Before the debate is resumed, I should like to raise a point of order, Sir. I understand that on a previous occasion when a motion of this nature was being discussed in the House, one of your predecessors ruled that any Member of the House whose name had been proposed to be a member of the Government was not permitted to intervene in the debate. So far no member of my Party whose nomination to be a member of the Government I propose in this motion has offered himself. But in the event of one of them wishing to do so, I am asking you, Sir, to give an indication of what your interpretation of that ruling is.
National Loan, 1966. - Nomination of Members of Government.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go gcomhaontóidh Dáil Éireann leis an Taoiseach d'ainmniú na gComhaltaí seo a leanas chun a gceaptha ag an Uachtarán chun bheith ina gcomhaltaí den Rialtas:—
That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of the following Members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government:—
Proinsias Mac Aogáin (Frank Aiken),
Erskine Childers (Erskine H. Childers),
Niall Bléine (Neil T. Blaney).
Caoimhghin Ó Beoláin (Kevin Boland),
Micheál Ó Móráin (Michael Moran),
Micheál Hilliard (Michael Hilliard).
Pádraig Ó hIrighile (Patrick J. Hillery),
Cáthal Ó hEochaidh (Charles J. Haughey),
Brian Ó Luineacháin (Brian J. Lenihan),
Seosamh Ó Braonáin (Joseph Brennan),
Donnchadh Ó Máille (Donogh B. O'Malley).
Seoirse Ó Colla (George Colley)
agus
(and)
Seán Ó Flanagáin (Seán Flanagan).
—(The Taoiseach).
The position at the moment is that where Members of the House are proposed to be members of the Government, there is a convention that they do not speak in their own behalf on the motion for their nomination.
Unless they want to tell us what good fellows they are. It is a pity this was not raised the first day.
Is it a convention you propose to follow, Sir?
It is a convention I propose to follow. I do not see any reason to depart from it.
I now call on Deputy O'Leary to resume.
Mr. O'Leary
As I was saying when the debate was adjourned last week, one of our main objections to the composition of the Cabinet designated in the motion and one of our fundamental criticisms of it, quite apart from their policy, was that it did not appear that the nomination of those proposed for membership of the Cabinet came about as a result of the crucial test of their performance in the previous 18 months. Rather did it appear to be the case that rewards are doled out irrespective of performance in the past. I mentioned in particular the Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Local Government, and I remarked that the record of these Ministers would not inspire confidence to the extent that they should be given appointments in the new Cabinet. I said that, although I was in opposition to Fianna Fáil, I would not have thought that their talent was so restricted that the selection of new Ministers should be confined in this fashion, ignoring the test of their performance in the previous 18 months.
The amalgamation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs with the Department of Transport and Power is welcomed and the Leader of our Party has asked for further amalgamation. Nevertheless, I am apprehensive that the greater controls we have seen exercised recently over the working of the Television Authority will be further emphasised under the new Minister. I am apprehensive lest the intimation we have had of a further and more rigid control in the exercise of journalistic integrity in RTE should be further intensified under the new Minister. Only today I received word that he is not able to reply to a question of mine regarding the position of journalists in RTE in connection with the presentation of news items. As I pointed out previously, RTE are in a very different position from any other State Board. After all, they have a direct influence on the moulding of opinion in this country. They are in close touch with the people in the presentation of news items and they have a sensitive effect on the thinking of our people.
Therefore, it is all the more important that their activities should stem from an impartial assessment of the news and that, although they are a State body, they should not be under the direct influence of any Government in this country. We have expressed our dissatisfaction in this House at the increased tendency of the Government to consider RTE to be their creature and plaything, to be used purely in the interests of giving a Party slant in news items. I hope the new Minister will reassure us that it is his intention that RTE will be allowed greater independence, greater autonomy and will be permitted to preserve a reasonable impartiality in the conduct of their service. The profession and the work of journalists should be respected in the Authority. A journalist should not be merely a copy typist, taking directions from above, but should bear the mark of his profession and at all times be honest in his assessment or interpretation of news items and in programme work generally in Telefís Éireann.
With regard to social welfare generally, the whole system of the present structure of social welfare payments seems virtually unchanged from the great period of its institution in 1911. We consider that the day is long past when there should be an immediate revision of the entire background of social welfare. The payment of benefits to old age pensioners and other social welfare recipients should more closely be related to the wages and incomes of others in our community. Recently, the British Government introduced a method whereby their social welfare payments would be related to incomes. We suggest that the same thing should be done here.
The record of the Minister for Social Welfare does not inspire in us any confidence that he is aware that there should be a re-appraisal of the entire method of social welfare payments. His behaviour has demonstrated an extremely old-fashioned line of thought in this area. He holds to a plimsoll line in respect of payments and prefers to keep to the methods of the past. For his lack of results in his Department, he was moved to the Department of Local Government, an area where the previous incumbent did not shine in the building of houses. Neither of these two Ministers is a man whose behaviour and record are sufficient to inspire or to recommend him for a further period as a Cabinet Minister. The housing record has been a grave disappointment, especially in Dublin and in the urban areas. The programme for the future does not reassure us that sufficient houses will be built in the years ahead in the areas where they are so vitally needed to cater for the needs which exist and will exist. The Ballyfermot and other proposed schemes will not come near to supplying the urban housing needs we have before us at the moment.
For the past month, Dublin Corporation have been involved in a reassessment of our housing needs. They have been looking over their entire list. I understand that the result of that examination may be such that the people involved in it may be forced to say, far from the corporation being able to deal with the remaining numbers, the hundreds of cases of families of five in one room, that they will have to attempt to house the families of six or seven in one room which they have discovered, as a result of this examination, still exist in large numbers. This is not a record we can be proud of in the area of housing.
The programme proposed by the Government does not give any confidence that the future in regard to housing will be better than the past. Yet the position is that the status of both of these Ministers is enhanced in the new Cabinet. Certainly, a more realistic assessment of what they deserve in this new Government would not have pushed them into these new Ministers. One hopeful thing is that the constituency of Deputy Boland, the Minister for Local Government designate, includes Ballyfermot, Dublin. A way of ensuring that the Minister is sensitive to urban housing needs is that his constituency is in an urban area. The previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney, could afford to cast, so to speak, a cold eye on housing needs because his constituency is in Donegal. If, in the past, Deputy Boland has not shown himself sensitive to social welfare, he may perhaps show himself to be sensitive to housing in future. He will have many calls on his time from people in his constituency of Ballyfermot to see what he will do about housing. Deputies of all Parties must, I am sure, be completely weary of constant appeals in relation to housing, especially in urban areas. We are weary of the continuing bad state of housing, and of explanations as to why planning had not taken place in sufficient time. We are very depressed and pessimistic indeed about the future in regard to housing. No modern Government should have as their excuse that, like the poor, housing problems will always be with us.
(Dublin): Hear, hear.
Mr. O'Leary
I expect that we shall always have regard to the necessity for improvements in our housing stock. It is no exaggeration to say that the position in Dublin now in regard to housing is at crisis proportions. I would hope that the new Minister for Local Government could suffer a large-scale change of heart. I do not know if he can. However, he should attempt the exercise. From his record, I have not much evidence that he will. The situation, unfortunately, is extremely serious.
At the outset of this Cabinet, the new Taoiseach should state that the concern of political Parties from now on, in a modern electorate, must be what we loosely call the social needs of the people and he should at least declare the priorities of this new Cabinet. It is important that the House should know the areas of legislation and administration which will have the prior attention of this Government in their remaining period and therefore they should at least state their priorities.
On the whole Government, of course, falls the rather bad news which was related to us in the unemployment figures of the past year which became available to us in the past fortnight. We learn that, in the past year, we created 700 new jobs in industry. This is the record of a Government whose policies in regard to employment, if they cannot be described as marking time, are certainly losing their foothold. The number of new jobs required each year in manufacturing industry if this country is to keep pace with the number of people chasing jobs is of the order of 20,000. Deputies can figure out the failure over the past year when we remember that, instead of 20,000 jobs, we provided only 700 new jobs in manufacturing industry. The unemployment figure is made up, among others, of the number of people who are leaving the land and the number of school leavers who are looking for jobs. Over the same period, 7,000 persons have left agriculture and, in the previous year, 14,000 persons left agriculture. If this trend is not arrested quite rapidly, the gains that we had been making as a result of increased production and the upturn in our economy in recent years will very seriously be reversed.
We must bear in mind that the greater unemployment which is expected in Britain later this year will mean that our unemployment figures will be inflated because of a number of Irish people returning from Britain due to unemployment there. Again, consider the number of people who would normally emigrate, the people who, by their emigration, keep discontent out of this country in great proportion. It must be admitted that the emigration from rural areas has had a certain effect on the relief of discontent. If these persons had not left the constituencies of South Kerry and Waterford, then, in the next few weeks, there might be a far greater problem than there is there at present for the Government candidates because with those emigrants has gone much economic discontent that could be a realistic factor in both these areas. We can expect a return home of some of these emigrants in the next few months, according as the unemployment position in Britain becomes more serious.
I understand that what is required and what has been promised is a reexamination right away of our Second Programme for Economic Expansion now and what remnants of it can be salvaged. The Second Programme had certain targets in regard to employment and production. The target in regard to employment has been obvious for quite some period now. These targets have acquired, moreover, the atmosphere of a fairy tale. They appear to have no relationship to reality, and that we can see from month to month in the unemployment figures.
Among many things said by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass, was his declaration once— and I think this is the real acid test of achievement in this country—that the creation of increased employment as a result of Government activity was the real yardstick. This has always been considered by us to be the only realistic test of a Government's effectiveness in this country. From that point of view, this Government have fallen down during the past few years. They have not achieved any of the targets under the Second Programme. Indeed their failure in the area of adequate employment presents a large question mark in relation to the entire future of this country as an economically viable unit and in relation to whether this country can make its way in an increasingly competitive world.
That brings me to this point. How can we clear up the confusion which exists in regard to the Common Market? On this subject, we have experts here every day of the week, self-styled experts, from Brussels. We have people going to Brussels. It will be necessary to set up immediately an authoritative mission led by the Taoiseach, or some Minister, to go to Brussels to find out what are our Common Market expectations. What are our chances? What are our chances of entry to Europe in all this confusion? I know our hands are tied to those of Britain. The only explanation for the Free Trade Agreement was that we had no opportunity, no possibility whatever, of admission to Europe until we were tied completely to Britain.
This is an acknowledged fact. It is common knowledge in recent years. We are completely dependent on Britain. Judging from my own experience at conferences of the Labour Party at Brighton last year and at Blackpool and from what has been said by the British Government over the past years, Britain's entry into Europe will come later rather than sooner. Mr. Wilson last week merely reiterates pious aspirations in regard to Europe. He in no way binds himself to commitments in regard to entry and I think that the French future assessment of Britain's application is a realistic one. There was nothing new in Mr. Wilson's statement. It was merely a list of pious wishes in regard to European unity.
In any case, for our own peace of mind and to ease the economic grip in which this country will find itself in the future, it will be necessary for this Government to clarify immediately, or as soon as possible the commitments in relation to entry into Europe and to explore fully the possibility of associate membership of the Community.
From first to last, the Labour Party have been extremely concerned about the unprepared state of Irish industry in the face of the monopoly competition we will experience on our entry into Europe. On the part of many Deputies there is a kind of euphoria about our chances of entry to Europe, a kind of enthusiasm which must be based on their complete ignorance of Irish industry, the unpreparedness of Irish industry, and a complete unawareness of the ineffectiveness of the management we have.
There have been many official recommendations and reports over past years. The last report I read was the report of the Industrial Reorganisation branch which in no unmistakable terms said that Irish management was not making an effort to tailor its plans to freer trade conditions. In this situation it strikes me as being very foolish, indeed, to talk about our preparedness and our readiness to take on the challenge of entry to Europe. It appears to me that before anybody talks about freer trade, he should take the precaution of examining the situation that exists throughout this country. Picture that, and it will be accepted that there are no grounds for complacency. Can we not have fewer after-dinner speeches and can we not ensure that Irish management is doing its job?
This has been called a youthful Cabinet. There is one thing about youth; one can appear youthful in physical appearance but one's ideas may belong to the Stone Age. It is not sufficient to look to youth; one must also have regard to the corollary. One must at least be up to date as to what polities means in these days. In this sense I am not convinced that the proposed members of the Cabinet are youthful. They may appear to be physically youthful, but they have no youthful ideas. They are not disposed to pursue new and active policies in regard to the problems facing this country.
Another question facing this Government, on the home front as well, is the necessity of seeking some results in regard to Government reform and electoral reform in regard to Northern Ireland primarily. It appears to me that Captain O'Neill has become extremely popular on this side of the Border over the past year or so, and for no real reason. There has been no real improvement in the lot of Catholics in the Six County area during Captain O'Neill's term of office, apart from economic speeches and references to the need for more amity between the religions here and in the North. He has done nothing to improve the electoral position. He has done nothing about discrimination in regard to housing and employment. If there are to be any more cross-Border smiles and cordial meetings, we should ask about the progress or otherwise of better relations in the Northern area.
It appears to me that we must begin to search for the facts in Northern Ireland. It is all the more important that we should do so, in view of the fact that no Parliament has ever concentrated on the actual status of the Six Counties. At this period we would be fully doing our duty as people to look for greater democracy in that area, but we would not be discharging that duty if the people representing our own Government were themselves to be guilty of evading awkward questions in regard to the Northern area. I am all for the improvement of relations between North and South but I do not think improvements in the democratic position in that area will be made by ignoring the awkward reality, and if the awkward reality is nice talk from Captain O'Neill but no action, I think it is time we called his bluff and I do not think we will be the losers for it.
Do you think Captain O'Neill is bluffing?
Mr. O'Leary
I certainly do. He has done nothing to improve the position.
The talks with Captain O'Neill were a tremendous breakthrough.
Mr. O'Leary
Captain O'Neill and the Unionist administration of Northern Ireland have done nothing to improve the situation up there in regard to discrimination.
The Deputy should leave that to Gerry Fitt. Statements like that will not help.
Mr. O'Leary
I stand over the statement. It is my honest assessment of the situation. I do not see why any Member of this Parliament should ignore the reality as he sees it. As I said, in my opinion, the time for bluff is over and we should begin to ask honest questions. We should ask Captain O'Neill whether he is the liberal he says be is or whether he is merely making sweet speeches with no action. I have in mind particularly what exactly he means by his reference to the "Trojan Horse" of the community in the area recently. At a time when the Westminster Parliament is concentrating on problems in that area. it is time our Government should also begin to ask questions. I do not think that evading awkward questions serves the cause of North-South co-operation, better relations, greater understanding and the advent of greater democracy in the northern area. For too long we have acted on the basis that we must not ask any awkward questions and must evade attempts to improve the situation up there. Now that the honeymoon is over, we must begin to ask questions and we will not be the losers for it.
This administration represents a break, probably the first real break in Irish politics over the past 40 years. Now, at last, we have turned the corner and the revolutionary legacy and that period is behind us. We must look to the 1970s and the remaining 35 years of this century. It appears to me that the time is opportune, speaking in a very impartial way, for the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Parties to come together in a more concrete fashion than heretofore.
The new Taoiseach can be described as a man with no personal enemies, and indeed most of the Ministers in his Cabinet have no personal enemies or no personal interest in the continuance of old quarrels. Since there is a great deal of agreement, we understand, between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on such matters as their attitude to proportional representation and their attitude to the trade unions, it appears to me that this area of common interest should be further explored. There may be a possibility that if this were done and a domestic ecumenical movement opened up under a recognised third party to examine what are the current differences in 1966 between the chief Opposition Party and the Government, it would do a great deal to rationalise and clarify the position. The time has come to bury the hatchet and if neither Party has a grudge or quarrel between themselves, if their quarrels can be consigned to the period of the Civil War and thereafter, the time has come for a large gesture to be made. The seating arrangements of this House will be no problem. The Labour Party are quite prepared to sit over there on the left and we will allow you to sit on the right.
The right of the Chair, of course.
Mr. O'Leary
This is something that could be examined in greater detail. I only throw it out as a thought since we have turned this corner and it should be definitely explored. I would appeal to the younger elements in both Parties to see that there is a career to be made and it would be an interesting development in our public life if they began to take a look at the reunification of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as a strong conservative Party in this country.
Will you not lose a few in the process of going over there?
(Dublin): Deputy Dillon was asking the Labour Party to join them the other day.
Mr. O'Leary
Deputy Dillon is a very hospitable man. He asked us before and you know what we said.
Perhaps the Constitution Committee will legalise political divorce.
Perhaps we could deal with what is on the Order Paper.
Deputy O'Leary must remember he is a member of a politically divorced Party—divorced from Fine Gael since the last Coalition.
A very conservative Party.
Mr. O'Leary
I throw this out as a helpful suggestion. It is a new period and from what we have seen in the past few weeks, there are elements in the Fianna Fáil Party who detest one another more seriously than in Fine Gael.
I take it this is a criticism of the nominees of the Taoiseach?
Mr. O' Leary
Yes.
I should like to see it more closely adhered to. It seems to be very general.
Mr. O'Leary
From the amount of coalition we have seen growing up in the Fianna Fáil Party, a coalition which now governs, it seems that the period has come when they should examine whether there are greater friends of theirs in the Fine Gael Party than may be present in the Fianna Fáil Party. I put it to the three camps or the two camps, or whatever number there are in Fianna Fáil, that the time has come when there may be more allies in Fine Gael than in their own Party.
It appears to me that political life would be improved if there were greater rationalisation and if the electorates in Kerry and Waterford had clear issues put to them. Political life would be better for it.
How are you going to do it?
Mr. O'Leary
If the employment position cannot be improved and if we cannot reverse this disastrous trend over the past year, in which we created merely 700 new jobs, if this cannot be corrected, I do not see the sense of getting involved in manpower policies and training and re-training. The kind of activities that trade unions have been able to go through in Europe with the management and the experiments they have been able to make in Europe and the gains made by their economists have been made against a background of economies that were approaching full or near full employment. If the position, employmentwise, in this country disimproves still further, manpower policies and training and re-training and the Department of Labour will certainly be up against a great deal of trouble. With regard to the Minister for Labour, I certainly wish him well in his future activities and I see nothing in his record in the past that I would join issue with. As I said last week, it is not my purpose in speaking to bother myself overmuch about the personal habits, idiosyncrasies or failings of any of the incumbents but purely to trace their records in their Departments.
I would hope that the new Ministers would clarify the position that presently exists, the ambiguity that exists between the chief civil servants of their Departments and themselves in regard to the handling of their Departments. I have in mind the recent problem in regard to Mr. Whitaker in the Department of Finance and the new Minister designate.
There was no problem. The Deputy should not be repeating untruths.
Mr. O'Leary
I understood there was.
None whatever.
Mr. O'Leary
In general terms, it appears to me that principal officers and higher civil servants should not be asked to present purely political speeches, if they must present speeches because of the Minister's inability to be present. Any Minister in his use of civil servants should stick as far as possible to impartial assessments rather than use civil servants to relay a particular piece of purely Party slanted information on any particular occasion. It is expecting too much of civil servants to ask them to present views exclusive to the political Party in power. Their position should not be abused by asking them to pass on political messages.
We cannot hope that our criticism of the proposed Government will register in a majority vote. The assessment of the position must lie with the approaching by-elections. They will give us the nearest thing we can get for the moment to the verdict of the people on the record of Government. In giving their verdict, the people must bear in mind the present state of agriculture and all that was said about the new era in agriculture as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. They must judge whether in fact these improvements have come about and whether they can look forward in future to the prosperity they should enjoy. They must bear in mind that the population in both Waterford and South Kerry has fallen and that fall is itself an assessment of the effectiveness of government in the period since the last census of population was taken. These by-elections will be the first testing ground of this proposed Cabinet. It is our intention now to draw attention to the lack of progress made by Ministers in their respective Departments.
I said at the outset that I could see no reason why Fianna Fáil should restrict themselves to the same old faces. Would it have been a different Cabinet, had some other contender achieved the chief executive position? The Taoiseach has not been adventurous enough in his choice of personnel. There are people on his back benches who would be just as good as some of those appointed to office.
We have entered a new era in politics. We have, I hope, left behind us the old quarrels; political division in the future should, I think, be based rather on the problems of the day rather than the problems of yesterday. The new Taoiseach represents the new man in Irish politics, someone who has no axe to grind because of the past. Our Party have always looked forward to the day when that situation would arrive and it would be possible for us to concentrate less on purely political issues. I suggest that some enterprising backbenchers in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil should take their courage in their hands now and consider areas of co-operation between the two Parties.
I realise why Deputy O'Leary threw out that thought in the closing stage of his excellent address. He was running out of ideas. With charity in my heart for the slaves of history, may I say that the real victim of historical associations is Deputy O'Leary himself? He comes from a Fianna Fáil family. Like many who find themselves disillusioned with Fianna Fáil and who are unable, at one step, to cross the floor of the House to the Fine Gael Party, Deputy O'Leary has used the Labour Party as a step nearer; there is for him in the radical Party of the new Ireland, the Fine Gael Party, every opportunity to earn the laurels that young people like him should be anxious to earn.
The fact of the matter is that the one Party who have issued an historical thesis, the one Party who have set out at great length a social philosophy, are the Fine Gael Party. Neither of the other Parties has yet done this, although, at the last general election, we had the Taoiseach promising in desperation and in the excitement of the last few days of the campaign that, together with the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, his Party would produce a first programme of social policies. We are still waiting for that. Now he has gone and we are led to believe that those who encouraged him to go themselves believe in the same things. We shall wait with great interest to hear the social outlook of a Government who, over the past seven or eight years, have almost halved the share of the gross national product earned by social welfare recipients. That is the indication of their radical social approach.
The real difficulty with so many people here is that they are unable to think in terms of 1966 and their views are confined entirely to the kind of political muck manufactured and thrown by the Fianna Fáil Party in their political infancy. The result is that there are people who are unable to sit down now in independent judgment of events and trends in the 1960s and what will be the inevitable trend of events in the 1970s. One can only hope that, with the passage of years, wisdom will come to them and they will see and mend the error of their ways.
Of the outgoing Government, it can be fairly said, I think, that it portrayed very little ability. Whatever ability there was, Deputy Seán Lemass had a monopoly of it. In recent years many people concerned for the welfare of the nation had not a little sympathy for Deputy Lemass. Now the one man with a modicum of ability has gone and poor old Ireland is left with the duds to struggle through until such time as Ireland gets the Government she deserves, a Fine Gael Government.
The tragedy is that this one man with some ability left in such indecent haste. God knows, perhaps it was that in the autumn of his days, his conscience has begun to prick him and he realises that every promise he made in the last general election has been broken by him. Instead of his leading the country, the country has been shuffling and dragging its feet. On three different occasions I had to remind him of his promise to retire, but that the manner of his going should be so injurious to the national interest is something for which he will never be forgiven, because what he has done is to do untold harm to public morale.
It is you who are doing untold harm to public morale with these hysterics.
We in the Fine Gael benches have never doubted the lack of ability or never doubted the real ambitions of the individuals forming the Fianna Fáil administration and their loquacious backbenchers. We are concerned, however, that at a time when this country's standing financially and tradewise is so low the Taoiseach should have decided to leave the sinking ship like a certain class of vermin which parliamentary rules do not permit me to designate.
It is your interpretation and it is totally untrue.
These things are extremely serious. We have had a certain amount of pantomime in the course of this debate, however. We were asked to vote for the new mixture or, shall I say, for the same mixture after it has been shaken: because Deputy Aiken was a soldier of Ireland, when they were few, because Deputy Childers had a great father, because Deputy Boland, when Minister for Social Welfare, interpreted the laws as they were, because Deputy Lenihan is a kindly gentleman, because Deputy Haughey was a keen businessman before he came into the House, because Deputy O'Malley was one of the most lovable characters of all times, because Deputy Moran increased all farm holdings to 45 acres——
Fifty acres.
——because Deputy Dr. Hillery was a man of great patience and goodwill, because Deputy Hilliard was a very courteous and kindly fellow, because Deputy Blaney was not as successful as he might have been, because of the credit squeeze, because Deputy Flanagan was a young man, because Deputy Brennan had a kindly heart, and because Deputy Colley—guess the description —was a gracious man. Now this eulogy was given to us by one of the senior members of the Fianna Fáil Party, a member talking with the great wealth of 21 years of public experience behind him. These are the only things he can commend to the Irish people as justification for giving our votes to the new administration. We would be less than fair to the people of Ireland if we allowed our votes this evening to be swayed by such claptrap as that.
The truth is that in the Cabinet which the caretaker Taoiseach puts before us for approval, we have his deputy, the assistant Leader of the Government, Deputy Aiken, who thinks that Deputy Lynch should not be Taoiseach. We have indeed Deputy Lynch himself who thinks he should not be Taoiseach, and the only reason he is Taoiseach is that he is not quite as bad as either Deputies Haughey or Colley. We have Deputy Aiken, as I have mentioned, who thinks that Deputy Colley should be Taoiseach; we have Deputy Colley who thinks that Deputy Colley should be Taoiseach; and we have Deputies Haughey, Blaney, Lenihan and Boland who think that Deputy Lynch should not really be Taoiseach and that Deputy Colley should not be Taoiseach.
Tell us why you should be.
This is the Government supposed to have collective responsibility, supposed to be capable of discharging their national duty, but every other member of it has no confidence or faith in his neighbour. One might well ask why they hang together and the reason, of course, is fairly simple: if they did not, they would all hang separately and each Member going into the Lobby tonight will go in for that reason and that reason alone. It reminds me of what was once said about Voltaire. It was said of Voltaire that if he did not exist, nobody could ever invent him. Well, it can truthfully be said that if this Government and the motley Party behind them did not exist, nobody could ever invent them, no matter how sick might be his mind. If the division in the Government Party were an honourable one, even if this difference of opinion were honourably arrived at, one could respect men of dignity and independence in different opinions but we had the unseemly conduct of Prince Monolulu of Mid-Cork capering round the corridors of this House and elsewhere for days on end shouting that he had one political horse after another and inviting the members of his Party to bid on his political advice. Nor was he alone; there were two further Lana Machree dogs in Munster taking not two but several sides of the road with them, in the indecent hope that by lobbying for the right person at the right time, some Parliamentary Secretaryship or other position of status for themselves might be available.
The Deputy is getting his metaphors mixed now.
Maybe the Deputy is getting his metaphors mixed but it ill becomes the Taoiseach to talk about mixtures at this time. The indignity of what has happened here has done untold harm to the national morale and nothing, except a complete flushing out of office of the Party on the opposite side of the House, will ever repair the national honour and conscience.
There are other difficulties facing this country and there will be so long as we have the present Administration. One was indicated in a fairly recent speech of the outgoing and now designate Minister for Justice. In the one speech which he delivered, he, rightly, condemned rowdy gangs and teddy boys, people who produced flick knives and bottles to damage their fellow beings and he rightly said that all the power of Government would be brought to bear to stamp out this tremendous social evil. But in the same breath as he uttered this, in the same breath as he issued this warning against the disreputable minority in our community who act in that particular anti-social manner, he also issued a similar threat and a similar warning in identical words against what he called the unofficial strikers.
Now it strikes me that there is a tremendously dangerous threat to our liberty and there is an appalling confusion of values when a Minister for Justice, who as well as keeping the law, must respect the rights of the individual, classifies in the same way the person who produces and harms his neighbour with a flick knife and a bottle and some person who rightly or wrongly takes what we term unofficial strike action. In one case you have a person who is clearly anti-social, without respect for his fellow human beings; in the other case, you have a worker who has a sense of grievance— whether or not it is justified does not matter—who uses strike action or some other protest to secure what he considers to be a fair reward for his services and labour. For any Government or Party to treat those two individuals as one and the same enemy of the community is particularly dangerous, and is an indication of the intolerance of the present Government. It should also be, for thinking people, a reason why this Government should be put out of office.
I was sorry to hear Deputy O'Leary, with his background of Fianna Fáil association, suggesting that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have the same outlook on matters of trade unionism. He knows that is not so, and I think that on reflection he will agree it is not so. It is not so. In the heads of policy which the Government circulated some time ago to the trade union movement and others, they indicated that it was their intention to discipline the trade union movement, and that, according to their silly theories, they were going to bring about industrial peace through governmental sanctions.
Mr. O'Leary
On a point of order, is Deputy Ryan's brother not a member of Fianna Fáil?
We of the Fianna Fáil Party——
"We of the Fianna Fáil Party"!
The Chair has no knowledge of who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Mr. O'Leary
His own brother is.
We of the Fine Gael Party have made it clear in regard to this admission of failure, that we regard this as treating the symptoms as the cause of the disease, and we completely repudiate this effort to discipline the trade union movement and to impose sanctions and penalties on people in a false effort to achieve industrial peace. I think the Labour Party and ourselves are in agreement on that. It may be that some people do not regard that as a fundamental difference between us and those on the opposite side of the House. I regard it as extremely fundamental, and it would trip me up from ever taking the step which Deputy O'Leary has suggested. We put down an amendment which the Labour Party prevented us from voting upon. We wanted to limit it to the duration of the emergency which existed, and I am sure the Labour Party would now join us in voting for our Bill which seeks to repeal the Act in question.
Did you not vote for the Bill?
One matter at a time.
The Deputy should not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Ryan must be allowed to make his statement without interruption.
It is very difficult not to interrupt.
It may be difficult, but there are many difficult things that can be done.
This is good practice for the hustings. The people of Kerry and Waterford——
Let us leave that for the present. Let us have the nominees of the Taoiseach, and those alone.
For some time past the members of the outgoing Government have not been as attentive to their ministerial duties as they should have been. We are aware that some members of the Government have spent some time and effort and energy in attending to their own private professions, and business interests. This is an indication either that they have too little to do as Ministers or that they are neglecting their ministerial duties. That either situation should exist is deplorable. What is worse is——
We are entitled to the facts.
Deputy Andrews should restrain himself.
I find it difficult to restrain myself when the Deputy is making unsubstantiated statements like that.
The Deputy has his remedy. He must restrain himself.
It is terribly important——
That the Deputy should substantiate what he is saying.
——that Ministers should not engage in their private professions and business interests, because to do so is wrong, but it is equally important that they should not be in a position to give any reason for suspicion that in the operation of their professional or business interests, they made use of, or allowed use to be made of, their public office to their own advantage or to the advantage of their clients. What I am saying is known to the members of the Government. What I am saying is known to the Taoiseach. I suggest he is not discharging his public duty correctly if he fails to say to the members of the incoming Cabinet whom he hopes to get elected tonight, that they must cease engaging in professional and business interests of any kind so long as they are Ministers, and that if they are not agreeable to do this, they should not accept the seals of their new office. So long as the situation which existed in the past few years continues to exist, there will be every reason to doubt the integrity of the members of the Government, and to doubt the fairness of some decisions which have been made in some Departments which have worked to the great advantage of people in close proximity to Ministers who either made the decisions or were in a position to influence the decisions.
This is the Deputy who was talking about mud-slinging a while ago.
This is quite true, and it will not take any great amount of research to establish how many hours some members of the Government have been spending in their offices, nor will it be difficult to ascertain where some of them have spent their long week-ends. If this matter is not rectified immediately by the incoming Government, they can expect that this matter will be brought very much to the fore, and that steps will be taken to purify the activities in the ministerial field. These things are very much in the minds of those of us who will be voting against the nominees whom the Taoiseach has put before us. Equally important is the failure of the same team under a different captain, a far more able captain, to achieve what they promised us they would achieve.
The rate of unemployment has multiplied in recent weeks. It has gone up by almost 8,000 in the past six weeks, and so far the Government have failed to take any steps to arrest this trend. This comes at the end of a continual increase which has been operating over the past year. We have now arrived at a position in which, if the unemployment figures were assessed on the old basis, we would have about 65,000 people unemployed. After we were assured that we would have 100,000 new jobs under the same Administration, we now have 65,000 unemployed and, as I say, this rate has multiplied in recent weeks and there is no indication that the Government are taking any steps to rectify that situation.
The loan which has been mentioned today will in substantial part be used to pay off old debts. The remainder is barely sufficient to maintain the already inadequate amount of work in the public sector and there is no indication whatsoever that the Government have been doing anything to arrest the speedy increase in the number of unemployed people in recent weeks.
The Government's much vaunted programme of expansion anticipated an annual emigration rate of 18,000 people. We in the Fine Gael benches expressed the view that this was an admission of failure, but if it had operated at that figure, at least it could be said that the Government were fulfilling their promise. But the rate now lies between 20,000 and 30,000 a year and last year it was more than 20,000 and all the indications are that the Government are not taking any steps to rectify this situation.
We were also promised in the Government's programme 78,000 new jobs by 1970. The number of new jobs provided to date is only 4,000, leaving us with 74,000 new jobs to be provided during the next three years. All the indications so far are that they have not the least hope of coming anywhere near their target. In educational matters, the Government have no policy whatsoever to meet the critical need for better educational facilities here.
What about the Just Society?
In our programme Towards a Just Society, the matter is extensively dealt with. The members of Fianna Fáil who are so interested may have it on paying one shilling but, lest they are unwilling to do so, I shall quote from sub-paragraph (6) on page 23:
Fine Gael will introduce a system to enable every child capable of benefiting from further education to proceed from the national school right through to the university, irrespective of the financial circumstances of the child's parents.
The matter is extensively dealt with in that document as a matter of the Party's policy. It is not the weekend fancy of a man invited out to dinner. It is not an effort by one individual to embarrass his Party by projecting something and then saying the Party cannot without loss of face let him down. It is a statement which was published more than 18 months ago; it is something which we in Fine Gael are unanimously behind.
We have yet to get any indication from the outgoing Government that they as a Government support the man in question who promised certain things at a weekend dinner a few months ago, but the man in question has had to issue a public threat to ensure he will get what he wants—that he will resign unless he gets it. Nobody in the Fine Gael Party has had to say he will resign from the Party unless he gets it. These are our views. This document, and many other documents already published and many others yet to be published will be in the name of the Fine Gael Party, without personal vendettas, and I trust that for as long as they may remain in power, the Government will study these Fine Gael documents as they have done in the past. Whatever good they have been able to produce in recent years has been stolen from us.
As another test of the Government's confusion in educational matters, let us deal with another promise, made three years ago. They promised a scheme under which they would pay 60 per cent on the repayment of capital and interest in respect of mortgage loans privately arranged by schools for their secondary school building programme. As a result of that statement, made by a predecessor of the present incumbent, many schools delayed their building programmes; many schools who had privately arranged to build out of their own resources and who had made arrangements for private loans, postponed them in the hope of getting something out of what Santa Claus had promised.
The result was that the secondary school building programme was delayed for two years. I am not sure what the total number of the schools involved is in November, 1966, but earlier this year the total number of schools that had been approved by the Department was 14 or 15. The capital commitment for this programme was about £4½ million, the State's involvement being in the region of £2½ million. In relation to this, the Government, who pretend to be interested in education and in doing something for it, have so far paid a measly £13,000 out of a commitment of £2½ million. Two schools were involved in this. Untold damage has been done by this delay in the building of urgently-needed secondary schools.
In the meantime, schools which had made their own arrangements for their own loans have found that because of the Government's mismanagement of the financial situation, the interest rates on the loans have been increased by one or two per cent so that even with the help they will now get from the Government, because of the delays the Government have created, their burden will be almost as great as it would have been if the State had never intervened with these reckless promises made without any regard to the Government's disposition to perform them.
Perhaps there is no field of social need which has been so neglected by the outgoing Government and the Government designate as the field of health. Fianna Fáil forced through the 1953 Health Act after years of division and unnecessary argument, notwithstanding the fact that they were shortly afterwards replaced by a Government who sank their political animosities in their anxieties to try to make that Act work.
If the Act was no good, why did they not throw it out?
Though the Fianna Fáil administration have for 13 years tried to make that Act work, it has not done so. It has crumbled in their hands as Fine Gael forecast it would.
Why did you not throw it out?
We alone voted against the 1953 Act because we in Fine Gael regarded it as no more than a growth on a Victorian plant, something which could not provide for our people the type of health scheme which a modern society should have. In 1961 we in Fine Gael, in another effort to get things put right, tabled a motion here which was debated at length, seeking to have a new health scheme introduced on the basis of the Fine Gael programme for a national health service. Our efforts in that respect were defeated, not on the merits of the motion, because the Members of the House never got an opportunity to vote on the merits, but by a slick performance by the Fianna Fáil Party who, instead of voting on the issue, proposed to set up a Committee and this received the support of a number of so-called Independents and as a result delayed the provision of a decent health service for the country.
It is better to be a so-called Independent than a member of Fine Gael.
These are not matters for scoring political points. They are matters affecting the health, the convenience, the lives of the little people, the people who matter, and throughout those years there has been more unnecessary suffering in this country, more disabled people and deaths that could have been prevented simply because we dragged our feet in the matter of the provision of health services and because we still apply in relation to entitlement to free medical services the same tests as were applied by Queen Victoria 120 years ago—a test of whether an applicant is able out of his income or other lawful means to pay for health services.
This is scarcely relevant in a debate on the formation of a Government.
Except that the Government we are asked to approve tonight are entirely composed of people who have followed policies which we in Fine Gael are unable to accept and because so far we have had no indication from any member on the Government side that there will be any change of heart. In fact, nothing has been said in the course of this debate by any Member on the Government side of the House.
We cannot speak.
The Taoiseach, I take it, is disowning the people behind him who spoke.
The Deputy referred to members of the Government.
I am talking about the people on the Government side of the House, the people who will go through the division lobbies tonight to vote for the Cabinet which the Taoiseach has put before us. They have not, so far, given any reason why we should support the administration which the Taoiseach has put before us, except that they will continue the policies which they have already been executing. On that account we are unable to give our support to the administration suggested by the Taoiseach.
With regard to housing, we of the Fine Gael Party regard it as a matter of fundamental principle that social investment must progress side by side with economic development. That is another reason why notwithstanding the anxiety of some people who have political stepping stones provided for them we of the Fine Gael Party can never join forces with the Fianna Fáil Party. In the present administration's programme, it is a cardinal principle that what they regard as the most economic investment must be secondary. They say expenditure on housing, education, health services is a social expenditure and that it cannot assist economic growth. The present administration say it is wrong to spend money on such services which have not got a return in competitive goods and services. I am quoting from their own philosophy, from their own approach to things.
I believe the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party are at one in saying that social investment must move step by step with economic growth and it is a sham to suggest that we should slow down the pace of economic growth. This has happened here and because of this erroneous policy, there has been a great amount of human misery. The Government programmes for economic investment anticipated that there would be a decline in social investment. They made no effort to arrest what they assured us would happen. In fact, they did everything possible to hasten it. The result is the number of houses built by public authorities here and the number of new dwellings built by the public sector were sliced by three-fourths.
The situation in Dublin was even worse. Before the Fianna Fáil administration came into power, we were building 1,500 houses a year. This figure was reduced year by year during the Fianna Fáil administration down to the miserly number of 270. The result is that the chief medical officer has recommended that there are 650 families in urgent need of housing. Those families represent a husband, wife and three children, who are eating, sleeping, and washing in one room. We have over 1,500 families of husband, wife and two children who are eating, sleeping and washing in one room. We have on the chief medical officer's list 5,000 families who are in urgent need of priority in the matter of housing. This represents perhaps 20,000 to 25,000 human beings in those appalling housing conditions. The situation represented by the chief medical officer does not include more than 5,000 other families whose reward is ill-health and whose plight is so serious. That is a very urgent housing situation from the chief medical officer's point of view.
The Deputy is entitled to refer to housing in a general way. He is not entitled to give a full description of the housing situation on the motion on the formation of the Government.
I have no anxiety to go into detail, but, with respect, I would submit that it is not incorrect to illustrate the argument by a few typical examples. Everything I have said about Dublin could also be said with regard to the rest of the country.
There are 1,000 houses vacant in Dublin.
I see opposite me, and I now hear him, bless his heart, Deputy Paudge Brennan, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. In 1965, he issued a pamphlet quoting a number of newspaper headlines from 1958 in which some builders were complaining about the pace of building activity. I invite him now to look at the newspapers published in this country during the past 18 months. He will find that builders and architects, local authorities, people seeking houses, have banded themselves together and are building houses in desperation because of the urgent need for houses. This is their condemnation of the Deputy and his Party for the colossal slump which has taken place in housing over the past few years. They have rightly condemned the Government for failing to maintain the same percentage of subsidy on housing as existed before this unfortunate administration took office. The Deputy knows that what I say is absolutely true and if he had even a modicum of conscience, he would admit it is right.
More money than ever was spent on housing.
Apart from what was acknowledged as the housing requirements by the bureaucrats, we have another desperate situation in Dublin. Prior to 1963, about 600 houses per year were condemned as unfit for human habitation, but since 1963 no examination of houses, basements, garrets, caravans or tents has taken place to assess whether or not they were fit for human habitation. No garret, basement room, return room, scullery or bathroom has been inspected to see whether or not it is unfit for human habitation and no such place has been condemned as unfit for human habitation.
Indeed, many of the places which were condemned as unfit for human habitation prior to 1963 are now occupied by families and public authorities are afraid to expel them from those places because they would have nowhere else to go. We are building up a new social evil, a new sore which one of these days will open and burst forth with a flow of evil, the consequences of which it is almost impossible to visualise. All the Government can do is to say: "We will take no notice of those things. We will not condemn any place as unfit for human habitation. We will not allow that on our conscience. We have enough on our conscience already."
We have, in the matter of industrial relations, a continuing increase in the number of industrial disputes and in no field of activity is this greater than in the public sector where there is an increasing amount of discontent. What have we from the Government in relation to this? We have not seen any effort on their part so far to assess the real causes of the disagreement which exists between people who produce wealth in this country. That is all that we have to try to arrive at and what we should try to prevent, but all that the Government have so far suggested are new rules for the declaration and waging of industrial war. We do not think that is the kind of assistance this country needs. We do not think that that is the kind of help people want in order to get this country moving along the correct lines again.
Reference has been made in this debate to the Free Trade Agreement which the Government put before us earlier this year and suggestions have been made by some people that we in the Fine Gael Benches gave that Agreement our unqualified support. I have to remind people—it should not be necessary, but apparently they consider that their political fortunes depend on misleading the people about what Fine Gael have done or will do —that we tabled a very seriously considered amendment to the motion seeking approval of that Agreement and we asserted quite clearly that we considered that the Government had failed to negotiate the safeguards which were necessary to protect our industry, and that they had also failed to take the steps necessary to buttress our agricultural industry.
If the events of recent months indicate anything, they indicate how correct Fine Gael were in their view that the Government had failed to take the steps necessary to protect industry and to provide the right kind of markets for agriculture. We are now paying the price. We have every reason to fear that in their belated negotiations with the European Economic Community they will make the same bloomers as they made in relation to the Free Trade Agreement. Nothing they have ever done in the field of international trade can give us any reason to believe that they will negotiate a safe entry— and I use that word advisedly—into the European Economic Community, or that they are capable of negotiating any interim arrangement such as has been negotiated by Denmark, Austria——
What has Denmark done?
While we——
What has Denmark done?
Austria.
Denmark has been trotted out here.
All right; Denmark has explained her position to the EEC——
And Greece.
——which is more than we have done. Some of us who were privileged to be in Brussels last year, the year before the Government thought of sending anybody there, found that the people in the EEC were bewildered by Ireland's performance. They knew that for centuries Ireland had waged war against Britain. They knew that we had a different economic structure from that of Britain and they knew that Britain's economic and financial hold on Ireland was something we were anxious to break. They were bewildered that instead of seeking new opportunities in Europe, we were concentrating our efforts on the British market. What we voted on last year only helped to increase the grip Britain has on our economy.
We in the Fine Gael Party have never made little of the opportunities which the British market affords us. We assert now as in the past that it would be sheer lunacy to ignore them. We think that the conduct of the Fianna Fáil Party in choosing to ignore them was unfortunate, to say the least. However, I am not going back over that field. We do say that in 1966 it is equally important to try to negotiate markets elsewhere. The Government have failed miserably in this regard. There are indications in the unemployment figures, and from the type of unemployment which is developing, that a significant proportion of it is coming as a result of redundancy and the rearrangements which are being made to face the more open market conditions which will flow from the British Agreement and any future agreements that may be made. Those indications are there, but notwithstanding those indications and the appeals made to the Government to provide an adequate system of redundancy payments and retraining, the Government in this field are also dragging their feet.
We therefore cannot say with any degree of confidence that the Cabinet now before us is one deserving the support of the people. Fine Gael believe that our people must be free from the restraints applied to them at present because of the slow growth rate of our economy, because of the poverty among large sections of our people and because of the inequality of opportunity which operates. Freedom of choice and equality of opportunity are not mere theoretical concepts to which lip-service should be paid; our economy and our society must be adjusted so that our people, in their time, can have freedom of choice and an equality of opportunity. In the few fields I have endeavoured to cover, I have indicated that the Government are not providing that equality of opportunity and not producing the standards which ought to exist in a just society. On that account, we are unable to give our support to the administration which the Taoiseach is now putting before us. We regret that the Taoiseach is not himself a person who inspires any of us with any great confidence in the future. His performances in the various Ministries and offices he has held certainly never set anything ablaze. All that we had while he was in charge of any Department was a continuation of outmoded policies or else some misjudged efforts——
The Deputy will appreciate that we are not discussing the election of the Taoiseach. That has already been disposed of.
I do, Sir, but we are concerned with the Cabinet he is putting before us, and the influence he will have over that Cabinet and the influence they will have on him. Perhaps it is not without significance that he is putting before us 13 names. Politically, for his own Party and for the Taoiseach, I think it will be a very unlucky 13. It is also not without significance that in these 13 there will be under one roof, in the headquarters of Government in Merrion Street, a meek Taoiseach and with him Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Lenihan. Never was Julius Caesar surrounded by more treacherous conspirators. Never was any political character in greater danger and never was any weak monarch or political head surrounded by a worse trinity of connivers. We have that sorry situation in which the Head of this Government is to have these three conspirators who in recent weeks, in their efforts to get the office of Taoiseach for themselves, were prepared to assassinate their several so-called colleagues in Government and in their own Party, and who have the Taoiseach in the office he holds today because they promised their support to him in exchange for the Ministries they now hold, the Ministries for Finance and Agriculture in particular.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but I must say that that is untrue.
I would not expect the Taoiseach at this stage to acknowledge the truth of it and I do not suggest that he will ever lie in the Forum, saying: "Et tu, Charlie," or Brian or Neil.
"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look."
Remember that we of the Fine Gael Benches in charity forewarned him and in so doing warned the country that it is not the triumphant victim who was led home to a well organised hooley in Cork last week who will be in charge of the destinies of the country——
We are not discussing the election of the Taoiseach and therefore the Deputy is irrelevant.
It certainly is relevant.
It has already been ruled out of order on more than one occasion. The Deputy will appreciate that there was an earlier motion on the Order Paper dealing with the election of the Taoiseach. We have passed away from that and we are now dealing with the election of the Government.
What I am saying is that these three people who I say will be with the Taoiseach in Government Buildings will in fact be the trinity in whom power will lie. The country and the people may want to think again about what has happened here in recent days.
What happened about the Fine Gael Leader?
These three give no reason to have confidence in the future. We in Fine Gael are concerned only with the welfare of Ireland and not with the welfare of the Party opposite, or for that matter our own welfare. In the next few weeks we believe the people of Ireland will echo the cries we have been directing from these Benches to this caretaker Government, who will probably be elected tonight, to get out and make room for a worthwhile Irishman in Deputy Liam Cosgrave.
After the rather irrational and scurrilous attack by Deputy Ryan, I feel it incumbent on me to answer some of the more serious allegations. I had not intended to speak in this debate but, having interrupted Deputy Ryan on a number of occasions, I was informed by the Ceann Comhairle that I had my remedy.
Deputy Ryan dwelt for a considerable time on the suggestion that there is a split within the Fianna Fáil Party. Apart from the fact that their memories are short-lived, there is no substance in this allegation.
Or in the "alligator".
The Party is stronger than ever and I think this will be borne out by the by-election results in South Kerry and Waterford. The people talking about splits and divisions are people outside the Fianna Fáil Party: they appear to have knowledge that we on this side of the House do not possess. This, I think, arises from confusion of the democratic process within a democratic political Party. Even Deputies are entitled to vote. This is confused thinking by confused people, people who turn or try to turn the public spotlight away from their own weaknesses and lack of policies. I can assure the House and the country that our new Taoiseach has the total loyalty of every member of the Fianna Fáil Party, be he Deputy or ordinary member of the Party.
There has been a lot of criticism of the Government as a whole and of political motivations. What motivates a political Party or indeed individual politicians? What should be his raison d'être? In my view, the reason for someone wishing to govern is to give those who are suffering in squalor a better life using all our resources and this coupled with education will, in my view, be the task of our new Government.
There is a need that has been mentioned here and again, political play has been made of it and point-scoring indulged in. I refer to housing. This should be above politics, if at all possible. In my constituency one of the great social needs at present is housing. The squalor and division which exist under the roof of the badly-housed family is well known and it results in the womenfolk, usually, breaking down. Then the children become ill and the whole burden falls on the shoulders of the husband who finally breaks down. All the free education and all the free health and other services which have been excellently provided by the Government will be of little benefit to those who must endure such squalor.
The Deputy who is technically our present Minister for Local Government and who will be the new Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had done much for the people of Ireland in respect of housing and I feel sure the new Minister will carry on with the programme in a vigorous manner so as to obliterate totally our housing needs. The dictum that the poor we must have always with us has no place for me in the Ireland of 1966.
I should like to deal with Deputy Dillon's most unfair attack on Deputy Molloy. Deputy Molloy has come out of this with honour and with the respect of right-thinking people. He is an example to the young people of the country in courage and integrity. Deputy Dillon's behaviour has been deplorable. The Deputy comes of a family which in dark and evil days, and indeed for generations, has given great service to the Irish people. Certainly, one would expect more of him than this type of personal bitterness.
The anxiety of the Opposition to believe the worst of our new Government and fellow Irishmen was never better illustrated than by a recent letter to the Irish Times dealing with the RTE programme “The Person in Question”. This letter was written by a decent and honourable member of the Fine Gael Party. Deputy Donegan betrayed a confidence and deliberately manipulated it for Party purposes. He was given the lie direct. This young man's whole career was placed in jeopardy by an allegation against our new Minister for Finance which has since been proved to have been without foundation. I am now entitled to ask Deputy Donegan and the Fine Gael Party what Deputy Donegan is going to do about this allegation?
Finally, I should like to ask the empty benches of the Labour Party what in fact are the Labour Party policies? It is difficult to speak to empty benches but I am sure the Labour Members will read my questions in the Report of this depate. What exactly are the Labour Party policies? Do they intend to nationalise Irish industries? Do they intend to amend the new Land Act so as to give more power to the Land Commission? Do they intend to create a social service out of CIE? These are some of the questions I should like to put to them and on which I am sure when they read the Dáil Report, despite the emptiness of the benches, they will reply to me and the people of Ireland at some future time. The people of Ireland are entitled to know. I should like to know as a matter of interest.
Deputy O'Leary is critical of our Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken, in setting up a separate mission within the EEC. This mission had to come. Maybe it should have come earlier, but it is extraordinary that this criticism should come from a member of the Party who voted against the Free Trade Agreement with Britain and of a Party who advocated associate membership only of the EEC. This Free Trade Agreement is a testing ground for Irish industry prior to entry to the total market of Europe, and it should be recognised as such.
The late President Kennedy, when he was here three and a half years ago, paid tribute to Ireland's great contribution to world peace. The world has recognised the courage of our Army in the Congo. The world has recognised the courage of our Army in Cyprus, the courage of our Army officers on the peace missions on the India-Pakistan border, the courage of our Army officers in the Middle East. When people criticise our contributions to the UN, they should keep these matters in mind.
Deputies have not been very critical of the Minister for Labour, and rightly so. He has a tough task ahead of him. Over the next number of years he has to deal with some 120 unions, and he will have to spend a long time going through these organisations. However, I would ask him to consider very seriously the new move by women members of trade unions to look for equal pay for equal work. If a woman does a job as well as a man, she should receive equal reward pay-wise. There are many cases where this does not arise but, on the other hand, there are several instances where it does occur.
One wonders what a bitter debate like this achieves. In my view, nothing comes from it. Certainly we shall all have our names in the Dáil Debates and possibly in the newspapers, but in terms of achievement for Ireland, which is really what should motivate any politician, nothing has been gained. The debate has been used merely for the purpose of political point-scoring, and criticisms have been made with no alternative policy being propounded by the Coalition Parties. I for one would welcome alternative policies, alternative policies which have been costed.
Goodness knows, you need an alternative.
I should like to hear the alternative.
May I put a fair question? There are many plans for health and education. Are they costed?
I am sure they are or will be.
The Minister for Education did not know——
Mr. O'Malley
Do not talk rot. Deputy O'Higgins was Minister for Health for three years and did sweet damn all for the health of the people. Except for the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme he did nothing for the health of the people.
On a point of order——
Mr. O'Malley
That is not a point of order.
Let us hear the point of order.
I now have two points of order. The Ceann Comhairle has already said that the convention of the House did not allow Ministers to contribute to this debate. Secondly, the Minister designate has no right to usurp your position in the Chair.
They are scarcely points of order.
I have no personal objection to what has been said, Sir, but I know you have. Finally, I should like to say a special word of thanks to Deputy Seán Lemass from myself and my own generation. This man has been the builder of modern industrial Ireland, and when the history books come to be written, his name will appear as one of the great Irishmen of our time. To Deputy Jack Lynch, our new Taoiseach, I offer my congratulations. He is an honourable and dignified man whose integrity at no time during this debate was brought into issue. I am satisfied he will do well by the Irish people, and I can assure him once more of the total loyalty of every Fianna Fáil Deputy and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party.
I intend to be very brief. I am sorry I was not here when Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish were paying their tributes to Deputy Seán Lemass. I want to be associated with the tributes which have been paid to him by those two Deputies and others. I am an Independent and I have no axe to grind for any Party. I want to congratulate Deputy Jack Lynch on his elevation to the office of Taoiseach. It has been universally stated that Deputy Jack Lynch is a decent man and he has the admiration, apart from political prejudice of everybody in this country. I have always had admiration for a great athlete, and if Deputy Jack Lynch captains this House as he captained his own county team for so many years, he will certainly make a success of it, and I am sure if he and his Party are defeated, he will be the first to take that defeat with a smile.
Political point-scoring has been mentioned by Deputy Andrews, and I must agree with him that there has been some sharpshooting. Some of the points that have been made here have been laughable. I never before saw so many people worried about the cattle trade in this country. I felt like getting some ashplants to put into their hands to see if I could make cattlemen out of them at all. Statements have been made that at certain fairs in Donegal and elsewhere lambs were being sold at 5/- each. I only wish I could purchase a thousand of them at that price.
Comments have been made on the reshuffle of the Cabinet. That is none of my business. I hold it is completely the business of the Fianna Fáil Party and the new Taoiseach, and I do not intend to pursue that. One thing, however, which is abominable to me as a farmer and a cattleman is that anybody should try to make capital out of the misfortunes of the farmers and cattle traders who are suffering hardship endeavouring to sell their animals at fairs and marts. This attempt to make capital out of the hardship that producers are experiencing will fail. Some of the people who pretend to be concerned are not concerned about this misfortune for the cattle trade. It is a misfortune that the cattle trade, which is the backbone of the country, has gone so low, but we hope that through the offices of the new Minister for Agriculture, there will be an improvement in the coming spring.
Nobody can prophesy as regards trends in the cattle trade. Nobody can say that the price of cattle will increase by £5 or £6 a head or that the price will decline. The trade depends entirely on the law of supply and demand. Any reasonable person must have regard to the factors which caused the present situation. Some say that it is due to the heifer subsidy scheme. Others attribute it to the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. I should have a little education in these matters and I maintain that the main reason for the decline in our principal export trade was the high tariffing against our cattle on the Continental markets and, secondly, the six weeks strike by British seamen. I am sure that strike could have been averted. It hit the cattle trade at a very critical time and crippled the very strong lamb trade which we had with France.
Another factor which militated against the cattle trade and against the Irish producer was the credit squeeze in England. There is a credit squeeze in operation in England as well as here and it is not helping to improve the situation.
However, I hope the new Minister will be a live wire in this respect. I was glad to read in the press that he has been out already trying to obtain licences for further exports. I am not afraid to say that, no matter what allegations have been made against that Minister in this House, he certainly has made an impact in another Department. Let money be scarce or otherwise, he has fought a good fight. Even in my constituency there is a little monument which will be there to his memory when all of us have gone out of this House and even when we have gone to eternity. I refer to the swimming pool in Longford. It is generally agreed now that a swimming pool is a necessary amenity in any town. As soon as the new Minister takes over in the Department of Local Government, we will be looking for a swimming pool in Mullingar.
There is another point that I should like to raise but I do not know if I am in order in raising it now. I am sorry that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Childers are not in the House at the moment. I should like to refer to a matter which is having a bad effect on the transport of cattle. I refer to a restriction imposed by CIE. Perhaps I should not refer to it now but I shall raise it on another occasion.
That would be a matter for the Estimate, not for a discussion on the formation of a Government.
Mr. O'Malley
Deputy Ryan went through the whole Department of Education and the Department of Health, Sir.
I was not looking for something; I was condemning.
Mr. O'Malley
That is all Fine Gael can do. They have a negative policy on everything.
There is no use in looking for anything from the present Administration, and you know it. They have not got a bob.
I am not looking for anything from them. The suggestion I have to make would involve no loss to funds. I will deal with it on another occasion. I shall not delay the House because I see Deputies on my right and Deputies on my left who are anxious to intervene. I should like to say, in conclusion, that it does not matter to me what Government rule the country, provided the policies have the right effect on the country and, first of all, on my constituents. It does not matter from which side of the House those policies come, I am willing to support them.
I conclude by saying that I wish the Taoiseach and his Government well until it is time to have a change. Neither the Deputies on this side of the House nor on that side, nor of any Party will decide what that change will be. It will be decided by the common lay people of Ireland.
As I was absent from the House earlier today I should like, first of all, to wish success to the National Loan which was announced by the Taoiseach today. The loan contains a very attractive proposal to investors and I have little doubt that it will command interest and the support sought for it. Certainly, it is necessary in the national interest that this loan should succeed.
We are debating here the approval or disapproval by Dáil Éireann of the Taoiseach's team of Ministers. The first impression created by the Taoiseach's list of names was that it was the same team as before, once again, changed a little, in the same way as one would shake a bottle. When the effects of the shaking had disappeared and the contents had settled down, one found that they were very much the same except that in this case there is a fresh cork. That is about the only difference. There is, of course, involved the usual shifting of Ministers.
I find that the Minister for Education is in a unique position. He is the Minister for Education and the Minister designate for Education but he has been shifted around the place, as all other Fianna Fáil Ministers have been in an increasing and accelerating way since the last general election. The Minister for Education has been shifted from Health because he opened his mouth too big there too soon. He is now in Education and he is barking away there in Education, but we do not know with what effect. It is too early to change him from there but, no doubt, he will go on in due course——
Mr. O'Malley
No doubt.
——to fresh woods and pastures new. "No doubt", he said, in an intimidatory way. I hope the Taoiseach will listen carefully to that "no doubt" from the Minister for Education.
The past 18 months have seen great changes in Fianna Fáil, a great trimming of sails, to deal with the veering winds that have blown since the people passed judgment in the last general election and it is right that we should take stock now because the last election was held after a period of inflation, a period of inflation which is now clearly recognised, which was severe and well nigh disastrous for the country.
Each member of the team proposed by the Taoiseach played his part in permitting that period of inflation to arise. The Taoiseach himself, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, by lack of decision, by sins of omission, permitted, in particular, inflation to occur in 1964. Every other Minister played his part in trying to create amongst the people of this country a feeling of euphoria, a feeling that it did not matter, that the sun would never go down, that it would continue to shine, that money could be got for everything and nobody would ever have to pay. This was called prosperity. I think it is fair to say that when that prosperity was beginning to be discovered to be phoney, when the inflationary period was coming to an end and would have to be paid for, it was then and only then that the last general election was held, before the problems and the difficulties and the dangers were known by the people; in other words before the bubble burst.
That is so much water under the bridge. It was a period in which extraordinary things were done by those who shouted loudest. We then had a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance who was able to go down and announce in the county of Roscommon the wonderful news that the Shannon was to be drained. Do not tell me his name, because that would be letting the cat out of the bag. The Parliamentary Secretary was to go on to bigger things and greater promises in his succeeding years, and he is not finished yet. The Shannon was never drained. I do not know whether the Shannon will ever be drained; but I am going to make a prophecy that no Fianna Fáil Minister, and in particular no Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, will ever again promise the draining of the Shannon. I challenge any of them to do it.
Where is this country 18 months later? We used to hear a lot of talk about the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. It is never spoken of now. It is something that this Government would wish the people to forget. The plain fact now is that the Government's policy, if it ever existed, is now in ruins. The people of the country are today bewildered and confused. The story can no longer be a matter for dissension and dispute. In the first half of this year economic growth came to a standstill. Not only in relation to agriculture—the ills of which no doubt Deputy Corry will shortly tell us about—but also in relation to industrial output, growth ceased. There has been at the same time, particularly in recent months, a rapid rise in emigration and a very disturbing increase in unemployment.
I believe this is a situation that will improve and that these factors will gradually disappear. But the present phenomenon does indicate more clearly than one hundred speeches that the Government do not control our economic situation and have no policy to do it. What has happened in the last 18 months indicates clearly how wrong, how ill-advised, how spurious were the claims made prior to and in the course of the last general election that Fianna Fáil and their Ministers had something to do with the apparent prosperity that then existed. They were not able to control it and in the succeeding 18 months economic trends have had their full effect with the Government standing by idle, incapable or unable to do anything. If today we have emigration increasing again, if we have unemployment again, if we have a situation in which there is stagnation in production, if from our farms and factories we are not producing what we should be producing, it is a situation no Government can be complacent about. Any Government that allows such a situation to exist after ten years in office must agree that it is a Government that has grown too stale and should be removed.
The Second Programme envisaged a four per cent growth rate each year. How many speeches did we hear from Fianna Fáil Ministers indicating that these targets were modest, that they would be achieved and that their achievement would bring about a situation in which there would be sufficient resources available to our community to provide better health services, better educational services, a higher standard of living for ordinary people, as well as providing each year an increasing number of jobs and providing for an increased labour force of something approaching 100,000? That was the general aim set out in the Second Programme. Today, that dream has been established to be a mirage. Instead of a four per cent growth rate, last year the rate was two and a half per cent. This year the best estimate has been threequarters of one per cent. In fact, the indications now are that there will be no growth at all this year. When you consider our little modest, rather puny effort at planning—or programming as Fianna Fáil prefer to call it —which the Second Programme represented and when you consider what little effort has been made in this country compared with what has happened in other European countries over the last decade, you begin to realise how far we have fallen behind. In the past ten years, the growth rate in many European countries has been of the order of five, six or seven per cent. Here we blew trumpets and beat the big drum when for a short period in 1964, in a period now realised to be an inflationary period, we reached four and a half per cent.
I mention that because I charge this Government with being devoid of policy. I assert that for the past 18 months, particularly for the past 12 months, the people of this country have had the experience of individual Ministers shouldering and jostling one another to get the headlines in the newspapers. I accuse, through you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle—I hope you do not mind being used in this way— those who are named as Government Ministers of having acted as so many individuals, 13 or 14, in the past 12 months without any clear policy to bind them together. The Second Programme represented all they knew or thought of economic philosophy or thinking in this country. Once it appeared to crack and fail, they had nothing else to say. In the general election of 18 months ago, the Taoiseach was anxious to emphasise that the Second Programme was a programme and not a plan. He was anxious to indicate what in fact was the truth—that his Government or his Party were not prepared to plan to achieve the targets set but in the Second Programme. In other words, as far as Fianna Fáil were concerned, they set the targets in the Programme. They sat back; they folded their arms and waited for these targets to be achieved. They did not do as any intelligent and efficient group of administrators would do. They did not proceed to overhaul our entire administrative machinery and, in many respects, other aspects of our life, to ensure that the targets set would be achieved. They hoped for the best and, when that was not realised, they were left with nothing to do except ask, for example, as the Minister for Finance asked last year: "What went wrong?" To this day, I do not believe any member of this team in this Government has the slightest idea as to what went wrong.
I want to say, through the Chair, to the Fianna Fáil Party that the reason the country has drifted, the reason the people are confused, the reason ordinary people are bewildered, the reason there has been an increase in emigration, the reason there has been an increase in unemployment and economic stagnation in the past 12 months is the present Government's lack of policy.
Mr. O'Malley
In January, 1957, under the Coalition Government, there were 97,000 unemployed.
The Minister designate for Education need not think he is having a meeting of his Fianna Fáil friends now. He will not shout me down.
Mr. O'Malley
Deputy O'Higgins should not be so sensitive to criticism. It is all right for Fine Gael to interrupt.
It cannot be achieved here and now but it will be achieved, I have no doubt, sooner or later: there is an urgent need for a change of Government. I have the highest regard personally for many members of the Government, including the Minister designate for Education. I have reserves and doubts about others. But, even if they were a team of angels, even if they represent all that occasionally their public relations officers write about them, they have been too long there. They have grown stale in office and, worst of all, they have begun to think that they are God Almighty—and that is a real source of danger.
I believe that even the best of present Ministers have grown far too arrogant in office. Consider the recent trouble with farmers. How did that come about? Did Deputy Haughey, who was Minister for Agriculture, regard himself, in his dealings with Irish farmers, as their servant and as the servant of the people? Not at all. He had grown so accustomed to the exercise of power, to the prestige which his position brought, that he had begun to think that he, and he alone, knew what was right and proper. Of course, this kind of madness, which happens to every person who is too long in office, led him to the fundamental error of creating a situation in which there was no possibility of dialogue between himself, the Government of which he was a member and the National Farmers Association. We had an absurd position in which two sides began and succeeded in digging a trench and put themselves into it without providing any room for manoeuvre. That is the direct result of a man or a team of Ministers being too long in office.
I want to know from the Taoiseach, at the close of this debate, what precisely happened with the same Deputy last Friday night or last Saturday morning. Had he a new outbreak of ministerial madness which almost led to the resignation of the Secretary of his designated Department? I see here reported in a newspaper, under a heading relating to the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the following:
No reasons were being put forward for Mr. Whitaker's reported resignation. However, one story circulating among top civil servants was that Mr. Whitaker had had a disagreement over his reading on behalf of the Minister for Finance of a speech at the inaugural meeting of the Solicitors' Apprentices Debating Society in Dublin on Friday night ... Mr. Whitaker left the hall during the meeting— it was reported that he was taken ill—but returned later to read parts of the speech which he deemed to be "of national importance."
I do not think it is relevant. We are not discussing a civil servant.
I am certainly not discussing a civil servant for whom I have the highest regard.
There is nothing of truth in that story.
That story appears in the Evening Press of Monday, 14th November, 1966. How did it get into the Evening Press? Will we have another situation in which Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Finance, will create more difficulties for the proper running of the administration of this country?
I just said that there is nothing in the story.
How did that story get into the Evening Press, then?
If the Deputy wants to spread rumours, he may do so.
I am not spreading rumours. I am referring to an item of news which was printed in the Evening Press of Monday, 14th November, 1966.
That is not a rumour; it is the truth
It seems to me that there are individual Deputies who normally are reasonably rational human beings and who, as Opposition Deputies, would probably give excellent service through the Dáil to the people but there comes a time when they are too long in office, when they think they breathe a special air of their own, that they speak a language particular to themselves and are entitled to a treatment unique to them because they are Ministers of the Government. When that situation comes about, there is an urgent need for a change of Government. I believe we have that situation now. I believe that Ministers have become unduly arrogant and that there is a great danger that unless they are changed, our democracy itself will suffer.
Arrogant—yes: I believe, also, some of the Ministers are incompetent. I do not know what will happen to this Government, now that the former Taoiseach has left it. I believe they will flounder and mess around the place because I do not see, amongst all of them, what will add up to the kind of Government this country will need in the immediate future. I do not believe that in the past 12 months, the outgoing Taoiseach was in a position effectively to lead the Government. I think that is why so many individual Ministers made so many individual hames of what they were called upon to do—and the list has been rather staggering in recent months. We had a loan floated in London which was an entire flop because anyone with any sense would have known it was the wrong time to float it. We had the same position with an American dollar loan, ill thought out, ill-planned, costing as a result nothing but difficulty for the country and for its credit abroad. We had in the past 18 months three Budgets and the Minister for Finance standing up here in this House on the first Budget of this year asking what went wrong with his Budget of 1965. Then we had a situation that even the Budget introduced this year had to be followed by a second Budget.
There have been a whole series of miscalculations and mistakes of one kind or another which just does not augur well for the future. While all that is going on, there are urgent things requiring to be done in this country and I want to serve notice on the Government that, so far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned, we have no intention of permitting the Government to forget the issues involved in the general election of 18 months ago. We fought that election for a just society. We fought it in order to provide better health services, better social conditions, better housing conditions, better educational facilities for our people. We made that the aim of our programme and the aim of our policy and we put before the people the means whereby these aims could be achieved under our policy of economic planning.
After the election was over, after it had finished, the newly elected Fianna Fáil Government, through the mouth of Deputy O'Malley, entered into an undertaking to provide at least part of what we were seeking in health services. Having produced a White Paper on Health Services, the then Minister for Health promised that in this month on November, this particular month, Dáil Éireann would see his legislative plan for improving our health services. I want to know where is it? I want to ask the Taoiseach to tell us tonight in closing this debate where is the Fianna Fáil legislative proposal promised to this Dáil for this month to bring some minimal improvement in our health services.
The tragedy is that despite all that was said in the last general election, despite all that was said in the last Dáil, despite the setting up of a Select Committee some three of four years ago, despite all that has been said from these benches over the past ten years, despite every attempt made to attend to one's social susceptibilities, the plain fact is that today, in 1966, towards the end of this year, we still have an outmoded, antiquated, creaking Victorian system of making provision for the ill-health of our people. So far as I can see, there is no evidence, despite all the promises, that some improvement will be made.
We will not allow this Government to forget that and we will not allow them to forget the need also for a greatly expanded educational policy and for the provision, as a matter of urgency, of vastly increased educational opportunities for our people. These are urgent social requirements. If we were serious about them, if we had a Government in office who not merely wished, because I am sure every Government and every Deputy wish for these things, to improve health services or education or housing, but who had the ability to plan, to plan in a systematic way, to plan our economic effort towards the achievement of these aims, I have little doubt that progress would have been made many years ago. If it is to be made now, it is a good thing, but más maith é is mithid, and I hope we will see more effort being made now to achieve these things.
There is a danger, a very real danger, with the creaking to a standstill of our economic growth this year, that it may emerge that the Second Programme underestimated the investment required for the achievement of its targets. There is a danger that those who try now to wind up the clock again in an effort to get the economy going again will be forced to provide some of our limited resources towards investment purposes. If that happens, we will hear again the old excuses we heard so often in the Dáil from the Taoiseach and different Ministers: "We cannot afford this year to improve health services; we cannot afford this year to provide better opportunities in education or in health; we will have to postpone these until a later stage, until such time as our economic resources have grown and certain targets we have set ahead of ourselves have been attained." I hope we will not have that experience from this Government and these Ministers. Those promises have been made too often, too explicitly, and have emerged after such concentrated demands from all sides of the House that it would be tragic to hear again of postponement.
I shall not delay my friend, Deputy Corry, from getting in because I know verbal frustration is a very damaging sensation. I am sure he has a strong message of support to give from the people of his portion of Cork but I do say, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that we cannot justly in accordance with our rule here give any support to this team of Ministers. I have indicated my reasons. I do not believe they measure up to the job. I say that without any personal ill-will against any of them. I do not think they have the calibre, the stature or the ability to do as is required for Ireland now. Furthermore, I think whatever possibility they might have of measuring up to their tasks has been reduced by the fact that they have been too long there. They live in a particular atmosphere of ministerial euphoria which has led in the past to miscalculation and to grave errors, and will I have no doubt if they are re-appointed by Dáil Éireann, lead to a repetition of so many of the mistakes we have seen in recent months.
When I went home last weekend, I was asked what the dickens we were doing here in this House on Thursday and Friday, and again this week. The Taoiseach was elected by what we have been told are the minority Party with a majority of seven votes, and if there was any danger or any fear that he would not be elected, he would have been elected with a majority of 21 because there would be a big number of the boys over there afraid of their lives that they would have to go to the country and would not come back. Every one of them knows that very well. One poor devil, in fact, forgot to come in for the voting. Some of my farmer friends who are here with me today and who read the papers over the weekend suggested that if the muck and filth that was scattered around this House on Thursday and Friday and will, I presume, be continued today, was down in East Cork, they would be able to manure a couple of acres of spuds, which is about the best use it could be put to.
I can only compare it to two and a half days that were spent here when we had a mixum-gatherum Government and when they decided to get rid of the Minister for Health. Poor Dr. Noel Browne was here and he was attacked by every laddy-o-lee of a lawyer that existed on those benches, which is where the boys were at the time. Every filth and muck that could be slung at their own Minister was slung at him until he resigned. Honestly, I do not know what is wrong with them, whether it is that having a Cork Taoiseach now instead of a Dublin one is getting the Dublin jackeens going. That must be largely the reason why we are here for three days.
I have seen a lot of Taoiseachs elected here. I saw in the days of the mixum-gatherum Government Deputy John A. Costello elected Taoiseach. He was most noted for what my friend, Deputy Seán Collins, afterwards called "the John A. Costello pint" which had a parish priest's collar on top, three inches of froth.
The Deputy will appreciate that we are not discussing the election of Taoiseach. We are discussing the appointment of the Government.
Yes.
The Chair has pointed that out to other Deputies.
I am only regretting, in that regard, that we had no opportunity of having Deputy Dillon as Taoiseach.
If Deputy Cosgrave had been elected Taoiseach last week, I presume the alternative to the appointment of Deputy Haughey as Minister for Finance would have been the appointment of Deputy Sweetman.
There is a question mark there.
Deputy Sweetman will be remembered in history always as the Minister who put a tax on curling pins as the last resort before they ran out. I have a picture in my mind always of the unfortunate position that poor Deputy O.J. Flanagan occupied here when he spoke in this House for seven and a half hours to enable Deputy Costello to gather his bags and resign on a Saturday night. I shall always remember that. They found that they were going to be defeated and poor Deputy O.J. Flanagan got up there and spoke for seven and a half hours on a Vote for the Department of Agriculture and was, I presume, all the time in order, which I seldom am. He did that and Deputy John A. Costello was enabled to get out without going out as a defeated Government. I should like Deputy Coughlan to remain in the House for a moment——
As you desire.
A Minister for Finance who got a fair chance as Minister for Finance and who got a clear majority in this House, chucked up the sponge and cleared out after three years of office out of five because he saw no hope of the tax he put on the ladies' curling pins bringing in enough to run the Government. That is the man who would be Minister for Finance if Deputy Cosgrave had been elected Taoiseach.
If Deputy Corish had been elected Taoiseach, I certainly would recommend the appointment of Deputy Coughlan as Minister for Finance. He is the only one I know of here, in that team anyway, who knows the ins and outs of finance. Take my tip, Deputy Coughlan would make a remarkable Minister for Finance. I would have no hesitation in going to him at any time if there was a shortage of money.
I would take the tax off the horseracing for Deputy Corry.
Order. Deputy Corry.
Deputy Coughlan is telling the truth. He would certainly look after his own house first. There is no doubt about it.
Now that is what has been going on here for the past three days. Deputy Haughey should not be Minister for Finance. We should have either Deputy Sweetman or Deputy Coughlan as Minister for Finance.
I would make a better job of it.
In deference to Deputy Coughlan, I will not say any more. I am offering him a Ministry some time.
If Deputy Corry has finished I must go.
The Deputy can tell them he was promoted. Take the position of Minister for Local Government. We have had Ministers for Local Government before and I do not think they covered themselves with glory, or otherwise, with regard to housing. The best Minister for Local Government I ever saw in this House did not live long enough: he was another Corkman, the late Deputy Tadhg Murphy, God rest him. We are entitled to take each one of these and look at the alternative. What is the alternative offered to us? The alternative is Deputy Ryan. I do not know where he would fit in. I certainly would not put him in Justice.
The Deputy might end up in jail.
That is the alternative we have. Would we exchange Deputy Neil Blaney for Deputy James Dillon as Minister for Agriculture? Would we prefer the Deputy who covered himself with glory here by saying the farmers' wives and daughters in his constituency were so filthy the milk could not be processed at the creameries—Deputy Donegan? That is the only choice we have. Would we have Deputy Donegan nominated as Minister for Agriculture? If he were nominated, what would the farmers' wives and daughters in County Louth say? What would become of all the milk that could not be processed?
One can find a good deal of comic relief reading over past debates in this House. It is interesting to read what the Labour Party had to say about Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Davin, God rest him, had a good deal to say about the spuds being sold at £5 per ton. He also had a good deal to say about Deputy Dillon's policy about walking the crops off the land. Indeed, I heard one Fine Gael Deputy state very bitterly here that the crops walked off the land all right in the bellies of the biggest and fattest rats ever seen in the country.
I see in Deputy Dillon's recent statement here that he still fancies himself as Taoiseach and wonders why he was not nominated. There would have been a few shifts and a few removals. After all, we know what his profession of faith was— never to take off his hat to The Soldier's Song or kowtow to the Tri-colour. He has come a long way since.
That is a shocking slander, and the Deputy knows it.
He has come a long way since.
Deputy Dillon never said that.
He afterwards joined the Fine Gael Party and his imperialist ideas were so strong that even the Fine Gael Party had to tell him to get out.
He supported a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach.
The Deputy is only a kid in this House. Let him go and look at the Official Report and read what Deputy MacEoin had to say about it.
It is the nominees of the Taoiseach we are discussing.
These are the gentlemen who were here with the cloak and dagger and the tomahawk last week.
We know who they were. The Deputy has them this week too.
They are over there now thanking God there is no danger of a general election because, if there were, they would be missing.
I am not too sure about that.
I will have a gamble on the by-election now. Fine Gael will not be even second in Waterford. I am sorry for poor Deputy Kyne because his seat will be shaken, but I believe Labour will be second and Fine Gael will bring up the tail-end.
What will happen in Kerry?
I do not see how the coming by-elections arise on this.
I am giving my honest opinion of how they will go.
It is irrelevant. The Deputy should discuss the motion before the House.
Deputy Corry was often wrong before.
Deputy Flanagan spoke here for 7½ hours so that poor Deputy John A. Costello would not have to walk out of here as a defeated Taoiseach and Deputy Flanagan was not told he was out of order. He did a great night's work that night. I give him credit for it.
There have been many complaints about housing. The scarcity of housing today is due very largely to Deputy Lemass, our former Taoiseach, because he went to work and established industries here to give employment to our people in every town, and that resulted in numbers of young men having constant employment, young men who, naturally, looked around them, picked their partner and married. That is the greatest reason for the lack of housing today. There was no need to talk about housing 15 or 20 years ago, nor when there were 97,000 unemployed when we came back here a few years ago. Then, there was no need to talk about the need for housing or the number of houses falling down around Deputy Ryan's ears. I admit that Fine Gael would be very anxious to re-create that position, because they have endeavoured to sabotage every industry in this State and they have had no hesitation in doing it, even in their election addresses.
Of course, the Deputy knows that is not true.
I have here, if you want it, the election address of the Deputy's comrade in the Front Bench, a Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), in which he said that the first thing they would do when they come back into office was to close down the Verolme Dockyard. Verolme Dockyard has given employment to a thousand men constantly during the past two or three years since it started, and is continuing to give constant and very good employment.
And more power to it; that is what we want.
When I hear Deputies over there moaning and complaining —we have one bunch of them moaning about the closed doors and the people gone away and another group of them demanding more houses—I wonder which of them is right. Have we locked doors and the people gone away or have we people looking for more houses? Which? Which of the two policies will they preach in Kerry and Waterford? I intend, if I do ramble down to those constituencies in the by-elections, my principal document going down there to be Deputy O.J. Flanagan's speech in this House, when he gave a description of what had happened in Shannon and the increase there, under the Fianna Fáil regime, from 400 workers up to, I think, 4,000.
I am a believer in Shannon.
The Deputy is one of the few. Deputy O.J. Flanagan did not get up here in this House, or in his constituency, to advocate the closing down of industries.
No, never.
Well, his partner in misfortune over there, Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) did; that is the difference between the two of them. We cannot find out which of them has the right policy or what policy they have, when you have one fellow getting up and praising us for giving employment and another fellow demanding that these industries be closed down.
He did not.
He did. I read out his election address in this House.
Read it again.
The Ceann Comhairle would be nailing me then, but those are facts. As a matter of fact, our industries are working out so well that soon we will be looking, in my constituency anyway, for any sick fellow who still thinks he could work or is prepared to work and we will give him a job. There are a lot of them there already.
And Fine Gael are not opposed to that, mind you.
Sure, you are opposed to it. Then Deputy O.J. Flanagan had better get a hold of Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) and put some sense into him.
I am a firm believer in industry.
Deputy O.J. Flanagan is preaching one thing and Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) is preaching the opposite. We want to know which of them has the Fine Gael policy. Deputy O.J. Flanagan got up the other night—and I gave him a couple of “hear, hears” while he was at it—and described one industry down in Shannon where there were a couple of hundred employed at first, which mounted up by thousands and thousands until there were 4,000.
I should like to see 8,000 there.
The Deputy is in the wrong ship; he should not be over there at all.
This cross-fire across the floor of the House must cease.
I cannot help it.
The Deputy can help it; the Deputy should make his own speech. The Deputy is addressing the other side of the House and he should be addressing the Chair.
I am certainly entitled to use a speech made in this House within the past fortnight by another Deputy.
The Deputy should not address his remarks across the House; he should address the Chair.
But that is why we have at present a shortage of housing—the people are working, getting married, rearing families and looking for homes for them. Next to finding employment, the working man is entitled to have a decent and respectable home to go into when his day's work is done. That has always been our policy; it is on that we work.
There is a wide difference between Deputy O.J. Flanagan's statement on Shannon and the statement of his political godfather, Deputy Dillon, when he told us about the rabbits that would be running around Shannon in the grass in a couple of years; a wide difference between the rabbits running around on the grass and employment for 4,000 people. Those are facts. I cannot see any of this mournful unemployment preached by another Dublin Deputy, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. I cannot see any evidence of it in my constituency anyway and I am wondering where it is. Go into any town in my constituency today and there is a hive of employment. You look around to get an idle man to do a job and he is not there. That is the way a constituency should be and that is the way every constituency in the 26 Counties would be if Deputies did their jobs; that is putting it straight home.
Only a couple of years ago we started a little industry in Midleton. The first year we got farmers to grow 270 acres of vegetables, for a start. In this, the third season, we have 750 acres. The full manufacturing capacity of that factory has been reached in three years. On top of that our farmers are not moaning, nor are they sitting on steps for anything. We have no time for that. If one of our men spent a fortnight at that, he would have no farm at home because we would have eaten him out of it. I give this as an example of what farmers are prepared to do if they are shown the way and if they have the know-how to do it.
I want to give the acreages now. The total acreage of peas, French beans, carrots, cabbage and swedes is 2,576. That is the acreage of vegetables our farmers are prepared to produce to be processed in our factories for use and for export. We are doubling the capacity of that factory this year and next year, please God, we will be in the 4,000 acre region. That does not show any financial difficulties or trouble. It shows that these people can make money out of their land, and there is a wide difference between that and the moans we hear about the small farmers and the men of the West.
I was in Tuam last Friday week and I saw a factory which was put up by the Government. It must have cost some £2 million or £3 million, judging by its capacity. What was happening there? I saw a 36-ton lorry load of potatoes landing into that factory from Louth. I saw lorry loads of potatoes being carted to that factory from Tipperary, Kerry and Cork. Surely to heavens the small farmers of the West, about whom we hear so much talk, should be able to grow spuds? That is the difference, and I see it, and that is what makes me wonder.
We heard moans also about Deputy Haughey's attitude towards the NFA. Deputy Haughey did what no other Minister for Agriculture ever did before, not even the Ministers for Agriculture of the inter-Party Government who hawked around everywhere. He held monthly meetings with that farmers' organisation. In fact, they were so anxious to see him that when another farmers' organisation were taking certain steps, those boys walked in past them. Those are the facts, and facts are very stubborn things. Therefore, I have no fault to find with Deputy Haughey as Minister for Agriculture, and I will have no fault to find with him when he has done his job as Minister for Finance, and done it well. So far as my constituency is concerned, anything that was wanted by the agricultural community, they had only to ask and it was given. I admit that their requests were never unreasonable. They never came and abused the Minister one day and came back to beg him on the following day.
This has been three days of scattering filth on Ministers. I have a high regard for our Taoiseach and I do not think that Deputies opposite or anyone else will find any weakness in Jack Lynch. I have given my opinion of Deputy Haughey and it is my honest opinion. He is now going into a Department to which he will be a credit, the Department of Finance.
We heard a lot of talk about Deputy Blaney. He had a very difficult job during the past year because this Government, when they found that there was a financial squeeze, did not decide to run out overnight like the mixum-gatherum Government did when they disappeared one morning leaving debts behind them in 1956. This Government were not waiting to know whether a tax on ladies' curling pins, like the one put on by Deputy Sweetman, would yield sufficient revenue to enable the Government to carry on. They were not bothered with that.
Deputy Blaney had a very difficult job. He had to decide whether, with the money available, it was better to put up houses for our young people, or to provide sewerage schemes and water schemes, or to provide other amenities such as swimming pools. He faced up to that position, and no one could blame him for putting housing needs first, and for giving each local authority, in turn, their housing needs first. Despite the fact that Deputy Blaney is a near neighbour of Deputy Harte's, I believe he will make a very good Minister for Agriculture.
It will take him to be.
He will.
Hear, hear. At least that will be one good Minister in the Government.
We will be listening to the Deputy before we depart, and we will remind him of that. That is the way I take them. I examine them on their deeds or misdeeds, as the case may be. I judge them by the feeling I have going in to them as Ministers, and by the work they do. So far as things generally are concerned, the country is going ahead. Murder was kicked up about the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Deputy Murphy said he had made a slip-up. I saw other Ministers for Agriculture make the same slip. Deputy Murphy asked him did he advise people to keep their cattle. I remember a by-election in Kilkenny a few years ago. When I got up on a lorry to speak, I looked over across and I saw Deputy Dillon, then Minister for Agriculture, standing on the footpath. It was a bad fair, dickens a worse.
Was it as bad as the fairs are now?
It could not be worse. There was not an animal sold.
I did not know Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture during the Economic War.
If the Deputy would look after the three heads of cabbage and the furze bush in Donegal, he would be doing a better day's work. He should be more concerned with Donegal.
I have as much right as the Deputy had to be concerned with the Cork borough boundary extension. There was not a word about Deputy Blaney then.
Order.
However, I did my job in getting my candidate elected and the then Minister for Agriculture listened very carefully to what I said. The next thing was all the people started to move out from the fair, a crowd of cows in front and nine or ten fellows behind them on their way home together. I said: "Bad fair, lads?""Devil a worse", they said. I asked them what they thought of the joker over there in the black hat who had told them to keep the cattle. They are the kind of slips Ministers make. I did not blame James for making a slip. He did not know any better. I do not blame Deputy Haughey. Slips are made and we are here to take advantage of them. One thing, however, I should like Deputies opposite to remember is that when they come back here after 14th December next, you will be able to cover the bunch of them with one sheet of crape after they have had the results of the by-elections. That will finish them, for a while anyway.
Would the Deputy take a bet on it?
Would he lay odds on that?
I had to assure Deputy Oliver Flanagan a while ago that my personal opinion is that in both constituencies Labour will come second and Fine Gael a very bad last.
The Deputy should not repeat himself. We heard this before. He should confine himself to the subject being debated.
Will the Deputy take a bet?
Order. This is not a betting shop. The Deputy should have due respect for the House.
Leave him alone, Sir. He might make a profit on the three heads of cabbage and the furze bush. The last three days in the House have been wasted. There was an endeavour to get out a picture to the newspapers that would justify the Opposition putting up candidates in the by-elections. That is my honest interpretation of the debate so far, God help us. However, as I said at the beginning, what kind of a job would the Taoiseach have if he wanted to pick Ministers from over there? Never in my 39 years in the House have I seen such a spectacle as I have seen here in the past three days. I have never seen such a besmirching campaign.
Long ago I remember looking at a political poster of a fellow with a whitewashing brush and a bucket of tar. He splashed a bit and said: "It is all right; some of it will stick anyway". That is what the Deputies opposite have been doing during the past three days and I am sorry the time of the House has been taken up in this manner. Deputies have plenty of other things to do for their constituents if only they would go and do them instead of spending their time here mud-slinging. If the Taoiseach were to look over there would he say: "I shall appoint Deputy Sweetman Minister for curling Pins, and Deputy Steve Coughlan as Minister for Finance?" Let them look at it in that way. I only hope that when they come back in three weeks' time they will decide at last that the best thing they can do is to settle down and do their constituents' work. It does not matter to what Party they belong, that work represents quite a heavy load. I remember poor William Dwyer standing up in Patrick Street in Cork and saying: "When I stood here as candidate for Fine Gael, with their sins on my shoulders, I ended at the bottom of the poll; when I stood as William Dwyer, the industrialist, the man who provided employment in the city of Cork, I headed the poll". With that bit of sense, I leave it to the fellows over there.
I hope no one will accuse me of wasting the time of the House. I have no intention of doing so. Neither will I throw mud at members of the Government. I do not indulge in these tactics. I realise it is the business of the Taoiseach to select his Cabinet and that it is customary to use the Taoiseach's nomination as the occasion for a debate on Government policy. I regard that as democracy in its purest form, something we should not attempt to run away from because unless some occasion for a debate on Government policy is taken, it might be suggested that we all agreed with the happenings since the Government were elected.
During my brief intervention, I shall deal with a few subjects that lie heavily on the people of my constituency. If I dealt with all the injuries and grievances the people of my constituency have in connection with the present regime, starting with agriculture and the plight of the small farmers in Waterford, I should be here all night. I do not know if Deputy Corry's case is that the farmers in East Cork are a prosperous lot, without a grievance, but in West Waterford and East Waterford, there is a good deal of discontent with cattle prices and a number of suggestions that the small farmers will not be able to pay their rates. There are suggestions that if they are not aided by some relief of rates or some handout from the Government, they will not be able to survive until the cattle market stabilises. I do not profess to have even a small knowledge of agriculture but I have ears that can hear and eyes that can read and if half of what the small farmers in Waterford claim is true, their position is a pitiable one, as of course, it is. If I discussed the lack of industry in Waterford, the rate of unemployment and the rate of emigration, I would have quite a lot to say. We have our share of industry but we have a large share of unemployment and we have a huge share of emigration.
With regard to housing, Deputy Corry suggested that a cure for housing is more emigration, that fewer houses would then be required and that if there is a shortage of houses, there is a great deal more employment. I know that in Waterford city alone, there is need for about 400 to 500 more houses for people living in condemned houses. They are living in hovels and unsuitable flats, with bad sanitary arrangements. Three and four families are living in the one house. You have a woman having to travel up three or four flights of stairs with a baby in a pram. She has to wait there until her husband comes home in order to carry on her household duties or else bring the baby back down again. I am aware that if things progress as they have been progressing for the past four or five years, there will be no hope for those families. They can only hope to get new houses only at the shortest period, within ten years. That is borne out by statements by the corporation and county council officials on the allocation of moneys given by the Government.
The position is similar with regard to education. Needless to say, this is the privilege of the wealthy class only. The ordinary workingman is forbidden, by the mere fact of the high cost of tuition, the right to send his children on to secondary education.
What a change that would be.
I shall not be dealing with education but I shall be dealing with health. Promises were made with regard to both health and education by the same man. Do I have to talk about the rape of West Waterford by the Minister for Transport and Power when in the first instance, he deprived the workingclass people of Waterford city of their only means of getting to the beach at Tramore? Do I have to talk about how he cut the industrial lifeline of the whole of Waterford county by promoting in this House a Bill to enable the Board of CIE to deprive us of the only rail that exists between us and civilisation? Surely I could keep talking about those things up to the time that is allocated to this debate. I do not propose to do so. I will talk on three subjects only, health, social welfare and the injustice meted out to the Old IRA medal holders who have had to seek special allowances to keep them above the starvation level.
With regard to health, I want to say that the former Minister for Health announced in press statements, a press conference and a special White Paper, that he was now prepared to introduce within a very short period—in fact, I think he announced this particular time—proposals in Dáil Éireann which would improve the existing health services. I suggest the Bill containing these proposals was a good one because it was a copy, practically word for word, of a Bill which the Labour Party introduced two years ago and which we had been asking him to implement. We did not feel disconcerted because he did that. We were very proud and glad that the Minister said he would introduce this Bill. We promised him our support. I was the main speaker for our Party when the discussion on the White Paper took place and I stated that the Labour Party would certainly give him our support. While I was critical of parts of the White Paper, I admitted that it was a huge advance on our previous health legislation.
What has happened? Would the Taoiseach like to tell us if this White Paper or this Health Bill, which was promised, has ever again been referred to by any Minister of the Government or any Taoiseach since that press conference? Has anything ever been done about consulting the medical profession? If so, what was their reaction? I would like to know, as I am sure the House would like to know. I suggest that the Taoiseach should tell us this.
It would be very interesting for the people to know what has happened to this promise. Were the various health authorities consulted? If so, what was their reaction?
They are being consulted.
What is their reaction? Were the various bodies who gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Health Services, during the three years they sat, asked for their views? I doubt if they were consulted; in fact, I know some who have not been consulted. I know they gave their views before the Committee. I doubt if they have ever been consulted since. We were told in this White Paper that we were to have new health services. I do not know if it was ever intended to bring them in. There has not been the slightest improvement since that White Paper was issued. No variation has taken place with regard to the issuing of medical cards. Has anything happened, other than the enactment of a very small Health Bill which improved the lot of certain middleclass people?
Was anything else done? I suggest nothing else has happened. Certain non-contributory old age pensioners were debarred from medical cards because of the means test applied to their families. Nothing has been done with regard to those people. Did the Minister do anything to implement any of those things mentioned in the White Paper? Was any home assistance officer visited? Was he instructed or could the Minister instruct him? If the Minister instructed him, what happened? I know that in my constituency the regulations are just as stringently enforced as ever. In fact, I might say they are more stringently enforced.
Those are things which the people in my constituency will be interested in and will want to know about. I suggest the workingclass people of this country have been fooled by a promise. I know one thing has happened. I know the Minister who made that promise made it in all good faith. The only thing we can say about the health services was that it was an honest Minister who made that promise, and because of that, he was transferred. That is why he went to the Department of Education. He might not like me saying this but I am quite convinced in my heart that if Deputy O'Malley remained Minister for Health, he would have endeavoured to redeem his promise, just as perhaps he will endeavour to redeem his promise with regard to education. I wonder will he get the chance?
With regard to education, the Minister told us that free education up to the intermediate standard could be obtained from next September onwards. Were the county councils notified that they need only put up half as much for scholarships in the coming year as they put up last year? Is that not a natural follow-up of the Minister's promise? It does not seem likely that the Minister's promise will be fulfilled next September.
It will happen in due course.
Should the county councils not have been told that they need provide scholarships only up to next September? Would that not have been the natural thing to do if this promise was to be fulfilled next September? If the county councils were able to reduce the money spent on scholarships, this would accordingly reduce the burden on the rates. I suggest the only reason the Government did not tell the Minister for Education to consult with the county councils was that they had no more intention of introducing free education up to the intermediate standard than they now have of implementing the White Paper on the health services.
You will see it will happen.
I would be very proud to see it happen. If the Government did that, it would certainly meet with the support of the Labour Party.
Good.
I have a personal view that health and social welfare should be combined under the one Minister. If you have good health services, there is less need to draw on social welfare benefits. If the health service were properly administered and made available to the people, we would not have so many people staying in bed for a few days when they get ill instead of going to hospital, where it is too costly, and returning to work before they are completely fit and then getting a relapse and having to stay in hospital for a longer period than they would originally have had to. Equally, if proper rates of unemployment benefit and disability benefit were paid, you would have people resuming work in a much better state of health. I suggest that a man who has existed for six months on the unemployment assistance pittance and who then has the good fortune to get employment will not be fit to carry out that employment properly, or his efforts to do so will cause his health to break down again. In most of the progressive countries in Europe, social welfare benefits and health services go hand in hand and the Government should seriously consider combining these under the same Minister and not have them as they are now, subdivided between the Departments of Labour, Social Welfare and Health. This is a perfectly logical solution and the Government would be well-advised to do this.
I never had, because of my age, any service in the Old IRA and I have no one belonging to me claiming benefits for service in the Old IRA, but I do make a plea in the interests of the Old IRA members in my constituency and in other constituencies. I know of many cases of Old IRA men who on reaching the age of 65 were unable to carry out normal work and because they had no reserve of funds were forced to apply for the £130 which is granted if they have no income. What are the results in such cases? Firstly, their applications are delayed for approximately six months, if not more, in most cases. Because of this delay they are forced to take up any kind of employment which they can get in order to keep themselves alive. Immediately they take up employment the investigating officer will say "You are working and we base your earnings on what you received last week and that, multiplied by 52, deprives you of any benefit at all". Is it not ridiculous to place Old IRA men in that position?
I know of one man who remained at home for eight months and was then forced to go to England to seek employment. Unfortunately, because of the credit squeeze he has been unable to obtain work and is now returning home. He will have been unemployed for practically 12 months but that will not count. His means will be based on his earnings in the previous year and he will be deprived of any benefit. Surely this is not justice and fair play for the people who made it possible for the Government and the Minister who framed these regulations to be in a position to frame them. I appeal for justice for these people. On two occasions Deputy Tierney and I endeavoured to move the hearts of the people on that side of the House and to obtain a free vote and I am quite sure that if there had been a free vote there would have been a recommendation to the Government to give justice to these people, some of whom are disabled because of age or infirmity, and help to keep them out of the workhouse.
Things have become so changed in the realm of social welfare that I suggest to the Minister-designate for the Department of Social Welfare that he should issue a new book of regulations. On the 1st November the sum of 5/- was to be payable to a section of our community. Now we find that anyone with any means, even if it is only one shilling, does not qualify. Am I correctly interpreting the reply which we got last week from the Minister? Surely there is no person who has not got anything in the world? This means that the 5/- which was to be granted to the non-contributory old age pensioners is a mirage, not there at all. It was another trick to fool the people, a trick promoted six months before, which kept people living in hope for something which it was never intended to give. Therefore, a new book should be issued to tell the people, and even Deputies who are supposed to know these things, what are the people's rights and what are the benefits to which they are entitled.
I also suggest that the Minister for Social Welfare should explain why a regulation was not made which would exclude from means tests for noncontributory pensions, widows' and orphans' and old age pensions, the increase that was granted by a British Government, an alien Government we are told, for services rendered by these people. We will gain £250,000 at the expense of Britain. Time was when some people in this country said they wanted nothing from Britain. I should also like to refer to the long delays that occur in regard to the payment of claims. If the Minister-designate was listening to me I am sure he would deny, as his predecessors have, that there are long delays, but I can prove and I have proved that there are delays of from three to five weeks. I know the Department of Social Welfare because I worked there for eight years. I know it as well as, if not better than, any Minister who will ever be in charge of it and I know that these claims are being held up deliberately because money is short. You can pay one-half in Kerry this week and another half in Waterford next week, and so on, and by delaying 3,000 people all over the country for one week, at approximately £2 10s in each case, you can save quite a sum of money for the rainy day.
I heard you, Sir, warning some Deputies that we were not to touch on the subject of elections and, therefore, I do not propose to do so, except to say that if the people do not like the things that have been happening and if they agree with me that these things are wrong, they should take whatever opportunity comes to register their opinion by their votes.
Last week we had the election of a new Taoiseach who has now brought his nomination of Ministers before the House for approval. I want to say to the new Taoiseach on his assumption of this office with its title, coming as it does from the ancient Irish code, that one of the very important things for him in breaking with the tradition which has prevously been followed here, is that he should take another old Irish motto which leaders of this people had, particularly in ancient times. It was: "Truth in our hearts and on our lips."
The Taoiseach has a responsibility not alone to the House but to the country in this respect. Now is the moment of truth for him. Now is the time when he breaks with tradition because in this House and outside it, he will be judged by his approach to problems, not by the approach of those who have gone before him in this office. He must plough his own furrow. I believe that the truth will be even of more service to himself than to the country.
I do not want to go into the record of the past but in the immediate past we had various promises made. This evening we heard Deputy Corry traversing this ground which he has so often traversed and, talking about people wasting time in the House, I am afraid he set a very poor example in this matter. It is no harm to put on record once more that the Government, even as they exist at present, are committed to a rash of promises which they made less than 18 months ago, committed on the question of free trade which was aired in this House and committed on questions regarding the various portions of the Free Trade Agreement. Then we had the reality of the situation as it developed, the reality of promises being made which, as the last speaker said, were made perhaps in good faith but were incapable of fulfilment either because of circumstances which were outside the control of the people who made the promises or because the promises were based on false premises.
We had the mounting anger among sections of our people. The Taoiseach does not have to be reminded of the reality of the situation as it then developed when people felt they were being derided for their attempts at placing their case before the particular Minister and the Government so far as the farming interests they represented were concerned. The farmers, with their demonstration in Dublin, and the tenants in Dublin, felt they had a rightful grievance which they were entitled to air and of which the new Taoiseach must take care and heed.
Reluctant as he may be to have this office imposed on him, the Taoiseach cannot get away from his responsibilities in this matter. Above all others, he is the person most qualified from his experience to know the extent of the problems which face him now and face the Government he hopes to lead. The Taoiseach has had the advantage of experience in ministerial positions which would enable him to have the kind of outlook which would be of great benefit to one hoping to lead this Government. In the Ministry of Education which he held, he had before him the problems of the younger people and the problem of the necessity for education and not alone to educate young people but to provide that after it had been given that education would be turned to best account so far as the nation is concerned. He could see when he assumed that office that before him lay a vast problem.
When he moved from there to Industry and Commerce, what Minister was in a more fitting position to know that here there were problems of employment and unemployment and re-employment. Here were problems the country would have to face not only in the Free Trade Area under the Agreement negotiated with Britain but also problems connected with our entry into Europe and the conditions that would be imposed on us, no matter what our desires might be. He had the advantage of seeing these various problems in regard to enticing and keeping industries here, determining whether the grants we gave were being expended in the best directions.
Finally, when he moved to Finance, he was surely occupying the key Ministry where he had the opportunity of seeing the whole panorama of government before him and knowing exactly what limitations he, as Minister for Finance, would have to impose on the plans which various Ministers brought forward. The Taoiseach has an obligation to the House and to the country which he cannot in any way avoid by saying that it is a matter for the Minister for Finance. He is the final arbiter on these various schemes and if he is to be truthful on this occasion, he must outline the boundaries to which the country can afford to go and not go beyond.
Nobody but a Minister for Finance could have had the kind of experience the present Taoiseach has had of having to come to this House with the last Budget he introduced and having to ask himself the question he posed: "What went wrong with the previous Budget?" Here he met the kind of circumstances over which he had no control, the kind of circumstances that put the country in its present position, in which we are so dependent not so much on ourselves but on our nearest neighbour and other countries with which we trade. We are dependent not alone for our employment and industry but we are also beholden to them for finance so far as our capital projects are concerned.
The Taoiseach, coming as he does through these three Ministries, has the advantage of knowing full well the kind of problems facing himself and the Government. Looking at it from that point of view, I believe the greatest service he can do himself and the nation is to be truthful in his approach to this House on this occasion. He knows what it has been possible to achieve; he knows what it has not been possible to achieve. He knows the dire necessities, for instance, in regard to the Capital Budget. He knows the limitations on opportunities for employment and the problems in regard to the redeployment of labour which will arise in the next few years, due to the advent of the Free Trade Area or entry into Europe. In regard to all these matters, there should be information not alone for this House but for the people at large. It is only by giving the House the factual position and the aims which the Taoiseach sees he can achieve within present resources that he can be true to himself and to the office he occupies.
If the Taoiseach is to achieve something in this new era to mark it out from the eras which have gone before, then he must depart from the procedures which have been adopted in this House over many years now. What price democracy in regard to this House? Ministers have on occasions made statements outside this House which ought to have been made here, if this were to be treated as a deliberative assembly representative of the people. There is not much use in talking about the people being entitled to information if it is to be given at some outside gatherings arranged for that purpose, and if the elected representatives of the people are to be treated as second-hand material who are not worthy of this information at first-hand. This is one way in which the new Taoiseach can distinguish himself, by allowing free discussion here in this House on the proposals which he believes the Government ought to adopt. Discussion should not be gagged in any way. When I say "gagged" I mean the proposals should not be determined until there has been a decision of the House where major questions are involved.
One of the things that dismayed me in this respect was that the former Taoiseach in reply to questions here a couple of weeks ago told this House —and this information was reinforced by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—that in regard to information being disseminated from Radio Telefís Éireann, there was to be what I might call a screening of the information to be made available.
He never said that.
It was said here in this House that this would be done if in the mind of the Government, it was judged to be in the country's interest. Surely the Government are not going to take to themselves the attribute of infallibility? Surely it can be shown that many of the things they have said and done have proved to be wrong, and if they have been proved to be wrong in one instance, they certainly could be proved to be wrong in others? Surely the people will not be left in the position in which they will not have the right to choose what is the right version of the information disseminated? If the information is given to the public, they are wise enough, as they have been wise in choosing the members of the Minister's Party, to come to the right conclusions, and the Minister will not declare they are fallible in one instance and infallible in the other.
I should like to inquire what the Taoiseach proposes in regard to State and semi-State bodies. Does he intend to review this situation where very large sums of money are voted by this House to these bodies which are not answerable to Dáil Éireann for their expenditure? It is an important principle that control in this matter should at all times rest within this House.
Precisely.
It does not rest here at the moment.
What about RTE? You cannot have your cake and eat it.
I agree. Is the Minister referring to a Committee of the House?
I am referring to the Deputy's remarks about RTE.
The funds belonging to RTE should equally be under the control of this House. It is an important principle that when large sums of money are given to these State bodies, they should be accountable to this House. When Ministers are asked questions here in regard to State or semi-State companies, they disclaim responsibility for the day-to-day working of these companies.
If we interfere, it is something else.
It is important that these accounts should be submitted to this House or to a Committee of this House who will be the arbiters as far as these matters are concerned.
I am hoping the new Taoiseach will take this task upon himself. He cannot and will never be allowed to claim the same type of organisation of the Fianna Fáil Party as came with a former Taoiseach. He will never be allowed to claim that he has been responsible for the industrialisation of this country. That will remain the claim of the ex-Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, is to carve a niche for himself in the history of the Fianna Fáil Party, he can do so by facing the realities of today's situation. Surely he is not going to be, as was said at one time of politicians, astride the fence with an ear to the ground on both sides? That is something he can never do if he is to act in his capacity as Taoiseach. He must face the position in regard to the finance of this country. He must realise the crushing burden of the national debt and the local debt of the country. He must look to the provision of finance, whether capital or current. There was an example of it here today in the floating of a National Loan which has to be issued at such a high rate of interest to get money for capital purposes. This is the kind of situation with which the Taoiseach will have to deal.
It is important for the future of the country that the Taoiseach, in accepting the role of leader of Government, would exercise as much vigilance in regard to these matters as any member of an Opposition or any private person would have to exercise in the discharge of his duty. In the case of the Taoiseach it is of extreme importance inasmuch as he has the responsibility of leadership in the House and before the country. When anybody else might shrug off responsibility for matters for which they are answerable, the Taoiseach cannot do that. He has the responsibility for the Ministers that he has nominated for various Departments and, in the last analysis, he is responsible for the manner in which the Ministers whom he nominates will discharge the functions which he has assigned to them in their separate Ministries.
I hope that the Taoiseach will approach the work he has to do on the basis of the principles which he has mentioned in one of his speeches within the past couple of days. One of the things that he has mentioned is that he will seek co-operation. I, speaking from this side of the House, will certainly not deny to a Taoiseach who would adopt the principles of which I have spoken tonight co-operation in so far as that co-operation would enable him to discharge his duty to the House and to the country.
We should forget the type of carping which goes on at times—and we heard some of it here tonight—and approach our work from the point of view that in this deliberative assembly are gathered the representatives of the people, that in this deliberative assembly there is work to be done, that in this deliberative assembly much more work could be done if, perhaps, the Taoiseach would consider the question of submitting more business to Committees of the House and thus remove, perhaps, from the glare of Party politics some of the important national work which has to be done.
This Taoiseach, coming at this stage, has a role of his own to play for so long as he is prepared to continue. Now that we are in the situation in which we are, the country will expect the Taoiseach to speak without inhibition, to forget the kind of tradition that has been associated with this office in the past, to speak here freely and to set out here clearly and without rashness the kind of programme he proposes to follow. The people will expect him to be frank in his approach to problems and to set the limitations within which the various Ministers will operate.
One of the matters referred to by the previous speaker from the Labour Party was that irredeemable promises made to the people, for whatever reason, do far more harm to the democratic machine, to democracy and to Parliament than would be done if no promises were made. It is not much use to make big promises in regard, for instance, to the health service being improved so that it would be beyond anything that the people had ever dreamed of or in regard to education, without at the same time stating the limitations within which the programmes are set. Are they to be set within bounds of finance or within limits of time? It is not much use to make promises which are limitless in point of time or of the finance involved. Nobody knows better than the new Taoiseach, from his experience in Finance, what these limitations are.
The country will expect the Taoiseach to be frank with people when he comes to reply to this debate. I certainly would like to feel that he would not approach the problems I have mentioned from a partisan point of view, although if he were to approach them in that way that is something that I would not blame him for. He will have to defend a record here and he will have to defend his Party and his nominees against the challenges which have been thrown out to them during the course of the debate. He will have to reply to the various challenges which have been offered in regard to the manner in which the Departments over which the Ministers designate presided did the job which they were there to do, and state whether they succeeded in measuring up to the performance that was expected of them. I suppose nobody could blame the Taoiseach if in his reply he was partisan enough to defend them. Otherwise, he would be said to be of weak heart. At the same time he has a greater obligation, at some stage in his reply to the debate, to adopt the motto of truth in his heart and to tell the House what the situation is, what he proposes to do about it and what he proposes to do in regard to future planning and, certainly, what he intends to do about consulting this House in so far as the conduct of affairs is concerned.
If the Taoiseach were to adopt my suggestions, he would create for himself a new name. He would create a situation in which people not alone on his own side of the House but on all sides of the House, would be able to say that here was a Taoiseach who was not afraid to tell the truth, that here was a Taoiseach who was certainly prepared to put country before Party, that here was a Taoiseach on whose word you could depend, that here was a Taoiseach who made no false promises, that here was a Taoiseach who was grappling with reality and who had profited from the past. If that kind of approach is made by the Taoiseach, then he will have justified his appointment as a Leader of Government and will have started to create the kind of image which I believe he would want to create of himself, that is, as one who has truth in his heart and on his lips.
Deputy Molloy rose.
The Deputy will appreciate that at 7.30 I am calling on the Labour Party spokesmen to conclude on behalf of the Labour Party.
I was just going to inquire if that is so.
It is hardly worth starting.
It is. We are being asked in the motion before the House which will be voted on very shortly to approve the nomination of the Government. In view of the fact that I have not many minutes left I should first like to say that, looking across from high up in the back benches of Fianna Fáil, it is very difficult to see where we could get a Government in this House except from these benches. The people throughout the country who will be asked again to send Fianna Fáil strongly back into this House will do so in South Kerry before Christmas and in Waterford the next time we have a by-election in that area.
Hear, hear.
One thing which surprises Deputies on this side of the House is how such a kindly intelligent man like Deputy Jones ever got mixed up with the Fine Gael Party. There is certainly not one thing he said tonight with which I could disagree. I admired the statement he made, which was the only constructive statement from the Fine Gael benches in the past few days in this debate that has been dragged on. Democracy has been dragged through the mud by the Labour Party and by Deputies on the Front Bench and the back benches of Fine Gael, in a debate in which nothing new emerged and nothing new was said, no policies were laid down and there was nothing but scandalous, scurrilous statements referring to Ministers on this side of the House, who have been going about their business honestly, whose record is on the books. Nobody in this House could ever say that they were ashamed of them. They could not be anything but immensely proud of the record of the Fianna Fáil Government. We look back with pride to leadership under the former Taoiseach and look forward with confidence to leadership under Deputy Jack Lynch, the new Taoiseach. I can assure those people on the other side of the House——
It is our time now.
I am calling on Deputy Larkin to conclude on behalf of the Labour Party.
We had a typical speech from Deputy Dillon.
Suí síos agus lig do scith.
Have I to conclude?
The Deputy might in time qualify to be a Parliamentary Secretary.
The House made an Order that the Labour Party spokesman would be called at 7.30 p.m.
I am deeply indebted to Deputy Molloy because I can begin by describing his statement in relation to the prospective Ministers as incorrect. Like Deputy Molloy, we all have a great regard for Deputy Jones. But listening to Deputy Jones this evening, one would think that in this country today we had no problem of a shortage of employment, no problem of a shortage of houses and no problem of emigration. One would think that the Taoiseach was coming into the House to present as his Cabinet a collection of individuals who had neither experience nor previous record as Ministers. There was no indication of their record of failure, either collectively or individually, to work successfully on behalf of the people.
Although we may not now question the appointment of the Taoiseach himself, I think the record of those whom he presents to us as prospective Ministers should be open to question —their record since the time Fianna Fáil were returned to power in this country. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the usual exercise of going over the history of the establishment of Fianna Fáil and the succession of splits that have occurred since then. But it might be as well to deal with the situation facing the Irish people tonight as a result of the efforts of those presented to us as prospective Ministers.
Their record is a dismal one. In the Second Programme for Economic Expansion it was estimated that it would be necessary to create 80,000 new jobs between 1963 and 1970. Fianna Fáil have been in office during all this period. Let us compare the position today, not with the position 20 or 30 years ago, but with the position last year. The number of workers employed in manufacturing industry in June of last year was 172,500. In June this year the figure was 171,300, a net fall of approximately 1,200. The Labour Party are always prepared to make any allowances due. I understand that 1,200 workers were not registered in June of this year because of the paper strike. Therefore, we will deduct that number. What do we get? The position in June, 1966, as compared with June, 1965, is that in manufacturing industry no jobs have been gained. The position is the same as last year. Yet we require 20,000 new jobs to deal with those coming out of school and those at present unemployed and to deal with the problem of emigration. Possibly, a Fianna Fáil Government would not consider this a serious matter. They might say: "We stood still". However, the numbers employed in agriculture have dropped by approximately 7,000 in June, 1966, as compared with 1965. Therefore, taking manufacturing industry and agriculture together, we find the Government had the honour of being responsible for a reduction of 7,000 in the number of workers in employment. Balancing this against the need for 20,000 new jobs each year, it appears that unless the Taoiseach can wave a magic wand the figures will get progressively worse as the years pass.
It is difficult for Deputies to make a comparison of unemployment figures because the basis has been changed. But the figure for the latest available date, 4th November, 1966, is 46,000. It is estimated that emigration continues at the rate of 20,000 per year. These are matters for which the Government were responsible, not 20 years ago, not ten years ago, not as the result of an economic war, but in the past 12 months. The position in 1965 was no improvement on the position in 1964.
The question of prices is one of serious concern to consumers in urban communities. What has been the Government's record there? As will be recalled, in January of this year, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions indicated that, having regard to the circumstances of that time, an increase of £1 per week was justified. The cost of living between February of this year and August of this year has gone up by 3½ per cent and there is no doubt that it will show a further increase in November. These are matters for which the gentlemen who are offering themselves through the Taoiseach as members of a Government have evidently not had too much concern because, collectively and individually, they have been telling the country on too many occasions that everything is going well.
The Taoiseach has, I think, another doubtful position because, as Minister for Finance, he would have had, with the other matters concerned, quite a serious responsibility for the economy of the country for last year and for the period since this Government again took office. Every Deputy wishes the new Taoiseach well. I do not think any of us would wish any ill to Deputy Lynch but certainly the best thing that could happen the country would be if the Taoiseach and his Government designate were over there no longer. His predecessor in office since 1957, Deputy Seán Lemass, who is recognised as a very successful politician even if he was not successful in providing about 100,000 new jobs, went out of office under circumstances which most of us were sorry to see happen. Within two or three days of his leaving office, he had the undignified position thrust upon him of having to endeavour to ease a situation which had been created and worsened, again, by a member of his Cabinet. Anyone would normally consider that a Taoiseach who voluntarily retires from office, whether for health or political reasons, should at that particular period not be almost compelled to lower his dignity in the way Deputy Seán Lemass had to lower his dignity in order to ease the situation for the incoming Taoiseach.
As far as this House and the country are concerned, I think the present Taoiseach has missed an opportunity. Even though there may be a shortage of talent, to judge by the contributions by some back bench members of his Party, at least the Taoiseach should have had the opportunity of saying that some of these back benchers should go into his Cabinet rather than perform the action of shuffling around Ministers who had failed repeatedly during their term as Ministers of this Government in various offices.
One of the problems in connection with this debate is that we were compelled to deal with it on the basis of the fitness of Deputies to be members of the Government. I should be long sorry to be personally offensive to anyone. The actions of individuals in a private capacity will always be matters for themselves. However, we have a dreary and dismal record from the people whom this Taoiseach presents as the Government designate of this country—I hope for a short time.
We will prove that before very long in the by-elections.
I shall have to mention one or two of them, with all due respect to them as individuals. There was a lot of play about Deputy Aiken continuing as Tánaiste and Minister for External Affairs and to some extent I would not personally go along with the line of criticism. At least he was not doing any damage here at home as were some of his colleagues. At least he was presenting an image in the Council of the United Nations with which I do not think any of us would quarrel. At least he was expressing the point of view of a small country——
Hear, hear.
——and the desire of small countries for the basic requirement of universal peace. Anyone who does that work capably in any international conference would have my support on that ground alone. However, it is just as well that he was there and not here. I remember a comment about the same Minister many years ago. I think he was occupying an Opposition bench. My son was present with his mother in the Visitors' Gallery when Deputy Aiken was holding forth on agriculture as though he were an expert. After listening to him for a long time, my son turned around to his mother and asked: "Mammy, does that man know about anything else except free manures for farmers because he has been talking about nothing else for the past one and a half hours and that is all he appears to know?" Therefore, it was just as well that Deputy Aiken was not inflicting his presence on the country as we might be worse off than we are at present.
It is proposed to add the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs to the Ministry of Transport and Power which are to be under the care of Deputy Childers. We welcome the supposition of a ministerial portfolio for Posts and Telegraphs. It has been argued for a long time that the work involved there did not justify a separate Ministry. I shall not delay much in discussing Deputy Childers's ability as Minister for Transport and Power because many Deputies have dealt with that subject. Recently, as Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers had an opportunity in this House of expressing to CIE, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government, the reasonable point of view that pensioners should get some preference on public service vehicles. Did Deputy Childers do that? He was kind enough to inform the House that he hoped that at some stage, when the level of social welfare and social assistance benefits reached a particular point, some old age pensioners would be able to pay their fares and would not require assistance.
Of course the Minister was not concerned, evidently, that by the time that stage is reached, and if we are inflicted with this Government long enough, a high proportion of the existing old age pensioners will be cold in their graves and the assistance will be of no value to them. However, the Minister, as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, may remit a sin which his predecessor in office, Deputy Brennan, committed by omission, in attempting to gag Telefís Éireann and denying the right of free expression and free comment on Radio Telefís Éireann. Perhaps the new Minister may, by committing a sin of omission, get over that unfortunate episode in the affairs of the government of this country.
Now we have a switch, a beautiful switch, when the Taoiseach comes in with the transfer of Deputy Blaney, Minister for Local Government, to the position of Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It is amazing what can be done by the Taoiseach when he wants to remove the object of severe and justified criticism, and that is what has happened under this heading. Here again I will not go down in the annals of history as not justifying our objection to Deputy Blaney as unfit to be a Minister of Government. Let us take the current position of housing. From January to September of 1965, local authorities constructed 2,335 dwellings. That was the position in September, 1965. If we allow another 1,000, the figure will be around 3,300. I remember in 1951-52 one local authority alone built 2,500 houses. However, I shall keep to the position in present years. From January to September, 1966, local authorities built 2,047 dwellings. That shows a reduction in the number of dwellings built by local authorities, under the regime of the Minister for Local Government, and nobody else. I want to make it quite clear that in mentioning that figure, I am not criticising the local authorities; I am criticising the Minister for Local Government because of his interference and his refusal to sanction grants and loans and to make the necessary finance available so that local authorities could get on with their programme.
The number of grant-aided houses built in 1965 was 5,841 from January to September and in 1966, the number was 4,714. Therefore, if we take the record of the Minister concerned under this heading from 1965 to 1966, we find that local authority and grant-aided houses numbered 8,172 in 1965 and 6,761 in 1966, a reduction of 17 per cent. Is this the type of progress picture, the type of successful control, or encouragement, of building we want to see? Is it desirable that a Minister for Local Government should be a competent Minister for housing? The same Minister in the same period may not be able to deal with the rampant increase in the price of houses to those unfortunate people who are compelled to buy their own houses. He has repeatedly been the subject of complaints for reversing house-planning decisions made by local authorities in the interests of the community and, finally, he has the signal honour that for the first and only time in this country the tenants of local authority dwellings in the city of Dublin have been compelled, as a result of his initiative, to take to the streets, to march in public protest against a proposal to increase their rents, a proposal which was inspired by his statement and by a circular issued by his Department. This matter can be linked up with another Minister with whom I shall deal in a moment.
There we have one of the principal positions, the Ministry of Agriculture, being proposed for occupancy by an able man, in some respects, an able man who has succeeded for the past few months in diverting the attention of the people from the shortage of finance for capital purposes, for housing purposes. To give credit to the Minister for Local Government, he managed to blind the eyes of a tremendous number of people to the situation. He blinded them, and even though Deputy after Deputy complained about the lack of money and the lack of permission to build houses, to provide sewerage schemes, and so on, he was able, by some sleight of hand, to paint the situation as being not nearly as bad as it was.
Here is another of the Taoiseach's candidates. Deputy Boland is assigned to the Department of Local Government. All that can be said about Deputy Boland's occupancy of the office of Minister for Social Welfare is that it was as big a tragedy for the people who have to rely on social welfare as it possibly could be. Here in this present time, in November of 1966, the miserable increase in social assistance operated only from 1st October. Three and a half per cent of that has already gone as a result of the increased prices up to August and more of it will be eroded by the current increase in prices. He has made very little effort. If he had made the effort he would possibly have been at least partly successful in doing away with the viciousness of the system of means test applying to people who are not qualified for contributory pensions.
I shall not deal with Mr. Ó Moráin, Aire na Gaeltachta, as he has been adequately dealt with by people with a better knowledge of the work of that Department.
Deputy Hilliard is Minister for Defence. I think the main function of the Minister for Defence in the last period has been to turn round and round again and take a salute somewhere. He possibly has the ability to do that. I do not know.
We come now to Dr. Hillery, Minister for Labour. Dr. Hillery is recognised as a clever man and a nice man. He was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Can he avoid taking responsibility for the economic position today? Can he avoid his share of responsibility for the fact that in 1966 there are 7,000 fewer jobs than there were in 1965? He must accept that responsibility as he was previously in Industry and Commerce. He must also accept responsibility for his actions as Minister for Labour. He continues in that post. This Government was elected in 1965 and immediately the election was over and even before it was over the necessity for controlled prices in the interest of the common people of this country was stressed time and again. This Minister did not pay any attention to it but he ran around in July 1965 when it became clear, even to the Fianna Fáil Party, what was happening and brought in a Prices Bill. Has he implemented it? Let me say to the Taoiseach that the people of Waterford, South Kerry, and every part of the country are well aware of the fact that that Prices Bill proved to be the greatest piece of whitewashing that was ever brought into such an assembly as this. I shall not comment on how he has come out of the present project he has on hands; that has been referred to already. But he cannot escape from the criticism by the facts, not criticism by the Deputies of this House, not criticism by the Deputies of the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party but criticism by the facts. I have placed on the record here today that there were 20,000 new jobs required each year, and this was accepted by the Government, to deal with school leavers, unemployed and emigration and this year there are 7,000 fewer jobs available.
I come now to a Minister who shares with Deputy Blaney a signal honour. He is a man, I think, of quite high intellectual ability, a man who is a competent accountant and has degrees in law. He has been a complete failure in the two Ministries he has occupied. We judge the failure of a Minister not by his ability to produce reports, not by his ability to appoint commissions but, to some extent, by his effect on the people of the country. Deputy Charles J. Haughey has three strikes against him. We are not notorious as a law-abiding community possibly but he succeeded in almost creating a revolt in the Garda. Mark you, that takes some doing, but Deputy Haughey did it. He then proceeded to introduce a Succession Bill in this House. It was criticised so much that his successor—he had gone— dropped the Bill completely and brought in a completely new Bill. This man was a competent accountant and we understand he had degrees in law. Thirdly, he has the signal honour of having made thousands of the farming community walk the roads of this country to demonstrate here in Dublin. You have Deputy Haughey with thousands of the representatives of the farming community demonstrating in the streets of the capital being taken out of that Department at the last minute after quite a number of days by a Taoiseach who had given 40 years service. Not a month after that you have thousands of tenants seeking a meeting with the Minister for Local Government. Those are some of the Ministers of whom we are asked to approve tonight.
Then there is Deputy J. Brennan. With all due respect, I think that, whatever his sins of commission in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, he might, possibly, be an improvement in the Department of Social Welfare because, at heart, he is a kindly man. I hope he will have some consideration for the old, the widows, et cetera. I know he had little consideration for the rights of people to report news and comment on the news. He, like Deputy Haughey, finished up by placing the Taoiseach, who was due to retire shortly, again in a most embarrassing situation. Maybe it was a situation he welcomed but I am inclined to doubt it. He was responsible for the former Taoiseach coming into this House and saying that they were bound to be responsible for what appeared on Telefís Éireann and they were bound to make sure that only the news and comment that was, in the view of the Fianna Fáil Government, in the national interest, would be permitted on a public communications system. The next step, of course, would be for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he had remained in that position long enough, to summon the editors of the newspapers and say: “Submit your copy on any matter where anybody is considering making a comment on speeches or statements made by Ministers of this Government, so that we can make sure you will not print anything which is not, in our opinion, in the national interest.” In doing that, he met with objection, and quite rightly, from those engaged in reporting news and making comment. He has gone now to Social Welfare. Possibly that is all for the good where Posts and Telegraphs is concerned and it may well be all for the good of Social Welfare.
These are a few of the comments I have found it necessary to make on the individual Ministers proposed by the Taoiseach. In my opinion, the Taoiseach is starting badly. This is not a football team. If it were a football team, half these Ministers would have been dropped. Whatever about the weapons, whatever about the knives, the hatchets, or whatever they were—I do not know because I am not really interested—and whatever about the competition between Haughey and Colley, and Boland and somebody else, that is Fianna Fáil's own business. I am not interested. It is, however, the responsibility of the Taoiseach to present to the country a Government who give some hope of doing something, some hope of remedying the position in which the country is today.
I wish the new Taoiseach well. Having regard, however, to the record of the people he has submitted as his Ministers, and having regard to the fact that within his own Party there are these contradictions and this competition, I am convinced that the Party have reached the point at which they can no longer provide good government for the country. Good government depends not on the number of commissions, not on the number of applications for town planning that are reversed; it depends on the employment that is provided. If the Taoiseach can tell us tonight that he has a plan which will reverse the deplorable record of the late Government, of which he was Minister for Finance, I shall listen with great interest and so will everybody in the country. At the moment the people are making up their minds that this game played by Fianna Fáil Governments of shuffling Ministers around every time they fail in one Department and putting them in, to fail again, in another Department is not in the interests of the country and at the first opportunity the people will demonstrate very clearly what they think of all that.
The Taoiseach has nominated this Government for approval by the Dáil, indicating, in statements he has made outside the House, that he does so in order that they may carry on in the pattern in which government has been carried on up to this. It is appropriate, therefore, and essential for us to examine the records of the individual Ministers in their several Departments, to examine their records as previous members of Government and to show, from those records, what this Government are likely to produce. It is necessary for us to examine their records as politicians and Ministers, not as personalities, though I shall be extremely hard on some of those concerned, but I want to make it quite clear that I am being critical of them and of the Taoiseach himself only in the political sphere.
The last general election, as everybody acknowledges, was fought on the slogan: "Let Lemass Lead On". It was another method of aping Macmillan, another method of trying to get across to the people that they "never had it so good". Shortly afterwards we had a slow and then a quickening and unpleasant realisation that the people had been misled in that general election, that the boom —this was said at the time—was a fake boom, that it was over, and we could look forward to nothing except strife and disarray in industry and agriculture and a firm belief that Fianna Fáil were interested only in keeping themselves in power, irrespective of what might come. We had a striking proof of this from no less a person than the late Taoiseach when, at his farewell press conference, he admitted frankly and openly that his one concern in this whole matter was not the future of Ireland but the future of the Fianna Fáil Party. People on the opposite side of the House have in the past raised their hands in holy horror when we have told them they put Party before country. We knew it was true, but I must confess I never thought, even in my wildest moments, that we would get it confirmed from so high an authority as Deputy Seán Lemass.
As I said last Thursday, I am glad Deputy Lemass is in good health. He is, however, retiring solely for political reasons and the only honourable course for the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government to have taken in those circumstances was to require the President, as they were entitled to do, to dissolve the Dáil. The only reason Deputy Lemass acted as he did was to enable the Party opposite to avoid having to go to the people. He knew that if he remained in office, Fianna Fáil were bound to lose the elections in both Kerry and Waterford and, by providing the gimmick of his retirement and the gimmick of a new Taoiseach and Government, he hoped the people would be blinded and the Government might in that way avoid defeat in these by-elections. That was the specific reason why Deputy Lemass chose this particular moment to retire; it was necessary to provide a gimmick, a new distraction for the people to take their minds off the utter failure of the Government to date.
In the failure of their policies, we must examine each one of them not in relation to personalities but in relation to their record as politicians, as Ministers of State and TDs, and examine the failure of the policy there up to now. Naturally, of course, the first examination is the Taoiseach's part in the policies running up to now. I do not think I am being unfair to him when I say that his first public position in Government was as a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Gaeltacht and that during his period of office only two things arose: there was less of the language spoken and more emigration from the Gaeltacht areas. Then he came into Education. I cannot remember—and I have asked my colleagues and they cannot remember —anything of note that transpired in that period. Of course, if one does nothing except jog along, one does not make mistakes. But there is a very great difference in a man operating as head of a Government Department and in having to lead a team of Government.
I think Deputy Lynch, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, must take a large part of the blame for the fact that no effort whatsoever was made in the time in which we live of great capital shortage to ensure that we in Ireland got any real benefit from the £1½ million passed into the Potez factory, into the Potez ownership. It has been said before, in relation to that, that the Potez family put more into it than the taxpayer. I do not know whether or not that is accurate, because it would depend a great deal upon the value of machinery and equipment. I am not interested in what the Potez family put into it. I am interested in what the Irish taxpayer was asked to pay, and to sink £1½ million of the Irish taxpayers' money, in a time of acute capital shortage, in a building employing some 50 people only is not something of which any Minister or any Government should be proud.
We had too the utter failure of Fianna Fáil over the past few years in relation to their financial policy, for part of which the present Taoiseach must assume responsibility. In the past six financial years, as a result of the ineptitude and incompetence of Fianna Fáil, the total Budget deficit was approximately £20 million — a £20 million deficit because successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Finance did not know their job or, if they knew it, did not do it properly. Because of that, with interest at the rate announced today for the National Loan—which National Loan, incidentally, we all hope will be a success—the Irish people must find a sum of £1½ million every year for the next 20 years, solely to redeem and to pay for the mistakes in relation to those Budget deficits. In fact, when one takes into account the amount not merely to be paid in accumulated interest but, in addition, the amount to be put aside for sinking fund to redeem the borrowings, it means that something between £40 million and £50 million will be paid by the people of Ireland over the next generation to rectify the mistakes of Fianna Fáil in that one respect alone.
In this current year, the Minister for Finance of the time estimated there would be collected from the people into the Treasury coffers no less a sum than £250 million. Then, that not being enough, he came along in July and added another £3 million. In two years, since 1964-65, no less an increase than 16 per cent of the people's money has been taken in taxes. In non-tax revenue, no less than 16 per cent of the people's money, no less than £34 million extra, has been taken by the claws of the Revenue Commissioners at the direction of a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance. The question to be decided is whether we are getting value commensurate with that amount and I think the people of the country as a whole have their minds quite clearly made up that we are not getting that value.
The Taoiseach is offering to us, in a Government, a Tánaiste who thinks he has the wrong Taoiseach and who has been described already by the outgoing Taoiseach as an historical relic, a man who—with all due respect to Deputy Larkin—is so seldom here that he does not know what is happening at home. Deputy Larkin seemed to think he was to be praised for being abroad. I am afraid it has gone to the Tánaiste's head and that he is staying away from Ireland when he should be doing jobs in Ireland, when he should be looking after the affairs of the Irish people. Of course, it is no wonder that when he cannot get down to realities— as he has utterly failed to get down to realities—that our Embassies abroad will not get down to the realities, either, of utilising their functions for the purpose of pushing exports rather than endeavouring to settle the affairs of the world. The Tánaiste seems to think his metier is in settling the affairs of the world. He might as well be in outer space for all the influence he is having and, if one examines the position, one would see that he is not even able to settle the affairs of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The next Minister the Taoiseach is offering is Deputy Childers, as Minister for Transport and Power and Posts and Telegraphs. Deputy Childers has come in here on more occasions than any other Minister and said that he has no function to perform. I had hoped, when I heard that Deputy Childers was being given, in addition, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that he would at least have some function in that regard. But unfortunately, immediately afterwards, I heard even then that function would be taken away from him and put in the charge of a Parliamentary Secretary, in case he might have anything to do with it. But he has responsibility for policy in certain respects and Deputy Childers is the man who last year was responsible for CIE losing £2,250,000, for Bord na Móna losing £1,500,000 and, in addition to that £1,500,000, getting a hidden subsidy from the ESB of another £1 million. Is that anything on which the Taoiseach is entitled to suggest that Deputy Childers is a good and proper Minister to put forward?
Then, after Deputy Childers, the next Minister, from the point of view of seniority, is Deputy Blaney. Deputy Blaney is being transferred from the Department of Local Government because of his failure in that Department. Economic Series 1965-66, published on 10th November, 1966, shows that for the first nine months of this year in relation to State-aided schemes for new houses built by private persons and public utility societies, there is a considerable drop over last year. In fact, the extent of the drop is 1,127 houses in nine months, or approximately between 20 and 25 per cent less than last year. In one year alone, there was a drop in private housing of between 20 and 25 per cent.
In respect of the reconstruction of houses, we find in the same nine months of this year, a drop of 803, a drop equivalent to about one-seventh of the number last year. In the total number of new houses built under State-aided schemes of all kinds, we have a reduction in the first nine months of this year of 1,415 equivalent to approximately 26 per cent. When replying, will the Taoiseach tell us what that housing record has done to justify the promotion, if you like to use the word, or the retention, if you like to use the word, or the transfer of Deputy Blaney from the Department of Local Government? Is that record in respect of housing not abysmal in the extreme? Is it not a record which shows one of the reasons why, under Fianna Fáil, people are unable to get houses at all in the city of Dublin and elsewhere.
I do not want to go back a long number of years, but it is perhaps of interest to show, in that respect, that in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, the total amount of money spent on the building of houses by local authorities was £21½ million. We then had the entry of Fianna Fáil into office, and in the next three years, 1958, 1959 and 1960, the amount of money spent on the building of houses was £11 million, about half of what was spent in the comparable previous three years. The number employed in the building industry in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, ran all the time between 32,000 and 33,000. As soon as Fianna Fáil came into power, that figure of 33,000 dropped to 25,000 or 26,000. Of course, on that basis, Deputy Blaney is in keeping with the policy adopted by Fianna Fáil.
However, it does not seem to me to be a worthwhile reason why he should be retained in the Government, much less be transferred, unless his transfer was to make sure that he would not have the embarrassment of that record, and that the new Minister, before he was found out, after two or three months, would be able to tell the people in Kerry and Waterford: "I will do everything for you, but I have not had time yet to get down to my Department. Everything will be all right. Do not worry about it." The day after the polling in the by-elections the refusals will go out and the people will have been codded. That is the point. That is the reason the Minister was changed at this moment.
The next Minister the Taoiseach asks us to endorse is Deputy Boland. For the first time ever, so far as I am aware, Deputy Boland, as Minister for Social Welfare, took advantage of the fact that additional money in the form of pensions was paid by the British Government to people who had been in England, who had emigrated to England to get the employment and the living denied to them at home by Fianna Fáil, and who came back here for their retirement, to snaffle that extra money by reducing the amount they were getting in pensions from the Irish people here.
Deputy Moran is Minister for Lands and the Gaeltacht. I do not think the most unprejudiced observer could suggest that he had done anything in that office to ensure or require that he would be retained in Government. I cannot recollect anything for which he has been under notice in the past year, except at one time a reference to the fact that he was big game hunting in Germany, and a reference at another time to the fact that he was acting personally as solicitor in the takeover of the Gaiety Theatre.
Deputy Hilliard is again put forward as a Minister. I want to say categorically that the utter failure and collapse of the automatic telephone system at present in Ireland is due to his mismanagement, and to the lethargic manner in which Deputy Hilliard as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs failed to deal with that situation in relation to telephones. Yet the Taoiseach has again nominated him on this occasion.
Deputy Hillery was Minister for Education first. Perhaps I am deficient, but I do not know anything he did in Education. Certainly it never struck anyone that he did anything. He, too, must take his share of the blame during the time he was Minister for Industry and Commerce for the failure to ensure that the £1½ million invested in Potez would bring any return to the Irish people. It is not in those respects that he must really be considered a complete failure in Industry and Commerce. Let us look at the last Quarterly Industrial Inquiry, for the second quarter, ending June, 1966, this year. First of all, let us be clear that production in manufacturing industries by volume in June, 1966, was less than the equivalent production in June, 1965— a year on, but less production.
Is that something of which any Minister or any Government can be proud? Is it something in which the Taoiseach can take real pride in recommending the Government to the Dáil and the country? In fact, the volume of manufacturing industries production in June, 1966, is less than it was in June, 1965. Normally the June figure is in or about the same as the figure for the previous December, but this is substantially less. It is no less than seven points lower this June than it was in December, 1965. I shudder to think what it will be for the final quarter of this year. Worse than that, in the June quarter this year, there were fewer people employed in manufacturing industries than there were in any quarter in the past two years. Yet, Fianna Fáil are renominating the Deputy who is responsible for that. I could understand it if they said he was not perhaps a success in that particular Department and that they would move him somewhere else where he would be better able to employ his talents.
They are putting this Government forward on the same policy as produced that other failure which has resulted now in this year in 2,000 fewer people being employed in manufacturing industry than there were two years ago; and all the time, while that has been going on, we have the drain from the land. Does all this not inevitably mean that if we are not to pick up in the manufacturing industry on the numbers in employment and also in agriculture, we will find not merely that the flight from the land will continue but that those being driven from the land will be unable to get employment in industry and find themselves inevitably driven to emigration?
Is not the drop of 2,000 employed in industry in clear contrast with the much vaunted promise of Deputy Seán Lemass that he had a plan, that he had only to turn on a tap, to provide 100,000 new jobs? Minus 2,000 is a long way from the increase of 100,000 he then promised. In addition to that, on the short-term basis, we find, if we examine the criterion of expenditure on investment in plant and equipment, that the amount in the second half of 1966 represents a reduction in the amount expended as recently as the second half of 1965 and we all know that the credit squeeze was biting at that time. I am afraid that unless there is a quick and definite reversal in relation to investment in plant and equipment, we shall not be able to increase the numbers in employment in the way the country and everyone in the House would wish.
That will need a new type of approach, much more so now than perhaps ever before. We had the extraordinary position in relation to one public company in the past couple of weeks when a spokesman said he was unable to get an answer, aye or no, from the Department of Industry and Commerce, for a period of a year — indecision and postponement rampant in the Department of Industry and Commerce.
The next Minister put before us in seniority by the Taoiseach, not merely for inclusion in the Government but for promotion, if you like to put it that way, is the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Haughey. Of course everyone knows that the Taoiseach had to get Deputy Haughey out of the Department of Agriculture by hook or by crook. He had the record of Deputy Haughey's mismanagement. He, first of all, went to the Department of Justice and, as Deputy Larkin has told us, almost provoked a revolt in the Garda and when that had been solved, he proceeded to bring in a Succession Bill against which everyone in the country was up in arms and in respect of which there was bound to be a revolt of public opinion. So Deputy Haughey was slipped out of the Department of Justice to let Deputy Lenihan climb down for Fianna Fáil on that Bill.
Deputy Haughey went to Agriculture. The failure he has been in that office hardly needs emphasising here but it is perhaps, better that there be put on the record of the House the manner in which this Deputy, as Minister for Agriculture, came in and misled the people, misled the farmers, telling them at the beginning of 1966, they could hope that in the fall of the year, as a result of the wonderful Agreement he had made, cattle would be making between £5 and £7 per head more than the year before. What are the figures? I understand the Taoiseach was in Killarney last Sunday. Did he ask the people there what had happened at the fair of Killarney last week, whether cattle that had sold at £36 or thereabouts last year, had sold for £12 to £15 each this year and not merely that but that the people could not sell them? Is that not the pattern all over the country?
Is it not, for example, the pattern that has been accepted and published by the Department of Agriculture? In the records of that Department, we can see that far from the £5 to £7 additional per head for cattle, the farmers of Ireland are selling at 130/-in 1966 beef that had sold for 144/-per cwt. in 1965. According to these records, store bullocks have gone down from 152/6 last year to 138/- this year and store heifers from 148/- to 128/6. They are not my figures. They are not merely the figures of everybody in the country but the figures published by the Department of Agriculture, figures which the former Minister for Agriculture must admit.
During Deputy Haughey's sojourn in the Department of Agriculture, the record in relation to crops was as follows: wheat is down this year by 54,000 acres compared with 1965; oats is down by 39,000 acres; root and green crops are down; sheep prices are down; and even the broiler chicken, about which Deputy Haughey talked so much to Deputy Murphy, is down in numbers compared with last year. That is the record of the Minister for Agriculture of which we are expected by the Taoiseach to express approval.
That is not all Naturally enough, in the difficulties in which farmers find themselves, it is perhaps inevitable that the future is not so rosy and the future must depend to a large extent on the use of fertilisers. However, what is the picture? Less nitrogenous fertilisers were used in 1965-66 than in 1963-64; less phosphates were used this year than in any year since 1962-63; less potash was used than in any year since 1962-63; and this man who is being put by the Taoiseach to the House as a member of the new Government did not even have the ordinary courtesy to meet the farmers after they had walked to meet him from one end of Ireland to the other. Of course, the members of Fianna Fáil, after he had made that appalling gaffe, had to rally behind him and suggest that this was an issue of who was to decide Government policy. That is not the issue, of course. There is no difference whatever in the Minister meeting the farmers the day they marched through Dublin in an orderly demonstration than on the day last week on which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture were beaten down to meet them.
It would have been far better for the country, far better for agriculture and far better for Irish public life if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had not had the extreme arrogance he had on the first occasion he refused to meet the orderly demonstration, the orderly march of farmers within the law who only wanted to ensure that they would be able to put their case to the man who had failed them so badly on the figures I have given and to ensure that at least farmers, and the small farmers in particular, would be able to have some hope, instead of the particular disappointments to which they had been subjected by the complete failure and the breaking of the promises made by Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Agriculture.
The notable thing about the demonstration by the NFA was that it was a demonstration completely within the law and that they observed the letter of the law in their march. They did so in spite of the most provocative speech that could have been made in this House by Deputy Lenihan, Minister for Justice. One was almost tempted to think that Deputy Lenihan, when dealing with questions here in this House at that time, was endeavouring to ensure that there would be, by his provocation, a change from their orderly behaviour. I am very glad and proud to be able to compliment them on the fact that they ignored that provocation.
Deputy J. Brennan was in Posts and Telegraphs. I do not blame him for the mess in the telephone service because I think it was one that was inherited by him from his predecessor, Deputy Hilliard, as I said already. He certainly did not succeed in curing it. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the condemnation of Deputy Brennan for his gag on the free expression of opinion on Telefís Éireann that has already been voiced by many people in this House and elsewhere.
Deputy O'Malley started his public life as junior Minister in the Office of Public Works. When he was there, he promised that he would drain the Shannon. He did so for the purposes of the Roscommon by-election. Of course, that misfired. It was an extraordinary promise to make that he would drain the Shannon when the Office of Public Works over which he presided had not even got enough money or staff to keep up to the planned programme made in relation to the drainage of the River Boyne ten years before.
He then went into Health. He promised everything there. Many of his promises were made not at the expense of the taxpayer but at the expense of the ratepayer. He was very fond of getting up and saying, perhaps truly, that conditions were bad here or that they were bad there and that they must be improved, but he did not provide funds to improve them. He made sure that the ratepayers would provide the necessary money for his munificence to get him out of his difficulties and embarrassment in having to provide payment. When he could not fulfil all the promises he made in Health he was carefully shifted to Education.
Deputy O'Malley on one occasion recently showed he had a copy of the "Just Society". I invite him to read page 23, paragraph 6 which says:
Fine Gael will introduce a system to enable every child capable of benefiting from further education to proceed from the National School right through to the University, irrespective of the financial circumstances of the child's parents.
He has announced something about education but he has not yet given us any indication of how he proposes to surmount the shortage of staff or the shortage of premises due to what he has announced. In fact, the only thing one can say in relation to the actual implementation of anything since Deputy O'Malley went to Education is that fees for students have been increased by the vocational schools and the universities.
Deputy Flanagan has not been long enough in the Department of Health for me to have very much to comment on in his case. This is the team and this is the Government of which we are asked to approve. Deputy Colley has come in. I beg his pardon. I forgot completely to mention him. Deputy Colley was in Education and had to be removed from Education because every member of the Fianna Fáil Party knew that his unilingual policy was going to lose them votes by the score. They took him out of Education and put him into Industry and Commerce. He has not been there very long but during the period he has been there, perhaps he has discovered how much he has to do to undo the appalling effects of his predecessor's policy which means that we have 2,000 fewer people in employment in manufacturing industries than we had two years ago.
I understand that at 9 o'clock I have to stop in accordance with arrangements made. So far as we are concerned, in relation to those arrangements, we always keep them. We had an example of one Deputy over there who would not keep his. Some of us in our lighter moments like to play a game of cards. When we have been playing cards for some time, and when the pack gets worn and dirty, we do not reshuffle it: we get a new pack. That is what the country is calling for now—a new Government.
The unprecedented length of this debate was not so much a discussion on the incoming Government as the preliminary shots by the Opposition for the forthcoming by-elections which, much to their discomfort, they will now have to face sooner than they hoped.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am glad we were in a position to take the initiative. Despite their protestations about seeking the dissolution of the Dáil, we now have dragged them into the open to face the real test of the support behind this Government.
A Deputy
You will see.
This debate, long though it has been, has been characterised by the fact that by convention, which apparently is accepted as one of the rules of the House, the members of the Party I propose to be members of the Government are not entitled to take part in this debate. Personal attacks have been made against most of them. I am not suggesting that the speech we have heard from Deputy Sweetman was on that level, but certainly other speeches were far beneath the dignity of this House. I will refer to some of these remarks. It behoves me to deal not with the speeches that were made during the course of the debate but rather with some of the major points made in criticism of Government policy.
The Government's aims were set out very comprehensively a few months ago and I do not think I need delay the House this evening by repeating them. If they should need to be amended in any respect because of new developments, this will be made known from time to time, according as the need arises. I need only say now that my constant concern will be to preserve and strengthen this country's independence and individuality, recognising, on the one hand, that there will be or can be little progress in the political, social and cultural fields unless we are making satisfactory economic progress as well, and on the other, that material progress alone would be barren indeed if it were not accompanied by the moral and intellectual development of all the individuals comprising our community. In view of its importance in both these respects, I accept it as my duty that despite other claims on our resources, education will be adequately supported. Secondary education has been provided, at a low cost to parents, largely as a result of the devotion and sacrifices of religious orders. There can be no such thing as free education; the community must be prepared to pay one way or the other for whatever improvements are required, both in regard to greater facilities for post-primary education and readier access to further education for those who can benefit from it. The important thing is to see that inability to pay whatever cost is involved in such education will not debar any child who can benefit from it from receiving it. That will be one of the immediate objectives of this Government.
In this context I should like to mention especially the Irish language. In the White Paper published last year, the Government defined the national aim as being to restore the Irish language as a general medium of communication. This obviously goes beyond mere preservation and maintenance. We believe that this aim, thus positively defined, is accepted by the great majority of the people, although there will, of course, be differences of opinion about the means and speed by which it can be achieved. As was made clear in the White Paper, it is not the Government's policy that the English language should be discarded, but rather that the use of Irish should be progressively extended. Details of the action taken to implement the policies which were outlined in the White Paper, together with an indication of future objectives, will be set out in a Progress Report which will be issued shortly. Guímíd rath Dé ar obair na hathbheochana.
I intend to promote actively the policy of good relations and a spirit of co-operation with Northern Ireland. Our aim is the re-unification of the Irish people, north and south, a re-unification based on agreement and mutual toleration and respect and on an assurance to all Irish people of full equality of status and opportunity.
I can assure Deputies opposite that despite their demeaning contributions in respect of our foreign policy generally, this Government will continue the work for world peace which we have been doing at the United Nations Organisation.
In our economic policy, we will be seeking the co-operation of all sections of the community in working for a better living for more families in Ireland. Our ideal is more jobs, more families, a rising population and more and better opportunities for all. Progress towards this ideal depends in part on having the right policies, but also, in large measure, on having a consistently good team spirit among all members of the community, particularly those engaged in production. It would be my purpose to engender to the fullest possible extent and to the greatest degree of my capacity, that co-operation between all sectors. Fluctuations in the rate of growth, threats to stability, major and minor failures are difficulties experienced by all countries. The extent to which external factors influence our position and our prospects cannot be ignored. We shall however, regard our further ability on this front as something that makes all the more necessary constant and sustained co-operation internally in making the maximum progress.
As Minister for Finance, I regarded it as my duty to place the true facts before the people at all times; as Taoiseach, I intend to continue to follow this policy. In all we do, we must have regard to what we can afford, while striving always to enlarge our resources. In recent speeches as Minister for Finance, I told the people that current Government expenditure is tending to outstrip our revenue and that pressure of capital needs is placing a very severe strain on our resources. To protect our external stability, the Government had to take corrective measures last year. Credit had to be confined to productive purposes. The public capital programme had to be kept within the limits set out in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and current Government expenditure had to be severely curbed. It is true that external causes beyond our control contributed largely to the down-turn in our economic growth but there were causes within our control, and these included wage, salary and other incremental increases which were not matched by increases in productivity. These, together with increasing expenditure from public and private sources out of borrowed moneys, generally made excessive demands which adversely affected our balance of payments and had to be corrected. I will repeat that for Deputy Corish's benefit: they had to be corrected. Obviously he has the impression that the steps taken were either unnecessary or excessive and did too much damage.
The fact is that it was clear to us in mid-1965 that this deficit, if allowed to continue unchecked, would be so large as to cause a serious confidence crisis which would have had the most damaging repercussions on the availability of money, on trade and on employment. The measures taken to improve the external balance were widely spread and carefully directed towards correcting the deficit without lasting damage to our economy. I contend they have been successful. Our external payments deficit for the current year will be of moderate size and it is now possible to consider relaxing some of these restrictions.
I might say also that trade figures which have just come to hand indicate that the measures taken have been successful in this sphere as well. Imports for the ten months ended October, 1966 are £6 million less than in the first ten months of 1965. Exports for the same ten months are almost £14 million more than for the first ten months of 1965. The running annual total at £238.8 million for the year ended 31st October, 1966, represents a new record high, being almost £1 million higher than the previous record—for the year ended 30th September, 1966. It is £14.8 million higher than the total for 1965. The import excess for the ten months is about £20 million less than in the first ten months of 1965.
These figures indicate that we are now ready to resume, carefully, the road back to the rate of economic progress we enjoyed in the seven years from 1958 to 1965. In these seven years, we enjoyed a rate of national progress, both in agriculture and in industry, which was truly remarkable by comparison with any year in the period up to 1958 itself and which compared favourably with the rate of progress even in the most progressive European countries. This rate repre sented 15 per cent over the period in real terms in agriculture, 65 per cent in industry and 32 per cent in the economy as a whole.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to our rate of growth as being deficient by comparison with OECD countries. He referred to the average growth rate of these countries as 4.9 per cent but of course he did not mention that these OECD countries include the United States and Japan, each of which had a remarkable growth during that same period. I would, however, frankly admit that because of the difficulties of the past year, our progress towards the targets set out in the Second Programme has been retarded. As I made known in my Budget Statement last March, the Programme is now being reviewed and revised in relation to current realities and reasonable future prospects. While some of the targets may now take longer to be fulfilled, others may yet be achieved by 1970. It is, of course, unrealistic for Deputy Corish to suggest that the Government can oblige all sectors in a democracy such as we have to take all the steps necessary to achieve these targets. Programmes of economic expansion are reasonable efforts to measures the possibilities of economic and social advance. Of their very nature they cannot be rigid; they must be flexible and capable of revision, both in their individual sectors and overall.
The achievement of any programme depends on the validity of the assumptions on which it is based and this in turn depends partly on what happens outside the economy itself and partly on what happens within it. In the final analysis, the success of any programme must depend on the people who work within its framework. These people are the farmers, the industrial workers, the civil servants, managers, teachers; all the individuals and groups that make up the working community. Any programme is only as good as these people will make it.
It will be difficult to make as much progress over the next three or four years as was originally planned. Some ground has unavoidably been lost which it will take some time to recover. The important thing, however, is to resume the advance without delay. The best shot in the arm our economy could receive would be a full and realistic acceptance by both sides of industry of their common interest in increasing output and employment. I appeal to workers and management to co-operate in producing more competitively. I ask them to realise that together they are the principal source of industrial expansion. By each recognising the role of the other, by planning together and by understanding and respecting each other, they can achieve more in their own interest and in that of the whole country.
The way to higher production and more jobs is through higher exports. This way can be blocked by cost and price increases which hinder sales abroad and therefore cramp the growth of production and employment. A renewal of expansion is possible only as the effect of concentrating on raising of production and expanding employment. The measures to do so must be carefully planned, and, if they are to avoid running on the rocks of an excessive balance of payments deficit, that planning must be very careful indeed. It is vital that their effect should not be counteracted by rises in costs and prices that destroy or frustrate export prospects.
We need increased productivity as a basis for real increases in income that will not be undermined by price increases. The present rate of growth of the economy is much below the rate that was expected when the tenth round of salary and wage increases was being considered. The Government can therefore see no justification in present circumstances for any further increases on top of the tenth round revision that took place earlier this year. It would be clearly damaging to the economy that claims for such an increase should in the present difficult circumstances be pursued and I would appeal to any groups who have lodged, or who are contemplating lodging, such claims to realise that ultimately their own interests can best be served by adhering in the common interest to a policy of restraint. Increased productivity does not necessarily mean more sweat and toil. The introduction of up-to-date machinery, improved organisation and methods of work, and a better team spirit which would come from an increase in mutual understanding and respect and improved industrial relations, would yield a bigger and better output without any greater physical effort.
In the foreign markets where we sell our exports, there is now much greater competition, aggravated, of course, in Britain, by credit restrictions and general depression of the economy there. As well as facing greater competition in foreign markets, there will be much more competition from imports in the home market as a result of the reduction in our own protective tariffs. Producers will, therefore, be faced with the necessity of absorbing increases and being satisfied with smaller profits. The most effective way of dealing with this problem will be to improve methods of production and to increase productivity generally so as to reduce prices generally and make a wider range of our products more competitive.
As regards external economic policy, our principal aim remains that of seeking full and early membership of EEC. To further this aim, we have recently established a diplomatic mission in Brussels, specially accredited to the European Economic Community, and we have arranged for a series of ministerial talks with the Commission of the Community. While membership will confer various benefits and advantages, particularly on the side of agriculture, it will mean, of course, tougher competition for our industries. This is an additional reason why all sectors should give the economy a chance not only to recover from the difficulties we have been experiencing but to gear itself for the highly competitive world in which we shall have to seek the desired expansion of national output and employment.
I fail to understand the Fine Gael approach to our application for membership of the European Economic Community. They have been talking about making some effort to get in on some basis, without defining what the basis is, such as other countries have done, and they quote countries whose conditions and whose terms of application for whatever form of association they have sought or have acquired are completely irrelevant to our circumstances. We have established beyond any doubt whatever that no basis exists for a meaningful interim link with the EEC in advance of our entry to an enlarged Community. This is not just our own view in the matter. It represents also the view of the European Economic Community countries themselves.
It is misleading to hold up as a headline what Greece and Turkey have done without, at the same time, adverting to the fact that the association agreements negotiated by these countries provided for their inclusion in the Custom Union of the Six and the resultant application of the common external tariff to imports to these countries from all non-member countries. It has been demonstrated conclusively in this House—I have done so myself on a number of occasions— that an arrangement of this kind would not be to our interest, involving as it would the raising of tariffs against our principal customer, that is, Britain, not to mention that our exclusion from a say in the conduct of the affairs of the Community, which is reserved to member countries, would also follow. I cannot understand why Greece and Turkey continue to be held up as examples which we should follow if not only on these grounds but on the grounds of their geographical location, Greece with all the Communist Balkan countries on its north and Turkey with much of its frontier bordering Russia itself.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to Austria as a headline, but he did not advert to the fact that that country has been negotiating for some form of entry for a very long time and has succeeded so far in getting no basis for entry into the Community. Furthermore, it is clear that a link with the Community of the kind which Austria is now negotiating or desires will not enable that country to maintain its special relationship with EFTA countries any more than we could, in similar circumstances, maintain our special relationship with Britain.
Denmark has been mentioned as a case whose example we might have followed. That, of course, is about the most naïve suggestion that could come from anybody who professes to know anything about the present situation in the EEC. Denmark is an applicant who could get no further in her application than ourselves. Denmark has been given a certain concession for the export of some cattle to West Germany because of a long-standing bilateral agreement that extended beyond the period when the common agricultural policy was agreed upon by the Community last July. It was a concession given to them for the export to West Germany of some 16,000 head of cattle this year and some last year during the period called the off-the-grass season for cattle. When one considers the pre-existence and the continuance of a bilateral agreement between Denmark and Germany and the fact that the traditional number of cattle exported from Denmark to west Germany was in the neighbourhood of 250,000, one can readily see how a concession—and it was only a concession for off-the-grass cattle and a very small percentage of their previous trade—was granted to them. We, too, have a similar concession this year and we negotiated such a concession in our recent visit to Brussels. Therefore, I cannot understand why Fine Gael speakers, one after another, stand up and hold this up to us as an example of what Denmark has done.
I should like to conclude my remarks on this topic by repeating what the Minister for External Affairs said in the Seanad debate on 14th July when he told the Seanad that we have been told explicitly by the Commission of the EEC that there was nothing specific Ireland could do in the existing situation to further her interests under the heading of full membership, association or an item by item agreement. I was personally involved in negotiating all the other means we might avail of for establishing an interim link and I know exactly what the position is. We have no doubt — and we have the assurance of the EEC Commission on this score—that there is no better or more useful way of making progress in the pursuit of membership of the EEC than we are at present following.
On all issues arising in the EEC context the Government's record can stand up to any criticism. At home we have been unremitting in our attention to the task of preparing the economy for the rigours and opportunities which membership of the EEC will bring. Abroad, we have never ceased, in contacts with the Community and the member countries, to keep in the forefront our anxiety for full membership. The earnestness of that desire has been demonstrated in the negotiation of the recent Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain which is consistent with, and designed to facilitate, our eventual entry into the Community.
I might say that we are greatly interested in the new initiative in the field of relations with the EEC which was announced by the British Government last week. This move, we hope, will have the effect of hastening the day when conditions favourable to the revival of an application for membership by Ireland and the other countries will emerge. For our part, it is our intention to supplement the arrangements already made for consultations with the EEC Commission by further discussions with the British Government and, as appropriate, with the governments of the member countries. Indeed the House can be assured that in this context the Government will use every opportunity to advance Ireland's application for membership of the Community.
Membership of the Community naturally brings one to the advantages that it is likely to bring for the agricultural community. Unfortunately time does not permit of my dealing with agriculture to any extent this evening, but I want to say to the farmers that we recognise their importance in the community and the great contribution they can make to the growth of national output. We in the Government understand their problems and we want to produce remedies for them within the capacity of our resources. The Government have not been ungenerous with them in the past. We want to ensure that they will make their full contribution to increasing the nation's wealth and that they will enjoy their fair share of that increase.
As regards meeting the representatives of the National Farmers' Association for a discussion on farming problems, I readily respond to the suggestion made by my predecessor that I should meet, with the new Minister for Agriculture, the representatives of the NFA at an early date. Arrangements are already in hands to that end. Apart from that, I shall encourage full and free discussion with all farmers' organisations so that they can have the fullest opportunity at all reasonable times to present their points of view to the Government.
Increased economic growth will call for more investment. I have explained that our investment needs already exceed our current savings. The deficiency can be made good in two ways. One of these ways is limited and expensive, that is, foreign borrowing, and this can be relied on only for a marginal supplement to the savings of our own people. But the past thrift of our own people and particularly the deprivations that they suffered in times of war have left us as a community with substantial investments abroad. I pointed out recently that these investments are no longer as attractive as they once were and I would appeal again to those who hold foreign investments to realise that capital is urgently required at home for the financing of essential economic and social development. I would ask them favourably to reconsider repatriating some of this capital so as to add to the pool available for national development. I would also appeal for special support, in the form of increased current savings, for public issues both Government and private from now on. Interest rates are now more attractive than they have been for 40 years and I might say in passing that I am very glad of and appreciate very much the support expressed by the two Opposition Parties for the new National Loan to be floated next week.
The need for capital expenditure for the development of our resources is happily accepted by all Parties. Under the Programme for Economic Expansion it has been possible to increase the amounts spent on capital development from about £40 million in 1956-57 to over £100 million in 1965-66. This expenditure had a most significant effect in bringing about the remarkable and sustained increase in gross national product since 1958.
The financial resources necessary to maintain the capital programme at the level reached in the last couple of years were not available at home and, therefore, it was necessary, in 1965-66 and again in the current year, to supplement our resources by modest foreign borrowings. There is nothing reprehensible about this. It was clearly envisaged in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Other countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and many others I could name have been borrowing abroad for several years in order to sustain the level of their internal capital expenditures. Even very large American enterprises, such as General Electric, W. R. Grace, Goodyear International, and others, have had to seek on the international market for some of their capital requirements. Indeed, it was the unprecedented rush of such companies to the international bond market in the latter months of 1965 that made it impossible for us to go ahead with our projected dollar borrowing. Many other issues had to be postponed at that time including those of organisations like the European Coal and Steel Community. There have, of course, been a number of issues on the market since then but these were by large and well-established borrowers, in many cases having attractive rights of conversion into the equities of these companies, rights which we could not offer. The postponement of that issue was in no way due to lack of faith in our country.
The Sterling Deutschmark Lnan was issued at the then current interest rate and I may say it was a very successful issue. Its issue price was £97½ and a purchaser would have to pay £100½ for it.
The terms of the London issue and its timing were decided on the best advice available. There has been an amount of misinformed and unjustified and contradictory criticism of this loan. I have been told that the terms were far too high and I have been told also that they were not high enough to attract in the money from the public. The fact is that from this country's point of view the terms were quite advantageous when it is remembered that this was our first borrowing in the London market. The mammoth British firm, Imperial Chemicals, shortly afterwards had to offer over eight per cent to raise capital in the same market though they were, as everybody knows, well established borrowers. We got that money at £7 16s per cent. There has been a steady demand for our stock and it now stands three points above its issue price. The price of the stock now, within such a short time of the issue date, is the best evidence available of its standing and it clearly shows that the credit of this country is regarded as high by British investors.
I should like to deal a little more with current expenditure. Deputy Cosgrave complains that there is no selective order of priorities in public expenditure. He disclaims any responsibility for making a selection. He wants somebody else to pull the fat out of the fire for him. His complaint is a convenient way of avoiding saying what section of the public programme, either current or capital, should be reduced in order that some other section or sections should have more. The fact is that claims have been made from time to time for increases in all headings but nobody will say who shall go without.
Capital expenditure has increased by £46½ million or 90 per cent since 1960-61, that is, from just over £50 million to an estimated £98 million this year. Nearly one-half of this increase has gone on building and construction. Specifically, £13 million of the increase has been for housing, £4½ million for schools and universities and £2½ million for hospital building. Presumably, Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies would regard these increases as acceptable. The rest of the increase in public capital expenditure in this period, namely, £25 million, has gone on agriculture and agricultural credit, some £5¼ million; fuel and power development, £7 million; industrial development and industrial credit, £6 million; telephones, £4 million. Other increases, though small in absolute terms, represent relatively speaking much higher percentage increases. For example, if we are to take tourism as one item, expenditure on tourism multiplied by seven times in that period, from £90,000 to almost £700,000.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to what he called the blaze of Government expenditure, extravagance and irresponsibility. Current Government expenditure has risen from close on £140 million in 1960-61 to about £269 million in the present year. But, let us have a look at the principal constituents of this increase of some £129 million: Social Welfare, an increase of £16.5 million; Education, £15 million; Health, £7.6 million; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, £28 million; Industry and Transport, £7.6 million and, of course, there was the necessity to service debt, as a result of increased borrowings, to the extent of some £27 million.
Which of these figures would any Deputy on the other side ask to reduce? To what extent would they call this expenditure a blaze of Government expenditure? These figures, I think, on the contrary, underline the considerable improvements in social services in recent years, the growing cost of agricultural price supports, greater assistance for industry both direct and indirect, of services provided by semi-State bodies and the like, and a higher level of capital which is reflected in the greatly increased cost of servicing the public debt.
Here I should like to make a short reference to housing. The number of local authority and grant type houses built over the past seven years increased from just under 6,000 in the year ended March 1960 up to 9,296 in the same period to 1965 and 10,787 in the year to March 1966. The number of houses built annually has increased by 80 per cent. I may say for the benefit of the critics of the Minister for Local Government that the State is spending now more than ever before on housing generally. Local authority house completions are expected to be higher this year than even the high figure of last year.
Our immediate major problems are certainly economic but it is only by solving them that we can obtain the resources for social development, not only in regard to education but in regard to health and social welfare generally. For a long time in this country we have suffered from two associated evils: shortage of jobs and emigration. These are the joint expression of the inadequate use within Ireland of our greatest resource—the brains and skills of our people. Our progress over the past 45 years has been striking but there is much that still requires to be done before we can say our potential as a community is being realised. This is a task for the present generation as the successor to the one that built up the structure of our society.
There is more to this task than enacting legislation and drawing up programmes. It is a question of evoking the great personal qualities which are deeply rooted in our Christian belief. I would hope that the political life of this country could help in the realisation of our full national potential. We all want to see the problem of emigration, voluntary emigration at any rate, mastered in this generation. We all realise that this is an enormous task requiring as much sustained effort and dedication as any task in our history required. But I believe it is a task we can successfully accomplish if we set our hearts and minds to it steadily. We have control of our own affairs; our levels of education are rising; the broad trends in the world outside are favourable; and we also have a better understanding both of what needs to be done and how to do it. We have most encouraging evidence from 1958 onwards of our capacity to make substantial progress. We are fortunate, too, that our society does not suffer from deep cleavages as other societies do, cleavages which can so frustrate progress. I think we must make sure that, as a community, we should make the best possible use of this advantage.
At this time of change and decision it would be encouraging if all organisations examined themselves critically to see whether their present constitutions, functions and methods of operation are best suited to the fulfilment of national objectives. A number of such reviews is at present in hands. For example, the Oireachtas review of the Constitution, the review of the Civil Service, the examination of industrial organisations which is being carried out on behalf of Business Conference '66. Deputy Corish suggested that this was the time for radical changes in Government policy. There will always be need for change but I want to assure Deputy Corish that I am not going to make change just for the sake of change. However, having encouraged other organisations to examine themselves critically to see how they can improve their operations and having myself initiated last month the Civil Service review to which I have just referred, I recognise that the Government themselves will have to step up their procedure for the revision, in the light of changing conditions, of their policies in general and as they affect each individual Department. I propose to arrange accordingly.
Before I conclude, I should like to take this occasion to refer to the Civil Service which irrespective of political changes, loyally serves the Government of the day. Having been a civil servant myself in my early days, and having had charge at different stages of three Government Departments, I am not speaking in this respect without some experience. All sections of the House will, I know, agree with me that it is of supreme importance in the functioning of a democracy like ours to have a Civil Service which is noted for its integrity, its capacity, its devotion and impartiality.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We are fortunate to possess such a Civil Service, and I should like to pay tribute to the officers of all ranks who make it possible to have Government policy executed. Officials in the higher ranks have the duty of advising Ministers on different aspects of administration and of carrying out the decisions of the Government and Ministers whether they agree with them or not. Anything that hinders the giving of candid advice by officials to Ministers is surely in the long run against the national interest. For this reason I greatly deprecate attacks on officials, whether named or implied, on the basis of advice allegedly given to the political chiefs, and I trust such attacks will cease. If there is to be criticism of policy, let it be directed at Ministers. It is the Ministers who will answer for it. It is they who are responsible.
I have dealt broadly with some of the main criticisms made by the Opposition in the course of this debate. I treat with the contempt they deserve the lurid fantasies of knives and tomahawks painted by Deputy Dillon and some of his colleagues.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
They know far more about knives in the back than we on this side are ever likely to know. I am not going to waste the time of this House by answering abusive personal attacks on the men I have nominated to be members of the Government, even though the convention of the House to which I referred precluded them from answering for themselves in the course of this debate. However, it is a source of comfort to me, on the other hand, that members of the Fine Gael Party have descended to the level of personal abuse in order to attack this Government. It is only when men are good men and are adequate to the tasks to which they have set their hands that their enemies resort to such low tactics and try to denigrate them by slander and untruths as the Fine Gael people have these past few days. I want the Opposition to have no doubt about this: I have the fullest confidence in the ability of the members of this Party I have nominated to be members of the Government.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am satisfied that, man for man, they could take on any one of the seekers of Cabinet office on the other side, no matter what computations or permutations might be made, and leave them far behind him, whether it be a 60 yards dash or a marthon. The only comment I need to make on this alleged split in Fianna Fáil is that I have heard Deputy Dillon and some of his colleagues make this charge over and over again during my period in this House.
And long before it.
I need only say in this respect that if any other Deputy of this Party had been nominated for election as Taoiseach other than myself, he could expect the same degree of loyalty and support as I am now assured of.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This has always been the strength of Fianna Fáil. And this has always been the weakness of the Opposition in under-estimating the solidarity and unanimity of purpose that is Fianna Fáil.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I have been advised by the Opposition to seek a dissolution. I should like to comfort them right away by assuring them that I have no intention of doing so. They can save their graveyard whistles for the time when they are really passing graveyards. I have no intention of leaving office, even though we are going through troubled times. This was the Fine Gael, the Labour and Coalition way of running away from trouble. They did it twice in my political lifetime. They ran out of office in 1951 after, amongst other troubles, internal strife and, for all I know, sharpening of sabres and knives. One member of their Cabinet refused, on the request of the others, to write down the Estimate to be published for his Department. That was only one of the little problems they had. The incoming Fianna Fáil Government had to face the political hazard of raising, in the next Budget for which they were responsible, several million pounds to pay the debts left by that Coalition Government.
In 1957, we had the same spectacle of a Coalition Government who still had a working majority in the House, running away from the serious problems of that day, for which, if you please, they blamed General Nasser. Of course, it was just before a Budget in the same year—again, a Budget with which Fianna Fáil had to face the people, imposing new and increased taxation in order to pay the debts. However, it took more than the Suez Canal and General Nasser to produce a figure of 95,000 people week after week on the unemployed register in the late winter and early spring of 1956-57. Fianna Fáil changed all that and brought to this country a rate of economic growth unparalleled in our history in the seven-year period up to last year. Now that we are emerging from these economic difficulties, the Fianna Fáil Government can and will do it again. Even if I did not have the full confidence that this Government would be able to do just that, I certainly should not like to face history by leaving office now and giving the people the prospect of another Coalition Government and another débacle such as we had in 1951 and in 1957.
Certain remarks were made about me during the course of this debate. I shall not defend myself. I may have been reluctant to let my name go forward for nomination as Taoiseach. I had my personal reasons but these are now irrelevant. I have put them aside. I can assure the Deputies opposite that I shall not be a reluctant Taoiseach. On the contrary, I shall be a vigorous and progressive one.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Neither am I here in a caretaker capacity. As I told my Party, I shall stay as long as I am able to hold down the job.
I want to say, before I end, that the selection we made was done by due democratic process. We published the names of those who were nominated and of those who nominated each of the candidates and we published the results. We have not yet learned the voting or who supported whom in the succession race in Fine Gael. Except for the two men who proposed Deputy George Colley and one other who told me he did not vote for me, I do not know who else supported Deputy George Colley but I know I have the full support of those who supported Deputy George Colley, and of Deputy George Colley himself, just as I have of those who supported me.
I want to say, in conclusion, that, when Dáil Éireann has given its approval of this Government, when it has given its mandate to proceed with the running of the country's affairs, my colleagues and I, intend, le cunamh Dé, with the backing of a Party as united as it was at its foundation in 1926 or when it first took office in 1932, to undertake our several and collective tasks with vigour and responsibility.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Casey, Seán.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and James Tully.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17th November, 1966.