We in the Labour Party regret that Deputy Seán Ormonde is not to remain a member of the Government, because of most, if not all, Ministers in the Government we could always expect courtesy and guidance and no arrogance from Deputy Seán Ormonde as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. We only hope, whilst not making this a political hope for the Fianna Fáil Party, that some time in the future, when his health permits, he may again occupy the office which he held so well for such a short period.
I have often advocated to Deputy Lemass when he was Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Department of Industry and Commerce ought to be sub-divided. It seems to me that his then Chief did not agree either with me or with Deputy Lemass. However, I think I can speak for my Party—I must confess I have not as yet consulted them —in welcoming this change of front by the Taoiseach in his proposal that Industry and Commerce be sub-divided into at least two sections. It is an admirable proposal that transport, aviation, fuel and shipping should have, if not a separate Ministry, certainly a separate Parliamentary Secretaryship.
I said earlier on this evening that it is too soon to judge Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach, but, unfortunately, we must judge the other Ministers who have been re-appointed in the Government. If we are to judge them on their performance over the past two and a half or two and a quarter years, we cannot give them any great commendation but we do hope that Deputy Lemass may be able to inspire them to greater activity and, might I say, to less arrogance.
I tried to say this on the debate for the nomination of the Taoiseach but it seems I was out of order. At least, I can say now that the previous Taoiseach, as we are all aware or were led to believe, had a tremendous influence on the whole Fianna Fáil Party and on the individuals in it—an influence which I always believed was bad for the Fianna Fáil Party and bad for the country. However, I trust that Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach will use influence, not to the same strong extent but to some extent with, for example, the Minister for External Affairs and try to induce him to give up his middle of the road policy and tactics in the United Nations' Organisation and to decide for one side or another and not to be running a little bit of the way with both sides. His intentions may be all right but the mass of the Irish people do not believe that he represents the views of the Irish people in his pronouncements in the United Nations' Organisation.
The Minister for Health has certainly been a colourful figure but still a controversial figure. I think it was an admirable opportunity for the Government to get out of the embarrassment that there is at present between the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Association. The Minister has a strong point of view in which he possibly believes. I do not know whether he was ever a member of a trade union and negotiated as a trade unionist, but I know that to resolve a difficulty two sides must talk, but the Minister for Health believes that there should be a let down on one side and that he should continue to refuse to try to resolve a situation that has a grave detrimental effect on the people generally. Therefore, I think the Taoiseach would do well to advise Deputy MacEntee, now the Tánaiste, to change his tactics and also change his tactics as far as the general administration of the health services are concerned.
I say this not in criticism but in an effort to be helpful. I know that the Deputies on this side of the House know—I am certain the Deputies on the other side of the House know also —that as far as the administration of the health services is concerned, there is grave dissatisfaction which only a Minister for Health can resolve. For that reason, I would advise the Taoiseach to have a talk with his Tánaiste and Minister for Health to try to see how better the health services and the Health Act, 1953, can be administered for the benefit of the ordinary people.
The defeat of the Government proposal to adopt the straight vote was significant for many things other than the fact that the people preferred proportional representation. I think they showed their resentment of certain things and of certain Ministers who should change their tactics and policy. I believe that the Government, and, in particular, the Minister for Defence, were told off in no uncertain manner by a section of the community which on this occasion were important in view of the 38,000 of a majority, should I say, against the Government who did not and do not agree with internment without trial.
Therefore, I think the Taoiseach should also change his tactics in that respect. He should be determined and tell his Minister for Defence, the Government, or whoever is responsible, that the people of this country generally do not agree with internment without trial. If an offence has been committed or if there is a suggestion of an offence, those alleged to be involved should be charged and should have a trial. That is something upon which the Labour Party have felt strongly over the past two or three years and upon which they feel strongly at the present time.
I remember—this is the third time I have said it in this House—when the former Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera. in speaking on the Estimate for his Department, whilst he looked at Deputy Blaney, said the Minister for Local Government was now actively engaged in his Department in stimulating the building industry to create employment. I think that is as near his words as I can remember at the present time. If anybody wants it, I can get the quotation. I think it is right to say this. Since this Government took office and since Deputy Blaney became Minister for Local Government, there has been virtually stagnation in the Department of Local Government, as far as house building and employment are concerned.
I remember, when Deputy O'Donnell was Minister for Local Government, there was severe criticism and abuse levelled by Dublin Deputies and Cork City Deputies about the slow-down in the house-building industry. Fianna Fáil gave the impression that time and gave the impression in the campaign during the election of 1957 that if they got back to power, the house-building industry in Dublin, Cork and all over the country would be revived and that there would be many more in employment in the house-building industry.
Such is not the case. There are thousands fewer employed. Members of the present Government may have a reason for it. It has been said that the housing needs have been filled and that, consequently, we do not need more houses, but they made a promise to the people that they would build more houses and give more employment. What did they do? They cut out what we regard as a very valuable source of employment, the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That Act was described by Ministers of the Government as being a waste of money. I do not think it was. It can be pointed out in this little area or that that money was wasted. If it is wasted there, it is also wasted in industry. It has been wasted in grants for the repair of houses and over the years it has been wasted in grants to farmers.
It is agreed that there can be waste in regard to money given by the Government, but, by and large it is admitted, even by Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party, that that Act gave valuable employment and it tied up the reclamation of the land with the reclamation scheme introduced by Deputy Dillon when Minister for Agriculture.