Tairgím:
Go rachaidh an Dáil nuair a eiroidh sé an 30ú lá d'Iúil, 1970, ar athló go dtí an 28ú lá de Dheireadh Fomhair, 1970. That the Dáil at its rising on the 30th July, 1970, shall adjourn until the 28th October, 1970.
It was anticipated that the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach would be the vehicle for this debate; instead we have a debate on the Adjournment of the Dáil for the Summer Recess. Either would provide the basis of a very wide ranging discussion. I do not propose to try to anticipate all or even many of the topics likely to be raised in the course of the discussion. Other members of the Government will deal with these topics according as they are raised and with aspects of their own Departments as well. Instead, I propose to direct my opening speech to three main topics, two of them closely related and the third less obviously but nevertheless connected with the other two.
The greatest immediate problem facing this nation at present is inflation. This may seem to be a surprising statement for me to make at this juncture but I want to deal with the subject in as factual a way as possible and in as simple a way as I can so that I can emphasise the dire need to tackle this problem and to overcome it. In this country we have been living for almost three decades with continuous inflation, with the result that many people, especially the young, who have no experience of any other environment, have probably come to accept inflation as a permanent feature of everyday life. It is not. Past inflation in different countries and at different times all ended sooner or later. The need to end the present inflation is becoming apparent from events of recent months.
Price rises last year of more than 7 per cent were serious enough but according to many forecasts they are likely to rise by an even higher figure this year. People are aware of this quickening rate in price increases and their reaction to this is not so much that they try to take account of increasing prices that have already occurred but they also try to anticipate price rises yet to come. Thus, employers and workers look for a larger increase in income and, in return, prices are raised by larger amounts in order to meet these increased pay levels.
Because we are so accustomed to this pattern of prices and incomes chasing one another it is difficult to convince people of the damage which inflation can do, and does, to the nation. Initially, it hits the weaker sections. Not everybody is able to raise his income when prices go up. The old, the sick and the unemployed can to the extent that they benefit from social services be helped by Government action, but much hardship is still inflicted on these groups. Workers in firms which are exposed to strong foreign competition will likewise lag behind because pay and price rises in such firms simply mean that they lose their markets to imported products. In the end the whole community suffers.
No one will save more than the minimum even though high rates of interest are offered. Income will be spent quickly in an effort to get ahead of the next price rise. Imports will be pushed higher still and the cost of home goods and services, such as tourism, will be raised so much that foreigners will lose interest in them. Trade unionists and others will be scrambling for higher incomes to get ahead of the accelerated price rises and fewer and fewer firms will be able to pay because of the rapid falling-off in sales of their over-costly products. Jobs will go and more Irish people will be forced to emigrate.
This is a picture of what happens when inflation is allowed to get out of hand and, in particular, when a country like Ireland, so dependent on exports and imports for its economic life, runs a higher price temperature than the world outside. A high rate of price increase has had effects socially and economically even if it is being matched by similar inflation in other countries. An individual country is in real trouble if it starts sliding down the inflationary slope faster than the rest of the world. This is what we have been doing recently. There is a special urgency, therefore, about applying the brakes.
The whole problem has been brought sharply into focus by the publication last week of the Central Bank Report for the year 1969-70. Many of us tended in the past to regard Central Bank reports as something for the economists to discuss between themselves and, while they disputed its different facets and prognostications, the rest of us tended to ignore the whole exercise as something which did not concern us. This attitude is no longer acceptable. If ever there was a year in which the advice of the Central Bank should be heeded this must surely be it. On pages 8 and 9 of the Report it states:
The more disquieting factor at present is the high rate of cost increase in Ireland as compared with other countries. Ireland's rate of price inflation is above the international trend and carries serious implications for future sales of Irish goods and services.
I do not have to spell out what that means in terms of exports, imports, job security and job opportunities. Some of the evidence of this faster rate of Irish inflation is given in Table 25 of the Central Bank Report. This shows that the wage cost per unit of industrial output rose by almost 11 per cent this year compared with 4½ per cent in the United Kingdom and an even smaller increase in Europe and the United States of America. These figures mean that Irish goods became more expensive than those of our competitors and, if this trend were to continue, it is obvious that Irish industry could be priced out of both home and export markets. It is clearly necessary, therefore, that this situation be corrected. But how? The remedies for inflation lie in a combination of monetary policy, fiscal policy and incomes policy. Let us have a look at each of these in turn.
First, let us take monetary policy: this means regulating the amount of bank lending, hire purchase transactions and other forms of credit which facilitate spending. This is primarily operated through the Central Bank. As a result of the bank dispute, it is not possible to establish the extent to which various measures of credit restraint announced in earlier months have become effective. Monetary activities are temporarily in abeyance, but it can be taken that a restrictive monetary policy will continue to operate when normal conditions are restored.
Next, let us take a look at fiscal policy and what it means. It means the spending, borrowing and taxation activities of the Government. These have come in for a good deal of comment recently. Much of the increase in Government spending has been brought about by inflation. When I introduced the Budget earlier this year I described the Budget as one of social concern; the Government were concerned to ensure that, as far as possible, the weaker sections of the community would be compensated for the price increases which had taken place. Inflation had also raised the cost of the various services and to finance all these spending commitments further taxation was inevitable. Should the situation warrant it, the Government would not hesitate to make further taxation changes in order to cope with the consequences of past inflation and curb the possibility of its continuance in the future.
The remaining area for fiscal measures lies in the field of Government borrowing. This borrowing is made to finance capital spending on agricultural and industrial development, on housing, transport, schools and many other items which form part of our capital programme. The first stage of an appraisal of this programme is now virtually complete and the information obtained from this appraisal will be available when deciding where changes in the amount or method of financing public capital spending are necessary to deal with inflationary pressures.
The next antidote to inflation is an incomes policy—I am not necessarily recording these in order of priority— and a great deal of misunderstanding arises as to what an incomes policy is and how it should be implemented. Most people generally see the case for less inflationary Budgets and for credit control but many individually react against any suggestion that income increases should be moderated, even on a voluntary basis. Each individual union wishes to keep the support of its members by doing well for them. Some hope to do better than others. All are being pressed into action by members who, reminded by their wives, no doubt, are acutely conscious of previous gains being whittled down, though not eliminated, by rising prices.
One difficulty in securing any voluntary restraint is the unavoidable delay before the effects on the prices front can be seen. Another is the tendency for a powerful group to press home an advantage regardless of the national implications of that advantage. Still another is the lack of agreement on a reasonable standard of increase. Should it be related in some way to the rate of growth of national output or is it acceptable that standards should vary from one firm to another according to productivity or profitability? There is also the question of how best to provide for a desirable change in the social pattern, such as a special lift for lower-paid workers, and there is the problem of securing an acceptable degree of fairness as between what happens wage and salary earners and what happens other recipients of income. These difficulties are so formidable that there is a temptation to conclude that everything is impossible except chaos.
However, there are some possibilities open to us. On the voluntary side there is the possibility of general trade union agreement on, say, a year or even a half-year extension of the period of existing agreements without any, or perhaps only a small, further increase. This is also referred to in the Central Bank report of this year. If a general agreement of this kind is unrealisable or would be threatened by dissident elements the only way of securing that general and equitable slowing-down of money income increases, which is necessary to control inflation, may be to express a statutory limit to the increases any employer may pay or any shopkeeper, landlord or professional person may demand in the period ahead.
This could be seen as a counterpart of the traffic regulations but involving only a temporary curbing of individual rights. Much legislation, while framed primarily to define what the law-abiding majority considers to be the proper standard of behaviour, aims secondarily at penalising those who deliberately flout it. To return to the analogy, traffic rules are acknowledged by the vast majority to constitute a proper standard of behaviour, where few would observe them if others could break them with impunity. Unfortunately, so far there is little evidence of a willingness to forego the shortsighted and selfish approach of pressing income claims—claims which push up prices at the rate we have experienced recently.
Let me emphasise here that I am not talking merely about wage-earners. If sectional interests are going to be pursued by any group with the same ruthlessness as in the recent past and without regard to the national interest, the result could, in the absence of Government intervention, be little short of disastrous. If it becomes clear that reason and commonsense are being thrown out of the window, strong and firm action must, and will, be taken by the Government.
The Government's main concern is to maintain economic growth and employment but if we continue to insist on trying to enjoy a standard of living far higher than our existing productivity justifies, there must come a point when these objectives must take second place to the imperative need to prevent rampant inflation and a serious balance of payments crisis. The Government view is that, if all concerned are prepared to back the attempt, we should be able to curb the inflation we are now suffering and that we must now attempt to achieve economic growth and rising employment.
It was on this basis that the Government welcomed the NIEC report on incomes and prices policy and moved quickly to establish the employer-labour conference. We are hopeful that these and other arrangements will make it possible for those concerned to sit down and discuss our problems in a rational and constructive spirit in the light of what the national interest requires.
The Government recognise that workers cannot be expected to show restraint in wage demands unless other groups do the same and unless they have some reasonable expectation that the rate of increase in prices will slow down. At the same time, unless restraint is shown, substantial price increases cannot be avoided. The lesson surely is for us all to try to work out some arrangement in which the legitimate interest of particular groups will be reconciled with the national interest. If we are not prepared to do this, then we must all shoulder the blame for the consequences.
There is not much time left. Important agreements expire later this year and the crucial task must, therefore, be accomplished in the months immediately ahead. If I may refer to one positive step that might be taken, I consider that the ICTU might treat as a matter of urgency the convening of the conference proposed at its annual conference for the purpose of clarifying its attitude to an incomes and prices policy, whether on the lines suggested in the NIEC report or some alternative version. I cannot emphasise too strongly that some action, whether of a voluntary or other nature, is needed on incomes in the near future and I would wish all interested parties to have had full opportunity to express their views on this matter.
I come to one of the related subjects, namely, industrial relations problems and particularly those we have been experiencing recently. During the past few months Deputies have expressed concern about the state of industrial relations. This concern arose mainly, indeed almost entirely, from the stoppage in the cement industry which lasted 21 weeks and the closure of the banks because of an industrial dispute. In fact, the bulk of the man/ days lost through industrial disputes since the start of this year was caused by these two disputes. It is also a fact that they illustrate again the tendency in this country for strikes to continue for a long time once work is stopped. There is, I fear, the danger that remarks by Deputies and commentaries in the press and elsewhere on these two disputes may give a misleading picture of the state of industrial relations in this country. Therefore, I consider it desirable to set out briefly the present position.
I think it is the wish of all parties in this House that the pay and conditions of workers should, as far as possible, be settled by free negotiation. This is what happens in the case of the majority of our employer-worker relations. Where difficulties develop in reaching agreement, the conciliation services of the industrial relations officers of the Labour Court are freely available—and I am glad to say they are freely used to the mutual advantage of employer and worker. As a measure of the activity in this field, I might mention that in the past six months nearly 500 conciliation conferences were held under the chairmanship of one or other of these officers and, as a result, more than 70 per cent of the issues involved were settled.
Since the passing, last year, of the amending Industrial Relations Act, the functions of the officers concerned have been widened to include advice and guidance to management and trade unions on such matters as drawing up agreements on work procedures and so on in order to narrow the area of possible friction in employer-worker relations. Despite the efforts of all concerned, experience shows that disputes may flare up from time to time—sometimes from trivial causes. To deal with this kind of situation we provided in last year's Act for a new type of dispute-settler—the rights commissioner to move in with the consent of the parties and recommend instant settlement. Two rights commissioners were appointed last March and have been operating quite successfully.
In cases where the parties still fail to agree, even after going through conciliation procedures, there is the Labour Court to which more than 100 disputes are sent for investigation each year. While the recommendations of the court often lead to settlement and to avoidance of work stoppages, it is regrettable that, despite the care taken by the court in hearing all parties, in weighing up the submissions and in formulating a fair basis for settlement, there are still many cases where the recommendations of the court are rejected—sometimes by the employers but more frequently by the workers. The last report of the court shows a rejection rate of nearly 40 per cent, although in fairness it must be said that most of these cases were settled later without stoppage of work.
This lack of finality has been one of the main causes of disturbance in the industrial relations scene. The Minister for Labour will, however, persist in his efforts to persuade all concerned of the desirability, in the interests of orderly industrial relations, of accepting the finding of the independent body set up by the Oireachtas to investigate disputes and recommend the best and fairest solution in the circumstances of individual cases.
A great amount of thought has been put into this matter down through the years, and various changes have been made in the procedures and the services provided, provided from voted moneys incidentally, to help in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and the promotion of good relations between workers and employers. I believe that our procedures are adequate to any situation and, if we have damaging strikes, as we do, the fault is certainly not in our procedures. The explanation sometimes lies in the refusal of one or more of the disputing parties to accept the advice of the honest broker, in this case the Labour Court.
It may be appropriate here to mention the question of Government intervention in particular disputes. The policy of the Government is to leave the settlement of disputes to the parties while giving them all the information and facilities needed by them to reach a fair settlement. That policy was unanimously decided by the Oireachtas almost 24 years ago. It was enshrined in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and it has been adopted by all Governments since then. It is consistent with our adherence to the principle of free collective bargaining which many other democratic countries are also striving to uphold. It has served the public interest well. When a dispute drags on or when its effects begin to be felt, there is sometimes pressure on the Minister for Labour to intervene or for some Minister or even the Taoiseach to intervene. As we have seen this pressure can develop in cases where the parties to the dispute fail or even refuse to use the machinery provided for them by this House to help them to settle their differences. It does nothing for the dignity and supremacy of this House to expect a Minister to take on a task for which the House, after much deliberation, has provided the best machinery it could for the purpose or to expect Ministerial action on the ground that the disputing parties have spurned the machinery. This, in my opinion, represents a lack of appreciation on the part of the employer or group of workers concerned of the consequences for themselves, for other workers in different categories and for the nation as a whole.
For these reasons I ask Deputies to support the stand taken by the Government that parties to industrial disputes are expected to use the procedures provided, especially in those cases where detailed arrangements for processing disputes have been agreed between the parties themselves. Deputies appreciate, of course, that free collective bargaining is designed for a democratic society where groups representing different and even conflicting economic interests share a concern and an understanding for each other and also for the welfare of the community as a whole. The system is not at its best where a concern or a group seeks to advance its selfish interest without regard to its effect on others or on the community as a whole nor was free collective bargaining intended to function in a situation where one party, or even two parties to a dispute, are prepared to contemplate disrupting the economic life of the country and cause loss and even disemployment to others in no way involved in their quarrel. It would, I admit, be fair to argue that, when a Government see such indifference for the public interest displayed, it is time for them to reconsider the policy which permits sectional groups pursuing their own gain to inflict damage on the public with complete impunity and indeed to profit from the encounter as well on occasion.
In a society like ours this type of situation always presents a dilemma to the Government. Large sections of the public are prepared to press to have the affair settled immediately and regardless of the consequences to come later in the form of price increases or tax increases or dissatisfaction by others leading to strikes elsewhere and other effects rather than suffer the inconvenience and upset that the particular strike entails. In acceding to pressures to intervene in circumstances like this, the Minister for Labour is consciously disturbing the balance between the parties in the collective bargaining process and is making it more difficult for other employers and trade unions to operate properly the system which everyone is anxious to see maintained and strengthened. I would ask Deputies, therefore, to ponder on the implications of Ministerial interventions in trade disputes and rather than press for such intervention to consider, instead, using their influence to induce the disputing parties to avail themselves of our highly developed procedures and accept the advice of the experienced and competent personnel of the Labour Court and its subsidiary organisations, to whom indeed Deputies have on occasion paid so many compliments.
Now, Sir, I come to the other topic which I said was related to the other two but not perhaps as apparently or as directly. I refer to the situation in the North of Ireland. I think it can be fairly stated that the situation in the north has improved in the last few weeks. The primary objective of the visit of the Minister for External Affairs to the Falls Road area of Belfast was to reassure the minority by making it quite clear and beyond dispute that this Government intended to exert to the full their influence in support of the just claims of the minority in the north. An impetus was given and strength was added to the elected leaders of the minority and to responsible opinion generally. Our interest continues and remains a permanent factor in this situation. I think it is fair also to commend the Stormont Government for their recent actions in banning or curtailing certain parades in sensitive areas. Their decision last Thursday to ban all parades for six months should also help to reduce tension. The reaction last weekend by some elements was predictable. Much of the comment made by opponents of the ban shows very accurately what some of these parades were meant to do, that is, to emphasise a particular type of control of the northern society. Extremists among the majority population now know that they will no longer be able to engage in public provocation of their neighbours at will. I consider this to be a most significant advance in community relations in the north. It bodes well for the northern community that extremists formerly supported by authority are now bereft of that support. It bodes well for the future of the north that the whole community will have some chance of escaping from fear constantly induced by frequent provocation. In this respect, a foundation has been laid but it would be foolish and unwise to think that all is now well. Certain reforms have been legislated and they are useful and important ones. The nature of society in these islands requires that the police should not normally be armed and that there should not be an armed militia virtually outside the control of higher authority. This is now an established fact in the north.
There have also been other reforms to which it is fair to make reference. These include equal voting rights, the creation of a ministry and a commission dealing with community relations, legislation to prevent incitement to hatred. However, equal voting rights cannot be exercised in local government elections probably until 1972 and the work of people involved in community relations and in implementing the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act may take time to make itself felt and understood.
There are other reforms of most substantial importance which are not yet on the Statute Book. These include the setting-up of the Central Housing Executive whose twin purposes are to increase the rate of housebuilding and to ensure that houses are allocated fairly. It is vital that ghetto housing should no longer be a feature of local government administration in the north. Such an activity is contemptuous of people as well as of the history of this island. Those who have indulged in it know neither their neighbours nor their own heritage. Their influence in relation to the Central Housing Executive should not be allowed to subvert it from its proper duty in the future.
The reform of local government is another essential reform which must not be delayed. The MacRory Report, published last month, must quickly be examined and legislation built upon it. I hope we shall not have a repetition of the curious brand of consultation— with people opposed tooth and nail to any change in the north—and whose only purpose is to delay action or to make reform meaningless. This summer could usefully be used by the Administration in Stormont to prepare the necessary legislation and to have it available for parliamentary discussion as soon as Stormont resumes for the present session. The possibility for people to exercise the franchise in local government elections is dependent on local government reform. If reform is to be properly felt in the community, this right to vote must not be delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary. There are proposals designed to eliminate discrimination on political or religious grounds in public employment. I am aware that voluntary means of providing for these are in train, but there should be no hesitation about compelling non-discrimination if this should be necessary. There is also a proposal to incorporate an anti-discrimination clause in all Government contracts so as to prevent discrimination in private employment. I cannot understand why it should take so long to apply such a reform. I believe it should not be impossible to put it into effect immediately.
The proper representation of minorities at nominated or appointed levels has also been promised. In this respect, the failure to consult Opposition Members at Stormont in relation to minority representatives on the police authority is a bad start. Such a failure is not justifiable now and, in any event, leaves the impression that minority appointees are not represented. The MacRory Report envisages several central bodies. It would be useful to create machinery now for consultation with elected representatives of the minority about appointees to these boards in due time.
I think that this brief examination I have made of existing and promised reforms demonstrates how necessary reform in the north is and what a long distance there is yet to be covered by the Stormont Government. They must understand that the basis of good community relations in the north is the recognition of the full rights of the northern minority to express its political personality and to be respected in doing so by the organs of the State. Anything short of this would be incomplete, unsatisfactory and a confession of failure to govern wisely. The completion and continuing perfection of this principle of government in the north will lead to the natural disappearance of the Special Powers Acts and to all that has been done in their name.
In respect of north-south relations, as was announced recently, the Government decided last May to set up an inter-Departmental unit whose principal tasks are to examine all matters affecting north-south relations; to keep in close touch with all aspects of Anglo-Irish relations having a bearing on the situation and to arrange for a study in depth of short term problems as well as of longer term difficulties. This unit reports to me through the Minister for External Affairs. Its duties have been the subject of some discussion in Dáil Éireann and much discussion in the news media in the past two weeks. I wish to emphasise that the unit is not a policy-making body. Its work is essentially academic. I want to say, too, that it will draw together in a cohesive way all the previous studies that have been done in relation to the reunification of our country. Again, I want to emphasise that there have been studies; some comment has been made that it is only now that we are undertaking this exercise. There have indeed been studies and useful studies available to the Government and available to this inter-Departmental unit. These studies have covered and will cover economic, social and cultural conditions. The unit may commission expert examinations. It may make recommendations as to internal as well as to what I might describe as infra-Ireland matters.
So far as the future of our whole country is concerned, I should like to repeat what I have said already. It is my aim, it is the Government's aim, that Ireland should be united. I stated my motive recently in a television broadcast and it is that, in this island, there shall never again be fear, turning to hatred, turning to bloodshed. This implies quite clearly and deliberately that, in our view, Ireland will be united when the main Irish traditions are able to build together a new Irish society to their mutual good. Such a new Irish society must take into full account the various considerations put forward by the Irish minority as to how they see the form and the shape of a society agreeable to them. The task of government is to see to it that the equality of citizens before the law is never violated for religious reasons whether openly or covertly nor should there be discrimination amongst citizens. We should apply these rules in all our governmental behaviour. This country contains a population of which 10 per cent are Presbyterian, 10½ per cent Church of Ireland and 75 per cent Catholic. This society, in which other minority groups are involved, must be drawn together. In so far as there are constitutional difficulties which are legitimately seen by people to be infringements of their civil rights, then their views are worthy of intensive examination and we should try to accommodate them in our Constitution and in our laws.
Civil rights are the other man's rights; his right to do something that may not sit well with me but which I am bound to respect for my sake as well as for his sake. To me, any Irishman is an Irishman. I am convinced that our society is capable of moving away from unnecessary restrictions both in the interests of doing so for its own value and in the interests of doing so for our country's progress in unity and peace. Society is constantly in a state of perfecting itself. Its instruments are Parliament and Government. Therefore, our duty is clear.
As I said, there was a link between what I have said in relation to the situation in the North of Ireland—our desire for reunification of the country —and the two other topics to which I have already referred. There is a link in the economic sense and certainly in the economic issue of inflation which I dealt with in some detail.
One of the arguments against reunification which is made periodically by some people in the north is the difference in living standards as exemplified by our lower levels of spending on items such as social services and health. There is no need for me to go into the historical reasons why differences in economic well-being should have existed between ourselves and the United Kingdom. The economic progress of the past 12 years has led to a narrowing of the gap between standards here and in the north and has thus helped to weaken some of the obstacles to closer links with our fellow-countrymen. Therefore, for this reason also, it is clearly important that our economic progress should continue unchecked in the years ahead.
In modern conditions patriotism takes many dimensions. It is just as important to show our capacity to solve economic problems in a responsible manner as it is to demonstrate our political maturity and understanding. Only by success on both fronts can we expect to achieve our goal of a country in which all our people can remain to live and work in peace and well being.
