One could begin this debate by quoting the words of Shakespeare in relation to the address by the Taoiseach in opening the discussion. The words are: "In such a night as this stood Dido on the windswept banks, a willow in her hand and waft her love to come again to Carthage." The Taoiseach standing here in his accustomed place, with the willow in his hand, is wafting the Irish electorate to come again to the Fianna Fáil Party and to continue to give them the support which they gave in 1957. It might be of interest to the Taoiseach to know that Aeneas, to whom Dido was beckoning on that famous occasion with the willow in her hand, did not go back to Carthage but chose instead another bride from the vicinity of the Seven Hills of Rome. That will be true by analogy on this occasion. Whatever blandishments, whatever the allure of words, the electorate are not going to permit themselves to suffer twice from unrequited love.
We were told by the Taoiseach in the course of this debate that the price of progress is continuous effort. I agree. But effort, however continuous, must be an effort springing from a real plan, sensibly conceived, economically designed and, above all, with the intention of benefiting the people to whom it is addressed. It can hardly be said that the plans to which we have been accustomed can be identified with that continuous effort which is meant to be the price of progress.
It is quite clear that such plans as we have had enunicated in this House, or outside it, in the course of addresses made on Estimates or whether it is in Clery's Restaurant or anywhere else the Taoiseach chooses to address the Comh-Chomhairle of the Fianna Fáil Party, that the plans so enunicated are not plans designed on an economic basis and sensibly conceived, but plans designed by way of expediency as the fastest possible method to gain the support of the electorate. The support of the electorate was so gained in 1957 by the promise of 100,000 jobs through the injection into the economy of this country over a five year period of £100,000,000.
So far from realisation of that objective are we today that, instead of 100,000 extra jobs, we have in this country 51,000 fewer people in employment. So far are we from the realisation of the principles laid down by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Boland, when he said that this Government was clearly elected to deal with the problems of unemployment and emigration, that 200,000 people left this country during the tenure of office of this Government. That 200,000 does not represent all the people who left. Perhaps I might be speaking for a limited portion of this country when I talk of the families that have left, the heads of which have applied for insurance cards in Great Britain for the first time. When the head of an Irish family, having emigrated, applies for an insurance card in Great Britain for the first time that does not carry with it numerically the dependants which he has to support in Great Britain, his wife, and his children, some of them of schoolgoing age.
I might mention, in passing, that last Sunday morning I addressed a meeting in an area in my constituency where it was brought home to me that this year for the first time children have been enlisted, children under school leaving age, to work in the potato fields of Scotland in order to supplement the family income and to preserve the holding at home. Last evening Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Opposition, referred to a speech, without giving the source, in which it was promised at Belmullet on 28th March, 1957, that food subsidies would not be withdrawn, and that promise was reinforced by the argument that the then leader of the Fianna Fáil Party would not withdraw them because he realised, and his Party realised, how important bread was in the diet of the poor. The Leader of the Opposition said correctly that he was prevented constitutionally from mentioning the source of that particular speech. I am likewise prevented, but that speech carried with it in my constituency of North Mayo a distinct successful electoral result, the gain of a seat for the present Government Party.
I am not in a position to invite the author of that speech back to Belmullet. Neither is the author of the speech in a position to come back to Belmullet, but the person in whom is identified that electoral success, the second seat for Fianna Fáil in North Mayo, is in a position to come back and, by all accounts, he does not chose to do so, so that the people of that part of the constituency of North Mayo will be deprived in the next general election of hearing either the source of their inspiration or the argument as to why that inspiration should not be continued from the person who is identified with the success of that speech.
On behalf of the people so shamelessly betrayed, so hopelessly beguiled, I now invite the existing Deputies for North Mayo, whether they be seeking re-election or not, to come out and speak in support of those who will be carrying the banner in the same town and to give their reasons as to why they think the people should continue to support this Government and as to why they think the people are wrong in believing that they were fooled on that occasion. That, of course, is only one example of the kind of thing that has happened. Deputy Dillon in the course of his speech yesterday evening alluded to the situation obtaining in this country where public men are held up to ridicule and contempt as a result of denying today what they so solemnly promised yesterday. Only for so long can that situation continue to obtain. Only for so long can people be fooled universally. Portion of them no doubt will continue to be fooled for all time but, speaking for the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I do not think that they will be fooled, not alone the next time, but ever again.
In an Estimate here last week, or the week before, there was much discussion about the new pattern of emigration from rural Ireland, and particularly from the West of Ireland. It was being alleged from this side of the House that houses were closing, that whole families were leaving and that the struggle to keep the small holdings was so difficult that they were being abandoned. Out of the mouth of Deputy Killilea comes the statement: "This racket will soon blow over." It is being confidently asserted by certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party, noticeably by the Minister for Lands, that it is unknown to them where these houses or where these derelict holdings are situate. That is the kind of brazen assertion for which the people will not stand. They will not accept that old world business of whistling past the graveyard.
Speaking here over two years ago I gave the numbers of the houses that had closed in Newport and in the parish of Ballycroy. I asked a question of the Taoiseach as to what this Government proposed to do to relieve the situation. I was given answers that provided no hope. The figures which I gave then are insignificant in comparison with the numbers that now exist all over Mayo. I speak only for that area and possibly for part of Sligo and Leitrim of which I have had some experience in a recent by-election.
At a meeting which I attended organised by the parish priest of the area on the north coast of Mayo some few months ago, we were informed by the parish priest from his records that in 1956 he had 744 families in his parish and by May of this year the number stood at 100 less. My colleague, Deputy Calleary, from North Mayo attended that meeting, too, and as a result of joint consultation a petition was sent by the Rev. Parish Priest of that area to the Taoiseach pointing out the difficulties, pointing out the trend and asking for help. Beyond an acknowledgment nothing has happened since by way of assistance from this Government to the people of that area.
I attended a similar meeting in the adjoining parish where the same tale of emigration obtained, a parish which boasted of a football team prominent in the Mayo league and which for the past two years failed to field one because they had not got the material from which to draw, a parish in which a two-teacher school had been closed because there were no pupils to attend it. The same is true of most of the other areas in the constituency which I represent. It is not a matter of boasting or saying "I told you so" to the Government Party. It is a matter simply of grieving with people so deluded.
Is the picture I have painted here this evening, and which is a true picture, consistent with the words of the Taoiseach yesterday afternoon when he described the mood of the people as confident? Confident in what? There may be confident moods in some places where this Government and its members are able to place their own nearest and dearest and the most prominent of their supporters, but in the extreme west of Ireland the mood is far from confident.
The Taoiseach says the effect of this dynamic policy of Fianna Fáil can be seen in the countryside. Yes, the effect can be seen in the countryside—of quiet, the absence of the voices of children in villages, the absence of smoke from the chimneys, the absence of hope in those who are left. That is the effect upon the Irish countryside that I know and with which I am conversant.
Does the Taoiseach think that, on behalf of his Party on the eve of this General Election, he will delude those who are left by words and by phrases like "looking to the future", "fore-taste of the future", "planning for the future" and boldly saying that emigration is less than it was five years ago? He came to my constituency once before. I invite him back again to any town or village in it and I dare him say in any town or village in North Mayo that emigration is less than it was five years ago. I offer the same challenge to any of his Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, to say in any town or village in the constituency of North Mayo that emigration is less than it was five years ago.
The Taoiseach is enamoured of plans. He loves talking of plans. He tells us now that this plan, whatever it is, in which the Government are engaged will not show its full fruits until 1963. He has another plan after that. He says it is right that we should plan further. The result, no doubt, will be a promise of another 100,000 jobs and of full and plenty for all.
We had here this morning, supporting the Government case on this Adjournment Debate, the Minister for Transport and Power who sought on occasion during his speech to relegate himself into the position of Ireland's funniest man. He gave a recital of what this Government had done for agriculture. At times I felt that he must have got the wrong script, that he was reading from Fine Gael policy as outlined in the various speeches in recent times by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon.
Of course, that was in keeping with the general approach of the Government Party to the electorate, namely, to say you will do something on the eve of an election, fail to do it during your term of office and on the eve of the next general election deny that you ever promised it. That would appear to be the philosophy, the principles upon which the Government Party work. It is sad that while they would appear to be the underlying principles of their approach to the electorate they have achieved considerable success in securing the support of the electorate and at the same time have lamentably failed in every phase of activity either agricultural or industrial.
There is great boasting going on, portion of it included in the Taoiseach's address yesterday afternoon, about the great rise in industrial exports. It is now freely admitted, even by the Government Party, that that increase in industrial exports flows directly from the advantages offered to industrialists both at home and abroad through the provisions of the 1956 Act brought in by the inter-Party Government. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach smiles at that. Is he smiling at the wonderful advantages that have accrued to his Party as a direct result of that Act or is he denying my assertion that these advantages flow directly from it? He will have to admit that that assertion is true.
Listen to what the Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass in Opposition, had to say about the Industrial Grants Act of 1956. I quote from Volume 160, column 1948 of the Dáil Debates:
I think that is necessary but I think that is all that is necessary and, indeed, I am quite certain that, if that were done, it could be said that no industrial concern with any prospect of development, any prospect of making a profit, would not be able to proceed because of shortage of money.
He was arguing that the Bill was unnecessary and would be ineffective. He continued:
These are provisions which I think are likely to be far more effective in retarding industrial development than helping it. I believe that over the main part of the industrial field, private enterprise is the best force on which to rely.
The increase in industrial exports is a direct result of the provisions of that Act and the provisions of that Act were something in which the present Taoiseach as a Deputy in Opposition had no faith. Perhaps it was that he was acting in a manner which was the converse of that of the man who was seeking power, namely, trying to denigrate anything of an effective nature that was being proposed. He concluded his contribution to the debate on the Industrial Grants Bill, now an Act which is benefiting the country considerably, with these words:
The Minister can have his Bill, as far as I am concerned, but I want to make it clear that, in my view— and I may at some time in the future be empowered to influence Government policy—I think it has no importance whatever in relation to our industrial development and it represents a completely wrong approach to the problems of Irish industry as they exist today.
Are the Taoiseach and those who support him not ashamed to come in here and boast of the vast increases in industrial exports having regard to the fact that in 1956 he threw such cold water on the propositions that are proving so advantageous now? There was the threat, certainly an implied threat, that if ever the chance came his way he would reverse the policy enshrined in the provisions of the Act when he said:
I want to make it clear that, in my view—and I may at some time in the future be empowered to influence Government policy—I think it has no importance whatever in relation to our industrial development and it represents a completely wrong approach to the problems of Irish industry as they exist today.
Is there no limit to which public men will go in their efforts to achieve power and to hold power? The Taoiseach at one stage of his announcement yesterday hoped that the coming General Election would be an example to the world of how democracy works here. I take it he meant a good example. I should hope he meant a good example. Perhaps he meant that the good example to the world would be set by people voting for Fianna Fáil again, thus showing that democracy here works in a very peculiar way.
But as I interpret his exhortation to the people—and I ask the people to interpret it in the same way—it is that public men of all Parties will approach the people with plans in which they believe, plans that are conceived on a sound economic basis, plans that are not designed to secure the immediate vote and plans that will be honoured in so far as it is possible for a Government to honour them. The least that can be expected of any Government is that it will honour some of the promises made. But when the Government of this country goes back to the people on this occasion they will have to answer a lot of questions—questions that may not be put but questions which will be very active in the minds of the electorate.
The electorate will want to know whether this Government, going to the country seeking continued support, proposes to implement whatever plans it means to put in a different manner from that in which it so basely honoured the promises given in the speeches of the present Taoiseach in Waterford and the former Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in Belmullet on 28th February, 1957. The truth may not be important to the Government Party but they will find that as time goes on the truth will have an impact on their success or failure.
Let them not in this General Election try to make the Common Market the umbrella, as Deputy Dillon put it yesterday, under which all the past is to be hidden, or indeed let them not invoke the protection of a much more embracing umbrella opened today by the Minister for Transport and Power when he blamed Providence for three successive years of Fianna Fáil misdeeds. It is one thing to blame material causes but when the Government Party proceed to call on Providence on their side things are going too far and it is something for which the people will not stand.
We are today, by reason of the tardiness of this Government, unprepared for our entry into the Common Market though the Government were exhorted to prepare for our entry over four years ago. They do not know any more than the man in the moon at the moment what the full implications of joining or not joining the Common Market are. Let them on that account not try to illustrate it as a Utopia to the Irish electorate. Let them point out the implications for our industrial, our agricultural and our economic life.
I do not think for one moment that the relinquishment of our sovereignty through joining the Common Market will be a step backwards. I regard it as a much more important thing that we in this country with our heritage, our beliefs, with our strong traditions, can put into that pool of knowledge in the Common Market sufficient influence to make it something greater than an economic gathering or a uniform force in Western Europe. But is our role in the Common Market one to which we could commit ourselves on the basis of representatives from this Government? I do not think so. Their record of negotiation has been a record of failure. Their record of amenability to discipline has been terribly lacking. Their record of promises based on falsehood and expediency is unrivalled the world over. I rely at this stage on the good sense of the Irish people to ignore the Taoiseach's blandishments, to ignore the fine phrases, the brave words and that, having examined carefully the results of former phrases, former words, they will withdraw his authority and set this country back on the road to prosperity.