It is proposed to take business in the following order: No. 6 and No. 4 (Vote 61 in No. 4) and then to allow time for the completion of motion No. 2 in the Private Deputies' List. It is proposed that the Dáil will adjourn until Wednesday week; in other words, it will not sit next week.
Order of Business.
I take very great exception to the way in which the Government is treating the House. The Government assembled here this week and put practically no business before the House. There are 19 motions tabled by private Deputies on the Order Paper, together with five other motions. The House treated the Government very sympathetically and very leniently inasmuch as they gave the Government a recess of three and a half months in the summer in order to afford the Government an opportunity of preparing its business. The work done during the autumn put very little strain on the majority of the Ministers. Yet, despite that, we now find ourselves brought here with quite a number of important measures promised by the Government but not put before the House and with very, very little work to be done.
I submit to the Government that Deputies have arranged their private business in order to attend Parliament this week and to continue their attendance in the future. A number of very important private motions have been on the Order Paper for a considerable time. They deal with very important and very urgent matters. I submit the House should meet next week and, such business as the Government may have having been transacted, the remaining time available on Wednesday and Thursday should be put at the disposal of those Deputies who have private motions on the Order Paper.
On behalf of our Party I would like also to protest against the way in which the Opposition is being treated by the Government. I do not think the country will easily understand why, having been in recess for seven weeks, we should meet here for two days and then adjourn for practically a fortnight when there are so many important matters to be considered. Apart from the fact there are many important motions tabled in the names of the members of the Opposition, my Party is under the impression that at this stage we ought to be discussing something like the Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, that at this stage we might be discussing a mother-and-child scheme that was promised or that we could be considering the abnormal increase in unemployment over the last 12 months.
There is a particular motion down in the names of Deputies Norton and Larkin and if Dáil Éireann did nothing else next week but discuss unemployment, emigration and the cost of living and if we got a clear statement from the Government as to what their view is and what they propose to do, the country would be relieved or, at least, it would know what the Government's policy is in respect of these three particular difficulties, emigration, unemployment and the cost of living. We definitely are opposing any motion to adjourn the Dáil until next Wednesday week.
I support what Deputy Corish has said on behalf of the Labour Party and also what has been said on behalf of the Opposition generally. A request was made yesterday to the Government for time to discuss a motion tabled by the Leader of the Labour Party dealing with unemployment. I understood from the attitude of the Tánaiste yesterday that he was willing to give favourable consideration to the question of the discussion of that motion. Would the Government not at this stage decide to allow a day for the discussion of that motion? I am sure that the Tánaiste and the Government generally appreciate that unemployment has now passed the danger line, with 70,000, which is recognised as a danger signal. Surely it would be wise if discussion were allowed on these issues now.
Mr. Byrne
I wish to support the protests that have been made against an adjournment of the House. We have on the agenda notice of motion about the rapid increase in the cost of living. Motions have been tabled about the growth of unemployment. Unemployment is rapidly increasing. I asked a question to-day about the increase in unemployment at the North Wall and in the building trades and about emigration. Having had six or seven weeks' holidays, the House ought to be ready now to go on with a few weeks' work for the benefit of the country and its people.
Before the Tánaiste replies, I want to say that I understand that matters of this kind under ordinary circumstances would be discussed beforehand by the Whips and I think it is nothing short of discourtesy, deliberate discourtesy, for the Tánaiste to come into the House and make the suggestion without having gone through the ordinary channels beforehand.
On a point of order. Lest there be any misunderstanding arising out of Deputy Davin's remark, before the Tánaiste replies, I want to say that we are not discussing a formal motion at the moment.
Yes; it is a formal motion.
A formal motion has not been moved. The Tánaiste simply stated that he intended to do this and this, I submit to you, is just an across-the-House discussion on the Tánaiste's suggestion. In the face of what we say here now and our objection to it, if there is to be a formal putting of a Government decision that they will not sit next week, then I submit that not only has that to be put formally to the House but that it has to be put with a formal explanation.
The Tánaiste may make it formal if he so desires.
I move that the House on its rising this evening adjourn until Wednesday week.
Do I understand the Tánaiste to move that the House adjourn until Wednesday week?
On its rising this evening.
I do not understand that the House has not done useful work by meeting this week. Substantial progress has been made with the Defence Bill and we will secure, I hope, the approval of the Estimate for Old Age Pensions here to-day. Also, some Private Members' business is being disposed of. It is not unusual to take some time at the beginning of a session in getting business under way. I agree that certain measures which the Government thought would be ready for the Dáil are not yet available but they will be available in the near future, I hope.
With regard to general remarks that Deputies have made about conditions in the country, may I ask them not to exaggerate the position? They will only do harm. There has been no increase in unemployment except that which is largely consequential upon the abnormal importation of stocks last year when the Government opposite were planning for peace.
You said there were none.
I was prepared to excuse the action taken then on the argument that preparations were being made for an emergency. We are now told that that is not true, that that Government were planning for peace. A large part of the unemployment recorded in the statistics is due to the action taken then. We are getting that situation rectified.
That is bluff.
I am not objecting on the grounds that certain things have to be discussed. I could object on those grounds. I am objecting to the way in which Parliament is being treated, the way in which the Dáil is being treated and particularly the way in which the Dáil is being treated at a time when there are some very, very important things that require an atmosphere of composure and an atmosphere of ordered discussion.
I again reiterate that the House gave the Government every possible sympathy and co-operation by allowing them during the summer to have a recess of three-and-a-half months to size up their situation and that in the autumn period the work that was being done by the Government did not throw any great strain on the Ministers or occupy their attention to any great extent. So that from the time the Ministry took office they have had practically the whole time to deal with any proposals that they wanted to put before the House. No doubt, when they decided that they would reassemble on the 30th January they had estimated their position with regard to the work of the House. They meet us now with none of the work that was contemplated prepared but, on the other hand, private Deputies have put down a series of very important motions and they have arranged their domestic and private affairs in such a way that they can, as best they can, attend the sessions of the Dáil from 30th January on.
The Ministers can look through the various matters that are tabled for discussion. Surely, if the situation contains so many of the problems that Ministers emphasise now and then, it is most advisable that private Deputies would be given such opportunity as is afforded them by the time available to the House to present their outlook on some of these matters before the Government puts formally before the House either the legislation that they have promised or any proposals that may arise out of their present-day review of the position.
Therefore, my protest in the matter is a protest on behalf of the House as a whole, its prestige and its dignity, against the manner in which the Government are treating it. I oppose the motion that the Tánaiste suggests and I say that it is treating not only individual members but the House itself and, therefore, the country that it represents and whose business it has to do, with contempt.
As far as the Government is concerned, if they are not in a position to bring forward certain legislation, then nothing can be done about that. There is, however, a number of motions on the Order Paper which are of vital interest to individual Deputies. Whatever motive may be behind the tabling of some of these motions, there is a motion in the names of Deputies Norton and Larkin that merits serious consideration. I say that completely independent of any views expressed in this House from either side. I want to disagree with the Tánaiste in his remarks with regard to the question of unemployment in the country. No matter who may be responsible for it, there is more unemployment to-day in the West of Ireland than there has been for a number of years. Last week I took the opportunity of getting figures from the local labour exchanges and comparing them with the corresponding figures for the same week in 1951. I found that in the town of Roscommon in January, 1951, 15 people were in receipt of unemployment benefit, while in January of this year 54 people were in receipt of such benefit. That is the position in a small industrial town which has no industrial employment whatever. The importation of commodities from abroad has not been responsible for that reduction in employment.
Whether or not this House sits next week, I would like some priority to be given to the discussion of the motion put down in the names of Deputies Norton and Larkin. If the Government is not prepared to bring forward now other business which will be discussed later on, then I see no reason whatever why this House should sit next week just for the sake of satisfying some Opposition Deputies.
It is true that the Government has the right to determine the order of business to come before this House but, if I may quote the present Taoiseach, I have heard him say from time to time that, in his opinion, the question of the consideration of the private motions, especially those put down by Opposition Deputies, constitutes one of the most important features in this House. I think his opinion and the opinion of the Government has changed in that respect. I would like to refute the implication by the Tánaiste that there is no business to be done. As long as we have 24 motions on the Order Paper in the names of private Deputies there is business to be done, because in these motions Dáil Éireann is being asked for certain information, to recommend certain actions, and to do certain things which members consider to be of vital importance at the present time.
Figures have been supplied to us from the Statistics Branch or the Department of Social Welfare, I forget which, indicating that at the present time, compared with the same time last year, there are 7,000 more unemployed persons in this country, not counting those people who are working on short time and on half time. The members of this House want to know and the country wants to know what the Government proposes to do in respect of those 7,000 extra unemployed people. We would also like to be informed what the Government proposes to do to try to induce some of those unemployed people to stay here to take up whatever employment may be available to them. The Government has failed to take care of this very important matter.
It is generally thought by us that the seven weeks of the recess were considered as a recess by the Cabinet Ministers of the Government. It is a scandalous state of affairs that after seven weeks they have no business to put before the elected representatives of the country. The Defence Bill was prepared a long time ago. The Garda Pensions Order is something that has been negotiated over the months and I am sure was drafted before the Dáil went into recess on 13th December. For seven weeks the "Coalition" Government preferred to be away from Dáil Éireann rather than risk defeat. They just sat tight and did not prepare any business. I suggest they do not want the Dáil to meet because they do not want to risk defeat from four Independent Deputies. I here challenge the Taoiseach——
On what?
His repeated statements of how important it was to have private questions tabled and especially Private Members' motions discussed in this House. The Tánaiste said to-day, on behalf of the Government, that they have no regard for these motions. If there is no business, I suggest that these motions should be discussed. It has often happened that Deputies who put down such motions found that they were not reached for over two years.
Nobody questions the right of a Government to settle the Order of Business, but just before the Dáil adjourned a number of Bills were introduced in this House on the assumption that they would be ready for circulation before the Dáil resumed after the Christmas recess. I will take the Bills as they appear. First of all we have the Social Welfare Bill. Deputies will remember that before the change of Government the Deputies opposite announced that if there had not been a change of Government in 1948 they had a scheme ready and were prepared to introduce it. Now they are on the Government Benches and they have not even introduced a scheme. They went through the form of introducing the title of a Bill here but it has not yet been circulated.
We had been told of the serious situation due to the adverse balance of payments. One of the remedies that could quickly be applied to that situation is an expansion of the tourist trade. A lengthy inquiry was conducted here by a team of American experts, who submitted a report. Acting on that report, legislation was prepared which was ready for introduction before the change of Government came about. That legislation has not yet been introduced although we have heard speeches from Ministers all emphasising the seriousness of the situation. Most of them are ready to lay the blame on the previous Government for the state of affairs that exists, but, although the Bill was introduced before Christmas, we have not yet had the text of the Bill. The only attempt that the Government have made so far to bring forward a tourist policy has been the establishing of a third authority for the tourist industry. At this stage, I need not elaborate on the reasons for the decision taken to establish that authority. However, anyone who is familiar with the position of tourism in this country and familiar with the circumstances surrounding it will readily recognise that it was not for the purpose of developing tourism, but for entirely different reasons— political reasons.
Deputy Corish mentioned certain matters which were also referred to by Deputy McQuillan. Whoever is responsible for the present situation, it is one which demands immediate attention of Parliament. The fact that one Party blames the other Party for what has come about will not solve the problem of the large numbers who are now unemployed and the problem of the numbers on part-time work. They are not all affected by whatever imports occurred over the past 18 months. Most Ministers have alleged that there were no imports worth while and no stockpiling. Now, they cannot have it both ways. There was no stockpiling except what was necessary to meet a situation which might arise—a situation which, according to the Taoiseach, looks dangerous every day—a situation that required stockpiling of essential supplies to meet whatever eventualities might occur. If, on the other hand, there was no stockpiling, the present unemployment has not been caused by any action of the previous Government.
I am amazed at the silence of some Deputies who in the past were extremely eloquent when circumstances were not nearly as bad as they are at the moment. When conditions were comparatively prosperous, when there was a steady level of employment in agriculture and industry, these Deputies brought forward a number of motions and criticised the inter-Party Government. In addition, there were numerous debates here and a number of motions on the rising cost of living up to the change of Government last June. Serious as was the situation up to June, catastrophic are the changes that have occurred and the rises that are affecting all sections of the community in the last six months and particularly since the Dáil adjourned before Christmas.
The Deputy seems to be getting away from the question before the House.
I am emphasising the importance of the Government recognising the seriousness of the situation and having business available. If the Bills are not ready we cannot provide them but I think it is essential that the Government should recognise it is their responsibility to have legislation available when the Dáil resumes.
I take exception to certain remarks by Deputy McQuillan as regards the motions of Private Members. After all, assuming that we are doing this for a political purpose—no doubt a lot of people judge everybody else by their own mentality—we would be doing a very good day's work for the people of the country. We would be clearing the air of an atmosphere that has developed and that is getting foggier and foggier every week since Fianna Fáil took office. At the moment in rural Ireland we do not know from one day to another what way prices will go.
I have a motion with regard to putting back controls again on the price of milk. I am sure that the price of milk will soar higher than anybody in the Minister's Department visualised. He is getting a free hand and I think that my resolution in itself would be of benefit to a lot of the Fianna Fáil back-benchers—many of whom are conspicuous by their absence to-day—and who with their silence are giving consent. However, they will try to explain the situation as they explained it before the last election.
I say that every member who put down a motion on the Order Paper was actuated by the very best intentions and I take exception to any Deputy who tries to diagnose my mind and probably give a misinterpretation of what was in my mind. At the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis the Taoiseach referred to £160,000,000 that was securely invested in England.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat? I would remind the Deputy that he is getting away from the motion before the House.
I am endeavouring to convince the Taoiseach that this is not a laughing matter but a very serious one. I believe that the Government are trying to carry a policy into operation in order to stifle constructive criticism that might be delivered against them for their own benefit and principally for the benefit of the Republic of Ireland. It is the policy that they have always embarked upon, autocratic and totalitarian. Not one of the back-benchers is opening his mouth. They are all under a regimentation similar to that which is in Soviet Russia at the moment.
Mr. O'Higgins
I would like to add my voice to the protests that have been made in regard to the suggestion that the Dáil adjourn now for a period of a fortnight. I think it is notable, Sir, that in the period that has elapsed since this Government was elected, the 13th June to date, out of a possible period of some 28 weeks this Government has had this House sitting for less than five weeks. That means to me anyway that the Government is behaving like a set of scalded cats as far as this Parliament is concerned. I think it is monstrous that the people of the country have been told in the last three weeks by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and the rest of them that we are facing a serious situation and yet the representatives of the people are denied the opportunity of discussing the situation which exists. It is perfectly apparent that that is a dodge of the Tánaiste's. It is apparent that they are trying to keep this Dáil out of session because they know the longer this Dáil meets the more untenable becomes their own political position. I think in this country to-day when there are acute problems facing the people and ones that each day become more acute, it is monstrous to have any Government in a democratic country trying to prevent the people's representatives from ventilating their grievances. This suggested adjournment is, under present circumstances, monstrous and undemocratic.
Am I permitted under the rules of the House to move an amendment?
No amendment can be moved to the proposal before the House.
When the Fianna Fáil Party, contrary to previous public pledges, captured the reins of office in this country last June, this group, sitting in private session, made up its mind, notwithstanding the coup d'état, that it would give this Government a fair chance to do its job, if it desired to do so, and we were not going to engage, as Fianna Fáil did—notwithstanding the laughing matter which Deputy McCann makes of this—in a policy of obstruction. We were going to vote for whatever measures the Fianna Fáil-Cowan Government brought before this Government, or against them on their merits. That is still our attitude and policy.
The Tánaiste has come in here on behalf of the Government, without any previous consultation through the ordinary channels, that is, by way of the Whips, and announced, in an off-hand way, that there was no business worthy of consideration to be done and, therefore, the House was to adjourn until Wednesday week. If I had the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle I was going to move—but whether I am permitted or not I think it is desirable to say—that the House would be well engaged next week in the consideration of all the issues arising out of Private Members' Motion No. 24.
The Tánaiste tried to pass his usual bluff across the House and to the country, but whatever about the House, the country will not accept his suggestion that there has been no unemployment worthy of note except, what he alleges for political purposes, the unemployment that was caused by the process of stockpiling. Whatever may be said in regard to the importation of clothing—and that is what he has in mind and he has nothing else in mind—he is surely not going to suggest that the 6,000 men and women workers engaged in the boot and shoe industry are idle or working short time to-day as a result of any action taken by his predecessor or by the previous Government. Out of the 6,000 boot and shoe operatives that were working full time and overtime when the inter-Party was in office and power 1,000 have lost their employment—and the Minister knows it well because he met a deputation from the union last week—and everyone of the remaining 5,000 with the exception of 300, are either working half time or three-quarter time but none are working full time.
According to the Minister's own returns furnished to Deputies every two weeks—he cannot deny this—by the Department of Social Welfare, the number of registered unemployed is 7,000 more than what it was for the corresponding period of last year. If the Fianna Fáil Deputies from my constituency would come in and sit behind the Minister they would have to admit that a couple of thousand persons in my constituency have been unemployed in recent times. The callous refusal of the Minister for Local Government, or the person acting for him, to-day, to provide any further moneys under the Works Act means that a special meeting of the Laois County Council has been specially summoned for to-morrow because 300 of our workers, who had plenty of work to go on with, are going to be thrown on the scrap heap because no further moneys will be provided under the Works Act, 1949. Is it or is it not a fact that money can be provided under that Act? There is still more money available to be provided without any fear of increased taxation.
Surely we are not discussing the Works Act.
I am making the case— I do not want to make the whole case —that there is justifiable reason— very grave reasons in the public interest—why the Dáil should meet next Wednesday. If the Government have no public business to bring before the House themselves, I assert that the seriousness of the position, as indicated in motion No. 24, is, in itself, a grave and urgent reason why the House should meet next week for the purpose of discussing all the implications contained in that motion.
I should like to add my voice in the strongest possible protest against the Taoiseach and the Government depriving this House of an opportunity of discussing the very serious problems that are facing the people to-day. All Deputies on this side of the House may not know the background of the intention of the Government to ask for an adjournment of the House for a fortnight.
I should like to tell you, Sir, that the main reason behind the Tánaiste's desire that the House should not sit next week is that he knows that two of the Independent Deputies supporting the Government cannot be present. He knows that Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll cannot be in Dublin next week. He knows that Deputy Cowan has got cases in the country and that the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis is being held. He knows there will be a full attendance of Fine Gael Deputies. I know that Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll has business outside Dublin next week. That is the real reason behind the Government's desire to adjourn, and then the Taoiseach is an honest man! He is running Fianna Fáil. Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll says: "The House must not sit next week." That is what is behind all this. I here and now challenge the Taoiseach to deny that he has been told that within the past 24 hours.
There is not a word of truth in any of the suggestions made by the Deputy.
The Taoiseach knows that the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis will be on.
I did not even know that the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis would be on.
The Taoiseach knows that the Labour Party are summoning their Deputies to discuss the motion put down in the names of Deputies Norton and Larkin. He knows that the Clann na Talmhan Party will be here in strength and that the Independent Deputies are anxious to speak and to contribute on the important motion tabled by Deputies Norton and Larkin. He knows these things would bring about the downfall of the Government and he wants to hold on to his shell of office. That is the reason for the Government's wishing to adjourn for a fortnight. He is a coward and he is afraid to face up to this House.
That remark must be withdrawn.
That remark must be withdrawn.
There are people in my constituency who are on the verge of hunger and starvation. Tomorrow night, as Deputy Davin has pointed out, 300 men are going to be deprived of employment in the County of Laois.
Next week on Private Deputies' Business the motion to be taken is one in my name and in that of Deputy Finan. It concerns the plight of the farmers in the districts of Roscommon, Westmeath, Offaly, Tipperary and parts of Limerick. The farmers in these districts have suffered severely as a result of floods in the Shannon. That is the next motion to be taken in Private Deputies' Business. Surely the Government must view with very grave concern the fact that those people have been in such a serious plight during the past few months? Deputy McQuillan has told of their plight during the past week. We know it is of the utmost importance that this House should be given an opportunity of discussing this matter and the Opposition are entitled to know what plans the Government have for alleviating the distress, the discontent and the appalling and desperate conditions that obtain in the Shannon valley district from Athlone down to Shannon Harbour, Banagher, and North Tipperary. That is the next motion to be discussed. The people in these districts are suffering severely and I am going to assert my rights as Deputy and I shall demand that the Government permit this House to be given an opportunity of discussing the grave issues involved in this connection.
I fail to understand the Tánaiste when he says that there are no other Bills of very great importance. What greater importance could there be than to see hundreds of people in the Shannon valley district homeless, to see their live stock dying and to see them left in a position which words cannot possibly describe? Deputy McQuillan knows that. He sees those conditions. Deputy Finan is aware of them. My constituency is gravely concerned with this and with the issue raised by Deputy Davin, that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds are becoming unemployed in the County Laois as a result of the present set-up policy.
Deputy Seán Keane has wisely indicated his intention of insisting on this House giving special attention to his motion dealing with the increase in the price of milk. In the towns of Birr, Tullamore, and Portlaoighise there are people unable to purchase milk at 5d a pint. Neither are they able to purchase fresh meat. These are matters which should be discussed. They are matters which must be discussed. It is our duty as an Opposition to bring the Government to their senses and to see that the elected representatives of the people are going to be given an opportunity of having those grievances thrashed out in the Parliament of the country.
In view of the grave importance which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture attached to it at a meeting recently—or should I describe it as a party?—in the Gresham Hotel, Dublin, where the chairmen of the various committees of agriculture were going to have a stock-taking on the question of production, it is only right that if the Government have no Bills of importance for this House, we should at least be given an opportunity of spending a day on discussing the ways and means of increasing production, especially agricultural production. Surely the Taoiseach must and does know that instructions have gone from the Department of Finance to the banks to restrict credit to the farmers.
That is untrue also.
That is true and the Taoiseach knows it is true.
That is being done.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question before the House.
The Taoiseach cannot deny the fact that the Minister for Finance has approved of the Agricultural Credit Corporation increasing the interest charges on loans to farmers. That is standing in the way of increased production in this country. It is wrong—utterly wrong. The Taoiseach knows it is wrong. The Government know it is wrong. Yet they want to remain silent and very silent while it is wrong. This is completely crippling the people of rural Ireland. We know very well that he made an appeal to the farmers of the country to increase production. We also know—and we are anxious to have an opportunity of discussing it—that the Government have asked Guinness to cut down the price of barley.
That is another untruth.
I will challenge Messrs. Guinness to deny that. The Government, in order to encourage the people not to grow barley, have asked Messrs. Guinness to cut down next year's barley price.
What has the price of barley to do with this motion?
It has everything to do with it.
The Deputy must get back to the question before the House. He is completely out of order.
I am giving the reasons, as I am entitled to do, why this House should meet next week. I am completely within my rights as a Deputy in giving the Taoiseach and you, Sir, the reasons why the House should meet next week.
If those reasons are in order, certainly.
In my opinion, my reasons are in order.
The Chair holds a different opinion.
Is it the Taoiseach's opinion that Deputies should have an opportunity of raising matters which are of great importance to the community? We are also anxious to discuss in this House the reasons for a recruiting drive in the midst of peace. We know quite well the reasons why the Government has started recruiting: so that the unemployment figures will look decent. Those who cannot get work are to be drummed into the Army and will have no alternative but to join the Army. The reason the Government are asking men to join the Army is to keep down the unemployment figures.
I submit that Deputies are entitled to say the reasons why the Adjournment should not take place but they are not entitled, in my opinion— and I submit this to you, Sir—to go over every aspect of every Estimate or matter which in the ordinary way might come before the House. Deputy Flanagan is talking of the recruiting drive; he had the opportunity yesterday to speak of it on the Defence Forces Bill. I submit that this is all the antics of a very poor star of the Opposition. It is laughable and the country will think it is.
On a point of order, if points of order are to be raised. It is quite in order that every one of these motions should be taken up by Deputies as matters in which they are interested and which should be briefly referred to as matters which could very well be discussed next week. Points of order, therefore, can only lengthen the type of discussion we are having now.
The Chair agrees with the Deputy, but when Deputies begin to discuss these motions in detail they are out of order. The Chair does not mind a reference to these motions but not in the detail into which the Deputy was going.
I put it to the House again that another reason for meeting next week is to hear from the Government and from the Minister for Agriculture why certain instructions have gone out to the officers of the Department of Agriculture to pack up and end the land rehabilitation project. Those instructions have gone out regarding the machinery which is engaged at the present time on the land project. The officers are being asked to wind up the present scheme. I would like to know and I think that the Opposition are entitled to know whether this good and valuable scheme is ended or about to end or what the future of it is.
We are not discussing the land rehabilitation scheme. Unless the Deputy discusses the motion before the House I will have to ask him to resume his seat.
May I protest vigorously, strongly and determinedly against another thing? The Taoiseach is supposed to be the champion of free speech. We are told that he has been anxious to give Deputies an opportunity of discussing everything. He has told the House time and time again that he welcomes discussion and criticism, but I now accuse him of shirking his responsibility, of trying to muzzle Deputies in this House and of deliberately denying the elected representatives of the people an opportunity of bringing before the House and the country the failure of his policy to keep the people on the land, to end emigration and to reduce the cost of living as he promised. He knows that he has failed utterly on those issues; he knows that his Government have failed; he knows also that he fears and dreads criticism and above all he knows that Deputy Captain Cowan and Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll cannot be here next week. He knows that if Dáil Éireann meets with a big muster of Fine Gael Deputies here for the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis it will be the last straw and the end of the Fianna Fáil-Cowan-Cogan set up. He is a cute old hen who never lays out, but he laid out once and if the House meets next week he will lay out again. I challenge the House to meet next week. He knows that Deputies Cowan and ffrench-O'Carroll are two Deputies who cannot be here and in order to please these two Dublin Deputies who are responsible for placing him where he is in order to bring about the destruction of the country, as he is doing very successfully day after day while he is in office, he will not allow the Dáil to meet. He knows that if the Dáil meets without this pair—my vocabulary has failed me; it is very difficult to find words to describe those two Deputies, Deputy Cowan and Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll. The Taoiseach knows that that is the real background. He has denied it in this House. Can he deny that his office was 'phoned last night? I call upon Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll to prove that he did not communicate with the Taoiseach's office to say that he could not possibly be in the Dáil next week. This is bluff on the part of the Taoiseach. He is an old hand at bluffing. He bluffs fairly successfully. He was bluffing his way through this to-day until the Opposition became anxious to know the reasons why he was trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes. I look upon it with disgust; it is viewed with disgust by every decent Deputy in this House and it is viewed with disgust by every decent citizen outside this House. Everyone knows that in the nostrils of every decent man and woman to-day Fianna Fáil stinks.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion.
The Taoiseach is anxious to deprive us of giving the House and the country our views on what should be done to make Fianna Fáil comply with the promises they made to the electorate before the elections with the intention of never fulfilling one of them.
May I protest on behalf of my constituents, to whom Deputy Davin referred, in the shoe trade in Edenderry who have lost their livelihood since the Tánaiste took charge of the Department of Industry and Commerce? Edenderry was a boom town; Edenderry was an industrial town during the inter-Party term of office and Edenderry to-day has been reduced to a wayside village because of Fianna Fáil policy. It is only right that an opportunity should be given to deal with the points raised by Deputy Davin in that connection. When I say that the shoe industry is being brought to ruin and destruction in Edenderry, it is likewise in Birr where, I understand, a number of workers in the shoe industry are to be thrown on the unemployment list at a very early date. Again, the shoe factory in Carlow has practically been closed down. Those issues of factories being closed down are not of such importance to Fianna Fáil that they can spend a day discussing the provision of employment for those workers. Does the Taoiseach not know from the statistics available in his Department that, in the past three months, there have been more calls at Guards' barracks and labour exchanges for passports than in the three and a half years of the inter-Party Government? Go to the North Wall or Dun Laoghaire and see there the boats taking workers in thousands out of the country every day, simply because of the action of the Chief, as he is popularly described by the dummies sitting behind him, in bringing the country into the deplorable mess it is in to-day.
On a matter of personal explanation, references have been made to me in the speech just made by Deputy Flanagan, and I simply want to say that I had no knowledge whatever of this proposal to adjourn until I entered the House and heard this discussion on it. The suggestion has been made that I would permit my private business to interfere with my public responsibilities. I have never permitted that and I hope I never shall.
You are not saying that you will not be here next week.
I am probably less well-informed than Deputy Flanagan and I have no idea why the Government are seeking this adjournment, but I should like to put this consideration very seriously to the Taoiseach, that, where all Parties in the Opposition are of the view that the House should meet to discuss a particular topic and where that discussion does not cut across the parliamentary programme of the Government, it seems to me that it would be good parliamentary practice to yield to the views of the Opposition. Where a substantial number of Deputies feel that a certain question should be discussed, it would never do any harm to discuss that question. It would probably do much less harm than a refusal to allow discussion.
In this particular case, there is a very important motion which has been tabled by the Leader of the Labour Party on the paper. Members of different Parties in the House have indicated that they wish to have that motion discussed. The Government has indicated that it has no business for the House to discuss, and, when the question was raised yesterday by Deputy Corish of making time available for the discussion of that motion, we were informed by the Government that the matter would be considered. I understood from the attitude on the Government Benches that time was, in fact, going to be made available. I think it would be unfortunate if the Dáil adjourned now and if no time is made available for that discussion. As I have already indicated, unemployment has passed the 70,000 mark, which is the danger line. It would be very wise if the Government now took note of the views expressed in the House and permitted the Dáil to meet next week—for even one day—to discuss that motion.
The Tánaiste said that references to unemployment and the economic position in the country were harmful. I wonder does he really mean that.
Of course, I did not say that. The Deputy is a master of the art of misrepresentation. I realise that and I realise also that it is useless trying to stop him, but I did not say that.
I am sorry if I misinterpreted the Minister, but——
Indeed, you are not; it is deliberate.
I have it down here —we were doing harm by exaggerating the position. If we are doing harm by exaggerating the position, would it not be better to have the position discussed fully, so that whatever harm we may be doing may be counteracted? Who, might I ask, in this House has been exaggerating the position as to the economic condition of the country for the past three months if not the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance? It seems to me that in these circumstances it would be much better to clear the air by a public discussion.
Probably the most extraordinary feature of the proposal which the Tánaiste has placed before the House to-day, without notice to anybody, and probably the feature which has given cause to Deputy Flanagan and other Deputies to put forward possible reasons for the course adopted, is that we were not given a single reason why this adjournment should take place. If the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach came to the House and said: "We are very sorry. We have no Government business, no legislation ready. We have had too much to do," I am sure we would all understand. We can appreciate the amount of work that has to be done by a Government and we can appreciate the difficulties the Government may have in framing its policies, but we have not been told even that. We have been told that there was no legislation and that the Dáil could not meet next week. The fact there is no legislation ready would not prevent the Dáil meeting to discuss the motion tabled by Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin. The mere fact that this adjournment is sought in these circumstances is bound to give rise to a great many rumours and it would be very wise of the Government to agree that the Dáil should meet for one day next week—next Wednesday—in order to discuss that motion. I appeal to the Taoiseach now to reconsider the matter, and, unless he can adduce some very cogent reasons to the House, I suggest that he should yield to the view of what is, in effect, half this House.
I want to put just a few quiet facts on the record. Since the Government came in on 13th June last, it has, unfortunately, been part of my duty to be in contact with the Chief Whip on the Government side, and during the whole course of the discussions that have inevitably taken place from 13th June up to the present, I want to put it on record that I have received complete courtesy. On this occasion, however, until the Tánaiste got up and said that the House would not sit next week, no statement, good, bad or indifferent, was given by the Government to the Opposition as to what their plans were. As late as 10.20 p.m. last night I had to get on the Government Whips' office to try to find out what the business to-day was to be, and even at 10.20 p.m. last night I could get no indication from the Government that they did not propose to sit next week. I was told then for the first time that the only Government business that was to be brought before the House to-day was the Old Age Pensions Estimate which was to be put forward by the Minister for Social Welfare, and then after that we would deal with Private Members' business. If the Government knew where they were travelling, surely they knew last night that the House was not going to sit next week and surely they had the responsibility of communicating that fact to the remaining members of the House—unless, of course, the Tánaiste wanted to try and bluff it through quietly and silently and then let it slide away, hoping that it would not be noticed.
The Government have been given, in the ordering of their business, every possible facility since they took office last June. I do not think that can be denied or will be denied, and for the Government to come along in this manner and attempt to put a quick one across without notice is beneath contempt. When we met on the last occasion before Christmas, we were told most specifically by the Tánaiste that he would have his Electricity Bill circulated before the middle of January. We were given to understand by the Minister for Social Welfare that he would have his Social Welfare Bill circulated before the House met again. We came and met yesterday and we found that the only business that this Government of flounderers was able to put before the House was the Defence Bill, the Bill that was there from their predecessors. We have no Government business to be brought forward but we will have, in the course of the next few weeks, the financial business commencing, and everybody knows that once that financial business commences there is an established precedent here that Private Members' time is not allowed and that all the official time of the House is set aside for Government business. That is going to happen in a couple of weeks. We have an opportunity next week, because of the inactivity and inability of the Government to do their job, to take the Private Members' business which is on the Order Paper and which otherwise would not be taken this side of the Long Recess, because of the habit and practice of the House in dealing with financial business.
The Government, for some reason best known to themselves—I do not profess to know why—are deliberately trying to avoid that position and if so, particularly in the circumstances in which they tried to hide it from the Opposition through the usual channels last night, then we cannot be blamed if we are inclined to see something sinister in it and if Deputies are inclined to see in it some reason, that there is some particular motion they do not wish to face. The individual Ministers of the Government, as Ministers in charge of administrative Departments, obviously have work that requires to be done and if the Government had come to us and said there was such pressure of administrative work that they were unable to deal next week with the Private Members' business before the Dáil, one could understand it.
One might disagree with it, inasmuch as one would like to disagree with the administrative mind of the Minister for Agriculture, who told us that it was no concern of his what price the farmers would receive for barley. One could understand a Government giving pressure of administration as an excuse, but the Tánaiste just threw it out that the House was not going to sit next week, in a casual fashion without any explanation, without any attempt to try to inform the others members of the House who were entitled to be informed. One can only assume from that that it is further evidence of the old Fianna Fáil trick of regarding this House merely as somewhere to register decisions that they have come to behind closed doors.
Listening to the pretended indignation of the Deputies who have spoken, one would think that it was something absolutely new to ask the Dáil not to meet in the coming week and to meet the week after. It is a thing that every Deputy knows has happened time after time. One cannot always judge the length of time that would be taken by discussion of some particular subject. I certainly did not expect that so much time would be spent on discussing the question whether the Dáil would meet on Wednesday next or the Wednesday after that. The fact is that we met a fortnight earlier than when the previous Government were in office last year. When these matters are discussed in private, I have often suggested that it would be wiser to wait until you were sure that you had the full current of legislation ready, so that there would be a continuous flow. There is a different point of view that can be taken and held fairly successfully, that is, that by starting you first get a number of Bills introduced and work put into train, and even if, after the first week spent in dealing with the business you have ready, you do have to wait for a week, it is better to do that than to wait as was done last year for a fortnight. If we had proposed to meet on the 15th February as was proposed last year, instead of on the 30th January, there would have been nothing said about it. The fact was that we met a fortnight earlier than we met last year.
The calculation, when the date was fixed, was that certain Bills would be ready. That calculation did not prove correct, and we find ourselves in this position. For instance, my own view was—I did not know that there was going to be a special committee arranged to deal with it—that the discussion on the Defence Bill might take a considerable time and might have widened out into all sorts of discussions on the present defence situation. It apparently did not take that particular trend.
What is proposed to-day is simply what has been proposed very many times and agreed to on many occasions, that is, after the Dáil having met earlier than is usual, there is a postponement for a week. All these suggestions of tricks and all that sort of thing are, every one of them, devoid of foundation. This was done when it was found that the business of the Dáil would be better managed by waiting for a week.
Now, with regard to the Private Deputies' motions that have been suggested, a question was asked casually of the Tánaiste yesterday——
It was not casual.
It was without notice.
It was a Party decision to ask the question.
There was no notice given.
We replied that this matter would be given consideration. I think that was wise, and anyone who understands responsibility at all would agree it was a wise answer to give, when a matter was raised on which a number of considerations might arise. Public business would have to be taken into account, so that a genuine and proper flow of public business could be provided.
There is no public business to be taken into account. That is the question that arises now.
This has occurred unexpectedly.
Why can we not discuss the motions, then?
The natural place to discuss matters of that sort is at a Government meeting, and there was no Government meeting since the question was put to the Tánaiste.
Surely if the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste will agree to take the motions next week, no one will object.
The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are not the Government and, unlike other people, we have some regard for collective responsibility and collective judgments.
The Taoiseach has destroyed the validity of his own argument.
I am taking the situation as it is and I see no reason for all the pretence of indignation that has taken place on the opposite side. Deputies will have ample opportunity to discuss all these questions in which they are interested.
They will not.
Of course they will.
No. We will have the Estimates soon.
There is not one of these questions, as far as I can see, that will not arise on the Estimates.
Deputies
Oh, oh!
Every one of these questions, apart from any special motions, will arise and inevitably be proper for discussion when the Estimates come along.
Do we cut out Private Members' motions altogether, then?
There is no basis for all the pretence that the House is being deprived of its rights.
There is, of course.
Why not have the motions, then?
The only way to deal with Deputy Flanagan is to treat him absolutely with contempt.
That is the only way you would try to deal with me.
May I ask a question? Surely it is a well established practice of the House and in conformity with the rules of order that proposals for legislation cannot be debated on an Estimate? If the Taoiseach reads the Private Members' motions he will see that in these motions are several proposals for legislation which would be out of order on an Estimate.
The subjects can be discussed.
No, they cannot.
The fact that it is going to eventuate in legislation and that to advocate legislation would be out of order in the discussion on an Estimate, has never been put forward as a reason why a matter should not be discussed.
Oh, yes it has, time after time.
If somebody is so new to the House that he definitely proposes legislation in a discussion on an Estimate he will be ruled out of order, but we all know that there is no barrier to a full discussion on the Estimates of everything that pertains to the conduct and administration of a Department.
There is a barrier to discussing anything that would need legislation and the Ceann Comhairle gave me the most specific instructions on that point.
We shall be more generous in allowing time for private Deputies' business than the Coalition Government ever was.
All these suggestions of something extraordinary and sinister in this proposal are all simply a pretence.
A Deputy
Now we know the reason.
Why were we not told yesterday?
The answer to Deputy Mulcahy's question is this——
On a point of order. May I take it that the Tánaiste is not replying?
No, I am answering the question. There was some discussion between the Whips as to what the Order of Business would be.
There was not.
And the Order of Business was arranged on an understanding from Deputy Sweetman that the debate on the Second Reading of the Defence Bill would last at least two days.
I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to state whether that is true. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell an untruth as the Tánaiste now has done.
Deputy Sweetman did not say that to me, but I understood——
Deputies
Oh!
I am accepting Deputy Sweetman's word. I was probably under a misapprehension.
I want to intervene only for a very short time in this debate. I want to intervene principally for the purpose of repudiating the suggestion which has just been made by the Taoiseach that the opposition to this proposal is mere pretence and that the speeches that have been made are made in pretended indignation. I left the House last night having no idea as to what the Order of Business was to be to-day. I had certainly no information that the House was going to adjourn this evening for a fortnight.
I also want to make this point very definitely and very emphatically—that it has appeared to me, and to a number of my colleagues, that business affecting the country in the financial, economic and social sphere is tending to be done outside this House and not inside this House. During the Recess we have had ministerial speeches, speeches from Government spokesmen and others, dealing with the so-called or alleged serious financial and economic situation in the country, making the flesh of the people creep, and even making people, who had no other reason to feel uneasiness, wonder whether, by reason of the continued reiteration of suggestions of financial instability and economic uncertainly, there might not be something in them, they were made so frequently and so authoritatively.
We have given proof since we became the Opposition in this House that we are prepared to do the business of the House in a businesslike way, not in the way we were met by the present Government when they were in opposition. As Deputy Sweetman has just said, we have co-operated in every way with the present Government in that respect. If a situation arose unexpectedly, as the Taoiseach suggests now that it has arisen, that situation could have been discussed with the Whips and matters could be arranged between the various Parties that comprise the Opposition.
We got no intimation whatever about it. Let me add, while I hope to be reasonable, that I wish emphatically to express the view that matters that should be dealt with in this House have been dealt with outside it. A singular example of that arose yesterday when we heard that the Minister for Finance was going to England. I think that it was something in the nature of a public scandal that we should have heard that our Minister for Finance was going to discuss matters of vital concern to this country with his opposite number in England, over the British radio for the first time.
When did you repeal the External Relations Act?
You declared the Republic in Ottawa.
It was announced in the Dáil the first day that the Dáil met.
In accordance with ordinary diplomatic practice between countries, there should have been an arrangement that there would be a joint announcement in both Houses. I do say that that is another indication of the manner in which matters are being done outside this House that should be done inside it. If there were reasons why this adjournment should take place they could have been discussed. There is no doubt, taking the Minister for Industry and Commerce on his own estimate throughout the country, of the serious financial condition affecting the country, and how the lack of production by farmers is affecting economic stability in the country, that there would be an opportunity in this House next week to discuss all these matters—the affairs of the country and the ills of the country. There would be still a further opportunity of allowing us to make it perfectly clear that we are not suffering from the ills that the Tánaiste and his Ministers would have us believe we are suffering from. Let us clear up in public where the evil lies, if there be an evil, and what the remedy for it is.
Deputy Norton asked yesterday for time for his motion. I did not quite gather whether the Taoiseach suggested that the situation which confronted the Government was unexpected by reason of the failure of Government business, by reason of the fact that Deputies were not sufficiently talkative on the Defence Bill or whether he suggested that the unexpected situation in which they find themselves had reference to the proposal that time should be given for this debate on unemployment. It was announced in the newspapers weeks ago that this motion was being put down by the Labour Party but to suggest, as the Taoiseach has suggested, that the last Government had no collective responsibility and that he and the Tánaiste could not make up their mind in five minutes if they wished to do so, to give time to-day for this debate, is ridiculous. If they wished to go through the forms of collective responsibility had they not telephones at their disposal? All the Taoiseach had got to do was to ring up his ministerial colleagues and say to them: "As we have no business to occupy the Dáil, can we not give Deputy Norton the time for his motion this week that we shall have to give him later anyway?" In conclusion, I wish to protest again against the statement of the Taoiseach that the indignation expressed on this proposal is a pretence and merely a put-up job. We have very many arguments to put forward and there is much work to be done. We wish to make our case publicly that this country is not in the parlous condition in which the Government want to make out for their own political purposes. We want the earliest opportunity to do that. It is the principal reason, as far as I am concerned and I think as far as my colleagues are concerned, why we oppose this matter.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition heard all of the speeches which were made.
As an Independent member of this House I am particularly unimpressed by the huffing and blowing of the Opposition and by the speech of Deputy Costello which followed that of the Taoiseach.
There is not a Deputy in this House who does not deprecate the very high unemployment figures to which we must own at present. During the term of office of the inter-Party Government when the unemployment figures stood at 50,000 and 60,000, and it was the responsibility of the inter-Party Government to try to lessen these unemployment figures and in addition to reduce the emigration of the 20,000 unemployed whom we saw leave the country, I do not believe that our actions to curb either unemployment or emigration were as expeditious or effective as they should have been.
An air of panic and an impression for the urgency and necessity of speed has been created in this House tonight. The hurricane speed, with which these people on the Opposition Benches suggest that they are now obsessed and possessed, is blown rather sky-high by one argument used by Deputy Cosgrave. He drew the attention of the House to to-day's Order Paper and pointed out a number of Bills mentioned on it. One of them is the Tourist Traffic Bill—a Bill which seeks to do something for the sadly neglected tourist trade. The tourist trade, if properly developed, is of fabulous value from the point of view of sterling for what it is worth and for dollar earnings. It should be recalled that Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Cosgrave's colleague, was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the inter-Party Government for three years. I must admit to my share of responsibility for the fact that during these three years no progressive or energetic policy in regard to tourist earnings for this country was developed. Hence, that Bill has been there for three years and no motion of censure was brought before the House and no attempt was made to put the then Government out of office. This is merely a transparent and specious attempt to restore and put the inter-Party Humpty-Dumpty Government together again.
Mr. O'Higgins
You were the "Dumpty".
I do not want to spend an unduly long time on the list mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave but I should like to draw attention to the reference to an Adoption of Children Bill.
I made no reference to an Adoption of Children Bill.
Deputy Flynn would be more qualified to do that.
The inter-Party Government was in office for three years and during that time there was no sign of the Adoption of Children Bill which we will get now. There was no great haste or undue anxiety on anybody's part to insist that the House should meet to discuss these Bills. Other Bills come to mind, too. However, all these facts fade into insignificance when one considers the arrant impertinence of the leader of the Labour Party in this House. Deputy Norton and his deputy, Deputy Larkin, put down this motion on present hardship from rising unemployment figures. For three long years that man, Deputy Norton, was in absolute control of the Department of Social Welfare—the Department which has supreme authority over the welfare of the people mentioned in this motion—the widows and orphans, the unemployed, those seeking sickness benefits, and so forth. That man, Deputy Norton, though he was Minister for Social Welfare for three years, made no honest or real attempt to expedite or hurricane through the social legislation which would have mitigated and ameliorated, to some extent at any rate, the hardship which is being caused by the rising unemployment, which everybody knows is there but which cannot be overcome in one night. That is the typical game of humbug and hypocrisy which has dominated the actions and the principles of those people throughout their political life. They now attempt to play a silly, cheap, political schoolboy trick on a motion here.
And what is the Deputy doing?
He is trying to justify his somersaults.
They are doing that in an endeavour to get the Independent Deputies to vote with them against the Government.
Could Deputy Dr. Browne tell the truth?
Can you take the truth?
Let him disgrace himself in peace.
After three years in office as Minister for Social Welfare, the leader of the Labour Party in this House, Deputy Norton, and his Labour Deputies and loyal Labour supporters failed to do something effective for the widows and orphans, the sick and the poor. Yet he and his Labour colleagues now come to this House crying crocodile tears over the plight of these people. I may say that these crocodile tears will impress nobody in the country, and least of all will they impress me in my decision as an Independent Deputy to vote for the Government's decision.
Mr. O'Higgins
What about the mother and child scheme?
Look at the Independent.
It is rather a pity that this matter is being discussed in the way in which it is being discussed.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
I do not want any "Hear, hears" at all. I want to tell Deputy Dr. Browne that he did not impress me when he said that the motion before the House is nothing but pure hypocrisy and humbug.
It is not as hypocritical as his mother and child scheme—the scheme which Deputy Dr. Browne had not got at all.
A product of Trinity College. That is all he is.
Deputies
Sour grapes.
If there is one thing more than anything else which disgusts me it is references to personal animosities.
Who started it?
I do not care who started it. I shall not follow the example of anybody who starts anything nasty in this House. The Tánaiste, who is Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Social Welfare have nobody to blame for this discussion but themselves. I remember that when the Social Welfare Bill was going through this House the Minister was asked the cause of the delay in producing the larger Bill. The Minister replied that he would have the Social Welfare Bill for circulation before we resumed on the 30th of January. Where is that Bill now? We have no indication to-day that that promise will be implemented. I can quote the Minister for Industry and Commerce as saying that he could produce the Social Welfare Bill in one month.
That is right.
The people who are responsible for the government of this country must display a sense of responsibility. I detest matters as important as this matter being discussed in this House from a prejudiced and a political point of view, no matter from what side of the House such prejudice and politics may come. This country is facing a very difficult situation. I consider that the Government are trifling with the feelings of the people when they make statements such as the statements which have been made by various Government speakers throughout the country during the past six or seven weeks. I have said in this House on more than one occasion and I have stated it at our meetings and in the Press that the Labour Party stand four-square behind the Government in any endeavour to improve the lot of our people. That is our attitude to-day as it has been our attitude in the past.
The position now is that our Minister for Finance has been invited to London for discussions with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he has accepted that invitation. If there is anything wrong then the proper thing to do would be for this House to discuss the matter for a few hours next week so that the different Parties could give their points of view and help to strengthen the hand of the Minister for Finance irrespective of whether he is bound for discussions with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else. These are matters of vital importance and nobody can afford to make a stunt of them.
I spoke on this unemployment problem when the number unemployed was 52,000. These unemployed people were treated by the Governments of this country as a class apart from the community. If a man is earning £6 a week and is put off employment, he has to try to pay rent and keep a family when that £6 is reduced to 22/6 with 7/6 for his wife. Then we are told that it is all humbug and that it is dishonest to put down a motion now when we have over 71,000 unemployed registered at the labour exchanges. These are matters which the people outside are demanding that we should discuss in a calm and cool atmosphere.
The Minister for Finance is to go to England to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think we should be able to indicate to this House what stand he should take and what attitude he should adopt in discussing Irish affairs with that important gentleman. Why have we not something like that before us for next week? I say, without animosity or prejudice, that whatever discussion is taking place this evening the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for it. We are not moving fast enough in dealing with the problems facing us in this country. I take an interest in the speeches made by a responsible man like the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I have even noted some of the speeches of other Ministers. I have them all carefully earmarked.
It is not treating decent elements in this country properly to be creating scares that this country is down and out or facing a fearful position because we are tied to the £ that England is in command of at present. It is very wrong that we should not be allowed to discuss this important matter next week. The Minister for Finance who is going across to England often tells me I am talking nonsense when I am speaking about financial matters. I say to him that he will have no stronger backers in doing right by the Government and the people than he has in myself and the members of the Labour Party. We should end this heated discussion and agree to discuss these important matters.
I wish to protest against the proposal that the House should not meet next week. For four or five weeks last year this House was engaged in trying to decide whether a crisis or a problem existed in this country. If one or the other exists, surely the House should meet to discuss the means by which it can be overcome. There are other matters which may appear small in relation to the whole community, but which affect some of our people. I wished to put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce next week with regard to a quandary in which farmers in my constituency find themselves. These farmers in the Lee valley had to give up land to make way for a hydro-electric scheme. They asked the officials who are over that scheme whether they could till their land this year and get crops off it before the land is inundated, but these officials could not inform them; they said that the farmers would have to seek that information at higher level. I thought that by way of a parliamentary question next week I would be able to get that information for these people.
Why not ring up the Electricity Supply Board?
Why not ask the Minister?
Because it is the Electricity Supply Board's job, not mine.
You should see that they do the job and supply the farmers whose land has been taken with information as to whether or not they can till the land. There have been scares about the necessity for increased tillage. It would seem that the Government are treating this House contemptuously by shunting off motions which appear on the Order Paper into the dim and distant future because the matters which would be raised would be inimical to the position in which the Government find themselves. One of the pillars of this Government described the man who is now in charge of the nation's finances and who is being sent to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a senile delinquent. If that is the type of man we have in charge of the nation's purse, then it is necessary that this House should meet and advise that "senile delinquent" as to the manner in which he should conduct our business over there.
It has come as an absolute surprise to the House to find that the crisis which was supposed to have existed some short time ago has completely disappeared. This Government went off on a lengthy honeymoon after its formation. Then the House met for a brief period, after which we were told to go home for six weeks. Now we have come here for one or two days to be told that we are to take another rest. The country will regard that as an absolute insult and a negation of the conditions which Ministers are trying to put over as being in existence. The people are asked to produce more and work harder. They must do all these things so that the nation may survive. But the members of this House are only brought here periodically for a few hours and are then told to go back home again for another two or three weeks.
It was not my intention this evening to speak on this motion.
You saw Deputy Davin rise.
On account of the hypocrisy displayed on the other side of the House I was compelled to stand up, because the position in which this country finds itself to-day is due to three years of mismanagement of the affairs of this country by the people opposite. This Government now have the dirty job of trying to put the country back where they left it in 1948. If there is one Party more than any other Party in this House which could be charged with hypocrisy, it is the Labour Party.
I knew you would say it.
They go out and indulge in the old political racket which has been carried on in other countries for years. They say one thing with one voice and another thing with another voice. The fact is that they have no policy. As to the Fine Gael Party and the others who made up the inter-Party Government, I hope they will be forgiven for the state in which they have left this country. I hope when the history of their three years of government is being written that they will be treated lightly.
And also how the Fianna Fáil Government orders the business of Parliament.
If Deputy Hickey and the members of his Party were honest, we would not be facing the present position with regard to unemployment which the Deputy referred to.
Talk sense now.
The Labour Party had no economic policy except to keep foreign labour employed by importing all they could into this country and leaving the country as they have left it after three years dependent on foreign imports. None of them can deny that. They are collectively responsible for that position. Of course, they are now trying to "cover up" by bringing in the usual stunt motions here.
The members of the Party opposite have been doing that all down the years, on the platform, off the platform, and in the Dáil. Do they think that the people of this country are going to swallow it after all the harm they did to this nation during the last three years? I hope that some day you will examine your conscience and say to yourselves: "We destroyed this country; we destroyed the economic trends which Fianna Fáil built up over the years in trying to make the country self-supporting; we have left thousands of people unemployed, and we have forced them to the emigrant ship." That is what you are guilty of, and now stand up to it and do not try to hide behind any stunt resolution.
The Tánaiste, a few minutes ago, purported to quote a remark of mine. He has since had an opportunity of verifying that what he said was not true. I will give him the opportunity of verifying it now through the Parliamentary Secretary.
I have made inquiries since. I was not available in my office and the message was taken by somebody else. I understand now that I was under a complete misapprehension and that Deputy Sweetman did say that the Defence Bill would not last a day. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
Thank you.
I also want to explain that I did make a statement to the Tánaiste, under a misapprehension, that I considered it possible that the Defence Bill would last two days.
Now that my colleague in the County Dublin has made an effort to get his name into the newspapers as usual, I think it is time that we said something about the seriousness of the situation. I think it is time that something was done about this effort at dictatorship which is being made in the House to-day. Sometimes I am convinced that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party and particularly some of its leaders, have no conception whatever of the needs of the people of this country. I am convinced that to-day, when they suggest that this House can afford to rise for a fortnight, with a serious economic situation in existence, they are displaying no responsibility whatsoever in the task——
The Dáil has met earlier this year than in any one of the last three years.
——which was thrust on them by the so-called Independent Deputies last year. Everyone in this country knows that this Government is in office against the wishes of the Irish people. It is in office by dint of chicanery and intrigue involved in which was——
And bribery.
——a gentleman who had the temerity and impudence to abuse and then endeavour to calumniate, by means of mean personal vilification, the members of his Party. He was one of those who brought the Government into being with others who are better known—Tadhg a' dhá thaobh—on every political fence in this country. These are the people who are to-day criticising the motives of the Labour Party for endeavouring to bring before the House an important motion. Those people in their impudence are doing that, and particularly the gentleman to whom I have referred. He was not born when men in this Party were fighting for the welfare of the people and workers of this country and were giving loyal service to the people of the country. He never knew what a worker was until we made him understand it when he became a member of the inter-Party Government.
I think it is essential that the people should know what is being done here to-day. We have in existence the most serious economic situation that has had to be faced for some time.
When did you discover that? You have been denying it up to this.
If we compare the figures for unemployment we find that we have now 7,000 more people signing at the labour exchanges than we had in January 12 months ago. That may be of little consequence to some of the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party and to some of their leaders, but it is going to be of very great importance when they go to the people again, and let it be soon, gentlemen, we implore you. Let it be soon, because it will be of very great importance.
Unemployment and the rising cost of living are not deemed to be important enough to call this Dáil together next week. In common with everybody else, I feel it is my duty to protest against this particular effort at stifling discussion. Several times during the lifetime of the inter-Party Government when times were not as critical, economically, as they are now, when we had a condition of relative prosperity in the country, when people were in almost full employment and when conditions were fairly good, we remember that when there was a suggestion of an adjournment which might have appeared unduly long, we had Deputy Lemass and members of the Fianna Fáil Party jumping up and protesting that it was unjust, that something was being hidden and that the people were being fooled. Of course, at that time the people knew very well that there was no urgency in the situation, but there is urgency in it now. There is urgency in it for anybody who believes that the people of this country are entitled to a fair life.
I know very well that there are people who think that it does not matter how many unemployed there are. I know there are people who believe that, to have an ordered economy, you must have unemployment, but some of us believe that the Christian law lays it down that a man is entitled to a living. Those who are signing at the labour exchanges throughout the country to-day will have only further proof given to them by this discussion of the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party—that it has not changed—and that the days before the war, when unemployment was rife, are back again.
Deputy Burke in his usual futile rambling made reference to foreign importations and tried to cast responsibility for the present economic situation on the previous Administration. What did the Fianna Fáil Party accept office for if it was not to accept responsibility for the state of the country? Why should they try to evade that responsibility now? If they think that the people can be fooled now as they have been fooled for many years they are making a sad mistake. Go out into any part of the city or country, go to places where people gather in bus queues or in trains or wherever men come together to discuss their daily lives, and they will tell you that times were never as hard as they are now, that there was never in the lifetime of many people as much unemployment as there is now. Only last week I was told that since Christmas more building trade workers had left this city to work in Britain than had left since the years of the war. Yet that situation is not supposed to be sufficiently critical to convene the Dáil next week.
What do the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government think they are playing with? They are playing with the liberties of the people of this country and with the rights of the people. Every member of this House is entitled to come here and say what he thinks is good for the people whom he represents and for the whole nation. The Government is trying to deprive Deputies of that right. It is not even fair to some of its own members. We had Deputy John Flynn yesterday expressing dissatisfaction. He, too, could hear the distant drums of the election that is coming and is making his plans. He is taking steps to see that, whatever happens to Fianna Fáil, he, at least, will try to survive no matter who else may go down.
Whatever the decision may be here to-day on this issue, the people will not be misled. They will not be fooled by the hysterical screamings of Deputy Dr. Browne or by the foolish vapourings and outpourings of my colleague from County Dublin. The people know full well where the blame lies for the present situation. They know very well that this Administration is at present in office as a minority Administration and against the people's will. They are seeking anxiously for an opportunity to put this Administration where it belongs, namely, as a very small group on this side of the House. Make no mistake about it: Whether or not we come back as individuals, as sure as we are here to-night, the next election that takes place the people will speak, and speak loudly.
Finally, I, as one Deputy representing the people in County Dublin, and having a wide knowledge of the rural workers in the constituencies of many rural. Deputies here, challenge the Government to go to the country, not next month and not next week, but now, and let us see who will win.
Loyalty is a very noble virtue, and I feel the House owes a very special debt to Deputy Dr. Browne for his graceful display of that noble quality to-day. It is something that might well be noted by some of the younger arrivals in the public life of this country, for it is an example which I would not wish my worst enemy to take. The temptation to join Deputy Dr. Browne in his spiritual home, the gutter, is recurrent and strong; but we must resist it.
The reason that I feel it is wrong to suspend the activities of the Oireachtas unduly at the present time is because I am convinced that at this moment Ireland is economically the strongest nation in Europe. What exasperates me is that, with abundant resources at our disposal to meet whatever problems may confront us, instead of constructive and courageous action we have nothing but middle-headed panic on the part of men who have clearly demonstrated their reckless ignorance of the fundamentals of the situation in which they find themselves.
The Labour Party wants to discuss unemployment. Some Deputies appear to believe that the unemployment of industrial workers is just an act of God, and that nothing can be done about it. The Tánaiste and the less scrupulous members of his Party, for he now controls the Fianna Fáil Party, seek to make the case that there is nothing they can do to protect men from unemployment because the unemployment has been caused by steps taken by their predecessors in the inter-Party Government. Perhaps they believe that. If they do, this is the place to clear their minds of that mistake.
Let me give one specific concrete case. There is a leather factory in Gorey, County Wexford. That factory, in common with hundreds of other businesses here, went into the market at our behest and stockpiled 12 months ago. We asked them to do that just as we asked every local authority to buy two years of road-making materials and put them in stock; just as we instructed Deputy Dr. Browne to equip himself to finish the hospitals that were in process of construction; just as we instructed Deputy Dr. Browne to charge the local authorities to furnish public health institutions with two years' supply of appliances and drugs; just as we told builders' providers to go out and buy scarce materials for the completion of housing, discreetly but as rapidly as they could; just as we asked every other prospective purchaser here who dealt in necessary goods to lay in stocks against any possible contingency that might lie ahead.
You were planning for peace. You changed your story since. You forget that.
I did not change my story. I told the story in this House. Any Government in a democratic country has to determine two things: one is the probable course of events but, in relation to that, another consideration must affect the judgment; that is, the capacity of an irresponsible Opposition to undermine morale. Eighteen months ago Fianna Fáil declared from these seats that war was about to break out any day, any week, and that the Government of Ireland at the time was making no provision to meet it. I told my colleagues that was "cod". So far as my voice carried in the Government of the day I said: "These fellows are at their lousy codology again; nobody but a gom would believe them."
I confess that wiser heads than mine said: "That may be true, but we as a Government have not only got to provide against a probable contingency, but we have got to take steps that will maintain the people's morale, and if the Opposition can carry conviction to the people that the danger is there, the normal course of approaching events will spread panic through the community; therefore, whether it is necessary or whether it is not, a situation has now been created which makes it necessary to stockpile." I think my colleagues were right in that decision, and we acted on it.
Amongst those who helped us, and I have no reason to believe they had any political sympathy with us at all, was this leather factory in Gorey. That factory to-day finds itself in this position: it is carrying more stock than its capital will finance. I say here and now, as a responsible member of the inter-Party Government at the time, by implication in any case we gave such people to understand that if that situation should supervene we, as a Government, would help them through their period of financial stringency. It is one of the most disgusting acts of treachery to public-spirited citizens here, who took the Government at that time at their word, that such people as the Gorey leather company are now required to put half their men out of employment because our successors in office will not redeem our pledge.
There is not a word of truth in that, and there are Deputies sitting behind Deputy Dillon who know that is untrue.
I am only quoting what I understood the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself to say here yesterday. I understood him to say in answer to a question put to him that he was informed that the difficulty there was that that company had accumulated large stocks and that they would either have to close down or put their men on half time.
The reply I gave was that the Deputies who asked them knew the circumstances that were affecting that company. I did not want to discuss them here. I do not want to discuss them now. The Deputy can be quite certain of this, that they are peculiar to that company.
My impression of the Minister's reply was in the sense I have now recorded in the House. I have no other source of information except the exchanges that took place in this House on that particular subject. But the Minister himself has said in respect of several other factories, like Salts and woollen cloth manufacturers and others, that these people are packed up with stock and cannot continue manufacturing because they are unable to market the surplus stocks they have got.
He said that about Salts, anyway.
Such people accumulated those stocks at the instance of the legitimate Government of this country, and I say the legitimate successor of that legitimate Government has a duty to honour the undertakings that were given and help those people to carry those surplus stocks until such time as they are liquidated.
There was no undertaking given.
I know that the Tánaiste loves to chop logic for the purpose of creating confusion and he waxes eloquent about imports, not of raw materials but of manufactured goods, and he instanced imports of cloth. But what he quite overlooks is this, that 12 months ago it looked highly likely that every readymade clothing manufacturer in this country was going to close down for want of cloth. Who bought the cloth? Was not it the clothing factories who wanted the assurance of being able to maintain employment? Is not it true that nine months ago, when the price of wool hit the roof, many woollen mills manufacturing woollen cloth notified their customers that they could make no delivery of cloth for six months?
It is not. The cloth was completely surplus to requirements and most of it is there still.
This statement is made by the Tánaiste, who argued for five days in this House that not one pound of stockpiling was done in the country. Is that true or is it false?
Quite true.
Were we not five days here with the Tánaiste leading for the Government on the thesis: "The whole stockpiling story is a fraud; there was nothing done"? Now he tells us there are mountains of cloth in the country, not one yard of which——
4,000,000 yards—special licences. The particulars are in the Dáil Library, if you want to read them.
Was the cloth raw material of the legitimate clothing industry, or was it not?
It was surplus to their requirements.
Was it the raw material of the clothing industry, or was it not?
These were special licences additional to the ordinary quotas.
Yes. It was stockpiling —s-t-o-c-k-p-i-l-i-n-g——
Wool tops.
For what purpose?
——which we were told in the Irish Press, in the Dáil, in the Seanad, in the country, never took place. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer was notified by the Irish Minister for Finance that in so far as Ireland's trade was in a state of in-balance it was not due to stockpiling; it was due to the profligate extravagance of the inter-Party Government. And the man that said that is going over to meet the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fortnight to give a list of the profligate extravagances of which Ireland has been guilty in the past 12 months and an undertaking——
What the Minister for Finance will discuss with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer does not arise on this motion. This is a motion to adjourn the Dáil until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 13th February.
We are seeking to ventilate the topics that we would wish to discuss.
I have allowed the Deputy a good deal of latitude on that matter but he must not pursue any indication of his opinion as to what the Minister for Finance of this State will discuss with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Unemployment in the building industry: I know of two specific cases. I know an hotel proprietor in a popular seaside resort who sought accommodation to build an annexe to that hotel of bedrooms, having adequate dining-rooms and refreshment accommodation in the hotel building, and who was told that she would not get a penny, that there was no money now, by direction of the Government, for capital expenditure of that kind. I know of a garage proprietor in one of the most populous centres of this city who asked for money to extend his garage premises on very valuable land which is now vacant, on the undertaking that the extension would enable him to employ 14 additional men and he was told he would not get a penny for a capital investment at the present time.
Is there a Deputy in this House who does not know of individual small builders who were proceeding on the basis of buying a piece of land, getting three or four customers for two pairs of houses, getting credit from the bank while the houses were a-building on the understanding that as soon as they were built the overdrafts would be paid back and the man would start another two pairs of houses? How many men who were engaged in that activity have quit in the last 12 months and gone to England?
Is it propaganda to direct the attention of this Oireachtas to the fact that restraint of credit with these results is a shortsighted folly and that there is nothing in our circumstances as a nation which could conceivably justify it? Is not it reasonable to ask for an opportunity to make the case that our economic circumstances are such and our economic prospects such that we may with every confidence continue to invest in our own country and that this is the time above all times when the safest bank into which our people's earnings can be put is the land of Ireland and the people of Ireland?
Listen to me. There is something people in this House are entitled to forget. Ireland has two economic peculiarities. Inflation can show itself in this country by excessive imports of consumer goods. I have asked the Tánaiste and all the members of the Government to analyse the list of our imports and show us where this excess of imports of consumer goods may be. In other countries monetary inflation will show itself as a rapidly rising price level for the supply of goods available. That might not happen here. But Ireland has another economic peculiarity. Unemployment will never show itself in Ireland with the dramatic obviousness that it shows itself in Great Britain or the United States because unemployment in this country has a natural tendency to transmute itself to emigration. And remember, if this country throws into periodic unemployment craftsmen, skilled workmen, they will not accept periodic employment. Why should they when, by travelling for three hours across the English Channel, they can get long-term permanent contractual employment at rates of wages fully equal to the rates payable here and with a prospect of higher overtime opportunity if they choose to take it.
It is just madness for us at this time to be stampeded by anybody inside or outside this country into driving people whose labour we urgently need into an emigration from which we struggled hard to drag them back during the last three years. I remember when the housing drive began it was a headache of the country that we could not get plasterers, we could not get carpenters, and we could not get joiners. We looked for them in England and got them in England. But we got them only on the understanding that they were coming home to permanent employment. If those men had not come home in anticipation that they would have to go back to Great Britain, all the King's horses and all the King's men would never bring them back again.
I understand that an order has gone out that no further machinery is to be purchased for the land project. I ask Deputies of this House to go and ask the men who are driving machines for the land project whence they came to that work. The last two men I spoke to before I ceased to be Minister for Agriculture I asked them where they learned to drive the bulldozer. One, a Mayo man, told me that he learned it on the groundnut scheme in North Africa and came back to Ireland when he got the chance of employment here at skilled rates of wages: and the man who was driving another machine told me that he answered the advertisement from the Suez Canal and was glad to come home to Ireland when he could get skilled employment.
Let this Government at their peril drive the likes of these men out to employment to the Colonies again and all the King's horses and all the King's men will never bring them back. I am talking of this not from the point of view of the men. I think the men are able to earn their living as can any man in a skilled trade. I am talking from the purely economic point of view of Ireland. Ask the Board of Works what was their principal problem on the Brosna Drainage Scheme and on the Clyde and Dee. It was not money and it was not material. It was to get men competent to work the drainage machinery and they got them from abroad, Irishmen who learned this work either in Great Britain or on works in Africa or the Near East. In addition to training the other chaps they told the chaps they were training what they were able to earn abroad.
If there is a cowardly interruption of the housing programme or the land rehabilitation programme an injury will be done to this country that no succeeding Government can repair, for we will lose the men who are fit to do the job. There is no use in sending out the Cabinet, whatever Party constitutes it, to drive bulldozers. They are not fit and the skill and capacity of those who are capable of doing it is one of the most readily saleable exports this country has, and it is one of the exports this country should be most reluctant to cash in upon.
I want, if all the hullabaloo is genuine, to discuss a question in this House and bring the Government to answer it, taking it as beyond question that increased agricultural production is fundamentally necessary to everybody in Ireland. If it is true that the first item in the hierarchy of agricultural production should be wheat, as Fianna Fáil says it should be, the Irish Land Commission have in their hand to-day thousands of acres of the best land in Ireland. In the course of the next three months they are going to set 100 per cent, of that land for grazing. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is setting up a State company to make grass meal on a virgin bog in Ennis.
I suggest the Deputy might discuss this when the legislation is before the House.
More fantastic than a proposal to grow pineapples in O'Connell Street. Surely if it is desirable to set up a special State body to grow grass on a virgin bog in Ennis the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture could set up an interdepartmental committee to grow wheat on the 50,000 acres of prime land at present untenanted in the hands of the Land Commission and which is at present in the process of being set on an eleven-month letting for grazing.
The Deputy has travelled over the entire purview of Government policy. I have no objection to his stating that these matters should be discussed and repeating what he thinks should be discussed, but going into the various merits of the different projects is a procedure which I cannot allow.
I can see that, but my purpose is to get time to go into their merits.
The Deputy is doing it.
I assure you what I have said is nothing to what I would have said, and it is to get time that I am asking the Government not to press this adjournment. I have mentioned matters of manifest and urgent importance. Do not forget that many disillusioned members of this House may take the cynical view, I know the Tánaiste does, that discussion in Dáil Éireann is unavailing and a waste of time. I know he would like to close "the talking shop" and get on with the job. There are still a good many people in this country who do not share that view. Mind you, it does something to lighten the burden of adversity. If these people have visible evidence that Oireachtas Éireann is conscious of their problem and honestly doing its best to resolve it, it is a good thing. Maybe we will not succeed in so doing. It is very galling for a man who is willing to work and proud of his capacity to work to keep his family unbeholden to anybody, if he gets a chance, to find himself without a job, or the means of getting a job, and to find the legislators whom he trusted to help him towards that admirable end going home for a fortnight's holiday on the grounds that they have nothing to do.
An Tánaiste to conclude.
Is he concluding or is he intervening?
I called on the Tánaiste to conclude.
The facts I want to put before the Dáil are these: The Dáil met this year on the 30th January which was a fortnight earlier than Dáil Éireann met after the Christmas recess for many years past. If this motion to adjourn the Dáil to the 13th February is passed, it will reassemble on an earlier date than that on which the Dáil met after Christmas for many years. The summoning of the Dáil for a date earlier than might otherwise have been chosen was decided upon by the Government, first of all, to give an opportunity of introducing various Supplementary Estimates which were thought might be ready, to dispose of any business that might be in line for debate, to give Deputies an opportunity of asking the 200 questions which they did, in fact, ask and with some expectation that the Bills which were introduced before Christmas might have been circulated in time to permit of the Dáil being asked to discuss them now. This procedure of summoning the Dáil for one week for the ordering of business for the session and then adjourning for a week has happened on many occasions. It happened frequently while the Coalition was in office and nobody ever suggested that it was not an inevitable consequence of the difficulty of arranging a full programme of Government business at the beginning of the session.
It is a proposal to adjourn for a fortnight.
The motion is to adjourn for a week—not to meet next week.
There is no desire whatever to prevent a discussion of motions by private Deputies. I have said already, by way of intervention, that since the present Government came into office it has been far more liberal in allowing time for the discussion of Private Members' motions and even in allocating Government time for that purpose than the Coalition Government ever was.
That is not true.
We will have a statistical calculation if you like. I admit I am speaking only from recollection.
The only occasion that Government time was allocated was when you ran out of business, as you did towards the end of last session.
On the contrary, towards the end of last session there was agreement that Private Deputies' motions would give way to Government business. I admit that I am responsible, to some extent, for the delay of two of the Bills which were introduced before Christmas — the Electricity Supply Bill and the Tourist Bill. The delay was partially due to some difficulties that emerged in drafting but it is mainly due to my personal preoccupation with administrative matters during the past month. One of the Bills is being printed at the moment and the other is going for printing very soon. It was a very slight error of calculation which prevented them being available. If we had foreseen that these Bills would not have been circulated in time for discussion here, we would, perhaps, have reassembled the Dáil a week later and nobody would have suggested that we were depriving Deputies of the right to discuss private business or that we were establishing a dictatorship, as Deputy Dunne has suggested.
The Government is fully aware of the seriousness of the economic problems of this country. It has been devoting a very large part of its efforts since it came into office to convincing Deputies opposite and people outside of the seriousness of such problems. On remembering the debates which we had here before Christmas, I regard it as our greatest achievement to date that Deputy Costello, Deputy Dunne and others regard these problems as so vital that it is taking an undue risk to adjourn the Dáil for a week, and so urgent that they desire to express their views on them at once.
Every day that you are making a hames of the situation makes matters worse.
That is a matter on which you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. Many of the statements made here to-day were fantastic nonsense, and most of them were made by Deputy Dillon. This is hardly an occasion on which to substantiate my opinion by argument.
I would like to refer to one other matter about which there has been some misunderstanding. Deputy MacBride, who is rather astute in these matters, tried to imply that I intimated that I would consider favourably the making available of Government time for the discussion of a motion in the names of certain members of the Labour Party. Incidentally, the motion is not put down in the name of the leader of that Party and, presumably, some significance attaches to that fact.
The motion is put down in the names of Deputies Norton and Larkin.
If he could get away with what he has said well and good.
In that case I am not clear as to the motion for which time is required.
Motion No. 22.
As a matter of fact when the Deputy referred to his motion yesterday I could not find it on the list of private motions.
It was there all the same.
When Deputy Norton asked me was I prepared to allocate Government time for the discussion of that motion, I could have said "No," but I thought it more polite to say that I would consider it. I certainly did not give any indication that I thought it desirable to make Government time available for its discussion.
The Tánaiste said he would consider the matter, and that he would inform the House of his decision next week. He is now proposing that we should not sit next week.
I said yesterday that we did not know whether the business ordered would be concluded yesterday or whether there would be business available for to-day. In any case there has been some misunderstanding as to the expectation of the time which the Second Reading of the Defence Bill would take. There has been a change in the arrangement for the Dáil programme arising out of the decision which the House is about to make to refer that Bill to a Select Committee rather than take it in Committee of the whole Dáil.
My point about Deputy Norton's motion is this. I do not want the House to think that I have given any undertaking of any kind whatever to afford Government time for this discussion or to consider favourably giving Government time for discussion. The suggestion will be considered. On looking through the motion, it seems to me that it would be foolish to set aside time for the discussion of a motion which relates mainly to a matter which will be, if my expectations are realised, the main matter in debate by the Dáil during the present session—the improvement of our welfare services.
Would the Minister agree that if a substantial portion of the House wish to discuss a matter it should be done?
I do not agree at all. In that connection, may I say that Deputy Costello was talking a lot of nonsense about his desire and the desire of his Party to discuss certain matters when there is no motion put down about the matters he wants to discuss? There was no intimation given, until Deputy Costello spoke, that there was any desire on the part of the chief Opposition Party to have time to discuss these matters. There must be some consideration given to members of the Government and intimation must be given in advance that there is a desire to have matters of that kind, matters of that importance, brought here for debate. It should be a question for the Government to consider whether, having regard to the business which it contemplates will come before the session, it is desirable to set aside time for a rushed debate upon an issue of that kind.
There were many suggestions that the Government, in proposing the postponement of the Dáil was engaged in some political manoeuvre. Yesterday, I did not think that this proposition would be made. When we considered the matter this morning, having regard to the state of business, I felt that the wiser course was to adjourn until Wednesday week and have a full amount of Government business for the House to deal with at that time.
I regret that that decision was not conveyed to the Opposition Whips. That was in part due to the fact that when the Parliamentary Secretary conveyed to me that the only business ordered for next week and available were the Supplementary Estimates introduced yesterday, I asked him, before taking that decision on myself, to check up with each individual Minister whether there was any question of policy which made it necessary that these Estimates should be passed by the Dáil next week. It was only late in the day that the Parliamentary Secretary told me that he had confirmed with each individual Minister concerned that the Estimates could be held over to the following week. I mention that to dispose of the ridiculous idea in regard to political manoeuvring. If anybody thinks we are afraid to give time to discuss the motion put down by the Labour Party, afraid of being defeated on that motion, may I point out that we can, at least, postpone that event by refusing to give time for it?
On a point of order and by way of personal explanation——
That is not a point of order.
I think Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll may rest assured that nobody believes what was said about him.
A personal explanation? Yes. That is all right.
In my absence it was suggested by Deputy O. Flanagan, I understand, that I indicated in some way to the Taoiseach or Tánaiste that I would not be available to attend the House next week. I should like to say that that is completely without foundation. I shall be available, if necessary, every day next week. Furthermore, I had no idea that it was intended to adjourn the Dáil to Wednesday week. I did not even know that the motion was going to be discussed or opposed.
The suggestions were typical of the man who made them.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, John.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Sweetman and D.J. O'Sullivan.
Motion declared carried.