Committee on Finance. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Thursday, 25 Jul 1974

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £157,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

—(The Taoiseach).

Mr. G. Collins

The one area where the Government have proved most incompetent in their handling of the economy is with regard to agriculture. The Government's fiscal policies have been ruinous and have resulted in gross mismanagement. One can substantiate this accusation by some obvious and glaring examples.

Despite the Labour-Fine Gael Coalition commitment to stabilise prices, we have witnessed unprecedented price increases in the past year and especially in the last six months. At the moment inflation is running at the rate of 16 per cent per annum, placing us at the top of the EEC league. The Government may glibly say that inflation is completely outside their control in that it is imported into our open economy but, as was pointed out recently in the report of the Central Bank, a significant portion of the inflation is of domestic origin for which the Government must bear major responsibility.

This week the quarterly economic commentary of the Economic and Social Research Institute warned that real living standards are likely to fall about 3¼ per cent this year and that the balance of payments deficit will jump from the figure of £86 million last year to £275 million in 1974. The commentary reported that half of this record deficit is due directly to increased oil prices and to reduced cattle prices. I shall refer to the latter item again.

A good barometer of the economic well-being of any country is the state of the construction industry, and here the situation is dismal. The commentary of the Economic and Social Research Institute predicts that the number of houses to be completed this year will be lower than in 1973, despite the many assurances of the Minister for Local Government. Rumours are rife that up to 7,500 construction workers will be laid off after August. Figures released recently indicate that building costs rose by 11 per cent in the first six months of the year, and in the last 18 months— the period in office of the Government—costs have jumped by an astronomical 44 per cent, equivalent to the rise over the five years to 1971 when Fianna Fáil were in office.

We must seriously consider the distinct possibility of a collapse in the Irish construction industry, and it is in this context that the public must judge the refusal this week by the Government to give income tax relief to building societies.

I now come to agriculture which I will examine in some detail in my capacity as Opposition spokesman and I make these comments in the knowledge that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, according to newspaper reports, is on a holiday information visit to Denmark at the present time.

As an introduction to the examination of the current economic status of Irish agriculture I should like to reemphasise that the state of agriculture is a very relevant barometer of the Irish economy. This relationship stems from the fact that overall our total agriculture is the single biggest industry in this country. Twenty-five per cent of our population are directly engaged in farming, fishing or forestry and if we include those working in agriculture-based industries such as food processing, agricultural marketing and agricultural service industries, the total agricultural employment is in the order of 45 per cent. Within Irish manufacturing industry the food and drink sector is both the single biggest industrial grouping and the leading export performer. Likewise, because agriculture-based industry processes indigenously produced raw materials it has a much greater multiplier effect in the Irish economy compared with foreign owned industry. Hence its economic well-being is of added importance and transcends purely economic statistics.

In emphasising the critical importance of the role of agriculture in the Irish economy I should like to remind this House that the single most compelling reason why this country voted overwhelmingly to join the EEC was the anticipated advantages for our agriculture. The existence of the Community's common agricultural policy was considered to provide the two essential dynamics for an unprecedented expansion in our agricultural industry, namely, first, remunerative prices for our agricultural produce and, secondly, guaranteed market access. No longer was the development of Irish agriculture to be tied to the British cheap food policy, and in anticipation of the outstanding advantages to be derived from EEC membership commentators referred to it in terms of a bonanza for Irish agriculture.

With this brief background let us now examine how Irish agriculture has fared during the past seven months, which can be regarded as the period being considered in this Adjournment debate. A simple diagnosis forces one to realise that Irish agriculture is currently experiencing the worst crisis it has faced in many years. In the context of heavy investments at all stages of agriculture and especially at farm level and record increases in livestock numbers, Irish agriculture today is certainly in the doldrums and looks as if it is facing economic disaster. The crisis facing Irish agriculture is strikingly evidenced by data on Irish farm incomes.

In 1972 Irish farm incomes increased spectacularly by 38 per cent while they exhibited an elevation of similar magnitude in 1973 of 32 per cent. This, of course, we have already heard here today from the Taoiseach but he forgot to give us the estimated figure for 1974 or perhaps he was not advised of this by those in a position to advise him. I might tell him that his Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. Clinton, has agreed that farm incomes will decrease by 10 per cent in 1974. Obviously, this is a major disaster.

At a time when Irish agriculture is facing economic ruin let us ask what action the Government have taken. First, they have decided that this year was an opportune time to put income tax on farmers. Worse still, not alone were farmers to be taxed on their incomes but they were to be doubly taxed through a tax on income and rates on their land as well. The Fianna Fáil Opposition appreciating the financial problems facing farmers and the inequity of double taxation, were in favour, are in favour, of only one form of taxation. That can come about, as was made known right through the night last night, through the derating of land for farmers liable to income tax. Alas, we now know the action the Government took on this particular proposal of ours.

Secondly, this Government have been severely remiss in not protecting the interests of Irish agriculture at EEC level. For example, the Government have not introduced various producer subsidies which other Member Governments have brought in to support their own farmers. Most critically, however, this Government have been guilty of dereliction of duty in not taking speedier and more aggressive steps to remove the monetary compensatory amounts levied on Irish exports of agricultural products caused by the common agricultural policy.

The existence of this 15 per cent punitive levy is the single major cause of the depressed prices for Irish cattle and meat exports. The only solution to the monetary compensatory amounts problem is the introduction of a green £ through the changing reference rate between the Irish £ and the unit of account. Indeed, the initiative for introducing the green £ has come, not from the Government, but from those involved in farming and indeed from my party, the Fianna Fáil Party. I might ask what grudging steps have the Coalition Government taken to introduce the green £. The topic was raised at last week's beef package meeting of the Council of Ministers but consideration of the green £ was postponed to mid-September. This stalling tactic by the EEC is poor consolation to the Irish farmers and the Irish livestock and meat industry. I have no option but to accuse the Government of both indecision and poor tactics as regards expediting the introduction of the green £.

It is a fact that the Agricultural Commissioner, M. Lardinois, told Irish farming representatives some months ago that there should be no problem in getting EEC clearance for the Irish green £. Furthermore, did not Italy introduce the green lira to reduce the monetary compensatory payments? Thus, the precedent is already there, and if other countries like Italy, France and the United Kingdom can take steps to protect their agricultural industries, many people are asking why cannot Ireland follow suit.

I submit that the Irish Government of the day should also take unilateral action to safeguard Irish agriculture. In particular, an immediate and essential step is the introduction of the green £ but because of the Government's non-commitment to and their tardiness in this matter we now have a situation that the leader of one of the farming organisations very recently has been forced to call for a three-man Government ministerial team to lobby support from among EEC Governments for Ireland's green £. This raises the question who is running Irish agriculture at the moment. Because of their inaction and because they are reacting to external advice rather than initiating action themselves one can rightly say that this Government are not directing the development of Irish agriculture. However, this unfortunate state of affairs is, I suppose, not surprising when one examines the composition of the present Government, an urban-based, city dominated Cabinet, and even if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, were a formidable advocate of the problems of Irish agriculture, it is now recognised and accepted by practically everyone involved in the industry that he would receive little support from his Cabinet colleagues. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the Minister, Mr. Clinton, is a poor defender of the interests of Irish agriculture both at Cabinet level and at EEC ministerial level. I should like to say in fairness to him, even in his absence, that I believe he is certainly trying his best. I believe that he is working as hard as he can. to try to better the lot of the farmer. Unfortunately, for the farmer and for the nation as a whole he is not being successful in his efforts. As well as a lack of commitment on the part of the present Dublin-oriented Cabinet to Irish agriculture there is also the problem of a lack of funds to underwrite any special subsidies for Irish farmers. The national coffers I am afraid, have been fully exhausted by the grandiose schemes of the Labour left. Indeed even if the Minister could persuade the Cabinet to subsidise problem sectors of Irish agriculture—and he cannot—there is no money to do so.

While the dramatic about-turn in Irish farm incomes from a 32 per cent increase to a 10 per cent decrease, of which our Taoiseach is still not aware or if he is he is making sure to omit it, is a major debilitating influence on Irish agriculture. It is intertwined with a second consideration, namely our representation at EEC level. This inter-relationship is due to the existence of the monetary compensatory amounts and I have already criticised the Government for ineffectual action in this matter. However, if we broaden this topic one can also castigate this Government for poor representation at EEC level. Considering that our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing his best, and unsuccessfully, this representation that we have at EEC level is not good enough as it is not protecting Irish agriculture properly. I have quoted examples of the green pound and the non-deviation from EEC regulations even though this was necessary for selfprotection and has already been enacted by other EEC countries.

Let me instance another example— the listing of disadvantaged agricultural areas by each member county to qualify for special aids. During the last Dáil session I asked two questions on this important subject. On each occasion I have been stone-walled by the pat answer that this list is being prepared. That was not a Michael Pat answer. In the period between the questions the Agricultural Commissioner M. Lardinois is on record as having accused various member countries, including Ireland, of delaying this scheme by not sending in national lists. The question must be asked and answered: why the delay in Ireland's case? Surely the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is both sufficiently competent on and knowledgeable about those areas of our country where farming is under more severe handicaps. This is yet another area appertaining to the EEC where this Minister for Agriculture and the Government of which he is a member have been found wanting despite constant proddings from the Opposition.

Let me give other examples of poor EEC representation. The Agricultural Commissioner M. Lardinois promised that sheep and lamb would be embraced within the Common Agricultural Policy by this summer. This has not happened and the French, through their sluice gate arrangements, recently closed the lucrative French market to Irish lamb. I would like to know why the Minister has not been more aggressive in having this problem solved. The EEC farm modernisation scheme has been fully adopted by this country. I believe, without any concern for the future of our 100,000 small farmers or, as we are now told to call them by those in Brussels, our 100,000 transitional farmers. I suggest this Government were remiss in not adapting the modernisation scheme to suit situations peculiar to Ireland. In this context an embracing listing of disadvantaged areas is essential as special national subsidies and interest-free loans can be given to those areas.

This country's current negotiations for sugar beet quotas are not, I believe as aggressive as they should be. Instead of getting an increase on our A sugar quota from £150,000 to £175,000 or £180,000 it seems we may end up with a 25 per cent reduction in our current B quota of 50,000 tons. Any reduction in our sugar quota would be disastrous for the confidence of our sugar beet growers. This confidence I assure the House is already at a low ebb. Beet acreage has dropped by 20,000 acres over the past two seasons. With free inter-Community trade we are convinced that we must take every step to protect our home market and make sure it is supplied by domestic sugar rather than by imports.

Apart from EEC representation there are many internal agricultural developments which have added to the lack of confidence currently permeating the industry. While these are numerous I will select only one or two examples to make my point. We have had problems with the agricultural advisory service and county committees of agriculture, festering problems regarding promotional prospects culminating in the agricultural advisers refusing to operate the EEC farm modernisation scheme from the beginning of February to the middle of May. The grievances of the advisers and the concern of farmers have been accentuated by the action of this Government in announcing their much vaunted plans for reorganisation of the agricultural industry service. It is essential that these plans, promised by the Government since they took office, be released immediately in order to restore the confidence of both the farmer and the adviser. I should like to ask whether the delay is another case of the Minister for Agriculture being incapable of convincing his Dublin-based, city-orientated and trade union-dominated Cabinet colleagues to go along with his ideas, more critically to go along with them and to pay for them or is it a case of there being no plan actually formulated? Either way the Minister must act immediately if the effective and trustworthy working relationship between the farmer and the adviser is to be maintained in the future.

Secondly we have the very serious problem of a feed shortage this winter which many believe will reach famine proportions. While last winter was very difficult this winter portends to be a disaster for two reasons. There are at least 300,000 extra livestock on Irish farms and the new EEC slaughter agreements will result in more mature cattle being carried over the winter, adding to the feed problem. The poor spring and excessive grass consumption has resulted in less fodder conservation for next winter. One of our leading farming organisations calculated that 42 per cent more silage would be required next winter. We must state that the farming organisations rather than the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, representing the Government, have been much more active in alerting farmers to the potential feed crisis next winter. We all know how farmers acted when the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries advised them to grow more cereals this year. I do not think it is any secret that the Minister's advice was not taken, unfortunately.

I should like in discussing winter feed to advise all farmers to take every step to conserve all items of feed which may be available as a by-product to their farm activities. I am thinking particularly of such items as beet tops, which can provide valuable feed by ensilage. I am also glad to know that farmers growing peas are baling or ensiling the spent vines. These vines contain a ton of dry matter per acre and should be conserved this year because of potential fodder shortage.

I will now try to review very briefly the current state of various commodity areas. As an introduction one can generalise and state that all agricultural commodity areas are suffering the effect of high production costs, an increase of 19 per cent this year, which is due to the greatly increased costs of essential farm inputs such as fertilisers, seeds, feeding stuffs, agro-chemicals, fuels and so on. In many instances, especially in the case of fertilisers, the higher prices were associated with low availability. Fertilisers are expected to increase by 25 per cent next month and all forms of nitrigin are expected to be scarce next year as they were this year.

General inflation, as mentioned earlier, is running at 16 per cent. This inflation hits agriculture through increased labour costs, higher prices for agricultural machinery, farm buildings and the like. The lack of confidence by Irish farmers is supported by a fall off in purchases of new agricultural machinery. The reduced price for farm outputs and the unfortunate decrease in the price of farm products results from over-supplied and depressed markets and in the context of more extensive inputs have resulted in a 10 per cent drop in farm income for 1974.

Let us briefly examine some of the more important commodity areas of Irish agriculture. One need only look at the pigs and poultry industries to honestly admit that these commodities took a very severe beating in recent months due to highly inflated feed costs and also due to the action of the present Government in decontrolling the price of feeding stuffs in an effort to try and win support during the Monaghan by-election of last November. While feeding stuffs are now cheaper pig numbers have decreased and many small pig units have gone out of business but I do not think it is any concern of the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or his Dublin-based Cabinet colleagues how many of them have been put out of business. The Minister must take full responsibility for this crisis in confidence in the pig industry as he unwisely advised farmers to get out of pigs. This was contrary to the advice offered at the time by the Pigs and Bacon Commission and I believe it will possibly lead to a shortage of Irish pig meat later on this year.

In the cattle and beef area it is unfortunate for this country that the EEC beef market became over-supplied and a severe strain was placed on the intervention storage of frozen beef. Eventually the beef intervention system collapsed because there was a shortage of cold storage and also there were the continued imports into the European Economic Community from third countries. Under these pressures it is little wonder that the intervention arrangements broke down as it was ludicrous for the EEC and us, as a member, to permit imports in the face of an internal surplus. In this context the cessation of all imports announced in last week's beef package is to be welcomed but I believe it is a question of too little too late.

I recommend the extension of the temporary import stoppage beyond 31st October, which is the deadline, if market stability has not been achieved by that time. While the EEC slaughter premiums have introduced some temporary relief to the fall in cattle prices it is only a temporary solution as it postpones the problem only through distorting normal seasonal patterns. Furthermore, winter storage of cattle will be compounded by the critical feed situation predicted for this winter, as I already mentioned. The EEC slaughter premiums are to my mind a material subsidy and represent an attack on the intervention system and hence on the common agricultural policy itself. This is very critical for Ireland. Ireland must be vigilant in preventing any dilution of the Common Agricultural Policy through a return to a system of national price supports on a permanent basis. However, the main factor of reducing the price of Irish cattle and beef is the existence of the monetary compensatory amounts. These must be removed as soon as possible through the introduction of the green pound.

While dairying has been the shining star of Irish agricultural commodities there are problems here also. Instead of the expected 10 per cent increase in milk production it is still 5 per cent behind last year's figure of 600,000,000 gallons and, believe me, the milk is not being given to the calves at 20p a gallon as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would like us to believe. As a result of this increase not materialising there is a loss of surplus processing capacity in the dairy industry. While milk prices are up on last years the dairy farmer incomes have also suffered from the reduced prices they got for their calves and also the reduced prices they are getting for their culled cows. Even the dairy farmers have had their confidence eroded and their total incomes reduced. The monetary compensatory charge, as applied to dairy exports, represent a levy of £30 per ton on skimmed milk powder.

Contrary to expectations, the grain acreage has not increased. This is especially true of feeding grain. As I have already stated sugar beet acreage is also down for this year by 9,000 acres to a very undesirable figure of 65,000 acres. I am convinced that Irish agriculture is going through a major crisis because of a 12 per cent fall in farm incomes. This reduction is due to 19 per cent higher production costs mainly due to more expensive imports, general inflation in the economy of 16 per cent and lower prices for outputs due to poor EEC market management. This crisis of confidence is accentuated by the inability of this Government to tackle the root causes of the various problems currently plaguing Irish argiculture.

Mr. O'Brien

It is important to realise that the Adjournment Debate is a statement of the affairs of the nation over the last 12 months and the projections for the coming year. The Opposition over the last few days have engaged in the worst type of propaganda we have ever seen in the political history of this State, speaking of a housing crisis and of redundancy when they know this is not true. Last year we had the same poppycock from them regarding housing. They said there was a housing crisis, that we would not fulfil one of our promises in the 14-point plan we published prior to the election in 1973. We did fulfil it; we exceeded the figure we set. Again this year Fianna Fáil are attempting to create a crisis which does not exist. It is pathetic that an Opposition should resort to this tactic. They claim that a previous Coalition Government failed because things went wrong in the building industry and they are hoping the same thing might happen again. Obviously, their idea is that if you say something often enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it. This is regrettable because many small builders may listen to them and be afraid to take on new contracts.

The Minister for Local Government has assured the building industry that money is available and only this week more than £9 million was injected into the industry to ensure that it would perform as we promised in order to fulfil our social commitments and ensure housing for our people. We have created the situation of housing coordinator in Dublin Corporation because this was necessary due to the neglect of the Opposition when they were in Government. They showed absolutely no concern for the disgraceful housing situation that was allowed to develop in Dublin where for a number of years we have had a waiting list of more than 5,000 families living in disgraceful conditions in rat-infested rooms. The National Coalition Government have created this new post to ensure that in coming years the housing situation will be rectified. Now the Opposition are trying to create a crisis in the building industry because they are bereft of ideas and all they can do as an Opposition is to try to create this atmosphere of despair and unemployment.

We can assure the people that this will not come about because the Government are aware of the needs and the problems. They are problems created by inflation, the cost of housing and the cost of servicing money. These problems will not be solved by the tactics of the Opposition. They can only be solved by a Government with collective responsibility dedicated to social reforms. We need only look back over the past 16 months to see the progress made in the field of social reform to which I shall refer later. What saddens me is that I believe a Government is as good as its Opposition and I am rather displeased at the type of Opposition we have now. I hope that in coming years it will improve and play a responsible role so that if we are not performing as we should they will let us know where we are failing. At present they are engaged in this spurious campaign which I believe will be held in contempt by the people. I think this is what is happening.

We have only to turn to the last budget and the 1973 budget to see the extent of social reforms. In the last budget particularly the increase in social welfare in one year was equivalent to the total increase over seven years under the present Opposition, so that one year of National Coalition Government is equal to seven years of Fianna Fáil Government.

I do not view social benefits as something provided by a "do-gooder" Government but as a social responsibility. Prior to the election we declared this. Social welfare recipients were neglected; they were pawns of the Government. If it was advantageous to bring in a good budget for election purposes the then Government did so but for the first time the 1974 budget clearly indicated a percentage increase for social welfare recipients which was above the inflationary increase we have experienced. This is a step in the right direction.

I believe social welfare benefits should be tied to national wage agreements and that budgets should provide additional increases to ensure that the standard of living of recipients would also be improved. People who have given their lives working for the State should not end their days depending on the whims of politicians. If we are a Christian society we could not accept that.

The present Government are evolving a more equitable and just system of social welfare. We have looked after the unmarried mothers. It is very important to ensure that children of unmarried mothers get all they are entitled to get. This year also, wives and children of people who are incarcerated will not be made suffer. This is only right. Why should the children of a person committed for an offence go hungry? This clearly indicated the difference between the present Government and the Opposition. The Opposition became bereft of any sense of social reform. They were lead by the nose by their administrators, not that the administrators wanted to lead them but they had no alternative because of the ineptitude of the Cabinet.

Deputy G. Collins referred to the Dublin-based Cabinet. The Cabinet has not been selected on a regional basis. The best men for the job were selected regardless of where they came from. We know that the Opposition picked their Cabinet for strategic purposes—a State car here and a State car there would get them votes. So be it. We are concerned about good government. We must ensure that the best men for the jobs are selected. The Taoiseach did that when he selected his Cabinet. The Opposition are trying to drive a wedge between the rural and urban Deputies. This is a cheap tactic. It does not do them justice.

People say: "You are all the same." I would like to indicate clearly that we are not all the same. Social welfare benefits are paid to people in need. This Government are committed to carrying out a policy of eliminating poverty. The Minister for Finance allocated £100,000 by way of funds to investigate the causes of poverty. Our prime responsibility is to eliminate poverty and the only way to do that is by having an in-depth investigation. A committee has been set up. It consists of first-class people who are aware of the problems. They will report back to the Government. We can look forward to the elimination of poverty not by handing out social welfare payments every week but by building up a better society.

This Government taxed the mines. They were given a tax-free holiday by the present Opposition. That was a disgrace. They allowed the mining companies to come in here and mine the wealth of this country and take it out while contributing practically nothing to the economy of the nation. Even when a Bill was introduced to ensure that the mining industry would be taxed in the same way as any other industry the Opposition opposed it. That shows that as a party they are truly capitalist. The wealth of the nation belongs to the people and not to speculators. We welcome people coming here to operate mining or other industries but they must not do it at the expense of the people. We were sent to this House to represent the people of the country. It is our duty to see that we enact laws that protect our people and ensure that our wealth accrues to them and not just to the few. That is another example of the difference between the National Coalition Government and Fianna Fáil. They lost their political souls. They are now in Opposition. They are hoping for some accident to happen and dreaming of a split in the National Coalition. There will be no split. The National Coalition Government were elected to do a job. Their job was to give the country good government and to develop a social conscience within the nation. Under the Fianna Fáil Party what was being developed was an attitude of: "I am all right, Jack. If I have something I am not interested in helping my fellowman." Those sentiments are against the best principles and traditions of our people. I am glad the change of Government has brought a renewed confidence and a renewal within the people of their responsibility in society. Everybody knows that social reforms cost money. Once the people see a Government is committed to a genuine social reform they will go along with it.

Industrial development over the last 18 months, since the Government took office, has been progressing. Last year the job rate rose substantially. This year it is not rising as quickly as we would like. The Industrial Development Authority are doing a first class job. They are encouraging new industry by ensuring that the job rate is growing. When one takes into account the troubles in Northern Ireland one realises just what a good job they are doing. The Government are giving them every encouragement. Industrialists see this nation as buoyant and industrious and are prepared to bring their businesses here. That is why I feel that any action by the Opposition to try to create a doomsday situation by propaganda is a disgrace and borders on treason.

The oil crisis has upset the economies of most of the European countries. When we compare the effects of the oil crisis on this country with its effects on the wealthy industrial nations, we realise that is has not left as great a mark here as it might have done. Again, the credit for this is due to the Government. The Minister for Transport and Power never lost his head in the crisis and so we weathered it. England was forced to bring in a three day week with the resultant loss in production and earning power. We maintained our production capacity. This reflects the attitude of the Government. It was said years ago that if England got a chill, Ireland got pneumonia. In this case, England got pneumonia and Ireland got the chill. Again, this reflects a change of attitude. The change of attitude was the result of good government. The respective Ministers are on top of their various ministries and relate right through the Cabinet. What we are getting here is genuine collective Government working together to ensure progress.

This Government will have to apply themselves to the energy problem. The possibilities of finding oil and gas are no longer remote. Indeed in the next few years we hope we will have them. This will change the face of the nation. It will give us a new impetus and a far higher growth rate. It will ensure that we can undertake extra social commitments. I have no doubt that this Government will not give away our wealth to the oil companies. They will be mindful of their obligations to the nation and the wealth accruing from such finds. Again, profits will be fed back into the country.

I am glad the Government have approved a nuclear generating station. This was long overdue. The last Government dragged their heels on this. They did not know how to treat it. The decision is now made and we will go ahead. One is always wary of any nuclear development and its consequences. In view of the way the western countries were held to ransom by the oil producing nations last year, it is important that one looks for other means of power. If the wheels of industry stop the nation will grind very quickly to a halt.

I am happy that the Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that there is a diversification of energy to ensure that we will not again be the victims of inflated prices imposed by the oil producing nations. Or, if they carry it too far, we shall have to ensure that we will be in a position to take other steps.

As I said earlier, Fianna Fáil, to try to stampede this Government into false action, are using the spurious statements on housing, which is regrettable. In our one year in office, this Government have more than fulfilled their promises. Also, as a Dublin-based Deputy, I think I can say that there is a firm commitment to centre city development. Fianna Fáil were there for 16 years and they allowed this city to decay; they let it be taken over by any speculator who wanted to come in and develop. This is a disgrace because Dublin is a fine city and worthy of something more than that type of treatment. In answer to Deputy G. Collins, who was bleating about the Dublin-based Cabinet, perhaps it was because Fianna Fáil was a rural-based Cabinet they were not aware of the needs of the people of Dublin. But I do not use that as an argument. I believe they merely were not aware of the social problems of the city. Now 80 acres have been allocated. This is not just a gesture but is a positive move to ensure that we have genuine urban renewal. This is not necessarily confined to Dublin only, but will also apply in other cities here. I believe other cities will learn a lesson from the way we allowed Dublin to decay over the years.

As a member of the housing committee of Dublin Corporation, and as chairman, I might say that the Minister has given assurance that there will be no shortage of money for local authority housing and development in Dublin. This is an area which has been badly neglected over the years, when Fianna Fáil showed absolutely no concern and in respect of which there was no planned programme. In fact, the last Government eliminated local authority in Dublin. I think that was a measure of its contempt for an authority which it did not control. It was eliminated at the stroke of a pen and left this city without any elected representatives for three or four years until the Minister for Local Government appointed the City Commissioners last year——

Mr. Moore

Fine Gael did the same; they abolished the council also.

They can learn from the work of this Government. Perhaps they may find the semblance of a social conscience and political philosophy, that the gombeen man attitude, the gombeen man type of Cabinet is gone. It is important that that be realised. People have given a vote of confidence to this Coalition Government. Despite the rantings and ravings of a number of speakers in Opposition for the last 18 months that this Government would not last six months, nine months, 12 months, 18 months, it will last its full term. We will then put before the people the record of our performance and it will be a matter for the people to decide whether to return us to office. However I have no doubt that the people will realise the success of the Coalition since coming to office.

Despite international complications we have had a growth rate during the past 12 months that is greater than that of the previous year. New industries have set up here and there are more to follow. The dynamic attitude of the Government has created a real confidence in the economy. All of this, together with an opinion that the government are getting too much Press, is antagonising the Opposition. We make news every week on the various aspects of our economy. As recently as this week, for instance, the Minister for Local Government announced that he was making available £9 million towards housing. This is the sort of news that the people want to hear.

Deputy O'Malley referred to there being a fraudulent aspect to this. I would not have thought there was anything fraudulent about the making available of £9 million. But of course the Deputy finds this hard to swallow, particularly after his meanderings of the last couple of weeks on the building industry.

They are silent now on the other side of the House. They realise the achievements of the Government and their only contribution is one of scaremongering and of trying to distort the situation. It is regrettable that the Opposition have to descend to such a low standard of politics when one realises that they were elected for the purpose of making their contribution to the working of Parliament. Is it not sad that they sit there waiting for something to happen instead of making a constructive contribution to the House? I suppose the answer is that they are not capable of doing that. They are devoid of any ideas despite their resorting to think-tanks and a public relations officer. Their problem is that they have no men of talent in the House.

I shall conclude by reiterating my satisfaction with the way in which this Government are moving. Despite the problem of international inflation our economic growth is rising.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Where did the Deputy read that?

Mr. O'Brien

This Government will ensure that the national wealth will be used for the good of the people as a whole, that it will not be doled out to the few.

Mr. Faulkner

I did not intend referring to education during this debate but I am obliged to do so because of a statement made here this morning by the Minister for Education in which he said that one of the first tasks he faced on assuming office was to restore confidence. I expect that I would be right in assuming that this remark was intended as a reflection on me as his immediate predecessor. In what or in whom did the Minister have to restore confidence?

I have no doubt that, after the recess, when the Minister is speaking on the Estimate for his Department, he will explain exactly what he meant by this statement and that he will tell us where the need arose to restore confidence and, also, who had lost confidence during my term of office. Perhaps this explanation would explain certain aspects of the Minister's attitude to education. However if the task of restoring confidence is his only excuse for his lack of performance in the Department, it is a very poor excuse, indeed.

The Minister spoke also of genuine consultation, and he enumerated various groups—teachers, managers and so on—with whom he had consultations. All these groups had consultations with me on many occasions during my term of office. I had genuine consultations and perhaps I should add also that, having had these consultations, I made decisions. The Minister stated that he was not tied ideologically to any type of school in the post-primary sector. Neither was I. If he reads the speeches made by me during my time as Minister for Education, he will find that on many occasions I stated that I was not concerned with particular types of schools, provided I could make available comprehensive education for our young people. I was not concerned whether that education was provided in secondary, vocational, comprehensive, or community schools so long as the schools concerned were large enough. Any decisions I took were taken in the interest of the children. While my decisions were accepted generally there were those who did not like some of them, but this is to be expected when a Minister makes decisions which he believes to be in the best interests of the children. I shall not go any further in this matter now, but I shall have a better opportunity of dealing with it, later.

Before the general election the people were being told ad nauseam about the huge reservoir of talent to be found in the ranks of the proposed Fine Gael/Labour Coalition. So extraordinary was this wide ranging talent supposed to be that it might have appeared that these parties had simply to be elected to government in order that this country be transformed into an earthly paradise. A 14-point plan was put before the people as a panacea for all ills. Perhaps it might have been a panacea had it been implemented or, indeed, had it been capable of implementation, but this policy is now in ruins and the shine has worn off the once brightly painted Coalition image. I have no doubt that the people would be only too glad to be given an opportunity at present to trade this academic brilliance for some common sense. Even the media, which must bear a considerable portion of the blame for helping to foist the Coalition on the people, recognise this now to some extent and are willing to admit on occasion that their idols have feet of clay.

The present state of the Irish economy is frightening. The prospects for farmers are the worst for many years. The building trade is in a chaotic condition. Unemployment figures are rising at a time of the year when they should be falling. Inflation continues unchecked and rising prices are putting even the essential commodities out of the reach of some of our people. The Government are unable to do anything to stabilise the position and, like Micawber, they appear to be waiting for something to turn up. On the other hand, the danger signals are apparent to the people, who are demanding action but to no effect.

My main reason for intervening in the debate is because I am particularly concerned about those in receipt of social welfare payments. It is true that no group is as adversely affected by rising prices as they are. They are living on fixed incomes and the vast majority are unable to cushion themselves against the increasing inroads into their meagre incomes. All of them, particularly those with children, are going through a period of real fear not only for the future but also for the present. When the Coalition Government took office the economy of the country was buoyant, so much so that the then Opposition speakers during the general election campaign said they would finance some of the projects they put before the electorate from the buoyancy in the economy.

We had just entered the EEC and all of us were aware that £30 million would be available from savings on agricultural subsidies. During the election campaign all parties promised to use that money for social welfare purposes. Never before in the history of the State had any Government such an opportunity to provide a worthwhile social security system that would ensure that the aged, the widows, the unemployed and other groups dependent on the State for help would be provided for, that not only would they be able to keep abreast of the rising cost of living but would have an improvement in the quality of their lives. I have often tried to visualise what the Coalition would have done had this money not been available. I can only look back on the terms of office of the previous Coalitions to try to gauge what might have been done. On that basis, the amounts that would have been available to those who are dependent on the State for help would have been meagre.

In the early days of the Coalition, we were bombarded with statements about the concern of the Government for those in the lower income groups, about what the Government had done for them, and the inadequacies of the Fianna Fáil administration in this matter. While efforts are being made to sustain this campaign—some of which can be seen in the Taoiseach's speech today where he makes use of carefully selected percentages—the statements of concern are shown to be the empty formulae we knew they would be when the Government were faced with the practicalities of the situation. Instead of thoroughly and speedily investigating the position in which the lower income groups find themselves, with the objective of quickly coming to their aid with further financial assistance, we have had Government speakers trying to defend the indefensible. They refer constantly to the increases this month in pension allowances and assistance without any regard for the purchasing power of the total benefits available to each individual.

It is no use harping back on previous years when the inflationary trend did not have anything like the same effect in eroding incomes as it does at the moment. I have said before that to speak of the total sum made available, expecting commendation when the figure goes into millions, is a useless and meaningless exercise. What one must do is to take the amount available to each individual or family and see how they can live on that sum.

We know that older people look on £1 as something of great value; they can remember when that amount would keep them in reasonable comfort for a week. To tell them that they will get an increase of £1.30, as in the case of the old age contributory pensioners, appears to them for the moment to be of great value. However, when they go to the shops they find that this amount of money has little value in buying power and that, even including the increase, their position is worse this year than it was last year. Not only must they meet costs but they must also cope with the many increases that are announced with very considerable regularity. We should refer also to the report of the Central Bank which stated that the inflationary trend will be exceptional in the year to come. We must remember this fact when we are assessing how much pensioners and other social welfare recipients have got in terms of purchasing power.

On the Estimate for Social Welfare, I mentioned that the value of the £ in February, 1973 had dropped to 97p in May, 1973, and to 83p in May, 1974. If we are to work out the value of the contributory old age pension in terms of May, 1973 and, for the sake of argument, to accept that the increase granted in July, 1973 had been granted in May, 1973, we would find that by May, 1974, the actual improvement was practically nil, although the income in money terms had increased by £1.30. Of course the increase was not granted in May, 1974; it was granted in July, 1974. Quite obviously, then, the pensioner is considerably worse off in July, 1974, than he was on the lower income in July, 1973.

One must also take into account that since the official figures were published relating to the fall in the value of the £ the price of a considerable number of goods has increased. Some of the goods in question have a very direct and substantial bearing on the standard of living of persons on social welfare benefit and assistance.

I have here the Official Report of Wednesday, 17th July, 1974. On that day a question put down by Deputy Brennan was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. The reply given contains percentage increases in the prices of various commodities in the 12 month period to mid-May, 1974. Many of the commodities on the list are necessary commodities and much used by social welfare recipients. According to that reply the price of bread increased by an average of 21 per cent. It is hardly necessary for me to state that bread is a staple food of persons on low incomes. The price of biscuits increased by up to 44.5 per cent. The price of fresh milk, pasteurised, increased by 19.4 per cent; cornflakes by 30.6 per cent; rice by 50.6 per cent. A rough estimate shows an average increase in the cost of men's clothing of approximately 20 per cent. These figures show an increase for such people much higher than the official figure of 16.5 per cent. This fact must be considered in relation to the situation in which persons on low incomes find themselves. Since May there have been further increases in the price of essential commodities and in bus and train fares, which increased by 20 per cent.

Apart from old age pensioners and blind pensioners, in whose case the Fianna Fáil Government made it possible for them to regard transport cost increases with equanimity, all social welfare recipients, particularly working widows and deserted wives, who have to travel to work are very seriously affected by these increases in fares. When people reach the stage where every penny counts and must be looked at a number of times before it is spent all these extra increases are the last straw. The pressures of fear, anxiety and worry are bringing many people to breaking point.

I should like again to stress the fact that even with the increases granted in this month to pensioners and social welfare recipients, these people are in a worse position in relation to the purchasing power of their incomes than they were this time last year. That is not the whole story. The fact is that the purchasing power of their incomes has been running far behind the purchasing power of their income in July, 1973. The contributory old age pension in July, 1973, was £7.20 a week. Taking the list of commodities I have mentioned and the increases in the price of food, fuel and clothing and estimating the volume of these commodities a pensioner could buy in July, 1973, it is quite obvious that as prices rose down through the year the pensioner was in a progressively worse position. The purchasing power of the pension at the beginning of the year was very much less than it was in the previous July. The pensioner was placed in the position that he had to go into debt or, which was much more likely, had to deprive himself of necessary food or use less fuel.

There has been too much talk to date, particularly in this period of escalating inflation, of the actual amounts that have been paid as compared with the amounts paid when there was little or no inflation. The Government must face up to their responsibilities. It is not enough to claim to be a caring Government or to talk about being a conservative one. Action is necessary. It is not enough to initiate a study of poverty, although I have gone on record as stating that this is something which is very commendable in itself. As I pointed out on many occasions, I would hope that the fact that a study was being made of poverty would not be used as a device to avoid or to delay taking action in respect of poverty which is too self-evident, that is, the poverty of persons who are depending on social welfare payments in a highly inflationary situation.

As I said at the beginning, it is the duty of the Government to seek out those at present in receipt of assistance and who are clearly living below subsistence level, who are fearful of what the next hour, not to say the next day will bring. The Government should ensure that such persons will get the necessary adjustments of their incomes to enable them to live in reasonable comfort. I do not think that the Government really appreciate the ravages being caused to the incomes of persons in the lower income group.

Part of this inflation is due to the action of the Government themselves in increasing VAT on a wide range of necessities and also due to their budgetary policy. It is of little consequence from whence inflation comes; it is the duty of the Government to cushion in a realistic way the less fortunate of our people against its very severe effects. I have made my case in relation to this on a number of occasions. I believe I have made a well founded case. Indeed in relatively recent times, since I spoke on this in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill and on the Social Welfare Estimate, all, I think, of the Dublin daily papers have written leading articles on this subject and have pressed the Government to take action in relation to people who are in necessitous circumstances in the present highly inflationary situation.

It might also be well if we were again to take note of the recent Central Bank report in which it was pointed out that the increase in the cost of living in the coming year will be at least as high and possibly higher than it was the past year and to remember that the people who are now drawing the new social welfare benefits are facing into this very difficult situation where price increases will begin almost immediately to erode the purchasing power of the money they get from the State. I would appeal to the Taoiseach and the Government to take cognisance of the points I am making. If cognisance is also taken of the fact that three Dublin dailies wrote leading articles on the same matter it can hardly be adjudged as purely political.

There is one other aspect of this matter to which I would like to refer. The Finance Bill which passed through this House this morning was very different in content to the one we were led to expect. I think we have a right to wonder what has happened to the various taxation proposals which the Labour Party in particular hailed as an earnest of their commitment to the raising of the standard of living of the lower income groups, particularly those who are unable to help themselves because of age, infirmity, illness or unemployment. What has happened to the proposals which were to bring about the great redistribution of wealth? I do not ask those questions because of any agreement on my part with the methods proposed. We recognise only too well the calamitous consequences of some of those proposals. We have our own ideas and our own plans for improving the lot of social welfare recipients. I am referring to the matter simply because this was the much vaunted Labour way of doing it and I am asking what are we now left with.

The plaintive cry of the Labour Party after the collapse of the two previous Coalition Governments that had it not been for the Fine Gael Party they would have worked wonders will not be accepted again. We are all aware, of course, of the pressures exerted on the Fine Gael Party by some of their supporters to drop these proposals, and it is now obvious that they do not propose to proceed with them despite occasional noises made by the Minister for Finance to help ease the consciences of the Members of the Labour Party. One must wonder, however, at the pressures which must have been exerted on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare when he said at a recent function—I do not purport here to use his exact words; I am simply paraphrasing him —that some people might think we could solve the poverty problem here by taxing heavily the wealthy 5 per cent of our people but that the facts were that unless the 80 per cent who were above the poverty line involved themselves and were willing to contribute to a solution the problem could not be solved. That statement to me appears to be a straw in the wind and a pointer to a retreat by the Labour Party from the policy which they proclaimed some time ago. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to be a man who is personally very concerned about those who are unable to help themselves. I know he is a man who would do his utmost and is most anxious to ensure that as much money as possible would be made available for social welfare purposes. I can understand his frustration if he has instructions to toe the Fine Gael line. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that poverty problems cannot be overcome unless we have a concerned effort made by all our people, but this has always been our policy and it is far from the policy which was adumbrated by the Coalition in the rather heady days of their advent to power. Let me stress the need to augment social welfare payments especially for those in the lower income bracket. I would strongly urge this. I think I have made a reasonable case in relation to it.

I would like to refer to the vote which took place in this House last week. I do not propose to refer to the subject matter of the debate which preceded the vote but simply to refer to the vote itself. The reaction of a man in my constituency to the Coalition debacle of last week was and I quote: "Not a crowd I would care to depend on in a crisis." This reaction was, I am convinced, symptomatic of the general feeling among the public. Apart from those staunch supporters of the Fine Gael Party who would be understandably anxious to portray the Taoiseach's action in the best possible light, the public generally are disturbed that we have a Government who are apparently leaderless, that we have a Government the members of which do not trust one another and who are incapable of taking a decision when faced with a difficult problem.

We are now facing many very difficult problems on the political front relating to the Northern Ireland situation. We are facing many difficult problems on the economic front in regard to inflation. We are facing very difficult problems on the social front in relation to the level of social welfare payments. Nobody can have any confidence that this Government can hope to have the unified approach to those problems necessary if they are to be overcome. In the highly emotive political situation and in the highly inflationary economic situation in which we live this is a frightening prospect. We can now see in its true light the basic reason why we have been floundering from crisis to crisis in the past few months, ever since the Coalition honeymoon period was over. During the honeymoon period the Government coasted along on the firm foundation laid by the Fianna Fáil Government.

The agricultural policy is now in tatters. One would be hard put to see which particular aspect was in the most chaotic condition. Prices are rising out of all control and the old excuse of imported inflation has been firmly knocked by the Central Bank Report. The Government now state that £9 million has been made available to meet a crisis in the housing industry, which I might add the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance insisted before the allocation was announced was not in a critical condition. But nobody, not even the Minister himself, yet knows how this money will be made available. We were told it will be made available from savings. In my experience as a Minister, I can say that will be quite a problem. I might also say that the public are sceptical. So long as the income and loan limits remain as they are, they only result in windowdressing.

The living standards of those on social welfare payments are being eroded rapidly while the Government make up their minds what to do in relation to this section of the community. The health scheme is pigeon-holed. Why go on? One could take Department after Department and show how lack of decision is holding the political, economic and social life of the country up to ransom. What has been clear to us in Opposition for quite a while and what has become clear to most people now is the lack of confidence in each other among members of the Government, and a failure to reach decisions on major matters is now clearly obvious to the people of the country in general. In recent days the Government have shown a lack of confidence. This has been the pattern in Coalition Governments before this and one can expect the same thing in the present Coalition Government.

The fact remains, whatever excuse may be made for the extraordinary spectacle of last week, that the confidence of the people of this country in the Government has been severely shattered. One can expect very little progress while they still remain in office. We may expect to see this Government going from crisis to crisis in the future.

I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will agree with me that in our system of government the vast bulk of legislation emanates from the Cabinet. When it is intended to introduce legislation, particularly legislation of grave import, a free, full discussion should take place at Cabinet level, so that when it is presented to the Oireachtas it will have the general agreement of the members of the Cabinet. In such circumstances the least one would expect is that the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Government, would express his views clearly and concisely on the particular Bill, so that when it comes to the Dáil it will have the agreement of all members of the Cabinet and it will not simply be the Minister who introduces the Bill to the Dáil who has responsibility for it. This is known as collective responsibility, and our democratic institutions depend to a great degree on this. If a member of a Government objects strongly in principle to a Bill and if his Cabinet colleagues insist on going ahead with it in spite of this, the Minister concerned has the option to resign rather than be associated with the Bill. This has happened in Irish parliamentary history, although not quite so often as has happened in other parliaments.

With regard to the free vote, backbenchers of the Coalition Government would not be regarded as having responsibility for a Bill. Therefore, when a decision is made to grant a free vote to party members backbenchers can, according to the dictates of their conscience, vote for or against a particular Bill. I am not discussing whether there should be a free vote in such circumstances. When a Bill is introduced, after having been discussed at Cabinet level, I fail to see how the same facility can be granted to members of the Cabinet. I do not want to be misunderstood here. I am not suggesting for one moment that members of the Cabinet have not the right to vote according to the dictates of their conscience. The point I want to make is that at Cabinet level members of the Cabinet can decide whether or not to introduce a Bill and also decide on the form it will take. Once that decision is taken, then it becomes the collective responsibility of all members of the Government, who remain Ministers after the Bill is introduced. Apologists for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education in relation to their action in voting against the Bill speak of conscience matters. I feel their consciences must have been equally active when the decision was taken to introduce the Bill.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

I must remind the Deputy he has until 6.20 to conclude.

Mr. Faulkner

Apologists also attribute highly clever political motivation to the Taoiseach. I doubt this, but if it were so then it was a very dear price to pay for the loss of confidence engendered in this Government or, more important still, in the loss of confidence in the economic life of the country.

At the moment we are faced with extremely critical problems but we have in office a Government incapable of making decisions in relation to them. Let nobody be in any doubt, difficult decisions will have to be made if we are not to have economic chaos in the country. The events of the past week have shown to the whole country the lack of confidence in one another among the members of the Government and the lack of leadership by the Taoiseach. I feel the lack of confidence in the Government is in danger of permeating every aspect of the economic life of the country. When we did not get leadership from the Taoiseach in relation to a controversial Bill I asked myself and the people of the country are also asking themselves——

Acting Chairman

It is now 6.20 and I must ask the Deputy to conclude.

Mr. Faulkner

——whether he is capable of leading the country in equally difficult situations which will arise in the future.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce and Deputy Thornley rose.

Acting Chairman

The Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Dr. Thornley

On a point of order, you have only recently taken the Chair, Sir. Could you advise me on the process of rotation? I have been sitting here a good deal longer than the Minister for Industry and Commerce trying to get in on this debate. Is this debate confined to Members of the front benches or will back-benchers get an opportunity to speak?

Acting Chairman

It is not confined Deputy, but I felt I must call the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this case when he offered.

Dr. Thornley

On a further point of order, may I expect that, if I sit here for a further hour and your successor in the Chair calls a Fianna Fáil speaker and a Fine Gael speaker and if another Minister comes in, my hour sitting here will be further wasted as the previous hour was?

Acting Chairman

I cannot give a guarantee to the Deputy. I came in only at 6.05 p.m. and the person I saw offering was the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Dr. Thornley

May I ask if the Chair is aware that I was here before the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

Mr. Molloy

May I ask, Sir, what procedure you are following in deciding which speaker you should call? In fairness to Deputy Thornley, he has been sitting here for a very long time. The Minister for Industry and Commerce must be aware of that. It does seem unfair. I should not like it to happen to me—to have sat out so long and then be cut out at the last moment.

Acting Chairman

I am balancing the debate as I see best, and I have called the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Molloy

May I ask how the Chair arrived at that decision? On what basis does the Chair decide on whom he should call?

Acting Chairman

The Chair does not explain.

Mr. Molloy

This is a very unfair action. I have seen Deputy Thornley sitting here for a long time.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Keating)

I shall not enter into a discussion of time because it is a matter of procedure. I shall make the observations I wish to make. I do not want to spend much time dealing statistically with the economy or with my sector of responsibility in the economy because in the lengthy treatment of this area which was presented in the speech of the Taoiseach and circulated in printed form there was a good deal of information, but I shall say a little because, in the absence of constructive criticism, there is great danger that the Opposition—not even intentionally; it is just what comes out of them through lack of analysis and lack of ability to be constructive— would just lay about them to see what damage they can do at a time when external economic circumstances are difficult.

We have heard from the previous speaker, who is, usually more sensible and measured—I have heard him in the past trying to be reasonable—talking about the "frightening state of the economy", the "chaotic building trade", the "precipitation of a crisis". This is a dog-in-the-manger attitude of trying to talk us into a crisis. It is the attitude that if Fianna Fáil have not sufficient votes to form a Government and run the economy, they are happy to wreck it. That seems very dangerous and irresponsible. If we are nearly as bad as Opposition speakers have been saying it would be perfectly easy to seize the initiative from us with constructive proposals that would be endorsed by the people as obviously better than ours. The lack of a constructive alternative is very striking. It is easy to take the initiative away from the Government if you have something better to offer. We await that, but failing that—and there has not been the faintest sign of a constructive initiative—we are entitled to object from our side to the effort to damage this nation at an objectively and externally difficult time. That is why I want to say a little about the economy.

Job approvals is part of my responsibility. In the year to 31st March, 1973 there were just over 14,000 of them. In the year to 31st March, 1974, a recent estimate was 22,500—and that is too low; it is more than that. There was more than 50 per cent of an increase in job approvals in that 12 months, which included a half-year from October to March which was extremely difficult pending the outbreak of the oil crisis. But it was still 50 per cent up on the previous year. If we take actual job creation, taking the year to December, 1972, and comparing it with the year to December, 1973, the increase was more than 100 per cent in the second 12 months. Words such as "prices", "frightening state of the economy" and "chaotic" can be thrown against that background. It is extraordinary how rapidly people who should know better from their own recent experience of government can become irresponsible.

Over a comparable period industrial production was up by almost 11 per cent, one of the most rapid growth rates in our history. In a comparable period in 1973 industrial exports rose by very nearly two-thirds in one year —64 per cent. Had it been two and two-thirds per cent more it would have been a two-thirds increase. One may say inflation is a part of that: it is, but even when you adjust for inflation it is a very remarkable increase when a significant portion of that 12 months was exceptionally difficult in world economic terms.

I can say that the task I see now in regard to creation of industrial jobs is consideration over the coming period— not prejudging the conclusion—of raising substantially the target which had been set out in the past. That is the perspective regarding jobs and exports and the growth of the industrial sector of our economy which is my particular concern.

I want to speak about prices, because I listened to Deputy Faulkner and many of the truisms, platitudes and expressions of benevolence that he uttered a number of times were things nobody could disagree with, but they do not seem new or relevant to our current difficulties. Let us look at the effect, for example, of the rise in the price of oil. The inflationary effect of this has been mentioned and is very strikingly exhibited within the figures, but there is another aspect of it which is this: it means a net transfer of wealth from all oil purchasing countries —from the EEC and Ireland, in particular—to oil supplying countries. There is a net transfer of wealth away from us and we thereby are poorer and, to sustain the growth in the standard of living, we must compensate in other ways. So, it not only causes inflation but causes a wealth transfer also.

The point should be made that the problem which caused the original oil embargo is not solved; it is not impossible that this could happen again. It is also worth saying that there has been an immense transfer of assets, expressed as the positive balances of the oil supplying countries which themselves will have a profound effect on the economies of the developed countries, all of which are running into balance of payments deficits and all of which will need external borrowing in the coming period.

We have also seen the example of the oil embargo being noted, assessed and praised by supplying countries, countries which supply other sorts of commodities from the third world, and we have seen simultaneously incredible commodity speculation along with the effort of the supplying countries to increase the prices of raw materials.

Let us say something about the evolution of prices. I will not try to read statistics into the record. I want to urge people to consult the sources, whether they be OECD or statistical sources of the EEC or even the reputable magazines such as The Economist which give figures every week. One cannot help but marvel at the rapidity of growth of social conscience among the Opposition. I must remind the House that when we came into office, the quarter which ended in mid-February, 1973, was a quarter in which inflation was 4 per cent, running at an annual rate of 16 per cent when there was no oil crisis or commodity speculation. The people who are now complaining about the same rate of inflation in the middle of a world crisis are those who took no action to stop the inflation which was then making Ireland unique.

What has happened due to a large number of activities inside this country is that while our inflation rate is running at 16 per cent we have been caught by other countries and overtaken in many cases. The amount of increase which has occurred over the last year is greater in other countries than in Ireland. Many of the statistical sources I mentioned will bear that out. The consequence of that in terms of our competitiveness in the world is that we are behaving better than many other countries, dreadful as prices are. The prices bear heavily on the poorer sections of the community. Nobody is indifferent to this. Our relative performance is better than the performance of richer, more powerful and more experienced economies. Any serious examination of the statistics by anyone not blinded by partisanship will bear that out. This is not evidence of a chaotic situation or a total loss of control of prices, This is evidence that vis-à-vis our competitors and comparable countries we are controlling prices better than they are, bad as this is. It is irresponsible and damaging not to acknowledge that.

Let us have some prognosis about prices. They are important issues here. There is evidence that the rate of inflation due to world commodity prices is diminishing. Inflation from that source is diminishing. We are at a moment which is important in our economic history. We are in a transitional period from one kind of inflation to another. We must affirm that from this side of the House. The propulsion for inflation up to the present and for a little longer has been an imported increase due to the spiralling prices of commodities in not only oil, but in many others. We may be in transition to a form of inflation which is led by an internal wages explosion. The crucial thing is to access the cause of inflation at different times. That poses real questions for us of a type that were referred to by the Taoiseach in the latter part of his speech, and which I will not amplify now.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Keating

I was talking about the objective features in the inflation in which we find ourselves. Before moving off that subject, I want to make one exortation to Deputies and to the people of this country as a whole. It is not fair to make comparisons between this country and other countries of the EEC and other comparable countries in the world. It is obligatory to make those comparisons. I have had occasion to travel to Brussels for meetings of the Council of Ministers and to other countries. I am thereby enabled to realise that here in Ireland we are not aware, as many other countries are, of the depth of the economic crisis now gripping the world which is the most serious crisis which has existed since the last war. In that situation our performance is a relatively good one. It does not help to talk us down, it does not help to pretend that difficulties do not exist. We have a set of four interrelated difficulties. One is inflation, much of which is imported. One is interest rates at an historically high level in the world, which again is totally outside our control and is nothing to do with us. Another is the matter of shortages of oil and of other commodities. Another is the question of agriculture which is in profound difficulties here and elsewhere.

I could not help marvelling at the shortness of memory when I was listening to Deputy Faulkner talking about agriculture. Surely he must recollect that it was under the leadership of his Party, with Deputy J. Lynch as Taoiseach, that the farmers of Ireland were misled in the most profound and irresponsible way as to their expectations in the European Economic Community. When I and others tried to indicate that it was not exactly as it was being presented to them, I was offered physical violence to prevent me from putting my point of view. Now, two years later, Deputy Faulkner has forgotten the irresponsibility of a Government of which he was a member. He wants to belabour us, and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for difficulties which have arisen in the Community and which were there to be seen as dangers by anyone who was willing to look at them objectively. It is irresponsible of course and short-sighted. It is an example of the lack of serious criticism which is so depressing.

Now, let us ask ourselves where we are in the evolution of our economy and what we should be doing. Our task is to keep up growth. Perhaps I am wasting too much time replying to criticism which were so unresearched and irresponsibly voiced but this is giving me the opportunity to read on to the record something about our growth performance at this moment as a small, weak and under-developed and peripheral economy. I am quoting from the OECD Economic Outlook, No. 15 of July, 1974, published yesterday. Figures given in tables 1 and 2 on pages 9 and 10 for growth of real gross national products in seven major countries for 1974 according to the EEC: In the United States, minus half per cent; in Japan, minus 1½ per cent; in the United Kingdom, minus 2 per cent; taking a group of seven major countries as a whole, positive growth for 1974 estimated at ½ per cent; the Netherlands, 2¾ per cent; Denmark, 2½ per cent, the total OECD, plus 1 per cent of positive growth; in that time Ireland, 3½ per cent. Ireland in fact is well up in the league table, exceeded by a few countries in the OECD. We are getting significant growth when major countries are not doing so. What should we do? We have a spectrum of alternatives. That growth was projected by the OECD and there are projections which put it a little higher. That sort of growth is desirable and in the end it is the only way that we can have a real increase in income for all the people, and particularly the most disadvantaged. What should we do?

There are interest rates at historic high levels in the world; there is the emergence in all countries of balance of payment deficits; there is a difficulty about borrowing; there are divergent views about what we should do; there is a view that we should cool the economy. Deputy Faulkner expressed the view that part of inflation was due to budgetary policy. If that is right, then less spending and less investment would have some tiny effect on inflation. There would, of course, be a proshi cess the other way, because if you cool the economy suddenly and if you reduce production, you increase unit costs. In fact, we have been able to stay competitive because our production has been rising so fast that we have had a good control over unit costs. That was one way to do it.

We could, of course, push on at the other extreme, not cooling the economy, not going for deflation. The British have decided that they cooled it too much a few months ago. Their Chancellor said that later in the year he would refiate quite considerably. He had a marginally reflationary activity a few days ago. We could cool it but it would be ridiculous and at the cost of growth, jobs, exports and wealth that we need to make people better off. There is an extremely rapid slowing of growth all over the world. On page 9 of the OECD Economic Outlook they say that the OECD area has just gone through the most exceptional deceleration of growth ever experienced. That has not happened to us but it has happened to the OECD as a whole. We could stay neutral in those circumstances.

We had some advice from financiers and banks. Banks are primarily concerned about money as distinct from the economy as a whole. They are naturally cautious and correct. If we read the economic history of the world this century, we will see that sometimes caution has been correct and sometimes it has been incorrect. Indeed, if one goes back to the period 1929-1932 it was incorrect with disastrous results. One could produce quotations from citadels of financial orthodoxy. If people want to see the argument developed I will refer them to the most recent issue of the Investors' Chronicle, which is hardly a radical organ, which talks about the need for reflection now. Not for a neutral approach to the economy, not for any further deflation but to reflate. I think that is correct and the right balance.

I notice what the various financial and other advisers say. I notice also that Britain is talking about reflating. I notice there is some evidence of a slowing of the rate of inflation in commodities. There is some evidence of a drop in interest rates. It is not a time in my view for allowing unemployment to rise or for our growth to stagnate. That is my analysis of the sort of approach, in very broad terms, which we ought to have to our economic policy at the moment.

I would like to say something about the issue of minerals and petroleum because it has already been referred to. Although I do not propose to talk in detail now I feel I should put something on the record before we go into recess for the summer. In changing the taxation code for mining companies this Government have already clearly demonstrated their intention to ensure that our resources are developed in accordance with a régime which gives fair shares to the public at large as well as to the business interests concerned. It seems to me that this is especially necessary in the case of those minerals which are State owned. State-owned minerals are as much the property of the people of Ireland as the gold bars in the vaults of the Central Banks are the property of the people of Ireland.

We will be quite happy to remunerate handsomely those who have the technical competence and the other expertise and resources to develop our minerals. We have to keep things in balance. We have to give our primary concern to seeing that the public interest is preserved. It is not enough that those who are exploiting our mineral resources should simply give employment. It is not enough that large sums of money should be spent in particular localities at a given time. We have to see to it that the return to the State and to the people is commensurate with the value of the minerals in question.

It was admitted in the past by a number of people involved in the mining business that the tax concessions which were enjoyed until recently by the mining companies were quite unnecessary to induce them to undertake prospecting in Ireland. The abolition of the tax concessions will do no harm to our mineral development; indeed will do no harm and has done no harm to the interests of our industrial development. We have already stated, and I reiterate, that we have no intention of discouraging private prospectors; whenever they are fortunate enough to discover suitable, exploitable ore bodies they can be assured that they will receive leases which will reward them well for their efforts. I should also like to reiterate that we do not regard it as acceptable that our minerals should be simply ripped out of the ground and sent abroad to be processed for the benefit of others. Wherever it is possible to do so, we must ensure that the maximum value is added to our raw materials, which include minerals, so that the greatest volume of employment is given to our people. There may have been things like feasibility studies in the past and even expressions of hope. It is my intention to ensure that these plans become a reality. The same considerations will guide the Government in deciding the arrangements for the development of our oil resources. I hope to announce those arrangements later this year. Again, the essential fact of which we cannot lose sight is that these resources belong to the people; that there is room for private enterprise, of whatever nationality, in helping us develop these resources. What we will be looking to is the public interest and the overall national good.

Perhaps we are fortunate coming on the scene at this time, in that we can learn from the unhappy experiences and the mistaken activities of other countries because resources have been exploited in an unthinking way. Indeed, sometimes people have enjoyed brief periods of false prosperity only to revert to a position of stagnation and poverty. We are determined that nothing like this will happen in Ireland; we will have orderly development of our oil resources, planned in such a way as to give maximum advantage to the Irish people and the minimum of social disharmony or disruption.

Let us put the thing in perspective of actual discoveries. To date we have one gas find of reasonable dimensions in our offshore areas. That is all—a show of oil but no commercial oil. Our decision as to how this should be used was, I believe, soundly based on a true assessment of the most pressing needs of the Irish economy because we have done two things with it. First of all, it is essential that our fertiliser factories should not be dependent on feed stock from abroad. The allocation of gas which we have given to NET will ensure that it will at all times be able to provide a good and reliable service at reasonable prices to the Irish farming community, which is such a vital element in our economy. I think that is the only prudent step in the ongoing world situation.

Secondly, surely the events of the last quarter of last year must remind us of how heavily dependent we are on imported energy? It was for this reason that we decided to allocate the remainder of the gas to the Electricity Supply Board for use in a very large electricity generating station of 750 megawatts. This will not safeguard us against future difficulties which may arise in regard to oil supplies for electricity generation because it will not substitute for all of our imported oil. But it is clearly a move in the right direction.

I have already warned against exaggerated optimism in regard to our offshore oil resources. While the available evidence suggests that our prospects of finding oil and gas may be good—we have found some gas—one can never be sure until a great deal of drilling has actually taken place. One is only completely certain when one finds the well and gets the stuff ashore. In any event, even if we do find oil, the benefits to be derived for us will depend very much on how we manage those resources. It must be evident looking around the world that there have been countries which have exported a great deal of oil and got precious little for it. There is no substitute for the human industry, skill and ingenuity properly organised. No matter how many oil strikes we may have, we must never lose sight of this need to organise correctly. There is plenty of evidence from other parts of the world to show that having oil does not mean a great deal; it is how one uses it and how mindful one is of the real needs of the people that determines how much real economic and social value can be derived from it. Therefore, I want to sound a note of caution and indicate those guidelines now. Of course, the finding of a show of oil, along with the gas, indicates that oil and gas do occur. They do not always occur together in a particular field, but the fact that they are both occurring together, even though the quantity of oil is not commercially significant, is encouraging.

I want now to turn not to the question of the Contraception Bill itself, because I have said my piece about that—I am on the record in that respect and I was as clear and explicit as possible—rather, I want to turn to the larger question which it raises, which is that of the single party, what I would call a monolithic party versus the idea of a coalition. As I listened to the end of Deputy Faulkner's speech I heard a great deal of thumping of the idea of coalition, of this Coalition certainly, but he was thumping the very idea of coalition as an inherently bad form of government.

I think we should have in this country a real debate on that subject. I do not mean the ritual type of abuse that each side hurls at the other; I mean that we should talk it through in a serious way. First, I think that no single party is going to govern alone in this country for any foreseeable period in the future of any relevance to any of us here. The public are becoming better and better educated, more critical, and wanting more and more to be told—to use an Americanism, they want of their politicians that they should tell it like it is. I think they are getting sick of the protestations of formal unity which they know covers many different strands, trends and opinions. They are also getting sick of the suppression of those differences, because it is my conviction that that is not what society needs. I will amplify the positive side of it in a moment.

Let me give just one indication of what I mean about suppression of opinion. When I spoke on the Contraception Bill I took a position which I know is not shared by very many of my colleagues to the extent that I wanted to go further than the Bill and I criticised it as being in my view insufficient. But since then I have had two Members of Fianna Fáil congratulate me on my speech and say that it expressed their opinion. There were two Fianna Fáil Members who said that to me privately—not that the Bill expressed their opinion but that my version of what we ought to have did so. I think that for them to say so privately to me and then vote as they did is hypocrisy.

Mr. Wilson

Is that not a very funny type of politics, a private chat?

Mr. Keating

No. In fact Deputies across the House talk to each other all the time. We seem to have ritual combats in public and a fair amount of frank communication in private.

Mr. Wilson

That is as it should be.

Mr. Keating

I am saying that there were two Fianna Fáil people who voted one way, yet expressed to me an opposite opinion. I am not putting the finger on Fianna Fáil. I am saying that, if we have this monolithic idea in our minds, then we are suppressing differences like that which seem to be the very lifeblood of democracy and of change.

I now want to affirm some things for the record about coalition which I have not always said in public but in fact will surprise nobody. In regard to the Government, of which I have both the honour and pleasure to be a member, yes, we differ—we do not always agree. Is that a great reflection? Is that something strange? Was there ever a Government the members of which did not differ? Yes, we compromise, all of us. Was there ever a Government the members of which did not have to compromise? Yes, we have inputs into our discussions which represent different strands of our society and different social attitudes. Yes, we do. Was there ever a Government where that did not happen? Is it desirable to have a Government where that does not happen?

Let us look a little at the world outside this island.

Let us leave the United Kingdom and recently burgeoning ideas about coalition there aside for a moment. In the European Parliament the Opposition are in the same grouping as the de Gaullists who have been in Government with Giscard d'Estaing and other independents in France. Social Democrats and Free Democrats have been in government together in Germany and both France and Germany have had remarkable economic growth. In Japan, where there has been an economic miracle, an extraordinary economic success, there is public discussion of the different strands and factions within the ruling party and with different leaders. There is nothing strange about this.

Of course there are differences inside our own party and there are differences, too, within Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, but why should we pretend to the public that there is no such difference? If we did not have differences we would not have viable parties. Therefore why the image of the monolith when it does not correspond to the reality? What are the problems in the world at present? There is the problem of change because of the rate at which change is accelerating. There is on the book stands a book called Future Shock. This publication is available in paper back and while it might be to some extent a superficial presentation, even a casual reading of it will indicate the rate of acceleration of new techniques and new knowledge in the world.

There is the problem of democracy which is a problem of representing in the decision-making process all the different strands in society. If there are not inputs from the different strands, the differences cannot be reconciled in a way that is non-destructive. This incorporation of the different strands must be attempted at the decision-making stage.

Mr. Wilson

It is difficult to understand how that question could be dealt with on a socialist basis, on a declension from Marx to Galbraith, as the Minister is on record as having done.

Mr. Keating

I should be happy to discuss those matters with the Deputy on another occasion but I cannot see that they have any relevance to what I am saying. The Government require inputs from many different sectors of society because the changing roles of different sectors must be kept from reaching open conflict proportions. One must endeavour to reconcile them at the decision-making stage. If we are talking of Ireland rather than of the world in general there is the problem of unity. Unity may be a distance away but we should be planning in everything we do for a situation in which there is unity. If one does not accept the idea of coalition, of different inputs from different peoples, how can one visualise the sort of government we would have in a united country? It would have to be a coalition government.

Mr. Wilson

That would be easy enough.

Mr. Keating

It seems to me that the short-lived Government of Northern Ireland which was comprised of the Faulkner Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP, a Government which represented different strands, was a better Government than the other monolithic unified Unionist Party because the single party of the Unionists could not respond to the needs of another section of the community whereas the Executive could and did so.

I am not merely admitting the things I have said about our coalition. I am affirming them because they are not weaknesses, they are strengths. They are the guarantee that we can respond at the decision-making stage to the different pressures in society and not impose anything on any one sector. Therefore they are a guarantee that our society can evolve without ferocious burst-ups and confrontations. A coalition of different interests—mine at one end and at the other end whoever one wishes to name—are useful and are reconcilable. We compromise and we accept less than we want. We do so because we are concerned to settle for some progress.

Mr. Wilson

Some of the best music is in the overture.

Mr. Keating

I do not know what is the relevance of that remark but I agree with it.

Mr. Wilson

I can explain it to the Minister.

Mr. Keating

Members of the Opposition who were in Government will know that when one is in Government, one acts for the whole people and that inputs from different sectors are essential. I will accept in coalition things that I do not like particularly. I will even accept in coalition some things which, in some respects in matters of policy, are no better than what was done by our predecessors in government. I will do this, provided I can get some of what I want. If anybody should ask the question as to whether Fine Gael or Labour are winning, the answer would be that neither party is winning. If either party started to win we could not continue but we can continue honourably so long as our Coalition remains in a relationship which accepts the different inputs of the different sectors and which have the determination to compromise.

I shall conclude by saying a word in regard to the Taoiseach, since this is his Estimate. In recent days the Taoiseach has received some praise but also a good deal of criticism. In regard to the contraception Bill the Taoiseach and I have disagreed and have walked in opposite directions into the lobby. That is not something I am particularly happy about. Neither must it be said that any of us can praise himself for political astuteness or cuteness, but as far as I am concerned we had an indication that where there was a choice between what I am calling political cuteness and manoeuvre on the one hand and the decision of conscience—a decision with which I disagree but which I recognise as a decision of conscience—the decision of conscience triumphed over the cuteness. Obvious cute get outs would be very easy to think of.

I am glad that the Taoiseach has come in because I wish to say that in the 16 months during which I have been in office, I have found him to be a fair man, I have found him to be a just chairman of a group of people who are not identical but who have agreed to work together honourably, who have affirmed that they will compromise and who believe that this is a good thing to do in our social circumstances.

It could be said that the Taoiseach does not talk enough to people. I might even say that he does not talk enough to me, but I am certain that this is not because I am a member of the Labour Party. He may not talk even to people in Fine Gael, because this reluctance on his part is his nature and does not stem from any differentiation between the two parties. I am sorry if I am embarrassing the Taoiseach by making these remarks, but having said this I want to affirm for any section of the Labour Party or of the people of Ireland who may take note of what I say that I have experienced justice, fair treatment, a sense of equality and a feeling that the input of the peculiar thing which I happen to represent in Irish political life has been represented in government. I do not expect this peculiar thing to triumph over the views of the people because I realise that I represent a small sector of the opinion of this country. It is a valuable sector and I am pleased that, through me and through people who agree with me, this view can be represented in proportion to its strength. I am not only prepared but proud to go on serving under the Taoiseach because I am convinced of that fairness, of that sense of justice and of willingness to permit and to encourage the representation of the different strands which are properly and explicitly in his Government.

If people think that these statements of mine or that the discussions of the recent past are a source of weakness I can say that so far as I am concerned they are a source of strength, that the presence of a monolithic unity deceives nobody, least of all the public. We have the strength, built on the recognition of our differences and the honourable preparedness of all of us to meet each other, to listen to each other, and to compromise. It is for generating the atmosphere in which all of us in Government believe that to be possible that I think the Taoiseach is going to remain Taoiseach for a very long time.

Dr. Thornley

My contribution will be mercifully brief—a great deal briefer than previous speakers. I have waited a long time to get in on this debate. I intend, of course, to vote for the National Coalition tomorrow and I wish to explain briefly why I intend to do so, despite my misgivings about it.

The record of the National Coalition in the field of social welfare, housing and health is extraordinarily remarkable given that it has been less than 18 months in office. Deputy O'Brien quite correctly drew attention to this. The Coalition have succeeded in presenting the country with what the unfortunate Mr. Dubcek described as "socialism with a human face".

This process has been generated largely by Members of the Labour Party and by some surprising recruits to socialism, such as the Minister for Finance. Here I must say a word in praise of the Minister, with due respect to Deputy Faulkner. The manner in which the Minister for Finance has been blamed for the economic condition of the country is quite ridiculous, as anyone with any knowledge of the EEC, like myself, knows.

The public is naturally concerned with rises in prices, but understandably it does not realise that these rises are not in any way the fault of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They are the fault of external economic pressures, such as the energy crisis and the effective devaluation of the English pound, the French franc and the Italian lira. In these circumstances, the increase in the price of food to the ordinary housewife derives solely and exclusively from external economic conditions.

Before I begin to attack the Taoiseach in his presence, which I regret I have to do, I wish to say to my colleagues on the Fianna Fáil benches that I find it slightly nauseating to see Deputies Meaney and Collins, for example, continually attacking this Government for fluctuations in agricultural prices. These are simply and solely a function of our membership of the EEC and of the external terms of trade. In this situation the Labour Party—and the Labour Party alone of the three parties in this House—have their hands clean.

I have made many criticisms of the Taoiseach, who is the key figure in this Adjournment Debate. At the outset I wish to make one thing clear. I do not intend to repeat the mistake of my former colleague who is still my friend, Senator Noel Browne, who brought back into office the Fianna Fáil Party in 1951 at the cost of precipitating on the country the most damaging, savage, vicious budget ever produced in 1952 by the former Deputy MacEntee. I was not brought into the world or dragged into politics to bring the Fianna Fáil Party back into power.

Having said that, may I comment on one specific point in the events of Thursday, 11th July. I intend to vote confidence in the Cabinet on the tweedle dum Deputy Cosgrave/tweedle dee Deputy Lynch principle that "bad as we are, they are even worse". After nearly 40 unbroken years of power they have reduced this country to a state where it has an emigration and unemployment rate which we inherited as a coalition. I remain an unrepentent believer in coalition. I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it is impossible to conceive of a situation where a party will win an overall majority in the foreseeable future. In those circumstances coalition is realistic.

I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the manner in which we demonstrate our differences of ideological approach is much more honourable than the manner in which the Fianna Fáil Party say one thing in the bar of this House, indulge in smutty humour about women—I freely admit I also do this—and then come into this House and vote in a united phlanx for the preservation of some conception of chastity that went out with the Middle ages.

I shall speak very briefly in this debate, having consulted my cat. My cat has attained a certain notoriety in the newspapers today but it was a pure coincidence. I never anticipated this situation but my cat, which is a constituent of the Tánaiste in County Wexford, is called Foxy. Perhaps, therefore, I should provide him with honorary membership of the mongrel foxes.

I wish to comment briefly on the matter of Cabinet responsibility. On Thursday, 11th July, the Taoiseach crossed the floor to vote against his own Bill. It has been said it was a free vote. Senator Mary Robinson, who is a professor of penal legislation in Trinity College, has made the point that the constitutionality of the Taoiseach's behaviour is open to question. The point was made to me that in England similar matters of a sexual nature are dealt with by a free vote. Very true. But, in those circumstances in recent years a Member of Parliament, for example, like Mr. Leo Abse, is put forward by the Labour Party to promote a Private Member's Bill and permission is given by Mr. Heath and Mr. Wilson to vote for or against the Bill.

I would suggest that we are in a slightly different situation here and I put it to the Taoiseach—and I will be interested if he finds time to reply to this point—that it would be a rather unusual situation if Mr. Wilson were to put up his Home Secretary to propose a Bill on a similar subject and then, to the horror and consternation of Mr. Anthony Wedgewood Benn, enter the lobby with Mr. Edward Heath. This would be a rather extraordinary constitutional situation.

It is said that this was a free vote. I am quoting the Government Chief Whip, Professor Kelly, on 4th July, 1974—Official Report, column 331:

I will say it once more. The free vote on which the Government have decided is intended to allow Deputies who have conscientious objections to this Bill not to support it without fear of disciplinary reprisal. That is all. It still remains a Government measure and I interpret it, in my job as Whip, to make sure that a Deputy who has not got a conscientious objection, or does not claim such a thing, will support it.

I repeat: "Does not claim such a thing".

The Minister for Industry and Commerce made great play with the virtue of telling it as it is. I think he said with certain disregard for the rules of grammar "telling it like it is". I wonder if the Taoiseach, when he comes to reply to this debate, will tell us if he told anyone "like it is" about this subject because he certainly did not tell me "like it is" and intensive inquiries would not suggest to me that he told anyone "like it is" on this subject.

I was interested to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce express his personal affection and regard for the Taoiseach, affection and regard which I personally used to hold myself. All I can say in the light of recent events is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has come a long way since 37 Pembroke Lane where I first met him. I am happy that he still feels this confidence. I have never had a great affection for the Taoiseach but I have always felt that if he had inherited one thing from his distinguished father it was absolute, implacable and unbending honesty.

This problem which faced us on Thursday week does not concern contraception solely. It concerns the question, as Senator Robinson correctly pointed out, of Cabinet responsibility. If the Taoiseach had risen in his place and said "My conscience forbids me to vote for this Bill. You vote as your, as Deputy Oliver Flanagan would say, uninformed consciences tell you to vote—you vote for it", then my admiration for the Taoiseach would have gone up. In fact, the Taoiseach has behaved towards his colleagues which I would find it hard to describe in language which was parliamentary. It certainly displays a lack of trust in the highest degree.

There also continues from that problem the matter of Northern Ireland which I think is germane to this debate in which we are permitted to raise broad areas of principle. In the debate of 11th July the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said that those who would oppose the Bill—I quote:

will, among other things, be treating with contempt the pleas for freedom of conscience from the Protestant denominations, thus offering a deliberate and calculated affront to those without whose free consent the unity of the people of this island will never be attainable.

Amongst those people, presumably, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs now includes the Taoiseach. Yet he soldiers on cheerfully as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and will no doubt be active in the provision of telephone kiosks throughout various constituencies. Again he said—column 916 of the Official Report of 11th July, 1974:

Consider what the effect of a defeat of this Bill would be on those relations between Catholics and Protestants, and on any prospects of achieving that unity which we are all agreed—whether we may think it near or remote—can only be attained by the consent of those who now strongly reject it, and who would see in the defeat of this Bill the plainest and most obvious justification of that rejection.

It has been rejected. The Minister soldiers on. He meets Mr. Orme. He meets Mr. Abse. He meets all the other English Labour people who come over here and he tries in some obscure way to justify the incredible performance which this House laid on on Thursday week.

I say the same of my absent friend, Deputy Blaney, perhaps the most strident Republican in this House. Quite how he justifies forcing nearly one million Protestants into this community and at the same time denying them what they regard as a fundamental natural right, I really do not know.

I would also make the point that what the Government with the co-operation of the Fianna Fáil Party have succeeded in doing is producing for at least six months a situation so legally laughable that it would be funny if it were not tragic. As I understand the present situation—and my reference for this is the Minister for Justice, if he is still Minister for Justice; I am not quite sure—anyone can import contraceptives into this country for his own use and may freely distribute them but they may not be sold in the State.

I am a member of the European Parliament. I am not a lawyer, thank God. As I understand this law it means that I as a member of the European Parliament can bring back a cabin trunk-load of contraceptives on every flight I go on, go through the red corridor, declare them, be duly passed on the ground that they are for my own use since I am exceptionally virile, and then distribute them at will to single or married people of any age, sex, denomination or description that you could think of—and this is what Deputy Oliver Flanagan voted for.

The point about that Bill was that it was a restrictive Bill and not a permissive Bill. When it reached the Committee Stage an opportunity would have arisen for those of us who feel like I do, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce does, that it was excessively restrictive to make amendments to it and in those circumstances those who felt that we were wrong could have voted against it. As it is, by a coalition—that dirty word—a coalition of that well-organised regiment of Soldiers of Destiny on that side of the House and the Knights of Columbanus on this side of the House we have a situation where I can flog the country with contraceptives in the morning provided I do not receive 6p in return for them. In those circumstances I think the House has rendered itself ridiculous.

I want to get off that subject. That is all I am going to say about that. Nothing remains to be said. I want to say a word about a subject in which I am particularly interested, that is, education. Our record in education is deplorable. The speech of the Minister for Education on comprehensive schools, in Thurles, coupled with the attitude of the Minister for Education on inter-denominational education in Dalkey, coupled with the attitude of the Minister to corporal punishment, every one of which three flies in the face of Labour Party policy, makes me concerned as to whether there can be any reasonable hope of progress being achieved in the educational field under Deputy Richard Burke as Minister for Education. I speak here with some experience as a teacher and the husband of a teacher.

Having said all that, may I finally say why I am going to vote with the Coalition tomorrow. I emphasise with the Coalition, not the Taoiseach. I am voting for the Coalition because of their achievements in the field of social welfare and health. I think the Taoiseach has behaved in an extraordinary manner. He has been attacked in every daily newspaper have read for the way in which he behaved. Even The Sunday Independent, reputedly a Fine Gael newspaper, said before the Bill came up that it should be put through and after the Bill was defeated ignominiously that the Taoiseach should exert his well-known conscience to the extent of stepping down. We have a precedent for that, an honourable one, in the case of General Mulcahy vis-á-vis ex-Deputy John A. Costello.

Having said all that, may I say to my friends on the Fianna Fáil benches that I have no difficulty going into the lobbies tomorrow to vote for the National Coalition. For 40 years Fianna Fáil ruled this country. They brought it practically to its knees. They made speeches about strapping youths and comely maidens dancing at the crossroads while the reality, as my late friend Brendan Scott pointed out, was that the strapping youths and comely maidens were going over to England to dig roads in MacAlpines's Fusiliers and the comely maidens were going over to get back-street abortions or become the biggest suppliers of immigrant prostitutes to London. I have no time for the well-heeled machine—for once I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce —which last week, with the co-operation of a number of renegades from our side, destroyed this Bill.

Dr. Loughnane

On a point of order, I want to know is there to be a withdrawal of the statement regarding our Irish girls who have gone to England as nurses and have proved themselves to be wonderful young women?

Dr. Thornley

Many so. I quite agree with Deputy Loughnane. We have a wonderful record of missionary work and we have a wonderful record of overseas teaching work. Nobody knows this better than Deputy Loughnane and myself, but the fact remains of illegitimacy, fornication— as Deputy O'Malley would say— adultery and abortion. All these things have been swept under the carpet of Irish life even as we banned successive novelists in our time. I do not want to be encouraged to digress from the subject but even as we now fume about the fate of Solzhenitsyn while we have O'Casey and McGahern on our consciences that makes me laugh. No, Sir. I will do nothing to give aid and comfort to a party which for 40 years kept this country in a condition that it could only sustain roughly 2.8 million people, most of whom were in squalor and poverty.

The mood of the country is that the National Coalition have achieved things in the realm of social welfare, health and housing which justify their retention in office. I remain, because I can count, an ardent coalitionist. Whatever personal ill-feeling may exist between me and the Taoiseach because of what happened on July 11th—and a considerable amount, at least as far as I am concerned, does exist—my vote tomorrow night can be in no doubt. I nevertheless feel that it is a sorry state for this nation that we should be brought into a situation where we should be confronted by two alternative leaders one of whom treats (a) an area of intense private morality and conscience, (b) the Supreme Court and (c) the Constitution, with contempt —I refer to Deputy Lynch—and on the other side a Taoiseach who fails to give leadership to people who expected it. If I may compete with Deputy Flanagan in my knowledge of the Bible may I say, as the Good Book says: "All we, like sheep, were led astray".

Major de Valera

I am sure that when the vote comes tomorrow night in the arithmetical mechanics of democracy, the Coalition will survive and be the Government after the vote. I am equally sure that it will be a consolation to the Taoiseach and to the more responsible members on the opposite side of the House that that majority will not be dependent on one vote. I do not intend to follow the last contribution. It, in itself, is a comment on parliamentary democracy.

My purpose in rising in this debate is to deal with some administrative matters which would not possibly be, in the political sense, controversial but before I do so I am moved to go back to some parts of the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As usual his contribution was reasoned and material for argument. I certainly do not accept his thesis. It is difficult to say, if one is having a reasonable argument with a man, that you do not accept anything that he says, but if I understand his thesis aright I am not in agreement with it. However, I understand the thoughts that prompted it and indeed they stimulated me to say what I am going to say on the question of coalitions. I understand the Minister's point. Let us realise here that times change and we change with them, that there are problems for Government today and for democracy that are different, different in kind as well as in current form, from those which existed 20 years ago or more. Nevertheless, I still feel there are certain principles of human psychology that rule.

Here again Deputy Keating in a modern context has raised the old question of the strength and the weakness of coalition government. He referred more than once to what he called the pretence of monolithic strength that the traditional system of parties have. I can understand the reasons that prompted him to this line of thought in current circumstances. It is quite true that in the present day order is breaking down and that it is very difficult to get that order and coherent action in groups and individuals that gives effective results. It was much easier to get it in the past but the complaint then, with perhaps some justification, was that the imposition of order, regularity and the facilitating of decision making tended to hardness and inhumanity in effect.

We are now back to the old chestnut. What can one do? In such a case one has to appeal to experience. Down the years the system of government, by which you have a Government and an Opposition in Parliament, both with a homogeneous support, the Government having the greater support and therefore the power of decision, has worked. No matter how enthusiastic or critical one is of what has been done in the past in this country for more than 50 years in relation to the successive governments which have ruled this country, with all their defects and failures, one can look back at a record of peaceful and constructive progress, of which we can all speak proudly, in this part of the country. I say that without distinction or claim for either side of this House because we have all sat on both sides of the House and in our own way all politicians and parties of this country have shared in this.

I remember on this side of the House a very well-known politician in his own time, not of my party, defended politicians and their efforts, and I think that defence is justified by the record. I do not want to go into the details of the weaknesses and the strength of Coalition. The Taoiseach, and I, who are both present in the House at the moment, and who are among the older Members, can remember the cut and thrust of this argument and the points of view held. It will be agreed that there are merits in the Coalition idea and in the theory of it. There is even an appeal in it, but in practical terms there are weaknesses that leave it less effective to carry out the work of the country.

Deputy Keating spoke about the sharing of decision making, but decisions have to be made and they are very difficult to make in committees that are not in complete agreement. Delay in decision making, or lack of homogeneity in purpose, must always tend to defeat effective action. It must always bring in weakness at critical moments. That, in a nutshell, is why Coalitions are vulnerable. On the other hand, I admit that the system of homogeneity in Opposition and in Government through the party system, can also be criticised. Time will not permit it now—indeed it would need more cut and thrust across the House— but I would like to have engaged in debate with the Minister for Industry and Commerce about how this affects the present moment.

I will summarise what I have to say about coalition and I hope I am as objective as possible. We have had experience of coalition and minority Governments which were not coalitions. They were weak enough, but we have had experience of two coalitions, both of which broke up in difficult circumstances. I am not making any claim for our party, but it was fortunate that there was a homogeneous Opposition to take up again and carry on. That is a fact of history. It happened twice.

I look forward with trepidation to the experience where the Opposition, too, could become a coalition and where the politics of this House could degenerate into a kind of political musical chairs of "I am with you today over there; you are against me tomorrow over here while I have another party to hold me up." While that game is going on there is not much time or energy available to devote to Government business and in regard to running the country it is an operation of being asleep. I fear for the country if it should ever come to that. I would throw the ball of the Minister for Industry and Commerce back in the court and say that his analysis is interesting as far as it goes. I understand his approach but he has got to go further now and deal with some of the points I am putting up.

Mr. White

Is the Deputy saying that coalition is not working in Europe today?

Major de Valera

I am talking about coalition here. We have a constitutional set-up. We have to realise we are working within a certain constitutional framework. If you are going to change the whole constitutional framework and approach, sin ceist eile. I am dealing with the problem we have here today.

I want to touch on a subject, which is relevant, but which it is distasteful for me to mention. As a preface, let me say that the remarks of the Minister for Industry and Commerce about his Leader do credit to both of them. When I make these criticisms I am about to make now I would like the Taoiseach to understand this is in no way intended as a reflection on his integrity, motive or anything else, but I see it as another weakness of coalition government.

This free vote that people are talking about here appears to me to have been a device to escape the difficulties of a decision within a coalition because there was a problem here. This was not merely a question of bringing in something that could be taken or left and which if not passed would not leave unsolved an urgent problem that had suddenly developed. Confronting the Government there was what one might call an emergency created by a court decision— something not unknown in the history of democratic Government—a case where something had to be done—or so it appeared to most people. It was a matter of public importance. It is not right for us to go into details about personal conscience or private morality but we are concerned with public order and morality and public problems. Here was one such problem. If the Government had decided to do nothing, as governments sometimes do in certain circumstances, that would have been their privilege, but we had the position of a Government Minister bringing in a Bill to deal with a public problem. Attempts to deal with this problem in advance by private Bills were severely—and I think rightly—criticised on the grounds that this was not a proper matter for private effort in the Seanad or here.

My quarrel is with the Government, not with the Taoiseach, for bringing in such a Bill and seeking to evade responsibility by saying: "Let us have a free vote." That political manoeuvre would probably have worked if the Opposition went along with it and there was a free vote everywhere. If that had happened the result might be quite different. The point is that here again we have another indication of the weakness of coalition government. I am not making this point merely to seize on the present to beat the Government with it but in direct answer to the arguments of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Here is another case of paralysis of decision. It has had consequences that are not very happy for parliamentary democracy here. In saying that I hope I am refraining from anything in the nature of personal criticism of anybody concerned in this: I have no inclination towards such criticism.

This party has been criticised for voting as a solid bloc. It is true that there would have been differences of opinion and if it had been a free vote you would doubtless have had people of all parties on all sides of the House. On a free vote, some of us might have moved in the opposite direction for good and sufficient reasons, but in a matter of this nature one has to consider what the effect would be on the future as well as the issue involved. I shall not go into the issue itself but on that I could give very good reasons why one would not vote for the Bill as it was. But, apart from that, a very good reason for what this party did was to maintain the possibility of ordered democracy here and show, as an Opposition should, the weakness inherent in a system that was in our view causing a Government to abdicate its responsibility.

There is only one thing I should like to say about the Taoiseach personally. It is that I deplore many of the unkind things that have been said but the Taoiseach is the Leader of the Government and of the country. He appoints Ministers. Surely it is a leader's duty to lead and if a Taoiseach is not in agreement with what emanates from his Government he has a duty either to lead the Government in the direction which he believes right or else make the necessary changes that will enable him to lead. That is as far as one should go, but it is a valid, constitutional—if you like—public criticism. I deplore the private criticisms and I very much deplore certain unkindnesses that I heard before I spoke. I understand the Taoiseach's problems. He has a coalition but he cannot abdicate his own responsibility as leader. I do not envy him his task in leading the Coalition, especially one that is so obviously non-homogeneous in its structure, a Coalition for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce with reason and with skill—I admire him—had to make the apology that he made this evening. I say that in no way slighting the Minister, because much of his argument is stimulating and constructive.

I now come to something that I fear is affecting all the tendencies of Government here and which constituted my primary reason for speaking tonight. I would not have embarked on what I have said had I not been stimulated by the two previous speakers to speak as I have spoken. While irrelevancies or traditional noises are being made we are progressively losing in this House control of the administration of the country, and, worse still, in times when that control is becoming, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, much more difficult from a political point of view and from an administrative point of view almost impossible. The result is that the whole load is put back on the permanent service. We shall all be quick enough to blame the permanent service. I dealt with this on another occasion on which I pointed out the balance between the permanent service, the political arm and so forth in the working of the economy.

Time will not permit much discussion although I have to raise this on this Estimate. The public ordering of the House is a matter for the Taoiseach. We made a bad mistake in the House years ago in doing away with the Vote on Account. For two years in succession within a matter of ten minutes we have swept through important financial business without any debate, in the pious hope that we would deal with it in the future. Governments have brought in token Estimates to be discussed afterwards.

When I came into the House first we had a Vote on Account where one surveyed the whole prospects of the expenditure and social and administrative and economic policy of the country for a year ahead. They were individual Estimates. There were time-limits. The House had to get through the business and the business was got through. I know that there are political and mechanical difficulties now which were not there then. It is going too far to the other extreme when last year—and not for the first time in case I should be accused of criticising only this Government—many Estimates were rushed through. On the 12th December, 1973, before the Christmas Recess the following Estimates were rushed through:

Agriculture (Resumed), Fisheries, Local Government (Resumed), Local Government (Supplementary Estimate), Office of the Minister for Justice, Garda Síochána, Prisons, Courts, Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, Charitable Donations and Bequests, Industry and Commerce, Department of the Taoiseach, President's Establishment, Houses of the Oireachtas, Central Statistics Office, Comptroller and Auditor General, Office of the Minister for Finance, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, State Laboratory, Civil Service Commission, An Comhairle Ealaíon, Superannuation and Retired Allowances, Secret Service, Agricultural Grants, Law Charges, Miscellaneous expenses. Stationery Office, Valuation and Ordnance Survey, Rates on Government Property, Roinn na Gaeltachta, Transport and Power, Health, Social Welfare (Supplementary Estimate).

We also had the Appropriation Bill. The whole financial business of the country was rushed through by this House in ten minutes.

The one comment made on it was that the Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee on Finance, and resumed consideration of Estimates for the Public Service for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1974. Mr. Colley said:

For the record our understanding is in relation to this Vote and subsequent Votes whether they be partly discussed or not, that token Estimates will be introduced after Christmas to enable further debate to take place and, if necessary, a vote.

As everyone knows although that was agreed that kind of thing works out as a pious hope. I am saying to the Taoiseach in his capacity as the person who decides the ordering of the House—although I know the Whips come into it—that this is not good enough. It is unfair to the administration. The House has done me the honour of appointing me to the Committee on Public Accounts. In that capacity I meet the accounting officers and hear of their problems and difficulties. One clearly sees the consequences of the failure to deal with matters in advance. These people are carrying this load without adequate lead. They do not get a lead from the House or from the Government. How can the Government lead adequately if the House is not functioning properly? It is unfair to the Civil Service as a whole as well as being bad business.

It is all the more urgent because if the debate on the Comptroller and Auditor General's office had come up the question of how much staff he has would arise. If we had the Estimates for the Houses of the Oireachtas I would have an opportunity of discussing them at some length and I hope much more constructively than I am doing now. I thank the Chair. I know I am running dangerously near the limits of being in order. I have to do this on the Taoiseach's Estimate because there is no other chance. The Taoiseach is responsible for the public ordering of the House. This is a criticism of the whole method of the operation in this House. Further consequences of this were seen last night.

The Finance Bill has come and has been dealt with. We did not get round to discussing certain points in that Bill which should have been discussed. The consequences will be far-reaching. The situation is unsatisfactory both for the House and for the administration. We have passed a Bill that gives in a particular form discretion to the Revenue Commissioners. There is another section dealing with infringement of the privilege between solicitor and client.

These difficult and important problems must be mentioned. The Bill had to go through without these problems being mentioned in the House even though we had an all-night sitting. In what kind of way are we carrying on our business when a Finance Bill which was introduced late—although I do not blame that on the Government but on the complexity of it— is rushed through? The Opposition have been criticised for obstructing it. We in Opposition criticise the Government for not having enough time spent in dealing with the Bill. We should stop and say "How can we put our own house in order about these matters?"

I mentioned the Revenue Commissioners in connection with the Bill. I am taking this opportunity of saying something that has been said before. With the late Deputy Sweetman, who was chairman of the Committee, I was on a Committee dealing with the Income Tax Bill. It was one of the happiest experience I have had in this House. That Committee did their work well. They were well led by their chairman and excellently served by not only the Attorney General's office at the time but particularly by the staff of the Revenue Commissioners.

At that time we were all impressed by the efficiency, the integrity and frankness of Revenue Commissioners and their officers. I have no hesitation in saying, although I should not do so, that if a prize were to be given to a Department for their qualities, in my opinion the Revenue Commissioners would be awarded the prize. Therefore, what I am saying is in no way a criticism of the Revenue Commissioners. It is a criticism of the House because if the Revenue Commissioners had not problems it would not have been mentioned in the Bill. If the Department of Finance had not had problems, it would not have come into the Bill.

There are other sides to these problems besides the administrative ones. These people see them just as we do. Quite rightly, they look at it from their point of view and expect us, as public representatives, to do our part of the work. That work was not done so far as this Bill was concerned. I am afraid this is the tendency in regard to public administration. The Taoiseach, as head of the Government, must ensure that financial and administrative business comes before the House with sufficient time allowed for it to be debated properly. Proper collaboration between the permanent services and this House, representing the public and the political elements, should be restored to what it was in former days.

As I have mentioned the Appropriation Act goes through. Reports from Committees, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, will be laid before the House. Will these matters be gone into here? I will not lay all this blame at the door of any Government but our present situation does not help us. This Government have gone further along the lines laid down by the previous Government and brought in the Department of the Public Service. The time has come for the Taoiseach to arrange for this administration problem to be reviewed fully in this House and, if necessary, a committee set up to deal with it.

I have warned against the device of the free vote as a method of avoiding responsibility. The device of Commissions and Committees can do the same, but certain types of Bills need the attention of Committees. When one sees the size of this year's Finance Bill one wonders whether this Bill should not, in a preliminary form, have gone through a Select or Special Committee. That could have helped the House. In the 1950s and 1960s Committees did a lot of consolidation work with beneficial effects for the administration and the community. One of the consolidation efforts was the Income Tax Bill, which I mentioned earlier. Would the Government consider this type of Committee to consider such Bills?

I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to make these remarks which I do not want to be taken as a party controversial matter or as a criticism of a particular Government because this is a criticism of Governments in general. It is wrong that Bills like this should be rushed through. The same could be said about the debate on the Northern problem which I will not talk about now because time does not permit. Deputies should not be limited to time when speaking on such a very important subject. The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke about sharing in decision-making. How can Deputies share in decision-making if the material does not come before them or, if and when it does, there is not adequate time available to discuss it? I know there can be the abuse of a filibuster but one has to choose between the lesser of two evils in a case like this.

I have tried to make two points here tonight. The Minister for Industry and Commerce reopened in a very interesting way the question of the nature of the Government which we should have here-Coalition or single-party Government, or Coalition and single-party Opposition, and whether we should have homogeneity on either side or a free vote. We still have these arguments against Coalition. There is still a strong case in principle and on the record for the concept that there are two sides in a Parliament—a Government and an Opposition. A Government effectively functions because it has behind it a reliable and sufficient majority. If these things are taken in a serious way one can dismiss academic vapourings or personal explanations.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins)

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but he has only two minutes left.

Major de Valera

I shall finish immediately. That is the message I wanted to convey on that; and the other, quite sincerely, is that we cannot let our method of conducting our financial business drift as we have been doing. I would ask the Taoiseach to try to ensure that that be examined rather seriously and ascertain whether we cannot improve our procedures.

Mr. Wilson

Madam Chairman, I want to point out to you that two Labour Deputies, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Deputy Thornley succeeded each other speaking before you took the Chair. I merely want to point this out. I think Deputy Callanan is anxious to speak.

Acting Chairman

Nevertheless, the order is from either side and obviously no Fianna Fáil man must have offered.

Major de Valera

Merely for the record, two of us did.

Mr. Thornley

With due respect, I offered to give way to Deputy Callanan but he did not accept my offer.

Acting Chairman

I am calling on Deputy Staunton. He will be three-quarters of an hour only. I am sure Deputy Callanan will not mind.

Mr. Staunton

I should like to thank Deputy Callanan for his courtesy. I should like also to endorse what Deputy Thornley has said because, at the time when Deputy Callanan was offering, he suggested that Deputy Thornley might speak first and, in turn, Deputy Thornley paid the compliment to Deputy Callanan.

Mr. Wilson

I did not want to introduce any note of acrimony but I just want to point it out as being a fact.

Mr. Staunton

In regard to this important debate on the Adjournment which was opened by the Taoiseach with a very full and comprehensive speech today, I should like to address a few remarks. Before saying what I had intended, I should like to refer very briefly to Deputy de Valera's comments in regard to coalition. He described the present coalition in this country as being unhomogeneous, but I expect that any government is unhomogeneous and the present Government in this country might be described as being as unhomogeneous as is Ireland. It might be salutary to refer to the experience in European countries and many developed democracies and economies where successful coalition governments have been the order of the day for a great number of years. I do not see any reason at all to become unduly embroiled in ideology or suggestions that there should be a Right/Left confrontation or anything like that. I think the present Government are doing well in this country.

Getting back to the debate, it is important to point out and to support the Taoiseach in his statement at the beginning of his speech that the background in which we are discussing the economy and the running of affairs in this country at the present time is one of international crisis. That is not using the word in any sensational sense: commentators, political commentators, financial commentators, analysts and respected journalists around the world have been talking about events in the world in the last 12 months and "crisis" is the word they use. They talk about a commodity crisis due to events in the United States and in Russia; they talk about an energy crisis which has caused the greatest upheaval in the economies of the modern world probably in this century and, as a result of which Japan states that they are facing their greatest crisis since World War II. We are talking about serious problems in regard to cattle prices; we are talking about inflation, much of which is global, and we are talking about a background of political instability in many countries and particular problems within the European Economic Community. It seems to me that against that particular background it is undeniable that in this country we have problems at the present time. But against that particular background there is a degree of stability in the air in this country on which I think we can seek the confidence of the people.

An OECD Report which was published in March referred to what it believed to be the necessity for policy action to stimulate demand and increase output; that this was a desirable approach. They suggested also that the balance of payments question and the significance of it should not be exaggerated. It has also been pointed out that, to a very large degree, the problems at present in the area of balance of payments are those affecting all of the developed, industrial nations occasioned by the enormous increase in oil costs in imports. We have observed the cost to this nation alone in the December quarter when the value of oil imports was £19 million; whereas in the March quarter that had jumped by £20 million to £39 million.

We have an additional problem in Ireland in comparison with Britain and other European countries in that without the resource of coal and gas we have an undue dependence on fuel oil in our industrial programme, to a degree of 68 per cent as against a dependence in Britain and the European countries of 35 per cent only. It is against this kind of background in Europe, the United States and Japan that we are discussing the affairs of this country. On this very small island, where to a very large degree we are susceptible to the whims of imports and exports and events entirely outside our control, we must measure performance. There has been criticism voiced in some quarters—and I think Deputy J. Lynch was one of those today who was critical—in regard to the level of public expenditure in Ireland. Here again we must weigh up the economy of this country in comparison with the developed economies of other EEC countries, bearing in mind the level of underdevelopment here; the necessity to create conditions of full employment; to have a level of public expenditure significantly higher than the rate proportionately in the developed countries of Europe such as Britain, Germany, France, Sweden and others. It is also more important in view of the fact that for obvious reasons there is a lesser level of private investment in this country. Therefore, it seems to me that, from a social, economic point of view, it is essential that there be venturesome policy at the present time.

If we talk about the question of how we are going to develop the economy or how we are going to treat the problem of inflation at the moment, are we going to be expansionist, as this Government have been, or are we going to adopt a reflationary economy by the hair shirt approach? The political question I would pose is this: had the Government adopted a retrenching attitude this year rather than an expansionary one, what would be the position of the Fianna Fáil opposition to such a policy? Some of them have been attempting to reduce the credibility of government, attempting to provoke a loss of confidence in certain areas. But certainly, had the hair shirt approach been adopted, we would have had a message belted out from the Opposition benches of cutting back on expenditure; cutting back in employment levels; suggestions that this was entirely unnecessary, a pointing to the journals to which I have made reference, such as the OECD Report, which talk about the necessity to stimulate demand we would have had an entirely different approach.

It seems to me that on the only occasion on which this Government has in any sense had to go before the public since the general election the general policies of the Government were endorsed by the people because, in the local elections this year—and one does not blame the Opposition for referring to national policies or what they deem to be the failures of the Government—these did not get a hearing. It has been traditional in this country in the past for local elections to go against the government of the day. It seems to me that the results throughout the entire country were most significant and encouraging to this Government and tend to deflate the words of the prophets of doom.

We have this problem; there is a crisis in other countries; there is no crisis here but there is a serious problem which we must recognise and which has been referred to in the Central Bank Report. The Government's point is that it is a question of selecting, not the great way of doing things but the lesser of two evils. I believe that the method of expansion adopted by the Government is the lesser of two evils.

It reminds me a little of the debate which took place during the EEC referendum campaign. One of the weaknesses of that debate was that there was too much polarisation. There was an attempt, for instance, on the part of the party to which I belong to suggest that EEC membership was one of the greatest things that could happen to this country whereas another party were suggesting that membership would be the ruination of Ireland. However the sensible approach suggested that joining Europe was merely the lesser of two evils. This Government's policy in relation to the economy is an identical situation to that which obtained at the time of that referendum and our Government are to be complimented on this approach.

The Central Bank report refers to the balance of payments problem but, although we have these problems in this country if we are holding our position relative to the other countries in the free market areas with which we are trading, we are doing all right. It is in that area that it is imperative to maintain competitiveness for Irish products and that is why it is very important to attempt to hold inflation and to attempt to keep wage demands within bounds. In that way, the greatest national interest can be served.

One of our national faults is a tendency to look in isolation at Irish statistics. It is salutary that in their report the Central Bank pointed out that, while there is a satisfactory export position in Ireland, we are talking of the period during which there was a boom in some of the developed European countries. It is pointed out, too, in that report that in the last year under review the percentage increase of exports in France and Denmark was 40 per cent while the figure for the Federal Republic of Germany was 46 per cent. Therefore it puts into context our performance and stresses the necessity to be competitive if we are to hold our own today in the world of economics and if we are to increase the real wealth of the country.

One of the major benefits of our involvement in the EEC is our lesser dependence on the British market. It is encouraging to read in the Central Bank report that in the period 1965 to 1973 there was a reduction in the extent to which we were dependent on exports to Britain from 70 per cent to 55 per cent and in that period there was a doubling of the level of our exports to the US and to European markets.

There is a matter regarding industrial development within the country at which I think a look should be taken from time to time. There has been much comment in recent years about the extent to which there should be development in industry and job-creation. Some Opposition Deputies were suggesting recently that the Government might arrange for higher levels of grants to be given to industrial companies to establish in the west, the north-west or the south west. I do not think that is the answer to the problem because the present level of grants in the underdeveloped parts of the country are extremely generous at about 50 per cent—a level that does not obtain in any other country in Europe.

However, some consideration might be given to the question of the incentives we are giving in respect of taxation to manufacturing industry. At present we are allowing complete relief on profits on export sales. This incentive applies across the nation. This means that this incentive is available in the city of Dublin to the same extent as it is available in Sneem, the Glenties, Ballinasloe or anywhere else. There is a weakness in continuing this policy indefinitely. We like to say, and successive Governments have said, that we want to hold development in Dublin at its natural level rather than to stimulate population increases in the city.

It seems to me that for as long as we continue to give this major tax concession in the city of Dublin, we are giving a particular incentive which is reflected in the fact that at present 50 per cent of the entire industrial development in this country is taking place in the city and 50 per cent of the jobs in manufacturing industry are in the city of Dublin. Perhaps some people would regard this as being a desirable situation but we must ensure a better spread throughout the country if we are to have any hope of stabilising this country in a regional sense.

No doubt, Deputy Callanan whom I expect will speak next, will discuss matters relating to agriculture. In a sense I regret that I have not had the benefit of listening to him before making my contribution.

I intend making only a few remarks about the agricultural industry but I am at the disadvantage of having listened to a couple of Opposition Deputies whom I considered to be less than credible in this area. Deputy Collins, for instance, spoke in a very political sense and seemed to be engaging in some hot gospelling. He spoke, apart from the essential question of agricultural development, of his belief that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not supported by the National Coalition Government. The Deputy spoke of "an urban-based Government", of "city-dominated Government" and of "a Dublin-orientated Government". All of this is a lot of nonsense. If a Cabinet is comprised of people who have the capacity and talent to do a particular job and provided they recognise their national responsibility rather than a sectional interest, one gets good government and we are getting good government. The fact that there might be quite a few Dublin Ministers is not in any way having any detrimental effect on the performance of the Government. It seems to me that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has the absolute support of the Coalition for his policies. This was reiterated today by the Taoiseach.

The problem in relation to agriculture is different entirely from the problems associated with industry. Industrial development is expanding and we are in a situation where jobs are increasing but the problem in relation to agriculture is social. It is a problem that we have inherited. Sadly, we have inherited a structure of farming which, in terms of size and fragmentation, bears few equals in Europe, particularly within the EEC.

We are living in a world of economic and of comparison of income levels. We are living in an age where the demands of the consumer are immense. The basic problem we have is matching the resource of the people we have working on the land with their demands and desires. It has been fashionable during the past year or so to blame our EEC membership for our problems but that is a lot of nonsense. I come from Mayo and during the past 25 years we have lost about 25,000 of our people. We were having all this staggering emigration and depopulation long before there was any question of our joining the EEC. There are certain elements in this country— I do not blame the Opposition in this regard because they are committed to the EEC—who are jumping on this bandwagon in an attempt to suggest, to the small farmer in particular, that his ruination lies in the fact of our having joined the EEC. On analysis the small farmer should know, as we all know, that in practical terms there was no alternative to our joining the Common Market. The financial gains are there for all to see and the alternatives, in so far as marketing arrangements for agricultural and industrial products are concerned do not bear much thinking about. I regret, too, that some people are tending to blame this Government for EEC schemes in the area of farm modernisation and retirement—I refer to Directives Nos. 159, 160 and 161.

With regard to our entry into the EEC, the problem, which was spelled out by the Taoiseach today is that it was not a question of being able to go to this grouping of 250 million people telling them that our nation of three million people would join on precise terms. It was a question of seeking the best bargain that could be arranged, of taking with the better points certain policies that, without question, had created problems.

In recent elections in my county there was an attempt by some Opposition people to blame the Government, without pointing out that the policies in the area of farm modernisation existed before entry and were to be seen in broad terms of philosophy before we joined the Community. We should point out that there is a scheme for hill and mountain areas and shortly the issue of settling on designated areas will be cropping up. I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is concerned that large areas in the west should be designated in the hill and mountain farming districts.

Deputy Collins referred to the drop in beet acreage. This is rather a social question. Apparently in some parts of the country farmers for reasons of their own have dropped their production of beet. It has to do with modern methods and mechanisation and the degree to which certain farms can be mechanised. It is not really a question of attempting to level the blame at the Government or the sugar company for the fact that there is a drop in beet acreage.

I was glad to hear Deputy de Valera refer to the Department of the Public Service and to the necessity for Dáil reform. The Department are underestimated in the country in relation to what they can achieve; probably the reason for this is that they have merely been examining certain matters to date in regard to which there have not been public announcements.

The Minister for the Public Service when he spoke in Cork four or five months ago referred to the briefs he had given the Department. It should be pointed out that one of his briefs was the urgency of reviewing the entire question of regional development, of the organisations and the structures that are desirable for the future development of the country. These matters are under active consideration, as the Minister stated in his speech. This is necessary because one of the biggest messes we have is the proliferation of regional areas, of State and semi-State bodies, which overlap to the most extraordinary degree and which are not very satisfactory. I hope that in the review that is taking place particular concern will be shown to the necessity of responding to the representations made from western areas regarding the possible development of a western development board so that a structure might emerge, somewhat similar to the SFADCo structure in Shannon, under which there would be more autonomy, a greater injection of funds and more decision-making in the province. The development of a board on these lines would be very much in the interest of the part of the country from which I come.

There are problems with regard to the EEC. One of the problems in the west of the country relates to the regional policy of the EC. Before the referendum the two main planks on which we suggested to people in the western counties that they should vote for joining the EEC were in relation to agricultural policy and the emergence of a regional policy. There is a measure of cynicism and disappointment at the moment because the regional policy has not emerged. The Minister for Foreign Affairs recently referred to the fact that this matter is being taken up again. Certainly the Government should inform those concerned with this matter in Brussels in no uncertain terms of the degree to which we expect a commitment in that area.

Deputy de Valera quite properly referred to the matter of the Public Service and Dáil reform and he raised some interesting questions in his stimulating speech. The second point which the Minister for the Public Service stated was under consideration, and which will probably emerge within a few months, was the question of adequate parliamentary control of the semi-State bodies. This is a matter about which all Deputies will be concerned.

In the past decade there has been an enormous growth of activity and expenditure in the semi-State area as opposed to direct Government Departments. At the moment they are acting under a device which many people believe to be unsatisfactory in that they are responsible, through the Minister, to the Dáil. In parliamentary terms, the access by a Deputy is merely by way of a Parliamentary Question for which there is a prepared answer. The system is not very satisfactory. I hope there will be a development along the Committee lines so that there will be an opportunity to review annually or biannually the implementation of policies of the semi-State bodies and the possibility of engaging in dialogue with the chief executive officers of such bodies and their assistants. If this is to develop we must address ourselves a little to the mechanics of this House.

At present there is a problem in relation to the Public Accounts Committee and the EEC Committee. At times it has been very difficult to get a quorum for the PAC Committee because Deputies under the system we operate are immersed in constituency and other work. With a House of only 144 Members, some of whom are involved in positions in the Cabinet or in the position of Parliamentary Secretary, there is left a very thin resource from which to staff adequately the committees. I understand the Government are favourably disposed towards arranging additional secretarial services for Deputies in the House and I welcome that approach. It is most necessary. Until we can delegate a measure of the work we have to do. we will not have the capacity, the time to study the background of various subjects or be able to engage in the right kind of dialogue.

We have reached the stage where Deputies are better paid than formerly. In the public interest it is all the more necessary that they be able to delegate a large proportion of the work they have to carry out. At the moment they cannot do this unless they do it out of their own pockets.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to his approach in the energy area in relation to oil exploration. I hope the Department will very soon reach decisions regarding its approach to the issue of licensing and the degree to which it is expected that the State will take up equity in such developments. The sooner this happens the better because while we do not yet know whether we have oil resources off our coastline such as exist off the coasts of other countries on the Gulf Stream run, it is distinctly possible that we have. If we consider what has been happening in Norway and in Scotland and the financial implications of the discovery of oil off the Norwegian and Scottish coastlines and the extraordinary extent to which that will improve the balance of payments situation, apart from the basic stability provided by having an oil resource on one's own shores, it seems to me that the sooner we get moving in that area the better. It is a critical factor and could change extraordinarily the economy of the country.

I welcome the Minister's remarks in regard to the issue of mining. I believe the Government were right to change policy in that area. It would have been difficult for the alternative government to have done it because they had instigated a different policy. I believe the State is entitled to part of that resource. As has been pointed out, it is a wasting resource. There is an end to the ore that can be taken out. I believe the Government policy to be in the national interest.

It was suggested by Opposition spokesmen at the time that it would damage the industrial development of the country and reduce the extent to which investment would come from abroad. It was suggested that industrialists would regard Ireland as a shaky economy. In the nine or ten months that have passed since the initial speech was made there has been no indication that that is the position and reassurances have been given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that they are completely committed to retaining the incentives that are given to manufacturing industries at present. They have pointed to the essential difference between manufacturing industry, which is an on-going operation, and mining. For that reason I believe the present policy to be satisfactory and will result, hopefully, in an improvement in our balance of payments and in increased revenue from taxation, developments that would be in the national interest.

In relation to Foreign Affairs, I welcome the appointment of an Ambassador to the Lebanon. The Lebanon is a small country. It does not have all the significance that the appointment would seem to indicate, but in the Middle East the Lebanon is a catalyst. The balance of the world has been changed in terms of economics since the energy crisis and the fuel oil situation. Our presence in the Middle East and the accrediting of a representative of ours to other Middle East countries in the future will be in the long term interest of the country, providing liaison in so far as future oil supplies from that part of the world are concerned and in regard to the possibility of investment here by Middle East countries and of arrangements in regard to exports from this country to that part of the world, apart from the possibility of our helping with regard to political problems that may exist there. I hope the Government will keep the country on an even keel and that we will be coming back in a reasonably optimistic mood next year.

Mr. Callanan

My remarks will be confined to the agricultural sector but first I should refer to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said on the question of the Coalition Government and their responsibility and their differences. It is quite true that there are differences in every party. If everybody in the country agreed on every matter it would be a poor country. There is agreement to differ. At the same time, if a government want to govern and if the majority decide to sponsor legislation and to have a free vote, that free vote should apply only to the backbenchers. I do not think that the Members of the Government should have a free vote in relation to a Government-sponsored measure. I am fond of my freedom and can be awkward at party meetings but when a majority come to a decision I bow to it.

The general criticism that was made of the Taoiseach was not in respect of his honesty but in respect of him as a leader of a Government acting in a particular manner in relation to a Government-sponsored measure. If the Leader of the Government does not approve of a measure to be introduced by the Government then that measure should not be brought before the House.

Various comments were made by Deputy de Valera, and rightly so, on the way things are run in this House. In the debate on the Standing Orders Motion I complimented the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on their recommendation that the length of speeches in this House should be curtailed. I have always maintained that it is ridiculous that a Deputy should speak for two hours, repeating arguments, wasting public money.

There is the question of legislation having to be rushed through the House, as the Finance Bill, the most important Bill that comes before the House, had to be rushed through last night and this morning. I have been a member of various bodies. There was a chairman of one body who would not allow a meeting to go over four hours on the basis that a man's brain would be tired after spending four hours discussing a subject. Deputies felt this morning that they would be glad to see the debate on the Finance Bill over. Deputies had special interests and could have spoken at length on the various sections.

We were vexed with the Minister and the front bench Opposition Members for the way they kept it going when we were all hoping it would end and we could go home to bed. There were very important items in the Bill on which we wanted to contribute but because of the length of time people had spent in this House we could not do justice to it. Deputy de Valera spoke on the various pieces of legislation that are rushed through the House and the length of time that is spent talking about nothing. We should not make laws for the country without putting our own house in order first. In good business places and on committees people must discuss the business in hand and not be irrelevant. There is a vast amount of irrelevancy in all discussions here.

This is a debate on the state of the nation. I was not here this morning—I was having a sleep—when the Taoiseach was speaking but I see that he warns us of a loss of jobs. I do not believe in standing up here and saying: "We'll all be ruined, said Hanrahan" but I believe things are not well at present with the economy, particularly the agricultural sector but other sectors also. Even though the Minister for Local Government says there is nothing wrong in the housing sector we know there is a shortage of money. About five years ago beautiful houses were built in Mervue in the City of Galway. I know a man who bought one for £4,000. Those houses are now £9,000, while the loans that are available are only £4,500. No young married couple know where to get the additional £3,000. This is a serious situation. Nobody knows who will come back here after the Recess but anyway we will not be here again until next October. It is only fair that we should point out to the relevant Ministers the seriousness of the situation. It is well known that the building situation is serious.

I wanted to speak on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government but I did not get in. I noticed that the Minister gave only a small paragraph to local improvement schemes. An order came from the Minister that bog roads can now be included for local improvement schemes at 10 per cent of the estimated cost. We were thankful for that. However everybody knows that the repair of a bog road costs much more than the repairing of a road on reasonable land. Therefore, when bog roads are included the cost will treble and the amount of money we have is not enough. According to one of this evening's newspapers the price of coal has gone from £34.84 to £67.84 per ton. We must do something to help people get native fuel. We have not got nearly enough money to repair the bog roads.

I give credit where credit is due. I think the Coalition have done a fair job on social welfare but no matter what Government were in power it would be their job to do that. However social welfare payments are not keeping in line with the increases in the cost of living. The amounts look good on paper but the acid test is what they will purchase of the necessities of life. Any recipient will tell you it is not enough. This should be looked into by the Government.

As far as agriculture is concerned, again I will not say we are ruined but we have not got much confidence at present. I, like our spokesman on Agriculture, want to say sincerely that I believe the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing his best. I am convinced his heart is in the right place. I am not convinced that he is getting enough assistance from his Government or from those who are with him in Brussels. We have heard that people are to be paid £50 for keeping cattle over the winter. I presume the only people who will be paid that will be people who have cattle fit for the factories. If this is done I am pointing out now, for the record, what will happen to us in the West of Ireland. What are we going to do with our young cattle if the finished cattle are not moved out? By all means give a subsidy for slaughter. I am not objecting to that but I am objecting to people being encouraged to keep cattle unless some genius comes along and says that we will have a market and that the beef pool will be gone by next March.

The people I represent carry on two types of farming. I do not represent the man who feeds over 100 head of cattle. I represent the ordinary man who is either in milk or has a few cows and calves and is in the beef subsidy scheme. If the man is in milk he is not too badly off because the price of milk is good but his calf is a dead duck. He got up to £70 for him last year but he is lucky if he gets £10 for him this year. The other people I represent are in the beef scheme and they have from ten to 20 cows. They always have enough fodder to feed the cows for the winter but they cannot feed the calves. If the people with large herds are subsidised to keep the cattle that should be going out for sale in the autumn who is to buy the medium sized cattle to replace them? The whole thing is held up.

I do not want to be misunderstood here. By all means pay a subsidy for the slaughter of an animal provided it is continued the whole year. We had a disaster last year in relation to calves. When the tariff was put on I was the only person who pointed out what would happen. If you stop the free flow of cattle and getting them slaughtered you will have the repercussions down along the line.

The price is very bad at the moment, even for the big men. You can get £16 and £17 per cwt for a beast of ten cwt but you get very little for the five cwt beast at the moment. The small man's beast is the hardest hit at the moment. If you hold up the movement of the heavier cattle by paying people to keep them for the winter you will also hold up the sale of the lighter cattle. I believe the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing his best but this is a very difficult problem. Last year I told him to take all the advice he could get but make his own decisions.

I cannot agree, on behalf of the people I represent, that it is a good idea to subsidise the keeping of heavier cattle during the winter in the hope that some fairy godmother will come and wave a wand between now and next March and say that the beef pile is now gone. I spoke on this Adjournment Debate because I wanted to get an opportunity before we went into recess to put that point across. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not here to hear my remarks. It is of vital importance to us in the west that the flow of cattle is kept moving. If not we are stuck.

Last year there were smiles on the faces of most Deputies when I pointed out the seriousness of the situation in relation to fodder. There are a lot of people in this country who talk about stocking rates and what you can keep on land but they assume we have a summer every winter. There was too much talk last year about stock rates and not enough talk about how they were to be fed. I read in a paper once that 20 cows could be kept on 19 acres. You could do that for a couple of months in the summer but how could you do that in the winter? You would need 20 acres of silage.

Mr. Callanan

Yes.

Mr. Callanan

In my view another look should be taken at the postal vote, because it is wide open to abuse. The Government should take another look also at the economy particularly so far as the West of Ireland is concerned and in connection with the movement of cattle.

Mr. Esmonde

I agree with the Deputy.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

I have no doubt that the Fianna Fáil Government of 1973 defeated itself. I am saying this in an objective way. In 1970 its more active Ministers either resigned or were sacked. From that day on it was inevitable that so long as an alternative could be offered, a change of Government would come about. The Fianna Fáil Party is very united. Since that day in 1970 they have stuck together. Nevertheless, their fate was inevitable. The people would not condone a situation where they could not trust the entire personnel of their Government on the question of security.

Mr. Gallagher

The Claudia will sink the Minister.

Mr. Donegan

So far as the Claudia was concerned I did my duty and I will do it again, and I will not sink for it either.

Mr. Gallagher

The Minister should talk about the subject before the House.

Mr. Donegan

I am entitled to discuss the change of Government and the performance of this Government since. I intend to discuss security, economics, industry and agriculture. Security is the most important subject which could be discussed at this time.

Everybody from Cork to Ballycastle knows that we on this side of the House, are against violence of any kind. We go about our work in this regard without fear or favour. I am not in the most difficult security Ministry but I have found it very difficult to make decisions which would bring difficulty to families. One could find oneself being very hard on people who thought they were doing the right thing. That was a duty which had to be adhered to. It was bigger than Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour or the Coalition. It was our duty to ensure that we would never have a thousand deaths again. These are indisputable facts. There are Members in high places in this House who a short time ago were named as having subversive tendencies. That is something we must face up to. All over the country there are people who have what I would call, in the vernacular of my county, a "making" regard for the IRA. I mention the IRA not as either first or last but as one of the subversive elements. The people who have this regard would never dream of hitting anybody, much less shooting them. They would never dream of raising their hands but still they would harbour, help or further, maybe by way of subscription, the cause of the IRA and other subversive elements.

We as a Government are doing our level best. There are approximately 450 subversive prisoners in our goals. We are doing our best to cure this horrible cancer. Over 1,000 people are dead since 1969. I place as serious a view on the death of somebody who would disagree violently with aspirations we hold as I would with a person who holds those aspirations dearly. How many decisions were made in Dublin, London, New York and other places outside the EEC countries that factories would not be built here? How many boys and girls have not got jobs tonight? How many people are poorer as a result of what has been happening since 1969? We will never know.

No board of directors in London or anywhere else will tell us why they did not come. I can assure the House that small things sway boards of directors when they want to start factories. As Deputy Callanan said, managements had the incentive to come here to avoid the common external tariff. They could also go anywhere else in the Nine where they would get the workers. The grants and incentives there were almost as good as they would get here. They had the choice. When one sees the 31 people dead between Talbot Street and Monaghan, the various executions and killings which took place, the 13 people dead in Derry, remembers the factories which did not come here and the bomb on the plane the other day, one should realise that these events are calculated to keep the tourists and the investors from this country.

In the face of the most serious crisis which has ever faced this country this Government have done well. I will not labour the most serious situation. In my view, the Government have a record, bearing in mind all the different events that occurred, such as the oil crisis and all the other difficulties that will bear comparison with any other period of any other Administration.

Let us consider the statement of intent of the Government at the time it was elected. Fine Gael and the Labour Party agreed to offer the electorate an alternative Government. They called attention to the fact that they had an agreed policy and had their priorities established. They were convinced—at Point No. 3—that:

in the present climate of national crisis, both political and economic, it is necessary to give the people a clear, democratic choice between the outgoing Government and an entirely new Government committed to democratic procedures, economic development and social reforms.

They were right. They then drew attention, at Point No. 4, to the sackings of the Ministers to whom I have referred and the fact that there was no mandate to govern. Within that Party there will still be people who had been displaced from their positions because of subversive activities. It would be no worry at all if Ministers resigned or were sacked because of ordinary difficulties of any kind. In these circumstances they drew attention to the fact that the only guarantee of strong, stable Government capable of dealing with the nation's problems was, at that time, the National Coalition, and the people elected them.

As their first tenet they laid down the protection of the individual. Deputy Callanan said, I think, that if one person was affected by double taxation, he would be extremely worried; he would feel it to be his duty as a Deputy to look after that person who felt he had a grievance. I could not agree more. Deputy Callanan is entirely correct in that. That is the job of every Deputy here, whether he be the most important Minister, or the least important and youngest Deputy just arrived. But the responsibility to protect the individual extends to his person and peace must be through justice—Point No. 6. Have all of these things being forgotten— the behaviour of the previous Government and the 14 points that were set before the people of Ireland in 1973?

I come now to the question of stopping the price rise. The National Coalition organised the National Prices Commission; organised a simple system of monthly checks; appointed more inspectors; ensured that this National Prices Commission was made far more decisive. If world prices went up, that is not our fault; we did our best about them.

I shall go right across the whole spectrum of Government and then talk about the situation as I see it. Has everybody forgotten the programme of social reform; the ending of social injustice and what was done on social welfare? Last year pensions and allowances increased by £1 in the personal rates and by at least 50p in respect of every qualified dependant. The monthly allowance under the children's allowance scheme was increased by £1.50 per child. And, in 1974, all rates of social insurance and assistance payments were increased by a further 18 per cent which, notwithstanding the rise in the cost of living, will give all beneficiaries a significant rise in their real standard of living. The children's allowance scheme was extended to provide payment in respect of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who are continuing full time education, who are apprenticed or disabled. The qualifying age in relation to old age pensions —in relation to our promise to reduce it from 70 years of age to 65 over five years—was reduced from 70 to 69 in the first year and to 68 in the next; that includes free travel, free electricity and free television licence. It is our intention to continue that process until we have it down to 65 years. That is a promise made and a debt that is being paid.

There is a new scheme for unmarried mothers who are keeping their children; the means test for non-contributory and old age and widows pensions was substantially relaxed. Contributory benefit for deserted wives was introduced. The removal of liability for any deductions in respect of social insurance contributions in the case of widows, deserted wives and unmarried mothers receiving pensions or allowances from the Department of Social Welfare was a further improvement. The cost of all of this shows an increase of £171 million, based on the budget provisions of 1972 compared with £229 million based on the first National Coalition budget of 1973. That represents an increase of 34 per cent. If that is not trying to achieve social justice. I do not know what is. The present weekly rate of retirement and old age pensions is £7.20; the increase in the budget was £1.30, giving a new rate of £8.50. I could go down through this list and would do nothing but bore the House.

Mr. Lalor

The Taoiseach already did it this morning.

Mr. Donegan

That is right. But, at the same time, let the House realise that these things were done. These are not "fly by night" things, they are facts; our action on security and on social welfare stands proudly and there is nobody who can take it from us.

The Taoiseach, in his Blackrock speech laid down the principles of power-sharing. We co-operated with the two other bodies, with whom we could co-operate, to try to achieve power-sharing in Northern Ireland. We were circumvented, not through our fault, but because of the fact that certain other people who held the power decided they would retain it. We will work in a peaceful way towards the promulgation of power-sharing as the days and the months progress. We will make every effort we can to see to it that these thirty-two counties of Ireland can remain peaceful. We will go across the religious divide as much as we can and. in so doing, try and bring our people together, letting them work in courage and dedication for the future Ireland of which we can be proud.

Let us consider now the question of housing. Those politicians amongst us who do clinics, as we call them, find that when we have one urban clinic at least—or maybe two or three of them—the most pathetic thing with which we are confronted is a young couple with one or two children looking for a house. One knows—because one has been in the local authority perhaps the week before—that they have no chance of getting a house for a year or perhaps two. That dates back to before the time my colleague, Deputy Lalor was here; it dates back precisely to 1957 when a crisis caused then by the Suez Canal situation, the Korean war, worldwide economic inflation and shortage of money simultaneously was cured by Fianna Fáil by reducing the number of local authority houses in the next five years to 4,000 per annum. Those are the facts of it. If the building industry is slowed down to that extent it takes years for it to recover; if you have old houses falling into disuse; if you have young people coming forward getting married, and looking for houses, you will not catch up except by an extraordinary effort.

What did the National Coalition do? They stated that there was a housing crisis; they decided that they would tackle that crisis on several fronts simultaneously, increasing the output to 25,000 houses a year. In the five years before the National Coalition took office—and lest anybody should confuse this figure with the figure I quoted on the small amount of local authority houses built in 1957 to 1961—the average figure for houses built was 15,600. In the 12 months ended to 31st March, 1974 a total of 25,365 houses were completed.

Fianna Fáil have been caterwauling about activities in the building industry. They say that building is slowing down, that the building societies are in trouble. They were told today by the Minister for Finance that there would be good news for the building societies. I am not at liberty to give details but the people opposite can rest assured that action will be taken in this regard. Steps are being taken, too, in regard to local authority housing.

However if during our five-year term of office—and I am confident that we will complete our full term— we did nothing else in respect of building but succeeded in bringing the number of houses built each year to 25,000, we would have done a good day's work because we would have taken great pressures from young people in so far as housing is concerned. Since coming to office we have been removing spectacularly the effects of the neglect of the previous administration in the housing field.

Mr. Donegan

There is no more effective way in which the people opposite can hurt the people of this country than by continuing to caterwaul about prices and to suggest unjustly that there is no likelihood of prices increasing. This sort of conduct will not put Fianna Fáil back into office but it appears to be the best they can get from their brains in so far as political expertise is concerned.

Something else of which I am proud in relation to this Government is that our young people are rallying to the security forces. It is clear that these young people believe that we are doing our job properly. I am very proud to be able to say that we have brought the strength of our Defence Forces up to 11,500 and that when we inquired as to whether any of the FCA people would be prepared to join on a full-time basis, 450 indicated their willingness to do so and of that number 415 joined. That is an indication that the young people of this country want no more bombs, that they want law and order.

I could go on for a considerable time in relation to the performance of this Government but I would digress for a moment to refer to the mess made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Contraceptives Bill. Deputy Lynch's suggestion was that that Bill was legalising the widespread importation and distribution of contraceptives and that, consequently, Fianna Fáil would vote against it. The Bill was designed to restrict the general unsavoury features in relation to the distribution of contraceptives.

So far as this party were concerned there was a free vote so that people might vote as they thought fit. I voted against the Bill because that was what my conscience told me to do. I came to this conclusion while bearing in mind something I witnessed while on a camping site in the south of England a few years ago. I saw there vending machines from which teenagers or any others could purchase contraceptives. I decided that a restriction on display and sale of contraceptives was better than that sort of situation. However, others in my party voted the other way but the Opposition were under the Whip to vote against it. The Bill was a restrictive one and we can be proud of it. We can be proud, too, of having a much broader mind in relation to political matters than have Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister should not misquote Deputy Lynch.

Mr. Donegan

I do not consider I am misquoting the Deputy. If Deputy Lalor thinks I am he should read the Official Report.

Mr. Lalor

I would remind the Minister that I was listening to Deputy Lynch.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Lynch also referred to the lack of will to face up to unpopular decisions in relation to the oil shortages. I remember when all the Deputies on the opposite side of the House were wailing about the fact that the Minister for Transport and Power would not ration petrol or oil but instead worked a system that was operated by every other European country. Supplies were kept going without applying any severe rationing. People were asked not to hoard petrol but I am sorry to say some of them did. The Minister got more stick than any other politician but, rather than have a system of rationing that would have been far more restrictive, he persevered with his course of action. If that was not an act of political courage I do not know what political courage is.

With regard to industrial disputes, it is true that last year we had a marvellous year and had very few disputes but this year there is an increase in their number. I am satisfied that the Minister for Labour and his Department are doing everything possible in this and that it is merely a coincidence that two or three of the disputes came together. In fact, the bus dispute was an internecine feud between two unions in which nobody could mediate. We had to wait until the whole matter fizzled out which it did after a long number of weeks. We are providing a service that is much more effective, both for the working people and the employers, than Fianna Fáil ever attempted.

I accept what Deputy Lynch said about inflation but I would point out that this is a world-wide problem. Inflation brings in turn a scarcity of money and one must pay the going rate. While that is true, there is no lethargy on the part of the Government. We are doing everything possible about this matter. The people are not frustrated, as was suggested by Deputy Lynch. They are extremely happy that they have a worthwhile Government and the people have the highest regard for the Taoiseach.

Deputy Lynch on the one hand says we are lethargic and then he says we have excessive spending and a deficit of more than £66 million. He told us this was grossly irresponsible. Did he get the figure of £66 million out of the bushes? There was not a deficit of £66 million at the time of the Budget. The Deputies opposite know that we had a deficit of £39 million at the time of last year's budget but when we finished that amount was reduced to less than £10 million. That was a very good performance by our Government.

Deputy Lynch has told us that industrial expansion is slowing down. I agree but I would ask the Deputies opposite to consider the base year. They know that the comparison is being made with our best year. Deputy Lynch, who was once Minister for Industry and Commerce, is well aware of this fact. Last year we had an expansion rate of 7 per cent but, having regard to the oil crisis, inflation, the bombings in Dublin and other factors, how could we be expected to keep up that rate? If we can achieve a rate of 4 or 5 per cent we will be doing on average considerably better than the average produced by Fianna Fail.

Deputy Lynch also referred to the strictures of the Central Bank regarding increases in public expenditure and in the external debt. Of course the Central Bank must be prudent. They may tell us not to overdo it and naturally we take serious account of what they say. The only difference is that if there were an election in the offing Deputies on the other side would take no account of the words of the Central Bank. Our Government will take serious account of the figures produced to us by the Central Bank and their words regarding government spending and the servicing of the national debt. We have balanced our budgets and we will balance them again. We will do as sound and as careful a job as any government.

Mr. Brennan

When the Minister was introducing his Budget he said he was budgeting for a deficit.

Mr. Donegan

I said that in the Budget of 1973 we balanced it to within £10 million. We will do that again. Deputy Lynch spoke a lot of rubbish about a deficit of £66 million. I suggest that when we come to the end of this year we will have reduced the deficit by a spectacular amount. I know that the 7 per cent expansion rate is slowing down but we will ensure that expansion continues at a better rate than was achieved by Fianna Fáil during a period of four or five years.

Deputies opposite are irresponsible when they make statements that are completely untrue. They do not seem to mind hurting the people of the country. Deputy Collins spoke about the construction industry. He predicts there will be a smaller number of houses this year and he is quite entitled to his views on this matter. He also stated that rumours that 7,500 building workers will be laid off after August are rampant. Such a comment is irresponsible.

Deputy Collins spoke about the importance of agriculture and the fact that we would have a bonanza when we entered the EEC. He then tells us that agriculture is facing the worst crisis for many years, including a 10 per cent reduction in farm income in 1974. Where did he get the figure of 10 per cent? I know that kind of statement will not help the farmer who is bringing his cattle to the sale tomorrow. It will do him a grave disservice, and it is for political purposes. The Deputy said—and he was the second Deputy who said this—that the Minister is remiss in regard to fighting Ireland's corner in the EEC. We all know that Deputy Clinton as Minister for Agriculture is not remiss. The Deputy said that various producer subsidies that were introduced in other member states have not been brought in here, that we have been slow in moving towards the green £.

In that respect the fact is that Italy got the Green £ three times: one of a 5 per cent reduction, one of 2½ per cent, one of 5 per cent—a total of 12½ per cent. Every time that happened millions of pounds flowed into FEOGA funds in the EEC. Italy was a food importing country. Italy had to fight for that green £. Our position is dissimilar. If we got the green £, if it were possible, funds would flow in millions from FEOGA to Ireland. Therefore it is considerably more difficult for our Minister to succeed in getting agreement from the other eight than it was for Italy. Yet, Italy had to go back three times before she got as far as 12½ per cent. So, you are talking about common external tariff money that was going into Italy on all the food that was going in there, straight into FEOGA funds. If we get the Green £ it all flows out of FEOGA funds to us. The position is dissimilar and Deputy Brennan knows that. The Minister is not neglectful of his duty.

France and the UK, said Deputy Collins, took unilateral steps. You cannot take unilateral steps in the EEC. The only unilateral step you can take is a veto and a veto says no. On anything else you are looking for yes, not no. The Deputy suggested that there were delays in listing disadvantaged areas under the hill farm directive. He said that M. Lardinois criticised the Government for delay. That is not true either. Yet Deputy Collins has the gall to come in here and say all these things. He said that lambs and sheep were to be covered by the Common Agricultural Policy by this summer and that that has not been done, that instead the French market is closed. Yes, and where is the Minister? He is out there fighting like a tiger to get the thing organised as best he can. The Deputy asked why was he not more aggressive in protest. He was most aggressive. When Deputies over there smile it would seem to suggest that they like this, that they like to see the farmer getting less money— for political purposes. Is that true?

The Deputy said that the EEC farm organisation scheme was adopted holus bolus without adaptation to Irish circumstances. Then he says that instead of an increase in the quota for sugar beet it looks like minus 20,000 tons. These are all figments of the Deputy's imagination. You do not go to Europe and say what you are going to get and take it for yourself. Every man who ever went to a fair knows that in ten bargains he will have more success with one than with the others. These bargains are being made and it is a grave disservice to the agricultural community to advert to any losses in price that occur when every effort that could possibly be made is being made by the Minister for Agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

I intervene to advise the Minister that he has about one minute of time left.

Mr. Donegan

In that case I will say, as I said at the outset, that the Government are still in the favour of the Irish people. I believe that the Deputies opposite are not in the favour of the Irish people. What they have to do is to put their house in order dating back from the year 1970.

Mr. Lalor

The Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party today, having listened to the Taoiseach giving his state of the nation address for one-and-a-half hours, found himself constrained to say at the end of it that it was quite obvious that the Government had no plan to deal with the desperate economic circumstances in which the country finds itself at the present time.

The Taoiseach dealt with the problems and accepted the fact that they were very many and finally indicated that he fully accepted that inflation was a problem and he accepted the Central Bank's contention that more than 50 per cent of the inflation is generated within the State. He said that inflation was a problem but it would appear that the manner in which he proposes to tackle it is the manner he spelt out today—an appeal to the workers not to press for more at the end of the current national wage agreement. That is an indication of a lack of ideas as to how to settle this problem. If further evidence were needed of the ineptitude of the Government it has been presented to us by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan, who suggested that Members on this side of the House were smiling at his suggestions. It would be difficult not to smile when one had sat here for a long time today listening to speakers on the Government benches telling us that there was no crisis in the nation's economy, that there was no problem in housing, no problem in connection with farm prices. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan, had the audacity to suggest here tonight that if we did not ask questions, if the Fianna Fáil Party did not raise the matter in this House, did not ask questions about cattle or farm prices in this House, prices would automatically start to go up tomorrow, that it was really embarrassing, that we were doing harm to the farmers by asking questions and that we were endeavouring for political reasons to embarrass the Government. That is the Minister's plan for improving cattle prices. That is the plan brought home by this belligerent Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries about whom he was speaking a moment ago and in whose praise he was loud.

Apparently the end product of the deliberations in which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been involved over the last fortnight was a request to Deputy Donegan to go into Dáil Éireann and to say, "Listen, lads, cool it. Do not say anything about it. If nothing is said about it the buyer will not know that things are so bad and will pay well for the cattle" and to tell us that we are doing a disservice in talking about bad prices for farm produce. On the other hand, he suggests that it is political motivation that is responsible for so many Fianna Fáil Deputies speaking on this subject. I do not think there is a Fianna Fáil Deputy who has taken part in the debate who has not spoken about the present and pending far greater housing crisis that is on our doorstep. Each successive speaker on the Government side today has followed the statements that have been made by trying to indicate that there was not a problem, that people are not being laid off in the building industry, that there are not empty houses in the city of Dublin and throughout the country because people cannot get loans to purchase them.

Here we are at 10.30 p.m. on the first day of an Adjournment Debate the Taoiseach having led off this morning, and we are still being told what was said at a very early hour this morning by the Minister for Finance and repeated at the end of the day by the Minister for Defence, that there are good times coming, that there will be a tremendous announcement, that something is going to be done for the building societies, that something is going to be done to lift the building industry off its knees, despite the fact that every speaker on the Government side today indicated that there is no need to do anything, that there is no problem, that there is plenty of money to enable these people to buy houses.

We discussed in this House earlier today a new arrangement whereby a Minister can come into the House at any time, by permission of the Chair, and make a serious statement. This statement is being made tonight because the Minister for Finance said this morning that it would be made tonight. We have had sufficient evidence in the lifetime of the Government to be in a position to question the veracity of statements made by Ministers. We had a collection of contradictory statements today. We had the amazing situation in which the Minister for Defence, a man of experience in Parliament, came into the House and told us not to talk about it and that it would disappear.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 25 Jul 1974