Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1974

Vol. 275 No. 1

Confidence in the Government: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann affirms its confidence in the Government.

Perhaps most Deputies would have expected that the Estimates for the Departments which were discussed last July would have been sufficient to indicate the Dáil's confidence in the Government, but I suppose it is reasonable enough to assume that the Opposition have to show cause and that it is as well to start on that note by putting down a motion for the first day of the Dáil resumption.

Back to work, Harry.

Whatever the purpose of the motion, the Government welcome the opportunity to secure a vote of confidence. Various perils and difficulties lie ahead for our country. In the economic sphere we are facing the gravest crisis we have faced in peacetime. This is not of the Government's making. In Northern Ireland the relentless evolution of events pose great dangers. In these times it is well that the people should have an opportunity to renew their assurance that there is a responsible and competent Government at the helm. Our record in comparison with that of our predecessors is the best guarantee of this, but at the same time it is no harm to put the message across as forcibly as possible by the expressions which will come from Ministers and others in the course of this debate.

It has been said that the Government have blamed world events for what is happening in this country. The implication is that we can, in some way, insulate ourselves from these events. I am not sure if the critics who make this sort of comment are fully aware of the extent of our exposure to the world about us.

Whatever we produce in this country—whether by way of farm goods, the products of a factory or the services provided by an hotel or office or by way of construction work on a building site—has in it, inevitably, a certain proportion of material or value imported from other countries. Similarly this same work, whatever its character, goes to help exports, either directly or indirectly. In other words, everything we do has in it some element of foreign trade. This is, I suppose, no great wonder.

The point, so far as we are concerned, is that our reliance on merchandise imports and exports is uniquely high. Some years ago the value of such imports and exports, together, was equivalent to about 70 per cent of everything we produced. Only two other countries of the nine member states of the European Communities had then a higher proportion than this and, in one of these—The Netherlands—the volume of entrepot trade was of special significance; the other, Luxembourg, is a special case because of the small size of its economy. The value of imports and exports as a proportion of the gross national product in the United Kingdom was of the order of 34 per cent. About half of Denmark's gross national product was made up in this way. In Germany the percentage was something over 30 per cent, while in France and Italy the figure was lower than 30 per cent. Deputies can derive the figures I have quoted from the booklet of Basic Statistics of the European Communities issued by the Statistical Office of the Communities. Corresponding figures for other countries are not yet available for this year, but our estimate is that merchandise imports and exports are now equivalent to about 90 per cent of our gross national product.

I mention these figures to bring home to Deputies the extent to which our economy is dependent on what we buy and sell abroad. External trade, and conditions in external markets can determine the way in which our economy develops to an extent almost unique in Europe. We are as exposed to the world economy as we are to the weather.

What then is happening in these external markets? I need not go, in detail, into the conditions caused by the massive flows of cash resulting from the increases in oil and commodity prices, or into the sort of deflationary pull this has produced in demand in every country with which we trade. Their home markets have contracted at an unparalleled rate. Their factories are seeking to sell their goods in these diminished markets, and we must compete there if we are to survive.

Though the demand for farm produce is not as elastic as that for most industrial goods, the effects of the contraction in markets are felt in this sector as well. We all know that tourism throughout Europe has had a bad year for precisely this same reason—the depression of demand because of the oil crisis and the determination of the major countries to fight inflation, by holding back demand, even if it means unemployment and running their economies below capacity for a year or two. In addition, the effects of the bombings in Dublin and the unsettled situation in the North of Ireland have had an adverse effect on our tourist trade.

It is not necessary to accept my word for this. Many Deputies will be familiar with the statistics for the growth or decline of economies collated and produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Throughout the 1960s and the early 1970s these figures showed that every economy in Europe—indeed in the developed world—was growing at a pace which ensured that, even with rising populations, each country could guarantee to its citizens a higher standard of living at the end of a year than at its beginning.

What has happened now is that many of the major trading countries of the world will experience a decline in their economies. The figures are quite striking. The economy of the United Kingdom is projected this year to decline by 2 per cent; that of the United States by ½ per cent, Japan, which has been accustomed to grow at a rate phenomenal by European standards, is projected to decline by 1½ per cent. Output in Germany, which is among the strongest economies in the world, will grow by a meagre 1¾ per cent. There have been suggestions that even these figures will be scaled down further.

How are we projected to fare in this sort of league? Deputies will know that the projected growth rate here this year is of the order of 3 per cent. I should like the House and others who are interested to think about this figure. How does it compare with the figures I have just mentioned for countries which are much more powerful than we are, which are more self-contained, and far more able to deal, within their own frontiers, with the sort of problems facing governments everywhere now? Do the figures showing our projected growth-rate this year—positive where those for the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan are negative, and almost three times the average for the member states of the EEC—indicate that we, exposed to the bitterest winds of competition in our home markets, and in the markets where we must sell abroad, have failed or have not measured up to the needs of the time? I doubt if that is so, and I believe many outside the House will accept that it is not so.

Perhaps the most sensitive barometer of confidence is the movement of money, the behaviour of lenders and investors. Where confidence is lacking money flows away, investors refrain from investing, lenders withdraw their funds. We have heard allegations from Opposition spokesmen that something of this sort was happening. But what are the facts?

The answer, sustained by all the hard evidence available, is of solid confidence in this country and in this Government. Despite the appalling deterioration in our balance of payments deficit, very largely as a result of factors outside our control, such as the massive oil price rise and the rise in commodity prices, our external reserves have increased since the beginning of the year. At the end of September they stood at £468 million —more than £33 million higher than in December last. This is despite a huge increase in the payments for our imports as a result of the unavoidable increases I have mentioned. The explanation is, of course, that there has been a substantial net inflow of capital. More than half of this inflow is accounted for by loans raised by the Government to finance the public capital programme and by semi-State bodies for development programmes or work involved in their activities. Here is hard evidence not only of confidence in the Government, but, even dence in the country, backed in the most real terms possible—those represented by cash and money inflows.

The remainder of the inflow of reserves is accounted for largely by the substantial amounts of capital being brought in from abroad to finance new industrial projects. This is reflected in our reserves and perhaps more realistically, in the way in which investment in our agriculture, industry and services is growing. Everything we do which advances the cause of the ordinary man, which enables us to provide schools for our children and housing for our people, which enables us to protect the weak and provide medical care for the sick depends on investment. Only by increasing the wealth of our agriculture, by making our farms and factories more efficient and our service industries more competitive in the home and world markets where they must sell their goods can we provide the wealth to pay for the care and services which all now demand. I want to examine for a moment now how we have fared in this respect.

In agriculture, total loans outstanding from the banks rose from about £80 million in February, 1972, to over £140 million in February, 1974. In the same period the amount invested through the public capital programme rose from the £33 million provided in 1972-73 to the £72 million provided this year. This money is being invested in better production facilities, in restructuring farm holdings to make them more efficient, in helping the farmer to make use of the opportunities provided for him in the markets of Europe. These figures display no lack of confidence in the future.

In industry the same pattern is evident. The value of grants for new or enlarged industries, approved by the Industrial Development Authority in 1971-72, was £18.7 million. In 1972-73 this had almost doubled to £35 million. In 1973-74 it had almost quadrupled to £75.4 million for that year alone. In the current financial year it will be at a high level but the precise figure is not yet available.

The jobs implied in these figures for industrial investment are at an unprecedently high level. The 1971-72 figure is 8,700. That for 1972-73 is 14,000. For 1973-74 it is 23,300. For the April-December period this year, the total figure is estimated at 21,300. These jobs will, of course, not be immediately available as the factories and enlargements on which they are based will take time to complete but they do show the way in which investors are demonstrating their confidence in us; and these include multinational companies, who invest where it best suits them, where they can find both social and political stability, where they can find equitable tax systems and workers with the spirit to enable them to get on with their job with the maximum efficiency. The way in which they are investing here does not imply any lack of confidence. They are voting with their money and their money talks.

Many of the companies making substantial individual investments here have widespread international interests and experience in assessing the ability and stability of Governments. Deputies will be aware that specific Government approval is required when the IDA propose to give grants in excess of £350,000 to any one firm. Hardly a week passes now in which the Government have not to consider one or more of these applications. Those approved since we came into office include such household names as Gillette, Black and Decker, and Courtaulds; but there are others, less well-known to the general public, but still in the top reaches of international companies, such as Alcan, Syntex, Wellworthy, Asahi, General Tyre and Rubber, Thorn Electrical, Merck and Burlington Industries. The last mentioned is the largest manufacturer of textiles in the world. Our problem in this area is that almost too much confidence at times puts the IDA to the pin of its collar to provide the infra-structure and the necessary facilities these industries require.

I know that Deputies will say that, whatever the facts of world conditions or the level of industrial or agricultural investment here and elsewhere, we have the highest rate of unemployment of any country in the European Economic Community and that our figures are rising alarmingly. If there is one blot more than any other on the record of successive Governments—in this, I include all Governments—it is our failure to deal effectively with the problem of unemployment. We can produce reasons and explanations, but we have not so far succeeded in establishing a society efficient enough to compete, as it must, against the best that the world can offer and caring enough to give all its members the work in our country which is their due. A Government alone, I know, cannot do this. Full employment requires a change in attitudes throughout society, which is as much a matter for every organisation and every individual as it is for the group of men and interests which constitute the Government. Deputies need have no hesitation in believing the commitment of the present Government to the maintenance and improvement, in so far as lies within our power, of employment prospects in this country. Indeed, it is because of that, as much as anything else, we recently had a series of meetings which I shall deal with more fully later.

It is no harm to get the figures straight. In April last, the latest date for which figures are available, there were some 1,058,000 people at work in this country. This was an increase of 6,000 over the figure for the preceding year which was, in turn, an increase of 6,000 on the year before that again. The total figures conceal a sizeable change in the sectors of the economy in which employment was given. For example, the numbers employed in agriculture continued to decline and the numbers employed in industry continued to rise. This shift between sectors can achieve good results for the country as a whole; it can place men where they are most needed and can produce most. The point I want to make, however, is that overall the total number of persons working in the country, producing goods and services of many kinds, was higher in April last and they were employed more productively than in any year since 1969.

Unemployment figures are available for a more recent date and point to a more sombre picture. They show an increase of about 10,000 or 17 per cent over the corresponding figure for last year.

Nobody is more conscious than I and the other members of the Government that, when talking on this subject, we are not simply discussing statistics; we are discussing men and women without work. Words will not help them. Indeed, it is impossible to compensate for the personal hurt which can result from the loss of employment. The Government have, in so far as lies within their power, provided that the monetary loss resulting from unemployment will be reduced from the penal level of some years ago by the improvements they have brought about in the social welfare code. They have ensured that for a married man, with two or more children, who becomes unemployed, through no fault of his own, the total of his welfare payments will, in general, be a reasonable proportion of his net after-tax income when working. For example, a married industrial worker with a wife and two children who became unemployed in 1970 could expect on average a drop in his income of about two-thirds. Now the drop is about one-fifth. These calculations do not take into account any redundancy payments to which the worker may be entitled.

I have referred earlier, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to the way in which every country in the western world is affected by the present crisis. I am anxious to direct the attention of Deputies to what is happening elsewhere in so far as unemployment is concerned. We hear of industrial firms on continental Europe letting go or putting on short time a number of workers roughly equivalent to the total number on the unemployment register here. We know that on the latest statistics unemployment among the member states of the EEC is up substantially on last year. In Germany it was 138 per cent higher in August than in August, 1973. In Denmark it was 140 per cent higher. In the Netherlands it was 31 per cent higher. I know that all of these countries can show that, even with increases of this magnitude, their overall level of unemployment is still below ours, but to stress this, I believe, is to miss the point. We are not alone in our experience. We cannot isolate ourselves from what is happening elsewhere. What is happening here is part of a world wide phenomenon, from which we, in a small island, with a uniquely high dependence on external trade, cannot insulate ourselves.

It will be agreed that what I have been speaking about is happening elsewhere and that what we are concerned about is here. However, I hope I have made the point strongly enough that, no matter what we may want or wish, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world about us.

I would like now to deal with the question of Northern Ireland which, even at a time of great economic difficulty, dominates all our thoughts, and necessarily absorbs much of the time and attention of the Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has met Mr. Rees, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I have met Mr. Wilson, the British Prime Minister, on a number of occasions. We both have pressed the Government's views on the North and on other matters. The Irish and British Governments are in full agreement that progress there depends above all else on the restoration of peace and stability, on a basis commanding widespread acceptance within the community. This, in turn, depends on both sections of the community sharing power in Government. Mr. Wilson gave me the most categoric assurance of his commitment and of the commitment of his Government and party to this concept—and of their acceptance of the need for any enduring political arrangements to take account of the special relationship which exists between the two parts of Ireland.

These principles are non-negotiable so far as the two soverign Governments are concerned and, indeed, so far as all political parties in Great Britain and in this country are concerned. No other system of regional government for Northern Ireland is conceivable in the light of the history of the area over the past 50 years. If UUUC politicians wish to participate in a system of regional government for this area, as distinct from holding less than 2 per cent of the seats in the UK Parliament, they will have to recognise and face the reality that, as a small minority of the people of the UK and a minority of the people of this island, they cannot impose their will in this matter.

While I and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Local Government had discussions with the British Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and Northern Ireland as recently as six weeks ago, the subsequent deterioration in the political and security situation in Northern Ireland has made it desirable that a further meeting should take place between the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, and myself at an early date, and this has been arranged for next Friday week.

In so far as internment is concerned, all of us know how the origins of the present system of internment in Northern Ireland, some elements of which are still under consideration by the European Commission of Human Rights, have rendered it unacceptable to a large proportion of the people of Northern Ireland, and to most of the political parties there, in both sectors of the Northern community. Our concern for the ending of this system of imprisonment as it operated in the period after we took office was made clear to the British Government. What we and, indeed, the Irish people, cannot readily understand, however, is calls for the ending of internment from those whose brutality and cruelty have kept it alive—reanimating it by fresh atrocities at any time when it seemed that it might be phased out. The people of this country do not want to hear from this source about human rights.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

At the latest Westminster election Northern Ireland candidates of the United Ulster Unionist Council received about 58 per cent of the votes cast, the Social Democratic and Labour Party about 22 per cent, the Alliance Party about 6 per cent, with 3 per cent each going to the Republican Clubs and to the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

It is easy to put a gloss on these figures but the one thing that is clear is that, in the face of continued violence from the Provisional IRA, and the appalling counter-violence they have evoked, political opinion amongst the majority section of the Northern community has hardened increasingly to the point where agreement on a solution that could yield peace and justice in this area has been pushed further and further away. We can understand the reaction of the majority, in the face of all they have had to face during these years. But we are conscious that those who have suffered most, from intimidation and kangaroo court murders, from sectarian assassinations and some security activities are the minority section of the community. The very fact that they are a minority, and in some parts of Northern Ireland a very isolated minority, makes their fears all the more intense. We would not be human if our hearts did not go out to them in this terrible situation.

We have attempted to reduce the tensions in Northern Ireland that have contributed to these sufferings. We have done this by seeking to alleviate the unreasoning fears of the majority section of the Northern community, through our solemn commitment to the principle of unity by consent—that political unity can be achieved in Ireland only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. Clearly it is on us in this part of Ireland that much of the onus devolves to earn that consent.

There are, as we know, many obstacles in the way. They are economic—in the lower incomes and different taxation systems and in the differences in employment opportunities here and in the North. These differences are diminishing rapidly with the economic progress we have made and with the changes in social welfare in the last two budgets.

Perhaps above all, the obstacles are psychological—in the different historical traditions and beliefs to which the two parts of the country subscribe; and, perhaps more than anything else, in the beliefs so firmly held by so many in the North that we here are in some way a threat to them and their way of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not seek any conquest by force. We are not interested in violence, and the record of this Government and of the courts is there to prove it.

Again I would say that our best overall hope lies in the recognition by all of the futility of violence. We are part of a community of nations now which conceives of unity not so much in national terms as in the only possible framework in which it can work in today's world—that of continents. It has taken two world wars, the loss of tens of millions of lives and the destruction of cities, towns and villages, indeed civilisations—the whole physical heritage of some areas—to bring about the attempt to realise and to revitalise that concept in Europe. We here in this island have always claimed our part in the European heritage. The North and this part of the country have had their fill of death and destruction. We have seen enough of the barren hatred which violence brings. Can we not learn now what we must eventually accept—as the men of Europe have learned and accepted—that only through the political process, by discussion and negotiation, and often by compromise can the result which we all want to be achieved be achieved. It is true to say that the gun does not convert: it merely maims and kills.

This Government came to office on a platform of social reform. We undertook to remedy the results of neglect of years, to effect major advances in the position of the disadvantaged in our society and to ensure social justice for all our people. The elimination of poverty and deprivation is not the work of one year or two. It is a task that will take time and resources but also sympathy and imagination.

We gave a special priority in the two budgets that have been introduced to the development of the social services. This is reflected in the growth of Government expenditure, current and capital, in this area. Current Government expenditure on the social services, including social welfare, health and education, has risen from £247 million in 1972-73 to an annual rate of £421 million in the current financial period—an increase of 70 per cent, in a period when total current Government expenditure rose by just under 50 per cent and the consumer price index has risen by almost 30 per cent. All categories have risen substantially, especially health and social welfare. There has also been a substantial increase in the amount devoted to capital expenditure on the social services.

The annual rate of spending on social welfare benefits proper like pensions and unemployment benefits has increased from £167 million, based on the 1972 budget provisions, to £295 million, based on this year's budget— an increase of 77 per cent. Our 1973 budget saw the greatest contribution and distribution of all time to social welfare beneficiaries. This year's budget continued that pattern.

In speaking in the Adjournment Debate some Deputies criticised this and I gave examples of what the improvements in these two budgets meant for recipients in various circumstances from which it was clear that the allegation was baseless. Lest anyone might think the examples I gave on that occasion were selective, let me say that I have details here, with 23 examples in all, examples which were not chosen selectively to support my case, that in all of these 23 cases the percentage increases in the cash value of the benefits are well in excess of the increase in prices since February, 1973.

In addition to increases in rates of benefit, we have made many more people eligible for social insurance and assistance payments by the improvements and extensions in existing schemes and by the introduction of new schemes. The characteristic of all these changes was the humanity and concern which shaped the new measures in favour of such varied groups as unmarried mothers, old age pensioners with non-pensioner spouses, deserted wives, single women over 58 and the wives of prisoners.

As was announced recently the Tánaiste has taken over responsibility for the services in respect of children and he is preparing a new Children's Bill. It is our intention to do for children what we have already done for the women of Ireland of differing marital status.

One of the areas in which some criticism has been expressed has been in regard to agriculture. That there are great problems I do not deny. But I reject outright any suggestion that they are attributable to any actions or omissions of the Government. If it was not for the Government's action, in particular the work of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the situation might have been much worse.

I know, and the farmers know, that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has done trojan work on their behalf, that he has personal practical experience of their problems and of the industry and his dedication in their interests is without question. They know that if this country had been represented abroad otherwise, many of the measures taken might not have been taken, and the fundamental principles of the common agricultural policy would have been in danger.

It is a truism that the fortunes of our agriculture are largely decided in the markets of the world. This has been the case since the foundation of the State. The basic cause of the present difficulties in the beef and cattle sector, difficulties which are shared by farmers throughout Europe and the United States, is an imbalance in the world between supply and effective demand.

Accession to the Community was the right decision for our farmers in 1972 and it is still right today. Given all the defects in the way intervention has worked, it is pertinent to ask where would our farmers have been without it.

It is basic to the common agricultural policy that it is a common policy, involving common management and prices governed by collective decisions by the Ministers reached in a spirit of Community solidarity. This means that it is in our long term interests to act in accordance with the decisions reached in common—and to insist that others do likewise. There will be times when this principle of action may inhibit us from acting just as we would wish but this is unavoidable and has to be accepted if we are to reap the substantial net gains of participation in the CAP. If others break the rules, it is not for us to follow them and take unilateral action as was suggested here. If we had acted in that way, and it is well that the House and country should know this, we would not have been able to show when seeking a variation in the rate for the green £, that we had not taken action contrary to the terms of CAP. This was particularly important recently when the German authorities demonstrated their opposition to national aids.

This is not the way to protect our farmers' interests. The way is to do all we can, as a Government, to ensure that the common policy is strengthened and made more effective. This is what we have done, and by timing our initiatives rightly, we have achieved the maximum success possible a Community of divergent interests. The House is aware that when a decision was taken to permit beef from outside to come into the Community the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries voted against it. That decision was taken on a 5 to 4 vote.

Since last December, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been active, with all the force at his command, to ban imports of beef and cattle from third countries. The decision to do so was only taken at the Council meeting on the 15th and 16th July after his continuous pressure and that of others over a period.

I should like to refer to the arrangement whereby during the period from August up to the end of this month, Ireland, alone among member states, is receiving FEOGA funds to meet the cost of the cattle slaughter premium; the special arrangement whereby Irish cattle slaughtered in the UK qualify for the same slaughter premium as is paid on similar UK home-bred cattle; the FEOGA funding of compensatory amounts on our cattle and beef exports to the UK when that country was authorised last March not to make the full alignment step in their cattle guide prices due under the transitional arrangements of the Accession Treaty; the payment by FEOGA of export refunds to offset the cost of monetary compensatory amounts on our exports of cow beef to the USA, and the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme in a way which, firstly, exploited to the full the room for manoeuvre allowed by the relevant EEC directive to cater for the special needs of smaller farmers and, secondly, provided a level of aid which is not only by and large better than what was previously available and in many respects is more favourable than what is available to small farmers in any other member state.

The Government are conscious that the various measures taken by the Community have not yet brought about a satisfactory situation in the cattle trade in this country. In particular, we are conscious that small farmers with young cattle are faced with particularly serious fodder difficulties. For this reason it was recently announced that a scheme of loans at very low interest rates for which we are expecting the very early approval of Brussels, was approved by the Government, in addition to the special ACC scheme of unsecured credit introduced last August.

Perhaps, the greatest success in the Brussels package was in respect of the green £. The effect of this agreement will be to increase farm income by over £50 million over the next year. Up to April of this year the only advantage which would have resulted from varying the green £ would have been in the dairying side which was doing reasonably well in any case and where the cost to consumers here would be greatest. There would have effectively been no benefit to the cattle and beef sector.

Thereafter, the balance of advantage shifted particularly in relation to cattle and beef and the Government having re-assessed the situation decided that the benefits to be gained justified seeking Community agreement for a change. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries pursued the matter vigorously to a highly successful outcome. This is the factual situation. Had we moved earlier the benefits to be gained would have been limited and the chances of success considerably more remote.

It has been alleged, that the Agricultural Commissioner, M. Lardinois, said earlier this year that there should be no problem in getting EEC clearance for a change in the Irish green £. What the Commissioner indicated, and his subsequent attitude clearly showed that this was so, was that he saw no problem in obtaining agreement to a joint British and Irish reduction in the green £ rate. The prospect of securing any British move in this matter was as Deputies know, much less likely early in the year.

The Minister for Education has been the subject of some comment here and there.

To use the jargon of the educationists, education is a slow developer, in that the results become apparent very often a long time after action begins. I think it is correct to say that the Minister, who is less than two years in office has made a number of important changes and the fruits of his action will be seen in time.

As the Minister said very recently, the cornerstone of our education structure is the national school, because primary education embraces all the children of the nation. The teachers in the national schools have over many years sought an extension of the period of initial training and a university degree on the successful termination of that training. The Minister has extended the course of initial training to three years and has initiated discussions with the universities on the matter of the award of a degree.

There are two areas of the primary system where improvement can have immediate effect. These are (i) the provision of new schools and (ii) the care and maintenance of existing schools. In the school-year 1972-73 a sum of £3,831,000, was spent on new buildings and on the enlargement of existing buildings. In 1973-74 this Government spent £6,629,000 on these activities, and next year we propose to spend £10 million for the same purposes. Even allowing for the increased cost of materials and for wage increases the increases we have made in this provision of new schools is substantial.

The Minister has recently announced what he himself termed a breakthrough in the system of State support for the care and maintenance of national schools. His words have been echoed by the managers' associations. Here again comparisons are enlightening. In 1972-73 the provision was £790,000. It was increased to £923,600 in 1973-74 and for 1975 there is a sum of £3,231,000, which will increase the 1972-73 provision fourfold. His scheme offers £6 for every £1.50 contributed locally, subject to an overall maximum governed by the number of pupils in the school. I want to make quite clear that there is no levy on pupils. The scheme recognises the existence of a traditional local contribution but has increased vastly the proportion of the running costs borne by the State. This new scheme meets the request of the school managers who assert that, at present, by far the greater portion of the running costs of national schools has to be met by local contribution. The condition that parents should have a say in the management of schools is one that will be generally welcomed.

These increases in the allocation of tax-payer funds for education have been made despite the critical nature of our economic conditions and environment. They are a clear indication of the Government's commitment and our investment in the future which is one of the principal characteristics of the expenditure of time, money and effort in education.

With regard to second-level education, which has been the cock-pit of discussion in the country for over a decade, I do not wish to say much because time prevents it, but I want to mention that we will encourage the establishment of community schools whenever and wherever we can.

Finally, in respect of third-level education, ever since Donogh O'Malley proposed a merger of the two Dublin colleges, UCD and Trinity, we have had reports and recommendations galore but no action or decision. It is a thorny and difficult problem and every solution offered meets some vehement opposition from one section or another. But the problem must be faced because of the vast sums of money which are being and must continue to be invested by the State and because of the need for a clear-cut policy about technological education. It has been left to us to face the problem, and I hope in the near future to announce Government decisions on the matter.

In regard to housing I want to adhere strictly to the facts. As the Minister for Local Government recently announced, last year more than 25,000 houses were completed. The present indications are that about the same number should again be completed in the year to the 31st March, 1975. Persons may dispute the future but there can be no doubt as to what has happened and is happening. In 1973-74 and probably again in 1974-75, there will be a greater number of houses built than at any time previously.

An adequate supply of mortgage finance is essential to private housing. The Government have taken exceptional measures to ensure that the money will be available for this purpose. Last year we introduced a special interest subsidy for borrowers from the building societies which is costing about £2.4 million a year. This is in addition to the relief from corporation profits tax enjoyed by the societies and the arrangements for the payment of income tax by the societies at a composite rate, which taken with the interest subsidy, are now costing the Exchequer approximately £9 million a year. The Government have also negotiated through the Central Bank stand-by credit facilities for the societies totalling £11 million from the Associated Banks to tide them over any temporary difficulties. These loans are guaranteed by the Minister for Finance and interest on money borrowed by the societies under this arrangement is subsidised.

The House is aware of recent changes announced by the Minister for Local Government to relax the conditions on which building societies may make loans. These changes will not only enable the societies to lend for housing with a greater degree of flexibility but also by freeing loans for secondhand houses, be of considerable assistance to those seeking this type of house.

The figures indicate an immense rate of progress throughout the industry. The figures I have mentioned and the adjustments to which I referred in the course of the Adjournment Debate last July, particularly in regard to building societies, may mean, however, that in order to sustain the housing programme at an acceptable level and to ensure that the employment it gives, not only in the construction of houses, but in the ancillary materials and furnishing industries, is maintained, funds must continue to be attracted to the societies and certain changes will have to be made to continue to ensure that these funds will be so attracted.

At the same time, the number of houses built by local authorities has been increased very substantially. Last year, a total of 6,500 houses were provided by local authorities and the total number provided by the local authorities, in dwellings completed with the aid of grants from the Department of Local Government, amounted to 25,300.

The debate will afford other Ministers an opportunity to speak on particular aspects of their individual Departments, but I want to say a few words, before concluding, on the general economic situation. In my speech on the Estimate for my Department last July I referred to the current world economic situation, to the adverse international situation which affected this country and the impact it had on our economy and on the prospects for employment. I mentioned that the international economic organisations forecast that economic growth next year would be somewhat better than in the current year but I pointed out that this view was dependent on an up-turn in the US and German economies where it was expected that the authorities would pursue more expansionary policies. This hope is no longer well-founded. In America, a concentration of effort on reducing inflation is leading the Administration to plan on running down the economy in the next few years. The German Government have made it clear that they will not move to stimulate the economy unless other countries succeed in their efforts to reduce inflation. Other EEC countries such as France, Italy and Denmark have also resorted to restrictive measures.

Here, the home market has had its difficulties. The impact of the budget has not yet been reflected in a rise in consumer demand where slackness persisted in the second quarter. The inroads of inflation are sapping purchasing power and also, perhaps, inducing caution among consumers. Another factor affecting the sales of our goods is competition from imports. I am afraid that here we are reaping the bitter fruits of the more rapid rise in our costs than in those of our competitors. When the economy was booming, keen prices were not crucial in selling. In the more difficult and the leaner times of today, price competitiveness has again assumed major importance. This applies, of course, with even greater force on export markets where our performance has so far been very creditable but, nevertheless, not a matter for self-congratulation if we compare our performance with the increases recorded by some other EEC countries.

Deputies will be aware that the increase in the consumer price index in the year to August last was almost 18 per cent. I want to make two points about this. The first is to refer to the way the rate of increases has accelerated from about 5 per cent only five years ago. This is causing profound anxiety to ordinary people. The second is to note that we are now moving from a period in which unavoidable imported inflation was the overwhelming influence on prices to one in which domestic causes within our own control are assuming greater significance.

It is now estimated that the balance of payments deficit this year will be about £300 million or about 10 per cent of GNP which seems to be a record for any OECD country. The prospect for next year is one of hope for a relatively small improvement.

I have referred to the international causes of these phenomena but I do not want to be taken as arguing that there is little we can do domestically to ease or solve our problems. The contrary is true. The difficulty is that in present conditions the Government alone cannot, without taking powers of a nature and a scope which most people would find repugnant, be fully effective in keeping the economy on the right course. The Government spend about 40 per cent or so of gross national product, through their current budget and capital programmes. This gives any Government considerable leverage. They can, by emphasising their capital programmes, encourage investment and so induce self-sustaining employment. They can by their taxation system and philosophy, as a minimum, ensure that investment and employment are not discouraged. And they can— as they have—through their welfare codes, look after the weaker sections of society and ensure they are protected from the ravages of the worst inflation and the most widespread recession that has hit the western world in this generation.

All this, as I have said, affects about 40 per cent or so of what we as a community produce. The other 60 per cent where decisions are taken are private decisions, whether of companies, of unions, or of farm organisations; and this part of the community's decision-making process can in our society dominate the sort of growth and the sort of economy we make for ourselves in the years ahead. We can go for high incomes— I want to stress this—and see unemployment queues grow because the products the men should be making are too dear or are too badly designed or because the equipment they are asked to use is too antiquated for their products to sell against the competition of other countries, who pay themselves less and spend more in improving their machinery and in infrastructure and the design of their goods.

Or we can in the period ahead accept income restraint—and perhaps even invest more—and so maintain the level of employment at as high a figure as is possible in the bitterly competitive world about us. The choice is as stark as that. It is higher money incomes eroded, by higher prices and high unemployment or a reasonable level—I emphasise this—of income and employment maintained at as high a figure as conditions permit.

If people try to take too much out of the economy, they can only imperil their own jobs or those of others. Good wage agreements are of no value if the firm goes out of business. Some powerful and sheltered groups might be able to obtain their demands, for a while, at the price of the jobs of others: but in the end in the economic environment in which we are now living, even they, who think themselves secure, could suffer.

This is not a question of the Government asking the people to forego the fruits of economic growth. It is rather a matter of moderating expectations that in the short-term simply cannot be realised. It is a question of stabilising the economy and ensuring the basis for a resumption of growth in living standards as conditions permit.

Deputies will be aware that the Government have called for a national partnership to meet and overcome the economic crisis. It has been increasingly realised in all countries that Governments alone cannot ensure the prosperity and stability of complex modern economies. In Britain and in America we have recently seen the moves to promote a wide-ranging process of consultation as the basis for what has been termed the social contract in Britain. In Germany, co-partnership has for long been a key factor in that country's economic success. This Administration came to office committed to Government by consultation and we have acted in accordance with this commitment.

A month ago I and other members of the Government met the major economic groups in the Community to give them our appreciation of the economic situation and of the need for a united national response to it and to get their views on how best we should solve our difficulties. Tomorrow, the Minister for Finance will be consulting the National Economic and Social Council whom he has asked to submit an early report on the approach to the economic situation. We are also conscious of the need to reach beyond the economic leaders and spokesmen and put the facts and implications before the people as a whole. To this end, we intend to publish a paper on the situation next week and we are considering other methods of informing them fully.

As I told the national economic organisations, we have been considering how all facets of our ongoing economic and social policies together with any new measures that are needed and can be taken may best be fitted into an overall strategy for 1975 and the years beyond. This strategy will be implemented through all the instruments at our command, including the next budget which, of course, is greatly advanced because of the change in the financial year.

The aims of this strategy will be first, as I said earlier, as our top priority, to maintain employment as far as lies within our power and to achieve this by moderating the rate of price increase and the rise of our external deficit; secondly, to ensure that the burdens imposed on us by external difficulties are equitably shared and that, in particular, the real purchasing power of the poor and disadvantaged is protected; and, finally, to provide a sound basis for renewed growth over the medium-term.

I have stated, on a number of occasions recently, the principles that would govern our strategy. I repeat that the Government are resolved to avoid resort to contractionary policies which would increase unemployment. I said, that if we failed to get the national partnership which we sought, we might be compelled, in the interests of national solvency, to take drastic restrictive action—but that this need not happen and was not what the Government wanted.

If we did fail to get a response from the people, such action would surely have to come sooner or later. As a Government we have to look beyond the short-term, to ensure the basis for future growth. In the short-term it is certainly desirable to offset the contractionary influence on the economy of the rise in the prices of imported commodities and this is our intention. But had we to bear the increase in the cost of public sector pay which could face us if we do not get moderation, on top of the increases in other expenditure needed to stimulate the economy, public finances would be stretched to beyond breaking point. Our foreign borrowing is already high. A continuing rapid increase in this borrowing requirement is not prudent and, indeed, may not even be possible. To push dependence on it too far is to risk a collapse of our capital programme at the whim of foreign bankers. The alternative, if we were faced with an immoderate rise in public spending, could only be penal taxation which would inevitably cause a severe set-back to our prospects for future development.

Similarly, it is right and proper that we should use the leeway afforded by capital inflows and our external reserves to avoid shock treatment to eliminate or even to reduce very substantially the balance of payments deficit. But we could not face with equanimity the prospects of deficits equal to 10 per cent of GNP for an indefinite period. At some stage, the burden of servicing the necessary borrowings, whatever form they took, could become crushing and again we would be exposed to the danger that suppliers might eventually refuse to provide us with the imports vital for our economic life. In the long-term we will have to shift resources into exports to pay for our higher-priced imports and this again means getting down our rate of inflation. This will be a gradual process but a start must be made. To suggest that we are faced with a choice between stimulation of the economy and control of inflation, seen as opposed alternatives, shows a basic misunderstanding of the position. The position is rather that the more inflation can be moderated, the greater the stimulus the Government will be able to give to the economy.

If we get real moderation in income demands, perhaps combined with protection against erosion of real incomes by rising prices, we can progressively reduce inflation and safeguard employment.

We face a testing challenge as a nation. I have no doubt, and we got this message clearly from the groups we met representing trade unions, industry and agriculture, that we have the capacity, the will, the skill and the ability, and the Government will provide the leadership, to get us out of these difficulties.

(Interruptions.)

It is a good thing that the Taoiseach's speech ultimately came to some life with the anticipated chorus from the benches behind him because it certainly stimulated no hope or desire in me or in any Member on these benches——

(Interruptions.)

I do not care how often I am interrupted or how many "shushes" come from the front benches because I will criticise and criticise strongly. The purpose of this debate, as initiated by our motion of no confidence in the Government, was to highlight the rapid deterioration in the economy and in the Government's total and abject failure to come to grips with the situation. Over a month ago the Fianna Fáil Party held a special meeting which was called to discuss the serious economic situation as well as the deteriorating position in Northern Ireland.

Our economic debate covered four main headings as follows:

(1) The runaway inflationary position and ever-increasing prices with their consequent effects on the poorer sections of our community and on household budgets.

(2) The serious position of the farming community caused in the main by increased costs which they have to contend with for feeding-stuffs, manures and farm machinery and, as well, the ridiculously low prices they have been getting for young cattle and for stores.

(3) We debated the crisis position in which the building industry finds itself, the position in which almost everybody engaged in or associated with that industry and with ancillary industries foresaw and warned against, except the man most directly concerned, the Minister for Local Government, who literally whistled his way past a graveyard of new, unoccupied houses, past wastes of new building land on which bulldozers were ordered to enter by some official decree in order to boost the statistics of building stocks and past the ever-lengthening queues of not only unemployed building workers but employees of builders providers, ancillary industries and indeed of other industries.

(4) We discussed the overall decline in the economy, in employment and in business confidence generally.

For these reasons we asked for the recall of the Dáil at that time so that the serious situation could be debated here in open forum critically and objectively so that we as an Opposition could put before the Government the heart-rending appeals we have got from all sectors of the community that something be done by the Government to relieve the desperate plight in which these people find themselves.

Our request having been refused we had no alternative but to table this motion of no confidence in the Government, a motion which they could not possibly avoid. Of course, we anticipated that an affirmative motion of confidence would be tabled by the Government which would enable the Taoiseach to trot out a list, as he has done, of unconvincing statistics and to blame our present ills on outside influences. Indeed, it has been a penchant of all members of this Government to blame all their shortcomings and vicissitudes on everybody but themselves.

The Taoiseach, as I said, trotted out his list of statistics. He referred later on in his speech to the national partnership but the tenets of national partnership apparently did not apply when it came to according the ordinary courtesy to the Opposition given by a member of the Government who speaks from a prepared script in the House. Instead, ostentatiously, a member of the staff of this House, with the Taoiseach's script under his arm, passed in front of the front bench of Fianna Fáil and distributed, one by one, a copy of the script to each member of the Government and, subsequently I presume, from what I have heard a copy was distributed to the Press and just at this moment, three minutes after I stood up to speak, a copy was gratuitously presented to me.

(Interruptions.)

However, be that as it may, I am not concerned because the Taoiseach's words written or spoken certainly have not impressed me. Nor, I believe will they impress the hundreds of thousands of people looking for some hope from the statement of the Taoiseach today. His speech will bring cold comfort to the poor who are hardest hit by rising prices or to the housewife at her wits end trying to meet her weekly budget or to the queues of unemployed or to the farmers, especially the small farmers, whose incomes have declined disastrously in recent months. In some cases they have no income at all at present because of the Government's inaction.

I have never before heard a motion of confidence moved in this House by a Taoiseach or a member of the Government in such apologetic tones. Not one new idea was put forward to give the country some hope, something to grasp at so that we could move forward. Nobody will deny that we have been affected by the rise in oil prices. We accept that we have imported and must import a certain amount of inflation but most of our present problems have been caused by the Government's bungling, by their lack of cohesion and their ineptitude in employing the right remedies at the right time. The last report of the Central Bank stated that 50 per cent of the inflation was caused by circumstances within our control and, therefore, within the sphere of influence and control of this Government.

On the political front we have had a sad deterioration of the Northern Ireland situation. Much of the deterioration has been generated within Northern Ireland but the Coalition Government and the British Government must accept their share of responsibility. The so-called low profile adopted and advocated by the Ministers of the Coalition Government has disillusioned the minority in Northern Ireland, has encouraged intransigence in the extreme Loyalists and has induced a sense of indifference in the British Government as to the seriousness of the aspirations of our people to the ultimate reunification of the country. I hold no brief for the failure of the British Government to confront one of the greatest threats to democracy that the modern world has known, the Ulster Workers' Council strike. It may be pleaded on behalf of the British Government that because at that time they did not have a majority in the British Parliament they were not strong enough to take firm action but it is hard to accept any conclusion other than that the British Government's inaction then was contributed to by expressions such as those from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he was not actively working towards such unity.

Yesterday, in the London Times under the dateline Belfast October 21st, an article appeared on the situation in Northern Ireland especially in relation to the activity or rather inactivity of the present Government. The writer was Robert Fisk who is a well-known commentator on political affairs, especially those of Northern Ireland. He referred to the question that was put to the Tánaiste during or after the Labour conference in Galway last week-end when the reply was:

I don't think we should just sit back and do nothing.

I continue the quotation:

The irony of his reply lies in the general conviction among both communities in the North that the Irish Government has done little but sit back and do nothing about Ulster since it was elected 18 months ago.

That is not my comment but that of Robert Fisk. Later he says:

But the Irish Government has projected not only to Northerners but to Irish people as a whole the image of a frightened indecisive administration, occasionally emitting sound and fury for the benefit of the Press but generally preferring the consequences of silence to either decisive action or no action at all. In short, it seems to have no coherent policy towards the North—an expedient which presumably operates on the principle that if you say nothing you cannot be condemned by your words.

I do not know if Mr. Fisk has any competence in economies but if he has he could apply the same terms to the economic performance of this Government. Further on he states:

Perhaps the key to this curious policy of bold statement and inaction lies in a speech Mr. Cosgrave made at the end of the spring. It attracted much comment at the time and prompted some Catholic politicians in the North to claim that they had been betrayed. Violence in Ulster, Mr. Cosgrave said simply, was killing the desire for unity among the Irish in the Republic.

Of course, we deny any such thing. Mr. Fisk goes on to say:

What this meant then—and what it means now in even stronger terms —is the desire for national unity has probably never been so fragile within an Irish Government.

Here, again, is objective comment.

He concludes:

To many in Dublin this is a weak stand for their Government to adopt: to Ministers it is a sensible one. And to the British it is the most convenient. To the next generation of Irishmen it will probably look pretty miserable.

So much for Robert Fisk. I want to repeat part of a speech I made recently. I quote from what I said at Fermoy last Sunday night:

We do better as a people to reiterate what is fundamental to all our aspirations, that this country's ultimate destiny is to be one with full and adequate recognition and safeguards for all the strands that make up our nation. We expect the British Government, now that it has got a new mandate, to pursue a policy of peace with justice in the North. Their policy over the last seven months leaves a lot to be desired and we are entitled to expect that radical new initiatives should be brought forward to reintroduce and strengthen the concept of power sharing and to restore the hopes of the great majority in this island for a realistic Irish dimension in the years to come.

The Irish Government must press and be seen to press the British Government for these initiatives. I am glad to note from the statement of the Taoiseach—from his aside, if it was an aside—that he proposes to meet the British Prime Minister next Friday week. This was anticipated and some commentator said this would probably be the only bright spot in what the Taoiseach would have to say in relation to Northern Ireland.

Meantime—the Taoiseach referred to internment—I want to say that I agree that activities not only by the IRA but by murder gangs on the other side are one of the main causes of the maintenance of internment. But I believe the British Government must face the fact that internment has proved to be a total failure. In Opposition they objected to it and denounced it as did this party when in Government. We all remember the rumours that were rife two weeks before internment was introduced in August, 1971. At that time we told the British Government in no uncertain terms that to introduce internment would be to accept bad advice from the wrong source and that it would take the lid off the situation which, unfortunately, it seems to have done.

Internment seems not only to have added impetus to the violence of the Provisional IRA but it is held to justify and perhaps to those in these groups, justifies, the murder gangs of the extreme Loyalists. If internment has given stimulus to violence in the North, the Coalition Government's handling of security has given moderate opinion here no cause for joy. On the contrary, two spectacular jail breaks in circumstances when the Government had deliberately permitted prison security arrangements to be relaxed, drew no credit to this so-called law and order Government.

On the first occasion, that is, the helicopter escape from Mountjoy, the all-round-the-clock patrol of the perimeter of Mountjoy by armed policemen had been withdrawn. This, I believe facilitated that escape. On that occasion the Minister for Justice said that there were in fact two armed policemen on duty at the prison at that time. These two armed policemen were occupied every day for a single purpose, irrespective of whether there was a round the clock perimeter patrol. They were used when visitors came to see the so-called political prisoners. They were there that day and other days in a place where they were completely ineffective so far as that jail break attempt was concerned.

The more recent escape of 19 prisoners from Portlaoise was effected, according to a journalist's investigation which has not been rebutted so far as I know, when the Army look-out posts at the prison had been reduced to one, and this at a point where it was impossible to observe the point of break-out.

If this is the measure of the standards of law and order applied by Fine Gael and Labour in Government, what price their relentless criticism on the security issue of the Fianna Fáil Government which never permitted such a debacle of prison escapes. We always ensured a very high level of prison security. This is a prime example of penny-pinching on this most important national issue by the Minister for Finance. These patrols and extra security measures were withdrawn because it was the purpose of the Minister to save some money.

I want now to come back to the serious economic situation. The Tánaiste, most pathetically, appealed to the Labour Party rank and file at last week-end's conference not to be too hard on the Coalition. "It is easy to criticise", so he pleaded in his presidential address. Yes, indeed, it is easy to criticise from the comfort and safety of the Opposition benches, especially when at best one can only hope for a part in Government. The Tánaiste and his colleagues in Government had a remarkable capacity for criticising. I am happy to note that they now realise that Opposition criticism and promises are one thing but that performance in Government is another. This is what we are waiting for.

Had we promised as the Fine Gael and Labour Parties did, that we would control prices and hold them at their then level, I believe we would still have retained power. Then the Coalition might not have found themselves in the hopeless and hapless position in which they are now when they must acknowledge their abject failure at price control. Their dishonest claims to control prices have now rebounded on them. This is only too painfully clear to the electorate. Other speakers will deal more specifically with prices.

It is little wonder that members of the Government are flying all kinds of kites to divert people's minds from the hard economic facts. This is not only a futile, diversionary exercise, it is also a dangerous exercise for a Government. Not only is the concept of Government collective responsibility breached by Ministers speaking in diverse tongues on the same topics, or giving "off the top of their heads" comment on matters of fundamental constitutional or economic importance and then disclaiming, or having so-called official sources disclaim for them, that their statements were not representing Government policy, but this is severely damaging to the confidence of our people in the future of this country.

The Minister for Labour's gloomy forebodings about the economy's future are rejected by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This serves to illustrate my point.

The Minister for Justice suggested that Articles 2 and 3 should be repealed as an act of reparation. This suggestion was contained in a carefully prepared script. One would have expected that this would have been seen and approved by the Taoiseach. He denied this and I accept his denial. This kite was also referred to by "official sources" as representing only the Minister's private thinking. The Minister said that he spoke them off the top of his head.

The Minister for Defence warned that the Army were to be involved in tasks "they would not like". These tasks were not specified by him. Again official sources told us that the Minister's remarks did not represent Government policy. I have no doubt that members of the Army did not take too kindly to the denigration of their capacity by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. This was probably the greatest breach of Cabinet responsibility yet. That a Minister, having acquired, in his capacity as Minister, confidential information crucial to the safety and wellbeing of our country and having interpreted it to suit his own political line, should then cause that document to be circulated to upwards of 50 people, members of the administrative council of the Labour Party, and then express surprise that it was ultimately published in the newspapers, is political naïveté of the highest order. It is no wonder that the country is disillusioned, dispirited and disgusted.

Everybody is aware of the serious economic situation facing the country. It took longer for the Government than anybody else to realise that there was a serious situation. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it took longer for the Government to admit this fact. For a long time there was an attempt to cover up and mislead the people about the situation. When the true situation had to be revealed, there was a sudden switch to a new story. In place of the earlier story about the economy making faster progress as a consequence of Coalition policies, there was the sudden discovery of an economic blizzard hitting the country and causing living standards to fall through no fault of the Government.

We, on this side of the House will remember a week shortly before the Dáil recessed when the Government having met suddenly realised that there was an economic problem. They sent the Minister for Finance off on his bike and in the space of a week he made no less than four speeches about the economic blizzard which he had not noticed coming until that Government meeting. Other Ministers had the same unpleasant task. We will remember this watershed in realisation by the Government of what the true situation was.

However, the position now is that they recognise there is an economic blizzard which is causing our living standards to fall through no fault of this Government. This is their latest story and so far, perhaps with occasional exceptions, they are sticking to it. But is this story any more plausible or credible than their earlier efforts? Of course, it is not. The economic blizzard in the shape of higher oil prices is costing this country about £200 million a year. If that were the only adverse factor at work there would be no cause for living standards to fall this year because the inflow of capital from abroad is more than £200 million. This inflow means, in effect, that we are not being forced to cut down our living standards in order to pay for the increased oil prices. Rather, we are in the position of borrowing in order to preserve our living standards. If this borrowing is wisely used—and I am sure it can be used wisely—it can, in future years, provide us with higher incomes from which we can eventually pay off our bills. Here I would draw the Government's attention to the autumn report of the Central Bank. There is a stop on its publication until tomorrow. Therefore, I cannot mention any details. But it warns very severely on this point and, obviously, with some very good reason. In other words, use your borrowings for productive purposes or you will find yourselves in much greater trouble.

There are other reasons, apart from higher oil prices, for falling living standards this year. One of these is the fall in farmers' incomes, resulting from the fall in cattle prices and from rising costs of feedingstuffs, farm machinery and manures. This was one fall in living standards about which the Government could have done something had they acted promptly to look for the green £. Instead, they delayed for months and months; they dillied and dallied; they could not make up their minds, obviously because of the conflict within the Government itself and, when they did come to make up their minds, it was too late and cost the Irish farmer millions of pounds, estimated perhaps conservatively, at some £30 million.

The Taoiseach in an almost inaudible aside during the course of his speech said that, if the country had been represented abroad otherwise— he was referring to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—the position might have been worse. That comes ill from a person who has to drag, kicking, into the Common Market and the Council of Ministers in Europe people within his Government who never believed in the concept of the Common Market.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The fact is that Ireland would have been better represented by a party which was fully committed, without anybody dragging at its coat tails, to membership of the Common Market and to carrying on its negotiations without hindrance from any colleagues.

Another reason for the present economic difficulties is the slowing down in economic growth. This slowdown has been going on now for almost a year though, naturally, the Government pretend it was otherwise. Their increased spending in 1973 was supposed to be raising economic growth. In fact, it was obvious that economic growth was slowing down by last autumn, months before the effects of the oil crisis were met or before any oil shortage took place at all. We pointed to the danger of this slower growth on several occasions.

At budget time earlier this year we spelled out the dangers of a second year of no growth and high spending. We stressed the need for more exports and more investment. Here, again, I come back to the Central Bank report which will be available tomorrow— investment in productive purposes is what is required not spending moneys because pressures are mounted by groups which can exert leverage on this Government. We stress the need for more exports and more investment. I believe that had a more sensible policy been followed not only in the last budget but in the previous one as well, had money been used to boost employment and output, there would have been no fall in living standards this year.

Therefore, let the message go out loud and clear to the Irish people. The cut in living standards and the fall in employment are not due to the oil situation. They are due to this Government's mismanagement, failures in handling the agricultural, industrial and commercial affairs of our country. It is not only through delays and mistakes that the Government have harmed the economy. One of the other deadly blows they have dealt to economic progress is the manner in which they have undermined confidence and stimulated credit uncertainty by their actions and contradictory statements.

How can people have confidence in the Government's sincerity to curb inflation when they see them setting the worst possible example in allowing both State companies to raise their charges by staggering amounts—I refer to the increases in postal charges and television licences—and, more importantly, by ignoring the National Prices Commission in the process? Everybody else with commodities to sell had to go to the National Prices Commission before a price increase could take effect. But the Government permitted an inordinate increase in postal charges and television licences without going through this process. Therefore, to judge by their performance to date, this seems to be the only contribution that the Government can or will make in the area of inflation. Rarely have a Government which promised so much produced so little.

Now the Government would have us believe that price rises are all due to outside forces over which they have no control. There is never a reference to the fact that less than half the price rises are due to imports and that the bulk of inflation arises in this country under the control of this Government. Anyone who wants to observe the remarkable turnabout and change of story has only got to compare recent statements on prices with those of over a year ago. Then, because there was a temporary slowing down in inflation, we were supposed to believe that the improvement was brought about as a result of Coalition Government policies. But now, when inflation has worsened, allegedly, it is outside forces which are to blame.

Voters in the Monaghan by-election this time last year will remember the many eloquent statements of Deputy Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, about the ways in which he was helping to curb inflation. It will be very interesting to compare those statements with the story he will tell to the electors of North East Cork in the weeks to come.

Prices are not the only area in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce can be selective in his statements. Last week he could be critical of the EEC, in its lack of progress in such areas as regional policy, and reminding us, too, in the process, that he warned us of these dangers. On different occasions, he has pointed to the improvement in social services made over the past year or so as an apparent benefit of Labour participation in Government. But what he neglects to point out is that it was the inflow of funds arising from EEC membership which made these social improvements possible.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

If we had taken his advice when our negotiations were in train and when the campaign for the referendum was in full flight, then —he knows well—there could have been no improvements of that nature. As always, they try to have it both ways. Another example of trying to have it both ways is the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and others, about the inflow of foreign firms to Ireland. Going back, perhaps, two years we heard the criticism of selling out to foreigners. Now we are told that prospects for rising employment—indeed, one might say almost the only prospect as far as the Government are concerned—are bright in future years because there will be a record influx of IDA assisted projects.

At the same time members of the Government try to present themselves as the champions and defenders of Irish interests with Tara serving now as the main vehicle of this campaign. Here, too, the reality is different. Each new step which the Minister takes simply demonstrates the soundness of Fianna Fáil policy in this area.

In the case of Tara we always maintained that it was more important to arrange first for a smelter which would process Tara minerals and help to attract and develop other metal processing industries before trying to settle on any tax or royalty arrangements. But the doctrinaire approach of this Government has caused hundreds of workers to lose their jobs and the same attitude appears now to underline the difficulties in housebuilding. Because the Minister for Local Government has some peculiar ideas about the rich and about building societies, there are now hundreds of workers laid off. The Taoiseach did not refer to this situation in the course of his statement. Increasing numbers of houses are being left unsold and there is grave uncertainty as to the whole future of this fundamentally important industry.

Belatedly the Minister for Local Government and the Government have been compelled to recognise the folly of their artificial restrictions on loans for both new and secondhand houses. We can only hope that as a result of these belated moves the building industry can be set in motion again.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs who, by nature, is a super-optimist— we can all envy him on that—prior to the election could see no bounds to the advances that would be made under a Coalition Government. Now he can foresee no improvement in living standards in 1975 or 1976 and he says that the Government are struggling to maintain living standards. This is a very far cry from the delusions of grandeur that this Government suffered when they first took office. With the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs calls for a national partnership but where is the evidence that this Government are giving a lead in any sense in this direction? For example, in their appointments, even of peace commissioners they have shown themselves to be partisan and selfish.

Granted that the Minister for Education has been pursuing what can be described only as reactionary policies, what is to be said of his Ministerial colleagues who, at last week's Labour conference sat, like vestal virgins in a Roman arena and gave him the thumbs down?

Unanimously.

As the Minister was being castigated for almost two hours by Labour Party delegates, not one of his colleagues could summon one word in his favour.

That is Keating loyalty.

When asked to reply to the debate, Deputy Desmond could not find it in his heart to conjure up even one word in favour of the Minister. Were the Labour Ministers who were present content to allow their colleague to be thrown to the wolves so that attention could be diverted from their own inactivity and failures, to what Deputy Wilson has referred to as their feckless behaviour?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

How can this Government have the cheek to call on the people for unity and partnership when within themselves they are so divisive, so riven and so disloyal? Indeed, it occurred to me that we could have reframed our motion of no confidence by excluding specifically from it the Minister for Education because no confidence in him was more abjectly or more strenuously passed than that of his Labour Party colleagues through the medium of their conference.

Business firms in general are experiencing difficult times because of falling demand and of shortage of money. There is no help being given to them to meet rising costs. Consequently, many businesses which are sound basically may be forced into bankruptcy or at least to cut back output and to lay off employees. Instead of trying to help them to meet their difficulties the Government's only response has been a credit squeeze and talk of sacrifice and of further cutbacks. But the really frightening element in the present situation is the complete absence of any policy or consistent viewpoint on the part of the Government. Some Ministers talk of economic blizzards and of prospects of no rise in living standards for years. Other Ministers say there is no crisis and that the only danger is that we will talk ourselves into a crisis. Certainly this Government are capable of doing that because they have words in plenty. It has occurred to me often that if words could form a trade union which would protect their use and exploitation this Government would present a sorry-looking lot.

Is there or is there not a crisis? If there is not a crisis, are we headed for such a situation? People are becoming increasingly nervous because they do not know the answers to these questions. The Government are not giving them the answers. The people cannot be sure of anything they are being told by this Government. Which Minister should they believe and why? How can they have confidence in Ministers who, at election time, talked of strict price control and promised to end inflation but who, when in office, say that inflation is caused by international events and, consequently, is outside our control? How can the people have confidence in Ministers who, when in office, attack the policies of attracting new industries to Ireland from abroad but who, in office, are boasting of their success in providing new jobs from these overseas firms? How can the people have confidence in Ministers who blame the farming difficulties on the failure of the EEC to take action when the EEC was obviously willing to help several months ago but could not do so because this Government did not make up their minds as to what they wanted to do?

The plain truth is that the Coalition were able to live comfortably for their first year or so on the fruits of Fianna Fáil progress and policies. It is very likely that this was the point which Senator Noel Browne was about to make during the course of his speech at the Labour Party conference when he said that Deputy Corish was facing a situation which he faced on two previous occasions. Having said that much, the Senator was boohed off the platform and howled down.

Is he the best that the Deputy can produce?

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Thornley who usually sits beside Deputy Coughlan told the conference that the Labour Party made bloody fools of themselves in this House last summer. He was referring to the contraception issue.

He was not wrong either.

(Interruptions.)

I am merely obliging Deputy Coughlan who asked me to give him a better example than Senator Browne.

One thing we have never suffered from is loss of memory.

I wish to continue on what Senator Noel Browne obviously had in mind. We had experience of this on two previous occasions. This is exactly not only what Senator Browne fears but what the people fear, that as in the Coalition of 1948-51 and in the Coalition of 1954-57 things went well for a year or a year-and-a-half but then trouble set in. This happened when the realities of government and the difficulties of administration came to the fore. On each occasion the Coalition Government were incapable of grappling with the problems and overcoming them. This is what people fear is being repeated now.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

If the Ceann Comhairle is restive, I would inform him I was told that as the Taoiseach exceeded his time I would get equal facility.

That is understood.

Although I have another 15 minutes I shall not delay the House for that length of time because I wish to give as many members of this party as is possible an opportunity to speak in the debate. After one-and-a-half years when the first inflow of EEC money has gone, we see the lack of firm leadership and direction. We see this has caused stagnation and a lack of confidence regarding the future of the country in the industrial, commercial and farming spheres. There is no need for this paralysis and uncertainty to continue. The economy is basically sound and is capable of further substantial progress in the future. However, to enhance this progress it must have coherent and positive leadership and not allow its affairs to be reduced to a shambles by the confused thinking of 15 Ministers going their different ways. In short, we need one Government, not an assortment of individuals, ill-met and ill-advised.

I know it is a truism that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose but opposition can take various forms. I am sorry the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition took such a trivial form. It is acknowledged that a crisis exists in the world and that with a small, open economy it is impossible for us totally to escape the effects of that crisis. There are a number of different forms the Opposition could have taken in this debate.

They could have taken the point of view, with their great past experience of government, that if we were managing things badly and if they and the country had no confidence in us, the way to take the leadership from us was to put up policies that were obviously better. They have the years of ministerial experience and knowledge to do this if our performance were inadequate and if they had better answers. They have not done it in the past 18 months but they might have come back refreshed from holiday and put up policies now. What we had was a by-election speech from the Leader of the Opposition.

I know there is a by-election coming but the situation calls for a little more than that. It calls for some serious analysis of the difficulties of the country. If the Leader of the Opposition believes the handling of the Government is inadequate, some serious analysis of the inadequacies is necessary and, above all, constructive proposals for what might be done at a time of national difficulty. I was about to say that scoring debating points is easy but perhaps it is not such an easy thing for the Leader of the Opposition. If it had been easy in the present circumstances he should have scored a few more even in the context of a by-election speech or a debating society speech. I did not feel the palpable hits, nor do I think my colleagues will feel them either.

The Minister is punch drunk.

The basic economic judgment on very fundamental issues —and in some ways the political judgment—of the Opposition in the last few years, when they were in Government and in Opposition, was extremely faulty and damaging. In my view the judgment and analysis of this Government have been superior and better for the country and I shall try to indicate what I consider to be the real content of this debate. While I may not physically listen to all of the debate, certainly I will look at the record of the debate to find whether the collective wisdom of the country, as expressed by the Opposition as well as the Government, can produce analyses and solutions that we have not thought of. I hope we will get some constructive points from the debate.

I shall discuss the ways in which the Opposition's reasoning and judgment have been inadequate and would have been profoundly damaging to our economy had they been in power. I do not wish simply to start an argument but I want to put before the House clearly the core of what I think the debate should be. Certainly, we should be debating whether the House and the country have or have not confidence in us but we should also be debating what is the best path forward in very difficult times. That is the content of what we should be talking about now, and what we will be discussing in a few weeks' time. It is a matter of a fundamental economic and political line and who has the better judgment. In the end, when all the little points are made, those are the issues.

We have had two budgets in the history of this Government. In an important way the analysis of each of them by Fianna Fáil has been erroneous. Indeed, had we taken notice of that analysis it would have been extremely damaging. I wish to quote from a statement of the former Minister for Finance in the previous Government when he was debating the budget on 16th May, 1973. At column 1305 of the Official Report he said:

Nevertheless it is clear when one looks at the figures for growth that the deficit is too high.

Later in the same column he said:

The Minister has, in my view, exceeded the budget deficit which would be justifiable on the best interpretation of the projections.

He said that about our first budget. He is a man with experience of that Department and we must take his words more seriously than the throwaway words of a backbencher who might use these words in a hastily-prepared speech. The former Minister's quotations can only mean that he thought that the first budget was too expansionary, that it should have been more deflationary and should have cooled the economy more. In other words, we were aiming too high and putting too much money into the economy. I do not think that is an unfair interpretation. There is no other interpretation.

Again, on 16th May, 1973, and once more in April, 1974, we had another budget debate and again he attacked us because, he said, the budget was not deflationary enough. He referred to our policy of deficit budgeting. I quote the Official Report, column 1491 of Volume 271, of 3rd April, 1974:

Instead of that we have had this unbelievably irresponsible budget statement by the Minister.

He was characterising an expansionary budget as "unbelievably irresponsible". Again, at column 1478, he said:

It is gross irresponsibility on the part of the Government to bring in a budget providing for a deficit of more than £66 million.

I give these quotations not for the purpose of scoring debating points but to show that in the two budgets the analysis by the Government of what the economy needed was a correct analysis and that Deputy Colley—he is authoritative on this subject speaking for his party—was incorrect. Had we behaved in the way he advocated, we would have damaged the economy. There is a thread running through all this because Fianna Fáil are taking up a rather imprecise position in an instinctive way on the whole matter of the budget.

Does the Minister really believe budget policy has done some good?

Yes, and I shall be interested to hear Deputy Brennan challenge the correctness of what I say.

The Minister will hear me tomorrow.

Good, because this is the sort of thing we ought to be debating. Ours is a realistic approach. Had we adopted the sort of deflationary posture Deputy Colley clearly wanted, we would have been wrong. We would have damaged the economy. Our posture was the correct posture in view of the circumstances.

I want now to talk about the posture of the Fianna Fáil Party when in Government in relation to the European Economic Community. Deputy Lynch referred to my position on this. It is not so long ago —two-and-a-half years—and many of us remember particular debates, not just here but all over the country. We remember the meetings and the speeches. We remember the things that were said. The Government of the day had all the inputs available to them and ex-Ministers must recognise how much better served Ministers are as compared with members of an Opposition in making an economic judgment and a political judgment about the European Economic Community. To use Deputy Lynch's words a moment ago, the Fianna Fáil Government at the time was super-optimistic and naïve, so super-optimistic and naive as to be very seriously damaging to the country in that judgment. We can see some of the damage now as a result of the false expectations then generated. We can take many areas. I shall refer to some of them briefly. I have here a cutting from The Irish Times of 29th April, 1972. The heading is: “Lynch offers assurances on price rises: 1 per cent in each of five years. The result should be a rise of less than 1 per cent each year in the cost of living for each year of the five-year transitional period.” That was a very serious and fundamental error of judgment.

What were the Labour Party telling the people in 1973? What about the 14-point plan?

Deputy MacSharry will desist now from interrupting.

I will when I hear sense.

That was a very fundamental error of judgment. We recollect the euphoria and the naive super-optimism, to use Deputy Lynch's words, when the farmers were urged to stock up with cattle, invest and go on investing up to the hilt without any reference to the doubt that prudent and thoughtful people were expressing, not just in Ireland but throughout the entire Community. We recollect the consequent adverse results. These results are now affecting those farmers who took that advice in good faith. Those super-optimistic, naive errors of judgment are now coming home with a vengeance.

We recollect the same super-optimistic approach to what social policy would do to solve our problems and now that we see the Community not moving towards democratisation but drifting towards the sort of summitry that solves the problems of the Community at the expense of the smaller countries we recollect the naive super-optimism of those in Government then, with all the inputs available to them and of greater concern in the affairs of small countries. The Leader of the Opposition referred to my position at the time of the EEC campaign. We got a clear answer from the people. It was from my point of view a heavy political defeat, but I challenge anyone on the other side of the House in regard to the role I play in the Community Institutions because, having got a clear answer from the people, I and my colleagues have been participating in the Community with the precise object of minimising the dangers we foresaw, the dangers about which we warned the people, and it is our objective to bring about an evolution for the Community—it is not easy—which will make it the sort of place in which solutions will be provided to our problems. It is a question as to who represents the interests of the country better in the Community, those who foresaw the dangers and put their much more precise analysis of what the Community was and are thereby able to fight to ward off these dangers and improve the Community, or those who deceived the people on the basis of a naive super-optimism. It is open to question. The basic political and economic judgment of the Government of the day was fundamentally faulty and considerable damage has been done to the Irish economy because of that faulty judgment.

Let me turn now to the matter of natural resources policy. This, again, revealed a fundamental strain in Fianna Fáil, a fundamental economic error and difference as compared with the policy of this Government. I cannot say I inherited a natural resources policy unless the absence of policy is policy. There was a policy expressed in the fact that there was no taxation on mining, a policy expressed in the Marathon agreement, a policy expressed in another sense by the agreement—it is not oil or mineral—in regard to the great natural resources of the harbour of Bantry where oil is now slopping around, notwithstanding promises that leaks would not occur and that it was bad housekeeping if they did occur, a policy on natural resources which is expressed by the flirtation of Fianna Fáil—not the party, indeed, but a very small part of the party's leadership—with some of the great international companies.

It is possible to have a relationship with those companies but only on the basis of equality. It is possible to have circumstances in which the Irish State and the Irish people can benefit as well as those companies, and those two things can be kept in some sort of balance. I inherited no resources policy whatsoever other than obsequious subservience to the great corporations of other countries. That expresses a fundamental difference of economic policy between the Opposition and us. In my view, it expresses a fundamental error of judgment about the economy, because they were foregoing wealth which can be used and will be used in so many ways for the benefit of this economy and for the benefit of the people.

This snuggling up to the great companies and this betrayal of the interests of the Irish people are also a betrayal of what I understand to be what is best in Fianna Fáil. I have made it clear over and over in this House that I think there are many good things in Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil could think back to the time before they were in the Dáil, before they were in Government, to the thirties and forties when such a policy as their present resources policy would have been unthinkable for that party.

There is a fundamental policy difference between the Government and the Opposition. I believe the Opposition's policy arises from poor economic judgment and is basically damaging to the interests of the Irish people. This is an area of my own responsibility so I do not want to be too brash about it but, in that area as in the ones to which I referred earlier this country is not as well off but much better off than it would have been if Fianna Fáil had continued in power after the general election in the spring of 1973.

Let us turn to the matter of taxation policy. I am not talking about small print. I am not bashing personalities. I am talking about very fundamental policy issues in an economy: issues like the attitude to a budget, issues like the attitude to national resources, issues like the assessment of the sort of place the European Economic Community is, and now another major issue like taxation policy. We have enacted very fundamental taxation reforms. I was interested to hear people trying to frighten capital out of the country as a result of them, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes, perhaps, unintentionally.

Our package on wealth, capital gains tax, some taxation of farmers—those who are at least as well able to pay tax as people in other sectors of the economy who are already paying it— and the taxation of mines, holds out the possibility of a much more equitable distribution of the sort of charges a State has to make in order to give the services it gives. It holds out the possibility of much greater social justice and it holds out the possibility of lightening the burden on those who are most squeezed and most depressed and find it hardest to pay income tax in our economic system.

If we want to go on spending money and to increase the amount of money which, I take it, any State wants to do if it is concerned with social welfare and the weaker sectors, the money must come from somewhere. Either you take it in income tax and in taxes on consumption, or else you are willing to spread the income tax net wider in order to lighten the load at the bottom end of the pyramid. There was a fundamental difference between us there and I am convinced that we were right and Fianna Fáil were wrong. I am convinced that it is better for Ireland, in good times or in bad times, that those changes were made.

I mentioned four major areas of economic analysis, economic judgments, economic policies, where I believe the previous Government were misguided and foolish and naive, and where the changes we have introduced are much better for the Irish people. That is enough about comparisons between the previous Government and the present Government. It is enough to illustrate my conviction that in their economic judgment the Fianna Fáil Party lost their way. I use the term "lost their way" advisedly because there were times when they had a good economic policy which expressed the interests of the Irish people. I find a difficulty in picking the precise moment when they lost their way. I am absolutely satisfied that on those four major issues and, indeed, on many minor issues as well, they have lost their way.

I want to turn to some of the things which are exercising people's minds now and which are my responsibility. I want to turn to the matter of prices. I said in Galway the other day—and I want to put it on the record of the House—that the situation about prices was terrible. It is terrible. I also said that we were entitled to make comparisons with other countries and I was told from the floor of the hall that they were not living in other countries but that they were living in Ireland.

I know the burden of prices. Nobody knows it more because nobody hears it more than I do. I know the burden of prices on people and particularly on the poorest people. We are entitled to make comparisons because we are entitled to measure our performance against other comparable countries. We are entitled to ask and answer the question as to how we are performing compared with other places. How else do we measure ourselves? Do we measure ourselves against a moment 20, ten or five years ago when circumstances were different? Do we measure ourselves simply in Ireland on a matter of time? That is one way to do it certainly, and that is the way people going into a supermarket do it because they remember other times.

It is not a very useful way of monitoring your performance. The useful way of monitoring your performance is to look at other comparable cases and see how you are going compared with them. Because I intend to talk some statistics now, I want to say by the way that it seems to me not just imprecise, or careless, or simply free-swinging political stuff, but a piece of effrontery on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to talk price figures, or statistics, or indices at us here. On 14th March, 1973—which, perhaps, was a day when he was rather upset, but he had been in power for a certain time and he should have had some better instinct about what was happening— he was talking about prices increases and he said that the rate of inflation was 2 per cent below the level of two years before. He said that here in the House on 14th March, 1973, in his contribution to the debate in the Dáil on that day.

The annual rate in mid-February 1972-73—that is the nearest figure we have—was 10 per cent when Fianna Fáil left office. Two years previously it was running at an annual rate of 6.4 per cent and, according to our statistician, 10 per cent is 2 per cent below 6.4 per cent. It bespeaks not just a mistake but a total unfamiliarity with the situation——

——which makes it hard for one to take any notice of the figures which emanate from that individual. My source is an OECD publication called The Main Economic Indicators and which comes out quarterly. I want to campare the main economic indicator for April, 1973, with that for September, 1974. In relation to consumer prices, quoting from these two publications, in February, 1973, in the rate of inflation, Ireland's ranking compared with the European Economic Community was that we were the fastest inflating. When we took office we were in the first place in the rate of inflation. If you took the European Economic Community plus Japan and the USA—two of the great market economies of the world; in fact, the two greatest—we were still in first place in regard to inflation.

In July, 1974, in the EEC we were down to third place. Two countries had overtaken us. We were moving down the rankings. In regard to EEC, plus Japan and USA, we were in fourth place. We were moving down the rankings all the time and performing better than three other countries which had overtaken us. Taking the OECD list of countries as a whole, which includes many other market economy countries, by the same criteria, in February, 1973, we were the third fastest inflating country in the whole OECD but by July, 1974, we were the ninth fastest inflating country; we had moved six places down the rankings.

Does the Minister think that inflation was decreasing?

No, I am not suggesting that. The Deputy should not twist my words if he does not understand them.

We ought not to have interruptions in a debate which is limited in time to each speaker. The Deputies must restrain themselves and await their turn.

I am not suggesting that inflation was decreasing but I am making the point that we were moving down the rankings in regard to inflation and we were doing it at a time when we were more damaged by the energy crisis, because of our dependence on imported energy to an extraordinary degree, than almost any country. We were not moving down the rankings in easy times; we were moving down in difficult times. I accept that the situation is difficult but that is a performance that is better than comparable places.

Deputy Colley stated that retail prices were practically uncontrollable but we have done a collection of things which, while they are nothing like as good as I would like them to be, are, nonetheless, having a significant effect. We have to walk a tight-rope between putting people out of work and controlling the rate of price increase. Do we not import the goods which we need for our industries when the price rises? Do we squeeze different sectors of the economy so hard that they cannot accumulate profits to re-equip, reinvest and keep people working? That is one rock one can run into and it is there all the time.

We are trying to chart a course between two very severe difficulties and if we are missing on obvious things, such as the control of margins by importers, wholesalers and retailers, the maximum price orders, and the effective price line on generating the activities of the population themselves to influence prices as well as the activities of the National Prices Commission, the Opposition should tell us. I do not mind if a good idea comes from the Opposition and those who know me know I do not mind. If I am given a good idea I will acknowledge where it came from. If there is something we could be doing in this regard the Opposition should tell us. They owe it to themselves because they will get credit for it and to the country because the country will benefit.

I should now like to talk about one way of controlling prices which, as far as I am concerned, is inadmissible. Prices can be controlled by deflating and it is the duty of the Opposition to say if they want the Government to control prices that way because that system will work. It will not work very much because we are such an open economy but one or two percentage points can be gained by a deflation and by soaring unemployment. Is that what the Opposition want? In the quotations from Deputy Colley which I read earlier, and his contributions on our two budgets, it looked as if he wanted us to deflate. That is a mechanism which will work but the Opposition must judge whether they think it is a permissible weapon in view of its social consequences.

There has been the presentation of a false dilemma. Deputy Lynch has asked if there is a crisis or not. There is a crisis in the world at the moment and if one listened to broadcasts or read contributions from journalists in other countries one would realise that this crisis exists throughout the world. Does that mean that we are faced with doom, wreckage and chaos? No, it does not. Yes, there is a crisis but this does not mean it is going to destroy us. The whole task is to work out the optimum course to come through it with the minimum damage. To say that there is no crisis is ridiculous and it is also wrong to hold up our hands in horror and talk ourselves into chaos and be defeated by it. There is a crisis but there is a solution and a way out of it and the whole task of Government is precisely to find that pathway between the difficulties which is harder to find and narrower in difficult times. It is possible, however, to find that optimum path.

The contradication between a crisis and our possibility of coming through it without too much damage is just a description of the situation that exists. I should now like to say the positive things, and if I have a reputation of being one of the positive and hopeful people it is one which I accept gladly. I am positive about our circumstances because I have daily dealings with Irish industry and Irish exports. I should like to put some of the things which are so much to their credit on record. Talking about employment in transportable goods industries, of course there is a shakeout in the weaker industries now; of course, there is rising unemployment which is the concern of everybody. It has reached proportions which are serious and are worrying but are quite comparable with the level of unemployment that existed not too long ago in much easier times. In the first quarter of 1970 there were 205,000 jobs in transportable goods industries; in the first quarter of 1973 there were 208,900; in the first quarter of 1974 there were 216,200. That is a rise of 7,300 over 12 months. That is the biggest rise in the figures from 1970 to 1974.

Does the Minister believe that was due to something he did?

It was due partly to something I did and partly to something the Opposition did. I do not deny, and I never denied, the carryover effect of previous actions. Of course, it was due to something we did.

The first year the National Coalition were in office?

It was due to the industries we handed over to the Government.

Deputy Brennan will have his opportunity later.

We have had a net gain in jobs and we have had a shakeout. With reference to job approvals, I should like to point out that from April to September, 1974, new job approvals amounted to 13,620 and in April to December it was 21,346. In the 12 months of 1973 which Deputy Brennan was claiming credit for it was 22,000 but in the nine months which I have quoted for 1974 it is almost the same, and 1975 is not looking too bad. How much of this carry-over of job creation and job approval does Deputy Brennan want? Will it go on forever? In my view attacking the new job creation and the industrial perspective of this country is very damaging and harmful to us.

I should now like to turn to a more sensitive short-term indicator, the level of exports. Industrial exports rose in 1971 by 9.5 per cent, in 1972 by 23.5 per cent, and in 1973 by 38.7 per cent, but in the period January to August, 1974, industrial exports have gone up by 43 per cent. It is an extremely positive and heartening thing in a very difficult time that new job creation in industry and industrial exports is holding and pushing on extremely well. It helps nobody to pull that down, and for a very practical reason, because every day industrialists and bankers are making investment decisions. Many of those decisions, when all the quantification and the accountants' work are done are based on confidence or lack of confidence. If you get the holding off or even a major postponement of this sort of investment decisions, that failure to invest can create precisely the kind of depression which was originally feared but which need not have happened. The failure of confidence at a time like the present is profoundly damaging not just to one political party or another, but to our industrial employment and to our exports. If we say there is a crisis—and we do—and if at the same time we say: keep your nerve and do not precipitate us into a depression by trying to undermine investment decisions, there is no contradiction between those things. It is necessary to say both of those things simultaneously without there being a contradiction in order to get the right balance of policies to take us through a difficulty.

I think I said earlier on almost all the things I wanted to say about resource policy. It is a confused situation which is of everybody's making and nobody's making and which has been going on for a number of years. However, I want to put it on the record of the House that the outcome I am looking for and looking for as quickly as possible is an outcome which gives what seems to me their due significant income from our national resources to the Irish people and which gives their due of reasonable profit to companies whether they are Irish or foreign. It is a balance. I am not pursuing a policy of nationalisation and this Government are not pursuing such a policy. Neither are we pursuing a policy of giving away without revenue to the State or very small revenue to the State what we think are rich-yielding resources. We are striving to find a balance. We are not striving to make it a political football or to create an abusive and damaging situation which could give rise to animosities inside that industry and, indeed, in other industries. We are striving for a calm and balanced solution, and we think it is not too far from that sort of policy—even though they did not do it—that might be endorsed from across the floor? Can you tell me how much time I have left, a Cheann Comhairle?

Approximately four minutes.

I shall try to adhere to that. I want to come back to what I said earlier. I have talked about areas of the economy which are my responsibility. I have talked about what I consider are basic economic misjudgements by the Opposition. I tried to lay the ground for a debate about what is best and the most correct policy for the State at a difficult time. I see evidence—I have talked about this before—of a lurch by Fianna Fáil into very conservative policies. I think that applies in the social field and also in the field of resources. I think it applies, as I tried to show, in the attitude to the budget and in the attitude to taxation. It shows in many ways. This is something which gives me no joy. It possibly makes the business of having a clear debate across the House easier, and I think it offers no future at all to the Fianna Fáil Party. Nonetheless it gives me no joy, because at a time of real national difficulty we need a consensus as to how we solve it. We need Fianna Fáil to move away from their conservative position, to move away from criticising budgets as they have done because they were not deflationary enough. In our coming economic debate we can solve to some extent the problem of prices by deflating, and we can solve the balance of payments by deflating, but we can do it at ferocious and, from this side of the House, entirely unacceptable social cost.

If Fianna Fáil want us to deal with the balance of payments and inflation by unemployment, then let them please say so clearly in the House and let us have a debate about it. But if they do not want us to do that, then they must endorse the economic policy we are following, and if we are not following it properly and intelligently or with all the things they might think of, then let them put that in and help us so that it can be a better policy. Either they endorse our way of solving the economic difficulties or else they want deflation, and they want the solution of the problem of the balance of payments and inflation in a way that we find unacceptable. In my view, that is the core of the debate. When all the by-election stuff is done—thumping this one and thumping that one and it is all great fun—what the debate is about is how we solve the problem of the next 18 months, which is a worldwide problem. We are quite clear about the way in which we solve it, and we are interested to hear what the Opposition have to say either by clear opposition to it and offering an alternative or else by endorsing it and trying to make it better.

I want to speak primarily about health matters in this debate, as I am the spokesman for this party on this topic. Unfortunately, we have not heard very much about health in this House apart from at Question Time over the past 18 months, and it is for that reason a bit more difficult, perhaps, than it should be to talk about health matters at all. The past 18 months have been primarily a period not so much of inactivity in the health field—there has been possibly acrimonious activity—as of lack of achievement. Looking at what has happened in health matters since this Government came into power there has been no development of our health services at all.

It can be said for this Government that, at least, they in no way interfered with the health services introduced by the Minister's distinguished predecessor. We are pleased that the services should continue to operate, but we cannot accept the essentially static situation which has now arisen, as by their very nature the various health schemes introduced over the years were planned progressively to evolve to the ever-increasing benefit of the community. Apart from maintaining existing services, the only major initiative introduced by this Coalition Government in health matters has been the abortive free hospitalisation scheme. For reasons which are well known, this Party have opposed and will continue to oppose the plan in its present form.

However, at this time it is probably worth while to expose as well as to oppose the proposed legislation and to show it for what it is, at worst a cynical and at best a hopelessly confused exercise in doctrinaire socialism. First, it must be apparent that without massive capital injection it would be impossible to accommodate 300,000 extra persons in an already over-extended consultant hospital service. Second, the contributions of the newly eligible will not represent the required capital injection and it is unlikely that the Minister for Health can conjure up the necessary funds from any other source. Third, the position appears to have been reached that it is proposed to offer a service which cannot be provided on the assumption that those who will be newly eligible will contribute to it but will not avail of it.

We are entitled therefore to ask what of the large number of people who were referred to by the Tánaiste in this House on 28th March last when we debated this topic on the Health Estimate—the teachers, civil servants, local authority officials, farmers, gardaí and various other groups, numbering, with their dependants, about 200,000 people. This Government have led those people to believe that free consultant hospital care is just around the corner and is being delayed only by the self-interest of the doctors involved. It must be made known to those people who await eligibility that they will pay for a service, by virtue of over-extended facilities, that they are unlikely to receive within a reasonable time. Indeed, should they be accommodated it will be at the expense of the poor and the weak because hospital beds, fully occupied now, hospital theatre facilities and out-patient departments already used to saturation point, cannot be made more freely available by the addition of such a large number of new entrants in such a short time.

Whether the consultants are prepared to operate the scheme or not, they are still incapable of performing the mathematical feat of putting two into one where hospital space is concerned. And what of the remaining 100,000 people whose admission is proposed? Surely, each man, woman and child of these cannot be in the millionaire class, cannot be rich, cannot even be half-rich: surely the bulk of them will make their claim on the Minister's offer, again at the expense of and to the detriment of those at present eligible. Human nature being what it is, the sort of people who will be coming in are all more likely to be in a position to avail of whatever service may be available than are the destitute, the unwanted and the handicapped.

The Minister's ill-conceived largesse closely resembles the behaviour of one of the junior socialist parties in the coalition Government of Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, who in 1970 introduced not only a comprehensive health service in a country which was desperately short of doctors, but also made available through legislation free rice to all citizens at a time when the rice crop had failed. The existence of such legislation did little to help those who were in need and who had placed their hopes in a welfare state.

In this obeisance to the household gods of doctrinaire socialism, the Minister for Health has lost sight of the fact that health administration is about treating the potentially sick and sick people and that the dreams of both politicians and medical organisations must be interpreted in the light of patient welfare. In this respect, while not wishing to take sides in the multiplicity of issues and unseemly squabbles which now exist between the Minister and the professional organisations, we must ask why after ten years of peace between successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Health and the medical organisations, the Minister for Health and his Department are at loggerheads not only with the hospital consultants but with family doctors and pharmacists, and all this within 18 months of assuming office. Have the entire medical profession radically altered in this short time or could it be that the fault lies with the Minister?

It seems that the Minister's virtual obsession with the control of professional salaries has blinded him to all other matters. He has consistently failed to see that poor working conditions and his own vacillations between over-reaction and indecision are as much the cause of unrest and uncertainty as are methods and scales of remuneration. The announcement to the medical organisations of very radical changes in the consultant hospital service one hour before they were made public is hardly a responsible political act. Would the Minister for Defence publicly commit the State to some comparable change in the military sphere without prior consultation with the General Staff of the Army? We can only give thanks that this has not so far happened in the life of this Government.

To look at the actions of the Minister for Health from a different angle in relation to his proposed radical change in the consultant hospital service—he informed the doctors and the medical organisations one hour before publication—if a factory management were to decide privately among themselves that very sweeping changes would be made in a large factory, in their methods of work, production methods and the general conditions of employment, and if they were to announce that to the workers and the trade unions concerned one hour before they proposed to implement them, would not the very man who is doing that sort of thing, the Tánaiste, as a trade union official, not rightly protest that that is not the way to treat them? Would he not say it is monstrous that the whole system of work, of remuneration and everything else of a group of people should be changed very radically on one hour's notice? Would he not feel justified as a trade union official in bringing his members out on strike in that type of situation?

This is what he has done as far as the doctors are concerned and he now complains bitterly when they complain bitterly. I am not saying they are right or they are wrong in what they look for and what they want changed. I am saying that they are perfectly right to object to being treated in this way and then being pilloried in this House, at Labour Party conferences and at all sorts of other meetings, as being people who try to stand in the way of progress in the interests of their own pockets.

While this Minister squabbles with the medical profession, decisions vital to the present and the future of the health services are being postponed or avoided. You had this today at Question time when various Deputies from this side pressed the Minister for Health, in some cases for the umpteenth time, to state what his decision was in relation to specific hospitals or the hospital plans for specific counties or groups of counties. Once again the Minister refused to do it. While he awaits the report of the consultant review body, the country waits for his decision in regard to a hospital development programme.

It is vital to the future of the service that planning be on a national scale, and it represents a distoration of priority that a decision should be made first, very significantly in respect of the County Hospital in Wexford, and that made almost a year ago, and then in respect of the city of Dublin where there was very little controversy anyway, and that during the past week, while the fate of the rest of the country apparently hangs in the balance. The fact that it does was borne out at Question Time today where information on a decision on the future of hospital programmes in respect of various counties and regions was once again refused by the Minister because he is afraid to face up to making decisions which may be unpopular in certain quarters.

The Minister had no bother more than a year ago in making a decision, strangely enough, on the hospital in Wexford, although surely the sort of considerations in deciding on that are no different in Wexford to what they are in four, six or eight other key areas throughout the country. Surely all this constant indecision cannot also be blamed on what the Minister for Health and his supporters have described as the money grasping consultants? Surely all such decisions must offend someone in some quarter and surely it is the Minister's responsibility to make the decisions and to accept the responsibility for them, irrespective of who they offend? Work awaits doing and national planning must be operated with a vision which extends further than the next election.

I want, in considering health matters further, to come to the report in The Irish Times of last Monday of the conference of the Labour Party in Galway last weekend. In particular I want to refer to two speeches made there, each by a Member of this House, because Members of this House and of the other House seem to have dominated that conference. Of the eight reported speakers on the health resolutions four of them were Members of the Oireachtas and four were not. The first of the speeches I want to refer to was by Deputy John O'Connell. I quote what he says, as reported in The Irish Times of 21st October, 1974, as follows:

Dr. John O'Connell, TD, moved a resolution which called for the introduction of a free family doctor service rather than the envisaged hospitalisation scheme. He said that a free doctor service could be provided for the same cost as free hospitalisation—90 per cent of the people already had free hospitalisation and what the Minister was now trying to do was to provide free hospitalisation for the other 10 per cent. Dr. O'Connell said that a free doctor service could be provided at a cost of £20 million.

The next speaker gave out about the activities of the Labour Party and the Government generally in relation to the Contraceptives Bill and the speaker after that gave out about the fact that Fianna Fáil did not vote for the Bill but voted against it, obviously overlooking the fact that inter alia the Taoiseach voted against it. The speaker after that was Deputy Barry Desmond. I quote what he said from The Irish Times of 21st October, 1974, as follows:

Mr. Barry Desmond, TD, said the free hospitalisation service——

His speech was obviously in reply to Deputy O'Connell because he did not deal with any other matters.

——was for all the community, not just for the upper 10 per cent who, if they wished to have private consultants and private hospitalisation, would still not be exempt from paying for a national scheme. He said that a free family doctor service would cost £40 million, and, in any event, this was exactly the proposal which had been moved by Mr. Desmond O'Malley of Fianna Fáil.

That is the end of the report of what Deputy Desmond had to say. The report in The Irish Times goes on to say:

At this juncture Dr. O'Connell complained that he had been branded as a Fianna Fáil man. He asked permission to reply, but was refused.

There seems to have been a fair bit of that there.

I was fascinated when I read this report because I had become aware in the last month or two that Deputy Dr. O'Connell, whom I think it is fair to say is regarded as the Labour Party's expert on health—understandably since he is a practising doctor of some years standing with a good deal of experience, particularly of the social aspects of medicine—totally repudiates the proposals of the Minister for Health, the Tánaiste and the Leader of the Labour Party, and that he agrees in full, so far as I can judge—this report would lead one to believe that to be so—with the proposals with regard to health I have been putting forward from this side of the House for the past 12 months. It is very reassuring for me to find that that is so. In fairness to him Deputy O'Connell is to be complimented that he is prepared to stand up at the annual conference of his own party and tell the delegates there that the abortive proposals of the leader of the party, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health, are wrong and that the alternative proposals being put forward by the Opposition of the day are in fact the correct ones.

Deputy Desmond's reply to him has only one point in it: to tell Deputy O'Connell that he is wrong; Deputy O'Connell is saying what Deputy O'Malley has been saying in Dáil Éireann and therefore ipso facto it must be wrong. Deputy Desmond also told him that the cost would be twice what Deputy O'Connell estimated it to be. It is very difficult out of office to cost these things accurately without going to tremendous trouble or getting other people to go to tremendous trouble to do it, but from the research I have made I think Deputy O'Connell's figure is much more accurate. This party have been putting forward consistently over the past 12 months, and particularly since the abortive proposals of the Minister for Health put forward in August, 1973, the proposition that the country is not sufficiently developed and not sufficiently wealthy to afford a comprehensive health scheme which will cover everyone for everything. We all accept that, whatever other things we might believe in. The real question therefore for everyone, whether in Government or Opposition, who is approaching health problems, is to decide on a scheme or scale of priorities. The most important things are the things which should come first.

This party have clearly demonstrated, and Deputy O'Connell has clearly demonstrated, over the past 12 months that the Minister for Health, the Labour Party and the Government's priorities in what they are trying to do are very wrong. Not alone is this proposed scheme of very little value to those who would ostensibly benefit by it but there is no demand from the people who will ostensibly benefit by it. At the same time there is a tremendous demand and a great need, socially, for the things we have been suggesting. One had only to be present at Question Time today to hear six or more Deputies on this side of the House question the Minister for Health about the urgent necessity to revise upwards the guidelines for the medical cards for the general medical service.

At the moment between 33 per cent and 35 per cent of our population are covered for general medical services, or what is called the choice of doctor scheme. This means that almost two-thirds of the population are not covered but there is no doubt whatever in my mind or in the minds of any people who have studied this problem or talked to people who are familiar with it, that a lot of that two-thirds who are not covered by the choice of doctor scheme have an urgent need to be covered, not just for their own financial benefit but for the sake of their health and the health of their families. If extra money can be spent on health—hopefully it can every year—not just in terms of inflated pounds but extra in terms of real increases in spending, that money should go where the need is greatest and where it can do the greatest good.

Like Deputy O'Connell, we in this party have advocated for the past 12 months and we are perfectly satisfied that where the need is greatest and the benefit can be greatest is in the extension of the general medical service choice of doctor scheme, not immediately to the entire population —perhaps the need there is no greater than it is in regard to free hospitalisation—as a first priority to at least another one-third of our population.

We are convinced that a very large number of people at present, because they have no medical card and are unable to pay a doctor, do not consult a doctor sufficiently early in their illness to enable him to treat that illness and cure it outside hospital. That is why we find such emphasis in recent years on institutional services. We feel that we should, as far as we can, as a nation with a health policy, get away from that. If the State will pay £2 or £3 for a man to consult a doctor at an early stage in his illness the likelihood is that the man can be treated by the doctor and cured without having to enter hospital but where people—and we hear of them all the time—through inability to pay the doctor do not seek medical advice until they are quite seriously ill, that doctor has no option but to refer them to hospital where the costs are phenomental at present. In-patient care is possibly the most expensive single item in the State's budget as regards increases in costs in recent years.

It is very heartening that a man who is acknowledged as an expert on health matters on the Government side should be in full agreement with the policy and proposals we have been putting forward on this side of the House in the past 12 months. While I cannot go into all aspects of our health policy tonight, because time and the scope of the debate do not permit, I hope that what I and others on this side of the House have said in regard to the policies being pursued, or attempted to be pursued by the present Minister for Health, would now be read with a new interest when it is seen that we have the full support of one of the most knowledgeable practitioners on the Government benches.

This sort of fundamental disagreement is not confined to health. Several good examples of it were given and our attention drawn to them today by the Leader of the Opposition, not the least of which was the appalling attack on the Minister for Education last weekend when none of five of his colleagues in the Government, who are collectively responsible with him for the policies he pursues, lifted a finger to defend him on those policies. I believe that the reason attributed by Deputy Lynch for that extraordinary public exhibition of extreme disloyalty in a Government is correct, that if they could get a whipping boy like Deputy Burke they would let him be the whipping boy and this would keep attention away from themselves and their failures.

The Taoiseach delivered an oration today of which he devoted a half-page out of 39 pages of script to prices. This is surprising when half the country spends half its time talking about prices and when, if there is any one reason why the present Government are in power, it is because they made a firm commitment that they would peg prices at their February, 1973 level and keep them there. When I finally got the script of the speech of the Taoiseach—and that was an achievement because they would not give Deputy Lynch one even though he is the Leader of the Opposition until after the Taoiseach had begun to speak although the Press and officials and everybody else had them as soon as the Taoiseach began to speak—I skimmed through it. I did not have very much time but one page caught my eye. I was, therefore, particularly interested to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying tonight that we really have no problems and that any problems we have are due to outside factors. It is no harm, therefore, to refer to two paragraphs of the script of the Taoiseach. Quite bluntly he said Deputies would be aware that the increase in the consumer price index in the year to August last was almost 18 per cent and said: "I want to make two points about this. The first is to refer to the way the rate of increase has accelerated from about 5 per cent a mere five years ago. This is causing profound anxiety to ordinary people. The second is to note that we are now moving from a period in which unavoidable imported inflation was the overwhelming influence on prices to one in which domestic causes within our own control are assuming greater significance."

I believe those statements to be correct, those of fact and of comment. Of course, the beauty of them all is: "This is causing profound anxiety to ordinary people". But they are in total opposition to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been telling us for the past three-quarters of an hour. Everything, according to him, was due to outside factors. It is very significant—and I hope the passage from the speech of the Taoiseach is noted—when he said that we are now moving from a period in which unavoidable imported inflation was the overwhelming influence on prices—was in the past—but we are now moving to one in which domestic causes within our own control are assuming greater significance.

This reminds me of the annual report this summer of the Central Bank which said that at least 50 per cent of inflation was very much within our own control and specifically within the control of the Government. That was pooh-poohed by Government spokesmen at the time and dissented from by the Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening. But the words of the Taoiseach are very different. He went on to deal with the balance of payments and said it was now estimated that the balance of payments deficit this year would be "about £300 million or about 10 per cent of GNP, which seems to be a record for any OECD country. The prospect for next year,"—this is the really frightening part of it—"even on favourable assumptions, is for no more than a relatively small improvement".

These are very frightening words from the Taoiseach and are in direct contradiction to the sentiments and words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening. Much of the speech of the Taoiseach dealt with the great achievements—as he sees them —of the Government in economic and other matters. It is much on the lines of what we got from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Then we suddenly have something which is totally different, although quite realistic and truthful, saying the opposite. When reading the Taoiseach's speech one gets the impression that it was written not by one or two people, but by seven or eight. Assuming the figure to be seven, six were super-optimists and there was one realist. The realist wrote the very important paragraph to which I have referred. The Taoiseach then goes on to say:

I have referred to the international causes of these phenomena but I do not want to be taken as arguing that there is little we can do domestically to ease or solve our problems. The contrary is true.

The contrary is true. In other words, there is a great deal that we can do domestically to solve our problems. That statement is totally different from and opposite to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us this evening.

People have come to expect this sort of thing from this Government. They expect a total conflict of opinion about things publically expressed by men in their capacity as Ministers. When reaction is strong, the kite is drawn down and the sentiments retracted. Then we are told that the statement does not represent Government policy. Deputy Lynch gave four or five examples today although he could have given eight or ten if he had chosen.

These activities have been carried on in relation to the most fundamental things, the bedrock of our Constitution, the definition of the territory of this State. A not unimportant member of the Government made a proposal that certain parts of our Constitution should be repealed. Within 48, if not within 24 hours, because of the storm which arose all over the country, North and South, he withdrew that statement. He said he was expressing his personal opinion. The Government are learing the hard way that Ministers cannot express personal opinions on matters of such importance. If a Minister wants to express a personal opinion he will have to talk about a horse race or a hurling match. If he talks about the fundamental basis of the Constitution he cannot, as a Minister, express his personal opinion and later say he was sorry and that he did not mean it. All ministerial utterances are losing credibility because of the continuation of those performances.

I do not know if it is worth referring to the utterances of the Minister for Defence because they are not very important. I know that, unfortunately, they have had a very serious effect on the Army. They are understandably furious that such an appallingly idiotic and untrue statement should be made by the Minister for Defence about the Army for which he is politically responsible.

What did he say?

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said that they were capable only of holding one small Border town in the North, such as Newry. The Minister for Defence went on to say that he—not the Government or the Oireachtas—was going to ask the Army to perform tasks in the next few months which they would not like but he had no doubt they would do them. This caused a great deal of consternation in the Army. Inquiries were made. We were told that the Minister was speaking off his own bat and his statement did not represent Government policy. If the Minister for Defence, speaking on Defence, is not speaking Government policy, who is? Is it the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who enunciates Government policy on the Army? For quite some time he has apparently been enunciating Government policy in relation to Northern Ireland and Foreign Affairs generally. This is very confusing.

This Government have found that their honeymoon is at an end. They are coming up against reality. They are shocked to find that reality is pretty awful; nothing like what they thought it would be. As the horrors of reality impinge on their minds many of them are beginning to panic. Unfortunately, this is happening at a time when this country is facing very serious domestic, political, economic and international problems. Those problems are being faced ineffectually in a confused, confusing and contradictory way by a Government composed of individuals who are prepared to see one of their colleagues publicly pilloried without making the slightest attempt to defend him. They are prepared to make statements of fundamental importance to this country on matters within their own sphere and on the following day to deny that those statements represent Government policy, but that they were merely stating personal opinions. On one or two celebrated occasions it was said that the Minister concerned was ill when he made the remarks.

Yes, tired was the word used. I should like to contrast the euphoria of 18 months ago with the sordid reality of today. This Government were to do everything for this country and all our people. We now see their present plight and their present preference. They were going to ensure that everyone would have an equal crack of the whip; everyone would get a fair chance. The days of political favouritism were now at an end. Never again would such horrors as happened under Fianna Fáil take place.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the appointment system as used by this Government. He underlined the point very eloquently by referring only to the appointment of peace commissioners. He could well have gone to the other end of the judicial spectrum to see what happened today so far as appointments are concerned. Can anyone who examines that kind of situation, not just what has happened today but what has happened consistently over the past 18 months, be anything but cynical and soured by the performance of this Government? Can they regard their words before they were elected and, indeed, in many cases since then, as anything but blatant hypocrisy? We know how the people feel. That is why we want to see this Government go to the country and enable the people to express their disillusionment, their disappointment and their disgust at the earliest possible moment.

Before the Minister for Justice starts to talk off the top of his head, on a point of information, could I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is one Deputy only in the Coalition benches, the Fine Gael Minister for Justice, and that there is nobody in the benches of the Labour Party. Could I ask, therefore, for a quorum?

If that is the measure of the Opposition, I can well understand the reshuffle is on its way.

A quorum has been called.

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

We have heard the last speaker, Deputy O'Malley range over a number of matters, including economic matters, in the course of which he criticised the performance of the Government in non-specific terms without suggesting alternatives to Government policy. He quoted the Taoiseach's speech and he referred to the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What he failed to do was to re-echo the very proper and laudable sentiment expressed by his own leader that the economy is basically healthy and this in a most difficult international situation. It is healthy because it has had the benefit of nearly two years of good management. Therefore it comes badly from Deputy O'Malley to attempt to deny what is a fact, that the economy basically is healthy, and this, I am glad to say, is now common case with both sides of the House.

I shall not speak about the economy this evening. I want to speak on something that is of more particular interest to me as Minister for Justice. I want to refer to the criticism by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech—a short criticism; not a terribly severe one—but nevertheless the fact that it has been made requires an answer. He criticised in general terms the security of the State, placed it in the context of Northern Ireland, and alleged that failure of security here would have a damaging effect on Northern Ireland and on things as they might happen up there.

Security depends for its success on a number of factors, the most important of which is an intangible thing called confidence. There must be confidence on the part of the security forces that they have the complete and unequivocal backing of the Executive of the day in their task of securing the safety of the State, in their difficult task of dealing with subversive, ruthless, underground organisations bearing in mind that the very nature of that task is difficult because of the hidden nature of their opponents and particularly when the appeal or case put forward by these subversive, underground organisations is based on inaccurate but nevertheless emotive references, to our past, calls which try to clothe their activities with some validity and which can have the effect of, possibly, actively misleading some members of the population, or if not actively misleading them, at least blunting their perception of the real evil that these subversive organisations and illegal, underground guerrilla armies have about themselves.

Therefore it is terribly important that in this climate the security forces of the State would know that they have the complete, absolute and unequivocal backing of the Executive of the day in their task of combating these difficult opponents. This is what the security forces of the State now know and accept unquestionably. They know that they have the goodwill of the Government, that in whatever way they want to wage this war—and I think that is not an extravagant phrase to use in regard to the task they have to carry out—they have our backing. The fact that they have this backing and that thereby their confidence has been increased has been reflected in the last 18 months in the level of their performance. That can be judged only by certain statistics, depressing statistics, sorrowful statistics, but nevertheless these statistics are concrete evidence of substantial progress being made in this fight against subversive crime.

The first and the most impressive statistics is that the total strength of the Garda Síochána now stands at the highest figure since the founding of the State. On the 30th September it stood at 8,158 members and recruiting is continuing. I will contrast this with the figure obtaining in the spring of last year, when we took office, and when the total number in the Garda was under 7,000. There has been this dramatic increase in the numbers of guards available to secure our safety. This is an indication of the goodwill of the Government and their serious commitment to deal with the security problem.

Deputy J. Lynch in his speech spoke about penny-pinching, that there was a penny-pinching attitude on the part of this Government. Though I stand to be corrected on this, I think he singled out the Minister for Finance, implying that he would not make funds available to give us the numbers that were required to carry out the security duties of the State. I think the simple statistics showing that the Garda force at the moment is at its highest level ever is a conclusive answer to that point. As a result of this increase in numbers we are now able to maintain a force in excess of 1,000 guards on duty along the Border. This represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent in the numbers serving in that areas in the last 12 months. It is hoped that the continued recruitment of men will enable permanent assignments to be made along the Border so that we can phase out the temporary transfers causing domestic upset to so many guards throughout the country.

They accepted loyally these upsets as being part of their call to serve their country. They carried out their duties throughly. I am glad to say that we will be able to relieve them of this burden of frequent domestic upsets by having a permanent force stationed in the Border divisions. In addition, to mark our serious approach to this whole question of national security an additional Assistant Commissioner was appointed in July, 1974. This has enabled a colleague of his to be given full responsibility for all aspects of security, including security in the Border areas—security in the sense of being in charge of the fight against subversive crime. This is a very important development. It means that there is now one titular head in charge of this area of subversive crime. It is a recognition by the Government of the reality of the situation, of the seriousness of the problem, a problem in respect of which serious measures are necessary if it is to be contained and defeated.

New and sophisticated communications equipment has been provided for gardaí in the Border areas. This factor of increased strength together with increased activity and, above all, this precious and indefinable quality of more confidence among members of the security forces is reflecting itself in a higher level of successful operations. The figures I am about to give are not being given with any sense of pride. They are sad figures. In 1973, 266 persons were arrested under the Offences Against the State Act and were charged with subversive crime. To date in 1974 that figure, sadly, has increased to 441. One should not interpret this increase as an indication that increased numbers are participating in subversive crime. I do not think that is so, but the figures show the increased level of activity against those persons who up to now were not being apprehended. This is proof positive of the good effects of the Government's policy of engendering complete confidence in the security forces and in giving them the numbers and the equipment that they need.

There will be no question and there never has been any question of penny-pinching on the part of this Government where the security of the State is involved. Again, too, the figures for seizures of arms and ammunition— bombs and all the other horrible articles of destruction—show a steady level of seizure. The totals are levelling out and one might allow oneself the hopeful thought that at this stage this campaign of attrition against subversives and the seizing of their fiendish devices is beginning to be a success. But the most important thing that we as a Government can give the security forces of the State is the complete confidence that they have our absolute and unequivocal goodwill in their fight against these elements. It is important for our internal safety that this be so but, equally, it is important in regard to our relations with Northern Ireland that we would remove what is, unfortunately, a widely-held attitude among the majority there that somehow the people of the South and officialdom in the South are equivocal in this area. It is important that that view would be dispelled and rebutted and the best way of doing that is by action. I submit to the House that the action being taken by this Government is the best proof that those attitudes are mistaken and have no foundation.

Play was made of the unfortunate incident involving the escape from detention of a number of subversive prisoners. Criticism was made to the effect that this should not have happened. Of course, we regret that it happened. We take what steps we can to prevent such incidents but we must face reality when it comes to the question of containing subversive prisoners within our jails. Essentially our jails are civilian prisons and were built many years ago. Their very fabric is old and worn.

The main emphasis of our prison policy is to provide of rehabilitation of ordinary criminals. The subversive criminals do not come within such training programmes. Nonetheless the buildings that are available must accommodate those people also. It would not be possible, except by imposing a draconian and repressive regime that would be intolerable in so far as any standards of humanity are concerned to render any of our custodial institutions absolutely safe and I emphasise the word "absolutely".

During times of war, when nations which were armed and mobilised to their fullest extent and had the task of containing prisoners who would be homogeneous groups and motivated and organised such as are, the subversive prisoners in our jails, they did not find it possible, even in special institutions, to contain such groups successfully at all times.

It is wrong for the Opposition to use an event such as an escape of subversives from jail—people who are dedicated to the overthrow of this institution and to the overthrow of the people opposite as parliamentarians—as an excuse for throwing jibes at me as Minister for Justice or at the Government generally or at the security forces. Such jibes do nothing but give solace, and comfort and encouragement to the criminals who have escaped and, more important, they give some sense of justification to that small number of our population who are prepared and, unfortunately, have been shown willing to offer, if not active assistance, at least passive non co-operation in aiding these escapes or in aiding their recapture.

It may shock some people but they may as well know that it is now clear that active assistance in a limited way but passive non co-operation to a larger extent was available—all on a small but significant scale—to enable the 19 prisoners to make good their escape. That is a slur on us as a community because all of us will be tainted with that action. I deprecate the use of a serious situation such as that for the making of political jibes. People on the other side of the House who rushed into criticism in that vein forgot that while we have had this problem of subversive prisoners and of their containment we have had also the problem of their escape.

The Leader of the Opposition may have forgotten that in December, 1968, 16 persons escaped from military custody and that in October, 1972, seven prisoners escaped from military custody. There is nothing new in subversive criminals escaping from prison. As I indicated, it would be impossible to provide absolute security without imposing a regime that would be so draconian and repressive that it would offend all human instincts. That is something that we must be prepared to live with, but the answer is to deter these people from escaping in the knowledge that there will be no co-operation either passive or active from any member of the public by way of misguided or misplaced sentiment for the man on the run. These people are criminals and the public must realise that. They are criminals with a record of death and destruction second to none. The public must realise they are tainting themselves if they offer any solace to these people while in the course of escape.

It is important from the point of view of Northern Ireland that the public here should be careful in anything they might say or do that would unwittingly give the impression of support for subversive organisations. In the course of a speech I made in Cork some time ago, I threw out a suggestion. It was not the first time it had been made, but it took off. That happened because it was taken by itself without reference to the general theme of my speech.

When I spoke in Cork I asked the people here to try to look at themselves through the eyes of an ordinary Northern Protestant, to try to visualise what he sees in the South. We who live in the South know that the support for subversive organisations is tiny. We know that the vast majority of the people here totally abhor their activities and their campaign. We know they are enemies of the State and are regarded as such, that they are harried and hunted as such, that a war is being waged against them. This war has the total and unequivocal commitment of the Government, a commitment that has now communicated itself to the security forces of the State, as is evident by the higher level and success rate of their operations.

We know this but the majority in the North, the people with whom we seek unity by consent, do not look at the problem with the same eyes. They are afraid there is some ambivalence in the South towards the IRA. They associate them with being a southern organisation, that they have their roots in our history and thereby they identify them with this part of the island. They, more than us, have a real horror, because they have real experience, of the activities of the IRA. For instance, how many people in the South have seen the town of Strabane which has been literally decimated by bombers? Shops belonging to Irish people have been blown up and, following the explosions, the perpetrators of the crimes have boasted of their success in destroying economic targets of the enemy. The pharse "economic targets of the enemey" is the one they use when referring to their neighbours' public houses, grocery or drapery shops. Whether the properties are owned by Protestant or Catholic, the owners are Irish people and are our neighbours. However, this organisation describes these premises as "economic targets of the enemy".

Can we be surprised down here if we are unable to have the same sense of horror of the IRA as the people in the North who have suffered at their hands? The Northern Protestant may know—although many an average man may not know—that the IRA are condemned here, that we are hunting them down as efficiently and thoroughly as we can, but at the same time he wonders if we are genuine. I can only say we are genuine and point to our record of success. The Northern man may see our newspapers carrying letters in support of the IRA. If he has had occasion to come on journeys here he will see slogans—not an odd one but fairly common throughout the country —in support of the IRA. He will see posters carrying the same message. If we as a people recognise that this organisation is a horrible evil, it must cause wonder in the mind of the Northern man why we are not repelled by these slogans and posters, why they are not immediately pulled down and obliterated. He must feel there is some tacit support, wider than he was officially led to believe.

As I pointed out in Cork, many people in the North must have been appalled at the spectacle of a national newspaper glorifying the escape from Portlaoise. It is not surprising that the Northern Protestant may look at the scene down here and begin to wonder what is the real attitude of the Irish people to this horribly evil organisation which has destroyed his towns, murdered his neighbours and induced a whole life style of terror and tension throughout that entire area. If his hatred of that organisation in some way relates to the jurisdiction here we can hardly be surprised because until such time we as a people totally decide to repel and reject this subversive organisation and hand it over literally to the security forces of the State to be dealt with, we can expect our Northern people will look on us with some taint of suspicion that the ideal of unity by consent is extremely remote, is merely a verbal statement and has no reality in practice.

We talk about unity by consent. Whose consent? Obviously it is the consent of the majority in the North. This is again common and agreed policy in this Parliament, that unity can come only with the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. This was the policy of this side of the House for many years, but equally for many years on the other side of the House the policy was that unity was to be decided by the majority of the Irish people. Credit must be given to the Leader of the Opposition for weaning his party along the road towards the realistic standpoint that unity must come only with the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland.

This is what we say but the question is, do we mean it? Are we really prepared to go and get the consent of the Northern majority to unity, bearing in mind the fact that that majority look at us with biased eyes in regard to the IRA and to our constitutional claims on them? The Northern Protestant sees an attitude here he regards as ambivalent to an illegal organisation which talks about unity by force, not consent. He looks at a constitutional document which claims his territory; he considers it his territory, whatever we may think about it, and he is the person with whom we have to be reconciled, whose consent we have to get. I should not even say "have to get" because that gives some impression of compulsion; he is the person without whose consent there can be no unity.

In order to get his consent we have to reassure him, to show him we are prepared to wait for his consent to come voluntarily and with generosity. We regard ourselves as a hospitable, generous nation, the repository of all things Christian. When we entered the EEC, there were very many speeches made referring to our role in Christianising Europe. We are constantly patting ourselves on the back for such things. We now have a test. Are we prepared to be as hospitable and generous as we like to think we are? It was in that context I suggested that to these people who have been harmed by an organisation which had its foundation down here, which got support down here and which got money to set itself up from the Government of this State. Are we prepared to make any gesture then towards these people? It was in that context I suggested that, if we really wanted unity by consent, and if we are the hospitable, generous people we portray ourselves to be, then we could make a gesture of reconciliation or, indeed, reparation because it is, I think, selfish and contrary to the spirit about which we pride ourselves to ask: "What reparation do we owe them? Look what they have done."

Again, do we want unity by consent? Do we mean unity by consent or is this merely a verbal phrase? It was in that context I made the suggestion which has been so seriously criticised. I was criticised for making it and criticised for allegedly withdrawing it. But there is no point to a gesture of reconciliation unless it is generous, unless it is wellnigh unanimous and unless it is seen to be real and to have genuine meaning and feeling behind it. If these are absent the gesture would be worse than useless. It is time we as a nation started to look at ourselves and decide whether or not we are prepared to move along the road of reconciliation in a meaningful way. It is no reassurance to the Northern majority to say we will only have unity by consent when an organisation that is destroying its towns and has imposed a lifestyle of terror and tension appears to them to be getting support down here. They can point to the fact that 19 prisoners, hardened criminals, could successfully make their escape from jail and disappear in spite of a massive hunt by the security forces of the State. It is no wonder they look at us with a suspicious eye. Our protestations of wanting unity by consent cause the same cynical reaction.

I have dwelt at some length on this matter because there has been a great deal of criticism of the speech I made. It has been taken out of context and I wanted to take this opportunity to put it in context on the record of this House. I have been criticised and other Ministers have been criticised for expressing "private views". Deputy O'Malley said that the only "private view" a Minister should have would be in talking about hurling matches or horse racing. I do not know whether he was serious or whether he was being flippant. There was no sign of a smile on his face when he made that appalling statement. He was, of course, merely echoing his leader. His leader criticises Ministers having private views. How is political debate to be advanced unless people have views and are prepared to express them? One can understand the Leader of the Opposition being somewhat chary of Government Ministers expressing private views when one considers his experience. The last time that happened private views resulted in the dismissal of two Ministers and the resignation of two more because the private views in question were views of treachery and disloyalty to the State. One can well understand the Leader of the Opposition fearful of Ministers having private views. He had this bitter experience and he has over-reacted as a consequence to the extent that he has now surrounded himself with a Front Bench incapable of propagating any coherent political thought, so much so that rumour has it that it is about to be reshuffled.

I make no apology for having private views and expressing them. Political debate would seem sterile if Ministers pronouncements were to be confined to comments, as Deputy O'Malley would have it, on hurling matches and horse racing. It will be a sad day when a members of this Parliament falls to the level of suggesting that, in speaking of matters other than those contained in their official briefs, Ministers should confine themselves to trivialities. That would be a bad precedent. I am sure on reflection the suggestion will be withdrawn. It is important that when views are held they should be expressed and debated. For too long we have been victims of slogans. A slogan can become deified and people can become afraid to challenge or question it. There is a Pavlovian reaction. There are certain reactions to certain slogans. It is time we were prepared to speak honestly, say what we mean and say it clearly.

In the context of becoming reconciled, in the context of the fight against subversives we must speak openly to each other. If we do not do so, then the ideal of unity by consent will remain merely an ideal without any possibility of becoming a reality. I make no apology for what I said and I am glad to have this opportunity of putting on the record of the House the total context of what I said. I am sure those who read the record will agree that in no way was the national aspiration diminished, the national interest damaged or the people antagonised by what I said. Quite the contrary. The reaction I got was encouraging. Almost without exception it was unanimously favourable. That leads me to believe that there is a spirit of generosity waiting to be tapped, a spirit of generosity which will enable us as a nation to make the gesture of reconciliation that may hopefully start us really on the road to unity by consent.

I said at the outset that I would deal essentially with the narrow subject of security falling within my competence as a Minister, reject the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that there had been any penny pinching on the part of the Government and reject also any suggestion that our commitment to the safety of this State and the campaign against subversive crime is anything other than total and unequivocal and without ambivalence. In terms of increased manpower the case made by the Leader of the Opposition falls. It is without foundation. The approach of this Government will continue to be directed towards defeating subversive crime and, if that means more gardaí, they will be provided.

As I said earlier, the most important element in the fight against crime is this intangible thing called confidence. As an Executive we are satisfied we have given this confidence to the security forces of the State to enable them to do their work for us so that the IRA may be eliminated once and for all from our society and, with their going, we may have peace forever on this island.

I do not think it would be possible for us on the Opposition benches to exaggerate the seriousness of the economic situation, or to be insistent enough in directing public attention to it, or shrill enough in demanding positive action from the Government in regard to it. There are two things about the current situation which I think are of equal significance. One is the very serious reality with which we are faced but, of equal significance to my mind, is the total inertia of the Government in regard to the whole economic situation.

I do not think there is any need for me to reiterate the dismal facts, the dismal aspects of the picture presented to us: the steadily rising unemployment figures, the unprecedented and ruinous state of agriculture, the very frightening gap opening up before us in our balance of payments, the depression and the gloom, the close-downs and the bankruptcies that prevail through the commercial and industrial community, the very serious disruption in the building and construction industry. All these facts are as clear to members on the Government benches as they are to Deputies on this side of the House.

The picture which every economic indicator paints at present could hardly be more depressing but more depressing is this Government's apparent lack of any understanding of what is happening or any evidence of any wish to come to grips with the situation. I suppose that from the human, the economic and the social point of view, the rising unemployment figures are the ones which obtrude most on our attention, and rightly so. Here, again, the picture is depressing in the extreme.

I think that all in this House would agree that the Industrial Development Authority have been very active in pursuing the objectives which this House legislated and laid down for them. Allowing for the many difficulties with which they have to contend today on the world scene and, indeed, in particular, the foolish and untimely taxation proposals and other actions of this Government, they have done reasonably well and have achieved reasonable success in attracting here new industries. Many of the industries which they have succeeded in attracting in recent years are very valuable and very important. Undoubtedly they will, in the long term, have the effect of considerably strengthening our economy although the contribution they will make to the short term problem of employment is not, perhaps, so encouraging.

It is in existing industry that the real problem lies today. It is no exaggeration to paint a picture of Irish industry today as overwhelmed with problems. Many, many firms are being caught in the vice between inordinately rising prices, on the one hand, and a lack of adequate credit and capital on the other, and are simply folding up. It seems to me that this is where the real problem lies at this time and this is where no remedy of any sort is being offered.

The IDA are a reasonably competent machine for tackling the problem of new job creation but I do not see any evidence anywhere of any concerted effort to protect the jobs in existing industries, jobs which are being lost at an increasing rate. I hope that somebody on the Government side of the House will contradict me if I am wrong when I say that I think there is every possibility that, with existing trends the unemployment figure will be 100,000 at the end of this year. That is a projection, a prognostication, which I would be inclined to make from trying to interpret the trends in the figures as I see them. I hope that, before this debate concludes, somebody on the Government side will demolish that projection of mine.

New jobs are being created and much of the employment which is being created is good employment, sound employment, secure employment, but these new jobs are not being created on anything like the scale needed. To a very considerable extent that is as much the fault of the misguided policies and the misguided attitudes—perhaps more important than the misguided policies—of this Government as it is of anything happening on the international scene.

I believe that at this time there is a need for some new agency in this field and in this area. I am referring now particularly to the question of coming to the aid of the existing industry. Here there is a need for new and different thinking. It is clear that quite a revolution has taken place in British Government circles and thinking in this area. The British Conservative and Labour Governments have been steadily moving towards a position where they regard it as their responsibility to protect the existing corpus of industry and to make financial resources available to industry when they are needed.

I am not satisfied that that type of thinking has yet permeated into the establishment thinking here. It is time that it did. There is a need— certainly this matter should be examined—for a new type of organisation to cater for this area of existing established industries as distinct from the machinery necessary to get in new industries. A number of bodies are active in this field including the IDA, CTT which has responsibility for exports and Fóir Teoranta which has responsibility for rescue operations.

There is at least a strong case for putting these three together into one new central organisation, and, indeed, adding to that organisation new functions, powers, duties, obligations and resources. I would envisage a sort of situation where under this new institution one industrial expert, one industrial technocrat, would be able to go to an industry and offer a complete package of aids, assistance, advice and encouragement. Perhaps, in certain cases the package would involve expansion by the industry. In my view the existing agencies are too diffused and there is not sufficient correlation between them. An industry in trouble, or an industry which wishes to expand, cannot get from one central source the assistance which it needs.

I must confess at being mystified at the apparent lack of attention which the Government is giving to our balance of payments situation. It is now fairly definitely established by the experts that the deficit this year will be an unprecedented £275 million. The enormity of that deficit does not seem as yet to have attracted the attention of the Government nor does the implication of the size of that deficit. Not alone do I not find any evidence among Government spokesmen of their consciousness of the size of that deficit but they do not at all advert to another aspect of the situation which is that that deficit is going to continue. It is almost certain that a deficit of that size will be with us for two or three years more.

In so far as anyone adverts to the situation he seems to be quite content to talk about the deficit which is going to emerge by the end of this year but it seems quite clear that not alone are we going to have that unprecedented high deficit this year but similiar deficits are going to keep recurring over the next three or four years. The Government should be directing their attention to that situation. If I am correct that deficits are going to be of this order over the next three or four years then the inevitable conclusion one must come to is that the Government during that period will have to borrow abroad somewhere in the region of £800 million.

One does not see or hear any indication of the Government orienting their thinking towards that stark reality. The indications are that over this period, if we are to stay in business, if we are to keep afloat and to stay internationally solvent, we will have to borrow externally somewhere in the region of £800 million. Are there plans to do this? How does the Government propose to set about raising this massive amount of money? Is there an examination being carried out of our external resources situation in the light of this impending requirement of borrowing on this massive scale? Is there thinking going on as to what way our existing assets and resources should be marshalled to meet this situation? How, for instance, do we stand in regard to the guarantee which the British Government gave us some years ago about the dollar equivalent of our sterling balances? Is that agreement still in existence? Has it been renegotiated? What is the present situation and what are the implications of that guarantee now? Is any examination being carried out as to the possibility, the desirability, of cutting the Irish £ afloat from sterling? Has any critical examination been carried out recently of the advantages and disadvantages? If that examination is carried out will the Government disclose the results to us?

I should like to emphasise that we are not facing a crisis which is occurring this autumn. This is not a short-term situation; it is not a situation which calls for short-term ad hoc palliatives. This Government must take a three to four year grip on the situation. The implications are fundamental, are starkly realistic and are long term. As the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party said this afternoon, I cannot see any real attempt in the Taoiseach's speech to define clearly what our problems are, what the actuality of the situation is and what remedies are needed. I do not find any great consolation either in the OECD report which was recently published. That report, in my view, is no better than the Taoiseach's statement. As far as I am concerned they are both full of the same old vague outworn phrases. There is nothing of operational value in either.

En passant, I should like to say that the Government should reject, in case they intend paying any attention to this OECD report, the suggestion that the IDA should not have any responsibility for regional development. In so far as anything has been happening in regard to regional policy or regional development it can be attributed to the IDA.

Other Deputies on this side of the House, who have a much greater firsthand knowledge of agriculture than I, will deal more fully with this matter. However, I should like to advert to this subject, because again I do not see that the Government are fully conscious of the realities in this regard.

Irish agriculture is at an all-time low at present. It has come to a state of depression and disaster that none of us in this House would have visualised two or three years ago. One hears stories of hardship and desperation measures being taken by farmers in different parts of the country. If this debate can achieve no other purpose than fix the attention of the Government in an agonising way on the critically depressed situation in which Irish farmers find themselves, then it will have fulfilled its purpose. I am by nature an optimist but the situation to which Irish farming has been brought is such that I doubt if we can fully restore farming confidence for another generation.

It is a fairly easy matter for the Government to attribute most or all of our ills to the world situation. Undoubtedly there is a difficult world situation, but apart from the world situation there is a long procession of failures and inactivity by this Government in the agricultural area. One thinks immediately of the, as yet, unexplained delay by the Government in pursuing the implementation of the green £ proposals. It seems quite clear now from everything one can learn that this green £ mechanism could have been brought in in February or March of this year and that that, apart from any other consideration, would have meant a £50 million contribution to our balance of payments, and instead of wrestling with this nightmarish figure of £275 million at the end of this year, at least there would have been that much chopped off.

Nobody knows what is happening to the farm modernisation scheme. We seem to be in a valley situation. The old system of grants and aids has ended, and as yet, even though the agricultural advisory service has been fixed up, I do not think that anybody in farming or in agriculture can tell you what exactly is the position or that any individual can say what is his position in regard to this farm modernisation scheme. It is incumbent on the Government, and on some authoritative spokesman for the Government—not one of those top-of-the-head, private-opinion Ministers —to say that there is a future for the small farmer, because there is a widespread belief that it is the sinister policy of this Government, through the adoption of the farm modernisation scheme and in other ways, to simply wipe out the small, uneconomic farm holder.

There has been no attempt to rationalise the farm credit situation. Just at a time when a really effective meat marketing board could have been making a very significant contribution in regard to the crisis which prevailed in the cattle and beef industry, the CBF situation was allowed to be disrupted and to deteriorate. Admittedy, the Minister at this stage seems to be taking steps to provide a reorganised and, we hope, rejuvenated CBF, but I think he can be justifiably criticised for not grasping this nettle at an earlier stage. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of the politics of the CBF situation, but I do think that every dictate of reason and commonsense has indicated that during this year an active, capable and competent CBF could have made a very important contribution in the cattle and beef crisis.

I think we have sufficiently indicated from this side of the House during the course of the debate on the Finance Bill last year our apprehension of the effect of the Minister's precipitate introduction of taxation on farmers. I do not think there is any need for me to reiterate our view in that regard, but it is just one other thing that helped to contribute to the near-disastrous situation in which Irish farming finds itself.

In the handling of our mineral resources situation, this Government have shown more clearly perhaps than in any other sphere their own peculiar approach to government and the management of our affairs. I see that approach as a mixture of intellectual arrogance, on the one hand, and practical incompetance, on the other, and that mixture seems to be unique in the history of parliamentary democracy in this country.

Like many others in this House I belong to a generation which was taught at school that Ireland was very fortunate in many environmental ways and in geographical situation, but that there were no minerals. Like a great deal of other things that we were taught at school, that has now been demonstrated to be completely untrue, and we have, in fact, considerable mineral resources, and very valuable ones at that. However, now that it has been clearly established that we have the minerals, it would seem to have emerged at the same time that we have not the political skill or maturity to get them developed into the great national industry with which they should provide us.

These priceless national assets have become a political football, and not as might have been expected to happen, a political football between the Government and the Opposition. That has not happened, because we on this side of the House have been quite restrained and very responsible in our approach to this whole matter. These valuable and important national resources have become a political football between the two wings of the Labour Party. These valuable resources, instead of being brought into use expeditiously for our social and economic betterment, are being used as a pawn in the internal squabbles of the Labour Party, as a political weapon to try to establish whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a better and a more doctrinaire socialist than his critics in the party say he is.

What a pathetic, tragic sight the whole sorry affair presents. While the Minister postures, the minerals which could already be helping to buttress our economy and make a very badly needed contribution to our balance of payments and provide massive employment opportunities in the Navan area at this difficult time, are in fact lying untouched in the ground.

I say quite seriously that the Minister has failed in his duty to the nation in this regard, and it is quite nauseating to see his party supporters passing hollow votes of congratulation to him for protecting the nation's resources. Protecting them from whom? If keeping them firmly embedded in the ground rather than putting them to the use of the community is protecting them, then he deserves congratulations. In times of mounting unemployment and economic stagnation it is tragic that this Minister is permitting his own ideological preferences to interfere with his major task of national development, a complicated task which has important and difficult social and legal taxation implications. The Minister has failed to handle it. While he pontificates, temporarises and indeed, many would say, prevaricates, the loss to our community because these minerals are still in the ground and not being mined mounts daily.

A similar situation obtains in regard to our offshore oil resources. It is very frustrating for me and for many of my colleagues in the matter of offshore oil to look at the situation in Great Britain where within a matter of months oil will start to flow into their economy with all that means from the point of view of buttressing their economy and contributing to their balance of payments situation. While that is the position in Great Britain, we have not even got from this Government an outline of their policy from which development of offshore oil can begin to take place.

This is another matter on which this Government deserve to be equally severely castigated. One would imagine from the posturing and philosophising with which they are going on in these matters that we are a great wealthy nation with no particular economic problems and that it does not matter very much to us whether these minerals are developed today or tomorrow or in ten years time, or whether we proceed to discover whether we have offshore oil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce makes Olympian statements and gives expression to lofty sentiments and even carries on a bit of ideological dialogue with himself in this matter, but all the time when he is doing that our people are denied access to the wealth that these minerals and other resources could make available to us.

The Government have promised us a white paper on the economy. I have no idea what it is intended that white paper should cover because, as I have said, the burden of my complaint is that we have no real indications from the Government about their thinking on these difficult aspects of the present economic situation. I want to give an outline of what I believe should be in that white paper, briefly as I am forced to do because of the limitation of time at my disposal.

I doubt very much if it will, but it should propound a decisive plan of action for the next three-year period —three years as a minimum. I do not use these words lightly because I do not think that at this stage we need a white paper that will content itself with outlining the situation and posing questions. I suggest this white paper must be a positive statement of action. That positive plan of action should be a three to four year plan because to my mind that is the extent of the problematic situation into which we are entering. That plan must be directly and immediately related to two critical factors—on the one hand, the depressing employment situation and on the other our balance of payments.

The paper must give us an up-to-date critical analysis of the employment situation with firm projections, or as firm as they can be, of what the job losses will be in the immediate future and, if possible, in the longterm, and what the job creation possibilities are. In short, it must try to give us both in the short-term and in a three or four year period some positive projection of what the situation is likely to be. It was quite depressing to be here at Question Time today to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach answering questions about the unemployment figures saying he had only at his disposal a sheet of figures which was circulated to all Deputies. I am afraid that is typical of the approach and mentality of the Government on this fundamental matter.

The white paper must contain, side by side with that analysis of employment prospects, some positive proposals for aid to existing industries and, perhaps, to suggest a new agency which could where necessary provide a rescue package and in other cases an expansion package, all coming from the one source. It must also give us a clear-cut exposition of our financial situation. I mean that in the broadest sense. The projections should show what our requirements will be in the next three or four years in the balance of payments context. When it has outlined the extent of the problem in this respect it should suggest how we will tackle it—what is to be the extent of our borrowing, where will we borrow it, how will we dispose our existing resources?

There is a very clear need for a full outline of the situation in that regard in this forthcoming white paper. I should also like to see the white paper perhaps exploring the possibility of some new sources of external revenue. Is there a possibility of bilateral arrangements with one or two or more oil producing countries? Is that possible in the EEC context? Whether it is or not, the white paper should outline the situation in this regard. Could we possibly enter into some arrangements in so far as our problem is concerned in the next three or four years with one of the oil producing countries—whether we could supply them with the exports at our disposal in return for the energy we require?

The white paper must also give a very comprehensive and up-to-date outline of the position in regard to the parity of the Irish £. Are we going to stay linked with sterling under the present arrangement? What are the arguments for and against a separate value? These are matters which the Government must examine and on which they must give us their conclusions because they are the cause of a great deal of concern in the public mind and about which there is quite an amount of questioning. The Government must avail of the opportunity of the white paper to give us their analysis and conclusions.

While it might be a bit unusual there should also be a reference to the budgetary situation. I find there is a great deal of mystery about the current budgetary implications. Over a month ago informed comment was that the Government were facing a very serious and difficult budgetary situation next year. It is now widely admitted and agreed by all concerned that last year's budget was a complete disaster and its tactics and strategy were utterly wrong.

Was it too expansionary or not expansionary enough?

It was neither.

Then it must have been right.

As we come up to the preparation of this year's budget——

Will the Deputy tell us what was wrong?

I will say exactly what I am going to say in my own way.

(Interruptions.)

Order please. The Deputy in possession without interruption.

Will the Deputy tell us what was wrong?

The Deputy will get an opportunity to speak.

Order, please. Deputy Haughey, without interruption.

On this side of the House we can only accept what we hear by way of rumour but I think it was fairly widely acknowledged by all concerned that the Department of Health received a direction to cut their Estimates by £36 million and the Department of Education to cut theirs by £24 million. We were led to believe that this was the type of budgetary situation which was emerging. More recently it seems that has all disappeared. The budgetary crisis has now disappeared and, judging by the performance of the Minister for Education in a last minute attempt to save his neck before the Labour Party conference, it seems, whatever he will be docked this year, it will not be £24 million. The situation is so critical that the Government should give an indication at an early stage what the budgetary prospects are because it is of vital importance to the industrial and commercial community.

The Government should be quite forthcoming and should indicate if there will be a balanced budget and if so at what level it will be balanced. Will there be increased taxation or will it be a deficit budget? All these matters must be adverted to in the white paper. I suppose it is much too optimistic to expect but I would like the white paper to announce a series of measures which are very badly needed to restore some semblance of business confidence, to try to encourage enterprise, get business activity going again and provide a suitable climate for investment, because the Government record to date in this regard has been quite disastrous. The satisfactory investment climate which we had painstakingly built up over the decades has been dismally shattered.

I intervene to advise the Deputy that his time is almost exhausted.

I wish to refer to the situation in regard to credit. One is very puzzled about the policy of the Central Bank in regard to credit. It is time to review their policy in relation to keeping a very tight grip on all the different financial institutions and severely restricting their lending possibilities. We now need more credit throughout the economy and in so far as there are any impediments left on our financial institutions going out into the world market and getting funds abroad, bringing them back here and investing them in the economy, the time has now come to remove them, although it may be too late because, judging by the state of the world market, there is not a great deal of resources left around for us to avail of.

There is a very strong case now for a much more expansionist credit policy by the Central Bank in the first instance and through it to the lending institutions. If the Government were to announce immediate positive plans for mineral exploitation and off-shore oil exploration this would give our economy a dramatic uplifting effect which it very badly needs at present. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce is temperamentally, ideologically or in any other way incapable of doing this job then it should be given to somebody else to do. It should be given to the Minister for Foreign Affairs because he seems to be permanently under-occupied.

I thank the Deputy for that note of irony.

I want, in all good faith, to give some advice of a psychological, behavioural nature to Ministers. I want to say to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in particular, to desist from this practice of coming back from Brussels, putting the propaganda machine to work and saying that the Minister has achieved a great victory and has won a great battle for Irish farmers. Irish farmers are getting very cynical about this and they know prices keep going down and things get worse and worse. The more frequently the Minister comes back from Brussels with great victories the worse the situation seems to become. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and his propaganda machine should desist from this pernicious practice. He should go over to Brussels, do the best he can, come back and report quietly on what has happened.

I want to tell all Ministers to stop travelling. I know enough about being a Minister to know that Ministers frequently have to travel abroad in the course of their duties but I think this summer when all these near disaster economic implications were manifesting themselves there was a spate of travelling by Ministers abroad the like of which this country has never seen. I read in particular with great interest——

I hesitate to interrupt Deputy Haughey but he has exceeded his time by some minutes.

I will finish on that note. A little less travelling abroad and a little more sitting at home at the desks monitoring the situation and understanding the realities of the situation would be infinitely preferable.

It seems to me that listening to this debate and the comments of Opposition Deputies so far that we are talking about a problem, particularly relating to economics which affects only this country in the world today. One might imagine that this tiny country of three million people, which is so dependent on imports and exports and so much at the mercy of events happening outside our shores, has all the options in this area. The only advice I might tender in my innocence to Deputy Haughey in regard to his remarks about Government Ministers travelling abroad is that they might have been more relevant if more members of the Opposition had been travelling abroad and taking note of events in other west European countries, in the US and Japan. It might then have been more clearly realised that the problems we are speaking about here in the economic area are also affecting to an extraordinary degree all developed countries and the Third World.

The Taoiseach, speaking earlier in the year, used a phrase which I think summarises the problems which the Government have in present circumstances. He referred to what he termed startlingly contrasting options. This is the root and essence of the Government's problem in 1974—the problem of startling, contrasting options. And in formulating a budget, whether it would be too expansionary or too deflationary in content, we leave ourselves wide open to any Opposition to make hay—we do not deny them the right to do this. It is a problem of choosing the lesser of two evils because of the global crisis existing today. For example, a few minutes ago when the Minister for Foreign Affairs posed a question to the Opposition as to whether in their judgment the last budget was too expansionary or too deflationary, the Deputy speaking did not answer and another Opposition Deputy said it was neither. Presumably, then, it was absolutely right in his judgment.

It certainly was a disaster.

I should like to refer to certain remarks of Deputy Lynch regarding the farming position. He spoke of many small farmers whom, he suggested, had no income at all, responsibility for which he attributed to Government inaction. Referring to the costs of living and the fall in employment, he said this was not due to the oil situation but to Government mismanagement. I should like to quote briefly from one of today's papers part of an article headed "Mass Calf Slaughter To Avoid Starvation". It says:

Farmers in one of the main livestock areas are planning to slaughter many of their calves because they claim the animals face starvation this winter. The farmers hoped other beef producers would follow their lead to draw attention to disastrous market prices for cattle. Livestock producers are being driven to this action by the sheer impossibility of their position: it is uneconomic to keep the calves and even if the farmers wanted to, there is not enough fodder to maintain them through the winter. So, it is better for the animals to be slaughtered than to face starvation.

This is what we have been hearing in this country but the quotation I have read concerns farmers in one of Britain's main livestock areas in Shropshire. It is one example of the necessity to put in context the matters we have been speaking about this evening and for the past six months.

An article in The Sunday Times last Sunday, referring to the problems of the economy of our nearest neighbour, spoke of “grave and pressing disasters to be averted”. They speak of prices now rising by 17 per cent a year and wages even faster. They speak of the fact that global recession is a real possibility and they speak of the fact that reconciling the needs of the farming community and the consumers in these conditions is agonisingly difficult. It is, now that livestock is being slaughtered and farmers are going out of business. Again this quotation does not refer to our economy or to the lives or incomes of our farmers but to another country with an economy greatly more developed than ours, an economy which is largely industrial and which might be thought to be able to sort out farmers' problems more easily than we can do so.

The newspapers this week, discussing the problems of France, one of Europe's most balanced economies, showed that unemployment rates at present in France are higher than they have ever been in the modern history of that country. What we are really talking about as regards Ireland and confidence in the Government's handling of the position is confidence in the Government handling of the situation against a background of international crisis.

There has been comment about what the Opposition spokesmen termed the disasters in the last budget. There were quotations from the Central Bank and from the OECD publication on Ireland, but to me it seems that the Government's last budget was rational and correct in view of the advice tendered to it by OECD which suggested that it was necessary to stimulate demand and output. The expansionary policy of the Government has had that effect. We have had difficult times but there has been substantial spending which has helped to stimulate the economy. The OECD also suggested that the significance of the balance of payments should not be exaggerated. I agree completely with that in this time of adversity in which all countries with which we deal in imports and exports, particularly in western Europe, North America, Japan and Uruguay, have problems of inflation and imbalance of exports and imports. What is much more vitally important than the balance of payments is for the time being the relative position of this country in the international area and, relatively this country is still holding its own. This is the pointer to the future: so long as we can do that we are competitive in these export markets and there lies the possibility.

We have problems where fuel is concerned to a greater degree than many of our wealthier neighbours. This country, which lacks coal resources, is dependent on fuel oil to the extent of 68 per cent for industrial use, whereas the equivalent in Britain and Europe is 35 per cent. In a sense, the oil prices should hit us about doubly as hard as they affect these more developed economies. I heard Deputy Haughey refer to close-downs and bankruptcies in the commercial community. I heard him speak of Irish industry being overwhelmed with problems. In my view his words are somewhat sensational and I cannot agree with them. There have been close-downs and some bankruptcies but relatively few in comparison to the totality of commercial activity and relatively few in comparison to the entirety of industrial activity. It is very interesting that we had this crisis beginning about this time last year and in the first six months of this year, through this crisis, we had an increase in exports of industrial goods of about 42 per cent. This is a remarkable performance and shows the degree of stability of our industry in these difficult times.

Some of our critics have said that Irish industry is working at a disadvantage at present which is due to Government policy. It must be noted that there are major advantages to industries here which do not exist in any western European country. There are two reasons for that. There is a very advantageous capital structure in which a large proportion of that capital structure has been funded by grants paid by Irish taxpayers. Even more important is the extent to which they are free from taxation as a result of the policy of this and other Governments under which they pay no tax on export sales. This facility does not exist for any other country in the EEC, western Europe or developed countries generally, apart from some countries in the Third World. I do not see any need for gloom in this area.

Some of our critics said that Irish policy is frightening investment away. There is no evidence to suggest that this is happening. In these times of international economic crisis, of extreme political difficulties here due to the tragedy which is affecting Northern Ireland and creating a certain image of this country abroad and which has affected us directly by bombings in Dublin, it seems to be remarkable that there is such a degree of stability here. For that we must be thankful.

Has the Deputy met any farmers recently?

I live among some of the smallest farmers in this country and I know their problems. If Deputy Gibbons had listened to the earlier part of my speech he would have heard me quoting from other journals of the severe problems which are facing farmers in other countries. It appears to me that this tiny country of three million has a problem if in isolation we can provide a bonanza which——

I do not think so.

—— apparently cannot be provided in wealthier countries.

The problems of the farming community are the responsibility of the Government. They have arisen because the Government did not act on time.

Deputy Gibbons will appreciate that a time limit applies to this debate. The Chair is very anxious that there should not be any interruptions.

May I ask Deputy Gibbons a question?

It would be better not to. We cannot have debate by way of cross-examination.

Deputy McDonald was told that the viewpoint in the Fianna Fáil Party at one level is in a certain area which differs distinctly from the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Deputies in the European Parliament.

I must ask Deputy Staunton to address his remarks through the Chair rather than to any other personality in the House.

I would be glad to please.

The Deputy is taking Deputy McDonald's name in vain.

Deputy Staunton, without interruption, please.

I appreciate the problems of the farmers. It is necessary for some spokesmen on this side of the House to refer to the EEC at this stage because there is a cynicism and disenchantment in many areas at present about our involvement in the EEC.

I am a firm believer in our membership. I advocated it. I worked with my party for the successful conclusion of the referendum. I have my reservations, as do all sensible people, about aspects of policy in the EEC at present. When I hear opponents being critical of the farming policy, of the lack of emergence of a regional policy to date, and of all the other blemishes, including the European Parliament, I would like to know what is the alternative they have to offer this country? It seems to me that there is none. The weakest wicket of the critics of our present involvement within the EEC is that they cannot give a sound, hard answer in terms of economics to what staying outside Europe would mean. With all our difficulties, our involvement in the Common Market with Britain and other western European countries, it seems to me that our staying outside at this time of crisis would mean a disaster of infinitely greater proportion than we are experiencing at present.

Many in the farming community are facing extremely difficult times. One of the major results and benefits to this country of involvement in the common agricultural policy, is the fact that the grants for agricultural subsidies are now being paid by Brussels rather than the Dublin Government. The input by the Irish Government to that total fund is infinitely less than what we are drawing from it. The additional millions which we are drawing have been used wisely by the Government to increase substantially the social welfare benefits at the highest rates experienced in the history of this State to offset the problems of inflation, of increased prices and the problems for those in the lower income group. In my view that has been a wise policy and I compliment the Government.

In the coming years we will have an opportunity to lobby strongly for the emergence of the regional fund. There have been more disappointments in that area than in any other. When we advocated membership many of us realised the limitations of an agricultural policy when we spoke of very small holdings. We held out to the people of the west the hope that a regional fund would emerge in the context of what we were told was policy, which would proportionately help our area to a greater extent than other parts of the Community.

Last week we had a visit from Commissioner Thomson. There is optimism that this fund may emerge in the next few months. I urge our Government to press for the provision of this fund in view of our special interest.

Deputy Haughey referred to this Government's mining policy and what he called our priceless national assets. I agree with him. It is precisely because they are priceless national assets that there has been a change of Government policy in the mining area. As was pointed out some time ago by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the central point to grasp is that our mining resources and the wealth beneath the ground are not to be compared with the manufacturing industry. The mines and what they contain are wasting resources. To that degree they are priceless. It seems to be extremely foolish to adopt a totally liberal financial policy in the mining area. I believe that the total relief on taxation for 20 years offered by the previous Government was disastrous in the national interests. In fairness I should say that at the time of the emergence of that policy, there might have seemed a reason to do so. At that time we did not estimate to the degree to which we do at the present time, the extent of our national wealth.

One of the advantages of the change of Government last year was that this Government, coming in fresh, had opinions in this area which might not have been available to the Government which had instigated that policy. It has been admitted by some of the mining interests that no Irish Government could, ad infinitum have continued this policy of total concession on taxation where these resources were concerned.

The attitude of the previous Government was very much a laissez faire one, some of which was justified in the earlier years of the State because, when we suffered from a tremendous degree of under-development, we had to get jobs, we had to bring in industry, we had to bring in entrepreneurs, we had to bring in multinational companies. But there came a time when we had to question the degree to which they were coming in and the price we were going to pay for foreign interests to develop resources, jobs, assets and investment in this country. Until recently, if one examined Irish financial policy the attitude in this country was the most liberal of any country of its level of development, or greater development in the world. The policy was in total contrast to, for example, Japan, again a country which was poorer 20 years ago, which developed tremendously but did so through more use of native skills, native industry and investment than we did and where under legislation it was impossible for manufacturing companies or trading companies from other countries to establish themselves without Japanese participation.

It seems to me that where this country was concerned, with the change of Government last year, with the change of philosophy and different ideals in certain areas in so far as national resources and investment were concerned there had got to be fundamental changes in policy. Of course, there are vested interests in any country that resist change, do all they can to resist change, impede change and the progress contained in such change. It is for that reason that we have had problems in the mining industry. One might say there would have been no problem had this Government continued the easy policy of total sell-out and total lack of taxation policy where those interests were concerned. I find it deplorable in the present climate, where there has been the problem in County Meath, that there has been an attempt to use the jobs of the 300 men there as a stick with which to beat the Government. It is not good enough. I do not think the Government have to tolerate it and I do not think this Government will stand for pressure of that type.

In regard to the kind of budget we might have had—whether it was sufficiently inflationary or deflationary —in these times it is easy for an Opposition to be critical. They are critical of present circumstances and present policy. But, if memory serves me right, Fianna Fáil Opposition criticisms in the past, and particularly during the inter-Party Government era, were for an entirely different reason because, apparently, at that time the policy was one of deflation, of the hair shirt budget.

The question I should like to pose to the Opposition is this: had this Government in the budget of this year, instead of opting for spending, instead of opting for deficit budgeting, decided to deflate, had the Government caused unemployment, cut back on public spending, refused to come through with the social welfare benefits and used those funds to help our balance of payments situation, what then would have been the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Opposition? It seems to me that their attitude would have been one of infinitely more criticism than they are capable of bringing to bear in the light of the policy of the Government.

Speaking in that regard, where the electorate are concerned, I do not think people will listen to the florid, colourful, exaggerated language, the intemperate words which have been used to bedevil the Government. There is a certain proof of that in that local elections took place this year. I think local elections are notorious for going against the Government of the day. Those elections happened in the middle of this crisis. In those elections the candidates of the Government party at least held their own in these extremely difficult times. It seems to me that if this Government keep good faith with the people of this country, bring their talents to bear on the problems with which we are faced and adequately explain to the Irish people why it is necessary to adopt certain attitudes, the people will respond and we will not have to worry unduly about the ranting that goes on from time to time.

I am glad I spoke after Deputy Haughey because he spoke about certain topics to which I had intended addressing myself. It has given me the opportunity to refer to them in the context of what he said. I agree with him completely in regard to the necessity for the development of our off-shore oil resources. If we are talking about a single critical factor or a single area in which there is the possibility of immense gain to the country, in a relative sense, it is in the off-shore oil area. The most striking statistics of employment, development and financial benefits of off-shore oil are available from Norway. There are the most striking advantages on the point of coming to Great Britain if we are to believe what the experts are saying and, as Deputy Haughey said, these will be coming on stream some time next year. It seems to me that if we are fortunate in this country with the exploration that is to take place in the off-shore area, there is an area in which, relative to the size of our country and our budget, immense gains can accrue which could be a vital factor in the next decade.

At this point I must disagree completely with Deputy Haughey because he mentioned off-shore oil in the context of the present Government and he blamed the present Government for the lack of development in the off-shore area. I would repectfully submit to the Chair and to Deputy Haughey that the lack of development of the off-shore oil area in this country is due far more to neglect of the previous Government than to the policy of the present one. For example, the oil that has been extracted already off the Norwegian coastline and the oil which is on the point of emerging from the North Sea under British Government policies emanates as a result of British Government policies and legislation and Norwegian Government legislation of a decade ago, not in the last 18 months. To any sensible person it is utterly absurd to attempt to blame the lack of development in the off-shore oil area on the present Government which came into power in this country only 18 months ago.

It is unfortunate that there has been this lack of development. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce inherited what I believe to have been a total lack of adequate knowledge, adequate philosophy, policy or viewpoint of the previous Government in this extremely vital area. The matter is being dealt with. I refer very briefly to the speech of the Taoiseach on the Adjournment Debate when he stated:

The recent news of an oil "show" increases our hopes that substantial deposits may be found on our Continental Shelf. The Government are anxious that drilling in the areas of our Shelf not covered by the exclusive exploration licence held by Marathon Petroleum should be started soon. Consideration of the financial and other terms for the issue of further exclusive licences is at an advanced stage.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a speech last week, referred to the fact that he will be introducing legislation in this area to stimulate investment and exploration before Christmas. Therefore, it is on the point of emergence.

Again one can be critical of the previous Administration because the licence tendered to Marathon Petroleum was probably on the most generous terms ever offered to a commercial concern by any sovereign State. This, together with their action in the mining area, compounds the problem now facing the Minister. In the mining area the Minister must have regard to achieving a balance between what is in the national interest and what is compatible with the attraction of the interests that we want to develop in this presumed resource of ours.

I tend to be optimistic in outlook. In a small country like ours, with the balance that exists and with a degree of common sense I think we will ride through this storm. I believe that we have more control over the situation at a time of crisis in ruling three million people than have the Government of Britain where there is a population of more than 50 million or of Germany who also have a population of that extent or of France who have between 50 and 60 million people. For that reason I am optimistic about the future. Regarding the balance of payments for the longterm it was alleged by Deputy Haughey that nothing was being done in this regard by the Government. It is important to point out that there are open to Governments only extremely limited options in many situations. Apart from the Government creating policy, making speeches or suggesting what should be done in the interest of the country, it is for these interests— the industrialists, the workers, farmers, teacher and trade union organisations and all the other groups—to realise the degree of the present problem and to realise that the Government are merely the sum total of the people. It must be brought home to people that living beyond our means is a disease we have inherited from other countries. While Government policy will be responsible to some degree for the extent to which we increase our productivity and our exports, in the main this matter lies with the various organisations, to the degree to which they realise the crisis facing the country. It is important that the individual appreciates the problem also. We are all in this together.

Within the limits to which a Government can act this Government have done all they can in so far as our balance of payments is concerned, especially in so far as the energy crisis is concerned. We are all aware of how much more oil is costing now than it cost 12 months ago.

I am very glad to notice the activity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the flurry of diplomatic activity there has been recently between this country and interests in the Middle East. Within the past two months an ambassador has been appointed to the Lebanon. Since then he has become accredited to three countries in the Gulf States. There is the possibility of an ambassador being accredited to Egypt which is the cultural centre of much of the Arab world. I welcome this activity. I presume it is expensive to set up these missions and structures but relative to what is happening at present it is essential to the interests of this country that we should take these steps. I compliment the Minister for doing so. Great benefit can accrue to us from his action which to a degree can help to protect the oil resource which, expensive as it is, is vital to our interests. It can help also to keep us abreast of the financial position in the international market where there will be a great necessity to do what is called re-cycling of Arab investments because the amassing of liquid funds in the Arab world at present is beyond normal comprehension. These countries do not have the capacity to invest that resource within their own countries and are seeking investment possibilities. That is another reason why our presence in that part of the world is in our interest. The same applies to export possibilities.

A few nights ago I was very glad to hear the director of CTT, Mr. Garvey, referring to the various missions which CTT have sent to the Middle East during the past two or three years and to those which they propose to send in the near future. I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be leading such a mission to that part of the world within the next couple of weeks.

I am speaking positively so as to illustrate that the picture is not all one of gloom and that neither is it all a question of the balance of payments. The Government are concerned with these very vital matters and are taking what they believe to be the necessary steps in getting on with the job at this time.

Again, on a positive note, I take this opportunity to refer to a speech made by Deputy Ryan while speaking as Minister for the Public Service. He was referring to semi-State companies and in this regard told us that the Government are having examined the necessity for greater State control of the workings of the semi-State area of activity. I expect that this aspiration will come to fruition within the not-too-distant future and that it will prove to have been one of the achievements of this Government. It is disturbing to notice the extent to which public expenditure now lies in the semi-State area. At the commencement of the policies in that area it made sense to act as we did but with the extraordinary degree to which public funds are now being handled in that area it is vital that there should be adequate parliamentary control not only in the interest of the State companies themselves but in the interest of the public.

The present means of access by Deputies from all sides to information in the public interest is not desirable. Therefore, I welcome the reforming mood of the Government in this area.

I welcome, too, another speech made by the Minister in regard to this area in which he said that a review has been arranged of the organisations and structures that are believed necessary for adequate regional development in the country. When history is written in a few years' time there will be immense disquite regarding what happened in the last 20 years or so. I refer to the degree to which there is an imbalance in the country. There has been the enormous increase in the population of Dublin to about 750,000 people while there has been the extraordinary denuding of the lesser developed parts of Ireland. Nothing less than a fundamental reappraisal of all Government policy in an organisational sense can begin to right this picture or to point this country on a road towards an adequate regional policy. Inherent in the emergence of such a policy will be the necessity for autonomy in centres outside Dublin, to a greater degree than has existed to date in the history of the State. There is the opportunity in the Shannon area, so far as Sligo is concerned, to use what has happened in that region—which is different from any other in the country— as an example on which to base certain conclusions which might lead to the fundamental changes in regard to administration and autonomy which I believe to be necessary. For example, we are told that the greatest area for development so far as the creation of jobs is concerned is in industry. Despite all that we have heard about government policy in the area of industry in the last 20 years, it is a fact of life that 50 per cent of manufacturing industry is in Dublin city. I regard that as extremely disquieting. We have not heard as much about that singular fact as we might have for the simple reason that government grants have not been given to industries in Dublin and we tend to read only about those industries that have received money from the taxpayers. It has been suggested Dublin is not being allowed to grow beyond its normal level of growth in the industrial area but, in fact, that is not true. So long as we offer complete relief of taxation on export sales to manufacturing industry in the city of Dublin we are offering positive inducements.

We are lagging in the development area, and we are lagging very much behind western European countries in the services area. We have had a tremendous emphasis on industry which is necessary but we tend to forget that along with industrial expansion and employment a very large volume of employment in the services area is created. It is necessary to examine this question because part of the reason for the explosion of the cities and the denuding of the countryside is the degree to which the services have expanded within the cities. Other countries have considered this problem and they have arranged that, in addition to offering special facilities for industrial development, facilities should also exist in the services area. This sector needs to be considered now.

With regard to turf, we have a resource in our bogs which is still being underutilised. I welcomed the statement of Bord na Móna some months ago about their development plan which will cost £20 million but there are many areas in the west that are not being considered. They are tending to look at the Midlands to a much greater degree and I would welcome much more activity by Bord na Móna in the western counties.

There is another area where turf might be investigated, apart from State investment through Bord na Móna. In many of our smaller bogs that are not suitable for major mechanism by Bord na Móna, there is the possibility that the smaller machines being developed by the Sugar Company might be much more suitable for private interests and farmers. There is a problem at the moment in that sufficient machines are not available to farmers. There are many who could cut large quantities of turf but they are unable to do so because they have not the tools and sufficient money is not given for access roads.

We stand four square behind the Government in these extremely difficult times. We restate our confidence in their handling of the economy and, hopefully, we look forward to brighter times.

In making my contribution tonight I feel rather sad. I have never tried to make a political football out of any issue but I am surprised that Deputy Staunton, a man I know quite well, made only about three references to the plight of a certain type of small farmer in the west——

On a point of contradiction, my quotation referred to farmers in Britain, not to the plight of the west——

I would remind the House that the Deputy's time is limited.

I should have preferred if the Deputy had referred to the plight of our own farmers. I do not indulge in cross-talk in this House. I must put before the House the desperate position of the small farmer who has young cattle. Very few speakers have referred to him simply because there are few people here who have practical experience of this type of farming. I know all about it. My hands are cut because last night I was trying to fence hungry cattle from eating a field. In the west the cattle are let out on the road so that they may get something to eat. I am living with the situation and I know what is happening.

During the summer recess, certain farming papers asked where were Collins, Gibbons and Callanan. We did not have an opportunity of expressing our opinions until the Dáil reassembled. The situation with regard to young cattle could not be worse. Many farmers took the advice of the Department when they entered this kind of farming but since I became a Member of this House the only action taken when we made an attempt to export these cattle to Italy was to impose a tax of £8 on them. I protested vigorously in this House but to no avail. Now we are endeavouring to export cattle and we are asking for a subsidy which I hope we will get. I was one of the Deputies who protested a year ago about the action that was taken.

Many people are talking about the EEC but we are not active enough in it. Since we entered the Community the Treaty of Rome has become unrecognisable. It was changed and we had a say in that change. We sold the EEC to the people of the west because they did not believe there was any alternative. I am convinced we are better off inside the Community but I would point out that we were told we could not get into the EEC market unless we were members. Our lives are being governed by Brussels but we are not strong enough there. There is no use in having a perfect propaganda machine here to sell what we get in Brussels if it transpires that in a few weeks' time the situation is even worse. The people are fed up with all this business. We got the intervention provision but the benefit was not passed on; we got slaughter subsidies but they were not passed on, and now we are told we will get extra beet.

The problem here is that very few people have had practical experience of farming on a small scale. There are two types of farming in my area. Because of the small holdings a large percentage are engaged in milk production. Fair enough. Were it not for the wretched prices for suckling calves they would not be too badly off. But the others were asked to go into beef production and they now have cows and young calves. The calves cannot be sold. That is something about which people should think. Is there any other section of our community that would put up with this? Two years ago a man could get £80 or £90 for a calf and he could buy three tons of artificial manure with that £80 or £90. Today he might get £75 for three calves and he could not buy even one ton of artificial manure with the money.

People talk about the Economic War. I lived through it. I remember it well. We got nothing but we bought nothing. We were not buying anything then. The cost of everything the farmer has to buy today has gone up 50, 60 and 100 per cent while what he is selling has gone down 75 per cent. No other section of the community would stand for it. It is no good saying the Government are not responsible. I never believed in a roundabout payment for any thing. What is required is a direct payment to tide the farmers over.

Mansholt came over here with a programme designed to wipe out the small farmer. We kicked him out. We said the small farmer was the backbone of the country. But if something is not done now for the small farmer he will be wiped out. Perhaps that is the policy. Perhaps there are some who think it is time he went. Remember this: he will not go without a fight. That is the attitude that is developing now. The townspeople realise the plight of the small farmer now because the small farmer was always the shopkeeper's best customer. That is admitted. He was the man who spent the money. He has not got the money now and the towns are feeling the pinch.

I feel sorry for the advisory services because they acted on instructions. They told the farmers the kind of farming to go into: two years ago everyone was told he could not have enough cattle and cows. Buy, buy, buy. The farmer went into the bank and so long as he wanted to buy cattle the money was available. The surplus cattle today were all bought on borrowed money. It is no use now offering a man a loan at 8 per cent. It is only putting another millstone around his neck. I know farmers who put up silos, borrowed money from the ACC and bought cows. That was the policy. We could not have enough beef. We are in it now. I asked these farmers would they take loans at 8 per cent. They said loans were no use. They want direct payments, not the kind of thing we have now, fattening the purses of the factories and the middlemen. That is where the payments are going.

Intervention and subsidies are not being passed on. There is no doubt about that. What did we hear on "Mart and Market" last night? Even the co-operatives are guilty. I am a shareholder and I say they are not playing ball. They should be setting an example. They are talking about some kind of dole for the farmer: a penny a lb. would not keep one calf. They tell us they are buying 80 per cent coming into the factories and they have to go to the marts for the other 20 per cent and they are buying them at the mart to keep the price up. I know a man who had a beast. He put the beast up at the mart. The furthest he could get the factory buyer to go was £70. He did not sell and eventually he got a friend to get the beast into the factory—it had to be a friend before he could get the beast in—and the price for the beast was £150. But in the mart the factory buyer would give only £70. Nothing can be said against private enterprise factories because their aim is to make money, but I am ashamed of those factories which should set an example. We put them there for that purpose.

The offer of a penny by way of dole to the small farmer is an insult. There is £40 a beast. What are they doing with that £40? They have a fine fat kitty. The Government have not exercised any control. Nothing has been done. I claim that any payment coming to producers should go direct to producers. I am not standing up for local butchers, but this is the irony of it all as far as the slaughter premium is concerned. If the business is big enough and you go to the slaughter house with five cattle you can pay the slaughter premium, but I know one particular town where there are 30 cattle killed each week which should qualify, for slaughter premium, but the local butcher is not allowed to pay it even though there are inspectors and weighing scales and everything else. But it is not just big enough. If he brings the beasts to the city abbatoir —they have to be signed for and all the rest of it—he can qualify for the slaughter premium. There are four marts in my county and there are four towns. That means four 30s each week quality cattle entitled to the premium but because they are not slaughtering enough at a time together they cannot get the premium. That is the irony of it.

I raised this matter here before. Where, I asked, was intervention going? The last time these premiums came along they were a bit higher. There are certain people dying laughing; they were never doing so good a business. At whose expense?

At the expense of the unfortunate small farmer. Green pounds, black pounds, or no pounds at all, are no good to us. Since the green £ was introduced not one halfpenny has come to the small farmers. I remember sending out three eight hundredweight bullocks. They did not sell, but when a man sent out two of his best calves by way of test he was paid £5 per cwt. That is all that is paid for this type of cattle. No other section of the community would take this lying down. I am surprised that Deputy Staunton did not highlight it.

There is no use saying that the Government have no responsibility. They have. As the Opposition, we have responsibility to highlight it. I am one of these farmers and I will not miss any opportunity to highlight the plight of those unfortunate people. We want a decent price. A direct payment could be made for, say, up to 20 calves. The beef incentive scheme could be doubled for up to 20 cows. A guaranteed price could be operated through the marts. There is no trouble in controlling anything connected with livestock because every beast has a tag number so the subsidy could not be collected twice.

I do not think that anybody listening to me here tonight gives one damn about what I am saying. I suppose the rural vote does not count for all that much any more. The small farmer is being let down now because of the way we are conducting ourselves in the EEC. Why should we be the good boys in the EEC? Every rule in the book has been broken. Why should we not look for fair play? If I were Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I would ask every farming organisation to make it impossible for me to come back here until I had got a decent deal. I believe the Minister's heart is in the right place. I do not intend to attack him but I do not believe he is getting support from his Government.

There are gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House at the moment who do not know anything about our plight. I have been a trade union man all my life and I know that no union would allow this to happen to their members. I am angry because the people who elected me will disappear from the land. A man told me recently that 60 per cent of the cattle going to the marts were in calf. Some time ago Deputy Leonard and I had a motion on the Adjournment and we told the House that sows in young were being slaughtered. We begged for some subvention for the sow owners in order to keep up the production of pigs. At the moment you cannot buy a young pig. The price of bacon was never as high on the British market because of the law of supply and demand.

Today cows are being slaughtered and in-calf heifers are being sold. The source of production is gone with the result that the country is at a loss. No farmer is well off at the moment. Intervention is not being passed on to the beef man. In Connemara we have only 30 per cent of our feeding requirements for the winter. The figure is about 50 or 55 per cent in the eastern part of the county. This means that cattle will die. If you drive around the west at the moment you will see cattle grazing at the side of the road. Their owners do not care whether they are killed, and an odd one is killed. This is the position which we must highlight.

To say that you can get a loan at 8 per cent to buy feed for those cattle is not the answer. That is putting a further millstone around the necks of the farmers. If a farmer gets a loan everybody will know about it and feed which was being sold at £60 or £80 a ton will automatically go up to £120 a ton because the demand will be so great. I will be buying with my loan and Deputy Leonard will be buying with his loan and we will be in competition and the person who has the feeding stuff will be quick to leap on the bandwagon.

I believe that the Government should set up an agency immediately to try to sell cattle abroad. We understand that there is a small market in Greece and we understand that the EEC is prepared to subsidise the sale of cattle to Greece. What is being done to get cattle out of the country? Farmers are being bid the scandalous price of £20 or £25 for calves—less than £5 per cwt. No farmer will take that price. He will bring home the calf and let it die. That is very hard on young men who went enthusiastically into farming, but that is the position.

To add to the difficulties of farmers in the west the sheep trade has been a total disaster this year. Reports in newspapers indicate that the French trade for lambs does not look too healthy and this will also affect western farmers. Some of my neighbours who were paid £16 for ewes last year accepted £8 for ewes this year, a reduction of 50 per cent in their income from sheep.

The situation is desperate. No other section in the community would accept such a reduction in their income nor would they be asked to accept it. Millions can be found for everything else but the backbone of the nation, the small farmer, is being allowed to die. Nothing is being done to save the small farmer and the Minister should convince the other members of the Cabinet that the situation is desperate. If a direct payment is not made to these small farmers immediately they will not be able to survive. The danger of giving a loan to a farmer towards the cost of feeding stuffs is that immediately such an announcement is made the price of feeding stuffs goes up.

I was astonished to read in the newspapers that there will be a large amount of unmillable wheat this year and that a lot is being exported to the North. Is there any control over this? I am aware that this is dear feeding but at least it is available here. Is anybody taking an interest in the plight of the small farmers or does anybody give a damn whether they, or their cattle, live or die? The Minister should consult the people concerned. When I put forward that suggestion some time ago the Minister informed me that he, like the man with the ass, consulted too many. The Minister told me that those he had consulted told him to tariff the cattle but had he asked me, or some of his own back benchers from the west, he would have been made aware of the true position.

At the time Directive 159 was brought in I condemned it because I believed we would not have enough farmers who could reach the target of £1,800. At that time the calf was being sold for £70 to £80 and the sheep were fetching £15 to £16. Agricultural instructors now are unable to classify farmers and it should be remembered that farmers will not receive any grants unless they are classified. These instructors are finding it very difficult to find any farmers who can be classified as development farmers. Farmers are not being judged on existing prices and this is fortunate because if they were one could count on one hand the number in the west who would be classified. When I condemned this directive I was told that we had got it from Brussels and we could take it or leave it, but it should be remembered that the Treaty of Rome was changed to such an extent that it is now unrecognisable compared with that which was sold to our people. That Treaty has been broken by everybody.

That directive is useless because very few could qualify as development farmers. The Minister has informed me that the question of the transitional farmer will come up again for review in 1977 but under this directive a farmer will receive no subsidies after that year unless the EEC decide to give them to him. For many years Fianna Fáil were accused of keeping the small man on the dole but every farmer around me has to draw the dole now. But for social welfare payments at present these small farmers could not exist. The middle man has nothing. Were it not for Deputy Frank Cluskey and his social welfare payments there would be a revolution. I am not objecting to small farmers receiving these benefits because they serve to keep the wolf from the door. At meetings in the past Fianna Fáil were accused of keeping the small farmer spoon-fed with dole benefits but there is not a word about that now because the Government realise that it is essential to keep bread in the mouths of people. Nobody in my area qualified to draw the dole some years ago but since the valuation limit was raised most of them qualify. This valuation system is a most unjust way to judge the means of any farmer. To assess income on a valuation basis is wrong.

For many years the policy here with regard to farming was the stocking rate and nothing about feeding. Farmers were told that they should keep 21 cows on 19 acres but the man who was able to do that was keeping acres of silage elsewhere. A farmer would not be able to keep that amount of stock for the winter on 19 acres. Unfortunately, a big number of farmers swallowed this theory. They rushed in and over-stocked without considering the difficulty of feeding them. I accept that this year the weather did not help the farmers. It was a bad year for hay with the result that the farmers have not enough feed to keep their stock over the winter. To tell such a farmer that he will be all right if he can hold out until next February is a "live horse, get grass" attitude. The farmer needs immediate help.

I have been asked to raise the question of the increase in postal services, in particular the huge increase in the cost of sending a letter. Nothing has been heard of the reorganisation of the postal service that was to take place in rural areas. We shall be paying an increased price for stamps but we shall get our mail much later. The system is being modernised and there will be small vans to make the deliveries instead of the ordinary postman. Furthermore, no attempt was made to get anyone's consent for the increase to 7p for stamps.

There is also a crisis in the building industry. Houses are being built but they cannot be bought. A few members of a co-operative which was formed to buy houses approached me recently. About four months ago they were told that when the houses would be built they would be available at £6,500. Recently they got a note from the building societies that the houses would now be £9,000. As everybody knows here, the maximum loan is £4,500. The additional grants which that type of person can get will put the sum over £5,000. Where would young married couples go for the other £4,000? They have got one loan and cannot get a second. I am referring to a town very near my own place but I shall not mention names. I have written to the Minister for Local Government about it. Until the loans are increased to at least £6,000 I cannot see much hope for these people.

There are many other things I could say if time permitted, even about the Minister for Justice in regard to reconciliation and making reparation and so on. We have nobody to whom to make reparation; the minority would want to have a little reparation made to them as well. I shall not pursue that because other people will be dealing with it.

I come back to my pet subject, agriculture. I have said here before—but there is no one here to listen to me on agriculture, that is the problem—that the one thing that should be done by any Minister is to balance the economy. I cannot understand what we have been doing in Brussels. I got only national school education, but I got practical education. Any fool could see there was going to be a surplus of cattle. We were told it would only be a drop in the ocean in the EEC context, but every other country was increasing production as well as Ireland, and then when beef imports were permitted, it caused a beef pile, and beef became so dear that the consumer was not eating it. This was bound to occur. Why was this not known 12 months ago? When we joined the EEC we were told there was not much hope for beet, but now we have come back with an extra quota when we have no beet. When I was a member of the old BGA in my own area I had 40 people in a group growing beet. We had only one acre each, but we formed a group and employed modern methods. We had a harvester and everything else for the growing of beet. How many of that group of 40 are left? One grower. I was talking to a man who used to cart up to 120 loads to the Tuam factory but who now has only eight loads. As far as the EEC was concerned beet was out, the price would be bad, but all of a sudden we are short of sugar. I understand the reason for it. Beet producers within the EEC sold the sugar under contract to other countries and in fulfilling their contract are leaving themselves scarce.

If there was any intelligence at all in Brussels should they not have seen those surpluses and shortages coming? Nothing was done about it. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries seriously to consider making a payment for every acre tilled up to a maximum of ten or perhaps even five. I want to see encouragement given to the small farmer so that his cattle will never starve again. I do not want people to jump into production. It was the policy always that when a subsidy was given the sky was the limit. That ruins any subsidy. Subsidise up to a certain point that will keep a balance in the economy. I may be told this is contrary to EEC regulations. That is not so. This is something I know a little about. Years before we went into the EEC we had a study group in a farmers' organisation of which I was a member. We studied the whole idea of what way we should subsidise in the context of the EEC. We knew we could not subsidise prices, but there was nothing in the Treaty of Rome that would prevent a subsidy per head or per acre. A Minister for Agriculture from Galway who was on those benches over there, the late Paddy Hogan, had a famous saying: "One more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough." That is as true today as it was at anytime. In order to remedy the situation I urge that a good subsidy be given, up to five acres so that the small man will never find his cattle dying on the road. He was told: "You are too small for tillage. Go into beef and stay in it." He is now doomed in beef. Let it never happen again.

I will make a final appeal here tonight. I am probably wasting my time, because I am afraid there is nobody with the slightest interest in agriculture listening to me. At least I shall have put it on the record. I did not come here to make a political football out of agriculture. I am trying to get something for the people who are in a desperate state. People went into beef on the advice of the Department. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, is shaking his head, but I know, because I have listened to it in halls. The small farmer should specialise in either milk or beef. He was told that milk was being over-produced and he was also told in EEC directives that if he did not have half his sales from meat, at the end of the term he would not get the acreage payment. He was paid to get out of milk. Fair play to the Minister, Deputy Clinton, he said what I would say: "Do not get out of milk." The man who stayed in it was lucky, but the man who took the advice and went out of it is the man who is stuck, and nobody gives a damn about him today and he will be out of business before this year is out.

There are three types of farmers: One man is in beef; he is not too bad; he is not getting what he should get because it is not being passed on to him, but at least he is going back and buying the cattle at a sacrifice. The second man is in milk. He is not all that bad; he sold his calf for nothing, but he has a constant income. The third type is the man who was told to go into beef, the small man. He is for the road.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24th October, 1974.
Top
Share