Is é an chéad ghnó anois ná Taoiseach d'ainmniú.
The next business is the nomination of Taoiseach. I am taking nominations.
Nomination of Taoiseach.
Tairgim:—
Go n-ainmneofar an Teachta Seán F. Lemeas mar Thaoiseach.
Cuidim leis an rún sin.
We object to the nomination and propose to vote against it. We do so not merely—in fact not at all—on the personality of the Taoiseach designate but on the fact that he and the Government who have resigned, and who are now in office awaiting re-election, have been guilty in recent times of grave dereliction of public duty and gross breach of the confidence that was imposed in them by the electorate on the occasion of the last general election. I think it is rather obvious to say that the Taoiseach designate, the person nominated, is coming before the Dáil for nomination not merely in unusual circumstances, but, I think, in unprecedented conditions. If circumstances were different from what they actually are, we possibly could find it in our hearts to have some sympathy for the person who is now, for whatever length of time remains to the life of any Government, appointed here to-day or tomorrow. He will have very arduous and serious tasks but, in the light of the circumstances in fact existing, no such sympathy can be extended.
In the normal way, a person nominated here in the Dáil to undertake the serious responsibility of head of a Government comes to the Dáil immediately after a general election. He comes here and is nominated as the nominee of a majority of the Deputies duly elected to the new Dáil. He has himself the comfort and support of the fact that he has recently secured a victory at the polls. That is his encouragement and his inspiration. He has also the knowledge that he has behind him a majority of the Deputies in the Dáil, each one of whom has come to the Dáil having been elected in his particular constituency, and secure in the knowledge that he has been preferred amongst all other candidates who presented themselves in his constituency, so that we have the position that the Taoiseach designate and those who support him in the Dáil have come fresh from the people with a clear mandate.
No such conditions exist here at the present moment, but, in point of fact, the Party whose nominee the present Taoiseach designate is, has just come from experiencing a very severe rebuff from a big majority of the Irish people.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
And, in fact, they have suffered a serious defeat on an issue of major public policy.
We would want to beat you two to one.
In that state of affairs, there is nobody to blame for the conditions in which the Taoiseach designate and any Government may be appointed. They have nobody to blame but themselves that any Taoiseach elected now will be elected into an unstable position, one in which he cannot feel the confidence that he would have felt had there been a general election and we were now electing a new Government and a new Prime Minister, following upon the mandate given by the people in such a general election.
I want all Deputies to consider, and I am sure our people throughout the country will consider, what would have been the position in March, 1957, if the Fianna Fáil Party, during the general election campaign of that year, had gone around the country conducting their election campaign asking, as they then asked for a clear majority to do the work of the nation—what would have been the result had they, in a burst of unaccustomed honesty, told the electorate that if elected with a clear majority, they would in the course of a few years submit to the people a referendum on the question of the abolition of proportional representation, and also that it was the intention of the then leader, now Uachtarán na hÉireann, to become a candidate for the Presidency? What would have been the result of that election compared with what the actual result was?
The Government who have resigned and who are now, in one shape or another, seeking re-election here, secured a clear majority from the electorate on the definite assurances and clear promises that if they got what they were asking the country to give them, namely, an over-all majority in this Dáil—a strong Government— they would then be in a position, not on a long-term basis but within a comparatively short space of time, to deal with the pressing problems of unemployment, industry, agriculture, emigration and social matters that so urgently await solution.
At the time when the Fianna Fáil Party sought that mandate from the people for a clear majority and a strong Government the only issues in that election were economic issues. This country was just emerging from a serious economic crisis and there was every hope that the problems which had afflicted the former Government were all well on the way to solution. The Fianna Fáil Party at that time sought a strong Government and a clear majority in conditions that were politically most favourable to them. They were given a clear majority to form a strong Government with a precise mandate that their duty if elected was to deal with, and deal only with, the pressing economic, financial and social problems of the country. They were to deal with unemployment and emigration, to lower taxation, to provide increased stability and increase confidence in the country and operate a policy not of restriction but of expansion.
When we sat here in these benches two and a quarter years ago, on behalf of my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party and speaking for them alone—although, I think, I did voice the sentiments of other members in Opposition—I directed attention to the fact that we knew that any Government facing the difficulties then existing would have a serious and difficult task and that, while we would be a vigilant and constructive Opposition, we would give them every help in our power to secure a solution to those problems because we felt that no question of Party political consideration should be allowed at that time unduly to enter into the deliberations of this Assembly or the operations of the Government in the tasks entrusted to them by the people.
We offered them our co-operation. Two and a quarter years have now elapsed since that strong Government was elected by the people with that clear and decisive mandate. Instead of doing what they were told by the people to do, instead of carrying out the mandate they were directed to carry out, dealing exclusively with economic matters, they have wasted the time of this House, the Seanad, of public officials and of the people of the country. They have spent vast quantities, not merely of the ordinary peoples' money, but of public money in advancing an entirely irrelevant issue and one which was in no way brought to the attention of the electorate at the last general election. They have by the action they took nearly nine months ago, now brought this question of the referendum and the abolition of P.R. athwart the problems, economic, financial and social, of the country. They have diverted all the efforts of the people, all the energy that the people wanted to direct or to have directed and led towards the solution of our difficulties into an entirely irrelevant issue. They have been defeated on this issue by a very clear majority.
That is why I said at the outset of my remarks that the Government now seeking an extension of powers were guilty of a gross breach of trust and a serious dereliction of duty. For nine months now this country has been given over to academic and philosophical discussion of the various electoral systems and the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems. The former Taoiseach, now President of Ireland, and, his personality, his prestige, all the old loyalties and allegiances that grew up around him in the years past, were all harnessed not merely for the purpose of getting him into the Park but also for the purpose of getting the people who were supporters to believe they were letting him down if they did not vote for the abolition of P.R. All that was a diversion of effort, was irrelevant and a gross breach of trust. For that reason we could not possibly give any support to the present nomination or to any Government that would be nominated as a result of what has been done.
It may be that the Taoiseach designate, the person nominated for this post, will be elected after the division bells have rung in this House but the Government, at enormous expense of time and money and diversion of effort, disunity throughout the country and resurrection of old bitternesses, brought the matter before the entire country. The division bells of the country have rung and rung unmistakably and a greater thing than the Dáil has spoken and the "noes" from the country have it by a very decisive majority. Therefore, any Taoiseach or any Government that emerges as a result of the overall majority which, as we now know, was obtained by false pretences at the last general election, will find themselves in a very unstable condition indeed, because they cannot feel sure that they have the confidence of the people behind them.
I assert they have lost that confidence. We have had the position now during the last nine months that the country has been divided. There has been uneasiness and worry; there has been lost time. What is going to happen in the future? In the last nine months conditions in this country were very favourable to economic expansion. We had conditions obtaining that did not obtain here before they got the clear majority and the strong Government. Conditions were very favourable to economic advancement in those circumstances. The Government have lost the opportunity presented to them by these favourable conditions. That, again, is about as gross and flagrant a breach of trust as any Government could have been guilty of. Time is slipping by; those lost opportunities may never again be secured, or taken advantage of. It looks now as if the economic circumstances of the country are subject to change; they are not as good as they were six months ago.
Nine valuable months have been lost. What of the future? Nobody knows. Something that could have been achieved in the last nine or 12 months has not been achieved nor has advantage been taken of the opportunity that has presented itself for the solution, or partial solution, of our economic problems. Now, we have the situation here that for the last nine months there has been uncertainty in the country. People wanted to know why the Government were not getting on with the job they were elected to do. In spite of every effort the Government made to appeal to old party allegiances, old personal feelings—all the old bag of tricks—to secure a verdict, the attempt failed and failed miserably and signally.
The generality of the people are asking: "What of the future?" The Government can carry on or they can do what is the logical thing for them to do having regard to the severe rebuff they have got—seek a mandate from the people. That is the logical conclusion. What is going to happen if they do? Will they not inflict further losses on the country? That is the result of their action; that is what they have brought the country to. The man who is now Taoiseach designate was asked to comment on Saturday last when it became known that he, his Party and his former leader had received from the country a rebuff that no other Government had received since this State was founded. I shall leave out of account his unfortunate remarks about the contrast between the rural constituencies and urban constituencies in the knowledge that he had to say something and probably it was the best thing he could have said at a difficult time. This is what he said and this is the paragraph I object to. I am quoting from the Irish Independent of Saturday last, 20th June. He is reported as saying:—
"In the light of the outcome of the referendum... proposals for the revision of Dáil Constituencies.... will be submitted to the Dáil...."
Was there any word there saying: "I accept the verdict of the people." Was there any word there saying: "I accept the verdict of the people and now we will get on with the job we were elected to do and which we interrupted." Not a word. Does anyone not think that, if there was any sincerity in the person nominated for this post, he would have said: "Very well; we did our best; we had a fair fight; we did everything we knew; we put in even the personality of our Leader; we mixed the people up; we did everything we possibly could to secure a verdict, and we failed; we accept that now and we will go on with the work." There is not one single word in that comment I quoted, about accepting the decision of the people and saying, that having accepted that decision, they will go on with the work they were elected to do and for which they got a mandate two and a quarter years ago.
That is the greatest comment I can make in condemnation of the Taoiseach designate. There is not a single word about accepting the decision. The people will have to face this, if there is not a general election now: "We are not going on with the job we were elected to do, but we are going to try, by this redistribution of constituencies, to frustrate the decision of the people given at this referendum." Is there to be any confidence in the man who is to be Head of the Government, who gives that, immediately after election, as his policy: "We are going to frustrate, so far as we can within the Constitution, the decision of the referendum." There is no talk about the work to be done. There is no acceptance of the decision. It is: "Either we will gerrymander or we will frustrate the decision of the people."
The effect of that will be that, if we do not have a general election— as logically we ought—in the months to come, while we discuss this plan to frustrate the decision in the referendum—which was the severest rebuff this Government could have got, in the circumstances in which it was held —there is going to be uneasiness and lack of confidence. Everyone will think that, even if there is to be no election now, there is a by-election every month ahead, and immediately this goes through there must be a by-election. What possible chance can we have of economic progress? What possible chance can we have of obtaining that stability which is very essential for economic advancement, in these circumstances, when the individual who is to head the new Government can say, immediately after this, not: "Go on with the work. Select the best men to do it; try to secure the co-operation of all sections of the community; now that we have been defeated in this, we will accept it," but—as he says: "We will do our best to frustrate the decision of the people."
In those circumstances, we on this side of the House refuse to give any credence or support to any man, or any Government formed by him, whose policy it is to do this; and I think a very big majority of the people will follow us in the country.
The Deputy was not two hours in the House in the past two years.
With this nomination before us to-day, we must all realise that we are entering on a new era in political life in this country. It is but one week since we were in the midst of testing the people as to whether or not we would continue our work here under proportional representation. It must be admitted that the Deputy who is proposed for the important post of Taoiseach may be considered as the joint architect—or, if not, at least the draftsman—who planned the campaign to deny to the Irish people their just right, under proportional representation, to select individually those Deputies who in turn form the Parties to represent them here in Dáil Éireann. We in the Labour Party are proud that the Labour Party, fighting in the front line trenches, helped to protect the people against this vicious plan to deny to the people of the Twenty-Six Counties the freedom to choose for themselves which they have enjoyed for approximately 40 years.
Let it be remembered that, by being the joint architect or the chief draftsman of this vicious plan, the Deputy now proposed as Taoiseach was prepared—as were every one of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and the back benchers—to put back the hands of the clock, to introduce into public life here a system that in the early years of this century brought bloodshed, hatred and bitterness into the hearts of Irishmen over politics.
That is not true.
That was the system prior to 1918. That was the system which, in rural Ireland, as well as in Dublin, caused Irishmen to fight bitterly just because one man was elected under a straight vote system. Thanks be to God, we in the Labour Party have fought for what we are entitled to—justice. No man has the right to ask for justice without being prepared to give it to others. The tragedy here to-day, at this hour, is that the Deputy now proposed as Taoiseach is one who was responsible for fighting to the very end to deny justice to hundreds of thousands of people in the Twenty-Six Counties.
Do not become melodramatic about it.
You disapproved when they introduced it in the North.
You sold the North years ago.
What has vexed Deputy Davern?
The campaign on this issue ended at half past nine last Wednesday. It is now past history. A week has gone. We are entitled to ask: "What of the future?" We are entitled to ask whether or not this Government, and the man who is to lead it, will continue to forget their promises and pledges of two and a quarter years ago. Eight or nine months have passed during which little or nothing was said about unemployment or emigration.
97,000.
Shall we continue in that strain in the months ahead? Are we to waste the time of the House again in dealing with the proposal that, as we are told, will come before us here in Autumn in relation to the chopping up of constituencies?
Let us all remember one thing—that we were all, as individuals, elected to serve the constituencies we represent and combine to serve the Twenty Six Counties. It is about time it was realised that helping to solve unemployment, to solve the curse of emigration, is far more important to the everyday lives of the people in the Twenty Six Counties than wasting the time and the finances of this State in fighting to gain for one political Party power over all others. It is immaterial to us in the Labour Party whether we have a vote of confidence to-day or a vote on this motion. It makes such little difference. The strong battalion have it; they are entitled to it, we know; they were elected as the majority: we do not grudge them that majority. We face the facts, but we remember this. The responsibility is imposed upon them to act as Irishmen should act, and not to act as individuals who, like some of the people prior to the Act of Union, were prepared to sell all for the strength of their own Parties. If they want to sell all, if they want the greed and the power that apparently go now with the man prepared to take over the position of Taoiseach, then we may not beat them in this House but the people cannot be fooled, and the people are entitled to judge. Deputy Booth and others who tried to tell us what we were, who tried to say that P.R. should be damned, got their answer from the people. All the people want is justice and fair play.
We are opposing the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach for, amongst other reasons, the reason that there was no member of the Fianna Fáil Party who so consistently made promises to the people and so consistently refused to keep them. He was the first to mention, away back 20 years ago, that the Fianna Fáil plan for solving unemployment and emigration was so magnificent that there would not be ships enough to carry back all the emigrants. It cannot be denied that at the last election Fianna Fáil got a majority on the strength of two promises made by the Taoiseach-elect. One was that the food subsidies would not be removed and the other was his aim of creating 100,000 new jobs. They got into power on purely false promises and after 2¼ years they have not made any attempt to redeem them, even in part.
There is such a buzz of conversation that I can hardly hear Deputies.
Since then the Taoiseach-elect has not stopped making promises. About a year ago we were amazed by his announcement that he had £220,000,000 to spend. Unfortunately, we have not seen any of it since. We find emigration and unemployment are higher than ever and that the cost of living has gone absolutely sky high. All that engaged the Party opposite during all that time was to try and devise some scheme by which the people would deny themselves voting rights. That finally culminated in the infamous Referendum Bill, which the people have discarded. Even now, when the ill-fated bid for dictatorship has been blown sky high by the people, one might expect the Government to get down to business.
(Interruptions.)
In view of the record of the Taoiseach-elect in making promises without any intention of keeping them, I and my Party could not see our way to support him. Fianna Fáil Deputies may laugh but we know quite well what to expect. We know that if this Party last as a Government for the next 2½ years, until their statutory term of office expires, nothing will be done. As Deputy Costello pointed out, Deputy Lemass gave us a foretaste of what we might expect. He made no reference to the fact that the people had had their say in the referendum or to the business of running the country and trying to eliminate some of the evils confronting us. That is not what is troubling him. What is troubling him now is how to bring a Bill before the House so that he can get, again by a trick, what the people denied him in the referendum.
In regard to the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach one must examine, presumably, the credentials of his Cabinet colleagues. In doing so, one is so overwhelmed by the mediocrity of most of his Cabinet colleagues that it would appear to me to be clear that the Government had little alternative but to put forward Deputy Lemass. I feel we owe him a certain sympathy for the very serious predicament in which he finds himself, if the Dáil agrees to this motion, in attempting to resuscitate or restore the morale of his Party consequent on the recent serious electoral defeat in respect of the P.R. issue which was brought about by the, I believe, wilful and irresponsible decision of his predecessor to have this matter considered by the Dáil in the first instance and by the people later on by referendum. His task in that respect will be a formidable one.
In considering his merit and considering our decision on whether or not to vote for him, one is faced on the one hand with the very solid achievements of Deputy Lemass in his years of office. There was his understanding in the early years of the Government of the great need for the establishment of Irish industries in order to attempt to make Irish consumers independent of British manufacturers. He proceeded with his plan with great determination in the face of considerable opposition of the Irish entrepreneurs of these British companies. There are further his remarkable achievements in the number of State or semi-State groups which he either initiated or so encouraged as to make them quite the most remarkable success on the industrial side—Aer Lingus, Irish Shipping, Irish Steel Holdings, the development of the E.S.B., Bord na Móna and so on. They all must stand to his credit. No matter who is examining the record of this man, they must stand to his credit in any assessment of his merit.
I think also there is something that is forgotten in considering his achievements and his qualities and qualifications for this very important and responsible position. That is his record during wartime, his success in meeting the food problems for our society at that time. Any fair-minded analysis of the realities of the position must lead one to place at least those on the record. They must be used to weigh in his favour.
On the other side there is of course —I suppose he must now come to accept it—his overall failure to devise a plan whereby Irish industry could create the wealth which would give to his colleagues, in Social Welfare, Health and Education in particular, the means whereby they might provide a modicum of social justice in our society for the under-privileged. While Deputy Lemass must take the credit— and I freely give it to him—for his achievements I think he must also accept a considerable degree of responsibility for the failure to create an Irish industry that would have through expanding its export markets not only supplied our home needs but created that national wealth which would have allowed him to give his colleagues the opportunity to provide fair and just allowances for the old age pensioner, for the blind and the widow, to provide for better health services and better and wider educational opportunities for all our children. I believe that that is a failure of which he must himself be becoming more and more conscious daily.
His dependence on private enterprise exclusively on the productive side of capital investment in Ireland has obviously proved to be an outstanding failure. In addition to the great weaknesses of the rings and cartels and price monopolies of one kind and another to which, unfortunately, he appears to give a certain tacit acceptance, which have all led to great weakness in Irish industry and which have led thereafter to failure in our national economy, and in the social structure of our society, Irish industry under Deputy Lemass has left us with a constant and near constant 10 per cent. unemployed and has led to the best part of three quarters of a million of our choice young people getting out of the country.
All one can hope for is that Deputy Lemass will be honest enough and, I hope, shrewd enough, to understand that that is the real measure of his failure and the failure of the test which he has asked us from time to time to apply—the failure to give employment to those who need it. In that context, his handling of the creation of an Irish industrial arm has failed signally.
In trying to decide what Deputy Lemass may do in the future, one has very little to go on. There is a relatively recent statement by him, when in Opposition, of his ambition to create a new social order and a state of prosperity by the provision of 100,000 new jobs in the country. I do not mention that to sneer at him in any way. I mention it to remind him of it and to hope that the reason we did not see that plan brought to fruition was probably the conservatism of his leader, to the jealousies of his colleagues, or one reason or another. At any rate, those reasons will no longer exist when he becomes Taoiseach, in which case, the validity of that plan can be tested when the problem of unemployment is in the hands of Deputy Lemass.
May I ask him—I am sure he has done so—if he has taken fully into account the implications of the recent election? Most responsible Deputies will have been terribly shocked, not by the failure to elect Deputy Mac Eoin and the election of the Deputy de Valera but by the mass voters' strike in this terribly important election. The significance of the abstention of one-third of the electorate, under the circumstances, when both major Parties attempted to bring them all out by every possible means open to them, and the refusal of an electorate, which has been noted over the years for its intense interest in political matters, to come to the polls in such large numbers is, to my mind—and I am sure Deputy Lemass also accepts it—one of the most frightening, shocking and damning condemnations of our activities here over the past several months.
It seems to me that not only, is the policy of his political Party at his mercy or in his hands but the whole ideal of parliamentary democracy which has been greatly discredited in the eyes of the people, is also on trial. I honestly believe they are in Government for the last time and the new Taoiseach, should he be elected, is the last person who will have an opportunity of restoring public confidence in it. Should he be elected, I wish him luck.
It should be unnecessary in this Assembly to disclaim any personal opinions against any Deputy proposed for the responsible position of Taoiseach. We speak here of policy and not of persons. When we seem to speak stringently of persons, we speak of the policy they stand for and not of their personalities.
Deputy Lemass is a public figure and you may vote for or against a public figure because you agree or disagree with him, or you may vote for or against a public figure because you trust him or you do not trust him. I shall vote against Deputy Lemass in this election by Dáil Éireann because I do not trust him. I think his whole performance in the public life of this country leads any rational observer to believe that he promises what he does not intend to perform, and that he seeks the franchise of our people by fraud, and it is that which keeps our people from the polls. It is the realisation that there are political leaders in this country who seek the franchise of the people by fraud which dissuades a number of persons from taking their proper part in general elections. It is disastrous for the country that all of us should be tarred with the same brush of fraudulent misrepresentation because Deputy Lemass has played his part in securing for the Fianna Fáil Party the clear majority in Dáil Éireann which they now enjoy by three specific promises which all of us here heard him make, in association with his leader and the Minister for Defence.
In the course of the last general election, he proclaimed that it was a nauseating falsehood to suggest that he would be responsible for the abolition of the food subsidies. He was not elected three months as a result of that promise before he had introduced legislation into this House to abolish them all. He had effectively persuaded our people that he would carry on the policy which the inter-Party Government had been following to keep down the cost of living and, yet, within three months, by his act and with the complacent majority he commands in Dáil Éireann, he had swept away all the food subsidies and increased the cost of living to our people by 14 points. His alibi was that he had to do it.
I do not trust him because he did that. I do not trust him because I remember when, at a time of acute economic difficulty, when every section of the House was jointly concerned to protect our people from the possibility of mass unemployment as a result of the serious deterioration in our balance of payments situation, and when the Government of which I was a member took steps to prevent that happening—and, fortunately, created a situation which resulted in a surplus in our balance of payments, in the following year, 1957, which made it possible to raise many of the restrictive measures which it was our duty to impose—at that time and with full knowledge, for he understood the situation, he plastered this country with posters calling on the women of Ireland to vote for him so that he might get their husbands jobs. Of the unemployed then, half he drove into emigration and the remainder are still looking for work. It may be that he was not able to do what he promised, but he knew what he was doing and he suffered that poster to be put up with a dual purpose. One purpose was to get votes for him and his colleagues; and he got them from people in deep distress, people who are always prepared to turn to anyone who promises them that which their hearts desire most. He got the votes, but he let down the people who were deceived into giving him those votes and, in doing so, he injured Parliament. He injured everybody in the public life of Ireland. He called in question the honesty of us all.
I listened with interest to Deputy Dr. Browne speaking, as is his wont, with the voice of doom, warning us that Parliamentary institutions now are to have their last chance. Parliamentary institutions will be operating, with God's help, in this country, long after everybody here is dead, buried, and forgotten.
Famous last words.
I will not be drawn into an altercation with Deputy Dr. Browne. I am not worrying about the survival of Parliamentary institutions in this country.
That is the trouble.
But it is a positive disaster that any Party should call in question, or even give any Deputy the opportunity of calling in question, the expediency of their preservation by the iniquity of deliberate deception of the electorate and the purchase of votes by fraud.
Lower taxes and better times—Fine Gael!
(Interruptions.)
Order!
I want to put it to the Deputy who is now nominated that he has just come back from the country from a campaign in which, I submit, he resorted to exactly the same system of fraud. Remember the picture. When the Presidential election was first envisaged and the ex-Taoiseach announced his intention of raising the issue of proportional representation, the ex-Taoiseach, then speaking on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, said that he thought it undesirable that these two issues should be confused. Will Deputies remember that? He said that it was his earnest purpose to secure that the issue of the abolition or preservation of proportional representation should be put separately to the people and the issue of choosing the President by election should be held upon another day.
That is what the ex-Taoiseach and the present candidate for the office of Taoiseach declared to be their considered judgment. On what propaganda was this campaign fought by the Fianna Fáil Party when they sought to strike proportional representation down? "Yes and de Valera." Now, they were either honest when they said these two questions should be strictly segregated or they were honest when they said: "Our real purpose is to confound them as far as we can." Remember the story the people were told was that Fianna Fáil wanted them kept apart, but the long debate in Oireachtas Éireann brought them so close together that the segregation thought desirable in the initial stages was no longer effectively possible. But that does not tally with the campaign based on "Yes and de Valera."
They sought again in this campaign to perform the same confidence trick they had so successfully worked in the general election. They sought to get the people to vote, not on the issue of proportional representation but in sympathy with a venerable figure who was fading out of active public life. It is conduct of that kind that brings us all low in the public esteem. It is because he was responsible for conduct of that kind that I shall vote against the nominee proposed.
I remember pointing out to this Government in the very early stages of the conspiracy to abolish proportional representation that, whatever the issue in this matter would be, its direct consequence would be a greater instability than we had known for many decades. I remember saying to the Government during that debate: "Even if you win this by a narrow majority, you take from half our people that which they greatly treasure and you emerge as an Ascendancy denying the rights of a minority." I remember saying to them: "If you succeed the true democratic character of your Government must be judged not by the size of your majority but by the respect you show for the rights and feelings of the minority; and you will stand self-condemned with the consequent instability that will attend on that. But, if you are defeated, you will come back to this House forced to admit that a defeat on this issue in Dáil Éireann would have forced you to the country and you will be protesting that, since you have appealed from Oireachtas Éireann to the people and there been defeated, you ignore the consequences and stagger on." Do the members of the Fianna Fáil Party really believe they can stagger on? Do they know what they look like to us at the present time?
A Deputy
We are not worrying about that.
A jittery crowd of frightened men. Look at them.
What did the Deputy look like to the people of Monaghan? What did the people of Monaghan tell the Deputy?
Look at them. A combination of stygian gloom interrupted occasionally by hysterical outbursts. They have got the wind up. They feel the ground crumbling under their feet. That is what I call instability. Everybody in the country believes that they are done for. The Government is a sinking ship. Mark you, being largely constituted of rotten timber, you will not go down for some time. Every old hulk will float on the waves for a little time, but even the rats will leave it.
Might I remind Deputy Dillon that the motion is that Deputy Seán F. Lemass be nominated Taoiseach?
And I am arguing, Sir, that to elect him is to place our trust in him. That, I decline to do. To elect him is to suggest that he can maintain stable government in this country with the aid of the cohorts behind him. I am suggesting to Dáil Éireann that on neither ground should any Deputy vote for Deputy Lemass. No one, on his record, could trust him; no one, on his prospects, could confide in him.
No matter what any Deputy says, I regard the Deputy who has been proposed for the position of Taoiseach as the decentest man in Dáil Éireann. Nevertheless, I shall vote against him. I will tell you why. Not long ago, at a special function, Deputy Lemass made a statement that the people on the land are engaged in a feather bed industry. I represent the people on the land. Deputy Lemass, when he said that agriculture is a feather bed industry, created the impression that the people on the land, the tenant farmers, are not paying their due share of taxation. It is because of that statement, even though I regard Deputy Lemass as the decentest Deputy in Dáil Éireann, that I will vote against him. Deputy Lemass has only a city outlook, a city mentality. Rural Ireland he does not know of.
Rural Ireland voted for the abolition of P.R.
I did not hear that remark.
Order! Deputy Donnellan, on the motion.
The man who proposed Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach, the Minister for Health, would almost make one vote against him.
Shame.
It is the truth.
We are discussing the nomination of Deputy Lemass.
The Minister for Health nominated him, Sir.
The Minister for Health does not come into this.
Thanks be to God, he does not. Thanks be to God, it is not the merits or demerits of the Minister for Health we are discussing. It is terrible cheek, terrible impudence, on the part of the Minister for Health, or the Minister for External Affairs, to stand up here and propose a man I like very well, Deputy Lemass, as Taoiseach, in view of the fact that it is not a vote of no confidence but the vote of the majority of the Irish people that decided that P.R. should be retained. That was the decision, was it not?
Not in Galway.
Of course, I know very well that quite a number of Fianna Fáil people, such as Deputy Killilea, always got in on the hind kick.
That is not relevant to this motion. The Deputy should keep to the motion.
He did not want them to abolish P.R; he would never be a member of the Dáil, if they did. It is terrible impudence for the Minister for Health or the Minister for External Affairs to make that proposal here, because it is not Dáil Éireann that has decided. Dáil Éireann represents the majority wish of the Irish people at an election. Once they come in, as Fianna Fáil did, on their promises, and through the wish of the Irish people, they turn turtle. Take the 100,000 jobs that Deputy Lemass was to give to our people. Where are they now?
England.
On the train to Dublin to-day there were ten of my constituents—Deputy Killilea was not one of them; it is a pity he was not— en route to the boat. They were some of the people who were expecting the 100,000 jobs that Deputy Lemass promised. The 100,000 jobs were not there. Sixty thousand of our people emigrated last year. Of course, in Galway the majority voted in favour of abolishing proportional representation. I will tell you why. They wanted to abolish Mark. That is the reason. They wanted to remove him.
The difficulties and differences of local elections do not arise here. The Deputy should keep to the motion that Deputy Seán F. Lemass be nominated Taoiseach.
I was trying to point out that many of the people who voted to abolish proportional representation in my constituency did not want proportional representation abolished but wanted to abolish Deputy Killilea because he always got in on the hind kick.
My chief objection to Deputy Lemass, who, as I say, is the decentest man in Dáil Éireann, is that he has not a rural outlook. His outlook is for the industrialists. Many of them are sham industrialists. May I put it straight? In many instances the people's money was wasted in order to bring them in here. A lot of them are the damn Jews that should never be allowed in this country.
You did not say that when the factory was being erected in Tuam.
Order!
Deputy Killilea placed his son in it. I did not. That is my answer to him. I am sorry, Sir. Could you not stop that fellow there?
The Deputy is indulging in personal references.
He started it.
If the Deputy persists in his present attitude and method, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
You would not do that?
The Deputy will find out.
I was trying to make my speech in my own way as representing my own people, the people who always put me at the head of the poll since my name first appeared on the ballot paper. I try to represent them as best I can. If there is anything good in Fianna Fáil, and there is not much good in it, Deputy Lemass is the pick of them, but he has not a rural outlook. He is the individual who said—I am not quoting—roughly, that the people who work on the land have a feather bed industry.
He never said that.
I hope he did not.
Deputy Donnellan should be allowed to make his statement without interruption.
He should not repeat.
That is for me to say.
"Professor" Killilea would know all about that. I have stated my reason for voting against Deputy Lemass. He has not got a rural outlook. He thinks the people on the land have a feather bed industry. I want to tell Deputy Lemass who, I presume, will become the Taoiseach although I will not vote for him—mind you, I hate doing it— the people on the land are the backbone of this country. I want to tell Deputy Lemass that industrialists here will, given twopence, make twopence halfpenny out of it although many of them do not. But the people on the land are the people who make the new money. They are the people who pull it out of the ground by their sweat and hard work. They are the people who make the new money— and that applies to the Labour Party as well as to the small farmers of this country. They are 90 per cent. of the population of this country.
I do not mind that the Minister for Health has been looking so cross. I know what he said last Monday night week——
The Deputy is wasting my patience. He is not dealing with the motion. He has not endeavoured to deal with the motion.
The fact of the matter is that I regret I have to vote against Deputy Lemass——
The Deputy has said that at least half a dozen times already.
I want to emphasise it. I know that the Chair would understand it but Deputies like Deputy Killilea would not understand it.
The Deputy will resume his seat.
Sit down.
Not for you, brother.
We have been summoned here to-day to elect a Taoiseach. One would imagine that we would have a second nomination before us. Statements have been made to the effect that the Government have been wasting time for the past nine months. Even at this late hour, it would be a good thing if we would practice what we preach and not continue to waste time. It is absolutely indifferent what name the Government decide to put before us to-day. The people know the substantial majority the Government hold in this House. I do not believe the people will appreciate or approve of the time that is being devoted to delaying the election of a Taoiseach.
It is true that the Government as such, in their policy, sustained a major defeat, particularly in Dublin, and indeed I am very pleased they did. I had hoped to gain wisdom from the elders of this House but I must say, without apology, that since I have come into this House I have not been able to gain any of the wisdom I had hoped to gain in this respect.
Discussion has been prolonged. I understand that each Deputy has the right to speak. It was suggested to me that a second candidate should be named. It might have been the more honourable thing to do rather than to delay the time of the House in the present circumstances.
On a point of order. I stood up three times before my colleague, Deputy Carroll. Still, I am not called. I want to remind the Chair that I stood up three times while Deputy Carroll rose only once.
Deputy Sweetman.
I want, as dispassionately as I can, to review the facts on which we are asked to elect Deputy Seán Lemass, the nominee of the Fianna Fáil Party, as Taoiseach to-day. We are asked to do it in the circumstance that the former Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party went forward and failed to secure much more than one-third of the vote of the electorate in the recent Presidential Election. We are asked to do it after a campaign in which not merely the former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the former Taoiseach, but every single member along that Government bench, made it his policy, made it the Government policy, made it the Fianna Fáil policy that there should be only one particular system of election in future in this country. For the past nine months, every member of the Fianna Fáil Party has been drumming that as the sole point of Fianna Fáil policy, of Government policy.
We meet to-day after that sole point of policy has received a decisive reverse at the hands of the people. Surely that shows that the Government of which we are now asked to elect Deputy Lemass as leader has lost the confidence of the people and that they have lost that confidence on a vote— how obtained? They lost it on a vote obtained by the method that they themselves, every one of them, suggested was the only proper method for the country, the single non-transferable vote.
This defeat that the Government have received, this lack of confidence that has been expressed by the people in the Government, has been expressed not under the system that they were criticising but under the very system that they wished to foist on the people for the future. Is it not clear, therefore, that, for that clearly-shown lack of confidence, there can be no excuse whatsoever? In the face of that lack of confidence, in the face of the situation in which it was shown that the people had no confidence in this Government, the only thing Deputy Lemass, as the acting head of the Government, could suggest was that, having been beaten in the country, he would now change the constituencies to suit the present Government better in the immediate future.
That is all cod.
That is the fact.
Quote it. He never said that.
That is the statement he issued.
Order.
The Minister for Education can speak if he wants to, after me. We notice how few of them are rising in this debate. That is the statement Deputy Lemass made. Having been beaten in the country, he will now introduce a Revision of Constituencies Bill—to suit the present Government, obviously, with their existing majority.
You will never beat the people.
There could not ever have been in the country a more cynical approach by any political Party, after receiving the setback in the country by the single non-transferable vote which the Fianna Fáil Party received, than that of turning around and issuing such a statement. But, apart from that, apart from having completely lost the confidence of the people, apart from its being obvious that they could not get out more than one-third of the electorate to vote for their Leader, apart from the fact that there are obvious implications in the loss of that confidence, we have heard not one reason from Deputy Lemass or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party why the obvious implications should not be carried into effect. I suggest it is up to them to give those reasons not merely to the House but to the country.
This Government was elected two and a quarter years ago. It was elected after a general election campaign in which there were three main issues put to the people. First, there were the issues that arose out of the balance of payments difficulties which had occurred in 1956. We were told by every member of Fianna Fáil at that time that the measures that we as a Government were taking to rectify the balance of payments were not adequate and were not going to be effective. They made that their catch-cry during the whole campaign.
Did any person who voted for Fianna Fáil in March, 1957, believe that when this Government came in they would not vary to any appreciable degree, the measures that had been taken, that they would merely adopt the measures we had taken before? Did any person who was cajoled into voting for Fianna Fáil in March, 1957, realise that on the 8th May, 1957, Deputy Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Finance, would say: "In the financial year 1956/57 there was a balance on external account"? There was a balance on external account, a balance on external account which was achieved by us but a balance which has been lost by this Government. Not withstanding the fact that the Government have lost that balance we are now asked to support them by this nomination to-day.
The Central Statistics Office issued the other day the figures for the first five months of this year. They show that compared with last year the import excess has risen by £11.3 million. Let anybody who likes work that out for the rest of the year. Last year on current account there was a deficit of £1 million. Make whatever excuses you like for some of the heavy imports in the early part of this year. Whatever way you work it out the Government of which Deputy Lemass is now nominee has lost the balance on external account that had been achieved with great difficulty by us before we left office.
The second means by which the Fianna Fáil Party achieved power in March, 1957, was by constant and continuous criticism of the cost of living. Since they went into office the cost of living has risen by no less than 12 points from February, 1957, to May, 1959. On that record how can they reconcile in their consciences the propaganda and the attacks they made at that time on the previous Government? They showed a cynical disregard of what the people really wanted and that they were anxious only to obtain power at any cost.
The third point, and perhaps the most important one during the whole of that general election, was the question of employment. What is the situation in relation to employment? We know from the statistics that were furnished about a month ago that there are today fewer people employed in Ireland than there were in 1957, and that there were 32,000 fewer people employed in 1958 than there were at the time we left office.
Is that the employment record on foot of which we are asked today to vote for this motion? Even taking the more recent statistics we find that in the first quarter of this year there were fewer insurance stamps sold than there were in the first quarter of 1958 or in the first quarter of 1957 when we were in office. How can they suggest that they have done anything but fail miserably in respect of their promise in relation to employment?
Gross national expenditure, at constant prices, that is to say the national product, the constant price, has gone down under this Government. On every single aspect of our economic life they have shown not an improvement but a disimprovement and a decline. Yet they ask us today, having been repudiated in the country, to accept the situation that they are still carrying out the mandate they got in 1957, a mandate which they got by fraudulent propaganda and by deception.
I cannot do other than object to the nomination of Deputy Lemass as the nominee of the Fianna Fáil Party because I believe that in our present economic circumstances it is utterly essential that we would get away from a high cost economy, that we would ensure that we would build up particularly our raw materials in agriculture which we have at home. The whole political life of Deputy Lemass has been contrary to that view. The whole political life of Deputy Lemass has been that agriculture did not matter and does not matter in this country. It is only in the last very few months that there has been perhaps some face-saving by him in that respect. I want far more evidence that he has changed his tune. I want far more evidence that he has changed from the Deputy Lemass we have known for the last 25 years, the Deputy Lemass who is prepared to put any blister, any burden on the backs of farmers, before I would support him in this debate.
I propose not to vote for Deputy Lemass but I do not intend to vote against him. It would not make sense to vote against him as there is no one else to take his place. To me a bad general is better than no general, although I do not look upon Deputy Lemass as a bad general. There are certain reasons why I do not intend to vote for him. First of all, we have just emerged from a battle, a conspiracy, to deny individuals like myself the right to be a member of the House. It is put to me by members of the Fianna Fáil Party: "You have a good chance. You are all right." However, I am not so much concerned with that. I may be on a horse but when I was on the ground it might not have been all right. There are many people on the ground who may aspire to be members of this House but who, if P.R. had been abolished, would have very little chance of being elected.
The policy of Deputy Lemass was to have two big Parties which would have meant that individuals like myself would be denied their rights. Of course, we are invited to join one or other of the big Parties which are honeycombed with individuals with everything all fixed for themselves. Therefore joining one of the big Parties made no sense to me. The conspiracy in a nutshell was that there was to be power here for two groups and their associates and there was to be a denial to all others of that fundamental principle enshrined in every revolutionary constitution, equal rights and opportunities for all. That is what made me fight against the abolition of P.R. I did not just talk about it. I fought against it and I did more harm to the advocates of the abolition of P.R. than they may realise. The results in Dublin and County Dublin speak for themselves.
Deputy Lemass is, in my opinion, a good general. He has served the country well as a Minister, but whether he will make a good national leader is a different matter. It does not follow that a good general will make a good Taoiseach. Deputy Lemass has yet to prove himself in that capacity. History has proved that, when the Big Chief goes, everything flops. When O'Connell went, the Repeal Movement flopped. When Parnell went, his movement flopped. Even when Cromwell died, his son got panicky and handed back full control to the generals. All that is history. Nevertheless, while admitting that Deputy Lemass has proved himself to be a good Minister, he has got to prove he is a good national leader. The former Taoiseach had certain qualities which I think Deputy Lemass does not possess.
Thanks be to God.
The former Taoiseach had that little knack of getting down to the level of the smallest person in the land but Deputy Lemass has been much too aloof. I have one other fault to find with Deputy Lemass. He never makes any statements about Partition. At least the former Taoiseach did, but Deputy Lemass is wrapped up in industry and economics and according to rural Deputies, seems to have little interest in rural matters. To me, it seems he has little interest in Partition.
All is quiet now on the northern front, but that does not prove that it may remain so. In fact, history again has proved that it will not always be quiet on that front. That is the problem which Deputy Lemass will have to face. I should like a statement from Deputy Lemass in regard to Partition. I hope it will not be just an annual speech in protest. I would refer Deputy Lemass to Cavour—the man who succeeded in uniting Italy, which at one time was divided into seven parts, in his life time. I would ask Deputy Lemass to take a lesson from Cavour in Italy.
There are one or two other reasons why I do not propose to vote for Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach. A short time ago a member of the Fianna Fáil Party—he was a big shot in the Party—said to me that when Deputy Lemass was Taoiseach, he would send them upstairs. What that implies I do not know. Does that mean he will be a dictator? I do not know. That makes the Minister suspect.
Another reason why I will not support Deputy Lemass is that during the last election, at least as far as my area is concerned, gangster tactics were used by his Party to fight the election. If they were used in my area and in other areas, there is a doubt that he represents all he claims to represent. I shall not pursue that matter further but I should astound the House, were I to do so. In any event, I am capable of overcoming any tactics which might be used. I am like a ball that hops. That is why they said I would get in. I am not thinking of myself.
Arising out of the recent decision of the people, the Fianna Fáil Party have met their Stalingrad. There will be no more advances. They know that and just as they sneered at the small Parties and Independents in the past, they will be rubbing them up in the future with an eye to the next general election. While I am not going to vote for Deputy Lemass, I am not going to vote against him. I have given my reasons. I do not see any reasons for voting against him. Somebody must run the country.
Even the most ardent admirer of Deputy Lemass must admit that his nomination as Taoiseach comes at a time and in circumstances that cannot be regarded as the happiest. As a Dubliner, it must have been know to Dubliners during the recent campaign that he was the likely successor to the incoming President of the country and it must be a cause of uneasiness and even a certain amount of unhappiness not alone to himself but to his Party to realise that on an important occasion such as this in his life his major proposal within recent years has been so decisively rejected by his own Dublin people.
It might be said that Deputy Lemass is coming into his inheritance when the assets are dwindling but whatever dwindling there may be and whatever faults we may have to find with his nomination, I want it to go on record that while, politically, I shall oppose him in this vote and continue to oppose him on policies resembling those of the past and those which he at present adumbrates, personally he will always have my warmest commendation for whatever success he achieves.
I, probably more than any of the other younger members on this side of the House or on the other side, have had the benefit of his friendly advice and the benefit of his experience and enjoyed to a very great extent what is so characteristic of him, his personal generosity in this country and abroad. He has been described in the newspapers of this country and, I think, at least in one outside paper in the last few days as a person whose success is due to energy, ability and the taking of calculated risks. I do not quarrel with his energy. In fact, it is one of his attributes. I do not quarrel with his ability, much as I might quarrel with the method by which it is applied from time to time, but I do think that in the post of Taoiseach which he will undoubtedly attain this evening, there should be more of the calculation and less of the risk.
It depends on what one means by "calculated risks", whether it is the actual risk itself which is being calculated or whether it is the circumstances in which it might be safe to take a risk with certain objectives in mind. I think the people deserve that any risks taken either on their behalf or with their money should be approximations or even calculations which so far as the fallibility of the human mind can encompass them, could be regarded, in the language of racing, as almost certainties.
I do not think that anybody should try to take away any credit that is due to Deputy Lemass for the part he has played in Irish industry and the development of Irish industry as far as it goes but there are people who would say—and there might be some degree of sense in the argument—that success is easily attained when money is readily available for projects; but whether that be the case or not, I think that the compliment must be paid that at least steps were taken, irrespective of the cost and very often irrespective of the results.
During the recent campaign, the Government suffered a very severe rebuff. I do not think that can be denied. The Presidential election victory is quite another thing altogether having regard to all the circumstances, but I think when people went so far as to say that our economic survival depended upon the adoption of the single non-transferable vote in single member constituencies and when the people did not accept that doctrine, there would appear to me to be only one course open and, like Deputy Sweetman, I should like to know the reason why that course has not been taken, namely, to give the electorate an opportunity of deciding once again whether our economic survival depends upon the adoption of what they were pleased to call the straight vote system.
I think it was Deputy Sherwin who said that Deputy Lemass referred very infrequently to the problem of Partition. I would much prefer to hear people referring infrequently, if not at all, to problems unless they refer to them sincerely. I have been asked by people outside this House whether the Taoiseach designate, Deputy Lemass, knew Irish, and I was urged to make a point as to whether he did or not. I am not making any such point.
Hear, hear!
When he comes to nominate his Ministers after his election I shall elaborate on that a little more fully. It is not necessary that the common welfare or the common good should be subservient to the use of any one particular language. Within each man's heart can beat a patriotic beat whether he speaks English, Irish, French, German or any other language, and I thought even today, on the proposing and seconding of Deputy Lemass, that it was consummate hypocrisy on the part of Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Ryan to propose and second him with their little rehearsed pieces in the Irish language, leaving it at that.
Once Deputy Lemass is elected as Taoiseach, as he will be, all we can say to him is this: "You have failed in your most recent major proposals to the people. You and your leaders have told the people that economic survival was dependent on the referendum going through. It has not gone through; will you now mend your hands and proceed towards economic survival on the system which has been maintained in spite of you?" Finally, I ask the Taoiseach designate to be particularly mindful in what will now be a less arduous task than that to which he was elected over the years, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, of the standard obtaining in the political life both inside and outside the House as well as in his own Party and in the vast Civil Service organisation of the country.
The business before the House is the election of a Taoiseach on the nomination, not of a Government, but of the Fianna Fáil Party. One wonders if this same Party, which has sustained such a signal defeat in its attempt to do away with the existing system of proportional representation, some months ago at its annual Ard-Fheis had among its members one single independent spokesman who had the hardihood to get up at that assembly and question the wisdom or the justice of the proposal, we would be here to-day dealing with the election of a Taoiseach in the circumstances which now obtain.
Everyone in this House and in the country will agree that at the beginning of 1957—whatever the means by which Fianna Fáil were again returned as a majority Government—if the then Taoiseach, and now President-elect, had indicated his desire to step down and suggest that the Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, with an over-all majority in the House, should take office in the critical position facing the country, not a Deputy would have questioned that decision. While a vote on the issue might have been taken, and members of the Opposition might have voted against the motion, certainly there would not have been any great need for speeches on the proposal. However, that did not happen and the Fianna Fáil Party must bear the eventual responsibility. The Fianna Fáil Party insisted, through their Government, that they would continue and in the middle of a period of office, instead of devoting themselves to the economic problems of the country, they met in solemn conclave and decided to introduce this question of a change in the electoral system and in the Constitution.
The people of Ireland have given Fianna Fáil their answer. I am very proud to speak from these benches to-day and to be able to say that the people of the City of Dublin in particular gave Fianna Fáil their answer in each and every constituency.
The Deputy is getting away from the motion before the House. He must relate his remarks to the motion.
I am giving my reasons for my opposition and that of the Labour Party to the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach. We are elected representatives to this House and we are entitled to consider—and I think Fianna Fáil are entitled to consider—a decision when it is taken by the electorate at any general election or any referendum. As I said, in other circumstances I do not think there would be any great opposition to the motion before the House. Even to-day, the querying and opposition to the proposal does not involve any question of personal animosity or personal criticism of Deputy Lemass for the simple reason that it would be unfair and unjust to criticise the election of an individual to the position of Taoiseach. It is only when a person has been elected and has carried out the duties of that office for a period that one is in a position to criticise the handling of the office.
The record of Deputy Lemass as Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce over the years is well known to all of us, but he is not being nominated for that position to-day. He is being nominated for the position of Taoiseach and I feel that on one matter in recent times he has not spoken in a manner worthy of his stature. This quotation which I am about to read is from the Irish Press of June 20th and, in the course of a statement attributed to him, he said:
"An analysis of the voting shows that the majority in favour of retaining the Proportional Representation system was predominantly an urban one. In rural constituencies a majority voted in favour of the straight vote method. It is, of course, in the large rural constituencies that the disadvantages of the P.R. system have been most obvious to the electorate."
The statement went on to say:—
"In the light of the outcome of the Referendum it is now necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, to submit to the Dáil proposals for the revision of Dáil constituencies having regard to population changes since they were previously defined."
I have not suggested and I do not suggest that he made any promise, or any threat, but I do not think it is worthy of a man of his stature to comment upon the results of a referendum by distinguishing, in any way whatever, between votes cast in urban and rural constituencies. Surely a referendum must be, and is, a decision of the Irish people as a whole? While people with less experience and less stature might well adopt that line, it is not worthy of a Deputy of the standard of the Deputy who has been proposed for Taoiseach, and I trust the reference is no more than a casual one because floating around the Chamber of Dáil Éireann, and other places, there has been a suggestion from time to time that advantage should be taken of the Constitution to ensure the election of more Deputies from the rural constituencies.
The Deputy may not discuss impending legislation at this juncture. It does not arise on this motion.
I am only making the point that, in my view, the right of an elector is the same, no matter what part of the country he comes from.
The question may not be argued at this stage.
I hope the new Taoiseach will bear that in mind. There is no doubt whatever that Deputy Lemass will be elected Taoiseach and if he, as Taoiseach, carries on for the remainder of the life of this Government and endeavours to carry out the promises made at the beginning of the term of office of this Government, he will have the good wishes of all, but, if he, as Taoiseach, carries on as his predecessor and the Fianna Fáil Government carried on during the past two and a quarter years, then, when another election comes, I am afraid that what occurred in the referendum will be only of minor importance, as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, compared with what will happen to that Party then. It is quite clear that the Fianna Fáil proposal has been defeated. They endeavoured to carry that proposal in the referendum by every and any means and it is of particular pride to me, as a Dublin Deputy, to say that every constituency in Dublin played its part in bringing that proposal to naught.
In considering the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach, the House should remember that we are at the end of a political era. The passing of Mr. de Valera from the scene brings with it new problems which demand new men and new personnel to tackle them. I think our function as a House here today is to be realistically objective in our assessment of the qualities of the man who is put forward by his Party to succeed Mr. de Valera, who, whether we agreed with him or not, certainly dominated the political scene in this country for almost 40 years.
Tributes to Deputy Lemass's capabilities, to his energy and to his competence, particularly during the war years, have been paid by Deputies who have announced their intention of voting against his nomination. Candidly, I do not understand that procedure. I take it that we must have a Taoiseach and, if the present nominee is not acceptable to the House, then some other nominee must either be acceptable or Dáil Éireann must dissolve, and we must have a general election to give a new Dáil an opportunity of electing a Taoiseach. In spite of what has been said, I do not believe that on any side of the House there is a genuine desire for a general election and I am quite certain that if an election were to be held, it would not be a good thing for the country. I should not like to forecast the outcome of such an election, but I think it would be most unwise to base the probable results on the results of the referendum to abolish proportional representation. It might conversely be argued that the outcome of such an election would be nearer to the result of the Presidential election, in which case we would have a return of the present Government Party to office.
I was one of the two Independent Deputies who supported the Government's proposal for the abolition of proportional representation. As such, I should like to say, here and now, that I accept the verdict of the people in that regard and I should like to congratulate our very mature, very sensible and very sober electorate on the assessment they made of the many conflicting proposals put before them. I think too much is being made of the defeat for the Government's proposal. A difference of 30,000 votes in 900,000 votes in any responsible gathering cannot be regarded as a resounding defeat and again, when we speak in expansive and exaggerated terms, one is always faced with the converse argument that if the referendum had been carried by 30,000 votes would those members of this House who did not support it regard it as a resounding victory? Though I supported the proposal I certainly would not in those circumstances.
I think that each of us in our minds should appraise the qualities of Deputy Lemass and his ability to shoulder the very difficult economic burdens and the other different difficulties which face the country at this time. There is no doubt that with the passing of the former Taoiseach, we are going to see radical political changes in this country perhaps even more quickly than we anticipate. As I see it at the moment we must give prior consideration to economic conditions in this country and all others, cultural problems and problems concerning the reintegration of the country, to my mind, must take a secondary place to the problem of economic expansion. I do not know any man among the Government Deputies better qualified by experience, training and by his own natural energies and intelligence to tackle those problems than the present nominee. I do not honestly know any other Deputy who would be prepared or competent to undertake those problems.
I do not know if Deputy Lemass will succeed in his task. I am afraid I agree with Deputy Dr. Browne's strictures on the men who sit behind and beside Deputy Lemass. I think his task is going to be a very heavy one and I suggest that when, as we all anticipate, he becomes Taoiseach, in the interests of this country he should be quite realistic and quite ruthless in selecting Ministers, where he can find them among his own Deputies, who will run the country efficiently and honestly in the interests of the people.
Some very uncomplimentary reasons have been given by some Deputies who propose to vote against Deputy Lemass. I feel inclined to ask if there is anyone in this House who is without political sin or if there is any of us who can afford to cast a stone.
I should like to throw the first stone.
I think it would be far better to bear in mind the realities of the situation and leave personalities out of it. I think there have been far too much personalities down through the years in Irish history. I hope that, at least from today onwards, we shall have an opportunity of leaving that aside and building up our nation in the interests of all the people. I am quite certain that the people outside were not unduly influenced during any of these elections by much of the talk that goes on in this House. I think our people are solid and sensible, far more sensible than many realise, and the assessment they made of the recent issues indicates their political maturity.
I intend to vote for Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach. I know his failings and I know that some of the criticisms levelled against him are not without foundation but it would be senseless, and less than realistic, to leave this House with a purely negative attitude of just voting against the only nominee put forward for the position of Taoiseach. In saying that I reserve to myself complete freedom of action to criticise the new Taoiseach whenever I feel he is not playing the part that I personally hope he will play in the rejuvenation of the economy of the country and in establishing here what we all want, an independent, happy, prosperous and united people.
To mention the name of the former Taoiseach probably would not be in order but at least we can all rejoice that the day has come when that man has gone from this House. No matter who replaces him as Taoiseach, there can be none worse than he was. I feel that is the only reference I would like to make concerning the President; it is the last utterance I shall make in this House in that respect.
Such references are not in order in this debate.
The people of LeixOffaly did not say that. They repudiated Deputy Flanagan's actions, his thoughts and his words.
I feel that the motion that Deputy Lemass be appointed Taoiseach, if passed by this House, will be one of the most disastrous on its records. I object to the motion vigorously and bitterly; I think he is an unsuitable person and that it is unwise for this House to have a man of his type as Prime Minister. If we are to judge him on the record of the past 25 years — and he has been Tánaiste for the greater part of 25 years — we must associate him with failure, graft and dishonesty and I would like to prove to this House——
The Deputy may not charge any member of the House with graft. The word must be withdrawn.
I want to prove that dishonesty, and that the present nominee for the post of Taoiseach has made false promises to the people. Not alone that but he has exercised political Fianna Fáil jobbery and he is carrying it out in Bord na Móna where I have knowledge of it. He is carrying it out in the E.S.B. and has carried it out in C.I.E. We all remember the railway shares with which he was associated and we all remember the Locke Tribunal with which he was associated——
The Deputy will never forget it.
He was Minister for Industry and Commerce then and I feel I am entitled to refer to his failures. There is no person with a more dishonest public record than Deputy Lemass. We all know quite well that the difference between the present nominee for the post of Taoiseach and the former Taoiseach is that the former Taoiseach was believed down the country to be honest—the people were deceived— but the present nominee is known not to be straight. There can be no confidence nor will there be any confidence in a Government led by a man with the record of Mr. Lemass over the last 25 years. Can any Deputy deny that while he was Minister for Industry and Commerce he was responsible for the Wages Stand-still Order that made it a criminal offence for a worker to seek an increase in pay and made it a criminal offence for a decent employer to pay an increased day's pay to an honest worker? Is that the type of man to have as Prime Minister and are the workers of the country to look for protection to a Taoiseach who was responsible for making it a criminal offence to seek an increase in pay? That is the record the prospective Taoiseach has so far as the workers are concerned.
Let us come a little bit more up to date. Do we not all know quite well that the present nominee for the post of Taoiseach removed all controls in connection with the cost of living and that, by his deliberate act, the cost of living was allowed to go sky high, point after point, until it has reached the present stage in which the people of Dublin have revolted in no uncertain manner against the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce? He alone must take responsibility for that.
Surely, after 25 years of Fianna Fáil Government Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who are now looking gloomy and sad must know that they are in the course of being transferred from Dev's team to Lemass's team and that that will not sound too well at the next general election. At the last general election which resulted in the return of every Fianna Fáil Deputy now sitting opposite they were elected on a personal vote obtained by the leader of the Party who is now gone but from this day on that will not be the case. No Party or no Government can stay in office and pretend to have the confidence of the people when they have lost the confidence of the people. That has been displayed now.
If the present nominee for the post of Taoiseach is anxious to know whether or not he has the confidence of the people I am sure there is nothing whatever to stop him from being elected by his House this evening and then asking for a dissolution of Dáil Éireann and within the next three weeks consulting the people. We will then see the vast difference. Remember, tens of thousands of people voted for Fianna Fáil because of the man who led them. That fact was reflected in the voting last Wednesday. May I say also that there were thousands who voted for Mr. de Valera for the Presidency because they wanted to get him out of this House and they were not actually Fianna Fáil supporters.
We have reached a stage in which a new Taoiseach is about to be elected. What mandate has that Taoiseach to form a Government? None from the people, none whatever. He was never elected by the people. The Party of which he is a member were elected on the votes of an individual and if they had to stand on their own feet, as they will at the next general election, it would not have happened. I hope that even the prospective Tánaiste will convey to the prospective Taoiseach that the people are waiting for a general election and they expect it, that the people know the position quite well, no matter how long the present Government is going to cling on or hang on to office through either place, pensions, or power.
The question of the next general election may not be debated at length on this motion. The motion is very specific and the Deputy should address his remarks to it.
I am addressing my remarks to the motion, in saying that the Taoiseach about to be elected has not the confidence of the people. If he wants the confidence of the people let him test the matter forthwith.
May I say that when the Taoiseach is elected this evening, as he certainly will be, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that a Government is being appointed and a Prime Minister is being elected to administer the affairs of this country without the confidence of the people. That, in my opinion, is bad, particularly so when one reflects on the statements of many distinguished people outside this House who are viewing the workings of the Government in a most impartial manner. May I say, for information on this motion, because it is one of the reasons why I feel Deputy Lemass should not be elected Taoiseach, that the Bishop of Cork, as reported in the papers, has stated that relative to the total population there was less work and more emigration now than at any time since the famine. The present nominee for the position of the Taoiseach cannot disclaim responsibility for that extraordinary and deplorable state of affairs. In view of the many promises — false promises, misleading promises and deceitful promises — made and uttered by the person now mentioned in this motion, is it any harm to ask what has happened to the 100,000 new jobs? If he promised 100,000 new jobs at the last general election, surely he will be in a position now to implement that promise?
I want to give this House another reason why Deputy Lemass should not be elected Taoiseach. Only a few weeks ago, he wrote a blackmailing letter to people, company directors and others, associated with his Department. He put the gun to their heads and asked them for money to fight an election. He was not a trustee of Fianna Fáil, an Honorary Treasurer of Fianna Fáil, or anything else. He got the book of the names and addresses of company directors, he consulted the files in his Department of Industry and Commerce, and he got down to work on those who got licences, permits and facilities from his own Department, and there and then they had a personal letter from him asking for money.
On a point of order, Sir, are you going to allow Deputy Oliver Flanagan to continue in that slanderous vein, making those allegations?
Is that not true? Was there not a circular sent out to every director in the country, asking for money, over Deputy Lemass's name? Is that not true?
Was he the Secretary of the Party or a Trustee of the Party?
Was not a circular sent out by a former Minister for Industry and Commerce?
The person whose name is mentioned in this motion sent that letter. I have it; I have read it and I sent a copy of it to the Taoiseach. I told the former Taoiseach that what Deputy Lemass wanted was to put a pistol to the heads of these people, to get money so that he eventually would become Taoiseach.
The Deputy is making a serious charge against the Minister. That charge should not be made.
Is it not notorious that every director in the country got a letter signed by Deputy Lemass?
I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I ask the people of the country, what confidence can they have in a Prime Minister or in a Taoiseach who has blackmailed people who have business dealings with his Department?
On a point of order, are you going to allow the Deputy to say that? Is the word "blackmail" to be withdrawn, Sir?
The word "blackmail" should not be used, though Deputy Flanagan is entitled to make political charges. The Deputy asked me if it was in order. Deputy Flanagan and any other Deputy in the House is entitled to make political charges, but the Deputy should not state that these letters were sent out for the purpose of blackmail. That is a serious charge to make against a Minister or Deputy.
Three company directors approached me and told me they were being blackmailed.
Who were they?
The Deputy wants them victimised now.
I am too old a cock to crow on that. The main purpose of this letter——
You want to know the people who objected?
I want his evidence.
Is that not the letter?
He said three objected.
And you want to know their names so that they can be marked men.
In connection with the same letter, I am here in this House to protect the people.
Did Deputy Sweetman not send out a similar letter?
I am a trustee of Fine Gael.
He was not Minister for Industry and Commerce when he sent it out.
In so far as Deputy Lemass is concerned, he may have succeeded in extracting big sums of money from certain people in the last few weeks, but the most damaging part of all was for any man, about to be Prime Minister in three weeks, to put the name of his son-in-law at the bottom of the letter, a Deputy of this House, and say: "If you do not send the money to me, send the money to him."
The Deputy should not refer to Deputies' families in this House.
A Deputy
He is an elected Member of the House.
Was not Deputy Morrissey, whose name was on the Fine Gael appeal, a former Minister for Industry and Commerce?
And a decent man.
I respectfully suggest that Deputy Lemass sent out that letter when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he was not a Treasurer of Fianna Fáil and when he had no direct responsibility for his organisation. In an effort to rake in money, that letter was sent to certain people who had dealings with the Department of which he was Minister. I give that as one of the main reasons why this House should not elect a person of that type. If he has succeeded, or if an attempt at blackmail is being made on certain people, what is going to happen when he is Taoiseach? He is an unsuitable person; he is not the right type of person; his record is degrading in public life; it is disgusting, and God forbid——
That is not true and well the Deputy knows it. It is the most uncharitable speech ever made in this House.
Not alone is it degrading but his conduct over the past 25 years has aroused more suspicion in the minds of decent people than any other individual in public life. In the last general election, we had this publication "Let Us go Ahead" sent to every elector. We had the false promises and the misleading references, and the effort to capture votes succeeded. Why not try that again?
May I ask this question? Is it a fact —and I demand that before this vote is taken some statement should be made in this connection—that last night, as I am reliably informed, the President-elect relinquished his controlling directorship of Irish Press newspapers and that Deputy Lemass——
We are not discussing the actions of the President-elect.
I want to know whether or not our prospective Prime Minister is to control three newspapers. The most dangerous weapon in the hands of any Prime Minister is a newspaper. I am told—and we have facts to bear it out—that the only Prime Minister in the world to-day who controlled newspapers was our former Prime Minister. Are we now to have the new Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, as the controlling director of three newspapers? If that is so, let us hear it; give us the bargain. Has it not been proposed that the controlling directorship pass on to the next in line for Taoiseach and that from to-morrow the new Taoiseach is taking over the controlling directorship of three newspapers, which, I think, would not be tolerated by any free people in the world?
We have now reached the stage at which, at last, the Irish people are commencing to see through Fianna Fáil. They are doomed and their day is near. The end has dawned at last. No matter what they do or do not do, in the next general election, whether it is weeks or years away, we will have a new Government. If Deputy Lemass is elected as Taoiseach, he must realise if he is a lover of freedom and democracy, which he is not, it will be his first duty to pluck up sufficient courage and energy to allow the Government he will nominate tonight to be tested by the people. Whatever may have been said by our friends in the Independent benches, the general public, the agricultural and business elements, know that a period of instability and expectancy of a change of Government faces them. The quicker that is over the better. The people expect a general election. They have given Fianna Fáil notice to quit and that notice to quit is but the first instalment of many notices to quit.
I feel Deputy Lemass is not a suitable person to be Taoiseach in view of the reasons I have given, his record in the past, the dishonesty with which he has been associated, the strange suspicion, the dark shadow over all his activities during the past 25 years, the suspicion in the minds of those people who do not want him as Taoiseach and who do not want to be associated with any Government he is associated with and, above all, the people who are anxious to have good, clean government and to be disassociated from the trickery and skulduggery with which Deputy Lemass has been associated for the past 25 years.
The fact remains that we in the Opposition have not the majority to select one of our number to be Taoiseach. Fianna Fáil, by reason of the majority accorded to them by the people in March, 1957, have the right to select one of their number for the position of Taoiseach and they have selected Deputy Lemass, whose name is before us to-day, for the position of Taoiseach of a Fianna Fáil Government. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Lemass. When I think of him, I think of Sir Anthony Eden, who was not recognised until relatively late in life. I have much more sympathy with Deputy Lemass when I remember the circumstances in which he is proposed and will probably be elected as Taoiseach. If I were a Fianna Fáil Deputy, I would say that, as far as the Party are concerned, he has not got a fair crack of the whip. I certainly would support the attitude of some Independents who said that Deputy Lemass might have been much more acceptable to the House if a month or two after the last election Mr. de Valera had resigned as Taoiseach and allowed Deputy Lemass to become his successor.
Like Deputy Lindsay and others, I do not oppose Deputy Lemass's nomination for any personal reason or because of any failures he has had, if he has had any. I oppose him because he has been chosen as the standardbearer of Fianna Fáil policy, as a symbol of the policy carried out by Fianna Fáil over the past two or three years, but a policy which we hope will be changed on his appointment as Taoiseach.
I do not think it can be denied that the Fianna Fáil Party and Government sought a vote of confidence from the people on Wednesday of last week. They sought an endorsement of their strength and were rebuffed. It is all very well for Deputies to say it was only 38,000 votes, but if one has regard to the majority Fianna Fáil had in March 1957, it certainly does show that there is a certain swing. The people are resentful of the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party over the past two and a quarter years.
I think, no matter what any individual member may think, that the former Taoiseach has been responsible to a very large extent for that behaviour and the lack of results over the past two and a half years. Fianna Fáil have become quite cocky since March, 1957. They sat as a smug and complacent Party from 1932 until 1948, when the people revolted. The result of the referendum represents a minor revolt by the people again against the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party.
It is true that Deputy Lemass has a majority in this House but I think it would be correct to say that a majority of the people would not elect him as Taoiseach. Fianna Fáil regarded last Wednesday's referendum as a very important fight. The former Taoiseach gambled practically everything he had on it. I think he went almost as far as to gamble his reputation. As Deputy Desmond has said, Deputy Lemass, Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Aiken and all the members of the Fianna Fáil Party must take a certain amount of blame for the gamble they took and ultimately lost. That they regarded it as important is shown when we consider the tremendous resources they put into last Wednesday's fight, the financial resources, cars, manpower, advertising — everything that goes to make a successful election. In my memory, it was the biggest fight ever put up by the Fianna Fáil Party. As somebody said, they even threw in the Taoiseach for President, and it is true to say, that apart from politics, many people for various reasons wanted him to be President, some to honour him and some, as Deputy Flanagan said, to get rid of him. There they had their Chief, their leader for 30 or 40 years, thrown into the fray with all their financial resources, advertisements, cars, and all their manpower, and they received a rebuff in what Fianna Fáil themselves said was one of the most important issues which was ever before the country.
As well as that, the referendum was held by the method of election which the Fianna Fáil Party had been advocating for six, seven, eight, or nine months — the X vote — and even with the X vote, the much lauded X vote, they were beaten by a majority of something approaching 40,000. Apart from the decision of the people to retain P.R., there in another result of the referendum. So far as I can judge, the people have said to the Fianna Fáil Party and to the Taoiseach-elect: "Get on with the job and stop cod-acting." In the opinion of many people, the proposal to change the electoral system was merely a diversionary move to take the minds of the people off the things that really matter. That was the real reason for the introduction of the proposal to change the electoral system. The people resented that and they have told Deputy Lemass, the Fianna Fáil Ministers, and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to give up this play-acting and get on with the job which they said they would do prior to the election of March, 1957.
The result of the referendum, as I say, is an ultimatum that the mandate which Fianna Fáil received in 1957 will not last forever and it is a gentle reminder, and more than a gentle reminder, to Fianna Fáil that if they do not implement the policy which they promised two and a half years ago to carry out, the people will be forced to change the Government at the very first opportunity.
The Deputy is going away from the motion.
The people rejected the idea and the proposal put forward by Fianna Fáil that P.R. made for instability. No matter what has been said about inter-Party Governments from 1948 to 1951 and from 1954 to 1957——
The pros and cons of the electoral system are not in order.
Perhaps I am under a misapprehension, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle but I cannot imagine in a debate on the nomination of a Deputy for the office of Taoiseach that it is possible to be out of order. I do not want deliberately to go outside the terms of the motion, but I understood from past debates that a certain amount of latitude was granted on an occasion like this. However, I shall try to confine myself—to what, I do not know, because if we are absolutely confined, we can only say that we are for or against Deputy Lemass.
The people have rejected the allegation by Fianna Fáil that P.R. makes for instability, and that P.R. makes for coalitions which, Ministers have said are bad in themselves. They have rejected the idea that all our difficulties are caused by P.R. I noticed in one of Deputy Lemass's speeches prior to the referendum, that he took the trade union movement to task for their intervention in the referendum issue. Why he did that I do not know. Whether he knows it or not, I should like to tell him that the decision of the trade union movement in deciding to support P.R. as our electoral system was a spontaneous one. Whether he believes that or not, I do not know, and I do not care, but I know it was a spontaneous move on the part of the trade union movement and, therefore, it is quite legitimate.
Deputy Lemass said, speaking, I think, in Cork, that they had no right to interfere in a political issue, but he did not define what was or was not a political issue, and what issues the trade union movement can make statements on. I remember at the beginning of the debate on P.R. here Mr. de Valera himself, speaking as Taoiseach, said that this question of changing our electoral system was not a political issue. Therefore, if we are to believe the former Taoiseach that P.R. versus the straight vote is not a political issue, the trade unions have every right to make their feelings known, and to opt for one side or the other.
It seems to me that the trade union movement should be felt far more in this country. There is no objection to the trade union movements in Britain or the United States making statements before general elections, coming down on one side or the other and intervening for one Party or the other Party. I am inclined to think that Deputy Lemass imagines that he can, by a few speeches or a few words here and there, control the trade union movement. The sooner he gets that notion out of his head, the better. It is true that in his own constituency he has a substantial number of working people, members of trade unions, voting for him and his Party but he should not be under the misapprehension that he can control, direct or kick the trade union movement around as he pleases.
It was perfectly all right when the trade union movement made a statement in commendation of what is now popularly called the Lemass Plan by which it was proposed to spend £100,000,000. There was no protest then from the Fianna Fáil Party that the trade union movement could not, or should not, make a comment on what was then a policy plan, a political plan of Deputy Lemass's and of the Fianna Fáil party. Unfortunately even though they did comment, they were very much deluded. That plan was announced four or five years ago but, as yet, we have not had any results from it.
I do not know whether or not Deputy Lemass considers that his Wages Stand-still Order back in 1941 was, or was not, political, but whether it was or was not, the trade union movement, again as a spontaneous gesture and in spontaneous organisation, protested very strongly by way of statement and public demonstration all over the country. They were entitled to make that protest and they were entitled to make a statement on what was then considered to be an acute political decision by the then Government.
The trade union movement should not be regarded — nor should the Taoiseach-elect regard them—as merely negotiators of wages. If they were merely negotiators of wages, they would be mere cyphers or machines. If they cannot open their mouths about prices and different aspects of Government policy, whether we have a Fianna Fáil or an inter-Party Government, then they have no real function in this country. The time has gone when they were mere negotiators in respect of wages, hours and general conditions of employment. In this country and in other countries, the trade union movements can be, not a hindrance but a help, to the Government and, so far as I know, the trade union movement, no matter what Government are in power, are prepared to confer and consult with the Government for the greater good of the country as a whole.
Similarly, the total abolition of the food subsidies was a political move. It was done as a matter of policy by the Fianna Fáil Party for reasons which they gave in this House and, at that time, there was no objection to the intervention of the trade union movement by way of statement or protest.
As Deputy Russell said, one cannot judge Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach, in view of the fact that he has never been Taoiseach before. We can only judge him on the results he achieves. The whole policy of the Government will not, I hope, be dependent upon the personal decision of Deputy Lemass. I believe that was the position that obtained when Mr. de Valera was Taoiseach, and that has been the undoing not alone of the Government now constituted of the Fianna Fáil Party but it has been the undoing of the country over the last 20 or 30 years.
Deputy Lemass will have his Cabinet. I respectfully suggest that he will have to tell the Members of his Cabinet to behave differently in future if we are to get results and implement the policy adumbrated prior to the election of 1957. Deputy Lemass will have to have a Minister for External Affairs who will give up the middle-of-the-road policy as far as the United Nations Organisation is concerned.
Deputies may not discuss the actions of Ministers on this motion. That may arise on another motion, but it certainly does not arise on this motion.
On a point of order——
If the House votes for him as Taoiseach he then has the right to select his Ministers. I want to make sure now that Deputy Lemass is of the calibre to select Ministers who will carry out policy in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. I merely want to correct what I believe to be the mistakes of the Taoiseach who presided over the Government for the last two-and-a-half years. I am merely asking Deputy Lemass, if he becomes Taoiseach, to change Government policy in respect of certain things. I think I am entitled to do that at this stage. I think also that, if we are to get progress as far as Health is concerned, Deputy Lemass will have to induce his Minister for Health, whoever he will be, to be a little bit more generous in his administration of health services.
The Deputy is getting away from the motion. The Deputy will get an opportunity of discussing the members of the Government on a later motion. He cannot do it at this stage. There is only one motion before the House at the moment—the nomination of the Taoiseach.
As I said at the outset, it is not the person of Deputy seán Lemass to which I object. I oppose him because he is a symbol of Fianna Fáil policy in the past and we assume, whether rightly or wrongly, that he will continue that policy in the future. For that reason, I oppose him.
Like Deputy Corish, I certainly have no objection, and do not propose to make any objection, to Deputy Lemass on personal grounds or for reasons of personal animosity, or anything like that. I object to the nomination of Deputy Lemass — or, indeed, to the nomination of any member of the Fianna Fáil Party — as Taoiseach in the circumstances which exist at the moment. We have at the moment four Government Ministers sitting on the Front Bench. In each and every one of the four constituencies that these Ministers represent the Government on a matter of importance, and a matter which Deputy Lemass, I suggest, made an issue of confidence, were defeated. In three of the constituencies—that of Deputy Lemass, Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Traynor — the vote against the issue and against the Government was an overwhelming one.
I do not propose to go over the debate on proportional representation, but it is fair to say that, while some of the Government spokesmen avoided saying anything which would give any Deputy on these Benches an opportunity of challenging them, as I now challenge that they made this an issue of confidence, Deputy Lemass, now nominated as Taoiseach, did make the issue an issue of confidence and did go on record as saying that this proposed change in the voting system was essential for progress in this country and essential for the Government economic policy. Deputy Lemass made the issue one of confidence.
Deputy Lemass and his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party have received their answer in no uncertain way from the people. Deputy Lemass also went on record — Deputy Corish has referred to this — as asserting that the issue which the people were asked to decide in relation to the electoral system was a political matter. It was a political matter. It was engaged in a political battle, in an atmosphere of political controversy. The Government have been severely defeated on that issue. In those circumstances is it not only right that Deputies should query the position when we find Deputy Lemass drawing his mandate not from the people but from the members of the Fianna Fáil Party only? So far as the people are concerned, they had an opportunity of expressing their views on a matter of major Government policy submitted to them on the 17th of this month. By a substantial majority the people decided against the Government.
I said that, in my view, Deputy Lemass made the issue an issue of confidence. I want to support that assertion now by referring to two speeches which Deputy Lemass made charging the people to change the system of election, to abolish proportional representation and accept what was described as the "straight vote." He is reported as follows in the Irish Press of Monday, 1st June, when speaking in Carlow: —
Mr. Lemass, who was speaking at the annual dinner of the Carlow Fianna Fáil Cumann in the Crofton Hotel, said that Fianna Fáil had planned their course with care. They knew where they were going, and they knew where they wanted to lead Ireland, so that the welfare of the people and the future of the country could be secured.
He was sure that everyone would accept without hesitation or question an assertion that in deciding upon the course of changing the system of electing Deputies which had now been proposed, they had one aim and one aim only, and that was to protect the future of the country and to provide for its progress.
As reported in the Irish Times on Monday, 8th June, speaking at Cork, Deputy Lemass said: —
This Constitutional reform, said Mr. Lemass, had been proposed because the Government were convinced that it was a necessary step to promote the welfare of the country, and that meant the interests of the wage earner in particular. He called on all workers while remaining loyal to their trade unions in trade union affairs, to make their individual decisions on this political issue by the use of their own judgement.
Deputy Lemass made it quite clear there — at the time he was speaking as Tánaiste in the Government of the former Taoiseach—that this was a step political issue and that it was a step the Government considered necessary to promote the welfare of the country.
I suggest that those two statements of Deputy Lemass make it quite clear that he regarded this matter, not merely as a matter of importance but, as he himself says, as a necessary step to promote the welfare of the country. The welfare of the country, presumably, is what the Government were aiming at in the policy, if we can find one, which they have been pursuing since the last general election. The people have made it clear by their votes on the 17th of this month that they do not agree with Deputy Lemass, that they do not agree with the policies which have been pursued and for which, according to Deputy Lemass, the proposed change was a necessary step.
Other speakers have pointed out that during the course of the debate in this House before the referendum was held the case was made from these benches — and it was justified in the result — that the Fianna Fáil Party were throwing everything they could into the campaign to change the electoral system, that they intended using all the strength and wealth of their organisation, that they intended using their string of Party newspapers, that they intended using the personality of their then leader, in an effort to influence the people to vote in favour of the proposition which they were making.
Deputy Dillon has already adverted to the now notorious poster placarded on every hoarding in the city urging the people to vote "Yes and de Valera." Was there a more blatant effort to confuse and mix the two issues set before the people on the 17th of June than that slogan?
The Deputy seems to be discussing the election and the form of election rather than the motion before the House.
I am discussing what I believe to be the important and relevant point in this discussion, that the people had given a vote of no confidence in the Fianna Fáil Party and in Deputy Lemass who made the issue of the referendum one of confidence in the Fianna Fáil Government.
Nevertheless, there may not be a detailed discussion on the question of the referendum or the Presidential election.
I have no intention of going into any detailed discussion on this matter but, like yourself, I must have regard to the voice of the people and the voice of the people has been heard in no uncertain manner. This, I said, Sir, was a political battle fought in the atmosphere which I have described and every effort was made by the members of Deputy Lemass's Party to dragoon the people or, in any event, to persuade the people into voting for the change in the electoral system by the methods which I have described. The people stood firm. They said "No" to Fianna Fáil. They made it clear that they had not any confidence in the Government which was proposing what the Government painted as an important and major matter of policy.
It has already been pointed out, and I think it is necessary that we should bear it in mind, that during the discussion here immediately following the election of the Government two and a quarter years ago, or during the election campaign which preceded their election as Government, no mention was made of the Government's proposal to change the electoral system. I have no hesitation in saying — I said it during the course of the discussions in this House on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill — that if that intention has been disclosed by the Fianna Fáil Party at the time of the last general election the people would not have trusted them with a majority in this House over all other Parties.
Fianna Fáil were elected to this House to do what they themselves described at the time as "to get cracking" to solve the problems of unemployment and emigration. It may be said to the credit of some of the Government spokesmen that in the course of discussions in this House they did not conceal their belief that the people had elected them as a Government for the purpose of ending unemployment and emigration. That was 2¼ years ago. As Deputy John A. Costello has pointed out, nine months out of the period since then has been taken up by discussion and debate on an electoral system and the final submission of that issue to the people for decision.
Perhaps the Deputy will relate all this to the motion before the House?
Certainly, Sir. I do not think that any Deputy or any former Minister can withstand the argument that, having regard to the importance which the Government attached to the question, having regard to the pronouncements of Deputy Lemass in the course of the campaign and having regard to the amount of time and money which the Government felt it was necessary to utilise in an effort to change the electoral system, a defeat on that issue by the people is a vote of "no confidence" in the Government. I do not think any member of the Fianna Fáil Party can deny that.
Instead of getting on with the job which the Government were elected to do, they themselves deliberately chose to put this important issue before the people and, whether they like it or not, they have to take the decision of the people. Because they did not disclose their intention at the time of the General Election to bring this issue before the people, there is nothing we can do now by our votes in this House to put the present Government out of office but I sincerely trust that they will have regard to the views expressed by the people on this issue in the referendum, that they will have regard to the fact that the people have given a clear and decisive answer to the proposition made by the Government. I hope that the Government will have regard to the fact that in Deputy Seán MacEntee's constituency 13,109 people——
Fine Gael was whacked.
——told the Government that they did not want the policy which the Government were putting before them in the referendum.
They also said they did not want the Fine Gael candidate.
Practically 6,000 more persons voted against the Government's proposal than the number that voted in favour of the Government's proposal. I hope Deputy Lemass, when he is elected Taoiseach will have regard to the fact that in his constituency, Dublin South-Central, 4,665 more people voted against his proposal than voted for it.
On a point of order. Are we to run the gamut of all constituencies? Would the Deputy start with Limerick and give the 19 other constituencies? Surely this is not in order on this motion?
Dublin is Ireland.
Deputy O'Higgins is entitled to refer to the result of the referendum but certainly not in the detail into which he is going.
I do not intend to deal with Limerick. I shall stop with the Minister for Justice. I hope Deputy Lemass will also have regard to the fact that, in the constituency of the Minister for Justice, 4,285 more people voted against the Government's proposal than the number who supported it. I hope that while Deputy Lemass is contemplating the referendum results he will glance at Deputy Booth's constituency also and take note of the fact that over 8,000 more persons in that constituency voted against the Government's proposal than the number that voted in support of it.
In face of these figures, in face of the very definite, clear-cut decision of the people not to support a matter of major policy of the Government, I do not see how even Fianna Fáil can have the nerve to suggest that they should remain on as the Government of this country. If we could get any assurance from them that they were now prepared to "get cracking," that they were now prepared to implement the hope held out to the wives of unemployed persons in 1957 in the poster: "Wives, get your husbands out to work"; if we could even find in the next few months that there is any realisation in a Government over which Deputy Lemass hopes to preside that they regard unemployment as the test of Government policy then there are people in this country who might be prepared to adopt the attitude that there is a new broom coming in, particularly if Deputy Lemass takes the decision to have something of a clearing in the ranks of the Cabinet and brings in some new blood. It might very well be that people would be prepared to adopt the attitude that perhaps he should get a chance to carry on, to get back to the programme put before the people at the General Election by means of the Fianna Fáil posters and propaganda. We have no evidence whatever that the Government propose to do that.
We had two or three words in Irish from Deputy MacEntee and another couple of words in Irish from Deputy Dr. Ryan when proposing Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach. Neither of them made any reference to the work Deputy Lemass will do as Taoiseach. We heard no speaker from the Fianna Fáil Party who let us know whether there will be any change in the attitude of the members of that Party or in the Government to the problems which face this country. We have no idea whatever what policy Deputy Lemass, as Taoiseach, with a new Government proposes to follow.
While I do not want to argue with the Chair, it would seem to me that Deputies on this side of the House are entitled to request, if they cannot require, the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to give some indication of why they are proposing Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach, what hopes they repose in him, what policy they want him to follow, what targets he is setting up, what aims the Government he proposes to lead have. In the absence of any statement from any member of the Fianna Fáil Party as to what policy Deputy Lemass and the Government which he hopes to lead intend to follow, it seems to me that we on this side of the House are entitled to put our requests before Deputy Lemass and to advise him of the type of policy which we believe he should follow and to require him to answer, before this debate concludes, whether or not he intends to comply with those requests.
In that sense, it seems to me that most things are relevant to this discussion but I do not intend to travel further along those lines.
I hope not.
In view of the complete reversal the Government have met at the polls within the past few days, neither Deputy Lemass nor any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party should be nominated as Taoiseach at least without an assurance that the views of the people as expressed in the ballot boxes will be respected and that the people will be given an opportunity under P.R. of electing a new Government.
Both political Parties can claim victories after this election and each can accuse the other of defeat. The greatest victory after these elections was the victory of the Irish people who asserted themselves in retaining the system of election which elected every Deputy to Dáil Éireann. It proved the confidence they had in the elected representatives they sent to Dáil Éireann. It showed the confidence they had in the system of election and it showed that they were reasonably pleased with the manner in which the country was progressing.
Some of us may not always agree with what the Government do but, nevertheless, once this Government were elected by the majority of the people they have their responsibilities. Their big responsibility on this occasion is to select the best man from within their own Party to be the head of the Government and to lead that Government along the right road. It is not for me, as an Independent, to say to them whom they should elect. They have the experience of Deputy Lemass as Tánaiste in the Government for a long number of years. It is indeed a tribute to him that he should be selected unanimously by his Party to be the new Taoiseach. I congratulate him on that fact. It is a great honour to him and I only hope for and wish him every success in his new office. I shall not oppose him. We all know that it is only a waste of time. On the other hand, I wish him the best of luck.
The result of the election is a very clear indication that the people have begun to think for themselves. The day of the flag waving is over. The day when the Irish people will blindly follow leaders and politicians is gone. They have begun to think for themselves. They will vote on results and, on results, every one of us must stand or fall in this House. This Government also will have to stand or fall by the results they achieve in the coming years.
It was stated that rural Ireland voted a majority in favour of the abolition of P.R., I cannot agree with that view. I come from a rural constituency in which a very big majority voted in favour of the retention of P.R., the system the people were accustomed to and the system under which this Government and every member of this House were elected. My area of rural Ireland was in favour of retaining the system of P.R. I think they were wise in that regard. I believe it will stay for a long time with us as I do not think any Government will ever again undertake the risk of facing the people on that issue. I think the people were good judges in that respect and, in their choice of President I would say they gave credit to Mr. Eamon de Valera for life-long service to the country.
I hope Deputy Lemass will be as successful as Mr. Eamon de Valera in the end of his career and that he will get the same support from the Irish people as Mr. de Valera has got. I wish him the best of luck.
I should like to add just a few words to what has been said from these benches in relation to this motion. I think we all have the greatest sympathy personally with Deputy Lemass in relation to the manner in which he is proposed as the head of the Government. He is asked to take over the leadership of the Government Party and to head the Government at a time when, by the deliberate action of his predecessor and of members of the Government, a situation of grave uncertainty and instability has been created in the country.
It has been usual in the past number of months for the Leaders of Parties to emphasise the importance of stability to the nation. Everything that has been said with regard to that should now be borne in mind because we in this country are now unnecessarily in a condition of grave uncertainty and instability. That situation has been brought about by the deliberate action of the Fianna Fáil Party. That is something that must raise in the public mind grave questions as to their suitability for continuance in office. Nothing happened in this House; nothing happened in the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to any disagreement in policy, I assume, to have led to the present political situation which came about unnecessarily at the end of last year when, without anyone asking them, the then Leader of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party, proceeded to propose to the people a question the people did not require proposed, and indeed the people who made that issue have created for themselves a first-class problem. It is in those circumstances that this House is asked to approve of the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach.
Our position has been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. We cannot support this motion because in the past week the people have been forced to give a serious rebuff to the Government. I have no doubt that, as a result of the vote, Deputy Lemass will be elected as the head of the Government. I hope that when he is elected he will have regard to the reason why he and his Party are sitting on the Ceann Comhairle's left. They were sent there over two years ago to do what they asked the people to entitle them to do—to build up the economic strength of the country, to provide 100,000 more jobs for Irish boys and girls, to give to the people the actuality of the prosperity which was outlined so forcibly by the Tánaiste in the last general election. Those are the things that brought about the defeat of the last Government. Those are the reasons why the Fianna Fáil Party are now in a majority in this House. It was for the achievement of those aims that Fianna Fáil were given a majority in the last election. They were not sent here to engage in redrafting our Constitution. They were not sent here to provoke before the people philosophical discussions on the merits or demerits of particular electoral systems. Those were not part of the reason they were sent here.
They were sent here to do what the Tánaiste himself asked the people to permit them to do, to do a job of work. For the last nine months they have not been doing that and the result is clearly to be seen in the financial and economic situation in the country. It is to be hoped there will now be a change of pattern by the Government and that they will seek to make up for the time that has been wasted in recent months and get on with the job they were sent here to do.
I rise to give briefly the reason I do not propose to support Deputy Lemass's nomination. It is not merely because I am a member of the Fine Gael Party and have to follow them up the steps. It has been noteworthy that, beyond the brief proposal by the Minister for Health and its seconding by the Minister for Finance, we had not a word from one member of the rank and file of Fianna Fáil in support of the nomination. I wonder is it merely because they feel that Deputy Lemass is not worthy to step into the boots of the ex-Taoiseach or is it that he has not got the confidence of the rank and file?
Before this Government got the answer "No" from the people in the recent election they said that P.R. was the greatest obstacle to economic progress. I submit that that is an admission by Fianna Fáil of their inability to deal with the major problems that concern this country. In view of that admission, I hold they have no right to ask this House to give them a new lease of life by electing a new Taoiseach, by electing the head of the Government from a Party that came into this House with the greatest strength of any Party, failed to carry out the promises on which they were elected, and failed to "get cracking" on the major issues on which they were elected—the 100,000 jobs, the £100,000,000 plan, the plans that were put forward in Clery's ballroom. I hold it would only be proper that people should be given a chance of deciding, not only in relation to the position of the Taoiseach but in relation to the entire Government. Let them go before the people. They have got a vote of "no confidence". Let them throw in the towel decently and say: "Yes. Let the people decide."
If Deputy Lemass is not prepared to accept that ultimatum from the people I ask him to make a statement over which he is prepared to stand and which this time 12 months will bear fruit. Reference has been made by some of the Deputies from my constituency to the recent vote there. They may be trying to keep their hearts up but I would remind them that one swallow does not make a summer. I would welcome an election in my constituency. I shall come in here and I shall not be ashamed to open my mouth like ten members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have not yet made their maiden speech here. I call it a disgrace.
Within an hour the House will be called upon to elect a new Taoiseach and in those circumstances it is unfortunate that some more information is not being provided relative to the position of the Government. I realise that a Taoiseach must be elected and must then form his Cabinet, but surely Deputies, before they go into the Division Lobby, ought to be told something about the occupant of the most important position in the State, that of Taoiseach, Prime Minister, and also the duties that in themselves may demand the full attention of a Cabinet Minister and the Government.
We know that when this Government were formed two and a quarter years ago, they came into this House with a majority unequalled in the history of the State. Despite the fact that the former Taoiseach had that extraordinary number of Deputies to draw upon to fill his Cabinet, in his opinion, he did not have within the ranks of his Parliamentary Party in Dáil Éireann sufficient men to fill the Cabinet. He had to go outside Dáil Éireann to get a man to fill a major Ministry.
Well, now——
I am stating a positive fact. If the stage is now reached at which the new Taoiseach finds that he may have to carry out duties other than those of Taoiseach, it reflects poorly on this House if the major Party holding the number of seats it holds is not in a position to provide from within its own ranks the personnel in Dublin. We are asked to vote not knowing whether the Taoiseach proposed will be enabled to devote his entire attention and duties to the tremendous task that lies ahead of him as Head of the Government. That is information that it would be well the House should have before the Division is taken.
It is a fact that the Party elected two and a quarter years ago have four fewer Deputies in the House today than they had then. Consequently, they cannot claim they are in a better position to look to their ranks for the personnel to fill the vacancies which now exist in the Cabinet.
I hold one thing in particular against the Deputy who is proposed as Taoiseach. I think it was one of the most regrettable instances in the history of the State. It was something I regretted. It was dragged across the political scene in the course of the recent referendum. We were anxious that capital would be given freely by the people so that the Government might go ahead with various schemes as quickly as was humanly possible to provide our people with employment and houses and to operate the various schemes that are still being undertaken and which require to be undertaken so that we might achieve our economic goal. In an atmosphere in which an inter-Party Government sought to secure money in this country for such schemes, Deputy Lemass went out to the dead walls of this city and placarded the dead walls with the pawnbrokers' sign and that at a time when the National Loan was in progress.
That is not true.
Yes, it is true.
Nonsense; rubbish.
I claim that the Party now in opposition offered this Government at the time the National Loan was launched every encouragement. They came forward and invited the people to participate in these loans. Again, in regard to the abolition of proportional representation, they used the chapel gates and public places to make charges that are unsustainable in this House. They were never made within the walls of this House but within the course of the recent campaign.
If the Government find themselves in the embarrassing position at this moment of facing political instability, they have brought that down upon their own shoulders. I am sure there are many men sitting on the benches across the floor of the House who would dearly wish they had accepted the advice of the Party on this side of the House when the problem of the amendment of the Constitution was thrown up. It was suggested that it might have been a better thing if they had submitted the matter to a commission. We felt that much of the abstention during the recent referendum was indicative of the desire of the people not to be bothered at this time by this question.
We have wasted nine months of the time of this House, as if no other problem remained to be resolved. We have spent over a quarter of a million pounds of the taxpayers' money—on what? Is there an additional man employed today in consequence of the expenditure of that time, energy and money? The people have expressed their resentment. The difficulties facing the country still obtain. The referendum was a diversion created unnecessarily. It resulted in a serious political rebuff for what the Government said was an integral part of their policy. They were the people who were responsible for so closely aligning the difficulties of the country with what they claimed was the all-out necessity, to resolve those difficulties by changing the electoral system.
The people have decided emphatically that they want P.R. to stay and the Government have experienced that rebuff. It is one which they asked for themselves. They did not listen to the voice of people removed from this Chamber—people outside this House who advised them to watch their step, that they were trying on something that the people did not want. In particular parts of the country, there is complete dissatisfaction with the inactivity and failures of the Government.
The Deputy seems to be travelling beyond the motion that Deputy Lemass be nominated Taoiseach.
Deputy Lemass was deputy leader of the Government over the past two and a quarter years. The rebuff which his Party has experienced is an indication to him and his Government that the people do not wish the Government to carry on with the play-acting they have pursued, particularly during the past 12 months and that they require them to go ahead with the job of work they said they would undertake. We offered cooperation when this Government were formed. We expected that the Government who promised to get cracking would do so. Deputy Lemass was the architect of such phrases as "Get cracking" and "Get your husbands back to work" which indicated that he would be the spearhead of this dynamic drive.
And he will.
There is no doubt that Deputy Lemass was not inactive. He had a quarter of a century to do all the things which the Deputy may feel he can still perform. I feel that the Deputy is deserving of the remarks passed in regard to his energy and his capacity. I think they have been expended down through the years at the expense of agriculture. I feel that he has succeeded in completely dominating the Minister for Agriculture in his Government.
It is a matter of concern to the country that our major Ministry has suffered so much at the hands of a Party of which he was such a very prominent executive for so long. When the election was over and the referendum was defeated, there was then an opportunity for Deputy Lemass to show his capacity as a future Taoiseach by making a constructive statement: "Well, here is an issue which has been resolved. It is now incumbent upon us to take up where we should not have left off and complete the job of work this Government were elected to perform." Instead of that, we had the public statement which he made recently and which coincided with the announcement of his Government that the proposed Third Amendment was now dead, a statement which was published on the radio and in the Press, in which he indicated that what was now paramount in the minds of the Government was the revision of the constituencies.
The people are sick and tired of the high level constitutional discussions ranging over the past twelve months which arose from absolutely no suggestion or appeal from the electorate. They want this House to do the job of work which Deputies were elected to perform. It is certainly no encouragement to learn on the heels of the definite rebuff that the Government received to their proposal to amend the Constitution, that what is now uppermost in the minds of the Government is the immediate introduction of a Bill which, in the minds of many, is regarded as being intended to nullify the decision of the electorate only a week ago.
In his statement the Tánaiste sought to draw some consolation—and no doubt it was intended to revive the flagging spirits of his supporters—that there was some doubt in the minds of the people inasmuch as the preponderance of opposition was in the urban areas. If that argument were carried to its logical conclusion, the answer would be that the rulers in the Six Counties, because they have a majority, are entitled to regard it as a separate State. If that argument against their contention holds good in that respect it should also hold good in this present issue.
When this House divides on this motion, some six Deputies will troop in loyally to elect the new Taoiseach but in fact the six Deputies to whom I am referring were never elected on the basis that they were supporters of the Fianna Fáil policy. All the posters for them and all the speeches made on their behalf indicated that a vote for them was a vote for Eamon de Valera. Deputy Russell, one of the two Independent Deputies who supported the Government in its attempt to change the Constitution, accepted the verdict but on the other hand he was inclined to belittle the 37,000 majority who favoured the retention of proportional representation and said that that should not be taken in any way as being indicative of the situation of the country as it was such a negligible proportion of the votes. I would remind Deputy Russell that only 12,000 votes in the last general election gave the present Government its majority in this House.
These are the reasons we feel that Deputy Lemass should be opposed in this election to the position of Taoiseach. During the last two and a quarter years there has been a miserable response to the confidence which the people reposed in the Government at that time and the indications in recent weeks have been that the Government are aligning their economic policy with the issue that it would be necessary to change the electoral system in order to bring their hopes to fruition. For those reasons we feel that the majority recorded as being opposed to them in the referendum was also indicative of the lack of confidence in the country in a Government that has so miserably failed to stand up to the obligations which they accepted so freely two and a quarter years ago.
I rise to oppose the appointment of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach. I am not doing so on personal grounds because I consider that he is one of the few men in the Party with intelligence, energy and ability and a very great capacity for the kind of work that he will be required to do in future. I am surprised that there was ever any doubt about the choice of person for the position of Taoiseach in the Fianna Fáil Party. I am quite satisfied that Deputy Lemass was streets ahead of others in that Party when it came to the election of a person to act as Prime Minister. However, we must examine the record and ascertain the position at the moment.
Less than a week ago we saw a very definite vote of "no confidence" expressed by the people. Are we going to disregard the vote of the people by having a majority, which was secured by promises to end unemployment and emigration and create prosperity in the country, used to nominate Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach? I think he deserves better and that the Fianna Fáil Party should go to the country and ask the people if they are prepared to support Deputy Lemass, or any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party, as Taoiseach on this occasion.
It is unfair for the Fianna Fáil Party to use their majority now. Instead of appointing a Taoiseach they ought to have given the people an opportunity to change the Government if they want to, or re-elect the present Government. The figures showed that the people have changed considerably in their views. In my own constituency there was a change of 8,000 votes, which is nearly as many thousands as there are in many of the constituencies. I feel that we should have an election so that we would have the voice of the people expressed in this House. The majority which the Fianna Fáil Party have was secured by promises which have not been carried out. Let them now face the people and admit that they did not carry out these promises, or were incapable of doing so. Let them put a policy to the people instead of a personality as they did in the past without making their policy known.
In the Presidential election we notice that the former Taoiseach secured less than one-third of the votes of the electorate. That in itself expressed the disgust of the public in general. Remember that Deputy Lemass was associated in the past with the biggest promises which have not been fulfilled. He was reminded today of the 100,000 jobs which so many destitute, unemployed families were led to believe could be secured and could be provided by a Fianna Fáil Government, through the promises which they got from Deputy Lemass. In Dublin City and County—for various reasons Dublin is Ireland—the Fianna Fáil Party were beaten.
That is a big mistake. That day has gone.
They were badly beaten in the Presidential election and badly beaten in the referendum. I say that Dublin is Ireland——
Not in County Dublin.
The Deputy will find some difficulty in relating this to the motion. He must relate his remarks to the motion.
Deputy Lemass represents one of the Dublin constituencies. The three quarters of a million people in Dublin City come from every corner of the country. Every town and village is represented in Dublin City and we received a verdict from the people of every village, and every corner of every county in Ireland, when they spoke through the ballot boxes and defeated Eamon de Valera in the Presidential election.
To their shame.
The Deputy must finish the post-mortem and get back to the motion.
So far as Fine Gael are concerned Deputy Lemass said that he considered it to be a surplus Party. Remember that single-handed and with their own candidate, Deputy Gen. MacEoin, in many areas they won the election.
In six out of forty.
I cannot allow the Deputy to examine and completely analyse the figures.
Am I entitled to refer to the fact that Deputy Lemass in the House regarded Fine Gael as a surplus Party?
Deputy Lemass is a public administrator. Is he entitled to be appointed as Taoiseach? That is the main question.
The Deputy does not know what that means.
I assume that we are entitled to comment upon his record, his statements, and his attitude to general policy.
As a public administrator.
As a public administrator.
Keep it to that level.
In this House he was one of the leaders of the campaign attempting to strip the electors of their ordinary democratic rights to vote under the P.R. system and intending instead to supply them with a strait-jacket. That was a major policy issue on which the Government were defeated and Deputy Lemass was a very prominent supporter of the straight vote system. Though it was rejected by the electorate I assume that, when he took that view at that time, he still holds it. From his recent statement he has indicated in fact that having failed in getting away with the strait-jacket system, it is proposed to bring in a system which will bring nearer to the actual position the system that they tried to implement.
I hope that when Deputy Lemass is selecting his Ministry he will not give the House the "Old Brigade".
There is no nomination for the Ministry yet.
We can all remember statements made by Deputy Lemass, from time to time, in relation to agriculture.
There was a famous one of yours.
He was critical of Irish agriculture many times and the question is whether he will be critical of agriculture in future or will he, instead, put his hand to a progressive agricultural policy? For many years we have been without a Minister for Agriculture except in a nominal way, and it is of great importance to the country that we ought to have a practical approach to agriculture. Therefore, the question arises whether Deputy Lemass will have that kind of helpful attitude to it, remembering that agricultural exports are the mainstay of our trading balance? It will be important to have a person in the position of Taoiseach who will realise that agriculture is our main industry, our most important industry, that it should have the sympathy of any policy he proposes to implement within his Party.
Deputy Lemass has been associated with several major blunders. For instance, he has been associated with the Wages Standstill Order which was vigorously opposed and which did not appear to be justified. He was also associated with the bringing in of a ten years' supply of fuel into the Phoenix Park, nearly three years after the war had ended. As a result of that, coal and turf were allowed to waste in the Park at considerable public expense. We remembered, too, that he put through the Transport Bill. I think it was in 1943 or 1944. It was a major issue and, of course, he was the architect of it and was the person who determined policy in relation to it. The question arises would it have been better to leave the citizens of Dublin City and County with the very efficient old service that they had?
That does not arise.
The result is that the Dublin people are paying higher bus fares now. They would have a much cheaper system of transport had the old system been kept. In many ways the question arises as to whether in fact Deputy Lemass was the architect of Fianna Fáil policy and, if so, a great number of people do not agree with that policy. The question is whether he is going to persist with the policy that has been proved to be a failure and which has been rejected twice in the last ten years? Is he going to persist with that policy or is he going to devise a new one? I believe he is a man of intelligence and ability and would be able to devise a new policy but, if he is to carry on the policy that Fianna Fáil had in the past, I consider he would not be a suitable person for the position of Taoiseach.
However, as I say, with the departure of Mr. de Valera from active political life it is possible that Deputy Lemass will take a new look at the national situation and that he will implement a new policy. I consider that he is a very capable person and, if he is given the opportunity, I hope he will implement a new policy because the policy that has been operated has been rejected twice by the people during the last ten years. If it is that type of policy he intends to pursue then we are entitled to a general election.
There are three by-elections pending and we shall beat the Deputy's Party in the three of them.
If we do not get a general election now I hope we shall be given a general election after the three by-elections have been held. If we are to go on the record of Fianna Fáil in the past, and if we are to expect that that kind of policy will be continued, I think it is only right to oppose any nominee of Fianna Fáil at the present time. They can elect any nominee of their own with the majority which they have got in this House but, in the public mind, that majority was secured under false pretences. For that reason, that majority should not be used for the purpose of electing any Prime Minister. Let us instead heed the message which we got through the ballot boxes last week. Let us have a general election now and let the people decide for themselves what Government ought to take over under a new Taoiseach.
Deputy Lemass starts his race for the office of Taoiseach without at least one disability—that is we have not had a description of him by the Minister for Health or the Minister for Finance, who proposed and seconded him. I congratulate him on escaping that. I think his unanimous selection by the Fianna Fáil Party, and the various tributes paid to him are perhaps a more satisfactory adornment of his case in this House than anything we might have had either from the Minister for Health or the Minister for Finance.
Nobody knows better than Deputy Lemass the legacy offered to him, and nobody will know better where that legacy comes from. He has an inheritance, or rather the country has an inheritance which will help it to face whatever there is of loss or difficulty in the legacy. Far be it from me to hold any of the various Ministers who have been speaking recently about either the political or the economic situation to an explanation of some or any of their words, but in the case of Deputy Lemass, there is a statement of his which, in relation to its implications, requires to be commented on.
In my own view, the implications are such that his nomination is to be opposed. The country has suffered back over the years to the date this State was founded through a political philosophy held by the former Taoiseach, and that political philosophy has operated to destroy the full potential of this Parliament to deal with the problems the country was left with in 1922 and the problems that have arisen since.
When, in the debate that has taken place in the past few months, Deputy Lemass, referring to Arthur Griffith, describes him as "an immature political mind" and some of his philosophy as the result of an immature political thinking on the back pages of Griffith's paper, it discloses a philosophic approach to the functions of this House that, to my mind, make him completely unsuited to handle the political leadership of the country.
I do not know whether Deputy Lemass was present when I was saying he was left a legacy of serious problems but he has also been left an inheritance in this institution. If this institution is not accepted in the spirit in which it was created, and built up freely and harmoniously, on the foundation on which it was laid, then no leader can deal with the problems that beset the country because the people will be left without the type of parliamentary institution they require.
We have said before that the political school from which our present generation came was inspired and encouraged by the political philosophy and writing of Arthur Griffith and there is no person who contributed in any way on any side of this House in the formation of policy here, to the building up of this House, who does not derive from the teachings and inspiration and example of Griffith's political philosophy everything that went to the make-up of his character, his ability and his mental approach and the make up of the comradeship that went to deal with the problems. That philosophy was split—at least the harmony of the organisation and solidarity of that philosophy was split —by the philosophy of the former Taoiseach and now we are asked to support for appointment to that post a Deputy who condemns the philosophy that was our strength. That recalls to us that the 17th of June this year is one date and on 17th of June, 1919, Dáil Éireann met and on the proposal of Cathal Brugha, seconded by Joe McGuinness of Longford, Arthur Griffith was nominated substitute President because Eamon de Valera, the President of that time, had successfully landed in America and was to be there for a year and six or seven months.
The shepherding and the guiding of the work of Dáil Éireann—at any rate, from the position of President—was committed into the hands of Arthur Griffith at that time and he was the man who was asked when the fruits of the work of Dáil Éireann were to be reaped around the council table, to undertake the laborious job of sitting in council with the British and doing his best. His approach was that men and women of every Party, creed and class working in Ireland, all loved Ireland in their own way and in waiting through 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, his policy was to give the road to the Irish Parliamentary Party at that time who were going to get some kind of Parliament in Ireland. His teaching was that everybody in the country had a contribution to make from their experience and their wisdom and love of the country and that what was wanted was what he called the consensus—that was a Parliament of some kind, a representative body of some kind of men and women of every creed and class who could come together and give of their experience and advice and of their work, so that the love of country present in all of them would fructify and that the harmony that would develop as they worked together would strengthen the country as a whole and wipe out the animosities and divisions that had been created here because of the fact that they had no such representative centre in which they could get together and work before that.
This Assembly is now in a more effective and sovereign way the type of assembly that was looked for and worked for then and the most recent action of the Fianna Fáil Party was an action in definite sequence with previous actions of theirs from the beginning against this Assembly. It was done when they went only the other day in their most recent action to destroy the spirit in which this Assembly was created and change it from being the kind of Assembly that it is, an Assembly of the people.
I want to recall this in making the point that this was Griffith's approach to it. Looking back into the past, he had come through the Parnell debacle and had been a supporter of Parnell but he pointed out that O'Connellism and Parnellism were dangerous expedients because while they were the only things one could have at that time, you had the people leaning on one man. He wanted to create conditions in which not even the decadence or downfall of leaders would result in a broken or mutinous front of the people. This House has demonstrated from the beginning of its establishment that you have here an institution that has left the people where they were not dependent on one man or a great man. They were not dependent on one man who, for one reason or another might break down in any way and fail the people. We have only just now, by our work in the Parliament and the opportunity given to the people, saved this Assembly for what it was meant to be and held it for what it is.
We are in this difficulty, that when we are asked to support Deputy Lemass as the new Taoiseach, he is presented to us by the Party opposite, he being an effective leader of that Party, which set itself out to destroy the very basis of the fabric that was here. There are two implications in that. The first is that he does not understand what the people have done since they were challenged by the Conservative Party long ago, in 1911, 1912, or 1915. If the Deputy does not understand that, then we are in a very unhappy position. Secondly, he does not understand how necessary it is that this House should be one where every Party, creed and class could come together, in whatever way the electorate propose to send them here. Then as a representative body, in honest and fair-minded discussion of things, we would get the best out of ourselves as individuals and as groups. Out of the work which could be done honestly here, in the light of that responsibility, there would be such integration of individuals and groups into parties which might in a natural way give reality to the expression of the people's strength.
I react absolutely against the election of a leader of a Government to-day which understands so little of the past and which has so little understanding of what this House is for and what it can do in the reconciliation of the divisions which have taken place internally here since 1922, on the one hand, in the reconciliation of the points of view and in the linking up of the energies and the capacities of the various sections of our people, to do the work that requires to be done. If any leader of a Government attempts to direct Government affairs without using this Parliament in that type of spirit, then he is cutting off his arm, he is cutting off his voice and he is cutting himself off from inspiration from the people.
For that particular reason, I absolutely oppose the election of a person as Taoiseach who approaches political tradition in Ireland in the spirit in which Deputy Lemass approaches it. We have heard of the speeches he made and the work he did to try to abolish fair representation of the people and the fair vote here. The second thing that troubles me about the present situation is the dilemma in which the people are. They have been presented with that attack on their tradition and on their liberty. They have been presented with it by an absolutely rigid, uncompromising move on the part of the whole Fianna Fáil Party, behind a leader who professed, and acted upon, a policy that has completely stifled the voice of an organisation and a Party here. That has divided and bewildered the whole people and led them into the political and economic upset in which I am sure Deputy Lemass understands we all are at the present time.
The proposal to tamper with the spirit and the structure and the power of this House was, in my opinion, embarked on for two reasons. First, it was a pursuit and a continuance of the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to make this country a one-Party State. Secondly, it was escapism from the problems they found and had to face when they settled themselves into office. That was the second reason for the move in August last—Mr. de Valera looking into his heart and telling his Government and organisation what he thought and getting the nihil obstat from them without a word of criticism. This, Deputy Lemass himself admitted, was something unique in the whole political history of Europe. This second reason was to escape, to mark time, to allow them to make up their minds as to what policy they could adopt to meet the situation.
The last nine months have not solved or eased any of the problems —of production, of trade or of unemployment. The Government's outlook, as far as we know, is no clearer than it was in August last. We find the people looking to the Government and to this Parliament. They find the Fianna Fáil Party asking in that Parliament that Deputy Lemass be made Taoiseach, without any indication as to their approach to the situation. The people know that the Fianna Fáil majority was based upon their promises to deal effectively and radically with the problems which existed then, which have existed ever since they came in, and which exist now. The people look at a situation in which all that Deputy Lemass has to say is that he proposes to rearrange the constituencies in accordance with the Constitution. In the meantime, the Government have a substantial majority in the House, but are evidently incapable of dealing with the various problems with which they are faced. The proposed leader of the Government has stated that the wiping out of P.R. is necessary for the economic development of the country, but those opposite seem to have no idea of what that may mean.
Without reviewing their attitude with regard to this House, without reviewing the unrepresentative character of the House by reason of the fact that their majority is based upon false promises and false representations made to the electorate, is it the position that the Government are asking us to accept a situation in which they just reform the ranks and jog along, in circumstances in which vital considerations and vital discussions have to take place at parliamentary level, affecting the interest of nearly every section of the people, because of the economic developments in Europe and elsewhere, apart altogether from anything that may arise out of political developments elsewhere?
I do not emphasise the outside economic situation or the outside political situation as the thing which should drive us to face this Parliament properly, and to see our political work was carried on in the way the people understand and that it had their confidence. I think that our own personal sense of responsibility for our own work, for the development of education and the strengthening of the minds of our people, both morally and spiritually, to face the difficulty of whatever kind of work that involves should be the driving force. But all the discussions we are likely to be induced to have are likely to be discussions that will induce us to consider outside trade, the financial situation and so on, whereas what is vitally wrong is the whole approach at the political level to the machinery of discussion, the machinery of the assembly of facts, the machinery for linking our discussions here with the opinion and work of the country generally.
If we are electing a Taoiseach here tonight, we are electing him absolutely blindfold and we are electing him simply because the majority Party in the Dáil are going to steamroll a nomination through here without any approach to looking at the things that have immediately happened and considering, in the light of their implication, the work of this Parliament. I feel that the country has been bewildered by the wastage of time for the past nine months. It has been bewildered by the wastage of the attack on the electoral system. It has been left completely without any idea as to what plans or what advice the Government have to give the people with regard to any of their problems. As has been said here, the people see a Government going to tinker with the constituencies and jogging along but without any feeling that they can settle down to a settled political situation and to any kind of understanding of a settled economic programme.
The Government Party must understand that they have to clear that political situation at the earliest possible moment. I do not know how that political situation can be cleared until you reach a position in which the people are again given a chance of seeing that the representation in this House is changed from the distorted representation here at present. If they want a Fianna Fáil Government, they are entitled to a Fianna Fáil Government. If they do not want it, they are entitled to say they do not want it. But if they want a Fianna Fáil Government, then they should be in the position, and everybody else should be in the position, to know that it is a Government elected by a Parliament which the people say is a representative Parliament. I do not believe they do want it. I do not believe they do want it, not because I want to interpret in any way the results of either the Presidential election or the referendum, but the very atmosphere of the country tells you that they do not. They do not want to walk blindly into the future after being mobbed, bludgeoned and bulldozed by the political antics of the Government Party for the past nine months.
Part of the problem facing the head of the new Government to be selected tonight is this: not only has he to face looking at the various problems sitting at the doorstep of every one of his Departments, not only has he to face discussions and getting his Party to realise what their attitude to this assembly, individually and as Party members, will be, but he has to consider the position in which he stands with regard to the people as a whole whom he has to get to understand that this Parliament must be one that they have confidence in, that they know is doing its best as a deliberative assembly and that they know is giving of its best as a Government.
I oppose the nomination of Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach because of these things—lack of complete understanding of where our political strength came from that enabled us to make this establishment what it is, lack of understanding of how this establishment should be worked, lack of understanding of many of the problems and the magnitude of them, left to the hands of any leader of Government today, by reason of the fact that the spirit and intention of this Parliament has been trampled on by his Party from the time it was established. For that reason, I oppose the proposition before the House.
Question put
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- 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, Phelian A.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- 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.
- 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, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Tom.
- 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.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- 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.
- Tully, John.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Corish.
Question declared carried.
Ba mhaith liom fíor bhuíochas a chur in iúl don Dáil as ucht mé d'ainmniú mar Thaoiseach.
I should like to express my thanks to the Dáil for having nominated me as Taoiseach. I deeply appreciate that a high honour has been conferred upon me, and a very great responsibility also. I do not think it is possible for any man to face the prospect of becoming Head of the Irish Government without having doubts as to his personal ability to discharge properly the responsibilities of the office and anxiety as to how the country may fare during his term. I have these doubts and that anxiety.
I have been honoured by the confidence shown in me by my Party. Their unanimity and the support given to me by my colleagues in the former Government may, to some extent, reduce my doubts and ease my anxiety, but they cannot remove them entirely. With their assured support, I hope that the country will have reason, when the time comes for me to stand down again, to say that we did our duty well.
During the course of the debate, many things were said to which I would ordinarily like to reply, but I do not think this is the occasion on which to do so. All I will say now is that I shall endeavour to fulfil my duties as Taoiseach to the best of my ability.
It is necessary that I should now go to inform the President of my nomination so that he may appoint me. I would suggest, therefore, that the Dáil adjourn until 9.15 p.m.