Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Aug 1971

Vol. 255 No. 19

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

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £99,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

The activities of the Department of Taoiseach are not very extensive as such and, as the House is aware, this Estimate is normally the opportunity for a general debate on Government policy. I propose to give a general indication of economic trends.

The present period marks a critical and decisive phase in the affairs of our nation. The developments of recent years and the events now unfolding will shape the course of our future progress for many years to come. One obvious example is membership of the EEC, an event that can profoundly affect our future. During the past year negotiations on our application for entry have made substantial progress and now appear to be approaching a successful conclusion. These negotiations have been the subject of recent debates in the House and of a series of questions from week to week and I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss this matter in any great detail at this juncture.

However, it is appropriate to record that since the last debate satisfactory proposals have been agreed on in regard to one important aspect of our negotiations, namely, our concern for the future of the motor assembly industry and its adaptation to other activities in order to ensure continuance of employment in that industry. In the case of fisheries it is gratifying to note that the EEC countries recognise our position and Britain, as a fellow applicant, has favoured our approach to the solution of this problem. We hope when negotiations resume in the autumn that this problem, as well as the few other outstanding problems, will be resolved satisfactorily. The main outstanding problems are in connection with land acquisition by non-nationals and the continuance of our industrial development incentives. It appears certain that during the next Dáil session we will see the climax of these events, during which the nation and the Oireachtas will determine the pattern of our future relationship with the neighbouring states of Western Europe.

Northern Ireland is another area where events are of crucial importance for the future of our country. In the past two years we have discussed the Northern situation on a number of occasions and it has been the subject of frequent comment and questioning in this House. Again I do not propose to deal with the subject in any great detail at this juncture. I need only repeat that it is the wish of the Government, and the wish of the majority of the Irish people, to bring about a future in which our country will be united and peaceful. The way to achieve this goal is not through any form of violence or force but through the development of friendship, goodwill, respect and understanding among Irishmen of all traditions.

We recognise that the attainment of these results will be a long and arduous process since the task of reconciliation between estranged communities is not accomplished by instant or imposed solutions. The people of the South recognise this and I believe, in calmer moments, the overwhelming majority of the people of the North recognise it also. The tragedy is that some people get caught up in the heat and hatred of the moment and are deflected into the use of physical force. The most urgent and most practical step forward is for all people, North and South, to avoid the passion of circumstances. Violence can only delay the reforms which every fair-minded person agrees to be necessary, reforms to which the Northern minority would be legitimately entitled, whatever their sources or form of government might be.

The third area in which events have important implications for our future development is that of domestic, economic and social development. These areas are, perhaps, of more immediate impact in the sense that they are within our control to a greater degree and also because they can lead to more immediate results. Last year, when speaking in the debate on the Adjournment, I said that inflation was the most urgent problem facing us. At that time prices were rising at a disturbing pace. Moreover, there was no prospect at the time of an early improvement because the cost factors which push up prices, notably wages and salaries, showed no signs of reversing their upward trend. It was clear that a continuation of that situation would have created severe unemployment in the short term and would have seriously undermined the longer term prospects for improving the living standards of our people. The Government, as a matter of priority, sought to correct this pattern of spiralling prices and costs.

The first essential was to moderate the pace of increase in wages and salaries. This is not an area in which any democratic Government can produce lasting and worthwhile results. Ultimately a degree of understanding and co-operation on the part of employers and employees is needed. The National Wage Agreement of December last was the culmination of the prolonged and complex negotiations which took place in the autumn months. This agreement was welcome because it marked the first step towards reducing the pace of inflation. It was welcome also because it gave evidence of an understanding that, whatever differences there might be as between sectional interests on other matters, all parties had a common interest in curtailing inflation.

I might say in this respect, particularly for the benefit of the leader writer in today's Irish Times, that we did not withdraw the Prices and Incomes Bill because we were afraid. I should like to remind the House and those who make facile comments in matters of this kind that we have always supported, and always will support, free negotiations in matters of wages and salaries. As I have indicated, the position at the time was serious. The inflationary situation was serious. For several months we watched the efforts, the very notable efforts, of the Employer/Labour Conference to produce a wage increase formula to commence at the beginning of this year when the then current wage agreements were coming to an end. It was only after several months, when these negotiations broke down, that the Government introduced their Prices and Incomes Bill as an alternative, an alternative, I might say, that we did not ourselves welcome. I should like to remind the House again that it was only after the introduction of that Bill and after the Government had shown their determination to put that Bill through in the absence of agreement that the parties came together once more and it was only at the express request of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that we ultimately agreed not to proceed with the Bill.

We did not withdraw the Bill until a wage agreement had been satisfactorily negotiated. There was no question of withdrawing or running away from anything. It is not our wont to do these things. No matter how unpopular measures may be if those measures are, in our opinion, in the best interests of the country we stand over them. In the months since the agreement was signed the Government were conscious of and welcomed the dedicated manner in which both parties to the agreement, and especially the Irish Congress of Trade Unions—I say especially the Irish Congress of Trade Unions because I recognise the particular difficulty they have in this respect —worked so successfully to maintain that agreement and to operate its terms. For our part we have sought to reciprocate this goodwill. The Budget, for example, was designed to continue the damping down of inflationary pressures and, at the same time, ensure that employment and living standards would be safeguarded.

In terms of the price record to date it might seem that there is little to show for these steps since price increases have been substantial. However, it now seems reasonably certain that we have got over the peak period of price rises and that further increases will be at a more moderate rate. In the 12 months ending mid-November, 1970, prices had risen by 10 per cent. This peak was again recorded for the 12 months to mid-February whereas the increase for the 12 months to mid-May of this year was 8.5 per cent. Some Opposition Deputies naturally, in their own interests, suggested that there was no sign of any such improvement. Deputy Cosgrave, for example, said several times that decimalisation had caused what he described as a prices explosion, but the figures I have just quoted indicate that there is no evidence of this. There may have been in some instances undue rounding-up of prices but, by and large, the trend of price increases is now in the right direction. One factor which has caused prices to rise recently at a somewhat faster rate than expected has been the trend of food prices in the United Kingdom market. Naturally the consequence of that was better prices for our agricultural exports.

Not in the case of lamb.

Another consequence was that meat prices here also rose. The boost to farmers' incomes resulting from these higher food prices is both to be desired and welcomed and I hope that view will be shared by Deputy Clinton.

Lamb prices could not be worse and have not been worse for years.

It is important to emphasise that, although a further slackening in the rate of price increases is expected in the coming months, the resulting picture is not a fully satisfactory one. The level of price inflation is still uncomfortably high and it is essential that we continue our efforts towards reducing this level during the next year. We have been able to escape the harmful effects which inflation has on employment and on exports largely because our main trading partner, the United Kingdom, has also been experiencing severe inflation during the past year. This has given us the necessary breathing space within which to put our own house in order. It is important that we should use whatever time we have to the maximum advantage. We cannot expect other nations to experience inflation indefinitely and we must, therefore, see to it that we are able to trade competitively. An indication of the narrow margin of safety is shown by the trend in our trade statistics.

For the first six months of this year, imports showed a rise of £66 million over 1970 whereas exports rose by £37½ million. As a result, the trade gap increased by £28½ million, but it must be said that part of that rise is explained by the purchase of two Jumbo jets which account for £20 million of that increase. Because of the volatile nature of some categories, it is too early yet to make a reliable forecast of the balance of payments out-turn for 1971 as a whole but it is expected, excluding the exceptional aircraft item, that the current deficit will show some improvement on the 1970 level of £62 million. Such a deficit does not present any immediate problem because of the high level of external reserves. Moreover, deficits of a substantial level are to be expected because of the large volume of foreign investment which is now taking place, because this investment calls for heavy imports of capital equipment.

The present level of deficit is, however, too high for comfort and it is important that the drive for increased exports should continue successfully in order to reduce this deficit to a more tolerable and sustainable rate. A lowering of inflationary pressures and the containment of the balance of payments deficit are in turn a necessary precondition for a more rapid expansion of the economy.

The signs are that the recovery from the sluggish performance of 1970 is now well under way. As yet, there are no official data on the actual level of industrial production this year. However, the results of business surveys suggest that output will show a reasonable expansion this year. Investment, likewise, shows signs of this recovery. Imports of capital goods for industry have risen significantly so far while revival in building activity following settlement of the cement dispute has continued. Consumer spending for the early part of this year has been advancing more or less in line with national output and this is a very healthy sign. When consumer spending lags behind growth in output it dampens down business activity or, as is more common nowadays, when spending increases more rapidly it adds to inflationary pressures which may ultimately call for corrective Government action.

Overall, the pace of economic recovery is broadly in accord with the pattern expected at Budget time and there are grounds for, as the Central Bank put it recently, cautious optimism about the coming months. The attainment of a faster rate of economic growth is an important objective in its own right, given the present day expectations and desire for higher living standards, but economic growth has also important social implications. Foremost among these is the effect it can have on unemployment and emigration.

Emigration has stayed at the comparatively satisfactory figure of last year while industrial employment increased by some 3,500 in 1970. This is a slower rate of increase than that recorded in the two previous years and is a reflection of the slower economic growth of last year. It is the Government's wish to expand employment as rapidly as possible and to do this it is necessary that we quickly regain a more rapid pace of economic growth.

Here it is worth noting that industry is at the present moment short of skilled workers despite the presence of many unemployed people. Some hundreds of vacancies for workers, mostly men with particular skills, have been reported to the National Manpower Service and have been circulated not only through the network of our own employment exchanges but also among Irish organisations in Britain. This has culminated, I am glad to say, in the return of some scores of emigrants. However, this is far from enough. We are still short of certain industrial skills and as economic recovery proceeds and development plans materialise, demand for skilled workers will increase still further, substantially so in some cases.

To expand the supply of skilled workers in this field in the future, we have allocated more money for training. An Comhairle Oiliúna—AnCO as they are called—are now making the necessary arrangements, including negotiation with the trade unions, for the harmonious acceptance into the skilled work force of the newly trained workers that the country will require. I am sure Deputies will join with me in urging that all concerned —AnCO, employers, trade unions and individual workers—will co-operate in seeing to it that shortage of skilled workers will not impede industrial expansion and better job prospects for all.

Parallel with the stepping up of training, the National Manpower Service, whose nucleus of placement staff has been recruited and trained during the last few months, is being developed. These officers have taken up duty in selected centres and are now familiarising themselves with the manpower situation in their areas. Some of them have already been active in cases where workers were under notice and have been able to have many of the workers involved placed in other jobs. I was gratified to hear Deputies recently pay tribute to the members of the new service. It is the intention of the Minister for Labour to cover the whole country when sufficient placement officers have been recruited. I hope that before long we will have a first-class service of job placement, information and guidance, available to our workers, a service which will be of immense benefit not only to our workers and young people but also to employers and personnel managers of firms who in the future will be seeking more skilled and better equipped people.

To complete the improvement in our manpower services there is the legislation which has just been enacted to increase benefits for redundancy payments very substantially without any increase in the contribution rates. We are experiencing a degree of redundancy in certain sectors at present. There are a number of reasons for this, such as changes in consumer demand, intensified competition and the response of industry to the demand for adaptation.

It is important to appreciate that some measure of continual change and adaptation is becoming a permanent feature of modern industry. The worldwide tendency towards freer trade in industrial products may have served to accelerate this process in some industries but it is wrong to regard our trading relationship with other countries as the main source of redundancy problems. The pace of technological change, the rate at which new products and new processes pour from the laboratories and drawingboards is, I believe, the underlying cause of this change. A firm may not wish to adapt themselves to changes in manufacturing techniques or in market conditions since such adaptation may result in some redundancy, but failure to act could result in the firm being faced with total closure later on.

The solution, then, is not to delay the necessary action but rather to ensure that the problems which redundancy creates are satisfactorily resolved. The increased benefits provided under the new legislation are designed to ease the short-term financial problems of displaced workers. The training and placement services are intended to speed up and assist in the process of finding fresh employment. It is obvious that this task of resettling redundant workers will be most successful when the overall level of employment is high and new job opportunities are plentiful.

A more rapid rate of economic expansion is thus necessary so that we may cope not only with the long-term structural shift from agricultural to industrial employment but also with the more short-term problem of redundancy. A stronger economy also provides the essential underpinning for expanding and improving social services and facilities. Here, despite the difficulties of the past year, further improvements did take place. In the health sphere, for example, additional facilities became available for the care and treatment of the aged and the handicapped. In housing, building continued at a record level, marred only temporarily by the loss of production due to the cement dispute.

In education the provision of new school and college facilities also continued at peak level to cater for the record enrolment of pupils and students. Social welfare payments were increased and extended in coverage to aid more effectively the weaker sections of the community. These achievements are gratifying but the Government are impatient to secure even faster rates of progress in the future. For this to be possible it is necessary, of course, that the financial resources become available and this can only be done if national prosperity and wealth are increasing. If our expectations about the course of economic events are realised then we would approach 1972 with a sound basis for fresh initiatives. In the field of incomes it would be our hope that arrangements could be negotiated for the period succeeding the present national wage agreement which would provide both a faster rate of increase in real incomes and a further lowering in the rate of price inflation.

It would be our desire that any such arrangements would continue the trend towards improving the position of the lower paid and weaker sections of the community. I know that trade union leaders and workers are genuinely concerned about the improvement of the position of these lower paid workers, but it would be tragic and self-defeating in its purpose if when the lower paid workers improved their positions, the better off workers then tried successfully to maintain the differentials between them. Satisfactory arrangements in the incomes sphere would create the necessary climate for an expansion of industrial output, particularly in the vitally important export industries.

An upsurge of industrial output and investment would be expected naturally to boost industrial employment. The emergence of these more favourable trends would enable the Government to shape their budgetary and related policies so as to complement and support such expansion. Some of the retarding influences on business expansion which of necessity had to operate severely in order to cope with our inflationary problems could then be relaxed. It would also be possible to accelerate development in such areas as housing and social services where further improvements must, because of financial considerations, depend on a vigorous and healthy expansion of the economy.

Apart from the satisfactory arrangements for incomes increases the scope for strong economic growth would be greatly reinforced by a firm decision taken during 1972 by the people to enter the European Economic Community. Agriculture would be the sector which would most obviously receive an immediate stimulus from such a decision. The knowledge that secure and profitable markets were available for all products would enable farmers to make the necessary plans and efforts for increasing output. Again, the Government, for their part, would ensure that advisory services, credit facilities and other supporting agencies would gear their efforts towards reinforcing this expansion in output. Since entry to the EEC now appears so probable there are strong grounds for expecting that favourable agricultural trends would combine with a favourable industrial climate to present us with an unprecedented opportunity for initiating a sustained period of soundly-based economic growth. This is a prize which we cannot and should not allow to slip from our grasp. The decisions and actions of farmers, employers and workers over the coming months will play an important role in determining the wellbeing of the economy in future years. The Government for their part will direct their efforts and influence towards securing these results which will help to achieve the goals of ending inflation, increasing employment and raising the living standards of our people.

I mentioned a moment ago the Government's desire to achieve faster growth in social developments and the relation of this faster growth to financial considerations, but not all the social developments which we desire are conditional on or delayed by financial stringency. In several areas matters which have been discussed either inside or outside this House affect the interests of various sections of the community in diverging and sometimes conflicting ways. In these cases, however impatient the Government or the supporters of change might be to introduce some new development, it is important to temper zeal so that the democratic process may function fully and effectively. To do this calls for an adequate expression and examination of various viewpoints.

In the case of health, for example, the introduction of the choice of doctor scheme has not proceeded as rapidly as we would have wished. The delay of several months was necessary in order to deal adequately with the points raised by the medical profession and the eventual outcome may confidently be expected to be a more satisfactory health system than that which would result from any arbitrary or hasty solutions. Similarly, in the case of education the discussions of the community schools proposals and developments in the field of higher education have proceeded at a pace which could perhaps cause impatience on the part of those anxious for change.

Again, in an area of a more immediate political nature the White Paper proposals for reorganising the structure of local government have produced many conflicting or diverging views which must be adequately studied before a final pattern is determined. This list of examples could easily be extended but it is not necessary to recount all the possible topics which might be the subject of legislation or Government action during the next session.

In each case there is the need to govern in a truly democratic way. To do this it is not only necessary to legislate for the wishes of the majority, for this as we know can result in unreasonable repression of minorities; but we must also ensure that our laws give adequate safeguards to minority wishes without providing legitimate offence to the majority. It has been, and will continue to be, the aim of this Government to implement their policies in this fully democratic manner.

Tell that to Tommy Mullins.

Would the Deputy like to comment on Tommy Mullins's relevance to this remark?

Yes, I will in due course.

Fair enough. This unity of approach underlies our actions in all political, social and economic spheres. In this we have the full support of our party, a party united in their policy and in their purpose. The separate policies which we have been and are pursuing, on the European Economic Community, the position in Northern Ireland, the reunification of our country, and domestic, economic and social interests, are not a random set of responses to different events; they are all part of the coherent and comprehensive ideal in which we believe and for which we work—an Ireland in which all its people may live and work in peace and unity, an Ireland which does not seek to stand apart from its fellow states but one which can fully take its place among the nations of Europe and of the earth.

The Taoiseach endeavoured, in the early stages of his speech, to quote some statistics which appear to give the impression that price rises had abated somewhat and apparently expressed satisfaction that the pace of the increase had lessened somewhat, according to the figures he quoted, compared with the period in May last and the earlier figures quoted for February and November. I do not know what later statistics the Taoiseach had, but the last information that was given to this House in reply to a question which I addressed to the Taoiseach on 1st July gave the percentage changes at mid-May, 1970, as compared with mid-May, 1971. I shall quote only some of them. The rise in prices has been phenomenal. Beef prices, for round steak, increased by 14, 15, 12, 13, 14 and 16 per cent. Mutton prices showed a rise of 8 per cent for a leg of mutton; mutton chops, nearly 9 per cent; cutlets, 10 per cent. This is at a time when, as Deputy Clinton interjected, lamb prices have shown a catastrophic drop compared with last year. There were other increases. The price of men's clothing, heavy overcoats, lined, low-priced, showed an increase of 10 per cent; women's coats, again low-priced, 18 per cent; coats, medium-priced, 13 per cent; two-piece suits, low-priced, 17 per cent.

The impression that the Taoiseach tried to create was that the Government had intervened when they thought it was in the national interest to do so in order to contribute to the stabilising of prices. What has been the direct Government action? At least it might be said that the price rises to which I have referred were in the private sector. In the case of motor taxation, which is directly attributable to Government action, there is a rise of 26 per cent; motor cars, motor cycles, an increase of 20 per cent; bus fares, an increase of 36 per cent; train fares, 24 per cent; motor insurance, 26 per cent. In respect of one sphere in which only the Government have responsibility for making changes, postal charges, there was the highest single rise that I can find on the list, 49 per cent. That is the Government who have alleged that they are contributing to price stability, price stability in which the Government's own action was the biggest single factor in increasing prices. Is it not correct to describe the postage increase as licensed robbery under statutory authority?

The Taoiseach has the audacity to refer to what I described as a prices explosion. Was it not a mild term for the increase in prices that has occurred in that period? While that has been going on unemployment has continued at the highest rate in normal conditions when there are no external factors such as wars that have an impact on prices or on the economy. In that situation the Government endeavoured to interfere and they altered the rate of unemployment benefit payable in respect of certain categories.

We have repeatedly expressed our concern about the dangers which flow and which must flow from the Government's unwise policies in industrial expansion. The Taoiseach rightly referred to the increase in industrial exports, an increase stemming from and, indeed, almost entirely dependent on the tax concessions in respect of exports that were introduced by the late Deputy Sweetman on behalf of this party. The fact is that our industrial exports have increased and that that increase has been primarily due to the special tax concession on exports. However, we now face the problem— and it is one of the problems to which we have adverted in the course of comments we have made—that if this country becomes a member of the European Economic Community, these assistance measures and the concessions in respect of export tax that have been available to industry will have to be phased out. It has been our constant concern that no adequate alternative incentives have either been thought up or been proposed by the Government; in fact, they have been content to accept that these measures will cease and that industries that have depended to such an extent on the incentive value of these measures will have to face direct competition. It is obvious that the national wage agreement has advantages in endeavouring to get some sort of order into wage and salary adjustments, but unless there is real evidence that prices are being held down, then the chances of this agreement holding in the coming months is slim. Here the Government's policy of drift and adopting ad hoc measures is not nearly adequate. It is a fact that the Government withdrew, under pressure, the Prices and Incomes Bill. They recognised that that Bill as presented would not work, but at the same time they continued to implement in legislation, because industrialists and traders had not the same economic or compelling power behind them to resist the proposals, proposals imposing additional heavy taxation on industry, to such an extent that our rates of tax are now substantially higher than those operating in Britain.

This is the situation in which industry faces the end of the transitional period under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. This is putting and has already put pressure on large areas of industry. It has been reflected in the loss of some jobs and in the collapse of a number of weaker firms. However, that is only a prelude to the competition that must be faced when this country becomes a member of the European Economic Community. It is in this industrial field that we need to re-think the whole structure of taxation and incentives, not to accept complacently that what was initially introduced 15 or 16 years ago as an enlightened progressive measure of assistance can be continued indefinitely or is suitable for continued application in entirely changed circumstances.

We have emphasised repeatedly that the effects of joining the European Economic Community may provide opportunities but it will not provide an easy way out of the problems which face industry or, for that matter, any other section of the community. We have repeatedly expressed our view that, if Britain joins, then, of the options open to us, because of our large trading interest with Britain it is in this country's interest to join as well. That must be clearly decided in a referendum in which the issues must be put before the country clearly and simply. This is an attitude that must be put before the people for separate decision in the light of information and facts on the basis of the terms that will be made available both to the Dáil and to the country.

The Taoiseach dealt with a number of aspects of Government policy but there were certain aspects of Government policy on which he was silent and which, so far as this House is concerned, may have to a large extent passed without notice. I have before me the report of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána on crime for the year ended 30th September, 1969. This is the latest report in respect of crime which is available. I understand that the report for the year ended September last will shortly be available. The figures contained in this report for the year ended 30th September, 1969, show a continuing and alarming increase in crime, and if one is to judge from people and from reports of cases before the courts for the period up to September last all the indications are that the trend shown in this report is continued. If we take the figures as presented in this report, giving the number of indictable offences for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, we see a substantial increase. In 1967, there were 20,558 indictable offences; in 1968, there were 23,104; and in 1969, 25,972. This shows an increase of 2,868 in respect of the year 1968 over that of 1967, and an increase of 5,414 in respect of 1969 over the total for 1967. The number of offences detected is a continuing example of the effectiveness of the Garda force in respect of detection. In 1967, 64 per cent of the cases were detected. This figure dropped to 61 per cent in 1968 and the same figure of 61 per cent in respect of 1969.

These figures show an alarming growth in the number of crimes committed. They emphasise, as an urgent national priority of Government policy and of national policy, the need for increasing the strength of the Garda Síochána. The need for a new recruitment drive is clear. In this field of national activity as in so many others the Government have let down the people of the country. Of a total of 25,972 indictable offences recorded in the State in 1969, 15,200 or 59 per cent of the total were in the Dublin metropolitan area. In the remainder of the State the number was 10,700. The percentage increase in 1968 was 9 per cent in the Dublin metropolitan area and 17 per cent in the rest of the State. If one looks at the figures in the category of crimes against property, with violence, which include burglary, house-breaking, robbery and malicious injury to property, one will see that there is a startling table in the Commissioner's report which shows that the number of these offences went up steadily between 1964 and 1969 from 4,282 to 7,563. The figures up to September last will shortly be available. I have no doubt that the serious deterioration shown in the position regarding violence in respect of both public and private property will be evident from the figures between 1964 and 1970.

In all cases the percentage of convictions obtained by the Garda Síochána is reassuring. This shows beyond doubt that the high quality and reliability of this unarmed force has been maintained. I want to put on the record again my conviction that this country has never adequately realised the debt that the community owe to the Army and the Garda. When this State was in its infancy, the Garda, by discipline and sacrifice, secured the peaceful future of the State. It is in this regard above others that the Government have failed to maintain the Garda Síochána at effective strength. The Government have allowed the strength of the force to be run down at a time when the safety of the State is under threat from forces of subversion and from self-appointed warlords who have never had to face an Irish electorate. There is no basis of comparison between the trivial matters we have been discussing here for weeks and the acts of those who have been masquerading with arms, and firing shots and volleys. I do not condone squatting in any form but it is trivial compared with these acts. The Government have turned a blind eye and have refused to accept responsibility because they were pursuing their separate policies in the Fianna Fáil Party. They were pursuing their separate policies—some doing one thing and others ostensibly doing another. "Ostensibly" is the operative word.

The Government had not to deal with an Opposition that is conniving at disorder and disrespect for the law. Members of the front bench here were giving verbally their tacit approval to Government policy, while some members of the Government back benches were on the fringe of funerals because they regarded it as politically advantageous. That is the difference between a patriotic, disinterested Opposition and a party who, in the Taoiseach's phrase, "pursue the separate policies which we are pursuing". Is it any wonder that people now realise and are saying openly on all sides that we have no Government in this State?

The Government has failed or delayed to redress the legitimate claims of the Garda in respect of pay and conditions of service. It has failed to ensure—as we did when in Government—that there would be only one Army and one Garda force. It has allowed illegal bands to parade, to train in armed camps, to drill, to shoot, to rob banks, and in one case to gun down an unarmed member of the Garda. The Garda strength should be increased forthwith by at least 1,000 and, in order to provide extra personnel quickly—I know recruitment is comparatively slow and that the Civil Service Commission and other methods of recruiting for public appointments is a protracted business—a number of soldiers who are willing to transfer into the Garda force should be offered permanent positions. Those who are prepared to accept such transfers could be assigned without delay for duty where need is greatest—in the Dublin area. In this way the Garda force could be augmented rapidly.

The reason I speak with such force on this topic is because of the effect that it has and may have in the future on the serious situation that has developed in the North of Ireland. We have long recognised that the deep division between the two communities in Northern Ireland has always held within it the danger of a violent sectarian or intercommunal conflict. Our view has always been that the problem could only be resolved by a peaceful resolution of the existing antagonism. We have always recognised, as has anybody who has seriously considered the question, how difficult such a peaceful solution must be. The wrongs suffered by the minority in Northern Ireland go back over many years and the bitterness and resentment which they caused is deeply ingrained. We recognise, as realists must recognise, that this bitterness and resentment cannot be wiped away overnight by a few last-minute reforms wrung under intense pressure from a patently reluctant Government. The history of the reform programme in Northern Ireland is a sad record of "too little, too late". Measures which at an earlier stage would have been accepted as reasonable and progressive are delayed so long or given so reluctantly that their value is vitiated. On the other side, we must equally recognise the deep rooted and genuine fears and suspicions of the Northern majority. While it is widely recognised that the status quo cannot be permanently maintained we must also recognise that there would be a determined resistance to any attempts by minority elements to use force to achieve what has not been achieveable by political means.

For a long period there was some hope that despite all these difficult and seemingly near-irreconcilable positions some common ground might be found between those in each section of the community who wanted peace rather than violence, who were prepared to work constructively for the evolution of a more just and democratic society in Northern Ireland. It may have been naïve to think that such a thing was possible, given all the past history of the present intense stresses within that community. Unfortunately, recent developments seem to be leading towards a formal division of Northern society on sectarian lines which must be regarded as discouraging and seeming to lead us appreciably nearer to violence. The division of Northern Ireland into two groups openly hostile to each other, dedicated to each other's destruction, must be seen as a first step towards a civil war situation. There are in Northern Ireland society evil elements which want to bring this about and which believe that their own ends can only be achieved by violence. These people are prepared to gamble with the lives of thousands of innocent people in pursuit of a policy which has never had the support of more than a tiny fraction of the people North or South of the Border. These are people whose declared aim is the establishment by violence of a military dictatorship not just in Northern Ireland but in this part of the country also.

The great danger of this situation, indeed the greatest danger of it when we face it at the present moment, is that those who believe in democracy and in the solution of political problems without violence, whatever their creed or political views are and whether they be from north or south of the Border, will fail to get together and act to defend the fundamental values of the vast majority of the people against the sinister threats of a small irresponsible group or groups. If this country or any part of it is allowed to drift into civil war through such a failure to act strongly and courageously together, then the damage to the country's future will be incalculable. Let nobody think violence offers some kind of short cut solution to these problems and that it is possible to have a quick bout of bloodletting and that this will resolve these issues. The events of 50 years should have taught us in this part of the country a lesson we should not easily forget. The wounds of a civil war are slow to heal and when they do, the scars left behind can cripple the morale of a nation for generations. If the present situation in the North drifts into a civil war it would be a civil war of such bitterness and savagery as to leave what happened here 50 years ago appear like a minor skirmish.

Nor is it likely that such a conflict would be confined to the six north eastern counties. On the contrary, civil war embracing the two communities in the north east of the country could hardly go on for long without engulfing the rest of the country. I believe there is a dangerous tendency among many people north and south of the Border to take a fatalistic view of this situation. Many people, and comments in the Press and otherwise, envisage conflict as being inevitable and the problems as unresolvable. To talk or accept that, particularly as Christian men with the gift of reason, is to me to refuse to face this problem fairly and squarely. We cannot and must not accept such an evil as inevitable or any problem as unresolvable but in this the Government must be prepared to take initiatives which may carry a political risk at home in order to do everything possible to avoid such a conflict.

It is in this regard that I want again to express our regret that ambiguity still surrounds the Government's attitude to this question. The very phrase which the Taoiseach used, whether it was used deliberately or not, emphasised the lurking fear at the back of his mind that they are pursuing their separate policies. This must have been abundantly clear in the Government's attitude to any groups in this Republic who openly advocate and prepare for violence. There has been a long record over many years of compromising with the law when it came to dealing with these illegal groups. This party have consistently spoken out and acted against irregular activities. We believe the Government has a grave responsibility, transcending all other responsibilities of government, to see that the full resources of the law are fearlessly and unambiguously used to bring to justice those who in one way or another flout the democratically made laws of this country. I am not talking about comparatively harmless—I do not condone them—offences of squatting. This is an open challenge to the authority of this Parliament and to the authority of the institutions of this State and this challenge must be met and defeated with the resources of the people, with the people acting, speaking and defending their rights.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The important thing in the present political situation is to keep a clear view of the long-term considerations of this national problem and to avoid being panicked into short-term moves. We must try to resist any temptation for a short-cut out of the difficulties by neglecting to act fearlessly in the public interest however difficult this may be politically. Certain people have openly declared that their purpose is to destroy this State by violence. The overwhelming majority of the people have repeatedly made clear in election after election and through all the organs of public opinion and public information that they do not support this. The soundest and surest way of retaining the support of the majority is by holding firmly to the just application of democratically created laws. If under pressure the normal legal processes are suspended then those who seek to destroy those process will have achieved a large part of their purpose. It is important, therefore, to make it clear that because we have refused to resort to internment in this part of the country it is not in any way taken or accepted as support for terrorism in the north or an unwillingness to apply the full rigour of the law to illegal organisations or unlawful acts here. In this whole situation there is a fundamental division between those on the one side who believe they have the right to use force on their fellow citizens to impose political ideas which those citizens do not share and, on the other side, the vast majority of the people north and south who believe in the peaceful and democratic solution of political problems. It is here that the Government must make it clear not only by words but by their actions on which side they belong.

It must indeed be obvious to those who take a longer term view of the situation in the North that it can only be resolved by agreement unless one accepts as an alternative the bloody struggle that I referred to a few moments ago between the two communities in which one finally defeats and virtually annihilates the other. That possibility must be so abhorrent to the vast majority of decent people that the search for agreement must be intensified in order to avoid the other outcome.

Such an agreement must involve, in the first instance, acceptance by the two communities in Northern Ireland of equal citizenship for all. This will imply on the side of the northern majority accepting the need to build a radically new political and social structure in Northern Ireland to ensure not only that no new inequality between the two communities will be created in future but that the accumulated inequality of 50 years of injustice will be eliminated as quickly as possible. The legacy of 50 years of unjust government will not be wiped away by a few tentative and marginal efforts at greater participation for the minority. It is too late for that. Concessions which might have helped 20, ten or even five years ago are now only drops of water sprinkled into a furnace. On the side of the minority there has to be acceptance of the fact that any effort to try to force changes in the present position of Northern Ireland can only increase the likelihood of conflict and decrease the possibilities of achieving social and political equality.

In the present situation we in the Republic must work unceasingly to convince the majority in Northern Ireland that the welfare of all, Protestants and Catholics, depends on working and living together. This will indeed be difficult and to some well nigh impossible, but it is the only way: there is no other road. Only when a normal, just, democratic society based on full equality for all citizens has been established in Northern Ireland will it be possible to think in terms of seeking consent for purposeful and realistic changes to meet the aspirations of all sections in the community.

The promoting of agreement and the avoidance of a bloody inter-communal struggle in Northern Ireland rests jointly with the British and Irish Governments. It would be well for the British Government to recognise this clearly. The Irish Government have it within their power to prevent any solution which they do not accept or which the minority in Northern Ireland do not accept. No constitutional position in Northern Ireland can be made viable without the consent of the Government of the Republic. If any lingering illusions still remain with the British Government that they can solve the Northern Ireland problem on their own by the use of their army for pacification, or by any other military or political means, then they had better drop these illusions quickly. The fact that we are where we are after 50 years is the most conclusive proof that this problem cannot be solved by the British Government alone. Some allegedly informed people thought it was unwise in August, 1969, but at that time I said "The re-introduction of British troops is a step backwards that can never be welcomed here." In the present circumstances in the Six Counties they appeared and they were accepted at the time as being a lesser evil than the `B' Specials." I went on to say that this was the largest British army in the country since Dublin Castle surrendered to Michael Collins. The fact that events have proved that the British Army are not acceptable as a peace-keeping force is now recognised widely, but the events of the past two years have reinforced that conviction and everything that has happened during that time has indicated clearly that the time has come for further discussion.

During this debate I have no wish to quote from the many articles and the many comments that have appeared during recent months in the Press, particularly the British Press, concerning Northern Ireland. Most of these articles are indicative of a similar attitude and I shall quote from one entitled "Time for United Ireland" which appeared in the Sunday Times of the 30th May, 1971:

It is time to think the unthinkable in Ireland. All administrators know that there is never a right moment for reform: if things are going badly it seems wise to wait till they have settled down, and if they do settle it seems a pity to disturb them. In the end, change is dictated by disaster. Before that point is reached again in Northern Ireland, it is surely right to re-examine the idea which was explicitly in the British Government's mind when it divided Ireland in 1920, which (as a hope or a fear) has underlain the whole dispute ever since, and which is not necessarily wicked because it is now espoused by wicked men: the idea that in due time the North should be progressively reunited with the South....

The final shape of a settlement of the Northern Ireland problem must involve a continuing joint guarantee by the Irish and British Governments of equality of rights and full social justice for every citizen in the North. It must involve a joint responsibility by the two Governments to create and maintain a new constitutional position acceptable to the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic.

If that responsibility was assumed unambiguously and jointly by both Governments and if at the same time there was a clear and total commitment against unlawful and illegal activities on both sides, we would be faced at least in the right direction towards finding a solution, even if the process of evolving one is still a long, painful, and at times, frustrating activity. Peace in Ireland can be secured only if the people accept the basic underlying fact that peace can come only when people recognise that the maintenance of such a situation depends in the last analysis on all sections realising that it must come with the consent and support of the governed. The problem at present is not only the restoration of peace through justice but the overriding urgency of combining all sections of opinion, not least in the British political parties, that things can never be the same again. This involves a new approach, an approach that is courageous and progressive, an approach whereby there is a willingness to learn from past mistakes and to forget past differences and whereby the aim will be that of achieving an acceptable solution that will ensure the safeguarding of the rights of all sections. That has been emphasised in the article in the Sunday Times to which I have referred and I quote:

Many people will regard overt discussion of Irish reunification as an encouragement or even a surrender to the men who commit murder in its name. Yet the refusal to discuss it has not been an epic success either; and the uncomfortable fact remains that ideological terrorism has only been successfully held down in recent years by regimes prepared to be as uncompromisingly repressive as the Portuguese in Angola. In Palestine, in Cyprus, the patience of the British authorities— for all their protestations—was outlasted by the endurance of the zealots. The same thing happened to the French in Algeria—where the settlers' subsequent counter-revolt was not of the same durability.

These parallels are not far-fetched. Northern Ireland is the last and most delicate of Britain's post-colonial involvements. The colonial comparison will serve a little further, too. The classic unraveller of those tangles was the constitutional conference. Should not the device be dusted off one last time?

I want to advocate that such an approach must be made sooner or later —better sooner than later—involving the British Government, the Stormont Government and all shades of Opposition or minority representatives and viewpoints in the North of Ireland and the Government of the Republic. As this article said, Britain, in this regard, is arraigned before the world as the last remnant of colonial arrogance with the exception of the satellites under Soviet dominance. It is not an unrealisable aim or an Utopian dream for the future: it is a sine qua non of peace now and progress in the future to hold such a conference: it is essential for the North of Ireland, for all schools of opinion in the North, for all persons regardless of what religious faith they may possess; it is essential for the Republic and, above all, it is essential for Britain.

In the present circumstances a fresh effort should not be postponed. The gravity of the situation and the absolute urgency of finding a solution must be obvious to the most committed, be their commitments religious or political. These facts outweigh all other considerations. Unless all sections of the Irish people—this cannot be over-emphasised—are prepared to find a solution to this last remaining political problem with Britain and ourselves, no one else will either provide us with a solution or point the road to a reconciliation of the political and other differences that divide us. It is essential that parades of a provocative character in the North should get banned, that the Government there should have the moral courage to assert their authority in the interests of peace and harmony between all sections.

These are only temporary arrangements for dealing with a problem that must, sooner or later, be dealt with at the conference table and which, if it is to provide this country with the type of situation and conditions to which all people and all sections in both parts of the country aspire, can only be secured through discussions and negotiations between all sections in the North, the Government here and the Government in Britain. This, in our view, is the overriding political problem that faces us at the moment and must be faced in a realistic, purposeful fashion before it is possible to look with any confidence or hope to the other economic and social problems that are the subject of a debate such as this and will be the subject of comment and discussion by other speakers in the course of this debate. It is an absolute priority to maintain the institutions of State here in order to convince ourselves and every section of the community, to convince those in the North, to convince those with whom we have been in negotiation and discussion in Europe, that we have secured the right to govern ourselves here and that it will be maintained by the people of this country with all their traditional courage.

I do not think any of us would share the optimism of the Taoiseach in his review of the economy here this morning, certainly not the housewife, certainly not the unemployed, despite the statistics he gave when he dealt with the cost of living and with the employment situation. Neither would I share his optimism, needless to remark, at the conclusion of his speech when again he intimated that the Fianna Fáil Party were the right and the best party to govern and that the affairs of the country were safe in the hands of Fianna Fáil. This can be stated by the Taoiseach, but I believe that if his own backbenchers spoke their minds they would at least say that never has a Government in this country had such a low rating.

Of course, the economic situation has been overshadowed by certain events, some manufactured or caused by the Government, others over which they have no absolute control. In recent times the economic situation and debate on it has been overshadowed by the insistence of the Government and the Minister for Justice in this House on pushing through the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill. Of course, the country also, without knowing a lot of the details, is preoccupied with thinking about and speaking in private conversation about the prospect of membership of EEC.

As far as the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill is concerned, in the normal course of events I would not expect that the Taoiseach would intervene at certain stages in order to show absolute support for the proposals of the Minister for Justice, but this was a different piece of legislation. This was a piece of legislation about which people had deep feelings, where the deep feeling was demonstrated over a long period and particularly in the last few weeks by the Press. The Taoiseach mentioned this morning the editorials in the Irish Times in particular. He should also have a look, when he has time during a lunch break or some time tonight, at the editorial which appears in the Irish Independent. I have not seen the Cork Examiner. There has not been any editorial comment from the Irish Press. “Not an Inch” is the heading of the editorial in the Irish Times. It has an ominous ring. Without my having to quote from various parts of it I think it does, indeed, demonstrate the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party not alone towards the minority in this House who now happen to be the Opposition but to many other people as well. That is the reason why I comment on the fact that the Taoiseach did not intervene nor did he make any mention of it this morning. I do not think the Government have yet realised, certainly the Minister for Justice has not realised, the damage they are doing, the damage they have done, particularly yesterday, in going ahead despite opposition not alone from the people I have mentioned—the Press, Members of this House—but from the general public as well. Mark you, the editorials are, in the main, designed, I believe to reflect the feeling of people in the country.

The use of the guillotine, as I said last night, was scandalous for this or any Government. There have been complaints about long speeches, particularly speeches by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy FitzGerald on section 4. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, and maybe he would bear this in mind when the Minister for Justice or any of his other Ministers come in here to promote legislation in this House, that they should, as has been the practice up to recent years, stay for as long as they can in this House in order to hear comment from the Opposition. I do not think it is good enough that we should have the attitude conveyed in this House by backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party that no matter what you say or no matter how long you take to say it we have a majority and we will steamroll this piece of legislation, this amendment or this section, through. That is not, to me, indicative of democratic discussion.

If the Minister for Justice had listened to some of these speeches, and I do not believe he even read them afterwards, he might have had second thoughts, if not about all the Bill, about certain sections in it. I think he would also have saved the taxpayers of this country the expense that I am pretty confident will surely be incurred when the constitutionality of this Bill comes to be contested in the courts. Here he had legal arguments as to why certain amendments should be made and certain deletions should be made. When this Bill comes before the courts to test its constitutionality the arguments of the two gentlemen I have mentioned—Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy FitzGerald—and various other Members will be repeated at the expense of the taxpayers. But the Minister for Justice, who is now in receipt of something like £6,500 a year, had not time to avail of the opportunity to hear arguments from people who get £2,500 a year.

There has been criticism of the length of the debate. People are shedding crocodile tears because we are sitting into August. I have been in this House long enough to remember how long Fianna Fáil wanted to discuss certain legislation and motions, and how long they wanted to spend on Adjournment Debates over the past 25 or 26 years. It was not unusual to sit into August. In the first year of the first inter-Party Government the Dáil sat through the 6th, 7th or 8th of August—I forget which of those dates but it was at least until the 6th August.

The Government and the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party believe that, as soon as the month of August arrives, we should all shut our mouths and give them the legislation that is being discussed. We deprecate the use of the guillotine. If time is running out, as has been suggested, could we not sit longer in the week? Three years ago on behalf of the Labour Party, I suggested certain reforms to enable this Parliament to work much more efficiently and effectively than has been the case in recent years. For example, we suggested that the weekly sittings should be longer. Particularly in the past five or six months the Government availed of every opportunity not to have a Dáil sitting on particular days.

I suggest that that proposal should be given serious consideration by the Government. The British Parliament sits from Monday to Friday. Westminster can sit four and five days in the week and, if we are to have serious and effective debates on a measure such as the Forcible Entry Bill, we should give ourselves time and, as I said, the Government should not be shedding crocodile tears and throwing in the face of the Labour Party the staff of this House who are members of the trades union movement. Of course, the Government forget their lack of concern for the staff during the long debate in May, 1970. It was only because of the—I will not say insistence —persuasion by a Member of this party that some members of the staff got some compensation for the long hours they had to spend here, particularly the Official Reporters.

It is not good enough for the Government to accuse us of either filibustering or prolonging the debate because since it was introduced—if the first week in August was the deadline —they had ample time to have all Stages of the Forcible Entry Bill debated. The guillotine has an ominous ring about it. What I am afraid of is that in future somebody else, or the present Ceann Comhairle, will act as he did yesterday and refer back to the precedent of 4th August, 1971, in effect giving himself licence by referring to that precedent to do whatever he likes, or whatever the Government like, to stifle any contribution from the Opposition.

I do not want to dwell on the implications of the Bill but a few simple questions must be asked and have been asked in the editorials to which I referred: why the rush to get it through? Why go into recess now? Why the deadline of 6th August? I have a suspicion, which I hope can be disproved by the Taoiseach, that the Government want to go into recess and have a long recess so that they may have government by order or government by edict. We saw a relatively small example of that—but with big repercussions for those involved—in the introduction of the order which completely wiped out the payment of unemployment assistance.

I also have a suspicion that during the Recess the Government or the Taoiseach may intend to introduce internment without trial. I am asking the Taoiseach now to recall the Dáil in that type of situation. If he has decided now, or if he decides during the Recess, that internment without trial should be introduced, that must not be done while the Dáil is in recess. It must not be done without adequate discussion and consultation within this House.

I mentioned that the economic picture has been more or less blotted out by certain events, including the prospect of Ireland becoming a member of the European Economic Community. We were regarded as being somewhat eccentric or troublesome over the past ten years when we expressed our opposition to Ireland becoming a full member of the EEC and when we expressed our fears about what will happen if we become a full member. We were ridiculed in the same way when the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was discussed during a special sitting of the House. At that time we were told we were traitors.

In recent months a Government Minister described those who oppose full membership of the EEC for Ireland as traitors and enemies of the country. Now we see that more and more people are becoming more and more concerned about our terms of entry. It may be a little too late, because the Government have lulled many people into believing that, as soon as we become a full member, everything will be all right and that they would be very tough in their bargaining. Of course that has not happened. People are concerned, but the blase Minister for Foreign Affairs does not appear to be concerned and his attitude is reflected in the attitude of the other members of the Government.

The trade unions of this country are concerned and they are the people who will be vitally affected. Many of the unions are holding special conferences to make up their minds on what course of action they should take in certain eventualities. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to which the Taoiseach paid a fitting tribute this morning, will also hold a special conference. Whether or not the full terms of entry will be available when these conferences are held, I do not know. As I said, we were told that we were the odd men out, that we were the troublemakers, that we were against everything.

The fishermen of Ireland are beginning to think now. They are beginning to appreciate the damage that can be done to their livelihood by full membership of the EEC unless their interests can be protected. The fishermen of Ireland are not irresponsible. They are certainly not affiliated to the Labour Party. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, I am certain, have no affiliations with the Labour Party, but they also have expressed more than reservations about what appeared to be the terms that will be negotiated or are being negotiated, for fisheries in Brussels. Bord Iascaigh Mhara have said to the fishermen of Ireland, to the Government and to the Irish people that they should not give away their present fishing rights. I think that is a very clear message which the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not appear to have got yet.

I would like to ask him, if he intervenes in this debate, or the Taoiseach when he concludes, what is our position with regard to fisheries and to ask him the blunt question: Is there going to be a special deal for Norway? Will there be a permanent arrangement for Norway whereby she will have a greater limit than this country would have even during the transitional period? It has been suggested that there would be a limit of six miles for this country and again we are not certain whether or not this would be a permanent arrangement or obtain only for the transitional period, although the attitude again of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as far as fisheries are concerned is, "Look, let us agree to this, whatever it is"—I assume he means the six miles—" and then let us negotiate when we get into the EEC."

The Taoiseach spoke in glowing terms about the prospects for agriculture, and I suppose that if one had regard to the weather and so on in the country over the past six months, one would say that as far as this year is concerned, the farmers can do pretty well, but apart from that, we who were the eccentrics and described as traitors and enemies of the State have now in our company, even though they may not share our opinions entirely, the National Farmers Association who are now not so enthusiastic as they were two or three years ago or during the period in which our application lay dormant in Brussels, because their president came back from a European farmers organisation conference and appeared, and I think said he was, worried indeed as to what would happen Irish agriculture. He is concerned at the way the Irish negotiations are being conducted. We were the odd man out 12 months and even two years ago, and I am glad to notice, from their speeches and from contributions made at their Ard-Fheis, that Fine Gael are also concerned about the terms of entry, and as far as I can gather—I may be wrong in this—they have said that they will not make a final decision until the full terms of entry are known. Our concern is also about the terms of entry because our economy frankly, in our opinion and in my opinion, is underdeveloped.

We are concerned at the lack of a regional policy because above all the other countries, and particularly the applicant countries, there is none which needs a regional policy as much as this country does. We want a regional policy in order that we can further develop this country and not run into what would be tantamount to industrial disaster. It is ironic that in Britain, considered here to be a pretty well developed country industrially, the Labour Party is opposed to the terms of entry, again because of lack of regional policy, a regional policy that might be of some benefit to areas like Scotland, Wales and the north-eastern part of England. They are also concerned at the lack of a regional policy and this is one of the reasons they made the decision the other day not to give their support until they saw the final terms.

We have been chided also from the Fianna Fáil benches that the socialist parties of the EEC countries have not shown any opposition to EEC. They are concerned—they are also concerned about regional policy. There is no point in anybody telling us that the Treaty of Rome provides for such and there is nobody in the Community now pretending that there is one, in fact. I would like, if we are being twitted about our socialism and our connection with the socialist parties of Europe, to quote two paragraphs from a document by the Italian socialists who appears also to be concerned about the way Italy has developed since membership of the EEC, but again without the application of a regional policy. I quote from a submission of the Italian socialists at a congress of the social democratic parties in Russia. It says:

The customs union which has provided the great capitalistic companies with a larger market, thus enabling them to make better use of their production capacity than was possible on a national scale led to an intensive process of industrial concentration, and has also favoured temporary and permanent emigration on a massive scale from the economically depressed areas to the more developed regions without ensuring a substantial improvement of the social order.

It goes on to say:

The enormous increase in trade within the Community and with nonmember States which has facilitated the expansion of the European economy and helped to improve the standard of living of the European people has also widened the gap between different regions and social classes.

It appears to me therefore that if there is not a regional policy and if that regional policy is not applied to Ireland, we may find ourselves in the same situation as parts of Italy and, as they now are, Scotland, Wales and even the West of Ireland. If the Treaty of Rome provides for a regional policy, I think our negotiators should also press for this.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed concern—at what stage he expressed that concern I do not know —when he announced recently that he had submitted a paper on regional policy and the necessity of such for Ireland. Where that is going to go in the files in Brussels I do not know, but in any case I think we can legitimately criticise, from what we know from the Government, the way in which they have negotiated. The Taoiseach this morning talked about negotiations and about the car assembly industry. There are thousands employed there at present, and according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as far as their jobs are concerned, they will have a reprieve for so many years. That is a good thing, but there are other industries in the country which are vulnerable and there is no indication from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, from the Taoiseach or from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the negotiators give a damn about the people employed in these industries. It is not real negotiation. We were given to believe, as I said some time ago, that where an industry appeared to be vulnerable in a particular district, the Fianna Fáil cumainn were assured that there would be special negotations in order to get a good deal for them, in order to ensure that they would last. It is difficult to know in any case how our negotiators are doing their job in Brussels and what sort of information they give to Brussels as far a the economy of this country is concerned.

I have here a document, an information document, the product of the European Economic Community and perhaps the Tánaiste would try to get hold of it. It is called "The Facts" and on page 22, there are tables giving, as they say, some international comparison figures for 1969. This document has been produced by the information service of the EEC and it purports to give facts about the six member States and the four applicant countries. I presume the facts in regard to Ireland were given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, therefore, they should know all about us. How they can be aware of facts concerning Ireland if they are dependent on the kind of information contained in this booklet?

On page 22 of this booklet there is an item headed "Some international comparisons for the year, 1969". There are errors in this but they have not been corrected. We must not forget that this booklet is read by people in all countries in Europe, if not throughout the world, and it is certainly read by the Governments of the EEC countries and the four applicant states. In this publication our gross national product is given as 3,000 million dollars; I have checked this matter and have found it should be 3.5 thousand million dollars. Our imports for 1969 are given as 416 million dollars, instead of 1,413 million dollars. This booklet gives Ireland's exports in 1969 as 203 million dollars when, in fact, they were 891 million dollars.

Is this typical of the state of our economy? I would suggest to the Tánaiste that he should look at this document and check if the facts are right or wrong. I submit the facts are wrong, that the document should be withdrawn, and an apology should be demanded by the Irish Government.

I said at the beginning of my speech I did not share the optimism of the Taoiseach so far as the economy is concerned. Unemployment now is greater than it was this time last year. In saying this I am not armed with the statistics issued by the Department of the Taoiseach. There have been so many fiddles and changes recently it is difficult to know in precise terms the number of unemployed. However, I can see many more queuing up at the exchange in my home town, not with the prospect of employment but in order to draw the meagre allowance obtained through social welfare benefits.

Of course, there was the fiddle in regard to the dole. If the Taoiseach thinks there is less unemployment at the moment than existed last year he is mistaken. In addition, redundancies are running at about 5,000 per year. None of us wants to gloat about this, on the contrary, but we read every few days in the newspapers about the closure of factories. I know from investigation that this is the result of the decision the Government took in 1967 when they negotiated and signed the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. At that time we pointed out the industries that would be vulnerable and now we know we were right. With regard to the textile and footwear industries, there is fear among workers and management about the future.

I do not think the Taoiseach spoke about tourism but it would not be an exaggeration to say that so far as this industry is concerned it has been a disaster this year. Again, we do not need to wait for statistics from the Minister for Transport and Power. From travelling around the country one can see there are not the same number of British or foreign cars on the roads or parked outside hotels. I will not say the hotels are empty but there are not the same signs of the boom in the tourist industry evident four or five years ago.

People may say that the northern situation has been responsible for this decline but this is not the complete truth. To a large extent the blame lies with the Government, in particular with the Minister for Finance. Visitors from Britain in particular do not find Ireland attractive any more. What attracted these good spenders from Britain was the price of the pint, the bottle of stout, the bottle of ale, the price of spirits, of cigarettes and tobacco. However, since the introduction of the wholesale and turnover tax it is no longer attractive for these visitors to come here. I am not speaking about the people who bring over boats to sail on the Shannon or those who fish around the coast—although we are very glad to see those people— I am speaking about "the chap with the cap" who travels in a limited area and who looks forward to a few pints or a few half-ones at night time. The responsibility for the decline in this sector of the tourist trade lies with the Government, and with the Minister for Finance in particular.

There is also the problem of marketing. I do not think it would be unfair to say that so far as publicising the attractions of this country is concerned we have had very bad marketing. It was pathetic to hear the Minister for Transport and Power when questioned at the beginning of the year about tourist prospects saying that there was "no problem".

The Confederation of Irish Industry and the Economic and Social Research Institute produce a quarterly report which does not bear out the optimism of the Taoiseach in regard to our industries. This report suggests that industry is working below its labour capacity and it states "there is an increase in the number of firms who felt the level of exports was lower than for a similar period last year". According to this report a certain percentage of firms say they exported less in the first quarter of 1971 than in the quarter ended March, 1970.

The figure of 5,000 redundancies per year was given by the Minister for Labour. In the survey I have mentioned it is stated "there is a more pessimistic outlook than any recorded since the survey started in 1967". Incidentally, I would point out there is no affiliation between the group producing the survey and the Labour Party. I do not know whether we should believe those people who brief the Taoiseach or the people who are in industry who suggest that so far as the present year and the coming year are concerned the outlook is pessimistic.

Finally, I should like to say a few words about the north. Before the Dáil meets again, unless the Taoiseach has a special session of it, he and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, will have met. I do not want to score any political points arising out of the questions that we had to the Taoiseach over the last two years but it seems very peculiar that last October the Taoiseach was in New York at the United Nations and there he met Mr. Heath and they solemnly decided they would meet again in 12 months time in October. I cannot understand the reason for the delay nor can I understand the reason why it was kept such a secret because it was only when a question was tabled by Deputy John O'Connell and myself last week that we got this information.

We have advocated this type of meeting for 18 months. We remember the attitude of the Taoiseach when we questioned him about his proposed visit to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, in May, 1970. He did not appear to be too concerned to press for such a meeting. However, I am not making any point of that nor do I intend to pursue the matter.

I want to say, as far as I and my party are concerned, if this mission is to promote peace and reform we welcome the meeting. Unhappily it is true before this meeting takes place there will be a long and difficult period and there is likely to be further trouble, unfortunately of a grave character, because all of us recognise the significance of the date, the 12th of August and this can be a very dangerous date indeed. It can be most dangerous if the apprentice boys' parade is allowed to proceed. I, like Deputy Cosgrave, hope it will not be allowed because we know now the terrible dangers that could arise and we know the terrible trouble that occurred on a similar occasion two years ago.

The danger of this situation was impressed on the members of the Labour Party who met them by the Social Democratic and Labour Party. According to the Taoiseach in his replies to questions he is also aware of those dangers and he says he has conveyed his concern about the holding of the parade to the British Government. We in turn have impressed on senior members of the British Labour Shadow Cabinet the danger there would be if this parade goes on. We did this in the hope that if Mr. Heath decided that the parade should be cancelled he would know that the British Labour Party Opposition would support him and so offset any defections by right wing Unionists and their friends in the north of this country.

I am bound to say, however, even if the parade is cancelled there still may be dangers and maybe for different reasons. The march might be attempted. We have seen things like that happen before. Marches have been held even though officially banned. There are too many grounds for fearing that by October, when this meeting will take place, that the situation will be worse than it is now, even though all of us hope and pray that it will not be. It might be suggested, as I have, that Mr. Heath and the Taoiseach might have met earlier. When I say earlier I mean months ago but to insist now that they should meet between now and the 12th of August might have worse than negative results. If the result of such a meeting was the cancellation of the parade, the repercussions of this combination might be the reverse of what we want. Frankly, none of us wants trouble, none of us wants to provoke trouble.

I should say as well that in any case we should beware of expecting too much or indeed too little from this meeting between the British Prime Minister and our Taoiseach. It is also fair to say that no Prime Minister, whether he be a Stormont, a Westminster or a Dublin one is in full control of the situation in the North or even of the will and the actions of either of the communities up there. We know there are forces at work that have no respect for the three Prime Ministers, whether they be from Stormont, London or Dublin. We have got to face up to that sort of situation and think much more about it than we have in the past.

May I repeat, therefore, that we must not expect too much from this meeting? Some of the Irish newspapers and the British newspapers seem to suggest that these talks could produce a formula for the unity of Ireland. They cannot do that at that sort of meeting no more than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, could do it in August, 1969, when he made his submission to the United Nations Organisation. Unfortunately, there were people at that time who were glued to the radio expecting—we did not—that as a result of that submission, as a result of discussion at that particular meeting, the unity of Ireland could be obtained.

I am not criticising Deputy Dr. Hillery's effort at all. All I am trying to emphasise is that the unity of Ireland is not and cannot be around the corner as long as we have the situation that exists there at present. In any case anybody who hopes that negotiations between an Irishman and an Englishman can produce the unity of Ireland is indeed in grave error. It will only be by negotiation and understanding between Irishmen themselves that unity will be produced. The whole world can see how far we are away from that sort of agreement. We are seeing now the result of an attempted settlement imposed over 50 years ago, a settlement which was unacceptable to one-third of the population in Northern Ireland. Again, we have got to ask ourselves, particularly those of us in the South, what would be the result of an imposed settlement unacceptable to two-thirds of the population there. These are questions we should think about more seriously than we have in the past because, as I have had occasion to say, we did not care about the North for decades until we had the civil rights marches three and a half years ago.

We have also to ask ourselves if we want a north where one-third of the population are held in suppression. We do not and we in the Labour Party feel deeply about this. We have got to ask ourselves another question: Do we want a united Ireland where 1,000,000 Ulster Protestants would have to be held by force, whether by an Irish Army, a British Army or a contingent of soldiers from the United Nations? We do not. Or do we want a solution on the basis of driving one of the two communities out of the North? We do not.

Therefore, if we reject those outcomes, as I believe we do, then we must realise there is not an instant solution. If it is unity by consent we want, then we should not demand a unity which the other party do not even want to discuss. It is not because we desire the unity of the Irish people less than others. On the contrary, we desire it much more, and we have reason to know more about the situation in the North than those who make more noise about unity.

The trade union movement have shown how to unify workers for industrial objectives. They have tried it during a long period of years and it has been a slow, painful process which has been interrupted now and again by those who, under the pretext that they are defending one or other of the communities, use the gun to terrify the others. The very existence of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions testifies to a great deal of success by the trade union movement in the whole 32 Counties and I have seen my colleagues in the last three years demonstrate this at gatherings of the ICTU, specifically at annual conferences. I saw it in July this year, I saw it last year and the year before. I saw hundreds of Northern workers, the majority of them, I think Protestants, sitting for four days hammering out social and industrial policies not for the Twenty-six Counties but for the whole Thirty-two Counties. There was no bitterness or acrimony. There were Protestants and Catholics. That is an example of how by dialogue and conversation we can unite Irishmen.

The ICTU have been eminently successful in getting Protestants and Catholics together in a very difficult task, to unify workers on industrial policy. It is very much more difficult on political questions and we have got to face up to it as Irishmen that in many cases we are not guided by our heads but by our hearts and that when political questions are raised we tend to become emotional.

We hope that the emphasis in the discussions between the Taoiseach and Mr. Heath will be on reforms which will improve relations between the two Northern communities. Specifically, the need is for urgent reforms, establishing Catholics for the first time as fully equal citizens with Protestants. This requires that the minority have a share in political power proportionate to their numbers. That cannot be ignored any longer because if it is the present system will collapse.

I am not concerned about individuals in the Stormont Government. The Social Democratic and Labour Party have produced such proposals but have withdrawn from Stormont until such a principal of proportionate participation is put into operation.

There may be two points against that argument in favour of a share in political power proportionate to numbers as far as membership of Stormont is concerned. It may be said that any reforms suggested would arouse hostility among the Protestant community. This is unfortunately true among some Orange-men but not true about a greater number of Northern Protestants. Orange resentment is not sufficient to delay the principle of immediate reforms and the British Government should not be allowed to use this argument to delay reforms. For our part, the Dublin Government should help the introduction of these reforms by reassuring Northern Protestants that they will not be forced against their will into an Irish State.

The second objection may be that the time has gone for reforms. This has been suggested by some people in recent days—those who say the present atmosphere of violence is not conducive to the type of reform I have proposed. Some say that the only solution is the gun. I and my party have always resisted that. What is the situation when one-third of the people in the North are against the present system? What would it be if two-thirds were against it? I do not think there is room now for a drastic solution by either side. All we can hope and work for is that the Taoiseach should insist on reforms which will allow Catholic and Protestant, however grudingly, however suspiciously, to get together on equal terms. This would be a new departure for the North but it is the best hope for the people because the only unity worth having is unity by consent.

I have tried in my contribution on the Northern situation to avoid scoring political points in this very grave matter. However, there is one point I should like to relate to Twenty-six County politics and I propose to be very brief on it. We in this party repeatedly and vehemently have been accused by Fianna Fáil, by the Taoiseach and Members of his Government, of seeking to promote violence and anarchy. This is a suggestion which, seriously or in the heat of the moment, has been hurled across the House. It was done particularly during the last general election campaign when we were accused of being in favour of revolution.

If this were true we had ample opportunity of demonstrating it and exploiting it in the last two years. All we had to do was to encourage the dissidents of the Fianna Fáil Party and to encourage and to incite members of other semi-political parties or organisations. We could have encouraged the dissidents in Fianna Fáil by whipping up mass emotion in denouncing a peace policy as national treachery. These words must ring ominously in the ears of Fianna Fáil Deputies in this House.

We could have done that if we had been troublemakers. The whole country knows we have never attempted, particularly in the last two years, to try to get a single vote through the courageous stand of the Labour Party. The Taoiseach and the Government know that we favour peace and persuasion, peace by persuasion. He also knows we do not oppose him when he genuinely pursues a policy of peace. We have contributed towards all efforts to attain stability in a most difficult situation. We do not want credit for that. There is no political kudos to be gained from it. Sometimes, in certain quarters, the contrary is the case. In view of what has been said, in view of this malicious criticsm and these malicious attacks that have been made on us, we have the right and I, on behalf of my party, have the right to demand that these slanders should cease and that the Taoiseach should ensure that they cease.

Much more could be said about the North; much more could be said about the campaign on one side or the other or, should I say, on four or five different sides. I do not propose to delve into these things here today and I hope that in the time left for this debate nothing damaging will be said by any Member on either side of this House which would aggravate the situation there, a situation which could become so explosive in a very, very short time indeed. I hope that the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, will be a step towards ultimate peace and unity, not alone in the Six but in the Thirty-two Counties.

Deputy Corish had a great deal to say about the decision of the Government to introduce the guillotine in relation to the Forcible Entry Bill. We should, I think, have an inquest now on the action we took. Let us examine it for a moment. The only purpose that can be served by a long drawn out debate on a section of a Bill is if something new can be said. In actual fact there was a continuous repetition of statements and allegations about the significance of section 4——

If what the Tánaiste says is true then the Taoiseach's speech this morning could have been guillotined after the first sentence because it was nothing but repetition after that.

Order. The Tánaiste is entitled to make his speech.

I am talking about repetition on a far greater scale than anything the Taoiseach said. The second purpose in prolonging discussion on a particular section of a Bill would be that Deputies might imagine that by doing so they may persuade the Minister responsible to change his mind. It was perfectly evident at the end of two or three days discussion that the Minister was holding to his position. A third reason for such a discussion on a particular section would be if, in prolonging debate, such an overwhelming public opinion revealed itself as opposed to a particular section that the Minister might, for political reasons, change the Bill. But none of these things happened.

I should like now to pose a question: what proportion of the people who read the Dáil Debates were reading any of the speeches made by Fine Gael and Labour Deputies on this section of the Bill after it had already been debated fully? What proportion of newspaper readers, whose minds were not already made up one way or the other, were reading these prolonged speeches, with all their endless repetition, repetition wasting the time of this House?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

The Deputy, by calling for a House, is just reducing the amount of time available.

Am I not helping the Tánaiste?

It is a generally accepted convention of the House that a quorum is not always required in order that discussion can continue.

Does that take precedence over Standing Orders?

There have been many interesting discussions in this House without a quorum, as the Deputy knows.

I am well aware of it.

I was referring to Deputy Corish's remarks about the Forcible Entry Bill. The Labour Party deliberately filibustered in relation to this Bill. The public had ample opportunity, without any filibuster, for hearing all the arguments for and against the different sections of the Bill. The democratic processes were fully availed of according to the best traditions and there was nothing irresponsible in our applying the guillotine. The extraordinary thing was that, at the end of it all the Labour Party failed to vote in the last two important votes that took place here. They disappeared from the House, by implication, according to the strict rules of democracy, taking no side one way or the other. That may be recorded in history as an extraordinary volte face in their approach to this measure which is so urgently needed.

Deputy Corish spoke of the fear he had that the Government would govern by edict or order during the Recess. The Deputy, on the whole, made a constructive speech, but I wonder what he meant by that. Was he trying to alarm the Irish people into believing that we would take over the country and exercise dictatorial powers? The Deputy should know that we govern by legislation enacted in this House. He knows the extent of the emergency powers that are in the hands of the Government; he knows all the legislation of that kind, which is very limited. Why did he want to suggest that we were guillotining the Forcible Entry Bill in order to have a long Recess and during that long Recess abandon all concepts of democracy and govern by edict? It was an extraordinary charge to make and very irresponsible on the Deputy's part. He spoke very wisely in other ways.

There are a few examples of it down the years. As soon as the Dáil adjourned certain actions were taken.

The Deputy knows perfectly well that the Government must be able at all times to exercise any powers required to deal with unauthorised violence and that they are given powers by this House to do so. The Deputy should know all about this and there is no call to suggest that we would make use of powers that have not been derived from the Oireachtas.

Deputy Corish also suggested that they were extremely responsible in that they did not whip up support in the country for violent policies in relation to the North for the sake of embarrasing Fianna Fáil. I do not know to what he is referring. The overwhelming mass of the Irish people both North and South do not believe in violence as a method of securing reunification and if the Labour Party engaged the whole of their powers and resources in trying to step up a policy of violence in order to embarrass the Fianna Fáil Party they would not have succeeded and would have done themselves a great disservice.

What about the Sunday Press in 1956?

I cannot understand that observation by Deputy Corish.

There is such a thing as reality.

Deputy Corish referred to the difficulties we faced in connection with the tourist industry. I only wish to deal with one of the matters about which he spoke. He said one of the reasons for our tourist difficulties lies in the higher prices that now exist for accommodation and other amenities required by tourists. I was speaking to the Minister for Transport and Power the other day on this subject and as ex-Minister for Transport and Power, as far as I know it is a fact that prices for accommodation have increased but this country remains relatively in the same position in regard to price levels taken as a whole, as it did some three or four years ago when prices in European countries are compared. When I was Minister for Transport and Power there were habitually four countries in Europe where the prices were definitely lower. This country came next. Other countries either had slightly higher or very much higher prices. It is equally true that prices in relation to the tourist industry are very much affected by inflation because it is a labour intensive industry and if there is inflation, relatively speaking, the hotel industry would be more adversely affected than other sections of the trading community. I think I am right in saying that we hold the same relative position. It is no good imagining that in the future, no matter what Government is in office, people will come to this country as a country which is cheap in terms of accommodation and amenities because that just will not be so. We must make sure that value is given for money, that good services are provided for the money spent and that we do not lose our relative position in Europe in regard to this by having our prices skyrocket so that they no longer occupy the position relative to other countries that they have held up to now.

I was reflecting on statements by Members of the Opposition suggesting that Fianna Fáil somehow in the last two years have not proceeded with the business of developing the economy and developing social and economic services. The suggestion has been made that there have been massive discussions in the House in relation to matters affecting the Fianna Fáil Party and that the Fianna Fáil Government therefore have not had the opportunity of preparing and enacting legislation in order to ensure that the country develops socially and economically. I was going through some of the measures enacted in 1970 and 1971 to show that this is a completely false statement. There has been very great progress in legislation all of which is designed to enable the country to progress. We have had a number of Social Welfare Acts with improved scope in social services and increases in benefits and these increases have far surpassed increases in the cost of living since Fianna Fáil took office in 1957. For example, the increase in maintenance allowances for disabled persons more than double the increase in the cost of living.

The Health Act under the auspices of my Department has been passed and it is resulting in tremendous administrative changes throughout the country with the object of having more efficient domicilary and decentralised services while at the same time preparing to face the inevitable changes that are taking place in hospital services through the growth of specialisation and the need for a far greater percentage of patients to be examined by a team of doctors with full paramedical equipment and services available to the patient. We have seen further progress in the health services in the agreement that I have been able to make with the Medical Association and the Medical Union for the choice of doctor principle which will commence in April, 1972. This will amount to a very much desired revolution in the world of those holding medical cards who receive medical services from general practitioners, particularly in city areas. I am very glad to see the dispensary system disappear as it has existed for many years.

Hear, hear.

The vast majority of dispensary doctors are most dedicated men but they are working under absolutely impossible conditions. I look forward to the choice of doctor resulting in a very great improvement of outpatient services. We have also seen the development under the new child health services of the examination of infants of pre-school age. I am gald to say that some 83 per cent of mothers of children of six months in the areas where this service operates applied for paediatric examination of the infant. Of those who took part in the service and examination, some 13 per cent of the infants required further examination, indicating the very great value of that new service.

The Minister for Social Welfare, as the House knows, has raised the limit for social welfare insurance and I, as Minister for Health, have similarly raised the limit for those who have limited eligibility service in relation to health. We have had a Housing Act in the last two years which contained many provisions. It enabled the Minister for Local Government to concentrate on the development of private housing at more reasonable prices and offered further scope for the whole of the housing programme. We are now building houses at the rate of 13,000 to 14,000 a year, and that is a noteworthy development. I always try to give a statistical picture like that some sort of imaginative touch, and I think it is true to say that every two years we are building enough houses to represent the complete building programme of Cork city so far as the residential dwellings there are concerned. There are 28,000 residential dwellings in Cork city, so we are doing the equivalent of rebuilding Cork city, housewise, every two years. It is a very remarkable effort.

Again, this Government have amended the Redundancy Act and provided extended benefits to ensure that the Act will operate in the best possible way. Deputy Corish referred to redundancy. There will always be redundancy in this and in every other up-to-date country. We want to avoid redundancy arising from factories, businesses, that are not paying their way, that are facing difficult circumstances or are operating inefficiently, but there will always be some element of redundancy in any modern industrial society operating under any kind of Government. We wanted to ensure that the redundancy provisions were adequate for this purpose.

The Minister for Labour is equally developing the facilities under AnCo for the retraining of workers who become unemployed, for the training of new workers, and this, combined with the development of education in the technological colleges will begin to ensure an adequacy of trained, skilled labour for the industrial development that is continually taking place.

In another field, the Minister for Local Government enacted the Rates Act enabling county councils to raise extra moneys for the relief of rates for those who are unable to pay the full rate or unable to pay rates because of their circumstances. That was a very wise provision. Equally, it is now possible for the community to pay rates by instalments where the county council make the necessary arrangements.

During the whole of these two years there have been enormous improvements in educational facilities. With the development of the new and advanced syllabuses for the primary school and the post-primary schools, the increase in school accommodation —admittedly it is very difficult to keep up with the demand that resulted from free post-primary education—there have been tremendous improvements in the whole of the educational structure. The Minister for Education, through the Higher Education Act and the College of Art Bill, is extending facilities which will improve artistic education, and provided for a body that can make long-term studies of and recommendations for higher education.

In the case of industry very remarkable changes have taken place in the organisation of the Industrial Development Authority. They have been largely decentralised with the appointment of regional directors. The county development teams have been brought into close touch with the Industrial Development Authority, with the object of both encouraging small industries, through the small industries grants, and planning for more industrial development in the west and in the less developed areas. At the same time, the Industrial Development Authority are proceeding to examine regional plans for development, and recently we have seen the decision to set up advance factories in certain towns that have not benefited in the same way as other areas have from industrial development.

I am very glad to say that much of this new development was the result of the enormous success of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company over which I had supervision for some ten years. Legislation was passed giving the Shannon Free Airport Development Company the power to look after the whole of County Limerick, County Clare and the North Riding of Tipperary, because of the great success they have had in providing new industries which in a recent year were responsible for 25 per cent of the total exports of the country.

There have also been new and favourable developments in relation to other State companies. Legislation has been passed enabling Irish Steel Holdings to expand and make progress. The same thing applies to Nitrigín Teoranta. There has been a Bill to enable the British and Irish Steam Packet Company to take advantage of their recent financial success and go ahead with further development. New legislation has been enacted in relation to air navigation and our participation in air navigation throughout Europe.

We have passed legislation which went a long way to re-plan freight transport. This transport legislation was preceded by some excellent surveys of the character of road freight in Ireland. By freeing transport for the purpose of carrying cattle the legislation was eliminating an anomaly; and increasing the areas of operation of licensed carriers was all part of taking advantage of changes in the pattern of transport that were urgently required. I might add in that connection also that we do have full riciprocity with the north in relation to the use of licensed carriers, and the passage of transport vehicles from one part of the country to the other has been almost completely liberalised.

There has also been legislation to ensure that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will make progress. It is very interesting to note that for the first time we are beginning to export not only shellfish and smoked shellfish but also fresh fish. I hope Board Iascaigh Mhara will make further progress in this connection, because most of our fish is only 24 hours old and, if properly iced, processed and packed, there is no reason why we should not develop an export in fresh fish.

Again, during the past two years, there was legislation in connection with Bord Fáilte. The Minister for Transport and power established the National Council for Tourism, placed two new directors on the board of Bord Fáilte and ensured that Bord Fáilte would be able to tackle the problems of marketing which have arisen in the last two years.

Progress was also made in regard to finance. There was the passage of the Central Bank Act which gives wider powers to the Central Bank and which places the Central Bank in a position of being able to influence the economy and influence credit in a more meaningful way. The Decimal Currency Act was passed, and decimalisation has been a very successful operation.

In so far as our plans for the west and the undeveloped areas are concerned, we can show solid progress in the last few years. With the decentralisation of the Industrial Development Authority, with the provision of hotel accommodation in the west, with the provision of farmhouse accommodation through the establishment of grants to farmers who wish to take tourists in during the summer period, and through the growth of afforestation in the west, we are making continual plans in order to try and stabilise the population in the west to the maximum extent possible.

Deputy Corish spoke as though migration within a country was something that could be wholly prevented by Government action. I know of no country in the world where at least internal migration on a massive scale has not taken place. If any Deputy can tell me of any country where there is no internal migration I shall be glad to hear of it. What we want to ensure is that the small farmers are able to find employment for their families in industry in the neighbouring towns so that the family farm will be preserved. We want to ensure the development of agriculture to the maximum possible extent, and if migration is essential, if people migrate from one part of Ireland to another, or from a very small village in the west to a large town in the west and do not have to leave the country, Deputy Corish will surely understand that is the most we can do and the most that any country can do in regard to this.

Deputies have been referring to the agricultural position from time to time in the last few years. There has been a very big improvement in the farm structure of this country. One only has to see the number of farmers who take farm building grants, grants for new piggeries, grants for silage, grants for land project work; one only has to see the very big increase in the consumption of fertilisers, in order to recognise the growth of modern techniques in farming which is a sign that the farmers have faith in the future. There have been big advances in agricultural exports and production. Evidence of the growth of farming prosperity, whatever the problems of trying to equate farm incomes with industrial incomes, is given by the increased prices paid for agricultural land. Very high prices have been paid by professional farmers wishing to buy land as compared with the prices paid four or five years ago.

I wish to say something which one has to repeat on every occasion of a general debate. I speak of inflation. Luckily for us, this has been almost worldwide in character and the fact that inflation is taking place in Europe on a fairly wide scale has meant that our difficulties in regard to exports and to maintaining a competitive position have been moderated. We and the British have shared the doleful reputation of having the highest rate of inflation in northern Europe and the largest increase in wage costs per unit of output since 1963. Both countries have faced similar difficulties as a result of excessive inflation. We were able to deal with this problem before. We had some comparatively mild inflation in 1961 and we dealt with it successfully. We had inflation which was slightly more serious in 1965 and 1966 and we dealt with it effectively. In the period 1967 to 1969 the economy had resumed the advance which has been so notable since Fianna Fáil took office in 1957. Now we have faced perhaps the most serious inflation ever in the period 1970-71. We will not be able to make progress unless in 1972 the employers and the trade unions think seriously what the future position is likely to be if there is a rapid and inflationary rise in incomes and consequently in prices.

I should make it absolutely clear to the House that one can examine any country in Europe and relating prices and incomes in that country and here one will find no evidence that prices of commodities in this country have increased more than they should have in-relation to the increases in salaries and wages. Any Deputy can look at the figures for Great Britain and ourselves, taken over the last three, four or five years, and examine the increases in incomes and prices. The increases in Great Britain in prices, as compared with the figures here, will show that there has been no savage or undesirably high growth in prices here which cannot be accounted for by the increases in salaries and wages which of themselves inevitably increase the cost of production and distribution. The same thing applies in Europe. In Germany, Denmark and Sweden if one allows for the growth of productivity relative to the position here, one will see that there is no evidence that the inevitable result of salary and wage increases is having worse results in relation to prices here than in such countries.

In 1972 both employers and trade unions must take account of the fact that we are more than likely to enter the EEC and must consider the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement before they settle on increases on wages and salaries that could bring this country to disaster. The trade unions can get all the facts and figures needed in advance. The Departments of Finance and Industry and Commerce can forecast approximately the effects on prices of any likely increase in wages and salaries. They can estimate the effect of higher import prices on the economy rather accurately, thus enabling the employers and unions to make the necessary decisions. We hope the unions and the employers will make wise decisions.

Deputy Corish referred to the increased unemployment of the last 12 months. There has been a similar increase in unemployment in other countries severely affected by inflation. If we want to escape from unemployment we must not only continue to ensure that industrial development takes place on a massive scale but we must also avoid inflation. There is no way out of it and if people want full employment they can only have it if the rules in relation to productivity are kept. I hope that there will be a wise decision in regard to this point. It seems useless for the workers to get a 21 per cent increase in wages over a three-year period and then to have that increase reduced to a mere 8 per cent because of rising prices. They could have been told in advance that this would happen. If they had asked for less they would have kept a greater proportion of what they earned without having to face the frustration and personal difficulties of watching prices increase the moment they obtained larger pay packets. If they had taken the advice offered, most of the increased pay packets would be worth the same value at the end of the year as at the beginning, and their real incomes would not have suffered at all as a result of taking an intelligent decision on this matter. This kind of inflation benefits neither worker nor employer. It particularly results in adverse effects on the lower-paid section of the community who always get into the worst position during any period of extreme inflation. The trade unions can be told if they ask for exceptional increases in salaries and wages that taxation will have to increase in order to make social service payment increases possible. Social welfare payments must advance by what is necessarily required to allow for increases in the cost of living. The same people can be told that if they ask for excessive increases in incomes, more money will be taken in taxation to be transferred to farmers so that the farmers, until we join the EEC and operate under different conditions, will see that at least to some extent their incomes are increased to meet the increased incomes of the non-farming community.

We are beginning to tackle this problem of inflation this year. The Taoiseach has given the House figures showing that inflation is slowing down and slackening. If this can continue until the end of the year and if at the end of the year a satisfactory agreement is made, and provided that international conditions around us are favourable, and that there is peace in this country, there is no reason why we should not begin again to make the kind of progress we have been making continuously since 1958 but marked by the inflationary periods of 1961, 1965, 1970 and 1971.

I might add in that connection that there are a great many respectable countries operating under democratic governments where there are interruptions in a period of say 12 or 15 years in the rate of their economic progress. We should like to see uninterrupted progress but Fianna Fáil need not be ashamed of the fact, looking at the 20 most wealthy countries of the world, that there have been interruptions. These interruptions are not exceptional; they are extremely common. If we look at the near bankruptcy of our neighbour across the water, whose prosperity is so important to us, we see a highly intelligent country getting itself into appalling difficulties solely because the ordinary man in the street and the ordinary employer failed to see the light. We can regard the difficulties we have had as of comparatively minor importance compared with some of the crises which have affected other countries.

Deputy Corish discussed our progress towards entry into the EEC. Having heard him and other Members of the Labour Party speak convinces all of us in Fianna Fáil that the Fianna Fáil Government and national organisation is the only Government and the only national organisation which can enact the EEC legislation with the certainty that it will be the right kind of legislation, that it will be passed and that all the steps required to ensure that we participate in the best possible way in the EEC will be undertaken.

It is quite evident there is a deep division within the Labour Party not only on the subject of what constitutes socialism, about which there are at least 18 different opinions among the Labour Party, but there are also differences of opinion as to what they really feel about joining the EEC. They range from absolute hostility to the idea to a begrudging acceptance that we have to join because the British are joining and we cannot remain out if the British join. I would dread to think what a Coalition Government would be like at the end of the year 1972 or 1973 when we have to take the most serious constitutional step we have ever taken since the 1937 Constitution was enacted In my opinion if a Coalition Government could ever be formed it would be quite incapable of facing the realities, the difficulties and the good prospects of entering the EEC.

The Labour Party are, as I have said, deeply divided over what constitutes socialism. There is a political gulf between Deputy Murphy and Deputy Browne which stretches further than any political gulf we have ever had on economic matters. These two Deputies have absolutely nothing in common in regard either to their views on the Labour Outline of Policy or in regard to their views on what constitutes socialism. At one end Deputy Browne believes in a 100 per cent socialism, a type of Marxist socialism which he fondly believes could be promoted without any fear of dictatorship or any fear of undue direction of persons and lives, and at the other end are members of the Labour Party who really privately believe in Fianna Fáil policy but who think we never spend enough money on this, that or the other and who think perhaps that our belief in a mixture of private enterprise and socialism should be slightly more coloured with socialistic belief.

When I read the Labour Outline of Policy three years ago I realised it was a kind of shadowy socialist policy which could be interpreted in different ways. Some of the individual paragraphs in that remarkable document indicated a complete socialist take-over of this State. That document read as though it had been written by people with a great deal of theory but with very little practical political experience behind what they were writing.

Deputy Corish referred to the necessity of taking care of industries which are likely to be affected by our joining the EEC. Deputy Corish should know perfectly well that adaptation grants have been made available to industries to modernise themselves. Deputy Corish has surely read the reports which have now been completed for the majority of our industries on how they are likely to be affected under free trade conditions, giving proper advice as to the changes in the pattern of the industry required, and giving warnings to the weaker links in the industry that they would have to make certain changes if they were going to survive. Deputy Corish should also be aware that the Department of Industry and Commerce have a special section which gives advice and assistance to industries who inevitably face free trade because the world is becoming free trade minded. Whether it is the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement or the EEC, in the next ten years we inevitably face under one guise or another a free trade world.

Deputy Corish knows perfectly well that a great many steps have been taken to acquaint industrialists of their position. The Federation of Irish Manufacturers published an excellent document about the challenge to the future of industry indicating to their members quite clearly that in the European world the home market would be extremely small compared with the vast market offered abroad and that free trade meant inevitable structural and productive changes in industry here and that there would be great challenges, great difficulties and enormous opportunities.

At the end of his speech Deputy Corish said a few words about the Northern position. He spoke very wisely and responsibly on this matter. I I can find nothing with which to disagree with him on the general policy that he proposed for the North, namely that violence can do nothing but prolong Partition, that violence can serve no purpose and that if ever we are to have a successful and united country it must be through a growth in the unity of minds and hearts between the various sections of people in the North.

I do not propose to follow either the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste in reviewing the economy in detail in what has, I am afraid in part, been a rather turgid economic review. With respect to the Tánaiste, a general debate of this kind is not the time to tell the House about lorry licences or grants for piggeries; what we need at this time is the ability to rise above these mundane matters and to face the situation to which the Tánaiste referred very briefly in his closing remarks when he commented favourably on what the Leader of the Labour Party had said.

No one would know from the speeches of either the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste how grave a situation we now face in this country. Those who listened, so far as there were people listening to them—there are not many people in the House at the moment—and who really care and are concerned about where we in this country stand today, North and South, could not but have been dismayed and disappointed that so little sense of urgency, concern and reality informed these speeches. I do not think this is the time to be talking about the problems of our economy. We have had other debates on that subject recently. There is much to be said and I would have no difficulty at all in speaking at length on it and in indicating aspects of Government policy and pinpointing areas where blame falls on the Government—not, as I have always emphasised when speaking in this House and the other House, that all the blame for our economic ills arises from Government action or inaction. This Government has made serious mistakes which have created grave economic difficulties, but I do not want to speak about that today.

I want to speak about a matter which certainly preoccupies my mind for much of the time and has done for a long time past and does worry and concern people throughout the country: that is the problem of peace and order, north and south. Everything we do, everything we think of and everything we speak of today must be overshadowed by the grave and grim situation in Northern Ireland and by concern for its implications for this part of the country, too.

All of us, even if we fail to mention this while speaking here, as the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have done effectively, must be concerned deeply at the threat to peace and order here in the Republic by men who, aware of their inability to win support for their half-baked economic views or for their glorification of extreme violence, seek to undermine our institutions by armed raids and explosions. Ireland today is a unit so far as violence is concerned. We cannot insulate ourselves in one part of this island from what is happening in the other part. For a long time we thought we could so insulate ourselves. For decades we had happy little anti-partition speeches in the confident belief that they did not matter, that they could not do any harm in Northern Ireland where nothing ever seemed to change but that they might win a few votes from thoughtless people in this part of the country. The days when that kind of tactic could be adopted by any political party are gone. Every word spoken with regard to Northern Ireland and its problems must be weighed carefully. In this respect it must be said to the credit of this House and to the credit of all parties here that since the events of August, 1969 the words that have been spoken here have been, with few exceptions, weighed carefully to an extent that, perhaps, was greater than public opinion or the Press have given credit for. Parliament has risen to that extent on this occasion. I do not think we have shown ourselves to be brilliant in devising solutions and neither do I think that we have avoided mistakes from time to time—the Taoiseach included—in the way things have been put and said but by and large, faced with the threat to peace in the whole of the country, we in this Parliament have responded reasonably well.

However, it seems to me that the positive response which found echoes in the debates of October, 1969 and even during those difficult and dramatic days of May, 1970 has been lost to some extent. Two years ago—certainly one year ago—neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste would have come into this House during a debate of this kind and spoken so perfunctorily about the North. Something has gone wrong that they should do so. The Leader of this party, leading for the Opposition on this debate, tried to put facts back on a more realistic track. He has spoken with clarity and wisdom of the problems facing us. He raised the tone of the debate and I hope and expect that other speakers on the Opposition side will continue to do so, will show their genuine concern for these problems and their ability to speak constructively on them.

For some time past we have been promoting this country as a unit for tourist purposes. The Tánaiste himself had a direct role to play in this promotion during his term of office as Minister for Transport and Power. We now reap the consequences of that promotion and none of us would regret the attempts that were made to sell Ireland as a unit and to put it across as a peaceful country to which people could come for their holidays. It is now rebounding against us in this part of the country because although life here is still relatively peaceful and the average tourist here is not likely to encounter an explosion unless he happens to be visiting a mine, or to encounter a bank raid unless he is unlucky enough to be changing his travellers' cheques in the wrong bank at the wrong time, we are suffering from the fact that, partly because of our own desire to put across to the world that this country is, geographically, a unit, those people from other countries who might think of visiting the Republic are not now coming because they associate us with a level of violence that does not exist here yet but which does exist in Northern Ireland.

Not only is the tourist industry in Northern Ireland wrecked, as some recent figures have shown, but our tourist industry, already suffering from the inflationary problems to which the Tánaiste referred, is suffering further because of the unwillingness of tourists to come to a country which they associate with the bomb and the gun. What is more serious perhaps, because tourists have short memories in general and when peace returns to any country they flock back again fairly quickly as they flocked back here after the losses of 1956-57, is that hidden loss of which we can as yet know nothing: the loss in terms of new industrial activity generated in this country by foreign investment that is needed so badly. We do not know yet nor can we assess to what extent our efforts which, until these events occurred, had been growing in success, have been damaged by the events of the past two years.

Our efforts to attract industrialists to the Republic are not on a united Ireland basis. We know that in Northern Ireland industrial development has come to a halt. In fact all kinds of development have come to a halt there. Nobody will attempt to develop a property there or to establish a new industry because of the conditions existing there, conditions that are having their effect on employment, and unemployment aggravates the political problem, so that it is a vicious circle. Things are not that bad here yet but, undoubtedly, industrialists seeking a peaceful climate in which to manufacture goods or provide services and, consequently, to earn profits and give employment, will now be less inclined to come to this part of the country than they were in the past. It will be some time before that percolates through in figures of jobs because first, it takes time for an industrialist to make up his mind where he will site his factory. Once his mind has been made up it takes another two to two and a half years on average before the factory begins production and it is a further 18 months before it reaches full output and employment. Therefore, between four and five years can elapse from the time an industrialist makes up his mind to build a factory and the time when the full effects of that decision are evident. Several years will elapse before the impact on this country of these events will become clear but none need doubt that the conditions that have been created in Northern Ireland and which have overflowed into this part of the country will have such effect. One cannot have a position where investment in a mine by foreign capital is destroyed by bomb explosions or where, no matter with what provocation by way of bad industrial relations, buses engaged to take workers to a factory, are burned, without there being also serious discouragement to industrialists who might be thinking of coming here. Some of them may carry on regardless but others, more timorous or uncertain, or whose investment here is more marginal or who can go elsewhere, will not come.

Not only is it true that no man is an island but no part of an island is itself an island and no part of this island will cut itself off from the other part. Even if it were the case that peace and order were being maintained in this part of the country and that no one had anything to fear, there would not be success in every case; but unfortunately, peace and order are not being maintained and there are good reasons for people believing that this is not the place either for tourists or industrialists to come to at present.

Moreover, we have now a sinister situation in which there are men in this part of Ireland who believe that their only path back to power is through escalated violence in the North spreading the fever of extreme nationalism. Such men are in a powerful position of leverage in this country through their position in the Government party. Some of them are men who did not achieve, in their period of power, a reputation for disinterested idealism. Virtually every person in the country who woke up on the morning of 6th May and heard they were dismissed from the Government, in one case at least, if not in both, expressed great puzzlement as to how they could have got involved in something which seemed so unlikely to yield quick profits, which seemed so unlikely to yield material advantage. These are the men now who hold the leverage, ultimately the control of the destinies of this country, through their power in the Government party. This is a situation to which I shall return later on. It is one which must and does worry the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. They ought to know it worries many of the rest of us as well.

They hold no such leverage.

They have votes.

The Government take their decisions regardless of what they might think.

They have votes. They can withhold those votes and bring down the Government.

They hold no such leverage, none whatever.

If at any time the Government wished to pursue more actively policies to which they have been to a greater or lesser degree committed of peace and moderation in relation to Northern Ireland they could be held back from that, could be deterred from that, or they could go ahead and lose their majority in Parliament. No Government in that position can deal adequately with the kind of threats this country faces at present. No matter what determination or courage some members of the Government may have privately, they have to have regard to the position in which they find themselves in their own party and we have to have regard to the fact that they find themselves in that position.

No members of the Government have any private opinions other than the collective opinion of the Government. The Deputy is talking nonsense.

I was not. I made no reference whatever to anything of the kind. The Tánaiste's statement, in any event, is a constitutional truism and factual nonsense but it does not relate to anything I said. I was speaking of people supporting the Government within the Government party.

There are two ways of destroying our State and our society, two ways in which our society can be undermined. One is by toleration of violence by a weak Government, fearful of their own right wing, being unwilling to act against violent forces seeking to destroy our society. The other way is along the path which Governments from time to time follow and recently there have been signs that the British Government are following it in Northern Ireland, the path of unthinking repression, suppression of free speech, threats of internment when they have not even begun to enforce law and order by the ordinary means before them in the courts or attacks on the weak, people who cannot defend themselves. A society can founder if a Government adopt either of these two courses. We are in the unhappy position that we have a unique Government who manage to adopt both simultaneously. This requires considerable juggling and indeed must place some test on the Cabinet responsibility to which the Tánaiste referred.

This Government have totally failed to tackle the problem of violence in this part of Ireland. We all know why. We all know that they cannot afford to act lest the militant speeches of the man who is no longer in this Dáil, Kevin Boland, should become echoed by similar speeches from the back corner of the Government benches.

The Deputy is just talking nonsense. Any decision taken by the Government will be taken irrespective of anything that the individual to which the Deputy refers says or anybody who thinks like him.

The Tánaiste makes a claim of purity of thought and action on the part of his Government which I have never heard claimed for or attributed to any other Government. Every Government must be concerned, to some degree, with remaining in power. Some Governments are more concerned than others. Some Governments do, as our first Government in this State did, what they think right, even at the expense of not remaining in power. Every Government since then has had to bear in mind the lessons learned when a Government act without regard to political advantage and have to pay the penalty. This Government have never shown themselves unconcerned with remaining in power. No one, even supporters of Fianna Fáil, have been very edified in the last 18 months by the lengths to which they will go to remain in power. The Tánaiste suggests that they are above all this, that they never even think, when they take a Government decision, whether it will secure the support of Deputies Blaney, Brennan, Haughey and so on. This is to make a claim which he cannot expect us, as fellow politicians, to take seriously.

This Government have totally failed to tackle violence in this State. We have had again and again parades of uniformed men openly claiming to be illegal armies tolerated and permitted to parade and to intimidate our people because the persistence of this kind of display does intimidate people when they see a Government unwilling and afraid to act. We have had guns fired in cities and countryside with impunity and no action taken. We have had armed raids occurring with impunity, armed raids which have pointed to the complete breakdown not simply of the system of government but of our judicial system contributed to by the Government's unwillingness to do anything about it. We have the absurd, tragic and intolerable situation in which when men are arrested and charged with serious crimes the courts cannot deal with them then, that week, that month, that year. Because there are not enough judges, not enough court officers, not enough courts, it is impossible for these men to be tried and under our Constitution, which defends the innocence of those charged with crime until they are proved guilty, they have to be released on bail. I do not personally challenge that although things have become so serious that one is permitted to wonder whether that particular principle can be maintained any longer but the answer lies not, I think, in weakening that principle but rather in making the system work. There is only one reason why there are men today raiding banks, out on bail, charged, out on bail again, raiding more banks, watched passively by a police force which cannot act against them. The reason is because the legal system has broken down, because when a man is charged he cannot be brought to trial that month or even that year.

We had statistics in this House in reply to questions a fortnight ago which show that people charged years ago have still not been tried, charged as far back as 1967, if I remember rightly, and not tried four years later. They must be released on bail under our Constitution and laws unless there is evidence that they intend to abscond and they clearly have no intention of absconding from a country in which they can get money so easily by dropping into any bank or post office in their neighbourhood. Unless it can be shown that they intend to abscond they must be released on bail. That problem is one which can be dealt with easily and simply and it is inconceivable to me that this Government should have failed to do so. It is inconceivable that any Government would allow the process of criminal trial to lapse, fall into disuse virtually and create a situation in which men cannot be brought to trial and must be released to commit further crime if they so wish, and create a situation in which police have to follow around men released on bail as they reconnoitre the place for their next raid as has happened within the last couple of weeks in this city. I heard about a week or so ago of a particular case where this happened. It was in Killester. I heard this two days before the raid in Killester. One of these men had been reconnoitring the place, going round the roundabout looking at the various places he was going to raid followed quietly by the police who could take no action about it and who knew that when he committed the raid they could not arrest him. First of all, there would have been the problem of whether if they attempted to do so they would be shot dead. Secondly, if they arrested him he would be released again on bail for another couple of years before anything would be done about it. Two days after I heard of that car circling the roundabout in Killester, followed by the police, there was a raid in Killester. I have no knowledge of whether it was the men I mentioned who committed it but it seems somewhat suggestive that a Member of this House can know of reconnoitring activities having to be watched passively by the police of men out on bail charged with armed robbery and a couple of days later a robbery occurs in that exact place.

If this were occurring in Liberia or Costa Rica we would regard it as a joke or as one of the funny things that happen in far off countries, like the experiences of the ancient people of Georgia, or the queer things that used to happen in Bosnia before the war when it was then a part of a somewhat different Yugoslavia. They are happening here in Ireland, in this relatively civilised country, in this relatively civilised corner of the world. In our Parliament we have a Government— and we as a people permit a Government to remain in office—which will not appoint judges and court officers to try people charged with armed robbery, and solemnly release them to commit more robberies time and time again. This matter has been raised in this House on more than one occasion. What has happened? I have heard, but the public have not been told yet as far as I am aware, that in fact another appointment is to be made, that some action will be taken to appoint one more judge to try to reduce the time lag from four years to three years, or something like that. This has not been announced yet.

I am also told that, even if the Government could get around to this onerous task of finding time to appoint another judge, the judge could not, in fact, operate because the whole system is so run down that there are not enough court officers. As in every other part of the public service, by their neglect the Government have left us without enough officers to carry on in key jobs. Therefore, having an extra judge would be no help if there is nobody to run the court. I am told that it will take some time before such people can be appointed. In the meantime, innocent people will be attacked and robbed; post offices and banks will be raided and criminals, parading from time to time as having some political motivation but showing remarkable reluctance to hand over any of the loot even for a political objective, will continue with impunity while the Government wonder whether at some stage this year or next year they will get around to appointing another judge and some more court officers, and start the long process of making these appointments which should have been made years ago.

If there is one thing a Government are for it is to do the necessary minimum to maintain law and order. Over the centuries Governments have taken on new functions, they are now concerned with things like economic management, but the one thing Governments have always been for is to maintain law and order, to maintain justice, to maintain peace, and to enable people to live without fear. Is there any bank official, is there any sub-postmistress at the moment, who can live without fear? Do they not know, by name, indeed, the men who are likely to call in on them, the men against whom this Government have failed to take any action, the men they have released on bail and not bothered to take the steps to try? Why should we be in a position where innocent people, doing their jobs, do not know at what moment a band of men with guns and stockings or false beards to disguise themselves, although very often everybody knows who they are, will drop in, tie them up, beat them up, and shoot them if necessary and take from them the property they are there to guard?

That is the situation which has been created by this Government. I do not know why. There are times when the Government's failures can be attributed to the fact that they have the wrong policy on some issue. We may think they should be doing a certain thing with the country's money, such as building houses, and the Government may think they should be doing something else. There may be legitimate differences in policies. We are not talking here of vast sums. We are talking about a matter of a few thousand pounds which are required to make the judicial system work. I do not know why the Government have failed to do so. This is a most serious neglect of their duty on the part of the Government.

The Government must tackle this problem. We cannot be left in the situation of having no protection against unscrupulous men who can act with impunity, and boast of it, knowing that no matter what they do, years will elapse during which they can increase their ill-gotten gains before they are likely to be tried finally. Perhaps after three or four years when it comes to their turn to be tried, they will abscond but they will not go until the last moment, until they have collected every last halfpenny they can get from our banks and post offices. Then no doubt they will abscond, as one or two of them did previously. Are we to allow that to happen?

I think there is now sufficient evidence to say in public—one is reluctant to say it; one is certainly reluctant to say it until the evidence is there—that there is now the spectacle of juries, faced with the inaction of this Government which created an atmosphere of intimidation throughout Ireland, failing to convict in the face of clear evidence and open admissions of guilt. We have had this in several cases. There have been some cases where one can argue about the evidence. There is one notable case in which the evidence did not seem adequate to many people. There are other cases where there has been an open admission and proclamation of guilt and where juries, seeing that the Government are conniving at these activities, seeing that the Government are not prepared to take any action, perhaps not unnaturally feel: "Why should we stick our necks out when the Government are not prepared to do anything?"

Juries are composed of men and very occasionally women. We are a people with long memories. You do not have to have a very long memory, you do not have to be any older than I am, and I am not the oldest person in this House, to remember when a juryman's wife and children were killed because he had dared to do his duty as an Irish citizen. People who are called to act on juries in cases of this kind remember that. If they are younger than I am they have heard of it from other people. When they see a Government unwilling to take any action, sometimes they do not see why they should stick their necks out.

Not everybody is a person of great moral and physical courage. Not everybody feels that he must take on himself the onus of protecting and safeguarding the interests of society when he sees the Government failing to do so. This has now begun to happen. We saw it last week and we saw it on other occasions. People have stated: "Yes, I had guns. I had guns for Northern Ireland", and they have been acquitted at that point by the jury. At this stage the combination of the Government's failure to appoint an adequate number of judges and court officials, their failure to act in a manner that would inspire members of juries to do their duty, has led to what now amounts to a complete breakdown of justice and consequently of law and order in this part of the country.

So much for the Government's weakness. As I said before, the Government are unique in combining weakness and timidity in dealing with the real dangers and combining that weakness and timidity with the repressive attitude that it is safer to act where people do not carry guns but protest and do such dreadful things—not raiding a bank— that is not of any importance—or shooting people or blowing things up —that type of thing is tolerable— as having the nerve actually to occupy somebody else's empty house before it is knocked down for development. Then this Government will be courageous and will act, and will take up the time of this House day after day over six months in order to deal with these desperate criminals who are safe to deal with, men who will not take very violent action, men who are not any threat to the Government, men who perhaps have not got the same powerful friends in the Fianna Fáil Party, a party who have not got that many members who are sympathetic to people who are short of housing, but rather more members who are concerned with the developers and their problems.

So this courageous Government come along with their Criminal Justice Bill which, however, they had to drop. In the Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill which they have forced through this House, and will now presumably force through the other House, they endeavour to ensure that criticism of their activities will be minimised—I need not go over that after the events of the past few weeks—not only by legislation such as that which we have had, but also by the pressures put on to ensure as far as possible that radio and television will toe the line and operate an adequate system of auto-censorship.

I do not think Ministers like having to ring up RTE. They recognise that it is necessary, for a period of years, to create the pressures in order to achieve this auto-censorhip hoping, if they keep at it for a few years the system will operate itself because, especially if they use the tribunal mechanism, the time will come when people in RTE who feel they have other things to do than spend weary months before a tribunal of judges defending the details of a programme will decide that it is easier to get on with their job and avoid trouble, and the Government have very carefully worked things out so that that process will operate as far as possible. Fortunately, there are still courageous people who are not prepared to toe the line but certainly it is much more difficult for people in RTE to put on the programmes they used to today than it was a couple of years ago.

We also have as evidence of the Government's willingness to be firm where it is safe to be firm the fact that so many Bills coming through this House contain what I regard as repressive provisions, provisions which give the Government more power where it does not need power, provisions like those in the Higher Education Authority Bill, designed to make sure that there will be the minimum amount of freedom for a body purporting to be autonomous. We have the same thing, though even worse, in the College of Art Bill which unfortunately has not reached us because of the Government's determination to force through the repressive Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, 1970, when they should have been dealing with the much more serious problem that arises in the College of Art—but that takes second place. Everything takes second place when there is a little bit of repression to be carried out. We had the Minister's and Secretaries Bill setting up a new Department in the Public Service upon which the entire reform, 50 years overdue, of the public service depends. Has this been brought before the House? No, we have inquired for it occasionally but the Government do not regard that as of any importance. The reform of the public service, the implementing of the Devlin Report, trying to get an efficient system of government which will work smoothly, efficiently and adequately—that does not matter. The important thing is to deal with these great menaces to our society, the squatters. Efficient administration—that can wait; the menace of the IRA—that can wait; but where there is a little bit of repressive legislation to be put through, everything else must take second place.

It is time the Government sat back and looked at their public image and looked at the way in which they have been handling our affairs for the past couple of years. I suppose that if one is in government for a long time, one does lose touch. We have had evidence of that—I think we had evidence of it in the first Cumann na nGaedheal Government in its closing years and certainly evidence of it with Fianna Fáil in 1948 and we have certainly had evidence recently, but even a Government which inevitably after a long period in office tends to lose touch is capable of sitting back and taking stock and the best time to do it, I humbly suggest, is the long summer recess. I think that the Fianna Fáil Party could usefully, without perhaps some of its members who are no great help to it, have a weekend seminar—let its hair down—to consider where it stands and whether some greater reconciliation of these two different arms of policy— weakness in the face of a real threat to our society and repressive action where they feel that repressive action is safe, could not be brought together. Could we not in the next session have a reversal of these arrangements, a new resolve by Fianna Fáil that they would deal firmly with the real threats in our society and leave on one side these minor problems on which they have been wont to spend so much of their time in pursuit of their present attitudes?

How are they at this stage to tackle the real threat to our society at present? By applying the normal process of law to those who seek to destroy our society and proclaim their intention of setting up in this country, South as well as North, a military dictatorship. Do I have to tell them—apparently I do—what the normal processes of law are? First of all when people commit offences against the laws of this country, offences associated with illegal armies and with violence, the Government should, as the inter-Party Government did, regardless of the effect on its popularity with some floating voters at that time, 1956 and 1957, charge these people either with summary offences in a court of summary jurisdiction, with six months sentences, or by indictment by way of jury trial.

I know, and I have already said, that as far as the latter is concerned, there will be cases in which juries will not convict. It may well be that if the Government pursue the course they should pursue of charging those who are threatening our society with the offences they are committing and proclaiming they are committing—publicly admitting to and announcing that they are committing—in a number of cases they will not secure conviction. Possibly even some district justice may not have the courage to do his duty. This can happen, but I do not think it will. It is quite possible, and we have seen it already, that juries will not do their duty, but let the normal process of the law take its course. Let the Government prosecute and if repeatedly over a period of time, it emerges that the law has broken down and that because of the way the Government have allowed this evil to grow, the courts are not able to deal with it, juries are afraid to deal with it and witnesses are intimidated, as happened in another recent case—if these things happen and are shown to happen, and our people can see that they are happening, our people and this Opposition will support the Government in the next stage.

What is the next stage? Not internment. The next stage, because these things must be done in due order and with process of law stage by stage, is that if the jury system breaks down and district justices fail to convict in cases brought before them—if that does happen and I do not think it will—in that event, and only in that event, the Government can proceed and can get power to proceed—and have done so before—to act without juries, through special criminal courts. This can be done. It should not be done and should never be done, unless it has been shown that it is essential and that the system has broken down. That must be shown first.

May I say that when and if the time comes, unhappily, in this country, to establish special criminal courts, I hope the Government will have the common sense to appoint to them judges and that the past practice, which may have been thought necessary in the past, but which I think is undesirable, of appointing military officers, will not be resorted to. This places an unfair burden on the Army and it is not their job. Internment can only arise in any democratic society with a democratic Government in certain special circumstances, only if the normal processes have failed, if trial by jury has failed, and if trial without jury has failed. If that happens and if despite using the full panoply of the law, including the emergency laws—if all that fails—and the country is then faced with the threat of civil war, at that stage and in that last resort, internment may be necessary. No Opposition can say to a Government: "You can never in any circumstances intern anybody without trial." In the last resort, society must be able to defend itself, but only in the last resort.

What have this Government done? They have talked lightly of introducing internment before they have even had anybody up before a jury, never mind before a special criminal court, arising out of some imaginary pub talk about an assassination plot. Internment can only arise if the problem is on such a scale that civil war is threatened and society as a whole is threatened and when all other methods have failed. This Government have discredited themselves by threatening to resort to internment at a stage when they have not begun to use the normal processes of law and they perhaps have made it more difficult for them to proceed according to the proper process. Let us not hear any more of internment until and unless other methods have failed and if this Government can come to this House at some stage and say "We went through trial by jury; witnesses were intimidated, juries were intimidated and we had to introduce special criminal courts. We did that: we charged people, but the scale of the problem is such that we are now threatened with civil war and the only solution is internment", the Government will get from this party support in that action—then and only then; but it will get that support when necessary because this Party has always stood by any Government, no matter how much it is opposed to it, which, acting properly and with due process, seeks to protect the liberties and lives of our people and the society in which we live.

In all this we cannot ignore Northern Ireland and one very good reason, if the Government need any other good reason for not introducing internment when they have not tried out the ordinary process of law is the effect this would have in Northern Ireland. The first good reason for not using internment is that it is wrong to use it until it is shown to be necessary. The second good reason is that, it being wrong and being seen to be wrong, any Government which does introduce it when it is not in fact necessary at that point— such a Government will lose the confidence and support of public opinion which it will need to carry through its policies of dealing with the threat to society.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn