I hope the House will not sit more than another hour or two. I do not think there is any need for it.
Nomination of Members of Government. - Motion of Approval (Resumed).
The Deputy is having a second bash.
I agree with 99 per cent. of what Deputy Costello has said. In my opinion it was what one would call a patriotic speech and I hope all the Parties, including his own Party, will bear in mind what he said. In other words, the Parties should co-operate a little with the Government; they should not, as has been the practice, just play the Party game, because there is a game and a great deal of what is said here is hot air, intended for the public outside—certainly not intended for the people here because we are all wise to one another.
The motion before the House deals with the nomination of the Taoiseach's Cabinet. I am not going to find fault with the personnel of his Cabinet but it is customary on such occasions to express opinions on policy. I want to make one point on the question of social benefits. When I voted for the Taoiseach I made no conditions, no threats but I have criticised the Government in the past and shall continue to do so. I have not voted for the Fianna Fáil Party. I voted for a Government. There is no use in people throwing out innuendoes saying: "You are afraid of an election." I am not afraid. I got in on the first count and it was just a fluke that I did not top the poll.
On one occasion in the past I fought an election on a chair and 30/-. I would not hesitate to do it again tomorrow. If I went around with a hat any day I would get enough to put me over it. I am not afraid of an election and whatever I do is a question of conscience and belief as far as I am concerned. I was satisfied that no other group could form a Government and let me say here and now that it was a great relief to everybody here when Deputy Carroll and myself went into the Fianna Fáil lobby.
The Deputy is better than the men who kept out of it, who had not guts enough to go in.
It was said that we did the right thing and that some people had not the guts to go in. All my life I stand on my beliefs and I do not care whom I offend, here or elsewhere.
Coming back to the motion, there is one issue on which I would vote against the Taoiseach and that is the issue of social benefits. The people who need these benefits are not organised and they are handed any little pittance that any Minister wishes to grant them. Recently, there was a general round of increases in wages and it stands to reason that, following a general increase in wages, there would be a general increase in the cost of living, whether openly or in a hidden manner. You can increase prices either by putting things up or by manufacturing deficient or defective goods. You can do it in many ways but, no matter how you do it, those who get an increase in wages through union action may be able to meet it. It must be remembered that 80 per cent. of all increases in wages is taken away again inside a year or two. The workers benefit by only ten or twenty per cent. of the increase, but those on social benefits must pay as much as those who get increases. Therefore, they must get corresponding increases to make up for the increased cost of living. If those people do not get fair play—this is another issue, the question of means tests for old age pensioners—if the Government do not give those people assistance I will vote against the Government at any time. Other than that, I am not making any threats. I am prepared to give the Government a chance, and I think, in the words of Deputy Costello, other Parties should do the same.
I am convinced that proportional representation as it stands will bring about a situation similar to this in any election over the next 20 or 30 years. Following the Civil War everyone was more or less lined up on one side or another, but the Civil War has faded now. The body politic has broken up into fragments and you do not know for whom the people will vote. It is idle for Fianna Fáil to think that they reached their maximum strength in the last election. I do not believe it. They might fight an election tomorrow and lose a seat or they might win one or two. We should make proportional representation work. On the basis of the present election there is a stable Government, a strong Opposition. I do not see why it cannot work, if the Opposition co-operates. There is no need to challenge the Government on every issue; we can be constructive in our criticisms. There is no need to throw them out by votes.
I have made clear the issues on which I would vote against the Government but I would vote against them on one or two other issues also. I am not going to be bound by anything. I am giving the Government a chance. Deputy Costello's words should be considered by his own Party. Let us co-operate. Let us give up carrying the hatchet; it is all right to take the hatchet to the hustings but it is not all right here. I want the Minister to remember that I want this question of social benefits to be reconsidered.
As has been said in this debate, the election has taken place and the result is reflected in the Party composition of this House. Whether that is directly attributable to proportional representation or to the political system, the system of proportional representation is probably a matter of opinion. It may even be a combination of both. I do not share the same enthusiasm as some of my colleagues for the system of proportional representation but it is the existing system and as such we have to work it. It seems to me that while Parties may be an essential part of our political framework, we have a duty transcending personal and Party considerations. That duty is to serve the public interest and it is our prime obligation and principal responsibility. That duty must be performed whether it suits personal or Party considerations. The country faces many difficult problems—political, economic, social and—last but not least—educational. All these matters require constant and urgent attention. I am convinced we have an inescapable responsibility to pool our wisdom and experience in order to reach the right decisions and adopt the best policy in these questions in the national interest.
The advent of the Common Market will create new and serious problems. What is important is not the name or form of our admission to the Common Market but the terms on which we assume membership or association. These terms or conditions will be vital to the economic future of the country. They will be vital to the workers employed in Irish industry and vital to those who have invested money in the establishment and maintenance of these industries.
The interests of both sections in industry must be safeguarded and the best possible terms negotiated in the national interest. I believe there is no difference in outlook in this matter between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Indeed, on many questions we have more in common than in dispute and, having worked for many years in this House with members of the Labour Party, I can say the questions at issue are relatively few compared with the many matters on which there is agreement.
Great skill and care will be required in negotiating the terms of our admission to the Common Market. I am satisfied that the correct approach in this matter is a bi-partisan approach in the national interest. The duty and responsibility which we have here is to unite the nation, to face the consequences and to secure the most advantageous terms possible for our industries and those concerned in them and also to provide for agriculture whatever conditions may be needed.
If a bi-partisan approach is to be secured, the Taoiseach and the Government must take the Dáil and the country into their confidence. Full information must be made available on all matters. In this way, public confidence will be secured for the decisions taken. These and other questions require examination and discussion before decisions are taken.
Similarly, so far as the educational problems which affect the country are concerned, I do not believe there is any fundamental difference on the aims and objectives. Considerable discussions took place during the election on the aim of restoring the Irish language. I believe that, whatever difference there is, it is not in aim but in method. I noticed that in the course of one of his last speeches the Taoiseach said he was prepared to examine the methods and to change them if necessary. We advocated certain changes which I believe would inculcate a greater enthusiasm and love for the language than the system which has been worked up to the present. These are matters which we can consider here and discuss in the future and if possible reach agreement on them.
I believe there will be general disappointment at the names announced by the Taoiseach for the approval of the House as members of the Government. There is only one new Minister; all the others are members of the outgoing Government. A few of them have been changed. It is notable that all of the changes are of no real significance.
Despite the advent of the Common Market, despite the very serious problems which confront the Government and the Dáil, the Taoiseach does not yet appear to have decided what Minister will be responsible for negotiating our entry into that body. He expressed some view to the effect that changes may be necessary. To judge by the names that have been submitted the most obvious conclusion is that there is an extraordinary poverty of ability amongst the Fianna Fáil Party. I am surprised that, from his own point of view, the Taoiseach did not make more changes in the Government. I believe it would have been possible to get somebody from among his supporters on the back benches or to have promoted other Parliamentary Secretaries, certainly one and certainly one other Deputy on the back benches. If they had been promoted it would be an improvement on some of the outgoing Ministers.
One of the complaints levelled throughout the country over the past few weeks, and which was reflected in speeches here today, is that the Government became complacent, that they were complacent about the serious problems affecting the nation. In face of that complacency, the Taoiseach comes here and hands out the same Government with one single exception. That is hardly good enough. It is hardly fair to the Taoiseach and it is hardly fair to the country.
I suppose there were some political difficulties in asking older colleagues to make way for new members. Whatever the difficulties I think it would be in the national interest that changes should be made. It is not sufficient to let the matter drag on for some time. In fact, the obvious conclusion from the changes that have been made is that they were made in order to facilitate the inclusion of all existing members and the admission of one new member.
One of the demands Fianna Fáil made during the election and the one which was placarded throughout the country was "Give Lemass a strong team". Do the Fianna Fáil Party believe that the Cabinet presented to us this evening is strong? Nobody else does. It is obvious that it is a team in which there is a lack of public confidence in its ability and in its capacity.
One of the characteristics associated with Fianna Fáil over the years is that they have been a very efficient political machine. That efficiency has been maintained to some extent by a system of patronage. I believe there is now in this country a general dislike of the patronage system. The first Government of this State established the Local Appointments Commission in order to avoid any suggestion that appointments would be made on a patronage basis and to secure that public positions would be filled on merit. I believe that is a good system.
Whatever the method of appointment, whether in the judiciary, in the Army, in the Garda or in the Civil Service, merit should be the prime consideration. All other things being equal, if there are two candidates and one is a supporter of the Government and the other is not, then they are entitled to appoint the supporter. If the public generally are satisfied that appointments are made on merit, and that that is the guiding criterion, there will be far greater confidence in the decisions taken and in the appointees selected.
One of the legacies which the Taoiseach inherited is that Party and political considerations are paramount, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned. It would be quite wrong for anyone in this House to believe that there has been any change in that view. Whether the Government can continue in office for a long or a short period, Fianna Fáil have never been backward in exploiting political or other considerations to their own advantage. What the people want to see is what changes will be made in the national, economic and social policy in order that the serious problems which affect the country can be tackled in a vigorous and energetic manner.
One of the other changes which is of some significance is the fact that tourism has been taken from the Department of Industry and Commerce and handed over to the Department of Transport and Power. Shortly, there will be nothing left of the Department of Industry and Commerce but the Minister and the building in Kildare Street. It is also of significance that when the recent problem arose in connection with the E.S.B., it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who dealt with it. Although the Minister for Transport and Power had responsibility for power, he did not figure in the discussions.
If the Taoiseach has not made up his mind as to what Minister is to be responsible for conducting our negotiations for admission to the Common Market, he should make up his mind quickly, because any uncertainty or doubt is bad for the nation and causes a lack of confidence when confidence is essential. So far as we are concerned, we must ensure that our paramount duty is to serve, as we have always done, the national rather than the Party interest. That has been the hallmark of our record of service since the inception of the State.
Where Government policy is sound, we will support it, and where it is otherwise, we will oppose it, or suggest what we consider is the correct policy in the national interest. If that involves the consequences of a new election, we are prepared to accept full responsibility. We want to see a good and effective Government. We are disappointed at the fact that there have not been greater changes in the personnel of the Government. We understand and appreciate the Taoiseach's problem, but if some older members were prepared to retire to the back benches, or to retire altogether, others should have been prepared to make the same sacrifice. Most if not all of the Ministers—certainly the older ones —have long enough service to qualify for full pension.
It is important that an effective, efficient, capable and energetic Government should be presented to the country. This Government are not capable; on their past record, they are not energetic; and the admission of one new member will hardly make them efficient. The Taoiseach had better talent behind him, and I believe that even on this side of the House, we could have got from the Fianna Fáil Party a better group of Ministers than the Taoiseach has presented. That was his responsibility and I believe the House and the country are entitled to it. The changes that have been made are nominal and of no significance and, in fact, except for some internal political reasons, they would not have been made at all. This is not the strong team the Fianna Fáil Party asked the country to give them.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the fact that the country will expect to get from the Government a statement in regard to the adequacy of the equipment which our troops have in the Congo. We were all greatly relieved that the assignment they undertook there recently did not have more serious consequences. The country admired the traditional courage which our soldiers displayed in the face of great difficulties, but there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction at the type of equipment and the standard of equipment— not the standard of training but the standard of equipment—which has been issued to our personnel there. If our troops are to serve abroad effectively and properly, they must be properly equipped with the most up-to-date weapons.
This Government will have, as had the outgoing Government, a constructive and fair Opposition. We have always regarded it as our paramount duty to serve the public interest and that, as I have said, has been the hallmark of this Party since the inception of the State. May it ever continue so.
The Taoiseach is aware, from the views expressed by Deputy Corish, of where the Labour Party stand. All we can do at this stage is make a comparison between the activities or otherwise of some of the members of the incoming Cabinet and the members of the Cabinet of the previous Fianna Fáil Government.
First of all, we all sincerely hope that the Taoiseach as captain of the ship, having taken on his whole crew, will be a little more careful about the Minister for Transport and Power. Let us not have to face the position with which we were faced over the past year or two, when everything was haywire in that Department, due to the inactivity of that Minister. When we heard of trade disputes and other difficulties, we found that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had to come to their aid and the Minister for Transport and Power was missing. That happened, not once but on many occasions.
Members of the Opposition seeking information through Parliamentary Questions, as is their right, usually found that the answers supplied by the Minister for Transport and Power were anything but complimentary to him, nor did they show that he was willing to co-operate with a constructive Opposition. If the Taoiseach thinks that such an attitude on the part of the Minister for Transport and Power will help him and his Cabinet in the future, I can assure him that so far as the Labour Party are concerned, he will find that such is not the case.
What struck me most forcibly in regard to the Department of Local Government was the number of circulars which were issued during the election campaign offering financial assistance to local authorities for all sorts of schemes. I wonder was it mere coincidence that the money—at least on paper—for all those schemes was found during that period? Surely the Taoiseach cannot blame us for doubting what emanates from a Department presided over by a Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government, when, at the same time, as members of local authorities, we had the experience of knowing that the self-same Department, presided over by the self-same Minister, refused to co-operate with the local authorities in connection with necessary amenities for housing in their own areas. I think it was deplorable — and I am convinced it was political—for the Minister for Local Government, aided naturally by the Fianna Fáil Government and the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, with the over-all connection between the Department of Local Government and the various local authorities, to endeavour to secure support and votes by offering schemes never intended to be put into operation.
Deputy Corish spoke at length on our views regarding the Minister for Health. I do not wish to elaborate further than to say that no one could expect members of the Labour Party to offer their support either to a Government, or to a Minister of such an important Department as Health, when in actual fact that Minister could improve conditions immensely but has made no attempt to do so. We know he was the Minister responsible for cutting out all grants for the erection of dispensary buildings. Could the Taoiseach expect our support if that Minister intends to continue such a policy? I have no intention of going into details regarding various Departments. However, we have not forgotten the past and all we can do in future is be suspicious of some of these Ministers, knowing their inactivity in the past, and be prepared, if they continue on the same lines in the future, to go all the way against them and against their Government.
Deputy Cosgrave spoke of the importance of the Common Market. We all appreciate that but what did surprise me during the election campaign was a statement made by a Minister of State attacking the Labour Party because we insisted on all aspects of this important matter being brought in future before the Dáil, not for a mere political discussion but for the purposes of a discussion which would ultimately be of benefit to the various sections of the community. Because we stated during our election campaign, as we stated in this House prior to the election, that that should be done. Ministers of the Taoiseach's Government found it suitable to say the Labour Party were condemning the Common Market project. We have no apology to offer for what we said.
If the Taoiseach thinks that through the strength of his majority, be it slender or otherwise, he can as head of the Government negotiate and sign agreements which have not been fully discussed here as to how they may affect the future of agriculture and industry, the Labour Party in spite of the protests of any Minister of the present Government, will continue to object. Fundamentally our responsibility is to protect the industrial workers here who may be affected by any agreement signed and equally to protect the agricultural community who must depend upon the honesty and sincerity of the politicians reaching decisions, having considered how such agreements may affect the people in the future.
I was pleased to hear Deputy J.A. Costello speak on this subject here a while ago but let me remind Deputies that what he has referred to has been carried out by the Labour Members of the Dáil over the last four and a half years. I can challenge any member of Fianna Fáil on that issue. Time and time again when the Labour Party believed in the wisdom of proposals introduced by Fianna Fáil Ministers they supported them.
On other occasions when they believed their proposals would not help the people of this country they opposed them. That goes to show that, even though only a small part of the Opposition, the Labour Party helped where help was needed by any Minister promoting legislation which was good. Furthermore the Labour Party believed that the rights of individual members should be respected and when the circumstances demanded it on a particular issue we were never afraid to say; "Let it be a free vote" because in the final analysis, whether a man is elected on a Party ticket or not, he is elected as a representative of all sections of the community in his constituencey.
If the Taoiseach remembers that the role to be played by the Labour Party will be, as it has been in the past, based on these principles, he will know from the outset where he stands with us. Therefore, in regard to any proposal that is detrimental to the workers, as the one on the 1st September was, he may expect severe criticism and opposition from Labour. On the other hand let him introduce improvements in social welfare, let him urge his Minister for Health to make some attempt to improve the health services and to straighten out the problem of the medical cards and he will have our support.
We are uttering no threats. We have asked no support from anyone and offer none to anyone. We have our own policy. Too long have we been taunted here by the Taoiseach and other members of Fianna Fáil because the Labour Party, a small Party, did not answer the whip of the Fianna Fáil Government. We were taunted and abused and because we voted against Fianna Fáil we were considered as traitors. We cannot forget that. We cannot forget that in the thirties when the Labour Party was justified in supporting Fianna Fáil they were told: "As long as we need your help we will keep you but we will get rid of you as soon as possible." The past is always a guide to the future. I would say the Taoiseach is a man of political sense and, considering the position of the last four-and-a-half years, he may not act in the same autocratic manner as was the case before his time. He will find that if he adopts a sincere attitude we will get on much better.
I appreciate fully what Deputy Costello said about proportional representation. I know that during that terrible battle there were people on my left who wanted to abolish P.R. Some of the newspapers at the present time believe that if Fianna Fáil cannot get a majority or if Fine Gael cannot get a majority and they do not come together, P.R. should be abolished. As we said two years ago, we have no right to deny democratic rights to the people. Certain politicians believed two years ago that they could get a political stranglehold over the people if they could succeed in abolishing proportional representation. The people rejected those proposals and, however we may differ politically, whether it be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour who have a majority, I hope that never again will politicians for their own selfish ends or for the selfish ends of their Party advocate the abolition of proportional representation.
The Taoiseach has submitted to this House a proposed Government which at its very best cannot be described as anything but mediocre. We have an opportunity now, before the Government takes office, to impress upon the Taoiseach what is the real situation of the country and what is the real duty before him as Leader of the Government if he is to discharge the public responsibility placed on him by the result of the election. What I have to say about the Government is not directed in a personal way to any particular Minister. I regard them collectively as a very poor bunch. I cannot see any real prospect of an improvement, unless lurking in the Taoiseach's mind, when he realises he is in a Dáil where he will get co-operation and constructive help, there is the possibility of a very quick reshuffle and the introduction of some imagination and strength of purpose into his Cabinet. It is clear that the electorate were not satisfied with the manner in which the government of the country was run for the past four and a half years. There is no doubt that the time is now opportune—indeed it is imperative— for us to find some dynamic change in outlook to enable a nation suffering from the gushing haemorrhage of emigration to hope that in the immediate future some effort will be made at least to procure worthwhile employment for some limited number of the young people growing up here.
I urge upon the Taoiseach that he rapidly come to grips with the real problems besetting this nation. We have a Dáil elected, in which, thanks be to God, because of the strength and efficacy of the Opposition, we will be able to make the Government a good Government in spite of themselves or get rid of them altogether. I do not want to see unnecessary or irresponsible general elections. I believe the Taoiseach has sufficient political sagacity to assess the present situation. I believe he has sufficient acumen to appreciate that from the pooled wisdom and effort of a constructive Opposition, he can gather great strength to his own Government. We will be able to make up for the mediocrity of the Cabinet by giving him the assistance of enlightened and reasonable thinking.
I come back to the Dáil after four and a half years' absence still representing South-West Cork, a constituency that has come under the bludgeoning blow of emigration more than any other. I can see there the direct effect of the dead hand of inept, inefficient, incompetent and unconstructive Government administration. Unfortunately, I was not here when the Minister for Transport and Power used the gambit of: "I have no responsibility" to bludgeon through legislation closing the West Cork railway. Fortunately, the tracks are not up yet and we may be able to enlighten the Government again. Throughout the length and breadth of the constituency, I have seen the callous abandonment of progress by the Government, for no reason other than political dissatisfaction. It is a tragedy, in an area where we so badly need to put the hard-won acres back into fertility, to find the land reclamation scheme brought to a dead stop and the machinery rusting in water. The Government take no notice of the fact that in that area it is vital to the economy that every possible encouragement be given to bringing more and more of our limited land supply into full heart.
We have seen also a slowing down in the rate of afforestation, a diminution in employment where there should be an increase and no improvement in the extraordinary state of the fishing industry. It seems to be more economic for trawlers from several European nations to fish the Irish fishing grounds, and even market some of their product here, than that we should develop the industry ourselves. The potentiality of that industry and its employment and earning capacity should be a fruitful source of investigation. We have seen the disastrous effects of Fianna Fáil Government over the past four and a half years. It may well be that all of that cannot be laid at the door of the Taoiseach, but he is captain of the ship now and he has a sorry-looking crew. I had hoped that the acumen, courage and truculence of the Taoiseach might have given him the impetus to produce a Cabinet with a Lemass stamp rather than an Old Guard stamp.
We have to face the reality of the present situation. It is this. Our agricultural industry is not geared for the competition it must meet in the Common Market. I am impressing on the Taoiseach in the most earnest and constructive way that there will have to be a complete reappraisal of agricultural policy to enable the Irish farmer reap the advantages of the Common Market. Through grants for improved buildings, such as stock byres and new type piggeries, through free loans or some other method of assistance, through improved advisory services and improved progeny testing, he must be enabled to produce in his animal husbandry the type of beast that will win for him the reward merited by the top-quality article.
We are not geared for that, and it is a tragedy to think that the same stultifying hand, lacking imagination, will be in charge of the Department of Agriculture. If any Department of Government wants a bit of initiative and strength of purpose, it is the Department of Agriculture, and there is nobody in this House who gives us less hope of these qualities than the nominee for that post. Nobody more than the Irish farmers will give the Government a greater response to any proposal aimed at helping our agricultural export industry. The Government must be brought to realise that no matter how heavily committed the Taoiseach may be basically to industry, agriculture must be put on a solid economic footing.
If we are to survive on the industrial side in the Common Market, it will be on the basis of a progressive agricultural industry. The Government will have to reappraise the present situation in its entirety. I can see, with tremendous clarity, the difficulties which will beset all Parties in this House in the immediate future. We now realise that the nation is in dire straits, mainly because no nation can make progress or no nation can look forward to a future, if its main export is its adolescent and early adult men and women. We realise there is a heavy duty on this 17th Dáil to ensure that something is done about the problem and it is in that spirit of heavy responsibility that I urge upon the Taoiseach to try to lift himself out of the slough of gross inactivity, of mounting inefficiency and lack of interest by the Government he now nominates, on its record.
There is an urgent necessity on everybody in public life to ensure that this Government will get a chance to do the job, but there is a positive duty on us to try to force the Government to face up to the problems and not run away from them. I am confining myself, in the main, to the difficulties in our primary industry because I do not believe in lip service to agriculture. I believe that unless we can gear our farmers into a position from which they can compete in quality and quantity in the Common Market, we will be doing a gross disservice to our economy. We can do that quite easily and it is infinitely better that the Government should approach the question of the Irish economy by putting more and more money into the small and middle-sized farms of Ireland, to develop their productivity and to increase their capacity to produce a better type of stock. That money is far better invested in that way than in some fly-by-night industries of which we have had experience under Fianna Fáil Governments.
Above all else, we must show the world in this Dáil, by co-operative effort, that we will strive after good Government as distinct from strong Government, autocratic Government or dictatorial Government, and I believe there is sufficient goodwill shown to the Taoiseach already to encourage him to get to grips with the task of finding the way to providing a buoyant economy otherwise than by taxation or by finding money always through hitting somebody.
I emphasise again that there are a number of complex problems facing us. The vital one is that the Government should get down to the task of revitalising the Land Reclamation Scheme, of getting ahead with forestry development and of investigating the possibility of the development of the marine industry. In that, there is great potential for employment and for a livelihood for our people at home. It is true to say the Government cannot do everything. Times may be difficult, but on the presentation by the Taoiseach of his Cabinet, there is no evidence of any change of front, of any new line of thought, of any new effort. It is, all over again, that shocking, appalling mediocrity—a Cabinet without drive or initiative.
I feel, as does my colleague, Deputy J.A. Costello, that this Parliament can not only do a service to the people of Ireland but can resolve itself into the type of House that will be the ultimate realisation of what proportional representation in fact means—a co-operative assembly in which the Government will, in the face of reasoned, constructive criticism, be prepared to meet the problems in a manner which will encourage the Opposition to give its support and constructive help to worthwhile proposals. That is the ultimate meaning of proportional representation. It is a system we have now adopted finally, and I am asking the Taoiseach to accept the ultimate analysis of proportional representation as something which will give effective, good Government as distinct from Party bludgeoning in the House.
It is probable that with adjustment, with reason and with effort, the Taoiseach will get a long period in office. He will get no Party harassing —no harassing for harassing's sake If he comes to the House with a realistic policy to deal, above all, with the problems that beset agriculture, the problems that beset industrial development, I think he will find that the combined wisdom and strength of this House will ensure that the hope now speedily dying in this country will be revived and that an Irish people, given intelligent, helpful leadership by a Government, will respond in a way that will make this country not only one shining like a jewel but one which will do a worthwhile job in world affairs.
Mr. Ryan
The most important duty which any member of this House is called upon to perform is, surely, to elect a Government and that is why we must hold in complete contempt the self-appointed saints, the "holier than thou", the "you are all out of step except me", the "mé feiners", the three queers of Irish politics who refused in this Dáil today to decide who was going to be head of the Government of this State in the years immediately ahead of us. I believe those three persons have shown themselves to be unfit to be members of any Parliament because they have disclosed their lack of responsibility in not going into the lobby to vote for or against a person who was proposed in this House as head of the Government.
The action of any Deputy in respect of voting does not arise on this motion.
Mr. Ryan
Except in so far as the person who is elected as Taoiseach is the person who ultimately puts before the House a team for election as a Government.
The Deputy may not discuss the action or inaction of Deputies in respect of their votes, on this motion especially.
Mr. Ryan
The consequences of the decision taken earlier this evening are now before the House at any rate, and it would seem that the Taoiseach has made up his mind that there is a very hard road ahead of him because he has selected the old dogs for the hardest road which any Government could possibly face.
The general election which we have just had was the quickest and most sudden general election in the whole history of the State. We have had civil wars, economic wars, world wars but we have never had a general election within a week of nomination day. I believe the reason it came so quickly was that the Government knew that the country is in a mess and they had hoped either to win with such a majority that they could do what they liked and remain in office for five years or that their opponents would be left to clear up the sorry mess which they had left. Unfortunately, the best laid schemes of mice and men frequently go astray. The Taoiseach now finds himself dependent upon the votes of two so-called Independents to keep him in office.
I have told the Deputy before that the votes of Deputies do not arise on this motion.
Mr. Ryan
Except in so far as it may control the action of the Taoiseach in the selection of his team.
The matter does not arise and the Deputy will have to accept that.
Mr. Ryan
With respect, it is much more relevant than most of the bilge we heard from the Deputies who abstained.
I have told the Deputy that it does not arise and he must accept that decision. He may not canvass the decision of Deputies who did not cast their votes. That is their own peculiar prerogative.
"Peculiar."
Mr. Ryan
They are entitled to vote but not entitled to abstain.
I am not going to argue.
Mr. Ryan
I am not arguing but I am referring to the decision of two Deputies. They exercised their choice.
I shall not allow the Deputy to discuss the action of any Deputy or Party in respect of how they cast their votes. It does not arise.
Mr. Ryan
I may tell you, Sir that I am not questioning it; I am merely reciting it as an incident that took place, which is an entirely different thing. In any event, the Taoiseach, who, like his predecessor in his own Party, likes to wear the white cloak of respectability, has selected as his left-hand man the principal manufacturer, purveyor and slinger of mud in this country. We have heard talk about a clean campaign. There was one exception—the Taoiseach's left-hand man, the man whom he now puts before us as "Mr. Seán Mac an tSaoi" who, strangely enough, went before the electorate as "Mr. Johnny MacEntee".
In the House today, the Taoiseach indulged in a certain amount of subterfuge. He put before this House as Ministers of his Government a succession of names in the English language, which was correct in so far as the gentlemen concerned were returned and went before the electorate in the English form of their names, but, in the hand-out which was passed around and which will go on the official record, we find a different form of names used for some 12 people who paraded the country as the upholders of our national language but who, in seeking the support of the electorate, used the English forms of their names. It seems to me that a Government who start off in such a hypocritical fashion are giving a very bad example to the country and one not deserving of support.
Those who voted for this temporary Government today voted for the continuation of a policy which in Dublin city in the past four years reduced to one-quarter the housing programme which was there before they went into office. They supported a policy which reduced by two-thirds the number of people in Dublin city entitled to free medical service. They voted for the continuation of a health policy which is based upon the pauper poor law system of Queen Victoria of 1851 and the Fianna Fáil and Labour-supported Health Act of 1953.
There was before this House an alternative in the person of Deputy Dillon who had pledged this Party, the second largest Party in the House, to a complete repeal of the obnoxious poor law health system that we have in this country. But, other people, for reasons which the Ceann Comhairle will not allow me here to question, decided to support or to abstain from voting against a Fianna Fáil Government and the result is we now have once again as Minister for Health, the most reactionary, right-wing, Tory that could be produced in the most conservative country in the world, a man who believes that our present health system is fundamentally right. He agrees that it could be modified and improved but he believes that the fundamental basis of our health service, which is a 19th century poor low relief system, is correct. We on this side of the House disagree, and will continue to disagree, until we remove from Government office any man who believes in that or any people who support it.
We have once again in the Ministry of Local Government the man who, taking the over-all national picture, reduced by one-half the house building programme of the former Government in which Fine Gael had such a tremendous part to play, a man who by his own policy reduced by three-quarters the housing programme in Dublin, the centre of the country where the housing problem was most urgent. We have again in the Department of Local Government the Minister who sent to the Cork Corporation a letter refusing to provide money for housing because, he said, the Cork Corporation had not made allowances for the natural reduction of the population of Cork by emigration.
That is the mean, despairing Government which the Taoiseach has the audacity to ask this House to accept. While agreeing with those who think that the Opposition must be constructive, I believe that this Government is so bad and so despairing that they must be got out very quickly. The sooner a general election comes, as far as Fine Gael are concerned, the better. When it comes it will merely be a postponement of the general election of 1961. Had the election not been the quickest one in the records of the State for the last 40 years, the result would have been entirely different. Those who are now trying to grin over there would be over here and perhaps feeling a lot safer.
Who would be over here?
Mr. Ryan
The Ministry for the Gaeltacht has now been handed over to a gentleman who while in office had the title "an tUasal Micheál Ó Moráin" but strangely enough when he sought the support of the electorate in his area he was plain "Michael Moran". One wonders about the sincerity of such a man and why a fíorghael like Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin is shifted from the Department of the Gaeltacht and Deputy Michael Moran put in his place. I can well understand why the Taoiseach felt it so politically imperative to shift a gentleman, who went by the title of "Caoimhghin Ó Beolain" but in the general election was entitled "Kevin Boland", from the office of Minister for Defence. He knows that the Army vote swung against Fianna Fáil on this occasion and that the Army which ought to have some confidence in their Minister indicated they had lost all confidence in their last Minister. In the unsafe position of the world at present it was more than prudent, even apart from Party politics, for the Taoiseach to remove from the office of Minister for Defence a man who had lost the confidence of such a fine Army.
I do not want to venture to forecast what confidence the new Minister will get from the Army but he could not do as much damage as his predecessor. I have been taken to task in some places for criticising the creation of the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice and the appointment of Deputy Haughey to that position. On this occasion I should like to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister. He is a person who has some ability and that is why I thought it unnecessary to create for him a post which never before existed and which we then believed was unnecessary. It may well be that the Taoiseach has not yet completed his appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries but, if a Parliamentary Secretary was necessary in the last administration, I think it unfair to Deputy Haughey to leave him all alone on the top floor of Merrion Street, unless it be that the law reform introduced by Deputy Costello, Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Everett in the Coalition Government has now been exhausted and that it will take some time before we can have any new Bills from that Department, other than those for which leave to introduce will be sought later on tonight.
It is amazing that Fianna Fáil in the general election which has just been completed were able to spend about 10 times more money than all their political opponents put together and, at the end of it all, emerged with fewer votes than their opponents. That is a fact that can be measured by putting a ruler to the columns of the newspapers. It seems to indicate that their principal support came from a few who have accumulated wealth under them and who felt that their only security was to see Fianna Fáil returned to office. It brings to mind the words of the Irish poet Goldsmith, who wrote: "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, where wealth accumulates and men decay." Wealth accumulated in the hands of Fianna Fáil to the tune of ten times more money than had all their political opponents put together while the youth, the men and women of Ireland, decayed and 215,000 emigrated in the last five years, a greater number than emigrated in the previous 30 years put together. So that while Fianna Fáil accumulated the wealth, while their supporters accumulated the wealth, they got fewer votes than everybody else put together and the people who had no money left to feed themselves, much less subscribe to Fianna Fáil, left the country. That is why we now have a Government who bought themselves back to power on the money accumulated in the hands of the few, while the many are afflicted by this pauper health system, denied equality of educational opportunities, a decent social welfare system and the necessary houses which any Christian Government would provide. That being so, it is a deplorable and miserable Government that we in the Opposition have to face.
I was hoping, when the election had not been more favourable for my Party, that at least there might have been some new faces on the Fianna Fáil Front Bench. Instead we have the position in which the Taoiseach still has confidence in the group, in respect of whom the electorate have given a clear vote of no confidence. Therefore it is very necessary to bring about the downfall of this Government and the sooner that comes about the better. It is a natural experience that the period of greatest growth in any organisation is succeeded by decay. Fianna Fáil have experienced the end of their growth and the rot and the decay have now set in. That will spread and the Fianna Fáil Party will continue to decline whereas the Fine Gael Party will have the tide flowing in their favour. We hope the day is not too far distant when the general election will come and return a Fine Gael Party with an overall majority.
I have listened to a great number of speakers from the opposite side tonight and to the speech which Deputy Cosgrave made about the patronage system. If the particular section of the community, which is still depending on the patronage of Government for high positions, were brought under the control of the Local Appointments Commissioners, like other sections of the community, we would get rid of some very undesirable elements even in this House.
I have listened to the comments on the action of the Taoiseach in appointing the same old team. We must remember that that is the team that took over here four and a half years ago when the gentlemen opposite, to use another phrase of Deputy Seán Collins, ran away from the problem instead of facing up to it. We must remember that that Coalition Government, with a majority in this House, lasted three and a quarter years, and then ran, and ran leaving a very dirty task after them. We must remember that it was the team the Taoiseach got together then which restored the confidence of the people and succeeded in changing the face of the country. I have heard a good deal of talk about emigration. Employment in my constituency has doubled in the last four and a half years. I challenge any Deputy to deny that.
It is the responsibility of this Dáil to elect the Taoiseach. It is the responsibility of the Taoiseach to select the team he considers best fitted to help him in his task. He has done that. We can be thankful for the fact that the progress which is giving so much increased employment all over the country can now continue and can continue, I believe, with the support of the vast majority of this House. Over a certain period, we had a team building up. Then we had three years of a mixum-gatherum in which every penny was spent, and more with it. We must remember that. We must remember that the Coalition failed.
There has been talk to-night about agriculture. We all know the conditions and we can only hope that these conditions will change under the Common Market. We cannot expect men to remain on the land at a wage of £5 10s. to £6 per week when the wage in industry is from £8 10s. to £10 per week. While that condition continues, the flight from the land will go unchecked, and no amount of talk will stop it. We all hope there will be a change for the better, a change which will induce our agricultural workers to remain on the land.
For the past three years in my constituency, I have been observing the effects of one blunder made in the famous agreement of 1956, under which it was agreed to put a levy of £16 a ton on sugar and sugar products exported to Britain. The total amount of the levy last year paid to Britain was £550,000. We were faced with the position in which the acreage of beet had to be rationed because of the blunder made by Deputy Norton and the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon. For the past two years, I have been agitating about that blunder in this House, but I have got no change so far. It is never easy to rectify a wrong. However, under the Common Market, that levy will have to go. There was talk here of geniuses. What does anyone think of the two geniuses who went over and made that blunder? Are those the geniuses it was endeavoured here to-day to put in charge of the Common Market negotiations?
What about the genius who paid £4,000,000 for our butter to go into Britain?
If that poor child would keep quiet, we would get on quicker. I did not mind the Deputy having his turn.
(Interruptions.)
All I look for in my constituency is my quota, and I always get that. When other Deputies have been here for 35 years, they can talk then. We must face the conditions frankly and honestly. Deputy Sherwin said that the Fine Gael people told him Deputy Dillon would be beaten to-day. They were that nervous and that timid of taking on the job. But they would not have got the job unless they endeavoured to coddle the Labour Party again and the Labour Party got such a burning the last time they would not touch Fine Gael again, and they were quite right.
I believe this Government will survive for the next four or five years. I do not think any one of you will have the courage to put them out. If anyone has the "guts" to put them out, I will be here, as I have been here before, having a look over there and wondering what happened to certain people. I do not think there is one on those benches to-night who was here when I first came into this House. Deputy Seán MacEoin came in on a by-election. Deputies opposite should take my advice and sit very quietly over there. They should not act the fools.
That may be the Deputy's advice, but it is not his example.
The Deputy has caused a couple of rows and may cause more. You can bring the pitcher to the well once too often. I do not think we could have selected a better team than that which we selected today—a team which brought us successfully through four and a half years. I think they will work well here for the next five years.
Today were elected a Taoiseach and Government supported by two Independents. On a previous occasion, we had a Fianna Fáil Government supported by five Independents so that at least we have a stronger Government on this occasion than we had at that time. The general election of the past few weeks was overshadowed by the Congo crisis. The Taoiseach certainly chose a very suitable time for the protection and maintenance of his Party by choosing that time and leaving such a short time for the general election campaign, particularly when there were many new candidates with the older generation passing on. These new candidates had to make their names amongst the public so that they would become known. They did not get that opportunity. The result is that the Old Guard of Fianna Fáil have come back hardly damaged. It was a good tactical move on the part of the Taoiseach but it was unfair to the public.
A general election is a very important event for the people. It gives them an opportunity to examine the record of the outgoing Government in order to decide what Government should come in. The people were not given a fair opportunity to examine the record of Fianna Fáil and to consider the policy of Fine Gael which was put before them at the recent general election. The Fine Gael policy is designed in many respects to meet the needs of modern times. It is a policy that meets the problems of the moment rather than some policy that had become outdated.
For instance, this short campaign did not give the parents an opportunity of considering the decision of Fine Gael to abolish the system of compulsory Irish and to introduce instead a voluntary scheme whereby Irish would be encouraged and taught as a subject, instead of confusing the children by the teaching of subjects such as mathematics through the medium of Irish at a time when the child has very little knowledge of the Irish language and does not know the mathematics which the teacher tries to teach. The same applies to the teaching of other subjects through the medium of Irish. In fairness to the parents and children, the policy of Fine Gael in relation to Irish did not get a sufficient hearing and the mature consideration which would enable the people to give us a better measure of support in respect of that important matter because the education of our children—the men and women of the future—is very important. Parents up and down the country are——
I should like to remind the Deputy that what is before the House is the nomination by the Taoiseach of his Cabinet. We are not discussing policies.
I will depart from that subject. I want to put a few more points in relation to the Cabinet now put before us by the Taoiseach. He has presented the country with the Old Guard again, with a couple of slight changes. This is the Cabinet who held office with a huge majority for four and a half years. During that time, they had sufficient power to implement any type of policy which would improve conditions for our citizens. Instead of that, conditions went from bad to worse from the day Fianna Fáil came into office. They promised to provide 100,000 new jobs. We find instead that 1,000 people emigrated every week from this country for the past four and a half years.
In addition to that, the number of wage earners in this country fell by 1,000 per month. These are very significant figures. They certainly emphasise the fact that Fianna Fáil have failed completely to deal with the greatest problems facing this country at the present time—emigration and unemployment. We can take it that the 1,000 people who emigrated each week left this country seeking employment in order to keep body and soul together. Together with those 1,000 people who emigrated every week, we find from statistics, which cannot be contradicted, that the number of wage earners has fallen by approximately 51,000, which represents for four and a half years 1,000 per month fewer wage packets being issued.
We also look now at a Cabinet which has appointed a Minister again in the Department of Local Government which fell down completely on the provision of local authority housing. The helpless poor have been ignored, so far as the provision of such houses is concerned. Those who are not so poor are able to avail of grants and loans which will enable them somewhat to put a shelter over their heads but in relation to the helpless poor dependent upon county councils and corporations to build local authority houses, we find that during their four and a half years of office, the Fianna Fáil Party fell down on the provision of county council houses.
During those four and a half years also, the amount of rates paid to local authorities by the ratepayers has increased by approximately £4½ million —that is, £1 million per year. Much of that extra amount has gone towards a health scheme from which many of those ratepayers cannot and will never benefit. That contribution of £1 million per year extra was given towards a health scheme which is proving unsatisfactory and which is a cause of hardship to the weaker sections who cannot fight their own battle.
They are being beaten by red tape. At least under the old dispensary system, the element of humanity came into full play and you did not have the destitute poor defeated by red tape and prevented from having the health services which the old dispensary treatment system could provide. The number of agricultural workers during the past four and a half years has fallen by 7,000 per year. That number of people per year left the land in that period. That shows that the agricultural community are not prospering and that 7,000 people per year are being driven off the land into another type of employment. Those 7,000 people comprise also a large number of the emigrants.
In general, the farming community have had their taxes considerably increased while their income has been greatly reduced. The Taoiseach has given us the same Cabinet again, realising that these are some of the weaknesses that were thrown up during the past four years when Fianna Fáil had a huge majority. If Fianna Fáil had any policy, surely they could have implemented it with the huge majority they enjoyed in those years. From to-day's vote, we can see that they will have a reasonable majority in respect of any reasonable legislation they propose to implement during the next four years. Certainly, if they attempt to take from the people the fairest system of voting in the world, they will not get away with it. That was one of the few positive steps taken by Fianna Fáil in the past four years —they used their majority to try to change the system of voting so as to ensure that all other political Parties would be wiped out, leaving only Fianna Fáil under the system of straight voting if it were put into effect. That is not the type of legislation for which a majority should be used. It is certain, on the numbers in the House on this occasion, that Fianna Fáil will make no attempt to override the wishes or the freedoms of the people.
On this occasion, I see that the Taoiseach has nominated Deputy MacEntee as Tánaiste and Minister for Health. Surely he was not impressed by the battle with the doctors which Deputy MacEntee has carried out relentlessly during the Government's last term of office? Does the Taoiseach approve of that conduct? Does he consider it is to the advantage of the suffering patients in hospitals and dispensaries that this battle should continue? I mention that because I notice that the Taoiseach did decide to change Deputy Boland and take him away from the Army where he is not wanted. He considered, I am sure, that it was in the national interest to take him away from the Army. That is why I ask the Taoiseach why he did not take Deputy MacEntee away from the throats of the doctors and allow some freedom in the operation of the health services instead of the continuance of a rancour which we have witnessed for a number of years between Deputy MacEntee and the doctors.
We find also that the Taoiseach has appointed Deputy Smith Minister for Agriculture but when the previous Government were formed with a huge majority in 1957, all the Ministries were filled except that of Agriculture. The Taoiseach at that time, who was an astute man, nobody will deny, decided not to fill that vacancy. He left the post vacant rather than allow Deputy Smith to take it over. We had the most important Ministry in the country vacant for three months until Senator Moylan was elected to the Seanad. He was then brought from the Seanad here as Minister for Agriculture. He endeared himself to the agricultural community and certainly made a positive effort to meet the various problems which normally affect agriculture. Unfortunately, he died and the post was again left vacant until Deputy Smith was put into it.
The point I am making is that with a huge over-all majority on a previous occasion, the former Taoiseach left that post vacant rather than put Deputy Smith into it, but to-day the Taoiseach walks into the Dáil and presents the farmers and the country with Deputy Smith as Minister for Agriculture, a Deputy who, it was clear to himself and to the country, was unwanted after the last election. If the Taoiseach reflects, he will see that the attitude of Deputy Smith towards the farmers has never been good. We remember the speech he made at Navan when he threatened to break down the farmers' fences, to put in bulldozers and fill ten fields with inspectors. That is how he was going to deal with the farmers.
I wanted to make these points because I feel the Taoiseach should have taken the opportunity he had to give us a new-look Cabinet, to take away from the country the Ministers who have caused emigration at the rate of 1,000 a week, a reduction of jobs at the rate of 1,000 a month and the disappearance of the people engaged on the land at the rate of 7,000 a year. We recall some of the slogans from the last general election about wives being asked to get their husbands back to work. They went back to work —in England. On this occasion, we are told to keep the wheels turning but if we were to keep C.I.E. wheels turning, we might not be doing so well. The Minister for Transport and Power has much to answer for in depriving some of the rural areas of nationalised transport. When it is a question of nationalising transport or providing any type of Government or public service a Government should be very careful not to deprive the people of that service when it cannot be replaced by private enterprise. For these reasons, I deplore the fact that on this occasion the Taoiseach has not made a better choice of Ministers and given the country new hope. The country cannot hope for anything new from the old team.
Mr. Donnellan
Listening to Deputy Corry talking about the old team being appointed made me throw my mind back a few years to the time when he was out in a bye-election telling the people of a certain constituency that he was certain to be on that team as Minister for Agriculture when he was making promises about the price of wheat. While I have a certain sympathy with the Deputy, it makes me laugh to hear him talk about that time because while I do not know what the Taoiseach thinks about it — I shall soon tell him what I think about it—I know damn well what Deputy Corry thinks about it.
The statement he made was that this team had changed the face of the country over the past four years. There is no doubt about that. In the past four years, in rural areas among the people I represent and who have sent me for the seventh successive occasion to Dáil Éireann, there have been terrible changes. Not alone have the children gone, the sons and daughters, but in many cases the fathers and mothers have left with them and the key is turned in the door and the home vacated. That has arisen because the present administration in the past four years put the cost of living for the poorer sections of the people to such an impossible height— prices of flour, bread, butter, the ounce of tobacco and the packet of cigarettes—that the tenant-farmers have had to lock up. The day of the larger farmers is coming. That is some of the progress we heard about during the election from people such as Deputy Kitt who is listening to me now.
Take my parish of Dunmore. The homes of 45 tenant farmers there have been closed up. Nevertheless, we hear a lot of trash from the other side of the House about progress. We hear about the erection of more schools. In my parish, schools are being closed up.
My sympathy goes out to the Taoiseach. I am not one of those who will say to him: "I shall support you if you do this or if you do that." The Taoiseach's responsibility is government. He has accepted that responsibility and must stand or fall by it.
During the election every professional individual who spoke on behalf of any political Party had a great deal to say about the Common Market. We heard a lot about it today, too. It is laughable to hear some people talk about the Common Market or any market. I remember a time when they were saying we could live without any market and that they wished every ship was at the bottom of the sea. Do Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael not realise that they have no say on whether or not we shall enter the Common Market? Do they not realise that if Britain enters it we must do likewise and if Britain decides to stay out we must stay out also? Do Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, or Labour, also think they are deceiving the people of this country so much as to try to make out that they have any say as regards entry into the Common Market? I am sure the Taoiseach is honest—if there is such a thing as an honest politician and I do not think there is, except myself. I am sure he will admit that the decision rests with Britain and that whatever they do we shall do likewise.
I am glad about the present position as regards the state of the Parties. We hear talk about a strong Government. The people never elected a strong Government of any Party to injure the people of this country. I have witnessed strong Governments in the past 40 long years. The stronger the Governments, the greater injury they were to the people. It was because Fianna Fáil were so strong for the past four years that they caused such injury. It was because Fianna Fáil were so strong for the past four years that over 200,000 of our people from the rural areas had to fly out of them.
We hear: "Oh, but note how we fixed the financial position." With one stroke of the pen, from the poorer sections of our people, on bread, on the necessities of life, they took away £9,000,000. I defy them to deny that. Who suffered? Of course, the poorer sections of the community suffered. Then, at that time, we heard: "Oh, but we are getting on great in the United Nations." Do you remember that?
We are discussing the suitability of the members nominated by the Taoiseach.
Mr. Donnellan
I think the lot of them are very unsuitable.
Acting Chairman
I must point out that the question before the House is the suitability of the members nominated by the Taoiseach.
Mr. Donnellan
I am sorry. It did not matter. The over-all majority was there to steamroll anything through. I know that many Deputies marched into this House to vote for the team, the present team which was the past team—I think I am entitled to discuss them—and they did not know what the issue was on which they were voting. It was strong Government. That is what has crippled our country for the past four years. I am delighted with the present position. There cannot be any dictatorship or else it is a case of going to the country again—and I am sure Fianna Fáil do not want to go into it either because if they get a scorching as they got the last time they will not be back at all.
Another thing that was carried out in my county was piped water supplies. The position as regards the rates at the moment is that the land is not worth the level of the rates. The people are running away. The tenant farmer cannot afford to pay the rates. During the election we heard people such as Deputy Kitt talk about piped water supplies to the people who want them. The piped water supply was as plentiful as the Mass cards he sent along.
Acting Chairman
Surely the Deputy will agree that piped water supplies and Mass cards are not relevant on the question of the suitability of the members nominated by the Taoiseach?
Mr. Donnellan
I am looking over the team. I do not want to find fault with any of them personally. I want to find fault with them collectively, as they proved a failure over the past 41/2 years. I wonder if the Labour Party think they will improve? There is no improvement in them—you can take that from me.
I am not one of those who will say to the Taoiseach: "If you do this, I will put you in; if you do that, I am with you." I could not be with him or his Party in their actions in the past 4 years. I saw them bring a Bill to this House and they curtailed the debate on it. It was a Bill to put people in jail if they did not work. The first motion was a curtailment of the debate. I voted against that curtailment but I was misrepresented as regards my vote by the double-dealers down in Galway. Nevertheless, I shall get an opportunity to reply to that.
I wish the Taoiseach and his Government good luck. I am not one of those who are bending at the knees for the length it will last. Of course, a lot of them will support this Government lest it will have to go out again. They know they will not come back —especially on the Taoiseach's side. Here I am again for the seventh time in 18 years. I represent people who work and live on the land, who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.
I do not expect the Taoiseach to introduce much because he did not introduce much so far but I shall vote against anything he introduces that will harm that section of the community. Do not mind the trash about all the wonderful things they are doing. They say they are increasing employment. I agree that industrial employment has increased. I give everyone his due. I want the Taoiseach to realise that there are 28,000 fewer people working on the land than there were four years ago. They are the people who make the money. In drudgery and by the sweat of their brow, they pull new money out of the land. They are more valuable than those in industrial employment. They make the new money and there are 28,000 fewer of them. Those in industrial employment are like jobbers who go to a fair and spend £10 to make £10 5s. The Government should assist the people who make the new money. If they do, they will get any assistance I can give.
There are people who went around the country denigrating Dáil Éireann and the members elected to Dáil Éireann. It is a great credit to any man to be elected a member of the Parliament of his country, if only for one hour. It is something he should be proud of. In my view, it is a good job we got rid of the people who despised the institutions of our State.
After the election, the most common comment heard throughout the country was that the people seemed to have made, in most cases, a very sensible choice in their representatives. After listening to the speeches here this evening and tonight, I am afraid I cannot agree with that view because it appears that Deputies came in here prepared to debate, on the motion to appoint the Government, the next election, the previous election and the election before that. They do not seem to be terribly sure of what they want to do about appointing a Government.
So far as the Labour Party are concerned, we voted against Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach and the majority of the House decided to appoint him. The job of nominating the Government is his and we see no reason why we should interfere with what is his prerogative, but we do reserve our right—and have done so—to offer from these benches constructive criticism of the Government whom he proposes to appoint.
We see no reason why we should not be allowed to condemn Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Health and Social Welfare for a number of things he has done and has not done. Numerous Ministerial orders were sent out which made the Health Act more unworkable than it was when it passed through the House.
We see no reason why we should not condemn Deputy Dr. Ryan because of the fact that his dead hand, and the dead hand of Finance, were laid on quite a number of schemes which would have been of benefit to the country, if they had been put into operation.
We can see no reason why we should not condemn Deputy Smith because not alone has he failed to look after the farming community but he has failed to make any attempt to prepare them for our entry into the Common Market, if we are accepted. He has also failed to exercise any control whatever over the body which is primarily under his control, the Agricultural Wages Board, with the result that agricultural workers are working for the lowest wage paid to any male employee today. In fact, their wages are based, not on what is paid to their brothers in industry, but on what is paid to juveniles and girls in certain types of industry. We think there should certainly have been a change of Minister in that Department, but the Taoiseach has the choice.
We must complain about the failure of Deputy Childers to deal with transport and power in the way in which we understood they were to be dealt with when he was appointed Minister for Transport and Power. His actions so far have had very little result except the closing down of a number of branch railway lines, to which Deputy Rooney referred. I should like to add that any improvement in the finances of C.I.E. is due to a decrease in the wages bill. Hundreds of people lost their employment because of a change in C.I.E. employment policy.
Everyone knows the position with regard to the Army. The dissatisfaction which was felt in connection with the Army pay rise is so well known that there is no need for me to mention it in this House. Deputy Boland was in charge of the Army.
Deputy Moran failed to deal with the protection of our fisheries and fishery markets, and all the other matters which were part of his duties as Minister for Lands. In addition, there was a complete failure on his part to give any kind of justice to the small farmers and landless men in the Midlands when land was being divided.
I suggest to Deputy Hilliard who is a colleague of mine in Meath that his function is not to select temporary sub-post office workers for a couple of weeks' holiday work, or subpostmasters and subpostmistresses of small offices throughout the country. That should be left to someone else and political bias should not be introduced into such appointments.
So on down the line. We have been told that for the past four and a half years the Fianna Fáil Government have done a good job. We honestly do not believe that the Government the Taoiseach has nominated are capable of doing a good job, but, as I have said, that is the Taoiseach's responsibility and if he thinks they can do it, we in the Labour Party are prepared to give him and them every chance.
I do not know whether Deputy Tully read the motion that is before the House. If he does, he will see that the responsibility does not rest solely on the shoulders of the Taoiseach. The responsibility for approving the nomination by the Taoiseach of these Ministers rests on the House. Having heard Deputy Tully's speech, I was considerably surprised that he indicated that the Labour Party propose to give their approval to the nominations of the Taoiseach. The responsibility is his and his colleagues, as well as the responsibility of me and my colleagues, and the Taoiseach and his colleagues.
The Taoiseach is not normally regarded as an unimaginative man, but there is no doubt that his decision to parade the Old Guard again before the country will cause widespread disappointment. That decision will be regarded as dull, unenterprising, unimaginative and over-cautious. I do not propose to indulge in any personal criticism of any of the individual Deputies suggested by the Taoiseach for appointment as Ministers, but I think it is open to us to say—and I feel we have every justification for saying—that as a team, they have proved that they are unable to tackle what they themselves said was the task before them when they first took office four and a half years ago.
I am calling to mind what I think was the first speech made in this House by the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Boland. He told the House that the previous Government were elected for the specific purpose of ending a situation of mass unemployment and mass emigration. That was the statement of a Government Minister newly elected to the House as to why the previous Fianna Fáil Government were elected. That was the test held out by himself and it was underscored and emphasised many a time by the Taoiseach when he told the country that unemployment was the test of Government policy. Now when the Taoiseach suggests to this House that we should fall in behind the Old Guard again, we are entitled to ask ourselves how they have measured up to the standard which they set for themselves when they took office four and a half years ago to end a situation of mass unemployment.
How have they fared there? Every one of us knows that after their efforts for four and a half years, instead of the ending of a situation of mass unemployment, as they described it, there were 51,000 people fewer at work than when they took office in the year 1957 and instead of the ending of emigration more than 200,000 people have left our shores over the last five years. Having regard to those facts, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say the Taoiseach's actions here this evening will be regarded as dull, unenterprising and unimaginative.
I call to mind also the fact that when the Taoiseach succeeded Mr. de Valera, now President of Ireland, as Taoiseach during the last Parliament, he excused himself for keeping on this Old Guard as Ministers by indicating that the appointments would be regarded as provisional. They remained, nevertheless, throughout the full period of the last Dáil and now we find that, with one exception, we are asked to approve of them again as the new Cabinet. How long is this provisional arrangement to last? I sincerely congratulate the Taoiseach, however, on the new appointment he has proposed, the appointment of Deputy Haughey as a Minister. I have no doubt it will improve the team which the Taoiseach is suggesting to the House.
I remember also, while very little, if anything, was heard about it from the Fianna Fáil Party during the recent election campaign, that in the previous election when the Old Guard were paraded before us, very great play was made by the Fianna Fáil Party with the necessity to reduce Government expenditure and to give good example at the top. We were told that while all avenues would be explored and all doors opened to find employment for our people, there was one door that would remain closed and that was the door to the Civil Service. Incidentally, I understand that at the end of the previous Government's period of office, the only worthwhile increase in employment was in the Civil Service and that the numbers in the Civil Service had increased by about 500.
On the question of a reduction in Government expenditure, and the cost of administration generally, I do not believe there is anyone in the country who does not believe that is a necessity and something which this Government or whatever Government were elected as a result of the recent general election would have to tackle. There will be widespread disappointment throughout the country that, far from reducing the number of Ministers—and the number of Ministers can and should be reduced—the Taoiseach in his first statement to the House this evening has actually indicated that there will be an additional Ministry later on. Therefore, we can look forward to an increase in the number of Ministers, rather than a reduction.
There are a number of matters which could be referred to here but I want to confine my remarks as far as possible to the motion before us. I want to say to the Taoiseach, because I believe it is a fact, that the loss of votes and the loss of seats to the Fianna Fáil Party in the general election must be attributed either to a loss of confidence by the people in the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government or to a loss of confidence by the people in the personnel of the Government. We have had no indication whatever that the Taoiseach proposes to do better so far as policy is concerned in the present Dáil than in the previous Dáil. We have on the Order Paper in the motion before us a very clear indication that, if the verdict of the people is to be interpreted as dissatisfaction with the personnel of the Government, that verdict is to be flouted by the Taoiseach and by the members of the Dáil who support this motion.
I suppose it is in order to discuss in a superficial way the election that brought these Ministers to their positions. In any election, you cannot be a cry-baby and you cannot complain. Once the election is declared, you must come out fighting. I remember well the Taoiseach saying many times—I heard it myself and read it in the newspapers—that plenty of time would be given to the Opposition to put their policies across. In fact, he did not give plenty of time. In my view, that was because he did not have any policy to put across. The old faces we see before us tonight are like the old face of his policy which was a stagnant policy. He did not satisfy the people for four and a half years and was elected by default. Notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition Parties had the minimum number of days in which to put their policy before the people, they succeeded in winning over 80,000 votes from the Fianna Fáil Party.
It should be remembered also that we on this side of the House when approaching an election are at a grave disadvantage, which, I suppose, is no fault of the people opposite; if we were in the same position, we would do what they did. However, they are the biggest Party in the country and they seem to be adepts at this whispering campaign which is destructive, which seeks to decry policies which have been promulgated and to suggest that they will bring ill instead of good. We on this side of the House have to time the production of our policy. We could not produce our policy on this occasion at exactly the same time as the E.S.B. strike because we have not at our command publicity in three newspapers. We have to depend on the publicity we can get in the free Press in order to put our policy across. With all these disadvantages, we succeeded in getting 80,000 votes from Fianna Fáil. That shows what way the pendulum is swinging and what way things will be in the future.
It would be well to consider the Ministers we have. They well know I approach this matter in no personal way. I am interested not in personalities but in policies. It seems that in 1961 we have reached the stage when the people of the country also are more interested in policies rather than personalities. Perhaps the resignation of a certain politician had something to do with that. We have a Minister for Health who has been at loggerheads with the I.M.A. for the past four and a half years. There may be rights and wrongs in that dispute, but, apart from that, the Minister did not produce any new policy on health. As far as the Minister for Health is concerned, it is a question of the status quo.
We must consider what would have been the position if the people had a little more time to consider the policy put before them by the Party of which I am proud to be a member. The people know they now have a Minister for Health who believes that the health services here must be based on the green card system, on the fact that you cannot get health benefits free of charge unless you are absolutely destitute, on the fact that 50 per cent. of the cost comes from the rates and that in two counties of equal population, one penny in the £ brings in £1,000 in one county and £3,000 in the other. In case Deputies think that is fiction, I am talking about Louth and Meath. But in our case we have 2,000 more people than Meath, but a penny brings us in only one-third the amount of money.
We have a Minister for Health who wants to continue with this completely stupid system under which there cannot be fair play. If the electorate had sufficient time, we might have had a health service with a free choice of doctors, but because the Taoiseach tried to forget Government by default, the people did not have sufficient time to consider the matter and change their allegiance on the basis of policy rather than personality.
The electorate know they have a Minister for Education who will continue the policy of compulsory Irish that has failed absolutely. They know the policy they would have had under a Fine Gael Government. We would try to give every child of poor parents an opportunity of attending a university and obtaining a degree. We would have encouraged the Irish language rather than try to stuff it down the people's necks. We would press for the education of people to meet the challenge of the Common Market and of a world growing smaller. The people know they have got instead a Minister who will continue compulsory Irish. They had confirmation of that from the Taoiseach during the election campaign when he said: "We will not lower our target one inch." But the Taoiseach has not hit the target for the past 30 years and how does he expect to hit it now?
The people know they have a Minister for Agriculture who has failed in one fundamental thing: he has failed to lead the Irish farmer. He has never succeeded in getting the Irish farmer to feel enthusiastic. Of course, it is not so long since he tried to drive the Irish farmer before him with a stick. As Deputy Rooney said, the Minister for Agriculture was put in charge of a Department which had been voted £250,000 to improve agricultural marketing. Yet he ended his term of office without spending one penny, except the travelling expenses of members of a few committees he appointed and who made a few trips to the Continent and England. It cost £7,800. He ended his term of office without doing anything for agricultural marketing, except, within the past four months, putting through permissive legislation in respect of milk, bacon and a few other things. This legislation allows him do certain things for agricultural marketing, but for four and a half years he did nothing. If the Minister could have led the Irish farmer, that might have made up for many of the other ills.
This election was timed to get Fianna Fáil back into office with an overall majority, but the timing had no regard for the period of the year and what would suit the farmer. To-day the wheat crop growing in the fields is largely in jeopardy. Negotiations should have been started with the flour millers over the last fortnight. But all that work is now to take place at least a fortnight later because Fianna Fáil wanted to hold the election at a time when they thought they would receive an over-all majority. While a large part of the wheat crop was deteriorating and likely to become a loss, the Minister for Agriculture was out trying to get Fianna Fáil back with an over-all majority.
The Fianna Fáil Party have started a whispering campaign in regard to the election. It is to the effect that we are not going to have stable Government. I want to state one reason why we are going to have stable Government. We are going to have stable Government because any time a minority put a Government out of office, that minority never got back to the Dáil. The people do not want a general election unless absolutely necessary. If the issue is trivial, then the minority who put out the Government will not come back. As long as the Taoiseach introduces legislation for the benefit and progress of the Irish nation, he has nothing to fear. If he introduces legislation the people want and if it is defeated and we go to the country, then the ballot box will give the answer. If the Taoiseach is defeated by all the non-Government Deputies and if the people agree with them, then they will be the Government; but if the people do not agree with them, then the Taoiseach will head the Government.
In my view, there is no question of an unstable Government; rather is it a continuation of the Fianna Fáil autocratic administration. Perhaps this Government may be the best thing that ever happened because it can be the brake as well as the spur. I do not know any group of people in this country at the moment, be they local authorities or in the private enterprise group, who do not need both the brake and the spur.
I did not intend to intervene in the debate but I was rather surprised by Deputy Donegan's references to the Minister for Health and to the health services in general. Fianna Fáil brought in the Health Act and were, accordingly, responsible for any advances made in health services. Accusations were made against the Minister about the number of people who have to pay contributions under the Act. I have here a record covering Dublin county of the people who have to pay. Sixty-six per cent. of them, or 39,945, pay nothing; eight per cent. pay between 8/- and 9/- and about ten per cent. pay 3s. a week. Of course Fianna Fáil, like everybody else, are anxious to see a free health scheme. Speaking of my constituency, which embraces part of the city as well as the county, I can say nobody who cannot pay is asked to do so. Each case is gone into in the most conscientious manner possible.
Deputy Donegan also criticised the Minister for Local Government in respect of the housing position. If he goes back to 1956/57, he will find that in Dublin city and county there was not a penny——
£21,000,000 in three years.
There was not the price of a bag of cement, not to talk about a housing scheme.
Blatherskite.
Ask any builder in County Dublin.
It cannot be done. They have all gone to England.
The position was so bad in 1956/57 that not a house was being built. The builders were running to the boats. They were approaching Deputies for their boat fares. There was no money for roads, no money for farmers for reconstruction schemes.
Balderdash.
They now say everything was rosy in 1957, when there was not the price of a bag of cement among the builders in Dublin.
I would scarcely have intervened were it not for a misconception by Deputy Michael O'Higgins as to the Labour Party's attitude to the proposed Cabinet. Of course the Labour Party realise it is the Taoiseach's right to put his Cabinet before the House for approval. Nomination of his Cabinet is entirely the Taoiseach's responsibility. We do not propose to vote against the Taoiseach's Cabinet; neither do we propose to vote for it. We do not propose to vote at all, and by not voting, we do not say whether we approve or disapprove. We all have our personal views about the personnel of the Cabinet.
I feel there was much good in the Health Act of 1953. In fact, I do not see very much wrong with it. I would appeal to the Taoiseach to extend its provisions so as to increase the number of people eligible to receive medical cards. Our experience in rural constituencies has been that the means test is being applied too rigorously and that it accordingly deprives deserving people of benefits. I would therefore urge upon the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health to re-examine the position to see if it is possible to find some method of relaxing the means test.
Deputy P.J. Burke seemed to have the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is complaining about the maintenance charges for patients staying in hospitals. Personal representations to hospital managements and to local authorities will ensure that nobody is wrongly charged. However, the working man who does not get a medical card, not only has to pay 15/- or £1 per visit to a doctor but he may pay sums varying from a shilling to 30/- for prescriptions. Should that illness in the family be prolonged for any length of time, it becomes a very serious burden on working class people. Now that Fine Gael have followed the Labour Party in regard to the proposed contributory health scheme and the two Parties being representative of practically the total Opposition, I would suggest that the Government and the Minister for Health should review the Health Act.
He will. Do not be uneasy.
Perhaps he will review the whole system and see if a contributory type of insurance could be devised that would at least guarantee to each contributor to the Social Welfare Fund a guaranteed medical service under the dispensary doctor system; in other words, that he would at least have the right to the service of the dispensary doctor and the facility of getting prescriptions compounded at the dispensary for his family. It may not be the best solution but it would be a step forward.
Notwithstanding what Deputy Dillon says, I feel sure that any Government here are anxious enough to give the people all the benefits they possibly can. If there is a united appeal from all sides, the Government should contemplate introducing such a scheme. secure in the knowledge that they will get the support of all Parties.
I welcome the fact that we have a change in the Ministry of Justice. Under the newly-imposed licensing laws, the rural dweller was confined to hours that suit the big cities. The then Minister for Justice refused even to listen and he advised me, as a Deputy representing a tourist area, that I was wasting my breath in telling him anything because his mind was made up. It is a good thing that we have a new face in the Ministry of Justice. I would suggest that both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice should reconsider the position. Certainly, they should consider the question of rearranging the hours to suit the people rather than make the people adapt themselves to the hours.
Past experience informs me that it will take more than one meeting of the Dáil to enable us all to work the general election out of our systems. Deputies have their speeches nicely polished by constant repetition and will all want to give them at least one more run before finally discarding them.
It is true that I am not proposing many changes in the Government. Some Deputies will understand why, when a Government resumes office after a general election, many changes cannot be involved. It is, I think, 17 years since we had this situation here before. Each of the four general elections preceding the one which has concluded involved a change of Government and, consequently, the appointment of a whole team of new Ministers.
There are other reasons also. Ministers are fair targets for attack during a general election. Nobody objects to that and any Minister who did not expect to be a target for attack during a general election would be a very foolish man indeed but he would be a very poor Taoiseach who would discard a colleague who had served with him in the Government in circumstances which could be represented as conceding that there was justification for such attack.
Apart from that consideration, there is, for me, the further consideration that before making changes in the Government, I would wish to give newly elected Deputies of my Party the opportunity of showing their merit and gaining experience in the Dáil as ordinary Deputies.
I should like straightaway to refute that there is any foundation for the suggestion of Deputy Dillon that the change I propose in regard to the Department of the Gaeltacht implies any alteration of views regarding the importance of the work done by that Department. We all, I think, realise that the work of the Department of the Gaeltacht necessarily overlaps the work of other Departments.
What work was done?
It had, however, more intimate relationship with work done by the Department of Lands and Fisheries, which also covers afforestation, than probably any other Department. Deputy Moran, who I am proposing should have joint responsibility for both Departments, was previously Minister for the Gaeltacht and I think a most successful one and, with the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary who will be responsible for the fisheries development work of the Department, I think he will be able to give to the activities of the Department of the Gaeltacht all the time that it needs.
I agree fully with Deputy Dillon that except in some very obvious and important matters the apparent similarity between the position of the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party is superficial only and conceals the fact that both Parties reached in respect of these matters the positions they are now occupying by somewhat different routes. I do not want to enter into discussion of these matters now, which would take us very far afield. Like Deputy Corish, however, I must say that I was somewhat puzzled by the main theme of Deputy Dillon's remarks when he turned and seemed to be addressing the benches occupied by the Labour Party, to denounce Reds and Pinks and apparently able to see a Marxist under every bench over there.
My suggestion is that there were not any there at all, that there were some people who hoped to find some.
I must say I thought, listening to the Deputy, that he had come to accept the reality of the fact that the old coalition link-up between Fine Gael and Labour was gone for good and that he was, in fact, telling the Labour Party that their grapes were sour.
The Taoiseach knows his colleague on his left used to be the discoverer of all the Reds in this country. Old age has now descended upon him and he has become more mellowed.
Deputy Dillon was not the only member of Fine Gael who admonished the Labour Party today, having discovered their grapes are sour.
They got a bad training from your colleague.
Deputy Corish asked me about changes of Government policy. I think the main characteristic of the policy which the Government have been applying in recent years is that it has been continuously developing. Indeed, the merit of Government policy has been that inherent dynamism and capacity for change. I agree fully that in the circumstances which the Government are now facing our policy will need to develop and, perhaps, change considerably and, indeed, I attempted in speeches which I made both before and during the election campaign to indicate the lines along which I think it should develop.
I am surprised that Deputy Corish did not advert to the statement which I made on more than one occasion, that in my view in the circumstances of the years to come State enterprise must play a larger part in our economic development than it has heretofore. I believe private enterprise, which has always been the main driving force of our economic progress, will remain so in the future but I cannot see any method of adapting ourselves to the conditions and availing of the opportunities that will present themselves in the context of the European Economic Community unless we are prepared to visualise a significant extension of State activity either in the promotion of new enterprises which private enterprise cannot undertake, or in partnership with private enterprise in other fields. I am sure Deputy Corish is not unaware of the fact that quite recently substantial extensions of State activity in the commercial field have been announced and are now proceeding.
I emphatically deny that either I or any spokesman of my Party during the recent election campaign, or at any previous time, showed an attitude of complacancy regarding the country's situation. Indeed I warned my Party that any member who used such a phrase as "You never had it so good" would be promptly repudiated by me. I think I can say that, in every speech I made during the campaign, I emphasised my view that economic progress should be regarded as only beginning and that the rate of progress would have to be accelerated before we could achieve the aims we have set ourselves. Indeed, I constantly warned those listening to me that we would have to achieve that speeding up of the country's rate of progress in circumstances very different and probably more difficult than those we had experienced heretofore.
At the same time I think it is not in the least bit helpful to deny the reality of the country's progress in the past two and a half years since the publication of the Programme for Economic Expansion. That progress is not just a matter of opinion. It is something that can be measured. The actual increases recorded in agricultural and industrial output, the £60,000,000 increase in exports, the rising national income, the higher wages being paid and the higher level of activity in building and other trades —it is just foolish to deny their reality. In fact they represent an accomplishment which should encourage us to face whatever the future may bring because if we were able to achieve these results over the limited period that elapsed since the Programme for Economic Expansion was published, there is no reason to underestimate our capacity to do still better in the future.
It is, of course, obviously not correct that the progress made so far has fulfilled the needs of the country in every way. Although unemployment is lower than it was at any time previously it still persists; although emigration this year has shown a very substantial drop it still persists, and as I told the Dáil on many occasions during the past two years, we shall need to double the rate of our progress before we can eliminate unemployment and emigration altogether. Certainly at no time did I consider or describe the economic advances of the country during that period as anything more than a good beginning and it is from this year on that we shall have to endeavour to build on the foundations already laid to achieve the structure we desire.
Deputy John A. Costello, I think, misunderstood a reference I made in an earlier speech to-day regarding my intentions during the lifetime of this Dáil. I said that I would feel myself under an obligation to resign as Taoiseach in two circumstances. One was if the Government should be defeated on an important issue of policy. By that I mean an issue which should not be finally or irrevocably settled, in my judgment, without giving the people an opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. The second was if circumstances developed here in which everybody could see, and agreed, that effective Government could not be carried on. May I make it clear I do not intend to bring about a situation which would involve another general election?
Deputy Corish said he is not afraid of a general election. I do not think there was ever a politician in any country in the history of the world who said he was afraid of a general election. Let us all agree that no one of us is afraid of general elections and then stop talking about them. In my view a situation which would involve a general election could arise, on my understanding of the facts, only as a result of a political decision taken by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties in conjunction. If that does not happen, then I see no reason why this Dáil cannot continue to do good work for the country for its full period of five years.
It will be changed by by-election in due course.
Possibly so, and I hope changed for the better.
Hear, hear. There can only be one change.
Deputy Cosgrave asked me about my intentions regarding the conduct of negotiations that will follow upon our application to the European Economic Community. I think the main responsibility for these negotiations must rest on myself as Taoiseach but I contemplate that the actual conduct of negotiations, where it involves the attendance of Ministers at meetings in Brussels or elsewhere, will most likely be entrusted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I said already, however, that I contemplated that it might be desirable at some stage to create a new Department of Government. The new Department I have in mind would of course be mainly concerned with our relations with the European Economic Community rather than the completion of the negotiations leading to membership.
If the situation develops as I contemplate, there will be continuous activities in connection with one or other section of the European Economic Community which will involve the constant and wholetime attention of a Minister because only somebody with nothing else to do could possibly keep in touch with what is happening, or even attempt to read the voluminous documentation that is already pouring out from headquarters of the European Economic Community. The stage at which it will be appropriate to set up that Department is something I would not attempt to decide at the present time because it will be desirable to do so only when the pattern of the future situation is fairly clearly established and when the outcome of our negotiations can be foreseen to some extent.
Finally, I should like to say that I do not think there was need for Deputy Dillon, on behalf of his Party, and Deputy Corish, on behalf of the Labour Party, to give to the Dáil and the country the assurance that they will act with responsibility. I think we have come a long way from the day in which any Party in this State would be prepared to sacrifice the national interest for Party advantage.
I should like to thank Deputy John A. Costello for the speech he made. I agree with him that this Dáil is quite capable of doing the business of the country in so far as that involves the enactment of legislation and there is no reason to anticipate that, arising out of the result of the General Election, any difficulty of any kind will emerge. If we look back on the history of the last four and a half years, very few Bills produced by the Government were controversial in a political sense. There were very few Bills to which Parties were opposed in principle, though there were many Bills, of course, subjected to protracted debate and not infrequently amended in consequence of these debates. So far as I am concerned, I hope that in the future, as in the past, reasonable amendments proposed by anybody will be very fully considered and, if consistent with the purpose of the Bill, will ordinarily be accepted.
I think it is true to say, and I speak here with some experience because I have been a member of the Dáil for a long time, that Deputy John A. Costello was right in saying the quality of the membership of the Dáil—I am not referring to any one Party in this regard—is considerably improved as a result of the election. Before the Dáil adjourned Deputies will remember that I expressed the hope that in the conduct of the election we would give the world a fine example of Irish democracy in action. The last words I said in the election campaign at a meeting in Cork on the eve of the poll—feeling somewhat relieved at the prospect of getting into my car at the end of it to drive back to Dublin in the knowledge that I had not to make another speech the following night—were that I thought we had shown the world how Irish democracy worked and that the leaders and members of all Parties were to be congratulated in consequence.
So far as I am concerned personally, I did not during the election campaign use a single word which could have added to or aggravated in the slightest degree any bitterness still remaining in the Irish political situation. Indeed, Deputy John A. Costello was quite right in saying that the election was in that respect, and in every other respect, conducted in a manner which brought honour to the Irish people. I am not now debating the result. I am thinking only of the manner in which it was conducted. If we were able to conduct our public controversies in the manner we did on the hustings, at the crossroads, and on the platforms I see no reason why we cannot in this Dáil discuss in a constructive and helpful way any matter that comes before us, ultimately producing results which will improve our legislation and ensure that business here is efficiently and properly conducted.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Aiken Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, Jim.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Níl.
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Michael.
- Burke, James J.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick. (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- O'Keeffe, James.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputy Ó Briain and Deputy Mrs. Lynch; Níl, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.
Question declared carried.