is what we saw from the so-called sincere socialists. Not many in the Labour benches have actual connections with the working class, as far as I know.

Dr. O'Connell

Is that right? Deputy Davern does not know the Labour Party.

Mr. Davern

No fewer than 150 very sincere members of the Labour Party walked out from a conference in Cork last Sunday in protest against the great socialist working-class image which we are supposed to see in the Labour Party. That reflection did not come through on Sunday last. The Labour Party were prepared to commit political prostitution last Sunday.

Dr. O'Connell

That is a new one.

Mr. Desmond

We do not do such livings on a Sunday.

Mr. Davern

Undoubtedly, you did it last Sunday. Labour are prepared to go into coalition with Fine Gael, the completely Tory section of the Irish Parliament and Labour are prepared to swing around and to leave the workers behind. Labour are very anxious for office.

Mr. Desmond

The Deputy's family had connections with the Fine Gael Party——

Mr. Davern

Never were, never are and never shall be.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy Davern is becoming embarrassed.

Mr. Davern

Deal with the Civil War and you will find a record of who was and who is what. Deputy Desmond might consult Deputy Hogan because Deputy Desmond does not seem to know much about Tipperary South.

Dr. O'Connell

We should leave you in power——

Mr. Davern

The people will put us in power.

Dr. O'Connell

You gerrymandered the constituencies.

Mr. Davern

Just reflect on the votes Labour obtained in the two recent by-elections and try to understand the message contained therein. We increased our majority in Donegal and our votes in South County Dublin, where the Opposition claimed we would lose thousands of votes——

Mr. Tully

Do not mind us. Watch the fellows behind yourselves.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy should watch the ones behind him in his own party. They were trying to stab each other in the back.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

Obviously, I must explain the democratic procedures of Fianna Fáil to the Opposition Deputies. If there is a matter of concern in Fianna Fáil there is a vote and we abide by the majority decision. We do not make statements to suit the exigencies of the situation and forget about them when it does not suit us to remember them.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

Deputy Tully mentioned this morning that the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party were constantly blaming the workers for strikes in this country. I do not agree. I think that management and workers, through their unions, are equally at fault—one asks for excessive wages and the other side makes a very low offer. Political expediency is the reason Deputy Tully makes that assertion. It sounds nice and looks well on paper.

Mr. Tully

I am glad the Deputy admits it.

Mr. Davern

Maybe Deputy Tully has his own constituency problems. I do not know. These things must be faced with a responsible attitude. Managements and unions must work together in the interests of the country to achieve greater production. Many of the strikes I have seen have been due to irresponsibility on both sides.

Progress reported.