I move:
That the Dáil do now adjourn until Wednesday, 19th January, 1972.
Adjournment of Dáil: Motion.
When speaking last evening I dealt with the peculiar 18 months or two years through which we have lived in this parliamentary assembly, culminating now in a form of parliamentary apartheid in the Fianna Fáil Party. Foremost in everybody's mind at present are the unfortunate circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland and the vexed question of Partition.
Partition was imposed on this country by an Act of Parliament of the British House of Commons. There was a time when the people were almost persuaded that it was Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal who did it. Certainly there were followers of the Fianna Fáil Party up and down the country who shouted this from every platform. Partition is not the work of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. It is the work of the British House of Commons. I suppose it all began many years earlier when the first movements were made in Northern Ireland to prevent this country securing Home Rule. Although both parties can be absolved of responsibility in respect of its perpetuone party cannot be absolved of responsibility in respect of its perpetuation, and that is the Fianna Fáil Party.
Our particular history has made it difficult to secure the necessary psychological background towards the abolition of Partition. Down through our history the attitude of the dominant regime in the South here towards political movements has varied. Sometimes they favoured them; sometimes they did not. I believe that the Fenians in their time were not favoured. After their failure to secure Home Rule and after the Deferment Bill was passed in the House of Commons on the same day as the Home Rule Bill was passed, the Sinn Féin movement still did not secure a foothold in this country. Even after the 1916 Rebellion Sinn Féin were still not a strong political force. Following this Deferment Bill in the House of Commons Britain made a second error in their judgment of this country. They seem prone to make errors in respect of the Irish situation. They made this second error by a measure not often mentioned nowadays and that was by introducing conscription here in 1918. Conscription culminated in every altar being a political platform and in every political platform being manned by politicians of all grades and by churchmen.
There was born the concept of faith and fatherland. It was that particular philosophy which has permeated political thinking and attitudes since then. It is that approach which has buried Wolfe Tone in our society. The Connolly concept of humanity and social thinking was equally buried. In our own time the spirit of Pope John has been buried by this sectarian approach. This has been accentuated under Fianna Fáil. Shortly after getting into power they tinkered immediately with the Constitution. The 1922 Constitution which could be regarded as non-sectarian was replaced by a 1937 Constitution which had strong sectarian overtones.
Powerful interests combined to perpetuate Partition. Perhaps I should not use the word "combined". Perhaps I should use the word "compounded". Perhaps I should use the word "conspired". There were commercial interests north and south of the Border. There were commercial interests where substantial subventions were coming to the North from the British Government. There was better money for farmers. The commercial interests south of the Border were affected by the policy of self-sufficiency and associated protectionism which began under Cumann na nGaedheal and was accentuated later under Fianna Fáil. The sectarian interests are obvious, but I do not want to dwell on these. There were political interests. The political interests of the Unionists in the North and of Fianna Fáil down here were to remain in power. The only difference between the Unionists and Fianna Fáil was that the Unionists were honest about Partition and Fianna Fáil were not.
Most people in the South can recall the years after Fianna Fáil came to power, when at every Fianna Fáil meeting they had the catchcry of the two long-standing problems: the restoration of the Irish language and the abolition of Partition. Their approach to the abolition of Partition was ingenious. I believe there were many rank and file Fianna Fáil members who believed it was an honest approach, but if you take an animal to the fair and you do not want to sell it, what do you do? You ask an impossible price. The impossible price demanded by Fianna Fáil for the ending of Partition was that it should be ended on their terms, on the southern terms, namely, that a Gaelic culture should be accepted, that the Irish language should be accepted and, perhaps, that the Northern Protestants should sing "Faith of our Fathers" instead of "The Sash".
It is clear that that aggressive, militant and sectarian approach could not bring us one step towards the solving of the question of Partition. It was diabolically calculated to perpetuate it and, thereby, perpetuate Fianna Fáil who, until the last election, when they began to fight among themselves as to who would be Leader, looked as if they would remain in power to the end of the century. Does anybody believe that a party who are prepared to commit political hara-kiri in order to remain in power, a party who are prepared to indulge in the greatest "gut job"in Irish history, wished to bring into our society, to have represented in a national assembly, a million Protestants who, by their arrival, might put the little boat in difficulty? "Why rock the boat? We were doing nicely. Why bring these boys in? Let us keep on talking about it, and talking about it in an aggressive fashion. Let us keep on hurling insults across the Border to make very sure the Border will remain, because that is our lifeline; it is our insurance policy; that is the thing that will keep us in power."
This is my interpretation of Fianna Fáil philosophy. I could not be convinced otherwise. In my lifetime I have never seen a single reasonable effort made by this political party now in power honestly to approach this question of Partition. The late Mr. Lemass did make one venture across the Border and had a cup of tea. However, efforts were made by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in a more practical way long before that, to which no recognition has been given.
Mr. James Dillion did it 20 years ago.
Yes. Essentially the blame must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the party who should have taken the initiative, the party who were in power almost continuously since 1930 and did nothing whatsoever about it except to use "Up the Republic" as a catchcry at every street corner. These shibboleths were trotted out at every Fianna Fáil gathering once a year and the faithful went back home spiritually reassured that Fianna Fáil were still on the right lines. Remember, this was not a party. Fianna Fáil did not regard themselves, in their early days particularly, as a party. They regarded themselves as a movement.
They still do. A national movement. A Republican Party.
With "The Republican Party" in brackets underneath.
The Deputy would not know anything about republicanism, being a member of the party of the sell-out.
The party of the sell-out?
On Partition.
Are we going to fight it all over again, the Treaty debate, and so on?
Partition was a fact when Collins and Griffith went over to London to negotiate the Treaty
The next Leader of the Fine Gael Party should not be so thin-skinned
I do not like facts being falsified by any side.
(Interruptions.)
The same Act of Parliament exists today, and what have Fianna Fáil done about it? Have they done any more than Collins, with his small guerrilla force behind him, did? He did come back with a Thirty-two County administration with the proviso, in accordance with the British 1920 Act, that the Northern Ireland Parliament could opt out within one month, and, in effect, they opted out within three days. The Treaty was established following the arrival in Belfast of King George V. In the course of his speech he expressed concern at the deplorable circumstances and conditions in which his southern subjects were living, and on the morrow of that Treaty the truce was established and in the autumn of that year negotiations began. The Stormont Parliament was then an entity, not where the present building is but in another part of Belfast, but it was still a parliament already opened by the king. At that time Lloyd George was head of the Liberal Party, a member of an inter-party Government, a party who were no longer the dominant party in Britain. Even if Lloyd George so wished he could not have secured repeal of the 1920 Act in the British House of Commons. Does history not tell us that twice or three times Home Rule was thrown out of the British House of Lords? It was only when Gladstone modified the powers of the Lords that eventually, around 1914, the Home Rule Bill was passed.
This is the sell-out the Parliamentary Secretary is talking about, the sell-out by a leader of Collins and Griffith and the signing of the Treaty at a stage when, as I said, Partition was a fact and an Act of the British House of Commons, and nothing has been done since to alter that. The difficulty is now that, for the first time, this Fianna Fáil Party have been shown up as being completely ineffectual. On the doctrine of force they have had to swallow their words.
They have persistently pursued a dishonest policy in that regard. They speak with divers tongues. Some speak out in forceful tones and yet other sections of them are quietly behind the scenes speaking in an opposite fashion in the hope of collecting a few votes from certain sections of our socitey. This is what I adverted to last night. This is what I meant when I said that one did not know nowadays how much one could trust the Fianna Fáil Party. I have nothing against Fianna Fáil members individually. It is the collective performance, as a political entity, which I find degarding and dishonest. Everybody who pauses to think for one second must accept that, even if we had the power of Hitler in his time and we were in a position to resolve the northern problem by force, we would still not have solved it, because one million captive people would be simply a gross embarrassment to us and not what we want, a people co-operating with us.
I would like to see here the evolution of a pluralist society. In every white race in the world, we have a liberalist pluralist society. This is the last bastion of narrow sectarian thinking, North and South. It is not for me to criticise other sections of our community as well as the political one but perhaps other sections of our community are open to criticism to a pose we are all open to criticism to a greater or lesser extent, but it is my duty here to place the criticism mainly where I think it should be placed.
In the past, criticism has been made about this question of the Boundary. I presume Deputy Andrews would say that Cumann na nGaedheal did another sell out there. I think I heard Deputy Blaney bleating in that fashion on one occasion. I did not live through the days of the Boundary Commission. Only the very senior Members of the House would be conversant with these particular circumstances. As I understand it, the delineation of the Boundary was something to be dealt with after the Treaty was signed, just as some of the bits and pieces will have to be filled in with regard to our entry to the Common Market.
The northern community retained to itself sufficient territory to perpetuate a one-sided system, to perpetuate Unionist domination in the northern Administration. Six counties were allocated to the northern Administration. It left in its wake an imbalanced society, a society in which, with a tendency to religious polarisation, there was a two-to-one ratio. That is an unhealthy situation in the type of environment which has traditionally prevailed there.
The problem which faces everybody who has an interest, direct or indirect, in this problem is how to undo this type of population imbalance. If one could work it out like something on a map one could do a population shift and introduce a balanced society but in the realms of practical politics these things cannot be done. The general approach in the South for many years has been to suggest acquiring more and more territory and to add to the Twenty-six Counties. It is questionable whether that would not aggravate the situation. There was a notion that if the northern territory was very small it would not be a viable entity. Even at six counties some of the northern Ministers in the early stages, Craig and others, believed that as an entity it would not exist. Of course, such an entity would exist if it was only four counties, two counties or only Belfast so long as it was subsidised from an outside source. After all Gibraltar exists as an independent entity due to subsidisation from Britain. The argument that the North will not survive as a unit falls down as long as the parent body, the British House of Commons, is prepared to pay sufficient money to keep it going.
Other people have taken the view that the six counties should have been seven counties or larger in order to provide a balanced population. If that suggestion is promulgated you will meet with objections in the south. This would be regarded as a sell-out on the part of the south. There is no simple answer to this. It is completely childish thinking to say that there was a sell-out on the question of the boundary because I do not think, even now, there would be unanimity as to whether the Border should be pushed up or down. If anybody here suggested that it should be pushed downwards, that the northern community should be enlarged and thereby provide a balanced society and fifty-fifty population which could give you change of Governments in the context of a united Ireland and which would, maybe, one day vote itself into a united Ireland you would be immediately confronted with the argument that you were selling out on the south.
I have been told that at the time these negotiations were going on the suggestion was that part of Donegal should be handed over to Northern Ireland but the northern community rejected it perhaps on the basis that it was too poor, perhaps on the basis that it was too Catholic and that the two-to-one ratio, which they had secured under the present delineation of the Boundary, would be upset. I have never been able to understand the half-baked accusations which sometimes emanate from the far side of the House, and this morning from Deputy Andrews, accusing this side of the House of a sell-out. There was no sell-out as far as I can judge from my reading of history in respect of the Treaty negotiations, in respect of the establishment of this State or subsequently in respect of the delineation of the Boundary. If I was there tomorrow morning and I had absolute power as to where to draw that Boundary I would have much thinking to know whether I should move the Boundary up or down.
No matter which way you moved it you would be in trouble.
You would be blamed whatever you did, and with the best intentions, and even if your purpose was to provide a balanced society and you told the world that, could you tell the southern Irishman that?
Wipe it out altogether.
An original suggestion from the other side of this House.
An original suggestion, indeed. That is what we would all like to do, but we will argue about the ways to do it. I do not object to honest dialogue as to how we will do it, but I certainly object to the attitude adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party down through the years, the Green Tory party which tried to persuade the people, and succeeded to some extent unfortunately, that they had the solution to partition and that they were the sole custodians of Irish nationalism. No matter how big an impostor one is, if one keeps on telling lies long enough, one eventually comes to believe in one's own imposture.
Hear, hear.
What is the sum total of our efforts here? We have buried in the one forgotten grave three great men, Wolfe Tone, Connolly and Pope John. They are merely names in our society. They represent nothing in our society today. Because of the distorted development Fianna Fáil have imposed on our historical evolution over the past 30 or 40 years the noble concepts behind the thinking of these three great men has been cast into oblivion.
They would not want the Border anyhow. They would not be sitting down wondering would they move it up or down.
They would not want the Border. Connolly and Wolfe Tone never wanted a Border. It is Fianna Fáil who want the Border. Fianna Fáil have survived on the Border and it is Fianna Fáil who want to keep the Border. Fianna Fáil are the custodians of partition. They are the real partitionists; they will stand to be condemned by posterity and, when history comes to be written, Fianna Fáil will be written down, analysed and dissected out as exactly that. To be sure, there is now some rethinking in the Fianna Fáil Party. The "standing idly by" proclamation turned out to be a damp squib. It was followed immediately by a conciliatory speech in Tralee and, since then, face to face with the factual situation, Fianna Fáil, as a party, have had to climb down on this question of taking over the fourth green field by force. We are now at the stage at which they are prepared to sit back and review the situation. But that is a welcome change. Nobody was more pleased than I was personally when this House passed a unanimous vote here—perhaps not unanimous in the heart—agreeing that we would put aside the question of force as a solution to our national problems.
I think every right-minded Deputy welcomed that. Surely every right-minded Deputy must deplore the fact that 200 lives have been lost in the last couple of years in the North. I spend my time trying to save life. You can appreciate how bitterly disappointing it is to me and how I turn away in revulsion from the idea of any man taking upon himself the right to take another man's life.
We, on this side of the House, have always held to the simple concept that in any organised society there must be only one parliament, one government, one army and one judiciary. If anything else is countenanced then society is moving down the road to anarchy. I assume that the majority of the Fianna Fáil Party accept that. Certainly every member of this party accepts it. I presume the members of the Labour Party accept it. But is there a minority in Fianna Fáil which does not accept it and, if there is, even if there is a minority which has reservations on that unanimous vote here, then that party over there continues to govern with that minority in its midst and dependent on the votes of that minority, a minority with mental reservations, and the question immediately arises as to whether that Government is morally entitled to go on governing? Should it not seek a new mandate from the people? Do Fianna Fáil Deputies not feel that they are now governing under false pretences?
Is it not the same in every democratic country if a party has a majority?
A majority by subterfuge.
There is not a majority on those benches any longer.
The same majority as the two inter-Party Governments had.
There is a mental cleavage certainly in the Fianna Fáil Party. They are in the position now in which some members of the party— may be they are ex-members, but they assert they are still members—are looking for special quarters. They cannot bear the sight, the smell, the proximity of the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party and they are looking for special accommodation, a specially fumigated chamber for themselves.
They even prefer the dungeons.
Indeed I believe they are quite prepared to go to the basement to relieve themselves of the noxious circumstances of having to see their fellow-members every so often in the corridors. The only difficulty now is arranging the Members' bar. Will we have some kind of——
The Deputy is not suggesting more partition, is he?
Partition? We have parliamentary apartheid here in Leinster House now.
The Deputy has been drawing lines here all the morning so he will probably draw a few more.
That particular accommodation was designed for one Independent and we now have six. I think we should consult the Corporation. There would appear to be overcrowding.
The Deputy should not talk so loudly. The Deputy looks like having a few himself.
A few what?
Dissidents.
I did not know the Deputy recognised dissidents.
I have dealt with the political situation. I want to keep the Government Deputies in good humour and, if I went any further, I might subject them to some strain. I want now to say a few words about the economic situation. Unemployment was mentioned. It is difficult nowadays to know exactly the number of unemployed and to make a comparison with the number ten or 12 years ago when one could compare like with like. I think it was in 1968 there was some kind of rearrangement, or fiddle, with regard to unemployment figures and over 10,000 or 12,000 were taken off the register and put into some other catalogue. At the moment the official figures are 70,000. If one adds on the redundants, and redundancy is another form of unemployment; as far as I know, these people are not working— one gets a figure of 76,000. When one takes into account the fiddle which was done in 1968 to make the figures comparable with pre-1968 figures there are approaching 100,000 unemployed, which is a staggering figure.
That is the Deputy's own figure.
The Deputy is open to give his figure when he stands up and I am sure it will be different from mine—it will be deflated.
The Deputy does not seem to have a great grasp of it.
Does the Deputy not agree that the redundancy figure has to be added to the numbers unemployed?
In certain cases only.
If a man is redundant, I understand he is not working.
No, if a man emigrates Fianna Fáil do not count him any longer.
Emigration has stopped. Did the Taoiseach not say yesterday that emigration was finished. People cannot emigrate to Britain because there are already one million unemployed there. They have to stay at home.
There is always Australia.
They are waiting for the Common Market.
The seventies are going to resemble the thirties.
Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Government are going to introduce assisted passages to Australia?
What about 1957?
What about the 100,000 new jobs without any increase in taxation? I am pleased to hear the Government are going to introduce a malicious injuries Bill. I hope it will take some of the burden off county councils in regard to the destruction of property which has arisen from the Government's neglecting to do their duty. In north Tipperary we had the Silvermines incident and claims of up to £5 million have been mentioned by the mining company. Rates in north Tipperary are already about £5 in the £ and if this claim is levied on the country council the rates will have to be doubled. This will be a very serious matter for the ratepayers concerned. I do not know what award will be given in respect of the Silvermines incident but clearly this is a matter where the Government should be held responsible because county councils do not provide a police force as they do in Britain. If the Government allow law and order to break down and serious accidents of that nature occur it is the Government's responsibility to come to the aid of the local authority. When Nelson Pillar was blown up and property was damaged Dublin Corportation did not have to face the compensation which had to be paid.
The increase in the cost of living, which in any society is a fundamental cause of social unrest, is continuing unabated here. There has been an 8 per cent increase in the cost of living each year for the past three years. This means that anything one buys will cost about 25 per cent more now than it did three years ago. That is an average figure. Deputy Cosgrave recently asked a question about the items which formed the cost of living index and in the reply the movement in price of these items was given in the form of a tabular statement. As far as I can recall the most outstanding increases—I am probably forgetting some of them— were in the postal charges, CIE fares and motor taxation. The biggest culprit was not the ordinary trader but the Government. Increased charges by State and semi-State bodies had the greatest impact on the cost-of-living index. To this can be added increases in general taxation, the introduction of decimalisation. I am sure that could be called an inflationary move, increase in corporation profits tax and the impending imposition of value-added tax. These are all Government measures. We also had the Minister for Health, who is a quiet, inoffensive, little man, introducing a Bill by means of which he put his hand into people's pockets and took out £7 million. I do not know what the public are going to get for the £7 million. I do not know of any new service being provided. I asked the Minister and he gave me a two or three page reply and even though I have read it two or three times I still cannot analyse it. All I was able to gather was that the Minister for Health was doing the gathering and the man in the street was not going to get anything extra for his £7 million. The Taoiseach spoke of a growth rate of 3 per cent. I do not think the fellow down the country knows what a growth rate of 3 per cent means.
To tell the truth, I do not think anybody understands what it means. I doubt if it has any meaning.
I do not know. I have often wondered. I have no doubt the Deputy on my left will contradict me on that.
He believes in figures as I have said already.
There are some figures which even Fianna Fáil Deputies can understand. These are the ordinary trade figures, which show the gap between what we export and what we import. That gap is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, even allowing for Fianna Fáil inflation of 8 per cent.
The trade gap is increasing at a higher rate than inflation which, rapid as it is, cannot keep up with the trade deficit. It is all right to talk about our money abroad or to give it the new name, external reserves. It is very nice to have sterling reserves but how much are of them are ours and how much are hot money we have in this country at present?
We are borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.
We are now borrowing in a dangerous manner—abroad.
And that is how the reserves are going up.
At the same time we have 90 hotels for auction at present. How many Dublin hotels are now in the hands of Irish nationals? When I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other day about how much property and share capital was in the hands of Irish people I was told there was no record kept and he is now inquiring about what type of records are kept by other countries as to how much control of the country's affairs remains in the hands of its nationals. This is a serious matter for us. A Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Kyne, spent his life fighting against the power of American money taking control of Canadian affairs. We, as a small island on the verge of Europe, must be eternally vigilant to see that our resources are not undetermined and that the cheque book conquest does not become a reality in our time. This is real patriotism; shouting "Up the Republic" is not patriotism. To conserve our resources for our people is true patriotism and here Fianna Fáil have failed significantly.
Before I sit down I want to deal with one point which I already mentioned in relation to a debate last week. It is important and it does not seem to concern any particular Department and so it is not inappropriate to mention it in what may be termed a general discussion. This is the matter of regional development. The debate on entry to the Common Market is associated in most people's minds particularly in the case of the farming and rural community, with the improved prices we may get or anticipate for agricultural produce. Prices can vary and what may appear attractive now may not be so attractive in two or three years. It may be that further price increases for food products in the Common Market may be slowed down and that the trend may be towards using the Social Fund and towards regional development.
This is one field where I believe we have not done our homework. The importance of regional development to us may well exceed the importance of the price increases which may obtain in the Common Market. Every other country in Europe has a regional policy pretty well formulated and very substantial amounts of money have been spent on Southern Italy to improve backward areas. Most European countries have backward areas. The regional policy will be controlled by regional commissioners whose object is to prevent money being spent in already developed areas and, in the concept of Europe, not only the West of Ireland but the whole of this island, could be regarded as a peripheral undeveloped area in respect of the high proportion of population engaged in agriculture, the thinness of the population and per capita income. We qualify under every heading.
We have in operation for some time, since 1965, a Land Commission policy which bears some resemblance to the Mansholt Plan; though not as generous perhaps, the basis is somewhat the same. It has not worked for the simple reason that there has been no alternative place for displaced persons to go, no alternative employment for them. Small farmers with unprofitable farms all over the country, and particularly in the West have not availed themselves of our Land Commission plan nor, perhaps, will they avail themselves of the Mansholt Plan until a regional development plan is co-ordinated with it. It is regional development associated with the Mansholt Plan that will make this concept viable. At present nearly every Department is interesting itself in regional development and at local level we have regional teams. The Industrial Development Authority is interested in this. The other day I listed all the bodies and Departments that I knew had in one way or another interested themselves in regional development. This is like pollution; when you have too many different groups and organisations feeling that this is the "in" thing for them and trying to make it their own particular interest the result is the problem is not tackled comprehensively.
Regional development in the context of our society may even merit a new Ministry. It certainly merits a degree of centralisation, attention and control which it has not so far received. It is not a matter in which you can speak in a very rousing manner: it is very much a drab, bread-and-butter concept; you cannot very easily get it across to the public but those who sit back and reflect in the context of our type of society and particularly the rural parts and the less well-off parts, will realise that it is of extreme importance. The Mansholt Plan to my mind, no more than our own Land Commission Plan, will not work unless it is integrated with an active regional development plan. It should be centralised and proceeded with now. We cannot expect, and it is pointless to do so, that the Common Market will prepare a regional plan for us. They do it for no country; each country is responsible for its own development and planning on these lines. It may provide technical aid and it will provide the funds.
The plan has to meet with their approval and in that respect we have not done our homework. I know the Government have been too absorbed with more difficult problems. Their internal problems have been tremendous in the last year and a half. Now, in 1972 when they make up their mandate from the people—which they will not get—they might have more time to address themselves to the ordinary bread and butter issues they have neglected in the last 18 months.
Deputy Corish rose.
Before Deputy Corish speaks, may I make an inquiry regarding the length of speeches? Is it correct that at 2 p.m. a Labour speaker will make the concluding speech? With respect to the Chair, might I point out that the speeches are far too long. Everyone should get a chance of making some contribution; it is unfair that there should be a monopoly by some speakers here. They are trying to corner all the time. This is not with reference to Deputy Corish in any way.
It has been agreed that a Member nominated by the Labour Party will speak at 1.45 p.m.
I take Deputy Carter's point. Of course, the solution was with the Government. They could have given three days for this debate because it would take at least that time to talk about the many problems that exist. However, in deference to Deputy Carter I shall do my best.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is only one Member present on the Fianna Fáil benches. Could we have a House please?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
In his review of 1971 and in describing the prospects for 1972, with the best will in the world the Taoiseach could not conceal what we must all regard as a depressing situation and according to his own speech, the outlook for 1972 is even more depressing. This depression is reflected in the attitude of the people when one considers the three important topics that have been mentioned by practically every Deputy in this debate —the North, the economy and the EEC. Apart from that and the low morale of the people, there is a decided change in the attitude of the people towards the Government, the Dáil, and public representatives generally. This is a dangerous situation, for which Fianna Fáil are entirely responsible.
One of the reasons for this is the isolation of the Government from the people. They are unaware of their day-to-day problems; they have been taking the people for granted, and I must confess have been doing so successfully for a long time. The time has come for the Government to change their attitude and policy if they wish to preserve the credibility of this House and of government. Perhaps some Deputies in Fianna Fáil may answer that they do not hear any criticism but it is dangerous when they do not hear such criticisms. I can tell them that we hear much criticism with regard to the three matters I mentioned. There is a feeling of hopelessness, of drifting, among the people. This attitude of drifting has come from the Government; with regard to prices, employment, the EEC and the North their attitude is, "What is the use?" This situation must be checked and it is up to the Government to do it.
The Government should not think that because of the natural focus of attention on the North the state of the economy can be ignored. I should not like to say they have taken refuge in the northern situation to ignore other matters in this country but it appears that this is what has happened. All the signs are there, and they were verified in an unenthusiastic speech by the Taoiseach yesterday that there is a severe deterioration in the economy and that 1971 has proved to be a disastrous year.
The key economic failure of the Government is with regard to employment. No more do we hear references to the First, Second or Third Programmes for Economic Expansion because the targets of these programmes were not reached and in the three cases the margins were very wide. I have heard taunts in this House about the unemployment figures for 1957—incidentally, three-quarters of which Fianna Fáil were responsible for—but if things go on as they are at the moment, no longer will members of the Government party be able to throw that taunt across the House. Once again, we are dangerously near the period when we will have 100,000 unemployed. I do not believe that the injection of £20 million some time ago by the Minister for Finance will change the situation in any way. With increasing redundancies and the closure of factories, unfortunately we will get to the stage where we will reach the 100,000 unemployment mark. This is by far the highest rate of unemployment of the six EEC countries and the applicant countries. None of them has an unemployment rate of 8 per cent. I would go so far as to say that I do not think any of these ten countries has an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. Yet we appear to be enthusiastic —perhaps we are whistling going past the graveyard—about entering the EEC.
According to the forecast of the Economic and Social Research Institute, the unemployment situation is not likely to improve in 1972. The tragic thing for those who are now unemployed, and for those who may become unemployed in 1972, is that there appears to be no real concern on the part of the Government and no initiative to correct that situation. As far as the availability of jobs is concerned there is nothing in that field to make us feel enthusiastic or optimistic. In 1964 there were 1,071,000 jobs available. In 1970 the figure was 1,066,000, a decrease of 5,000 jobs.
When questioned in this House about unemployment, the policy of the Government has been to be very, very vague, to say the least of it. We all recognise this when a question is put down about the numbers unemployed and asking the Taoiseach what will be done about it. Nothing has been done about it and nothing will be done about it. Unfortunately, 1972 will be worse than 1971 unless there is a change of direction and a change of policy by the Government.
Therefore, judging the Government's economic record in that field we must say very emphatically that they have failed dismally.
We must also condemn the Government for their failure to develop adequate tools for preparing Irish industry for free trade. It has shown itself in many areas to be totally unprepared for the competition that now faces us from abroad, and the competition which has faced us and is becoming increasingly intensified under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement now in its fifth or sixth year. This is one of the key factors causing the record rate of redundancies over the past two or three years, to which most Deputies have referred. May I repeat the figure that has often been mentioned in this debate? This year alone, 7,500 people will become redundant.
I do not know what sort of thinking there is in the Fianna Fáil Party or in the Fine Gael Party when they talk about the EEC, having regard to the massive redundancy figures. I have a list here, a dismal litany, of people who have been made redundant in 15 to 20 areas of Irish industry: food, tobacco and drink, 751 redundancies; textiles, 961; clothing and footwear, 349; personal services, 355; motor repairs, 208; distributive trades, 578; building and construction, 347. Is there any glimmer of hope that the Government will do anything to curtail that trend? No amount of airy-fairy talk by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance or any other Minister will suggest to me that they are serious about finding a real remedy.
The picture is not any brighter when one considers the annual growth. We must revert back to the three programmes for economic expansion, the three blueprints which were supposed to provide so many jobs, bring industries to this country and do such wonderful things for the economy. Under the First Programme for Economic Expansion from 1959 to 1963 the annual growth was 4 per cent. Under the Second Programme it was 3.3 per cent and under the third, between 1969 and 1971, it is estimated at 2.8 per cent. Therefore, our economy suffered under those three programmes rather than achieving what they were supposed to achieve according to those who promoted them, the Fianna Fáil Party. This slow growth makes it virtually impossible to create employment opportunities or to get the full employment we were promised.
I would say that we are further away from full employment than we were in 1965, and further away from full employment than we were on the introduction of the First Programme for Economic Expansion. The short-term economic policy of the Government must be blamed. There has been no attempt at a long-term policy to provide industries and employment. They are still using the same old policies—or can one even describe them as policies? They are stop-gap policies as, indeed, was the introduction by the Minister for Finance of his proposal to inject £20 million into the economy. All of these things should have been provided for in the last Budget and the Budget before that. We should not do this thing in a piecemeal way. Because it is now too late I do not believe that the Minister's injection of £20 million will correct this awful siuation in which we have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent. These policies have failed. They have proved to be failures over the past 15 years. We wonder when will the Government learn that these old conservative policies which are attuned to a capitalist society have failed and that new ones must be adopted.
I am sure that inside his own family every member of the Fianna Fáil Party recognises the anger that is felt about increases in prices. I want to say to the Minister for Finance, who is present in the House, that the value-added tax will not contribute to the stabilisation of prices or the reduction of prices. As far as the administration of that tax is concerned, according to the retailers, if it is administered as the Minister wants to administer it, it will cause a further increase in prices to the extent of 3 or 4 per cent.
Certainly 1971 was a depressing year for the housewife. The anticipated rise by the end of this year will be in the region of 9 per cent. Of course the price of some very important industrial items has increased at a faster rate than 9 per cent. In relation to houses the increase was 15 per cent. All of us must appreciate what that means to the young married couples who are faced with colossal bills for houses they need so badly, and to others who need houses so badly too. I said that the overall increase is estimated to be 9 per cent. For the people in the city of Dublin the increase over the past 12 months was 13.8 per cent. The increase in relation to fuel and light, which are so necessary for old people and particularly those down the country, was 12 per cent. This is, indeed, a period of very high inflation. Judging by the tone and the brevity of the Taoiseach's speech yesterday there seems to be no concern whatsoever about that depressing situation. There is no visible attempt—no attempt that I know of— to control prices. The Government have the legislation; they may not have the machinery. No attempt whatsoever has been made to curb the ever-increasing prices of foodstuffs and all the other necessaries of life.
So far as the EEC is concerned we have stated our position during the debate on the Referendum Bill. I was somewhat amused at some of the speeches from Fine Gael on the EEC. I do not know what is to the future policy of Fine Gael but they have been critical of the Government's approach during the negotiations for entry to the Community. Despite what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said yesterday and on other occasion, I do not believe that the alternatives of a relationship with the Community have been investigated in any depth. Other countries have availed themselves of the alternatives, and, when one has regard to the depressed state of our economy, we wonder why, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, we should throw out our chests for full membership. In that speech he undermined his own bargaining position by declaring that he accepted completely the Treaty of Rome.
He has said, and repeated time and again, that the Irish economy is prepared for entry and he said, as the Minister for Transport and Power would say, there are no great problems. Are we ready for Europe with 70,000 people unemployed, with the smallness of our growth and with agriculture in its present condition as described by the NFA and other farmers' organisations? In view of the fulsome way in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs accepted completely the Treaty of Rome, is it any wonder that the concessions to us were so meagre and so inadequate? We wonder if there was any real negotiation at all or have we been as we always have been, stringing along after the British negotiators or somebody else and taking part of what they negotiate for?
We should have outlined the state of our economy; we should have been honest enough to say that we were not fully developed but the Minister gave the impression that Ireland was willing and ready to join with the industrial giants of Germany, with the agricultural industry of France and with all those other nations whose economies are much stronger than ours. The Minister should have been big enough to say that, by the standards of other countries, we were an underdeveloped country. I have given some examples of the state of the economy and I do not think the figures can be denied. We have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent, 30 per cent of our work force is in agriculture, and 12,000 of our people emigrated last year. That figure is relatively low by comparison with other years. I hope the Taoiseach will correct what appears to us to be an error when he says that the number of people who emigrated during the year was 2,000.
Actually, it was less.
The figures that are available to me indicate that 12,000 people emigrated.
They do not like to shock the Taoiseach too much.
I would be interested to know where the Taoiseach got the figure. I do not blame him if he made a mistake.
He did not make a mistake.
Then the reason for the lower rate must be, as Deputy Hogan said, that there are no jobs in England.
That was a contributory factor.
The Taoiseach's figure was not right.
This is the sort of information that should have been given in relation to our application and on that basis we should have negotiated as strongly as possible for the concessions that are vitally necessary, in particular, for Irish industry. If we enter the EEC on the terms negotiated, we would be confronted with very many difficulties. It is not for me to tell Fine Gael what is their business, but, last week, they endorsed the Government's application for membership when the terms were not yet described in a White Paper, but it is clear as to what has been negotiated. I was interested to hear Deputy Cosgrave saying that the Government should spell out what will happen in the various industries. All the Deputy had to do was to turn to his right hand side and ask the Fine Gael "Mr. Europe", Deputy FitzGerald, what would happen because Deputy FitzGerald appears to know all the answers and he is the one man in Fine Gael who seems to have no reservations.
I am not being critical of Fine Gael per se but what I am trying to say is that we should not put up our hands as Fianna Fáil have done and say that we will go in on any terms. Deputy Begley is concerned about fisheries, and Deputies in the urban areas are concerned about industry. The advantages that will accrue to agriculture can be enumerated, but is the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Industry and Commerce prepared to tell us what will happen to Irish industry? It is true that they negotiated certain terms for the car assembly industry, although these were not as good as the terms for that industry under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. However, in respect of all industries including the car assembly industry ten or 15 years is a very short time. Ten years is a very short time in respect of fisheries and we should not take consolation in saying that after the transitional period of five years in respect of certain matters, and ten years in respect of others that everything will be all right. In fact it is ten years since we applied first for membership.
Industrial employment will be threatened by membership and there is evidence to indicate that full membership of the EEC will put about 70,000 Irish jobs in jeopardy. Let me not exaggerate and say that 70,000 jobs would be lost immediately but they are vulnerable and under the limited free trade we have with Great Britain, we have examples of layoffs and there are redundancies under our present trading conditions. So far as I can see, nothing has been negotiated that would stop such trends. At a seminar held recently under the auspices of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions it was said in a report presented by the General Secretary, Mr. Ruadhrí Roberts, that present Irish industry is suffering from severe redundancy, that it is affected by world trends and also by a substantial reduction in protection against imports of industrial goods from Britain under the Free Trade Area Agreement; that redundancies had doubled last year by comparison with the previous year; and that, in addition, a large number of workers are now on short time. Listed in a table which followed that statement were the industries which, in the opinion of the ICTU, are vulnerable so far as some jobs are concerned. I would say that in respect of the 200,000 jobs in various industries, 70,000 or 71,000 are vulnerable. For the benefit of the Minister for Finance, I will name the industries that are listed as being vulnerable in respect of jobs. These industries are food, drink and tobacco, textiles and clothing, footwear, wood and furniture, paper and printing, chemicals, clay products and metal and engineering. Those members of Congress are representative of the trade unions of this country and are representative of the ordinary workers and I would venture to say that they know more about the situation in these various industries than is known to any member of the Government front bench.
It is all very well to list the advantages that would accrue to agriculture and to say that industry generally will be all right. We should be told why it will be all right. If special terms could be negotiated for a limited period for the motor assembly industry, why could they not be negotiated, in view of the state of our economy and if we want full membership, in respect of the textile industry, footwear, paper and printing, and wood and furniture? I do not believe there was any negotiation. I do not believe there was any hard bargaining.
Deputy Hogan and others referred to the lack of regional policy. God help the people of the West of Ireland for whom the members of the Fianna Fáil Government and their backbenchers express so much concern. There is no regional policy in operation in the EEC and there certainiy is no internal regional policy in this country to deal with places west of the Shannon.
It is not clear either in these vague negotiations what will be the position of the export tax relief. We are assured by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it will continue. He says that these people will be compensated, in any case, from some source over the remaining period of this tax holiday.
The advantages to agriculture have been described, but will somebody spell out for me the advantages for industry? I would invite Deputy Garret FitzGerald to do that if the Minister for Finance is not able to do it, if the Taoiseach will not do it or if the Minister for Foreign Affairs is reluctant to do it. It is obvious, from what we have heard of the Mansholt plan and of agricultural policy in the EEC, that there will be fewer people on the land, that the objective of the Mansholt plan is to make farms bigger and to draw people off the land. Where will they get employment? That is a very simple question and it should be answered now because we are on the threshold of having this agreement signed, even though we have not seen the terms of it and have not seen what has been negotiated in detail.
I think it was Deputy L'Estrange who said yesterday that it is inevitable, that we must go in. Have we come to the stage in this country—we talk about our proud history—where we throw up our hands and say: "We have to go in because John Bull is going in"? Is that the attitude of members of the Fianna Fáil Party? Is it a question of our having Hobson's choice? It will be no consolation for me or for anybody else to tell our constituents in five or ten years time that we had to go in when they are out of work and when many of them are not in Britain but in places like Germany, Brussels or Holland. My experience of the Germans—I visited Germany recently—is that they are not too keen to establish industries in places like Ireland. What they want is to get Irish people to work over there.
We have been accused of being parochial, of being too national, but my concern is for Irish people. Let nobody say to me: "You are not a true socialist if you do not believe in a united states of Europe." I am interested in every single country in the world but I want to make sure there are at least four million or five million people in this country and that it will not be, as it was described on one occasion, Britain's cabbage patch. Our concern in this is for people but there does not seem to be concern on the other two sides of the House for anything except statistics There is no use in doing well in agriculture if it will mean more unemployment for us. For the benefit of Deputy FitzGerald, and I am not trying to provoke interruptions——
The Deputy was just going to have one.
I know that. One can list the advantages for agriculture. I have simply asked the Government or anybody else to list the advantages for industry.
What was negotiated for fisheries has been condemned by the fishermen. Again, we had the blasé approach of Deputy Dr. Hillery. He believes he got a good bargain, or should I say a damn good bargain. Who better to know whether or not it is a good agreement than the fishermen of Ireland? I believe we should have held out for a 12-mile all round limit. We have the six-mile limit from Carnsore Point to Cork. In case the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not know it, these fishing grounds on the South Wexford coast, the Waterford coast and the Cork coast are nearly outfished already. What will be the situation if all the fishermen in the other member countries—I do not say Luxembourg wants to fish—after the period of negotiation are allowed in there with their expensive trawlers? It will be the end for the Irish fishermen. Some people may say there are 5,000 fishermen. There are many more concerned with this industry—those who build boats, those who are in the fish business generally, those who tin fish. I would reckon that there will be 50,000 people affected.
People may say it will not happen for a long time, for ten years, and that after ten years there will be a review. That clause in the agreement is very vague indeed and I think it was designed merely to conclude the negotiations before Christmas. It is obvious from the comments of at least one of the commissioners that if there is to be a review it is only a matter of going through the form and that in fact after the stipulated period of ten years the other members of the Community will be able to fish right up to the Irish coastline. Ten years is a short time. One must consider, for example, the young skipper of 25 years. What will be his attitude? Will he be bursting to invest, even with State aid, £100,000 in a trawler realising the competition he will face in ten years time? I do not believe he will. This could mean the virtual disappearance of Irish fishermen.
I do not believe the Government negotiated properly at all. The Minister for Foreign Affairs took me to task yesterday because he said I made a comment on a speech he was going to make next week. Typical of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am concerned about the beet industry for the farmers not alone in my own constituency, where they are pretty strong, but all over the country, whether it is in the western region near the Tuam factory, in the Tipperary region near Thurles or in the Munster area near Mallow. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs says I was wrong, we should be told now what is to be the future of the beet industry. As far as I am aware the quota fixed for the Irish sugar industry by the EEC for two years is 137,000 tons. This in my view will lead to a loss of about £2 million to £3 million for Irish farmers. If the quota is going to be substantially smaller than what it has been last year or the projections for next year it will do a lot of damage to the Irish farmer and to Irish workers. As far as I am aware, the quota of sugar to be produced is fixed in accordance with the average production between 1964 and 1967 or 1968. That is where I got my figure of 135,000 or 137,000 tons. Here we have jobs in jeopardy. The tragic thing here is that the jobs are directly related to agriculture and we are told we will do well in agriculture. The 1,000 jobs that will be lost if this happens are confined to the sugar factories. I believe they employ in the region of 5,000 people. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union said that if this is the case it will influence their thinking when they come to make a decision on our application for membership of the EEC. There are others who would be involved: Nítrigin Éireann, the factories manufacturing agricultural implements and CIE. These are the offshoots, so to speak, but this is a very big one, of full membership of the EEC. This matter must be cleared up as quickly as possible.
The Taoiseach, in his urbane way, as did his predecessors, will wish the Members of the House and the country a happy Christmas and will assure us that the State is in good hands. We have heard that before. It has not been in good hands in 1971. It has not been in good hands for quite a long time and it does not appear that it will be in good hands in 1972 or, if there is not an election, until 1973.
This will be a very bad Christmas for many hundreds of thousands of Irish people. I am not talking only about people in the Twenty-six Counties. I am referring to people in the Thirty-two Counties. Does the Minister for Finance realise—if he has not got the figures we will make them available to him before he makes his speech— that there are over half a million people who are at a level where they could be described as being impoverished? Many of them are poverty-stricken. This will not be a very happy Christmas for them. This poverty is not confined to those who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. There are thousands of farmers who are below subsistence level. It will ring hollow in the ears of Deputies and of all these people when the Taoiseach wishes them a happy Christmas and assures the people that the country is in good hands.
The main theme of the debate has been Northern Ireland. May I preface my remarks on this subject by saying what I have said before, that we are all trying to blame somebody else? We heard it this morning across the House. We went back to 1922 and even to 1916 and to 1925. We should concentrate what we have to say on the situation existing in the Christmas of 1971. There is no point in going back. There is no point in saying that what was done was wrong or that what was done was good or that there was a difference of opinion between the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. The existing situation should be the concern of all of us.
For that reason I will accept the invitation given to me by the Taoiseach to sit down and talk about this awful problem. If I believed that by taking to somebody or having discussions or making suggestions we could bring an end to this problem and work towards a Thirty-two County united Ireland, I would make a lot of sacrifices. I would not refer to the Constitution of 1922 or to things like the Boundary Commission Report of 1925, because there are young people in the North who know nothing about 1922 apart from what they read in history books or about the niceties of the situation vis-à-vis the Border in 1925 but who want peace with justice and who, like the majority of us, want a united Ireland.
That does not mean to say that I am going to commit myself at this stage as to what my view would be or as to what the party's view would be because it is not quite clear yet—and I do not say this in criticism of the Taoiseach— what the function will be of the committee which it is proposed to set up, representative of the parties in this House. It is not clear what the terms of reference will be, whether we will debate only, for example, the Constitution or social and economic matters related to the division of our country or whether the committee will be charged with the task of suggesting political action.
As I have said, I will participate in preliminary talks with the Taoiseach. I will listen to what he has to say and report back to my party and then we will make our decision. Let me again say that if there are sacrifices to be made by me or by the members of my party, in order to ease the situation and to provide eventually for a united Ireland, we will make those sacrifices and will not invoke past history or past events as an excuse not to participate.
I hope this discussion will be held before Christmas. I think the Taoiseach did indicate that it would. There are still seven days before Christmas. The matter is so urgent, the situation demands that there be immediate discussion so that we might listen to what proposals the Taoiseach has to make.
All of us are appalled by the events in the North, one could say the terror in the North, particularly in recent times, where it certainly has intensified. This must be ended, whether it is the terror in the Falls or in the Border areas, Ballymurphy, Ardoyne, the Creggan Estate or Bogside. There will be an end sometime. There will be an end to this conflict as there has to be an end to all conflicts, but the question is, what sort of end? Will it be an end with hundreds dead and widespread destruction or an end that is the product of civilised men using their reason and composing their differences? There must be now an end to the terror and that must be brought about by a political solution and not by the bomb, the bullet, gelignite, brutality or internment. It cannot be and must not be an end that merely leads to a return of Unionist domination through discrimination and naked sectarianism. It must be an end marked by a new beginning of justice. It cannot be an end where the negotiators are self-elected or self-appointed from amongst those who believe in a solution by violent means or chosen because they are safe men. The negotiators must be democratically elected representatives of the two communities and, as far as the minority is concerned, that means that the Social Democratic and Labour Party must be at the conference table.
There must be a political initiative immediately to get talks going. How many lives must be lost before the British Government decide it is time to talk rather than to terrorise? How many more lives, both Catholic and Protestant, will be lost before the British Prime Minister decides that his present policies of suppression must be replaced by policies of concession and conciliation?
The British Government are salving their conscience by saying that they favour a "permanent, active and guaranteed role" for the minority and by claiming that the Social Democratic and Labour Party have refused to discuss the proposition.
I would like to ask Mr. Heath, what does he mean by this phrase "permanent, active and guaranteed role for the minority". When has he ever spelled it out? What has he said that is in the least bit worthwhile on the Northern situation—other than that violence must be brought to an end? Deputy Tully said yesterday, we are all against sin. We all believe violence should be brought to an end. When has he ever given a definite invitation directly to the Social Democratic and Labour Party and not through the safety of TV interviews or press releases?
I say to him now: "You have little time left to take a real political initiative to which the Social Democratic and Labour Party can respond by participating in talks. Every day the division in the North grows wider and wider. Your Government are seen to be favouring one side and one side only through the introduction of internment, the resort to military suppression, selective arms searches and brutality, especially during the interrogation of detainees. Make public what you have in your mind when you talk of a permanent, active and guaranteed role for the minority. If you do not, no political solution is possible. Take responsibility for your actions."
I said during the special debate on the North, in October, I think, that the one act of introducing internment had changed the Northern situation drastically. It had caused the complete alienation of the two communities, as demonstrated by the withdrawal of the SDLP from all levels of public administration. That feeling of alienation must be brought to an end, and the quicker the better. It cannot be done if the British Government appear to give licence to the Unionist Government to do as they wish in the security field. Will there be reconciliation in a situation where police and military interrogators brutalise detainees? On the contray, there will be hatred and distrust and a solution will be postponed.
I have no hesitation in condemning the many sordid examples of police and military brutality that have been brought to light since the introduction of internment. They can neither be hidden nor denied. My party demand that they cease immediately and that the respect for law and order which is preached by the British and Unionist Governments should be practised by them. They not only offend against all principles of justice but they damage the few remaining possibilities for peace, and they may do irreparable damage if allowed to continue.
In addressing these remarks to Mr. Heath I have no intention of shying away from my responsibility as a public representative or, as the leader of a national party with organisations north and south of the Border, of condemning those on the other side who attempt to secure their political ends by violent means. All such acts of violence breed further acts of violence, deepen divisions and push back the cause of Irish unity, the very cause they seek to serve. It does not matter which brand of so-called Republicanism one puts on their acts: they offend against all the principles of the founder of Republicanism, Wolfe Tone. His aim was to heal divisions, not to open them. He did not fear to denounce those of his own community who behaved contrary to his beliefs. We should not be afraid to imitate him.
We, the Labour Party, have been denounced as anti-national because we are true to our principles of fighting against appeals to sectarian passion and because we say that the national unity we seek is a unity by the consent of all of the people of Ireland. Our aim is a 32-county socialist republic. The achievement of a socialist united Ireland is the objective of the Labour Party. To that end we all subscribe.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, described us the other night as being anti-national. What can we expect from a man in a party that regard Connolly as anti-national? What can we expect from a so-called republican who has sold every resource we possess to the foreign speculator and the money-grabber?
At our annual conference in Galway this year I called for sweeping changes in the Republic as a genuine step towards unity. All of the measures I propose are within the control of the Government of which Deputy Colley is a senior member. Nothing has been done about my suggestions, which have the support of every person who thinks rationally about the political problems. In particular, I called for a new Constitution. I demanded a truly republican Constitution based firmly on the non-sectarian principles of Tone. I accept the suggestion that this would demand courageous and honest political change from the Taoiseach and his Government, committed, as they undoubtedly are, to narrow, bigoted concepts of society, as has become apparent on the community schools issue.
Who is anti-national? Is it those who propose that we eliminate within the Republic those barriers to unity with our Protestant fellow-countrymen in the North or those who when they have the power do nothing except to mouth clichés and cant?
Hear, hear.
It takes courage to stand against the sectarian side. Mr. Gerry Fitt, the leader of the SDLP, has shown that courage over and over again.
Hear, hear.
Mr. Fitt is a Connolly socialist and he agrees with us. I would prefer to have Gerry Fitt agreeing with me any day than Deputy Colley. I refer, of course, to the belief that the unity of Ireland is not around the corner. As a Connolly socialist Mr. Fitt accepts that what the immediate future requires is universal acceptance of the principle that power must be shared between the majority and the minority community.
Before Deputy Corish turned to the problems of the North of this country he dealt at some length with the economic situation. I felt he might very appropriately, when finishing that portion of his speech, have added the quotation: "We'll all be dead, says Hanrahan, before the year is out". I have heard him on many occasions recently making bewailing speeches but never have I heard worse than I heard from him today.
According to him, if we enter the EEC the fishing industry will disappear, the beet industry will disappear and, indeed, the manufacturing industry is unlikely to survive. Whatever view he may take of entering the EEC, surely it is not very helpful to our people to make up their minds if we have these kinds of exaggerated statements from the leader of the Labour Party.
Is an 8 per cent rate of unemployment exaggerated?
I took a note of one statement by Deputy Corish. He said the Government appear to be taking refuge in the Northern problem to evade economic issues.
I did not accuse the Government of taking refuge in the Northern problem. I described the seriousness of the Northern situation and I said that this should not excuse the Government from taking the interest they should in the economic problems. I did not say they were taking refuge in the northern problem.
What the Deputy said is: "The Government appears to be taking refuge in the Northern problem to avoid economic problems here". He then went on to talk about the Taoiseach's speech opening this debate. The Deputy will be aware that the Taoiseach's speech has been criticised on the grounds that it dealt almost exclusively with economic problems. Now, one cannot be accused of dealing with economic problems and at the same time of avoiding the main problem, which is the Northern problem. If the Taoiseach had dealt with the Northern problem exclusively, I have no doubt Deputy Corish would have accused him of evading the economic problem. However, the Taoiseach will be replying to this debate and will, no doubt, have something to say——
That will be a nice change.
I do not wish to go back over the ground covered by the Taoiseach. He painted a clear picture of current economic trends in the country. Instead, I should like to turn to one or two points in respect of which there appear to be misconceptions about our economic situation. These misconceptions appear to be quite prevalent today, even among some of our more informed economic commentators. One of the most common is that Ireland is alone among developed countries in experiencing low growth with high price increases.
This is clearly not the case and even the most fleeting refernces to developments elsewhere will show this. It appears that after a decade of continuous rapid growth with relatively stable prices the phenomenon which we have now encountered has had such a traumatic effect on us that we tend to think of our position as unique. The fact is that in recent times most countries have encountered the twin problems of low growth and rising prices. The new word "stagflation" has been coined to describe this situation. Stagflation is what has been besetting the international economy in the last few years. In 1970 the average increase in prices in OECD countries was almost 6 per cent as compared with an annual average increase of 3 per cent in the previous decade. At the same time real growth in the OECD area in 1970 was only 2½ per cent as compared with an annual average growth rate of over 5 per cent in the previous decade.
If we bring matters closer to home, Britain, our main trading partner, achieved a growth rate of less than 2 per cent in 1970 but at the same time suffered a price increase rate of 6½ per cent. In the first half of this year in Britain they actually experienced a fall in the volume of national production with prices rising at an annual rate of 9 per cent.
Much play has been made here of the situation over the last few years. The international background to which I have just referred helps us to have a better understanding of our position. We are a small economy and are more dependent than most on international trade. Consequently, developments in this country are determined to a large extent by conditions prevailing on the international economic scene. Indeed, we can go so far as to say that adverse developments abroad tend to be magnified in this country. This is particularly true in relation to prices because of the high import content of many of the commodities that are used to make up the consumer price index.
Let us consider now those aspects of our domestic crisis which are largely influenced by developments abroad. The most obvious one has been the rise in domestic meat prices which generated quite an amount of argument here. This rise in meat prices was a direct reflection of the greatly improved prices obtained for our cattle and beef this year in exports to the UK. These higher prices, of course, affected our domestic prices. They also resulted in increased export earnings and in a significant improvement in incomes in the agricultural sector. Whatever view one may take of price increases of that kind, no one can deny that they have had some beneficial effects on our economy. I am speaking now of price increases of that type. The other kind of international price increases which effect us are those demanded by countries from whom we import goods. Inflation in other countries is pushing up prices of goods which they export to us. This is an unpleasant and unpalatable fact, but we must accept it. It has the unfortunate effect of inflating our domestic prices here. The influence of this factor can be gauged by the fact that higher import prices accounted for about 20 per cent of the average increase in our consumer prices in the first three-quarters of this year. I would like to remind Deputy Corish and members of his party that the influence of the external situation applies to our economy whether we operate a capitalist, a socialist or a mixed economy. It does not matter what system we operate. There factors apply and nothing can take them away.
The high income increases in this country in recent years have also contributed greatly to our inflation problems. This aspect of our economic situation has been dealt with fairly fully by the Taoiseach. I do not propose to go back over it here. I am glad to say that there are signs that the world economy is now emerging from its period of stagflation but the progress in some countries is slower than in others. For our part, I am glad to say that the concerted action taken by the Government has begun to bear fruit. The growth process has again been set in motion and, more importantly, because rapid inflation can undermine this process, the acceleration in the rate of price increase has been reversed.
Prices here are now rising at the rate of 8½ per cent as compared with a rate of 10 per cent in the earlier part of the year. This shows that we are breaking the back of the problem. We cannot afford to lull ourselves into any false sense of security. A rate of price increase of 8½ per cent is still excessive and we will have to be vigilant if we are to succeed in bringing it down to a more reasonable level. We must bear in mind that the excessive increases which led to the current rate of inflation have been building up in the economic system for a number of years. Consequently, they cannot be purged overnight. It will require a long period of hard struggle to bring the annual rate of price increase here back to the more moderate levels which we experienced in the early 1960s. I am confident that we will be able to do it. It was this confidence, together with the more optimistic outlook on the international front, which induced the Government recently to introduce measures to stimulate what I might call the nascent growth evident in the economy towards the middle and end of the year.
In this connection I would like to point out that we do not seek growth just for the sake of growth. I said this before but it bears repetition. We pursue growth because it is the only means by which we can attain our national objective of a rising population enjoying a high and increasing standard of living. I know there are some economists, perhaps not in this country, who have a nice, esoteric theory that the pursuit of growth is bad. These gentlemen normally come from economies who have had long and sustained periods of growth. They are suffering problems of the affluent society. We in this country can afford to worry about those problems when we reach that stage of affluence. For us growth is essential. Our objective in trying to achieve growth, which, as I have said, is the achievement of a rising population enjoying an improved standard of living, tends to be forgotten sometimes when some parts of the community, pursuing their own sectional interests, frustrate the smooth advance of the economy. With reasonable co-operation between the different sectors of our community we can go a long way towards enabling our economy to attain its full growth potential in 1972.
I think you would have to change human nature first.
I do not think one has to go that far. One does not have to assume that human nature has been damned by original sin and can never recover from it.
Without being damned by original sin at all, any man is entitled to do the best he can for himself.
But even in his own interest he is better off — and this is the point I am making — by co-operating than by striking out for himself. In recent years our economic history has demonstrated that.
It is a matter of opinion.
It depends. If he thinks he is strong enough and can get away with it, maybe he will try it on, but nobody is strong enough to survive this kind of jungle law in our economy.
Every man is entitled to do the best he can for himself? That is an awful theory.
There has been a number of comments in this debate on the topic of emigration. There appears to be some misunderstanding about the position. First of all, the annual average net emigration in the last few intercensal periods has been as follows: between 1956 and 1961, it was 42,400; between 1961-66, 16,100; and between 1966-71, 12,200. The average for the period 1966-71 conceals a marked variation between the levels of emigration at the beginning and at the end of that period. In the calender year 1966 net emigration amounted to over 19,000 persons, but this had declined to 5,000 in 1970. Low as the figure was for 1970, the latest figures for emigration, that is, for the 12 months ended October last, calculated by reference to the net outward passenger movemnet by sea and air, is below 2,000.
Does the Minister believe that?
We know from past experience that the net passenger movement figures tend to overstate the level of emigration on the basis of the census figures. Each time the census is taken it is shown that the estimates based on the net passenger movement are too high and have to be adjusted downwards, so that the figure is actually lower than that. One can argue what are the causes for this and so on, but let us get the facts right anyway.
They are not facts.
Deputy O'Donovan may argue about figures derived from the net passenger movement; he may argue about figures derived from the census, but they are the only instruments we have got to measure emigration. They are the instruments by which it has been measured over the years.
The Taoiseach stated the cause of it yesterday, so the Minister is wasting his time.
The gospel according to Deputy FitzGerald.
I refer the Minister to the Taoiseach.
Could I ask the Minister for the figure in respect of 1966 again?
Nineteen thousand.
For the whole period?
For the period 1966-1971, the annual net average was 12,200, but, as I pointed out, there was a very substantial change, so the figure for 1970 was 5,000, and this year the figure for the 12 months ending October last was below 2,000. Deputy FitzGerald did try yesterday, in interrupting the Taoiseach, to suggest that this change was due solely to the employment or unemployment situation in Britain.
It certainly was not due to the employment situation here. Even the Minister would hardly have the effrontery to suggest that.
The Taoiseach pointed out to him that the downward trend in emigration in this country has been going on since long before the current economic difficulties in Britain came to a head.
He must have read my articles.
I am not trying to argue at the moment about causes or effects. What I am trying to do is to discuss this matter on the basis of what the problem is. At least we have to know what the problem is and what are the facts if we are to do anything worthwhile about it.
They are not facts.
Why?
Because they are just figures that are estimated in the loosest possible fashion.
Is the Deputy saying that now and at any time in the past we never knew what emigration was?
(Interruptions.)
Can the Minister not cast his mind back to the 'fifties?
Does the Deputy accept the result of the census figures?
Yes. What has that got to do with it?
The figures derived in the normal way, as they have been derived over the years, are as I have given them.
I have never suggested they are not. What I am saying is that "in the normal way", "facts" and all these other words are just nonsense in this context.
From the point of view of a comparison of our situation now with our situation last year or 20 or 30 years ago, this is the only basis on which we can make a comparison. Deputy Tully suggested yesterday, as did Deputy Corish this morning that, perhaps, the Taoiseach had made a mistake, that there should have been another nought added, in other words, that emigration this year might have been 20,000 and not 2,000.
I think he said that a I should be added, making it 12,000.
Deputy Corish quoted him as saying there should be another nought on it and said maybe the Taoiseach made a mistake. I said he did not, and Deputy Tully intervened and said: "Not at all. We have the figures". Therefore, the suggestion was that, perhaps, the emigration this year was 20,000. What appals me about this is that the Leader of the Labour Party should pontificate on our economic situation, including our emigration, and that he should not know whether emigration this year was 2,000 or 20,000. That is a very revealing statement by Deputy Corish.
Tell us about the record of high unemployment.
Order. Will Deputy O'Donovan please cease interrupting? Remember the time is limited for this debate.
I appreciate that but it is much more relevant to the situation of the economy for the Minister to tell us about the unemployment figures.
If the Deputy would stop interrupting me I might get on to that. I will say, much as the Deputy may not like it, that the rate of emigration is quite relevant to the question of employment and unemployment and that is why I was dealing with that point first. On the question of unemployment, there are a number of reasons why the live register figures are not a very reliable guide to the actual level of genuine unemployment. It is true also that they do not provide a reliable estimate of the change in the unemployment situation between 1970 and 1971 because of distortions in the statistics caused by some important changes in the coverage of the register and the effects of the cement strike in the first half of 1970.
However, making the best allowance we can for these various distortions, the position appears to be that the underlying increase in the number of unemployed in recent weeks as compared with the same time last year was about 9,000. As best as it can be calculated it appears to be about that figure. That is not a happy situation for anybody but, as I said earlier, I would prefer that as far as we can get the facts and know what we are talking about. As far as it can be ascertained that is the fact about unemployment this year as compared with last year.
There are a number of reasons for this and I would like to comment for a moment on the main reasons for it. First of all, there is the point made by Deputy FitzGerald — almost as though it were a new discovery on his part, but it is, of course, almost a cliché in economic and, indeed, in political circles — and that is conditions obtaining on the British Labour market. Unemployment started to rise significantly in Britain around early 1970 and thereafter it gradually worsened. A sharper and a more progressive determination set in in the beginning of 1971 when the ratio of unemployment to the total labour force reached 3 per cent for the first time for many years. The latest unemployment figures in Britain are the highest monthly total since the war and they represent almost 4 per cent of the labour force.
So are ours.
Of course, as a result of this situation potential Irish emigrants to Britain have been deterred from going there and they have been deflected to our labour market. We have not been able to absorb them all and consequently our unemployment rate has increased. That is one of the factors which affects our unemployment situation.
Another of the major factors is the generalised world recession in certain industries. In certain industries, notably textiles and footwear, there is on a worldwide scale, over-production, and under-consumption, or a combination of both. This has adversely affected employment and production in Irish firms in these industries.
Thirdly, there have been, of course, depressed demand conditions in foreign markets and this factor has affected many firms who are engaged in exporting but it has borne most heavily on firms producing capital goods or goods of a luxury nature. In this respect subsidiary firms of foreign-owned industry have been particularly badly hit by cut-backs in production made by their parent companies.
Of course the Minister has omitted the most important factor of all, the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.
I have not finished yet, although if the Deputy examines it he will find that that is one of the minor factors.
It is not.
It is the truth.
There was talk yesterday about the footwear industry. Imports of footwear from the United Kingdom in 1965 were £300,000. They were £1½ million last year. Is that a minor factor?
Did the Deputy look at the situation in the footwear industry in this country before there was free trade, when there was only a quota? Did he look at the number of factories which closed down at that time?
Imports from the United Kingdom have increased.
Order. Will Deputy O'Donovan please cease interrupting?
Did the Deputy look at the situation of the footwear industry in countries other than Ireland and Britain which are not affected by the Free Trade Area Agreement? Let us keep it in perspective. There has, of course, been another factor in this which has been our own sluggish domestic demand. As Deputies know, demand rose by only 1½ per cent in 1970 and in the early part of this year it continued sluggish. This undoubtedly has had an adverse effect on some firms. Furthermore, we have had a situation of deteriorating competitiveness. The excessive wage increase of the last few years have caused unit wage costs to grow at a faster rate than those of our competitors and as a result some firms may not have been able to compete successfully and may have had to go out of business.
I have never seen a firm go out of business because of wage increases.
Will the Deputy please allow the debate to continue?
The Deputy might pay particular attention to what I am about to say. It should be noted that the industrial sectors which are most severely affected by higher labour costs are the labour intensive ones, namely, textiles, clothing, footwear, wood and furniture, paper and printing and part of the clay and concrete product industries. These are the industries that Deputy Corish referred to as the ones with high rates of redundancies. The Deputy might think about that.
It is just a make-up.
It is no use dismissing it in that way. There is a significance in it and the Deputy should not try to avoid it.
I have never seen a firm having to close down because of a wage increase. I challenge the Minister to quote an example of that.
Another factor which has been contributing to unemployment is, of course, bad management. A substantial proportion of the firms which have encountered difficulties in recent times have been private, family owned, family controlled companies and in many of these cases their management has often been inadequate to the task of coping with increased competition from imports. Another factor has been the substitution of new products which were being produced here. These are the main factors which have been responsible for the increase in unemployment in 1971. As I said, fortunately the indications are that their influence is waning somewhat. Over the last few months domestic demand has started to revive and this hopeful trend will continue.
Yes, but the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement will not wane.
Prospects on the foreign markets are also more propitious than they were. The reflationary steps taken in Britain last July are now beginning to take effect and they should stimulate demand for our exports. Moreover, there are hopeful signs of an improvement on the rest of the international scene, particularly in relation to the action taken by the United States administration in recent months in connection with the international problem. There are hopeful signs that that situation is improving.
Where has it got?
I did not say it has got anywhere. I said there are hopeful signs. If the Deputy wants to interrupt me at least let him pay attention to what I am saying.
I asked where has it got? It is relevant.
Can the Deputy analyse that?
I think the Deputy understands the meaning of it all right.
Order, please.
One other quite heartening development is that there are indications that the rise in our unit wage costs in relation to those of our competitors is moderating. This is a vitally important factor.
Given the emergence of all these favourable circumstances it is reasonable to believe that our unemployment situation will improve. It should not be necessary, of course, but I should, perhaps, remind the House of it, that it is Government policy actively to promote the growth of employment by encouraging the expansion of existing industries and the establishment of new industries and this policy has been vigorously pursued since the introduction of the First Programme for Economic Expansion. As a result of that the number employed in the nonagricultural sector has been, with only slight interruptions, growing continuously over the last decade. The measures I announced in this House in October last were specifically designed as far as possible to provide results in this financial year by way of increased employment.
Deputy Corish quoted from the ESRI Economic Commentary to the effect that it appears likely that a continuation of present policies, even taking account of the most recent measures, is unlikely to reduce substantially the present level of employment in the course of 1972. This was the view of the authors of that commentary. He did not go on to quote further and, since he quoted that extract, I think I should quote what follows. He might, indeed, have continued to the next part, which is to the effect that, if a new wage agreement, which is significantly less inflationary than the current agreement, can be concluded then the expansion in real incomes and employment in 1972 will be much greater than foreseen in the projection set out in that commentary.
So the workers should not be compensated for the inflation.
What I am saying is that Deputy Corish did quote one bit but he did not quote another bit. What value does he attach to each quotation or does he attach equal value to both?
Are the Government the only people who may be selective in their quotations?
No. I am simply saying there are other quotations which can be cited and we can judge the value of each.
I do not care what the Minister says, the unemployment position is chaotic.
The Deputy was not here when I was dealing with that. I have given the reasons. I said, and I say it again, the unemployment situation is certainly not one that can give anybody any cause for joy, but it does not help us to have wild statements made about it. Let us find out the facts and the contributory causes.
I have them here.
If we want to improve the situation we must know these things.
(Interruptions.)
May I point out that the time for speakers is limited and Deputies are wasting the time of the House with these interruptions.
I do not think we have wasted a lot of time.
Deputy Corish referred to the EEC and I did intend to deal with the EEC but I shall not do so, not because I cannot — I should like to — but because, as the Ceann Comhairle has pointed out, the time is limited and I do not wish to prevent other speakers from getting in. There are, however, a few things I want to say. Deputy Cosgrave made reference yesterday to the Wilson proposals and he suggested it was a disgrace to have an initiative come from an Englishman—I hope I am not misquoting him — in order to get the parties here to band together. That was certainly my understanding of the general sense of what Deputy Cosgrave said. First of all, it is our contention and, I think, the contention of every Member of this House that to have a real political initiative in relation to the problem of Northern Ireland, that initiative must come from Britain. Britain set up the Six Counties and Britain maintains them. The initiative, therefore, must come from Britain. Secondly, is it not clear that an initiative from here would not of itself be successful? The real importance, therefore, of Mr. Wilson's proposals lies in the fact that this was an initiative from Britain. There are, of course, a number of points in Mr. Wilson's proposals which can only be described as unreal but, while I regard these as unreal, basically I regard his proposal, by and large, as an important contribution to the development of a political initiative. I think there was a great deal more in his proposals than many people may realise. Of necessity they had to be couched in somewhat vague terms but, as I say, I think there was more in them and is more in them than many people realise.
Is not the Minister's judgment completely subjective on the one he regards as unimportant?
I would, of course, agree with the Deputy and I think the proposals were so designed as to enable me to be exactly that and to enable Mr. Brian Faulkner to say something similar about other proposals. I think the proposals were specifically designed for that purpose.
Agreed.
And it is a matter now of one's subjective judgment, as Deputy Dr. Browne says, as to which are important and which are not. The real importance that emerged was the fact that this was a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition in Britain, proposals which were not rejected by the British Government, proposals which envisaged the re-unification of this country. That was the central and important part. Some of the details contained, perhaps, something that was not so obvious on the surface. I think Mr. Wilson went to considerable pains to try to devise a formula which took account of the reality of the difficulties we are facing, the reality on the ground, as it were. Whether or not he has the right formula, he has at least devised a formula designed to overcome the roadblock standing in the way of negotiations. For that reason I welcome his initiative and I welcome the fact that that initiative has not been rejected by the British Government. Everybody can read the significance of that. I had a number of other things I wanted to say and I am sure Deputy FitzGerald will be glad to hear I am not going to say them.
Delighted.
They would have been rather controversial from the point of view of his party and from the point of view of the Labour Party. For various reasons I am not feeling like being controversial at the moment.
The Christmas spirit.
It may be that or it may be something else. The last comment I have to make is that, when we are talking about the economic situation, we can disagree about causes but let us, at least, try to agree on the facts and then make our deductions from them.
In the 25 minutes left to me I shall endeavour to do my best. I thank the Minister for his having eschewed controversy to the extent of giving me at least that length of time. I want to say at the outset how disappointing was the Taoiseach's speech yesterday. It is, however, in the pattern of the system that Fianna Fáil have built up for Ministerial speeches. The whole purpose of a Ministerial opening speech is to set out the whole perspective before the House for the following debate and to state the issues so that they can be fully debated. Yet, traditionally, consistently, Fianna Fáil Ministers, and the Taoiseach himself, have adopted the practice of saying as little as possible in their opening speeches and keeping all the meat— sometimes rather stale meat — until their closing speeches to ensure that the debate will be as poor as possible and in that way they seek, as in other ways, to subvert the purpose of Parliament. The Taoiseach's speech was in that respect a disgrace. It was a disgrace in particular because he avoided any reference to the whole question of Northern Ireland and left the debate to that extent rudderless, hoping perhaps to capture more publicity for himself in his closing speech. That must be said in this House; it has already been stated in todays newspapers.
I want to deal with the economy while the Minister is still here. I accept what the Taoiseach said that there are likely to be significant improvements in the British economy next year which will help us. The latest forecast by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in Britain is of a growth rate of just over 4 per cent accompanied, astonishingly, by a current external surplus of almost £1,000 million. That is going to help us but I do not think we should play down, as the Taoiseach and the Minister have played down the problems we face of inflation and the effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I am sorry the Minister has to leave at this point because I want to answer some of the specific points he made in his speech.
Two dangers lie ahead of us as regards the growth of our economy in the next three years. It is helpful, as we approach a period when the worst effects of inflation and the worst effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement are likely to hit us, that the British economy looks as though it is going to go into a period of boom but it may not be sufficient to insulate us from the effects of these two phenomena.
On inflation I challenge as untrue the Minister's statement that there is a tapering off of some kind in the rate of increase in the cost of living. No matter how one looks at this it is not happening. While the Minister was speaking I went to the Library and got the exact figures. They are given in three ways not one of which shows any sign of this tapering off. The figures show — we now have the November figures, the complete figures, therefore, for 1971 — that the increase in the consumer price index this year was 8.9 per cent, as against 8.2 per cent the previous year — that is not tapering off, that is creeping up — and the year before it was 7½ per cent. There is a consistent pattern of further acceleration. If we take the last nine months, which was a more recent period, the increase was 7 per cent. That is not an annual rate of 7 per cent but 7 per cent in nine months compared with 5½ per cent in the preceding nine-month period, running from the second quarter of 1970 to the first quarter of the current year. Even if we take the nine-month period the same process of acceleration appears. The latest increase shows a 2.4 point increase in the index and that is precisely the same increase as the previous quarter and precisely the same as the average for the last five preceding quarters. There is no sign of tapering off there, either. There is no way one can manipulate these figures, however selective one may be, to produce the result which the Minister claimed mendaciously in this House is the position at the moment.
Prices are not tapering off. We hoped they would. I thought they might. I am deeply disappointed this has not happened. I do not think we should discount, as the Minister and the Taoiseach seem to be discounting, the dangers of the situation, first, because of its impact on the second phase of the current wage round which is geared to increases in the cost of living. Faced with that situation the Government should have done everything to keep prices down. They should have tried to control increases in prices under their control and yet, as we know from the figures which the Leader of the Opposition read out yesterday, in every one of the cases in which a State body or the Government themselves are concerned increases in consumer prices in the past year have been far higher, in some cases four or five times higher, than increases in the private sector, ranging as they have from 12½ per cent to 50 per cent for a whole range of products and services. By permitting and encouraging this escalation of prices under their control the Government have seriously threatened the stability of the economy at this time. This is going to have a drastic effect upon the operation of the escalation clause for the second phase of the current round. There is a clear danger, which the Government ought to have realised, that this will also affect the negotiations which must take place during the next six months for the next wage round which for some workers will take effect from next July. The increase in the cost of living is something which workers rightly and understandably take into account in any claims they put forward. The way the cost of living has been permitted to rise faster and faster, despite what the Minister has said, constitutes a threat to the economy of a kind we may not be able to survive.
The only thing which has saved us to-date in this process of inflation is that other countries have inflated also. As it happens wage costs in other countries, with which we compete, have risen sharply in the past three years. They rose by 20 per cent in Germany, France and Japan and 25 per cent in Britain, not as high as here, but by amounts which at least come close to our inflation and have therefore helped to narrow the gap which otherwise would have existed between our wage costs and those of other countries and our competitiveness and those of other countries. Despite what has been happening elsewhere we still hold the record for inflation in Europe. This gap has to be closed, not widened. How is it to be closed with this continuing increase in prices generating pressure for a further wage round? If we get one more excessive wage round that gap could widen fatally to the point at which the parity of our currency will be threatened. The Government know this; they are trying to hide it, they are doing nothing to stop it, they have totally failed to tackle the problem of prices and incomes.
They sabotaged an incomes policy in 1969 when it would have been possible, if they had set their minds to it, to get agreement on an incomes policy in the wake of the maintenance workers' strike. They failed to do so. The proposals which came forward from the Government to employers and workers were so hostile and so unsympathetic to an incomes policy that they offered no encouragement and every discouragement to those concerned and contributed to the unwillingness of both sides to make the necessary sacrifices. Far from giving a lead in the matter the Government sabotaged it. One document put forward by the Government to these bodies was so bad that I suggested at at the time it should be withdrawn from circulation because of the damage it could do. The Government have failed to put across an incomes policy because they have no confidence in themselves and because they know the country has no confidence in them, the confidence a Government needs to get agreement on an incomes policy.
Not only have the Government sabotaged an incomes policy they have also sabotaged the National Economic Council, which was to replace the NIEC. This has been under negotiation for the whole of this year. The outcome has been that the Government, in their vindictive attempt to ensure that no trade unionist associated with the Labour Party and involved in membership of the Oireachtas should in any way feature on this council, have sabotaged the council; they have tried to dictate to the trade union movement that they shall not have members on the National Economic Council if these members happen to be members, in practice normally, of the Upper House. It is all right if they happen to be members of the Northern Ireland Senate but if they happen to be Members of the Seanad they are damned. Because of their determination to keep these people out, and because of their political bitterness and hostility to people who happen to be members of the Oireachtas, they have made it impossible for the council to be set up. This is one of the more disgraceful acts of this Government, an act for which they will not easily be forgiven because the national interest was at stake and they were prepared to set the national interest to one side for their own narrow, party political purposes.
The second problem we face in the period immediately ahead is the effect of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. We should guard ourselves here against confusion on this issue. Because of the interests some people have in trying to paint a picture of disaster in the Common Market there has been a tendency to play down the effects of the free trade area. The fact is that the free trade area has so far had a fairly limited effect, as was predicted. I originally did a calculation to try to show what the effect of this agreement would be. The conclusion I came to, which was published in The Irish Times and never challenged by anybody, was that the effect would be a diversion of something just under £50 million worth of trade from Irish manufacturers to British firms by 1975. That sum was expressed in 1965 money terms. I also came to the conclusion that this would happen by a gradual process which would not be linear at all but would involve very small effects at first, gradually gathering momentum and reaching a critical rate of impact in the years 1971 to 1974. Such an assessment as I have been able to make suggests that up to this point something like £10 million of this £45 million or £50 million of effects have been felt, which is exactly as I expected, and as anyone knowing how high Irish tariffs were, and knowing how they could be virtually halved without having much impact on the freeing of trade, would have expected. When they have been halved and when they reduce further below that to or near the point of free trade, the critical period arises. We now face that critical period. If we put a figure of £45 million on the damage that this agreement, which had so little to offer us in return, will do, of that amount £10 million perhaps has already been suffered. Another £35 million, perhaps, has to come in the next three years and it needs only simple division to show that the impact of the Agreement will accelerate enormously. From having affected our economy by something like £2 million a year, it will now affect it by about £12 million a year. There will be something like a fivefold or sixfold intensification of the adverse effects of this Agreement within the next three years. Already it has done some damage in the clothing and footwear industries. Those effects will become far more intense and those who have attempted to attribute the redundancy that has occurred to date exclusively to the Free Trade Area Agreement are in danger of missing the point, which is that we face very considerable redundancy before this Agreement even really hits us and we must not underestimate the damage it may yet do. We also face the underlying problem of technological unemployment which is causing a good deal of redundancy at present and the effects of the slump in tourism with its reaction on spending power in the economy which has slowed down our economic growth significantly in the past two years, one of the side effects of events in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately for us, the compensating effects of EEC membership will not accrue immediately. None will accrue next year because we shall not be members and although in 1973 there will be the immediate bonus of £30 million agricultural subsidy transfer which will enable whatever Government is in power to make drastic improvements in our social services and compensate for some of the price effects of membership — more than compensate — the direct effect economically of membership will only occur gradually and cumulatively over a five-year period. It will not be until we have reached the stage when about 40 per cent of these effects are being felt, in mid-1975, that the impact on the economy will begin to become really striking.
We, therefore, face a period ahead in which the effect of inflation, the damage it may do our competitiveness and the damage that will be done to us by the Free Trade Area Agreement will hit us before we get significant benefit from EEC membership which will accrue really in the second half of the decade. The Government should not play down these dangers. I am not sure whether they are so stupid they cannot see them or whether they are dishonest and keeping quiet about them. Either way, it is our job to expose these dangers and try to ensure that the Government prepares for them, something they show very little sign of doing.
Finally on the economic side, on the question of unemployment and emigration, I have been depressed by the laborious way in which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have been dragging out these emigration figures. They know perfectly well that emigration figures derived from passenger movement statistics tell us something about the short-term movements in the British economy. The fact that the figure is down to 2,000 tells us that there is massive unemployment in Britain. It tells us nothing about our economy. Studies which I have carried out in the fifties and published then and since have shown conclusively that short term fluctuations in the level of this figure are totally dominated by the British situation. I can only recall one period of ten months in the last 20 years in which the movement of emigration in the short term, as indicated by these figures, bore any relationship to economic conditions in Ireland. What they do tell us about Irish economic conditions derives not from whether they are moving upwards or downwards but from the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys. It is true that emigration in the 1960's has been very much lower than in the 1950's, perhaps no more than 40 per cent or even down to 25 or 30 per cent of the level of that period. I think I have never attempted to diminish that fact but have tried to expose its significance and get the Government to face the problems of economic growth arising from the fact that emigration has fallen, something they have been unwilling to face. That this figure is now fluctuating downwards tells us nothing about our economy; it tells us only that there is a big slump in Britain and high unemployment there. Trying to use these figures in the other way is spurious.
What the Government are entitled to say is that the very high level of unemployment at present is partly accounted for by the fact that there are no emigration opportunities in Britain and people are staying at home. This is true but only part of the truth. The real test of our economic growth is not in short term movements in emigration and unemployment but in the level of employment: how many jobs are there? What has been striking about the past two years is the very slow growth of employment and that in sectors where normally it increases it has not been increasing or not significantly. Those are the figures we should like to hear about from the Taoiseach. Lest there be any doubt about what these unemployment figures show and mean let me say that the only valid comparison we can make with past periods is in respect of figures for unemployment benefit. What they show, and it is an ominous fact, is that at the latest date for which comparable figures are available, the last week in November, the number receiving unemployment benefit was fractionally higher than the number at the end of November, 1956. As seasonal pressures mount and as these figures increase it seems we can expect a rise to a level even higher than the peak reached in the spring of 1957 which was the highest level reached for several decades past.
That is our position. It is not solely due to the mismanagement of the economy by the Government but is also due to the position in Britain, but when you take it in conjunction with the failure of employment to grow it is evident that there is something much more radically wrong here than the economic situation in Britain.
I want to say a word about EEC, mainly on one point, before moving on to Northern Ireland. Deputy Corish made some sort of distinction between people concerned with figures and people concerned with people and jobs. This is an utterly false distinction. The only figures that interest us as politicians on all sides of the House are figures that tell us something about people's welfare. There is no distinction between figures and people. Figures are the sum total, the aggregate of human problems and successes as a result of our efforts here. When we on this side of the House talk about EEC and say that it is a good thing that we should join we say so because we believe, and can show conclusively, that its effect on employment here will be radically favourable, just as staying out would have disastrous effects on employment. It is because of its effect on employment that we want to join, because the spending of the vast sums of additional foreign income accruing to Irish agriculture will generate enormous sums in wages, and incomes, partly in the form of additional jobs and partly in higher incomes. For that reason alone those of us concerned for the future economic and social welfare of the country favour membership. That needs to be plainly said.
In the White Paper due to come out next month let me urge the Government seriously to put forward the best estimate they can of these effects because if they fail to estimate the employment effects of membership in full and show what these are likely to be and if we are not given, for the purpose of this referendum, the facts to put before the people, distorted facts will be put forward by those who have an interest in keeping us out. It is up to the Government to produce a White Paper that gives the facts and does not dodge the issue. Every document they have so far produced on the Common Market has been useless, without a single hard fact or figure, nothing but talk in language which means nothing to the man in the street. If that is how they will tackle the referendum, if that is all the ammunition they give us and if that is all they give the Irish people by way of hard facts, the referendum may well be lost and, if it is, it will be the fault of the incompetent Government that will have caused it to be lost. Let me insist that the Government in that White Paper do their job if they want to win the referendum and sometimes one wonders if they are serious about it, they have handled it so ineptly.
Turning now to the North, I suppose that realistically it is better to start with the catalogue of mistakes that have been made. All of us have made mistakes and the tragic situation in the North is the result. Perhaps one of the first mistakes made, if I may say so, was made by the Northern Opposition. I am speaking from hindsight and I do not claim that at that time I saw the significance of this or that, if I had been in their shoes, I should have done otherwise because they were facing a situation without precedent. They made the mistake of having a reform programme which when conceded in principle and largely in fact, though not completely, of course, after August, 1969, left them in the position that they were not clear where they wanted to go. In retrospect we can see that it was essential they should have had a clear programme of drastic political change to put forward so that in that brief honeymoon period before the IRA could mobilise their forces to provoke the British Army and to cause the conflict and bloodshed in the North the real fundamental political reforms could have been pushed through. Unfortunately, disconcerted, perhaps, by the ease with which the reforms were granted after the tragic events of August, 1969, they did not have concrete proposals to put forward.
The Northern Government made their mistakes also. They were offered a chance by the Civil Rights movement to make a fresh start, to undo all the injustices they had committed and to join with the minority in Northern Ireland in trying to create within that community a society that would work on the basis that having built up a genuine and just society, in time the whole question of the Border could be considered in a dispassionate way.
There was a willingness on the part of those engaged in the Civil Rights movement and in the Northern Opposition to put Partition on one side for a period, to say: "Let us first create a just society here and then let us discuss Partition." There was a willingness on their part to take the issue of Partition out of politics, perhaps, to make it a matter for referenda at regular intervals so that party politics in the North could adopt a different approach.
The Northern Government could have grasped that opportunity. Had they done so, the North today would be peaceful, governed jointly by Unionist and Nationalists in a single administration, working together with an agreement to disagree for the time being about Partition, which could be left to the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves in referenda. However, with a lack of imagination characteristic of the Unionist Party and their history, they failed to accept the opportunity.
The British Government also failed to grasp the opportunity provided by this honeymoon period. They failed to grasp the duty they owed to their own army. They put their army into the North as a peace-keeping force but every sensible person knew this could not last indefinitely. It was the right answer at that time, it was rightly demanded by the Catholics for their protection—whatever shock this may have been to the sensibilities of some so-called Republicans down here.
However, the situation was bound to deteriorate. Always there are evilly-disposed people who want to cause trouble, people who cannot tolerate the idea of fraternisation between the Catholics in Belfast and the British Army. These people were prepared to start a campaign of murder in order to bring that honeymoon period to an end. During this period a solution could have been found but the British Government, with their customary lack of imagination, breathed a sigh of relief when peace appeared, turned their minds elsewhere, and allowed the opportunity to pass. They made a second appalling blunder—the blunder of introducing one-sided internment, accompanied by what they so euphemistically call "ill treatment" but what we, more realistically, call "brutality".
It is extremely difficult for the British Government to extricate themselves from that appalling blunder. They have locked up in Long Kesh hundreds of people, a fair proportion of whom are IRA men, although not all because of the ineptitude with which they chose the people whom they interned. They can say that they cannot let these people out to make the situation worse on the streets but, at the same time, they know that if they do not find a solution to internment, if they cannot find a way of charging these people before some kind of tribunal acceptable to the minority in the North, there cannot be any negotiations, never mind peace. By their mistake the British Government have made it almost impossible to find such a solution but they must find a way out.
Our Government have made their mistakes too. We all have but I think the Government have made more than their share. Anyone who reads the Fine Gael document of September, 1969, with its proposals for re-union by consent and for a joint Government of the minority and the majority in Northern Ireland, will find in it something generous and far-sighted. I think this puts us in a more favourable position than the Government to claim some credit.
Our Government have failed to carry conviction with the British Government on the question of tactics and the solution in Northern Ireland because of their refusal to tackle the IRA down here. This was a most unfortunate blunder. There are various possible reasons for it: fear of repercussions among their own supporters; fear of public unpopularity; the politician's desire to put off the evil day and hope that something will turn up, that some lunatic IRA men would start a campaign of murder down here and make it easier for the Government. There may even have been some kind of half-baked Machiavellian calculation of the kind this Government are capable of that they had better keep this kind of threat alive so that they would have some bargaining power with the British when they come to the conference table.
Any of these reasons may have contributed to this unfortunate decision but the failure of the Government to act in good time against the IRA has meant they have lost their position as second guarantor they so proudly claimed. They have lost credibility and influence with the British Government. If I were a member of the British Government at this time I could not take seriously the views put forward by a Government in Ireland that have failed completely to make a minimum contribution to peace and the avoidance of murder in this island. All the advantages the Government had built up by some intelligent and astute policies in the past have been dissipated by this unfortunate blunder and now they are not in a position to influence events.
There must be two elements to any solution in Northern Ireland. First, any solution must be such as to end the alienation of the minority from authority, to bring them back into the position where they can accept the authority of those who rule them. This must be done without alienating the majority. There is nothing to be gained by exchanging a one-third alienated section for a two-thirds alienated section of the population. The necessary changes must be made skilfully and subtly, in a manner acceptable to majority opinion and in which the majority can acquiesce.
Secondly, any solution must create conditions likely to favour reunion of this island by consent. Those are the two aims we should have, that everyone should have who is concerned to achieve peace in this island. The achievement of such a solution must be preceded by whatever steps are necessary to make negotiations possible. Given those two elements, the need to achieve negotiations first, Britain at this point must take the initiative, as the Minister for Finance pointed out.
The British Government must charge before some legal tribunal those people whom they have interned and transfer security to Westminister so that the SDLP and the Nationalist Party can enter into discussions that will lead to a solution. There can be no solution until they talk; they cannot talk without losing all credibility with the minority unless the British take this course of action.
The British Government must accept the principle of participation of the Opposition in government in Northern Ireland. This was done implicitly by the Home Secretary in his speech in the House of Commons in September but, as it was repudiated immediately in three speeches within five days by the Northern Ireland Prime Minister, that particular statement seems to have been left in abeyance.
Since then, the Northern Government in their Green Paper have gone on record as rejecting absolutely the possibility of participation by the minority in government. With regard to the Green Paper, I am indebted— as we all are—to Captain Brooke who has sent us today a number of basic documents about Northern Ireland which will help us to understand the problems there. We should all be grateful to him and be glad to have even this minimal communication from Northern Ireland.
In the Green Paper it states:
On three points however they are unable to admit of any compromise whatever...
Here a genuine Northern "no surrender" spirit comes through. I shall quote only the first point listed:
The maintenance of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom in accordance with the statutory guarantee of the Ireland Act, 1949.
The paper also states:
It is clear that no person who would not also accept these over-riding principles could join with Ministers of the present Government in the exercise of collective responsibility, nor could any "broadly-based administration" so constituted survive for long the inevitable and intolerable strains upon it.
When those words were penned and, indeed, when before they were penned, as far as we know, the Northern Premier three times reiterated that there could be no compromise on this, he signed his own political death warrant. Once he said there could be no participation in Government, his chance of continuing in Government disappeared. I cannot understand why he does not see that. It is his inability to see that, it is his dedication to the short term, to surviving until next week instead of looking ahead to next year and the next decade, which will destroy him and destroy the Unionist regime. They should have had the wit to see that, only if they accepted that, could they remain in power, sharing power, and with 65 per cent of the power in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, as well as taking these steps to make negotiations possible, and as well as accepting and implementing the principle of Opposition participation in Government, Britain must also state her desire for a united Ireland and willingness to assist towards that aim, and set up some mechanism that will lead in this direction at the kind of pace that can offer people sufficient hope to end their present frustration.
Mr. Wilson has made a noble attempt to find a way out along these lines. Of course, any such movement towards reunion must be with the consent or acquiescence of the majority in Northern Ireland. We do not seek on this side of the House—and I believe this is true of the other side of the House also—to impose, or to have imposed by British arms, reunion without the consent of a majority. We want Britain to say she looks forward to such reunion. We would like said, at least at the minimum, what was said in the 1920 Act by people like Lloyd George and Churchill—and if they could say it surely Ted Heath can say it now 50 years later.
The Northern Government must accept this package or get out. They seem to be committed to getting out. That is their tragedy, not ours. The Northern Opposition must try to make this package work when it has been agreed. They must use their influence, which they have retained through their participation in the civil disobedience campaign, with the minority to get this package accepted and to get law and order restored in Northern Ireland.
What must we do? I must now turn to our responsibility. Our responsibility is to get rid of the partitionist and sectarian features introduced mainly by Fianna Fáil, and perpetuated solely by Fianna Fáil, in this part of the country. We must show that we believe in a pluralist society. I know it is argued that Protestants do not really want contraception or divorce and that most of them would never dream of getting divorced and many of them, perhaps most, would not dream of using contraceptives. That is not the point. Those who argue like that fail to understand the Protestant mind. They cannot get inside it. They are so governed by the authoritarian Catholic traditon that they cannot see how the Protestant mind works. It is not that Protestants want to do these things necessarily; it is that they do not want to be prevented from doing them by law. They believe in individual freedom and that belief is the great heritage of the Williamite revolution from which we all benefit and which we all share. Indeed, if we were transferred back to 1689, with our present mentalities and outlooks. I suspect that we would probably all be Williamites because of that very fact.
The Deputy has one minute left.
We must try to understand their motivations. We must try to get rid of those features in our system which are alien to them. It must be said that some of these were brought in by the first Government, in good faith, and failing to understand precisely what was involved: the requirement of a knowledge of Irish for State employment; and of Irish in the Intermediate Certificate ante-dated the coming of Fianna Fáil to power. For all the rest Fianna Fáil are responsible. They are responsible for the encouragement and tolerance of the IRA in the 1930s, and all the damage that did to good relations between North and South, and all the damage it has done by keeping the IRA alive since then.
They are responsible in 1934 for introducing compulsory Irish in the Leaving Certificate, even when 95 per cent of the people were already taking Irish. In 1935 they brought in the law against contraception. In 1937 they brought in the provision against divorce in the Constitution and the special position of the Catholic Church. This was the hey-day of Fianna Fáil clericalism and partitionism. Throughout that period they brought in, and have since maintained, a system of jobbery which would mean that the Unionists would certainly get jobs down here if they were Protestant Fianna Fáil-ers, they would be excluded from employment as so many other people are from so many jobs today.
The Order now provides for a speaker from the Labour Party.
Could I have two minutes?
Certainly. There is no difference between us.
What have they done now? At this very moment in time they have done two things to copperfasten Partition because they cannot get away from the partition-mindedness that is such a feature of that party. First they rejected in the Seanad the Bill to deal with contraception, showing how little they care for our relationship with Northern Ireland and the Protestants of Northern Ireland. Secondly, they introduced this abortion of a community schools proposal which is designed to abolish our multi-denominational vocational schools in favour of Catholic schools, at the very time when we should be turning our minds in the opposite direction. This is Fianna Fáil's contribution.
What I want to ask the Taoiseach when he is replying—and I would ask Deputies opposite to write down these points and ensure that the Taoiseach replies to them—is: is the Taoiseach prepared to make the necessary changes? Is he prepared now? Can we trust this Government to make the necessary changes? Can we trust them to drop the Irish language policy? Can we expect them to change the law on contraceptives? Will he say here and now that he will do that? Is he prepared to drop the community schools proposal, or will he persist in it regardless of its effects on our relationship with the North? Is he prepared to drop the whole divisive doctrine of a Gaelic Catholic state which Fianna Fáil invented, and Fianna Fáil fostered, and Fianna Fáil are now attempting to perpetuate? If he answers those questions in one way, we will know where we stand. If he answers them in another way, in a Fianna Fáil way, we and the Unionists in Northern Ireland will know how much he and his party care for the reunification of this country.
I should like to recommend to the House the Christmas Covenant message published in all the principal newspapers today.
Hear, hear.
Some Members of this House have already signed it and I hope other Members of the House and many ordinary people will also sign it. I hope that the majority of Irish people, North and South, will sign it. I should like for the record to quote one portion of this Covenant:
...Certain that the majority, North and South, are ordinary people who realise that peace will only come to our island through understanding, love, confidence and courage; aware that in some areas, each section of the community is genuinely afraid of the others, or, at least, of some of the others; mindful that the thing we most have to fear is fear itself, recognising that in this situation it takes greater courage to make concessions and be friends with the people we are expected to hate, than to put up the traditional barricades in our streets or in our minds, each one of us, Protestant and Catholic alike, do now solemnly promise in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Who binds us together in love— that never, under any circumstances, will we take up arms to attack our fellow-countrymen, that we will not use, threaten or countenance the use of violence to achieve political ends, or to coerce any section of the community into conformity with beliefs which they do not share—that at Christmastide and throughout 1972 we will try to make personal contact with people from whom we are at present divided, and that we will fight fear with friendship...
I commend that Covenant to the House. I am opening my remarks by referring to that Covenant because it is a real initiative by ordinary people and the problem before the whole country calls for this type of real initiative. I especially underline the words:
...in this situation it takes greater courage to make concessions and be friends with the people we are expected to hate, than to put up the traditional barricades in our streets or in our minds....
We have a situation of real tragedy before us. The question I should like to ask is: what can we covenant to do here in this House? We recognise that there are difficulties in the whole situation for politicians and for ordinary people North and South. There are those who talk about nothing more explicit than an eventual unity, avoiding the very difficult political terrain of the means to achieve that unity. If we simply confine our remarks on the North to a reiteration of our desire for territorial unity, while we will lose no friends on this side of the Border, we will make no appreciable advance on the other side.
The difficulty arises when we talk about the means. If one speaks about the means of ending the violence that is rending the Northern community and, in my view, postponing eventual unity, one is accused of abandoning the objective of unity. I still believe in the achievement of the unity of this country by consent and agreement. Over the year I have done my best to acquaint myself with the main elements which constitute the Northern question so far as anybody who has not lived under that sectarian regime can understand those elements.
The first elected position I held in any national organisation was when in Belfast in 1960 I was elected deputy president of the Union of Students in Ireland. In that organisation I learned at first hand how difficult it is to keep a group of people working across Border and to retain in a divided country a national organisation operating in the entire Thirty-two Counties. Later, I worked with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as their education officer and learned again, at first hand, from 1963 to 1965 of the stresses and difficulties that lie in the path of even a labour organisation, a trade union organisation which seeks to preserve worker solidarity and co-operation across religious and political barriers. In 1966 I was a founder member of the Irish Council of Labour and I would say that in the period 1965-66, in the course of preparation for the establishment of the council which at that period included the NILP and what was then the Republican Labour Party and also ourselves, I made as many visits to Northern Ireland as others either in this House or outside it are likely to make in their entire lifetime. I have reached my own conclusion on the Northern problem and this conclusion is based on my experience of working there. I am my own man on the North of Ireland.
For those who wish to check on my interest in Northern Ireland since entering public life they may check the records of the Eighteenth Dáil. No Deputy in this House during that Dáil asked more questions than I on the actual growing development of the Northern area and I include among those better-advertised republicans since who were Members of that Dáil but who did not appear as concerned then with the problem. Therefore, I will take second place to no one in the extent of my commitment to the ideal of seeking the unity of my country. During the years in Opposition I have spared no personal efforts, even when many older heads told me that I should mind my own Twenty-six County business, to try to learn at first hand the elements of the Northern situation. I am a republican and a socialist but my republicanism belongs to an older tradition than that invoked presently in many parts of the country. I follow a republican who was called Tone who spent his life striving to cross the religious and political divides in an efforts to create a State that would have the possibility of independence within it. I do not follow that republicanism which relies on a 30-second period before the bomb goes off to convince people of the righteousness of their cause.
Hear, hear.
I do not want to be known as the native of a country, the citizen of a State or a member of a movement that, for one moment, would permit the condonation of such methods. All of us know what is happening in Northern Ireland or if there is anybody who does not know, there is no excuse for him. Civil society has broken down there. Armed soldiers roam the streets, search houses and shoot recklessly. The internment camps operate and the IRA practise counter-violence. A question I would like to ask the House is this: do we think that the destruction of civilised standards of behaviour is confined to Northern Ireland? I recall during previous debates that from listening to Members of this House one would imagine that the problem of Northern Ireland was practically at the North Pole. Are there not signs that the rest of Ireland at the moment, that part of the country that is operating under a democratic State—there never was democracy in Northern Ireland—is now being infected by the pus from the running sore that is now Northern society? Is it not true that people are becoming less shocked by the brutalities and killings which only 12 months ago would have provoked horror? Over a short time we have travelled a terrible road of horror, from the explosion in the offices of the Northern Ireland Electricity Board, which resulted in the maiming and killing of several persons, the explosion at McGurks Bar and at Moffets furniture store. How much further must we travel this dark road of horror to the next atrocity?
This coarsening of moral response to Northern atrocities is occurring throughout the rest of Ireland. Even if I cannot condone the feelings of revenge, in the heart of a member of the minority in Northern Ireland when he considers his lot at the hands of the Unionist regime during many years, the selective justice, the sectarianism practice by the Unionist regime, I can understand them. His memory of such things must go a long way towards explaining his attitude. However, there is no excuse in this part of the country for the coarsening of responsibility to the horrible events in Northern Ireland. For 40 or 50 years we neglected Northern Ireland and had no interest in what went on there.
Absolutely none.
It was a tricolour slogan at election time and the fate of all people of Northern Ireland was a familiar come-all used here at election time. The troubles of the Northern people were milked for vote yield at elections for purely Twenty-six County political considerations. Therefore, I cannot forgive or justify such rapid coarsening of moral response of many people in this part of the country, a part of the country which, through its political institutions and media, ignored the real North for so long.
Does the Deputy not wish us to help them now?
Deputy O'Leary.
That coarsening of response has now reached the stage that one's sincerity on the unity question is queried on the basis of the sympathy one extends, whether that sympathy is expressed at a Unionist or a non-Unionist death. Death notices are acquiring a political complexion. I mourn the victims of all the Northern killings. The Northern problem, essentially, cannot be solved by violence. Violence cannot contribute at all in settling the Northern question. I accept that the Stormont structure was an instrument of violence and coercion down through the years, I accept that the conduct of the Army now seems to be a continuation of that same violence but I cannot forget either that illegal organisations set out deliberately to push the Army in the direction of their present tactics. I will not accept any sophisticated argument or alibi for a continuation of the violence or any argument to the effect that we should accept this continuation and learn to live with it.
People condemn violence but they are afraid to name it. I will name the authors of violence. There is Stormont violence, there is British Army violence, and there is IRA violence. This was put well by Dr. Daly, Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, when he said that the evidence mounts, as news bulletin follows bulletin, that the tree of violence is evil and that its fruits become more ruthlessly evil with every bomb and every cold blooded murder. He went on to say that the bishops have no less courageously condemned the brutalities and inhumanities of the other violence which is military repression and that the bishops have not ceased to declare that the basic injustice which the long standing denial of political and social equality in the North represents must be tackled boldly at its roots. In that the bishop names the agents of violence and that is a practice I would commend to every Member of this House. On this side of the Border it is easy to name British Army violence. We will lose no friends by doing so but we must have the political courage to name the other kind of violence that might lose us friends on this side of the Border. It is my conviction that this violence cannot contribute to a settlement.
Nobody who knows the Northern community now denies the horrible, undeniable fact that the component parts of that Northern Community have never been so distant from one another. Does any Member of this assembly here think that we are advancing on the high road to a united Ireland when every bomb, blast and bullet fired divides further that suffering Northern community? One would need to be totally, abysmally ignorant of Northern affairs to think that unity is advanced by these violent methods.
The British Government have made high-sounding noises about political talks. Maudling, their Home Secretary, spoke of a permanent, active and guaranteed role for the minority in the North. He has done very little to amplify that particular statement. It has just been left in the air and it is now acquiring all the connotations of a cliché. This whole Northern situation is full of clichés from both sides. Probably the most hopeless cliché of that situation is that so much depends on a new enlightened approach on the part of the British Government. The problem cannot be settled without that Deus ex machina, that change, that disposition on the part of the British Government to create the conditions that will permit political talks to take place. Unless they work to create those conditions our common country goes further down the road to ever renewed. ever increasing violence and no end can be seen to the nights and days of terror. As long as the British fail, and they have persistently failed, to take the initiative to set up the conditions for these talks, we cannot be faulted for concluding that the main objective of the Westminister Government is in reality the maintenance of a sectarian Unionist regime at all costs and at the expense of the political, legal, civil and economic rights of the minority.
We must not give way to despair but it would be foolish to deny that there are elements of despair in this horrible situation. How interested are the British people in reaching a settlement of this problem? How important is it to their politicians that it should be settled? Where would the Irish question come in the priorities of British politicians at present? We must not give way to despair, but the thought often occurs to me that probably Britain would not greatly care about the fate of democracy, North or South of the Border, as long as no trouble accrued to them.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Northern problems knows that the participation of the SDLP in talks is essential if we are to get any significant political initiative and they cannot take part in talks because of the existence of internment without trial. Of course, it is a vicious circle. Internment without trial was introduced by the British Government probably on the advice of Brian Faulkner. It represented a terrible, a major error on the part of the Heath administration because it signified to the minority in Northern Ireland that nothing had really changed despite all the high talk about reform, it signified that the coercive core of the regime was still maintained intact. When Heath agreed to the introduction of that interment without trial the Downing Street declaration was dead on that day.
The SDLP have taken this stand that they cannot take part in talks as long as the situation persists where people are interned without trial. Surely it is not beyond the power of the British Government to use their full authority to exert the necessary influence on the Stormont security authorities to bring internment without trial to an end as this is a precondition to talks which the SDLP could attend. Could the British Government look into the possibility of taking security totally out of the hands of the Stormont authorities? Admittedly we will not take security out of the hands of the Stormont authorities without the resignation of Brian Faulkner. I do not know whether that is a great loss to Irish political life. He has said that he will resign if security is taken out of their hands. I think the resignation of Brian Faulkner is a small price to pay. I think security should be taken out of the hands of the Stormont authorities. Their handling of security over the years leaves a great deal to be desired and accounts for a great deal of the present trouble in that area, the one-sided way in which they have applied justice over the years. The British Government must create the conditions where political talks can take place. This would be a major contribution towards the achievement of peace.
When one makes suggestions in the area of achieving political settlement, one at all times encounters risks. You encounter risks because you must talk about the situation as it now is and you cannot simply pin all your statements to a future united Ireland. So I recognise the risks in making any suggestion, any statement on the situation as it now is. I think it would be a major contribution to peace if the British Government, within the next two weeks, were to take over total control of security and reduce the British military presence in those areas of Northern Ireland where it is at present no more than a provocation.
It is true that when the British troops first came in in August, 1969, they were welcomed by the minority as their protectors. This is true. It is on record. This happened in Belfast. At that stage we were seeing the beginnings of a civil war there and the army came in to protect the minority. It is no less true today that that army has justifiably secured the enmity and hostility of the minority there. It would be a signal improvement in the situation if the British Government could recognise this changed approach to the British Army on the part of the minority.
Earlier this week when Mr. Maudling went home from his press conference I made the point in a statement I put out that I believed Mr. Maudling did not yet appreciate this changed attitude towards the British Army in Northern Ireland. I have mentioned the organisations that had a hand in this changed disposition of the majority towards the army, but I also noted that a contributory factor of the changed approach of the British Army was undoubtedly the change of Government in Westminster. While I may make a criticism that, on the overall sweep of British politics, Irish affairs may have little interest, little significance, for the great majority of that population, it is a fact that the Labour Government that went out at the last election at least attempted to learn the elements of the Northern problem. They showed a capacity to learn which Mr. Heath's administration does not share, even if they had the interest, which I doubt. Their handling of the problem has been inept. They have shown too much reliance on army force alone, they have relied totally on the advice of Brian Faulkner. Evidently they have relied on his advice in relation to the introduction of internment without trial. They should abandon reliance on the political advice of Mr. Brian Faulkner.
What is the role of Mr. Brian Faulkner at present in Northern politics? Fighting for his own personal political survival. That is his role. Has Mr. Faulkner shown any development in his thinking as he looks at his community in ruins around him? Is there any sign of recognition that the old days of Stormont are over over for ever; any sign of recognition on his part that he is titular head of a community that is totally divided now; any evidence of a recognition on his part that he may look towards Dungannon, where portion of the people supposedly under his control, run their own Assembly? Is there any recognition on the part of Mr. Faulkner about this situation? Is there any evidence of it in his political approach? The answer is in the negative. He has shown no development in his response to the gathering crisis. He has rejected proportional government. He has rejected the possible presence of anti-partitionists in any future cabinet of a restructured administration of the area and he rejects the idea, as I said previously, that security should be transferred to Westminster.
So, we have to use our pressure here from Dublin on the British Government to attempt to force that Government to create the political conditions that will allow the talks to take place, that will allow the possibility of the violence ending, that will allow the possibility of the establishment of a new form of administration in Northern Ireland which would see a true sharing of power between both elements in the community there. That seems to me the necessary evolutionary step to the united Ireland that all of us in this House seek. If the talks which I suggest are essential do not take place, there will be no elected leaders to talk to eventually. Do the British Government want that situation? Do our own Government here want that situation where there are no elected leaders to speak to finally? I do not know. I hope our own Government see the necessity of preserving the possibility of the SDLP taking part in talks, accept the necessity for this, accept that those elected leaders are essential in any talks on the matter, but the hopeless feeling I have is whether this concern is shared by the British authorities. I do not know whether that goodwill exists in the present Tory Government, that commitment to settle the problem exists there. Does it exist? Events seem to belie that it does.
I often ask myself whether any British Government would be unduly perturbed to see this whole island drift away into a kind of Haiti, a place run by Dr. Duvaliers, on both sides of the Border, a kind of Fascist morass. I remember that in the Adjournment Debate at Christmas, 1967, I said, in respect of cross-Border talks which were then taking place, that if we did not get results from the so-called liberal ways that were supposed to be swamping the Unionist Party, then we had our remedy in going to the British Government and looking for change. And I remember at that stage asking that the price of our participation in cross-Border talks should be the achievement of a real democracy in the Six Counties.
As I said, there is no difficulty when talking on this question if you restrict your comments and your remarks to the wide sphere of eventual unity. You encounter difficulty in this part of the country only when you talk about the difficult political terrain of the means to achieve that unity, especially when you are talking about the complex matter of achieving that unity by democratic agreement and consent. It is a simple matter if you are talking about a unity by force, a unity that depends on shooting other people. There is no complexity about that. You simply get the statistics of the number of people to be shot and set about it. But that is not my way. If we are out to get that unity by consent, then we are involved in the business of seeing an end to the violence that exists at present in Northern Ireland, in bringing about the basis on which political talks can take place and this, as I say, involves us in risks, because we will have to talk about the actual steps that are necessary to be taken. I believe there is that duty on politicians here at the present time, that they must be prepared to take these risks. If we are in any way sincere about our common country, we must be prepared to take these risks and must resist the temptation to appeal solely to Twenty-six County prejudices.
But, if the people who seek unity by violent means are inexact or vague about the kind of Ireland they seek, there is a very clear duty on the part of democratic politicians to spell out clearly the kind of united country they eventually seek. Quite honestly, in this assembly here, we have not done our duty in that respect. This assembly has not spelled out the shape, composition, the kind of united Ireland we all seek on the basis of agreement and consent. That is why—there was nothing original in the suggestion which had been made previously by other parties in this House—when I asked the Taoiseach to set up an inter-party committee, I suggested as a necessary task of that inter-party committee here that we should have attached to it a full secretariat which would work out the constitutional implications of the united Ireland but which would not overlook the economic implications of that united Ireland.
How many of the people who are around our country at the moment declaring passionately their interest in a united Ireland realise or care for the kind of economic lives they may lead in the united Ireland? Do they know whether redundancies would or would not occur in a particular industry, where jobs would grow? Have we thought of these questions? If we are talking about a united Ireland it is essential also to consider the economic dimensions of that idea. It is important to bring the question down from the present state of abstraction in which it now is. Let us fill out the concept of the united Ireland with economic bones and flesh. Let us state what should be the fundamental guiding principles of that Constitution and let us not postpone necessary changes in the area of our own jurisdiction now that would anticipate those future changes in a united Ireland. We need not stand idly by in the context of our own Constitution. here is something we may change now. We need not stand idly by in the context of economic arrangements in this part of the country.
Here are things, in fact, that we may do. If sectarianism was elevated into a State principle in Northern Ireland, if they are now suffering for that elevation of that unholy principle, let us admit also that, not to the same degree, there are aspects in our own conduct of civil affairs here that smack also of sectarianism and let us as a testimony to the sincerity of our opposition to that State sectarian murder machine in Northern Ireland, erase, eradicate and eliminate those features from our own civil life down here. Such a determination on our part would be a genuine register of our sincerity.
It would be of no assistance whatever to the achievement of that united Ireland that we should allow democratic institutions in the rest of Ireland to languish. Politicians must ask themselves what is the significance of legislatures that have been set up in this part of the country, and politicians in this House who might be prepared to take the ordinary counsel of caution and walk on the other side of the road must ask themselves are these so-called legislatures which have been set up aimed at democratic institutions such as this which have been set up by the people. That is the question they must ask. They cannot avoid answering this question.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley announced last night that he was thinking of changing the ordinary law of this land into some new form which he described as an inquisitorial form. From my reading of the papers today, it would seem that this would change the ordinary rule that a man is innocent until declared guilty. I am not in favour of any changes in the law of the land. I am simply issuing this warning in this House: "Let us ensure that democracy prevails in this part of the country. Let us see that democratic institutions are not undermined in this part of the country. Let not our emotions at events in Northern Ireland blind us into letting liberty slip from the people's control on this side of the Border." I see no need for any twist of the legal rules to ensure that democratic institutions survive in this part of the country. I do not want that Government, or any Government, to allow events so to slip that they come here to us during a recess or at any other time and announce the introduction down here of internment without trial. We are implacably opposed to such a step. We believe it would be the end for democracy on this side of the Border if internment were introduced. We do ask that democratic institutions be protected under the ordinary laws of the land as they exist.
Last week I was visited by representatives of the dependants of internees in Northern Ireland. A representative of the Taoiseach's party was visited also. Financial aid was sought for the relations of people who are now interned. We ought not to forget that the sacrifice is not confined to those who are interned. There are their dependants who are deprived of the earnings of the people who are locked up. They told me that the Taoiseach had expressed his willingness to help financially in order to give assistance to the internees committee which has been set up. Canon Murphy of St. Peter's in the Falls is on this committee. They are a reliable committee of honest people. The Taoiseach has expressed his willingness to offer financial aid. I would endorse that call for financial aid. We have, in this assembly over the years, given donations and cash to necessary causes around the world. I do not know how the rules would permit it, but I suggest it would be a more real mark of the concern of the people of this part of the country, to give some financial assistance before Christmas on a subvention basis to the internees' dependants. There would be no inter-party bickering on the matter. This is something we could all agree on. There is not a person in this assembly who is not in favour of the unity of this country. We should not indulge in any childish rivalry about it, saying: "So-and-so is more for it than somebody else". We are all at one in this matter of the achievement of unity, and, I would hope, the democratic means.
The Northern question is probably the biggest issue before the country. I know from my own contacts in Northern Ireland that over the years people there have desired, in so far as it is possible, a united voice from a free Ireland on the Northern question. Would the Taoiseach look again at the idea of expanding the all-party committee that has been suggested into one that would devise a joint approach on the part of all parties attached to this assembly on the Northern question, so that all of us could subscribe to it and do what Northern people have over the years requested—attempt to lift the Northern question out of the arena of 26-county constituency politics? Surely we should attempt that task because the problem is grave enough to risk the trouble involved in creating this kind of joint party approach.
The Taoiseach appears to think that we need simply restrict ourselves to Constitutional matters. I do not think this is good enough. The people, North and South, require a united approach on the part of the elected representatives. We could do this if we worked together and provided the committee with a full-time secretariat. We could in a relatively short time, have in outline the blueprint for a united Ireland, economically and constitutionally. How can we say we are sincere about a policy of achieving unity of this country by agreement and consent if, in fact, we do not do any homework on the economic and constitutional implications of that united Ireland. We must fill in the conception of this idea of unity with more facts and introduce a note of realism rescuing this ideal of a united Ireland from abstraction. If we seek to persuade people in Northern Ireland about the validity of that united Ireland proposition, then we must give them the blueprint of the model. We have not yet started on that work.
For many years CIO committees roamed this country in preparation for our entry into Europe. We should make some investigation of the potentiality of industry in a united Ireland situation and Constitution. In ending my speech I would simply say that the times we live in mean that all politicians in this assembly know that democracy no longer exists in Northern Ireland. Civil administration has broken down. Some people may still look comfortably at that situation and say that it does not touch us.
I am saying, in closing this Adjournment Debate for the Labour Party, that democracy on this side of the Border is also on trial. Let no member of this assembly forget that. In 1967, also in the Christmas debate, I said that it should be our function to attempt to get a real democracy functioning in the Six Counties. We must still attempt that task in far more difficult conditions now. We must use our influence to whatever extent it exists with the British Government, to ensure that we bring about the political condition for those talks. We must ensure that the SDLP can go to those talks. We must change those features in our own way of life and in our own Constitution that need to be changed. We must fill out a blueprint of a united Ireland to be devised by all three parties in this House. Again, we must reassert the authority of this lawful, democratically elected assembly. We must not, whatever our politics are, and whatever travail we go through, subscribe to any undermining of this democratic institution. This is a democratic institution. We do not assist towards the establishment of a united Ireland by consent or agreement if democracy should fail on this side of the Border.
First of all, I would like very sincerely to congratulate Deputy Michael O'Leary on the speech he has just made. If we heard more of those sentiments expressed as well as Deputy O'Leary expressed them many of the difficulties and confusions which exist in certain quarters might disappear.
This debate is a yearly review of the state of the nation. In opening the debate yesterday the Taoiseach chose to confine himself to an assessment of the economic situation. Listening to his speech one would wonder whether there was any problem in this country except the undoubted economic problems which exist. One would also wonder whether the events that are taking place in the North of Ireland were to be isolated and separated from the general health of this nation, which, of course, they cannot be. In concluding the debate on behalf of my party, I want, first of all, to deal with the economic review which the Taoiseach gave yesterday, and then to say something about the other issues before the country at the moment.
The Taoiseach reviewed the economy yesterday with such an uninspiring complacency that one must very seriously question whether there are now any economic plans or policies being pursued by the Government. He claimed that 1971 was a better year than 1970. He claimed that 1971 has shown some important improvements over the past year, and he instanced a 3 per cent growth rate in place of a 1 per cent growth rate. He appears to be utterly oblivious of the fact that a 1 per cent or a 2 per cent or a 3 per cent growth rate in modern times is indicative of an almost stagnant economy.
In referring to the 3 per cent growth rate the Taoiseach claimed credit for the Government for having forecast correctly that this rate would be achieved this year, as if they ought to be praised for recognising their inability to achieve anything better. We did not hear anything from him about the breakdown, utter and complete now, of economic programming. We did not hear anything from him about the vast increase in economic potential which under the Second and Third Programmes was promised by Fianna Fáil for this decade. These promises are now so much of the past that very few Deputies in this House have the heart even to refer to them.
The Taoiseach also referred to what he called the difficulties and the restrictions facing the economy, one of these which he mentioned being the 1969 balance of payments deficit of £69 million. He appears prepared to forget that that balance of payments deficit of £69 million in 1969 was the cost this country had to pay to enable the Fianna Fáil Party to win the 1969 election. Today he thinks the balance of payments deficit of £75 million for 1971 is quite satisfactory because it covers the purchase of Jumbo jets and because as he says, of the substantial inflow of foreign capital. I wonder at the vision and the imagination of the man who is now in charge of our destiny and who is satisfied with a balance of payments deficit of £75 million because, among other reasons, there is a satisfactory inflow of foreign capital. I would have thought that this represented a real danger to this country because it indicates that we are continuing to borrow lavishly from abroad and that our present level of economic activity depends on foreign financing—and this in a country which is ravaged by civil war; this in a country in which the threat of anarchy is beginning to loom larger and larger each week and each month. Should, for any reason, this flow of foreign capital cease to come in here, what then would happen to our present level of economic activity? If we are to continue to drift along, assuming everything will be all right, just because a satisfactory inflow of capital enables us to live beyond our means, to incur the many liabilities that we otherwise could not afford, then I suggest we are heading for economic disaster.
The Taoiseach went on to say that he regarded the rise in prices as a less satisfactory area of economic activity. So well he might when the cost of living in the last three years has increased by 30 per cent and is still rising. One only has to have regard to the fact that in this country today the women, the housewives, various organisations, are not only angry but are driven to action by the apparent, inevitable climb in prices one week after another. It is clear there is no control. It is clear there is no policy. It is clear there is no thinking now in the Government to find means by which some stability can be brought to prices. Everywhere, unfortunately, there is abundant evidence of continued inflation.
The Taoiseach went on to make a passing reference to what he calls "increasing redundancies", and he proceeded to attribute this to the advances in technology, to increasing mechanisation, to the trend whereby machines were doing the work of ordinary manual labour. However, he held out no hope, no plan, no policy to deal with this problem. What are the facts? We now have 70,000 unemployed people. We have 8 per cent of our insured working population out of work and our unemployment problem, comparatively speaking, is now twice as serious as that of Great Britain.
The Taoiseach offered no solution to this problem. He says: "There it is", and then, impliedly: "I am not to blame for it. It is the trend of the times." God be with the days when we used to hear from the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party these trenchant words, that the test of the worth of any government was the number of men they were able to put to work. Applying that test to the present Fianna Fáil Government what worth can be attributed to their policy, to their efficiency or their ability to govern?
On the entire economic front we have just completed another bad year. We have drifted throughout the year just ending in the same way as we drifted for the years before. We might as well have no Government at all. Here we are, a small country, supposed to be waiting on the threshold of Europe, in point of time on the very eve of that happening. Instead of being in the process of completing the entire overhaul and reconstruction of our economy we have to report that we are very much worse off now than we were a decade ago and very much less prepared than many other countries about to enter Europe.
Had we a Government with a policy, had we a Government able to give proper leadership to the country, we should be engaged now in mobilising our economic resources so that the challenges which face us in the next few years could be met and the opportunities which will undoubtedly be presented seized. Unfortunately that is not so. The best we can hope in 1972, the year of challenge, the year of opportunity, is a slight increase on a 3 per cent growth rate and we will go limping into Europe.
That is a sorry position to be in but we are in this position because there has been a complete breakdown in economic policy and economic thinking on the part of this Government over recent years. We can do little about it except, even at this stage, hope by speaking along these lines to force some action, even belated, from the Government.
I should like to make some general remarks about the course which this debate has taken. Quite properly and quite understandably, despite the Taoiseach's introduction, this debate has dealt with the darkening tragedy of the North. I would like to say straight away that everybody in this country must have watched with concern and apprehension the different things which have happened, the different things which were done in the North of Ireland over recent months. Unfortunately, these happenings at times have led to the expression of intemperate views and unfortunately also there are those who by their failure to condemn or at times their implied approval would at this juncture encourage young men from the Republic to cross the Border to attack Unionist installations and persons.
What kind of thinking is this? What kind of doctrine is this that is being preached? Do the people who speak in that way know or realise the evil they may reap? Under our Constitution and under our democracy there is only one Army and it is subject to this Parliament. Under our Constitution and under our democracy there is only one body that may direct that Army and declare war and it is this Parliament and no other body or person. Anyone who suggests otherwise or who acts otherwise treads a very dangerous path indeed, a path which may lead to the very destruction of our democracy and to the establishment, on its rules, of a military dictatorship.
May I say that those who speak like that, should such a dictatorship come about, would get no thanks from the dictator and would be swept away with all their other remnants of democracy. I hope that at this stage in this Parliament we, on all sides of this House, can be resolute and clear in our principles. We can afford no fifth column inside this Parliament or inside this democracy seeking to bring about its destruction. No such fifth column should be tolerated. Those who speak in that way and who advocate these kind of views act, in my view, utterly irresponsibly but there are others who by indolence, vacillation or fear tend to lead to the same bad results.
What of our internal security in this State today? Just as responsibility for the economic situation rests with the Leader of the House, so also is the trust imposed on him to see to the security of the nation. Today we have a depleted Garda force, an under-strength Army and we have to listen to the impudent assertion on the part of one group of the IRA that they have reached such a stage that they cannot be touched by the Government authorities of this State.
Who dares to speak in this way and to challenge the right of the people of this country to rule this country? How is it that members of an illegal organisation, an organisation outside the law engaged in an armed conspiracy against this State, can meet? How is it that they are permitted to hold a press conference and to challenge this State? What are the Government doing about it? What have they been doing about it? They have been whistling, hoping, waiting for the problem to pass by. What has the Minister for Justice, this young man in a hurry, whose duty it is under the Taoiseach to see that the law is enforced in this country, been doing? He has been picking a row with the Bar Council about two senior counsel in the Circuit Court instead of seeing that the law of this country is enforced and that the security situation is put right. I mention these things, perhaps with some emphasis, perhaps with some heat but I do so because I detect a feeling in this country of widespread apprehension.
Deputy Cooney said during the debate yesterday that there is civil war in the North and that there is danger that that civil war could overspill into the Republic. Of course, there is. Guns pointed in one direction today can be pointed in another tomorrow. Unless we who have enjoyed and helped to mould the democracy we have here in the South are prepared to speak up and be heard, irresponsible counsel and unwise words will fall on fertile ground. I ask the Government to do their duty and I hope we will never have to hear again, as we heard in this House yesterday, a Minister for Justice standing up and saying: "Ah, it did not matter. The training is all indoors and there are never more than five or six involved". That kind of silly assertion does little for the credibility of this Government.
We are here at the end of this Dáil session in the month of December, 1971; there are Deputies in this House who marked last Monday week, the 6th December, as the 50th anniversary of the Treaty and, as they marked the occasion, the 50th anniversary of the founding of this State, how sad it was to see not a flag flying from any public building in this city or in the country, to hear not a commemorative word from any member of the Government, not a word to mark the passing of 50 years on from the foundation of this State. It is a sad commentary on how we have learned our citizenship.
It is a sad commentary that five decades of Irish freedom should go unnoticed by those in charge of this nation today. Perhaps there may have been a reason unthought of because these have been 50 years of division, of disillusionment, 50 years in which the nation's efforts were diverted in various ways, 50 years in which the great prize of freedom could never be used properly to build this State. We can look back now and realise what harm was done to the Irish nation in the past 50 years. Is this division, this concern with past dissensions, this determination to score a point, or make a case, is it always to befog and confuse our thinking?
There are dangers inside this State today. There are changes facing us. This surely is a time when Irishmen should be moving closer together, closer together to build and strengthen this country. It has often been said by speakers in different countries, in order to emphasise a point or make a case, that a nation is at the crossroads. I believe we are at the crossroads today. I believe there is a testing time coming for every single person engaged in public affairs. It is a time in which we will have to think deeply about what is going to be involved in the immediate future. We will have to think deeply about the present problems of our land. We will have to have the courage to realise—not merely to say it, but to realise it fully—that the Unionist Senator who was shot dead in the North last week, that Brian Faulkner, Ian Paisley and Boal, and every one of them up there, are just as much entitled to the name of Irishman as anyone here in this House. They were born on the soil of Ireland. They breathe Irish air. They are entitled to be regarded as full citizens of this country.
We will have to have the courage, too, to realise that the traditions and the memories they honour and the people they respect are just as much Irish memories and Irish personalities as are the memories and the people we here respect. We have got to appreciate and understand—and, appreciating and understanding, we must be prepared to act in the light of that—that their views and their ideas and their beliefs must be fully and generously respected in any new Ireland.
I hope that these ideas are present to the Taoiseach's mind when he suggests that there should be an all-party committee. I did not want to score any debating point but I should like to express regret that this gesture should have come so late. It might have been that on the outbreak of the incidents in the Bogside in August, 1969, and since, mistakes might have been avoided and greater confidence given had the suggestion then made of an all-party committee been then acted upon. It is sad to think that this suggestion should now become politically possible simply because it comes from Westminister and not from the Deputies on the right of the Ceann Comhairle in this House. I hope good will come of it and I hope that we can by pooling our views and expressing them courageously and sincerely help to have a new approach to the division of our country.
I do not want to say very much more, but I do want to repeat that there is a very real fear in this country today. I mentioned the economic situation. It has tended to become pushed into the background over the last 18 months because of the events in the North but, in that area, there is certainly ground for disquiet, ground for the feeling that there is no sure hand on the tiller and no sound course being pursued. The problems are left unattended and we are drifting from crisis to crisis.
At the same time, there is the other fear, the other apprehension, that the law of this country is being flouted at will and that the security of the Republic itself may be in danger. I am going to ask the question which is on everybody's lips: is this Government strong enough to act decisively on the part of this nation? Has it the personnel capable of doing what needs to be done in the present crisis of our affairs? If it is not strong enough, if it has not the men of ability to act, then in what direction does this nation turn? Will it be towards anarchy? Will we, by indolence, vacillation, inefficiency or inability to act permit those who by their violent methods have become the new partitionists of our age to destroy our democracy? I do not believe we will turn towards anarchy. I hope that in the ultimate analysis, if it has to be that, that new leadership and new initiative can come from the Dáil itself.
When I opened the debate here yesterday morning I indicated to the House that I was going to concentrate that part of my speech on the economic position. I did not avoid, and I do not think I have been accused of trying to avoid, a debate on the political situation which now obtains. I expected the debate would develop along these lines. It is right and useful that we should have a fairly deep debate on the situation which now exists in the North of Ireland and on developments which have taken place even since the 20th and 21st October when we debated that subject here.
The situation has certainly not improved in the meantime. It has, on the contrary, deteriorated along predictable and, in fact, along predicted lines since that debate took place. The number of people killed since August, 1969, is now touching on 200 and most of these have died since the 9th August this year. Far from this impressing on the Northern regime the need for different policies it seems to bring forth and induce a frenzy of demands for even greater oppression and also demands for greater power to carry out this oppression.
We have a stream of propaganda from the same source that Britain should extend the area of conflict in the North to the Border area. The greatest possible propaganda use has been made of the admittedly horrible killings near the Border. There have been too many deaths everywhere in the North but we must not let the repetition of accusations about a particular horror conceal that, whereas fewer than ten people have lost their lives along the Border over the past three years, 20 people were killed in one week in Belfast alone between McGuirk's pub, the Shankill Road and the Ardoyne and all of these innocent people.
The attempt is made to suggest that we here are responsible for this unfortunate situation. I have repudiated these charges and I will continue to repudiate them. We have been accused of insufficiently controlling the Border and, by implication, of being responsible for the deaths in the Border area. This is a fraudulent claim as everyone who makes it knows well. I and members of the Government have replied to it on a number of occasions recently and we fully stand over these rejections.
I should like to reply to it now by adding that a regime, whose continuance involves the destruction of the lives of 20 people in one week in its capital city as well as the continued discontent and unhappiness of its entire population more or less indefinitely, has no right to the support it expects and even demands from the British Government and the British people. It has even less right to point an accusing finger at anybody else.
I have said these things before but they bear repetition. The deterioration of the situation in the North of Ireland is due to the pursuance of wrong policies there by the British Government at the instance of a local regime which for the moment has trapped the British Government into a line of conduct which, if unchanged and successful—both of these are highly unlikely eventualities—can only restore the monopoly of Unionist power which is at the root of the instability in that State.
Hear, hear.
The causes of violence in the North lie in the refusal of civil and human rights to 40 per cent of its population. No community divided as the North is can expect to maintain a one-sided monopoly of power and have peace as well. In this respect I want to touch briefly on a number of things which have been recently said by spokesmen of the Unionist idea of government.
One is that those people who advocate the unity of Ireland—the Fitts, the Humes and so on—shall never participate in Government in the North. This, of course, is an assertion worthy only of ridicule. Furthermore, it is obviously one not shared by either Mr. Heath or Mr. Maudling. The sooner this idea disappears from political currency the better. It is also asserted in the same quarter that control of security must remain in the hands of Stormont. As the function of security so far as the Northern Establishment is concerned is simply to use armed forces, whether British or Northern, to preserve Unionist monopoly power, then equally clearly that assertion must also disappear from the currency of politics.
The third assertion made is that Irish unity is unthinkable. No one but Stormont now says so and the fact that Irish unity is now essential must honestly be faced by politicians in Stormont and elsewhere. The fourth and most recent assertion is that violence must be stamped out completely in the North before political progress can be made. This assertion completes the circle and the case defended by Unionism becomes clear. It is this: although everybody else knows that the political condition of the North breeds permanent violence, the Unionists say that violence must disappear before the political condition can be changed. The result of such an attitude is obviously no progress whatever, no peace and no real politics. Worse still, in the absence of peaceful progress, in the absence of political progress towards a real solution the opportunity for the Unionist establishment to create bad blood between Ireland and England increases.
It appalls me that in recent times the British Government, which has been drawn into a financial, military and moral morass in the North, in support of what is plainly insupportable, should allow their judgment to be so influenced as to attempt to find a fault on this side of the Border as they have in the past week or so. Mr. Heath knows my views very well on a number of subjects, including the effects of cratering roads and so on. He knows my views on the effects of one-sided administration of repressive measures. The consequences that I forecast to him on two occasions have, unfortunately, resulted and that to my deep regret. I hope the British Government will take time to stand back from the present entanglement which they have created for themselves with the Stormont regime and formulate policies more appropriate to British as well as Irish interests.
Having said this, I should also say that while the situation in the North has deteriorated seriously the situation about the North shows some important signs of change. Mr. Wilson and the British Labour Party have developed their views substantially in recent weeks. I discussed this before and I do not wish to take up the time of the House on it now but suffice it for me to say that two of the three political parties in the British House of Commons now espouse the idea of Irish unity. Furthermore, while it would be unwise to read too much into an informal statement—that recently made by Mr. Maudling—it now appears that he agrees that a solution in the North cannot be achieved by military means alone. He is also conscious that defeating the present campaign of violence is not, by itself at any rate, a policy at all and can lead to no lasting solution.
I would advise him and his colleagues to extend their thinking further to the point where they will see, as the majority of both the Irish and British people already see, that the only lasting solution is to be found in Irish unity. Neither we nor the British can go on allowing Anglo-Irish relations and the future of Ireland to be determined by an intransigent and very small minority in these islands. It is a pathetic use of words to say that Northern Ireland is a democratic State: It is a falsehood to claim that Northern Ireland is governed by democratic principles. I think it is the simple truth to assert that while every reasonable demand of the Unionist population should be accommodated in a united Ireland, their future is in a united Ireland and not in the perpetuation of the present division of our country.
Deputy O'Leary referred to the need for talks. I agree fully with him. He mentioned talks involving the SDLP and, I presume, he also includes the Nationalist Members of Parliament. Whatever one thinks of the decision of the SDLP, and subsequently of the Nationalists, to withdraw from Stormont— they had good reason for it— one must certainly sympathise in the frustration they felt as members of that regime. My efforts since they did withdraw were, so far as I could—and I have been criticized by Northern Unionists for what they described as openly consorting with these people who withdrew from Parliament— designed to maintain the influence of these minority-elected representatives with the minority population. I believe it is highly important that we try as far as we can to maintain that influence and maintain their position as leaders of the Northern minority community.
When I first met Mr. Heath at Chequers the principal message I had for him on that occasion was to get the SDLP and the Nationalists into talks and it was for that reason that I proposed quadrupartite talks. I impressed on him as strongly as I could the need for political initiative. Unfortunately, at the time of the second meeting, Mr. Faulkner had already made a preliminary announcement of his Green Paper and it seemed to me that the British Government were prepared to rest, first, on the so-called reforms that were being effected and, secondly, on this Green Paper as representing what they regarded as satisfactory political initiative. It must be clear to them now that the reform programme has been regarded as not in that category and the Green Paper of Parliamentary reform is totally unacceptable to the Nationalist population. They continue to withdraw their consent notwithstanding whatever carrots are held out to them in the Green Paper proposals for participation. And they are quite right in that Mr. Faulkner has said again and again that anybody who espouses a united Ireland has no place in a Northern Ireland Cabinet.
I have said that a political initiative must be taken, that violent activities will continue and that even if put down now they will break out again within a short period. What I have said in that respect does not in any way condone these acts of violence no matter by whom committed. It does not condone the actions of anybody responsible on either side for violence in any shape or form. I should like to say to those who try to suggest—as Deputy O'Higgins said, who arrogantly suggested here— that the majority of the people in this part of the country support the IRA, that I reject that totally.
Hear, hear.
It is an arrogant, unsustainable and impudent suggestion and I want to assure the gentlemen who made that assertion—one of them publicly here—that this Government do not stand in fear of him, his brand of IRA men or any other brand of IRA men. On this I want to give an assurance about the security of the State, to which one or two Deputies have referred. If I have time I shall deal with it in more detail later.
Nobody need fear about the security of our State. Above all, I wish to assure the IRA that if they think they can take advantage of allegations that there is any degree of insecurity they should have another think. So far as this Government are concerned, the IRA will not be let usurp the functions of this Government or of this Parliament. They have no mandate from anyone and that has been said to them many times, no matter what kind of moral support or otherwise they claim from the people.
The Minister for Finance recently told them to get out of the way and give us a chance to negotiate a United Ireland. So long as they are there, that prospect will not exist. Every bomb exploded, every bullet fired, not only by an IRA gun but by a British gun, and especially every innocent person, no matter on what side, who loses his or her life, puts the day of reconciliation further away. In Cork last week I said that they are almost pushing that day out of sight. Perhaps someone within their organisation would bring home to them the fact that the united Ireland they seek will be a united Ireland of shambles. By bombing factories, office blocks and electricity installations they will leave the country like a desert of rubble, North and South. Even if they succeed in uniting Ireland in that fashion, how do they propose to proceed from there? How do they propose to establish the kind of economic growth that successive Governments on this side of the Border have been striving to achieve for the past 50 years?
I want to repeat my statement that violence cannot be condoned. Violence is the one factor in the situation at the present time that is making worthwhile progress and initiative more difficult. Notwithstanding that, I still say that the initiative is with the British Government. I do not care if Mr. Wilson is given the credit for the current initiative. The initiative he took was bold and imaginative; even though he knows, as we know, that some of the proposals and suggestions are not acceptable, at least there is a working basis there that will try to get all the parties and groups that have a responsibility talking towards a solution.
I wish to deal especially with the allegations that were made that law and order were not being maintained in this part of the country. First, I should like to say to the Opposition that when we bring in measures here designed to ensure the security of property, to ensure the right of the Garda and the Army to effect law and to maintain order, we are met with ceaseless opposition within this House.
Because the Criminal Justice Bill contained one or two features they regarded as objectionable, the Bill was made impossible of passage in the last Dáil. There are sections in that Bill which, if in force, would ensure that there would be far less reason for the apprehension some of the Opposition Deputies have been expressing. The Forcible Entry Bill was opposed tooth and nail, although its purpose was to ensure the right of ownership, the right of access to and residence in one's own property. All these measures as we bring them forward are criticised by the Opposition. They are filibustered in this House because they do not suit perhaps some of the more liberal lights on the Opposition benches. I wish to state that within the existing law this Government intend to use whatever measures we can to maintain order and to establish and uphold the law.
There are defects, and the Minister for Justice has pointed out some of the defects in our laws of evidence, that make it more difficult for us to bring home certain offences, particularly subversive offences, in this country. We have tried to remedy these defects whenever they appear. I can assure the House that if further defects reveal themselves not only in the law but in the administration of the law we will bring forward measures here. We will ask the co-operation of the Opposition to cure these defects and to make the administration of law and the maintenance of order more effective in this part of the country.
Recently I gave an indication of the increase in Garda strength. Some minutes ago Deputy O'Higgins gave the impression that it was at an all-time low level. Since 1968 the strength of the Force has been increased steadily. This year 200 gardaí were recruited over and above normal recruitment and it is proposed to recruit 200 next year in addition to normal recruitment. The Minister for Defence told the Dáil recently that morale in the Army is very high and that the numbers were the highest for more than a decade. I think this gives an indication that this Government are not being complacent about the present situation.
At the same time, I should like to dispel any apprehension that the ordinary citizen might have as a result of statements made in this House by some Opposition Members and by Opposition speakers outside this House. Not only are the garda and Army at considerable strength at the present but that strength of numbers and equipment is being increased all the time and this will continue. The Minister for Defence said that in certain circumstances if it were justified we could bring our troops home from Cyprus within 48 hours. I hope it will not be necessary to do this at any time, but we have instructed our Ambassador to the United Nations to inform the United Nations authority of this possibility.
Deputy O'Higgins opened his speech and occupied about half of it with the economic situation as he saw it. He seemed to criticise capital inflow from abroad as something not good for us, something that was bolstering up our standard of living and which was not justified by our performance. I do not believe Deputy O'Higgins thinks inflow of capital from outside is a bad thing in a developing country. Inflow of capital from Europe originally built up the economic strength of the United States of America, and capital inflow in the opposite direction from the United States of America strengthened considerably the economies of most European countries since the war.
He also suggested that we are less prepared now for entry into the European Economic Community than we were ten years ago. Deputy O'Higgins knows that to be completely untrue and unfounded. He completely forgets the ten years of adaptation programmes which have been going on in the industrial economy. He forgets the new industrial development that has been taking place, development of the types of industries we know can survive and prosper in the Common Market. He knows, too, that our services generally have become more developed in order to enable us to maintain our economic momentum.
He criticised the rate of economic growth, and rightly so, but he misrepresented me as saying that the best we could hope for next year was a slight improvement on the 3 per cent growth in 1971. That growth rate was quite satisfactory having regard to international conditions. He seemed to imply—as many of his colleagues have implied from time to time when it suited them—that we as a nation can insulate and isolate ourselves from world economic conditions. He knows well that that is not true. He knows well that economic depression can be international and usually is international, and particularly inflation. Far from suggesting that I hoped for a slightly better than 3 per cent improvement on the record for next year, my speech made it quite clear that the opportunities for a much faster rate of growth existed and that the Government were, in fact, pursuing policies that would bring these opportunities to fruition.
Yesterday morning Deputy Cosgrave spoke in what I thought was almost an arrogant way. We are used to being charged with being arrogant from the opposite benches but, if ever there was a display of arrogance I think I saw it from Deputy Cosgrave yesterday. He began by accusing me of using phrases which were carefully selected to confuse and conceal. Those were his words. This is a typical example of the way in which the Opposition seek to smear this party and this Government, and to undermine the prestige and the authority of the Dáil. They shed crocodile tears in this respect while, at the same time, by engaging in these charges they themselves undermine respect for Parliament and Government.
Having made that statement he produced no evidence to support it. Indeed, in his subsequent remarks he showed that he was the one who was confused and not I. He showed his confusion is the very first point he mentioned, unemployment. In my speech I said, and I quote what I said: "The figures for unemployment show a rise of approximately 8,000 on those for December last year." Deputy Cosgrave contended that the figure for this year could not be compared with those for last year because of the impact of the Employment Period order and that my statement, therefore, to use his own words again, concealed the true facts.
My statement was based on the number of persons on the Live Register on 3rd December, 1971, compared with the same period in 1970. The increase in the number for this year is 7,668 so that, by rounding up the figure to 8,000. I was erring on the side against myself, far from trying to understate the change.
Not too much.
There are a good many people between 7,668 and 8,000.
Are there? Not that many.
I will give Deputy O'Donovan a present of that point. Deputy Cosgrave accused me of being confused but it is he who is confused because he knows that the Employment Period Order had not been in operation since 18th November and therefore the figures I quoted were in no way affected by it.
He went on to deal with inflation and accused the Government of being the major cause of it. Here he displayed his capacity to use carefully selected phrases to conceal the facts. Having read out the list of price increases for items such as postal charges and bus fares, he deplored the increases in the rates and turnover tax, and then went on to lament the inadequate increases in social welfare, the high rate of company tax and the inadequate spending on the Army and the Garda. This is a classical example of the way the Opposition try to have it both ways. There was a clear inference from his remarks that there should be no tax increases and no price increases, but that we should be expending more and more money on social welfare. We have heard this so often that it is hardly necessary to reply to it in this House.
What does it mean? To take the steps he suggested yesterday, on a very rough and conservative estimate, would cost about £40 million. I would ask him, where is that kind of money to be found if taxes are to be ruled out? The obvious answer, and the one which comes from the Opposition frequently, is that we should cut down spending in other areas. This point was made during the last major economic debate we had and, when pressed further on that point, the Fine Gael spokesman on finance said that we should cut entertainment expenses, which would save about £35,000—not a very substantial contribution to the kind of expenditure Deputy Cosgrave had in mind.
Deputy Tully took a different view of my speech. He said it was nothing more than a collection of a few handy statistics which any old dog in the street could have strung together. The Deputy has different views on other things as well, of course. He seemed to be somewhat better informed than Deputy Cosgrave on the attitude of Fine Gael Deputies towards the EEC issue.
He criticised my figure of 2,000 for net outward movement of people from this country in the current year. He, and I think Deputy Corish as well, said there should be a "1" before it, making it 12,000. The fact is that it is 2,000. As I indicated, I do not depend on these figures as being absolutely reliable, but they indicate the falling trend, I have mentioned, from 21,000 four years ago to 2,000 now.
Great things have happened in our time.
Wait until next year.
Of course, as Deputy O'Donovan might have interjected at the time, this was contributed to by the lack of employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. That is true. However, the figures quoted by Deputy Tully are totally irrelevant. He said he was more accurate because he was more factual. In that, I think the Deputy was only indicating his own confusion. For example, in dealing with unemployment he said that I quoted a figure of more than 60,000 whereas in his opinion I should have said that the figure was more than 70,000. The fact is that I did not quote any figure in my opening speech yesterday. What I did say was that "the figures for unemployment show a rise of approximately 8,000 on those for December last year" and I added that, "however, it would appear that part of the rise in unemployment reflects a drop in emigration". The figure of 8,000 was a rounded off figure.
Would the Taoiseach add 8,000 to the figure for last year and tell us what is the answer?
I want only to clarify some points and to rectify some suggestions made by the Deputy.
If the Taoiseach adds both figures together, he will get a total of more than 70,000.
The Deputy said I used a figure of 60,000 but the only figure I used was that of 8,000. I did not add or subtract any figures. However, the next point raised by Deputy Tully was that I had given incorrect figures for the employment created by IDA projects. He thought the figures I gave were too high as he imagined that what I had done was to quote the expected figures when these industries referred to were in full production. I was quoting the actual figures of initial employment in the projects completed and the further projects which are now in the course of construction for which the initial employment was 3,500 in one case and 4,000 in the other.
How could the Taoiseach know what would be the figures in the course of production?
I said "in the course of construction". Again, regarding imports and exports, Deputy Tully suggested that I was trying to manipulate the data because I referred to the fact that the five months from June to October had shown better results than the months from January to May. The Deputy asked why I picked that five-month period. The period from January to October is a ten month one and October was the last period for which I had figures then. In the first five-month period there was an increase and in the next five-month period there was a continuous reduction. At all events in order not to spoil Christmas for Deputy Tully I have a little present for him. Since speaking yesterday, the November figures have become available and these show a decline, although small, over the import figures for 1970 so that there is a continuing pattern of decline as in the case of emigration. There were other references made by Deputy Tully with which I need not deal now.
Yesterday, while speaking of the 1922 Constitution, Deputy Cosgrave said that that Constitution should never have been abandoned.
I said Article 8 of that Constitution should not have been abandoned.
(Cavan): He referred specifically to Article 8 of that Constitution.
Subsequently, he referred to Article 8. If the Deputy reads the Press as they heard him, and probably the official records as the Official Reporters heard him, he will realise that Deputy Cosgrave said that the 1922 Constitution should never have been abandoned.
(Cavan): I suggest that the Taoiseach reads the Official Report.
I was here at the time and I heard Deputy Cosgrave. I take it that the Fine Gael Deputies want to have that Constitution back. If such a proposition were ever to be put before the Irish people. I have no doubt as to the answer that Deputy Cosgrave and his colleagues would get. Whatever deficiency the passing years may have shown in the present Constitution, at least we can claim it was enacted by the Irish people as a whole and not imposed on them either under threat of a terrible war or an act of the British Government.
(Interruptions.)
Who told the Taoiseach to say that? I suppose that is the old Park line.
Order.
A myth.
The Deputy went on to add that the offensive Articles of the present Constitution came from the warped mentality of Fianna Fáil politicians at the time.
(Cavan): Hear, hear.
Was it a warped mentality that got rid of Article 12 of the 1922 Constitution which describes our legislature as consisting of the King and two Houses, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate? Was it these same warped minds that got rid of an oath we would have to take to be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors?
(Interruptions.)
It was not I who introduced warped minds into the debate.
We thought we were bad.
The Deputy thought right.
(Cavan): Tell us about Article 44.
Is it not extraordinary that when I am speaking on economic matters, nobody says a word——
We are living in 1971.
The Taoiseach will have to do better than that.
Interruptions must cease.
It took far too much sacrifice and toil to remove the offending and humilitating Articles of the 1922 Constitution ever to have them back again.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Cavan): It was not necessary to fire a shot in order to have it changed.
I did not introduce this subject. I did not talk about the warped minds that brought in the offending Articles and I did not advocate bringing back the 1922 Constitution.
The Taoiseach is ashamed now of the 1937 Constitution.
I said that the passage of time in any event would call for a review of the Constitution and let me come to this point at this stage. When I suggested that an inter-party committee be set up to review the Consituation. I made a suggestion also that there should be a requirement that the parties would be bound by their recommendations. I did not envisage representatives of parties going into this committee without reference back in full consultation with their parties but I did not want a situation arising as arose from the informal committee which was set up by Mr. Lemass in which, first, nobody was bound by the recommendations even where they were unanimous and, secondly, nobody outside the committee knew what was going on because the committee were bound to confidentiality. We did not know what had been recommended until, ultimately, the report became available. Indeed each member of the committee and each party in the House were responsible equally for these recommendations. But now I can see the reason for the Fine Gael sham participation in that particular committee. First of all, they would have repudiated their members in any respect they wanted to. Deputy Cosgrave said then that because we find ourselves in difficulty about the 1937 Constitution we want to get in under the Fine Gael umbrella. I do not know to what extent we could fit under it but I suggest that Deputies of the Labour Party could fit under it better. Even then I suggest they would get soaked to the skin.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
It ought to be a golf umbrella because there would be a lot of shades of green to be accommodated under it and there would be other shades as well. I shall not refer to them here.
Is the Taoiseach serious about this all-party committee?
I am, yes.
Then I suggest that the Taoiseach should desist from this kind of speech.
Conduct yourself.
(Interruptions.)
I wanted this committee to consider the Constitution and to consider the possibility of progress being made on the Wilson proposals. As I said, Mr. Wilson proposed inter-party talks in Westminster and then in Stormont. He did not mention this country but I am sure he hoped that such an initiative would be followed here. That was my purpose. As it happens, both party leaders have indicated their agreement to come and talk to me. I intended originally that the three of us would talk together in a very informal way but now it appears that Deputy Cosgrave would like to come with some of his colleagues to discuss the matter with me and not until after Christmas. Deputy Corish will come next week with his colleagues. I will be glad to discuss in a general way how a committee of this nature can be set up.
I agree with the Deputies around the House here that there is no point in going back. If things were done in a way before that did not produce the results that we desire by all means let us abandon these methods. When I suggested that the parties opposite might consult with us about any changes needed in the Constitution I did so in good faith because I realise, and everybody does, that the Constitution is not the property of any single party or any individual. I thought it was right and reasonable that I should ask representative people, churches and especially political parties, to discuss among ourselves to find the widest possible area of agreement on any changes that would come forward and if there was not agreement on particular things then the Government of the day would have to make up their own minds. I thought it was better first to get that area of agreement so that we could be sure that we could satisfy most of our people and especially that we would be sure we could take into account the views of the Northern Ireland people, that we could satisfy them as well in a Constitution covering the whole of Ireland.
I did not suggest this for the sake of protecting ourselves against anybody. The Constitution is not a party political matter and if we put forward a Constitution tomorrow and if it was defeated I do not think we in Fianna Fáil would regard it as a defeat for our party. Therefore, I still hope that it will be possible to get the views of all the people, all the organised people particularly, in the country in this respect.
Deputy Cosgrave started making threats, as far as I could see, about the referendum on the EEC. He has done it twice in this House already. He ought to know that it is not his choice but the choice of the people whether or not we will go into Europe. He seems to suggest that if he snaps his fingers it will be defeated. I suppose it is true that if he advises his party and his party supporters not to vote for the amendment then it could be in danger of being lost but I think Deputy Cosgrave is as convinced as I am that our place is in Europe, that our economic progress is bound up with the progress of the EEC. This seems to me to be a typical example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I said in my winding-up speech on the Second Stage of the Referendum Bill that I was prepared to listen to objective criticism and to be reasonable about amendments. I still am prepared to do that. I do not think Deputy Cosgrave should try to threaten me in any way or threaten the people that he might withhold his agreement for the referendum.
I think, of course, that Deputy Cosgrave and the Fine Gael Party generally are like the fellow in the swimming pool with one leg on the ground. I think they feel that there is likelihood of a general election before the referendum. I want to assure the Deputies opposite that they can take that leg off the ground, that they can swim under their own strength, under their own steam.
(Cavan): Sure the Taoiseach does not know.
What happens if Blaney votes with us?
As far as we are concerned, we are going to get this country safely into the EEC and——
(Cavan): As far as the Taoiseach knows.
——Fine Gael can come out openly and honestly and express their views and their support for the referendum.
(Interruptions.)
I do not think there are many points left for me to cover. There is no time left, anyway.
The Taoiseach has said enough.
I want to sum up by assuring this House of a number of things. This Government are going to pursue their aims to unite this country——
Hear, hear.
——in a peaceful way, by negotiation and in co-operation, in so far as we can get it, from the parties opposite.
And open internment camps.
Nobody is talking about internment camps. Secondly, there will be no pulling back as far as this Government are concerned in relation to pursuing IRA activities or other subversive action. Thirdly, I can assure the people who might be apprehensive as a result of speeches from the Opposition that our security position is sound. That may not please the Opposition; it may not please the IRA, but as far as we are concerned we shall maintain our position; we shall not flinch in the face of any IRA threats, any claims that they have support throughout the country, and I know I have the support of the Opposition in this.
What about Aontacht?
Will the Deputy step out for a while and he might cool off?
A Deputy
That shook you.
I am not a bit shook.
(Interruptions.)
What is the Taoiseach going to do about internment camps?
I thought that by ending up in the middle of the day we would have a chance of being heard but apparently it does not work. However, we are ending up for a special reason and I should like to take the opportunity of extending our sympathy in the House to the relatives of General Mulcahy. I know the Deputies opposite want to go to the funeral. On that note I should like to wish all the Members of the House and the staff the traditional message of a Happy Christmas
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Forde, Paddy.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenehan, Joseph.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Loughnane, William A.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- Delap, Patrick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central)
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Des.
- Power, Patrick.
- Sheridan, Joseph.
- Smith, Michael.
- Smith Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Browne, Noel.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fox, Billy.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Lawrence.
- Malone, Patrick.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Spring, Dan.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies R. Burke and Cluskey.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 19th January, 1972.