The business before the House at the moment is, as you know, Sir, the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department, which traditionally furnished an opportunity for a review of the Government's activity or inactivity. By chance of timing it also provides a convenient vehicle for discussion on the communiqué issued after the Sunningdale conference.
Contrary to what has been implied and, indeed, what has been said by Deputy Costello, the agreement reached at Sunningdale is not before us. It is not before us because, of course, the agreement is not yet drawn up. As the communiqué indicated, there is still quite a number of loose ends still to be settled. For example, the determination of the functions to be assigned to the Council of Ireland have to be settled before the formal agreement is entered into. There are other loose ends. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that what this House is discussing at the moment is not the agreement that presumably will arise out of the Sunningdale conference, because that agreement is not yet drawn up.
I mention this both to clarify the position and also because I was particularly struck by something that happened when the leader of this party was speaking in this debate. Deputy Lynch made it clear that we on this side of the House intended to vote against the Government on the business before the House but that that did not signify that we were voting against the understandings arrived at at Sunningdale. When he said this, at the same time as the Taoiseach was accepting that this was a reasonable proposition, we had some sniggering stupidities from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who apparently were not at one with the Taoiseach in this. However, what struck me most was that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was one of those who took part in the conference at Sunningdale and, nevertheless, did not appear to be aware of the fact that an agreement has yet to be drawn up.
Furthermore, no indication whatever was given by the Taoiseach as to the procedures to be followed in regard to the agreement when it is drawn up and as to whether or not it should come before this House. The only guidance, in fact, that came on this matter came from the leader of this party, and some efforts which were made to get the Taoiseach to clarify the position did not meet with any success. This is consonant with the manner in which the Taoiseach dealt with the communiqué from Sunningdale in his address to this House.
I think it is fair to say that he said nothing of any consequence in his address in regard to that communiqué, although he had stated in reply to Parliamentary Questions the previous day that he would make a full statement in this debate. I want to make it clear — I do not think there should be any doubt but lest there should be— that as far as this party are concerned. we want to see power sharing in operation in Northern Ireland, and we want to see a Council of Ireland operating with executive functions. We worked hard in this party to bring about these two major advances, and most people would admit that the progress which has been achieved which enabled the Sunningdale conference to take place at all, has been due in very large measure to the wisdom and the steadfastness of Deputy Jack Lynch and the Fianna Fáil Party in recent difficult years.
We know that the only possible road to peace in this country, and ultimately to unity by consent, is the road indicated by power sharing in the North and by an effective Council of Ireland in which Irishmen of differing political traditions can join together for the good of this country, and in working together see for themselves the real possibilities that open up in a united Ireland, the real possibilities for advancement of all the people of Ireland, North and South.
We believe this is the only sane approach to that objective and that is why we worked so hard to bring about this situation. We decided quite some time ago that the correct model for the Council of Ireland was the European Economic Community with an independent secretariat, a Council of Ministers and a Parliamentary Assembly. I spelled out our view on this matter and our ideas on 7th April last and they were reported in the newspapers on the following day. I understand Deputy Desmond referred to that in this debate. I recall it lest there be any doubt as to where we stand and have always stood on these matters.
In the course of the few remarks the Taoiseach made in regard to the Sunningdale communiqué he said:
The policing, human rights and law reform proposals are equally part of the totality of the agreement.
This is a doubtful statement to say the least. Whatever may be said about the proposed arrangements regarding policing — and a great deal could be said about them — it is quite clear that the proposals envisage the question of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights or such part thereof as might be agreed on, north and south. That application depends on the Council of Ireland and agreement being reached within the Council of Ireland on that matter.
Furthermore, I think it is clear that the law reform proposals referred to by the Taoiseach have been referred to a commission. Some people might regard this as a long-fingering exercise but it is clear that there is no obligation on that commission to produce its report and recommendations, if any, before the signing of the agreement and the setting up of the Council of Ireland. This is a pity because I think that the area involved here contains within it the possibility of very major advances both in regard to satisfying the Unionist population in the North—and unless I say otherwise I mean by that those who favour the link with Britain — and their concern on the one hand and satisfying those on the other hand who want to see more and more effective all-Ireland institutions in operation.
I am not criticising the provisions in that regard; I understand the difficulties involved. I am merely making the point that these are matters which are outstanding and may well be outstanding when the agreement is signed and consequently to say that they form part of the totality of the agreement is, I suggest, misleading.
The Taoiseach also stated, and again I am quoting from his speech:
Those who say they do not want the statements on the status of Northern Ireland must also say that they do not want a Council of Ireland.
With all due deference to the Taoiseach I suggest that statement is nonsense because it presupposes that our negotiators were the best available to us and did the best possible job.
There are very many people in this country who would dispute that proposition and in particular who would dispute that proposition in relation to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who has given the impression, certainly to many people, that in his view there should be two Irelands, one for the British and one for the Irish. Some people have suggested that anyone who is concerned with the content of paragraph 5 of the communiqué is preoccupied with words, with dictionary politics. I suggest what is involved in the concern in this matter is a very grave political reality and anybody who does not understand this is not in touch with our people.
I should like to make clear that in my view the position of Ireland vis-á-vis Britain as regards sovereignty is one in which we cannot and will not concede the right of Britain to sovereignty over any part of Ireland. The position of the majority of the population of this country vis-á-vis those who favour the union with Britain is different and I think most of the people in this country would favour leaning over backwards to try to persuade and induce those who favour the link with Britain to work together with the rest of the Irish people in the interests of all the people of Ireland.
The matter is complicated by reason of the fact that there is no sovereign state in the North and that the interests of the area of Northern Ireland are represented by the British Government. If the proposals in paragraph 5 of the communiqué are designed to meet that difficulty — to distinguish on the one hand between this country vis-á-vis Britain in regard to sovereignty and on the other hand the position of the majority of our people in this country vis-á-vis those who favour union with Britain — then, certainly, that effort has our sympathy. We know the difficulties involved.
It has been implied, if not actually stated, that the manner in which paragraph 5 of the communiqué is set out is intended to suggest that you have on the one side the declaration of its position by one sovereign Government and, on the other, the declaration of its position by the other sovereign Government. We have lived for a long time with the situation in which we, under our Constitution, claim that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas, and at the same time the British Government, through Acts of Parliament passed at Westminster, claim that Northern Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom. In one sense, one could regard Northern Ireland as a disputed territory between two sovereign Governments, a situation for which there is ample precedent in other parts of the world. We have had to live with that situation for a long time.
If these two declarations were intended to set out the positions of the two Governments in effect agreeing to differ on this question of sovereignty over Northern Ireland and going on then to add the views of each of the Governments as to what might be done to improve the situation in Northern Ireland, then I think this could well be an acceptable position. The difficulty is however that in the Irish declaration there is no reference whatever to the Irish position in regard to sovereignty while in the British declaration there is a clear spelling out of the British position. I could well understand a declaration which in both cases made no reference to this matter, or alternatively a declaration which made reference to this matter on both sides. It is the imbalance in this paragraph, the statement of the British position and the non-statement of the Irish position, which has led to concern and, to say the least of it, has led to confusion. I am saying this in criticism of the Irish Government negotiators.
The agreement has not yet been drawn up. It would appear that when it is drawn up it will have to come before this House for approval. When it is drawn up, if it were in its final form to mean an abandonment of our claim to sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland vis-á-vis Britain, then it would not get the support, I believe, of the great majority of the voters. However, I sincerely hope the agreement in its final form will not amount to that. But I fault, and fault gravely, the Irish Government negotiators who agreed to such a potentially dangerous ambiguity, and it has been noted that there is no such ambiguity on the British side.
I hope that from what I have said it will be clear that we want to see the positive elements outlined in the communiqué from Sunningdale implemented and implemented as soon as possible. It would indeed be strange if we did not want to, having regard to the efforts that we made over a very difficult period to bring this about. We have concern about some aspects of certain parts of the communiqué but we realise that the final agreement has yet to be drawn up. We believe it has to come before this House and we hope that when it does come before this House it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the great majority of our people.
This debate provides a convenient vehicle for discussion of the Sunningdale communiqué which is not before us in any formal sense. I turn now to a matter which arises to some extent directly from the Sunningdale communiqué, and that is the question of security in this State. We all know that the very efficient and massive Government propaganda machine has been directing its efforts to try to convince people that, on the one hand, Fianna Fáil is either weak or ambivalent on security and, on the other hand, that the Coalition Government can safely have security left in their hands. I want to challenge that assertion as not being in conformity with the truth. There have been a number of examples of this Government's incompetence in the security field since they came to office. In particular I refer to the matter of security at Mountjoy Prison prior to the escape by helicopter of three prisoners detained there.
I want to refer to the efforts which we made to ascertain from the Minister for Justice whether or not it was true that security at Mountjoy had been reduced some days prior to that escape. I want to recall to you, Sir, that the attitude adopted by the Minister for Justice in response to those questions was to say that he could not answer them without breaching security. I also want to recall to you that subsequent to the escape the Minister for Justice announced to the general public that a whole review of security in prisons throughout the country was taking place and that changes were being made in security methods adopted at prisons. In those circumstances, I suggest that any disclosure of what security had been in the past could not be regarded as a breach of security and that the Minister for Justice was simply covering up what had happened and the incompetence of himself and his colleagues in Government in regard to security. Propaganda is no substitute for real action in this field.
I also think it is no harm to remind ourselves of the very ambivalent position of the majority of the members of the present Government in regard to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. We all recall what happened when that Bill was going through this House. We recall that the Labour Party voted against it and we recall the last minute change of heart by most Members of the Fine Gael Party, including the present Minister for Justice, when some bombs went off in Dublin. I want to suggest that the members of this Government, and in particular the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who puts himself forward now as the self-appointed guardian of law and order, should now either admit that they were totally wrong when that Bill was going through, or if they were not they should repeal it. Any other stance can amount only to ambivalence on a very important aspect of security in this country. There cannot be that kind of ambivalence at the best of times but particularly if we are to try to make work the institutional arrangements outlined in the Sunningdale communiqué there cannot be any such ambivalence in the Government.
I wish also to put a footnote to the indictment made by Deputy O'Malley of the Government when he outlined some aspects of the jobs-for-the-boys syndrome. Apart from the various appointments to which he referred, judicial and others, some other judicial appointments at a lower level have been made and which were also appointments of former Fine Gael candidates. The Attorney General who has just left the House has been heard to say that under him State prosecutions would be allocated on the basis of merit. It is a well-known fact in the Law Library that since Deputy Costello took office any known supporter of this party has been cut out completely. These people will get on without any patronage from the Attorney General or from any of his colleagues but let us acknowledge the facts. I hope that never again will we hear the holier-than-thou-attitude that we had so much of from the people opposite when they were in opposition.
The Taoiseach's speech in this debate is noteworthy on a number of counts, not least the one I have mentioned — the lack of real comment on the Sunningdale communiqué — but also for its lack of reference to any new achievement by this allegedly brilliant Government although we do not hear so much these days about this brilliant Government as we had been hearing. Maybe this is symptomatic of something. However, one would think that the Taoiseach in his first major review of the activities of his Government if he had anything to point to, would point out significant new departures adopted by his Government but one would search his statement in vain for any such reference.
The Taoiseach's statement is noteworthy also for a recital of facts and figures to show the growth in the economy but that growth, as I propose to show later, is the work of Fianna Fáil and not of the present Government. The statement contained also a number of references to success in the field of industrial development. These references were based almost exclusively on the IDA's annual report for the year ended March, 1973. That is a significant factor. Noteworthy also were the references by the Taoiseach to developments in the Department of the Public Service, in the field of Arts and in relation to parliamentary procedure, all of which the Taoiseach and his Government found readymade on their desks when they took office. Furthermore, we had from the Taoiseach some platitudes but no commitment to such matters as reform of the Seanad election procedure. We had references also to increases in social welfare but those references did not disclose that if one deducts the £30 million, approximately, by way of EEC savings, there emerges the fact that this Government in this year are spending less on improving social welfare than was spent by the Government last year in this area at a time when the then Government gave reliefs in income tax and, most significant of all, imposed no new taxation while this Government have taxed everything in sight.
We also had from the Taoiseach a long dissertation on the Government Information Service and on the alleged open-government policy. However, the Taoiseach made no reference to the failure of this allegedly open Government to communicate to the people the facts, when they were at their disposal, in regard to the oil crisis. Neither did he make any reference to the failure of the Government Information Service to provide copies of the communiqué from Sunningdale to the Deputies on this side of the House for days after the meeting had concluded although such copies were made available immediately through the media. Neither did the Taoiseach refer to the failure to provide any information on the real state of our economy, a matter that I will deal with later.
We had no reference either from the Taoiseach to the appalling breach of confidence that occurred on the first day of the Conference. We are entitled to know whether this happened on the instructions of a member of the Government. If so, that member should be named and be answerable to this House. If he is not so named the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will have to be held responsible since responsibility for the Government Information Service has been assigned to him. We are entitled to know also whether, if the breach occurred without any such instruction from the Government or a member of the Government, what action has been taken in regard to the official concerned.
We handed over the economy of this country in very good condition. One aspect of it was that industrial strife was at an unprecedented low level but in a matter of months, under the Coalition Government we have had chaos in the field of industrial relations but there was no hint of this in the Taoiseach's review of the economy. I wonder whether he considers the matter to be so insignificant as not to merit as much as a mention. Certainly, the inactivity of the Government in this field would lead one to believe either that the Government think this situation does not matter or, more likely that they have no idea of what to do about it.
One of the major failures of this Government is in the field of prices. That failure has been aggravated considerably by the unscrupulous promises they made in securing support from the people. They promised the immediate introduction of strict price control and a stabilisation of prices. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been described by some of his erstwhile friends in the Labour Party as, in one case, a brilliant Marxist-Leninist economist and, in another, as an apostate Marxist. I do not know whether it is due to his being one or other of those things, brilliant or otherwise, but the fact is that he has presided over the greatest increases in prices ever recorded in this country as is shown by the most recently published figures. Those figures show also that food was one of the main items in the recent increase in prices and this was after the removal of VAT from food.
I do not propose to delay the House by going back over the history of this business of VAT except to remind the House that I said here that we were prepared to be judged as against the Coalition on the basis of which of us had the better approach to government on this question of the removal of VAT from food. I suggest that there is not a soul in the country now who does not know who has the right approach on this subject. This Government has got to learn that gimmicks do not constitute good Government. They have to stop trying to bluff the people and tell the truth. I believe the situation in regard to prices has become much too serious for bluff. Real government in this as in other fields requires that the Government tell the truth to the people and give leadership.
There were claims by the Taoiseach, and there have been continuing claims by members of the Government, that the economy is booming and that that is due to the actions of the present Government. I should like to refer to the economic review issued by the Confederation of Irish Industry, dated November, 1973. On page 1 this review says the following:
It is generally agreed that in Ireland in 1973 there has been a marked upswing in economic activity. This expansion began towards the end of 1972 and has, if anything, gathered momentum during the year.
Further on, and on the same page, it states:
The latest data on production now relate to the second quarter of the year. In this period the volume of output was 12.5 per cent higher than in the same period last year. This increase is slightly lower than the outstanding growth of 14.5 per cent for the first quarter of 1973 but the trend is still strongly upwards.
These quotations, I suggest show that the upswing in the economy was taking place under Fianna Fáil at the end of 1972, the last quarter, and continued on an upward trend thereafter with a slight drop when the Coalition took over as I have just shown.
In referring to productivity the same publication, in page 3, says:
However, in the first quarter of 1973, an 11 per cent increase in productivity was recorded and in the second quarter productivity rose by 9 per cent.
There is, I suggest, no reputable economist who would claim that any effect on the economy can be discerned arising out of increased capital injections for a period of six months as a minimum and in many cases the effects cannot be seen for some years. It is quite clear, on any objective assessment of the situation, that we handed over the economy of this country running well on a balanced growth path. No credit is due to the present Government for that.
The worrying aspect of the matter is what this Coalition Government has been doing to the economy since. I know that when the truth emerges they will try to hide behind the consequences of the oil crisis but, for that reason alone, and if for only that reason, I want to put on record in this House the mismanagement of the economy by this Coalition Government before any effects of the fuel crisis. The public capital programme published for this year proposed expenditure of £56 million more than was expended last year. We, on this side of the House, have discovered that there is proposed additional expenditure over and above the public capital programme in respect of capital expenditure from the Exchequer of £8 million for the Agricultural Credit Corporation; £6 million for telephone capital and, apparently, £6 million to the building societies. These we know about but, no doubt, there are others that we have not been told about.
Taking what we know about, this amounts to £20 million extra over and above the published capital programme making a requirement of £76 million more than last year. On the resources side, however, we know, although the Minister for Finance tried to conceal the fact, that the picture is grim and getting worse. The general public subscribed £19 million less to the national loan this year than they did last year. From the 1st April this year to 23rd November the amount invested in savings certificates went down by £2.4 million as compared with the same period last year. In the same period national instalment savings were down by £1.9 million and prize bonds by £1.2 million.
Because of the Government's efforts at concealment we can only guess at the rest of this sad story but we know for certain from the figures I have quoted that Exchequer resources are down by £24.5 million at least as compared with last year. Putting this figure with the increased expenditure proposed we find a gap of more than £100 million. What I want to know, and I hope the Tánaiste will be able to tell us when he is replying, is where is this money going to come from. Will it come from the banks with the consequence of an unprecedented credit squeeze on the private sector or very massive external borrowings with all that entails or is there to be a major cutback in the public capital programme?
The public is entitled to know the answers to those serious questions affecting the fundamental structure of our economy, questions which have arisen quite apart from, and before, the oil crisis. I repeat, apart from, and independently of, and before, the oil crisis.
The gap in capital requirements from the Exchequer, as I have indicated, amounts to at least £100 million and probably more. However, we know that it is that much from the figures we have extracted. This is a most serious matter and it is one that cannot be shrugged off. This Government allegedly committed to a policy of open government with its massive propaganda machine, should now come clean and tell the Irish people the facts of their mismanagement of the economy. Even more important, they should tell the Irish people what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this situation before it is too late.
Truth at this stage, however unpalatable it may be, is far preferable to lulling people into a false sense of security until one day the Government throw up their hands and the economy comes crashing down around our ears. I am not saying this lightly. I am extremely concerned about the situation which has been developing and which I have outlined to the House. If the Government believe that this situation is not serious, then they have an obligation to tell the people the facts and to show where the figures I have quoted are wrong. They must show how they propose to remedy the situation. I have not a great deal of confidence that this is going to be done. It will be recalled that a few weeks ago I put a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Finance which, arising out of the tremendous shortfall in the national loan, asked the Minister for Finance to indicate what changes he proposed in the public capital programme, and that would have included either changes in expenditure or changes in the plans for resources to finance the public capital programme. I did not get the answer. Perhaps I should quote the second paragraph of the reply:
My proposals for financing the public capital programme were set out in the capital budget booklet. These proposals are constantly being reviewed in the light of developments during the year. In view of the present unsettled state of capital markets both here and abroad it would be premature to make any statement on the matter.
I would suggest that if the Minister is unable to say, because of the unsettled state of the capital markets, where he is going to get the money it behoves him to indicate to the House and to the country the steps he proposes to take if, because of the unsettled nature of those markets, his plans do not work out. His plans as indicated in the public capital programme have not worked out at all. The public capital programme referred to the fact that small savings were expected to show a moderate increase, to quote from the Capital Budget, 1973. Of course, they have not shown a moderate increase. They have shown an enormous drop. In paragraph 7 of the Capital Budget, 1973 it is stated:
As regards external borrowings, the foreign indebtedness of the Exchequer is relatively modest (about one-third the level of the official external reserves). Nevertheless undue reliance cannot be placed on borrowing abroad due to the uncertainties of the international capital market.
Paragraph 8 states:
The surest foundation for satisfactory development of the public capital programme lies in the expansion of domestic savings.
What has been happening is the exact reverse of that. I believe that a very serious situation has developed. I believe that the Minister for Finance has misguidedly tried to conceal that fact and that the interests of the country now require that the facts be told to the people so that if remedial measures are necessary and if they are unpalatable we can know about them and spread them over as long a period as possible so that they will have minimal impact.
I am afraid that failure to do this can have quite serious and even catastrophic effects on our economy. I believe that this Government up to now have operated on a basis of concealment of the truth contrary to their alleged commitment to open Government. I have indicated a number of areas in which the truth has been concealed as effectively as the Government could conceal it. I have indicated, arising out of the efforts made on this side of the House to extract the truth, the disturbing economic position that is emerging.
It is time for the Government to stop bluffing. It is time for them to tell the country what the position is and to indicate the action they propose to take. I repeat that the crisis situation in regard to the public capital programme which I have outlined has taken place quite independently of the fuel and oil crisis. The Minister for Finance has suggested that part of the trouble is due to the very high interest rates and the alternative sources of investment available —alternative to Government sources. This is a very superficial explanation of the position. The facts are that last year international interest rates were at an all-time high, and alternative attractive sources of investment— alternative to Government sources— were available.
Last year the resources subscribed by the public to national loans and savings were increasing at a substantial rate. Investment in such bodies as the ACC were increasing at a substantial rate. While I was Minister for Finance up to March of this year I never had to find any money from the Exchequer for the capital requirements of the ACC. In a matter of months this whole picture has changed dramatically. The whole trend has been reversed. The explanation which the Minister for Finance has tried to give is not at all satisfactory. If one were to accept his explanation as being the true and only one, does it not follow that when he sees what is happening he has a duty, and the Government have a duty, to take cognisance of what is happening and to note the reduction in the capital resources available to the Exchequer, and to tell this House and the people what the Government propose to do because of what is happening?
Failure to do that can only be regarded as the gravest dereliction of duty by the Government in general and the Minister for Finance in particular. On top of all this trouble there is looming an oil crisis which can have most serious effects on our economy, not only at home but also on our exports, especially those to Britain which is our largest export market.
If this crisis develops in the way that many people fear it will, there is no doubt that we will be faced with a grave national emergency which will require the utmost discipline and co-operation among all sections of the community. Our people are capable of this discipline and co-operation. They have shown this in the past. But to produce this the Government must give real leadership, and this requires an end to the bromide type statement, the concealment of facts and the propaganda gimmicks which have passed for Government in this State since 15th March last.