The motion which was introduced this afternoon by the Taoiseach is unusual not merely because it is the first time that such amotion was introduced but because of the speech which the Taoiseach made in introducing it. He spoke for 45 minutes and during the whole course of that speech he never once mentioned the results of the recent by-elections. One would have thought that the motion was introduced in an atmosphere entirely different from the circumstances in which the country finds itself at present.
The recent by-elections, following the result in North-West Dublin, can only be regarded as an emphatic repudiation of the economic policy of the present Government. That emphatic repudiation, following the defeat in North-West Dublin, requires some analysis and consideration. When the North-West Dublin result took place, Fianna Fáil spokesmen attributed the decision in North-West Dublin to a combination of two factors. They alleged that because the successful candidate was the son of Alderman Alfred Byrne and brother of the deceased Deputy he secured the sympathy of a great number of the electorate. In addition to that suggestion, they asserted that because there was an adverse decision in North-West Dublin it was peculiar to an urban constituency, that the rising unemployment and the rising cost of living had affected more severely people living in urban areas than those residing in rural constituencies. They alleged, asserted and claimed during the months that followed that North-West Dublin was peculiar to itself. Since then, two elections have taken place in two typically rural constituencies. Again, it is important that the people should recognise what has not been so far mentioned in the course of this debate by Government spokesmen but which was confidently asserted in public in some places but more often in private and by canvassers on behalf of Fianna Fáil.
During the course of these by-elections they came to the conclusion that they could not win Wicklow and would attribute the loss there to the split in the Fianna Fáil Party. The circumstance which occurred at theFianna Fáil convention was a good alibi to put across to the people if they were defeated in Wicklow. They concentrated great energies and considerable forces on East Cork where they had what was commonly accepted as a strong candidate. It was the confident belief in Fianna Fáil circles that they would win East Cork, and if the inter-Party candidate was successful in Wicklow at any rate the status quowould be maintained.
People in other constituencies may not be familiar with the terrific effort that the Fianna Fáil Party put in in these two constituencies. Not merely were Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries present at meetings in each constituency but in every locality and district there was a Fianna Fáil Deputy or a Fianna Fáil Senator and in some cases both were quartered there. I think I should say that they were liberally endowed to meet with any eventualities. These people, in collaboration with outside assistants, operated for the entire three weeks of the campaign and they worked in the efficient way in which the Fianna Fáil organisation can work. In particular, when the Taoiseach was billed to speak in any locality, bus-loads and car-loads were brought in from other constituencies to swell the crowds to make it appear to the people in these constituencies that they had a vast concourse of people to support the Fianna Fáil Party policy. The bands played and the flags waved and, as far as it was possible to do it, a big demonstration was staged.
It was not possible to whip up the same enthusiasm for other Ministers. Some Ministers were left severely alone but, as far as the Taoiseach was concerned and wherever it was possible, a big election atmosphere was produced. The only feature that was not mentioned in the Irish Pressreports was the fact that a number of people who had the temerity to interrupt, or even ask a simple question at the Taoiseach's meeting in Bray, were removed from the audience. They were not allowed even to ask a simple question. However, these manufactured demonstrations, the whipped-up enthusiasm of the combined forces of the members of theGovernment and of the Deputies and Senators quartered in the constituencies failed to bring off the result that was anticipated.
Leaving aside the peculiar situation that Fianna Fáil were prepared to make a case concerning Wicklow, in East Cork they met with a resounding defeat. Even if the total Fianna Fáil vote was added together in Wicklow, and even if added to that were the votes which they had lost between 1951 and 1953, they would still not have been successful in securing the Wicklow seat. Then the results had to be explained. The Taoiseach issued a little statement in which he said that "there was no significant change.""Under proportional representation" which has, of course, ever been a bugbear to Fianna Fáil, he said, "they could not expect to win a majority in these two constituencies. They were both three-seat constituencies, and that it was very difficult for a single Party to secure a majority." There were a few other remarks to support the case that was made, and then there was silence until this motion was put down.
It is, I think, pertinent to recall the circumstances in which previous by-elections took place in 1947. In the autumn of that year, three by-elections took place in what were then described by the Taoiseach as three typical constituencies. They were not widely separated areas—Waterford, Tipperary and County Dublin. In two of those constituencies Fianna Fáil were defeated. They retained the seat in Waterford. Earlier, during the course of the by-elections the Taoiseach had made a number of speeches which I will quote in a moment in which he referred to what would happen if they were defeated in them.
After the result of the three by-elections held in the autumn of that year had been declared a statement was issued by the Taoiseach from Government Buildings. It was published in the Irish Presson the 1st November, 1947. The statement was:—
"The Dáil is to be dissolved as soon as practicable and a general election held early next year, theTaoiseach announced in Government Buildings last night. Mr. de Valera's decision was made known in the following statement:—
A Government whose position has been weakened and might be questioned could not hope to deal effectively with the conditions which may confront the country in the coming year.
An opportunity must be given to the people to indicate their will and to give their judgment. I think it right, therefore, that I should seek a dissolution of the present Dáil as soon as practicable. Everyone should, accordingly, expect that a general election will be held early next year."
The latter phrase has a familiar ring because it is as definite as the Taoiseach generally is. However, the Irish Pressin a leading article on the same date said:—
"In a speech which he delivered in Tipperary, last Sunday week, the Taoiseach said that if the Government were weakened by the result of the by-elections, there would be no course left open but to settle the question by a general election. In two of the three by-elections which have taken place the Government candidates have been defeated, and, as a result, a general election will be held early in the New Year...
Under the circumstances, the Government have arrived at the only possible decision. This is a democratic country and it is for the people to say how and by whom they will be ruled."
In the following general election, the Taoiseach made a number of speeches in different parts of the country. I will take here a speech which he made at Cahirciveen on the 19th January, 1948, in which he said:—
"Some people wondered why, since we could have stayed in office for another year and a half, this election is now about to take place.
The reason is this—the time is too critical for a Government to be in office, except it is a strong Government.
A Government is strong only if it has a majority in Parliament, because with our system, the Government depends on the majority it has in Parliament. It is a weak Government if it has not a strong majority.
It is not strong merely because it has a parliamentary majority. If it can be suggested that the Government is not supported by the people, then a Government by that very fact is a weak Government—if, after these elections, the finger can be pointed at us, and it is said in the Dáil: ‘You have a majority of 12 or 14 over the other Parties, but the people are not behind you—you have not the majority of the people.' You know that the Opposition would talk in that way and would be encouraged in their efforts by the fact that that charge could be made.
We are determined that that charge cannot be made, and if we are to continue as a Government we would have to have a majority in Parliament; be able to show that that majority was reasonably given to us, and that the people were behind us as well as the majority in Parliament."
Would it be unfair to suggest that expediency is the guide in the present circumstances and that the Government and those who have supported them are afraid to face the electorate? They are cowering behind the majority that it is hoped to secure from those who were elected not to support Fianna Fáil. They are afraid to face the electorate and to put their policy to the test, and are going back on the statement of the Taoiseach in which he said: "We are determined that that charge cannot be made, and if we are to continue as a Government we would have to have a majority in Parliament; be able to show that that majority was reasonably given to us and that the people were behind us as well as the majority in Parliament".
That was not the Taoiseach's only speech. He spoke at Tuam on the 27th January, 1948, where he said:—
"The recent by-elections seemed to indicate that people might notsupport them as they had done before. If that were so, he said, they would be a weak Government, and it would be better that they should get out. If they wanted to have progress, they must have a Government that was strong, supported by the people and thus assured of its position."
In the Irish Independentof 21st January, 1948, the Taoiseach is reported as saying at Dingle:—
"Instead of remaining in office for another year and a half as they could have done, they decided to hold a general election, because they believed that a weak Government could not properly serve this country, and the by-elections had weakened them as a Government. It would be pointed out to them during the next year and a half while they had a majority they had not a majority of the people supporting them."
During the three by-elections which had preceded the general election he spoke at Tipperary on the 19th October, 1947, and said:—
"If a Government were weakened, it was not able to do its work properly, and if the Government were weakened by the result of the by-elections, there would be nothing for it but to settle the question by a general election. Mr. de Valera said that he thought that the people would agree with him that that was right."
Speaking in a message addressed to the electorate of counties Dublin, Tipperary and Waterford, the Taoiseach said on 24th October, 1947:—
"To weaken the Government at a time like the present, unless it were intended completely to set it aside would be obviously foolish. A Government weakened by defeats in a group of typical by-elections could not hope to do its work effectively or even successfully to carry on. Were the Government to be weakened by the present by-elections, the position would be such that it would, in the national interest, have to be set right immediately by reference to the people in a general election."
I do not think it is necessary to quote further examples of the extraordinary change which has come over the present Government and over the Taoiseach since the general election campaign of 1948 and the by-election campaign of the previous October and November. Great changes have occurred for the worse as far as the position of the people is concerned since the election of the Fianna Fáil Government in June of 1951. When Fianna Fáil failed to secure a majority of the elected representatives at that time they were desirous of securing the necessary votes to have them elected to office, and although it was to some extent demeaning for a Party that sought—I have other references here— on numerous occasions an overall majority, the desire to secure election to office overcame their reluctance to secure the extra votes essential to get a majority in Parliament. They published a 17 point programme and, in that programme, inducements were held out because of the various aspects of that policy that might appeal to Deputies from different parts of the country.
The most significant point in that programme was point 15, under which it was stated that it was part of the Fianna Fáil programme to control the prices of essential foodstuffs by an efficient system of price control and to maintain the food subsidies. In the Budget of last year, which has been reenacted and continued by the Budget introduced this year, we can examine how effect was given to that policy, how that undertaking was broken, how that solemnly pledged programme, published after the election, carefully drafted by the Fianna Fáil Party and announced after the Party had failed to secure a majority was disregarded and how the non-implementation of that programme affected the people. The 2-lb. loaf has increased from 6½d. to 9¼d.; tea has increased from 2/8 per lb., to 5/- and 5/6; sugar has increased from 4½d. to 7d. per lb.; butter has increased from 2/10 per lb. to 4/2. Although the Government are able to import the well-known yellow butter at 3/4 per lb., buying 2,000,000 lb. of it this year from New Zealand—by departmental regulation, Irish creamerybutter was until recently not available in Dublin, Dún Laoghaire or Bray—the public are obliged to pay the price of 4/2 for the privilege of eating it.
In recent months it has been a repeated claim by the Tánaiste that the cost of living either appeared to be stabilised or was stabilised. It depends on the mood of confidence which the members of the Government feel. They say it appears to be stabilised if they are not very confident. If they are more confident they say that it is stabilised. That statement was first made about three months ago, about the time that the February cost-of-living index was published. There had been a fall over a period of months in the import prices of many commodities and the Government assumed that price stability was in sight or had been reached. That allegation was repeated on a number of occasions during the intervening three months and in particular during the recent by-elections. However, some weeks ago the May cost-of-living index was published. That index figure clearly showed that there had been a rise of no less than three points between February of this year and May of this year. After that figure was compiled, we had the additional half-penny on the pound of sugar and an additional charge on cheese. I do not know whether stability has one meaning for members of the Fianna Fáil Party and another meaning for the ordinary people but to suggest that stability has been reached and that there is an appearance of stability as far as the cost of living is concerned is to refuse to face facts.
I have here some particulars of the alteration that has occurred in the official cost-of-living index figure between the election of the present Government two years ago and the last published figure. It shows that there was a rise of 20 points in the intervening period, a rise of over 13 per cent., a rise that does not measure or take into account the indirect taxes, the taxes that were criticised by the then Opposition when the inter-Party Government made some slight changes in certain Post Office charges. It was alleged that this was indirect taxation for which there was no authority, thatnot merely was it taxation but it was indirect taxation of which no account was taken.
Since that cost-of-living index figure does not take into account these other charges, it might be well to recount some of them. Post Office charges— letters, telegrams, telephones, have all increased. The ordinary letter has increased by ½d. At the same time we have seen an increase in wireless licences and an increase in driving licences. Every commodity that could be taxed directly, such as food, bread, tea, sugar, butter, all have shown a substantial rise to the detriment of and bringing added burdens on, every section of the community. But side by side with that rise in direct taxation, a rise in income-tax, a rise in the tax on beer, on tobacco there has been an indirect rise in taxation through Post Office charges, driving licences, wireless licences; there has been a substantial increase in motor taxation; a substantial and continuous rise in rates.
It is no harm to bring before the House a circular which was issued on the 20th May of this year to the local authorities. I need not read the whole of it. It refers to the relief of rates on agricultural land. It was addressed to each county secretary. It says:—
"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to state that it is proposed to submit legislative proposals to the Oireachtas to amend and extend the rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act so as to vary the system of distribution of the agricultural grant for the current year."
The last sentence says:—
"Demand notes in respect of the year 1953-54 may be prepared on the basis of reliefs being provided on the foregoing basis."
It is well to examine what the reliefs would amount to. I have here some particulars as it affects the Dublin County Council. The staff of the council prepared a memo which was presented to the members of the council and which showed under a certainnumber of headings the alterations. The first example is a land valuation of £50 and in the number of men employed, two. In 1953-54, on the old system, the total relief included a primary grant of £17 17s., an employment grant of £13 and a supplementary grant of £18 18s. 6d., making a total of £39 15s. 6d. Under the new system the primary allowance would be the same, £17 17s., employment allowance, £26 and the supplementary grant, nil. In that case there would be the difference between £39 15s. 6d. and £43 17s. When you go on to consider a land valuation of a higher level you find that in the case of a land valuation of £50, number of men employed nil, on the old system the primary allowance would be £17 17s., the employment allowance would be nil and the supplementary allowance would be £8 18s. 6d., making a total of £26 15s. 6d. Under the new system the primary allowance would be £17 17s. and the employment and supplementary allowances would be nil. In the case of a land valuation of £137 10s., number of men employed, two, under the old system the total would amount to £65 16s. 2d. Under the new system it would be £43 17s.
That alteration in the basis on which the agricultural relief grant would be operated would involve the ratepayers of this country in an additional charge estimated between £250,000 and £500,000. I think the best estimate is a sum of about £350,000.
Since the issue of that circular, for which there was no statutory authority and which on its face is bad administration because it purports to anticipate legislation which had not yet been introduced into the House, the agricultural community will have imposed on them an added burden of anything between £250,000 and £500,000. That circular, incidentally, placed the obligation on the local authorities by means of the phrase: "demand notes in respect of the year 1953-54 may be prepared on the basis of relief being provided on the foregoing basis". That, of course, was referred to during the course of the by-election. A second circular, I understand, was issued. I have not yet received a copy of it but I am informedthat it is back-pedalling the proposal which was announced in the first circular.
In the past we have heard much about bargaining, we have heard much about the behind-the-scenes discussions which take place between members of the inter-Party groups, which is not supposed to have occurred so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned. It is, however, significant that one of the Deputies who has consistently supported Fianna Fáil during the last two years put down a motion about this. Whether the motion has had the effect of producing another circular from the Custom House or not is a matter for speculation.
The position so far as this Government is concerned is that they are clinging on like limpets to office, clinging on in defiance of the expressed will of the people in two constituencies recently and in a third, taking the constituency of North-West Dublin, last winter.
These three constituencies were the first constituencies that were afforded an opportunity of expressing their views on the economic policy of the present Government as enunciated and implemented in the Budget of 1952. Although the by-elections in North Mayo, Waterford and Limerick occurred this time last year, approximately, the full impact of the Budget had not taken place. The reduction in food subsidies, the substantial rise in the cost of essential commodities, the added burdens placed on every section of the community, the imposts which I have referred to and which have added severely to the burdens on every section of the community but particularly those sections that are worst off, had not taken effect and had not been felt; they were only anticipated. But, since that Budget was enacted and implemented and since the full effect of it took place we have had three by-elections.
As Deputy Costello pointed out, the by-elections in these constituencies reflect almost identically the number of votes cast and compare with the number of votes cast during the General Election of 1951. The clear conclusion that must be drawn from thoseand from an examination of the figures is that the people have emphatically, as far as they have been afforded an opportunity, rejected the economic policy of the present Government. It is significant that the only other elections which were in the offing were the local elections, and Fianna Fáil throttled the electorate by the passage of the recent measure to prevent the local electorate from expressing their views on the policy of the Government as applied to local affairs.
A good deal of time was spent during the course of these by-elections and even since by Fianna Fáil spokesmen in an effort to drive a wedge between the various inter-Party groups. It is about time they dropped that type of propaganda. It does not work. It did not work in the recent by-elections. It did not work in North-West Dublin. In fact, anyone who was present at the count during those elections was struck by the significant fact that a person who voted No. 1 for a Fine Gael or a Labour or a Clann na Poblachta candidate, carried on his preferences over the other inter-Party groups. The vast majority of the electors who voted No. 1 for any of these particular Parties carried on his or her preferences over the other groups. A most significant factor besides the emphatic repudiation of Fianna Fáil in the recent by-elections was the extraordinary solidarity of the inter-Party vote. Any attempt to drive a wedge between the various groups has so far not been successful and it will be even less successful in the future. I noticed a belated attempt has even been made by anonymous letters obviously compiled in Upper Mount Street for circulation in the Evening Mail,letters without any signature, just anom de plume,from people alleged to be worried about the future of the Labour Party. The future of the Labour Party does not depend on Fianna Fáil spokesmen or scribes and they need not worry about their welfare any more than they need worry about ours. All these efforts to obscure the emphatic decision which was given by the people cannot prevent the people understanding and appreciating the extraordinary decision, a decisionextraordinary in its emphasis, extraordinary in the clear way in which it refutes and repudiates the economic policy of the present Government.
The Minister for Defence spoke here some time ago and he expressed concern about the type of journalism that was carried on by papers opposed to the Government not to mention—or did he mention?—the journalism carried on by the Irish Press,which people sometimes forget is a Party organ supported and maintained and directed by Fianna Fáil Deputies and Fianna Fáil appointees. Very often a paper is the subject of controversy or a leader writer may be a subject of dicussion and a reference may be made to it, and it is sometimes suggested that because an article is written in a certain way it gets wide circulaton but it is forgotten that the article is written by a single individual and may only express his view. However true that may be in the case of any newspaper, as far as theIrish Pressis concerned this is a kept organ, supported, directed by Fianna Fáil Deputies at certain times and by Fianna Fáil Senators, and it reflects their view and the Fianna Fáil view. Despite the extensive resources of the Fianna Fáil Party, despite the resources of that newspaper and the support of another newspaper during the recent by-elections——