Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 3

Vote of Confidence—Motion by Taoiseach (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government."—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Larkin

When I reported progress last night, I had been pointing out that the question before the House was directed to two members, Deputies Dr. Browne and Cowan. I also pointed out that, irrespective of the by-elections and irrespective of the viewpoint conveyed in the speeches from members of the different Parties, ultimately whatever decision was taken this evening would be the vote and responsibility of these two Deputies and their colleague, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. I went on to point out that nobody could cavil at them casting their votes any way they thought fit. That is the privilege of any member of this House no matter to what Party he belongs. But I did question thebasis on which they proposed to cast their vote and I questioned the basis on which in advance of the conclusion of the discussion they committed themselves to support the motion of confidence in the Government. It is as well not merely from the viewpoint of the life of the present Government but also from the point of view of trying to maintain some clarity in our political life that decisions of this character, which are so vital at the present time, would bear some relation to reality.

It is most difficult particularly for those of us who in many ways in the past and even to some degree at present have found ourselves on common ground with Deputies like Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan in respect of major matters of policy and social affairs to follow the peculiar development of their minds in relation to the last two years. I recall that Deputy Dr. Browne in particular has repeatedly expressed not merely opposition to the policies that have been pursued by the present Government but very grave concern. He did indicate at the time of the election of the Government which he supported that he had certain expectations as to how their policy would work out. Later he indicated that he had been gravely disappointed in so far as that policy had quite clearly brought about a position in which there had been a very considerable increase in unemployment and a very considerable increase in prices without as he had originally hoped a parallel increase in wages and salaries to compensate wage and salary earners.

On these basic issues it seems to be very difficult to understand and appreciate the position in this debate. Even within the past 24 hours in so far as the policy of the Government is concerned there have been major questions of doubt raised particularly by Deputy Dr. Browne. To-day the two Deputies to whom I refer find themselves, whether they like it or not or whether they appreciate it or not, supporting a Government which by some peculiarity now finds itself with responsibility for the situation in this country which was asked for in the report of the Central Bank and which quite clearly, as faras I can understand, cannot be accepted or endorsed by Deputies with the outlook of Deputies Dr. Browne and Cowan.

It is a most startling development to find that the policies adumbrated in that report by the Central Bank which were publicly repudiated by the Government and which the Government says they were not bound to follow have worked out in practice to such a very close degree on major economic questions and that after two years of watching the working out of that policy it is still possible for these two Deputies to justify the continuance of their support of the present Government.

Apparently, their justification is to be found not in any conviction that the policy of the Government is the correct policy but rather on the attitude that they must condition their support to the present Government by their attitude to what they regard as the record of the Fine Gael Party. One might quite well agree that the record of the Fine Gael Party over the period 1922 to 1932 was one that met with the opposition of practically all progressive elements in this country. One might take it from what was said by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan, particularly Deputy Cowan, that the record of the Fianna Fáil Party particularly in the period 1939 to 1947 was one that was opposed by all progressives. In that way, we have got almost an equal balance. But that in itself is not sufficient to explain their votes, nor is it sufficient to justify the manner in which they propose to cast their votes.

I posed a question last night, and I think it was a fair question. It was this: do these two Deputies prefer to see a position in this country in which the only choice which is going to be offered to the people is that of a Government by Fianna Fáil or by Fine Gael because that, in effect, is the position that they are helping to create. They propose to continue their support of Fianna Fáil and they propose to disassociate themselves from any alternative which is practicable and which can exercise any restraining influence or act as a brake, on themore conservative elements in Fianna Fáil and, on the other hand, can exercise pressure on the more progressive elements in Fianna Fáil.

Fianna Fáil, like every other Party in this country, is not homogeneous. It has its progressives and its conservatives, and to the extent that Fianna Fáil constitutes the Government, it is, I think, the duty of those of us who have a progressive outlook to try and do what we can to strengthen the progressive elements in that Party and ensure that they will follow more progressive lines. I do not know of any way in which that can be done by placing ourselves in thraldom to Fianna Fáil. Those Independent Deputies who have now gone through two years of that political thraldom not merely have not taken a different viewpoint from the Government on any major measures, but seem to find it impossible to dissociate themselves from even the most minor matters of policy. Deputy Cowan, particularly, is not merely an apologist for Fianna Fáil, but one must feel that his most nauseating qualities are somewhat sickening to the members of Fianna Fáil themselves. That, I think, is not a position that is easy to understand. The frequent little sparring matches that we used to have between the Minister for Finance and Deputy Cowan have now passed away, and the two are like cooing doves, the Minister for Finance patting Deputy Cowan on the head.

As regards the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to the Labour Party, one would gather from it and from the Irish Pressthat their hearts are bleeding for the Labour Party. We are told that the Labour Party are going to lose seats to Fine Gael, that the Labour Party is imperilled and with theSunday Presscalling Deputy Larkin to save the Labour Party from Deputy Norton. I wonder do they think that we are all children and that the Labour Party is run on the same basis as their Party — that, when the Leader comes into the room, all bow down. Deputy Norton is the elected Leader of the Labour Party, and to him we give our loyal support as the elected Leader, no more and no less. We have, within the Labour Party, that conception andunderstanding of Party loyalty which may appear somewhat peculiar to them. That kind of play-acting, while it might apparently bring results in regard to Deputy Cowan, is certainly going to have no effect in so far as the Labour Party is concerned, and Fianna Fáil knows that very well. But they are very clever politicians, and they realise that, with the help of their daily newspaper, it is very easy to cause confusion and create misunderstanding.

We have the latest example of that in this morning's Irish Presswith a seven-column heading: “Aiken's reply to Costello”. In smaller type we have a heading with what purports to be a quotation from the speech that I made last night. “We expect little from the Coalition: Larkin.” The statement I made was that when we entered the inter-Party Government we expected little from the inter-Party Government and I gave my reasons. It was an experiment. We were entering a field of activity where we had not got men who had experience of administration or the exercise of executive authority in Government Departments. The inter-Party were taking on responsibility for the first time and naturally we realised the difficulties and disadvantages of that. I made what I considered to be a reasonable, fairminded explanation as to why we did not expect undue results at that time.

Fianna Fáil is concerned at the moment not with what happened in 1948, but it is very much concerned with what is going to happen this afternoon, and as to what is the future that is facing them. They are very anxious to kill and destroy the idea in the minds of people in this country that there is any alternative to Fianna Fáil. To the extent that they can create, as they think, friction between the Labour Party and other Parties in opposition, and to the extent that they can create, by that type of deliberate distortion, misunderstanding, they hope to build up a wall of security around themselves, an atmosphere in which there will be complete division between all the Parties in opposition so that Fianna Fáil will be saved by that division. The Labour Party didparticipate in the inter-Party Government and to that extent they are still prepared to provide this country with an alternative to Fianna Fáil, subject to that alternative being in conformity with the central points in the Labour Party programme.

I think that in many ways we should give credit to Fianna Fáil for this, as I pointed out last night, that over a long period of years, even though there might be disagreement between the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil and even though for many years Fianna Fáil, as the Government of this country, did things that we thought were not proper and failed to do things that we thought were essential, yet the differences between us were not so sharp and a crisis did not arise; but with the continuance of the development of the more conservative aspects of Fianna Fáil policy and the growing reluctance on their part to give any heed to the viewpoint of the masses of the people and their growing disassociation with the actual lives of the people, breaking point finally came. The breaking point came in 1948 when we adopted our policy to meet what we thought was a critical situation. It was agreed upon at meetings of the Labour Party that on that point there was a growing demand and growing pressure from elements who have supported the Labour Party over many years. It was based simply upon the proposition that: "If we, the electorate, vote for Labour because we are opposed to Fianna Fáil how long are the votes we give to the Labour Party in the Dáil going to be used to permit Fianna Fáil to put through policies that we as ordinary electors are opposed to" and we finally had to make up our minds.

That applies to Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan because nobody in their sane senses will suggest that the election of Deputy Cowan and Deputy Dr. Browne was on the basis of the policy that has operated for the last two years. I do not think, in the wildest imagination, that Deputy Cowan or Deputy Dr. Browne received the votes given to them on the basis that their votes to-day in this House would be to justify a policy that has increased unemployment by nearly27,000 in two years. They were not given votes to support a policy that has increased the cost of living from 103 to 126 points in two years. They were not given votes to allow that increase to take place while at the same time the wages and salaries were adjusted by a maximum of ten points. Deputy Dr. Browne was not even given votes to support the type of Health Bill that has been going through the House.

Therefore, it is quite proper when facing the realities of this vote of confidence to try to examine the basis on which these Deputies propose to cast their votes. I put the question to the members of Fianna Fáil as I put it to those Independent Deputies. Are we to pursue a policy in which, as I say, the alternative to a Fianna Fáil Government is a Government composed solely of Fine Gael? I wonder do ordinary back benchers of Fianna Fáil ever ponder that question. The Tánaiste said last night that, in his opinion, we had now reached a stage of development in this country, because of proportional representation, in which Governments would have very narrow majorities. If Fianna Fáil cannot be the Government, whom do they want in their place? It is a fair question, and it is a fair question to Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan.

The country to-day cannot afford any longer government solely by Fianna Fáil or solely by Fine Gael. We have the record of Cumann na nGaedheal in ten years and we have had the record of Fianna Fáil. I think the majority of the people now feel that even though the progressive elements that are outside of those two Parties may be divided and splintered in this House much to our general misfortune, it is desirable that until such time as the present political situation has worked itself out there should be some kind of a break from either of the big Parties. That is the way the elections are going to work out for some time. There will be some period before any one Party in this country will have a clear and unequivocal overall majority.

If that is the case, then not merely the Labour Party but members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Independentsmust make up their minds what combinations will develop. If Fianna Fáil objects, as they have been so strenuously telling us, to any association of the Labour Party and Fine Gael to-day, will they tell us what the alternative is? Are we merely to give, as Deputy Cowan and Deputy Dr. Browne have given, unquestioning and servile support to Fianna Fáil no matter what they do as a Government? When we come back here after a general election and Fianna Fáil is a minority, votes given to the Labour Party are to be cast to return Fianna Fáil as a minority Government; and having done that they are to sit with their fingers in their mouths for five years or less while the machinery of Fianna Fáil continues to churn out their particular policy whether we like it or not and whether the Fianna Fáil back benchers like it or not. I see Deputy McGrath smiling.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

No wonder. You mean Fine Gael. You were thinking of the Coalition three years. It was a good curtain lecture.

Mr. Morrissey

It is extraordinary they never can take it.

Mr. Larkin

I would like to remind the Minister for External Affairs that the history of the last two years is exactly the history of the worst period since the time of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

Mr. Morrissey

Infinitely worse.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

Will the Deputy say what Social Welfare Bill the Cumann na nGaedheal Government passed from 1922 to 1932? Could he indicate one measure of social amelioration that they brought in? Did they not reduce the old age pensions?

Mr. Larkin

In 1947 the Fianna Fáil Government refused a miserable half-crown to old age pensioners on the grounds that the Government could not afford £500,000. Now when they have learned a lesson they can afford another £11,000,000. Incidentally on the subject of social welfare no matter how anxious the Labour Party may be to provide for it, there is somethingmore basic. There is no use setting out to provide social welfare as a sop for 27,000 additional unemployed men and women.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Larkin

I do not want to cover the ground again that I did last night in great detail. I want to mention one particular point. Deputy Dr. Browne has raised the question of the alternative. Deputy Dr. Browne has the same responsibility of any other member of this House for finding the alternative himself. If he fails to find it let him carry the responsibility outside. He has asked whether the Labour Party has its programme ready. I have already pointed out that the Labour Party does not propose to take a number of points from its general election programme and offer them to Deputy Dr. Browne, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or anybody else. We propose to contest an election on a Labour Party programme. We have to say quite clearly what we regard as essential. If nobody else feels they are essential, we are satisfied to stay where we are. We have no ministerial ambitions and from the point of view of the elections and the preparation of the Labour Party programme it is not a question of ambition. The Labour Party happens to have a democratic organisation and the question of that programme is now going through the process of that organisation.

In due time our programme will be presented not merely to the Party as a whole and to the public but also to Deputy Dr. Browne. Deputy Dr. Browne can quite easily set down the principal points of any programme on which the Labour Party could associate with other Parties and he will generally find that he and I would agree on the points which should be basic to any Government policy and they are the points he is not getting from Fianna Fáil. He realises that it is becoming vital to decide who is going to settle the financial and credit resources of this country. There is no difference between us on that. It has been indicated even by the Tánaiste that that is a problem that is presenting itself.

Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy Cowan and I will agree that the present unemployment position is of such a character that it should be treated as an emergency. I wait with interest to see whether the Taoiseach, when replying, will give the undertaking to Deputy Cowan which that Deputy asked for. Deputy Cowan asked for an assurance that the present unemployment problem will be treated as an emergency. I can see the Labour Party giving that undertaking but I wonder will he get it from the Taoiseach and, when he is not given it, will he still vote for the Government? Every vote that is cast by these three Independents may be divided into the 27,000 unemployed and each of those votes is equal to 9,000 idle men and women.

Equally with those Deputies the Labour Party can agree on housing. It is significant that in the period of two years in which this Government has been kept in office by the votes of these Deputies employment on local authority housing, which is the most vital factor and the most vital sector of housing, has dropped from 11,000 to 7,000 men. These Deputies in the Labour Party would not agree with that. They give credit generously to the fact that it was a Labour Minister, the late Deputy Murphy, who not merely initiated the present housing campaign but put such tremendous impetus into it that it is still rolling along after two years of Fianna Fáil attempt not merely to delay it and hold it up by their financial policy but by a continuous tightening up of red-tape regulations. So much so that in Dublin even the local members of Fianna Fáil on the council have to intervene with their own Minister to get him to relax the regulations.

Mr. McGrath

We have increased threefold in Cork City. Deputy Hickey knows that.

Mr. Larkin

Good luck to you. Why should not you?

Mr. McGrath

Why could not everybody else do it?

The Taoiseach

Why not Dublin?

Mr. Larkin

I understand that when we get the figures for Dublin this year, up to the 12 months ending in March, we may find that there has been a drop.

The Taoiseach

Through Government action?

Mr. Larkin

Not legislative action.

The Taoiseach

Administration?

Mr. Larkin

Administration.

The Taoiseach

I would like to see it.

Mr. MacBride

And through the increase in the bank rate.

A Deputy

Nonsense.

Mr. MacBride

It is not nonsense. That is what is controlling housing.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!Deputy Larkin.

Mr. Larkin

I would just point out that in 1951 in Dublin we lost nearly three months in our house building and we lost it by a decision made by the Minister for Local Government, which he subsequently reversed. That is one single instance.

The Taoiseach

What was that?

Mr. Larkin

It was in regard to the question of the granting of sanction for site development work and the submission of plans.

The Taoiseach

I am sure there is some good reason.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Some good reason?

The Taoiseach

Yes. There must have been.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course, there must have been.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

There must have been.

Mr. Larkin

However, let us conclude on the point. As I said earlier, I do not expect that Deputy Cowan,Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll will change their decision on this vote. These things do not happen like that but I do think it is important that they should realise what their vote signifies. In my opinion, while Deputy Dr. Browne has maintained a very strong personal support over the past two years, I understand that, in respect of wide sections of the people, week after week that support is departed from, not because of his attitude on questions of health but because health is not the whole sum and that one cannot cover by a progressive policy on health the support of a conservative policy on the basis of economic issues which determine the health of the people. That is the dilemma that Deputy Dr. Browne has got himself into and in which only he can make a decision. He is quite at liberty, if he is satisfied that his present policy is the correct one, to sacrifice his political support and his political future. I do not for a moment think he has got any personal ambition or is concerned in any way with being in public life from the point of view of any prestige. I think, even possibly, to some extent, it applies to Deputy Cowan although he has a little more ambition than Deputy Dr. Browne.

Neither of these Deputies nor Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll is entitled to sacrifice, in addition to their personal political prestige, the support and the sincerity that was given to them by their supporters and I frankly think it is a fair and straightforward question to put to these Deputies, whether they believe the men and women outside this House who voted for them in 1951 are convinced that they have been pursuing the proper policy during the past two years and are convinced that the votes of these three Deputies will be passed correctly in accordance with their mandate when they give this vote of confidence to the Government. I frankly do not think so. But, whatever may be my opinion or the opinion of Deputy Dr. Browne or Deputy Cowan, there is one other factor that we are all agreed on, that is, that we are the servants of the people outside this House.

It appears to me that the reluctanceof these Deputies to vote against the Government is based on one very simple fact—it is the same basis as conditions the attitude of the Government — that at the present moment a general election will result in reduced support for the Fianna Fáil Party. It is more than likely that their Government will not continue. It may be quite true, as the Tánaiste says, that as a Party it is quite proper for them to utilise every device of the parliamentary machine and of the Constitution to remain in office as long as they can in the hope that their policy, from their point of view, will show results that will swing opinion back. But, in the meantime, outside this House, there is a majority of people who do not want to wait, who want to have their ordinary democratic right now, to pass judgment on this Government.

The Government, as I say, is quite entitled to go on for the full five years, if they can, but I question whether Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll have an equal right to go against the clear expression of popular opinion in the by-elections and, quite clearly, against what must be the basic outlook of their own supporters and to allow this present situation to continue in which every vote cast by these three Independents represents 20,000 idle men and women and a balance of 9,000 idle men and women, when they cast their votes to keep this Government in office.

Mr. McQuillan

I listened very attentively to speakers on both sides of the House. I listened with very close attention to the speech made by Deputy Larkin last night and this morning, in which he gave the reasons for the political policy which Labour have pursued since 1948. His speech to my mind was a revealing and frank picture of the political situation as he saw it.

Deputy Larkin mentioned that it was the desire of each political Party in this House to achieve office without the support or assistance of any other political group. That is quite a reasonable statement. For many years past Fianna Fáil have adopted thatattitude. They were not prepared to take part in a Government unless they themselves had complete say. They were prepared to accept support from people on the side line but there was no part in that Government for people who were not members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

With regard to the Fine Gael view, it is quite reasonable for me to suggest that if they had the strength of Fianna Fáil they, too, would like to have a Government composed completely of Fine Gael Ministers but circumstances are such that at the moment and for many years to come I do not believe that the Fine Gael Party, even though they have shown a revival, will be in any position to assume office on their own. Consequently we have statements by the leaders of the Fine Gael Party that they welcome co-operation from other political groups in this House. In that respect they show more agility and a more intelligent approach than the Fianna Fáil Party have shown. The Labour Party, according to Deputy Larkin, would like to have enough Deputies in this House to give them a majority. As far as the Clann na Poblachta Party is concerned I was a member of that Party for a number of years and it was our desire always to have enough Deputies in this House to form a Government, but I gather from the statement made by the Leader of that Party recently that they no longer believe in a Government by Clann na Poblachta and that they have now changed to a policy that would give us a Government on the same lines as that in Switzerland.

The Taoiseach

Cows far away have long horns.

Mr. McQuillan

That was never the intention when that political Party was formed. I have nothing more to say on it except that I agree with Deputy Larkin in this, that in 1947 and 1948 when Clann na Poblachta began the policy we had in the Clann was the Labour policy and we made no bones about it that we were in thorough agreement with the Labour Party on all major issues. We believed that we would succeed in winning the support of the people of the country whereLabour, to my mind, had failed up to that, but there was no fundamental difference between us with regard to policy.

I came into public life as a member of Clann na Poblachta, as a firm believer in that policy which I have since pursued as an Independent. It was no desire of mine to be here in this House as an Independent. It was as the result of disagreement on a fundamental issue that I left the Clann na Poblachta Party in 1951, and from 1948 until the present time I have never made any secret of the fact that I had as little time for Fine Gael as for Fianna Fáil. If I had in 1947 and 1948 a belief that either of these Parties would solve the difficulties that faced this country and put into operation a suitable economic policy, then people like myself would not be in public life in Clann na Poblachta— we would be members either of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Consequently I find myself in a completely independent position in this House, with no allegiance to any political Party but with an allegiance to the policy which I pursued since I came into public life. I still say that, as far as I am concerned, as a young man I see no difference on fundamental matters between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. I know indeed that Fianna Fáil will disagree with me and feel very annoyed that such a suggestion is made. They can point, and rightly so, to many achievements in the field of social welfare and in certain advances made in the industrial life of the country. They can point to those achievements, and they deserve credit for them, but in fundamental matters I think there is no real difference. We have even to-day Deputy MacEntee across this House shouting that Fine Gael, or Cumann na nGaedheal as they were, reduced the old age pensions.

Fianna Fáil are making a vital mistake if they are harping on their achievements of the past with little to offer the youth in the future. That is the tragedy of this position that they have taken up to-day. It does not make the slightest difference to a young man or woman in Ireland, be it in Dublin or in rural areas, to-day what Cumann na nGaedheal didbetween 1922 and 1932. There is not one single extra vote going to go to Fianna Fáil for suggesting that Cumann na nGaedheal reduced the old age pensions in 1931. What the public want to see is what is going to happen from 1953 on, not what was the attitude of Fine Gael between 1948 and 1951.

Now, as I see it, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are fundamentally conservative in the major field, in one of the most important aspects of public life, that is the question of control of our own credit and financial system. I see no difference between the outlook of Fine Gael and that of Fianna Fáil in that matter.

Coming to the field of agriculture, I do not propose to go into it to any extent except to say this: Deputy Dillon is very fond of saying here in this House: "Let the facts speak for themselves." What progress has been made in the last 30 years under Cumann na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil in the field of agriculture? It has to be admitted to-day that little or no progress has been made in that most important aspect of our life. They both have their differences of opinion on a system but neither of them has so far made a success in the field of agriculture.

Let us have a look at the methods adopted by these major Parties for solving the unemployment problem. That problem has been there since 1922 and little or no improvement has taken place. Emigration goes on merrily all the time. Without going into detail too much I would like to suggest that the main plank of agreement between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the one thing in which one can see co-operation between both, is in their belief in private enterprise as a solution of our difficulties. Both of them have stated time and again that they believe that private enterprise, admittedly with a certain amount of State help, is going to be the solution to the problems in the West of Ireland and the problems of development generally. That is common ground. Both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael believe in that. Consequently there is to my mind a great difference between FiannaFáil and Fine Gael on the one hand and the Labour Party on the other.

Down the years Fianna Fáil have succeeded by good tactical manoeuvres in making Fine Gael to my mind really more conservative than they are. I am being perfectly frank in all this because I believe we must face facts. I would like to say that I believe this country has now reached a new stage in political development and that the causes of what we are discussing to-day in this House started away back in 1947 or 1948. Deputies will recollect that in 1947 there were three by-elections and that a new Party on the political scene, Clann na Poblachta, swept the decks in two of those by-elections. It must be remembered that they were new, they had no organisation worthwhile, but in spite of that they won two seats from Fianna Fáil, against the Government. That showed that in 1947 people were getting very dissatisfied with this big Fianna Fáil machine. In other words in 1947 and 1948 Fianna Fáil was slipping back. I do not propose to deal in any detail with what happened between 1948 and 1951 except to say that Clann na Poblachta played an important part in public life in those days, even earlier, from 1947, because they gave a feeling to the people that there was hope for the future, that there was a chance that other people could guide the destinies of this country apart from Fianna Fáil and the present Taoiseach. The Clann failed, and failed badly. We will leave it at that, but if they did nothing else they put new life into Fine Gael.

I remember that in Galway in 1948 Deputy MacEoin was speaking in the square and said that Clann na Poblachta was only a chip off Fianna Fáil and that the chip would return to the block in a very short time. Even there the belief was prevalent amongst Fine Gael that Clann na Poblachta represented the more progressive view of the Fianna Fáil Party and that much of the support coming to Clann na Poblachta was coming from former Fianna Fáil supporters who had become dissatisfied with the Fianna Fáil outlook and programme between 1938 and 1947.

In 1951 the people were bewildered and the general election showed that they had not made up their mind what they really wanted. Fianna Fáil got a chance. They had regained a certain amount of support from Clann na Poblachta but the remainder of the people decided to stay aloof and wait patiently until they would see what was going to happen. In the period 1947-48, Fianna Fáil got a bad fright and they got three years in dry dock to make changes. They came back here in 1951 a little chastened but with no new blood—or there may have been new blood but no young blood on the Front Bench. They spent the next three years carrying on as if there had been no break between 1948 and 1951; they carried on in the same way as they did between 1938 and 1947.

We are coming to a transition period in Irish politics. To my mind, the old generation represented both in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is losing its grip. A new approach on economic matters is needed here in this House. As I have already said, Fine Gael have shown more ability to adapt themselves to changing circumstances and changing times. I do not know what is going to happen here on this motion, but judging by the result of the by-elections, if there were a general election in the near future, Fianna Fáil is facing a period in the political wilderness. That may happen this evening or it may not happen for 12 months or two years; but I believe you cannot stop the avalanche, that the tide has turned and that Fianna Fáil is going to lose. Whether they can postpone their defeat this evening is another matter. They will have to face the wilderness, be it in 12 months' time or two years' time, and no action that they take in the meantime can stop the avalanche overwhelming them.

I have the greatest admiration for Deputy de Valera as Taoiseach. He is an individual, as Deputy Larkin said last night, who has his own place in Irish history. It might be no harm for Fianna Fáil now to put the ship into dry dock. There is a lot of timber on that boat that needs replacement. There is a new set of officers needed— and I think that a new captain on thebridge at this stage would be no harm. There should be more promotion from the ranks and a new crew taken in and a chance given to them. A period in the dry dock for Fianna Fáil would do them good. They would have a chance to study and see where mistakes were made and to put a more progressive policy before the people in future. That means, of course, that while they are there a new ship will be launched to guide the destinies of the State — and I, personally do not envy the captain with the crew. No doubt there will be many on that boat very fine members, good officers, but he will have some brigands as well. There is no doubt that on any boat like this you are bound to have a few who are out for plunder. You will have that on the next ship that sails — but that is inevitable in Irish public life.

Deputy de Valera has suggested that as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned they represent the Irish people. The inter-Party Government, as it was in the past, was a matter of different sections of the community pulling together. Fine Gael represented one section; Labour, Clann na Poblachta and Clann na Talmhan represented other sections. Surely if Fianna Fáil represents the people, as Deputy de Valera suggested, it must represent, in order to get the support it has here, the big farmer, the small farmer, the poor man, the rich man, the industrialist and the labour groups; and are not all those groups inside Fianna Fáil fighting their corner? Is not the same thing happening in an inter-Party Government, with only this difference, that in the inter-Party Government— I am not going to stick to the last inter-Party Government, but any type of inter-Party Government—they can fight their corner in a Cabinet or common room and in the interests of all concerned hammer out a policy?

The Taoiseach

Why not do that before an election?

Mr. Morrissey

Let the Deputy make his speech.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy does not mind a question — he can look afterhimself and does not need Deputy Morrissey——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the debate continue without interruption.

Mr. McQuillan

I think it is a very constructive suggestion. I agree thoroughly with the Taoiseach. I do not think it is a good thing as a rule to buy a pig in a bag. I think it would be a good thing if the various Parties going to form an inter-Party Government or multi-Party Government would sit down and agree to hammer out a policy, so that the Independents and everyone else would know what they were facing. I have no objection to that and that is what I would like. I am trying to point out that as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned they are really a group of Parties that are held together by the personality of the Taoiseach himself.

Mr. Blaney

The policy is known in advance.

Mr. McQuillan

As far as I am concerned, it should be quite clear to anyone who wishes to check on my attitude in this House what I propose to do in connection with this vote. This motion says: "That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government". The word "reaffirms" is very significant as far as I am concerned. The day this present Government took office I saw no reason why I should have confidence in Fianna Fáil going back into power and I am afraid my judgment was right at the time. I say I am afraid, because the results have been sad in the last two years for many of our people. To my mind, this vote of confidence would mean that if I wanted to support the present Government on certain issues I would have to take responsibility, a certain amount of responsibility, for the budgetary policies that have been pursued in the last two years. I could not accept any responsibility whatever. I never agreed from the word "go" with the method adopted by Fianna Fáil in their efforts to clear up the alleged mess. If that mess did exist, they should have found another way out of the dilemma because further hardships were imposed.

I think the Taoiseach was very foolish in putting down this motion. It is quite clear that there have been issues in this House on which I gave support to the present Government, and I made clear in my remarks here on the day that the Taoiseach was elected that, even though I was not supporting him as Taoiseach, if good legislation was introduced I would have no hesitation at any time in giving my support to that legislation, and I have done so. At no time have I tried to take advantage of the Government's weakness with regard to numbers in this House for the sake of putting them out and I have no intention at any time of lending myself to any such proposal or action. But this is a different matter.

Last night the Tánaiste said that good times were coming. I have not been many years in this House but the longer I am here the more cynical I am becoming with regard to the good times promised. The Tánaiste said that the worst part of the blizzard was over and that good times were coming. He made the reasonable case from the political point of view that Fianna Fáil having weathered the storm were entitled to the political benefits of the victory which will come in the next two years, that they are entitled to get from the people an appreciation of Fianna Fáil's efforts. That is asking a little too much. I do not believe that in the next two or three years there is going to be a Utopia in this country. If the main reason why this motion was put down, as the Tánaiste said, is that Fianna Fáil want a chance in the next two years to reap the political benefits of their budgetary policy of the past two years, then I do not see how I can support them.

May I say that as an individual I dislike intensely the idea of having to face the electorate in a strenuous campaign? I know perfectly well that every Independent Deputy will have to face the power of the political Parties in an election. I have very many political scars left on me after the last election. I can say quite definitely that I owe no thanks to any political Party for assisting or helping me in thelast general election. As a matter of fact, I was more slandered by political groups on the Opposition side than by Fianna Fáil. Having looked at the matter calmly and conscientiously and taken into consideration the results of the by-elections, I feel that the most reasonable course for the present Government to pursue would be to ask for this vote of confidence in the polling booths and not in this House.

I say that in the knowledge that if there is a general election there will be a strengthening of Fine Gael. I believe that is bound to come, but we can do nothing about it. Even if the election is postponed for 12 months, it will be all the same. But I think a strong Labour Party, perhaps with Independents in this House, will ensure that we will not have an overall majority again in this House for any Party that will trample on the lives of the people, especially the poorer sections. I think there will be sufficient Deputies to ensure that that state will not be reached. In addition to that, I do not think we should treat the Irish people as fools. Having had experience of this type of majority dictatorship for 17 or 20 years, I would say that they will be very slow to hand the reins of office to another Party, who differ very little from that particular organisation, to allow them to pursue a similar course of action for four or five years. We need not worry about that. I do not know what will happen as far as this vote of confidence is concerned, and if the Government do stay on, I want to reiterate what I said on a former occasion, that if there is good legislation introduced in this House, no matter who likes or dislikes it, I will support it at any time.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Childers)

Listening to Deputy McQuillan, I realise that it is a matter of considerable difficulty for those Independent Deputies who have been watching the progress of the country in the last few years to separate the two aspects of Fianna Fáil policies, that aspect which is concerned with putting the finances of the nation into order and that which relates to our permanent policy for the nationaldevelopment of the country. But at this stage it is essential for us on this side of the House to reiterate the statement that everything we have done in the past and everything that is going on at present indicates that we are in no way reactionary, that we have formulated most of the advanced policies, indeed virtually all of them, which have brought progress to the country in the belief that the people can stimulate economic activity through their own Government.

That idea was initiated by us and it still is our conception. The idea that the State can stimulate private enterprise, can assist private enterprise, can replace private enterprise where it is absent, is being pursued at a far higher level of activity than it was during the period of the inter-Party Government. So far as giving private permanent employment is concerned, employment that lasts, employment that is not based on false economic ideas, employment that is not purely temporary, we still have in our Party credit for most of the ideas, for most of the policies, and we can point to most of the results.

I hotly resent the suggestion either by members of the Labour Party or any Independent Deputy that we lack initiative, that we are reactionary, that in any sense we are a Party who are not prepared even to take risks when we think risks are worth taking in helping to stimulate industry in this country. We have at this moment a long term programme for agricultural and industrial development. We believe quite sincerely that if the people of the country can watch the progress of that programme and co-operate in making it a success we shall prove that we have, as we have had in the past, the know-how in regard to the regeneration of this country, in regard to overcoming all the evil results of our history. It is for that reason that we have asked for this vote of confidence in this House.

It has cost this country tens of millions of pounds in the past 20 years to half convert the Fine Gael Party to some of our ideas. Their blocking tactics in the past have made our problem in the future more difficult.They have delayed progress, have delayed in giving the people of this country confidence in their own institutions and in their ability to progress. The Fine Gael Party has been spoonfed with Fianna Fáil doctrines. The only normal thing in their policy is the result of their attempting, urged by Labour, to look through Fianna Fáil spectacles and these spectacles have never fitted and we do not believe they ever will fit.

I believe myself that a great number of their own supporters in the country have no genuine belief in some of the Fianna Fáil policies which they have half-adopted, and have been compelled to half-adopt through pressure that has been placed upon them by the Labour Party. You might say that pressed by the Labour Party, their policy has been a stilted imitation of some aspects of Fianna Fáil policy, served up with a rather doubtful sauce in order to make it more attractive. We have had evidence recently that they were prepared, if they think it pays them, to become more conservative again, and some of the observations they made on social welfare and health, and their failure to pass the Social Welfare Act in their term of office, were evidence of the fact that I do not believe they have a real genuine philosophy of their own. During their term of office they neglected many aspects of Fianna Fáil policy which was left to them in the form of plans in operation or about to come into operation and showed once again their conservative instincts. There was an obvious case for the expansion of the sugar-beet industry, but it was not expanded. There was an obvious case for the expansion of the machine-won turf industry, but no action was taken for two years. In regard to a number of major industrial developments they delayed taking any decision. In regard to the tourist industry, they failed to amend legislation governing the administration of the Tourist Board. That was left to us. They did not inaugurate any new policy of note. I think the only single new policy they had was that in connection with the Local Authorities (Works) Act. They boasted a lot about the land rehabilitation scheme, but what they were doing was changing theemphasis in regard to certain details of administration in respect of the land reclamation scheme and they gave it a new name — the land rehabilitation scheme.

They talked a lot about capital development, as though they had invented the idea, but the idea of encouraging private and public capital investment was the exclusive invention of Fianna Fáil, done in spite of opposition by Fine Gael. And after all the talk and boasted achievements, in this year we are spending far more money on our own Fianna Fáil capital development schemes than they spent, and we are doing it in a sound way. We are raising money in a sound manner.

During the course of the by-elections that have taken place, I tried to find any reference to how the Fine Gael Party would face the problems of the day, and during this debate I have listened to nothing but abuse with no positive suggestions. There have been vague suggestions that if they were returned to office they would prune public expenditure. They are well aware that we have got to make savings of some considerable amount in order to balance this year's Budget. They are well aware that we have had to desist from the habit of overspending during the financial year in order to balance the present Budget. But beyond trifling suggestions for economies we have had no definite proposal as to how they would prune expenditure or suggestions by means of which they would reduce taxation. We have had all sorts of vague suggestions about restoring subsidies but they have not given any evidence of showing where they are going to find the money to restore subsidies— whether they wish to leave the Budget unbalanced deliberately — or whatever action they propose they have not indicated it to this country.

They have talked vaguely about making use of external assets but they have given no details either to the country or to the House as to how they would make use of these assets. We have challenged them and said that there was not very much over£120,000,000 reserves left and asked them what they would do; what way they would diminish that reserve or at what point they would stop, or for what purpose they would reduce the reserves. We have had no positive statement from them whatever. We have made it clear that we are perfectly willing to make use of investments in England for productive purposes and that when the net reserve is reduced to an amount that bears some reference to one year's imports that care must be exercised. We have no conservative view about the repatriation of assets. We have had a lot of vague talk by members of Fine Gael without any indication of how they would use the assets if given an opportunity. Many vague references were made to the high rates of bank interest by some members of the Fine Gael Party but none of them committed himself to any action in that regard, and in fact, most of the suggestions they made in regard to economic policy were suggestions concerning matters about which if they were really sincere they would have commenced detailed investigation during their last term of office. Anything that looks advanced in Fine Gael policy in connection with economics must obviously be studied carefully and if they had any sincerity they would have set about the investigation of such fundamental problems as rates of interest and control of finances and so forth. It is very easy to talk vaguely about these matters but the proof of their sincerity would have been the investigation of these matters either by themselves or any kind of commission or committee they cared to set up. They set up no commission or committee and so far as external assets were concerned the strangest irony of the whole situation is the fact that they actually invested huge amounts of securities in Great Britain and it was only after they had left office that they were liquidated.

Mr. MacBride

I thought we squandered all our assets.

Mr. Childers

I am just about to tell the Deputy the facts.

The Taoiseach

Is that a fact or is it not?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order!

Mr. Childers

I said that the strangest irony in regard to their policy was that it so happened that during their term of office as a result of the method they used to spend the Marshall Aid loan they actually piled up British assets. I said that it was an ironic situation and that is what it is, although Deputy MacBride does not like it.

Mr. MacBride

I thought the charge was that we squandered the money.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy wants to run away from the point and raise a red herring.

Mr. Childers

It was only found afterwards that as a consequence resulting from the failure to balance the Budget and failing to observe modern laws of economics that are understood by every country in Europe that an enforced liquidation of assets took place.

Mr. MacBride

That is utter nonsense.

General MacEoin

Clotted ignorant nonsense is the word.

Mr. Childers

We claim on this side of the House that the Opposition have grossly exaggerated the difficult conditions of to-day.

We are well aware that times are difficult for housewives in this country and in all countries in Europe, in countries that never saw the war, in countries that remained neutral during the war and in countries that gained in prosperity as a result of the war. The difficulty of the cost of living is to be found everywhere, but we think that it is completely wrong and recklessly dishonest to exaggerate these things. We do not admit that misery and starvation are stalking the land. We have only to go around the country and to travel abroad to other countries to realise that we managed to survive a difficult period in our economic history reasonably well and that, provided there is some stability of Government and a lively vigorous Government with a forward constructive policy, economic conditions should improve. Ithink the lie No. 1 in regard to the whole of the latter during the election took shape in the deliberate attempt to persuade the people of this country that the increase in the cost of living was caused solely by this Government, that there was something unique about it, and that there were no other countries in the world in which the cost of living had risen to the same extent as it had here. Deputies opposite, during the election, poured forth their tearful sympathy with the people so cruelly treated, and they made bloodcurdling attacks on the Government which they alleged were solely responsible for the increase in the cost of living.

It is much easier to rant and exaggerate about that matter than it is to tell the dull facts, because facts to refute that sort of talk are dull and unimpressive to the people of a country who have to buy their requirements and who, like the people of every other country, find the cost extremely high. The propaganda indulged in suggests that we can remain isolated from the rest of the world and that no matter what happens outside the country, costs here can somehow be kept down. At one time subsequent to 1950 and the outbreak of the Korean war, if Deputies study in detail the commodities indices, they will find that a great many raw materials increased temporarily by 100 to 120 per cent. above the pre-June, 1950, cost. All these materials introduced into the manufacture of goods here had a tremendous effect on the cost of living. Members of the Opposition like to give the impression to the people that the price of agricultural produce can rise in this country by 40 per cent. since 1947 and that that will have no effect on food costs in general, whereas it must alter the scale of living costs inevitably.

It is just as well to give some facts in regard to the position in relation to the cost of living in this country compared with others. I got from the United Nations statistics, a statement of the principal countries in Western Europe and how the cost of living stood in 1950 as compared with 1938.

Mr. MacBride

Between 1938 and 1950? This is 1953.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy can have the figures. He does not like to hear of what happened during the three years of the Coalition, during which they had an opportunity of proving all the assertions they made of gross profiteering and during which they had an opportunity of correcting the price control administration, examining it and making it better if they could. In 1950 in comparison with 1938, Ireland was about halfway down the list, so to speak, of ten principal European countries in the order of cost increases. There was a number of these countries in which the cost of living had gone up less than here, partly because of subsidies and partly because of the strength of their currencies, and there was a number in which the cost of living had gone up more than in this country, partly because of war destruction, partly through an evident lack of good price administration and partly because of inevitable losses associated with severe destruction. In any event Ireland was just about halfway down the list.

If the position is again examined in 1953, after the Korean war and after all the difficulties of rising costs, it will be found that this country is still about in the same position — about halfway down the list, with countries above it and countries below it. I shall not go into the figures in detail but they reveal that there has been nothing abnormal here in regard to that situation. The cost of living has gone up in two relatively undamaged countries in Europe and in a neutral country in Europe as much as it has here. Of course, it is very easy to try to persuade the people of the country that we are responsible for all of it but it is far more difficult to refute that statement because people are naturally human. They like to blame someone for the ills and the difficulties that beset them but, as I have said, if any Deputy cares to study in detail the United Nations figures for the increase in the cost of living he will see that the position is as I have described it.

I am not blaming the Coalition Government for the fact that Ireland was just halfway down the list as I have said. That is not my point. Ihave indicated the reasons for other countries being in a better position in regard to the cost of living — such as subsidies for which taxation has to be raised, and in these countries taxation would be higher than here — and the reasons on the other side of the fence so to speak. The point is that after the difficult position created by the Korean war there is no evidence, as far as I can see, that the cost of living became uncontrolled. In other countries which had to face similar difficulties to those which we had to face, control was maintained but certain countries, either because they were damaged during the war or partly for reasons of bad administration were not able to maintain effective control and the increase in the cost of living was greater in these countries than in this country. Some countries through the strength of their currencies continued to be slightly better than we were in regard to the cost of living, but in general, the position of this country was maintained.

Listening to the debate in this House one would get the impression that there had been no increase in wages since 1950. I think it is essential to stress again that, while the position is not as satisfactory as we should like it to be, the increase in wages that has taken place since 1950 has gone at least some distance to compensate for the increase in costs. I wish to stress again that we wish that to be so. We made it perfectly clear that under present circumstances the best thing for this country was to have a realistic approach to the cost of living and that the only way of doing that was to reduce the subsidies and to compensate for that by increased children's allowances and by making it evident that wages must increase. Listening to some Deputies you would imagine that there had been a complete standstill in wages since 1950, that no compensation had ever been given either in the form of children's allowances or increased benefits to the workers of this country, and that they were not in the same position in that regard as they were before costs increased. I think it well to stress that that is not the case.

In the course of his speech, theTaoiseach gave some account of the difficulties through which we have been passing. I think it is well to stress again that nothing exceptional that has happened in this country has not happened everywhere else. Previously, I recorded, for the future history of the Dáil, many quotations from the reports of international economic organisations which foretold very accurately exactly what would happen once the boom, stimulated by the Korean war, commenced. As I have said, the results have been similar in practically every other country. The only difference between this country and some other countries is the fact that the last Government, who pretend to be modern economists and who pretend, I presume, to understand modern economic theories with regard to the extent to which the State can influence economic development — which, I suppose, has best been propounded by the late Lord Keynes — thought they knew all about them but certainly they applied them in a completely crazy manner.

Economists, either those representing the socialist school or those of the more conservative type, do not differ very much any longer. They have more or less the same ideas. But the last Government, by failing to balance the Budget of 1951, broke every known modern economic principle. There was nothing modern in that whatever. There was nothing up to date about it. It was simply the result of careless government. It had no economic foundation. It was a policy that would not be recommended either by the socialist economic advisers in Great Britain or by what might be called the advanced semi-socialist administrative liberal Administration of Sweden. It was solely a political device to escape disaster and it made the difficulties for us, who succeeded that Government, all the greater. We had to clear up the mess and apply what we believed to be up-to-date economic principles. The result was unpleasant for everybody. Those results are now passing away. Even their prophecies proved wrong. They said that the present Budget would show a surplus of £10,000,000. In thatconnection, it is interesting to remind the members of the Labour Party that the economic adviser of their own T.U.C., at the time of the Budget, said that in his view the picture was false. He condemned the Budget, but he made it quite clear that he did not believe there would be a surplus—and he proved right in the event. There was no surplus.

I do not believe that members of the Labour Party should have any great satisfaction in the acts of Fine Gael. My own belief is that their support of Fine Gael is not justified in their own interests. If they really consider long-term policy and long-term progress, and forget the difficulties of the past two years, I do not believe they should have any great faith in the Fine Gael Party in the future. Members of the Labour Party disliked the corrective effects of our economic policy and were disappointed that the cost of living continued to rise for a time. They were disappointed at our having to reduce the subsidies. At least, I should like to draw to their attention the fact that we put through this House a Social Security Act, the fact that business is slowly but steadily improving, the fact that unemployment is steadily decreasing——

Mr. MacBride

What nonsense.

Mr. Childers

——and that it is not decreasing through the use of what might be described as "slush" money. It is decreasing because of confidence in the people and improvement in conditions. Unemployment is decreasing by reason of the passing away of the stockpiling period and because of the fact that industries are commencing operation on a bigger scale than ever as a result of Government policy.

Mr. MacBride

Surely the Minister does not assert that the unemployment position is improving?

Mr. Childers

I have not finished my statement with regard to unemployment. With regard to the State's influence in providing employment and overcoming the effects of the trade recession, we are doing all we can.

Mr. MacBride

What, for instance?

Mr. Childers

We have increased capital expenditure to £39,000,000 in the current financial year.

Mr. Morrissey

Tripe.

Mr. Childers

We are running rings around the Opposition in regard to the application of a capital programme policy. I think myself that it is a matter which seems to have escaped the attention of quite a number of Deputies in the Labour Party.

Mr. A. Byrne

What have you done for the Dublin unemployed? Nothing.

The Taoiseach

What has the Dublin Corporation done?

Mr. Childers

We are spending twice the amount on hospitals that the Coalition spent.

Mr. Morrissey

The longer you are there, the more hospitals you will require.

Mr. Childers

More schools are in course of erection than at any time during the term of office of the Coalition Government. We are spending about five times as much on land reclamation as was spent in the last full year of the Coalition Government. We are employing more people on arterial drainage than were employed by the Coalition Government in their last full year of office. We are planting far more acres of forest than were planted by the Coalition Government in their last two years of office. We are providing more money for roads. We have multiplied the machine-won production of turf by three, compared with what was done in the last full year of the Coalition Government.

The number of consumers in the rural network of electricity has been increased by 30 per cent. We are providing 11 new power stations for using native fuels. During the whole term of Office of the Coalition Government, no power station was sanctioned which was to burn native fuel of any kind. We have schemes for harbour development. No work was done in that regard by the Coalition Government:it is now being done by the Fianna Fáil Government and it is giving employment. We have arranged for the ordering of new ships by Irish Shipping Limited. Nothing was done in that respect by the Coalition Government. Measures to expand tourism are now in operation and the number of new industries that are starting is constantly increasing. Therefore, so far as one of the major features of what is known as modern economic policy to overcome trade recession is concerned, not only are we doing more work but we are employing more people and spending more money than was ever spent by the Coalition Government. It is a major feature of what is known as modern economic policy. I do not believe myself that there are any panaceas in this world for some of the ills of mankind. Even when the Government spend large sums in regard to capital development, there may be certain adverse repercussions. Believing that the national development of this country has long been delayed through historical influences, all we can say is that we are employing this policy in full measure and are devoting a sum of nearly £40,000,000 this year to capital expenditure.

I took occasion to examine some of the economies in other European countries where there are, shall we say, advanced administrations or administrations that are not reactionary, where the interests of the workers are safeguarded and where the State assists private enterprise. I found that the money that will be spent in this country this year, as a percentage of the income of this country, is as high as in any other country in Europe. We have nothing to be ashamed of. There is no sign of any conservatism on our part. If you compare the capital expenditure, exclusive of any defence construction, in this country this year with that of any of the modern countries in Western Europe, the comparison is excellent, so far as we are concerned. There is no evidence of any kind of reactionary feature in the economic measures taken by the Government.

So far as the unemployment that now exists is concerned, the House hasheard from both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce the measures taken to speed up works, the plans for which have been under consideration, in the Dublin area and other areas. I wish to stress again that we are fully aware of the present difficulties being experienced in the constructional trades and it is interesting to note that the previous Government never even thought of what was going to happen if local authority works ceased in certain places because the schemes were completed. No preparations were made by them to provide for that situation.

Mr. A. Byrne

They were held up by the Government.

The Taoiseach

That is not so.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy, as usual, misunderstood me. I was speaking of areas in which local authority works have been more or less completed. If in a certain county, due to the good work of the county council, the vast majority of houses required have been built, there is immediately a problem of how to employ people in the building trade in the area. They have been trained for a particular class of work and they cannot be asked to go to knit socks in another place. It is a real problem, a problem the present Government have to face. Our attitude is, first, that we have far higher expenditure on capital works of every kind which create a good effect in every area and, secondly, we are hastening the examination of schemes where this unemployment is particularly severe, schemes which still exist and are still required. Everything is being done in that regard.

When I was interrupted by the Deputy, I wanted to say that we would much prefer to have these people given jobs of a more or less permanent character. We want to stimulate permanent employment, employment that can be assured for a number of years. We know more about how to give employment to people than any other Party, because it was we who initiated nearly all the schemes for giving employment and for solving this problem. We know the problem is not easy to solve, but we are tackling it asrapidly as we can. I want to make it quite clear that if the unemployment problem in Dublin and certain other areas cannot be solved by our bringing to fruition a regular series of schemes that are likely to continue for a number of years, quite definitely other measures of a more emergency character will have to be adopted; but it is very much better to have a series of schemes going into operation, giving sound employment over a number of years than to provide schemes of a purely emergency type. We are considering employment both from the point of view of the permanent series of schemes and the provision of emergency employment.

It is absolutely clear that, in the world in which we live, no Government could tolerate persistent unemployment in a trade where employment could be given by asking all the people to contribute their means to ensure that schemes will be provided. We in Fianna Fáil certainly hold to that point of view. There are some forms of unemployment that are very difficult to deal with — employment in skilled industries where workers have been trained in only one kind of work and where there may be a temporary recession, due either to excessive imports, as took place during the period of office of the Coalition Government, or some other cause such as a sudden ceasing or reduction of public demand. For example, recently there was some recession in the motor car assembly industry, but now one has only to look at the registration number plates in Dublin to realise that the demand is coming back again for private cars. The industry, I think, has gone through its period of recession and conditions in it are better.

In regard, however, to what might be described as the constructional trades, I hold the view that the Government has an obligation to do all it can and we are examining the position. My own belief is that we shall be able to tackle the problem satisfactorily. There is a certain hard core of unemployment about which I need not go into detail because it has already been mentioned by other speakers but which no Government,neither this nor the previous Government, has yet solved. Average unemployment during the years of the Coalition Government remained at a comparatively high figure compared with some other countries. They were not able to solve the problem. They had a level of some 7, 8 or 10 per cent. of unemployed as compared with the whole working population, whereas certain other countries, I think, largely because of defence commitments, were able to reduce that percentage.

The last Government were not able to solve the problem, and during their period of office about 100,000 people left the country in addition. To my mind, it is extremely dishonest for any person to say here that he can solve the problem of the hard core of unemployment, unless he gives very specifically an indication of how he proposes to do it. Most people who talk about the hard core of unemployment never give details and never explain how they are going to overcome some of the adverse reactions that might arise if they attempted to solve it. I have been speaking about the particular problem which we have faced recently, and my own belief is that Fianna Fáil has all the "know-how" and all the ability to solve that problem.

Deputy Larkin referred to our action in connection with the Central Bank Report. I do not know whether it is necessary for me again to state very definitely that we did not follow the proposals the Central Bank Report made to us. We took some of the statements made as a warning, but in regard to their principal proposals, we have done exactly the opposite. We believed that their advice should be examined and that their evidence in regard to statistical economic facts should be examined. Many of the facts they put forward were correct. We thought their proposals were much too drastic, but I want to say again that I as an individual and collectively as a member of the Government will not be associated with the slavish acceptance of the Central Bank Report put forward byDeputies of the Labour Party. I deny it.

The principal proposals were that we should cut down public works— we did not cut down expenditure on public works; as I have already indicated a record amount of money is being spent this year under the heading of public and capital works. The second proposal was that certain capital types of work should be paid out of current income and not by borrowing. We did not do that; we are borrowing money for all our capital works. The other main proposal made was that we should have a large Budget surplus to correct inflation. There never has been a Budget surplus; there was a slight Budget deficit last year, and this year, only by making economies on current expenditure and not on capital expenditure, will we succeed in balancing the Budget.

In regard to the principal heads of the Central Bank Report, we did not follow their suggestions, and the whole idea that this Government is a Government desiring to suppress the people, to restrict development, to prevent development and to cut down on expenditure for increasing production is a myth created by people whose only interest is to attack us without reference to the truth.

Deputy Larkin, speaking again about the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party, got confused, I think, as to the difference between correcting an economic situation and going ahead with a policy of full national development. I still think that a great many Independent Deputies seem to be confused in that regard. We have stated that so long as there is international peace, and so long as people outside this country do not create more trouble the prospects for this year are good. All the evidence is there. Exports have been increasing. We believe tillage will increase this year. Farmers have been adopting more scientific methods of development on a scale never before seen in this country. Industrial production is increasing in many fields. The trade agreement should be to our advantage. There is every sign of a reasonably prosperous future providedthere can be some continuity, provided we do not have the spectacle of a Government of conflicting views, a Government from which inevitably there springs dissension. It is because we have not had the opportunity of seeing the full results of our policy that we have asked for this vote of confidance from the House.

I do not think there is anything more I need say at this stage but, in conclusion, I want to emphasise again that the biggest difficulty we have had to face in the last two years is persuading the people who are obsessed quite naturally with their own domestic problems that most of the difficulties that have been experienced here have been experienced in other countries, countries which have known no war, which remained neutral all through the last war and which were undamaged. Yet, the cost of living in these countries rose as high as it did here and housewives in those countries experienced difficulties comparable to those experienced here. One of the most human factors in that situation is that if one goes abroad and meets a family and sits down with that family and starts talking about their problems the first thing one will be told, whether it is a rich or a poor country, whether it is a country that faced war or remained at peace, is that the principal difficulty is the increase in the cost of living. To try to persuade the people here that they are in a special position, that none of that need have happened is to my mind disgracefully dishonest. It has proved very troublesome from our point of view because it is so much easier to believe a thing like that than to accept the rather dull and uninteresting comparisons with other countries. I believe that by increasing production it should be possible to increase the income of the people.

We, in Fianna Fáil, believe that if production and output increases the workers should share with the employers in that enhanced prosperity through increased wages, wages which will have a real purchasing value. That is what we hope. We believe that if the farmers can take advantage of the Government's present policy in the assurance that for a number of yearsthat policy will not change, they will be assisted in their development. Increased output in agriculture will in turn make the towns prosperous and that, in turn, should bring about an increase in the real value of wages, which is a thing that has been extraordinarily difficult to achieve in any country faced with the difficulties we have had to face in the last few years.

Mr. Morrissey

The last speaker told us quite blandly before he sat down, in his usual rather insolent manner, that we are disgracefully dishonest in suggesting there has been an increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Childers

An increase that had not taken place in other countries.

Mr. Morrissey

He said that it was, of course, only a habit for people here and in other countries to talk about the difficulties of meeting the increased cost of living: it did not matter which country one went into the people just talked about the difficulty of meeting the increased cost of living.

Mr. Childers

Because it is the principal problem and the principal difficulty in life.

Mr. Morrissey

The difficulty with the Minister, and it is quite obvious from the speech we had from him to-day and from the speeches he has delivered from time to time here in this House and in the country, is that all his knowledge and experience of the matters about which he talks, the hardships on the poor, unemployment and so on is gained entirely from books of statistics and not from practical knowledge or practical experience.

I presume Deputy Dr. Browne was disgracefully dishonest yesterday when he asked:—

"Was the Government going to take steps to provide sufficient capital to make employment available on the scale required? The Opposition had not exaggerated the position with regard to the cost of living, unemployment and emigration. These were charges that must be met by the Government."

I hope the Taoiseach will meet those charges when he comes to make his two hours' speech this afternoon. Deputy Dr. Browne went on to say:—

"The people were well able to stand a hair-shirt policy. They were no weaker than the people of any other nation but what hurt them was that the hair-shirt seemed to be put on for lack of thought."

What hurt them was not the hair-shirt but the fact that it was put on by the present Government for lack of thought! Remember, this is not coming from a Deputy who intends to vote against this motion. This is coming from a Deputy who has announced that he will vote for it. He goes on:—

"The people were prepared to take hardship and hard living if they knew there was to be an end to it and if what they were working for to-day was to prepare a good comfortable living for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, the Government had created the impression that the hair-shirt was to stay and that is what the people would not have."

"Truth in the News" of to-day's issue.

Mr. Little

What is that?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy wants to know what is "Truth in the News". I will leave that to himself. That is an amazing statement coming from a man who at the conclusion of his speech announced he would vote for the motion.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

It is easy to take a line here and there and give it another meaning.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not taking a line here or there. I am reading down several lines. I will hand the Deputy the paper if he wishes to see it. I have not omitted one word.

Mr. Brennan

Read all of what he said.

Mr. Morrissey

Is it not hard enough for me to have to read that much of the Irish Presswithout having to readmore of it? To come back to this piece of make-believe which has taken up the time of the House over the last three days. Everybody inside this House and outside it knows this is a “cod” motion. Everyone is perfectly aware of that. Even when the Taoiseach stood up to move the motion two out of three members of his own Party were present; of the one-third that were here when he started seven or eight cleared out during the course of his speech. I do not blame them.

Those of us who had the privilege of listening to the Taoiseach in this House for the last 26 or 27 years will say, I believe honestly, that it was the poorest effort he ever made in his life —so poor that, as I say, it depressed some of his own supporters so much they had to clear out of the House.

Mr. Davern

Is it an indication of importance that Deputies of that Party would be in the House? If so, it appears bad for you. You have only one Deputy—the new gossoon.

Mr. Morrissey

Things are coming to nice pass when I cannot understand another Tipperary man. I do not know whether that is my fault or that of the Deputy.

Mr. Brennan

If the attendance of Fianna Fáil Deputies was an indication that the Taoiseach's speech was not good Deputy Morrissey's speech must be very bad.

Mr. Morrissey

My colleague and myself make no secret of the fact that this is a cod motion. Let the Deputy get this into his head——

Mr. Cunningham

Does——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey should be allowed to speak without further interruption.

Mr. Morrissey

This is being allowed to become a practice every time I get on my feet.

Mr. Brennan

It is your own fault.

Mr. Morrissey

The Taoiseach and some of his colleagues have been trying to carry on this debate as if it was the Fine Gael Party that was in thedock and not Fianna Fáil and as if it was the Fine Gael Party that was on trial and not Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Party are in the dock. They are on trial and have been put on trial by the people of this country. It is not what Fine Gael did between 1922 and 1932 that is the issue here to-day. Perhaps, I know more than anybody else in this House about what happened between 1922 and 1932. I was here. When I hear the Minister for Finance talking about the Cumann na nGaedheal Government cutting the old age pensions in 1923 or 1924 by 1/-, I am entitled to ask why he was not here to oppose it.

Mr. Little

Do not go back over that.

Mr. Morrissey

It was not I who raised it. It was raised by those on the other side. I never attempted to go back over it. I agree with Deputy McQuillan that we are too much inclined to go back instead of looking forward and looking to the present. I resent, as a member of this Party, any reference to the Fine Gael Party as if it was something that was not Irish or something that was foreign. I resent that. I challenge the Taoiseach or anybody else to point to any act of that Party that was in any way disgraceful. It it not we who shirk putting our record or our policy before the people. It is Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Carter

You have not put your policy before them so far.

Mr. Morrissey

We are told about the progress made by Fianna Fáil. We are told that Fianna Fáil did this, that and the other thing. Will Deputies get it into their heads that Fianna Fáil has been the Government of this country for 18 years out of the last 21 years? Surely to goodness, unless they were completely dead from their toes to the crown of their heads, they should have achieved something in 18 years? Are we to assume from what they say that if there had been a Government there other than Fianna Fáil nothing would have been done in that 17 or 18 years? Are we to assume that if there was a Labour Government, a farmers' Government, a Fine Gael Government or a Government composedof any Party they would have sat down in their seats and done nothing for 17 or 18 years?

That sort of nonsense coming from Fianna Fáil does not go down at the cross-roads now, nor will it go down anywhere else. When I hear of the progress made by the Fianna Fáil Party in the 17 or 18 years out of the 21 years, I apply two tests. We hear a lot of blather from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs about the schemes and plans they have for unemployment. We heard about those plans in 1931 and 1932 from the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the result of their 18 years is that there has been more unemployment in this country in the last two years than there was when they first took office 21 years ago. That cannot be challenged. That is true. There is more unemployment since Fianna Fáil first took office 21 years ago, notwithstanding the fact that in the same period one-sixth of the entire population of this country, that is to say, 500,000 people emigrated. These are the two tests to apply to the progressive policy of Fianna Fáil. That cannot be challenged.

I want to assert that the only period in the last 21 years in which there was a very substantial improvement in the employment situation in this country was during the three years the inter-Party Government were in office. There is no question about that. I invite Deputies to go to the Library to look at the figures there and check them. These figures are furnished by the various State Departments. Deputy Dr. Browne also said yesterday that it would be unwise for Deputies anxious for industrial progress to bank on Fine Gael changing its spots. Deputy Larkin reminded Deputy Dr. Browne that he was a member of that Government for nearly three and a half years.

Mr. Carter

He was not a member of the Government, Deputy.

Mr. Morrissey

Is it not true to say that there was more industrial progress made in that three and half years than in any similar period since the State was founded? More peoplewere put into industrial employment. Official figures are there to prove that. There can be no doubt whatever about it and Deputy Dr. Browne knows that quite well.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Give us a few of those figures.

Mr. Morrissey

I will give this figure to the Deputy. In the three and a half years 34,000 additional persons were put into industrial employment alone.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

The T.U.C. report that there were only 800 extra jobs per year during that period.

Mr. Morrissey

What period?

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

The period you refer to.

Mr. Morrissey

It all depends on how you look at figures. I challenge any member of the House to deny that during that period there were more persons put into industrial employment than at any similar period since this State was founded. There is no doubt about that. I hear a lot of blather from Fianna Fáil Deputies and from Deputies like Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan about the workers, the poor and the trade unionists. I hear a lot about what Fianna Fáil is supposed to have done for the workers. Deputy Dr. Browne talks to us about Fianna Fáil being the friend of the workers. When were they? At what period were they? I challenge that. I have always done so and I do it now. They were always the enemy of the workers.

A Deputy

That is not so.

Mr. Morrissey

And in so far as they could do so they did all in their power to split not merely the Labour Party but the trade union movement in this country. That is true.

The workers and the poor of this country got a better break under the inter-Party Government than in any period since this State was founded. Wages and earnings were brought into closer relationship with the cost ofliving than at any time since the State was founded. Not merely was full employment provided for those in employment, but there was overtime not merely for the head of the family but in many cases for other members of the family as well. It is on record that during the inter-Party Government period, for the first time since the State was established, the earnings and wages of workers passed out the cost of living.

We had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs this morning talking about the cost of living and comparing it with other countries. Apparently, the only time he lifts his eyes from the book of statistics is to place them on the ends of the earth. The cost of living got so out of hand in 1947 that Fianna Fáil, in order to try and befool the people, changed the cost-of-living index. The Taoiseach the other day — he is the man who always talks to us about falsehoods, about telling the truth and not having any prevarication — talked about the cost of living going up by 13 points. He did not tell us, but he was reminded of it afterwards, that when Fianna Fáil changed the cost-of-living index in 1947, they had in mind the Supplementary Budget which they were later to introduce. They took out of that index the articles and the commodities which they were going to increase under the Supplementary Budget. That was a dishonest device.

We took over in February, 1948, with the index at 100. For two and a half years, notwithstanding all that happened in that period, and notwithstanding the fact that there was more than one round of increases in wages and salaries during that period, the cost of living not merely never exceeded the 100, the figure at which we took it over from Fianna Fáil, but it actually dropped on one occasion below it.

Mr. Carter

You blinkered that by the two price system.

Mr. Morrissey

I hope to have something to say about that later, and if I do not say it perhaps some member of the Labour Party, when speaking, will deal with it for me. That was the costof living in the three years, notwithstanding the outbreak of the Korean war. In the three years from February, 1948, to February, 1951, the cost-of-living index went up by three points, and only increased by these three points in the second six months of that last year. That was something of an achievement. There was some relationship between wages and prices during that period.

Mr. Hickey

Wages kept their value anyway.

Mr. Morrissey

That was not achieved in any easy manner. It was achieved because we were ever watchful of the prices of every commodity, and particularly of essential food commodities. We were ruthless, and that is the only word to describe it, in seeing that there was going to be no over-charging by anyone for any commodity. Deputies will remember, particularly those who were here at the time, that I was challenged over and over again by Fianna Fáil Deputies when on this side of the House because I would not allow the butchers to increase the price of fresh meat.

Mr. Carter

That is a story in itself, too. I challenge that.

Mr. Morrissey

I am giving facts about the cost of living that cannot be challenged.

Mr. Carter

We challenge that.

Mr. Morrissey

That was the position, and there can be no challenging of that statement. I was pressed over and over again by people in the manufacturing industries and by people in the distributive trades to decontrol prices. The argument was always put to me that if I decontrolled prices and allowed free competition, it would lead to a reduction in prices — that is if they were allowed just to juggle their different cuts and so on. But I knew what would happen, and I did not do it. I was backed to the uttermost by every one of my colleagues in the line that I took. The result, as I say, was that for two and a half years, notwithstanding the fact that there were increases, and notwithstanding the factthat there were increases in the price of goods coming in from outside, and that complaints were being made to me by people that they were not getting the same margins of profits, I was quite straight in telling them that, in my opinion, they were getting a fair margin of profit, but that they were not going to get away with the immense margins of profit which they got away with during the war under Fianna Fáil. They were not going to be allowed to do what they did under Fianna Fáil when they had wages riveted to the desk with their standstill Orders. When Deputies from any side of the House talk about Fianna Fáil as the friend of the worker and of the poor, I ask them not to forget about the standstill Orders on wages by Fianna Fáil. May I tell the House that there was a standstill Order on wages in draft in the Department of Industry and Commerce as late as October, 1947. That was not during the war period.

We have had all this nonsense about the cost of living. We are told now that we are no different from anybody else and that it is dishonest to talk about these things. The Fianna Fáil Party are to-day the Government of this country, but let me remind the House of the campaign about the cost of living which Fianna Fáil conducted throughout the country in the last six months prior to the 1951 General Election, a campaign which was spearheaded by Deputy Cowan. Deputy Cowan put down a motion condemning me and calling for my resignation at a time when I was in hospital. Deputy Cowan was outraged then at the increase in the cost of living which had gone up two points in three years. He was so outraged that he demanded that his motion be taken in my absence. He said that the people were suffering so much from the high cost of living that a delay could not be contemplated by him.

Mr. Larkin

He wanted to become a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Cowan was outraged to the extent that he was shedding crocodile tears over the sufferings of his constituents due tothe two-point increase in the cost of living. The Deputy became almost purple in the face when the price of butter was increased from 2/8 to 2/10 per lb., but as Deputy Larkin pointed out this morning, when it went up from 2/10 to 4/2 per lb., he becomes the apologist for Fianna Fáil — a champion of its increases. It makes one almost sick.

Do Fianna Fáil Deputies remember the speeches which they made about the cost of living at that time, and all the tripe that was written about it in the Irish Pressand in theSunday Press—a three-point increase in three years compared with an increase of 23 points in less than two years under Fianna Fáil?

We claim that we put people into employment and good employment. We reduced the numbers that had been queueing up at the labour exchanges looking for jobs to the lowest figure ever touched since records were kept in this country. That is true. Will any Deputy deny that the inter-Party Government, with the support of practically every man in this House, outside the Fianna Fáil Party, brought a feeling of confidence into this country? It gave our people a feeling of confidence in their country such as we have not had for a quarter of a century and such as we have not had for the last two years. There was harmony in the country and people were happy.

I want to put this quite seriously to farmer Deputies in this House. Will any farmer Deputy in this House conscientiously stand up and say that the 1948 Agreement that was signed in London did not bring a period of prosperity to this country, both to agriculture and from agriculture flowing to every other section of the people and for the first time, remember, because in the inter-Party Government it was realised, and not merely realised but acted upon, that until such time that you put agriculture on its feet there was very little you could do for any other section of the people.

Deputies

Hear! hear!

Mr. Morrissey

We went! London—we did not send civil servants there —and we made what I believe was an excellent agreement that has worked out in the event to the great benefit of this country. I do not think any Deputy from any side of the House, no matter which Party he belongs to, in his heart will question that. Because it did bring prosperity to the farmers of this country, the farmers were put in a position to meet the increased rates which had to be imposed to meet the new services and to give employment. Farmers were put in a position for the first time to be able to pay comparatively decent rates of wages not merely to their own employees but to those who are employed by the county council. That is true and it cannot be questioned.

Again, will Deputies ask themselves conscientiously, has Fianna Fáil any right to claim any credit for the enormous increase last year and this year in farming exports from this country? I do not think that farmers— and farmers know a lot more about this than I do—will suggest for a moment that calves that were born after June, 1951, became our exports in 1952. We hear a lot of talk about increased exports. We are all entitled to be pleased with the increased exports.

Mr. Lehane

The Labour Party are opposed to increased exports.

Mr. Morrissey

They are not. I want to go to another aspect of the 1948 agreement that was not referred to. There has been a good deal of talk by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and some of his colleagues— sometimes even Deputy Childers is let loose on it; he gets his riding instructions as he got them from the Minister for External Affairs to-day—about industrial exports in this country. It is true to say that quite a number of our industries have been able to keep in full production and some of them in nearly full production over the last two years because they were able to export a substantial percentage of their production to Great Britain. Why were they able to do that? Why could that not have been done before 1948— because of the famous or infamous article in the Trade Agreement of 1938which was the biggest obstacle on the industrial side which we had to get over in 1948, when we tried to get Article 1 of the 1938 Agreement out of the way.

Mr. Hickey

It is there still.

Mr. Morrissey

But with this difference. We were unable to get it completely out of the way, but we did get the door open to the extent that has allowed us to export into Britain hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions of pounds, worth of industrial goods since 1948 up to the present moment. Deputies in the trade union movement and in the Labour movement and industrialists in this country know that to be quite true.

It is a fact that some of our industries in this country because of what we secured for industrial exports in 1948 are exporting as much as 40 per cent. of their entire production and I am glad to say that the quality of the goods is excellent, so excellent and the price so right that they are meeting and beating keen competition. I know one industry which has exported not merely to Great Britain but has exported to a continental country and has put its products into that continental country over a 25 per cent. tariff.

Mr. Carter

That makes hay of the remainder of your argument about the cost of living.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to ask any person in this House who has any sort of an open mind: is there any comparison to be made between the way in which this country was governed and the fruits that flowed from that Government to the community over the three and a half years when the inter-Party Government were in office and what has accrued in the last two years? In what are you asked to reaffirm your confidence? For what reason are you asked to reaffirm your confidence in this Government? Do not mind the Minister for Industry and Commerce who for, I think, the seventeenth time in the last 14 months — I have been ticking him off with a pencil—has stabilised the cost of living. As a matter of fact, he made a speech in which he had the cost of livingstabilised three days before he announced an increase of ½d. a lb. in the price of domestic sugar. Since 1927 the Minister for Industry and Commerce has always been promising us jam to-morrow. It is always around the corner. He has told us now that if you will only give him another chance we will have the jam, a double application, within the next two years.

Do not mind that kind of nonsense. What you are dealing with here is a Government who come in here looking for confidence from the Dáil instead of looking for it from the people, where it should be sought, a Government whose policy increased by no fewer than 30,000 persons the number of unemployed in this country within a year and a half. It is all right for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and others to look at that in a book of statistics, but I sometimes try to visualise that figure, 30,000, as the entire population of the City of Waterford or more than a third of the population of my own county.

Some Deputies here, particularly those who talk from books, just think of that as a number. Very few of them think of the misery that is nearly always behind it. Are Deputies aware —if they are not they ought to be— that men in this city, many of whom came from rural areas, constituents of our own, and who have been in constant employment for the last four to six years, anyway, in the building trade in this country are now disemployed. While the present situation lasts, they are unlikely to be reemployed.

We have heard a lot of talk from the Taoiseach from time to time about the inter-Party Government being dependent on small groups. He made a speech during the recent by-election in which he said that a Government that was beholden to a small group was in an impossible position, it was pushed hither and thither, and that way lay disaster. I wonder what was he thinking about, or had he completely forgotten Deputies Cowan and Browne?

There are many things I would like to deal with, but do not want to be unfair to other Deputies. I do notwant to inflict any further suffering. I know what was inflicted on myself yesterday by the Minister for External Affairs for two hours and 20 minutes.

Mr. Aiken

An hour and three quarters.

Mr. Morrissey

Two hours and 20 minutes. I can assure the Minister it felt like 10 hours.

Mr. Aiken

I hope it did, to you. That was the intention.

Mr. Morrissey

We are told by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs this morning, on the instructions of the Minister for External Affairs, that measures are being taken by Fianna Fáil, that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in this debate told us the plans they had for dealing with unemployment. Someone may have mentioned the word "plan" but that is all we heard. In any case we have been hearing about the Fianna Fáil "plan" for dealing with unemployment for 21 years at least.

Deputy Childers, who is in such close touch with business, economic and social life that he lectures the rest of us here, tells us that business is improving. I will offer a wager here of £1 to 1/- there is not a businessman from here to Donegal or from Donegal to Kerry that will subscribe to that and I do not care what his political views are. Business has been getting steadily worse over the last 12 months and at the moment — and this is part of the reason for the 30,000 additional unemployed — we are in the middle of the greatest business slump that ever hit this State since it was created. That is true and any Deputy in touch with the people in business outside, either employers or employees, knows that is true. Deputies who are in touch even with some of the biggest business premises in this city — it is true also outside the city — know quite well that in the last year and a half some of the biggest establishments have not made anything like enough money to pay their running expenses. We are to vote for a continuance of that and an aggravation of it?

In the light of what I have said and what has been said by other speakers on this side of the House, is it any wonder that the Government are afraid of their natural lives to go before the country? Does anyone think that if the Taoiseach was not absolutely convinced that he would suffer the greatest political defeat he ever suffered, that he would sit there in the humiliating position he has sat in for the last three days? No Government, no Head of a Government, has ever been in the pitiable, humiliating position that the present Government and its Leader have been in for the last three days.

I will say this for Deputy de Valera: I believe that if he thought he had even a sporting chance in a general election he would take that chance. He knows he has not. Must he not be driven to the sorest straits to which a human being can be driven, when he is trying to carry on with the support of Deputies Cowan and Browne?

It would almost make you weep to sit in this House yesterday afternoon and to see the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach, pretending to laugh and smile and enjoy the buffoonery of Deputy Cowan. I have differed from the Taoiseach politically all my lifetime, and I suppose I always will, but I never thought his respect for himself would drop so low that in order to obtain a vote from Deputy Cowan to keep him and his Government in office he was prepared to pretend that he was enjoying the bit of showmanship put up by Deputy Cowan here, while at the same time a man of the Taoiseach's make-up and temperament must have been almost sick looking at it. I believe the Taoiseach would go to the people if he thought he had a sporting chance, but he knows he has not. No man has gone more often to the country, no man has gone when it was not necessary more often to the country; and Deputy Dillon read out here last night statements that Deputy de Valera made in somewhat similar circumstances, except that his position was much stronger in 1947 in the by-elections. The speeches then made by Deputy de Valera were the most compelling arguments against the motion now before the House.

The members of the Fine Gael Party have no reason in the world, in repect of their work for any section of the community, to hang their heads in shame. We are entitled to our views and we will put our views in this House and outside it. We have always done so, and when the people went against us we took it from them. We sat here for 16 long years in opposition, when we had to put up with all the unbearable and ignorant arrogance that we got from the present members of the present Government, with all their cheap gibes, and some of them very unworthy ones. We stuck it and we kept going back to the people, general election after general election, and even when we came back here after a general election with reduced numbers it did not change our principles and our attitude in one iota.

There were certain definite fundamental principles that we believed the people respected and that they would ultimately give their support to them. We knew over a long number of years that, with that particular type of political magic that is peculiar to himself, the Taoiseach was able to hoodwink the people. We knew that the people's mind was on catch-cries, empty slogans, rather than on the hard realities and the economic facts of life. We knew that would pass and, mind you, we put in, even in opposition, even with reduced numbers, 16 years of service to the Irish people in this Irish Parliament—which I hope the Fianna Fáil Party will have the spirit to emulate when they cross over to this side of the House very soon. It is talked and sneered about in the Irish Pressand theSunday Pressand at cross-roads as if there was as great a difference between those who sit on these benches and on the Labour Benches as there is between oil and water. What is the difference?

Mr. Carter

It will be interesting to hear this now.

Mr. Morrissey

I would like to hear it from some of the gentlemen opposite who are always talking about it, but I am not going to take lecturesfrom anybody on the Fianna Fáil side.

Mr. Carter

You will rear away from it like a faun.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not going to take any lectures on what is due to the people of this country and the workers or the poor from anybody on the Fianna Fáil side. I am not going to take any lectures from the people on the far side that they are more concerned with the agricultural community than Fine Gael is. Agriculture and farmers, and Fianna Fáil farmers in this House, were put in a position of prosperity during the three years of the inter-Party Government that they had never known up to that period and they are still getting it.

Mr. Carter

And before that.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

"Ten fields of inspectors".

Mr. Morrissey

We are told that there is something wrong in an inter-Party Government. We are told that there is something wrong in a Government that is not completely dominated by one man.

Mr. Fanning

You were always opposed to that one man.

Mr. Morrissey

Certainly, long before the Deputy came into this House and I will be long after he has disappeared from it.

Mr. Fanning

You might get a bit of a fright.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy should have sense. He is a young man. He is not long here and he is afraid that he will not be here much longer.

Mr. Fanning

Not a bit.

Mr. Morrissey

He knows that there is only one seat for Fianna Fáil in County Tipperary and he is hoping that he will get that one.

Mr. Fanning

One for Fine Gael.

Mr. Morrissey

There is going to be one for Fianna Fáil and he is trying to make sure that his will be the oneby talking to get his name into the local papers.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Could this Tipperary dispute be settled in Tipperary?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think so.

Mr. Morrissey

I think it is most appropriate that a Cork man should move in as peacemaker. Children have to be chastised even by the most kindly parents occasionally.

Mr. Carter

We will hope he will end as he set out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey should be allowed to proceed without interruption. All interruptions are disorderly and the Deputy ought to know that.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know why they always interrupt me so much.

Mr. Fanning

You asked for it. There was no need to mention farmers in this House.

Mr. Morrissey

There is no need to tell Deputies in this House that they made more money on their farms under the inter-Party Government in three years than in any similar period under Fianna Fáil! Well now, I thought you should like to be reminded of the good times that they had and I like to remind them that there is a chance even yet, that even to-day those good times may return to them again. There is one consolation to those of them who are farmers. Deputy Aiken is, like myself, a bit of a book-farmer, but those in Fianna Fáil who are farmers have this consolation, that whatever they may lose on the roundabouts by way of their seats they fully made up on the swings from the increases, and from the still greater increases that there will be from what they are producing off their lands.

Deputy Dillon said last night that the Taoiseach was appealing from the people to the appeal court that consists of three, or maybe four, Independent members of this House. So longas they are members of this House they have, of course, the right to vote as they choose, but I want respectfully to suggest that no Deputy can conscientiously vote for a continuance of a Government that has inflicted so much hardship and human misery in the last two years and been responsible for 30,000 additional unemployed, and the loaf increased from 6d. to 9d. and so on, increasing or causing hardship and misery. From the other side of the House we are told that people like the old age pensioners have been compensated for the increase in the cost of living. Give the old age pensioners one loaf of bread per day for seven days of the week and this comes to 3d. more than the additional allowance they got, not to talk about tea or sugar or butter or anything else. The thing is absurd. We have a lot of talk about Fine Gael, or Cumann na nGaedheal as they were, taking 1/-off the old age pensioners. May I resspectfully submit to those Deputies that the removal of the food subsidies reduced the old age pensioners and the blind pensioners, not by 1/- but by nearer to 3/- per week, even allowing for the 1/6 additional which they got. There are several ways, of course, of reducing money. It would have been a much easier thing and weighed less heavily on the old age pensioners and blind pensioners of this country if the Government, instead of taking away subsidies from their food, had reduced their pensions by 1/-. They would not have suffered as much, but that would not have suited Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Larkin forestalled me this morning. I had brought in a copy of "Truth in the News" and there is a ring around the heading to which he referred, but, of course, it was much more appropriate that Deputy Larkin should deal with it because he was the person concerned and in any case he could deal with it much more effectively than I could and he did so. One of the troubles is that 95 per cent. of the people who read this read nothing else.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

There is a good paper on your side, too.

Mr. Morrissey

I wish we had.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Yes, it supports you 100 per cent.

Mr. Morrissey

We have not a paper on our side but if it is on our side, it will not suppress things and distort them.

Mr. Cogan

They simply invent them.

Mr. Morrissey

I think that Deputy Cogan, as far as I have been watching the columns of the newspapers, has always got a pretty fair crack from the newspapers whether by way of speeches or letters to the papers, and I do not think that any paper has ever been unfair against the Deputy and I would not like to see anything unfair against any Deputy.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

He got enough space in the Wicklow People, anyhow.

Mr. Morrissey

Let any Deputy or Party compare the record of work for this country and for all sections of the people of the inter-Party Government and the Fianna Fáil Government. I wish this could be determined on its merits, but it is not going to be determined on its merits. The Government, if they carry this motion to-day, will carry it by the votes of three or perhaps four Independents. Not one of the three or four Deputies will be voting because he believes in the policy of the Government, because he agrees with the policy of the Government. Two of them at least will be voting, unfortunately, because of a vicious spite and hatred against a certain member of this House, and one of them because of a particularly violent dislike to another member of this House. Those are the facts, and all this talk by certain Independent Deputies, and all their denunciation of Fine Gael, was just a cloak for their real reasons for voting — just a cloak.

I was reminded last night by one of the Ministers that I disliked general elections. Of course I do. No one here who has any experience of elections wants joyfully to dance into the middle of one; but it is not what we like or we want that counts, it is what the people are demanding, that is what counts. There is not a single Deputy sitting in this House to-day but knowsthe people want a general election. Is there any Deputy in public life in the last 30 odd years who ever saw such real interest in what is happening here as there has been for the last two or three months? Have Deputies ever been so frequently accosted in the streets and on the reads by people asking them: "When are you going to have a general election?" Have not the people in the only chance which they got shown in no unmistakeable way that they want a general election and want it for one purpose only, to get rid of the present Government?

Mr. Blowick

The Taoiseach had a perfect right to put down this motion but I object completely to the way in which it has been done. Since Tuesday afternoon until the Taoiseach will conclude and the vote will be taken, 28 hours will have been used in discussing the motion. If the Taoiseach wanted a vote of confidence I cannot see why, seeing that the Dáil is at the very busiest time of the year, he could not have approached the Whips and arranged that a motion of confidence be put before the House without any discussion. It could be all over in a quarter of an hour on last Tuesday or at any time fixed and the 28 hours could have been used to much more effect in transacting the business we are sent here to transact.

As a matter of fact, it could have been done in a much simplier way. Since the result of the by-elections became known, it has been quite clear that the people have turned very strongly against the present Government. The Taoiseach could take for granted, without any motion of confidence, what attitude Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Poblachta would take in such a vote of confidence. A simple letter addressed to five or six Deputies would have decided the issue as the Taoiseach knows quite well, without a long waste of time.

Speakers on the Government side have tried to fight shy of the fact that it was the result of the by-elections which caused this vote of confidence. No matter how you side-step this result, the people in Cork and Wicklowand Dublin North West a short time ago made it quite clear that there is a big swing away from Government policy, in other words, a very determined vote of disapproval of the policy of the present Government.

When the present Government was seeking a vote here for the Taoiseach and subsequently for the Government, Deputy de Valera put forward a 15-point programme. I would like that the Taoiseach, when replying, or some Minister speaking after me, would point out which one of these 15 points has been fulfilled, which has been even tackled and which ones the present Government have not completely reneged on. It was the policy of the inter-Party Government taken over without a blush. The only thing they could say was that in seeking support of certain Deputies on the 13th June, 1951, Fianna Fáil, not having a policy of their own, could implement the policy of the inter-Party Government better than the inter-Party Government itself could. That was how they came into office. One of the points was that the food subsidies would be maintained, that they would not be cut. Since then the people have learned to regard that promise in the same way as they regarded the promise of Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance, a few days before the last general election, when he assured his own constituents that the tax on tobacco and drink would not be reimposed if Fianna Fáil came back to power.

This vote of confidence has been brought on by the result of the by-elections. The result of the by-elections has been caused by the fact that Fianna Fáil have gone away from the people. It is not the people who went away from Fianna Fáil, they were forced away. Fianna Fáil has gone back on every single thing they took office and got into office to do. Of all the rosy and very catchy promises they have not fulfilled one of them. Not alone that, but some of the promises have been put completely into reverse, food subsidies being one. After spending three and a half years while we were the Government, blaring over loudspeakers and from every placewhere they could get an inch of space in their own paper, that the cost of living had gone sky high during the time of the inter-Party Government, they got into power. They secured their votes to a large extent on that constantly repeated fallacy that the cost of living had gone up during the time of the inter-Party Government.

I remember that not long since I challenged the Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, here in the House as to what had gone up, with the exception of 2d. in the lb. of butter and I think 2d. in the gallon of petrol, during our time. After a lot of fumbling for papers over there he said the loaf of bread had gone up a farthing and I think he mentioned that the ordinary household spool of thread had gone up a halfpenny. Fianna Fáil is now learning that the Irish people cannot be trampled on, that they cannot be gulled and fooled as they have been by the present Government. They have been sitting on that side of the House since the 14th June, 1951, just two years, because they went into power on promises they had not the slightest intention of fulfilling and which they made no effort to fulfil since they went in.

Every single good work we started during our time has been smashed and cut and set aside. The policy of a certain crowd of people behind the scenes who were trying to impose their will or their views on our Government, and that we steadfastly rejected and I am proud now that we rejected them, Fianna Fáil has swallowed and put into operation. One of the results of that has been that we are exporting £20,000,000 worth more of agricultural produce this year than ever before, £20,000,000 more than last year. Some of that £20,000,000 has been due to an actual increase in production, due to the policy of the inter-Party Government, but the great bulk of the £20,000,000 has been achieved by a very different means, by the deliberately and carefully calculated policy of depriving our own people of the means to purchase our own food. I would go so far as to say that £15,000,000 of the increased agricultural exports which went across the Channel this year hasbeen nothing more or less than the result of Fianna Fáil policy in denying employment to those seeking work, in cutting down in every possible way and in allowing the cost of living to go up to such an extent that the working man, his wife and children, had less to eat last year and in the aggregate it has amounted, in my opinion, to very near £15,000,000 worth of agricultural produce. The Minister for Finance could very easily walk in here on Budget day and calmly announce that agricultural exports had increased by £20,000,000. The exports have increased because the present Government have denied to the people of the country the means to purchase the food they had been purchasing and to live up to the standard that we had established. That is the reason for the complete setback which the Government met with in the three recent by-elections.

During the period from 1948 to 1951 I occasionally had to go through the city in the evening, and there was scarcely any evening when there was not a meeting at some street corner addressed by some Fianna Fáil speaker. His theme was the way the cost of living had got out of control under the inter-Party Government, and assuring them that if Fianna Fáil got back into power the cost of living would be controlled. I listened to them on several occasions declaring that the inter-Party Government were a shocking crowd and allowed the cost of living to get out of control. Having listened to that for three and a half years, I do not blame people if some of that sunk in. Some of the people believed that. The people in the City of Dublin particularly believed it. So much so that they went a long way to putting Fianna Fáil into power and, when they did, the Taoiseach and other members of the Cabinet proceeded to trample on those who placed their confidence in them and showed them what they thought about them.

Mention was made that out of the six by-elections which have occurred in the last two years the Government succeeded in winning two, North Mayo and Waterford. It would not be out of place if I revealed once again, as Irevealed on a previous occasion, that from my own personal knowledge the people of North Mayo were fooled. I say deliberately that the electorate of North Mayo were fooled and fooled by no less a man than a Parliamentary Secretary in the present Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that arises on this motion.

Mr. Blowick

Let me use the word "misled".

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not that I am objecting to. I do not see how the manner in which that election was conducted arises.

Mr. Blowick

I do not see why it should not.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the conduct of an election campaign was discussed by any Deputies. This motion is clearly asking the Dáil for a vote of confidence in the Government. How an election was conducted some years ago does not seem to arise on that.

Mr. Blowick

The only reference which I wish to make is this. If the Taoiseach and the Government were relying on winning in North Mayo last year — if we could say they won — to show that the Government have maintained a steady position in the House. I want to say that that election was won principally through a deliberately misleading statement by the Parliamentary Secretary (Deputy Kennedy) in telling the people——

Mr. Davern

Is it in order for a Deputy to state that a Parliamentary Secretary made a deliberately false statement?

Mr. Blowick

He made a deliberately false statement in my hearing in the town of Foxford and also in Ballycastle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that a deliberately false statement is a lie.

Mr. Blowick

I want to say that I heard the statement in Foxford.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not matter. It is charging a Deputy with making a deliberately false statement and that is attributing a lie to him. The Deputy should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Blowick

Very good, I will withdraw it and use the words "misleading statement", because it was a misleading statement. The statement was to the effect — Deputies can judge for themselves whether it was false or misleading—"Do the people of Foxford think that poor Dev is going to increase the price of food in the way that Deputy Blowick and other Clann na Talmhan and Fine Gael Deputies have set out?" That is the statement and quite a number of people were swayed by it, but they know the truth of it since.

The other reference I want to make to the same by-election is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce went down to Ballina the Saturday evening before the voting day and told the people of Ballina that they were to have a biscuit factory established.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow that.

Mr. Blowick

Very well, I will not proceed further with it beyond saying that the biscuit factory never materialised.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy said that he was not going to refer to it further.

Mr. Blowick

When the present Government came into power, the first thing they did was to make bloodcurdling speeches, particularly the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, which had the effect of freezing the credit of the country. By these speeches they wanted to discredit the inter-Party Government. They wanted to show that they were right in some way or other. They wanted to show that there was something seriously wrong in this country. Incidentally, what they were doing was taking advice that had been thrown at the heads of the inter-Party Government for three and a half years and rejected by them. That advice was to restrictcredit in the way Fianna Fáil has done. We see now the disastrous consequences of it. I must say that I did not see what would be the full consequences of it when we were receiving the advice. I see the consequences now. Private employers and people who might be inclined to put money into private enterprise had their credit frozen. People had put money into the building of houses and had from 50 to 70 men working for them. These workers are now in England because credit was frozen. People could not get credit to continue building and, when houses were built, there was nobody to buy them.

Fianna Fáil have stated that they are bringing down the unemployment figure from the 90,000 at which it stood a short time ago. If they are bringing it down, how are they bringing it down? They are bringing it down by the mean device of trying to put people off the dole. It is not the man who is drawing the dole wrongfully that is being put off. We know that some people are drawing the dole wrongfully, but it is not that type of person that is being put off. It is, perhaps, the father of a family who has no work or who has not a shilling who is being put off. The Government increased the cost of living on that man, and now the few shillings he was getting are cut off and he can starve. The resul can be seen by everybody. Anybody who goes to a railway station can see trainloads of our youngest and bes flying from the country as if from the plague.

I have not much contact with the City of Dublin, but some of the events that happened recently, particularly what happened yesterday afternoon outside this House, are enough to disquiet anyone. I can understand Deputies representing city constituencies being quite alarmed. I have been ten years coming to this House now and never before have I seen between 2,000 and 3,000 people in a crowd marching outside the House, and 300 police mobilised to keep the gates closed.

Mr. Davern

You are exaggerating.

Mr. Blowick

I am not. I said from 2,000 to 3,000, and I am quite sure thatis an underestimate from what I saw. It might be said, and it has been hinted, on the Government side, that these people are not genuinely looking for work. That is not true. Anybody who went among them and looked at them would know that they were men with hard hands genuinely looking for work and with no hope of getting it. I do not see this matter getting much publicity in the papers. Certainly down in the West of Ireland it is not known. Never in my time, and certainly not in the inter-Party Government's time — that desperate period in the history of Ireland, according to Fianna Fáil—was one single unemployed man seen outside the gates of Leinster House. On the contrary, Fianna Fáil Ministers can look up the files and they will find that many works of development during our time had to be slowed down because there were not men to go to work on them. Deputy Davern may laugh, but I remember that the hydro-electric development works at Ballyshannon were in danger of completely closing down because men could not be found to do the work. The Minister for Social Welfare can back me out in that, and any Fianna Fáil speaker can rise within the next hour—there is still time—if that statement is untrue.

If Deputy Davern and Deputy Ó Briain, the Parliamentary Secretary, want to verify that, the figures are there. It was in the summer period of the year. I cannot remember what year, but there was a danger that the whole works would have to close down completely because there were not enough men to work them.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They are looking for men for Bord na Móna. The papers are full of advertisements and the labour exchanges are full of advertisementts.

Mr. Blowick

If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to bluff himself with that kind of nonsense, he can. If Bord na Móna are really looking for men, what were these men doing outside Leinster House yesterday morning? Were they all foreigners or was it down from the moon that they came?

Among them were some of my own neighbours who enjoyed plenty of employment during the inter-Party Government's time, in Dublin, and they were men who were not afraid of a day's work and would work against men from any part of the country. I saw some of them outside the gate yesterday, and certainly if they had a chance of coming in here I would not like to think of the tender way they would handle the Government.

Mr. MacBride

Deputy Davern does not suggest there was no unemployment, I think?

Mr. Ó Briain

No, there was unemployment always.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick is speaking.

Mr. Blowick

Unemployment has reached a position in this country where it has become dangerous. I will not dwell further on it than that. It is no longer something that can be joked about by the Government side of the House — where it seems to be a joke.

Side by side with the unemployment situation is the increase in rates of interest for loans and agricultural credit for farmers. It seems we simply must follow everything that the Government across the water does. I will not repeat all I said on the occasion of the Budget of 1952, but I know that Budget was dictated across the water. Mr. MacEntee went so far as to send a most warm letter to Mr. Butler on the occasion of his Budget. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British House of Commons this year gave reliefs to every single citizen of the British community. Mr. MacEntee comes along, and what does he do? He copper-fastens everything he did last year, and in addition, insists on every one of the Ministers of his Government — finishing up with Deputy Childers, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs — contributing so much extra taxation towards what I might truly describe as a squeezing of extra revenue from the people. All last summer and winter were taken up by this House with Minister after Minister coming in seeking additional money.The Minister for Agriculture was the only exception. He had no schemes to put forward to tax the farmers but he has got his marching orders from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance to cut down on the land reclamation scheme. I think he is asking £2,200,000 this year for reclamation but if Fianna Fáil are in office, of that £2,200,000 not much more than half will be spent on the farmers. And Deputy Davern may take me up on that if he likes.

Mr. Davern

You are very pleasant.

Mr. Blowick

All these things have resulted in the biggest defeat of the whole lot — strangely enough — in Dublin North-West, in the city itself. Even in the country, where the people have longer distances to come to the poll and where a number are indisposed and old—even there, a majority came out, and a very determined majority, to see that Fianna Fáil knew exactly what they were thinking.

This motion of confidence in the Government, Sir, has been asked by the Taoiseach. I want to say this: that the people of the country want that motion defeated. It has been flung across the House that nobody on this side of the House wants an election. I think that Deputy Morrissey, speaking a few minutes ago, put it very decisively when he said: "It is not what we want in this House that matters; it is what the people want that matters." The people at the present time in my opinion want a chance to mark their ballot papers again. I will not prophesy, as Deputy Dr. Browne apparently does, what way they will vote, but at the present time the people are clamouring for a chance to mark their ballot papers and I have not the slightest doubt what way the majority will mark these papers when they get a chance. I hope they will get the chance soon.

I want to warn the Government— and there should be no need to warn them — that the greatest safety valve democracy has, is a general election. It gives the people a chance, if they are tired of the Government that is in, to put them out, and it gives a chance to the people to use in a constitutionalway the one weapon at their disposal. It is a very dangerous experiment for a Government to try to hold on to office. The last three by-elections should not have left any doubt in the mind of the Government as to what the people want. Every time I go home to my constituency I meet many people and many previous supporters of Fianna Fáil among them and what they say is not: "When are you going to have a general election?" but I am asked: "When are you going to put them out?"

Deputy Davern and the Parliamentary Secretary may smile, but I think there will be a very different smile on their faces in a short time. They are beginning to feel the blast very sharply now. It is very evident on that side of the House.

I was listening to most of the Taoiseach's speech on Tuesday and I was astonished that there was complete silence on the question of what they are going to do.

In this motion of confidence the Taoiseach in effect says: "I am Taoiseach. Here is my Government. I have been carrying on for the last two or three years since I got into power in any old way I liked. I want you to give me a vote of confidence to carry on in any old way I like for the future". That is exactly what the Taoiseach asks the Dáil. Neither himself nor the Tánaiste who is, I suppose, the principal spokesman for the Government, has given any indication of the plans they have for the relief of unemployment, how they propose to ease the cost of living, how they propose to put an end to the misery and poverty that have been brought into many homes, or what they propose to do about trade and business in the country. The doors of every business premises in the country have been virtually closed as a result of Government policy. Any Deputy who is in contact with shopkeepers must know that. Shopkeepers make no secret of the fact that their customers, ordinary farmers and workers, who were able to buy food for decent meals during the period of office of the inter-Party Government and for a while after it left office, are buying most sparingly, in bits and scraps, now. Shopkeepers havetold me that a great many of their customers, in the towns particularly, are not able to buy sufficient food for the maintenance of their families.

Mr. Davern

They said that only to please you.

Mr. Blowick

I hope things are better in Tipperary than they are in Mayo. I am speaking of my own constituency and I claim to know the conditions there fairly intimately. One of the best indications of whether the Government is popular or not is the result of the national collection for Fianna Fáil. Some of the national collections I saw were pitiable fiascos compared to what they used to be a short time ago.

Mr. Davern

On the contrary, there has been a 50 per cent. increase.

Mr. Sweetman

They were not held at all in some places.

Mr. Blowick

One saw two or three people standing at the chapel gate with a placard headed: "National Collection for Fianna Fáil. Support Eamon de Valera". The total of the subscription came to about 25/- or 27/-where I saw as much as £30 subscribed a short time before. That is a nice picture and it is about the best indication of how the public pulse is going. This is not a matter for laughing and joking. It is a serious matter, particularly for the poor working man's wife, who sees her husband out of work and who has to depend on the £1 or £2 which he brings from the labour exchange, who sees her children badly clad, under-nourished and badly fed. It is anything but a joke, I want to tell Deputy Davern.

Mr. Cogan

That was no joke.

Mr. Blowick

I would suggest to Deputy Cogan that he should not draw me on himself because Deputy Cogan has his share of responsibility for bringing all this about. Remember he has contributed his own share to the operation of this policy. It is a matter for which he will have to answer in his own constituency. It is a matterbetween himself and his conscience also.

Mr. Killilea

North Mayo gave the Deputy his answer.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy wants me to tell him what happened in North Mayo I shall do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick is inviting interruptions.

Mr. Blowick

I did not mention North Mayo. I could tell the Deputy all about the demise of the Ballina biscuit factory. In fact, it was stillborn. Would Deputy Killilea tell us what has become of it?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that not inviting interruptions?

Mr. Blowick

No, Sir, it is not. I am inviting Deputy Killilea to speak after me and to give me the answer if he is able and if the Chair is gracious enough to call him. The last matter to which I should like to refer is the manner in which the Department that I administered during the period of office of the inter-Party Government is now being administered. I refer to the Department of Lands and Forestry. About 1940 the operations of the Land Commission were brought to a standstill. The Land Commission were prohibited from resuming and acquiring land for the relief of congestion. The staff were dissipated and scattered or were confined to merely routine work such as vesting. When the inter-Party Government came into office, they were faced with the problem of removing the ban which had been imposed on the work of the Land Commission, somewhere, I think, about the 14th April, 1941. I do not know whether that announcement was made through the Dáil or whether it was merely said that owing to the emergency the work of the Land Commission should stand over for a few years. I was not here at the time and I cannot say whether the House took that as a genuine excuse. The war, however, finished in 1945 and in 1948, when we took office, the Order had not been revoked. We know the way in which the Land Commission has been administered since.

Mr. Killilea

The staff are all back.

Mr. Blowick

The staff are not all back. I want to tell Deputy Killilea that 50 per cent. of the staff that are there now are staff I had to recruit when I went there. That was one of the drawbacks I had to contend with for the first 18 months, because the outdoor staff cannot be expected to take in a number of young men and in a short time turn them out as fully-fledged inspectors able to value land.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is a question of administration. The Deputy should confine himself to policy.

Mr. Blowick

We are asked for a vote of confidence.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss administration on this motion. He must confine himself to policy.

Mr. Blowick

This is a question of Government policy. I am trying to deal with the policy of the Government in dealing with the Land Commission. Since they took over office, their policy has been a continuation of the policy which was operated for six or seven years prior to the advent of the inter-Party Government. The present Minister is not acquiring any fresh land. He is using the pool of land which the commissioners acquired during my time. He is using that pool and, apparently, having great fun in dividing it, but he is adding nothing to it, with the result that if there is another change of Government in a year's time or in two or three years' time, the incoming Minister will find things in the same condition as I found them in 1948.

Again, expenditure on the Forestry Department has been cut. I shall not dwell on that further than to say that if it is the Government's wish to make a genuine effort to stop the flight from the land and to stop emigration from the western seaboard from Kerry to Donegal, they have no finer instrument in their hands to achieve that purpose than the implementation of the forestry programme which I left to Deputy Derrig when he took overoffice on the 14th June two years ago.

Last year the Government introduced the Undeveloped Areas Act but, so far as I can see, that Act is being used as nothing more or less than an electioneering stunt in order to bamboozle and fool the people. The Minister for Industry and Commerce here last night indicated that the Act is not working out as well as he thought it would. He hopes that there will be 12 factories established west of the Shannon. Again, that is a Fianna Fáil hope for the future—"live horse and you will get grass". He said that 35 or 36 factories would be established in Dublin in the near future. That is more centralisation. That is the be-all and the end-all of the famous Undeveloped Areas Act of which we had such hopes. He says that 15 projects are under consideration and he has hopes that 12 of these will materialise.

For Deputy Killilea's information, I hope that they will materialise — more so than the biscuit factory for Ballina which the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised just a year ago. I suppose some people were fooled about that particular project.

Mr. Killilea

We will get it in time.

Mr. Blowick

I want to refer now to a statement which the Tánaiste made in this House last night in relation to the butter subsidy. I do not know why he made that statement. He must be very well aware that it is a serious misstatement. He said that it would take a subsidy of £1,000,000 to bring down the price of butter by ld. That is altogether wrong. I corrected him at the time he made the statement but yet he clung to his misstatement. Taking winter and summer production alike, it takes a little under three gallons of milk to produce a lb. of butter. A penny a gallon on milk represents £1,000,000. A sum of £1,000,000 devoted to the subsidy on butter would mean a reduction of 3d. in the lb. I do not know why the Tánaiste insisted on making that misstatement last night unless it was for the purpose of scaring the people— seeing that, already, butter has gone up from 2/10 a lb. under the inter-PartyGovernment to 4/2 a lb. under the Fianna Fáil Government—into believing that it will now take £16,000,000 to bring the price of butter down to the level at which it was during the inter-Party Government's term of office. It will not take one third of that sum. Butter has been taken off the tables of the working-class people, and their children are deprived of it. Those of them who are fortunate enough to be able to buy margarine are doing so. We are now in the position that we have 60,000 to 70,000 cwt. of a butter surplus.

I have no doubt that the Taoiseach and those Deputies who sit on the Government side of the House consider that it is a great comfort to the working man and his wife and family to know that, although they are denied the lb. of butter, somewhere in this country there is a huge store of 60,000 to 70,000 cwt. of butter which they can look at but cannot buy.

Mr. Davern

It is due to increasing the price of milk to the farmers.

Mr. Blowick

It is not. Deputy Davern will get a rude awakening shortly.

Mr. Davern

It is up by 15 per cent.

Mr. Blowick

How many of Deputy Davern's constituents have been denied the right or the means of purchasing a lb. of butter?

Mr. Davern

Does the Deputy stand for a reduction in the price of milk? I have asked the Deputy a straight question.

Mr. Blowick

I will not be drawn along that line, good, bad or indifferent. I am sticking to one thing and that is that the people of this country consumed 760,000 cwt. of butter each year under the inter-Party Government. They were able to buy it and, thank God, they were able to eat it. Along with that, we had to import butter. What is the position to-day?

Mr. Davern

We imported butter, too.

Mr. Blowick

You imported the New Zealand butter, the yellow butter,which received so much adverse criticism while the inter-Party Government were in office. You are imposing that imported butter on Dublin and on a radius around Dublin—so much so that the people there cannot buy a lb. of Irish creamery butter. But the people can read that, somewhere, in cold storage—probably on a ship on the Liffey—there are between 60,000 and 70,000 cwt. of the best Irish creamery butter. I suppose that, sooner or later, the English people will be subsidised, as they were before—in other words, bribed—to eat the butter which our own people are denied. It is like the extra £20,000,000 worth of food, meat and so forth that was exported and that represents an increase in our exports.

Mr. Fanning

That is all nonsense.

Mr. Blowick

If it is, then it is the Minister for Finance's nonsense. I should be only too happy to think that we would have an increase in our agricultural exports. Some Deputy may try to argue from what I have said that I am opposed to increased agricultural exports. I am not. I should like to see this country exporting £200,000,000 worth of agricultural exports instead of £100,000,000 worth but, first of all, I want to see that our own people are adequately fed and then by all means export the surplus. So long as we deny it to our own people, we cannot call it a surplus. I do not want to see food withheld from the tables of the working people and the poor in order to sell it abroad. I always encourage every farmer in my constituency whom I meet to produce as much as he possibly can. I always encourage him to knock as much as he can out of his land, and I am always prepared to give him any advice which I may be able to give him and which he may require.

Mr. Fanning

Why did you not do it when you were in the Coalition Government?

Mr. Blowick

Of course we did it. Why did you cut down drainage? Why was the drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act cut down from the £1,900,000 which we weregiving to the country councils when we were in office to £400,000 by the Fianna Fáil Government? The Deputies opposite have no business getting hot under the collar when they see the writing on the wall.

Mr. Killilea

We are not one bit worried.

Mr. Blowick

You are. We can see the pale faces from this side of the House and they give the lie to that statement by Deputy Killilea.

Mr. Lehane

Is Deputy Blowick in favour of reducing the price of agricultural produce, thus compelling the Irish farmer to sell his produce at less than its market value?

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear!

Mr. Blowick

Not at all. I am afraid that that question is very much in Deputy Davern's line. That is not the way to approach the problem. There is a way to approach it. Deputy Lehane and Deputy Davern know the conditions that obtained under the inter-Party Government. I have not the slightest doubt that the prosperity that the people enjoyed at that time and a great deal of what might be called the just imposition of taxation will be restored to a large extent within a period of six months of the inter-Party Government's taking office again.

Mr. Lehane

Do you want a restriction of exports?

Mr. Blowick

I have already said that I should like to see our exports expanded. If I did not believe that there would be a vast improvement in conditions in this country generally, I should vote for this motion. I believe that the full and plenty, the prosperity, the almost full employment and the other benefits which the people of this country enjoyed under the inter-Party Government can be restored. For these reasons, Clann na Talmhan are voting against the Taoiseach's motion.

Mr. Lehane

My only concern is to find out whether or not you want a restriction of exports in order to keepdown the price of agricultural produce?

Mr. Blowick

Not at all. That would be like a doctor who proposes to cut off the head of a child simply because a rash appeared on the child's face. That would be a very silly way of approaching the problem.

Major de Valera

What would your suggestion be?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Blowick

I believe that the prosperity, the full employment and, above all else, the just imposition of taxation that obtained during the period of office of the inter-Party Government can be restored. I think it can truthfully be said that, under the Coalition Government, we had the lowest ever number of discontented people. I think that that happy position can be restored.

If the present Government had implemented their 15-point programme— which was our policy — and took up where we left off, it is very difficult to say what the result of the recent by-elections would have been, but I feel certain that the motion which this House is now discussing would not have been necessary. In other words, we should not be in the position in which we are to-day. We would not have unemployed people marching up and down the streets of our city and bus loads of Gardaí protecting Leinster House for the first time in the history of this State and we should not have train loads of our youth flying the country. We should not have 78,000 young men, between the ages of 15 and 45 years, fleeing from the land to take up occupations in our cities and towns and across the water. All that has happened in the short period since 1946.

To put it briefly, we aim at increased production and at assisting the principal industry of this country — agriculture — to get on its feet.

Mr. Davern

Reducing milk to 1/- a gallon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These interruptions must cease and Deputy Blowick must be allowed to conclude his speech.

Mr. Blowick

We aimed at restoring to the farmers the 4,000,000 acres approximately of arable land which are under water and about which Fianna Fáil seem to think nothing because they have cut down on all our schemes. Deputy Fanning shakes his head.

Mr. Fanning

And no wonder.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

There are several Deputies who want to speak. Every time a Deputy interrupts Deputy Blowick, he begins his speech all over again. I do not want to deprive him of his right to speak, but the fact is that there are only two hours left.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot curtail the length of any speech.

Mr. Blowick

I should be long sorry to draw out my remarks so much as to deprive any Deputy of speaking. We are opposing the motion for the reasons I have given. We believe we can restore prosperity and go a long way towards stopping emigration. The people in the recent by-elections have shown that they are angrily disposed towards the present Government and are determined to get shut of them. The unemployed marches are proof of that, together with the fact that Leinster House has to be guarded by a strong force of guards and military against the anger of the Dublin people. We believe that in a period of six months we can go a very long way towards restoring the prosperity the country enjoyed two years ago and will enjoy again in the near future.

Mr. Cogan

I propose to be as brief as possible.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

This is three-quarters of one group in the House who have now spoken.

Mr. A. Byrne

I have been here since 10.30 a.m. I was first in and I had hoped to get five minutes.

Mr. Cogan

I have been here since 10.30 a.m. yesterday trying to get in and I am entitled to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I might point out to Deputy Corish that so far ten speakers have spoken for the motion, taking nine hours and 47 minutes and 11 speakers have spoken against, taking 11 hours and 38 minutes.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I know your difficulty, Sir, in trying to give a proper opportunity to the different groups, but Deputy Cogan belongs to a group who describe themselves as Independents who generally support the Government. Two of these four members have already spoken, so that when the Deputy has spoken, 75 per cent. of the group will have spoken.

Mr. A. Byrne

Could we have quarter hour or ten minute speeches, so as to let us all get in? I only want five minutes to talk about unemployment.

Mr. Killilea

You have been bluffing about it for long enough.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot curtail speeches.

Mr. Cogan

There is very little time left, and Deputy Byrne and Deputy Corish are endeavouring to waste it. In fairness to other speakers, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. I have been waiting since yesterday to get in. I have prepared a fair amount of notes but it would not be possible for me to use them, and I do not intend to do so. I intend so far as possible to give other Deputies a chance of speaking, and I am sorry that the previous speakers did not show that consideration, in view of the fact that there is a time limit on this debate.

Deputy Morrissey, when concluding his speech, made an observation which I think deserves to be refuted. He said that there were two Independent Deputies who support the Government because of a vicious spite against some other member of the House. He also said that there was another Independent member who supports the Government because of a vicious hatred and spite against another member, and I take it he is referring to myself,because over and over again the accusation has been made against me that I in some way bear hatred, ill-will or spite towards one member of the House. I want to make it clear beyond all question that I have never borne any ill-will or hatred for any member of the House. Every member of the House is my friend, and if any member is in need of any help I can give, he will get it. I think it is an appalling thing that the leading Opposition Party, Fine Gael, and certain sections of the Press should concentrate on this campaign of abuse which seeks to represent a Deputy's policy and actions in this House as being inspired and motivated solely by personal ill-will and of hatred for another Deputy.

It is true that, during the period of the inter-Party, I expressed strong disagreement with the policy pursued by the then Minister for Agriculture, but there was nothing personal in that opposition. It was based on policy, and policy alone, and the records of the House will show that again and again during the administration of that Minister and that Government, ex-Deputy O'Reilly and myself, two Independent farmer Deputies, introduced motions designed to change that policy. Let us hear no more of the suggestion that no Deputy can disagree with inter-Party policy unless he bears hatred, ill-will or spite to some member of that Government. It is a vicious slander from the Independent Deputies — the same accusation has been directed against Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll and Deputy Cowan. I want to say that I resent it and that it should not be repeated.

Notice taken that20Deputies were not present; House counted, and20Deputies being present,

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Larkin last night raised the tone of the debate. He raised it to a certain extent above the gutter by concentrating upon the issues before us in a serious way. He spoke of the difficulties of a Party such as the Labour Party in a situation of the kind we have and he showed how difficultit would be for them to support any Party. As he said, when you take a cat by the tail—I think he was referring to the Fine Gael Party—it is often very hard to let go. He thereby indicated a certain difficulty that faces the country. There are people who say that this motion should not be put to the House, that the Government should go to the country. The only purpose of going to the country would be to secure a change of Government. If the Government went to the country and secured their return to power, it would mean that the same policy would be continued, so I take it that those people who appeal for a general election, whether genuinely or not, are asking for a change of Government. I would like to examine this question to find out what would happen if there was a general election and if the present Government was to become a minority. Would we immediately have an alternative Government, with a policy and programme, capable of taking over the reins of administration?

Deputy Larkin very properly indicated that there is no certainty of any such thing. He said that his Party would put a programme forward and submit a programme to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and, if that programme was accepted by either, they would then give conditional support to the Party that accepted it. After an election, therefore, we would have a long period of uncertainty and unrest, a period during which the Labour Party and Fine Gael would be fighting out the various issues between themselves. Deputy Larkin said that during the period of the inter-Party Government the Fine Gael Party worked in the broad light of day and in the darkness of the night to undermine and destroy the Labour Party. In face of that it is quite evident that Deputy Larkin is not likely in the event of an opportunity arising to form another inter-Party Government to make as soft a bargain as he did in 1948. At that time Fine Gael gained a certain number of seats and the Labour Party lost.

Labour came out of the experiment very badly. That is in accord with the history of Fine Gael. Fine Gael is akind of political Christie. They have a cupboard filled chock-full of the skeletons of the small Parties that tried to help them out and put them into power. They have the remains of a number of Farmers' Parties that they gobbled up and destroyed. That is the policy they have pursued all down the years. I take it they are determined to continue with that policy right to the end.

Now, the Labour Party has some sort of leadership. I do not think there is any leadership in Clann na Talmhan judging from our experience here to-day. Because the Labour Party has some leadership they will fight for their existence and not allow themselves to become skeletons in this political Christie's cupboard.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

On a point of order. The Deputy has used a particular reference in relation to a recent event in the newspapers. I think the association does not do the House any good and I would ask the Chair to draw the Deputy's attention to the implications of his remarks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair did not understand the reference.

Mr. Cogan

It may not be very creditable to the Fine Gael Party, but it is nevertheless true. They have destroyed their allies one by one. Clann na Poblachta came into this House, a strong, virile, vigorous Party of 10 or 11 members. At the end of the inter-Party régime there was nothing but the head and the tail. They were just the same as a herring that hunted with a hungry cat.

The Taoiseach opened this debate in his usual moderate and restrained way. He outlined the difficulties the country has experienced in building up and sustaining the nation. Whether or not we agree with him on everything, every Deputy must acknowledge that the Taoiseach is by far the ablest Leader this country has produced. He has great moral and physical courage, but it is not that alone that has marked him out. It is the fact that not only has he shown the moral courage and the necessary ability but he has also had patience, perseverance andvigilance in watching the nation's long-term interests and safeguarding them. He has sustained this nation against attack from outside and against the danger of want in time of emergency. He has sustained it against involvement in war. For that reason he deserves to be treated with respect.

One characteristic marks out the Opposition and that is its animosity, towards the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach's integrity has enabled this nation to become a free nation and to become firmly established as such. For that reason I think it is only right that his Government should be given an opportunity of proving that its policy over the last two years is from the long-term national point of view the safest and the best policy for the nation.

What is the alternative offered by the Opposition? It is nothing but a medley of conflicting and discordant suggestions from a number of Parties with conflicting interests. They have declared their intention not to prepare an agreed policy and put that policy before the nation. They are prepared to go to the country with rival policies. Should they prove successful they will resort to bargaining in relation to ministerial office. They may reach some kind of hotch-potch agreement which will enable them to carry on for some time. That was the history of the three and a half years of inter-Party Government. I know it because I was endeavouring during that time to secure something in the nature of a sound national policy.

I am one of those who agreed with the proposal that an attempt should be made to form an all-Party national Government. I recognised from the outset that the first fundamental for the establishment of such a Government was fair play and goodwill on the part of those who held ministerial office. Time and time again here we had one Minister who maliciously defamed his predecessors; one Minister more than any other was the chief culprit in that respect. I knew it was impossible in those circumstances to look forward to a national Government because Party politics and political partisanship were the main issues ofthat particular Minister and some of his colleagues. The Labour members of the inter-Party Government have a fairly creditable record in that respect. Unfortunately for me I had a share in putting one Independent Minister into office and he was the Minister who from the very outset misrepresented the position in which he found the country when he took office and misrepresented the position in relation to agriculture thereby seeking to defame and destroy, if possible, the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Killilea

He was not an Independent, of course.

Mr. Cogan

We only discovered that after some time. In a very short time we found that he was working not for the Independents but to destroy the Independents, particularly Deputy O'Reilly and myself, in order to replace them by Fine Gael members. He succeeded in so far as Deputy O'Reilly was concerned. He has not yet succeeded as far as I am concerned.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Where is Deputy Deering from?

Mr. Cogan

I am still Deputy for the County Wicklow and you may find that for a very long time hence I shall still be Deputy for the County Wicklow with God's help and if I have my health. Since I have referred to health, I should like to say that I never listened to a more disgraceful statement than that made by the Leader or whatever he is of the Fine Gael Party. He said that on this vote the Division Lobbies would be turned into hospital corridors. He suggested that it was a shameful and disgraceful thing for a man to suffer illness. Good health is a blessing which we all hold from the Almighty. We enjoy it from day to day, from hour to hour, or even from one moment to another. We do not know how long we may enjoy health and we do not know how soon we may be deprived of it but no man with any sense of decency would insult or offend a man who lost his health. The ex-Taoiseach was the one man who availed of a stretcher to bring one of his supporters into this House and there was not one opponent of the ex-Taoiseach'swho said a disrespectful word to that man when he was brought into the House.

I myself on that occasion had a deeper respect for that particular Deputy than I ever had before or since when I saw him come to cast his vote under great difficulties. If any citizen had to walk on a crutch through the poorest street in Dublin, you could take it that the lowliest loafer on the street would not offend or insult him. It was left to a leader of a political Party to spit upon any unfortunate Deputy who might have to be brought into the House to vote regardless of which side he might vote for.

The ex-Taoiseach made another statement which could hardly be allowed to pass. He spoke of two disreputable Independent Deputies upon whom the Government might have to depend on this vote. What right on earth has Deputy John Costello to describe any Deputy as being disreputable? What is his own record? What is the record of his colleagues? Let him look at the responsible Ministers he had assisting him when he was head of the Government. Let him look at General Mulcahy whose feast day is celebrated on the 8th December.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is getting away from the motion.

Mr. Cogan

Let him look at Field-Marshal Everett who achieved fame in the battle of Baltinglass. Let him look into the mirror and see the man who solemnly pledged himself, when seeking office, that he would uphold the connection between this country and the British Commonwealth and who availed of the first opportunity, whether under pressure or otherwise, to sever the last link with that Commonwealth. Could the man who so shamefully broke faith with his own supporters and with the people throughout the length and breadth of the country look into the mirror and describe himself as reputable? How could such a man dare accuse other Deputies of being disreputable?

Members of this House are proud of their reputations, proud of their statusas honourable representatives of the people. We try to carry out in the spirit and in the letter the policy which we advocated. I have always advocated a progressive national and agricultural policy. I must say that I have great respect for Deputy Larkin, particularly when he speaks in this House. He speaks with moderation and restraint, but I think he errs slightly when he refers to me as being conservative.

Mr. Larkin

If I am wrong, I apologise.

Mr. Cogan

As Professor Joad used to say, it all depends on what you mean by conservative. If conservatism means conserving or preserving the things that are good and desirable in Irish life, then by all means am I conservative, but if it means opposing reform, opposing improvement and opposing an improvement in the standard of life of our people, then I most emphatically protest against being described as a conservative. If we were to go into questions of policy, I think Deputy Larkin would find that I am at least as progressive in my outlook as any Deputy in this House. I believe that every boy and girl reared in this country ought to have a reasonable prospect of obtaining employment within this country and a decent home in which to live and enjoy the ordinary comforts of life.

I would always be prepared to support any action on the part of the State to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of all people securing full employment. I was interested to learn that a speaker, on behalf of the demonstration of unemployed workers in the city yesterday, declared that he had no confidence in the present Government, but he also said that they did not want Fine Gael. So it seems that there is a fairly strong feeling in this country that the removal of the present Government would not solve our economic and social difficulties. The Taoiseach was right, and so was Deputy Lemass, Minister for Industry and Commerce, when they indicated that this Dáil was elected for a period of five years by the electorate. ThisDáil is entitled to take that period in order to carry out its programme, the programme on which the majority of its members are agreed.

This Dáil has a perfect right to do that if it so desires. This is the Parliament of the nation. Sooner or later this Parliament must render an account to the people. It must give its account within a period of five years and it may, if it so desires, present that account within a shorter period. That is a matter for the Dáil itself and for the Government. Therefore, there is no merit in the suggestion that this Dáil has no right to propose a vote of confidence in the Government. We have got to ask ourselves what is this vote of confidence. It is a vote of confidence in the present Government. We have also got to ask ourselves what would be the net result of our action in voting against this motion. It would be a vote of confidence in the Opposition. Is there any Deputy on any side of the House who could have confidence in men like Deputy Costello, Deputy Donnellan, who has grown a little, Deputy Blowick, or the Leader of the Labour Party who is trying to save his small Party from being eaten up and destroyed by that devouring monster, Fine Gael?

I want to say that I believe we will be in a better position to judge the policy of the present Government when it has been carried out to its fullest extent. I believe that the country is in an improving condition. That is true, particularly of agriculture. One would think, listening to some of the silly speakers and some of the legal gentlemen we have in this House, that agriculture was in a state of decline and decay. I have never known agriculture to offer better prospects to the farmer than it does at the present time. Since the change of Government two years ago, the price of milk has been increased by almost 3d. per gallon, the price of wheat has been increased by 17/- per barrel, and the price of beet has been substantially increased by 11/- or 12/- a ton. In the last year of the inter-Party Government we were devoting £500,000 to land reclamation and improvement, while in the present year we have voted £3,000,000 for the same purpose, therebyindicating clearly that there is a progressive policy in operation in regard to agriculture. Since agriculture is the basis and foundation of our whole economic system, there is hope that we may see a further substantial improvement in conditions.

I do not intend to detain the House much longer since I know there are other speakers to follow, but I think that anyone who views the issue fairly will acknowledge that this vote of confidence by Dáil Éireann is justifiable in present circumstances. It remains for the Government, having secured this vote of confidence from the Dáil, to press froward with its programme of national development as rapidly as possible. I believe, in spite of my conservatism, that there is a good deal of further employment which the Government could give. Bord na Móna has proved to be a source of very substantial employment for our workers. Work in regard to afforestation and schemes of that kind should be pushed forward as rapidly as possible so that employment may be provided on a very substantial scale. No one wants to see any decent citizen, who is able and willing to work, in the position in which he is unable to secure employment.

Mr. Larkin

The Central Bank does.

Mr. Cogan

The fact in regard to the Central Bank, as every Deputy of the House is aware, is that when it asked in its report for a cutting down on works of capital development, the Government repudiated that suggestion most emphatically, and instead of cutting down on works of capital development, the Government very substantially increased expenditure on these works in the present year to a figure of over £40,000,000. That sum of money is being raised by the State on the security of the taxpayer and is being expended on works of capital development. I am in favour of extending that still further.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in the course of his speech, dealt with the housing problem and suggested that, as far as it relates to local authority schemes, it is on theway to being solved. I believe, however, that we should still further improve housing conditions in the rural areas. I do not think it is right that any small working farmer should not have as decent a house as the workers in Ballyfermot or in any of those other city areas. I am told that these corporation houses are very good houses. They are certainly very good if compared with the houses in which many of our small farmers are living to-day. Let us go ahead with works of improvement and development of that kind, works designed to provide employment and to raise the standard of living of our people and thereby induce our young men and young women to settle down in Ireland and establish homes here. That is our objective.

What is the objective of the Opposition —of Fine Gael? In spite of everything that I could do when the inter-Party Government was in power, there was a ruthless cutting down of the area under tillage. Last year, a campaign was organised by the Fine Gael Party to cut down the area under both wheat and beet. This year, thank God, there is a substantial increase in the acreage under these two crops. The people, in spite of Fine Gael and of everything they could do to hold them down and drive them into panic, to bewilder them and confuse them, are settling down and are determined to go ahead. I think that is what we all desire. We have a so-called Republican paper, the Sunday Independentin which a gentlemen named Skinner writes——

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

On a point of order. Is the Deputy entitled to make a charge against a person outside of this House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The names of people outside this House should not be mentioned in it

Mr. Cogan

This newspaper, at weekly or monthly intervals, has been declaring that a general election will be held immediately—that the Dáil will be dissolved this week or next week.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

It will be right next week.

Mr. Cogan

It has been doing that, the whole object of that campaign being to disorganise business.

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cogan

This whole campaign is designed to prevent recovery, to prevent an improvement in the economic and business life of this country, to create confusion, discontent and uneasiness amongst our people. I think it is time that that kind of sabotage of our national economy was brought to a close. It is time that people should adopt a more responsible attitude. Our farming industry, as I have said, is improving and is capable of still greater improvement. The business life of the community is very sensitive to alarms of that kind. They disturb the people's minds. What we need is to restore confidence in our business people so that they will be enabled to provide further opportunities for employment for our people.

The people who are opposed to the present Government, and want to climb into office by hook or by crook, do not want the employment problem solved or more people put into permanent employment, and neither do they want to see the economic situation of the country improved. What they want is confusion and chaos in order to exploit it. I think, however, that the people are beginning to size up Fine Gael in that respect. They are beginning to see that they are nothing more than a Party of political opportunists who are mad for ministerial office and, if they can get it, are determined to keep it by any and every means at their disposal.

I had brought to my notice savage, vicious and ruthless statements that were made about me to my supporters in County Wicklow. Every member of the Fine Gael Party ought to be ashamed of the campaign that they waged. I was accused of selling my vote for a sum of £20,000.

Mr. Rooney

Your name was not mentioned.

Mr. Cogan

That statement was made to decent, respectable people.

Mr. Crotty

We did not mention you. The people forgot about you.

Mr. Cogan

The people of County Wicklow are sensible enough.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cogan

They know that Senator McCrea, a decent man, was stabbed in the back and they know the hairy old hand that wielded the stiletto. They know that Fine Gael out-manoeuvred, outwitted and out-generalled the Labour Party and they did it with the help of a fifth column within the Labour Party.

Mr. Hughes

That is untrue.

Mr. Cogan

It can be proved.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

What about Deputy Corry's statements? The same thing could be said about him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan is in possession, and he should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Lehane

Is there any chance of getting back to the motion?

Mr. Cogan

If those people will keep quiet. One of the statements made by Deputy Morrissey was that every farmer Deputy must acknowledge that the inter-Party Government brought prosperity to agriculture. That statement was made very deliberately in the course of this debate. The inter-Party Government had nothing whatever to do with any improvement that has taken place in agricultural conditions since 1947. We all know that in 1947 we had a very severe winter and conditions were bad in the early summer of that year. Nevertheless the prices of live stock, cattle and sheep, rose sharply, as every cattle trader and every farmer knows. They rose during 1947, because of improved shipping conditions, to the level almost of the British price, and they have remained at that level ever since. It had nothing to do with the 1948 Agreement. It did not matter who entered into that agreement. The prices had risen before that agreement was signed and anyone who cares to go down to the Library and read the shipping statisticsor the prices of imports for that period will see that the price of cattle increased by almost 50 per cent. and in some cases by almost 100 per cent. in the latter half of 1947.

Every Deputy knows that; yet we have certain politicians trying to cash in and seek to secure some kudos for themselves upon the assertion that they brought about agricultural prosperity. Any increased prosperity that has come is the natural result of the relaxing of wartime conditions restricting shipping and causing a world shortage of food supplies, particularly of animal products. Whatever happens we can hope to look forward to that condition prevailing for a long time. It does not matter what Government is in power, that will happen. However, a Government can do immeasurable harm if we are to be influenced by the policy advocated by Deputy Dillon of cutting down the acreage under wheat, the acreage under beet and that of other cash crops for which there is a secure and permanent market.

We may face some risks in regard to the export market at all times. We never can control that market but at least we can control the home market and we can ensure that our farmers will obtain a reasonable return for their work. The farmers all over the country are waking up to the importance of that market. They are waking up to the value which the growing of wheat and particularly of beet has in their economy. They know these crops provide the proper rotation which improves their soil and lays the foundation for better leas and better grasses.

Those are the things that make for improvement in the standard of living. Because those things are possible under the present Government, because they are not possible under the Opposition, I am determined to support this motion, and I hope the Government will continue with that policy of intensive development of agricultural and industrial resources because that is the only way in which they can provide a better standard of living for our people and better social services. I hope they will also persist in improving social services in spite of any protests andany opposition that may be offered by one section of the Opposition. I believe in improving our social services. They will have the support, not perhaps of the Fine Gael Party but the support of all progressive elements within the nation.

Mr. Lehane

This motion is one that is of very great importance and I am very sorry that so much time has been wasted. I have been sitting in the House yesterday and to-day and a very considerable amount of time has been wasted by people on both sides standing up, speaking for an hour and saying nothing. As far as I am concerned and as far as this motion matters, I am not in the slightest degree worried one way or the other whether there is an election to-morrow, an election next month or an election next year.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lehane

Any action I take will not have that consideration influencing my view to any possible degree. During the week-end I did take the opportunity of discussing this vote with the standing committee of the County Cork Farmers' Association and with as many other representatives or constituents of my area that I could contact. I feel in what I am doing now and in what I intend to do, I am backed and I am helped through the views and the information I have got from these sources.

Debate adjourned.