Appropriation Bill, 1970 (Certified Money Bill) : Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—

"Seanad Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Bill unless all sums relating to:—

(a) the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach;

(b) the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Justice and

are deleted from Part III of the Schedule with appropriate amendments to Section 2 of the Bill, until an opportunity is given to the House to take a decision relating to the statement issued by the Government with regard to the possible bringing into operation of Part II of the Offences Against the State Act 1940."

—(Senator O'Higgins.)

Mícheál Cranitch

Before the adjournment for lunch I was dealing with relations between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six, or rather the relations we would like to exist between the people in both areas. Nobody who seriously studies this matter has any doubt as to the root of the trouble; we have to go back to the time of the Plantations for that. There we find the root cause, but much water has flowed down the River Lagan, into Dublin bay and into Cork harbour since then. We cannot go back and regenerate conditions which obtained at the time; we have got to accept things as they are. As I said earlier, a problem realised, a problem properly assessed, is a problem almost solved.

One of the bedevilling factors is the absolute ignorance of the public of Great Britain as to the true facts of the situation. It comes as a shock to anybody who goes to Britain, and meets intelligent, well-educated people who have not the foggiest notion as to the set-up here and the cause of the troubles that have been in existence for so long. I suppose the greatest propaganda machine the world has ever known is the machine that we seem to accept now as being inherent in British life. They seem to think that their view on anything is the only view. I have made a point over a number of years of studying closely news reports given by various stations at home and abroad, as compared with the news given of the same events on the BBC, and the discrepancies are most extraordinary. Sometimes one would wonder if they were dealing with the same subject at all.

I suppose the British attitude could to a large extent be summed-up in the well-known saying—supposed to be said by a Britisher when he found difficulty in getting, a continental to understand him—"If you shout loudly he will understand you." If they shout loudly enough and long enough they will, to some extent, have succeeded in getting the world to think that the northern question is an entirely British one.

It is our duty as members of the Oireachtas to do our best in every possible way to enlighten the public of Britain as regards the true facts of the situation. By and large, the Britisher is a fair-minded man. If he understood the case I am sure his sympathies would lie where they should lie, and he would do his part in bringing about a rapprochement between the various sections in the north who treat us with a touch of suspicion and distrust, and ourselves who are anxious to be one in spirit as well as being one territorially.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá anois i dtaobh na Gaeltachta agus Roinn na Gaeltachta. Dúirt Seanadóir éigin le linn na díospóireachta go raibh sé de thuairim aige gur as na bailte móra agus as na cathracha a leathanódh an Ghaeilge amach ar fud na hÉireann. Aontaím leis. Ag an am gcéanna ó rud é gurb í an Ghaeltacht foinse cheart na Gaeilge caithfear an Ghaeltacht a choimeád, caithfear an Ghaeltacht a chaomhnú. Bíonn ar gach éinne dul siar nó dul ó thuaidh nó dul ó dheas chun na Gaeltachta anois agus arís mar in ár gcuid cainte i rith na bliana sa chuid eile den tír bíonn an baol ann i gcónaí go dtagann tanú nó laige ar bhlas ár gcuid cainte agus téimíd go dtí an Ghaeltacht chun feabhas a chur ar an mblas agus dul i dtaithí ar chaint na ndaoine a mbíonn an Ghaeilge mar ghná-theanga acu ó mhaidin go hoíche.

Tógadh mo chroí le déanaí i nGaeltacht Dhún na nGall. Chonaic mé daoine, idir óg agus aosta, ag dul go dtí na cruinnithe polaitíochta agus gan ach an Ghaeilge ina mbéal acu. Is tuar dóchais dúinn go léir san Oireachtas go raibh cainteoirí inár measc a dhein an soiscéal nó an drochscéal polaitíochta a chraobhscaoileadh do mhuintir na Gaeltachta as Gaeilge. Gan dabht, ba mhór an masla ar fad do mhuintir na Gaeltachta dul ina measc agus scéala poiblí den tsaghas sin a phlé agus a chur ina láthair as Béarla. Pé cabhair is féidir a thabhairt don Ghaeltacht, is ceart í a thabhairt agus os rud é gurb iad cúrsaí maireachtála, slí bheatha a bhaint amach, an gad is goire don scórnaí a scaoileadh, caithfear freastail orthu ina dtaobh sin ar dtús.

Cé go labhrann muintir na Gaeltachta an Ghaeilge ó mhaidin go hoíche, ar chuma éigin tá a lán acu agus ní heol dóibh gurb í an Ghaeilge a bhíonn á labhairt acu. Labhrann siad an Ghaeilge toisc gur tógadh le Gaeilge iad. Labhraimíd an Ghaeilge anseo sa chuid eile den tír toisc gur comhartha náisiúntachta é, toisc go gcreidimíd nach bhféadaimíd a rá gur Gaeil sin muna ndéanfaimíd beart de réir ár mbriathar agus féachaint chuige go bhfaighidh gach duine seans an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim, a chleachtadh agus a labhairt ar gach ócáid is féidir.

Caithfear a chur ar a shúilí do mhuintir na Gaeltachta gur comhartha náisiúntachta é, gur comhartha uaisleachta é an Ghaeilge a labhairt, a chaomhnú agus a leathnú. Pé scéal é, dá luaithe a raghfar chun cinn le monarchain a bhunú sa Ghaeltacht sea is fearr. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil antsuim ar fad ag Aire na Gaeltachta san obair seo agus go bhfuil a chion féin á dhéanamh aige ar son na Gaeltachta, ach caithfear bheith cinnte nach mbeidh sé le rá ag éinne de mhuintir na Gaeltachta go bhfuil sé níos measa as ná a dheartháir sa Ghaeltacht. Más féidir é sin a chur i bhfeidhm fanfaidh an t-aos óg sa Ghaeltacht agus beidh tairbhe dá réir sin ag muintir na hÉireann uilig.

Airím go bhfuiltear chun stáisiún radio speisialta a bhunú do mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Dá luaithe a deintear é sin sea is fearr. Cúis árdú-mheanmain, cúis dhóchais dúinn go léir é sin a chlos. Ba cheart féachaint chuige le go bhféadfadh gach éinne eile sa tír éisteacht leis an stáisiún sin. Ba mhithid, ar ndóigh, lasmuigh de Radio Éireann, stáisiún eile a bheith againn chomh maith, agus níor cheart go mbeadh focal Béarla le cloisint sa stáisiún sin. Níor cheart bheith ann ach Gaeilge idir díospóireachtaí ceol 7rl, agus ceol de gach saghas anois; níor leor ceoltóirí traidisiúnta amháin a bheith ar an radio sin. Ní mór féachaint chuige an ceart céanna a bheith ag Gaeilgeoirí chun ceol clasaiceach agus mar sin de a chloisint agus atá ag muintir na Galltachta.

Molaim an tAire as ucht an tsuim a chuireann sé ins na cúrsaí sin agus tá súil agam go raghfar i mbun an stáisiún a thógáil gan aon ró-mhoill.

As I said earlier, the sum of money we are voting today is a sizeable one and, as far as lies in our power, we must ensure that the best value is got for that money. One of the great curses of the present day, not alone here but throughout the world, is the curse of inflation. In my opinion the root cause of inflation is not any of those that have been alleged but the unfortunate fact that so many of our people have got into the deplorable, unchristian habit of not doing an honest day's work. I have discussed this with many people and the general opinion appears to be that the output per man in any department, if we exclude a small number, is not what it used to be. I have seen people who were supposed to be working but whose main concern seemed to be to do as little as they could, spread it over as long a time as they could for as much money as they could get.

Until that process is reversed the present unsatisfactory situation will remain. You cannot legislate to make a man work if he does not want to. There must be a new attitude, a re-baptising, so to speak, into belief in the dignity and nobility of work. It is primarily, I suppose, a matter for the churches. If a fair day's work was done production would be greater and the danger of inflation would be minimised.

We hear a great deal from time to time about a workers' republic. This is most annoying, because a prerequisite for a workers' republic should be workers. Many of the people who shout for a workers' republic would be the last to dream of doing a day's work.

I can hardly finish without a word about this internment crisis. Much has been said and blood pressures have been raised in this regard, but the fact remains that nobody has yet been incarcerated and let us hope nobody will be. The whole point is this: if the Taoiseach and the Government have been informed by the competent authorities that there is a danger of further bank raids, a danger of kidnapping, then since we must assume that the Taoiseach is no fool, the Government are not fools and the Garda are not fools, there is a justification for threatening the reintroduction of the Offences Against the State Act.

Nobody detests internment without trial so intensely as we do and as the people of Ireland generally do, but if it must be done or if it must be threatened then it is not without reason. Let nobody think for one moment that you could not have kidnapping here. Certainly you could have it. We are becoming a very sophisticated society. We are very close to the Continent, very close to the United States and all parts of the world now, and I do not see any reason at all, our sophistication having reached the peak it has reached, why kidnappings would not take place here as in Canada, Brazil or any parts of Europe. Therefore there is no need for all the hubbub or the excitement about this threat of the introduction of the Offences Against the State Act. It was not without reason and I am sure the warning given by the Government will have a very salutary effect.

We have been through very difficult times during the last 12 months. Many of these happenings are indications of the degree of sophistication we have achieved. They are commonplace in democracies in other parts of the world. We are a democracy and we intend to remain a democracy and you cannot have entertainment without entertainment tax. You cannot have a democracy without having some of the situations we have experienced. Mistakes have been made and will be made again. The Government are doing their very best and will continue to do their best to face the problems courageously. Recently while reading I came across this French saying: "La patience est le courage de tous les jours"—patience is the courage of every day. It is my belief that this quiet patience, the quiet strength, the quiet confidence of the Taoiseach and the Government will be justified.

Mr. Russell

I should like to begin with a reference to the remarks with which Senator Cranitch concluded. I think every Member of the Seanad would agree we are coming to the close of what might be described without exaggeration, as a somewhat turbulent year during which we have had many changes of one kind or another, including Ministerial ones. When we were talking on the Appropriation Bill 12 months ago we had a different Minister for Finance sitting in the Chair. Now 12 months later we are addressing our remarks to Deputy Colley in that office.

The year came in like a lamb, notwithstanding the economic position, but it is certainly going out like a lion with the threatened introduction of section 2 of the Offences Against the State Act. I do not propose to dwell at any length on this particular measure which is the basis for an amendment put down by Senator O'Higgins and Senator Kelly. The subject-matter of that amendment was dealt with very comprehensively and adequately by Senator O'Higgins. I think that the Senators here who would not agree with what he said would give him credit for giving a very able exposition of his point of view and, in fairness, I think the same remark would be applied to Professor Kelly's contribution.

It is usual for Senators to refer to the ordinary people they meet as a cross-section of the public. It is amazing at times the different opinions one gets from such cross-sections. I listened to Senators on one side of the House talking about the views expressed by cross-sections of the people they had met on the threatened introduction of Part II of the Offences Against the State Act. I also discussed this measure or threatened measure with what I would regard as a fair cross-section of the public, people who would not be politically partisan but at the same time would take an intelligent interest in the country's affairs. I can say that, generally speaking, there was, and, I believe, still is very strong opposition amongst the ordinary people of this country to the introduction of a measure such as this.

People have described it as smacking of the jackboot mentality and the police State. These may be exaggerated terms but at least they do suggest that the ordinary man and woman are not happy to say the least of it about the possible introduction of this measure. They asked a number of questions which I personally found it very difficult to answer and which, as far as I can see and from what I have read of the Dáil debates, the remarks of the Taoiseach and some Ministers have not been answered.

Perhaps if I reiterate some of those questions now it may be helpful to a rational and moderate dialogue on this matter. The most common question one hears is the obvious one: Is the measure really necessary; is it a panic decision or a diversionary tactic or has the Taoiseach been guilty of making an error of judgment by rushing into the threat of introducing this measure? The next question is—and the previous speaker, Senator Cranitch, seemed to support the point of view that it was necessary—why has the Taoiseach not spelt out the reasons clearly and frankly? I am aware of course, as we all are, that he stated in the Dáil that he had received evidence from the Garda authorities that certain actions threatening life and property had been contemplated by certain individuals unnamed or organisations unnamed. If this is so I think the Taoiseach might have gone further and given the Dáil and the people more concrete evidence of these reasons for introducing, at such short notice, this unpleasant measure.

Further questions are: have all the existing resources of the State for the maintenance of law and order been exhausted and found ineffective to contain this unexplained threat to persons and property? Have the Garda always enjoyed the full support of the Government in matters like this? Is the threat so great that if the Garda force was expanded and better equipped, they could not deal with it? Is it not a fact that members of an illegal organisation have openly paraded with arms in defiance of the Government and got away with it? Is it true that action against members of an illegal organisation has been called off by direct or indirect intervention of members of the Government? These questions must be answered before the Government take action to prevent any citizen from enjoying his rights to a fair trial before internment.

During the past 12 months and since 1964, what might be called the year of the green light, the year in which the then Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, took a decision which appeared to many to be largely dictated by political rather than economic considerations, we have been suffering from inflation. Today we have roaring inflation, rising costs, prices up by approximately 20 per cent in the last three years, rising unemployment, falling production, growing balance of payments deficits, all the signs of a sick economy. These words are not my words; they are the words that the Minister for Finance and other Ministers and the Taoiseach have been using very emphatically, particularly during recent months.

The Government's efforts to grapple with the situation have lacked firm handling and have failed to carry conviction, due to the stop-go nature of their policies. Towards the end of 1969, the Taoiseach announced a norm of 7 per cent for wage and salary increases. He warned manufacturers and businesses generally that any increase in excess of this figure given to the employees would not be allowed when applications were made for price increases. This norm failed mainly because it was hopelessly untenable in the circumstances of the day and because it was made without any prior consultation with employers or workers.

Next came Budget No. 1 in 1970 in which the then Minister solved his deficit problem by doubling turnover tax thereby giving another push to inflation. Then came the present Minister's short-lived strong measure which put a ceiling on outstanding 12th Round increases and on future wage and salary increases. The reason for this action by the Minister was stated to be the failure of the employers and workers to arrive at an acceptable formula for wage increases. The Minister, as we know, was forced to modify his action, quite rightly, by allowing 12th Round increases to stand and virtually abandoning the 6 per cent ceiling. The ball was then fired back to the Employer-Labourer Conference, with the Prices and Incomes Bill hanging over their deliberations.

The recent agreement is the first sign of stability and is to be heartily welcomed even though it does appear to be above the Government's limit for increased wages and salaries. Everybody should support the Employer-Labour Conference in bringing about the first measure of stability, in providing the basis for regularising our economic affairs and getting the economy off the ground again.

The Finance (No. 2) Bill which we are considering in conjunction with the Appropriation Bill has one provision on which I would like to make a comment. I refer to the shattering increase in corporation profits tax, a bombshell which will have very serious repercussions on industrial expansion and consequently on employment. I realise that the Minister for Finance had a serious problem on his hands arising from the mismanagement of the economy which left him with the difficult task of having to find £21 million to cover the deficit in the current accounts. He has decided to find this money under several headings: first of all, by reducing Government expenditure by £7 million. The Minister has not told us, as far as I am aware, under what heading he proposes to reduce Government expenditure by £7 million. It is a move that is well worthy of commendation. It is the first really anti-inflationary measure that will have some results if the Minister can put it through. The Minister has decided to raise a further £5.3 million by extra taxation, just under £1 million on luxuries and almost £4½ million from extra company taxation. He proposes to borrow £8½ million but has not told us so far from where that £8½ million is to come. Is it to be borrowed from internal sources or from external sources? If it is to be borrowed from internal sources it is bound to add to the inflationary cycle; if it is to be borrowed from external sources it will bring more money into the economy and have an even worse effect on the inflationary situation. The Minister is faced with a very difficult problem in containing inflation.

His taxation on companies is the worst possible anti-inflationary measure. It must have an effect on capital growth, it must affect future production and consequently employment opportunities. In this day and age it is extremely difficult to borrow money. The Minister and the Government indicated before the bank strike that there should be a restriction on the amount of credit which the banks would make available. In conjunction with this restriction the Minister is cutting down on the opportunities for manufacturers and companies generally to save money out of profits and to plough them back into their enterprises.

Although the situations are not strictly comparable, it is worth noting that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer quite recently reduced the rate of corporation tax on companies by a very small amount, 2½ per cent, while our Minister for Finance has increased total taxation, corporation profits tax and income tax combined from 50 to an effective 58 per cent or approximately 16 per cent. In the current year, taking into consideration the retrospective nature of this new measure, companies will be called on to pay something like 74 per cent in taxation. This measure seems to me to be completely against the views which the Minister himself expressed in this House only as far back as 29th July last at the conclusion of the debate on the Finance Bill. The Minister made what most of us will recall was a very fine speech and I, for this side of the House, proposed that we should let our tea break run on a little longer than usual in order to give the Minister an opportunity of concluding. The Minister impressed not only those on his side of the House but also those on this side of the House.

On that occasion the Minister said, and I mention this in relation to his recent policy of increasing the already high level of taxation on companies, at column 1318 of the Official Report of that date:

I know from personal experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce that in quite a number of cases the margin of profit of some Irish manufacturers is dangerously low. When I say dangerously low I mean those industries are in danger because of inroads on their markets or for some other reason of having to close down and of putting their workers out of employment. As Minister for Industry and Commerce I was frequently faced with the dilemma of either allowing a price increase or of refusing it altogether or of reducing it at the risk of causing that firm to close down and to put its employees out of work.

The Minister went on to say:

I am making this point because it is frequently thought, or appears to be thought, that most industrialists are making enormous profits. I can say that none of the Irish industrialists serving the home market is making enormous profits. Some of them are making satisfactory or even handsome profits but many are making dangerously low profits.

I think the Minister hit the nail directly on the head there. With due respect to the Minister, I do not think the situation has changed in any event to warrant the heavy increases in taxation on company profits that he has brought in under the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It might be said quite rightly that the Minister by his action has helped, or is helping, to kill the golden industrial goose and is doing so on the eve of our probable entry into the Common Market.

There is another aspect of this situation which I feel I should mention. The Minister's decision to increase heavily taxation on manufacturers and companies generally coincides with the period of continued reduction in tariff protection. This occurs at a time when tariffs are beginning to bite severely. Continuing inflation combined with rising costs, the Minister's increased taxation on companies and the lowering of tariffs are bound to affect manufacturers and companies in the year ahead.

In connection with the question of tariff cuts, I have two examples very close to home of which the Minister himself will have some knowledge. They are the clothing industry and the footwear industry. Two factories in Limerick city—one is a clothing company which employs 650 workers and the other is a footwear factory which employs 250 workers—are in difficulties. The footwear factory has recently been served with notice of a probable closure next May and the clothing factory is now experiencing very severe competition not only in the export market, where they have been trying to build up satisfactory and profitable connections, but more important still in the home market. That is a fact that is sometimes lost sight of when we talk about lowering tariffs and the protection which industry has enjoyed over the last 20 or 25 years. Not only are we being offered the opportunity, with which I agree fully, of exporting and competing in the foreign markets but we are also opening up our small home market to factories outside this country. Most of those factories are larger than our own and, of course, are able to operate with lower costs.

Imports, as we know, have been increasing. Our exports have increased over the last ten years but they are not increasing at a sufficient rate to cover the increased rate of imports. In saying this I do appreciate that over the last 12 months there has been a slight improvement in our balance of payments situation. This improvement is so small that it will not make any significant difference within this financial year unless there is a tremendous increase in exports over the next four or five months or a substantial reduction in imports. None of the present indications seems to suggest that either of these things will happen.

I should like to refer now to a matter which has been brought very much to our notice recently and which concerns certain factories which are in danger of closing down in the face of heavy competition from outside. I refer particularly to the position of branch factories in this country which are owned by outside interests. Where a policy of rationalisation of production is decided upon by a British company—I am not specifically selecting British companies but they are the nearest to us and they are the cases of which we have most examples—because its markets are falling, because it has to lower its costs or for some other reason the chances are that it will close down one of its Irish factories, or its Irish factory if it has only one, and supply the Irish market from its home base. This is a perfectly logical development. It might be regarded as ruthless and lacking in humanity, but I am afraid we are living in an age of ruthless economic policies. We are living in an age when decisions are made by faceless men in backrooms in big companies who decide by looking at a set of figures that they will close down a factory in Kerry, Limerick or some other county, so as to reduce their costs or increase their profits. These decisions are taken without any reference to local interests and, so far as I can see, there is very little that our Government can do about it. It is called rationalisation, but it can be a very cruel exercise indeed.

I should like to turn for a few moments to another development in this country in which I see great opportunities and great potential. I have been critical up to now and in one respect at least I would like to show some optimism. I refer to the policy of regionalisation, a subject about which public representatives and others. The we read and hear a great deal from the individual does not count any longer. We are living in an age when policy of regionalisation offers this country, in our particular circumstances, a tremendous opportunity of harnessing all the various interests and combining all the relevant facts for a national effort which must be made if we wish to overcome the material and geographical difficulties under which we suffer.

Regional development organisations with no statutory powers have already been established, and there are regional tourism bodies. Regional health boards have just been established. The trouble so far in regard to the regional bodies dealing with economic and financial affairs and industrial development, apart from the fact that they have no statutory function, is that a great deal of overlapping occurs. Semi-State bodies such as the Industrial Development Authority overlap with the county development teams. The tourism bodies are intruding on other organisations and it seems to me that the development of industry, which I regard as a primary necessity, is divided among too many conflicting interests.

I should like to see certain provisions of the Devlin Report put into effect so that the Industrial Development Authority would not only promote new industries but would also finance them. No Department of State should be allowed to interfere with their work. This body should be given adequate funds and skilled personnel and allowed to get on with the job. The fact that it is proposed that the Industrial Development Authority should be regionalised is a very encouraging measure, provided we have genuine regionalisation and not centralisation under a new facade. One of our great tragedies is the amount of centralisation we have had in recent years.

In spite of all the committees and regional organisations set up they are all really only talking shops. They propose resolutions and demand that Ministers act in this way and that when, in fact, the faceless men in the Departments in Dublin decide the issues eventually. These local committees and councils have little or no power. We depend on the human element. Unless we can generate enthusiasm and come together in a binding force to work for the common good, I take a dim view of our future in the free trade area. In each regional area there should be a regional board with proper statutory powers to develop the area. There has been criticism about the growth areas and suggestions that if there is a growth area the countryside is denuded. I do not agree with this because if a city like Limerick is chosen as a growth area, the smaller towns and villages nearby will prosper along with the city. They have a much better chance of prospering if they are represented on a board who are responsible not for the development of a limited area but for the entire area.

There is one way to ensure that lopsided development does not take place, as I fear may happen under the existing scheme. There must be some balancing factor. If laisser-faire policy is adopted the east coast will be developed to the maximum and the south and west coasts will be virtually deserted apart from tourism. These regional areas all have the necessary facilities to supply skilled technicians. After battling for many years, we in Limerick have at last succeeded in getting what has been described as a third level Institute of Higher Education. I am very much in favour of providing this technological training in a wide area and of the giving of pass degrees. This Institute of Higher Education appears to have become bogged down despite the enthusiasm of a very competent and enthusiastic Director, Dr. Walsh. Although it does not come directly within the ambit of the Minister's Department, this is the only opportunity we shall have before the New Year of referring to it and I should like the Minister to use whatever influence he has in helping this project to operate as soon as possible.

I may have over-emphasised the question of the regional boards, but they are very important. If their regional objectives could include equality of opportunity and living standards in the context of the national development and if they are given the necessary powers and financial help the imbalance of development which I regard as a very real threat would not occur. Some devolution of the State machinery will be necessary if regionalisation is to be a success. I do not agree with this idea of transferring one or two State Departments to the west of Ireland or any one area. It may be a political gimmick but it is an ill-judged suggestion. I would prefer to see in each of the development areas a Government house or State house with sections of each Department represented. Then there would not be this great delay in the payment of social welfare benefits because every claim, no matter how minor, must go to Dublin for judgment by some anonymous person in the Department of Social Welfare. I am not criticising the people in that Department; they are the victims of a machine. I remember that, years ago, when social welfare payments were dealt with by the local social welfare officers—I instanced this example when talking on a similar Bill last year—if payment to the people in his area was delayed, he cycled two or three miles to make sure that the person concerned received their social welfare benefit, knowing that they could not wait until the following day.

These are the sort of little human touches that are completely missing from the type of State-governed machine which we appear to be erecting in this country. The individual is beginning to count for less and less while the organisation, the committees, the consultants and the commissions count for more and more. These are perhaps all good things in their own way but to my mind almost completely divorced from the human element and certainly from the individual. We Irish are a nation of individualists and if for any reason we get carried away with this modern concept of the big organisation, the big machine, the big company, the big government, we shall have lost something which this country has maintained in good terms over centuries.

I should like to return to this question of competition, because it is something of which the message has not been spelt out or has not been appreciated by those concerned—either the manufacturers or the workers. Whether we enter the EEC or not, we are going to be faced with continuing and growing competition under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. Therefore if we are to survive in this country and if we are to continue to expand employment, which we must do if we are to absorb people coming off the land, we must prepare for greatly increased competition. In many ways we are more vulnerable than any other country in Europe. Our geographical position as a small island off western Europe, underpopulated, leaves us in the position that if we cannot manage our own affairs to provide for our own people, somebody else is going to do it for us. If we cannot compete on equal or better terms not only will we lose our export trade which has shown, especially in manufactured goods, such a wonderful expansion over the last decade—I pay tribute to all concerned —but our home market will also be in danger from outside competition. We can withstand this challenge if, and only if, all sections of our people combine in a sustained effort to produce goods of acceptable quality at competitive prices backed by efficient marketing and distributing organisation. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to the very effective work that Córas Tráchtála have done since their establishment. I think that any Senator here who has had experience in dealing with Córas Tráchtála would join with me in paying them tribute. Their officers are excellent, they do a very good job sometimes under very difficult circumstances and their enthusiasm to do a good job is a tremendous encouragement for anybody who has to deal with them.

I should also like to pay tribute to the Industrial Development Authority and particularly to their small industries division, since being set up under the directorship of Mr. Tom O'Connor, the former County Limerick Manager they have done wonderful work and have really got down to a basis of supplying and assisting small industries in isolated country towns and areas that normally would not hope to qualify for industrial development.

I recall some years ago the then Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, proposing that Government Departments should become developing corporations. I remember that made quite an impression on me at the time. I could see what he had in mind: instead of just being a State Department in an anonymous Civil Service, they should be brought more or less into the daylight, so to speak, and given an opportunity to show their worth. I do not know what happened to that theory or policy—it seems to have fizzled out, and it is a great pity because I think Mr. Lemass had something in that idea.

It is very disconcerting to all of us who read newspaper extracts from the recent report of the Committee of Public Accounts. One sentence in that report is illuminating; where they describe

the incredible deterioration in recruitment for the Public Services.

That is an appalling state of affairs and taking that statement in conjunction with the hope expressed by Mr. Lemass some years ago, it is obvious that something has gone seriously wrong. The Devlin Report also says:

There has been no attempt to link qualifications to requirements in recruiting to the Civil Service or State Departments.

If the State Departments are to become effective agents for the promotion of industry or services, they must be run as efficiently and economically as possible and I agree with the Devlin view that reorganisation is required urgently to suit the requirements of modern Ireland. State Departments should have an incentive comparable to the profit motive in private enterprise to use the best talents of their staffs. In addition to attractive salary terms and conditions, they should include the satisfaction that comes from doing a good job and knowing that it is appreciated.

So far I have been fairly critical of some Government policies. It is easy, and I suppose it is part of our job here, to define difficulties but to do so without offering some policies and alternatives is a negative attitude. There are certain priorities the Government must undertake. The first and most obvious is to come to grips with inflation by moderating the growth in Government expenditure as far as possible. The second is to maintain the maximum incentives to industry and business generally to enable them to expand. This means the reversal of the policy of placing additional taxation on companies, many already short of cash and finding it increasingly hard to get credit, even for the most deserving projects. Finally and possibly the most important of all, there should be the ability and the courage to take decisions which may be unpopular politically in the short term but which, in the long term, will have been to the benefit of the nation. In any age the Irish people never failed to face up to a critical situation and I am confident they will not fail to do so now if—and I emphasise "if"—they are given the true facts and given sound and fair leadership.

I wish to conclude by referring again to the Minister's speech on the Finance Bill in July. In that speech he said many things with which I agree and I could almost use the same words myself verbatim. However, I would rather quote from column 1327 of the Official Report of 29th July, 1970:

I will conclude by saying something that may sound a bit trite. Maybe it is something that many of us have said at election meetings on occasion but I believe it and I think most of us believe it when we think about it. Many of our people can be foolish. They can be perhaps rapacious on occasion but taking them in general, as a people and as a group, if this country and its economy is in danger and if the danger is explained to them and if it is explained to them that action by them will cure it, our people on the whole will respond and respond magnificently. The Government have a primary duty, but all of us have a duty to make clear to our people the danger that exists and the fact that we have the remedy in our own hands and that by exercising that restraint which is required—not to stop increases in wages but to ensure that there are regular increases in wages every year but worked in such a way that they will be a real increase—our people can avert this grave danger. If we can make this clear to our people I am certain they will respond as they have responded in the past. We can demonstrate once again, and we must demonstrate fairly fast, that this ability of our people which they have demonstrated so often in the past still exists in our people in 1970.

I suggest to the Seanad that now on the brink of 1971 those words of the Minister are even more applicable. But if our people are to respond they must have, as I have said, firm and fair leadership. We cannot cod all the people all the time.

I am convinced that if the Taoiseach and his Ministers are fair with the people and tell them what the dangers are, if they are prepared to eschew short-term political advantages I am convinced, as I think all of us in this House would agree, that our people will respond magnificently, as they always have.

Mr. Keegan

I do not propose to delay the House very long on this Appropriation Bill. A great deal has already been said and I will try to be as brief as possible. However, I will start by referring to the importance of agriculture to our national economy. I would impress on the Government and on the Minister that every effort should be made to stabilise the rural population. I am glad to say, however, that a great deal has been done over the years to assist the rural population. A great deal remains to be done in the future. Every effort must be made to preserve the family farm and to raise the level of farm incomes. While I am dealing with the family farm I must say I believe in the establishment of small industries to absorb any surplus labour which will become available as a result of families growing up on small farms. I am glad to say that the Government are very favourably disposed to the establishment of more small industries in rural Ireland. That is a step in the right direction and everything must be done to continue and improve the activities in that direction.

Some reference must be made to semi-State bodies which are closely associated with agriculture. I will name one which was established by the Government—Bord Bainne. Bord Bainne are doing a worthwhile job and have more than justified themselves over the years in their activities throughout the world. Let us hope that that trend will continue and that Bord Bainne will continue to have support from successive Ministers.

The agricultural community will always respond to any little incentive which is offered to them. They have proved that through the years and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future. The farming community are anxious to participate in the building of a solid economy and any price supports which they receive will be channelled towards greater efficiency and greater all-round production. I should like to say that, while many may not be satisfied, I believe that this Government have done a great deal for Irish agriculture and let us hope that help will continue.

Leaving agriculture I should like to deal briefly with some of the activities of semi-State bodies. The position of some of our semi-State bodies bears examination at the present time. I wonder have we given too much power to semi-State bodies and too little power to the Ministers, the Government and the various Members of the Oireachtas. I would like to see some control being retained over such bodies as the ESB for instance. They are growing further and further apart from the Irish people. They are a board which are becoming difficult to approach at times and I would welcome a change in regard to the powers and functions of the ESB.

I am glad that the Government and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs have decided to do some pruning with regard to the activities of Telefís Éireann. If my memory serves me right, Telefís Éireann was established to provide the Irish people with a good and a true service. I think those were the opening words of the President of Ireland at the inaugural opening of Telefís Éireann. I regret to say that I believe Telefís Éireann have not lived up to the functions for which they were designed and destined to serve. Many of the programmes which are shown are not suitable for viewing by young children. I must also refer to films which have the wrong influence and can act as an inducement to crime and violence. I must refer to those cowboy films, those cocky gun-slinging characters who participate in all those programmes. Many boys who practise the games of cowboys and indians have discovered that they went too far with their play-acting and deaths resulted from these imitation hanging efforts and sometimes stabbing efforts. I know, of course, that those films can be rented very cheaply and I am fully aware of the cost of putting before our viewers home productions. If we must continue to show that type of cowboy films early at night when children can see them Telefís Éireann should close for short periods if we have nothing else to put on at that time. If we must have cutbacks, then there should be some savings made in the activities of the outdoor camera crews.

I cannot understand why the outdoor camera crews of Telefís Éireann should seem so anxious to film the activities of minority groups. Have they never given any thought to the activities or the efforts of the silent majority in this country? One has to be a protester of some sort or other in order to be news today. That is a situation which should not be allowed to develop. The plain people of Ireland should be heard and their actions and deeds should be heard. Unfortunately, the mass media as set up at present, seem to go out of their way to publicise the activities of the minority groups in our community. The actions of those groups can only be regarded as alien to the way of life of the vast majority of the Irish people. I would say again if we are to have savings in RTE that is one field of activity in which they could be made unless the people concerned are prepared to give the Irish people what they deserve and expect—good and true programmes.

Now I should like to move on to the field of social welfare. Criticism has always been levelled at the Government for not doing enough in this field but it is accepted today that in Budget after Budget increases are being given to the less well-off sections of our community. Ministers associated with the Department of Social Welfare have given all the Vote allowed to them to give each year and I would compliment them for their efforts in this regard. It is very easy to say that widows' pensions, orphan's pensions and old age pensions are too low, but acquiring the necessary capital to finance these increases is a very difficult job. One must bear in mind the very limited resources available to the Government. I would say the Government have done the best they could possibly do during the years to provide assistance for the less well-off sections of our community.

I do not propose to deal fully with education but there is one aspect of education which I should like to discuss. I refer to the post-primary and primary education system. I believe we are in too great a hurry in forcing our educational programme through primary and post-primary schools. The curricula are completely overloaded and the children are not able to absorb all the work which is being forced on them. Greater concentration on specialised subjects would be a step in the right direction.

I now wish to speak for a few moments on the school transport system as it is operated. Most children in country districts still reside in rural cottages and on farms. Many children of cottiers and small farmers still have to walk to school, whereas their better-off colleagues in other areas can qualify for free transport. This is the cause of resentment among many sections of our community. We should take another look at our school transport system so that children who reside in remote areas and in sparsely populated districts can be included.

A minimum of ten pupils is required at present for the provision of a school bus in an area. This system is causing great confusion and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider it at the earliest possible opportunity. It is the cause of unrest among parents and children who fail to understand why the system is being operated in this manner. Almost every public representative receives regular complaints from parents that their children cannot be transported to school while their neighbour's children are transported despite the fact that their parents may have a car.

The activities of the Department of Local Government are increasing all the time. I am glad to see that the Department are now favourably disposed to providing low-cost houses. That is a step I welcome. I would advise the Department to consider the building of low-cost houses in groups in rural areas. It is important that we make every possible effort to stabilise the rural population. They are the backbone of this country. We are reaching the stage now where our larger towns and cities are becoming so overcrowded that it is becoming more and more difficult to live and work in those places. When I hear people complain about the shortage of houses I often wonder do we ever pause for a moment and consider the number of houses that have been provided by local authorities, with Government assistance, during the years. If we paused now and again and counted our blessings we would have less complaints. One can look around this city and see the number of new houses that have been erected.

Greater savings by wage earners who want to marry and establish homes should be encouraged. The present trend seems to be to get married first and then to approach the housing authority for a house. People should make up their minds to save and to build their own houses with the State assistance which is available. In that case there would be fewer housing action committees and more constructive thinking with regard to housing. It is a good trend that there should be a demand for houses: it is an indication that our people are not emigrating, that they are not running away in desperation and despair and that they are anxious to live and work in their own country.

There is a great deal of new thinking today with regard to living and working at home. People have opportunities now that did not exist some years ago. That is the main reason for the backlog of housing applications. An improvement can be noted in that regard and it is something we all welcome very much.

I should like to deal now with the Town and Regional Planning Acts which were enacted a few years ago. The last of these Acts is still in its trial stage. It is an Act that is causing a great deal of confusion as to interpretation and operation. It appears that it can be applied differently in every urban and built-up area. The result of that Planning Act is that there is a large number of planning applications at present with the Department of Local Government. It was found necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary fulltime on the job. There is a great backlog of work awaiting decisions in that Department. I would appeal to the Government and the Minister to introduce some new thinking to simplify that Act so as to make it easier to operate. I am of the opinion that some of our planners are enforcing the Planning Act too stringently. This is having a detrimental effect on planning throughout the country.

Finally, I feel that I should say a few words on the introduction of section 2 of the Offences Against the State Act. I may be subject to correction on this but it is my opinion that the last Government to introduce this section were the inter-Party or Coalition Government, in 1957.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Deputy is wrong.

Mr. Keegan

I said I was open to correction.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Senator is corrected. Straight away.

Mr. Keegan

The Coalition Government interned people in 1957 as far as I remember.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

False.

Mr. Keegan

They discovered before they left office in 1957 that they had to reintern people and many arrests were made. I will stick to my point on that. One thing that we must remember is that we are all governed by a code of behaviour. If a code of behaviour is acceptable to the vast majority of our people I see no reason why any particular minority should get preferential treatment. They too should abide by the code of behaviour most acceptable to the majority. It is for that reason that we should not lend our support to any of those minority groups that tend to carry out acts of lawlessness today. It is noticeable from some of the Opposition speakers yesterday that they are endeavouring to woo the support of those minority groups for particular reasons that are known only to themselves. If they are really concerned with the future of the country no responsible political party should lend their support to any subversive organisation or group of people who have not the interest of our country at heart.

Professor Jessop

My contribution might be a bit of an anti-climax, as many of the speakers have ranged widely over the whole scope of this Bill, and these are just a few hobby horses I wish to ride.

I want to start at the primary level of education and consider the position of the people being trained as primary teachers. I talked about this matter in the House before and I have always advocated the training of primary teachers with every other kind of teacher in the university environment. I still think it is wrong to put this grade of teacher into a separate institution where he meets nobody but people who are in the same line of business as himself. I am quite certain that the calibre of people going into training institutions for primary teachers is very high, higher indeed than the calibre of those coming into the university. However, while they get a high level of training I do not think that matters so much as the broadening of the outlook which comes from mixing with a variety of people during this training period.

I listened to Senator Quinlan talking about the secondary teachers and their problems. I believe that if primary and secondary teachers were trained together many of these questions of prestige, which seem to be creating difficulties at present would never arise and the difficulties about salaries could be solved more easily. Senator Quinlan made a suggestion about the secondary teachers' strike which appears to be pending. Of course I should be very glad to co-operate with him in any way possible in that respect. I sincerely hope it will not come to a head.

Talking about secondary education, the minority to which I belong—not any political minority but a different kind of minority—appreciates very much the sympathetic attitude of Ministers for Education towards the proof vision of assistance towards free secondary education for all the children of this country. There is a particular problem in our area because of the scattered nature of this section of the population, but we have found the Minister sympathetic. I do not think the problem has been resolved but we do look forward to further sympathetic consideration by the Minister.

I saw an announcement in the press lately about the likelihood of there being established a protestant comprehensive school in Cork. I welcome this very heartily indeed. I was at one time an officer of an organisation, an incorporated society responsible for three Protestant schools in the Cork area, and I know the difficulties they have had. On behalf of that society I have had on a number of occasions to go down and meet the Cork people. Needless to say as a Dublin man venturing into Cork on a mission like that I did not resolve all the difficulties, but I think we got a certain distance. The answer is a single school for the area, and I think the idea of a comprehensive school is to be encouraged.

The question of higher education and the need for increased support for it was referred to by Senator Quinlan. Being involved in it myself, I thoroughly agree with his comments there. Compared with institutions in Belfast and with corresponding places in England, we have a very poor student-staff ratio. We should try to improve that. On the other hand, I am not in agreement with Senator Quinlan in his reference to what he calls the unanimous agreement reached between the four university colleges on the future of university education. I regard the solution put forward by that group as very unsatisfactory, particularly as far as professional education is concerned and, in the area of professional education, particularly in relation to the medical school position. I need hardly stress that there was no medical man on that group which reached the so-called unanimous agreement. There were a few medical men on a small working party and they discussed the position but the proposals which came forward from that other party were not presented unanimously. There was a strong feeling that they would not work. Of course, the staff of the medical school in TCD have rejected the proposals that were put forward. These proposals are now being considered.

In any area in this part of the world, a population of two or three million people is regarded as a reasonably sized population for a medical school. On that basis, we in the Republic would rate one university school. Of course, we realise that the position in Cork and Galway is rather special. If these centres were to be deprived of their medical schools the quality of the health services would deteriorate. Therefore, they should continue to have them. They should be good medical schools and not some sort of second rate cousins to the institutions in Dublin. They should be supported fully even if they are not as big as the type of institution that would be required for economic operation. I do not believe that even by the end of this century, Dublin will have a population of 1,000,000 people. Why, then, should we have two university schools here? This makes no sense to me.

There is a proposal also that perhaps the difficulty could be resolved to some extent by having two preclinical schools and one school at the clinical level. There are to be two separate and dependent universities and these two are entitled to run a single clinical school for the last three years of the student's course. For the past seven or eight years the same kind of situation has prevailed in the dental hospital. There is one dental hospital school which is run by three dental schools in Dublin. Each professor in the dental hospital is also a professor in TCD, in UCD and in the College of Surgeons and no one has any right to interfere with his work in any way. I cannot see how any better solution could be reached by trying to run one clinical medical school by one single body. That would not work. The operation would be too complicated to be realistic.

I associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Quinlan in relation to the late Donogh O'Malley who, as Minister for Education, put forward the proposal for a university merger in Dublin. However, I notice that what the Senator said did not tally with what he is reported to have said recently at a meeting in London. I would hope that the present Minister for Education would show the same vision and the same courage in his approach to this problem as did his predecessor.

The next aspect of higher education on which I should like to comment is that of hospital training of prospective doctors. The clinical teaching of doctors is extremely important. The whole quality of our medical service depends on this teaching but it has been the cinderella of all education in this country up to now. The reason is that it falls between two Departments, the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The Department of Health are responsible for hospitals as places where people who are ill go for treatment while the Department of Education are responsible for education but that is based on the universities. The universities do not own the hospital and, consequently, see no reason why they should spend any money on them.

Recently we witnessed the opening of that very fine new teaching hospital, the new St. Vincent's at Elm Park. This is a splendid institution and without having seen it in any great detail, I would venture to bet that the clinical facilities far surpass the respective facilities that are available to professors of the universities. Before the end of this century I expect we will have at least two more new hospitals. I hope that one of them will be associated with the medical school run at present from TCD. I hope, also, that this hospital will be situated on the site of the present St. Kevin's Hospital. We have been working on this now for a few years. When the time comes for this hospital to be built it is my hope that the Ministers for Health and Education will be able to persuade the Minister for Finance to give them sufficient support to make the hospital not only a good hospital capable of producing the best medical services but also that it will be a good place for teaching.

Recently, a group were brought together by the Departments of Health and Education. This was the first time that this type of co-operation occurred. The group represented all medical schools in Dublin and they made recommendations simultaneously to the two Departments as to the amount of accommodation required by the medical schools. The amount required is substantial and would cost at least £½ million to provide. However, that is not as much as 10 per cent of the cost of producing a hospital as an institution and if the Minister has spent £5 million or £6 million on producing a new hospital, an extra £500,000 spent on providing good teaching facilities will be justified.

Lastly, I would refer briefly to the position in relation to research, in particular medical research. Of course, this is related directly to education, in particular it is related to post-graduate and vocational training. Our medical research council receives a grant of £100,000 per annum. That amount represents 0.007 per cent of our gross national product. In Britain, the Medical Research Council receive £20 million per annum. That represents 0.05 per cent of their gross national product. In other words, they receive seven times the portion of the GNP that ours receive. The amount given here is too little. I may not be quite in order in speaking about this because the money comes not from the Appropriation Bill but from the Hospitals Trust Fund.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 17 Dec 1970

Appropriation Bill, 1970 (Certified Money Bill) : Second Stage (Resumed).

Senators

Senators

Tá

Níl

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1970