Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Aug 1961

Vol. 191 No. 15

Adjournment Debate—Policy Review. (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Dáil at its rising this week for the Summer recess do adjourn until Wednesday, 8th November.—(An Taoiseach.)

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

In his speech today the Minister for Transport and Power was pleased to accuse Fine Gael of insincerity. He is, of course, entitled to express that view and to hold that opinion but I think it calls for some comment that the Minister is a member of a Government and a Party that was elected to office 4½ years ago in 1957 at a time of considerable economic difficulty for the country and because of particular promises and pledges which they made.

We can all remember that in the last general election we, in Fine Gael, as well as speakers from the Labour Party and others, then asserted that if Fianna Fáil were elected to office they would, without doubt, abolish the then existing food subsidies and that they would, by deliberate action, increase on the poor people the prices of bread, butter and flour. I made many such speeches as did many of my colleagues in the outgoing Government. Evidently the speeches we were making began to have an effect and began to worry the people who were conditioned by Fianna Fáil propaganda to blame the inter-Party Governmeit for the economic situation then existing. These people began to worry whether it would be safe to vote for Fianna Fáil. When the Minister for Transport and Power comes in here with his particular accent to talk about insincerity does he remember the present Leader of his Party, the Taoiseach, dealing with these speeches which we made just on the eve of the last general election?

I have here a quotation from a speech made by the Taoiseach at Waterford on 28th February, 1957, delivered by him in his accustomed, emphatic manner. Here is what he said:

Some Coalition leaders are threatening the country with all sorts of unpleasant things if Fianna Fáil becomes the Government— compulsory tillage, wage control, cuts in Civil Service salaries, higher food prices and a lot more besides. A Fianna Fáil Government does not intend to do any of these things because we do not believe in them.

How definite——

he asked

——must we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods.

On the same date the then Leader of Fianna Fáil went to Belmullet and he also dealt with our charge that a Fianna Fáil Government would abolish the subsidies on food and he, in a long rambling speech, referred to the concern of Fianna Fáil for the poor man. He went on to say that Fianna Fáil recognised how important an article of diet to the poor man bread and butter were. He gave an assurance in that speech that a Fianna Fáil Government, realising how important these things were to the poor, would certainly ensure they were not increased in price. You have the Minister for Transport and Power coming in here and talking about sincerity in Irish politics. How does he and how do his colleagues in the Government square their consciences, if they have such a commodity, with these kind of speeches made on the eve of the last general election for the purpose of codding people into supporting them, with the action they took some months later when they introduced a Budget here without any apology, and proceeded to abolish, as we said they would, the existing subsidies on food?

By doing so they increased taxation by £9,000,000 and made the people of this country pay that sum in excess for the price they have to pay for bread and butter which the then Leader of Fianna Fáil described as being so important an article of diet to the poor. I would imagine, if we are to swop views on sincerity, that any Government that felt itself compelled so to disown its pledges was bound at that time to seek a further mandate from the people. Of course they did not do that. They were elected to office and they decided to carry on.

They also fought the last election on other issues and other grounds. The Taoiseach himself gave birth to a wonderful idea prior to the last election. He opened a vista and a vision for the young men and the young women of Ireland. There was to be a dramatic new orientation of economic and political thought and we were to have a vision of an Ireland being impelled by a new urge and a new impulse. A calculated plan for investment was to be put into operation and the result of it was to be that we were to reach the stage at the end of five years when one hundred thousand new jobs, at the rate of some thousands each year, were to be available to our people.

The young men were told and led to believe by the Leader of Fianna Fáil: "There is a future for you." I have no doubt that many a Fianna Fáil speaker, many a candidate at the last general election, not only believed this plan and this policy to have been sincerely conceived—it probably was— but also to have been a possible plan to carry out. Let us imagine many of the speeches in Dublin city and elsewhere, or Deputy Corry down in Cork, speaking to an audience that had a mother or father who was worried about a son emigrating, or addressing a young man who was despondent about his ability to get a job in his own country. How many of them felt: "Here at last is something we can believe in" and they went to vote with the clarion call issuing from a Fianna Fáil poster: "Women, put your men back to work. Vote Fianna Fáil." That was five years ago. I wonder will Deputy Corry make that speech in Cork this time?

Mr. Corry

Certainly.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Will we hear now at the end of this period any more references to employment being the acid test of a Government's policy? When the speeches were made there were 750,000 Irish people in insurable employment in this country. To-day, four and a half years later, there are 50,000 fewer. Not bad mind you. Fianna Fáil have only reduced employment at the rate of 12,000 a year and of course, in addition, over that period emigration not only has continued but has run in spate and thousands and thousands of our people have left this country for Great Britain and elsewhere. The plan was a spurious election gimmick, or it was ill-conceived, or it was a good plan and the men who sought to put it into operation had not the ability to do it. Fianna Fáil can select what alibi they like, but the plain fact is that to-day, four and a half years later, fewer of our people are working at home, more of our people have emigrated and, so far as a young man getting a job in Ireland is concerned, he is no nearer to it than he was in 1957. In fact, he now must have the gravest doubts as to what the future holds in store.

We had a reference by the Taoiseach last night and again by the Minister for Transport and Power this morning, to social services. The Minister for Transport and Power referred to Fianna Fáil's concern with building up social services. He delivered a message which I hope will be conveyed to the widows and old-age pensioners throughout this country, that although he or she may not know it, they are in fact much better off now than they would have been if a Fianna Fáil Government had not been elected to office. That I am sure will make the crust of bread a little bit easier to eat although it may be dearer to buy. We are supposed to believe the Minister for Transport and Power that they have reached a satisfactory level so far as the old age and widow's pensions are concerned and that henceforth the old age and widow's pensioners, whether they recognise it or not, can now end their days in comfortable circumstances.

I noticed in this unctuous statement from the Minister for Transport and Power that one particular aspect of this State's social activities did not engage his august attention. There was no reference to the health services. I am sorry that the Minister for Health is temporarily out of the House. I should like to inquire what progress report the Minister for Health or the Government can make to the people with regard to health services in the last four and a half years. Four and a half years ago when the former Government were put out of office Fianna Fáil's Health Act of 1953 was in operation—not fully, but it was in operation. I never believed in that Act. I spoke and voted against it. I thought it was ill-conceived, ill-thought, and ill-planned but nevertheless I recognised, as we all did, that a majority of Deputies had supported it and put it on to the Statute Book. It became my duty as Minister for Health to try to make that Act work and I think I can claim that, in the period I was there, I did not stint in my endeavours to make out of that Act—the plan contained in it—as workable a health service as possible.

At the same time, when I was Minister, in the days of the former Government steps were taken to condition the country for a more traditional approach to health services. The idea of health insurance was introduced to the people in a limited way. Under the Voluntary Health Insurance Act, 1956, the idea of encouraging our people by community effort to provide for themselves was introduced in the belief that the wisest and soundest way to provide for ill-health is to pay when you are well for the day you are sick.

We left office with the health services under the Health Act, to the extent they are now in operation, having been in operation for just 12 months or so. The complaints about the difficulties we had envisaged were beginning to be expressed, and of course they continued since the change of Government four and a half years ago. I should like to know what case can now be made for the Fianna Fáil Health Act of 1953. Today—whether the Government realise it or not it is true—there is nothing but confusion, frustration, anxiety and worry about medical cards, who is entitled to them, how they get them and what rights are to be conferred. Under the absurd service we have, when a man who is employed and working—and, therefore, not entitled to a medical card— becomes sick and goes into hospital, when he is unable to earn his wage, he is charged a hospital bill at the rate of 10/- a day, he is charged X-ray and specialist fees, and a bill begins to mount up. Is that a health service that is in any way conditioned to meet the problems, difficulties and necessities of our people?

When the Minister for Transport and Power comes in here unctuously and hypocritically talking about the progress Fianna Fáil have made in providing social services for our people, I should like him to explain what has been done in relation to health services in the last four and a half years or what is proposed to be done. The truth is that the Health Act of 1953 was nothing but an election gimmick introduced by Fianna Fáil. This wonderful health scheme they talked about in the general election of 1954, this health scheme that was going to provide wonderful free services for 85 per cent. of the population, this scheme that was announced with posters which said: "Should Wealth Buy Health?" was contrived and designed as a bribe for the electorate and, in fact, was nothing more than a re-enactment in an Irish Statute of the pauper dispensary service first introduced into this country under the Medical Charities Act, 1851.

That is our health service in Ireland to-day, sponsored by the Party over there that prates about their regard for social progress and social reform. To-day a poor person who is sick or ill, if he is a pauper—that word is not liked but it should be stated—and can prove it, if he can wave his rags around the place and show the hole in his clothes, he will get emergency treatment and emergency medical service of just the same quality and standard that 110 years ago a purse-proud British Government thought desirable to prevent Irish people from dying of plague and starvation at the time of the famine.

As far as we in Fine Gael are concerned, we assert that that kind of attitude to health services just does not measure up to the requirements of this country. The Holy Father in his recent Encyclical made reference to social reform and social progress in relation to health and other matters. We feel that our programme, policy and outlook on these matters are sound and would merit his praise, admiration and approval if that were necessary. We intend in the coming election, and when it is over, to reorganise entirely the health services and to provide something worthwhile in place of the present quiltwork scheme. We intend to provide a proper, workable scheme that will be in accordance with the traditions of our people, based on the principle of insurance and paying due regard to the fact that there are, and always will be unfortunately, a large section of our people who will be unable to make any contribution. Certainly, we feel that the programme and policy we believe in will be a worthwhile change from the present situation.

The fact of course is that the Fianna Fáil Health Act of 1953 has been demonstrated to be unworkable. No progress has been made since 1957 to provide a better scheme. In fact, many sections of that Act providing for particular treatments for our people— dental, ophthalmic and so on—have not yet been brought into operation. So it was nothing but a political election plan from beginning to end.

We also had a reference from the Taoiseach and from the Minister for Transport and Power to the general conditions in the country. We heard from the Minister for Transport and Power this morning, in his bland, self-complacent fashion: "Really, you know, things are going well in the country." We are led to believe that there is prosperity in the country: "Well, if it is not apparent, it is really there, you know. There are good times; we may not recognise them but if you turn the corner, you will see them." That sort of "All-right-Jackery" is apparently going to take the place of a policy for Fianna Fáil in the coming election.

Do Fianna Fáil really believe all that cant? Do they seriously think they can cod the people with that kind of twaddle and nonsense? Talk about booms and prosperity! Where are they? Who is enjoying prosperity? Is it the farmer, the poor hardworking farmer that Deputy Corry claims to represent in Dáil Eireann? Is the poor hardworking farmer enjoying—is he supposed to be enjoying? — a measure of prosperity today? According to the Minister for Transport and Power: "Yes, he is." The Minister for Transport and Power told us to-day that "Really, you know, cattle prices are good.""Much better," he said, "than in 1956" and he went on to say that, really, he could not understand why the farmers were grousing about their condition. He said: "After all, this country is doing well and the farmers really should not grouse and complain so much."

I wonder will he make that speech in the constituency he is going to fight in the next election. Whether he will be returned for it, or not, is another question. Will he go down to Monaghan and tell the Monaghan farmers, as he told the House here to-day, that the prices they are getting for their cattle— he made particular reference to fat cattle—are adequate, and fair, and proper? I have here some figures in relation to gross value of agricultural output in the last four years. I observe that at the start of this Government's activities the figure was £196.6 millions. It fell in 1958 to £179.7 millions. It fell in 1959 to £176.5 millions and the last available figure is £191.7 millions. In the last four years, the farmers, who are supposed to be enjoying the benevolence of the present Government, have suffered a loss in value on their output.

The figures show that the gross value of agricultural output has dropped, not slightly but significantly and dramatically; and, of course, these figures of gross value merely emphasise the loss of the individual farmer. I should like to assert, so far as the people I represent in Dáil Eireann are concerned, the farmers of the Midlands have not gone through four years so bad since the Economic War. To-day the small farmer of this country finds that he gets less for everything he has to sell but he has to pay more for everything he must buy. It would, I am sure, be embarrassing to mention in the presence of Deputy Corry the subject of wheat, but I should like to convey to Deputy Corry the fact that there are a number of my constituents, farmers outside Abbeyleix, who are looking forward to the opportunity of meeting Deputy Corry again. They will remember how Deputy Corry, in strident tones, during the by-election in Laois-Offaly in 1956, promised them that, if Fianna Fáil were elected to office, the price of wheat would go up by 12/- per barrel. They are looking forward to seeing Deputy Corry again so that he may explain to them how it was that promise was not carried out and that, in fact, the price of the barrel of wheat today is 6/- less.

I have little doubt that in the coming election these matters, and others, will be considered fully by the people. The Taoiseach said that this country is on the threshold of a serious situation. A challenge has been laid down to our people. We accept that. We have regard to the fact that, however it arose, whatever the reason may have been, in the past 40 years since the formation of this State there has been a concentration, undue in my opinion, upon ephemeral political matters, upon Constitutions, upon the ways and organisations of Government, upon a plethora of things of that kind. We have not even started to solve the endemic social problems that face the country—the flight from the land, perennial emigration, insecurity with regard to employment. These are the things which, in my view, constitute our real challenge for the future. They may be coloured, they may be complicated, they may be exacerbated to some extent by the Common Market, and developments of that kind, but they will still remain, and must remain, the legitimate target for legitimate Government activity here. We believe in our Party that our policy holds some measure of promise for the solution of these problems. Certain it is that the present Government and the present Fianna Fáil Party can offer no solution and must go to this election convicted of failure in making even an attempt to solve these important social issues.

Mr. Corry

One statement made by Deputy O'Higgins took my fancy rather because I got a document a few days ago and I was wondering whether or not there was any foundation for the way in which it was concocted until I heard Deputy O'Higgins this afternoon. He told us we have been a political failure. I take it that Fine Gael is gone.

Mr. Rooney

The Taoiseach thought that, too.

Mr. Corry

Do not interrupt me now. I got this document the other night. I will read it for the House.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Corry

I was alluding to a document I received a few days ago which reads:

Casey, Daniel, P.C.

Member of:

Cork County Council....

Old Age Pension Committee.

Earnestly requests your No. 1 Vote for Dáil Election.

Have a Local man to represent You.

Also vote:

Barry, Richard, T.D., M.C.C.

and

Burton, Philip, M.C.C.

in the order of your choice.

I read in the paper that Deputy Barry, Mr. Daniel Casey and Mr. Philip Burton were selected as three Fine Gael candidates but from this literature it looks as if they are orphans of the storm because they have not called themselves "Fine Gael" in this document at all. I realise what Deputy O'Higgins meant when he said they were at the end of a political era.

Mr. Desmond

Do not forget the Mallow beet factory where you are on your own.

Mr. Corry

So much for that.

Mr. Moher

I should like to have a copy of that.

Mr. Sweetman

So would I. I would like to be sure I have the right story about it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

I wish to call the attention of the House to a ruling of the Chair that it is usual to deal with big issues and not with minor matters in a debate of this kind. I would ask also that Deputy Corry be not interrupted.

Mr. Corry

There was a great deal of comment today about markets. These markets were made at a period when this nation was fighting for its life. We had to fight against a £5 million tribute that was being paid illegally to Britain. The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, made attacks on me last night in regard to statements I made about wheat. I did make them and I believe them. I did my best to put my beliefs across. I did not know at that time that Deputy Dillon had piled up here a surplus of wheat for 3 years waiting for the new Government to come in to get rid of it. Deputy Dillon also attacked my loyalty. Yes, I was loyal and I am loyal. That is something Deputy Dillon would not understand.

Deputy Dillon came in here and sat on those benches representing the unfortunate farmers of this country. He was there as Deputy Leader but when the whip was cracked and certain people helped in the fight to force Irish farmers to pay land annuities to Britain, Deputy Dillon trotted out of those benches and sat over there. That is the man who cannot understand loyalty. He went further than that. When the emergency came and the then Taoiseach and the people decided that this country should remain neutral, the actions of that man were such that even Fine Gael could not stomach them and he had to be kicked out. How dare he come to me to talk about loyalty! What right has he to talk about loyalty who will trot along here today and somewhere else tomorrow?

I could not wish for a higher tribute on the work of the past 4 years than that paid to the Taoiseach today by Deputy Esmonde. I know he did not mean it but he said the Taoiseach was the man responsible for the industrial advancement of this country. Of course, he qualified that by saying he was now letting down those for whom he had got employment. Deputy O'Higgins followed on the same lines. Deputy O'Higgins alluded to posters that were displayed during an election campaign down the country: "Wives get your husbands back to work" and so on. I can quote and proudly quote the statement made by a colleague of mine in this House a few years ago, ex-Deputy O'Gorman of Youghal. I remember knocking on door after door in Youghal and finding that many members of families were over in England earning a few shillings. Deputy O'Gorman made a statement in Youghal twelve months ago that there is no unemployment there. That is the answer to Deputy O'Higgins's statement. That is the result of the work of the Taoiseach during the past 4½ years.

Mr. Rooney

They emigrated. They are working in England.

Mr. Corry

Every person in the town of Youghal is in employment to-day. Every person in the town of Midleton and in the town of Cobh is in employment. There is no unemployment in any one of the three towns in my constituency for which I am responsible.

Mr. Rooney

They are working in England.

Mr. Corry

They are all here working. We would even try to make the Deputy work if he came down to us. Deputy Dillon expressed anxiety that he would be in office when we would be dealing with the Common Market and I notice another Deputy wanted somebody there who would have a knowledge of agriculture. Of course I can quite understand that when I heard him talking about this a while ago. I am amazed at Deputy O'Higgins thinking that anyone would buy wheat in this country. Deputy Dillon has said:

I had the experience of eating bread made from Irish wheat. You took it in your hands. You squeezed the water out of it. You teased it and you then lifted it and you decided whether it was boot polish or bread. If it was bread you tried to masticate it if you were able. That is Irish wheat.

That is a statement made in this House by Deputy Dillon on the bread made from Irish wheat. Then he comes complaining because I looked for a price for it. I do not blame him. I noticed during the whole of the Emergency that the Deputy was in quite good health and that Irish wheat seemed to be agreeing with him. That is one of the props for our Irish agriculture.

There is another quotation from Deputy Dillon:

There remains beet—the blessings of beet! Some day, and in the not far distant time, our people will have to ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the community as a whole to continue the production of sugar from beet in this country at an annual cost to the community of £3,000,000 sterling. That is what it costs in normal times to keep the beet industry going in this country. If, instead of growing beet and converting it into sugar, we import refined sugar into this country there will be £3,000,000 sterling more for the national exchequer and that £3,000,000 can be used to increase children's allowances in every home in Ireland from the 2/6 per child to 5/- per child, and the land vacated by that crop can be used for the production of profitable agricultural produce which will help to finance essential imports and to enrich the farmers who live upon the land.

That statement was made by Deputy Dillon in this House on 18th June 1947. That is the gentleman who is anxious now to be put in charge of the Common Market Negotiation Committee.

He went further. I quote from the Official Report of 12th July, 1960:

I want to raise a specific matter which affects the problems of beet farmers who are supplying beet to the sugar factories, and also other products which are produced from Irish sugar, which is raw material produced in this country. In 1948, we negotiated a Trade Agreement, Article V of which reads as follows:

The Government of the United Kingdom undertake that where goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland, are dutiable at preferential rates of duty, they will not vary the existing preferential treatment of these goods in such a way as to put any class of goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland, at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

Now, that is a pretty comprehensive Article and yet with that Article in existence, I understand that goods containing Irish sugar are being subjected to a very formidable levy, the proceeds of which are devoted to the subsidisation of goods of similar quality containing sugar derived from crown Colonies of the British Crown. I am told, I think, by some of the Minister's colleagues, that when Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce, this matter arose and that he did not consider it desirable to press the interpretation of Article V which would give us the right to claim exemption from that levy.

I do not know what the position is in regard to that. I have no recollection of hearing the matter discussed when I was a member of the inter-Party Government, although it could have happened and has passed out of my memory but I do not remember it and I have not discussed the matter with Deputy Norton. Whatever attitude was taken up, I should like to be told now because frankly I confess that as I see it now, it appears that that Article is wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover the present procedure under which I believe that goods which are the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland are being put at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

That was a pretty comprehensive statement made by Deputy Dillon as reported at column 1411 of the Official Report of that date. He admitted that his colleague, Deputy Norton, did not think it advisable to point out to the British that their action in putting a £16 a ton levy on Irish sugar was a breach of Article V of the Trade Agreement. Deputy Norton did not intervene but Deputy Dillon at that time was a member of the inter-Party Cabinet and was drawing £2,500 a year as Minister for Agriculture to look after the interests of the agriculturists in this country.

Mr. Rooney

He was not. You know the salary.

Mr. Corry

He had no salary?

Mr. Rooney

He was not getting £2,500.

Mr. Corry

He was not worth 2,000 pence and if the farmers had their way I know what they would give him.

Mr. Rooney

You would be a good judge.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon was a salaried Minister of State entrusted with the task of looking after the interests of the agricultural community. On that breach of the Trade Agreement, this country has paid during the past 12 months £550,000 levy to Britain on sugar and sugar goods exported. Over half a million was paid because one man would not do his job and had not enough interest in it to know what was being done and another poor idiot did not know what he was doing. That is the gentleman who wants to be put in charge of negotiating the new Trade Agreement on the Continent and who hopes he will be elected as Taoiseach in order to be so put in charge.

Mr. Rooney

He will be put in charge.

Mr. Corry

What do you think the farmers are? These are the honest facts. Here is the Bible for anyone who doubts my word.

Mr. Moher

What version is it?

Mr. Rooney

The Corry version.

Mr. Russell

The Old Testament, I think.

Mr. Rooney

We heard this before.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon made another statement which I will read especially for Deputy Russell:

We are subsidising butter production to the tune of £2,000,000 per annum. How long will that go on? Do we expect butter to get dearer in the markets of the world? Do we expect a time in the early future when the price of milk will become so adjusted that it will be possible to suspend this subsidy or do we intend to continue producing milk for conversion into butter in creameries at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2,000,000 per annum? I want it to go on record most emphatically that I think such a policy is sheer insanity and is purely pursued for the purpose of maintaining the prestige of incompetents in the offices of the Minister for Agriculture since Fianna Fáil came into power.

That was what was going on. That was what was said about the poor creamery farmers of Co. Limerick. Was is any wonder he came into the House afterwards with a flourish of trumpets and told the farmers he would give them one shilling a gallon for milk for the next five years? That was the offer the Leader of the Opposition made to the unfortunate farmers of this country. If it were not for Fianna Fáil we would be bringing back a queer agreement from the Common Market.

There were complaints in connection with the flight from the land. I am sure there is no Deputy in the House, no matter to what Party he belongs, who will not agree with me that if a worker can get £9 a week in industry he will certainly not stay on the land at a weekly wage of £5 10s. You have that situation and while it is there there will definitely be a flight from the land. There are six labourers' cottages within two hundred yards of my house. Those boys came to me for letters to get them into the dockyard in Cork. I refuse no boy an opportunity of bettering himself, and off those young lads went to the town. As trainees they are earning £5 5s. a week, and more power to them. They are bringing back up that hill every week as much as £276. They are not, as Deputy Rooney said, going off to England. Thank God that in the past four and a half years I have seen a bigger advance in employment in this country than I have seen in the rest of my history. Were it otherwise, Deputies know only too well I would not put a tooth in saying so.

We hear a lot about our position in regard to the Common Market and I should like to quote some figures from the White Paper and to say that if farmers here got those prices they could compete with any danged industrialist on the labour market. The average price for wheat in 11 European countries is 34/9d. a barrel, stretching from 56/10d. in Switzerland to 34/11d. There is a price given for the U.K. which does not tally with the price I have in my little book which says 29/6d. a barrel. Feeding barley is 26/6d. a cwt. in Austria, 24/2d. in France, 32/2d. in Germany, 18/6d. in Ireland, 28/6d. in Italy, 24/7d. in the Netherlands, 33/- in Norway, 28/4d. in Sweden. According to the record I have the guaranteed standard price for feeding barley for the United Kingdom in 1961 is 27/7d.—that is £8 a ton more than the price given here.

Accordingly, if Irish farmers were to get the average European price for feeding barley they would be getting 6/- a barrel more than I guaranteed them in Kilkenny when I told them they would get back the price guaranteed by the late Deputy Thomas Walsh. I cannot understand, looking at those figures, what is wrong with our Department of Agriculture. If those European countries can afford to pay those prices why are our people doing so badly? If those 11 countries can afford to pay an average of 27/7d. for feeding barley while we can only pay 18/6d. I want to know what is wrong with our agricultural policy and with those agricultural advisers whom we have been paying down through the years.

Sugar beet is the one commodity in which we hold our own and I look upon that with a special feeling of pride as the man responsible in 1948 for setting up the Costing Board and seeing that the farmers were paid on their cost of production, plus a fair profit. We would be better off in the Common Market because when John Bull goes into it he can no longer charge us a levy of £16 per ton on our sugar and pay £550,000 as well for carrying it to John Bull's door and no thanks for it.

We are getting 128/8d. per cwt. liveweight for beef cattle and according to this document the average price in the Common Market is 155/- When you tell the farmer that he is to get an increase of 30/- a cwt. in the price of beef cattle in the Common Market you will see what the result will be.

For pigs the weighted average price is 33/10d. per live cwt. while our price if 31/1d. The biggest surprise of all is in regard to milk. The average annual price for milk delivered to the creameries for all forms of utilisation is, in Austria, 2/5d. per gallon, Belgium, 2/1d.; Denmark, 2/1d.; Germany, 2/8d.; Ireland, 1/9d.—counting skim and all; Italy, 2/5d.; the Netherlands, 2/7d.; Norway, 3/5d.; Sweden, 2/10d.; Switzerland, 3/2d.; Yugoslavia, 3/2d. That is an average price of 2/8d. a gallon for milk as compared with our present price of 1/9d. Tell the farmers that they will get an increase of 11d. per gallon in the price of milk and when they tot up the figures along the line I have mentioned, item by item, you can say to them: "The minimum wage you pay your agricultural labourer is to be £9 a week and there is the means of doing it. We are putting you in as good a position as any industrialist in the country today."

There is the change, and those are the prices. That is why I tell the farmers that they can enter the Common Market quite happily with that knowledge, provided they have somebody to make a bargain for them; not like Deputy Norton or Deputy Dillon.

Mr. O'Donnell

Or cutting the calves' throats.

Mr. Corry

Or some fellow condemning a housing site because there was no water there, like the Deputy.

Those are the conditions in which we face the Common Market. Those figures are on the White Paper for any Deputy who wants to see them and compare them. It is a grave reflection on our agricultural economy and something that our economists will have to get working on.

We should have no occasion for a Deputy to tell us that he has no recollection of hearing a matter discussed when he was a member of the inter-Party Government, that it could have happened and passed out of his memory, that he did not remember it and had not discussed the matter with Deputy Norton. That was the Leader of the Opposition's account of the disappearance from the Irish farmer of a market for beet worth £2 million a year. That is how he looked after the little job he was given to do by the Irish people.

When I look at, and think of, the procession of farmers who were trotting up to my door night and day during the month of September and October last year, saying: "Mr. Corry, could you ever get me an extra half-acre or acre of beet?" I realise they were looking for the market that this gentleman, put in charge of Irish agriculture, allowed the British to levy at the rate of £16 a ton thus wiping out the unfortunate tillage farmers of the south, west and midlands that we heard about a while ago.

He then had the cheek to say that he is going before the people again and wants to be put in charge of the Common Market, the Lord between us and all harm. According to the canvassing card issued in my constituency in the past week, they have no Party. They are only three little sand boys out for a row: "Vote for Casey. Daniel and, of your charity, pray for the political souls of Richard Barry and Philip Burton." Imagine any responsible political Party issuing that and ashamed to put their name on the end of it or to say whom they represented. Then they say they are going off for a general election. They are welcome to it.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy Corry beats Banagher and we are told that Banagher beats the devil. Deputy Corry did not tell us that he is asking Deputy Casey to give him No. 2.

Mr. Russell

I thought it was the other way around.

Mr. Desmond

No, that is gone. This is a time of stocktaking perhaps more than at any other time of the year because we are now coming near the end of the Government's period in office and facing a general election. Whatever comments I may have to make I shall be brief. We are entitled to express our views on the activities or inactivity of the Government during its term of office. I can assure the House that I have no intention of going into the dim and distant past to find quotations for or against Fianna Fáil but it is no harm to recall some of the statements made during the last four years and just before the Government took office in 1957.

In 1956 the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party then made it clear to everyone in the course of a public speech that Fianna Fáil was representative of democracy. That being so, I would like to make an inquiry as to what happened about some of the proposals put before them. It is true they were in Opposition then. It is true to say that they encouraged their representatives who attended their Ard Fheis in Dublin in 1956 to be somewhat wild in their demands. One demand that was brought before them, as reported in the Irish Press on the 22/11/1956 and which was carried, was asking for an inquiry into the changes in ownership of the bacon industry, particularly in respect of safeguarding the employment of the workers. Four and a half years have now gone and they are now in Government. What has happened to that demand?

Again, the demand was made, and carried unanimously apparently, asking for an inquiry into the operation of the Health Acts, the Health Acts stated by some representatives to give worse conditions to some sections, and which had created hardships. What happened to that demand? We all know that instead of easing the hardships, or attempting to do so, the Minister for Health decided to increase the charges from 6/- to 10/- per day for patients in hospital. That was a second instance of the insincerity of the Government when they had the opportunity as a Government in this House of attending not alone to the demands of the people in general, but to consider the just demands of their own delegates at their own Ard Fheis.

That was in 1956. Better again, the Minister for Transport and Power lectured for a long time here today. Apparently he was in a different humour on the 22nd of November, 1956. Speaking up then, he stated it would be very difficult to alter the methods being used by the Land Commission. The Agricultural Committee of Fianna Fáil, however, felt that something must be done, if possible, for young men with agricultural experience. A little later, the then Deputy Childers became Minister for Lands and he found that it was suitable for him to forget the promptings and the decision of the Agricultural Committee of Fianna Fáil. He found it, apparently, more suitable to continue the policy that he said would be difficult to alter. That was in 1956, just before they took office. There are three promises broken by Fianna Fáil Ministers who at that time encouraged their own delegates to sponsor these acts.

Coming to 1957, on the 29th May, 1957, speaking at the time on the Budget, as reported in the Irish Press, the present Minister for Finance stated: “In the last two years 98,000 had left this country, the biggest number since the famine”—a rather strong statement for the Minister for Finance at that time. Apparently he was in jubilant mood; he had moved from one side of the Chamber to the other and had become Minister for Finance and he worried about the exodus of 98,000 persons, the biggest since the famine. Yet, statistics proved later on that in the year 1957 alone, the year in which this Minister for Finance was worrying about the 1955 and 1956 figures, the emigration figures for the year 1957 alone amounted to over 60,000 persons.

Yet the promise of Fianna Fáil at the time was to provide a cure for emigration and apparently the cure was to get over 60,000 people out. It is quite correct I suppose to say that when most of them go that then we could hope that the figures would fall.

Mr. Davern

Tell us about the unemployment in 1957?

Mr. Desmond

I will tell you about that. It is not because Tipperary beat Cork on Sunday; we will beat them now. On the 15th May as reported in the Irish Press the present Taoiseach as Minister for Industry and Commerce then made an extraordinary statement, a statement so strong that the people in this country believed that he was moving in the right direction, that he was taking over control in a sphere where control was necessary. He stated “I think the time has passed when we can tolerate without concern a manufacturer who is prepared to go along supplying the home market behind a quota or tariff protection and making no effort to do more.” That was in 1957. What has he done since, either as Minister for Industry and Commerce or as Taoiseach? It is not long ago inside this very chamber that he made a statement and admitted that even with the possible entry of this country into the Common Market we will not have prepared all the necessary data to show how it is going to affect the manufacturers and our workers. He admitted that it will take a long time, that they have not sufficient staff to give to these different groups to try to prepare for themselves the figures to show how they may be affected.

And yet in 1957 he was going bald-headed for them. He was going to see that any of them sheltering unjustly behind quotas and tariffs were going to have to pull up their socks. It is a pity that his promises then were not fulfilled, a pity he did not make some attempt to carry out what he then said. If he did perhaps now with the end of this Parliament coming near we might be in a better position to know how our entry into this Common Market would affect first of all those I am more concerned with, the workers, and secondly, because we have to take cognisance of the fact that without them the workers cannot have work, the industrialists. But now they are in a very serious position because of the promises made by the Taoiseach as Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1957, a promise he fell down on.

Mr. Davern

He gave a warning, not a promise.

Mr. Desmond

Very handy. 1958 came and I suppose 1958 will go down in the annals of this country as the year of the October Revolution. But the difference of course is that in another country far removed from here when we hear them shout about the October Revolution they claim it was a success. The October Revolution of the Fianna Fáil Government of 1958 was a flop. That was the year when the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass at the time, had forgotten his warning and his threats. At the Ard Fheis the then Taoiseach accused all other Parties of attempting to deceive the people. That was the time they decided to do away with Proportional Representation, but that was another failure of Fianna Fáil. However, it cost the country a lot of money.

Now we come to 1959. On the 11th November, the Irish Press had a leading article headed “The Man of Action, the Man of Vision, the Leader —Lemass.” That was on the 11th November, a big day in other countries, Armistice Day. This new leader, this Man of Vision, made it clear to all—and we hoped he meant it—that he was determined to forget the past. If he had kept to that line, the country might be in a better position today. But when his vision was translated into words in the Irish Press, he made it clear that he thought all the other Parties were “off the beam”. Fine Gael was out in the cold and the Labour Party was like a rusty old steam engine. The Man of Vision could not see the right for any Party to exist here but Fianna Fáil. He could not see why anybody should support any Party other than Fianna Fáil. In the same issue of the Irish Press the then Taoiseach was quoted as saying: “We do not fear for our ability, when the foundations of our economy have been consolidated, to fare as well as any others on the basis of international competition.” He was going to lead an army not knowing where he was going, but hoping for the best.

On the 11th November, 1959, we had the Tánaiste making a statement which we all knew to be incorrect. Speaking of the advantages of the Health Act, he said that almost 40 per cent of the people outside Dublin got free health services. That was at a time when we knew the average in the various counties was 24 per cent. or 25 per cent. It is easy to make such statements in places where they cannot be contradicted. But it is our duty here not alone to draw attention to these statements but to show it is unfair, unjust and unethical for a Minister of State to leave this Chamber to go to a political meeting and to make there statements not in accordance with the facts.

Now we come to 1960. On the 26th April, 1960, the papers carried headlines about the Minister for Finance. Speaking of his Budget, he said: "It gives much, but it asks little." That sounded well and was encouraging for the ordinary reader. He went on: "Everywhere there is evidence of a new confident outlook and of greater dynamism." He decided in his generosity that that was the right time to give a nice, tidy sum to the proprietors of the cinemas and dance halls. He found it suitable to hand over £70,000 to the manufacturers of table waters. That was the year in which so much money was provided for television. But at that time, when he was giving so much, he could give only a shilling to the old age pensioners, the blind, the widows and the orphans.

Those are facts. That is what has happened in each of those years of the life of the present Government. Because the Minister for Finance had been so generous, praise was showered upon him in the editorials of the Irish Press. On the 26th April, 1960, the paper stated: “Dr. Ryan is evidently aiming to promote the ideal situation, one in which the incomes of retired people follow the upward trend of the incomes of those still at work.” Those are powerful words in praise of the Minister who gave only a shilling a week to the blind, the old age pensioners, the widows and the orphans.

On the statistics issued, we know that in 1960 there were 24,000 fewer people in employment than in 1957. Tragic as 1956 was, in 1957 we had 24,000 more people in employment than in 1960. Those are not the only promises made and broken by the Government. It is no harm to draw attention to a publication they issued in the Cork City by-election which was entitled "Facts for Voters". It talked about the "disastrous policy" of the inter-Party Government. Then we had in heavy type: "Fianna Fáil plans the end of emigration". It stated: "The Fianna Fáil plan proposes an increase over five years in the number of news jobs by 100,000." In order to follow that up and to make sure that the 100,000 new jobs would be taken here by Irish people, it went on: "Emigration has reached frightening proportions. Soaring prices are robbing the wage packet of its value. Rates have been increased enormously." What changes have taken place since? They have been four and a half years in Government now. What of the 100,000 jobs? What of emigration?

They cannot deny the emigration figures which are still running at over 60,000. What of the soaring prices? Have prices come down since? Fianna Fáil may say that wages have gone up. We will deal with that later. They speak of the rates. What has happened to improve the position for local authorities since Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1957? Have the rates come down? When Fianna Fáil speak of broken promises, surely they must be prepared to eat their own words. Surely on the eve of a general election, they should be honest enough politically to say that they made more promises and broke more promises than they would now wish to recall. They had 100,000 jobs; they were determined to break the back of emigration. They said: "We of Fianna Fáil are eagerly awaiting the opportunity of putting our programme before the people at the next general election." They did. They put the programme before the people in 1957 and they succeeded in securing election on that programme.

What is their answer now to the promises made to the people of Cork and since broken? But there is even a better to come. There is a large heading "Muddle". They attribute the "Muddle" to the inter-Party Government at that time. The muddle is, according to them, that "The housing programme is disrupted through Coalition mishandling of the country's finances resulting in financial stringency and the failure of the National Loan." We all know that housing is held up at the moment and that it has been held up for quite some time. It has been my lot unfortunately to draw the attention of the Minister for Local Government to that position here. What was his answer? He said that the housing requirements were almost met. I want to draw attention now to the fact that in a little village not many miles from Deputy Corry's home, in the heart of his constituency, there was an application for a compulsory purchase order sent up by the Cork County Council last October. The Minister for Local Government did nothing about that application and, apparently, Deputy Corry did not remind him of it. That is certainly a bit of a muddle.

No. 3 in the "Muddle" is: "The cost of Government has risen as a result of the Coalition's mishandling of administration necessitating increased taxes." What have the Fianna Fáil Government done in that regard? What is the cost of Government today as compared with the cost of Government then? As a member of the Labour Party, or as an individual Deputy in this House, I do not say that I believe the cost of Government should be slashed because I consider that the highly efficient staffs in the different Departments should have a fair, proper and just wage. I believe none has more than that. As I say, I am not one of those who maintain that the cost of Government should be slashed. But Fianna Fáil said so in Cork city. They have had four-and-a-half years in which to implement their promise in that regard. That is another broken promise.

Muddle No. 4: "There is a great increase in the rates. The Coalition are loading charges on to the rates in an effort to save their own faces." The other day we had a Bill here for more scholarships. It is the local rates which will have to carry those. It is quite obvious Fianna Fáil have never had any sincerity, have never believed that they should make any attempt to fulfil their obligations. Mark you, these printed statements surely should have tied Fianna Fáil to a policy of fulfilling their obligations when they returned to power. They have conveniently forgotten them.

Then we have: "Prices have gone up and the only thing the Coalition has to say about prices now is that they will go no higher still." During the period of the inter-Party Government, from the time that document was first published until the general election, prices did not go up, but since 1957 prices have gone up considerably and Fianna Fáil were the Government during those four-and-three-quarter years. I am not saying that Fianna Fáil were in a position to keep down prices. If they were not, then they had no right to accuse another Government because of soaring prices. They had no remedy for them themselves. They should have been honest enough to say: "You failed to keep down prices. We cannot succeed either." But they were not honest enough to admit that.

They had, too, this to say: "The worst is yet to come." That is in heavy type. They said: "Many Cork building workers have already lost their jobs as a result of the bungling of the small dwellings loans scheme. Interest rates are higher than ever before." What are the interest rates now? What news do the papers carry today about the increase in bank charges? Do Fianna Fáil know anything about them? Is there any difference between interest rates then and now? Little or nothing. I shall come back to this later.

They succeeded in getting votes in Cork. I do not begrudge those votes, but they were gained on broken promises. They said there were fifty broken promises attributable to the inter-Party Government. I will not go through them all. There is down in this document a statement: "You pay more for tea." What about the price of tea now? "You pay more in rent and rates." Did Fianna Fáil make any attempt to reduce rents and rates? They have a reference to magazines, medicines. None of them is cheaper today. Indeed, I think they have gone up a little since then. At the bottom there is "Statistics." It is a pity the Taoiseach and all the rest of the Fianna Fáil Party omitted to study statistics when they returned to office in 1957. Perhaps they would concentrate between this and the general election in making a comparison—a comparison based on statistics, not on broken promises.

Do they realise how important it is that they should be honest with the people, be it in their election propaganda or the statements they make in public? If they do as I suggest they will not take on themselves airs, as the Minister for Transport and Power does, and they will not admonish the people, as he does, that they ought to realise how very well off they are under Fianna Fáil. One thing the Taoiseach never told the people in 1957, or before it, was that he intended to abolish the Prices Advisory Body. They speak of 50 broken promises. As Minister for Industry and Commerce after 1957 it was the duty of the Taoiseach not to disband the Prices Advisory Body but rather to encourage it to examine the price structure to discover where there was over-charging. But not at all. Fianna Fáil were then in power. They did not worry. They worried so little that there was no longer any room or any time for the Prices Advisory Body.

With regard to statistics, in Table 3 of the statistical returns I have here, the value and volume of imports and exports is shown for the years 1956-1960. Last night we were told by the Taoiseach that we are living in an era of prosperity. Bad as the situation was in 1956, we find that in 1956 the import excess amounted to £74.7 millions. In 1960, in the midst of our prosperity, the import excess is £74,000,000. There is very little difference there. Comparing the cost of imports and exports we find that the figure for imports increased by £43.6 million and the figure for exports by £44.3 million, notwithstanding the fact that during the 1958/59 period the prices for exports were rising and also, a very important fact, the price structure in regard to imports generally was decreasing. That does not speak very well for the activities of a Fianna Fáil Government in connection with industrial activity.

Table 6 deals with value and volume of agricultural output from 1953 to 1960. In 1953 the net output was £149.3 million and in 1960 the net output increased by only £6.7 million, notwithstanding the fact that the price values for 1953 are not comparable with those of 1960. Take the year 1957 in which Fianna Fáil came into office. Agricultural output which had to be based on the policy of the inter-Party Government for the previous years amounted to £157.1 million which was £1.1 million more than in the year 1960, the year of prosperity.

Table 7 deals with the numbers engaged in farm work and if there is anything more tragic in this booklet than the information conveyed in this Table I would like to know what it is. In 1951 there were 68.9 thousand men permanently employed by farmers. In 1960 the figure was 50.6 thousand, a drop of 18.6 thousand. Taking the total number of farmers, farmers' sons and men permanently and temporarily employed, we find the picture is even worse. In 1951 there were 452.7 thousand men employed in agriculture. In 1960 it came down to 383.4 thousand, a drop of 69.3 thousand. Surely there is nothing as bad as that for a country whose prosperity depends on agriculture. No matter how we may build up our industries if we fail in agriculture we need not worry about the Common Market or any other Market.

Table 10 gives an indication of the national income. Again I confine my remarks to the agricultural community. In 1951 the amount paid out in wages and salaries in agriculture amounted to £19.9 million. In 1960, in the midst of all the prosperity, bearing in mind that, according to Fianna Fáil 1956 was the worst year since the year of the Famine, we find that the amount is £21,000,000, an increase of only £1.2 million. No wonder agriculture is floundering in many respects. No wonder the young men in rural Ireland would head for any foreign country rather than try to eke out a living by getting temporary employment in agriculture, because permanent work is not there for them now.

There is another table worth mentioning and it may help Deputy Booth. Table 5 is a very important one. There is one section of the community that comes out pretty well and in the light of the figures supplied to us, this Government can fairly be described as the bankers' Government. In Table 5 of these statistical returns the section of the community referred to do not do badly. None of them had to emigrate. Between 1956 and 1960 current deposits and other accounts increased by £56.3 million. Of course Deputies may say that means more money in the country but it must be remembered that the bankers do not act in an honorary capacity in lending the people money. It is obvious therefore an increase of £56.3 million represents a nice slice of profits to the banks.

According to this Table loans and advances increased by £43.3 million. That also indicates a substantial profit to the banks through the Fianna Fáil Government's activities during that period. The net external assets of the commercial banks at the end of the year increased by £15.2 millions. That was a nice return for the banks. In giving these figures I am bound to draw attention to a statement of the present Taoiseach published in the Cork Examiner of 21st November, 1956.

He was worried about the policy of the banks as the Taoiseach before him had been. He is reported as follows:

Our banking system will have to be such as will ensure that production exports will not be starved for reasonable facilities. That may require some expansion of the powers of the Central Bank.

That is strange. The other banks found it suitable to give extended credit. Lord Pakenham and other men of vision drew attention to the fact that the banking system was becoming obsolete with the competition from Bowmakers and others. The banks, because it suited them, extended loan facilities. The Taoiseach was so happy about that that he was not worried about the interest rates. Everything was all right now that he was in power. It would not be fair to upset the banks.

There is a point that I want to labour—it does not affect certain people. It does not affect some of the members of Fianna Fáil whose policy is as far removed from the genuine Fianna Fáil policy as that of any Member of Parliament in any of the six countries forming the Common Market—in view of the enormous debt imposed on local authorities by exorbitant bank charges it would have been advisable for the Taoiseach, not merely to make the statement published in the Cork Examiner but to put his words into operation by ensuring, even in the case of the Central Bank, that such a heavy burden would not be placed on the shoulders of the rate-payers in the matter of interest.

When a private person borrows money from a bank, that is a matter between him and the bank. Usury has no place in a Christian community. A certain section may reap rewards as shareholders of banks because Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and every political Party are anxious to provide housing, hospitalisation and social services, but they must depend on the banking system for temporary accommodation at an exorbitant price.

Fianna Fáil have forgotten that. Headlines appeared in this morning's paper. Again, the Taoiseach draws attention to the importance of leadership. In 1955 he told the people to keep the straight road. Now, according to the statement appearing in the papers this morning, we are leaving the road and taxing into the skies, into the Common Market. We have travelled a long way since that bye-election in Cork. Where will this aeroplane take us? I would say to the leader of this Government and to his Party and to the Government as a whole that tragedies occurred in this country in the past because of differences between sections but we cannot afford differences in our approach to the future economic position of this country. I accuse the Taoiseach and the Government of falling down on the job undertaken by the Taoiseach when in 1957 or 1958 he warned incompetent manufacturers. The Taoiseach, who hopes to pilot this plane of State carrying 26 Counties into the Common Market, does not know where he is going.

Mr. Moran

He will soon be able to land in Cork at the new airport there.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He will get a land all right.

Mr. Desmond

If the Taoiseach does spend a week in Cork studying agriculture and other matters he will change the policy of Fianna Fáil for the next election. He wants to give the impression that Fianna Fáil must lead our entry into the Common Market. Poor Deputy Corry was castigating Deputy Dillon on the subject of beet. I wonder did the Taoiseach tell Deputy Corry that the six countries forming the European Economic Community are able to provide 100 per cent. of their requirements in sugar. What about Deputy Corry's beet then? For the last few years we have had trouble in part of South Cork, in the Courtmacsherry-Timoleague-Barryroe area, where the Sugar Company slaughtered the beet quota of unfortunate people who had been making a living out of it. Can the Taoiseach advise Deputy Corry as to the effect on the beet industry of joining the Common Market?

This is too serious a problem for anyone to suggest that he has the answer or to say: "Follow me, boys. I will pilot the plane." Deputy Corry may become a truculent passenger when he finds the beet programme would not help him. Will the Taoiseach tell the farming community that the Six can meet their full requirements in milk, butter, cheese and eggs and 96 per cent. of their requirements in meat?

Deputy Corry, time and time again, has referred to wheat. The Taoiseach might do well to inform Deputy Corry that these six countries meet 92 per cent. of their obligations in connection with wheat. It is foolish, unfair and unjust to give the people of the Twenty-Six Counties the impression that they may follow Fianna Fáil into the Common Market and prosperity. Nobody knows.

It is essential this question should not be based on the political approach, no matter who is in Government. This is a matter in which the Government must ensure the security of the people. Before we join the Common Market, there are many hurdles to be negotiated and we must let our people know that is so. Within a few months the people may say they would prefer other people to represent them in this House. So long as I am in public life I shall admit my responsibility to the people. I shall tell them that joining the European Economic Community may well bring prosperity but that before we gain admission we must present a united front. If we can get that co-operation then we will be on the road to economic prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. Russell

I should like at the outset to support the Taoiseach's plea yesterday that all those participating in the coming election will show the world a fine example of Irish democracy. I hope he will go further afield and have these sentiments conveyed to every constituency in the country. I have particularly in mind my own constituency where, immediately prior to the last local elections, an effort was made by the Fianna Fáil organisation to misrepresent certain candidates seeking honours to the City Council.

Acting-Chairman

I am afraid the Deputy will not be allowed to discuss the local elections on this Estimate.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He is entitled to reply to what the Taoiseach has said.

Mr. Russell

The Taoiseach must have had information from some parts of the country when he made that appeal and I am giving my reasons for supporting him. As other speakers have intimated the final debate of this Parliament is one in which stocktaking will be done by most speakers —those in Opposition as well as those who supported the programme of the Government during its term of office. I am in a somewhat unique position since the electors of my constituency four and a half years ago chose me as an independent Deputy and during the period of this Parliament I have endeavoured to justify my election "ticket" in my contributions to the debates in this House.

Therefore, I think it would be wrong of me not to start by paying a tribute to the Government for the progress they have made during the past 4½ years. I think that every Government that has had the honour of guiding the destinies of our people is entitled to receive credit if not from its opponents at least from some neutral source and on this occasion I think it would be completely untrue to suggest that no progress has been made in the past 4½ years. I believe it has, just as I believe that past Governments have added something to the degree of prosperity and human happiness now enjoyed by the people of this State.

However, I do not think it is correct for the Government to assume—as speakers from the Government side of the House have assumed—that all the good things that have happened in the past 4½ years have been directly due to Government intervention or to Government control and encouragement. Strangely enough a lot of the prosperity that has taken place in the industrial sector has been due not to any Government encouragement but to those participating in industry. I should like to pay a tribute first of all to the men who guided those industries, who put their energy and capital into them, and to the workers who have participated in them. I sometimes think that if we had less interference from the top and less alleged guidance from alleged experts the ordinary people in this country, whether they work in a factory, in a field or behind a shop counter, would make a better success of their lives and of the country's economy.

The last Government came into office at a very crucial period of our country's history. The years 1956 and 1957 were very difficult years for the country. For that reason I do not think it is altogether fair to compare the progress that has been made in the last 4½ years with the crisis years of 1956 and 1957. We always tend to make comparisons with the worst possible examples in order to attempt to show the progress made. It is true that the Government which went out of office at one of the lowest ebbs in our economy left behind them certain legacies. We know the present Government are entitled to criticise some of their activities but the Government which went out on that occasion had to take certain unpopular steps to rectify a set of conditions which then existed.

They may have been responsible themselves at the time for some of those conditions, but others were brought about by circumstances over which no Government could have control. Before the last Government left office they put certain levies on imports to correct the serious balance of payments crisis that had arisen. Any fairminded person will admit those levies did their job. They were painful and caused unemployment at the time but they corrected the balance of payments to such an extent that at the end of 1957 there was a credit of £9 million in our international trading account.

That sum tided the country over the next three years' deficits so that at the end of 1960 we could say that over the period of four years our international account was roughly in balance. When the new Government came in they immediately cut the food subsidies. I do not want to make a point of that. At the time I took the view that the country could not afford these subsidies and I think that was proved by the fact that when the subsidies were taken off the Budget was subsequently balanced. Nothing has happened since to suggest that the present Government has been at any time in a position to restore those subsidies. It has never been in a position of having £6 million that it could devote to restoring the subsidies on bread, flour and the other items from which they were taken.

I have said that the Government were entitled to credit for certain progress and for certain favourable developments which occurred during their term of office. They can take credit for the increase in the national income and also for the increase in industrial employment, meagre though it was, and hopelessly inadequate to offset the very large decrease in agricultural employment. They are entitled to credit for increased productivity and, finally, I think for the fact that the number of unemployed is substantially lower than it was three or four years ago. It may be said that the figures are lower because large numbers have left to work elsewhere. This is true, and in taking credit for the decrease in unemployment figures, regard must be had to the very heavy emigration which has continued over the past four years. Not so long ago the Taoiseach admitted here that the rate was in the neighbourhood of 40,000 a year. I do not think the Taoiseach would be guilty of making an underestimate but, even accepting his estimate—which I think will be shown to be low when we get the census figures next month—it means that something like 160,000 to 180,000 have left the country in the past four years. I believe the figure is substantially higher.

A feature seldom mentioned in speeches here and which I think is very significant is the fact that over a long period, and certainly during the past four or five years, the country has continued to trade at a substantial loss. Our imports have continued to exceed our exports by a sum varying between £70 million and £90 million a year. We depend very substantially—more substantially I believe than other countries in a comparable position—on making up that deficit by the invisible earnings of the tourist trade, emigrants' remittances and income from investments abroad. As long as that condition of affairs continues we shall always be vulnerable. If anything should happen to our tourist industry or to reduce the flow of emigrants' remittances, or to our investments abroad, we would find ourselves in very serious balance of payments difficulties again. Personally, I should like to see the day come as soon as possible when our trading account comes nearer to balance and we are not so dependent on invisible items to balance it.

For the past four years the Minister for Finance has been content just to balance his Budget. In this he has succeeded and it is a matter for credit; but never has he thought of trying to budget for a surplus. As we know, our nearest neighbour every year, in spite of trade and export difficulties, succeeds in having a very substantial balance to credit on current account. This is used for various capital purposes and I suggest we should aim at having such a balance in our Budget at the end of each year's accounts. It could be very usefully applied to increase our investment in productive capital outlay of one kind or another. At the moment, in order to do this, we must borrow. I am not against borrowing for productive purposes but, looking back over various Government programmes for years past and not excluding the present Programme for Expansion, I think we must admit that a large part of what is called productive capital outlay could very easily be otherwise described. Any capital investment that cannot at least financially sustain itself only adds indirectly to the deadweight of debt which is already too high for a small country.

In this regard our rapidly growing national debt has caused me disquiet from time to time. It is seldom referred to because no ordinary individual sees or feels its effects directly. A national debt of £450 million in a country where the population is steadily declining is or should be regarded very seriously. The fact that it costs £22 or £23 million every year to service that debt is something of which we should take more cognisance. The fact that the service charge is going up each year at the rate of £2 million is a factor which may in time call for serious remedial action.

I should like to commend the Government for the improved incentives given to exporters over the past three or four years. I use the word "improved" deliberately because most of these incentives were introduced by their predecessors; the tax free "holiday" on exports for five years instituted by the previous Government was increased to ten years and in the case of Shannon Airport to 25 years. That has helped very considerably to increase our exports of manufactured goods which have risen considerably over the past three or four years but which have still a long way to go before they can equal our exports of agricultural goods, whether live animals or processed foodstuffs.

The more we look at the value of our exports of manufactured goods as against the value of agricultural exports the more it helps to bring home to us the importance of continuing to concentrate primarily on the export of agricultural goods and particularly processed foodstuffs. In taking credit for the expansion of exports over the past three or four years, we must remember that Europe generally has been enjoying boom conditions and we have been exporting to an expanding market, in England mainly, where the purchasing power of the working classes particularly has been going up rapidly. There are indications, however, that this state of affairs may not continue and already there is some sign of a slowing rate in some of our exports to Britain. I hope that position will be rectified as we will find ourselves in very serious difficulties if there is any general slackening in our exports to Britain.

In discussing our rate of progress, as speakers from the Government side have done in this debate, they might, I think, have made comparison with the progress made by other OEEC countries. It is all very well to take the 1956/57 figures and compare them with the last 4½ years. I would like to see some of the Government speakers taking some of the continental countries, comparing their rate of progress, in the relevant statistics, with ours. I think it would give a very significant picture and therefore I hope that some of the Government speakers will give us these figures for our edification.

Naturally enough every speaker has mentioned the Common Market and indeed it is impossible to disassociate it from this debate. I would like to say, first of all, that the question of the Common Market is not in issue in this House. All Parties, and every individual Deputy, agree that if England goes into the Common Market we have no option but to join too. Whether we like to admit it or not, Great Britain and we form a natural economic unit and we already apply to the two islands some of the policies which the six countries of the Common Market are now trying to introduce among themselves. I refer particularly to the free movement of capital and labour between these islands. It is only natural, therefore, that if England joins we must join with her.

I think we should not commit ourselves at this stage not to join if England does not join. We should leave it to a later stage, and presumably to a later Dáil, to decide, in the event of England not joining, whether or not we should negotiate for some form of association with the Common Market if—and a most important condition—we can retain our trading relationship with Great Britain. That may not be possible or practicable but at this juncture I would be very slow to commit ourselves not to join if England does not join. I think the farming community would be averse to binding ourselves to such a decision at this stage.

Although the Taoiseach has made several speeches including his speech yesterday in which he has adverted to the topic of the Common Market, I am not yet clear as to what are the specific terms on which this country will join.

The British Prime Minister has indicated on more than one occasion the terms on which England will apply for membership, and both he and other members of the British Cabinet have laid it down as an essential condition that the interests of the Commonwealth and British agriculture and their partners in the E.F.T.A. must be considered and must be protected if England is to join. I would like to ask the Taoiseach what position will arise if England joins and we do not secure conditions, such as a long enough period to allow our industries to prepare for complete free trade. Do we join irrespective of the conditions we can negotiate? I think the Taoiseach has gone very far in committing us to join if England joins. It seems to me that he should have entered into preliminary negotiations with the Common Market countries at an earlier stage before making this irrevocable decision.

In this context it is interesting to learn from Mr. Macmillan, the British Prime Minister, that the British Government have been negotiating with the members of the Common Market for the past nine months. Some effort should have been made by our Government when it was obvious—and I believe the Government must have known the position from its various contacts throughout the world—that England's decision to apply for membership of the Common Market was imminent. In this regard I feel that the Committee, which has been set up to assess the position of groups of Irish industries in the new Free Trade Area, should have been set up at least two years ago. I think we find ourselves in a particularly vulnerable position because we are entering the negotiations unprepared. Two valuable years have been wasted, either because the Taoiseach did not want to know or was completely unaware of the position. If I have any strong criticism to offer against his handling of the situation it is that he has not acted sooner in opening preliminary negotiations with the Common Market countries.

I myself have put down several questions over the past two years in regard to the question of opening negotiations and, up to a matter of four weeks ago, the Taoiseach stated in this House that in his opinion it was inopportune to open even preliminary negotiations. Some contact should have been established with these countries over the past two years. I feel that the information gained then would have influenced the Government to set up the Committee that is now at work to assess the position of our industrial firms in this Free Trade Area.

One piece of information which I found it impossible to get from the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the type of assistance which industrialists can expect to get from the Government to help them in, to use the expression of the Minister for Finance, the amalgamation, specialisation and rationalisation of their various industries. The only assistance that I can see that would be of any use to them would be financial assistance and I hope before this debate closes that the Taoiseach will give the industrial sector, which has always been so dear to his heart as we know, some encouragement to relieve their very serious problems.

I do not want to say much about the agricultural question. I am not competent to speak on it, for one thing, and secondly others have already spoken on it. I presume further Deputies will speak on it, but I am concerned at what is barely an outline of the future set-up of agriculture in the participating countries in the Treaty of Rome. It is stated, as the Taoiseach pointed out, that the family character of farming will be preserved and that farming will be placed in a position that families and workers on the land will be able to earn incomes comparable with those in urban areas. I think that is an ideal to which we all subscribe and Deputy Corry would be one of the first to agree—indeed, he has stated so already in this House— that a farm labourer is entitled to an income comparable to his counterpart in urban employment. I am not certain though how that is going to be done and I feel that, even if the family character of farming in this country is to be preserved, there will be less family farms.

If, as Deputy Corry suggested, we are going to pay farm labourers £9 or £10 a week, we will not pay it out of 30 acre holdings. It is inevitable—in fact, it has been stated, I think—that this whole Common Market set-up visualises a substantial reduction in the agricultural population, that large numbers will transfer from agriculture to other employments provided in the main, presumably, by greater industrialisation. Indeed, it is suggested in the Treaty of Rome that industrialisation in rural areas will take care of the surplus population and help to resolve the problem of marginal farming.

Again, this is a fine ideal and one to which we would all subscribe. It has been the policy of successive Governments here to locate industries in rural areas. It is a policy with which we all agree, particularly for social reasons in that it offers some alternative employment to the sons and daughters of small farmers who cannot hope to support all their family in small farm units. This is very fine so long as we can decide this policy for ourselves. But who would suggest when we are part of a large Common Market of 300,000,000 people, where industrial units presumably will be of a very substantial size, that this policy will be followed?

As I understand it, industrialists will establish their industries whereever it pays them best. We may find ourselves in the position that the drift from the rural areas will continue, but instead of the farmers' sons and daughters finding employment in Limerick, Cork, Dublin and elsewhere, they will go to the Continent of Europe to get it. These large industrial units on the Continent will be so big and efficient that they will employ the people who should be employed in this country. In other words, unless we can secure adequate terms in our negotiations to protect our industrial sector, it is possible to foresee a situation in which we will be unable to maintain, let alone increase, the level of our population. I do not want to take a pessimistic view in this matter. I personally believe that our people have the capacity to tackle this challenge. The only thing that worries me is whether we are going to be ready in time. If we are not ready in time, it will have a very serious impact on our country.

Apart from the question of the economic size of industry and of industrialisation generally, there is another important aspect that has not been touched upon, that is, the psychological aspect. In the changed circumstances it will be necessary for our people to employ a completely new outlook on industry generally, both employers and workers. I should like to see the situation arise whereby both employers and workers would look upon industry as a joint enterprise, that both would agree to share the rewards of increased productivity and that any question of a clash between employer and worker would no longer arise. That is the outlook of successful industry particularly in the small Continental countries. We would benefit if we could imbue our manufacturers and workers with the same idea.

Finally, I subscribe completely to the Taoiseach's sentiments when he said that membership on equal terms with the other countries of the European Economic Community is a stimulating challenge to our people. I believe it will be to our benefit even though we have to relinquish some degree of sovereignty and even though we must transfer some of the powers of deciding economic and social issues to the larger supra-national institutions of the Common Market. If we make the decision to join as a completely free and independent people, by and large we will gain in the long run.

This question of the Common Market is not a Party one. It is a matter for the people as a whole. As this will be my last opportunity to speak in this Dáil, I should like to express the hope that whatever Government is in power and whatever its complexion, it will not hesitate to seek the support and active participation of all Parties and of all interests, whether represented in this House or outside, in this great challenge to our future.

Mr. Lindsay

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.

Debate adjourned.