I move:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government and approves the Government's financial proposals.
Financial Resolutions. - Confidence in Government.
I understand that there is an arrangement that the debate will be limited to 45 minutes for each speaker. Is that right?
Including us? I am agreeable.
It is agreed to limit the speeches to not more than 45 minutes.
What about injury time?
There are five minutes gone already. Somebody will get cut five minutes at the conclusion.
You will have a lot of injury time after the result of the referendum.
Replying to Deputy L'Estrange's intrusions, it was my intention to move this motion in conjunction with the financial proposals but as a result of the meeting of the Whips earlier today, I decided to split the two motions. Three of the financial resolutions have been passed and the fourth has been suspended until next Tuesday when the debate on the resolutions will proceed. In the meantime, I understand that this debate will finish on Thursday at 5 p.m.
This debate is naturally prompted by the result of the recent referendum. Therefore, one can only conclude that the motions involve a certain amount of political opportunism. I say that deliberately because I know that only political opportunism can be relied upon to bring together in the Dáil two such oddly associated Parties as Fine Gael and Labour. They will unite on this motion or on their respective motions which, I presume, will have the same end result—no confidence on the part of Fine Gael and, speaking in an election, on the part of Labour. They will unite on this motion as against the Government but they know that in a general election they will go their own separate ways, or so they say they will, each asking the voters for a majority of the seats but each knowing full well that neither will achieve that majority, intending, instead, that a bargain will be made in some way or another, on some basis or another after the election in order to secure office on some basis on which the people will not have been consulted beforehand.
The electors, in such an arrangement as we envisage and as, no doubt, both of these Parties envisage, will be kept in the dark as to what policies such a Government would pursue or, indeed, the electors would be kept in the dark as to what Government they would be voting for. Surely, this is not the kind of democracy that the Irish people want?
The Opposition Parties now frantically want to believe that the rejection of the Government's referendum proposals means that the people want Fianna Fáil to resign office. Fianna Fáil were given a clear mandate in 1965, a clear constitutional mandate to form the Government of this country in that year, and this mandate has been most convincingly re-affirmed in successive by-elections. The mandate is still valid and it runs up to April, 1970. The referendum is now over; the people have made known their views and their preferences on the issues which we put forward to them as their direct concern in their capacity as electors. We make no apologies for consulting them on such issues but we do say, and in this we have the support of unbiased comment from many sides, that rejection of the referendum proposals was no more a demand that the Government's period of office should be shortened than that an acceptance of them would be that it should be lengthened.
I do not pretend that lessons are not to be learned as a result of this referendum—and the lessons will have been well taken, I can assure the Parties opposite—but we have no intention of resigning. We will go before the electorate to seek a renewal of the support they have so consistently given us, the support they have so consistently given our policies, when the proper time comes. I believe, and my Party believes, that to throw in the sponge now would be to fail the people by reneging our responsibilities as a Government. It might have been considered by some, perhaps, as clever tactics on my part immediately or very soon after the referendum results became known to seek a dissolution, but apart altogether from the constitutional requirement, following the recent census, that a new electoral law be enacted redefining constituency boundaries before the next general election, I knew and the Government knew—indeed I announced it in two separate speeches in public before the referendum was held—that there were, as I said earlier today, economic clouds on the horizon which could gather to the point of becoming a storm of economic recession next year, that is, unless adequate and timely remedial action were taken.
It was not our intention to run away from these problems and, as I said, we could have done so. It was not our intention to run away as the two Coalition Governments did before, leaving problems of this nature and indeed perhaps more serious problems behind them. It has never been a characteristic of Fianna Fáil to run away from problems of this nature or, indeed, of any other kind. We are not afraid and never will be to tell the people the facts of a situation, even though they may be unpleasant facts. We are not afraid and never will be to take decisions that we know will be politically unpopular, as long as they are in the country's best interests.
I may say again that the time for a general election is not yet. There is an urgent need for Government action to safeguard the progress that has been made in the economy over the past ten years and, I might say, the spectacular progress made in the last two years during which we attained such a high rate of economic growth that we can be regarded as being almost unique in Europe at the present time, a high rate gained under no other Government except under Fianna Fáil. Certainly over a sustained period like that such a rate of growth was never attained in this country. Under the Coalition Governments, and particularly under the last one, our economy suffered from stagnation—in fact I think stagnation is too mild a term to apply—and certainly in the 1956-57 period our economy was running downhill very, very rapidly.
As everybody knows, it may be a hard enough task to stop something from reversing downhill but once the reversal has begun it is a very difficult task indeed. We succeeded in doing that. We came into power in the spring of 1957 and found the economic engine running at full speed backwards. We stopped the engine, reversed it and put it at full speed in a forward direction. The difficulty that we face now is of an entirely different kind. It is precisely because we have been doing so well and are doing so well at present that a danger has arisen which we must bring under control. That danger is that the speed of our advance is such that we risk running off the rails and we must, therefore, apply the brakes a little in order to ensure that we move safely, as well as quickly, towards our objectives.
Now, before I come to the substance of the motion in my name, I should like to refer briefly to the charges that have been made, charges that the holding of the referendum was a power grab by a small clique in the Fianna Fáil Government; and I should like to refer briefly also to the suggestion that I did not personally favour the holding of the referendum, that I did not personally favour the proposal, in particular, in the Fourth Amendment—the single seat straight vote system—and the proposal to establish an independent commission to recommend to the Dáil the determination of the constituencies. I want to say here and now that there is no power grabbing clique in this Government.
Now.
Or ever was, for that matter. The decision to hold the referendum was made, first of all, by the assembled delegates at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis last year. It was made as a result of a decision taken, a decision approved by all the Members of the Government, a decision of which all our Parliamentary Party approved, and a decision which, I want now to affirm, I personally and wholeheartedly supported.
One sack, one sample.
Order. The Taoiseach.
In bringing the financial proposals to the House earlier today the Government were confident that the House and the people would realise that these proposals are intended and, indeed, needed to safeguard the present high rate of economic progress. I know full well that the increases in taxation and in other charges will not be welcomed but, as I said earlier, this Government have never flinched from taking unpopular measures so long as those measures were in the national interest.
I propose now to give an indication why I think the affirmative motion in my name, the vote of confidence in the Government, should be passed by the House and accepted by the country. When we came into office in 1957 the state of the economy was one of crisis. The country was on the verge of despair. A floodtide of emigration was sweeping the population away. Unemployment was at its highest in the recent history of the State, running at about 95,000 or 96,000 on the unemployed register in the last weeks of 1956 and the first weeks of 1957. The economy was being rocked by a balance of payments crisis. It was making no progress. In the wake of all this, and this is, perhaps, the most serious consequence, the morale of the people was at its lowest ebb for many generations. We immediately started on the uphill task of restoring confidence in the nation's capacity to go forward, socially and economically. As other western European countries were doing at that time, we strove to develop the country's potential for growth and to maintain this growth at the highest possible level without incurring excessive balance of payments deficits. Linked with this was the objective of ensuring that the less fortunate sections of our community would share in the growing national prosperity.
The First Programme for Economic Expansion introduced in 1958 marked a watershed in our economic history. I think one set of statistics should be enough to establish the greatness of the change that was wrought. In the years 1954 to 1956 the Irish economy had shuffled along at a miserably low rate of about ½ per cent increase per annum and that miserably low rate of increase took place in a general atmosphere of despondency. The growth rate was raised by our First and Second Programmes 3¾ per cent per annum on average over the last decade. This is a growth rate that stands up spectacularly well by any international comparisons.
Over the years 1954 to 1956 exports declined by £2 million per annum on average. They rose by an average of £16 million a year from 1957 to 1967 and, at the present time, they stand at a spectacularly high record level. I shall refer in detail — Deputy L'Estrange may smile—to this rate of increase in exports in a moment.
Fianna Fáil did not believe in exports one time.
Order.
Our external assets averaged from £241 million in 1953 to £183 million in 1956. From that low point they have climbed to £295 million in 1967. Deputy Corish, in the course of his comments on my statement earlier this afternoon, said there was no problem at all about diminishing external assets; we should not bother about maintaining these payments invested abroad. Now Deputy Corish was a Member of the Government which permitted this decline in external assets and that decline was followed by a growing lack of confidence in the country, by despondency, by a lowering of morale, by a floodtide of emigration and a high level of unemployment. All these were inevitable consequences of permitting the situation to develop as it did in 1956 and 1957 and that situation developed largely because the Government of the day rather than ask the people for the necessary taxation to maintain a healthy and steady growth rate in the economy, drew on external assets.
In those years, too, and particularly in 1956, total savings formed 7.1 per cent of gross national product. The ratio for 1967 is 12 per cent. I could pile up the evidence, contrasting our successes with the failures of the Coalition Government. An unbiassed answer to the question as to which experience gives ground for greater confidence— again, I refer back to Deputy Corish's facile suggestion about using up our external assets to create employment— can be found in the greater flow of foreign investment into our country. Foreign investors apply very hard tests as to stability and profitability in deciding where to invest. In the period 1954 to 1956 there was an average capital outflow from this country of almost £1 million a year. By contrast, between 1957 and 1967, we have enjoyed an average capital inflow of over £20 million a year. These figures speak loudly and clearly and we are content to be judged on our record since we assumed office in 1957. Over that period we have doubled expenditure on social welfare, trebled expenditure on health and education, and given a fourfold increase to agriculture. Outlay connected with industry has increased dramatically and I will refer to details of this increase presently.
State expenditure on agriculture has been progressively increased over the past decade from approximately £20 million in 1958-59 to an estimated £78 million in the current year. This, I think, is evidence of the Government's special concern for the improvement of our basic industry, and of our practical help in raising farmers' incomes. These incomes as the House is aware, and, indeed, as the farmers themselves are aware, have been increasing at the rate of about nine per cent per annum in the past two years.
In relation to agriculture, the major schemes we introduced were those for calved heifers, the eradication of diseases, beef, mutton and lamb subsidies, incentive bonuses for small farms, headage payments for farrowed sows and mountain sheep, grants for glasshouses, grants for milk coolers and other equipment. Apart from new schemes, assistance under existing schemes has been increased in almost every sphere, as in the case of the advisory service, farm buildings and water supplies, the land project, fertiliser subsidies and higher guaranteed prices for wheat, barley, pigs and milk.
I do not propose to go down the list exhaustively and furnish the very many other instances of expanded aid to agriculture. Deputies who are particularly interested in this matter are, of course, familiar with them. Suffice it to say, however, that by increasing support for commodity prices, making successful drives to eliminate livestock diseases and pests, by widening the range of grants available for building and other improvements, and extending the advisory and research services, the Government have done as much as was possibly in their power to improve agriculture while having, at the same time, due regard to the claims of other sectors of the community.
Since the commencement of the Government's programme for economic expansion—and now I come to the manufacturing side—the volume of output in manufacturing industries in Ireland has grown at an average annual rate of about 6½ per cent. Employment given by those industries rose from 142,000 in 1958 to 177,000 in 1967. In the same period industrial exports rose from the 1958 level of £33 million to an estimated £147 million in 1967. The total capital invested in new industrial enterprises by this State in the nine years from 1959 to 1967 is estimated at £98 million. Of this sum the State's investment was roughly about one-quarter.
These industries have an employment potential of some 44,000 people and already about 30,000 of our people are engaged in good employment in them. Most of these enterprises are, happily, producing for export. I think this trend is reflected in the satisfactory expansion of industrial exports in recent years. Since 1957, industry has played a major role in the development of our economy and has provided a valuable source of employment for those who have left the land for one reason or another in the past 12 years or so.
During the most recent intercensal period, total employment showed a rise of 13,000 in all. The Government are determined to intensify the industrial promotion programme. The part played by new firms in the economy has become increasingly important and this trend is expected to continue as the scale of new projects increases. The amalgamation of An Foras Tionscal with the IDA, and given as they are increased resources, together with the training facilities provided by An Chomhairle Oiliúna should ensure that a steady stream of new firms providing worthwhile employment will be attracted to Ireland. Since 1959 the Industrial Credit Company has advanced capital totalling £28 million to industry, the major portion being loan capital. Again this is evidence of the confidence which the industries concerned place in our future progress.
I want to refer now to the Shannon Industrial Estate. Since its inauguration in 1959, I think we can claim that it has made a notable contribution to the development of industry in the western part of the country. At present there are upwards of 4,000 people gainfully employed there. Problems are bound to arise in a period of rapid development such as we have achieved since 1957 and I think we have endeavoured to meet them. We met those problems in 1965 and in 1966, and when we explained them to the people during the course of those by-elections to which I have referred, they acknowledged that these problems were there. They knew the reasons why we had to introduce remedial measures, and they saw the end result—two subsequent years of unprecedented growth. The people having been told what the situation now is, and the people having been told the necessity for remedial measures, I believe they will accept them in the same way and we can go forward with the same type of growth we sustained over the past two years.
We are glad to have been able to make many worthwhile innovations and improvements in such areas as manpower forecasting, worker training, placement services and working conditions themselves. An Chomhairle Oiliúna to which I have referred was set up in 1967 mainly to train unemployed and redundant workers. We also have a redundancy payment scheme which provides resettlement allowances for displaced workers. I think this was welcomed by Deputies on all sides of the House as a most valuable addition to our social security scheme. The fine performance of our exports to which I have referred gives grounds for confidence in the security of the additional employment that is being created and in the soundness of our industrial policy generally.
Recognising the importance of investment in education as a foundation for economic development, we have in the past ten years spared no effort to improve our teaching systems and to bring higher education within the reach of all. Again I want to say as I said before, that this has been a ten-year programme. I had occasion earlier today in the House to mention the fact that our school building programme when we resumed office in 1957, was permitted to run down—not only permitted, but the Government of the day were obliged to let it run down because of a lack of capital resources. Our first task was to ensure the restoration of our school building programme, and it was doubled within one year.
The second task was to ensure that adequate training facilities would be available to increasing numbers of national teachers, that our vocational system would be expanded, as it was, that facilities would be created for higher technical education, that a system of grants and other assistance for secondary schools would be created in order to ensure first of all that an increasing number of national school pupils could be taken in, and in order to ensure as well that the system which we were about to introduce of free secondary education would not overtake the kind of accommodation we had. All these things happened during that ten years and that is why I say that this programme of education was carefully developed and carefully thought out.
The proof of the success of this programme may be found in the fact that since 1957 the number of pupils attending secondary schools has increased from 59,300 to 118,800—an increase of 100 per cent. The number of fulltime registered secondary teachers has increased from 2,850 to 5,080. In vocational education, the trend has been the same. The number of pupils attending wholetime day courses has grown from 22,000 to 42,000 since 1957 and the number of teachers has grown from 1,500 to 2,800. Student numbers in the universities have increased from 7,700 to 16,000 in the same period. These substantial increases could not have been made, first of all, without this carefully thought-out programme of education and certainly not without very substantial capital investment in school buildings, in equipment and so on.
Non-capital expenditure on education has more than trebled since 1957. School curricula have been modernised Career guidance has been introduced and modern teaching techniques and aids are now widely used. The classrooms of yesterday have been transferred and are being transferred to the attractively-designed and well-equipped rooms of the present day. School textbooks are being provided free of cost where this is necessary.
One can say, therefore, that there is equal opportunity for all. What has long been the chief social objective of our educational policy has now been achieved or achieved to the point where no student need be denied, through lack of means, the opportunity of advancing to the highest reaches of education.
In each of the last ten Budgets we have given increases in social welfare payments, the highlights being 10s a week in 1965 and 7s 6d this year. I think it can be claimed and, indeed, well established that these increases exceed the general rise in prices and they have, therefore, improved significantly the position of social welfare beneficiaries, the unemployed, the disabled, the old, the blind and the widows. Since 1957 we have increased non-contributory old age pensions and widows' pensions from 24s a week to 65s a week and we have raised unemployment assistance from 19s to 51s 6d a week in urban areas and by similar amounts in rural areas.
At the same time, we have extended the scope of social services generally. Contributory old age pensions were introduced by us in 1961 and allowances are now paid for all dependent children of insurance and assistance recipients. The social assistance means tests have been relaxed and the insurance contribution conditions have been greatly eased.
What is particularly important and worth special mention is that small-holders in the western areas derived particular benefit from the relaxation of the means test in 1966 for unemployment assistance and the abolition of the employment period in 1967. I think it can be claimed that these improvements are nothing less than a boon to the small farmers.
Last year, the position of disabled persons was greatly improved under the Occupational Injuries scheme. The unemployed also benefited by the extension of the duration of employment benefit from six to 12 months. The free transport and electricity schemes for old age pensioners which were introduced in 1967 are supplemented this year by the free television and radio licences scheme so that we are anxious that no section of the community should be deprived of a share in the growing national prosperity.
The level of investment in the public capital programme is of the highest national importance because it represents half of the total national investment and generates, perhaps, a further quarter as a result of its incentive effect. It is our policy to maintain expenditure on the programme at the highest possible level. The external reserve position is sound. We continue to give a high priority to investment that is productive in the sense that it gives rise to continued production of goods and services and thus generates the resources necessary to finance further investment.
At the same time, adequate provision will be made for social investment in line with the growing national production. The public capital programme to which I have just referred has more than trebled during the past 11 years. It has risen from £41.2 million in 1957-58 to £136.4 million in the current year.
I should like, at this stage, to refer to housing in relation to which much comment is being made both inside and outside the House. Expenditure on housing has been multiplied by three during this period; no fewer than 103,000 dwellings have been built with State aid. On education, with which I have been dealing, increase in expenditure is eight-fold. In 1957-58 the capital outlay on industry and tourism was insignificant. This year, however, nearly £16 million is being provided for industry and £2 million for tourism and that £2 million refers only to capital investment not to the current revenue expenditure which is at least as much as or more again.
Expenditure on transport fuel and power development has doubled in the same period. There has been a spectacular increase from £1.2 million in 1957-58 to £7 million this year in capital for telephone development. Capital expenditure on agriculture and agricultural credit is now running at close on £20 million as compared with £4½ million in 1957-58. The Government have already decided that there will be a further increase in capital expenditure on housing, on health and on education during the next two years. Provision will be made to meet an increased demand for capital for industry and tourism, for agricultural credit, for the assistance of electricity generating capacity and for telecommunications.
There will be a substantial rise in capital expenditure for transport services but in this instance the use of foreign credit which we can get from corresponding revenue earnings will safeguard our external reserves from any substantial fall.
There are many other achievements of this Government which I could cite but I do not wish to prolong this speech unduly. I am now within the last couple of minutes of my allotted time but I wish to deal with internal policy matters. The public have no serious criticisms of our external policy. I ask the Dáil to re-affirm its confidence in this Government and in so doing approve the financial proposals that I put forward earlier today. Three have been approved and we will be voting on the remaining ones, which are in the nature of general proposals, later in the week. I ask for re-affirmation of confidence in the belief that the people would or could have little confidence in a Government which, because it feared the dangers of political unpopularity, shirked its clear duty to take the remedial action necessary to avoid such a disimprovement in the balance of payments as would give rise to a serious fall in employment. I ask the Dáil for re-affirmation of confidence in the Government on the progress that has been made over the past ten years, steady, practical, well-planned progress.
It is very easy for Deputy O'Higgins to come here this afternoon and say this Government does not know where it is going. It knows well where it is going. It is going on the road of economic progress.
It is not out we are going.
When the time comes for a general election we know that neither the Labour Party nor the Fine Gael Party can form a Government on their own.
Do not be so sure about that.
If any chance device or manoeuvre or plot will get a combination of these two Parties in either a Coalition Government with a minority Labour Government—or perhaps a minority Fine Gael Government—as a result of the measures we have been taking, and particularly as a result of the measures we are taking today, an incoming Government will find the economy in a sound position, well-geared to move forward again in the same direction as over the past years. We have achieved a substantial measure of economic progress in the past decade and I do not think any fair-minded person can gainsay that fact. It has been achieved through sound planning and good Government. It would be remiss to put that progress in jeopardy in any way. It would be remiss on our part if we did not take the remedial action clearly necessary to consolidate what has been achieved and to make sure that the foundations are well laid for the future, foundations that even a third Coalition Government cannot rock.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I think it is true to say no Government in the history of this State ever faced motions of no confidence, or of confidence as they liked to call them more discredited, dejected or more disunited than the present Government.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The recent referendum was an emphatic repudiation of the present Government.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The people were asked to give the Government more power and they refused that request. Many of the Fianna Fáil old-time supporters were satisfied that they had gone far enough and they said: "Thus far and no further." Indeed, it is a heartening and consoling example of political sophistication that so many people were prepared to get above traditional Party politics and vote the way they did in the interests of broader national good. What is important, however, is not to go over the issues of the referendum. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length on it. However reluctant those of us on this side of the House may be to retrace the ground, I know no matter how brief we are, we cannot be too brief in recounting it for Fianna Fáil.
It is, however, my responsibility as a Leader of the Party which offers the people a realistic alternative to the present Government to put before the people what the alternative is. It is obvious that the realities of the present political situation and the attitude of public opinion is in sharp contrast with the attitude of the present Fianna Fáil Government. The significant conclusion which must be drawn from the referendum vote is not the fact that the Fine Gael people opposed it, the fact that the Labour people opposed it, nor the fact that a variety of non-Party or smaller groups and interests in the community voted "No" against the proposals in the referendum, but the fact—and this is the significance and this is the thing that has shattered the Fianna Fáil Government —that Fianna Fáil supporters not merely abstained but, for the first time in the history of that organisation or of this State, changed sides and rejected Fianna Fáil in their arrogant attempt to grab the institutions of State in this country.
We had expressed a clear undertaking that, so far as we were concerned, this Party and the Labour Party were prepared to participate and to collaborate in a committee on constitutional reform, however doubtful some people may have been of the bona fides of those who established that committee. Nevertheless, we were prepared to give it a try. We were satisfied to participate in it and to work to improve the institutions, to alter the procedures and practices, if alterations were deemed desirable, and if necessary to amend the Constitution. But, irrespective of the conclusions of that Committee, in fact in conflict with the recommendations which were made by it, Fianna Fáil attempted to adopt an arrogant and dictatorial attitude. They had ample opportunity for re-thinking on this question and for re-examining the proposals which were put before the Dáil, for amending or altering them or modifying them in some way that would be generally accepted. Of course, it is fashionable now to suggest that a small group were responsible for this arrogant manoeuvre. This was a Party decision. This was a Government decision. This was a decision imposed with collective responsibility which none can opt out of, or protest their innocence of or their lack of support or lack of enthusiasm for the proposals produced to the people.
We have seen this evening, and the country will feel tomorrow and in the months ahead, the real failure of the Government to attend to the people's business when they were spending months, weeks, and hours of Parliamentary time, of Government time and above all, of the people's time and of the people's money in an attempt to manipulate the voting system and to rig the constituencies. Maybe that attempt has not yet finished. But that will be exposed as well. They were doing this, not because of external influence, not because of problems—as we had to face and for which we produced remedies—created by war such as the Korean and other wars, but because of internal mismanagement. We have had a massive Supplementary Budget here tonight, within six months after the Minister for Finance said, when concluding the debate on the Budget last May, as reported at column 1177 of volume 234, No. 8, of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann:
...I can assure the House that I have no intention whatever of introducing a second Budget or bringing in any new taxation this year, unless such a course is found to be clearly and absolutely unavoidable.
He went on to say:
Indeed, I do not think that additional Budgets in any year are desirable. They are something to which recourse should be had only in the last resort.
Soon.
The Minister for Finance continued:
This Budget has been prepared on the best arithmetical basis on which we could prepare it. It is honestly prepared with a view to achieving a balance.
Honest Jack.
It is a Budget which the Taoiseach, acting as Minister for Finance, said this afternoon is running £7½ million over and above the estimate. Despite that, we have this afternoon passed Supplementary Resolutions to provide an additional £4.2 million and, even after that, with a buoyancy of £7½ million, we are to have a deficit, according to the estimates, of £7.2 million. Does anybody believe any Fianna Fáil Minister or any Fianna Fáil Government on any topic on any occasion?
The only section of a Government Department that is paying in this country is the Post Office. The people who send letters, telephone users, telegram senders, have been producing— because of the money they spend and the charges they pay—a profit. The Government are not satisfied. They want to charge more. They are going still further to increase the charges. That is the type of mismanagement, that is the type of miscalculation, that has been carried on in this country over the past six months by a government that has been spending its time attempting to rig and to manipulate the electoral machinery. As the Minister for Education, Deputy B. Lenihan, said: "The try-on was worthwhile"— at a cost of £100,000. The Tacateers are convinced it was worthwhile but their money has gone down the drain. We saw the advertisements that were paid for liberally. The most expensive advertisement campaign ever produced by any political Party or by any industrial or other organisation in this country was carried on from August in every single paper. One of the most attractively-produced advertisements was that in which there was a picture of a young couple seeking a house—houses that the Minister for Local Government is paid to produce and which he has not produced—and that young couple were meeting the person whom the Tacateers said: "We are anxious for you to meet very frequently—your TD." Are they now prepared to face the electorate? The electorate are prepared to meet the Fianna Fáil TDs and to give them their dismissal notices. Why not meet them now and give an account of your stewardship?
Watch out for the fiddler.
This transcends politics and political considerations. This referendum shows a breakdown of confidence in the whole institution of government, a breakdown dramatically exemplified. The first person who expressed himself publicly on this was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He expressed the concern that, he said, had been felt by young people at low standards in high places. That was followed by a number of lesser lights in the Fianna Fáil Party. Some of them had the courage to resign. Some of them said that the only claim or card of membership was not a bona fide acceding to Fianna Fáil policy or Fianna Fáil belief but a well-filled cheque book. But these people had enough. They said: “You have gone too far”.
As I said last February, when the Bills were being discussed here, we are here as trustees for the nation. I said then, as I say now, that we have no mandate or authority to try to manipulate for any Party or, worse still, for any individual, the institutions of this State. Those who established the institutions established them for the benefit of and in order to safeguard and defend the interests of the Irish people and not to subvert them to Party or personal interest.
One of the regrettable results of this ill-considered and ill-timed referendum has been the fact that certain Constitutional reforms have been discredited and perverted. We agreed to participation in the Constitutional Committee because we recognised, as most Deputies on all sides of the House recognise, the need for reforms, improvements, modifications and amendments to existing practices and procedure. We have in this country a large number of State and semi-State companies which expend, on behalf of the people, vast sums of money and which employ large numbers of Irish people. Most of them give a good return, are providing essential services or are providing for needs and interests that require to be serviced. There is a recognition and a realisation in many quarters that the activities of State companies and the expenditure of vast sums of public money should be examined and considered and should be investigated on an annual basis by some Parliamentary Committee analogous to the Committee of Public Accounts. We have pressed for that. We have advocated it. The Government have continually rejected it.
No attempt whatever has been made except to pawn off the Dáil with the suggestion that because the accounts are presented and because the balance sheets are made available to Deputies by being laid on the Table of the House, it is sufficient. That is not sufficient in the light of expenditure of the magnitude which has been incurred and when we have seen, as this country has seen in recent months, very large sums of money literally lost because of the manner in which it was expended or because of the representations that were made to this House that the programme was satisfactory.
We had the Dundalk Engineering Company. We had the Potez project at Baldonnel. Many people are satisfied that this is only the tip of the iceberg. These examples are only a minor representation of the picture that would be unveiled if there was an adequate investigation of public expenditure, which we believe must be undertaken and which it is the responsibility and the duty of this House to safeguard and assure. In addition to that, we are satisfied that many changes have occurred in the past 30 years, since the Constitution was originally drafted, which mean that what was reasonably satisfactory 30 years ago requires at least to be examined in the context of present conditions.
One of these was our view that votes should now be allowed to people at 18 years of age. This could be done even yet in conjunction with the coming general election. It is recognised nowadays that young people are more advanced, better informed, better equipped, more anxious to play an active and a decisive role in national and local affairs; and that if it is logical to ask them to pay income tax and other taxes at 18, it is also logical that they should have an effective say in the selection of public representatives and in the election of a government.
There is no advantage in the Government trying to obscure the emphatic conclusion to be drawn from the referendum either by introducing this evening the Supplementary Budget or by floating this evening the national loan or by having second thoughts, after days and even weeks have passed, and putting down a motion of confidence. No one expects the Fianna Fáil Party to do anything else but to vote for the resolution that is before the people. They are afraid to face public opinion and they are determined if they will not hang separately at least they will hang together.
I want to tell the House and the country what I believe are the essential requirements at the present time, and what I believe are the real reasons why the people rejected the referendum. I think there are three reasons. First, they saw it as an attempt to grab power, an attempt to alter the value of the vote. It certainly sounded unsympathetic and unrealistic to hear the Taoiseach talking about the principle of one man, one vote as an essential requirement in the Six Counties when Fianna Fáil tried to manipulate the vote here and to alter its value.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It did not ring true. It did not sound sincere, nobody believed him. The second reason why the people rejected this proposal was that they rejected the Tacateers. They rejected, and rejected emphatically, the power and the influence and the arrogance of the Tacateers who have assumed responsibility in Fianna Fáil. I noticed shortly after the referendum there was a seminar in Cork, a Tacateer seminar. They said that all this suggestion of £100 dinners was wrong, that all they were interested in was planned giving; and the suggestion was 30/- a week, a glorified tontine society. Does anyone believe that the men in the mohair suits, the men who turn up draped in mink and in high-powered cars are interested only in 30/- a week? Of course, nobody believed it. They did not believe it themselves, and the last thing was that the ordinary Fianna Fáil voter said: "You have gone far enough. We do not trust you." That was the real message. "We do not trust Fianna Fáil. We believe you have gone too far away from the grass roots." Mind you, there was some justification for it. Last week here one of the veteran Fianna Fáil Deputies had a question down on space research. He wanted to know if the Minister for External Affairs could do something about facilities in Europe for space research. Deputy Aiken, the Minister, said he was doing the best he could.
The expert in space.
Remember this, the Minister for External Affairs went recently to Moscow and put his mark —I do not know whether he put one or two Xs on it—on a non-proliferation treaty, and the Fianna Fáil backwoods men nodded their assent and said it was a sign of progress. Most of them thought it had something to do with a restriction on the use of the pill. Over the last ten years the Minister for External Affairs could not be kept in this country and since the referendum started and finished the Taoiseach cannot get rid of him.
Our approach to government is based on three fundamental principles: honesty, freedom and social justice. Those are the ideals which motivate those who fought to establish a free Irish nation. Those principles are vital to the health of any democratic society. Without them the democratic system of government must soon be eroded and replaced by some form of dictatorship or control by cliques or special interests. I am convinced that the vast majority of the Irish people, irrespective of traditional party loyalty, want a society firmly founded on honesty, freedom and social justice, that they are prepared, as they convincingly demonstrated in the referendum, to respond to leadership which recognises these principles and is prepared to govern in accordance with them.
There have in the past been references, not merely by me but by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and by other less well-known supporters of Fianna Fáil, to the need for better standards in high places. I am not in a position, nor do I think is any member of the Opposition, certainly no member of the Fine Gael Party, in a position to assess accurately the soundness of the many suspicions and allegations which have been whispered about in recent months. Our responsibility and my duty as a public representative and, indeed, as a Christian is to require that such allegations and suspicions should not be accepted without incontrovertible evidence. It is our experience that such evidence is seldom available to the Opposition Deputies. What we can and must do, however, is to examine closely the conditions which make it possible for such an atmosphere to develop. I have repeatedly expressed the view that nothing can lead faster to the undermining of confidence in our whole public life and the institutions of the State generally than any suggestion that the standards of integrity in public life have been weakened or have degenerated in any way. I know that view is shared generally by many people in every political party. It is time we made an effort to get this issue above party politics.
It was for that reason that we participated willingly and in good faith in the constitutional reform committee to examine and investigate in detail the weakness of our democratic system, to see what defects were in it, to plan together to try to improve the system and to operate it more efficiently and more effectively, and if there were deficiencies or defects in it to eradicate them. There should be a standard of practices and procedures recognised and accepted by all irrespective of whether they are in government or in opposition.
One of the most frequent matters of concern and anxiety so far as public opinion is concerned is that of planning decisions. During the course of this referendum, Fianna Fáil claimed vigorously that they were establishing a commission to deal with the redistribution of constituencies, that irrespective of the views of Parties or Deputies on either side, a judge would be chairman of that committee or commission, judges being regarded as being impartial. On this side of the House we produced and advocated a Bill to deal with one of the most potent areas for concern in this country, the question of planning appeals under the Planning Act.
This is not a question of sub-postmasters or temporary postmen or rate collectors. They are relatively minor appointments in which the only question at issue is the salary of the individual, irrespective of whether he is competing with other members of his own Party, as happened recently when there were two Fianna Fáil candidates for one vacancy in one county. The Fine Gael representatives believed that the man who was Fianna Fáil by conviction was entitled to priority beside the man who was Fianna Fáil by birth. He got the appointment but he was expelled because he did not accede to the attempts to dictate to him.
However, they are not major decisions, but planning appeals constitute an area in which big companies—oil companies, petrol companies, industrial concerns—are concerned about the manner in which planning appeals can alter the value of sites from little or no value to possibly £50,000, £100,000 or £250,000. That is where there is room for concern and anxiety and it is in respect of it that people are concerned.
It was for that reason that Deputies Fitzpatrick, Clinton and others produced here a Bill to take this responsibility from an individual Minister. I do not suggest that individual Ministers are doing something that is wrong or that they are acting in some way that is contrary to the public interest, but there is reason to believe that public anxiety could be caused because applicants who were known to be political supporters have had their applications decided in a particular way. If this matter were handed over to an impartial tribunal with a judge as chairman, then the anxiety, the concern, the suspicion, the talk, much of it ill-founded but some of it founded in genuine concern, could be allayed because of the impartial examination by an independent tribunal who recognised statutory procedure, having as chairman a judge and having independent technical and other assessors.
One of the reasons for the failure of the Government's economic and social policies, one of the reasons for the development of the situation here which has culminated in the introduction of a Supplementary Budget within six months, is that the Government have failed to take the advice of the National Industrial and Economic Council, that they have failed to accept the recommendations and the conclusions reached by that body who recommended the establishment of a prices and incomes policy. The most notable example of the failure of Government policy has been produced in the recent reports of the Economic and Social Research Institute, referred to by the Taoiseach today. They show that there has been a dramatic and continuous rise in the cost of living— that the assumption made concerning 1968 is that the consumer price index will reach 64 points by November, giving an increase in the annual average of 5¼ per cent over 1967. With regard to 1969, it is assumed that if present policies remain in force the growth of monetary demand will force consumer prices up by 6 per cent.
There is nothing in this Supplementary Budget to offset the rise in respect of pensioners, social welfare recipients, retired persons, the self-employed. The only conclusion to be drawn from this Budget and the only effect of it is to raise still further the prices of essential commodities—the prices of commodities affected by the wholesale tax, the increased post office charges and the cost of every commodity the Government have interfered with or have failed to take action to deal with.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been making price control orders, most of them ineffective, many of them irritants because he has attempted to control prices which traders cannot do anything about because the goods come in at higher prices. Now the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Government, through the Minister for Finance, are to raise prices still further. But there is no price control on the Government raising their costs; there is no control on an ineffective and inefficient administration. The only control has been that which was expressed so emphatically in the referendum in which the Government were rejected and repudiated. That is the one control the Government are afraid of, the one which they will not face. It is the one authority they are now running from.
It has been suggested that some reforms are necessary. Some of these might be desirable in the Seanad. I have expressed the view already that the Seanad is composed of some worthy Members but they are mainly there by accident, despite the election system and not because of it.
We believe in Government by good leadership. This can be achieved only by sympathetic consideration with the interests concerned. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was vocal in a number of interjections across the House today. He did not know about increased milk production this year or increased wheat production. Would anyone who read the statistics not know there are more cows in calf and more heifers this year? It is not rabbits we are talking about: it is cows we are talking about and it takes a cow nine months to produce a calf and a heifer has to be at least 15 months old before she starts.
Would anyone not know that that situation was there? But the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was not talking to the farmers. He was not discussing problems with the farmers —he would not talk to either agricultural organisation.
The Minister for Education would not talk to academics about the position of higher education in Dublin. He adopted that same arrogant attitude, deciding to clamp down, to impose this, willy-nilly, without consultation with either institution of higher learning as to what should be done. Then, as a sort of digression, a diversion to distract the minds of Fianna Fáil Deputies from what was happening, the Taoiseach said a few words recently about Partition. Everybody realised his intervention was ham-fisted.
Trash and rubbish.
It was contrary to what the Minister for Education said about the same problem, quoted in the 4th June issue of the Daily Telegraph. In this, he said, the only person who agreed with him was Captain O'Neill. He said that the granting of independence to Scotland and Wales would not in itself solve any problem. The issue was whether they should sacrifice the material benefits of integration with Britain for the emotional attraction of independence. He was in no doubt that the two countries would be ill-advised to break away from Britain. He said that in Southern Ireland we have learned the hard way and have now turned the corner.
I do not know which corner that is because Fianna Fáil cannot even keep between the ditches. They are round the bend. Is it any wonder, therefore, that nobody accepts the Taoiseach's talk this week when Deputy Lenihan neither repudiated himself nor was repudiated by the Taoiseach or any other Minister? It is no wonder that the Tory newspaper in its own leading article said:
Much of what the Irish Minister of Education, Mr. Lenihan, has to say about nationalism in a report on another page makes sound sense, though most historians would quarrel with his opinion that Ireland might have been happier under a form of limited self-government. By the turn of this century, after 200 years or more of oppression, aggravated by economic and land management policies, the fatuity of which was matched only by their ruthlessness, Ireland had come to hate British Governments.
That was never repudiated. It was never suggested that he was misreported. In fact, in the usual bluff way he tried to justify it. I suppose, like the referendum, it was worth a try-on.
We believe that we have to establish here a just society. We do not pretend that that can be done without effort or without sacrifice, but we are convinced that the vast majority of our people are prepared to make the effort in order to deal with what we recognise as an avoidable social evil, the need for improved housing. It is easy, of course, to say that we are spending more money each year on houses. Houses cost more each year. To do the same amount of work one year after another costs more money with rising costs of production, with rising wages, with rising overheads, and so on. To do the same amount of work next year as was done this year will inevitably cost more. It is for that reason that we are spending substantially more money on education. Yet, as a percentage of the Supply Estimates, we are spending less on education than we spent 30 years ago.
It is our view that this problem should be tackled and must be tackled. It is not sufficient to attempt to deny, as the Minister for Local Government has, that the problem exists and to abuse those who criticise the Government's record. That is reminiscent of what is happening in Derry. On the one hand Unionists say there is no discrimination, and then they go out and attack those who criticise it. We all know there is discrimination. We all know there has been a failure to build houses. We all know that there has been a failure in this city, in my constituency and in the environment of Dublin, either in the city itself or on the perimeter of it, to provide serviced land, to provide sewerage, to provide the services that are necessary. But the Government have been spending their time and the Minister has been spending his time travelling the country trying to rig the constituencies and trying to impress people with the belief that they were doing something in the national interest and that that was priority number one.
The social problems that exist here —the need for improved housing, the need for better hospitals, the need for improved health services, the need for wider social services based on a comprehensive system of insurance—these are what the Minister for Finance said were being examined in the Budget. These are the top priorities. These are the problems that affect the people. These are the problems which the people want to see remedied and want to see solutions provided for. We are satisfied Fine Gael have a policy for education and not merely our policy in respect of the Irish language, which has since been endorsed in the only referendum held on that subject, the referendum in Ballinasloe. All this emphatically endorses the proposals we made.
Fianna Fáil have not the courage or else they are afraid and ashamed to accept responsibility for making the changes necessary. Even the Irish Press, which up to now has been a rather obscurantist journal, has adopted an avant garde attitude, and its readers are a little distressed by it. They realise that what was good in the past will not sell in the future.
We realise there is a need for getting participation from farmers, educationalists and trade unions. Fianna Fáil cannot now dominate and dictate. There is the suggestion that much has been done about redundancy. The only redundancy fund I know of which is working effectively is the profiteers fund for displaced Fianna Fáil Deputies—if they can repatriate it. I understand some of it is outside the jurisdiction.
Closely associated with this policy of social help and other reforms is the need for a reform programme for youth, a programme that will realise the problems of the young people coming to maturity who need to be guided and assisted, young people prepared and anxious to accept their place in society and desirous of leadership and a chance to participate. We advocated and recommended a programme that would provide assistance for emigrants. It is not sufficient for the Department of External Affairs to provide a couple of ambulatory or itinerant representatives. Everyone knows that the Department of External Affairs has its sights on New York or Moscow and never on reality, never on the problems that affect the people.
We heard talk here today about surplus milk. The one thing the people in Biafra and Nigeria needed was milk and the Minister for External Affairs could hardly get a can of skim milk into them over the last few years. But we can put our mark on non-proliferation treaties and we can talk about national troops joining the United Nations. These are irrelevant considerations when faced with the problems which Irish missionaries have had to face in Nigeria and Biafra, when faced with the real problems of the people who represented, worked and defended Christian principles and brought the light of culture and civilisation from this island for centuries to the darkest lands. We could do nothing about them because we were immersed in the legalistic imperfections of an ideal that has now been repudiated by everybody and that is rejected and found difficult even by those who supported it in the past.
One of the major problems affecting this country is the problem of the west. The west has realised that Fianna Fáil have offered nothing to it and the one thing that would not have solved the problem would have been more Fianna Fáil TDs. We know the result of this vote. This Government is fugitive from public opinion—maybe, indeed, fugitive from retributive justice—but it does not matter how long they postpone it, it must come next year. When it comes we will accept responsibility. Whatever else this Party did, it never refused to face the electorate whether the result was good or bad. We faced the people. It has been said that a country gets the government it deserves. I know our people deserve better than the present Government and I am confident that, with the help of God and the support of the people, we will provide better shortly.
I move that, in view of the Government's failure in the field of employment, agriculture, industry, housing, health, social welfare——
I must interrupt the Deputy to point out that there can only be one motion before the House at the moment.
I do not know whether we should talk subsequently on the two motions that have been proposed by the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party. However, I will deal with that later.
In case there is any misapprehension I must point out that there was no motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
The motion will be taken. The reason we put down the motion that is not now before the House was to provoke a political debate in the light of the referendum results. I do not think we should, nor has there been any serious attempt to, talk about the merits of the two proposals that have been rejected by the people. That is as it should be. I do not think anybody can ignore the results of the referendum, a result which, by the tone of the Taoiseach's speech and the attitude of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, they would like to forget quickly. The Taoiseach tried to help them in that in the tactics that have been employed today in order to put the referendum results aside.
Not alone have we motions down and discussions with regard to the results but we also have a mini-Budget, a vote of confidence in himself by the Taoiseach and the announcement of a national loan. These are all important matters in themselves. We all go along with the national loan and from all sides of the House we exhort the public to support it. We have also given our comments on the Budget. However, one is inclined to ask why, in the light of the speeches by the Taoiseach over the last month or two, Parliament was not assembled before this if the Fianna Fáil Party and the Minister for Finance thought it so urgent to introduce the proposals announced this afternoon.
However, I do not intend to allow the Taoiseach or members of the Fianna Fáil Party to get away from the result of the referendum held on the 16th October. As I have said, a significant thing is the fact that the Government have proposed a vote of confidence in themselves. I would like the Taoiseach or some member of his Party to explain what that means. Does it necessarily mean that behind their thinking there is an idea, even among the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, that this 233,000 votes defeat was an indication that there was no confidence in them? It must be obvious to everybody that they have been shaken.
It must be obvious from the attitude of the Front Bench and the backbenchers over the last two weeks. There was never a greater shock in the country than that suffered and felt by the Fianna Fáil Party on the 16th October. Now we have them trying to retrieve their fortunes and I regard this Budget as a frantic effort to repair their political fences. It has been described as courageous. Nobody believes this. At least, I and the members of my Party do not because it is merely a lead-up to a Budget after which it is expected that there will be a general election. I think this is dishonest in that the people are now being asked to give, give, give to the extent of £11 million. We can only accept the estimates that have been given by the Taoiseach. But it is apparent to me that this Budget is merely a forerunner of a Budget before a general election that will enable the Minister for Finance to throw out some crumbs to people in the hope that they will get back the confidence of the people which they lost in the referendum proposals.
However, I think there is a futility about these motions of confidence and no confidence in the Government. It is all right as far as discussion is concerned, but everybody knows what the result will be because those 74 Deputies have absolute confidence in themselves. They are confident that they should stay in power for another while until they get back the confidence they lost on the 16th October. What this referendum demonstrated in no uncertain manner, no matter what anybody might say—and I include everybody both inside and outside the House— is a lack of confidence by the people in the Government. If nothing else, the people in the referendum have called for a general election. They have said they have no confidence in the Government. Anybody can claim credit for the defeat of the Government—the newspapers, radio and television, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Independents, the trade union movement. The main thing is the Fianna Fáil Party suffered the greatest defeat of their career and, mark you, I think this was a political decision of the people. The Government try to represent it as a non-political decision. This was a political decision on an issue fought by political Parties in which political speeches were made by every single Member who spoke from the Fianna Fáil Party and those who spoke from the Opposition. It was demonstrated to me that this was a political decision by the fact that there was very little cross voting. There was the very small amount of 700 cross votes, the majority in favour of the tolerance issue and this in a colossal vote of over one million people.
Another significant thing was the rejection of the tolerance proposal in certain parts of the country. The tolerance proposal was represented in particular areas as being a proposal that would ensure democratic representation there. There must be a tremendous significance in that rejection, not alone for the Government but for those who voted in the constituencies of, say, Donegal, Clare, Mayo, Galway, West and East Limerick—what used to be strongholds of Fianna Fáil. There must be a lesson to be learned from the fact that, despite the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture in Donegal, the proposals were nearly beaten there. In the famed Fianna Fáil county of Clare the proposals were carried by a mere 66. Those who were offered so much as far as tolerance was concerned; those who were told that their TDs would be much closer to them; those who were told that they would have fair representation in the Dáil—they rejected the Fianna Fáil proposals. Most of us who have been in the House for a long time knew that, no matter what the issue was, all these areas stood steadfastly by the Fianna Fáil Party. When elections were held, even after vicious Budgets of the Fianna Fáil Government, these areas supported without question the Fianna Fáil Party. No matter what the issue was—any sort of stringent financial proposal — the Fianna Fáil supporters held steadfast. Now we have this great breakthrough. It shows that the people recognise the hypocrisy of the Government and their alleged concern for them, because in effect they have said: "We are not so much concerned about having more TDs in our areas as we are about having more people." This is what Fianna Fáil have failed to do for them over their long period in office since 1932.
I would describe this as the biggest defeat ever of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not think anybody can write it off, least of all the Taoiseach. In the 1965 election the Fianna Fáil Party gathered 597,000 votes. In the referendum they got 423,000 votes for their proposals. Therefore, there were 174,000 who did not vote for the Fianna Fáil Party proposals in the year 1968. It is true that, as far as the Opposition were concerned, the votes were somewhat the same. In the General Election of 1965 there were 656,000 who voted for the Opposition Parties. In the referendum there were 656,800. We have to have regard to the drop in the ballot and still ask ourselves what happened to this 174,000. Why was there this huge switch of Fianna Fáil votes away from them? In any case we must regard a majority against the Fianna Fáil proposals of 233,000 as being a vote of no confidence by a significant number of people.
Many people have tried to analyse this result. There are very many people now who are very clever after the event. There were those who forecast outside Dáil Éireann a narrow win for the Government proposals and there were others who forecast a narrow loss. If I were to give my opinion —and I think I did in public and in private—I would have said that there would be a majority of between 50,000 and 100,000 against the Government proposals. Again I pose the question: who thought in Dáil Éireann, in the press, in radio or television, that there would be such a colossal defeat for the Government to the extent of 233,000? Perhaps we can explain away by the referendum proposals the 50,000 to 100,000 votes but there were some 134,000 to 184,000 people who voted against the proposals for some other reason. It may be said in respect of the 50,000 to 100,000 that they were not prepared to trust Fianna Fáil motives in the proposed Constitutional changes which were vital in the life of the country in that they proposed changes in our electoral system. These were rejected. I do not think it came as any surprise to anyone, therefore, when the Labour Party called for the resignation of the Government and asked them to go to the country.
Nobody can say that this was a snap decision by the people, that these proposals were thrown out to the public who made a snap decision without realising the full implications of what was involved. How did Fianna Fáil come to make such a mistake? There has been criticism recently that the politicians are not near the grass roots. My Party knew exactly—perhaps not in terms of the amount of the majority— what the people thought and knew the proposals would not be carried. Therefore, we must ask ourselves and perhaps the Fianna Fáil organisation must ask itself, as it did on another occasion, what went wrong? Were they not sufficiently close to the people to know there would be such a colossal defeat? Were they so much out of touch with the people not to know they would be so severely trounced? It was recognised as a very grave error of judgment. I know the Taoiseach will plead there was Cabinet responsibility for the decision that was taken but there was also a great deal of wailing from some prominent members of the Cabinet, from the Minister for Transport and Power and Posts and Telegraphs and from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It was obvious again from the attitude of the people in their decision that the people wanted and still want, if the Government are not prepared to resign, at least a change in personnel in the Cabinet because I know that even those who support Fianna Fáil in this House realise the damage that has been done to the Fianna Fáil image over the past three or four years by the attitude and behaviour of certain members of the Cabinet. That may be a question for the Taoiseach himself to decide, but it is obvious that there are three or four Ministers who, if they should not resign, should be given minor posts.
This could not be regarded as a snap decision by the people. The proposals were debated over a long period of 12 months, a period which is now, and which was regarded by us as a waste of Parliamentary time, a period during which we should have been talking about the things that the Taoiseach mentioned today in his Budget speech, employment, social welfare, agriculture, agricultural production and all these vital things, but the great crime of the Government and those who were mainly responsible for these proposals was that they insisted that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann should debate our electoral system and the Government's proposals ad nauseam from the beginning of March up to the end of the session in July, and that the Government should allow the whole country and particularly certain Ministers to be preoccupied for the long time of two or three months trying to convince the people that they should change over to the system which they rejected in 1959.
I believe that the decision of the people indicates their bitter disappointment and disillusionment with the Fianna Fáil Party and Government. It also represents a new day in Irish politics. It represents for the first time a massive swing of traditional support for various reasons which I shall not go into now from the Fianna Fáil Party to the Opposition whether it be Labour or Fine Gael. Nobody has yet been able to give an accurate analysis of the vote against the Government in this particular issue. It appears to me that there was demonstrated on 16th October a new attitude towards Parties and politicians. I was heartened by finding on 17th October that so many people had voted because the cry from all Parties was that there appeared to be apathy among the people. The press and political commentators on radio and television had forecast a very small poll and pointed to the lack of interest the people had in these proposals. On 17th October when everybody knew that over one million people had voted I was cheered by the fact that the people, even though they did not appear to be doing so, were thinking deeply about the implications of these proposals and the various political questions, national and international, affecting this country.
Therefore, I do not believe the Government have a mandate to carry on their present policy. We had an election in April, 1965, and we have now served three and a half years in this eighteenth Dáil. Might I ask this: has the Taoiseach the brazenness to carry on for the full period? He may say that they got a mandate in the election of April, 1965, but in October, 1968, he was told in no uncertain fashion that not alone did the country not trust him and the proposals he put forward regarding changes in the Constitution but in my view and that of my Party also that he had no mandate to carry on the policies he had been pursuing since the Fianna Fáil Party formed a Government three and a half years ago.
If this had happened in any other country in the world at least one member of the Cabinet would have resigned and that would be the man who brazenly put this proposal through the House, Deputy Boland, Minister for Local Government. He was the man who cracked the whip on every single division whether on the Second, Third, Fourth or Fifth Stages and brought all Fianna Fáil members behind him into the Division Lobbies. This was the man who insisted that every one of his amendments be carried, the man who was intolerant of criticism from the Opposition or of any suggestion they made, the man who appeared to stake his whole political life on the success of the referendum proposals. This is the man who has sat there for the past two or three weeks and blandly sits there now without a "gig" out of him——
Where is he now? He is not there beside the Taoiseach now.
I do not know whether I am entirely fair to the Minister because the Taoiseach said that whatever decision was made was made with the full—I do not know whether he said "unanimous"—consent of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Front Bench. I do not think he was entirely correct when he said that the Fianna Fáil Party as such had made this decision in November of last year. As far as my recollection goes they did not ask their Parliamentary Party or the Fianna Fáil Government to push the proposals that were before the people on 16th October. As a matter of fact—and Deputy Cosgrave has referred to it; it is not for me to analyse the organisation of Fianna Fáil—I think there is disillusionment not alone among the people so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned but in the Fianna Fáil organisation itself. It has been said by some political commentators that all political Parties seem to have got away from their organisations but it was abundantly clear to me in discussions I had with those in the Fianna Fáil Party organisation who were disillusioned that they believed a time had come when their resolutions were not accepted at all at the Ard-Fheis and when their representations to the Government or their TDs were not heeded and that Fianna Fáil had arrived at a situation where a certain moneyed class in this country could dictate or influence the policy of the Government.
It is very difficult to reconcile the two speeches the Taoiseach made today. In his Budget speech there is a suggestion that the country is not in a good position. There is a suggestion, or should I say, there are proposals that the people, in order to right the economy, should give another £11.25 million. I have made my comments on this already and said that I did not agree with it. I said that if corrective measures had to be taken they should have been taken in April of this year because it was known then that anything that is happening now would happen in any case.
The Taoiseach in his speech, for about three-quarters of an hour, told us of the great shape the country was in. As I said today, the Fianna Fáil Party seem to have a Budget for all seasons according to the political climate. Now we go a step further when we get one speech in the afternoon saying, and this was the implication in the Budget, that the country is in a bad way, that the balance of payments has gone wrong, that the people are too well-off and that we have to take another £11¾ million from them, while today the Taoiseach boasts about what the Fianna Fáil Government have done in this, that and the other respect —health, education, social welfare, house building, industrial employment, and all that sort of thing. The weakness of his argument was in looking back to 1956 and 1957. I do not mind hearing about that. I do not mind accepting my responsibility as a member of the Government of that time. But there are people about whom the Taoiseach appeared to be concerned, young people, of 21 and 22 years of age, who are concerned about 1968, not about some of the periods that Deputy MacEntee talks about in his supplementary questions when he goes back to 1921, 1923 and 1927. To be fair to the country, we have to think and act in terms of 1968 because there are people who voted in the recent referendum who did not know the prominent Members of Dáil Éireann in 1957 and who are not concerned as to who they were. They want results in 1968 and what we did for good or evil five, 10 or 20 years ago is not going to satisfy them.
I suppose I will be accused of repeating myself but in view of the fact that I believe what I say I have to repeat myself and to use this argument again and again in order to try to convince the Government and this House that as far as policy is concerned we are on the wrong track. I could list a lot of failures of this Government. The Taoiseach has listed a lot of achievements. We would applaud the achievements, limited though they may be, and do not begrudge the Government any credit for them, say, in education and a few other things that just do not come to my mind at the present time—in social welfare, limited as it was. All credit due to the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley for what he did.
It stopped there, though.
Apropos of social welfare, any time the Fianna Fáil Government proposed taxation to increase social welfare, the Labour Party was with them. The Taoiseach will find that as far as any progressive proposals are concerned, he will always have the Labour Party with him. We did not believe that the proposals today were progressive. We thought they were regressive and would not do the economy any good because they are the same type of measure as was taken in 1964 and we had the example of the result of that in 1965 and in 1966.
We are concerned about employment—a very simple statement. Fianna Fáil have not shown good results in this respect. There is no use in analysing the figures for employment in respect of every sector. It suffices for me to say, when the Taoiseach talks about the progress made in this country between 1957 and 1967, that in the last three years the number of people at work has fallen by 10,000. I do not think anybody can question that. I do not think that need be elaborated upon. The fact is that as far as agriculture is concerned there are too many leaving the land too rapidly. There are approximately 10,000 per annum leaving the land. There is an increase in the number employed in manufacturing industry but it is not sufficient. There is no use in anybody consoling himself by saving that we did not expect this vast decrease in the numbers at work in agriculture. We have known for years that this would happen. We have been told this by various Ministers for Finance. We have been told it ad nauseam by the Minister for Transport and Power who says it is not peculiar to Ireland. We accept that to a large extent. Adequate provision has not been made for the creation of jobs.
As far as unemployment is concerned, as I said today, even compared with last year, there are eight per cent more unemployed than there were at the corresponding period last year. Every Deputy, whether he is Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, is concerned about people having jobs at good wages and with security. There are many people who have not got such jobs. This, plainly, is the responsibility of the Government and their failure in this respect is the greatest indictment one can make against them.
We may have success regarding the balance of payments. We may be able to tell ourselves next year that there is no deficit, that there is a plus or small minus of maybe £2 million to £5 million. This will be no consolation to those who have no employment, to those who have to emigrate. Again, let me pose the question to the Government: Who comes first? Is it men? Is it people who come first in the matter of employment and good jobs or is it the balance of payments and the external reserves?
The Taoiseach upbraided me today when I talked about the external reserves and said that I suggested that they should be run down. I did not say that they should be run down indiscriminately but I did say, and this my Party believes, that if we were to run them down in order to give Irishmen employment in their own country, this we should do. If we have £225 million in external reserves through the commercial banks in this country, is there any good reason why 15,000 or 20,000 persons should emigrate because they cannot get good jobs? As long as we have these 58,000 to 60,000 unemployed is there any good reason in maintaining in Britain or some other place a sum of £225 million in external reserves?
If somebody could tell me that £100 million was the minimum for safety purposes that we could have in Britain then we could talk about it in a plainer fashion but I do not know whether external reserves are related to this, that or the other thing, whether they are related to exports from a country or to imports to a country, national income or gross national product. I do not know and nobody has told me as yet. The Taoiseach should ask some of his brilliant economic advisers to answer that question: at what level are our external reserves deemed to be safe? If that is a certain figure over which we stand now, why cannot we ensure that our reserves would be run down to that figure in order to ensure that some of the restrictive measures that have been taken today would not be taken? The Taoiseach on one occasion talked about the voluntary repatriation of our external assets. Everybody applauded that sentiment. I wonder has the Taoiseach followed it up in any concrete way by more direct advice to those who have external assets, whether they are banks or others, because, if there is one thing we lack more than another it is money for investment and we certainly would favour the redemption of some of these moneys in order to give people employment in this country.
Related to the question of employment is the question of industrial employment because industrial employment is the only means by which we can create jobs. Both of the programmes for economic expansion have been admitted by the Government to be failures. One of the reasons submitted by Arthur D. Little in his excellent report was that the level of investment so far was not nearly enough in order to provide even the minimum number of jobs required. We were told some years ago that the industrial growth centres would provide much more employment. No effective action has been taken in this matter. I do not see any great upsurge in employment in these centres where we were supposed to have industrial estates and where there was to be a dramatic increase in industrial growth.
I do not know what plans the Government have in their Third Programme to attain even the minimum target as suggested by the NIEC Report on Full Employment. The Government admit that 236,000 jobs are needed every 15 years, that we must get 12,500 per annum. We certainly have not got anything like this number.
Again at the risk of being told that I engage in repetition, may I say that one of our failures is due to our absolute reliance on private enterprise? I remember the Fianna Fáil Party in 1932, when I was quite young. It was the socialist party. It was the revolutionary Republican party. These were the people who were going to give us industry. I do not think it can be denied that they have had sufficient time, even to go back to the first principles of 1932, to concern themselves much more than they have done with the State's role in the matter of providing jobs. We believe in direct State investment in industry. We believe in the expansion of State-owned industries by the setting up of new industries. We believe in the general development of the existing semi-State bodies. Mark you, the Government have not yet even got around to thinking about these things. It must be abundantly clear that over the past ten years, and since the First Programme for Economic Expansion was announced, we have not been getting sufficient from private enterprise, whether from home or outside, in order to provide the jobs we need. As a matter of fact, in that regard we have relied too much on outsiders. There was an influx up to about four years ago but I do not hear of any factories being established here now by those who would sink their money in this country. I do not see great government activity in trying to induce these to come here apart from the incentives which were announced five or six years ago.
Again, let us plead for an expansion of food-processing. It is a scandal to see the vast majority of our cattle exports being exported on the hoof. There are some factories which have developed the food-processing industry, even though not in too large a way, and we can do with all this. Whether or not we are prevented from doing this by some terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement I do not know. I believe also that Córas Tráchtála should be given far greater powers in order that they might assist to a greater extent in the selling of our products.
As it is, while they do give a certain amount of guidance and advice, small firms which could afford to export have not got the facilities themselves to seek markets and to sell abroad.
Today the Taoiseach referred to the Third Programme. It seems to me that it is going to be the same mixture as before, a range of incentives and inducements which people can take or leave. So far as industry is concerned we have gone past the time when we can leave it merely to incentives and inducements. We have failed badly by that method to the extent that we have not got the maximum employment which there should be in industry in view of the money we have invested. Despite their previous efforts in the early 1930's Fianna Fáil have not got a solution for industrial development. They can rightly boast about the number of new industries established over the last ten years or at any time they were in office but the fact is that we have not got enough. It is not sufficient to say that we have increased them by this, that or the other percentage and that there are tens of thousands more in employment.
The motion which I have down and which will be voted on refers to the Government's failure in various spheres and the failure of various ministries. I will leave it to members of my Party to talk about these matters in greater detail. Perhaps the Chair would assist me by letting me know how much longer I have to speak?
The Deputy's time will expire at four minutes after 9 o'clock.
I propose to deal with some other matters briefly. I believe that when the people voted in the referendum they were also thinking about other matters such as the failure of the Government in regard to providing employment. It is a talking point among tens of thousands of people that we still have not got a proper health scheme. The failure to provide that is another thing which motivated some of them when they voted on the 16th October. The late Deputy Donogh O'Malley when he was Minister for Health produced a White Paper about three or four years ago. The White Paper included certain Government proposals to provide for an improvement in the present health scheme. They were not over-ambitious proposals but they were proposals the majority of which pleased the Labour Party although they did not go as far as the Labour Party wants to go.
However, we saw in them a vast improvement on the present scheme. This was about the spring of 1966 and now nearly three years afterwards there has been no improvement whatsoever in the health scheme which we have been operating for the past 15 years. We had the Minister for Health of the day telling us that there would be legislation in this session. We asked him whether he meant before Easter and he said "yes". It never materialised. We asked would it be before summer but it did not materialise. Now we are promised it for this session. The Minister said we would have the new proposals before Christmas. I do not believe we will.
I suppose there will be a scrambled effort by him to produce something before the general election which inevitably must be held in the near future. There is still the same dissatisfaction. I often wonder if Fianna Fáil torture the people deliberately with regard to health or taxation or in respect of other things over which they have control. Do they save up all these complaints, even aggravate them, then before an election provide a solution? Despite all the claims made for social welfare benefits everybody would readily agree that they are certainly below par. They have been increased to a very great extent, in so far as the increase per week is concerned, compared with—perhaps somebody would say—when I was Minister for Social Welfare, or perhaps even before that. We are making up a lot of ground but the rate is too slow. Those who talk about my performance as Minister for Social Welfare are not doing much service, and I do not think that I would be doing much service if I started to emphasise that between 1932 and 1948 the old age pension stayed at 10s per week. For 16 years it was only 10s but, however, that does not arise in 1968.
(Interruptions.)
Where is Mr. Blythe now who served you so well as a whipping boy?
Order.
You clasped him to your hearts.
I do not think there is any need for me to talk about agriculture or the lack of confidence the farmers have in the Government. The most outrageous spectacle we saw in recent months was the attitude of the two Ministers for Agriculture towards the farming community. First we had Deputy Haughey as he was Minister for Agriculture and then we had Deputy Blaney. It was both pathetic and amusing to hear the Minister a month before the referendum asking the farmers "for God's sake to see him" when he had refused to see them for 14 months before that. The evidence is there in the slow infinitesimal growth in production, in the thousands leaving the land every year and in the attitude of the various Ministers for Agriculture—and perhaps the Government, I do not know—towards the various farming organisations and in the farmers' falling incomes. I am not an expert on milk production but it appears to me that when one takes the average dairy farmer the 1d per gallon will mean about 5/- per week.
I do not know whether anybody should talk about the Minister for Local Government. He has his troubles. The plain fact is that he did not get the people to change the Constitution and neither did he succeed in getting houses for the people. May I say one word about something which the Taoiseach mentioned? It was in regard to the attitude of the Labour Party before and after the next election. Surely our stand is justified by the attitude both of the Taoiseach and some members of the Fine Gael Party. I do not think anybody will criticise us for being suspicious when some members of the Fine Gael Party want us to go into a coalition while the Taoiseach himself would be pleased for us to go into a coalition. I do not think anybody would regard the Labour Party as political fools considering that the Labour Party are fully aware that the tactics of the other two Parties are to try to put the Labour Party in an embarrassing position. I do not think either Party has an interest in the fortunes of the Labour Party as such.
We have decided on our attitude. We are concerned to get the government of this country. Some may say that will take a long time. It may, but I do not believe the Labour Party should play second or third fiddle to any other Party at this particular point in our history. We decided long ago to test every constituency with the maximum number of candidates in the next general election. We will ask the people to judge us as individuals and as a Party on our performance in Dáil Éireann and on the policy statements we will put before them. They will judge our sincerity, our aims and our attitudes. Despite taunts from the Minister for External Affairs, and from other people who are not even in politics, we put our candidate before the electorate in Limerick and we increased our vote substantially. We put our candidate before the electorate in Cork and we increased our vote substantially. We did the same in Wicklow. I would say the Labour Party were responsible for a big share of the votes cast against the Government's proposals in the referendum. We do not intend to play second fiddle to any Party. My Party and our organisation will strive to build Labour and make it a major Party. It may be a long haul. Maybe those in Fianna Fáil in 1925 and 1926 thought it would be a long haul then.
There was a dramatic change in the attitude of the people on 16th October last. The one thing clear and definite was the swing of 174,000 votes away from the Fianna Fáil Party. I cannot say how many of those votes were due to the attitude of the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party, or the trade union movement, but there was a definite swing towards Labour.
I believe that in the next general election, which we now call upon the Taoiseach to declare—I do not believe he will call a general election—Labour will gain substantially. The Taoiseach boasted that Fianna Fáil went before the country in seven by-elections and won six. Wexford has two Fianna Fáil representatives, one Fine Gael and one Labour. It is a county in which the Government could well be tested and, if the Taoiseach does not intend to hold a general election in view of the referendum result, I would ask him to test Fianna Fáil policy in the Wexford by-election.
I was surprised to hear Deputy Cosgrave describe the result of the referendum as a rejection of Fianna Fáil by the people. That comment comes most strangely from him because, if he is correct in that, then the referendum result is also a rejection of Deputy Cosgrave by the people, just as the position in which he found himself meant he had been rejected as well by the majority of his own Party. The result of the referendum was, in fact, a victory for the natural conservation of our people and the result was rejoiced over for the most part by our two conservative parties, Fine Gael and Labour.
Not conservatism: conservation of liberty.
If Deputy O'Leary wants "conservation" I shall go with him, but there is no question of liberty involved. That is something which the people are sufficiently mature to begin to realise now. In the minds of certain Labour Deputies, such as Deputy O'Leary, there is a complete lack of appreciation as to what is the guarantee of liberty in a democratic society. He and some newspaper commentators seem to think there is greater liberty when there is weak government. That is a complete illusion. It is when there is weak government that strong pressure groups exploit the people. It is the job of strong government to resist such small but powerful pressure groups. This is a matter which does not arise at the moment I am very glad to say. We had it with two Coalition Governments. We have emerged from that era.
(Interruptions.)
We have certainly no intention of entering any coalition with Labour.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies allow Deputy Booth to make his speech? They will get their opportunity.
Neither have we any intention of entering a coalition with Fine Gael. All our experience has shown that coalition government can never give satisfaction because policies conflict and, because of that conflict, they can never succeed.
Having spoken to many people since the referendum, I am convinced that the majority voted by instinct and not by reason. There was an instinctive reaction against change. Voters were influenced also to some extent by the accusations against Fianna Fáil and the highly sinister motives alleged to be behind the Fianna Fáil proposals. Furthermore, the issue was extraordinarily complicated and very few voters took the trouble to study seriously the whole question because it was very, very difficult and the raising of every conceivable irrelevancy by Opposition speakers certainly did not help.
We have been told that we were foolish and that we were clearly incompetent because of our failure to realise in advance that the people would not agree to the proposals. The people who are so quick to say that gloss over the fact that all the political commentators and the political columnists were forecasting a very close result and nobody was more surprised at the result than Fine Gael and Labour who had obviously no idea that the result would be so decisive. It was a big disappointment to us. At the count in Dún Laoghaire a leading Fine Gael official came up to me and asked: "Are you disappointed?" I said: "I am very disappointed." He looked over his shoulder in both directions and then whispered to me: "So am I." I said: "Why did you not come with us?" He said: "It was our fault. We got panicked into voting against because we thought you took your decision very quickly. We got into a panic. We took the wrong decision and we are all going to suffer now."
That was the Good Samaritan the Deputy met.
It was not. It was a man who realised, as Deputy L'Estrange, Deputy Oliver Flanagan and Deputy Cosgrave realised all along, that the referendum proposals were the right ones.
The Deputy was the man who signed the motion at the Fianna Fáil Party meeting. He had an amendment down at the Fianna Fáil Party meeting signed by himself and another Fianna Fáil Deputy.
Now, the Deputy's information is wrong.
Do not laugh.
It is not.
If the Deputy wants to get the facts I will give them, but I think they will only confuse him. There was no question of any amendment in my name. There was a motion put down by me, which I stood over, to discuss the Norton amendment.
The Taoiseach told us today it was unanimous.
The fact that we discuss a thing does not prevent its being unanimous. I wanted to, and I did, ensure that the Norton amendment was fully debated at a Party meeting. The result was a unanimous vote.
The Deputy even voted for it himself.
I am sorry this is such a disappointment for Deputy L'Estrange.
None whatever.
He should check his source of information much more carefully. I do not know how much he paid for that information and whether it was on microfilm or what.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Deputy suggesting that Fianna Fáil TDs would take money for it?
Deputy Booth should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
Deputy L'Estrange should be more careful. If he paid for that information he should ask for his money back.
That is a terrible reflection on the Deputy's own Party.
It is.
We knew from the start that this would be a very tough struggle, but this is the difference between Fianna Fáil and other Parties.
Tell us.
Because something is tough we do not drop it. If we believe a thing is right we go for it whether or not we think the people will agree. In this case the people did not agree. Fair enough. It is their worry from now on. At least we put before them what we believed at the time, and still believe, was the right proposal.
It is a wonder then that the Deputy did not suggest it to the committee on the Constitution.
We were under no illusion that it would be an easy walk-over.
It was far from being a walk-over.
That is typical of our attitude. Even if we know a thing will be tough we do it. Deputy Corish and others have been commenting on the need for ministerial changes. There, again, is a great difference between the Opposition Parties and ourselves. We believe it is the business of the Government to frame policy and carry it out.
And passengers.
The Opposition Parties seem to feel it is the political commentators and the leader writers who should have the framing of policy without the responsibility of carrying it out. They feel that simply because the political commentators say there must be political changes, that is a revelation from on high and there must be ministerial changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember these journalists are men who have a job to do. They have to fill a column and do it to the best of their ability. At certain times they make mistakes, and at other times they may try to hit the headlines with suggestions, queries, innuendoes, and so on. Small blame to them. That is part of their trade. We are not influenced by them. If a newspaper columnist says the Taoiseach must go, that will not produce a split in our ranks. We do not allow ourselves to be ruled by the newspapers or television or——
Or public opinion.
They leave it to Taca instead.
That is a typically idiotic remark which could come from Fine Gael only and does not deserve any serious reply.
Fianna Fáil took their money and used it—ill-gotten gains. Easy come, easy go.
Some of the newspapers which opposed the referendum proposals were quick enough to realise the morning afterwards, and honest enough to say so, that we are now faced with the status quo, and that there is no alternative to Fianna Fáil as the Government. At this stage I find it difficult to keep my temper. They were saying one thing up to the referendum, and then suddenly they were saying: “What will we do now? There is no alternative to Fianna Fáil.”
I wonder would the Deputy give the quotation. On a point of order——
That is not a point of order.
If the Deputy is quoting certain people he should give the quotation.
The Deputy is speaking generally. He did not mention anyone in particular.
The Deputy alleges he read it in the papers.
I will also allege that Deputy Flanagan read it in the papers.
I do not read the same paper as the Deputy.
The Deputy must read the Independent occasionally.
Then it is the Independent the Deputy is trying to attack.
No. Let us quote the Independent.
That is what we asked for.
There is a quotation which may not give the Deputies any great pleasure. Let us take the editorial in today's Independent. I quote:
The Opposition parties, so far, have taken a different and potentially most dangerous view. Since the night of the results they have indulged in gorilla-like chest-thumping, laying claim to all the credit for the people's decision, interpreting the vote as a rejection of the Government root-and-branch and asserting variously that what the country desires without delay is a Fine Gael and/or Labour administration. It needs to be bluntly said that there is no title of evidence to sustain this extravagant conclusion, and both Opposition parties had better drop it fast for their own good.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Flanagan takes the trouble to read that carefully and agree with it, there is some hope for him still, and even Deputy Donegan might not be beyond salvation.
I never criticised the Press.
The Deputy should read the Independent when it is dealing with a point of wisdom rather than a point of pure prejudice. There is no question of prejudice about that leading article which goes on to say:
There were two questions at the referendum. The people repudiated the Government's view on these two questions. It is reasonable to suppose, in the particular circumstances, that they also repudiated the mentality within the Government which caused the questions to be put. We know, and the people know, that this mentality belongs only to a segment of Fianna Fáil.
I leave the quotation there to say I do not agree with that bit. To go back to the quotation:
That is all we can truly say was rejected. To take it further would be to argue that many Fianna Fáil voters (in County Clare, for example) no longer want a Fianna Fáil Government, which is ludicrous. It would also mean that the people want a general election. They don't.
That must be a most consoling article for the Deputy. He will frame it.
I assure the Deputy that it is much more consoling to me than it is to him.
I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister for External Affairs will also frame it.
I do not think anyone can say that the leading article in today's Independent was written by a member of Fianna Fáil, a member of Taca, or by any other person prejudiced in favour of the Fianna Fáil Party. Let us get this clear. This decision at the referendum was the decision of the people to maintain the status quo simply because they were not sure what a change might entail. Every conceivable means was used to create doubts in people's minds as to what the result might be. Only the future will show what the actual result of their decision will be but my experience so far has been that many people have spoken to me and have stated quite openly that they voted “No”. They have stated, however, that they are now beginning to wonder if they should have voted “Yes” and that certainly they will vote Fianna Fáil in the next election.
I thought the Deputy was going to say the next referendum.
We had the introduction today of certain financial measures. The Budget was not a very mini, mini one but some financial measures were obviously necessary. Neither do I, personally, nor does anyone, welcome increased taxation. As Members undoubtedly know, I have declared a personal interest in regard to high-priced articles, subject to turn-over tax, in the motor trade. This increase is certainly no gift to the motor trade, nor is it of any benefit to the motoring public. Probably something like that was necessary but I would ask the Minister for Finance, through the Taoiseach who introduced the measures on his behalf, to temper the wind a little towards the motor industry and the motoring public.
The selective wholesale tax will now go up from five to ten per cent. On top of that we have the turnover tax which is heavy and, in addition, we have heavy import duty on material coming in for assembly of vehicles or on completed vehicles assembled in fully built-up condition. Even the material coming in for assembly is liable to duty at 7½ per cent which, together with wholesale tax and turnover tax, totals about 14½ per cent. While I feel that I may be prejudiced—in fact I undoubtedly am —it would not be right for me not to let the Minister know that I am of the opinion, as many others are also, that the time has come to have another look in future at increased taxation and not to go too heavily on the motor industry. This industry is a very big employer and it will suffer very seriously if taxes are raised too high.
There is no question of a stop-go policy. Even though these measures are necessary, there is no question of putting our economy back. I agree with the Taoiseach that we are making progress. We have made progress and the only danger signal is that the rate of progress has been a little too fast and there is a very real danger of inflation. This is not a question of stop-go. This is a question of real measures being taken to counteract the present rate of growth. We will go on expanding, but we must go on expanding within some sort of control so that the whole system does not run riot. If it does run riot, we are heading for disaster.
We have been told by Deputy Corish that the Government should have taken some action to avoid this situation. How naïve can one become? The root cause of this situation is the sudden rise in personal incomes which are well ahead of the increase in the growth of national production. What were the Government supposed to do about that? It ill behoves Deputy Corish, who claims to be the champion of the working man and a champion of the free collective bargaining system, to speak like this. Would Deputy Corish and his Labour Party colleagues prefer a repudiation of free collective wage negotiations?
We should have an investigation into the £24,000 given to the Deputy's directors last year. That sum was set aside last year for the directors of Booth Poole. How many directors are there?
This is typical of the ignorance and personal animosity of the Deputy and I shall not rise to it.
The Deputy asked a question about our attitude to incomes. There is a question for him.
The affairs of the company of which I am chairman have nothing to do with the Deputy.
The remark should not have been made.
The Deputy introduced the matter a while ago in his speech.
The Deputy will not get under my skin by making——
I am sorry if I got under the Deputy's skin. The Deputy is walking on water when he talks about income.
I am not walking on water but I will refrain from making any personal remarks about the Deputy.
I did not make a personal remark. It is fact. I envy the Deputy's directors.
This is a sure sign of the bankruptcy of the Labour Party and its enthusiastic but irresponsible spokesmen. I cannot think of any reason why the Deputy indulges in a personal attack?
The Deputy asked rhetorical questions of our Party and there is a factual answer.
I did not ask a rhetorical question.
The Deputy misquoted Deputy Corish and he said also——
Deputy O'Leary has no right to make these interruptions.
It is very hard not to make them.
My heart bleeds for the Deputy——
Mind, it does not stain the carpet.
——I suppose the Deputy must grab at anything that occurs to him, but the fact remains that the free collective bargaining process would result in a very rapid rise in personal income and the only action that could be taken by the Government would be a wage freeze, which is not the sort of thing the Labour Party claims to be in favour of.
If the Budget of last April had been introduced properly——
£24,000 in directors fees.
If the Deputy wants to do it on that basis, I must inform him that no directors fees have been paid in the company of which I am chairman during the past two years. The Deputy should get his facts straight. He is as ignorant——
Is the Deputy saying that £24,000 was not set aside last year for directors fees?
I am saying precisely that. They have not been paid. Will the Deputy accept that?
No, my figures are otherwise and I shall query them.
The Deputy does not know how to read the annual report of the company—he does not even know how to read. No fees were paid to directors in that company during the past two years.
What about the nine per cent then?
Deputy O'Leary may not continue these arguments. If he does I shall have to ask him to leave the House. This is not a court room.
Perhaps we can get back to the point at issue. We have enjoyed in this country under Fianna Fáil Governments a steadily rising standard of living but we are not satisfied with what we have got so far. In spite of what Deputy Corish has said, we do not get any joy from imposing taxation. We do not impose taxation just for the fun of it. Nobody ever does. No Government will introduce taxation unless it is absolutely necessary and in the public interest. But here again, as the Taoiseach has said, when we find there is an absolute necessity we do not flinch from doing it. Even at a time like this, we do not hesitate for a moment to take action which we know will be unpopular but which we know to be absolutely necessary.
It is a time like this.
Let the public remember there is a great difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition are always in the happy position of being able to advocate any sort of policy they like under the present régime because they know there is not the slightest danger they will be asked to carry it out. That is the difference. People will say why is the Government not more adventurous and why do they not produce more policies. They can only produce policies from this side of the House when they can see their way to carrying them out. It is fine for the Labour Party to say that the social welfare benefits should be higher and that education should be free and that everybody should have free entry to the university.
I said so far as social welfare was concerned we believe the employer should pay more on the stamp.
Exactly. Always make sure the employer is the fellow who pays.
Why should he not?
It is always the employer who pays. It is not the question of the capitalist——
Why should he not look after his employees?
He does.
He should look after them better.
Obviously everybody is trying to do his best. It is typical that we advocate everybody doing better for everybody else.
So we do. Be realistic.
Yes.
You are not talking to a secondary school class now.
You see now the obvious difference between good housekeeping by Fianna Fáil and bad housekeeping by the Government of which Deputy Corish was a member. It was great fun for them and they thought Deputy Lemass had grandiose ideas about transatlantic airlines and subsidising the purchase of Constellation aircraft so they said: "Let us sell these aircraft and distribute the funds." That is just like a profligate father of a family who says "Let us cash all the savings and have fun. Let us go away for a holiday, and spend all the money." Then he comes home and says "How are we going to get through the rest of the year? How are we going to pay for clothes for the children? We have run out of reserves."
What about your fun palace at Potez? That is a pretty good fun palace.
I did not realise I had been appointed to the board of Potez. I was not conscious of running it at all.
You are still in the Party.
Potez was not opened up by the Fianna Fáil Party.
It was opened up by Deputy Lemass.
There are a number of Labour people who have at various stages opened various buildings. I am sure it does not necessarily mean what they opened became the property of the Labour Party.
It is essential in any question of good housekeeping to retain reserves. So far as international finance is concerned, it is wise to spread reserves as widely as possible. We do not believe in giving extra cash out of reserves or giving an extra 10/- a week to old age pensioners——
You do not do it from that sort of money. It is used for capital purposes. You do not starve your children with money in the bank.
Let us get to this capital fund and State investment in industry. Deputy Corish declared his abhorrence of our undue reliance on private enterprise. I remember not so long ago Deputy Corish getting up and castigating the Government for its wickedness in setting up a State industry in Dundalk, the Dundalk Engineering Company.
I did not.
One minute——
I did not. Let him substantiate that or withdraw.
I will substantiate it.
I applauded the Government for doing it.
Dundalk Engineering was entering into competition in the manufacture of agricultural equipment in competition with Pierce and Company of Wexford which happens to be in his own constituency.
I did not say that.
I knew that would get under his skin.
Look up the records.
I will.
Deputy Booth should be allowed to proceed.
That is a sign of his sincerity in regard to the interest taken by the State in the industry. Mr. Corish was afraid of losing some votes amongst the employees of Pierce and Sons of Wexford.
I have heard you better.
They were manufacturing agricultural equipment like harrows and ploughs in Dundalk.
A Deputy
You are still shocked by the referendum results.
Will Deputy Booth be allowed to make his contribution at this stage?
Possibly Deputy Corish will consult the records himself.
I will. I applauded the Government for establishing Dundalk because it was the first time they ever did anything in relation to unemployment.
You got off the band wagon very quickly when I mentioned Pierce and Company.
I got twice as many votes at the last election as you did.
You will not the next time.
A point of order. Is this Deputy talking to a time limit? I want to know does this time limit rule not apply to the Right Honourable and gallant Member from the Royal Borough?
It applies to every speaker in the House.
I am not trying to fill up time. I am merely giving my own views but I am not surprised they are most offensive to members of the Opposition because I am trying to keep to facts and it has always been a noticeable feature of the Opposition that facts confuse and annoy them. There is no lack of confidence in the Government as such or of Government policy as such.
You are out of touch.
There is no demand for a general election.
After today there is no use in talking.
I hope Deputy Flanagan will write to the Irish Independent.
Would the Deputy allow the Deputy to make a contribution?
Surely no Deputy in the House, either inside or outside this House, agrees with the Deputy that there is not a general outcry for a general election?
The Deputy has a limited time to make a statement at this stage.
There are two people at least who believe that the people do not want a general election—the editor of the Irish Independent and myself.
You are in excellent company.
We are not in a minority. I think it is most unlikely that, when he and I find ourselves in agreement, there are not a lot of other people agreeing with us.
You were not in complete agreement during the referendum.
When we are in agreement, I think that between us we represent a considerable body of public opinion. There is no desire for a general election on the Fine Gael benches no matter how much they may whistle going past the graveyard. I do not think Labour are so anxious for it either. In any case, they are not going to get it. Therefore, they can get on with their job.
You can be sure of that.
Deputy Booth must be privy to Cabinet proceedings.
I am not privy to anything. I keep my eyes and my ears open.
You sound like it to me. You do not worry about it.
There is no demand for a general election. There is no swing of confidence away from the Fianna Fáil Government.
Now who is whistling past the graveyard?
I am already past the graveyard. As the editor of the Irish Independent says, there is no call for a general election but there is a call for the Opposition Parties, in particular, to sort out their own policies, to make up their minds and, above all, to realise, in the editor's own words, that any idea that there is a desire to have a Fine Gael and/or Labour administration is completely false.
On a point of order. That is a misquotation. That is not in the leading article.
On a point of information. In the firm of Booth Poole, directors remuneration last year was £22,609. I am sorry. I had to correct the figures. They are to be found in Trade Union Information, October, 1968. You call it “fees”. It is “remuneration” here.
Deputy O'Leary made an assertion about fees. He now has to admit——
It is "remuneration".
No fees are paid. The Deputy does not know the difference between fees and salary.
It is good, hard cash whether it be fees or——
It is a little better than 1d per gallon.
I shall have to leave the House. I would not bother with Deputy Booth's nonsense.
How does Deputy Booth manage to get along on £22,000? How does he justify it?
How does Deputy Booth justify a penny a gallon after that?
Will Deputies please desist from interrupting Deputy Booth? He must be allowed to make his statement without interruption.
I should just like to reiterate one point. The entire bankruptcy of political thought among the Opposition has been revealed, beyond all shadow of doubt, by the fact that this debate is degenerating into the present attack on myself and the company by which I am employed. I myself, and the company, will not be worried by the ignorant interjections of those Deputies——
Deputy Booth is not bankrupt, anyhow.
I would ask them, even at this late stage, to try to confine themselves in this House to matters of public interest rather than to indulge in personal and entirely false accusations against me.
The editor of the Irish Independent will take due notice of Deputy Booth's remarks. The Deputy will probably get a nice headline about that tomorrow.
I was amused by the trend of the debate in the past ten or 15 minutes and the discussion on directors' fees, remuneration, and so on. Without wishing to be offensive about it. I would say, being a company director myself, that the one place I like to be is away from the company and here in Dáil Éireann.
I want now to discuss seriously all that has happened. The mini-Budget today—which I call the maxi-culottes Budget—is the artifice by which the Government have succeeded in getting two motions of No Confidence discussed with it as well as the launching of a new national loan. The practice of this House has always been that, for good productive purposes and the employment of our people, all Parties support a national loan. I point to the artifice of the Government through which the Opposition representatives had no alternative but to agree to a situation in which the Taoiseach was in a position to take the initiative.
We did not agree to the loan being discussed or to the Budget being discussed with the Vote of No Confidence——
This is an example of how the Government are prepared to use and abuse this House for their own purposes. As Deputy Ryan has so well corrected me, the Government are prepared to use and abuse everything for their own purposes. Therefore, it is not unlikely that they would use and abuse this House in the same way.
The question arises as to whether or not it was possible to predict what has happened today in relation to the mini-Budget. I would quote from the Irish Independent of 1st May, 1968, and also from columns 516 and 517 of volume 234, No. 4, of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, 30th April, 1968. For my purposes, it is necessary only to quote a few words from the Irish Independent and to give the reference in the Dáil debates.
Mr. Donegan said that while the Budget was an easy Budget it was also a challenging one. The Minister had not accepted that challenge. This raised the question of whether it was an election Budget either for a referendum or for a general election.
The headline on that occasion was quite sufficient—"Balance of Payments will not be Rosy at the End of the Year, says TD." I do not want to claim kudos for that. I do not want to take any pleasure out of saying "I told you so".
It is quite clear that the Government are ready to use and abuse everything in this State for their own purposes and included in that are the finances of the State. They were prepared to produce a Budget which, on the information they had—and which we had not and could only, therefore, offer an opinion—was not a proper Budget, which did not face the challenge and in relation to which many people were in a position—I am not a financial expert—to predict what would happen, as has happened today. If it was possible to predict in this way then the degree of error that is here, the degree of discrepancy here between the estimates produced at Budget time both of expenditure and of revenue, is so great as to indicate that it was not a mistake and that these people were prepared to use and abuse this year's main Budget in April for their own purposes, namely, to try to get through the two referenda proposals that were intended to install Fianna Fáil in office for the next 20 years, without a means of getting them out. The degree of error revealed today in the table furnished with the mini-Budget, which I refer to as a maxi-Budget, is £18¾ million in five months.
Let us consider why it was necessary to have these Parliamentary artifices. Let us consider why it was necessary to introduce a national loan. Let us consider why it was necessary to mix up the mini-Budget with the votes of no confidence. These artifices by the Government were necessary because they had no answer. Therefore, they would only try to find some bush behind which to hide. The bush, of course, is Dáil Éireann. They want to hide here rather than to go out and meet the people.
I want to suggest to the people of this country and to the Members of Dáil Éireann that they should consider what sort of an uproar there would be in this House if we were sitting over there on the Government Benches and they were sitting over here on the Opposition benches and we were in the circumstances in which the Government are today, namely, that we had been defeated in a referendum by over three quarter of a million votes and refused to go to the country and, instead, proposed a new national loan, a mini-Budget and a motion from our Taoiseach all at the same time. Just imagine the howls there would be in Dáil Éireann today if that situation obtained, howls that would bring down this roof. I have seen in different days particularly the present Minister for Agriculture howl and shout at Deputy John A. Costello; I have seen Deputy Seán Lemass interrupt him 49 times in one speech. What would have happened today if we were over there and they were over here? My friend, the Minister for Health, sitting across there knows exactly what happened in the past. I want to ask how would Fianna Fáil have behaved today?
Does the Taoiseach claim every advancement since 1957? Europe advanced since 1957. Britain advanced since 1957. They have had their difficulties, both of them. The world advanced since 1957. Is every move forward to be produced as a cold, fish-like statistic by the Taoiseach to-day? Does he claim that anything that happened since 1957 is due to Fianna Fáil and that nobody else in this country had anything to do with it? Does he claim he is entitled in his entire speech—mark you, I christened him Honest John and the press changed it to Honest Jack; I think Honest John is more phonetic—if he is Honest John, to use "value" instead of "volume" and to say so much was spent on housing in 1956 and so much in 1967 or 1968, while we all know the pound is worth only half as much as it was then? Is he entitled not to mention the question of emigration? Is he entitled to allow his Ministers, for every one of whom he is responsible, to refuse to answer the questions of Deputy Oliver Flanagan on emigration and to leave us with the impression that he is not interested?
Let us face the fact that our educational system is the worst in Western Europe. Let us remember that Fine Gael produced their policy on this a good few years ago and if it was not stolen it was certainly compulsorily acquired by the Government. We have not got a situation whereby boys and girls, whose mothers and fathers cannot pay for their university education, can avail of such education if they are of the standard of intelligence and education to merit such an opportunity.
Let us also face the fact that we have the worst health service in Europe. I have the greatest pity for the Minister for Health in this instance. Unless we can arrive at a situation in which no further health charges will be put on the rates but that they will be borne by the Central Exchequer, the Minister must keep coming back to the House to say we cannot afford to make proper provision for health services for our people. That is the Minister's position. It is the policy of the Government. It is our job here to state our point of view and to suggest to the people that perhaps they should change their allegiance from Fianna Fáil and give us an opportunity to move over where they are so that we can implement a better policy.
In agriculture 10,000 people are leaving the land per year. We have failed entirely in regard to any intensive type of agriculture, whether it be horticulture or anything else, that would keep more of our people on the land. I agree the Government have provided grants for various aspects of agriculture but they are not adequate to deal with the situation. I was shadow Minister for Agriculture for four or five years, and if I were to have a chat with Deputy Clinton, who now has that job to do, as to what would be necessary for agriculture, I think we would have to agree that it would take as long as three to five years to clear up the appalling mess that has been created by the Minister for Agriculture who set out to destroy the biggest farming organisation in this country, the National Farmers' Association.
The Taoiseach, who has this aura of being apart from the other boys, to use a very kindly term in regard to him, is responsible for this situation. He has supported Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture, in his efforts to break the NFA. If the gamble failed and if Deputy Blaney had to go to the bookie and pay the price he has only himself to blame. Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach have similarly to go to the same bookie, the bookie being the people. They do not want to go to that bookie again because they have already gambled very heavily and lost on this occasion.
Without going into detail on certain things, what were the reasons, for instance, for the great increase in the volume of milk produced and the increase in wheat production this year? The reasons were that the general overheads on the farm today had gone to the stage where a man who has to support his wife and children had to select some form of production which would give him a reasonable return rather than continue with other branches of farming which have been neglected and left derelict by Fianna Fáil. Now Fianna Fáil are talking about the production of beef and the production of other things. I have not heard them saying anything about self feed silage units in the last ten years. We must conserve our grass during the wintertime and feed it to our cattle all the year round.
I listened today to the Taoiseach using this trickly statistic of value instead of volume. I should be very pleased if, when he is replying to this debate, he would talk about housing and how much was being spent on houses. Last night I came home from the town of Dundalk having interviewed people there from 9.45 until 12.30 a.m., having been in Drogheda from 7.30 on the same job. I interviewed a young couple in Drogheda who had a baby of one year—they had to bring the child with them—who are living in a shed at the back of a house in Pearse Park. Is that not a horrible situation in 1968, two young people living with their baby in a shed with the water running down the walls? I went to Dundalk and I will resign from this House if anyone can prove this is not true: I interviewed a man who is living in a boarding house and whose three children are incarcerated in the Blessed Oliver Plunket Hospital, a hospital for old people, in Dundalk.
In these circumstances the Taoiseach, whose Party has been in office for ten continuous years, has the gross impertinence to talk about housing and to create that aura of respectibility about himself that he is not associated with Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney. Let us face the fact that we must get these people out if we are to do anything for the people.
Let us consider the position of Ministers. Can the Minister for Agriculture get any good voluntarily from the farmers? Will he be forever driving them along and must he continue to make violent attacks on them? As regards the Minister for Local Government, will he get voluntary help from the people from whom he needs help in the building of houses and the provision of amenities? Remember the arrogance of Fianna Fáil. This is a man who never served a day as an ordinary Deputy of this House. A man who arrived here today, because his father had been a Minister during 30 years was made a Minister tomorrow. That is an example of arrogance if nothing else.
Imagine the situation in which my colleague in Louth, the Minister for External Affairs, is burning the rubber from my constituency to Dáil Éireann as hard as he can making every effort to save his Party's skin. Maureen Potter in a Gaiety Theatre pantomime was asked if Deputy Aiken was living in the past: "Not at all" she said, "that man is living in New York". This Government have become rancid and they have got to be put out if there is any good to be done for Ireland. They spoke about the Irish Independent. It is my opinion that that newspaper went a long way too far during the referendum and that they have to be nice now. Perhaps, I am saying something for which I shall be sorry——
What about the Irish Press?
I never read the thing. A fellow who lives near me buys the thing and he gives it to me but I never read it.
It does not be bad by times.
Let us now take the Ministers one by one. The Minister for Education is in open warfare with everybody on the academic staffs of the universities. I seek a denial of that statement from him. Read the newspapers. His merger, which should be to bring together, is dividing in diametrically opposite directions and all he can do is make a speech now and again. Can we get anything good from this man for the education of our children?
The Minister sitting opposite at the moment is a personal friend of mine. He has not reached agreement with the Irish Medical Association or the Irish Medical Union. Reconciliation was attempted many years ago. We had a running battle between Deputy MacEntee, as Minister for Health, and the IMA and the IMU which lasted for years. We had a select committee on the health services on which I served. There was a big "do" in Ivy House the likes of which was never heard or seen before. Every surgeon, every paediatrician, every gynaecologist, everyone who had anything to do with medicine in this country, including members of the select committee, was at it and we had the Army band playing sweet music from the balcony. A nicer night you could not have had.
Then Deputy MacEntee moved out of the Department of Health and we had other Ministers for Health, including the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley, the Lord rest his soul, and we are now back at square one: the doctors have not agreed and I suggest that a further change of personnel in the Department is needed. Affiliation seems to be the only thing that might do some good.
Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong if this or any other Party were to move along in the old Annie-Get-Your-Gun fashion of saying: "Anything you can do I can do better". I do not think that is good enough. If the people of Ireland wish to change their Government, they should be given the opportunity to do so. They should be told what they are getting by way of government. I eschew the line Deputy Seán Lemass followed. He had two slogans, one being "Wives put your husbands to work," and the other, "Let us get cracking".
And "Let Lemass lead on".
"Give us a blank cheque," they said. "Do not worry about policies, vote for Fianna Fáil. Was not that poor devil always a decent man". Deputy Cosgrave today mentioned political sophistication. The people are sophisticated enough now to vote in the referendum as they thought fit. Now the challenge is here for the Opposition Parties to put their policies before the people to work like niggers from now until the next general election, which I hope is not long away, to try to let every person in their constituencies, in the country, know their policies, to let them be judged by these policies.
I wish to mention a few of the things that matter in this respect, but, first of all, let us consider the suggestion of the Taoiseach—it was a rather sly suggestion—that there is no hope of any other Government as an alternative to Fianna Fáil—that there can be nothing but a Coalition Government or a Fianna Fáil Government. I should like to refer again to something I mentioned during the past six or nine months and which I hope I got across.
On the count in the local elections last year, if there was a general election under PR the result would have been about 60 to 65 seats for Fianna Fáil, about 53 to 58 for Fine Gael and 20 to 25 for Labour—something of that order. That was the first break. It indicated that Fianna Fáil would be in a minority position.
Let us then go straight to the referendum. Deputy Booth suggested that a large number of the people who voted against Fianna Fáil on this occasion would revert and vote for Fianna Fáil again. To my mind it is clear that Fianna Fáil cannot get an overall majority. It is clear the challenge is there and let the best horse jump the ditch. The position now is that Fine Gael can get an overall majority in the next election and if, perchance, they are not in an overall position, they probably will be the largest Party in this House and in that situation, as statements of intent have been announced, it is my opinion that Fine Gael will be the next Government.
As that is so, we have a responsibility to enunciate policy. The time is too short to do so here this evening but it will be done in the next weeks or months. We will see to it that by our energy and effort everybody in the country will know Fine Gael's policy if they do not know it already. Let us mention that in agriculture it will be our job to salvage the Fianna Fáil wreck and it will be a very tough salvage operation. In the Department of Industry and Commerce we have an extraordinary situation. During the past three years, Fine Gael have been saying that existing industry was not getting its fair share, the only grant being given to it being for adaptation. Besides, an industry had to be an exporting concern before it got an adaptation grant. Large spectrums of industry were disqualified being completely at a disadvantage in comparison with Northern Ireland.
Then, three years ago, Fine Gael produce their policy at their Ard-Fheis and after we had hammered it home we had a change of mind and now we are giving re-equipment grants to manufacturing industries. The grant is 25 per cent for existing industry and there is a grant of 50 per cent for new industry. In parts of the country, such as in the area of the Minister for Health, it is Fine Gael policy—I want to emphasise that—where existing industry's need for major re-equipment is of such magnitude in relation to the size of the industry as to constitute an entirely new departure to give existing industry the same treatment as industry from abroad. We do not want to have a situation such as I had in my town where somebody came from Germany and got £60,000 and somebody else who employed 16 girls more got £16,000, notwithstanding the fact that they had to build not far away from the German industry. Many of these people are members of Taca and many of them followers of Fianna Fáil but they can look to us to give them what they require.
Let us look at health. The Minister for Health is present and I do not want to offend him. It is Fine Gael's policy to produce a health scheme based on insurance, to stop forever the horrible situation whereby, for instance, two old age pensioners living in a house with three or four children cannot get a green card even though every one of their children can apply and get medical cards on their own account. This is an example of one of the extraordinary anomalies of the 1963 Health Act. A health service based on insurance with coverage for those not insured is the policy of Fine Gael, a different policy from anything enunciated by the Minister or his predecessors. I am aware that both his predecessors, not forgetting the wonderful coming-together we had between Deputy MacEntee and the doctors, failed to reach agreement with the medical profession in this matter. We worked it from 1953 to 1957 and they came along then and failed to work it. It is time they moved over and gave it to somebody else.
I dealt with local government last night. Fine Gael policy is that if you build houses, industry, employment and everything else follows that. In the inter-Party Government days, which are sneered at today, we built more houses than are built to-day. Housebuilding has been reduced from 11,000 per year to 4,000 per year. What was wrong with the Government when you had houses falling all over this city? You had women and children in Griffith Barracks and the husbands getting in for half an hour each evening to see the children. If the Government gambled from 1957 to 1961 at not building houses it is time they paid the bookie and went to the people who will deal with them.
I should like to mention something else—the disgraceful situation in relation to compulsory Irish. That will cease under a Fine Gael Government. I just love to get publicity for that. It is wrong to say that we have a small minority of people who are profiting by the language, who are profiting from what should be a cultural attribute and which is in Scotland and Wales a highly cultural attribute. It is Fine Gael policy to end compulsory Irish in the Civil Service and other places There is benefit and advantage for those with some knowledge of the Irish language. I knew a dispensary doctor who was earning a very high salary as a specialist in England. He was single and his mother was old and back he came to take on a lowly dispensary job. He had spent a few years in England and was a specialist in his own right in a certain branch of medicine. However, he had to study Irish for nine months before he could get his dispensary.
There is another case to which I should like to refer. On the first occasion that Ireland won the Triple Crown in Belfast after the match we sang the Soldier's Song in English and every Welshman there sang the Welsh national anthem in Welsh. What is wrong with the language in this country is that Fianna Fáil have prostituted it for their own ends. That goes under a Fine Gael Government.
I should like now to turn to something else. Under a Fine Gael Government we believe that social welfare payments should be increased. They are too low. Our policy for a just society is to increase social welfare benefits for the people who need them.
We hear a lot of talk about doctrinaire capitalism, socialism and private enterprise and a lot of such cod. If you want a different situation go to southern England and there you will find many people who did not make their money in the last five years, people with vast incomes. There you will find a situation where there is a need for doctrinaire socialism. We in Ireland have no such society. There are few rich people here. Most of the people who are doing anything are doing it on overdrafts. In Ireland a private enterprise economy harnessed to social justice, harnessed to a just society will suit this country so long as the Government of the day will not flinch at going in and employing people in industry where private enterprise has failed or is not suitable. This talk about doctrinaire capitalism and throwing out of cliches is of little consequence. A Fine Gael Government would have a just society, a Government that would encourage private enterprise and, at the same time, if private enterprise failed or was unsuitable we would inaugurate another Shannon Scheme. That is commonsense. I do not think anyone would cavil at the definitions I have given, people in private enterprises, small proprietors, some large, very few wealthy, some wealthy and some who became wealthy in this generation or in the last. Surely the people can see the need for a Party who can proceed towards a just society and use every opportunity for the advantage of every one of our people.
Let me pass now to something that has not been mentioned in this debate today and which should have been mentioned. When I came to look at the debate on last year's Budget in the library, I went through this issue of the Dáil debates and for every title on every cover that related to ordinary parliamentary business there were six, seven or eight titles relating to the two referenda. Facing this Dáil or the next Dáil if this Dáil is dissolved there is at this moment a vast amount of parliamentary work that has been thrown aside by the Government. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has passed re-equipment grants months ago. He has produced a press report which shows that he is going to amalgamate the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal. He has issued grants. The company I am involved in has got one of them. The legislation still has to go through. We are still waiting for this legislation.
What is the position of the Minister for Health? How much legislation has he waiting in his Department? What is the position of the Minister for Local Government? How much legislation has he got in his Department? What about the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Taoiseach himself? I want to prophesy to you that whatever government is formed from the nineteenth Dáil when the Cabinet sit down there will be more prospective legislation waiting to be passed, most of it non-political, than would paper the walls of the Cabinet room and that the whole work of the next Dáil is going to be rendered completely and absolutely ineffective for the first two years by the nefarious attempt of Fianna Fáil to take power for 20 years, when they were prepared to throw aside all the parliamentary work in which we should have been engaged. This I believe to be a serious criticism. This I believe to be something that will affect this country this year, next year and the following year. I believe it to be evidence that the Government will cast aside everything no matter what it is for their own preservation. I believe in collective responsibility and because of the institution of parliamentary democracy that operates here and in England and various other places collective responsibility is vested in and the criticism of it is vested in the Taoiseach. He is responsible for every Minister. So far there have been no dismissals.
Let us face the fact that the selective wholesale tax has been doubled, that the selective wholesale tax is an extremely tough tax and that what the selective wholesale tax means, for instance, is that if you made a door for a new house on the site you would not pay selective wholesale tax but if you bought the door and the door-knob and everything else in a builder's providers or had it made off the site in a carpenter's shop you would pay five per cent and you are now going to pay ten per cent. I do not want to go through the whole spectrum of selective wholesale tax but I want the House and people to know just how serious this is.
I want to point to the fact that there is nothing for the social welfare recipients in this mini-maxi-Budget. They are being left in exactly the same position as they were. They suffered the impositions of the Budget last April and they had to wait until 1st August for any little relief they were getting. Now the Taoiseach at page 4 of the circulated version of his speech says that we were gathering speed too quickly in our economy and that the brake had to be put on. The brake has been put on the social welfare recipients, the recipients of health benefits, just as it has been put on the company director or the monied man.
Let us remember also that postage charges are something that strike everybody. It may take a little while. Somebody may notice that the amount of money being spent in a business on postage charges has now gone up by 25 or 30 per cent and they will try to get their money back, otherwise they will go out of business.
I want to suggest that a penny a gallon on 7,000 gallons of milk proved one thing: the Government are completely out of touch with the people. I went down for my Irish Independent this morning. Being a politician and having heard the news the night before I rambled over to the boys on the milk stall. I want to assure Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Taoiseach and the Government that this was their greatest political mistake of all recorded time. A penny a gallon on 7,000 gallons is something less than £30 a year. It has been taken by the farmers of Ireland as a studied insult and if one were to talk entirely in the political way in which the Fianna Fáil mind addresses itself to problems of this kind Fianna Fáil would, politically, have been far better off if they gave them nothing. Let us face the fact that the people who went in for milk and the people who went into wheat did so because their fixed, unavoidable, overheads had reached a stage at which they needed a large gross return. They did not go for milk because they wanted to milk cows twice a day seven days a week. Many a farmer finds that a very big burden, especially in later years. They went in because their overheads were so large that they could not run their farms and feed their families any other way. People did not go into wheat because they wanted to grow wheat and run the risk of a rejection at harvest time and this does apply to the growing of cereals in this country. They went in for the same reason. They went in and now the taxpayers have to pay £1½ million in this mini-Budget towards getting rid of losses on wheat. There is the only reason why the Minister for Agriculture did not put a levy on wheat this year. He looked over at me today and he said: “Deputy Donegan knows”. I know I could not say it politically. I thought about it since and I know that the only reason a 5/- levy did not go on this year was that the Government were heading for a referendum. Let us face that situation and let me end as I began. Last April it could be foreseen. I said, and I am no pundit at all, that this was a Budget either for a referendum or a general election. I have been proved correct. We now have a mini-Budget and it is going to crush the poorer people of our country. We have a list of Ministers whose names I have mentioned and whose hard work I have discussed. I think the House and the people will agree that there is only one hope for Ireland now and that is to give them a change. I am asking Fianna Fáil now to come out to the country and give them that change because that is what will happen.
Sir, I have to ask once more where is the Minister for Local Government because he has replaced surely in the Fianna Fáil lexicon the place that used to be taken by Britain as the never-ending source of all their evil. He has not appeared in the House as far as I can see to support the Taoiseach in his very weak effort to justify the continued existence of this caucus as a Government of the Irish people. Mind you he should appear because he had a big hand in bringing the worried frown to the brow of Deputy Dowling and others and placing on their shoulders the burden of concerning themselves with that disagreeable task, ascertaining the will of the people, in the very near future. He should appear. Let us hope he will be here at a later stage in the debate when we shall have some words to address through you, Sir, to him on the part he has played in attempting to defy the will of the Irish people and in attempting to suborn the democratic institutions which we have inherited.
Debate adjourned.