Costello responded to attacks by Lemass on the alleged instability of the first coalition by pointing out that it had lasted longer than the outgoing Fianna Fáil government. He added that the public conflicts between Lemass and MacEntee “suggest that all has not been heavenly harmony” over the past three years.150 He insisted that the one difficulty of the Inter-party Government was Dr Browne, “a personality whom the public have had in the last three years a far better chance of understanding”. He added with satisfaction that Browne had “now become the difficulty of the Fianna Fáil party”.151
Despite his airy dismissal of Noël Browne, he evidently felt slightly defensive about the fall-out from the Mother and Child affair. At the opening of the campaign, he assured a Fine Gael constituency meeting that “Ireland has always been jealous of its reputation for fair treatment of the minority.” However, he quickly added that despite this, he could not accept “the secularist view that would suggest that the Church and the leaders of all religious persuasions are to play in our life but a small and isolated part”.152 A month later, he accused Fianna Fáil of mounting a whispering campaign claiming that Fine Gael were intent on “persecuting the Protestants”. To disprove this, he pointed out that his party had the highest number of candidates from “the minority”.153
During the campaign, Costello made sure to supply a script for all his speeches to the newspapers “so that there could be no possibility of misrepresentation or, rather, no really effective possibility of misrepresentation or distortion of what I said”. But he believed that no matter what he said “my speeches would be misrepresented and words would be put into my mouth that I had never uttered”.154 He made a virtue of his refusal to set out a detailed policy for government. “Policy … cannot be based on the flimsy structure of extravagant promises made during election times, but on the calm consideration of all available facts … when, being restored to Office, we have learned as only a Government can the full story and the full state of affairs.” He said Fianna Fáil demands for specifics were “designed merely in the hope of embarrassing us in the coming election campaign, and in an effort to divert public attention from their own misdeeds …”155
Costello told voters that election promises “would dishonour you as much as they would dishonour us. We do not believe that the Irish people are to be bought …”156 The Opposition was “refusing to tie its hands for the sake of electoral gain. It is a curious position for a Government to have got itself to that it descends to taunting an Opposition for not making dishonest promises …”157 In particular, he refused to give a commitment to restore food subsidies. At the final Fine Gael rally in O’Connell Street in Dublin, he said Fianna Fáil had been reduced to asking if he was going to reduce prices to 1951 levels. This, he said, was impudence. “It is as if a motorist, who had knocked down and injured some people, were to question the competence of those who were seeking to bind up their wounds and to criticise the general behaviour and driving of other users of the road.” Given the Government’s unpopularity, it was perhaps wiser to avoid promises, and stick to criticism. This he did with relish. Accusing MacEntee of mounting “a flesh creeping campaign”, he noted acidly that “there is a great deal less flesh on the people to creep than there was three years ago …”158
The British Ambassador observed that the Opposition’s “main attack, since the Budget of 1952, has been upon the scale of taxation and state expenditure. They do not commit themselves, despite repeated invitations from the Government, to how they would reduce them: they are content to exploit popular dislike of Fianna Fáil’s comparatively austere policy … Mr Costello is not committing himself to a thing yet.”159 However, it is not true to say that the Opposition, and the potential Taoiseach, ran an entirely negative campaign.
Costello dusted down his Blueprint for Prosperity, first outlined at the 1953 Fine Gael Ard Fheis, for the campaign trail: no break with sterling, the creation of a domestic money market, a Capital Investment Board, encouragement for domestic saving and foreign capital.160 Industry would be developed “under the stimulus of Capital investment, and through increased agricultural exports, whose economic effect on the country is even more beneficial than Capital investment”. He tentatively expressed a preference for encouraging industry through tax relief rather than increased protections, “which tend to raise prices and thereby put up the cost of living”.161 And he said the proposed Capital Investment Board “would indicate in what field any liberation or relaxation of restriction [on foreign capital] might not be to the advantage of the Irish community”.162 This cautious sidling towards a more open economy was seized on by Fianna Fáil, and the Irish Press, which accused Fine Gael of being unpatriotic.163 Costello responded by promising “the continuance, as a permanent feature of our economy, of the protection of industry with a view to its progressive expansion”.164
While he had been forced to backtrack, Costello had given an important, if muted, pointer towards future policy developments. In fact, he had already cautiously hinted at dissatisfaction with protection in the Dáil. In the course of a lengthy speech criticising Lemass’s Restrictive Trade Practices Bill (which he claimed would be ineffective, counterproductive, and also possibly unconstitutional), Costello also criticised protectionism. He said Ireland had more restrictive practices than other countries, which had been “bred in the atmosphere of restrictionism which has unfortunately been associated with the national policy of industrial development”. However, he was careful to stress that he was referring to “the intensified campaign or policy of protectionism which was inaugurated in 1932 … Irish industry was protected and encouraged long before 1932.”165
The elections results revealed a stunning victory for Fine Gael in Dublin South-East. The party took a second seat at the expense of Noël Browne, running for Fianna Fáil for the first and last time. Fine Gael activists had been targeting this second seat since 1951. As the secretary of the Sandymount Branch advised Costello in November of that year, “The votes are there … it is really a matter of hard work—and I’m not particular whether it’s MacEntee or Browne we oust.”166 Hard work was certainly put in—the Sandymount members were so enthusiastic they organised a branch meeting for New Year’s Eve, 1953.167 The constituency organisation was comparatively well funded too, thanks to a number of “large subscriptions” collected during the 1951 campaign by then Attorney General Charles Casey for Costello, which hadn’t been spent in the earlier campaign.168
Costello won his highest ever share of the first-preference vote, at 42 per cent. His surplus was large enough to bring in his running mate, economist John O’Donovan. The Minister for Finance, Seán MacEntee, with 22 per cent of the vote, was fewer than 500 votes ahead of Noël Browne, a gap reduced to just 108 before he took the last seat. MacEntee had been extraordinarily generous to his running mate, allowing Browne to distribute personalised election literature, despite the reservations of his election workers, who feared his seat could be in danger.169 Characteristically, Browne didn’t remember this generosity in his autobiography, where he claimed MacEntee’s “people dominated the party organisation in the constituency … I knew I wouldn’t be allowed to win.”170
In any case, MacEntee had a very close shave. At Costello’s retirement dinner in 1969, the Fine Gael Director of Elections for the constituency, Tommy Doyle, recalled MacEntee “standing at one end of the room [in the count centre in Bolton Street], a worried man and not in good health. He got there by the skin of his teeth. John Costello walked up to him, he took him by the hand and he congratulated him warmly. He [MacEntee] was visibly moved.” Evidently perturbed by this image, Costello dryly observed that MacEntee was “a redoubtable warrior, with whom I made many a struggle in the Dáil chamber and on practically every street corner, notwithstanding what Tommy Doyle says, in my constituency”.171
Constituency activists were naturally overjoyed at the result: Fianna Fáil in disarray, Costello topping the poll, O’Donovan elected on his first attempt, and Browne
defeated. The annual report of the Sandymount branch rated “the smashing up of the Fianna Fáil party in the constituency as our Number One achievement”.172 Nationally, the results were equally good for Fine Gael, as the party continued the revival begun in 1951. Its share of the vote rose to 32 per cent and it gained 10 seats on the last general election result, to give a total of 50 (although this included Dillon and Flanagan, returned as Independents in 1951). Fine Gael was now just 15 seats behind Fianna Fáil. Labour had 19 seats (including the outgoing Ceann Comhairle, Patrick Hogan, who was returned unopposed), Clann na Talmhan had 5, Clann na Poblachta 3, and there were 5 Independents.
There was no doubt that there would be a new government, and no doubt either that Jack Costello would be at its head. On the face of it, this is slightly surprising, because Richard Mulcahy was still officially the leader of Fine Gael. His son later wrote that the reasons for him standing aside in 1948 were no longer relevant, but that the question of him replacing Costello never arose.173 Presumably the question was settled in 1951, when Costello was recognised as leader of the Opposition, and during the election campaign, when he was clearly seen as de Valera’s rival for the office of Taoiseach. In any case, Labour would have been as reluctant to serve under Mulcahy in 1954 as they were in 1948. Costello’s return to the office of Taoiseach wasn’t universally welcomed within the family—both his wife, Ida, and his eldest daughter, Grace, were upset at the prospect.174
The identity of the next Taoiseach may not have been in doubt, but there was plenty still to be settled in terms of policy. There followed intensive negotiations between Fine Gael and Labour on a coalition agreement. The British Embassy noted that Fine Gael needed Labour support to form a government, “and it remains far from clear whether Labour will reduce its price or if not how Fine Gael can pay it”.175 The smaller party demanded four Cabinet seats—including Industry and Commerce, to give it an input into economic policy. Labour also insisted on a detailed policy programme. As the party’s historian observed, “Labour … had learned from experience that if the devil is in the detail, it was best to summon these demons and deal with them at the outset.”176
One of the key issues was food subsidies, given Labour’s election campaign focus on their reinstatement, and Costello’s refusal to commit Fine Gael. The initial Fine Gael draft of the programme offered an examination of the facts and an “early” announcement by the Government of measures to reduce the cost of living. This vague aspiration clearly wasn’t going to satisfy Labour, who countered with an alternative draft, promising a 6d decrease in the price of a pound of butter from 1 July, as well as a reduction in the prices of flour and butter from 1 October. Costello drafted the compromise which was eventually accepted: as an indication of the Government’s determination to reduce the cost of living, there would be an announcement within a fortnight of a reduction in the price of butter, while the prices of other commodities would be examined with a view to reducing them as soon as possible.177
Given the respective party positions during the election campaign, this was clearly a victory for Labour. However, Costello claimed (unconvincingly) to the American Ambassador that it was his idea, not Norton’s. “Everywhere he went during the campaign … people had asked him not so much to bring down the price of tea or bread, but rather to bring down butter prices … he is convinced that Mr de Valera’s Government made its fatal mistake by destroying the subsidy on butter all at once.”178 He later repeated much the same thing in the Dáil—he had been asked about reducing the price of butter “by the women and the children at every meeting I addressed throughout the country … I did not say I would, but I made up my mind that if I were ever in a position to do it, I would do it.”179 Costello claimed that when he got back into the Taoiseach’s office he consulted the Director of the Central Statistics Office, who said that “butter was a staple and necessary article of diet … of every section of the people, rich and poor”. A butter subsidy would also, perhaps not incidentally, give “some little relief to the dairy farmers”.180
On welfare, another key issue for Labour, the original Fine Gael draft simply promised to improve Social Welfare services. Labour countered with specific promises—pension increases, improved payments under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and retirement pensions for men at 65 and women at 60. All the Labour demands were included in the final draft of the programme.181 Whatever about the more conservative elements within Fine Gael, Costello had committed himself to pensions at 65 and 60 during the Dáil debate on Fianna Fáil’s Social Welfare Bill in 1952: “I am in favour of such a provision and always was in favour of it when it was put into Deputy Norton’s Bill.”182
Health might have been expected to provide more difficulty—after all, Fine Gael had been alone in its opposition to Jim Ryan’s Health Act. The initial Fine Gael draft promised to improve the organisation of the health services, to expand them so that no-one would be denied medical or surgical aid because of lack of means, and to provide better hospital and dispensary accommodation. Labour called for the removal of health “from the field of acrimonious political discussion”, the fullest and most effective use of the provisions of the existing Health Act in consultation with Local Authorities and other interests, and on the basis of the experience gained to determine “what further measures may be necessary to ensure proper provision of modern health services for the people”. Fine Gael could hardly be expected to accept the reference to the “existing Health Act” they had so vociferously opposed. The final compromise took its beginning from Labour (removing health from “acrimonious discussion”, consulting with Local Authorities and other interests) and its end from Fine Gael (improving and expanding health services, with no-one denied treatment because of their means). The Fianna Fáil health legislation was tactfully not mentioned.183
Fine Gael agreed to a number of other Labour demands, including an Agricultural Wages Tribunal and a specific commitment to continue the protection of Irish industry.184 The statement was issued simultaneously by Fine Gael and Labour Party headquarters on 31 May.185 Labour didn’t get all it wanted, but it certainly drove a hard bargain, considering that it had not done nearly as well in the election as had Fine Gael. The latter party had, according to the British Ambassador, “gone a very long way indeed to meet Labour’s demands”.186
Clann na Talmhan also decided to support the new government, and on the morning the new Dáil met a party meeting confirmed that Blowick would once more join the Cabinet as Minister for Lands, while Clann na Poblachta offered the coalition external support. When the Dáil met on 2 June, Costello was nominated by Mulcahy, with Norton seconding and Blowick also speaking briefly in support. By far the longest speech was made by MacBride. He repeated his preference for a national government, then explained why he would be supporting Costello as the best alternative to such an arrangement—because it reflected the will of the people as expressed in the election, and because inter-party government was superior to the single-party variety. MacBride added that he would have voted for Costello anyway as “a man of integrity, honour and ability … I am satisfied that he is a man fitted to occupy the position of Taoiseach and that he is the man whom the people desire to have as Taoiseach.”187
De Valera’s nomination was defeated by 66 votes to 78; Costello’s was supported by 79 votes to 66. The difference in the totals was due to Jack McQuillan, who abstained on the vote for de Valera but then voted for Costello. Of the other Independents, Alfred and Thomas Byrne supported Costello, Ben Maguire voted for de Valera, and Donegal Independent William Sheldon (who had supported the First Inter-party Government) abstained. The Ceann Comhairle, Labour’s Patrick Hogan, did not, of course, vote. Costello’s election was greeted with applause from the TDS supporting him, “in which some people in the public gallery joined”.188 The new Taoiseachelect thanked the Dáil for the honour conferred on him, while recognising “the serious problems that have to be faced”.189
Later, after receiving his seal of office from
the President, he announced his Cabinet. Norton was Tánaiste again, as well as taking the Department of Industry and Commerce; his party colleagues Brendan Corish (Social Welfare), Jim Everett (Justice), and Michael Keyes (Posts and Telegraphs) were also in Cabinet. Blowick of Clann na Talmhan was back in Lands. Mulcahy returned to Education and MacEoin to Defence, while Dillon went back to Agriculture—he later claimed to have been offered a choice of Justice, Finance or Agriculture, but said he had no interest in being a minister if it wasn’t in the latter Department.190
Finance was a difficult portfolio for Costello to fill. He wanted McGilligan to take it again, but his old colleague pleaded ill-health, and became Attorney General instead. When Dillon also declined, he turned to Gerard Sweetman, who had made himself invaluable in opposition as the energetic and efficient Fine Gael Chief Whip. He may have been less popular with some of the rank and file deputies, who were said “to regard him as heifers must regard the man who is driving them to market”.191 The British Ambassador reported to London that Costello “obviously places much reliance” on Sweetman, who he described as a “glutton for work”.192 But Sweetman was also a conservative on economic matters—he was described by Hibernia magazine in 1969 as “one of the keenest minds of the nineteenth century”.193
Costello appears to have offended him by saying that he would always have available the advice of McGilligan and John O’Donovan, the economist who was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Government. According to Cabinet colleague Tom O’Higgins, Sweetman was “extremely annoyed. He was determined to be his own man and did not feel the need for help from anyone else.”194 O’Higgins suggested the remark was made in private, but it was evidently widely known, as Seán MacEntee referred to it in the Dáil. In 1955, he congratulated his successor on having “shaken himself free, not only of the Attorney-General but also of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government … He [Sweetman] is, I think, one of the ablest men in the Government and I think … one of the most tenacious and courageous.”195 Tenacious and courageous he certainly was—but he had reason to be resentful as well.
The Reluctant Taoiseach Page 43