Nomination of Members of Government: Motion of Approval.

The Taoiseach

Tairgim:—

Go gcomhaontóidh Dáil Éireann leis an Taoiseach d'ainmniú na gComhaltaí seo a leanas chun a gceaptha ag an Uachtarán chun bheith ina gcomhaltaí den Rialtas:—

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of the following Members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government:—

SEÁN MAC AN tSAOI (Seán MacEntee),

SÉAMAS Ó RIAIN (James Ryan),

PROINSIAS MAC AOGÁIN (Frank Aiken),

OSCAR MAC TRÉINFHIR (Oscar Traynor),

PÁDRAIG MAC GABHANN (Patrick Smith),

ERSKINE CHILDERS (Erskine H. Childers),

SEÁN Ó LOINSIGH (John Lynch),

NIALL BLÉINE (Neil T. Blaney),

CAOIMHGHIN Ó BEOLÁIN (Kevin Boland),

MICHEÁL Ó MÓRÁIN (Michael Moran),

MICHEÁL HILLIARD (Michael Hilliard)

agus

(and)

PÁDRAIG Ó hIRIGHILE (Patrick J. Hillery).

As the need to re-nominate the members of the Government arises in the middle of a Dáil Session, with work in progress in every Department and many Bills and Estimates still to be dealt with before the Summer Recess, I have decided that the only practical course is to make the minimum of changes in the Government at this stage. It will be appreciated that, otherwise, much important business would be unavoidably delayed.

The House is aware that the allocation of Departments to the care of Ministers is a function of the Taoiseach, that the Dáil approves of the appointment of Deputies to be Ministers but it is in the power of the Taoiseach to decide the Departments of which they will be in charge and to make changes in that regard on his initiative at any time.

The present arrangements which I am proposing must be regarded to some extent as provisional. While I have decided that only the minimum of changes should be made at this stage, nevertheless, one member of the former Government, Deputy Seán Ormonde, has informed me that his doctors have advised him that it is essential to his recovery to full health that he should give up his Ministerial duties. I have, of course, to accept his request, therefore, not to be considered for reappointment. I may say that I do so with very great regret indeed.

It is my intention to ask Deputy John Lynch to take charge of the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy Dr. Hillery to take charge of the Department of Education and Deputy Michael Hilliard to take charge of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

I have long been of the opinion that the proper performance of Government business would be facilitated by dividing up the Department of Industry and Commerce. There are so many matters to be dealt with in that Department that the time of the Minister, as I know from experience, is necessarily very fully occupied with matters of administration, to an extent that top-planning, which is the main function of a Minister, is made a great deal more difficult. I therefore propose to introduce legislation to provide for the setting up of a new Department of State which will take charge of transport, fuel, power and matters relating thereto. I hope that proposal will be acceptable to the Dáil.

However difficult it might be for a Minister to come into that Department after a general election, going through the process of deciding upon the legislation that he would sponsor and the measures he would put in train, I think it would be virtually impossible for a Minister going in at the present time in the middle of a Dáil term, to take over the work of that Department. Therefore, I propose to introduce this Bill for the setting up of this new Department forthwith. I hope the House will agree to secure its enactment before the end of this session. When that Bill is enacted, some further changes in the Government will be involved.

I propose to ask Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Health, to be Tánaiste.

Mr. Donnellan

Terrible.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I quite appreciate that it is the function of the Taoiseach to allocate the various Departments amongst the Ministers he nominates. I am glad he has at least given some indication of the provisional allocation of the various Departments but certainly they do not inspire any hope or give any reasonable prospect of the dissipation of the extraordinary cloud of dullness that has hung over the Fianna Fáil Government for many years past.

The Taoiseach has announced that Deputy Ormonde is no longer able to assume responsibility for the Department that he occupied for some short time. We all regret the cause for his inability to continue in that position. We hope his health will improve and that he will continue to give service as an ordinary Deputy.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. J.A. Costello

As regards the suggestion by the Taoiseach that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be divided, we must reserve our decision on that matter until we see the Bill. I think even the Taoiseach would not be so unreasonable as to ask us to give that benediction. I recall the howls of rage that came from this side of the House when we set up the Department of the Gaeltacht. The suggestion was made with tremendously eloquent fire and vituperation, that we were imposing more civil servants, more bureaucrats, more expense upon the country. There seems to be something in the point, though. My colleague, Deputy Norton, used to describe the Department of Industry and Commerce not as a Department but as an empire. It is a vast Department but why it was ever so directed as to become such a top-heavy structure we need not at the moment examine. It has far too many subdivisions and it is a herculean task for anybody to handle that situation.

At the same time, I understood the Government were committed to decreasing public expenditure. We know the laws that govern increases in public servants. Set up a new Department and you set up a train of events that no Government, even this present dull Government or any inspired Government thereafter, can ever hope to catch up upon because they will increase and multiply upon the Irish earth. We will have officials of every class and description for transport and all the other matters to which the Taoiseach has referred which are to be set up in this connection.

I do not know whether at this stage the Taoiseach intends to stretch out his clutching hands towards the Board of Works and to bring about some much-needed economies in that general direction or whether that will still remain as a Department of its own. However, we must reserve our judgment until we see the proposals and have them considered. In the meantime, I am sounding the note of warning that what we want is not an increase in civil servants but fewer public servants, at no sacrifice to existing civil servants.

From the point of view of the Government that has been nominated by the Taoiseach, there is little inspiration to be gained from them. The Minister for Health has been nominated as Tánaiste. Though I have a certain regard for the Minister for Health personally, I think, having regard to his somewhat astonishing statements from time to time, he is unfitted for that position.

Mr. Donnellan

Hear, hear!

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do not regard anybody who, in the course of the last elections, had the effrontery, in order to try to get votes either for the present President-elect or for the abolition of P.R., to repeat the slander that my colleagues and I in the first inter-Party Government put this country in pawn, is a proper man to be Tánaiste in this or in any Government. That was one of the foulest slanders and one of the most irresponsible statements that even the Minister for Health made. He said we had put this country into pawn because we had taken the American money and had left nothing behind us. I do not know whether he was present at the opening of the Agricultural Institute a few weeks ago. Was that not a tremendous asset that was left to this country as a result of our putting this country into pawn?

Mr. Dillon

We left them £24,000,000.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Were not the lime schemes, devised and initiated by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture, which have brought increased fertility and productivity to the soil of this country and which saved this country from the imbalance of payments an investment of a permanent character? For our putting our country into pawn, was the £24,000,000 we left behind us and which we had been using as a cushion to keep up our schemes of productive capital enterprises which were initiated during that period——

Major de Valera

A guilty conscience protests.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do not want to go into details on any matters of that kind now. I think it is proper that I, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party and also on behalf of those colleagues with whom I had the privilege and pleasure of co-operating in both inter-Party Governments, should repudiate that statement that should not have been made and, having been made, that should not have been used in the course of the last campaign. It besmirches the Minister who is now the Tánaiste and it besmirches his colleagues. It gives a very bad headline to any future politician in criticism of political opponents.

I have no more to say about the personnel of this Government. When the members of the Government who have resigned were appointed in March, 1957, I made no criticism or comment upon them then. I felt it was the responsibility of the Taoiseach to appoint his collegues and that, if they failed, it was his responsibility and his loss. At that time, there was a temptation to pass some remarks upon the character of particular individuals who formed that Government but we knew and felt we were under a deep obligation, in the circumstances then confronting the country, to take a responsible attitude and to assure the Government, then starting on their very difficult career, that we would be a vigilant Opposition, a watchful Opposition, and a constructive Opposition. We hope we have fulfilled that role in the two and a quarter years that have since elapsed.

The members of this Government start their career under the shadow of the rebuff that their Party sustained from the people on the referendum. They start their career with that very grave disability. They have received from the people a vote of censure for turning aside from the business of the country, from the solution of the economic problems that confronted this country and still confront it, and indulging in a piece of political pyrotechnics. When the former Taoiseach nominated his Ministers and gave the names to the Dáil, we searched for any indication from the particular individuals then appointed as to what the policy of the then Government was or would be. We could not get it. At the General Election of 1957 we sought by every means to ascertain from them and to wring from them if possible what their policy was. Of course we knew they had no policy. The formation of the Government at that time revealed they had no policy. I described it as the most closely guarded political secret of modern times. It was so closely guarded that it did not exist and the fact that it did not exist has been demonstrated in the last 12 months in a most signal manner.

The present Taoiseach, when he was a Minister and particularly when he was in Opposition, issued many plans and policies, over the years, starting from the famous Fianna Fáil plan of 1932 coming down to the most recent one for the expenditure of £100,000,000 without any increase in taxation. All these plans and all these policies were like dud cheques. They "bounced." We found they had no policy but in order that they should do something they had to get their cheque—a cheque which would not be accepted by the people, a cheque which was supposed to be their policy—marked good by the most distinguished civil servant we have in the service of this State.

Some time after they came into office this present Government carried on, as we were glad to see them carrying on, the policy we had left them there for agriculture and increased exports. Then they sought the assistance of the most distinguished civil servant in this State and he, in the course of his duty, produced something which could have amounted at least to the ground work of a national policy. The White Papers that have been introduced in the last few months were the groundwork and could be not merely the groundwork but the basis upon which, if there was any sort of inspiring Government to do it, a very strong economic structure could be built which had for its principles those principles which over the years Cumann na nGaedhael and Fine Gael had as the basis of their policy— agriculture and increased exports.

The very fact that they have no policy except the policy set out in the White Paper demonstrates that they never had a policy until they got that policy as the groundwork from the distinguished economist whose name is on the outside of that document. That could have been the groundwork for an all-out effort. We offered our co-operation here in all good faith in March, 1957. During the 2¼ years that have elapsed since that time that co-operation has been spurned. Because of their strong position, their strong voting power, they have regarded this Assembly not as a deliberative Assembly but merely as a machine for registering the decisions of the Government.

I would hope the Taoiseach is sufficiently realistic—at least that can be said for him—to know that however he may be able to push through any Bill by virtue of the voting power he has in this House, there is only one sure way in which we can solve the problems that afflict this country—by getting the co-operation of all sections of the people, united and working together. That ought to have been very apparent to the last Government. I hope it will become apparent to the Taoiseach and his colleagues. So far as they seek our co-operation they will get it. They will get our constructive help and our constructive criticism as a constructive Opposition. They had here the groundwork and White Papers were produced as the Government plan and Government economic policy. Some of the Ministers went around the country extolling them. The people were looking for inspiration, looking for some betterment of their position and for guidance and the Government had these documents as the groundwork upon which a policy could be framed and on which our problems of unemployment and emigration could be solved and an expansion in industry and agriculture secured.

We find the Taoiseach, if we are to believe his words, asserting that self-sufficiency, after 25 or 30 years in operation, is of no use to the country. We find him, if we are to take his words at their face value, stating he now believes in the agricultural industry as the basis of the prosperity of this country, although for many years the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce were like two Kerry Blues fighting for each other's throats, and Industry and Commerce always won. We are glad to know that at last he professes to see more value in the agricultural industry and perhaps there is some hope, with the co-operation of all sections of the community, for the prosperity of the country. But we cannot perhaps withstand the temptation of thinking that the present Taoiseach is something like a prisoner at a Russian trial confessing in public his faults. He confesses that his policy of self-sufficiency, his policy of high tariffs and quotas has not resulted in any real prosperity in the country or any hope for economic prosperity and that he was all wrong when he did not give the emphasis to agriculture which he could have given.

Instead of taking that groundwork policy, or whatever you like to call it, as something on which to work and something from which hope could be gained by the people, this Government, each and every one of them from the Taoiseach down to the most recent appointment, all engaged in this futile and fruitless effort to do something which the people did not want, about which they were not consulted and upon which they have now given a very distinct verdict—this question of the referendum. We have wasted time; we have wasted far more money than can ever be definitely ascertained or pinpointed. There has been wasted effort and many missed opportunities. This Government is starting now with that cloud around them and we only hope in the national interest they will forget their past sins and with a firm purpose of amendment bend themselves to the work which the people wish them to do.

Mr. Corish

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.

Mr. Donnellan

That is correct.

Mr. Corish

It was part and parcel of the scheme of land reclamation. It was very necessary because it gave employment. The cliché in recent years has been: No employment unless it is productive. I think there is so much cod about that. I think it is important to keep Irish people at home. For that reason, I do not think that any money raised, whether it is £2 million, £5 million, or £10 million, to keep thousands of Irish people at home, is wasted, because the road worker who gets £5 or £6 into his hands or the city dweller who gets £7, £8 or £9 into his hands will keep that money in circulation. In 90 per cent. of his purchases, he is purchasing Irish goods. The circle revolves. He is giving employment to Irish workers in Irish boot factories, foundries, breweries and different Irish industries.

That is not my justification for work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes. I think it was good work; I think it was productive work. I have seen places where rivers were drained and cleaned which had subjected adjacent land to flooding. On that land wheat is now growing. Therefore, the Taoiseach should consult with the Minister for Local Government with a view to advancing a certain amount of money to do that type of work and to keep rural workers not alone in Ireland but in rural Ireland.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that the Deputy is going into too much detail and that this would be more a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Corish

I am merely advising the Taoiseach about what he should say to the newly-elected Ministers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not usual to go into so much detail on a particular aspect of Government policy.

Mr. Corish

I shall be brief, so far as the Minister for Agriculture is concerned, and ask the Taoiseach to get him to implement the promise he made to the farmers in February and March, 1957. I am one who is concerned about the revival of the Irish language but I always believed that the revival was approached in the wrong way. The Taoiseach should consult also with the Minister for the Gaeltacht and ask him to do less about political hand-outs in the name of the Irish language and to think more about a voluntary revival. I believe that if people have to get grants or loans, the £5 for speaking Irish, and all this sort of State aid, the language will never be revived. The only way the language was ever revived in any country was when the people had a love for it, but if it is to be merely on a mercenary basis, I do not believe we shall ever have it revived.

There is a certain antagonism in parts of the country, other than what are regarded as Gaeltacht areas, by reason of the fact that money is being spent on the Gaeltacht and on what are regarded as undeveloped areas. The people of the country regard themselves as being equal to those living in the Gaeltacht areas and any encouragement for the revival of the language should be given over all of the 26 Counties or not at all.

In conclusion, I should like to wish every Minister well. I know how arduous and strenuous a task they can have and will have in the future. So far as the Labour Party are concerned, I can only say that we do not and will not oppose merely for opposition's sake. We are not opposed to Fianna Fáil because they are Fianna Fáil. We shall oppose measures which we believe are not in accordance with Labour Party policy. Any measures or proposals introduced by any member of the Fianna Fáil Government will have the approval of the Labour Party, if we believe they are good proposals.

Insofar as the two new Ministers are concerned, I should like to congratulate them on their elevation and wish them well in the task they have before them. I would say that not alone have all the Ministers received a rebuff but they have received a warning from the Irish people. They cannot now continue in the lackadaisical way of the past two and a quarter years. This proposal to change the voting system was a "try-on" and I think Fianna Fáil went a little too far and the people said: "We are not going to be led by the nose either by Eamon de Valera or the Fianna Fáil Party." A Party can be so strong and go so far, but on this occasion they went a little too far.

Mr. Blowick

The record of the Government over the past two and a quarter years has been a bad one. It is a record of nothing done and of no intention of doing anything. It is a record of unemployment, of a rising cost of living and a record of emigration. The Taoiseach—and I wish him well in his post—has a formidable task in front of him and if it is not a waste of time I would ask him to change completely the style which the Party have had not alone for the past two and a quarter years but which they have adopted since they were first elected to power. It is a strange thing that emigration figures soar, unemployment figures soar, and the cost of living soars every time the Fianna Fáil Party gets into power.

The Taoiseach is man enough not to run the country for the sake of the Party but to make the Fianna Fáil Party work for the benefit of the country, which is as it should be. That was the attitude adopted by the first and second inter-Party Governments and it is a headline which the Government would do well to follow. Before proceeding I should like to say that I regret exceedingly that Deputy Ormonde's health has necessitated his withdrawal from the Government. He was courteous and the most approachable Minister and I hope in the very near future his health will be restored again in full.

Mr. Donnellan

It was a red herring.

Mr. Coogan

Moby Dick.

Mr. Blowick

They wanted a complete Fianna Fáil Dáil for some purpose. What was that purpose? The people should be told of it. It must have been a fairly unpopular move when the secret was so well guarded.

Mr. Coogan

They are like the pub with no beer—they have no policy.

Mr. Davern

That is no good.

Mr. Blowick

They have had a good policy down through the years, that is to run the country for the Fianna Fail Party. All that has been very successful for them but it is not the decent way or the Christian way to run a country.

With regard to the Ministry of Local Government, I want to ask would the Local Authorities (Works) Act be restored, even at this late hour? I think it is something that should be done. Everywhere I go throughout the country, there is absolutely no employment. There is absolutely no work in many parts of the country. Even forestry, which was the only hope in some of the poorer districts, was cut down. Unemployment is a terrific problem and if we are to have any hope of keeping our youth at home, we have to employ them. We cannot ask them to be patriots, to stay at home and starve under a Fianna Fáil Government. At the present time, there are 61,000 persons unemployed, and I think the first thing the Taoiseach and the new Government should bend their attention to is to spend more money on public employment, particularly in rural districts. I am asking for that and it is not too much to ask.

All of the impositions placed on agriculture during the past two years should be removed. They reduced the subsidy on ground limestone and I think the Taoiseach and the Government would be very well advised to go back on the various things which they have seen fit to carry out and restore them to the position in which they were in March, 1957.

We have a Ministry of the Gaeltacht and it was widely felt that a vast amount of useful work could be done by it, but it seems it is tied up for want of money and want of policy. The Taoiseach should do something about that. There is no use in having a Ministry of the Gaeltacht if we cannot do anything for it, and we cannot do anything without some expenditure. The only way to save the Gaeltacht is to give employment and thereby keep the youth in the Gaeltacht at home. Unless that is done, it will be a completely depopulated area.

Mr. Donnellan

Correct.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister for Lands has a big job of work to do in the Land Commission. It is a hard and difficult task but, nevertheless, it is not beyond his power, the power of the officials in the Land Commission, to do it. There is a remnant of congestion that should be cleared up and cleared up rapidly, and I want to point out that while there are certain excepted matters—there are certain things the Minister is precluded from interfering in statutorily—he can give an indication both to the Commissioners and to the inspectors that he has an interest in certain things, if he takes an ordinary, active interest in the day to day work of the Land Commission. The last remnant of congestion could be cleared up if a bold effort were made in the next three, four, or five years. From experience, I know what I am talking about and it could certainly be wiped out in four or five years, if a bold effort were made. I left him the material to do it, just as my colleagues in the inter-Party Government left the material to their successors.

In conclusion, I think the Taoiseach should change the Ministry of Agriculture to some of the other Ministers who are being appointed. Give us a practical farmer. Do not give us a man who said he would fill the fields with inspectors, drive tractors and machinery over the walls, and smash down the farmers' gates at a time when it was a case of flogging a willing horse. That was the encouragement which that Minister for Agriculture gave us at that time.

I think the way Agriculture has gone since it changed hands from Deputy Dillon is proof to the Taoiseach that something should be done about it. It is our principal industry yet and it will be our principal industry for 50 or 60 years to come. It is getting no help whatever from the Government. Every one of the useful schemes that Deputy Dillon started from 1948 to 1951, and from 1954 to 1957, just because they were the production of an inter-Party Government, just because they were Deputy Dillon's production, has got the axe. They got the axe for no other reason than that they were formulated by Deputy Dillon. What was good for the farmers in his time is equally good for the farmers in Fianna Fáil's time, and the Government would be well advised to examine the policy of the inter-Party Government in respect of agriculture and restore that policy.

Mr. Carroll

I rise to congratulate Deputy Lemass on his appointment as Taoiseach. For many years before I came into this House, I never heard a disparaging word spoken regarding his administration, during the critical years, as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Charges have been made that he has not, up to a very recent period, given much attention to agriculture. In his wisdom, he has now divided the Department for Industry and Commerce. I repeat the appeal I made on three occasions in this House to his predecessor that he should consider the wisdom of dividing the Department of Local Government and appointing a Minister for Labour. The Minister need not be reminded that his own constituency, the Liberties in Dublin, which depend so much on the building industry, had in the first Dáil as Minister for Labour, the first woman elected to Parliament in these islands, the late Countess Markievicz. They say that the old people knew what they were doing, and I trust that the Taoiseach will give serious consideration to the appeal I now make for the fourth time.

The Department of Local Government, in administering what was introduced as Section 12 in order to alleviate the unemployment situation, has been an absolute failure. I say that without fear of contradiction. It has not in any way contributed to the purpose for which it was proposed.

I offer the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the other Ministers, every good wish. I should also like to take advantage of the opportunity to mention, since it was mentioned, I think by Deputy Corish, that the majority of 38,000 votes which turned down the Government's proposal came mainly from Dublin.

Mr. Desmond

Oh, no.

Mr. Carroll

And Dublin does not depend so much on agriculture. Dublin is mainly dependent on the building industry and it is lack of work in that industry that is the main cause of emigration. Risking the charge of repeating myself I say the Taoiseach should consider this as an emergency situation. It is the existing situation and it has not improved since his Government came into office. It requires emergency powers or it requires to be dealt with as was the situation during World War II when, let it be said to the credit of the Opposition, they undoubtedly came to the platform and said: "We will co-operate in every way because the nation is in danger." There is no doubt that the nation is in danger now, unless some emergency action is taken by the Taoiseach. I have every trust that he will do so and I wish him well in his new post.

Mr. Dillon

I am afraid I cannot find it in my heart to congratulate the Taoiseach who has been the Tánaiste of a Government for the past two years that has facilitated the situation which Deputy Carroll compares with the crisis of the World War. If that has been the measure of his achievement as Tánaiste, God help us all when he has become Taoiseach with the Tánaiste he now has.

This Government is really a most farcical spectacle and it reminds me of the Spanish Armada after the storm when it was at the loss of its chief admiral and had dashed on the rocks. It is floating off in a rather discouraged and shipwrecked condition but it has acquired a new rudder of a most facinating character. One can picture the present Taoiseach wrapping his head in a cold towel to choose from the whole Fianna Fáil Party two Deputies singularly suited to be Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and Minister for Education. And, lo and behold, a miracle takes place. There is a by-election in Clare and Dr. Hillery is to be Minister for Education, a man who has spent his whole life, of course in the study of the philosophy of education.

There is to be a by-election in Meath and, miracle of miracles, Deputy Hilliard is a Daniel come to judgment and he shall be Minister for Posts and Telegraphs! Now, I want a word of explanation. There is to be a by-election in Dublin South West and the Irish Times recently said that one of the Taoiseach's most brilliant young men is Deputy Briscoe. Come now! Can we not do something for him? Deputy Carroll says his heart expands at the thought of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce being divided —could it be that this is for the Taoiseach's young men? Have I betrayed a secret too soon?

I consider that to be a most vulnerable position for this country but I do not believe it is beyond being retrieved now and I should like to hear what the Taoiseach's Government intend to do because it is in the immediate future, within the next six months, that irrecoverable decisions will be taken that might isolate us completely and leaves us more dependent and more vulnerable without any suitable bargaining counter to purchase the economic security which we most urgently require and which, when we had it consequent on the 1948 Trade Agreement, we demonstrated our capacity to exploit by doubling the volume and trebling the value of our exports. The great danger is that all that may be lost through incapacity in facing the situation that has arisen from the abandonment as impracticable in modern conditions of the policy of economic self-sufficiency and a reluctance on the part of this Government to face the inevitable consequences of the realisation of their past folly.

I want to direct the attention of the Taoiseach to a matter mentioned by Deputy Sweetman and myself and other Deputies in the course of the debate on the Estimate for his Department when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Does he advert to the situation that is developing in connection with the balance of payments? We are running a balance of payments deficiency for the first five months of this year at the rate of something between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 per annum. There may be hope that towards the end of the year we may have a reasonable prospect of anticipating an improvement in that rate. If that is the Taoiseach's hope, then let him expound it but we ought to face the fact that in the first five months of this year the balance of payments deficiency has run something between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 per annum and we are bereft of many of the instruments that the Inter-Party Government had to use, and did use most effectively, with minimum dislocation, because we retained the levies which were in our power to impose and to withdraw for the purposes of the control of imports. This Government no longer has that weapon, because they have converted them into revenue producing duties without which they have no prospect of a balanced Budget.

I do not know if this House is blinding its eyes to the fact—and let it be recalled, Sir, because it is a very grave potential danger—that if the balance of payments situation gets into a state of dislocation, the consequences of it will be mass unemployment for the industrial workers. We fought that, we controlled it, and we protected them from that consequence. The measures we took in 1956 resulted in a credit balance of payments in 1957. That credit balance is now degenerating into a substantial deficit in the balance of payments and unless it is kept under control, the inevitable resulting consequences will be mass unemployment amongst industrial workers which we will have no means of meeting. That is the situation with which we grappled in 1956, with demonstrable success. With much of the slack that we had in hand, and were in a position to pull in, now lost to the present Government, I warn that the situation is developing along the same lines, that there is great danger; and it is the Taoiseach's duty to tell us, on the threshold of his term of office, what he proposes to do about it or what his estimate of that situation truly is.

I want to say a word to the Taoiseach, who up to this, as far as I know, has not interested himself much in foreign policy. I am appalled at the foreign policy of this Government. I understood the foreign policy of any Irish Government was to serve the vital interests of Ireland and if I understand the vital interests of any small country at the present time it is to multiply the number of its friends amongst the nations who constitute the comity of nations in the world. I ask the Taoiseach is it not true that since the present Minister for External Affairs has represented this country at the United Nations, he seems to spend his time kicking our friends in the teeth in the hope of conciliating people who could not ever be our friends and whose friendship we do not want. Now, mind you, I think that is pure ineptitude.

I think the unfortunate Minister for External Affairs is living in a kind of childish illusion about what his functions are as Minister for External Affairs. He is not sent out by this country to reform the world. He is not sent out by this country to tell everybody else in the world what it is their Christian duty to do. As Minister for External Affairs of this country, his primary function is to serve the vital interests of Ireland. He will naturally put Ireland on the right side in all matters of fundamental principle; but in heaven's name, does the content of the agenda of the United Nations constitute a matter of fundamental principle to this country? Is it necessary to kick the United States of America in the teeth, in order to go on record that we thought that the agenda of the United Nations ought to be different from what it is going to be? That cannot be a matter of fundamental interest to us. We may take the view that certain things should never appear on the agenda, or we may take the view that certain things will inevitably appear on the agenda some day; but is it necessary, in order to fix the day on which it is to figure on the agenda, that we should alienate our friends and shock and dismay those who want to be our friends and who want to give us a hand in any situation in which we may require assistance in international affairs?

I believe I am going into Government policy on the United Nations. I am sure the Minister for External affairs never said a word or did an act at the United Nations without the express approval of the Government. Am I not correct in that? I think I am correct in that. He referred back to the Government at every stage and his actions were approved and sponsored by the Government. From time to time it may become Ireland's duty to take a different path from that of an old and trusted friend at the United Nations or in any other sphere of diplomatic activity. Surely there are two ways of going about it? You can go to that old friend and say: "We do not want to be the first to cast the stone, but if this thing comes to an issue we cannot be with you on it. If we can, we shall abstain, but it may be that we shall be obliged to vote against you, but at least know that anything we can do to spare you embarrassment and distress we are concerned to do."

I am not without hope that the Government policy on health is about to change. I do not want to inflame the vanity of the Tánaiste or to deter him from proceeding on more conciliatory lines than those which produced the existing crisis. I am not so sure the Taoiseach was wise in imposing upon this vain man the spancel of the office of Tánaiste. It is a despairing effort but, if he had to keep him, it was an effort worth making to try to reduce him to some kind of order in this House. I hope the effort will be a success for, if it is not, chronic anarchy and pandemonium will prevail here if he has the ordering of business.

I do not know how far the concert of Ministers will function as it becomes abundantly clear from the Ministers' own pronouncement that one does not know what the other is doing. The Minister for Local Government, taking a leaf out of the book of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, discovered that the Local Authorities (Works) Act was enacted by the previous Government and wound it up. As a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Davern, whom we see beaming at us from the Lobby, came in here and tore passion to shreds in the awful crime committed against the people of South Tipperary for whom he sheds salt tears because the Anner draining was suspended. Who suspended it? Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Local Government. Yes, he did. I know because I got the money from Deputy O'Donnell under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, to carry out that degree of drainage that has been carried out on the Anner and which Deputy Blaney stopped.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is a matter of administration?

Mr. Dillon

All I am complaining of is that Deputy Davern, who is supposed to be an informed member, does not know that Deputy Blaney frustrated the drainage of the Anner.

An Ceann Comhairle

Bringing Deputy Davern into the arena does not make the matter regular.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dillon

All I am pleading for is that there should be some understanding between them.

Mr. T. Lynch

I.R.A. pensions.

Mr. Davern

You were the O.C. of the separation allowance in 1918.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Deputy say I was getting a separation allowance in 1918?

Mr. Davern

The Deputy should have.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot imagine why. I did not then belong to Fianna Fáil in order to come in and get an old age pension before my time. If that is the burden of the worst allegation the Deputy can make against me, I am scathless in this exchange. What I want to urge on the Taoiseach is that out of the chaotic state of incomprehension in which Deputies find themselves today in trying to find out what the policy of this Government is, he ought to make a statement which will clarify the matter with special reference to our economic prospects, to our diplomatic activities, to the hope of securing some maintenance of the progress that, I think, was being made in the development of agriculture and what remedies he has in mind to provide alternative employment for the people in rural Ireland whom the activities of his colleagues, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government, are throwing into unemployment.

It is not enough to say, in the classic words of the Minister for Finance, that they are emigrating and that that will solve the problem. I do not believe this Government were elected two and a half years ago to solve the unemployment problem by exporting the unemployed and to meet the aggravation in unemployment in rural Ireland, which two Ministers have created, by urging those people to emigrate as well. On this occasion the Opposition has a right to hear from the Taoiseach how does this Government work in co-ordination when half their members are destroying employment and while the rest profess to be creating it. While we can see on the evidence of our own eyes the creation of unemployment by the activities of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government, we can see no corresponding effort to create employment by the other members of the Government. It is the duty of the Taoiseach to tell us what plans he now has to meet that situation, seeing that the Minister for Lands has told us that his famous £100,000,000 plan was not a plan but a blueprint to be reviewed. Has he completed that review? Does any part of the blueprint still survive and, if so, what part? When will we see it and when may we hope it will operate in Ireland?

Mr. Sherwin

We are told that this debate is largely in respect of the suitability of the members of the Government. I have a feeling that for too long we have been hearing the same names as members of the Government of this country, and although the Taoiseach says there will be some changes, there has been no change except in one Department, and that was due to the ill-health of Deputy Ormonde. I hope the Taoiseach will encourage as many as possible of the older members to retire. Every time there is an election, we hear just the same names. I am sure that some of the backbenchers of his Party have gone to seed, and some good men I know have gone on the beer—to put it straight—they got so tired waiting for an opportunity.

The Taoiseach should encourage as many as possible of the older members to retire. I do not want to refer to anybody in particular but there is an old saying, which is quite true, that new brushes sweep clean. I know it is difficult for the leader of a Party to encourage or force his old associates to retire, but it is in the interests of the country that they should. This business of tying up the higher positions with just one set of people and, at the same time, endeavouring, as was the case recently when it was hoped to abolish P.R., to tie up the Party with the same set of people, is a denial of initiative on the part of the younger people. That is a bad principle and, as the Taoiseach himself is a comparatively young man, I hope he will look around and encourage as many as possible of the older members to retire when this change which he mentioned here tonight comes about.

Speaking of that, I should like to refer to a little bit of history, and to remind the House that the Emperor Franz Josef was so many years in power—50 years, I think—that his son, the heir, died of old age before he got his chance. That is what I mean. I think the backbenchers should be given a chance. In connection with the Taoiseach's decision to divide the Department of Industry and Commerce, perhaps it is just as well, because I cannot imagine any other man doing the amount of work which the Taoiseach did in that Department. I am also glad that the Taoiseach is going to take up one job because I do not think one man can do two jobs successfully. In paying attention to one, he neglects the other.

Mr. Sweetman

He is reading the wrong page. Turn over to the other side.

Mr. Sherwin

That seems to be a failing of many other people in political Parties who hope to create success for their Party but do not give all their time to that success. They give a large amount to their own success and that results in their going stale. The Taoiseach, I am sure, will find his new office rather strange because, to me anyway, he appeared to be so wrapped up in the Department of Industry and Commerce that he seemed to have no opinion on other matters, especially matters of a general political nature. However, I am sure he is qualified and capable of comprehending what he may not have experience of, but I agree with Deputy Dillon in his reference to the Minister for External Affairs spending most of his time selling Deputy Aiken at the United Nations instead of selling Ireland. The Taoiseach should put a little pressure on the Minister for External Affairs to think only of Ireland all the time, and of Partition, and to devote his time to ending Partition and to work hook and crook to solve it, and to leave other matters to people with influence in world affairs which I am certain little Ireland cannot influence. It is rather "cocky" of the Minister to think he can do it.

In connection with unemployment, I am quite satisfied that the Taoiseach has done his very best. If there has been no improvement, it is because there has been unemployment amongst the agricultural community and that unemployment was due to mechanisation, automation and other modern improvements. I believe that science will make it more difficult in future for men to be kept in employment because the work can be done by machinery and other means. The Taoiseach will have quite a problem, and even if he is depending entirely on what he calls productive work, I do not think that many will be employed in future—certainly not many adults, fathers of families. They are the type he should aim at employing and not children and girls who appear to be the main source from which the employment he visualises is created. The work that is done by the fathers of families is largely of a constructive nature but he does not seem to believe that. For instance, in respect of housing in Dublin, the Corporation alone——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that is proper to the Estimate.

Mr. Sherwin

I am just referring to it because it seems to my mind to be a matter which is a major problem——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It may be a major problem but it does not seem to have any relevance to what we are discussing.

Mr. Sherwin

The Taoiseach appears to think in terms of what he calls productive employment but he seems to have very little faith in the constructive work which gives major employment to the people I represent in Dublin anyway. I would ask him to think in terms of constructive employment or at least, not to forget about it.

I shall not criticise the rest of his Ministers. I do not know the new Ministers. I would ask the Taoiseach, at least, to advise the Minister for Defence not to spend so much money on Defence and I would also ask him to request the new Minister for Industry and Commerce not to have so many unessential goods imported.

Although other Deputies seemed to go to town on every aspect, as the Ceann Comhairle has said, that the matter for discussion is only the suitability of the nominees, I am confined to a few more words. I come back to the point on which I began. I would ask the Taoiseach to rejuvinate his Government and to give his backbenchers a chance. I believe in the principle of giving people a chance. That is my main reason for saying that I opposed the attempt to abolish P.R. I believe in giving a chance to everybody. The Taoiseach should give a chance to his own Party. For too long we have had this question of old comradeship and people dying with their boots on. It is time to make a change.

Mr. Larkin

On the occasion of the Taoiseach's election and the presentation to the Dáil of the Members of his Government, one might well be tempted to commiserate with him because he has presented to Dáil Éireann, in the main, a team who have shown themselves to have little regard for the economic troubles of the Irish nation in the past 2¼ years when they were members of the former Government. However, we cannot entirely commiserate with the Taoiseach because, unlike the captain of a football team whose team is selected for him and who has to march out on the field and do the best he can with the material at his disposal, under our Constitution, the Taoiseach has the power to select those whom he will nominate as members of his Government to Dáil Éireann. In view of the fact that for the last 2¼ years the former Government spent so much time in considering by what means they could perpetuate themselves and their Party in office, I am afraid that the Taoiseach has not been particularly successful or happy in his choice of Ministers.

In 1957, the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, and most of those whom he submits to the Dáil for approval as members of his new Cabinet, entered into office on the basis of a declared determination to deal with the endemic economic situation, to take steps to provide a more secure future and, in particular, more employment for our people. At that time, it must be admitted, the climate for an incoming Government was optimistic and nobody knew that better than the persons who formed that Government. But, does the climate at the present time look as hopeful as in the beginning of 1957?

Reference has been made to the question of the balance of payments. Possibly, there will be further discussion on that matter. Is the prospect now more hopeful, from the point of view of creating conditions which will produce more employment for Irish workers in Ireland or which will prevent the fairly steady creep upwards of the cost of living, which has begun to show itself again? Is the climate now any healthier than it was at the beginning of 1957? I think the siuation is more difficult and promises to become more difficult in the months that lie ahead. At this time the Taoiseach asks the House to accept as part of the team that will look after the affairs of the nation for at least some time to come members of the former Government who were conspicious by that lack of success.

The Taoiseach indicated that it was necessary to make the minimum of changes in the Government at the present time because of the fact that there is so much business still to be done by the House, that there are Estimates and Bills of which various Ministers have been in charge which must be dealt with in the near future. He did give some indication that when the present programme of business was completed there might be some hope of a re-shuffle of his Cabinet.

I do not agree with Deputy Sherwin that all wisdom lies in youth. Youth suffers from a lack of experience. Sometimes one of the most necessary qualifications for responsible positions is experience. I do agree that if there are members of a Government who have the necessary qualifications, apart from age, but who have demonstrated their lack of concern for the people over previous years, their age should not prevent them from being relegated. In this regard I would recommend the Taoiseach to think initially of the person whom he has asked to occupy the post of Tánaiste.

Reference has been made to the fact that, due to illness. Deputy Seán Ormonde was not able to accept the request to continue as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Regret has been expressed from all sides of the House that this courteous Deputy who was a most courteous Minister, has found it necessary to lead a less active political life for some time. Therefore, I am sure the Taoiseach will not think I am reflecting in any way on Deputy Ormonde if I suggest that there are two Ministries that could well be administered by a Parliamentary Secretary instead of a Minister. One of these is the Department for Posts and Telegraphs. It is my conviction that the ordinary business of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs could continue most successfully indeed under the supervision of a Parliamentary Secretary.

What we are allowed to discuss is the personal suitability of the nominees of the Taoiseach.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have no difficulty in that respect in saying that the present Minister for Agriculture is not suited to be a Minister at any time. His record has proved it over the past two years and also his record in other Ministries. He was at one time Minister for Agriculture in a previous Fianna Fáil Government and they had to take him out of it. He is only put into it now as a makeshift. He should be taken out of it immediately. It is a very serious crisis that we are in at the present time and we cannot be sure whether the T.B. campaign can be brought to a successful conclusion because the Minister for Agriculture is having a row with the veterinary surgeons in the same manner as the Tánaiste is having a row with the doctors.

As far as our policy on local government is concerned, this Government got into office and they claimed to be the builders' Government. I do not think that the builders will claim them as their Government, having regard to the manner in which the policy of building has been carried out. I would say to the new Taoiseach who is a man of energy that he should look into this matter and see to it that his Minister for Local Government will again start building in places where houses are needed. There are many places where houses are needed.

In so far as the Minister for Defence is concerned, I think he should be stopped from making speeches with such clap-trap in them that he wants an all Irish-speaking Army. This country needs decent Irishmen, whether they can speak Irish or English. I do not see why a young man should be debarred from serving his country, if he is not able to speak Irish. I do not want anybody to misunderstand me about this. I have had members of this House say to me that I was against the revival of the Irish language. I am as much for the revival of the Irish language as anybody over there and they know how much they are for it themselves.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. In this matter of defence and in this matter of only allowing people who can speak the Irish language to wear this country's uniform, I think the Taoiseach should intervene. I do not think it is a good thing that the young men of Ireland who may not be able to speak the Irish language should say to themselves: "We will not join our own Army because we do not belong to the Brahmin class." We used to laugh and jeer at what they used to do in Britain where it was only a certain class who could get a commission. Are we to have a Brahmin class here now that will be drawn from the Gaeltacht, people who can speak the language?

In the matter of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I deeply regret that my colleague from Waterford, Deputy Ormonde, was not able to accept office again as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I can only compliment him on his short term and I can only say to him that he had the confidence of the Opposition that no other member of the Government had. I never heard anybody in this House take him hardly to task on Supplementary Questions because he answered courteously and gave as much information as he could in his first answer. That is an example which a good many of the members of the Government could take to heart. When they are asked Parliamentary Questions, they should give proper information to the best of their ability and give it with reasonable courtesy.

The Government are here today without a policy. They have only a White Paper which was produced by a distinguished civil servant. That White Paper is based on Fine Gael policy. The people who remain silent and can only grin and interrupt cannot deny that. I will say now to the Taoiseach that he has a great opportunity of keeping faith with the people of this country. He has no obstacle. He has a large majority and a strong Government. He is at the head of that Government. He said he could do it. I hope that he can employ the people of this country.

He said he would maintain the subsidies. I hope he will look into that matter and see what can be done to bring down the cost of living for our people. Finally, I hope he will direct his attention to three things—the employment of our people, the stemming of emigration and the reduction of the cost of living—and that for the next few months we will not have the time of this House wasted by legislation brought in to gerrymander the constituencies of the country.

The Taoiseach

Reverting to matters that were mentioned earlier in today's discussions, I think it is well to remind the Dáil why today's proceedings are necessary at all, the election of a new Taoiseach and the renomination of the members of the Government. The previous Taoiseach, Deputy Eamon de Valera, has been elected Uachtarán na hÉireann by popular vote. I find it difficult to follow the reasoning which interprets that event as implying some undermining of public confidence in the Government. Indeed, it would be far more reasonable to interpret it as an indication of public approval of the work the Government are doing.

In that work, I hope we shall have the benefit of constructive criticism from the Opposition Parties. I welcome the assurance of Deputy Costello that we shall have constructive criticism from his colleagues, although I must confess that his assurance appeared to come wrapped in a rather strange package and did not altogether conform with some of the speeches from that side of the House. Personally, I have a liking for the rough and tumble of the Party conflict and indeed I do not think it does harm to the national interest. Generally it is through the disputations of political Parties that the people become aware of the political issues that are under consideration here and get the information which enables them to assess the merits of particular proposals. I should, however, like to see political Parties competing in ability to plan constructively for national progress rather than in personal disparagement.

I am prepared on this occasion to announce my personal intention to avoid—even, I hope, in the heat of debate here—saying any word which could be regarded as being personally offensive by anyone. I am not asking for reciprocity in that direction and indeed I recognise——

General Mulcahy

It would be very easily given.

The Taoiseach

——if I am to fulfil that intention, there may be occasions when I shall have to leave the Dáil when some speeches are being delivered. A number of Deputies, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chair to circumscribe them, made comments on specific matters of administration and policy. I do not propose to deal with these matters now. The Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department will be before the House next month and that will be an appropriate occasion on which to deal with these matters. There is no need for Deputies to seek to impress on this Government the urgency and the importance of getting under way development projects which will give employment and improved conditions generally in the country. The whole purpose of the Government has been and will be to make the people better off, to raise living standards and to reduce unemployment and emigration. That aim has predominated and will continue to operate in every Department of the Government. It would be a reckless man who would guarantee success, but I hope we shall be able, by our efforts to deserve it.

It was perhaps inevitable that amongst my many deficiencies it should be mentioned that I was born in Dublin and therefore can be alleged to have an urban mentality. Well, I had to be born somewhere. If I had been born on a farm, no doubt the allegation would have been that I had an outlook that was inimical to the urban interests. I have argued all my life that there is no necessary conflict between agricultural and industrial policy. The economic progress of this nation must be achieved over a broad front and as I conceive it, the function of the Taoiseach is to ensure that that will happen.

It was said that recent events have introduced an element of uncertainty into our political life. There is one uncertainty which I want to remove. There is not going to be a general election. I do not believe that the people either expect or want one, and for a reason which I hope to explain. I think that it would be not merely unfair to the country but unfair to the Government. The Government have, in the course of the past eight months or so, published a programme of economic expansion as an official White Paper. That programme has won expressions of approval from organisations representing all important economic interests. I hope indeed that the Government will have the active help of these organisations through consultation and advice in bringing that programme into full operation. The arrangements, legislative and administrative, required to put it into effect are now in course of completion. Some of the necessary legislation is at present before the Dáil and it is hoped to secure its enactment before the end of this session.

The whole process of putting that programme into operation, and reaping the benefits for the people, will take time to complete. The Government which prepared the programme have the intention and the power to complete it and intend to do so. That programme gives, for the first time in the history of the State, the prospect of the united action of all sections of our people along clear lines to define objectives and I think it would be wrong to allow any Party considerations to destroy that prospect new that it exists.

In that connection, it is relevant to remark that the motions for the issues of the writs to fill the present vacancies in the Dáil will be moved next week. I ask Deputy Dillon to believe me—I do not know whether he will or not—that in selecting Deputy Hillery and Deputy Hilliard for appointment to the Government, I was concerned only with their ability as Cabinet Ministers and not with the constituencies they came from.

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach correctly anticipates my reaction of incredulity to that declaration.

The Taoiseach

With regard to the referendum which was recently held, I just want to say this, that I do not regard the issue that was then in debate as in any sense irrelevant to the country's problems. If we had not regarded it as important in relation to the general situation here, we certainly would not have brought it before the public at all and it is entirely incorrect to suggest that while the matter was in progress the work of the Government was neglected in any way. I find it hard to credit that Deputy J.A. Costello really believes that holding that referendum revived old bitterness and introduced new divisions amongst our people. Let us be realistic about this. It has been the experience, I am sure, of Deputies on every side of the House that the main problem during the past few weeks was to get the public sufficiently informed about the issues that were in debate to become interested in them. We urged the people to make the change which was proposed and we gave them the opportunity of doing so, if they wanted to do it. I think we were quite right to have given them the chance, and doubly right to have proposed that they should have altered the system of election to Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Taoiseach say why?

The Taoiseach

I do not propose to go back over the argument again. I accept that by a small majority the people have decided against doing it, and that their vote settles the matter.

I was very much surprised by the interpretation put upon the statement I made regarding the need for legislation to revise existing Dáil constituencies. The many Deputies here know that the reason that constitutional change was proposed in this year rather than in some other year was that in this year, under the Constitution, a revision of constituencies must be made anyway in the light of population changes revealed in the latest census, and it was obviously wrong, if a change in the method of election was in contemplation, to proceed to give effect to that revision if the people wanted a change in the system of election. The purpose of the statement I made was to make it clear that the Government were going to fulfil their constitutional duty in that regard. I do not think that anybody who knows the facts could say, or anybody could believe, that in carrying out the revision of constituencies the aim of the Government would be to defeat the decision of the people in the referendum, and in any way to make alterations which would be unfair to any Party in this State.

In the light of all the known facts as to population changes revealed in the last census, the requirements of the Constitution, and the practical necessity of adhering as closely as possible when defining Dáil constituencies to existing county boundaries and local government areas, it is to be assumed that only very minor adjustments will be involved over by far the greater part of the State. The problem which arises is mainly a Dublin one where, as Deputies know, there has been a very large scale movement of population from the central city areas out to suburban estates. In Dublin, some revision of constituency boundaries is inevitable.

For example, there is a constituency in Dublin where the quota required to elect a Deputy is less than one half the quota in the neighbouring constituency. There is no justification for continuing a situation in which the vote of one citizen is worth two votes of another and clearly, apart altogether from the constitutional obligation on the Government to submit proposals to the Dáil in that regard in this year, that is a situation which should be rectified before another general election is due.

There are one or two other matters to which I think I should refer. It has been suggested in some newspaper articles and, indeed, in some speeches here this evening that because of the great importance which the Government attach to economic progress at the present time, we are now less interested than heretofore in other national aims such as the promotion of the Irish language. That is completely incorrect. Personally, I believe that national progress of any kind depends largely upon an upsurge of patriotism—a revival of patriotism, if you will— directed towards constructive purposes. Patriotism, as I understand it, is a combination of love of country, pride in its history, traditions and culture, and a determination to add to its prestige and its achievements. Anything which tends to strengthen patriotism is good from every point of view and love for the national langage is a most potent force in that regard.

I think it is short-sighted in the extreme to suggest that the promotion and development of our national language could ever be a deterrent to the country's economic growth. Indeed, I regard the prevalence of the opposite and mistaken view—that love of the language, our cultural inheritance and the historical traditions of our race are encumbrances to our national development or are unnecesary to our national welfare—as the real handicap. I hope to see that mistaken viewpoint wither away.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

Specifically, I want to make it quite clear that in these matters, there will be no change of policy now or at any time so long as this Government are in office. On Sunday last, I went to the grave of Wolf Tone and there laid a wreath. In doing so, I remembered what Wolf Tone declared to be the means upon which he had decided to achieve national objectives in his day, to unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of all past dissensions and to bring together Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common name of Irishmen. These means, backed by that long Republican tradition, will be ours also, both in regard to our internal affairs in this area and in regard to the wider questions of reuniting in one nation all the Irish people, north and south.

The problem of restoring national unity is, in essence, one of breaking down the barriers of suspicion, antagonism, prejudice and misunderstanding which now divide a minority in the north-east from their fellow countrymen. Anything which tends to break or lower these barriers is good; anything which tends to raise or strengthen them is bad. I think it is as simple as that, and certainly that outlook will continue to settle our policy and determine our actions.

Reference has been made to the possibility of a change in policy. Policy is a loose term which may mean different things to different men and, as I understand it, there will be no change in policy, but only a very foolish man would consider that decisions taken, or plans made in the past, would always remain valid and applicable in the future. The main principles of our policy have been settled and the immediate programme of the Government is known. We shall continue our efforts to implement it, in the future as in the past, with all the vigour that we can command and, indeed, we shall not hesitate to modify and extend that policy as changing circumstances appear to open up greater prospects for national development.

It is, I think, desirable that I should make the position of the Government clear now in regard to these matters to which I have referred, but, as Deputies know, this nomination of a Government taking place today is entirely different from that which takes place after a general election. We shall, I hope, by Tuesday next be back into the ordinary day to day routine work of the Dáil and certainly opportunities for elaborating on Government policy, or answering queries that Deputies may wish to make regarding it, will be as numerous as heretofore. I think it is therefore undesirable, particularly at this hour, that I should deal further with these matters at this stage.

Question put.

The Dáil divided : Tá, 69; Níl, 46.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Breen, Dan.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig,
Flanagan, Seán.
Flynn, Stephen.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony, G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C., Bart.
Fagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 12.10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th June, 1959.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 23 Jun 1959