Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 1973

Vol. 74 No. 2

Appropriation Act, 1972: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the supply services and purposes to which sums have been appropriated in the Appropriation Act, 1972.

Would the Minister like to assist our thought processes by coming in at this stage?

This motion provides the Seanad with an opportunity of debating the expenditure provided for in the supply services Estimate and to discuss expenditure and financial policies in general. It is not usual for the Minister for Finance to make a lengthy opening statement on this general debate and I do not propose to depart from that procedure. However, I hope at the end of the debate that I will be able to reply as fully as possible to the various points which will be raised by Senators in the course of the debate.

In considering as we must the manner of the administration of the sums which are the subject of the Appropriation Act it is not inappropriate for me in opening the debate to say something about the approach I would have to the object of the expenditure, to describe the kind of society we ought to be concerned to establish and to examine the defects which can be seen to exist in society. My approach, and that of my party, is obviously that of a party which are concerned to evolve something better than something that may be partly good and partly defective— not to swallow all the pseudo-solutions of revolution or accept any intellectual menace from the bloody-minded leap in the dark, of which a revolution consists.

In thinking about our problems, we should start with the realisation that the present situation is historically determined and capable of being improved and evolved through our conduct of the days that are left to us. We can look back over the period of our self-government and ask ourselves have we shaped a society to our own satisfaction, our own pride and the world's admiration. Although there has been achievement, and I am willing to say that and to repeat it, the society is not to our satisfaction.

I should like to say a word about our achievement. Only Finland—a special case—and Ireland, of all the countries which achieved freedom after the 1914-18 war, still retain it. We had a civil war with a peaceful end, thank God, and there was a subsequent transference of power which represented a triumph of character for the persons involved on both sides, and a triumph, too, of ideas. Alas, in our public debates very often truth gets injured and it is not in the way of public people to speak about unpopular truths. It is right to say that in respect of the ideas that have made possible the evolution that we have had we owe much to the liberal parliamentary achievements of Britain. There is much more that could be said about our achievement but that is sufficient for the moment.

Let us look at some areas of our affairs about which we might ask some questions. With regard to Northern Ireland, I think it is possible to say that our problems there—and they are our problems—derived from the fact that at once we accepted insufficiently our own history, and, in a sense, accepted Partition too completely. We accepted Partition too completely because instinctively the thoughtful people knew that in the terms of our own demands the problem was insoluble. It is the case once more of the best being the enemy of the good. We did not aim for the attainable but the unattainable. We must be truthful and it has lessened this factor very much through the impact of appalling events: we are too concerned with the persons within the State of this Republic, too little concerned with the people lying outside its jurisdiction. We did not see this problem, as I think it must be seen, as not merely a national problem—though it is that—but also a problem affecting the whole conduct of our foreign affairs, the whole question of the peace of these two islands. In accordance with our political thought, we should place this problem more clearly in that larger context. Reality has broken through to us all and, despite all the pain and suffering, I believe that there is a considerable degree of agreement in this House and in the other House as to the sort of approach which must prevail in the future.

I should like to mention something about our performance in regard to the whole affair of parliamentary democracy. There has been too ready an acceptance on the one party or the other that each or that any given speaker or thinker was a member of a more worthy, more moral or more patriotic tradition and sometimes the two conflicted. This has been bad for us and led us, in Parliament and in public life generally, to use words in a sense in which they ought not to be used, to attribute attitudes to other people that we know are not theirs. Indeed, for a party in Government in relation to the fruits of public expenditure, to behave in a true Santa Claus fashion—that genial, jolly, generous donor of gifts of which he is not the owner—has been bad for the country.

With regard to the whole movement towards the realities of self-government, as the parties succeeded each other in office each became more aware of these realities. They became aware that the voices from the past were sending us very often wrong messages. The songs were against those with the burden of government from time to time. I mention this particularly because it has an immediate relevancy arising out of some of the Taoiseach's experiences, as seen and described recently in America. An area of our foreign policy that we have not sufficiently listed as a high objective is the establishment of good realistic relations with our diaspora— with the Irish emigrants, who listen all too much to the voices of the past and know too little about the problems of self-government for ourselves. The Irish diaspora relative to Irish affairs is infinitely more significant than that of the diaspora of any other country except obviously the Jews.

I should like to mention a few general points arising particularly in relation to administration. We are now well into the month of January, and have not yet got the four-year plan which concerns the administration of the affairs of this country from 1st January last. That seems to be a bad mark, seems to be a failure. The first Devlin Report about recruitment to the public service and about the establishment of policy-making was published in 1969, almost four years ago, and early in 1970 it was accepted in principal by the Government. We are in 1973 now and a Bill has not yet been published. Why are there no improvements? What has happened to the plans for the decentralisation of government? These are matters for parliamentary consideration. Why were announcements made which, apparently, were never followed up? What progress has been made or what policy has been formulated in elaborating a structure for the proper public control of semi-State bodies?

Members of the Seanad and Dáil get reports every month from these bodies. How many of us study them? How many of us have the expertise to make worthwhile judgments on them? I have had a favourite idea for many years which I have expressed in this House, and that is that a holding company should be formed to hold the shares in these different semi-State bodies which would provide more apt control, have the management skills organised in a central way and give these bodies greater freedom.

We have had in particular two splendid appointments and the Government are to be commended on them. They did not come from any ranks that are remotely associated with the Government but they were splendid judicial appointments. It gave great heart to the whole profession for no other reason than the high quality of the appointments. Without naming them I could go on to say that there would be a general sharing of this view about the other appointments made to the Bench. However, is sufficient consideration given whether the range, in which selection is made for appointments to these boards, is wide enough? It stretches down in terms of age to a young enough age.

In regard to participation in the Government by persons affected by governmental policy, it is appropriate to say that various State Departments have much to learn from the practices of the European Commission who are not shy about sending out drafts of their proposals and widely circulating them to get the views of persons with real experience in the areas to be affected by the proposals. I hope that some of the funds to be appropriated by the Appropriation Act will be spent in that type of development. It is delusion to accept the idea that because civil servants have access to unpublished information they necessarily know everything about it, or even more than many people who have access to a lot of other information. There is much benefit to be got from an exchange of ideas between informed and confidential administrators and people whose lives give them different types of experience.

What is the position in regard to regional policy? Ten years ago the Committee on Industrial Organisation recommended unanimously on proposals for the development of growth centres outside Dublin. Their recommendations were supported by a further committee and in 1968 Buchanan reported. Five years later we have only the watered-down Buchanan Report of an industrial development policy produced by the Industrial Development Authority which only deals with industrial development. There is more to regional policy than that.

With regard to social policy, insufficient realisation seems to exist of the principle that what can be done by a subsidiary body can be done by that body better and cheaper and less bureaucratically than if it were done by a central authority. A most unfortunate decision was made on the advice of the Revenue Commissioners, which abolished the general principle that a covenant in favour of charities is an allowable reduction for tax and I would ask the Minister to open his mind to that. There has been a breach of the principle in recent years in so far as certain kinds of covenants are concerned and particular kinds of exercises and scientific research in that field are allowable deductions. There is a whole area of extended knowledge of social problems which could be well mapped and the solution to the problems propounded more rapidly if the people concerned were properly financed.

Housing is the most acute of our social problems. If a person tells me that it cannot be solved without creating a burden which would hold back economic growth, I say it would be better to hold back economic growth because economic growth is a pseudo development if it leaves that kind of social evil unsolved. In this field we should break away from British and Continental thinking and recognise it as a burden on Christian conscience to see that the resources are applied in a radical way to the solution of that problem. In housing one of the big problems is the actual cost of the site. The Minister should examine some of the factors operative in regard to the cost of sites, in particular, in the Dublin area. There is, first of all, the inflationary effect of the gentleman's agreement with the insurance companies to invest up to 80 per cent of their premium income in Ireland. Having regard to the nature of the Irish Stock Exchange, this has actually had the effect of transferring additional demand for development land in Dublin city, to mention just one area. The impact on the cost and price of houses of the existing subsidy system is worthy of very close examination. I have very little doubt this is merely adding to an existing demand and pushing up the price of what is bought. Where wealth and value are being conferred on property owners, by the mere fact of property ownership, in a situation of economic and population growth, there is ample justification for a taxation of these additional values. Consideration of the supply and demand side of this problem is urgently necessary and, associated with supply, is the question of the direction of resources into making land available for building.

I come now to inflation. Inflation is viciously anti-social; it leads to the transfer of resources into non-productive purposes. It leads to taxation of the thrifty, of pensioners and of those on fixed incomes. This, proceeding at a lower rate, as far as I know, in Britain, has led to a major crisis there. The figures I have show that the price rise in Britain between 1968 and 1972 was 27½ per cent and, during the same period in Ireland, it was almost one-third more. Yet, we have still no incomes and prices policy.

According to the October publication of the Economic and Social Research Institute, the rise in food prices was of the order of 14 per cent up to that month. Yet, with such a rise in food prices, we go ahead with value-added tax. The Financial Times stated yesterday that people were now talking seriously in Britain about a negative value-added tax on food. What steps have been taken or are proposed to provide protection and information for consumers, or to consider the formulation of laws which would ensure they were given full details of the contents of packaged goods?

Now, as to our employment situation, the Industrial Development Authority in March, 1972, reported 7,700 new jobs but during that period 11,600 were laid off, a loss of 3,900 jobs. There may be more recent figures, but these are the most recent I have seen. For March, 1973, there were 8,000 new jobs with a redundancy of 10,000 during that period. Even allowing for the estimated disappearance of emigration in 1972, this is an acutely embarrassing position. Facts which are there, in alleviation of our problems, and which should be noted, are that the terms of trade shifted in our favour and it was estimated in 1971 that the effect of the improved price of exports relative to the price of imports was to give us an additional £12 million resources and, in the following year, to give us an additional £20 million resources.

I am in favour of the free system of government and the free type of society. I am for the saver retaining the fruits of his thrift and his work. I do not believe egalitarianism is right or that there is anything wrong in property-owning. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said for it but the free system must justify itself by its performance and demonstrate its superiority.

Is our society just in tolerating a wretched housing situation, a higher rate of inflation than exists in Britain, in not providing a solution to the unemployment problem and in leaving unchanged a taxation system with many defects? I will pass charitably over the very bad mistake made by the Minister, when he first became Minister, in raising corporation profits tax. This was later reversed. We should learn from that mistake. Taxation on retained company profits is taxation on employment. It is a tax on demand for labour and, in the future formulation of company tax policy, this fact must be recognised.

The personal allowances, where they apply to the lower range of taxed incomes, are quite inadequate and often involve the ridiculous position that that same individual may be paying tax and getting social welfare relief at the same time. Taxation of earned income, when it reaches a certain level, is both excessive and stupid because one of the things we need here is management skill. That is one of the things we must attract if we are to make this country that which it should be. The Americans cannot afford to tax earned income at more than 50 per cent and they are a great deal better able to afford things than we are. Until that nettle is grasped a great deal of worthwhile progress will be retarded.

Reforms in local finance are long overdue. The high rates are inequitably spread and have no regard, as we all know, to the incomes of the payers. They are effectively regressive. There is only one solution and that is to take the health cost off local finance and find the money for it some other way.

And malicious injury payments.

With regard to savings, the effects of inflation on these should be faced. I know the Minister has designed schemes which encourage private savings. These schemes are good but they are of use only to savers who are prepared to put their savings into public funds. Our taxation system should encourage worthwhile development like, for example, employee share schemes. So far as industrial democracy is concerned, there is no energetic plan to bring that about. Certainly there is no plan that I know of. Why have we, as a community, done nothing to encourage workers to participate in enterprises? There is a participation of which they are insufficiently aware through the employment of pension funds and so on.

With regard to law reform, what have we had in the lifetime of this Parliament? Elsewhere there has been considerable progress. About ten years ago we were told about a series of measures of law reform; we had two. Then there was a great silence. To highlight the weakness of performance, let us take one single area. In March, 1971, the Minister for Justice announced that he proposed to amend the landlord and tenant law; two years have elapsed and we have not yet seen the amending Bill. A decision must then have been made. This leaves people with problems of tenant right or landlord right of property interest in a state of great doubt as to what their position is in a whole host of situations.

In education we have had the occult formation of largely imitative policy. Where is the appreciation of standards, the awareness of criticism, the encouragement to open debate? In the administration of educational policy no regard is shown for the value of old institutions, the importance of old loyalties or a recognition that they are, in fact, carriers of culture. If we take the field of planning, in which vast values are now involved, we will find it is inadequately staffed and badly structured. There should be a special planning body divorced from the Minister.

I do not want to make too much of any of the things I have said. Another man might make much more of them. I will content myself with the general proposition that small mistakes in government can be writ large in the lives of people and it is a sort of corruption for any of us to tolerate remediable ills. Surveying Ireland, I certainly am not a bit ashamed to be here, nor before I was here, to be doing what I was doing in relation to politics. The heaviest weight of responsibility for our situation lies on those who ought to, but are not, playing their part. Again, in relation to all I have been saying, at another time we could have had great trouble in Ireland and it is worth asking ourselves, with that sort of record, why have we not had trouble? It is a classical example, I think, of foreign distractions permitting a degree of domestic dereliction of duty. Putting it brutally, if we had not had the trouble in the North we would have had a great deal more social trouble here; and we should anticipate that by a renewed sense of purpose to change and improve the situation.

At the end of what I have had to say, I come back again to the beginning and ask what is our purpose? It has been a cliché used by people on this side of the House that we want a just society. I would rather like to take that phrase out of the hot context of politics in so far as it may suggest that other Members do not. In terms of the world that is, I should like to put this in a slightly different form: we have, economically speaking, capitalism here and we should, I think, stand for the realisation of a reformed capitalism. Do we give our people sufficient reasons for work and study and dedication? Is our concern for truth and justice completely unreserved?

We are at a difficult historical moment. One empire has dissolved and left in its trail a people deeply shaken in their self-confidence, a society sick with a sickness which is infectious. There is a widespread anti-Americanism based, to a considerable degree, upon a resentment by the British of the American imperialism which has succeeded the British. It emphasises, I fear, our colonial situation in the extent to which we find that anti-Americanism here. At this point of time, at which one empire has succeeded another, that second empire, the American, may be having its Boer War in Vietnam shaking its own confidence. Anti-Americanism is not a propos our situation. World power blocs are an inescapable fact and, if we cannot have a Roman peace, the only peace we can have is one resulting from a balance of world powers. Materialism has been all that we have tolerated. Without it being positively offered, it is still there. But materialism is no answer; its satisfactions are meagre, transient, delusive and insufficient.

Nationalism of the narrow, introverted type—which, alas, ours has become—will not cope with our needs. I have a hope that in this year the focus of our loyalties may be shifting and the horizons of our imaginations may be extending. I do not think, even if it be rhetoric, even if it is what is sometimes described as windy rhetoric, it is wrong to speak of the free world, because there is a free world, a world in which men are not imprisoned or punished by authority for speaking the truth. In this month, it seems right for me to say that I think our traditions are wholly reconcilable with those of Europe and our ambitions achievable within it. We could - there find the stimulus for and the liberation of our energies, a society capable of being shaped to the likeness of the image which has been our best inspiration, an image faithful to tradition, Christian and free, an image worthy of the devotion and loyalty of all our people.

I listened with considerable interest to what Senator FitzGerald had to say. There was, if I may say so, an air of resignation in the tone with which he delivered his remarks. Indeed, it was something of a surprise to find that on the Fine Gael side of the House the debate was opened by Senator Alexis FitzGerald and not by our familiar debator, Senator O'Higgins. Perhaps it is this air of resignation that I detected and the fact that Senator Michael O'Higgins, who was in the Chamber, did not open the debate that underlines more than anything else the great change in the political climate in which we are debating this motion.

Has the Senator the faintest idea of where Senator O'Higgins is or what he is doing? Why, therefore, draw conclusions about his absence?

I am about to draw an important conclusion from his absence. On previous occasions Senator O'Higgins has been present and has taken great delight, in almost every Appropriation Bill debate, in producing the election manifesto of the Fianna Fáil Party and in reading out one particular sentence in that manifesto.

I wish to intervene for a moment. I know the Senator has a point to make, but it is hardly relevant to the Acht Leithreasa, 1972. I would like the Senator to return as soon as possible to the Appropriation Act.

The point I am about to make does not depend on the presence, in any part of the building or elsewhere, of Senator O'Higgins. However, in previous debates of this kind he has placed repeatedly on the record of the House a quotation from the manifesto of the Fianna Fáil Party at the last general election. That sentence reads: "Only a united Government vigorously and resolutely pursuing clearly defined policies endorsed by the people and supported by a secure majority in Dáil Éireann can face these problems and overcome these difficulties." In previous debates Senator O'Higgins has tried, and perhaps people have felt that there was some evidence for his suggestions, to raise the point that perhaps there was not a united Government, perhaps there was not a Government vigorously and resolutely pursuing clearly defined policy and he queried the future of that Government in office. He has not been here to make that claim on this occasion. He has not opened the debate and that is definitely significant. There is an air of resignation on the other side of this House.

He would give a loud laugh if he could hear that. He will be back yet and I hope the Senator will be here to listen to him.

I will. Many of the points made by Senator FitzGerald I intend to repeat in a rather different way because, like Senator FitzGerald, I tend to regard this debate on the Appropriation motion as a time for looking back, a time for assessing one's position, a time for making general views known about how one should advance to face the problems ahead. This country is now in a position where the Government of the day, which went through certain difficulties reflecting the stresses and strains felt in the community in general by way of reaction to the serious situation in Northern Ireland, have faced up to those difficulties, dealt with them and now stand as a united Government vigorously and resolutely pursuing clearly defined policies. They stand in a position where, following the uneasy situation that followed the last general election, we have had the implied mandate of referenda decisions and particularly of the by-election in mid-Cork. Although Senator O'Higgins or Senator Kelly may feel it fair and factual to say that the majority of the Fianna Fáil Party in Dáil Éireann did not look too secure we, in Fianna Fáil, would not quibble with that at all. We would be quite happy, at any time and at any moment, to put this question to the test of a general election.

I would like to suggest that it might be timely, now that we are facing an election year, to look at the work in hand and to see the attitude that the Government, backed by the Fianna Fáil Party, can bring to the problems that lie ahead.

First of all, I thought it interesting that in his review of the present situation Senator FitzGerald did not query the basic economic soundness and health of our present position. The points he made about the structure of our taxation system and other matters were of interest and his approach to the matter of detail, as always, were well worth consideration. However, it must be stressed that our economy is in a basically sound state and commentators are looking to an upturn in the indications of progress and prosperity in a modern economy. Their optimism, in this regard, relates to the fact that we are now members of the enlarged European Economic Community and stems from the massive endorsement of our membership by the people.

I have already dealt with the political climate but I would like to underline that the people, if asked for their views on the matter, would say resoundingly that the only party capable of offering united and vigorous Government is the Fianna Fáil Party, led by An Taoiseach, Jack Lynch. I am sure the people would state that this is the time for a major advance in a number of important policy areas. At this time, when we have all been disturbed by the serious, sad and tragic events in the North and when we have had a time of questioning and self-analysis, the people are looking for a new spirit and new attitudes in which to approach the problems we all acknowledge exist. This is the time for an outward looking and generous spirit to be demonstrated to the world and to our neighbours on this island. It is also a time for trying to achieve a community approach to the human problems which beset many of our people. It is vital that this new spirit and attitude should not be shattered in any way by the inadequacy or inflexibility of any of our institutions essential for progress and development.

There were a number of occasions on which Senator FitzGerald may have been slightly unfair or misleading on some of the points he made and in talking about the importance of the institutions of our public service and their need for development he mentioned that, following the publication of the first Devlin Report, no Bill had even been published. This is not the case. The Ministers and Secretaries Bill has been published and circulated. From time to time, I have indicated that I would like to see it processed by the Houses of the Oireachtas but it is not correct to say that no Bill was published following the publication of that report. Neither is it correct to give the impression that nothing has happened since the publication of that report because major steps in the framing of the new Public Services Department, which is the key to the implementation of the Devlin proposals, have been taken. I am sure the Minister will deal with this point later on but the Minister has indicated that in certain chosen Departments steps have already been taken to re-organise the work of those Departments on the Aireacht principle which is fundamental to the Devlin proposals.

There has been a motion in connection with the Devlin Report on the Order Paper for three years, so it does not seem that the Government want this House to——

I do not want to allow myself to be diverted by interruptions; I respect and participate as much as I can in the debates that take place in this House on motions. To say that a motion has not been taken is no index whatsoever of a lack of action by any Department of State.

It is some index, not a great one.

I should like to proceed to a selected number of topics in the light of the spirit and attitudes which should inspire our approach to certain problems and certain policy areas, particularly in the next 12 months. First of all, I should like to say something about the work handled by our Department of Foreign Affairs. I hope my comments may be helpful at a time when our new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan has taken up his office with great élan. This was evident at the meeting of the Council of Ministers and was very encouraging.

In discussing matters of foreign affairs and international relations, particularly after the campaign on the European Economic Community and its enlargement, the Government should make sure that no one is under the impression that Europe is the world or that the Communities are the world. Our people should realise that. There is a great deal more to our place in the world and our attitudes towards international relations than our business with and membership of the enlarged European Economic Community. This is something we will see in great measure this year as the Community itself tackles the major questions of its external relations, its trading partnership with the United States and its contribution, through the member states, to the forthcoming European conference on security and co-operation. We will also see it in the attitude of the Community towards the developing world which will increasingly become a matter for major debate.

It is extremely important—particularly as we in Ireland have distinctive views on a number of those topics and in the area of European security—that our attitude on such topics should be extremely well thought out and we should constantly ask ourselves if we are giving an adequate proportion of our resources and manpower to consideration of an work on those topics. It will be very difficult for Ireland's voice to be heard effectively on any of the major international issues unless first of all our Government, and, secondly, our people, are adequately informed on the issues involved.

I should like to give one practical example: during the negotiations leading up to the enlargement of the European Community Ireland was represented, with the applicant countries, on what is known as the d'Avignon Committee, which was a committee set up by the Council of Ministers to consider questions in the foreign policy field. That committee set up subcommittees to examine matters like the situation in the Middle East and problems connected with the Mediterranean, and so on. It must be extremely difficult for our Department of Foreign Affairs to make a worthwhile contribution to those important debates and studies. Though they may seem remote, nevertheless they may be greatly to our interest. In our particular case, as a country with a firm commitment to peace, with no colonial tradition and with a history of respect for the United Nations and its Charter, it is important that we should make as active a contribution to such discussions and debates as we possibly can.

If there is anything that needs to be examined, whether it is about the location and distribution of our embassies, or about recruitment of specialist staff for the Department of Foreign Affairs —and there must be many other examples of new stresses and strains on that Department at this time—it is very important that such improvements and such reviews should take place as soon as possible. We are in a stage where many things will be happening very quickly. Events happen always after a period such as the enlargement of the European Economic Community, while everybody is looking at a new situation. It is very important that Ireland's voice should play a key part in this time of change.

I am spending a little time talking about this, because, generally speaking, there is not a great deal of public interest in foreign affairs or in the work of our Department of Foreign Affairs. There is much glib analysis in the newspapers of the role of our embassies: the suggestion is made that embassies are luxuries, that they should concentrate on trade matters and so on. Certainly, trade is important, and Ireland's role as a trader to the Community and to the world is extremely important. However, ultimately our whole future depends on the peace and stability of this globe on which we live. If, by our voice in international relations we can do anything to help promote the continuance of that peace and stability, it will be absolutely invaluable.

I am aware of the cost of establishing new embassies in different countries. Perhaps we could avail of the information services of such neutral powers as, say, Switzerland and Sweden, who have embassies all over the globe. Such embassies would have reports regarding certain world problems which would help to make sure that we were informed about the crises that mean so much—and will mean so much—in a Community in which countries such as France, Germany and Britain have major overseas commitments. There must be some way of ensuring that our sources of information are up to equal participation— and we are equals in political discussions—in that enlarged Community and this would be worth considering.

I should now like to refer to a topic that has already been mentioned, the situation in the North. The words I have already used about spirit and attitudes are absolutely crucial here. If there is to be any advance at all in human relations on this island, it is absolutely vital that the people of the Republic should come to understand what real generosity is and what the essential spirit of compromise must be. The understanding must be there if one is to become reconciled in peace with people whom it must be conceded have very different views on some topics. They have entrenched hardened attitudes on many matters in which they would differ vastly from the great majority of people in the Republic. It is absolutely vital that we generate an understanding of what real generosity is. We should also generate a spirit in which people may be prepared to accept changes which, if they were to act exclusively in their own interest, they might find in some way repugnant. That is what real, human progress is in terms of reconciliation: it is to be prepared to give to a fellowman something that one would not necessarily ask for oneself.

I should like to refer to two things which deter people from advancing towards these attitudes of generosity and compromise or mutual understanding. First of all, because future relations between North and South are so often stated in economic terms and in terms of bridging the social welfare gap, and because people tend to feel that this is not just possible in material terms, they tend to be discouraged. They are inclined to say: "No matter what we feel about it, it will be impossible to persuade the people of the North to come into any close partnership with us, if it will mean they will be hit in the pocket or that they will lose out in some way." As far back as 1959 in his speech at the Oxford Union, Seán Lemass said quite clearly—and I am often interested to see how many current speeches on the North reflect the wisdom which Seán Lemass showed at that time— that he felt it would be possible to maintain separate levels of social welfare benefit for a lengthy period, if necessary, in both parts of this island. He felt that would be politically acceptable in the interests of progress towards the reunification of this island. In addition, when we are discussing the question of different social welfare benefits between North and South—and the gap has been narrowed since Seán Lemass made that speech—we tend to leave out of account the British contribution to the North.

At present the British and Irish Governments have a common interest in stability in these islands. Seeing the amount of money the British Government pour into the disastrous tragedy in the North she is extremely anxious to find a solution to the difficulties which face us all even at considerable financial outlay and I think that given any possibility of a lengthy period of stability in conventional terms in the North, some return to—I do not like to use the word "return" because the situation was abnormal and we do not want to get back to an abnormal situation—any kind of conventional peace in the North, the British Government would be prepared to continue its massive expenditure in Northern Ireland.

In times of peace that investment would be worth far more to Britain than at a time when the transfer of resources is bringing and meaning nothing but trouble to the British people. Stability means one thing to Britain: that is the possibility of trade and friendly relations. It also means an end to the peculiar fear which Britain has because she is in many ways still an imperial power, this fear that insecurity in the western part of the islands of which Britain sees herself as the centre, is, in some way, a threat to her security in the global sense. The cost to Britain at the moment and the possibility of future improved trade and better relations which real understanding between all parties in these islands would mean, all these considerations for Britain underline the real probability that Britain will be prepared to make a major contribution for a long time to come which would be of assistance not only to the North but to the whole island and its future.

I have said this to try to combat the feeling of helplessness which people often develop when looking at the North and trying to tackle this economic argument which is so readily bandied about.

We must try to lead all the people of the Republic to a situation in which they will have a real attitude of generosity and understanding towards their fellow Irishmen in the North. I do not underestimate the difficulties of this. If one wants examples one need only think of what the attitudes of the people must be in our border towns when faced with some terrible recent murders in their midst. This is an important role for political leadership. It can be a particularly important role for the Fianna Fáil Party, a party who now know what it has meant for people to have different views on the best approach to the situation in the North. Now, in a united sense this party have their firm commitment to a peaceful solution of the problems and they must move on further and quickly to spread, throughout their ranks, a real understanding of what generosity and change mean in a situation where we must now move as rapidly as we can to reconciliation of people.

I want to say a few words in relation to the economy. Senator FitzGerald referred to inflation and particularly to the problem of prices. This theme for a Community approach to the problem is apt where the problems of inflation and prices are concerned. We are living in an unusual situation and I do not think that Senator FitzGerald's view that people would be more concerned about problems of this kind here if it were not for the distraction of the situation in the North is a fair comment. The attitude taken and the patience displayed by our consuming public in the face of rising prices is not due to a distraction but to a wide understanding that there have been a number of different factors in inflation here compared with the situation facing the people in Britain.

One of the big advantages of our EEC referendum campaign was that our people are better educated and have a better grasp of what the EEC means than the people of Britain and though an effort was made at the time when much publicity was given to the inquiry set up by the British Government into beef prices, comparable efforts to creat some kind of a stampede here did not succeed—for obvious reasons. The average man in the street already knew what it took this public relations commission set up by Edward Heath three days to find out. The average Irishman knew the factors which had led to an increase in the price of beef because he understood what agriculture is about and how it works; he understood something about the EEC and how it would affect the situation and he did not need any commission to say that we were in a position in which it is difficult to do anything more than describe the situation. That is one reason why we did not have the type of clamour about beef prices here that occurred in Britain, a clamour which, to my mind, led to this ridiculous piece of showmanship by the British Government: the setting up of an inquiry which they must have known could not produce any change in the situation.

Another major achievement for which all our people must take credit is the fact that we are in our second negotiated national wage agreement. I should like to pay great tribute to both sides of industry on reaching this agreement, an agreement endorsed by consultation among their members. Consultation means education. When certain percentages have been negotiated for the work force, and have been phased in a certain way, this helps to give a common-sense understanding that there is a relationship between wages and prices. We in this House are as aware of rising prices as the man in the street and of what it means to pay more for the groceries. Another factor which helps us to accept this is that we have all experienced real improvements in our standard of living.

I should like to applaud the work of the National Prices Commission in this connection. This body, set up towards the end of 1971, unlike so many other bodies, each month produce a report stating exactly what they are doing, where they are going, what their recommendations are and, if action is being delayed on the comments made in one report, they state this in the next report. It is unfortunate that space does not permit the printing of these reports in full in the Press each month. In addition to the specific recommendations made by them, they often do an excellent background analysis of the reasons for price increases which they have had to recommend for acceptance in the previous months.

If this leads to a community understanding of what inflation means it is invaluable. The problem of rising prices and inflation can only be met by community understanding, by an appreciation that we all have a part to play by prudent spending, by critical purchasing and by having an interest in the best consumer standards. If we work collectively we can do something to contain this process of inflation. I should like to see the idea put forward by the National Prices Commission, of the establishment of local prices committees, catching on in a major way. This would be community involvement at its best. Local prices committees who follow the functions outlined by the National Prices Commission in their monthly report No. 6 of April, 1972, could have a big impact. Local communities throughout the country which would collect and collate information on retail prices, and generate an interest in price comparisons, and make consumers more aware of their role in seeking value for money, and insist on proper consumer standards, could do a great deal to curb inflation.

From time to time among certain bodies, some of which are State-sponsored and have been refused applications for price increases by the National Prices Commission, I have detected attempts to brow-beat the National Prices Commission into saying: "You are quite wrong. You have not examined this enough. What do you know about it?" I intend to take a particular interest in this subject. We should all do what we can to back up the National Prices Commission in their work month by month. They have been proved to be a hard-working body of integrity, anxious to get to the bottom of every question which faces them. They have no axe to grind. They are representative of all sections; workers, employees, industry and the consumer.

I should like to say something about the underprivileged in our society. Senator FitzGerald asked us to accept as a fact the existence of some appalling housing conditions. We accept that fact, although on this side of the House we have put it on record that we are ahead of our projections for house building. These projections were endorsed by the people in the 1969 general election. The White Paper on housing in the 1970s was published shortly before that. We are ahead of the projected figures for house building in that White Paper. The problem still exists and more work must be done. As much of our resources as possible should go into housing. Bad housing is a major cause of many of the social ills of family life.

There has been a great deal of debate on the problems of underprivileged children and the problems of women trying to face up to unusual domestic difficulties, stresses and strains and legal disadvantages under which, to my regret, they still labour in our society. I hope we will not have to wait too long for the report of the Commission on the Status of Women and that these matters will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

The problems facing underprivileged children, which are of particular interest to women, and problems of health and welfare generally, have been under examination by researchers, pressure groups, the Hierarchy and various other interested bodies. When one reads about particular cases one wishes that there was sufficient money available to go around. One wishes there was not the problem of establishing priorities. As things stand at the moment, much could be done, even without greater resources, if we had a great deal more flexibility in our institutional arrangements for dealing with the problems of the underprivileged. I am speaking about attitudes, understanding and compassion.

I do not wish to be critical of public servants, servants of local authorities and Government Departments, because I know they have an unenviable task at times with limited resources. There may be occasions when they would dearly like to express criticism, if they were permitted to do so, of the politicians who so readily point to what needs to be done. As politicians we can give leadership. I should like to see a much more constructive and outward looking spirit throughout our public services and local authority services. At times I fear matters of red tape and bureaucracy impinge in an inhuman way on many cases of hardship and underprivilege. Politicians, particularly those with a constituency interest, may see this more than others.

People sitting behind desks who send out abrupt and curt notes to a person in distress cannot be aware of the impact of that note on the person who receives it. It is a further thorn in the flesh at a time of serious hardship. I should like to give one specific example which, to my mind, needs urgent attention.

It is possible at the moment for a wife living with her family in the Republic to be deserted by her husband. He can then go to Britain, gain a divorce and live there with another wife and family. In that situation the deserted wife is not entitled to a deserted wife's allowance. The fact of divorce, even though it is not recognised by our Constitution, is sufficient as things stand to rule out her application for an allowance as a deserted wife. May I say at this point that I very much welcome the allowance for deserted wives which was brought in by the Government? I have experience of one case, which is with the Minister for Social Welfare at the moment, where a wife was deserted by her husband and received no deserted wife's allowance because her husband had divorced her and was living in Britain. When that man died, she applied for a widow's pension and, when at last it seemed she was in striking distance of at least a regular weekly payment as of right, without going to the local home assistance officer, she received in reply to her application for a widow's pension a letter which said she had not shown conclusively that she was a widow.

Bureaucracy or the letter of the law can lead to a situation where a woman whose husband has died is told that she has not shown that she is a widow and is thereby deprived of a pension for herself and her children. That is nonsense and, in my view, it should be dealt with by a stroke of a pen if it can be dealt with at all. Finance does not enter into it. It is a matter of an administrative difficulty. There must be many examples of this kind. We have seen them in the recent first-class case study reports by bodies like the AIM organisation and the CARE group with an interest in children, and the reports of the free legal advice centre. Even if we feel we cannot face up to the basic question of how we divided the national cake, there must be many problems which could be eased either by the stroke of a pen or by making some small administrative change, or else which could be greatly alleviated by all the parties involved, such as administrative people who never see their clients, or by hard-pressed and, indeed, overworked social workers, or by politicians. I hope that in this year of 1973 we would all have a look around us and see what we can do by way of flexibility and genuine community spirit to ease the lot of the underprivileged. I make that plea quite apart from my plea to the Government to make sure constantly that their allocation of resources in matters of social welfare is the most that can be given at one time.

The future of all the people on this island depends on our own human attitudes and our approach to the problems which face us, whether they are inflation, our position within the European Economic Community, or our work for the underprivileged. In almost every case it gets down to community effort, and how we go about helping ourselves and make sure that we achieve the goals we set ourselves, whether they are higher productivity, better export results, or merely encouraging our people to make the best use of the educational facilities available to them. I should like to end on that note at a time when we are discussing collective responsibility for matters of administration. While expressing general satisfaction with the overall job of administration I, for one, should like to underline the continuing need for the involvement and effort of every individual citizen of our State. I should like to underline the continuing need for the involvement and effort of every citizen.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald said that this debate presents us all with an opportunity of indicating the type of just society in which we would like to live. I am not in a position at present to outline briefly my conception of the just society. I can, however, say briefly what type of society I do not want and what type of society the vast majority of our people do not want. This may be regarded as a negative attitude but I firmly believe that it is only by recognising inequities and injustices that we can hope to discard them and plan for a progressive and equitable future for all our people.

Basically the type of society I reject is one in which more than two-thirds of the wealth of the nation is owned by only 5.1 per cent of the population. That is the type of society in which we live today. This is revealed in the elaborate survey carried out by Professor Lyons of Trinity College. In the preface he thanks the Minister for Finance for according him so many facilities to check on statistics of the Revenue authorities, and so on. If we started on this basis and rejected that form of society we might make some progress. Springing from that essential fact there are many more injustices and inequities. Senator Keery referred to the fact that in the past 12 months in this small country, more than 3,000 people have been declared redundant, most of them having spent a lifetime in a particular employment. They did not receive adequate compensation and in many cases no notice was given.

During the past 12 months many thousands of our people have had to emigrate and thousands more are unemployed with no possibility of obtaining work. In a vast number of cases wages are inadequate to keep pace with the ever-rising cost of living. Senator Keery referred to this in detail. There is a lack of housing accommodation. Most important of all, our social welfare and educational services are inadequate. In this connection I should like to refer to some statistics produced by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Between 1963 and 1971, the gross national product in money terms rose by £1,082 million. Of this increase, £268 million was spent by public authorities on social and community services. Accordingly, only £1 in £4 of the increase in the GNP went to public spending on our social services. Over this eight-year period, when public spending on social services went up by £268 million, expenditure on alcohol rose by £92 million, on tobacco by £31 million, and on motor cars by £27 million. This means that for every £1 extra spent on social services, 56 new pence was spent on drink, tobacco and motor cars. The increase of £92 million on alcohol compares over the same period with an increase of only £97 million in respect of all social welfare services. The increase, not the amount itself, in drink expenditure over that eight-year period almost equalled the extra amount spent in respect of all social services.

I am not suggesting that the Minister or the Government should take steps in regard to the increase in drink and tobacco expenditure but I suggest, in a situation in which we are spending very little on social services compared with other countries, and particularly compared with other EEC countries, that some kind of inquiry should be made into our rather excessive expenditure on items which are not essential to our well-being and to our progress.

Does the Senator mean to compel workers not to drink, smoke or buy cars?

I have just said that I am not suggesting any remedy other than an inquiry into expenditure on these items related to expenditure on social services. It has been stated on many occasions both inside and outside this House that a major factor, if not the principal one, in improving relations between the Republic and Northern Ireland is the desirability of implementing a citizens' rights charter in respect of all citizens in both parts of the country. Allied with this is the desirability and the promise that we should at least equate our social services and other legislation with those operating in Northern Ireland.

Another major factor based on promises in the past is for both Southern and Northern Ireland to bring into line with other EEC countries their social welfare services and expenditure. At present the Republic falls far short of Northern Ireland, and both the Republic and Northern Ireland are much below and inferior to EEC social services. The social services of the Republic and of Northern Ireland are much inferior to those within the EEC. Therefore, just at the point of formally having entered the EEC, if this country is to make progress, we must ensure that along with suffering the disabilities of entry into the Common Market, such as price increases on food products, which have been pointed out many times and disregarded, we must also ensure that we gain the benefits of entry. That means in the first instance greatly increased social welfare services.

I am sorry that Senator Keery has left the House. I shall not draw any conclusions from his absence but the extremely cantankerous opening sentences in his speech, had they come from this side of the House, would have reduced the people on our side to fury. Incidentally, it gives me a very appropriate platform from which to launch the remarks which I have to make to the House today.

With a good deal of irony, he invited the House to draw conclusions from the absence of Senator O'Higgins, who in previous years he said—though it must have lodged deep and painfully with him because I have no recollection of this myself—had quoted from the Fianna Fáil election manifesto and had quoted with particular glee that part of the manifesto in which the Fianna Fáil Party invited the country to return them to power, because the country needed a Government with clearly defined policies.

I had forgotten all about that manifesto, if I ever read it. If I can take Senator Keery's word for it that that was the Fianna Fáil election manifesto when they last went to the country, I have to ask myself in relation to what I want to talk about today, and I shall deal with one theme only, a theme which the House has heard me on before, that is, how far these policies can be described as existing at all, let alone having a clearly defined existence. This debate will not go through without mention of Northern Ireland being made in one shape or form by most Members. My speech at this time last year was entirely devoted to the subject and we may do the same thing this year.

I have watched with a great deal of dismay the way in which the Government have handled the problem of the North over the last three or four years, and particularly over the last year. It is true that the last 12 months have not seen the same convulsions and the same scandals that disfigured the year 1970. However, I watch the way in which the Dublin Government are exerting what ought to be a very considerable influence, and a very great influence for good, on the course of events. I watch in particular the behaviour of the Taoiseach and I must confess—and I make a present of this to gentlemen on the far side—that I am despondent when I find the relative degree of complacent acceptance which the media, editorial writers and so forth, accept that the Government here are doing their best in this regard.

I have never accused Deputy Lynch's Government of wishing to foment bloodshed or disorder; I know that that is not in their minds, and I know that perhaps it was never in the minds of most of them. I am not making that charge, and Members here will know that I never have made it. I say that because of local political exigencies, because of ignorance, because of neglect stretching back over generations, the Northern situation is being mishandled in a way which would be difficult to describe adequately, because it is so muddled and so much a scene of contradiction and of conflict.

It is extremely important that the policy of this Government, or of any Government who happen to be in office this year, in regard to the North of Ireland should be defined clearly and understood. It is not enough to talk in generalities. Everybody in the southern part of this country was brought up to believe that the people from the North —of whichever persuasion, but particularly what in the North is the majority persuasion—were hardheaded people who, whatever their other failings might be, wanted to hear "Yes" when a man meant "Yes" and wanted to hear "No" when he meant "No". It was also held out—I suppose as part of the legend about them—that they had no time for evasions and had no time for the kind of "sloothering" associated with the worst type of person who in their legend the southern majority to a large extent consisted of. Faced wth a Northern majority of that kind the necessity to be clear, to be unambiguous and to say exactly what you mean and not to leave room for misunderstanding or doubt, is absolutely paramount.

I have here a collection of speeches made by the Taoiseach between August, 1969 and October, 1971. Every Senator received this booklet. A few of those speeches made in the late 1969 and early 1970 were being made—I do not mean to offend gentlemen on the far side who perhaps were not privy to this; neither do I want to rake up old sores—at a time when one of their own former Ministers said there was deliberate effort on the part of some members of that Government to supply the IRA in the North of Ireland with guns.

I shall not beat that drum any longer: I think it has been beaten too much by the Opposition. I believe that any Government in office in 1969 faced with the Northern explosion would have been subject to pretty much the same kind of pressures as the Government here were subject to. I believe that a Fine Gael Government would have stood up to them better, but I confess that they would have been faced with pressures of a similar kind and would have been faced with the same emotional difficulties of reconciling what they knew to be right with what, perhaps, some of us in our hearts would have liked to do.

I admit that the minority in Belfast in 1969 and in the rest of Northern Ireland were in a situation where it looked as though they were on the point of being massacred. I can well imagine the strains and the stresses which people of responsibility here underwent when faced with a population who were appealing to them for help to save their very lives. Therefore, I do not want to make too much of this.

However looking at it from the point of view of the Northern majority, the people we are trying to sell something to know that, for whichever reasons and however good the emotional excuse might be, the Government here knew—even the Taoiseach himself— that help was being given to people over whom no control could be exercised. If the Government here had sent in the Army it would have been a lunatic thing to do, militarily, nationally and every other way, but at least it would have been open and above board and at least the men sent to their deaths over the Border would have been people disciplined in the use of force and accustomed to taking orders and obeying them.

But once you have put a gun into somebody's hand over whom you have no control, then, as has been seen, there is no end to the violence and there is no bottom to the savagery. That is a bitter lesson for us to have learned. I do not go to the same length as some of my party or some of the Opposition go in blaming the Fianna Fáil Government for their neglect in this matter—I blame them, certainly—but I can imagine that there were dimensions of anguish in making the decisions they made, which probably we would have experienced had we been in office.

Nonetheless, that history makes it essential that no member of the Northern majority should be in the slightest doubt about the position of the Government here. If we look at many parts of the Government's position here it leaves room for an honest doubt and an honest bewilderment as to what exactly is in Deputy Lynch's mind.

I have made all the concessions I can make; I tried to approach this in a fair way; I have made concessions in the last ten minutes that you have not heard from my side of the House before. The Taoiseach's contribution in the last year or so has been terribly feeble. The contributions made by most of the Ministers behind him have been nil. I suspect that many of them have never opened their mouths to give a moral lead to the people on issues of death and violence because they were afraid it might shave away a few votes from a quota or the double quota which they have in the constituencies to which they belong. I should like to be wrong about that. It is being left to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, to Deputy Colley and one or two others to carry a burden which ought to have been carried shoulder to shoulder by a whole Government, as it was in William Cosgrave's time, and as it will be again when the present Government go out.

I want to say positively now that apart from the Taoiseach and about three of his Ministers who had tried to give a lead and who mean and believe what they say, the rest of the Ministers have sung dumb. What conclusion would you draw from that if you were a Northern Unionist? What conclusion would you draw from it when you find, looking over the Border, that Mr. Faulkner has never said a word on the subject—I mention him because you could run into him as soon as you cross the Border coming towards Dublin—has never opened his mouth on this question? Neither Deputy Lalor nor Deputy Molloy has ever opened his mouth on it. The Parliamentary Secretary now in the House, or the Parliamentary Secretary across the border in West Galway, has never opened his mouth on it, and a whole string of others have never opened their mouths on it.

Nobody but Gerry L'Estrange——

There were some on our side who thought Deputy Gerry L'Estrange was going too far but he turned out to be right in the end. Who was right in the end, as between Deputy Gerry L'Estrange and the people on the other side who shouted him down? Who was the man who was right when he said we were slipping towards anarchy and that there were bloodshed and violence looming ahead for lack of a decent Government? He was right, and the people who were laughing at him were wrong, and nothing has shown that more clearly than the history of the last 12 or 15 months. I am proud to have Gerry L'Estrange in the same party as myself.

Not in Christmas week.

Who was right?

The history of Easter Week—has the Senator forgotten it?

The majority in Northern Ireland need to be told clearly what exactly we are up to. I am afraid that that is something which has not happened. If I were an open minded and fair minded member of that majority I would not know what to make of the repeated statements which I find attributed to the Taoiseach. I do not believe the Taoiseach has ill will about this matter, I believe he does not want bloodshed or savagery, but I think he is incompetent and that he is incompetently advised. I also suspect that his speeches are written for him by two or three script writers. I do not fault him for having speeches written for him. I will not be drawn by Senator Garrett.

(Interruptions.)

I cannot hear Senator Garret and talk at the same time. If you want me to stay here all night, keep on interrupting. I do not resent it a bit. I do not fault a Minister for having speeches written for him because he has so much to do that on the ordinary occasions, opening bun fights and so on, he needs a script, nor do I fault a Taoiseach for having speeches drafted for him on important issues, but I fault him if he does not take the trouble to read these scripts through critically before he delivers them and I fault him if he delivers statements within a speech of a few weeks or a couple of months together, which even to the inexperienced eye of an only moderately logical layman, do not hang together and cannot be reconciled with one another. However well it may fit the Irish character, which is said to prefer prevarication to straight talk, it has done nothing to improve our position with the Northern majority. All through there is nothing but muddle and contradiction. There was an article which the Taoiseach contributed to an American paper called Foreign Affairs which was reprinted in the Irish newspapers last June. In this Deputy Lynch stated:

I consider that the only solution is an Ireland united by agreement. It is a solution that I would and the Senators on the other side of the House would like to see, but is it the only solution? A man who is dealing with a situation where people are losing their lives every day has no right to set up as a prophet.

Is he not entitled to his view?

He is entitled to his view but what the Taoiseach says will be broadcast all over the world. What he says will be analysed in Lurgan, Ballymena and Coleraine. That is very important. What Senator Garrett or I say may not be very important. Who will pay much attention to us?

The Senator is afraid of the Taoiseach.

I am not afraid of the Taoiseach. He is perfectly entitled, under the Orders of this House, to come here and sit where the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting. The other day I read some figures about what Mr. de Valera did in the Seanad in the thirties. He appeared in the Seanad about four times a year during the last three years of the old Seanad's existence, when he was Taoiseach. I would be delighted to see the Taoiseach here. I hope I will conduct myself as well towards him as Senators opposite conduct themselves towards people on our front bench. I am not afraid of him or of anybody on the other side.

Good man, we will not harm you.

I will say what I came here to say. If you give me a chance I will finish before the tea break, if you do not I will be still on my feet at 7.30 p.m.

I am enjoying——

I do not know if they have any constables over there on that side of the House but Senator Garrett should be put under some restraint. You are the ones who will be paying for it in the end. I enjoy myself on my feet.

It is a free country.

In this article the Taoiseach said:

...this is the only solution. I consider that any attempt to follow up a new set of discussions by integrating the North into the United Kingdom would be disastrous.

These are serious words, to integrate the Six Counties into the UK—for all practical purposes they are now, in fact, integrated into it. I cannot see where that is necessarily a disaster. To be using that inflated language, to be devaluing the real worth of what you are saying, is a very serious thing for a Taoiseach. It may be all right for a junior Minister but it is a very serious thing for a Taoiseach to do. He said that the incorporation of the Six Counties into the UK could not work. Time has already proved him wrong about that because it is incorporated into the UK for all practical purposes. The bloodshed is still going on at roughly the same rate as it was before.

It is not working.

The Senator knows me well enough to know that I do not admire the constitutional arrangement on the island any more than he does, but it is a damaging thing for a Taoiseach to take it on himself to play Moses. That is what Deputy Lynch has been led to do by his script writers. It is not part of the man's own nature. He has been led by his advisers, and I believe there are more than one of them, and that they do not consult or compare notes with each other on these positions. He said that the British Government, by handing over the North of Ireland to the settlement achieved by the 1920 Act, abdicated responsibility for it. They did not abdicate responsibility; they carried the responsibility. In a sense they failed to discharge the responsibility but it is not true to say that they abdicated their responsibility. The Northern Government or the Northern Parliament were never sovereign.

When I find this kind of thing going on I ask myself if I was a middle of the road Orangeman or Unionist in the North what would I make of this man? What would I make of him when I hear him playing the prophet and saying that the only solution is integration with the Twenty-six Counties either in the long or short term?

The Senator is castigating him the same as he does——

I will have to castigate him because it grieves me to read this rubbish day in, day out. It grieves me still further to see leader writers not tearing to pieces what he has said in a manner which it deserves, not just because of the man himself or the party to which he belongs— there are sufficient other grounds for criticism and opposition—but this involves human lives. While we are speaking here somebody is, perhaps, being blown to bits North of the Border.

We are dealing with a situation in which this Government could play a positive role. In fairness to Senator Keery, I agree with him 100 per cent in what he said about the necessity for a generous and new approach to those who hold different views from us. I am sorry that he did not express in clear words what he meant by that remark. I suspect the reason why he did not spell it out was because it does not suit his party to be anything more than equivocal on this matter and therefore it is not put in any more concrete form.

The Taoiseach has repeatedly said —the instance in this American paper is only one—that there can be no lasting solution except in a United Ireland context. This is the solution that I and probably everybody in this House would like to see but to talk in such a manner invites the inference that we will not support any measure which does not lead towards that solution. I know I am putting words into the Taoiseach's mouth which he has not used but I am only a Southern Nationalist. What about a Northern Unionist? Which words would he put into the Taoiseach's mouth on foot of these ill-considered reflections? What interpretation will be put on this Mosaic prophecy that there will never be peace until there is unity? It is conceivable that there could be peace without unity. I should be sorry to see that particular solution but I do not have the right to predict what will happen in the future and to say there will not be peace without unity. To talk in such a manner invites those who are sales-resistant to Irish nationalism to conclude that the Taoiseach will dig his heels in—that he will wreck any effort at settlement which falls short of unity.

There are other minor details which enhance and lend colour to that picture. The Taoiseach has said he is opposed to the holding of a plebiscite in the North of Ireland. Our Foreign Affairs spokesman has expressed the same idea but he has grounded his views by saying that to hold a plebiscite at the present time would be a dangerous and inflammatory thing to do. He is right. But to say, as the Taoiseach has said—apparently without qualification unless I am doing him an injustice— that he is against the holding of a plebiscite there at all would reinforce my suspicions, if I were a Northern Unionist, that he did not care about how I felt and that he was afraid— which is shameful—of what a plebiscite might show.

I suspect this is what is at the back of his mind. He is afraid that if there was a plebiscite—perhaps it would be a bad idea to have one now but later when things get more settled—that nothing like 33? per cent of the population, which we think of as nationalist, would prove to be so. He is afraid that not even 25 per cent would turn out to vote for incorporation in the Republic. He is afraid that that plebiscite might disclose that more than 80 per cent would vote for the status quo.

I should be very interested to hear what Senator McGowan has to say on this matter because he lives nearer to the scene than I do. This is a sad situation, but it is shameful to be afraid of the truth. It is shameful to put yourself in the position where your opponents can accuse you of being afraid of the truth. This is the impression given by the blanket opposition to a plebiscite, quite apart from the fact that the holding of one is not logically reconcilable with the view often expressed by the Taoiseach that he wants unity by consent. If he wishes this, how is that consent to be measured except by mounting heads?

When is the counting of heads to start? If he were to say that the matter is a foregone conclusion and that we accept there is an 80 per cent majority against incorporation but that he would like a plebiscite in ten years' time, it would make some sense, but simply to say, in other words, "We will not allow you to express your point of view; we do not want to hear what the proportion in favour of incorporation is; we are not interested", if I were an Orangeman that kind of talk would make me reach for my gun. I am sorry to have to speak like that but it is the truth.

Deputy Lynch or the script writers who draft his public statements have not reflected sufficiently on this matter. An ill-considered statement such as that does terrible damage North of the Border. I express this view as a distant observer. I do not pretend to have the same knowledge of the situation as other Senators would have.

Last October the Taoiseach spoke in Paris. He demanded that the 1949 promise, as it was called, about the retention of the Border should be reconsidered by the British. What happened in 1949 was that, as a riposte to the declaration of a republic in the Twenty-six Counties, the Northern Unionists prevailed on the Labour Government to pass the Ireland Act and one section of it, which the Taoiseach refers to, says that no change in the constitutional status of the North can be made without the consent of the Northern Parliament. It does not say——

It was not the Northern Government that——

I do not mind dealing with interruptions if you listen to what I say.

Does the Senator not remember the 1949 Coalition policy of putting their pride and prejudice in their pocket?

What are we talking about now? I have had occasion to tick off Senator Ó Maoláin before. He is addicted to Stone Age politics.

(Interruptions.)

I will tell you what happened in 1949.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly must be allowed to continue on the motion.

(Interruptions.)

I will tell you about 1949 and I will rub your noses in it.

(Interruptions.)

Mind you, I am no believer in Stone Age politics like Senator Ó Maoláin,

It was the result of——

I do not believe in Stone Age politics.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly to continue without interruption on the motion.

I do not mind the interruptions if they come one at a time so that I can deal with them. I cannot deal with a disorderly rumble from the other side of the House.

Will the Senator get off the Taoiseach and come down to business?

I thought the Taoiseach was the business. I thought that was where the action was.

(Interruptions.)

The Senator told us he did not know what was in the Taoiseach's mind.

The Senator will not allow me to speak my view about the man whom you say is the most important man in the country.

The Senator is inconsistent.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators will have an opportunity to make their own contributions. They should refrain from interrupting when other Senators are speaking.

You would want superhuman patience to put up with that fellow.

I have been invited to go back to 1949. No sooner did Mr. de Valera find himself in Opposition than he went off galloping the globe on a most rabid anti-Partition campaign with the sole object of embarrassing the Government. That is what I remember about 1949.

(Interruptions.)

Surely somebody in the world besides Senator Kelly knows something.

The 1949 Act to which Deputy Lynch referred, let me get back to that and rub your noses in it.

Surely somebody in the world did some good besides the Senator.

Senator Ó Maoláin knows that I am not mean-minded in giving credit to Fianna Fáil when it is due. He is holding up the business here.

Why does the Senator make a suggestion like that?

Because I actually remember it. I am not that much of a baby. I was 18 years of age in 1949. I remember the incident very well. I also remember drawing my conclusions about it at the time. I do not remember 1925. I will make you a present of that. The Act to which the Taoiseach referred in Paris last October did no more than say that the constitutional status of the North could not be changed without the consent of the Northern Parliament. It has been represented here by the Taoiseach, or by his script writers or the publicity hounds who are behind him, as something quite different but that is all it states. If there is a Northern Ireland Parliament with a majority which supports a change in the constitutional status, that Act will not prevent them from getting it.

It does not matter about the ignorant people here and the ignorant leader-writers and those who neglect to criticise the Taoiseach. If I were a Northern Unionist or if Senator Ó Maoláin were one—if he has enough imagination to put himself in such boots—he would boil with rage on seeing this and say: "What is this man going on about: what does he want? On the one hand he wants to remove from us the only protection we have while on the other, he talks of unity only by consent. Where is the logic in that?" As I have said, I would reach for my gun.

I do not wish to be inflammatory. I probably would never reach for a gun but, figuratively speaking, I would dig my heels in and nothing would get me into this Republic until the Taoiseach was out of office, and perhaps not even then.

That is the sort of support Mr. Craig wants. He will be delighted. You will get the headlines for those statements.

I am not seeking for headlines in the North of Ireland.

Those are the headlines you will get.

I assure the Senator I am not seeking headlines in the North of Ireland but since he has mentioned the names of two men in the North of Ireland and because of the philosophy to which I thought we all subscribed, I would remind him that even these people are Irish, violent and irresponsible though they may be and that they have as much claim to a point of view as the rest of us.

Why should the Senator think I will wilt like a salted snail when he states that what I say will be very popular with Mr. X or Mr. Y in the North of Ireland? These men are as much entitled to a say in the future of this island as Senator McGowan or myself. If he does not believe this he is not in the right party because if I understand correctly the manifesto about which Senator Keery spoke, you are the party of Wolfe Tone, who do not recognise any differences in creed, class or background in which Protestant, Catholic and dissenter will all be one.

Social Democrats.

If you mean that, act accordingly. If you mean it do not behave as though the only Protestants you could approve of are the ones who go against the traditions of their people. In Senator McGowan's book the only Protestants from the North I am allowed to admire are those who in the eyes of 80 per cent of their own people are Lundys. That is not Wolfe Tonism in my book.

If you take the word "protestant" out of it there are certain individuals there—I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, I am not going to continue his speech.

I do not mind. I am sure the Senator has something useful to say as he comes from up there and if the Chair allows the interruption I do not mind.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly.

In peace, I hope.

It is an area of contradiction that we cannot discover from what the Taoiseach is being made to say by his script writers whether he really means that there is to be unity only by consent. I cannot discover that. It is a serious matter for the gentlemen about this, especially for the gentlemen that Senator McGowan has mentioned. If they are in a war-like posture, it is certain that the ambiguity and the muddle-headedness of the Dublin Government's approach has contributed in a desperately bad way to that situation.

It would be a good thing if you could tell us what the Opposition point of view is to the Government's suggestion.

The Opposition's view as to what?

On how this situation can be dealt with.

The Opposition's point of view is that there can be unity only by peaceful means but we do not say in the next breath, with the tone of a prophet, that this or that cannot happen or that this or that solution is out of the question. Such prophesies are dangerous when you are dealing with people who interpret them as a threat to them.

So far as it can be judged from his published words the Taoiseach's policy is a mass of muddle and contradiction. This is desperately dangerous when dealing with the Northern majority because they do not understand it. I do not blame them.

Another contradiction which is a footnote to that is the question of how far in the future is this solution which the Taoiseach regards as inevitable or as the only acceptable one. Here there has been contradiction too.

On the 11th July, 1970, he made what I must concede was a good and a valuable address on Telefís Éireann appealing to the minority in the North not to allow themselves to be provoked by the Orange marches which were taking place two days later. He began that address by stating: "We are on the brink of a great achievement." It is dynamite for the Taoiseach of a State such as ours to use words like that about the North of Ireland. He is the Leader of a Government who only two months previously had to fire two Ministers for suspected involvement in gun running and did so, as Mr. Boland stated, only because the squeeze was put on him by Deputy Cosgrave. It is deadly, and I mean that in the strictly literal sense, for expressions like that to come across the public media from a Taoiseach. These are words put into his mouth by people sitting in God knows which Department who should be relieved of the anonymity which they enjoy in the public service. I do not mean they are not doing their jobs as best they see they can, but it is appalling that this country's policy should effectively be determined by people who cannot be got out and put in front of this House and asked to state exactly what they mean. That is the result of this image building which now takes the place of genuine personal government and personal initiative.

Will the Senator be here tomorrow when there are replies to these questions?

Tomorrow evening, I hope.

We will be here all day tomorrow.

The Senator would need to be here to listen to the replies.

Senator Crinion came in here only five minutes ago. I do not know what entitles him to suppose that every other Senator should be here all the time. I see a number missing from his own front bench, though I will not put their names on the record.

The Senator cannot unload a lot of stuff like this and then absent himself from the replies.

If the Minister will give me notice of the hour he proposes to reply I will try to make it convenient to be present.

There are others besides the Minister who would like to reply to the Senator.

Perhaps Senator Ó Maoláin would like me to promise there will be no further speeches from the Fine Gael side. That is the way he would like the Seanad to operate.

No further what?

No speeches from the Fine Gael side at all.

I do not think there will be any need for them.

Wait until this one is finished. Regarding the present trouble, a very recent example of this confusion which, as I say, is deadly, can be found in the interviews which the Taoiseach gave on American television early this month. So far as the Irish reports went he gave almost identical interviews on two successive days and again the same thing came up—"we support unity by consent", but our Northern Unionists could suppose he meant "we will not force you in but we will not allow you to stay out". That is the long and the short of the Lynch position on the North of Ireland.

Did he say that?

I know it is poison to the gentlemen on the other side to hear the leader to whom they owe whatever electoral success they have criticised without my putting a tooth in it. I am not going to put a tooth in it and you can just wait until I am finished. Senator Honan asked for a direct quotation. The Taoiseach said in an American television interview:

I wouldn't support any arrangement in which the possibility of the reunification of Ireland wasn't a very important feature...

The Taoiseach knows that is the one feature that the settlement will not contain. It is the one feature which would guarantee its failure, for the very simple reason that it would guarantee the passionate opposition of the Northern majority.

Maybe Senator Ó Maoláin has seen a rush advance copy of the British White Paper.

Is the Senator suggesting that any Irish leader should give up for all time the possibility of Irish unity?

That is not what he said. Perhaps the Rules of Order of the House require that I give the exact reference. I have not got the date but I will get one of my colleagues to read it on to the record. It is a front page article which appeared in The Irish Times about ten days ago from a reporter in New York named Andrew Whittaker and which purports to give the text of an interview which the Taoieach gave.

You have qualified your statement by saying it "purports" to give.

It is there even with inverted commas around it. Perhaps Mr. Whittaker is misrepresenting the Taoiseach but, if so, I have seen no denial in the correspondence columns. The article continued:

Asked what his attitude would be to the White Paper if it suggested maintaining Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, while guaranteeing Catholics equal rights and proportional representation, Mr. Lynch answered:

"I wouldn't support any arrangement in which the possibility of the reunification of Ireland wasn't a very important feature..."

Senators

Hear, hear.

You have been shouting "hear, hear" and that blather for the last 50 years and where has it got you? Where has it got any of us?

(Interruptions.)

Unless it suits your purposes you will be shouting it for the next 50 years as well: "Hear, hear. Never say die. We never gave in." That is the sort of thing on which the Fianna Fáil Party floats, and will ultimately sink, if I may be allowed to play the role of prophet for a change.

What is wrong with that?

The Taoiseach said that he would not support anything in which this was not a conspicuous feature. In other words, in this deadly matter on which lives hang he is preempting a position which any sensible man would leave until he sees what is there. Even the dimmest of his Ministers would say: "I have not seen this White Paper and I should prefer not to comment on it until it comes out", but he has as good as promised his unfriendly reception to this White Paper unless this thing is an important or conspicuous feature in it. What is a Northern Unionist to make of that? It just does not square with the Taoiseach's talk about unity only by consent. It is as though I were an occupant of a house and somebody who thought he had a claim on my house squatted outside and said: "I am not going to come in and throw you out by force. I intend to put you out by peaceful means. I consider that there can be no solution whereby you can live in peace in what you consider to be your own house unless you come out on the street, take me by the hand and bring me in and let me live in the house with you." That is what it boils down to.

Who are the squatters in the north-east of Ireland?

Now we are getting it. I doubt if Senator Garrett would have the nerve to say that to the Chairman who has just been replaced by the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am amazed that he has the nerve to say it in front of Senator Keery.

I am not being sectarian.

Fianna Fáil have thrived on sectarianism when it suited them.

I am not being sectarian and you will not lay any such charge at my door.

I am afraid——

I am not being sectarian.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will have a chance to speak.

I will make a speech.

What Senator Garrett has just done is to describe as squatters the Northern majority who are cherished every other day by the Taoiseach in well-publicised speeches as "our sundered brethren".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly should address the Chair, make his remarks to the motion and other Senators should refrain from interrupting.

(Interruptions.)

Senators opposite do not want me to refer to what Senator Garrett said and are hoping the report will not have picked it up. What Senator Garrett has just done is to describe the Northern majority as squatters.

You will not put words into my mouth.

If the Northern majority are squatters and if that is the Fianna Fáil policy, let the Taoiseach be man enough to say that. Let him put it on the record somewhere. At least the thing would be understandable. He would be a kind of General Amin then, and everybody would know where they stood with him—that if he once got his hands on the North of Ireland he would put out the whole lot of them. It would be inhuman, dastardly, unreasonable and something so lunatic that only somebody on Senator Garrett's side of the House could think of. But at least it would be straight forward and there would be some logic in it. I want to dissociate myself personally from anything to do with a party which can produce a gentleman who can describe the Northern majority as squatters. I will not go along an inch of the way with a bipartisan policy in which I am smeared with the dirt——

On a point of order, I did not call the majority or the minority in the North of Ireland squatters. I call the British Government who are in occupation of part of our Irish territory squatters. The Senator may not attribute to me something which I did not say.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Since Senator Garrett has given that explanation it must be accepted. But I would point out to Senator Garrett that, if he would refrain from interruption, he would not be misunderstood.

I am sorry if I have offended Senator Garrett and I accept his explanation. If I have said anything disagreeable to him in response to what I took him to mean, I apologise. I am afraid that I must still say that the approach to the situation which can generate terms like that is one which I imagine would embarrass the Taoiseach if he found himself unambiguously saddled with it.

I find that an expression by the Taoiseach in the same interview in which he speaks about unity by consent, to the effect that he is not going to support anything, and perhaps therefore may inferentially oppose something, which does not include unity with or without consent— because that is the gloss that will be put on it in the North—is dangerous and is a non-contribution to peace. It will postpone peace further.

There are other contradictions in his point of view which need to be seized on. In the same interview he said we do not want the people of the North to come into our State as it is. What is our State as it is? Our State as it is is the product of the Constitutional ideals of Éamon de Valera. That is the State which was designed, as Mr. de Valera believed sincerely, to accommodate the six north-eastern counties at some future date. His successor in title, the Taoiseach, now says we would not expect the North to come into the State as it is; but note that the State, as it is, is as it is because of the insertion in the Constitution of a number of provisions which did not exist in the prior Constitution, which are unnecessary and inflammatory and which now, of course, everybody is agreed we have got to get away from. The fault for that does not lie——

The Senator cannot get away with that now. Everybody has not agreed.

Senator Ó Maoláin has a healthy conservative streak. There is a kind of suede-shoe consensus about certain articles of the Constitution. It has not penetrated down to the breeches-without-seats level in the Fianna Fáil Party yet.

The greatest beneficiaries from the Constitution were the members of the legal profession who were charging into the courts every day raising questions about unconstitutionality.

Senator Honan is raising this hare about the legal profession.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly should resist the temptation to reply. Interruptions that are wide of the Bill should be completely ignored.

There are more lawyers on the Fianna Fáil front bench in the Dáil than there are on the Fine Gael side. Let that be understood once and for all. There are more lawyers making a fat living out of their Fianna Fáil allegiance than ever did out of Fine Gael. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is a good-natured gentleman and that you cannot rise him to incoherent rage by remarks like that, but I remember making that remark here in some debate and it had the Minister for Justice absolutely speechless and beside himself with indignation. It is the simple truth that the Fianna Fáil Party is far more closely connected not only with the legal profession but with the corrupting and buying of the legal profession than ever Fine Gael were.

(Interruptions.)

Is it in order to call a party and a profession corrupt?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not out of order to make a political charge of corruption against a political party. It is out of order to make a charge against an outside profession.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Honan has gone. This interview contained a statement that we would expect the North to come into our State as it is but what is the Taoiseach proposing to offer? He said a start was made with the sections of Article 44 which we deleted but, as I said in the debate on the Referendum Bill at the time, that is a large piece of bluff and will not change anybody's mind in the North of Ireland, because the fear of the people in the North of Ireland is that the Catholic Church has a special position down here whether or not the Constitution says so. That is their fear. Tinkering with those two sections, as we did last month, is not going to remove that fear. Let the Taoiseach come up with something which will really bite.

Talking about things which really bite, I see where he was asked by one of the interviewers about our contraception laws. Guess what his answer to that question was? He said that "there is a case pending before the courts." Was it he who brought the case? On the contrary, it is the State, presumably at the political direction of the Government—because they could consent to judgment—which is bitterly resisting this plaintiff who has pursued her case about section 17 of the 1935 Act.

Is that the issue?

Yes, it is very much the issue. I am sorry I do not know the Senator's name and I am sorry he should come into the House in a state of ready-made rage.

I was here a long time before you came here.

I have never heard you speak before, sir.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly to continue.

On a point of order, Senator Kelly inferred that the Government could direct the courts. As I understand it, the courts are above the Government and above any intervention by them.

This is perfectly right, but the Government are entitled to say to the Attorney General: "Do not defend this action. Let judgment go by default." If the Government had wished, the action about section 17 of the 1935 Criminal Justice Act could have been left undefended. It could have been done by the Attorney General simply not opposing and entering no defence and letting it go by default. But the Taoiseach's answer was that "There is a case pending before the courts." A Northern Unionist who follows affairs down here would say: "What kind of a man is that? Is he a man at all, who can give an answer like that to a straight question? Why cannot he say straight out that his Government have not the guts to make up their mind whether they are against or for this legislation? Even if he said something that was dictated to him by a cardinal, it would be "yea" or "nay", but this kind of unmanly dodging of the issue annoys people.

Are you for or against contraception?

If the Senator be-labouring me had been in this House as often as I have in the past three years he would have heard me on at least four separate occasions state my opinion.

I could not make out whether you are for or against it.

On at least four separate occasions—those on the far side of the House will remember this —I stated unequivocally what I would do if I were voting on that issue and I am not going to repeat it and hold the House up for the Senator's benefit. I am not going to give the Senator that satisfaction. Let him go and read the debates that come in his letterbox every other day. He will find the answer in the Official Report, not once, but four times if he searches for it.

Can you not say it now?

The Senator can go and look up his Seanad debates.

The constitutional changes that the Taoiseach impliedly is looking forward to have not been outlined to the interviewers nor to anybody else. That part of his interview is just another element in his fog-and-muddle policy.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Kelly should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

We had some trouble in here with the Forcible Entry Act but I have never heard such barbarity from the far side as I have heard today. What is the reason for it? I have spoken here very often and have never had any trouble with gentlemen like the Minister for Education or Deputy Kitt and others—except for the Minister for Justice, who usually causes trouble when he comes here. We have had fairly peaceable sessions. What is the reason for the savagery today? Is it because the Taoiseach cannot be criticised? If so, we should make a law about it. Why cannot we have a Lynch (Immunity from Criticism) Act, 1973, and then we would know where we stood? So long as that law is not on the Statute Book I propose to say what I like about him without putting a tooth in it.

Nobody has more respect for the Chair than I have and I respect you, Sir, but this gentleman here——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That may be true but it is not relevant to the debate.

Senator Dooge is not a lawyer. I mean no disrespect to Deputy Kitt in saying that I am sorry that the Minister for Finance is not here but the note I wish to end on is one peculiarly relevant to himself. I have tried to show as well as I could the inner muddle and contradicition with which Deputy Lynch's approach and the Government's approach to the North has been consistently infected and the dreadful impression and the dreadful damage that it must be doing in the North. I have confessed here before that no party in this state can claim a monopoly of concern about the North. I said here last year that five or six years ago we were all inclined to treat the North as somebody else's bother and somebody else's trouble which they could fix up any way they liked, and if you raised the question of the North you were regarded as a bore and a sorehead and a nuisance. You could comb the Dáil reports for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 and you will scarcely find a reference to the North of Ireland. I remember I did find one somewhere. Deputy Flanagan asked the Taoiseach, who was then Mr. Lemass, when he had last made representations to the British about the disabilities of the Northern minority and Mr. Lemass, for whose memory I have an unfeigned and sincere respect, said: "About 18 months ago." He was allowed to get away with that. I believe our party were to blame for letting him get away with it. We were all to blame in those days for not taking enough interest in the North. The party which are now in Government are perhaps, least entitled to make a fuss about the national objectives because that party were founded and have been led over the years on the basis that they had a peculiar insight in regard to the national objectives and a peculiar innate dedication to them which the shoneens in the rest of the Parliament did not have.

That is it. Tell us now what he said.

If you give me a chance I will tell you something which will give you a laugh. The Minister for Finance early in 1971, and not long after the Donegal and South County Dublin by-elections, made a speech in which he stated that Fianna Fáil had been accused of indifference towards the North but that the truth was that for years before 1969 they were deeply concerned with the situation there and had made the most strenuous efforts to bring about the national objectives. He said that a fundamental objective of Fianna Fáil is and always has been the achievement of national unity in the spirit of harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen. That is a great phrase but I will tell the House something about it. It occurs in the report of the Committee on the Constitution which was published in late 1967. That Committee were presided over by Deputy Colley and I hope I am not in breach of anyone's confidence in revealing that that phrase is in the report because it was suggested by the late Deputy Sweetman, and it was suggested to him by myself.

Four years after the committee reported, Deputy Colley comes along and nails to the Fianna Fáil bannerhead a phrase thought up by a member of my party. "Unity in a spirit of harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen" was the formula which that committee put forward in substitution for the existing——

It was enshrined in the Fianna Fáil constitution when that party were founded.

Far from it. I have not got that Fianna Fáil constitution off by heart but that phrase will not be found in it. The reason why that phrase found its way into print was because that committee on which Senator Eoin Ryan sat, suggested it as a substitution for the claim in Article 3 purporting to recognise the right of this Parliament and Government to exercise jurisdiction over the Six Counties. That is the genesis of that phrase.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now time for the adjournment.

I should like to make a few remarks before finishing as I do not wish to hold up the House after the interval.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is a matter for the House to determine.

May I say on a personal note that if I have said anything hurtful to anybody in the heat of the moment during the past hour I am sorry, though I do not retract any of the opinions I have expressed.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

I should like to refer to Senator Kelly and his criticism of statements made by the Taoiseach, and to state that the people are those who will really judge the statements because it is they who will decide if he is to speak on their behalf. From hearing comments from the ordinary people, it is accepted everywhere that the Taoiseach is speaking on their behalf. It has been recognised that the peaceful policy pursued by him is the best one for Ireland and the best one to use towards the reunification of the country. The fairest way of putting it is to say that his policy is the policy wanted by the people.

I was amazed at the Senator mentioning such items as contraceptives and criticising the Government for not defending the action in the Supreme Court. Any government must recognise the courts. When an action is before the courts, it is the duty of the Government, as it is for an individual, to recognise their decision.

On the Appropriation Act, particularly under the headings of industry and commerce, there are three main headings. They are: exports, the increasing investment in facilities for technological research and development. The State-sponsored bodies with responsibilities in these areas are the Industrial Development Authority, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in the field of industrial promotion, Córas Tráchtála in relation to exports, and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in the field of technology. In the Book of Estimates for the year 1972-73 there is a figure of £35 million, which compares with a sum of £33 million, which included a supplementary estimate of £5 million, in the year 1971-72. This demonstrates our interest in industry and how we value its potential. The principal agencies are the IDA, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, the Shannon Free-Airport Development Company and Córas Tráchtála. The increased finance for industrial promotion is particularly important in view of our entry into the EEC. The enlarged Community will enhance Ireland's attracttions as a base for new industry and will provide better prospects for our exports.

The Japanese industrialists' association sent representatives to Europe and other parts of the world to find the most attractive countries for establishing factories. They reported that Ireland had the best potential for setting up factories; Belgium was second. This demonstrates that our position is recognised throughout the world. America recognises that we have potential here. Our incentives are very enticing to industrialists. During the Taoiseach's stay in the US he was able to announce three new industrial developments which will give an extra 1,000 jobs here. The results of his visit there will be seen during the months and years ahead. Our promotional drive there will bear fruit, notwithstanding competition from nine other industrial agencies which were trying to entice industries to their own countries.

In the employment field, despite adverse circumstances surrounding the drive to secure more industry, the trouble in the Six Counties and the unfavourable economic situation in some of our principal areas from which investment might be expected, the number of new jobs created has helped to offset redundancies. Assistance schemes, such as adaptation and re-equipment grants, will be given to industrial services. Special agencies, such as Fóir Teoranta, have been availed of by many firms that would otherwise have experienced serious difficulties. The Fóir Teoranta Bill went through the Seanad over a year ago. Many industries have been put on a reasonably sound basis since that Bill became law. Factories which found it hard to get sufficient development capital from the ordinary banks have been able to get capital from Fóir Teoranta if there is a basis of management there. The only security they have is management. If Fóir Teoranta consider that there is good management in a factory or that a good management team could be brought in, or if the industry could be allied to another industry, they provide money. This has kept a number of factories going.

There are bound to be some failures, but so far there have been few. That is the type of work that any Department, particularly one interested in industry, should be doing. Such a Department should get finance to develop it first, and then to provide the employment and development that is needed. The IDA regional industrial plan for the five years—1973-77—proposed 55,000 new jobs in industry. More intensive efforts are planned to counteract the possible effects of a higher level of industry, should it occur. The IDA realise that there is a great opportunity in the new and enlarged Community. In any big change there are bound to be some adverse effects on industry. Firms that are heavily protected will find it hard to survive. The IDA have planned ahead for that also, with re-training and re-equipment.

The fact that there are 55,000 new jobs proposed for a five-year period would counteract any adverse effect that might arise. We are an exporting country and our exports have continued to grow steadily in recent years. The industrial exports now represent over 52 per cent of our total exports. Progress has been achieved despite economic difficulties in some export markets, notably Britain and the United States. Since 1957, when there was a feeling of gloom and despondency throughout the length and breadth of Ireland and a feeling that Ireland was finished, the Government, through their planning and initiative have achieved much both in the industrial development of the country and the rising standard of living that the country has enjoyed.

More and more interest has been displayed in the exploration of minerals and gas in Ireland, and off her shores. The benefit of the development of mineral resources is amply demonstrated by the value of ore exported. It was £18.5 million in 1970 and £14.5 million in 1971. The main reason for the drop was the fluctuation in metal prices, which were determined by world market conditions. This was the prime factor in the drop in the value of exports last year.

We have heard it said that the mineral industry should be nationalised. Some years ago the Government invested money in the Avoca mines in County Wicklow. I remember the Minister saying while looking for money that they had drilled 15 or 20 holes 200 yards away from the mine shaft and that the analyses of those drills were exceptionally good and that if the company had enough money to tunnel far underground the mine would prove to be a paying proposition. Six months later the Minister looked for more money. He said it was disappointing that when they were drilling they just happened to pick all the small, good seams that were there. They were unfortunate not to get the bad areas which were mixed through it. Extra money was poured in again, and it was the same story. Eventually the mine had to be closed down and it has been redeveloped since.

This shows that developing a mineral industry is very "chancey". If there was a Minister for Industry and Commerce coming in here every year for £2 million for development of mineral resources, he might come in for five or six years running without getting any results at all. I know what the Opposition would be saying outside the church gates during an election campaign. They would be saying that the most expensive drilling equipment in the world was being used for drilling holes and that we were spending £2 million of the taxpayers' money and getting nothing out of it. Even in my own county—County Meath—the Tara mines who had the development rights there went over and did a survey of the area and found nothing. It was another body who happened to be analysing spring water from well, in that area that found the traces of metal. They looked it up and saw who had the mineral development in the area and suggested to them that they carry out another survey of the area. It was from that second survey that they found the rich mineral ore that is there.

Tynagh is only one mine that has paid back the capital invested in it. This shows how "chancey" it is. The Government are doing the best thing in getting royalties. I hope they will increase the royalties on the newer mines.

The setting up of the National Prices Commission to scrutinise applications for price increases and to make recommendations to the Minister has been an important development. The commission's monthly report, which has been widely publicised, plays an important role in fostering a discriminating attitude by the public towards prices. The Minister has made price display orders to assist the public in assessing and comparing prices in different shops and areas. The monthly reports of the National Prices Commission have been widely discussed in the newspapers and on radio. People are beginning to think and to compare prices in one shop as against another. This is helping to keep the competitive element alive.

I should like to mention another aspect of the work of the Minister's Department and that is the insurance industry. It has now become impossible for a person under 25 years of age to get new motor insurance cover. Most of the young people need car transport to get to work. Encouragement should be given to the existing industry to cover that field. If that fails the nationalisation of the insurance industry should be considered. I am not advocating the nationalisation of life or other insurance business, but only of the insurance to cover cars. If a company are not prepared to take on motor insurance, they cannot have the lucrative business such as fire and theft insurance which have always been the "bread and butter" of the industry. I would agree that the insurance companies have a point when they say the accident rate around that age has been excessively high. The insurance companies must operate economically. Perhaps companies covering motor insurance could arrange for tests to be made on cars every year as is done in England. People in the 25-year-old age group could be brought in for regular driving tests, although one cannot discriminate against one particular section of the community, particularly the section which contributes most of the productivity of the community.

In discussing industry one thinks of labour. The Department of Labour have an active manpower policy with emphasis on the training and retraining of workers, and the development of our national information, guidance and placement service for those seeking jobs. They also provide information on the operation of the redundancy and re-settlement schemes, and offer guidance on careers for those leaving school. They also provide a manpower forecasting unit which assists in analysing and predicting employment trends. An important objective is to promote good industrial relations, and the Department are responsible for legislation on trade union matters. They are also concerned with the safety, health and welfare of workers while at their places of work.

Is the Senator going to circulate his speech?

No. I often noted that the Senator read quite long extracts from notes. The Senator will get the text of my speech next week in the Seanad Official Report.

Could we read it in the Seanad debates and leave it at that?

The Department will spend more than £5 million this year. Details show that the main increase this year of £800,000 is for an increased grant-in-aid for AnCO. This is the body concerned with the training and re-training of workers. This is significant in that it shows that the Department realise the importance of this work.

The Government and the Department of Industry and Commerce have before them more protection for the safety and health of industrial workers. Under the Factories Act, 1955, and the Mines and Quarries Act, 1965, the Minister for Labour is empowered to make detailed regulations to protect workers from employment hazards. We are all aware of the employment hazards which existed over the years in industries, particularly in England and on the Continent. In the period October, 1971, to the end of this year the Minister will have made 15 sets of regulations under these Acts. Among these regulations there are new measures to prevent untrained workers from using dangerous machinery, to control the use of dangerous substances, such as asbestos and radioactive sources, to require the provision of suitable eating facilities in glass factories, and to lay down safety requirements for the use of locomotives, electricity and explosives in mines and quarries. Such measures only reduce the risks facing industrial workers. Education to reduce human error is another major safeguard. The National Industrial Safety Organisation are a voluntary organisation who run safety courses to encourage the setting up of safety committees in industry. The organisation need more support from management to this end. The enthusiastic co-operation of both workers and management in setting up safety committees is very desirable. It is good for a factory to have an accident-free record. There is always an element of danger in using machinery. Where management and staff are conscious of this and co-operate together it is bound to improve industrial relations. If people are nervous or worried about using machinery not considered to be safe it does not make for good staff relations and impedes productivity.

More than 2,000 adults and apprentices have been trained by AnCO in the past three years. Only a small proportion of the redundant workers have availed of the re-training facilities available and only 8 per cent of all adult trainees were over 35 years of age. The reason for this may be that the services provided by AnCO through the Department of Labour may not be widely known. If there was more publicity through the trade unions and the Department, it might raise the number. Some people, naturally, if they lose their employment will look elsewhere but this is because they do not have the full facts. In the coming years this matter will be developed further. If redundant workers opt for retraining at the AnCO training centres they now receive their full redundancy payments in addition to travelling allowances from AnCO. By 1970 AnCO hopes to have nine or 10 training centres and 2,000 training places. There will also be a mobile training capacity of 500 places and the aim is to provide adequate regional coverage. In cities it is easier to get alternative employment. If a person is trained in a particular job it is not always that easy to get alternative employment in rural areas where there are only one or two industries.

With regard to industrial relations, the first national agreement by the employer/labour conference was almost universally held and operated strictly in accordance with its terms by both sides of industry. As a result, the number of man-days lost through strikes in 1971 was only 273,770.

What did the Senator say was the percentage of redundancies over 35?

I did not say redundancies. I said only 8 per cent of all adult trainees were over 35.

This was a major improvement on the figure for 1970 when there were over a million man-days lost. In 1969 there were almost a million and in 1968 there were even 400,000. The national wage agreement has had wide-ranging repercussions on staff relations throughout the country. In 1969-70 we were, unfortunately, at the top of the league for industrial strikes. Recommendations by the Labour Court still seem to be rejected by workers in too many cases. In 1971 the court made 167 recommendations. The employers accepted 158 of these findings while workers accepted only 127. The findings of an industrial court should be accepted. They have no axe to grind. They give what they feel is the proper decision.

EEC developments on the harmonisation of company law and draft proposals for a European company statute will create interest in worker participation in management decisions.

Ireland has only two unions with more than 20,000 members. Given the number of small unions and the low level of union subscriptions, the ability of some of them to cope with the comlex issues of the future must be open to doubt. In the 1971 Trade Union Act we gave power and encouragement to small unions to amalgamate with larger unions. A small union in order to gain recognition must achieve results.

The success of the manpower service depends on the extent to which employers notify their vacancies to the service. A resettlement assistance scheme provides financial help to workers, including emigrants, who must leave their homes to take up employment, provided the jobs are notified to the manpower service. This scheme might be noted as an incentive to employers to use the service. From my own experience of the manpower service, they have been very helpful in providing positions for people who have become disemployed or for the school-leavers seeking positions, even in cases where firms have trained more apprentices than they needed. The number of surplus trainees this year was 1,000. The manpower service went out of their way to get employment for these people.

From the returns from industrial labour and the growth of the economy we must try to provide increased benefits for our less well-off sections of the community, that is, the social welfare recipients. The State expenditure on social welfare, including insurance and assistance services, has risen from £31 million in 1963-64 to £95.9 million. This is a very large increase in a ten-year period. As well as this, there is the estimated cost of the improvement provided for in the Social Welfare Act in 1972. The total social welfare expenditure figure has risen from £45 million to £153 million in the same period. This expenditure represents an increasing percentage of the GNP. In 1971 it was 7 per cent of GNP. This figure is quite startling when viewed over a ten-year period. It shows that if industry does as well as agriculture, the present Government are really justified in increasing the benefit to the less well-off sections of the community.

It was our policy, when we took over office, to increase social welfare benefits. They have been increased every year since then. Social welfare insurance rates have increased ten times in that period. When we look over the period of office of the present Government we realise that the increase in benefits has been quite dramatic and many new schemes were introduced in that period. The old age contributory pension scheme was introduced in 1961, the occupational injuries insurance scheme was introduced in 1967; free electricity and free travel for pensioners came into operation in 1967 and in 1968 free television licences were issued to them; increases for incapacitated pensioners were introduced in 1968 and death grants came into operation in 1970. The year 1970 also saw the introduction of the deserted wives' allowances and old age (care) allowances.

That is a fair record for any Government. No other Government could come anywhere near that record. Most of those schemes have been improved and extended since their introduction. For example, free travel is now available to all persons aged 70 years and over. Incapacitated and old age care schemes have been extended to include male relatives taking care of the aged.

The remuneration limit for compulsory insurance is now £1,600. It was raised from £600 to £800 in 1958; from £800 to £1,200 in 1968 and to its present level in 1971. I am sure that a different system will come into operation later on this year which will give everybody insurance cover. In 1969 the upper age limit for qualifying children of widowed pensioners was raised from 16 to 21 years where the children are receiving full-time education. In 1970 the age limit for qualified dependent children under the social assistance and assurance schemes was raised to 18 years. It was particularly difficult for widows to provide higher education for their children and the Government have helped them in every possible way.

Prior to 1969 under our social welfare scheme old age pensioners could obtain cheap fuel from November to March but this now operates from October to April. Last year pensioners aged 80 years and over were given an extra 50p per week. Those people who have lived more than the normal span of life were given some little extra benefit to enable them to enjoy the few remaining years of their life. In last year's budget deserted wives became eligible for an allowance at 40 years of age.

In the social welfare scheme the biggest increase has been in pay-related benefits. This has been the first increase in the flat rate but, like the unemployment and disability benefit schemes, it will improve immensely over the years and will lead to a pay-related retirement pension and a pay-related old age and widow's pension.

I suppose when the Senator reaches 80 years he will get a pension. At the rate the Senator is progressing we will be here until he is 80.

I have only been three-quarters of an hour speaking. Senator Kelly took well over an hour——

Senator Kelly was drawing fire.

——and Senator Alexis FitzGerald spoke for two and a half hours. I imagine that what I am saying is a little hard to listen to from the Opposition's point of view.

It gets a little bit under their skin.

Not in the way the Senator thinks.

Particularly in the social welfare sphere.

When did the Senator leave us?

The committee of agriculture in Meath, the Fianna Fáil members, co-opted me in 1955.

The Senator was Fine Gael in 1955.

No other Government can outstrip the record of the present Government in their efforts to improve the lot of the less well-off sections of our community. One Estimate that usually comes in for criticism is Posts and Telegraphs. The Estimate this year amounts to £46 million which represents an increase of £6 million over the previous year. It proves that the Government have in mind the expansion of the field of posts and telegraphs. On BBC television the other night I listened to the director-general of the Post Office apologising for the late delivery of nine million letters and cards at Christmas. He admitted that a mistake was made by effecting savings in a few fields but he said that savings were necessary in a body which was losing £750,000 a week.

The Department of Posts and Telegraphs Estimate covers the National Instalment Savings Scheme which was introduced in September, 1970 and last year saved £5 million. This was directed to the regular saver, the weekly or monthly wage-earner. If he put in money and left it for three years, he received a 25 per cent bonus. It has been shown to be successful as it realised £5 million last year. Our wealth depends on the savings of the community. The ordinary wage-earners were one particular section who had not been saving as much as heretofore. This was an incentive that was needed and it has been effective.

In the field of staff relations, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are second to none. Good relations between the staff and the public are essential to improve efficiency. In 1971 improvements were made in retirement gratuities for part-time staff and a pension scheme for full-time unestablished staff was introduced. When one considers that the Post Office staff comprises 22,000 men and women and that it represents 2 per cent of the country's working population, it speaks well for the personnel administration that no strikes have occurred during recent years.

The postal service is recognised internationally as being an excellent one. There is a post office to every 1,300 persons in the State, and about 90 per cent of first class letters posted at the correct time to addresses in the Twenty-six Counties are delivered the following day.

First class letters? I think the Senator is talking about the British system.

I suppose I have used the wrong wording. Any letters posted at the time stated on the letter-box are delivered the next morning.

The one regard in which there is much criticism is in regard to the telephone service. However, the waiting list for telephone connections has diminished. A few years ago it numbered about 20,000: now it is down to about 9,000 or 10,000.

Is the Senator sure of that? I think he is wrong.

I am open to correction.

I think the Senator is very wrong.

A programme for more rapid development in the provision of new telephone kiosks in rural areas commenced in 1970-71 and there is now an all-night service in those areas where kiosks have been erected. Last year 150 new kiosks were erected and another 150 will be erected in the coming year. In most rural areas where the post office closed at 6 o'clock there was no direct link with the outside world. The provision of a kiosk made it possible to preserve such a direct link.

There is only one disappointing feature in connection with kiosks and that is the amount of vandalism they suffer from. The percentage of public telephones rendered useless through vandalism is higher than it should be. Telephone kiosks provide a useful service, particularly in cases of accident or illness.

Agriculture is our greatest industry and concerns a wide section of the community. With our entry into the EEC we should push ahead and give more emphasis and encouragement to young farmers to go into a four or five year apprenticeship at 16 years of age, as happens in industry. This would enable them to take over the family farm or to work on a farm. If parents are prepared to let a boy wait until 18 years and if the farm is big, it is desirable that he should have a degree in agriculture. When I was in Denmark about 20 years ago, every farm owner there had either served his apprenticeship or had a degree in agriculture. If we are to get the most out of the land, our farmers must be expertly trained for the years ahead. This system existed in Europe 20 years ago and we need it urgently now. There is a trend towards such apprenticeship but the one aspect missing is the fact that those boys who graduate with a degree in agricultural science do not return to work the family farm. Some go into the management of institutional farms but few return to the family farm. This is a disappointment, particularly when we are now producing more graduates in agricultural science than are able to be absorbed.

At present there is no provision for the sale of our calves, our yearlings, abroad. The price of our calves here at present is much higher than in the EEC, but there is the danger that if the price comes down and the European price goes up, in EEC conditions the younger calves could be sold just the same as the bigger cattle. When producing animals you expect to keep them for two or 2½ years but if they are sold in the first year it would be necessary to double the supply of calves to keep the supply of cattle. Our policy is to increase our cattle numbers and at present we have more than 6,000,000 cattle in Ireland. To get the optimum benefit we should keep them until they are mature. If all our farms were properly utilised the number of cattle could be increased to 10,000,000 and that would be an enormous benefit to the country. Some of the heifer incentive schemes that we have had over the last ten years have helped to increase the number of cattle. The number of cows has been increased to 2,000,000 and we hope this trend will continue. Good planning of this scheme will be a great benefit to the country.

It is being said that the high price of beef at present is due to our entry into the EEC; in fact, it is because there is a worldwide shortage of beef. Previously the Argentine exported frozen meat to England but now that has been done away with completely. In addition, Australia does not export as much because that country has not got sufficient beef. The standard of living is rising in many countries and because of that there is more demand for beef. This has been one of the causes of the increased prices because if there is a shortage of any kind the price will go up. There is no use saying that the price of beef can be controlled. If there is a higher price for the exported commodity there will be none on the market here.

England is an importing country and the Minister there realised that he could not put a control on prices. The only way he could control the price of beef would be to have rationing and nobody wants that. The only way to stabilise the price of beef is to give an incentive to increase the number of cattle and in that way the prices will level out.

In the EEC it may be difficult to give the grants to land project applications in the future. I hope this is not the case because the land project schemes for reclamation of the wet areas of Ireland is something that must go hand in hand with development of farms. The Danes were the first to realise this some 70 or 80 years ago. They knocked every ditch in the country and they laid pipes so that land was not wasted. I would not advocate this course for Ireland although I should like the land to be drained. Farms without ditches are all right for corn crops but not for grass. The Danes have an absolute shortage of grass in July because it is dried up from the sun but if there were ditches on the farms there might be more grass. In Ireland the animals need shelter but we certainly need to get rid of the rushes and the wet areas.

The Department of Finance could be criticised for the priority they give to arterial drainage. It is not as high as I would like it to be. It is maintained that the money spent there does not yield the same employment as money spent in other forms of industry. Arterial drainage provides a considerable amount of work while the scheme is going on and it also provides a big increase in employment and output in later years. The drainage work will go on afterwards in a private capacity with the farmers themselves and there will be an increase in the number of stock and an increase in corn crops. There is a big potential for increased employment apart from the increase in output and exports.

The Land Commission sometimes retain farms too long. I think they should be divided as quickly as possible. On the eastern seaboard it is becoming difficult for the Land Commission to divide farms on account of the price of land, but unfortunately sometimes it is the farmers who are shoving up the price. Also, speculators and business people invest their money in farms because they consider it is the best chance of capital growth they could have for their money instead of investing it in the stock exchange or some other business. As a consequence the farming community is deprived of much of the land. This is happening in County Meath and in parts of County Kildare where business people are living. I was glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stating he would endeavour to stop speculators buying up the land.

The 1965 Land Act gave power to the Land Commission not to sanction the sale of land to people who were not farmers. This should be implemented because it is bound to cause unrest in an area when land is bought by non-farmers. There is no objection if a farmer or his son, regardless of where he comes from, buys a farm but there is an objection to a person who is getting his livelihood from another source buying land needed by farmers. The Minister's announcement should be followed up quickly.

With regard to health matters, those who live within three miles of the dispensary or the local doctor have to get their drugs from the chemist and this is causing some hardship. This does not cause inconvenience in towns but it does in rural areas. The regulation also states a person must attend a doctor within seven miles of his residence. The local doctor will be supplied with drugs if the chemist's shop is more than three miles away. This should be reduced to one mile and thus minimise the hardship involved.

I was pleased to see some type of control put on house values. They have been rising at a colossal rate during the past few years. The Minister is introducing a certificate for value for money and this is welcome. The Department will keep a check on the builders. Young people who are depending on loans are very vulnerable. Legal expenses which can be up to £100 can be a financial strain on those who are buying a house because they may not have budgeted for that cost. It is easy to exploit young people who need money badly.

This certificate can be used only in grant-aided houses. I should like the Minister to examine the feasibility of introducing a certificate for houses which are not grant-aided, the prices of which are fantastic. The rates are high on this type of house and the builders can put in a high tender for their work. This means everybody along the line is getting a good crack out of those high-priced houses which cost from £6,000 to £26,000.

We are really concerned with grant-aided houses as they are the houses young married couples buy. We can hold up the grants which run around £600 to £1,000 according to the persons concerned. The policy we have been pursuing over the years is bearing fruit when one considers the number of new houses going up all over the country. People are happier when building their own houses.

We get complaints about the slow inspection but this is caused by the big increase in the housing programme.

There have been tremendous developments in the field of education over the years. The increased allocation given by the Government has greatly benefited our educational programme. They are now getting five or six times the amount of money spent on education six or seven years ago. The public are now realising the importance of education.

One aspect of education I should like to stress is that some guidance should be given to a child in the 15 to 16 age group. This would help them to decide whether to follow an academic career, do their leaving certificate and then attend a university or take up a trade or attend a school of technology. Too often we find young people with a pass in their intermediate or leaving certificate but there are very few openings for them. Possibly if such young people had received guidance at the age of 16 and had been advised to take up an apprenticeship or attend a school of technology more openings would be available to them. There are opportunities available for those who have attained third-level technological education.

I should like every secondary and vocational school to have a career guidance teacher who would advise the child in the 14 to 16 age group and direct him to the career most suitable for him. Parents also need encouragement because in some areas of the country they think when a child has passed his leaving certificate his education is complete. They do not realise that when a child sits for his leaving certificate and receives a pass or one honour he cannot follow a university course. He has gone past the age for some apprenticeships and two years may have been wasted. Often it is the parents who need the advice at that stage to give them an idea regarding the future of their child and what career is suitable for him. Parents are as much in need of guidance as the child. I should like to support this motion in recommending the Book of Estimates.

Before we proceed with the next speaker I should like to make a short reference to the matter of reading speeches. It is very difficult for the Chair to decide when a speech is read. It is difficult to prove that a speech is being read. On page 40 of Seanad Éireann Rulings and Precedents I find the following sentences:

Reading speeches is not in order. Further down on the same page I find:

While the use of notes and written memoranda is permissible, the practice of reading speeches is undesirable.

It is a matter the Chair must leave to the good sense and good taste of all Senators. When speeches are not read "they come more trippingly on the tongue", as William Shakespeare has said. I do not wish to interfere at any time with any Senator making a speech because often he is under great tension and I should be very reluctant to interrupt. I leave it entirely to the good sense and good taste of all the Senators concerned.

This annual debate on the Appropriation Act gives the Seanad an opportunity to comment on the performance of the Government and the Oireachtas during the year. To that extent, and this has been demonstrated by the last speaker, it is often a test of stamina. However, unlike Senator Crinion, I find it a depressing exercise. I do not share his complacent satisfaction with the status quo. I would prefer, in my capacity as an independent Senator, not to dwell at length on Government policy on the Northern question or, indeed, on internal politics as such. Instead, I should like to use this opportunity to review the record of the Government and Parliament, particularly the legislative record, and to consider our performance, or the lack of it, in certain specified areas. Here, I think the record is a very disappointing one.

The Seanad sat on 34 days since the debate on the Appropriation Bill took place last year. This is not a very heavy or distinguished workload when one considers that the European Parliament expects its members to attend for approximately 100 days on average, including a contribution towards committee work. I have been reviewing the Bills which were submitted and passed by the Seanad during that period. I should have liked to have had more time to do deeper research because it would be interesting to do a statistical study on the effect that debate in this House had on legislation. It would be interesting to assess the change that was made in any Bill from the time it was submitted to the House on the Second Stage—or even on the First Stage, if it was initiated here—in its passage through the various Stages and to calculate just how many changes were made in the text of the Bill, how many amendments of any significance, or even minor amendments, were accepted; in other words, how much impact either on Government policy or on the text of any of the Bills submitted was made?

Let us not fool ourselves. This House is not in the mainstream of Irish life at the moment. It is not fulfilling a role which satisfies the desire for democratic control over Government policy and for participation in the legislative process. I would submit that the Oireachtas is fast rendering itself redundant. It is no longer in the mainstream of Irish life. The energy, the thinking and the policy making are taking place elsewhere. These, I agree, are serious allegations and I am prepared to back them up by a fairly detailed examination of our legislative record this year and a consideration of the matters which we did not choose to legislate on or implement as policy.

I take, as my starting point, the fact that we are in this Appropriation Act voting the salaries and expenses of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We do so, first of all, in a sum of £64,000 up to 31st March, 1972, and then in a further sum of £1,080,000 for the year up to 31st March, 1973. These are not by any standards small amounts of money. If the recommendations of the Devlin Report are implemented it is possible that an even greater sum will be requested next year. In view of this it is legitimate to examine our performance during a legislative year.

Taking first of all the Acts which were passed; very few of them were of major importance. The three Acts to amend the Constitution were of importance, namely, the Act to enable us to assume the obligations of the Treaty of Rome and join the European Communities, the two other amendments, to lower the voting age to 18 years and to remove the recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church and the other named churches. The Value-Added Tax Bill was an important one. There were two fairly significant inroads into the extent of civil liberties in this country, namely, the Prisons Bill and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill. Apart from that, the record is one of minor amending Acts. In some areas the promise was made that a further comprehensive Act would be brought in in due course. That seems to be the pattern: to isolate particular aspects of a Department's activity and bring in a piecemeal piece of legislation rather than to review the area and try to deal with it in a comprehensive way.

To take an example of this, the Garda Síochána Act, 1971, which was the first Bill of the year, was a minor amending Bill to provide an increase in numbers of the Garda Síochána. It did not consider the conditions or the method of appointment of members of the Garda Síochána even though this would have been appropriate as it coincided with the 50 years existence of this body and might have been a suitable time for a major review and changes in appointment and conditions of the gardaí.

I should now like to consider the Agricultural Credit Bill, 1972, which was passed in the early part of the year. This Bill is typical of the type of legislation introduced in this House since 1969. Its purpose was to increase the capital resources of the Agricultural Credit Corporation in order to keep pace with the growing demand for agricultural credit. I should like to quote briefly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare's introductory speech on this Bill which appears in volume 72, column 619 of the Seanad Debates:

It seems inevitable that the expanding demand for credit will accelerate during the next few years, particularly with the prospect of entry to the European Economic Community. Farmers will be seeking additional credit to increase their livestock numbers, acquire better buildings and machinery and generally to adapt their enterprises to EEC conditions. Such investment will enable them to benefit from the higher prices and improved marketing conditions available in the EEC. Additional credit will also be required by the agricultural processing industries, especially the industries engaged in milk and pigmeat processing.

That is a very simplified attitude towards the implications of entry into the Community and towards the precise problem we are faced with now, where meat prices have gone up beyond what was predicted and the meat processing plants, therefore, are unable to compete with foreign buyers. Jobs in this area are at risk. There is also a difference in value of the return on export of live cattle on the hoof and the return which could be got from processing this meat. Legislation which does not adequately control the implications of a policy is bound to lead to unforeseen results of this nature.

We also had some minor Bills, such as the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and the Electrical (Amendment) Bill. I am not saying these Bills are unimportant. What I am saying is that this was not a great legislative year.

The Court Officers Bill, 1972, is typical of another type of legislation which came before this House. Perhaps it is a good example of this. It was introduced by the Minister for Justice. I quote from his opening statement on Second Reading which appears in Volume 72, column 761 of the Seanad Debates:

The purpose of this very short Bill is to allow time for consideration by the Government and by both Houses of the Oireachtas of comprehensive recommendations made by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure in their Sixteenth Interim Report. Implementation of the recommendations would mean a substantial increase in the jurisdiction of the Master of the High Court, within, of course, the provisions of Article 37 of the Constitution.

He then goes on to explain that this is a temporary measure pending the introduction of the recommendations of the report. It is a good thing that we have a committee which submits a report which will influence the legislation. But there seems to be an incredible timelag. This House, and to my knowledge, the other House of the Oireachtas, have not considered the implications of this report since April, 1972, when this Bill was passed through the Seanad. Why is there satisfaction with temporary inadequate legislation when informed and comprehensive legislation should be brought in in the first place?

Another Bill which came before the Seanad shortly after that was as a result of unforeseen and very unwelcome circumstances, namely, the riot in Mountjoy Prison on the 18th and 19th May, 1972. This was the Prisons Bill, 1972. It was the first Bill of the year which was influenced very radically by the climate in which it was passed. To that extent it was an emergency Bill and there was a legitimate reason for this emergency in that the conditions in Mountjoy Prison required that prisoners be transferred elsewhere. Nevertheless, it was used to provide a useful extra power which would not normally have been forthcoming, the power to transfer a person from a civil prison to military custody. It was stated that the Bill would be a temporary one on the grounds that it was an extension of the normal powers of the Minister for Justice. The temporary nature of this Bill could well be an illusion. Again, I quote from the Official Report, Vol. 72, column 965, where the Minister for Justice stated:

The length of time which this Bill will remain in force was fixed in the Dáil today: it is until 31st May, 1974. However, it is subject to the proviso that if it should prove possible to do away with military custody before then, Dáil Éireann could pass a resolution taking section 2 of this Bill out of it before 31st May, 1974.

The question arises as to whether there will be an attempt to render the provisions of section 2 absolute before 31st May, 1974.

Other Acts which were passed at this time—the Industrial Development Bill, the Restrictive Practices Bill and the Local Elections Bill—were minor but necessary additions to the Statute Book. Then I come to a Bill which was initiated by three Independent Senators, Senator Horgan, Senator Owens and myself, namely, the Adoption Bill. This Adoption Bill was withdrawn after having received its Second Reading because of an undertaking by the Minister for Justice, in replying to the Second Stage debate, that he would bring in legislation in this field. I will quote from the Official Report, Vol. 73, where the Minister explained that some of the provisions in the Adoption Bill, as we had drafted it, were not acceptable to the Department. At column 166 he went on to say:

As for the rest, it is my intention to have a Bill prepared to amend the Adoption Acts. The Bill will contain provisions on matters not touched on in the present Bill. It will, I hope, include some provision to deal with the problem of consent, a provision to permit a married couple of different religions to adopt where one of them is of the same religion as the child and its mother, if the mother consents to adoption by such a couple, and a similar provision in relation to orphans of a mixed marriage.

The Bill will also contain provisions on the lines of sections 7, 8 and 9 of the present Bill and will provide for the repeal of section 15 (2) of the 1952 Act, which is also proposed in the present Bill. I regard these latter matters as ancillary and not worth legislating for in themselves. At this stage I would hope that I might be in a position to introduce a Bill before the end of the autumn session. However, I want to emphasise that very careful consideration will have to be given to the drafting of proposals to be embodied in the Bill. As none of the problems to be dealt with is of pressing urgency the measure will have to take its place behind other urgent matters. For that reason I am not in a position to say definitely that the legislation will be introduced before Christmas although I shall, of course, do my best to ensure that this will be done if possible. It is my intention to consult with the members of the Adoption Board before I formulate proposals for amendments to the Acts. Indeed, some preliminary consultations have already taken place.

This amounted to an undertaking by the Minister to bring in a new Bill if possible before Christmas.

I now wish to refer to the present situation in the Adoption Board where members of the board who were due to retire, having served two periods of five years, have been requested by the Minister to remain on the board pending the introduction of this amending legislation. This is quite a serious matter. There are two members involved who ought to have retired as of 1st January of this year. In former years other members of the board who had served ten years but who would have been willing to continue were compulsorily retired. This is a departure from normal practice in order to allow the present board to continue pending this new legislation. Does this mean that the Minister intends to bring in an entirely new type of legislation and to change the nature or composition of the board, or does he intend to confine the amending legislation to the matters which were dealt with in the Private Members Bill last year? If so, why is he not making new appointments to the board and why is he continuing the service of members of the board beyond ten years? It is important that the Oireachtas be informed of the Minister's intentions in this respect. I would welcome a comment on when it is intended to bring the Adoption Bill before the House.

While on the subject of ministerial promises, I recall that another promise was made by the Minister for Justice to this House during the debate, which took place in 1971, on the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill. In the debate on that Bill, the Minister gave an undertaking that at the first opportunity an amendment would be made to section 4 of that Bill which would change the words "encouraging and advocating" to the word "inciting". The Minister accepted that the word "inciting" was more acceptable to the House and to some extent he got the Bill through on that assurance. Once again, I would welcome some indication of when the Minister intends to bring in this amendment and why he neglected to use the opportunity of inserting it into either the Prisons Bill or the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill. That would appear to have been appropriate legislation in which the amendment could, without too much stretching of the draftman's imagination, have been included.

There were other Bills introduced during the year, the major one being the European Communities Bill. Here the Seanad provided some useful amendments, particularly the amendment which the Minister himself introduced, that the Government must report twice a year to each of the Houses of the Oireachtas on developments in the Communities. It is not a very precise or specific requirement but, nevertheless, it imposes a statutory duty on the Government and it will provide the Oireachtas with an opportunity for a debate twice a year on what is happening in the Communities and an opportunity for a review of the performance of the Irish Minister at the Council of Ministers.

In reviewing legislation, the saddest moment of the year was on Saturday night, 2nd December, when we debated the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill. It is clear in retrospect that the panic which, I believe, was deliberately engineered and which caused the House to sit late on Saturday night and early Sunday morning, was unnecessary. It became clear, less than 24 hours afterwards, that this legislation was not needed imminently to preserve the safety of the State. This underlines the arguments that were made to the effect that consideration of legislation without proper time being devoted to it was dangerous and also justifies the objections which were put forward to allowing a Bill which had been passed in this way to be put permanently on the Statute Book. We may possibly find that this Act will suffer the same fate as the previous Act passed in a single day, the Act which gave powers to the Public Accounts Committee to compel witnesses to appear before it.

The Senator should be accurate. The grounds on which that Bill or Act was declared unconstitutional were grounds which went back for many years in many Acts of the Oireachtas. The passage of the Bill at considerable speed was quite irrelevant to the grounds on which it was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Senator knows that.

No. I would not accept that. There should have been more time for considering the Bill. The fact that the powers were contained in other legislation is not relevant. Each Bill is considered on its merits and the important thing is to have the time to do this. In the case of the Offences against the State Bill there was not the time to consider the full implications of the wording of the Bill and there was not the time to draft considered amendments to it; it has not got the safeguards built into it of having a defined time limit and it is permanently on our Statute Book. For me, personally, it was the blackest hour of this year in the Seanad.

We had to protect the private banks.

I did not get that. So much then for the Bills, or some of them, which came before the House. The general impression remains that this was not a great year of legislative endeavour.

Let us now look to another possible field of activity for the Seanad —the debating of motions. Considering the number of motions which have been on the Order Paper of the Seanad, it is strange that so few were actually debated. I notice that we did debate the motion on votes at 18, but it was a very brief debate because it was clear at that time that there would be legislation and a constitutional amendment to that effect.

We debated the accession of Ireland to the European Communities. It was a useful and constructive debate. We debated certain matters on the adjournment, such as the higher education grants, and the Prisons Act, where it was alleged that certain safeguards under the Prisons Act were not complied with; and we debated the report on equal pay. However, there are many other motions which have been on the Seanad Order Paper for many, many months. Indeed, I heard a suggestion on the last occasion, when we were trying to get time to debate these motions, that it would be interesting if the motions could be dated from the date when they were first placed on the Order Paper. Then we would certainly see the slow and lazy way in which we approach these matters. The motions which can be pointed to that have been a very long time on the Order Paper are a motion in relation to the Report of the Public Services Organisation Review, a motion to debate the Buchanan Report on regional development, a motion to debate the White Paper on local government reorganisation, a motion which Senator Kelly was anxious a few weeks ago to bring before us on the personnel and terms of reference of the body appointed to review the working of Radio Telefís Éireann; motions regarding the McKinsey Report on public transport, the Fletcher Report on the ESB, and the Report of the Trustee of the National Library of Ireland, for 1970-71 and for 1971-72. That gives us an idea of how long those motions have been lying on the Order Paper.

Taken in conjunction with the fact, which I mentioned at the beginning, that the Seanad sat for a mere 34 days since we last debated the Appropriation Bill last year, I do not think this is a record of which we can be proud. It may be stated that it is difficult to get a particular Minister to appear before the House and I have no doubt that this difficulty will be compounded as our Ministers fly off in executive jets to various cities in Europe. The argument is answered by the point that it is not necessary to have a Minister present. These motions can be debated constructively and usefully without a Minister being present, if necessary without even a Parliamentary Secretary being present. If there is a record of the debate and a possibility of some reply, or a comment on what has been said in the House, on another occasion, if necessary——

But is it not possible for these resolutions to be debated now?

I would hope so, but I have a feeling that the next time we debate an Order of Business we will be told: "No. The Order will be as it was today—one matter for consideration."

That is only a presumption. The Senator is contesting now and saying whether or not they are permissible.

That is encouraging, but I have some doubts if it will actually happen.

I think the Senators are at cross-purposes.

Communications are bad.

So much then for the legislative year and the record of the House during it. Now I should like to turn to the other side of the picture and to select merely a few areas where there has been an absence of either legislation or a policy approach. The first area that comes to mind—this is possibly to some extent a subjective reaction—is that it seems that we are going to wait forever to have a reform of the Children Act of 1908. In every——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would like to point out that the Senator is not in order in advocating legislation in the debate on this motion. That may come as a surprise, but that is the position.

I am rather astonished to hear that. If I could work this into a reflection on the administration, may I say that I noted this afternoon while serving on the Seanad Committee on Statutory Instruments, that there is an excuse being used in the Department of Education of preoccupation with the recommendations of the Kennedy Report. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a letter which was written asking why there was a delay in laying a Statutory Instrument under the Children Act, 1941, before the Seanad. There had been what the committee regarded as unnecessary delay here. The explanation from the Department, written on 6th December, 1972, reads as follows:

I am directed to refer to your minute of 17th September, 1972, and to express regret at the delay in laying the Children Act, 1941 (section 21) Regulations, 1972, before Seanad Éireann. This delay was due to the unprecedented volume of new areas of work being handled in the section of the Department which deals with this matter arising out of the implementation of the recommendations of the Kennedy Report publication in November, 1970, and the reorganisation of the administrative staff.

I would hope that that letter is an indication and, if it is, it is the first indication that I have had, that there will be the implementation both of the full recommendations of the Kennedy Report, and not the one or two which have been implemented to date such as the closing of Marlborough House, and also that there will be a general reform in the Children's Act.

But before you make an accusation you should take all factors into account. I remember a Senator who said they were overpaid and underemployed. The Senator should relate her remarks to the number of hours that this Senator spent in the House.

I suppose they will refuse their increase.

I had intended, a Chathaoirleach, before your explanation of the scope of the Appropriation Bill, to advocate that the Government introduce, as they promised, the legislation in the area of family planning and to amend the law relating to contraceptives. I think I can do this within the bounds of what is permitted by noting the failure of the Government to introduce the legislation despite, admittedly, vague assurances. I find the statement by the Taoiseach, on more than one occasion, that the matter is now before the courts and the Government must await the outcome from them, much more annoying than those vague assurances.

This, as the Taoiseach must know as a barrister, is not the legal position. There is nothing to stop the Legislature from assuming the proper jurisdiction to legislate or amend legislation on a particular matter. The fact that there is a private action before the courts is not relevant. It does not displace the competence, jurisdiction or responsibility of the Legislature. Any vague statements to that effect are misleading and inaccurate. The case brought by Mrs. McKee which did not succeed in the High Court and is being appealed to the Supreme Court is not relevant to the Government's responsibility in this area and to the possibility of bringing in legislation to amend the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935, to legalise contraceptives and also amend the Censorship Acts.

During the year, one of the motions which we debated was that on equal pay. In this area there have been assurances that some of the recomendations of the committee will be implemented. Since we have now become fully-fledged members of the European Communities, the Government must be prepared to go further in this matter. We must consider an equivalent of the Equal Pay Act, 1970, which has been introduced in Britain and which will be fully operative in December, 1975.

But not in the rest of the Community.

I think the Senator would agree with me that, of the countries in the Community, we have the worst record in relation to equal pay and the worst discrimination against women. In that respect, I would hope that Dr. Hillery, a former member of the Government, who is now the Commissioner for Social Affairs, will be able to influence the situation here, not in his capacity as a European Commissioner, but because he will be the focus of journalistic comment on the Communities. This ought to be an effective lobby for change and improvement in our social welfare benefits and in our general social welfare code. If an Irishman is putting the social affairs of Europe right, then perhaps the collective body of Irish people can put their own house in order.

I have been critical of the performance of the Seanad and its legislative record over the last year. I should like, rather than rest on negative criticism, to make the argument for a necessary change in the approach to both the legislative enactments and the administration and policy of the Government. The necessary step to do this must be the introduction of a committee which will review and survey the many State-sponsored bodies and public enterprises. I am well aware that the argument for the advantages of such a committee has been made from time to time. I propose to argue on its necessity for the following reasons.

First, nobody has overall responsibility for State bodies at present. Although the Minister for Finance has responsibility for the Capital Budget, there is no way of ascertaining the aggregate statistics of State bodies, the total number employed in them or their total capital without going round to each one and adding up the totals. There is no coherent, overall policy towards these various State-sponsored bodies.

Secondly, these bodies, or many of them, have been in existence for up to 50 years. They were set up for different reasons and there was no institutional method of reviewing their functions and their operations over this period. For example, the ESB, which is nearly 50 years old was set up in 1927 and has been examined by the Fletcher Committee. That committee made very far-reaching recommendations. Unfortunately that report, as Senator Brugha will know, is still lying on the Order Paper and we have not had an opportunity to consider its recommendations in detail. It has the disadvanage of being a report of an ad hoc body rather than one of a continuing body which can, if necessary, up-date its report and have the value of sustained expertise in this area.

What about the universities? Are they not State-financed?

I think the universities are coming under a great deal more control in that area than some other bodies in which one would like to see more control.

The argument for an approach which would allow for a general philosophy of investment in public enterprise and for a definition of Government policy towards these bodies is a very strong one. At the moment there is no overall philosophy. By philosophy I do not mean an ideology. It is possible, as has happened in Britain, to have a pragmatic approach, but nevertheless, to lay down the criteria under which these bodies have been set up and to which they will be accountable.

I should like to refer to one sentence in the Third Programme on Economic and Social Development to show the lack of terms of reference and lack of criteria on which to judge the State bodies. This sentence is on page 123 of the report, in paragraph 57 of chapter 8. There is a reference to Córas Iompair Éireann as follows:

The annual grant of £2 million represented what the Government considered to be a realistic estimate of the minimum subsidy with which CIE could get by on the basis of effective management and increased efficiency and productivity.

This is the key to the morass of public enterprises and State-sponsored bodies. There is no criteria on which to judge them. We give a grant of £2 million as the minimum on which a body like that "can get by". It is relatively impossible to judge the performance of a body of this nature when the criteria have not been clearly established.

Using a phrase such as "social benefit" is not helpful unless in some way we have defined what we mean by "social benefit" and what relevance this has in relation to bodies such as CIE, the ESB or other bodies which receive a large amount of public grants and subsidies.

How much do they give for the universities?

I do not think this constant griping at the universities is particularly relevant.

It is relevant anyway.

If a select committee were introduced to review State-sponsored bodies I would advocate a joint committee so that the manpower of the Seanad could be used for this purpose. It would be useful for the following reasons.

Firstly, the only people at the moment who are paid to think about State bodies have a special interest in them. They are either on the management of these bodies or they are civil servants in the particular Department linked with that State body. Therefore, they have not the time nor the encouragement to think in terms of a general overall policy or of general working criteria.

Secondly, there is no mechanism whereby policy-makers can draw on the advice or expertise of people other than personnel in the management of the bodies or civil servants. If an ad hoc committee is set up, as is a fairly common practice, or if we get experts to come in from outside the country, that has a certain usefulness but it does not have either the continuity or the possibility of acquiring expertise of a permanent body. The work of an ad hoc committee could not compare in usefulness to the evidence which could be elicited by a select committee with the use of verbatim minutes and the issuing of regular reports.

Thirdly, this would seem to be a way in which outsiders could influence, by being called upon by the select committee to give the benefit of their expertise and by having an opportunity to comment on the reports which this committee would issue from time to time. This would lead to a constructive and helpful debate in this area.

Fourthly, the range of activities in which we have State-sponsored bodies and public enterprises is much wider in this country than in many other countries, particularly in Britain where there is a mechanism for control of this kind. Particularly, as we have State-sponsored bodies which are engaged in manufacture and commercial enterprises, we ought to have the possibility of having a more general policy in relation to them.

Fifthly, this committee could define the criteria by which one can assess the performance of public enterprises and give us guidelines on which to judge this performance. We are increasingly faced at present in the Oireachtas with Bills whose sole purpose is to increase the funds towards a public enterprise either because the estimate was not sufficient in previous years or because of the effects of inflation or of inadequate planning.

Does the Senator not understand that this is a deliberate policy to ensure that these matters come before the Oireachtas at regular intervals?

It is useful for the Oireachtas to be able to debate in this way but the traditional methods of debate are not adequate. It is not enough for various Senators to express their subjective opinions on the performance of State-sponsored bodies during the year. We need more time and a comprehensive survey of performance. We need the expertise, the possibility of cross-examining expert witnesses on this.

Whatever view one may take of that, I should not like the Senator to have the wrong idea. I should like to make it quite clear that this question of bringing forward Bills to increase the capital of State-sponsored bodies is a result of a deliberate policy to ensure that at least that amount of debate on the particular body is available to the Oireachtas at regular intervals.

The sort of debate we get is entirely inadequate. I should like to refer to a recent example of this. I shall quote an Opposition spokesman to show that I am not trying to make a political point. On the 15th November, 1972, in Volume 73, No. 10, we were discussing the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Bill, 1972. Speaking from the Fine Gael benches, Senator McDonald said—and I quote from his speech to show the level of debate which this will arouse in the House:

The amendments incorporated in this Bill cannot in any way be regarded as contentious. We should like to compliment the Minister and the ESB for coming back so quickly to remedy the difficulty that arose subsequent to the passing of the legislation in 1970. This speaks well for the Minister and the ESB. The board must be complimented on the excellent service they are continuing to provide. I hope that with this additional piece of legislation their service will improve and that it will lead to more harmonious relations between the board and their employees.

I submit, without wishing to be critical of another Senator, as on our feet we are all much less fluent than we would like to be, it is just impossible in open debate on the floor to be constructive and to understand the sort of policy review and studied approach which is necessary in trying to define how much of the national cake one ought to allot in this way and by what guidelines one judges performance. For that reason I urge the necessity for a proper working committee on public enterprise.

Another reason for doing so at present is because of the implications of the European Communities. It is necessary to have a committee examining the implications of a common transport policy and to review our public enterprises in the light of this. It will become increasingly necessary to review the common energy policy of the Community. This cannot be effectively tackled in a debate on the floor where Senators have not got the information or the expertise and cannot do more than give their own subjective reactions. We are entitled to expect a more thorough and detailed performance from the Members of the Legislature. The methods of control and the power to influence policy must be improved or the Parliament will have rendered itself obsolete in relation to the major issues of the day.

There is a second area where the performance of the Parliament could be improved and that is in response to the challenge of membership of the EEC. At present consideration is being given to the setting up of a committee on European affairs and I would like to comment on the problems which the Oireachtas will face as a result of our joining the EEC and as a result of adapting to this European dimension. The basic problem before the Oireachtas is twofold. There is the question of how to define its role in relation to the legislation which will be in the form of regulations and directives coming from the Council and Commission and, secondly, how to become aware of and react to policy formation and administrative practices within the Community.

The first problem we have to cope with involves the legislative output of the Community. The second problem is how to devise ways of ascertaining the policies and proposals which will ultimately become the legislation and to react to those and ensure that there is an awareness and sufficient information on these matters. The problems are real ones because it would be possible for the Oireachtas to adopt a passive attitude. I am afraid lest we would be tempted to adopt this passive attitude towards the whole area of Community legislation and decision-making particularly because the legislative powers of the Community are exercised not by the Parliament, as is the case in the national area, but by the Council and Commission which are executive bodies. Strictly speaking, the Oireachtas does not need even to take note of Community regulations and decisions. The mere publication of regulations in the Community's Official Journal is enough to make them law, and similarly decisions take effect as soon as they have been notified to the person to whom they are addressed.

Directives have to be implemented by the national authority and it has been provided in the European Communities Act that this will be done by way of Ministerial regulations. There is a minimum of participation provided in this statute for the Oireachtas in that these regulations which will implement the Community directives and which can, if necessary, amend, repeal and adapt existing Irish law will not remain in force after six months unless confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas.

Has this been sufficiently thought out? The extent to which these confirming Acts will give a genuine choice and will inform the Oireachtas is debatable. If Acts merely list the regulations which are to be confirmed they will not involve the Oireachtas very constructively or intelligently in the process. It is hard to see how these confirming Acts can be rejected if the position is made clear that these are directives from the Communities and that we have implemented them in this way and that we are obliged to continue to do so. The Oireachtas would not have any means of influencing the choice or method of implementation or of considering the alternatives which might have been open in implementing the directives. In that way the review by the Oireachtas, by way of confirming Acts, may not be effective.

The problem of getting information is already with us in many areas. The most important issue for the Oireachtas will be how to get knowledge of Community legislative proposals sufficiently in advance to be able to influence their content. This is going to be a problem because the Oireachtas is unaccustomed to acting in this way. We do not see legislative proposals at a stage when it is still possible to influence their content. All we do in the passage of a Bill through the House is, on a rare occasion, to provide sufficient reasoning for some change in scope or to insert some minor drafting amendment or seek out the explanation for the legislation. It is useful to have a Minister steering a Bill through the House so that he can be questioned on the effect of a section. To that extent there can be a watch-dog role for the Oireachtas.

In relation to Community legislation, if there is to be a constructive approach it will have to be at the stage when the proposals are still very much in draft. To this extent the Community legislation is more democratic than one finds in the national systems. It is possible to have more influence on a Commission draft proposal when it is sent for the opinion of the parliament or sent to the Council than it is possible for a national parliament, particularly the Oireachtas, to influence a Bill once it is tabled in the House.

There must be a realisation that the decision-making process in the Community is more fluid and more open to change and development before final decisions are taken. We must not adopt a passive role and we must not have a negative approach to these draft proposals. The problem is to secure the necessary information to be aware of the proposals when they are in draft form and to be aware of the considerations behind them. It will be necessary for the Government to provide this information service to the Parliament because the Parliament do not have the powers or ability to seek information directly either from the Council of Ministers or from the Commission. The Council of Ministers is composed of ministers from the EEC countries including an Irish Minister, so it seems appropriate also that this information should be supplied by the Government.

During the debate on the European Communities Bill, Deputy Hillery, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, recognised the need for the Government to supply information. He said:

The Government has already taken the decision to put in the Library such draft legislation, other than Commission proposals, which deals with matters which must be regarded as confidential, for example, relating to trade negotiations with countries outside the Community...

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I point out to the Senator that it is now past the usual time for adjourning?

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18th January, 1973.
Barr
Roinn