The Minister for Labour to resume the debate. For the information of the Minister I should say he has about 41 minutes left.
Confidence in the Government: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann affirms its confidence in the Government.
—(An Taoiseach).
There are other Ministers who wish to speak also and I do not propose to take up the full length of my time. Briefly, the Government have been attempting over this difficult period to inform the public of difficulties abroad which must influence our actions here and at the same time assert their full confidence in the ability of the economy to survive this difficult period. This dual responsibility of government at this time may be responsible for the Leader of the Opposition thinking that there is a contrast of approach between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and myself, seeing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a harbinger of optimism and I am a spokesman of gloom. The Leader of the Opposition made this point in the course of this debate.
I do not think, allowing for whatever differences of temperament there are, there is any real difference in approach. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is properly addressing himself to the positive features in the economy, the export performance over the past year, which has broken all records, and he is referring to the intrinsic health of the economy, a tribute which the Leader of the Opposition made in the course of his remarks last week, allowing for certain criticisms he made of our handling of the economy.
No problem with the Minister for Education.
Obviously there are also features at the present time which must be a cause of despondency. I think especially here of the number of unemployed. There is a marked increase in the number of those unemployed over the figures for last year. I made the point last week at the opening of the Dundalk Training Centre that what is true for the individual during this period is also true for the community. It must be a time of preparation for that international recovery when it comes.
The point has been made over and over again in the course of this debate that the openess of our economy, the influence of the recession abroad means that certain consequences follow here, whatever the Government may do. It is of no assistance, it invalidates any criticism by the Opposition, when they do not accept the impact of these outside events on economic performance at home. These great external economic difficulties will not go away whatever Dáil Éireann might like to think or desire. The Government's economic strategy has consisted of an expansion of the public capital programme in an effort to boost home demand and to keep our economy as buoyant as possible, despite these external adverse factors.
This was nowhere better defined than in the last budget, where our rate of expansion in the public capital programme was equivalent to an increase of 20.2 per cent. Whatever other criticism may be made of our response to the difficulties we are faced with at the present time, there can be no doubt that by that kind of deliberate deficit approach to budgeting, by maintaining capacity to meet home demand, the Government have expressed their confidence in the ability of the economy to ride out the present storm.
Our policies have been designed to maintain demand on the home market. They have been designed to keep our factories open at a time of world recession. As a people we must acknowledge that all our actions at home from now on must take account of the trading circumstances we are placed in as a result of our interdependence on economies which are in severe difficulties. That was the point of departure taken by us when we met the farmers, the unions and the employers recently, when we spoke to them fairly about the problems we saw before us.
The majority of industrial countries to which we send the bulk of our exports and from whom we receive the bulk of our industrial investment will have no growth or growth of very modest dimensions in the approaching year. These countries, like us, are finding employment and living standards adversely affected by the deflationary impact of the oil crisis. The small number of countries, like Germany, who still enjoy a balance of payments surplus, who could if they wished help those in deficit by increasing their imports, are not eager to do so until there is some international action on the whole question of inflation.
In regard to living standards and employment, the best way to reduce any balance of payments deficit is by an expansion of exports but it is only honest to remark that to increase our exports at the present time presents very great difficulties for the simple reason that every other country is attempting to do exactly the same thing in certain depressed markets. We hope—and our Minister for Foreign Affairs is working hard to achieve this—for a general European action by the countries of the European Economic Community to see if there could be a greater alignment in the domestic economic policies pursued by the member states to meet the very great problems posed by the oil surcharge.
There are therefore great factors outside our control, great issues over which we have no influence, whatever the Opposition might think and there are factors within our control. It is the job of the Government to distinguish between both these circumstances and to try to advise, lead and legislate our way out of the present difficulties by the direction of our economic policy to maintain this home demand that is so important. It is ludicrous for a Government to play the role of a kind of Mighty Mouse with the implication that we can remain unaffected by these outside events. The point could be made that too often external realities which will not go away have been ignored in recent Irish history.
There are things we can do and there are things we have been doing as a Government. Pride of place in our home strategy to meet the difficulties raised for our economy must go to the strategy defined clearly in the last Budget where, as I said, we ran a deliberate deficit on current account to main capacity and demand. That was our response, which was welcomed by the Confederation of Irish Industry and by industry at large. Our job is to maintain the expansionary thrust of the last two budgets, to maintain the momentum of expansion in our public capital programme. That is the overall strategy adopted by the Government and the one to which we are adhering. Despite the strategy we have been following there has been this sharp increase in the number of people who are unemployed. I was glad that the Taoiseach in his opening speech on this debate admitted that a blot on the record of successive Governments has been our failure to overcome the problem of unemployment. We have been unable over the years to deal adequately with this social evil. What are the elements which worsen the present unemployment situation? Traditional industries such as textiles have been under threat for some time. The deep penetration of the home market envisaged, and now occurring, under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement is having its effect in the case of footwear and textiles. Some influence is also exerted by the tight money supply position referred to in the last report of the Central Bank. I am glad that in that report, published in the last week, the Central Bank admit that there must be a relaxation in this area because many firms are experiencing difficulties at present and some marginal unemployment may be due to such factors as shortage of working capital. But the bulk of the unemployment is due to problems in traditional industries together with difficulty in the building industry where high interest rates have not helped.
It would be foolish to deny the very real and alarming increase in the unemployment figures. Our response must be, and this is the great weapon we have, the creation of new jobs to replace those being lost. It is heartening to note that the IDA acknowledge in their most recent report that they have been extraordinarily successful in providing new employment in the past year. The number of new jobs created has reached an all-time high level and though unemployment is still higher than last year we have no grounds for discouragement when we look at the number of new jobs created by IDA activities. We must of course, continue to search ever more diligently for new markets while continuing the old philosophy of diversifying our export outlets but with greater energy than ever.
There is also the necessity—one I mentioned last week in Dundalk—to consider an expansion in training facilities as the unemployment situation worsens. I have always believed that an active manpower policy should include expansion of training facilities for those unemployed. Last year we announced that we would quadruple our direct training capacity by 1978 and, as I said in Dundalk, should the present unemployment trend continue at its present pace we shall have to consider this winter a further expansion of the training programme.
It is yet too early to see a definite pattern in the unemployment trend. The British figures published last week show a slight dip when the contrary was expected. They have now concluded that one can only make a correct estimate of the situation over a three-monthly period. I think we should exercise a similar caution because there was a sharp increase in the unemployment figures last week but in the previous week there was a slight drop in the rate of increase. It is still too early to see what the higher figure will be as we go through the winter months. Other action we may consider, and it is action which is under the direct control of the consuming public, is more than ever to buy Irish products this winter. As footwear is one of the areas of greatest stress, if possible, this winter men and women in purchasing footwear should not indulge their passion for Italian footwear. We should buy Irish footwear and textiles this winter. As the home market has been so seriously penetrated by foreign firms it is our clear duty more than ever now to buy Irish.
The building industry, which after agriculture is the greatest source of employment with 80,000 people working in it, as I have said has not been helped by high interest rates. Deputies are aware of the energetic response of the Minister for Local Government to the building industry's problems. He has done his utmost to ensure that greater credit facilities are available and he has relaxed certain financial controls on mortgages and so on. In a debate such as this I thought it would be useful in my own area to note that over the past year, in the first eight months of 1974 we have seen that the number of man-days lost in strikes reached more than double the figure for the past two years. I make a free gift to the Opposition that I am noting this other cause, perhaps, of personal gloom in my own case. It is no satisfaction to say that the increase in man-days lost is mainly attributable to a few major strikes, notably the Dublin bus dispute and the Dublin Corporation strike. The bus dispute contributed 200,000 man-days, the Dublin Corporation, 40,000, the Guinness dispute 30,000 and Clerys 25,000.
Nobody knows why, at particular periods, there is a sharp increase in the number of strikes and man-days lost compared with other periods. In recent years, certainly from 1971, we had an improvement in the climate of industrial relations. The number of man-days lost through strikes and industrial disputes fell to 273,770 in 1971; in 1972 it was down to 206,000 and in 1973 it fell again. In the first eight months of 1974 the loss was more than double the figure for either of the preceding two years. There has been a deterioration in that area of industrial relations compared with the previous two or three years. It has been generally agreed that the national agreements were of some assistance in reducing the number of man-days lost by eliminating causes of dispute in industry; yet, we have seen this sharp disimprovement at the beginning of this year. People ask: "What are the Government doing about it?" And they say: "Something should be done about it." Naturally, I have pondered what the response of the Government should be to a worsening in the industrial climate. There are one or two fallacies that must be corrected. Whatever the ideological composition of the Government in a democracy where freedom of association is permitted, we must learn to live with the consequences of groups of workers having the right to negotiate with employers. I have seen market surveys which suggest that the public would approve of legislative measures to outlaw strikes. In the course of any dispute, depending on the number of people disturbed by its effect, one often hears the cry that the Government should ban this or outlaw that.
There is no lack of statutory authority to deal with strikes in certain areas. Even without taking into account the attempt of the previous Government in the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act, 1966, there is, in fact a Victorian Act extant in our law books outlawing labour disputes in utilities such as gas. The power of that Victorian Act was extended by the Electricity Act, 1927. What prevents us taking any action in this area is not the absence of legislation but that developments along lines of statutory intervention which would limit people's rights to withdraw their labour are not helpful or desirable. If our objective is the achievement of industrial peace, if we are pursuing the line leading to less disharmony in relations between employers and workers, our legislation can mainly assist by providing an institutional framework wherein both sides may negotiate.
I make this point in the hope that in the coming months such observations will not be required and that we will not see a continuation of the trend we saw earlier this year. Since this is a debate of confidence in the Government, I thought I would refer to certain difficulties on this front, difficulties which will not go away and to which complications may be added by false expectations that some kind of statutory intervention will give us a greater industrial peace.
Our industrial relations structure is independent of the Government. The Labour Court and the other structures which were set up under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, act autonomously. They have freedom to decide what is best in each situation. It is generally agreed that their success is due in no small measure to this clearly understood status they enjoy. Both sides in industry have confidence in their decisions and utilise the conciliation service of the Labour Court because they are convinced of this freedom in coming to decisions. It is because they are convinced that these structures are not at the whim and call of the politicians that these institutions are so successful.
It is instructive to note that the British Government have come to the same conclusion and over the past year have been busily scrapping all the previous structures whose weakness, it was considered, was that they were too close to the whim and call of the Government of the day.
I keep constantly under review proposals which will lead to improvements in our methods here. That is why I am extending the Rights Commissioner Service, which was established in 1970 and is making a valuable contribution towards the prevention of industrial strife here. It is also instructive to note that in 1973 the Rights Commissioner Service dealt with 574 cases, an increase of over 50 per cent on the 1972 figures. That is why I am considering a regional extension of that service which has proved of such great value.
If it is true to say that little can be gained by pinning hopes on some kind of statutory intervention in the area of strike prevention or of limiting dissension in industry, I believe a great deal more can be done to harness the influence of an informed public opinion. The influence of public opinion, which is informed of the causes of a dispute, may be brought to bear on the parties concerned thus helping or contributing towards an early resolution of the conflict. I am giving close attention to the strengthening of the public interest dimension in our industrial relations procedures.
I am not satisfied that my powers, representing as I do the public interest, are adequate to enable me discharge my obligations to the public interest in seeing that the full facts are brought to light and that the parties in dispute explain those facts adequately to the public, who will suffer with the prolongation of conflict in a national industry or service.
I do not wish to interfere with the institutions set up under the 1946 Industrial Relations Act, as amended in 1969. But I see the need for new measures to serve the public interest by way of the provision of investigatory tribunals to inform the public of the facts. I do not wish to see any part of our industrial relations system become the plaything of any Government of the day. But I accept that the public have a right to know the facts in any dispute. I am not convinced that this right has been served in our existing structures. Public knowledge of the facts in an industrial dispute can be a positive influence towards its solution. I am giving close attention to the acknowledgment in our structures of agencies which might serve this right.
My own role in a dispute is to act only when the normal agencies have not succeeded. If one does not abide by such a rule, it will have the natural consequences that these agencies, which were tested and successful over the years, will be damaged if on each and every occasion I intervene where they are in process of settlement of a dispute. I have used this power of intervention sparingly and, I believe, rightly. Yet despite that sparing use of the right under section 24, I find that I have availed of that power more often in the past year-and-a-half than in all the years since the establishment of the Department in 1966. The reason for that may be that we have had more trouble in the last year, but 1970 was a very bad year for industrial disputes. This was of course, before the national agreements came into existence.
The Department for which I am responsible only comes to the notice of the public in times of industrial dispute. Yet the major thrust of the Department's work, and to which I have devoted myself, is in the field of legislation. I have attempted to pass legislation which will constitute a statutory improvement for work people in our society. My main role has been to ensure that workers have the standards to which they are entitled and a contract of employment in keeping with human dignity. As a result of legislation passed, between 1966, when the Department was established, to the date on which I took office, March, 1973, seven Acts were passed. Since March, 1973, five Acts have been passed, two Bills are before the House and a great deal of further legislation is in course of preparation. I mention that because the same kind of thing may be said of every other Government activity. This is a Government intent on reform and in every Department of State the same kind of progress may be noted.
Shortly I hope to be in a position to introduce legislation of a more fundamental nature removing the discrimination which undoubtedly exists throughout industry against the employment of women in key decision roles. The equal pay legislation comes into effect the Christmas after next and it will be preceded by even deeper anti-discrimination legislation. As a result of our employee's holidays legislation workers are now entitled to three week's annual holidays. Now under the Minimum Notice of Dismissal Act the employee receives prior notifications of his impending dismissal and has a right to a written contract of employment. I hope very shortly to have legislation before the House on unfair dismissal, an area which caused a great number of disputes over the past year. I hope that our statutory improvement under unfair dismissals legislation will help in removing this as a source of industrial dispute. There have been considerable improvements made in redundancy legislation; older workers are now given more money and the age has been raised. I will shortly be introducing legislation aimed at the protection of young persons in employment. The Bill will provide for a minimum age for entry to employment, the keeping of records on ages, working hours and wages of young persons. Shortly also, I shall be bringing before the House legislation on worker participation.
Of course, before any legislation can be proceeded with within my area a great deal of discussion and consultation must always take place with the employers and trade unions. Only after this process of consultation has been completed may I approach the Government with my proposals. In my area of responsibility a great deal of time is necessarily consumed before proposals emerge in statutory form. The worker participation legislation will usher in the start of what will be nothing less than a new industrial order and that is what is envisaged in the legislation I will shortly be bringing before the House.
My proposals in industrial legislation are at present with other Departments for their observations and, as soon as they have given me their observations I hope to be able to spell it out in statute form. Here it is not simply a case of talking about what has been done in my Department. I simply wish, for the record, to outline some things which go ahead in the on-going work of the Department, which do not receive any notice from members of the public, perhaps understandably, since very often the only thing that is heard of the area with which I deal is its effectiveness, or lack of it, in the course of industrial disputes. I thought I would mention these on-going responsibilities of the Department and make the point that the same could be said of every other Department.
There are other members of the Government having other areas of responsibility. On the last day I allowed —rightly, I think—Deputy Blaney in to speak. I thought it might have been interesting to hear what Deputy Blaney had to say on the Northern situation but I noticed that he practised an extreme economy of words when it came to that question. At any rate, I wish to permit other members of the Cabinet to speak on their areas. This is a confidence debate. There are external factors which are holding up our advancement for a particular period ahead, but as long as the Government have the competence to act at home, and the leadership, there need be no undue prolongation of our difficulties in the home economy. The Government, however, and the Taoiseach in his opening address, have been at pains to point out that there will be difficulties ahead: that it will call for men of goodwill on all sides of the community to be constructive, and that is the spirit in which we have inaugurated our discussions with the unions, employers and farmers in an effort to get, in the present world crisis, all Irish people to work their way, as far as they can, out of that crisis. I would make the point that Opposition remarks in the course of the debate did not show any influence of a counter strategy to the way in which we are dealing with the problems before us; rather there were conflicting criticisms of things we have done; a refusal to say whether our budgetary policy is right or wrong and no clear description of what they would do. The point has been made again and again that this is not simply an Opposition for 16 years. It is an Opposition lately out of Government and one would have expected that such a front bench would have been able to give a more impressive account of themselves in the course of this serious debate.
By way of introduction one must comment again on the importance of agriculture to the Irish economy. For example, 25 per cent of the population is in farming, fishing and forestry; in other words, agricultural production. Furthermore, a leading economist recently came up with the figure of 49 per cent of the labour force as being both directly and indirectly employed in agriculture. I reiterate those figures to demonstrate yet again for this Government that agriculture, in terms of employment contribution to GNP, output and exports is outstandingly our most important industry. I apologise for having to re-emphasise this point, but this Labour-Fine Gael Coalition do not seem to realise the significance of agriculture.
There are two aspects of this importance. First, if agriculture is in a weakened condition then, naturally, it has most serious repercussions for the whole economy. The well-being of agriculture is even more critical to the prosperity of our economy than some industrial sectors, say, even the building, textile or footwear industries, despite the fact that those industries are experiencing problems also at present. Secondly, because of the employment significance of agriculture, it is distressing to note that this cardinal industry received such little mention at the recent Labour Party conference in Galway. In this context it is not surprising that the farmer has no confidence whatsoever in the commitment of this Labour-Fine Gael Government to agriculture.
Previously I criticised this Government for being socialist-dominated, urban-orientated, city-based and, indeed, trade union-controlled. I believe that those criticisms are fully justified, certainly judging by the time given to agriculture at the recent Labour Party conference.
In reviewing the unfortunate events in agriculture since the Adjournment debate last July, one must come to the conclusion that, in terms of farm incomes, the situation has deteriorated considerably. In July economists were predicting a 10 per cent reduction in farm incomes for 1974. However, various informed sources now suggest that the drop in farm incomes will be of the order of 20 per cent. Of course, this will be true especially of the small farmer engaged in beef production. In mentioning a figure of a 20 per cent drop in incomes one must appreciate that this is taking place in a year in which we have experienced rampant inflation. Indeed, the August cost of living index suggested that inflation was running at the level of 18 per cent per annum and various estimates suggest now that the figure may be 22 per cent by the end of this year. If this happens— and we have no reason to believe that the Government can do anything to prevent it happening—there will be a resulting net loss of farm incomes of the order of 40 to 45 per cent. Although the majority of the Government members are city based, it would not require a great deal of intelligence for them to appreciate that this drop in incomes would spell absolute disaster for Irish farmers and for the agriculture industry generally. As some of my colleagues have stated, other industries such as the building, textile and footwear industries are in financial difficulties, I submit that of all these sensitive industries, agriculture is in the worst financial position by far.
During the past year Irish agriculture has been brought to its knees. There is permeating the whole industry a crisis of confidence particularly at farm level. I expect that the figure I have given of 40 to 45 per cent of a drop in incomes will be queried by the Government but I have no doubt that this drop will result in the relation of farm and non-farm incomes being back to the pre-EEC levels of 1970. At that time farm incomes were very much behind industrial incomes but the imbalance was redressed to a great extent during 1972-73. This was due to the good efforts of Fianna Fáil on behalf of Irish agriculture during our EEC negotiations.
Industrial workers will have a guaranteed increase in income during 1974 because of the national wage agreement. It is easy to understand the lack of confidence and the sense of frustration of the farmers when they view their situation vis-à-vis industrial workers, when they realise how their incomes are being eroded because of the mismanagement of this Labour-Fine Gael Government.
Whatever may be the income situation at present one can be definite in predicting that matters will become worse during the coming months because of the severe problems of the cattle industry, problems which are compounded by the shortage of winter feed. On the question of winter feed, perhaps the speaker from the Government side who will be dealing with agriculture during this debate will tell us what action the Government are taking to prevent the illegal export of much needed and very scarce fodder from the Republic to Northern Ireland.
Under existing legislation this practice cannot be stopped. We were so informed when, three weeks ago, we inquired as to the position.
It is not my wish to be a prophet of doom but I must point out to the Government that the coming winter will pose for Irish farmers the most difficult problems that they have had to face since the 1930s. Of all aspects of the industry, the beef and cattle section is the one that is in the greatest difficulty. Unfortunately for the economic well being of this country, this sector, in terms of agriculture, is the most important in so far as output and exports are concerned.
Among the problems in the beef sector which come within the ambit of Government activity I would mention the recent agreement between the Minister and the meat factories to have an agreed price for slaughtered cattle. This is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. The agreed price is too low. This means that the meat factories are pocketing money which should be passed to the primary producers.
Hear, hear.
I pause purposely so as to allow Deputy L'Estrange to tell me what action the Government are taking to deal with this situation.
The Minister is taking all the action possible.
Nonsense.
Each Deputy has only a limited amount of time and should be allowed that time.
The agreed price for this month of 27p per lb should be in the order of 30p per lb. This low price has eroded further farmers' confidence in the meat factories and in the whole meat industry. Also, the slaughter premiums are not being passed on by the meat factories. During the recess I and other members of my party recommended to the Minister that these premiums should be paid at the marts directly to the farmers as is the case in the UK. Once again, however, the Minister ignored my advice, at least in the short-term but as with Fianna Fáil recommendations on such items as the green £ and the cessation of beef imports into the EEC, perhaps the Minister will introduce this measure belatedly but, again, when it is too late although that would not deter him having the effrontery to claim credit for it. One is tempted to quip that if we are having Government it is Government by tail wind.
The Minister and his Department are to be criticised, too, for not extending the premiums to include cattle exports. That they should do so was laid down in an EEC regulation of July last. Because of the non-implementation of that regulation exporters of live cattle are being deprived of £21.94 per head for cattle. This imposes on them a very serious financial burden.
Members of the Irish Livestock Exporters Association estimate conservatively that about 15,000 more cattle would have been exported if this scheme had been put into operation in August last by the Labour-Fine Gael Government. Perhaps Fine Gael might have the will to do so but when we have Government by tail wind—the tail in this instance being the Labour Party—they are not allowed to do so. We have heard much from the Taoiseach in relation to adhering to EEC regulations. This is an example of where doing so would be to the economic advantage of the very depressed Irish cattle export trade but the Government's failure in this regard leads one to ask if they are trying to have it both ways.
The low interest loan scheme which was introduced recently and which is of a short-term nature has given no real relief to the store cattle producers. This has been borne out during the past week-end when one farming organisation which is in very close touch with the small farmers— the people whom they represent— recommended that this loan scheme be abolished, that the Government buy these cattle and dispose of them in some manner. In this context I would suggest to the Minister that he and some of his departmental officials might consider taking a trip to County Monaghan where the Lough Egish Co-Operative Society have been engaged in contract rearing of young animals on behalf of the farmers. If they took this trip they might learn something useful. Perhaps positive and constructive schemes such as this would be much more readily accepted by farmers in their hour of crisis.
In opening this debate the Taoiseach referred to the Herculean efforts of the Labour-Fine Gael Government in introducing measures within the framework of the common agricultural policy to alleviate the adverse situation that has prevailed in the cattle and beef sectors. I should like to examine this statement in some detail.
If one looks at the cattle and beef sectors one can establish that such measures as the slaughter premiums and the banning of imports from third countries were introduced by the Community only in mid-July, 1974. This step was much too late in terms of restoring market balance within the meat sector in the EEC and, secondly, and this is an important point, it mainly resulted from pressure on the Minister and the Government from elements within Irish agriculture—in particular I am thinking of the farming organisations—and my own party which had been advocating these steps long before they were implemented at EEC level.
This delay had serious repercussions on those directly involved. It looks as though their plight will be much worse than what many anticipated it would be. Certainly so far it appears that this Labour-Fine Gael Government have no sympathy for these people, have no solace to offer them— and they give the impression that everything is all right—because there is no organised effort or cry on their behalf. These people, as many rural Deputies know, are in serious difficulty and unless drastic action is taken immediately many of them will be destroyed.
It is fair to say that the majority of the people are prepared to see to it that every help and succour is given to the small farmers. The people said loudly and clearly at every opportunity that they rejected the Mansholt Plan and would fight it to the end. Are we now to have a Minister, with a Government supporting him, who will wipe out the small farmers when Mansholt could not do it and would not be allowed to do it? If this happens let those responsible know they will be the Cromwells of the 20th century, that they will do more harm to rural Ireland than Cromwell did in the 17th century.
Another area of Irish agriculture in dire straits at the moment is the pig industry. In this case the Government cannot disown responsibility for the situation. It is well established that the main reason for the current shortage of Irish pigmeat in a favourable market situation is due to the disastrous advice given by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries last spring when he said Irish farmers should get out of pigs. As soon as he had given that advice, both he and the Department claimed it was not said. However his comments were extensively quoted in the Press and much as he would like to forget the advice he cannot do so.
In this connection I am reminded of the Minister's most recent advice on his return from his last trip to Brussels when he recommended farmers to get out of beef and get into sugar beet. If the farmers are foolish enough to follow this ministerial advice, next year we will find ourselves in a situation where we have a surplus of sugar and a shortage of beef. However it is consoling to know the Irish farmers will not do this because their fingers were burned when they followed the advice of the Minister to get out of the pigs. As a footnote to the advice of the Minister to the pig industry, when he was telling the farmers to do this the Pigs and Bacon Commission were telling them to get into the pig industry because of the upturn in the British market and higher prices.
There are many other areas where the performance in agriculture of the Labour-Fine Gael Government has been substandard. In previous comments I have referred to the many plans the Government had when in Opposition, plans which they said they would implement as soon as they were voted into office. Perhaps the most crucial of these plans—I smile because of the presence of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, but I have not the time to talk about the responsibilities of the Minister—pertain to the reorganisation of the advisory services. While this reorganisation has always been important because of the role played by agricultural advisers in helping farmers, it has become even more critical today because of the promulgation and implementation of the EEC Farm Modernisation scheme. We know the Minister was extremely embarrassed by the fact that the advisory officers refused to implement this scheme from January until May because of long-standing grievances in connection with salaries and promotion prospects they had with the Minister and his Department. It is now the end of October but we have heard nothing about reorganisation of the advisory services, a reorganisation that is all the more important now because of the EEC directives pertaining to advisory work which include also the establishment of socioeconomic advisory functions. Reports we read in the Press suggest the reorganisation of the advisory services is not even around the corner, that, in fact, it is daily disappearing into the future.
We campaigned for them in Mayo.
We have reports from members of county committees of agriculture that committees are so badly off that they are not able to pay for the services of the advisory officers. Deputy Calleary has mentioned the case of the County Mayo Committee of Agriculture. Whatever about this row within the Government between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to settling their differences about the role of the advisory services——
What nonsense.
With all due respect to the Minister, I do not think he is the best man to speak in this area.
I am sorry for interrupting.
I accept the Minister's apology. I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that this is not good enough and the well-being and future development of agriculture necessitate a speedy announcement of his ideas in this area and a getting on with the work. For God's sake, will he stop dragging his feet?
With reference to the Taoiseach's comments when opening the debate, the Taoiseach referred to the desirability of Ireland entering the European Economic Community because of the benefits to be derived from a particular agricultural system and from the European markets evening out fluctuations and guaranteeing proper incomes to farmers. He said that these objectives— high prices and guaranteed market access stemming from a common agricultural policy— are why Fianna Fáil recommended to the people that we should join the EEC. I agree with the Taoiseach and I maintain that these reasons are as valid today as they were in 1972. Nobody in Fianna Fáil disagrees with these sentiments. But we disagree with the delay in implementing specific steps grudgingly introduced by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. If there is one thing for which the latter may take credit it is his ability to close the stable door after the horse has gone.
The Taoiseach referred to the desirability of acting in accordance with the decisions reached in common in the European Economic Community. He said:
There will be times when this course 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 in the participation of the common agricultural policy.
He then disagrees with comments made by me and others in Fianna Fáil that, in the context of a crisis situation, the Irish Government may have to take unilateral action. Such unilateral action—I would like to point this out for the benefit of the Taoiseach and the members of his Government—was taken by every other member of the European Economic Community when their communities were faced with crisis. I have said on more than one occasion that I do not agree with any deviation from EEC regulations, but I believe that unilateral action may have to be taken if necessity demands it. Such action would have to be taken where a crisis existed. The Taoiseach said that aligning ourselves with European Economic Community policy was the main reason why the Irish Government were successful in getting the green £. He said they were able to show they were not resorting to national measures and what they were seeking was a Community solution. If one takes the Taoiseach at face value, then I am afraid he is open to very grave charges of inconsistency. The Government have been inconsistent in that they have not followed some of the club rules. They have not introduced slaughter premiums on cattle exported from this country. The EEC regulations state that these premiums should be paid by the country from which the animals were originally sent. Here is a case where the Government have not followed EEC regulations and have thereby deprived our exporters of a financial contribution of almost £22 per head of cattle. It would be very interesting to know why the Government did not follow this regulation. Perhaps it was because they did not have the money to pay these premiums.
I should like now to refer to the implementation of the disadvantaged areas scheme. This is most important. Twice in the last Dáil session through the medium of questions and on the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate last July I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what progress was being made in drawing up a list of disadvantaged areas within the terms of the EEC scheme. On each occasion I was given totally unsatisfactory replies by the Minister.
On another occasion I was subjected to a fantastic lesson in stonewalling by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary who was seemingly at pains to understand what was involved. There still seems to be no progress whatsoever by this Labour-Fine Gael Government from the point of view of the submission of a list of disadvantaged areas. The Commissioner, M. Lardinois, has stated that the Community's hands are tied until it receives a list of these areas from member states. I asked that somebody would explain what the difficulties are in drawing up a list of disadvantaged areas when any child of primary school level could do it. Indeed, it would be quite fair to suggest that the whole country would qualify under the disadvantaged areas scheme.
If the Minister and his colleagues are having problems in making their submissions—possibly the problems are politically motivated—it is the people, particularly those in the small farms in the west and south-west, who are suffering as a result of Government inaction in this field. It is common knowledge that the Germans have introduced their own system of national aid and have argued successfully that it is in line with the EEC disadvantaged areas scheme and subject to approval, therefore, once the European Economic Community itself has introduced the scheme.
I would suggest to the Taoiseach and his Government that this is one glaring example of where the Coalition have once again failed to do their duty at EEC level by forcing the implementation of a scheme of paramount importance to Ireland. I referred earlier to the acute problems facing the small farmer engaged in store cattle rearing. Many of these farmers are located in the west. The west is obviously a disadvantaged area. It will be faced with the severest cattle feeding problems this winter. Had the disadvantaged area scheme been implemented it is conceivable that the farmers in the west would now be receiving FEOGA aid to tide them over a winter which will present them with quite horrific problems.
In commenting on EEC regulations I must put myself in total opposition to the Taoiseach and ask him to explain why the Government have not taken action in areas which involve no breaking whatsoever of EEC regulations, action which would be of potential value to Irish farming and agriculture.
In his comments at the start of this debate the Taoiseach pointed to the successes of his Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I am afraid I must conclude from the fact that the Taoiseach felt obliged to support this Minister that the public image of that Minister is low and requires propping up at the highest level. It is interesting to note the other Ministers he decided to support and name; the Minister for Education whom the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and his Labour Party colleagues in Government refused to defend at the Labour Party conference in Galway, the Minister for Local Government who is making a complete shambles of the building industry, and the Minister for Health. The Taoiseach mentioned those Ministers in an effort to help them in the public eye.
When the Taoiseach was trying to itemise the successes of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries he talked about 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. I should like to ask the Taoiseach and the Minister in what way the Labour-Fine Gael Government have catered for the smaller farmers in the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme under the EEC directive. It is now well known, recognised and accepted that the small farmers are in no way catered for by the current farm modernisation scheme and that, in fact, there are no plans for these transitional or small farmers after 1977. I should like the Taoiseach or his Minister to tell the 100,000 plus transitional or small farmers what special plans this Labour-Fine Gael Government have for them after 1977, assuming this Government will be in office then—I sincerely hope they will not.
In this context I would suggest to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that an easy method of catering for the needs of the small farmers would be the speedy implementation of the disadvantaged areas scheme. As I said earlier, we are still awaiting action from the Government on this scheme which could hold out so much hope and financial support for Irish farmers. The Taoiseach said they also intend to implement the EEC scheme for hill and less favoured areas as soon as agreement can be reached in Brussels. We on this side of the House would like to be satisfied that the Government have done the necessary preliminary work so that agreement on this can be reached in Brussels. We should like to know, and we want to know, what plans are being submitted or what progress has been made in the preparation of these plans.
I should like to refer to the issue of the green £. The Taoiseach referred to the Government having the situation reassessed after April last and deciding that the benefits to be gained justified seeking the implementation of the green £. I suggest that it was not a question of the Government reassessing the situation but rather of the Government being forced to reassess the situation because of pressures from the farming organisations and from Fianna Fáil. Many times last spring I and some of my colleagues supported the concept of a green £. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the Labour-Fine Gael Government delayed seeking its issue until July even though implementation of this move would have been much speedier in the spring when the physical climate was much more favourable.
The implementation of the green £ in September, at the latter part of the year, means that Irish agriculture has lost most of the advantages which will flow from it. Concomitantly it will experience all the disadvantages. One of the disadvantages I am thinking of is higher consumer prices which have already taken effect. For example, as we know, the price of butter has gone up by 5½ per lb and I am sure this will have unfortunate implications for butter consumption. On the other hand, milk price increases will have little significance for the Irish dairy farmer at this time of the year when milk production is almost at a standstill. The dairy farmer will not really benefit from the devaluation of the agricultural £ until next April and May when grass is available and he has the first milk of the new year.
Under the heading of beef, as I have already said, the farmer is not getting a proper price at the meat factories. Despite everything Deputy L'Estrange says, the Minister must take responsibility for this in not being able to bring pressure on the meat factories to pass back the full intervention increases arising from the green £. Earlier in the summer I recommended to the Minister, in the context of the meat factories not paying slaughter premiums, that he should take stricter action. After all, he is the ultimate licensing authority for these factories. It is of little consolation to farmers to know that the Minister is advising the meat factories to pass back the extra 5p per lb emanating from the green £ step. Surely the Minister must realise at this late stage that his advice is falling on deaf ears. If the Minister used the powers given to him as the licensing authority, I am sure he could bring far more pressure to bear on the meat factories, with a higher price return to the primary producer and, by doing so, enhance confidence in Irish beef farming and in Irish agriculture generally.
Under the heading of sugar beet— something I am sure we will be hearing a lot about over the next ten or 12 days in Cork—the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may feel elated at his apparent success at EEC level in increasing the Irish A quota from 150,000 to 180,000 tons and the B quota from 50,000 to 82,000. Furthermore, this B quota will have no production levies associated with it in 1975. Before the Minister smiles too much it should be said in all honesty that the main reason for the increase in the sugar quotas was an overall sugar shortage within the EEC rather than any dynamic representation by the Minister on behalf of the Irish sugar growers.
In summarising this Government's administration of Irish agriculture over the past year one would have to say that it has been characterised by the largest drop in farmers' incomes in living memory. I referred at the outset to the drop of about 20 per cent in the inflationary situation of up to 22 per cent. This overall drop of 40 to 45 per cent is absolutely scandalous and the Government stand condemned for allowing it to happen. It is ludicrous to think of the Government not taking action soon enough to safeguard the wellbeing and development of our most important industry. Because of the huge drop in farm incomes, because of an appreciation throughout the country that this Government have been forced to do many things rather than initiating them themselves, there is an even greater crisis of confidence in Irish agriculture at present than there was two months ago.
Without wishing to be too pessimistic I wish to say that this lack of confidence will even increase over the winter months because of the terrible winter feed prospects. We have almost 500,000 extra cattle on our farms and the winter feed situation is more acute this year than it was last year. I hope that some action, any action, to help those who are on their backs— not on their knees—crying out for help, will be taken. I hope their cries will not go unheeded.
Moving the vote of no confidence in the Government the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lynch, made some grave allegations about the Government's conduct of affairs in relation to Northern Ireland and he alleged that members of the Government, including myself, had made statements which had damaged the national interest and harmed our people. These are serious allegations, at least they sound serious, and we have a duty to answer them. Those who, like myself, were taken to task by the Leader of the Opposition owe the country an answer to the charges made against us. I shall try to make an answer. I hope a reasonably restrained one, to those charges. I hope we will not be accused of being divisive when we answer charges of this kind. If there is anything divisive here it is the inclusion by the Opposition of the question of Northern Ireland in the category of matters for which they call for a vote of no confidence in the Government. I will not take the attitude that that is divisive; on the contrary, it seems proper that a debate should be challenged on these issues and that they should be freely and openly debated here and not swept under the rug. In my view that is right and we are sometimes inclined to be unduly nervous about debating issues, including this issue, properly.
I intend to reply to one or two things that have been said. First, I should like to quote what Deputy Lynch said on 23rd October in opening this vote of no confidence, quoted at column 78 of the Official Report of that date and referring to the failure of the British Government to take action in relation to the Loyalist workers' 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.
That is a rather unfortunate illustration if the Leader of the Opposition is describing the conclusion, as he alleges, he was forced to come to. The Loyalist workers' strike took place on 10th May; my statement to the effect that I was not actively working for Irish unity in present circumstances was made in the course of a radio interview on 30th June. Therefore Deputy Lynch is attempting to tell us that something I said on 30th June affected an event which occurred six weeks before. Even by the standards on which the Opposition have conducted this debate so far that is rather below par.
What I said could not have affected the earlier event but the statement, frankly, is rather absurd. Even taking a favourable hypothesis, even changing the date to suit, supposing I said what I did say—I am not disputing what I said—at the very moment when the British Government were making this difficult choice, what are we supposed to think happened? We are seriously told that that statement contributed to this situation. The suggestion is that the tableau was that the British Government when they were considering what to do had the agonising choice, and it was an agonising choice, of whether to allow the strike to run or to intervene with the risk, and it was a risk, of heavy casualties. Then, according to Deputy Lynch, an element contributed to this —my statement which had not been made. The idea would be that members of the Cabinet had exposed their ideas on this matter; they had balanced this agonising choice and then somebody came with the message that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the Republic had said that he was not actively working for unity. The suggestion is that the members of the Cabinet then said: "My goodness, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not working for unity, then we call the whole thing off; we do not intervene." It is funny but it is sad that this debate on these very great and important issues, and with lives at stake, should be conducted at that level.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to quote, at very considerable length, Mr. Robert Fisk of The Times. I will not spend as much time on that as Deputy Lynch did. Mr. Fisk is a young journalist who lives in Belfast and comes down here occasionally on “The Enterprise”. I do not think he has spent many hours here. The Times used to have a correspondent in Dublin and one in Belfast and, in order to save money, decided to have one in Belfast only, Mr. Fisk. This correspondent comes down here occassionally, talks to a few people and he is now cited as a great authority on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition and former Taoiseach. I would much rather listen to what Deputy Lynch really thinks on these subjects than to hear him read out the views of Mr. Robert Fisk.
I should like to deal with something more serious, a good deal more serious, and it would need to be more serious than what we have heard from Deputy Lynch before on this subject. I should now like to quote what Deputy Lynch said, as reported at column 83 of the Official Report of 23rd October:
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.
They have been subsequently. Deputy Lynch continued:
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 is a piece of pure hyperbole coming from Deputy Lynch, who headed the Government from which four Ministers had to be removed. Deputy Lynch continued:
That a Minister, having acquired, in his capacity as a 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.
Those are very severe words but at least they are different from the rather silly stuff about my having caused the Loyalist strike by words that were uttered six weeks after that strike.
There are important issues involved. Is a person who may be deemed to have had access at a high level to confidential information about the state of the armed services thereby debarred from commenting on the estimated capacity of these forces to cope with a given situation? Even if people are suggesting courses based on wildly false estimates of these capabilities, is such a person never justified in refuting those suggestions by indicating that the estimates are wide of the mark?
Those views may be held. They might be argued with great force; they have been argued. But Deputy Lynch has abdicated any right to hold them or to pretend that he holds them. I have here before me a transcript of an interview with Deputy Jack Lynch on the "This Week" programme of RTE on 30th June, 1974. What I am about to read out is a broadcast statement and I hope I will not be taxed with putting something on the record which was not there before. This passage was broadcast by Deputy Lynch to an estimated audience of about 500,000 people on 30th June. The interviewer is Miss Olivia O'Leary, I am going to quote from this recording only that part which relates to what was called the doomsday situation to which my document referred. I shall read the whole of that part. The transcript is still available for the Press if they want it:
Olivia O'Leary: What if the very worst happens. What if there's a doomsday situation? It has been reported that the Coalition Government wouldn't be in favour in such a situation of sending troops over the border. Would a Fianna Fáil Government acting as 2nd guarantor to the Northern minority completely rule out the use of Irish troops across the border?
Mr. Lynch: We just don't have the resources. We haven't got sufficient troops. We haven't got sufficient arms and if there were such a situation I believe that we would have to seriously contemplate the engagement of United Nations forces because that is after all the purpose of the United Nations, to avoid conflict, to avoid crisis situations that would lead to conflict and I think the United Nations then would have a role to play if the British wanted to withdraw, if they declared there was a withdrawal they could no longer maintain the position they maintained of the United Nations Charter and we went to the United Nations in 1969-70 asking for some intervention. The British under the Charter said this is our territory, therefore we don't want a United Nation intervention. The United Nations were then obliged not to interfere. I think a contrary situation would apply if Britain did withdraw but, however, that is something that would have to be examined.
Olivia O'Leary: Would you force the issue by, for instance, taking over Border towns?
Mr. Lynch: That is a question I couldn't answer in the present circumstances.
But he went on to answer it:
I believe it would be a wrong policy by forcing the issue, taking over border towns. If we try to do that. Some people may have suggested that from time to time. We must remember that thousands of Catholics who are living in ghettos in Belfast surrounded by thousands of Protestants, many many more thousands of Protestants, loyalists, many of whom are known to have arms and I think it would be a very serious situation for these people in these ghettos. Anybody who would contemplate that would have to consider the consequences for these people in these isolated areas not only in Belfast but in other parts of the six counties.
That is all Deputy Lynch had to say in that interview on these subjects. But contrast that with what Deputy Lynch said about my statement, which was basically the same. He said, and I quote again:
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...
If my statement—circulated to 30 people, not 50—represents denigration of the capacity of the Army, what did Deputy Lynch's broadcast to 500,000 represent? If a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with no departmental responsibility for security is deemed to possess confidential information crucial to the safety and wellbeing of the nation, is it not clear that a Deputy who was Taoiseach for eight years would be felt to speak, and rightly, with far more authority on this subject? And if it is harmful that such things be said, which I deny but he has now asserted in this confidence debate, then it is far more harmful that they should be said by a former Taoiseach than by a present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
The fact is, and it is an unfortunate fact, that Deputy Lynch is sometimes realistic, and sometimes, I am afraid, goes in for humbug. It is his nemesis that when he goes in for humbug he cannot recall what he said or did in his realistic period. He has a dual-purpose memory.
When Deputy Lynch made his broadcast statement—and it was an honest broadcast statement and I respect his motives in making it; I believe they were, as is often and not always the case with him, motives of the highest character—he knew that he could rely on people on this side of the House not to twist his words, not to pretend we thought that he was betraying the minority in the North, not to pretend we thought he was denigrating our armed forces. He knew that we would realise he was trying to dispel illusions which could be harmful and dangerous both for people in the North, particularly the minority, and for people here. He knew he could rely on that absolutely. We, unfortunately, and that is the sad obverse of this coin, could have no such reliance. We have found that in practice, and we have been pilloried for saying no more than what he broadcast to this nation. When I say that, I mean that he broadcast to the whole people of this island, because there is no better way of being heard throughout this island than by sound broadcasting, by radio.
I would like to say a brief word about this charge against myself that I have disparaged our armed forces, and I would be very sad and sorry to do anything of the kind. I am one of the few Deputies, I believe, who have seen units of our Army under combat conditions in Elizabethsville, Katanga, 13 years ago, and I would be very sorry indeed to be thought to have disparaged the courage and ability of the officers and men who have nothing to fear in comparison with the troops of other nations represented there at that time. However, we are neither helping them nor adequately honouring them if we pretend they are equipped to carry out tasks for which they are not in fact equipped and for which it would be wrong to attempt to equip them. And that is what Deputy Lynch said in June, though not at the beginning of this debate.
I would like to leave the subject of what Deputy Lynch said—and others repeated it—and turn to the positive side of this Government's policy in relation to Northern Ireland. I believe that policy has been steady and clear, though never spectacular, never dramatic. It has been marked by a consistent emphasis on peace and reconciliation, by a recognition of a need to calm fears and to remove all traces of the stain left by the collusion between some members of the last Government and the Provisional IRA.
I should like to refer to the failure, we hope the temporary failure rather than a long-term one, of the Sunningdale arrangements, and to the future. We cannot plan properly for the future unless we begin to understand why the power-sharing Executive set up at Sunningdale collapsed and why we now have an even more bitter polarisation between the two communities than we had before. It is not enough just to say the Loyalists' strike, the British were not tough enough. That will not do. What did Sunningdale mean for the two communities? For the Catholics in Northern Ireland Sunningdale meant an immense but precarious advance, that of participation in power combined with a symbolic advance to a Council of Ireland. Many Protestants, perhaps about half initially, were prepared to go along, mostly reluctantly, with the idea of power-sharing at that time. Most of them disliked the idea of the Council of Ireland, virtually all of them disliked that idea if it were presented as a road to a united Ireland which they historically reject. But overwhelmingly what they hoped to get— the hope of those Protestants who supported Sunningdale for a time—was peace, and if they had got peace at that point the Sunningdale arrangements would almost certainly have continued to command the support of a majority in Northern Ireland made up of virtually the whole of the Catholic community and a sizeable slice of the Protestant community, and would, therefore, be working today.
However, public opinion here, I think, failed to realise how precarious the Sunningdale achievements were. The achievements were taken for granted and what was discussed at that time, if one cares to look back over the Press reports, was how to use them as a springboard for further advance. Much comment, far too much comment, was devoted to the presentation of the Council of Ireland as a step on the road to inevitable unity. People did not appreciate how far comment of that kind weakened the indispensable pillar of Sunningdale, the shaky pillar of support for it in the Protestant community. These responses weakened that pillar, weakened it only, but of course what really brought it crashing down was the discovery that Sunningdale did not after all mean peace. The continuance and even the escalation of the Provisional IRA campaign after Sunningdale, including the bombs in Royal Avenue, sent virtually the entire Protestant population over into the Loyalist camp. That was what made possible the Ulster Workers' Council strike, the success of that strike, and the destruction of the Executive. That was the pattern.
It is clear that in present conditions of polarisation following the reaction against Sunningdale, the withdrawal of British troops from the area would involve a disaster for a great many people but particularly for the minority in Northern Ireland. Deputy Lynch has recognised that our forces cannot protect them. He thinks the United Nations could do so. With all respect, I know rather more about the United Nations than he does and I do not share his optimism on that point. With all its drawbacks, I think direct rule is the least evil and least dangerous alternative open to us for some considerable time to come. Neither the British nor ourselves want the British troops to remain indefinitely. We want them out of Northern Ireland as soon as possible, that is to say as soon as their departure will be likely to be followed by peace on a basis of equal rights for members of the two communities and not by civil war.
That requires a significant, indeed a spectacular improvement in the present relations between the two communities. We must set ourselves to do what we can to bring about such an improvement. We must recognise that that is a long-term task, and the recognition that it is long-term is absolutely basic here.
How do we set about it? The lessons of Sunningdale suggest that it can best be done first of all by putting down those elements of the IRA conspiracy which operate within our State and which, from within it, helped the IRA in Northern Ireland to do the main work of smashing Sunningdale. Here, co-operation between the two security forces is necessary and is accepted unequivocally on this side of the House.
The second element is that we should make clear not just by a verbal declaration here and there but by the consistency of our conduct and the whole steady tone of our language that we have no desire to incorporate Northern Ireland against the wishes of the majority of its people. We believe that a new constitution, without the existing Articles 2 and 3, would help, but we should like to get that change with the greatest possible public support behind it. The object of orienting our policy towards reconciliation is not, of course, in hopes of converting the Paisleys and the Craigs, though that twist is put on it. On the contrary, it is to bring home to those Protestants who now support such leaders only because they feel under the pressure of a siege that no such siege exists. That is a message that cannot be effectively conveyed as long as the Provisional IRA campaign continues.
There have been calls from the other side of the House repeatedly for positive initiatives, positive action. These demands have become clichés. They do not attempt to specify what the positive initiatives, the positive actions, should be. They do not publicly recognise that gimmicks will not help here, that this is a slow process, that the present choice is pretty well between continuance of direct rule and the danger of withdrawal and civil war. I have not time to go into all that here, but the room for manoeuvre is not great. There are no gimmicks, no little tricks that can be pulled. It is a question not so much of re-building confidence but of building it. If that confidence is to be won and held, thereby creating preconditions for the withdrawal of British troops, then a firm base of public opinion here in the Republic must also be laid for such a policy.
That requires public discussion of the issues and I am glad that this debate gave a further opportunity for that. I hope there will be still further opportunities. It requires readiness from members of the Government to participate in such discussions. That involves the risk of misrepresentation and distortion, of claims that the Government are speaking with different voices. Of course we speak with different voices in so far as we are different human beings, and we are human beings with different temperaments, with a variety of experience and vocabularies. This Government can nonetheless allow their members to speak with such freedom on this subject because they know their members to be animated throughout by a common spirit of purpose in relation to the very grave dangers that threaten all the people of Northern Ireland and less imminently but no less really all the people of Ireland.
I believe Deputy Lynch could do an enormous amount, more than any other human being living in Ireland now, if he threw his weight behind the long-term effort of re-building confidence and if he refrained from letting what I might call the lower political side of his nature take over. He has it in him to do that. If he does it I see a better future for this island. If he does not do it we shall just have to do the best we can.
I listened patiently to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien who has not enlightened us very much in relation to the positive type of action the Government will take——
It is hard to enlighten you, Joe.
——in order to bring about some relief in the desperate situation that faces this country. This poor martyr, who devoted most of his speech to telling us about the attacks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and other people— he is sensitive to attacks——
Not particularly.
——he spent a considerable time trying to justify some of his speeches in recent times. These will be dealt with by other speakers on this side. At least we hope that every member of the Government will make some contribution as to the positive action they propose to take to relieve the plight of our people. This is a confidence motion and when the Government asked for a vote of fidence in themselves in regard to what they have been doing and what they have indicated they will do to arrest and to correct the economic situation. The Taoiseach and his Ministers are deeply divided on a wide range of highly important questions, so much so that it has become a national joke—matters as vital as Northern Ireland, the Constitution, contraception and the role of the Army.
People are being asked to believe one thing and then another. We have speeches from unofficial spokesmen countered by Press releases by official spokesmen. There are Government sponsored Bills which are voted against by members of the Government. There are leaks from both the official and unofficial sections of the Government. There are off-the-cuff statements by Ministers that are explained by departmental spokesmen as having no significance. This is the type of Government the country is in the hands of at the moment. The nation is being managed by a variety of contradictions from time to time, a variety of leaks and a variety of kites that have been flown. It is very hard to know which way the wind is blowing. The wind is not very favourable to the Government if this is what is meant by open Government and where we have off-the-cuff statements described as having no significance and unofficial spokesman countering official spokesmen and vice versa.
Where do we go from here? What confidence can the people have in this type of Government? The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is one of the people I referred to in my opening remarks. Despite all these disagreements members of the Coalition Government have a remarkable unity on one particular question. They all agree the country is experiencing the worst possible crisis since the previous Government left office. We have heard nothing from any Government spokesman up to now which would indicate the type of positive action they propose to take in order to ensure that this situation is reversed where it can be. We may debate endlessly about the degree to which the crisis is home produced or produced from abroad. It really does not matter in the long run whether it is home produced, the result of the oil crisis or world recession. We are really concerned in this vote of confidence debate with the incompetence of the Government. The vote at the end of this debate will be on that question not on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs defending himself against the attacks that have been made on him from time to time. We are really concerned with the plans of the Government to get us over this crisis and how we will take advantage of the situation when it ends. We must be prepared in the long term to take advantage of the situation after it ends.
I ask the remaining spokesmen for the Government to tell us in clear terms what Government policy is in relation to the unemployed, price increases and the many other problems which face us at the moment. No Minister indicated what Government policy is except Deputy Keating the other night.
Ministers should be referred to as Ministers.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce compared us with two countries, un-named, with like problems. This is the only case where comparisons were made. We hope, before the debate ends, that we will get some indication where we are going. We want to know what the Government want us to vote confidence in. Is it a fact that we have over 100,000 unemployed at the moment? The workers—I am mainly concerned with them—enjoyed very high standards under Fianna Fáil down the years and no doubt they will find it very difficult to adjust themselves to lower living standards. We are well aware of the high standards which were obtained for workers under Fianna Fáil and which still could be obtained under proper management. The Fianna Fáil Party realise they will be called on again to do the same type of clean-up operation after the next election which they had to do after the two previous Coalitions. When that time comes we will be ready to take over and ensure the mess is once again cleared up however difficult it may be and however long more this Government allow the situation to continue.
Have the Government got a doomsday document on unemployment? Have they got one on rising prices? They seem to excel in this particular field. We did not hear about a doomsday document on the two important issues which confront the nation at the moment. If they are not prepared to give the House an indication of their policy in relation to unemployment—they do not very often give the House indications of policy—I suggest they should at an early stage give some leak to the Press what they intend to do. It is obvious they do not want to disclose their hand in the course of this debate because it might embarrass too many of their backbenchers in the division lobbies. I am sure that when this debate ends there will be a leak to the Press. I heard a woman saying, in relation to these leaks, that it is nearly time the Government called in a plumber because it is a major operation which the people face to try to decipher which leak is official, which is responsible and which is the official word of the Government.
Our main aim should be to get people back to work, to ensure that people are placed in employment, that they can earn a livelihood so that they can meet rising costs. The Irish Times of the 29th November stated that the level of unemployment stood at 79,596 on a seasonally adjusted basis in September.
What date is this?
29th October, 1974. This figure was produced by the ESRI, a fairly responsible organisation. They indicate that they expected during the cold, hard winter facing this nation that this figure would rise to 90,000. We must take into consideration that the Central Statistics Office indicated recently that the number of people unemployed was 71,561 and the ESRI indicated in their research that this figure is 79,596. If we are to take the position now and compare it with the position when Fianna Fáil left office, this means that with the 25,000 people who would be regarded as unemployed, who have now been erased from the live register because of the reduction in the pension age from 70 to 68, the figure would reach something like 104,596.
But this figure is being carefully concealed just as are the figures supplied by the Government Information Services and the ESRI who have done vast research and have come up with a figure of 9,000 more than the Statistics Office. The 104,000 is quite an unreal figure when everything is considered. It does not include professional people who have lost employment just as have those who claim unemployment benefit and those referred to in the document of the Statistics Office. The register is completely inaccurate. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who indicated that he really did not know how many were unemployed when I questioned him the other day. I want to say to him that there are far more unemployed than the numbers given by the Government Information Services and by the Parliamentary Secretary when he answered my question on 23rd October.
There are also redundant personnel who are being retrained, who are not regarded as unemployed but they are in fact people who have lost their jobs. Also, we have self-employed people who have lost jobs and they do not appear on the register either. We also have semi-professional people, technicians and other groups for whom there is no classification but who have all lost employment in recent times. The number of unemployed is fairly substantially in excess of 100,000 if we take the entire situation to which I referred earlier.
This is an appalling figure. On the last occasion the Government left office when the figure reached 100,000 unemployed. It is now well over that figure because the figures produced here refer merely to those receiving benefit of one kind or another. This terrible situation must be rectified some time. We hope some Minister will indicate some concern for those who are unemployed. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had no single thought for the unemployed. I can understand his lack of regard and that of other Ministers who have spoken, for the unemployed. It is nothing new; it is a story we had on many occasions before. We wonder when they will leave office this time. Will they disappear in the middle of the night as they did when 100,000 were unemployed on a previous occasion? Will they have to be forced out of office? Backbench members of the Labour and Fine Gael parties are now being asked to vote confidence in a Government that has produced over 100,000 unemployed, apart from other factors affecting workers.
The number on short-time working is a big factor also as regards loss of earnings. There are a number of factories on a four-day week and their employees are not included on the register even though there is a loss of earnings. If we add those on short-time to those who are unemployed, do the Government expect a vote of confidence for this kind of activity? They have shown callous disregard for the situation by some of their Ministers not even mentioning it. The main concern was: "He attacked me; I am the martyr." The people who are being pushed out of employment by deliberate Government policy are the real martyrs. I shall come to that later in dealing with the building industry.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said there was no guarantee that the position would improve. He explained that the problems now confronting us would possibly take 18 months to solve or even longer. Like the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs he felt that the Opposition should be mute and should not question the Government. While they got away with that at the "speak easy" in Galway they will not get away with it here. Members of this party will freely give their views on the many problems confronting us if the Government do not want to do so. Again, it is the backbenchers who will be asked to go into the lobbies to support the 104,000 unemployed. I should like to know how many Labour backbenchers will be trooping in to support a policy of unemployment.
The building industry has been mentioned here on many occasions and we know the terrible state in which it is. We know that this industry generates employment particularly in cities where large scale housing programmes were under way to meet the demand from people who required new homes as a result of the prosperity developed by the Fianna Fáil Government. Do the Government want to teach a lesson to those wishing to purchase their own homes for which no money is available and is this why the industry has ground to a halt? This industry must necessarily be restored to its former viable position so as to get the wheels of industry moving. There is no indication today from the Minister for Local Government or any other Minister that an effort would be made to get the building industry moving again so that its generating force could help many other industries and so bring many workers back into employment. Builders' providers have had to make substantial lay-offs or reduce working hours. Those in the sand and gravel industry, in timber mills and workshops providing articles for houses, such as windows and doors, have been affected. In to-night's paper we see that the receiver has been called in in the case of a large builder. It says that McInerney Properties Ltd. have announced big losses with over 700 jobs axed while the receiver began examining the future of another big firm, Murphy Brothers of Dublin. This is the terrible situation. The workers want to know: who is next? They do not know who is next for the labour exchange.
I should be grateful if the Deputy would seek to avoid making any reference to persons, institutions or businesses outside the House.
I am merely referring to the fact that 700 people have become redundant in one firm. If the backbenchers of the Labour Party are not concerned about 700 redundancies, I am. I realise that the Labour Party backbenchers are not concerned with the 700 or with the over 100,000 people unemployed. They do not want them spoken about here. There is a real and positive need to ensure that the wheels of industry are moving again and that we can get our people back to work. That must be the main aim of the Government. They must increase purchasing power and ensure that workers can afford the necessities of life because, at the moment, many of them cannot do so. As redundancies and unemployment mount, backbenchers will troop into the division lobby to support this policy——
The firm mentioned by the Deputy is out of the running——
Order please.
The Minister for Labour made an apologetic speech today. He seemed to think that the updating of legislation and benefits were not his job. Every step forward in relation to the updating of legislation and benefits is most important and is his job. He can claim no credit for the fall in the purchasing power of money and the problems facing those who are redundant and unemployed. The increases given by the Government are too small to meet the existing situation. Deputy M. O'Leary went on to tell us about the wonderful work he has done.
The Minister for Labour.
I will now deal with the Department of Labour in some depth. There has not been any real criticism of the Department in recent times because nobody cares. It does not count any longer. Nobody is anti-Department; they simply ignore it. This is a serious situation. The Minister has shown no involvement whatever. His main concern, as that of other Ministers has been to protect his personal image, which has been declining for the past 18 months.
This Department should at all times take the work force forward. The workers are concerned about the rise in unemployment. They ask themselves who will be next. What protection will they get? Not a word from the Minister. If he were in Opposition he would have a cure for all ills, from bald heads to bunions, but now that he is in Government he is silent. The people have no confidence in him or the Department. The Government should take another look at this situation.
Workers' rights and problems must be safeguarded. This lack of confidence is to some degree because the workers are losing heart. People who meet workers' wives are aware of the strain under which they are living. They are concerned about the rise in unemployment. Will their husbands, daughters or sons be the next to go? Deputy O'Leary in "Leisureland" was a much different man from the one we heard in Dáil Éireann today.
The Minister for Labour.
He was very vocal. He spoke about bringing the workers forward and seeking more enthusiasm from the members of the Labour Party for industrial democracy. The Fianna Fáil Party have been urging the introduction of industrial democracy for some time. We hope that the Minister and the Government will introduce, as soon as possible, some form of industrial democracy which will give workers some say in decision-making.
We will not wait until the members of the Labour Party make up their minds or until the Minister can induce them to become more enthusiastic about the problem. Because they are not enthusiastic does not mean that the majority of the workers who do not support the Labour Party should be deprived of participation. A vast number of trade unionists are not members of the Labour Party. Why should they be deprived of this important step forward? We heard much about worker participation in the past but very little since the Coalition came into office. Deputy O'Leary has been the greatest failure——
The Minister for Labour.
——of any Minister of Government. Let us now deal with some of the problems which confront him and the legislation he indicated he would enact.
The Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill had its First Reading on the 1st March and its Second Reading on 24th April and 7th May. At column 77, Volume 272 of the Official Report, when speaking on that Bill he said :
...and yet it is this type of legislation which represents the most important things we can do to improve industrial relations today.
This is what Deputy O'Leary said and I agree with him.
The Minister for Labour.
On 24th April he ordered the Committee Stage for 7th May, 1974. This is the end of October and the Bill has not yet come before the House. These are the tactics in which the Minister has been indulging over the years. He tells us that this was the most important legislation in the interests of the worker to come before the House. It was agreed that it would be taken in May but we are still waiting. I am sure it will not appear before us in this session or, possibly, the next session. One can see from this that the Minister is a failure and a bluffer. He bluffed his way through this Bill, as he has done on other occasions.
In July, 1973, he introduced the Conditions of Employment (Pay) Bill, 1973. This was to be the be-all and the end-all for the assistance of females on the basis of equal pay for work of equal value. What happened? In February, 1974, he withdrew that Bill and brought in another one—the same type but with a different name: the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill. This was finally accepted by the House on 1st July, 1974. The question of equal pay for work of equal value had been a national aim of Governments before Deputy O'Leary took office.
The Minister for Labour.
In other words, it took two attempts to get the Bill before the House. This is the most defective Bill ever to come before the House. It is criticised by Congress and by anybody who has studied it in depth because, while the Bill advocates equal pay for work of equal value, it also leaves the way open for unscrupulous employers to dismiss people who apply for equal pay with no means of having them re-instated in their employment. Therefore, we have a Bill the Minister for Labour tells us is one of the greatest documents he has presented to this House—which gives the employer the right to dismiss a person for seeking the benefits enshrined in it. That is a disaster from the workers point of view, male or female. This is the type of legislation that Deputy O'Leary tells this House——
The Minister for Labour.
——the Minister for Labour—is to satisfy the gang down in Leisureland so that they will speak softly. But it is not the type of Bill we would present to this House or with which we would be satisfied. One can readily understand the anxiety of Congress and of workers about this Bill. When questioned about it, the Minister for Labour said he would introduce another Unfair Dismissals Act in order to improve on and correct the failures of the other legislation he introduced in the House. It would be far better if Deputy O'Leary took——
The Minister for Labour, please, Deputy.
——took more time and gave more consideration to legislation affecting the lives of so many workers; if he took more time to ensure that particular avenues, through which unscrupulous employers could dismiss people because they sought what they believed to be their rights, were sealed off.
The Minister for Labour continued to tell us about the wonderful legislation he is producing—for instance, the Bank Bill, under which the banker could not be jailed but the cleaner could be jailed. Is that the type of Bill to which he refers as being perfect legislation, that the door man could but the banker could not be jailed?
The Deputy seems to be going into details of administration which would be more appropriate to the Bill to which he refers.
That is right. This is a debate on confidence in the Government.
This is a debate on major aspects of Government policy.
It is a very major aspect.
Would the Deputy please allow the Chair to comment? This is a debate on major aspects of Government policy. I would hope the Deputy would not go into details of administration. He will have an opportunity of referring to those matters when the debate on that Bill resumes.
This is a question of a vote of confidence or of no confidence in the Government—whichever way one likes to put it—in their actions, in the legislation they produce in this House. It is very important that the rights of workers be protected and, where there is defective legislation, that it be pointed out in this debate so that no further defective legislation will be introduced or workers victimised as a result of the fumblings of the Minister for Labour and of other people.
The Minister for Labour went on to speak about worker-participation. We want to know why no legislation has been introduced on this matter. All the other European countries have such legislation. The Minister mentioned the question of annual leave. The Minister is under an obligation to enact legislation here and he has failed to do so. He is far behind the other European countries in relation to our commitments to the EEC and its social policy. The Minister should have laid a mass of information before this House on the question of the protection of the rights of workers within this larger Community. But the Minister has failed miserably to produce the legislation which is both necessary and desirable and which he has an obligation to produce.
There is no credit due to him either for the Anti-Discrimination Pay Bill because the basis for that Bill had been outlined in the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women. The Bill had been prepared already and he merely presented it to the House.
On the question of the 40-hour week and the four weeks' annual leave, this is part of the EEC demand for better working conditions for personnel within the Community. The Minister for Labour can claim no credit for that Bill either. Deputy O'Leary should have introduced far more Bills of that kind.
The Minister for Labour.
Apparently I do not refer to the Deputy as the Minister for Labour sufficiently but the fact that he has such disregard for Labour is possibly one of the reasons why I omit to do so.
There are other documents, such as the proposal for harmonisation of legislation of member states relating to mass dismissals. We shall probably hear something about that in the near future as being the brainchild of the Minister for Labour. There is the question of legislation of member states in relation to the retention of rights and advantages of employees in the case of take-overs, mergers and amalgamations. I wonder when the Minister will get around to dealing with that. He has all the information available in his office. Then there is the creation of laws in relation to equal pay. He has done that but Deputy O'Leary was under an obligation to introduce that legislation.
I am sorry to be interrupting the Deputy continually but it is a Standing Order that the Chair is obliged to impose—that the Members of this House be referred to by their title or office, as the case may be.
I want to refer further to the Minister for Labour and to the great volume of industrial disputes we have had in recent years. The Minister for Labour furnished us with some figures today in relation to industrial disputes and the number of man-days lost. These are very considerable and are a reflection on himself, his advisers or, indeed, on the Government. When Fianna Fáil were in power——
It would be appropriate to blame the Minister but let us have no reflection on his advisers. The Deputy may accuse the Minister but I should prefer if no reference were made to his officials or people outside this House.
I put down a question to the Taoiseach on the 23rd October as follows:
Mr. Dowling asked the Taoiseach the total number of man-days lost through industrial disputes in the 12 months ended 4th October, 1974, and for the corresponding periods in 1973, 1972 and 1971.
The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was:
The latest available data are those in respect of the period to August, 1974. The number of man-days lost due to industrial disputes in the 12 months ended August, 1974, is provisionally estimated at 563,000. The number of man-days lost in the corresponding earlier periods are:—
Twelve months ended August, 1973 158,000; 12 months ended August, 1972, 208,000; 12 months ended August, 1971, 477,000.
We experienced a very serious situation during the bank strike, as we did during the period of the bus strike. The manner in which the Minister, and, indeed, the Government, tackled the bus strike was disgraceful, a strike which caused considerable irritation and frustration to workers, many of whom were put on short time, many of whose jobs were lost by reason of their arriving late at their places of employment. This strike continued for three months. During that period the Minister intervened on and off, advised and tried to bring the parties concerned together. Then when the situation was about to boil up again, the Minister was transported to Van Diemen's land. He went to Australia when the last crisis arose, knowing before he left the serious situation confronting the people of this city. Despite his interventions on a number of occasions he was unable to bring about a settlement in three months but, three days after his departure, the strike resolved itself. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the Minister for Labour were sent away more often and perhaps also many other Ministers because this would appear to be a tactic of the Taoiseach—if it is too hot in the kitchen, get out. The Minister for Education was told the same thing during the "speak easy" in Galway when we learned he was going to be used as a shock absorber for the volume of fire from the Labour Party. We have experienced the type of situation in which, when a crisis arises, the Minister is missing.
This morning we read in the papers of the vast increases that will affect 80,000 people whose car insurance is in question at present. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, I understand, is in Europe. It would appear that the tactics are—and they have come to light in recent times—get them out of the way and then, when the heat is off, bring them home. The Minister will be home on Friday when the heat is off but I understand that the order has been made already and that the Minister is being protected by officials of the Department in relation to a Press release issued by the Government Information Service last night. Only a couple of weeks ago there was a similar situation in relation to the price of milk. Then, too, there was a half-baked idea but a cover-up job was done as will be done on Friday next in relation to insurance.
There are many areas I would like to cover in relation to legislation but because of the limited time available to me I shall confine my remarks to the question of prices. Could we have some indication from the Government as to whether they have any positive policy in this regard. Prior to the elections the parties opposite told us that they would solve the problem of rising prices but now that they are in government they find that there are outside factors involved. Therefore we must take it that it was not until these gentlement took office that they discovered that outside factors as well as inside factors affect our economy. Perhaps this has been a good lesson for them, a lesson that will benefit them in the future.
The housewives, many of whom are hungry now, because of the high prices they must pay for fuel and other commodities want to know what the Government are doing in relation to prices. They want to know whether the upward spiral is to continue at its present rate. If inflation continues at its present level, the £ will be worth only 49p by the time this Government leave office. This would mean an increase of more than double present salaries but everyone knows that there is need for restraint and that our economy should not be hampered by undue demands but the Government must give a lead and must show that they are making sacrifices. There was no evidence of sacrifice in the recent increase in postal charges. It is now 7p to post a letter here while in the UK the cost of a stamp is only 3½p. This is another indication of the slap-it-on attitude of the Government. During the coming months the workers will be asked whether the Government are sincere in what they say in relation to the cost of living. The present policy of the Government militates against the lower paid worker and to a large extent against the middle income group. While the workers may get increases of a few pounds from time to time, they are being deprived of various benefits so that their situation is worsening. The man with the great gift of the grab, the Minister for Finance, extracts the last halfpenny from them.
I regret that there is no time left for me to deal in greater detail with the question of prices. However, I hope that before the debate concludes some speaker from the other side will tell us what are the Government's intentions in this area.
In recent statistics supplied by the Taoiseach regarding the cost of living index we notice that one commodity —Andrew's Liver Salts—has been reduced in price to the extent of 0.2 per cent. That is not much comfort to the housewife who is endeavouring to cope with the huge increase in the cost of living. The prices of such basic items as tea, bread and sugar have increased. So, too, have the prices of bread and flour. Is it any wonder that the housewives are now referring to the Minister for Industry and Commerce as self-raising Justin?
In opening this debate the Taoiseach gave a clear picture of the present world crisis and of the unfavourable effect that this situation was having on the Irish economy generally. Not only did the Taoiseach give also a clear account of the performance of this Government to date but he outlined the measures the Government proposed taking so that we might go through this difficult period with the least amount possible of suffering and hardship for our people. In stating Government objectives the Taoiseach gave as our most important priorities, the maintenance of employment and the maintenance of the real value of the present level of social welfare and other benefits. He explained that this would be impossible without the whole-hearted co-operation of all sections of the community—employers, workers, producers and consumers— and he reminded us that there were limits to what any Government could do in circumstances such as those with which we are now faced.
The Taoiseach appealed in particular for moderation in demands, warning that greed and selfishness in the short term would kill all prospects of getting through this difficult period unharmed and ready to take immediate advantage of any improvement in the world situation.
However, there is no need to go over this ground again. The people have been alerted to the realities of the situation. For the country's sake I hope that the appeal of the Taoiseach will be heeded. In this context, too, I might add that I was impressed by a speech made during the week-end by the Leader of the Opposition in which he spoke in the same vein as the Taoiseach spoke in asking for restraint.
I intend speaking briefly in relation to our principal industry—agriculture —and shall give the House the facts and the prospects, both good and bad, as I see them for the future. Farmers have had a difficult year. Unfortunately, those least able to bear the difficulties suffered most, a point made very well and very sincerely by Deputy Callanan.
Having said this, let me hasten to add that those who use such expressions as "crisis", "depression" and "disaster" in speaking of the situation are doing an immense amount of harm to the morale and the confidence of many people. While those words may make good headlines and may paint a gloomy picture for the Opposition to use now, they are not justified in terms of the realities of the situation.
In the course of my short contribution I intend to comment on the various sections of the industry but before doing so I wish to nail those who spread messages of doom and gloom. From all the information available to me I can say with conviction that there is no justification for the expressions regarding the lack of confidence and the degree of pessimism which I hear frequently and which amaze me. All the normal indicators lead me to have the greatest confidence in the future of the industry provided we follow the right lines and do the job efficiently. These are extremely important qualifications.
Somebody spoke about exports of wheat to the North of Ireland and other places. I should like to explain that there is nothing we can do about this matter and I am sure most people know that. There is free movement of grain throughout the EEC and if we do not allow exports we cannot have imports. We imported in the region of 400,000 tons of coarse grain last year. The statement was made that farmers were told by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to produce beef and that now they have been let down. I know they were told at one stage to produce milk and later they were told not to produce it but to produce beef instead. They were not told to produce beef by me but by the previous Government and they got certain incentives to do this. There is no use in trying to pin this on my back. The only thing for which I can be blamed is that I did not change the scheme much sooner. Certainly I hope to change it very soon but there is always a difficulty about changing a scheme suddenly because you can break the people in the industry. It is not possible suddenly to change a scheme in the farming industry.
Deputy Callanan seemed to be under a misunderstanding when he was dealing with the matter of the 1p per lb. I got agreement from the meat producers to stop 1p per lb. off intervention beef in order to create a fund. He said 1p a lb. would not keep one calf. I do not understand what he means; perhaps he means 1p per lb. for the weight of the calf. I think the Deputy misunderstands what is intended. He also said there were four towns in the west killing 30 cattle per week and that a subsidy was not being given in these cases. All I can tell the Deputy is that if each of the towns is killing 30 cattle at the one centre at one time I will try to make arrangements to have them inspected and be included in the beef slaughter scheme. Certainly I will look into this matter because I am anxious to give the slaughter premium for as many cattle as possible.
There is a great difficulty in this because we cannot expect to have inspections carried out at every small slaughter premises where one, two or three cattle are slaughtered. It is an EEC requirement that they must be inspected before and after slaughter and there is nothing more we can do about that. I would like Deputy Callanan to know we are doing everything possible to relieve the situation in the cattle industry. We are moving cattle at the rate of about 40,000 per week. Of the cattle being slaughtered, between 50 per cent and 60 per cent are going into intervention; we have gone as high as 60 per cent although the average is about 55 per cent. Some 30 per cent of the cattle are getting the slaughter premium.
Everyone complains that the value of the premium is not getting back to the producer, that the small man at the end of the line is not getting the benefit. I can understand the complaints. There is nobody more anxious than I to see the producers getting the full benefits both of intervention and slaughter premiums. In fact, I have invited representatives of the farming organisations and also the processors to the Department to discuss the problem, to ask them if they could suggest a way of getting the benefits back to those people. They have not come back with suggestions, the reason being that when cattle are sold at a mart it cannot be said in advance which of the cattle will qualify for intervention and the grade of intervention. It is not possible to say what cattle will get the slaughter premium. A percentage of the cattle get nothing but nearly 90 per cent get one or other benefit. Nobody knows which of the cattle will be exported and to what area they will be sent. If there was any way all this could be done I would be anxious to do it. I know it is done in Britain but they only operate a slaughter premium and it is a simple matter to give the premium for clean cattle when they are sold through the marts. It is a much different matter here. A case has been made many times but there is nothing I can do about the matter.
Deputy G. Collins repeated something I have contradicted on a number of occasions and I can only contradict it again. He made the statement that I advised people to get out of pigs. I did nothing of the kind and I emphatically contradict the statement; no matter how often it is repeated it will not make the statement true. On the occasion referred to, I explained I had been close to the scene for many years and was acquainted with the cycle that has occurred for as long as I remember, that when numbers went up prices went down, that when this happened people got out of pigs and then prices went up. There is no difference now that we are in the EEC and this will continue to happen. I know there is scope for considerable expansion. I am convinced of that in view of the fact that a country much smaller than Ireland is delivering 4,500 tons of pigmeat on the British market while we are delivering 300 or 350 tons. I regret that the farmers got out so quickly and slaughtered so many sows but there is nothing I can do. If I had a bottomless pocket and could come to the rescue of farmers in any sector when prices are very low, if we had the money and were free to use it, it would be an easy matter to overcome all the difficulties. However, we are not always free to use it. It may be said that other member states in Europe have adopted their own measures and have got away with them. That is true but I hope we have seen the end of it. I have always been opposed to these national measures because we will be beaten at that game at all times.
Deputy Collins referred to my failure so far to reorganise the advisory services. This is an old chestnut and I hope we will see an end to it in a matter of weeks, that I will be able to indicate clearly my intentions in relation to the reorganisation of the services. I have not lost sight of the matter and I have done a good deal of work on it. The job of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is now a much more busy one than formerly when we consider the European dimension.
The scheme for disadvantaged areas was mentioned in the debate and it was said we had not yet been able to submit a scheme. I shall deal with that in more detail later but would point out now that the great difficulty we had was in getting agreement with the Commission on the size of the area that would meet all the criteria. If we were prepared to take a very restricted area we could have got a scheme in long ago but we want to make the best deal for the widest area possible. I regret that the scheme we will eventually get accepted will not cover as wide an area as I would like to see covered. All I can say is that we will definitely be putting in a scheme either this week or next week. We know what we want and we are hoping what we propose will be accepted.
Talking about cattle, there is nothing more we can do, but we have two other schemes which should provide fairly substantial relief for those with a large number of young cattle. I shall deal with these schemes in greater detail as I proceed because I know how important this whole matter is.
Another question raised is why we have not given the slaughter premium on exports of cattle to the Continent. There is a difficulty here about which I do not want to talk at the moment. I have had numerous approaches from people in the trade and I intend to give the slaughter premium in this way: the slaughter premium is paid at present on non-intervention cattle slaughtered at Irish beef export factories and at the larger slaughter premises supplying the home market where the necessary conditions can be complied with. On live cattle exported for slaughter in the United Kingdom the premium falls to be paid by the United Kingdom authorities. Our live cattle exports to the continental EEC countries do not, however, receive similar payment of the premium by these countries. I have received a number of representations from cattle-producing and exporting interests that we here should pay premium on these cattle, as is provided for under the relevant EEC regulations. I have considered this very carefully and I am now prepared to do what I reasonably can in the matter. I will arrange for payment on slaughtered cattle exported to continental EEC countries of a premium up to the level which will rank for recoupment from FEOGA. From November this will be £10.78 per head rising to £26.40 per head for February. I believe the premium will help to enable those exporters interested in the continental market to maintain their business there.
I sometimes find it difficult to understand why people in the trade cannot compete in Europe having regard to the enormous price difference that exists between here and the Continent. I hear all sorts of excuses. When we were looking for and negotiating the green £, and before we got the green £, the same people were coming to me saying that if they had the green £ they could be selling these cattle in Europe without any trouble. But when they got the green £ it was something different. My own personal belief is that shipping is as much a problem as anything else. When it was not possible to export to the Continent the ships went elsewhere and it will not be possible to get the ships back before the end of this month or the middle of next month possibly. I know an effort is being made to put shipping right again and I hope we will eventually get into the Continent. If it is any consolation to people with young cattle, may I say that young cattle are now startins to move? I think it was yesterday 1,300 young bulls were exported. Most weeks there are lots of 200, or thereabouts, going out two or three times a week—calves to Italy, Greece and other countries. Young cattle are starting to move.
Deputy Callanan said that I got a levy on these cattle last year, a levy of £8 per head, at a time when more of them could be moved. The Deputy is quite right in that and I do not deny it. But I did not do it before coming home here and discussing the matter with the farming organisations. They agreed with me at the time that this appeared to be the right thing to do. We are not always right, but I think that was the right thing to do. Had the European market been managed as I believe it should have been managed there would have been no difficulty, but the European market was mismanaged, in my opinion, and one million tonnes of beef was allowed at a time when the deficit was around half that amount.
Deputy Collins criticised me this afternoon for failing to get the embargo on sooner. Actually I was one of the Ministers in the forefront of the fight all the time to get this embargo on. Along with the Italian Minister I was responsible for getting a special meeting called last December when I failed up to that to have the matter finally considered. At that meeting the proposal was voted on and four countries voted for and five voted against. There was nothing we could do in those circumstances. We pushed the matter to that limit. It was not agreed and there was just nothing further I could do. We have the great difficulty, too, that Britain has not been using intervention and they have not been taking the cattle off the market. If they were taking the cattle off the market we would not have the difficulties that exist between our two countries at the moment. We have Welsh farmers protesting all over the place. I have said this on both radio and television. This is the main cause of the trouble. The UK Minister and other Ministers who voted against effective restrictive measures on imports have caused the problem. It is a badly managed market which has left all of us in serious trouble. Anyone who says I have not done the maximum I could is simply not telling the truth. I have never missed an opportunity to press as hard as I could on this. I do not want to say any more about it. I do not make any excuses. If anybody can point to where I failed, I shall be glad to learn it.
It would, perhaps, be no harm to give as many facts as I can about the present situation. In 1973 agriculture contributed 20 per cent of national income and nearly 40 per cent of total domestic exports. Direct employment in agriculture accounted for 20 per cent of the total at work and nearly double that amount indirectly in processing and in the various services. In 1973 the value of gross agricultural output reached £623 million, an increase of 30 per cent on 1972. Farm income rose to £364 million, an increase of 32 per cent. The current year, as I have said, was not a good one for agriculture for a number of reasons. There was a drastic drop in cattle prices on our main export markets. Higher prices had to be paid for farm inputs, especially fertilisers, feeding stuffs and fuel. Weather conditions were also difficult both for grass conservation and for the grain harvest. Farm sales in 1974 are expected to be £50 million up on 1973, but this increase will be more than offset by cost increases and a smaller increase in the value of additional livestock on farms. The build-up of cattle stocks slowed down this year and, in June, the numbers were up by 339,000. I think Deputy Collins said we had 500,000 more cattle eating the grass at present. We have not. It was 339,000 in June and, as I said, we have been moving cattle at the rate of 40,000 a week. The increase last year in numbers was 532,000 head.
The current farm income problem is not a particularly Irish one. It has been general across Europe and everybody knows that. Following long and very difficult negotiations the EEC Council of Minister recently agreed to an across the board increase of 5 per cent in the level of common agricultural prices and to reduce the CAP representative rate of the Irish £ by over 11 per cent. The effect of the agreement is to increase Community-support prices here by over 16 per cent and to reduce substantially the monetary charges against our agricultural exports. The agreement will add over £50 million to farm incomes in a full year and will give a very welcome boost to export earnings.
In concrete terms what we negotiated means about 4½p in terms of Irish milk prices and about £3 a cwt, on the Irish intervention price for cattle. It must be remembered that these increases are on top of quite considerable price increases negotiated in the spring. The recent Council package came very close to giving us our full green £ proposal and must, therefore, be regarded by any standard as a very satisfactory one for us.
We have been criticised adversely for not seeking the green £ earlier in the year. In fact, had we done so and had we been successful, its benefits would have been almost completely limited to the dairying sector. Due to the fact that the monetary taxes were relatively low prior to April, its benefits to the cattle and beef sector would have been negligible and it could, indeed, have worsened the situation. When monetary charges on cattle and beef increased drastically in April the question was re-assessed and the Government, having carefully considered all its implications in the light of the new situation, decided to seek Community agreement to have the representative rate reduced. As everybody now knows, following a difficult struggle, we were almost completely successful.
I want to refer to a very important aspect of this. It has been said frequently that Commissioner Lardinois stated repeatedly that all we had to do was to go and look for the green £ and we would get it. He was supposed to have given an interview to various people and made that type of statement. The record will prove beyond doubt that, on all occasions, he said this was so provided the British were looking for a green £ at the time.
He did not say that to me and I am one of the people he spoke to.
I heard the Deputy say that before and I do not doubt what he says but anything on record—and I have seen two such records—proves that he made the case at all times that this was so if the British were looking for it at the same time. I looked up the interviews he gave at the time. I felt obliged to go back and apologise to him for having accused him of saying this when, in fact, he did not say it. He refused to bring a proposal along these lines before the Council of Ministers. I had to go to an immense amount of trouble to get this matter on the agenda for discussion. Even then it was necessary to get a Commission proposal, which we eventually got.
In my belief we would never have got a green £ had it not been possible to persuade the British to go part of the way. It was possible to persuade them for a number of reasons, the main one being that I was not prepared to accept a package they wanted very badly unless they moved. That was the main thing which kept this in abeyance for so long. You can move at the wrong time. Certainly, had we moved earlier, we would have got no green £. I want to let everybody know that that is my honest belief about the situation. In any case, there is no point in going back and saying: "If you did this or if you did that".
We have it now but, of course, again we have sterling slipping. I made the proposal, and failed to get it accepted, that we should have a floating £ for the purposes of CAP. I could not get that accepted because, apparently, there would be a good deal of difficulty in administering a floating £. It would mean that we would not have to go back repeatedly when the £ slipped further down. I accepted what I got at the time on the clear understanding that I would be coming back again at a later date, which I intend to do.
One other aspect of the recent Council of Ministers meeting should be mentioned. I have consistently opposed the provision of national aids by member states as they distort competition and lead to a situation of inequality of treatment in which our producers and our economy can only come off second best. We are an agricultural exporting country and our best interests are served by reliance on the principle and mechanisms of the CAP to solve our farmers' problems and European farmers' problems. Recent events have shown the correctness of this view and I am glad to say that the Council now accept this situation. I hope they will stick to it.
The cattle and beef trade has been undergoing difficult conditions for almost a year now and the main causes are large quantities. As I have said, almost one million tonnes of beef were imported into the EEC from third countries in 1973. Beef production increased in the EEC. The 1974 production increased by an estimated 650,000 tonnes over the 1973 figure of 5.4 million tonnes. Consumption failed to keep step with production. Feed, fuel and fertiliser prices increased. For Ireland two other particular factors applied. The United Kingdom failed to apply the intervention system except marginally. Indeed, they only started to apply it and then stopped.
The incidence of MCA charges bore very heavily on our exports. For many months I have been urging on my colleagues in the Council of Ministers the necessity for suspending imports from third countries. Since July last such a ban has been imposed. Because of the stocks held, and because of the validity of the licences which then existed, we have not had the effect of it nearly as soon as it should have shown itself. If it is ever to show its effect it should be coming soon.
The effect of the green £ is to reduce the MCA charges against our exports of cattle and beef from, as it was at the time, 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent. We got it reduced by 11 per cent but it is now back up again at 4.7 per cent. We had it down to about 2.9 or 3 per cent. The slaughter premium introduced in August and payable at gradually increasing rates on cattle slaughtered up to the end of February, 1975, is designed to compensate farmers for temporarily holding back cattle from slaughter. About 30 per cent of heifers and steers slaughtered at meat export premises qualify for premiums and about 5 per cent are brought into intervention. I have mentioned these figures already.
Because of the very bad harvest, stocks of hay and silage are in short supply. Two measures to deal with this situation are in train. There is a reduced interest loan scheme to enable farmers of £50 valuation, or less, to borrow money within certain limits from the ACC at a rate of interest subsidised to the extent of 8 per cent for a maximum period of six months. The loans are intended to be used for the purchase of feeding stuffs so that farmers can hold young cattle and calves over the winter. The maximum amount of the loan will be £20 per animal up to a maximum of 25 animals.
At my suggestion the Irish Fresh Meat Exporters' Society Limited have agreed to set up a fund from proceeds of beef sold by factories into intervention up to the end of December. The fund will be administered in cooperation with my Department and it will help farmers with young cattle to purchase feeding stuffs. Farmers with a maximum land valuation of £50 will be considered. Approved applicants will receive vouchers subsidising the cost of feed grain and compounds at the rate of £1.50 per cwt. There will be a minimum subsidy of £7.50 and a maximum of £30 for any one man—that is, to begin with. This will get the show on the road; it will start the scheme going and, depending on the response, the continued need for the scheme, and the availability of money from the fund, it will be continued beyond this amount. An advertisement will appear, probably next weekend, in local newspapers giving details of the scheme and telling farmers how they should apply. It is obvious that it is of great help to farmers to have an assurance on prices over a reasonable period. In my discussions with the society I urged that a minimum price be set by factories and the society has agreed to ask all factories to pay minimum prices for steers supplied to them up to 31st January, 1975 at the following rates: October-November, 27p per lb deadweight; December, 29p per lb deadweight and January, 1975, 31p per lb deadweight. These prices are inclusive of slaughter premiums. They are also minimum prices. At the time this arrangement was made some of the factories were paying higher prices than these and they promised to continue to pay the high price. It was difficult to get all factories to agree to these minimum prices. The overall situation of the trade has been difficult but, as indicated above, measures have been taken or are in train to remedy the situation.
Deputies have referred to the problems of small farmers who are faced with a very poor market for young cattle. The economic position of some of these small farmers has been made more difficult by their dependence on trade in small cattle as a major source of their farm income. I have made no secret of my view that a man with a few beef cows, with only a few strong calves to sell each year, is not in a basically viable farm situation. I believe Deputy Gibbons accepts this and he referred to this while he was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. There is no use in any of us pretending that it is possible to give a farmer at this level an acceptable standard of living. I do not believe in fooling people or pretending that it is possible when I know it is not.
Many of these farmers would be better off in more intensive enterprises such as creamery milk, tillage and pigs. It is essential that small farmers adopt farming systems which make full use of the available labour and limited acreage. The production of a few single suckle calves is a long way from doing this. Of course, not every small farmer has these opportunities open to him due to the quality of his land, access to the creamery and so on. However, many small farmers today do not rely on the market for small cattle as the main source of their income but have, for example, off-farm employment which brings them in a reasonable wage. This is not to say that I am satisfied with the way the cattle market has functioned this year; I am anything but. However, what I can do is limited and I am extremely anxious to do anything that is possible.
I have made strenuous efforts in Brussels to introduce measures to strengthen the EEC beef market and I will continue to press for better management of this market in order to give our producers a realistic price for their products. I have already referred to short-term measures to help the smaller producer over this winter. This is only a temporary problem and I am concerned that when the beef market revives we are able to take full advantage of the opportunities. Obviously, farmers will have to plan their winter feed programmes more in line with their stock numbers but I do not believe we have yet realised the full productive potential of our soils in relation to economic beef production.
Whatever may be said for other sectors of the agricultural economy the effect of Community membership on the producer price of milk has been quite spectacular. The average price paid for milk for processing into the various milk products in 1972 was 16.17p per gallon and the price at present is 26.5p per gallon which is an increase of more than 2/-, in old money, per gallon. That is no mean increase. Before we joined the EEC 2p per gallon over a period of two years would be recognised and regarded as an enormous increase. That is not by any means the full story. An indication of the increased value of milk resulting from Community membership is the fact that liquid skim returned from creameries for feeding to livestock which in pre-EEC days was valued at 3 to 5 old pence per gallon, and frequently had no commercial value, is now estimated to be worth 13.5 new pence per gallon when sold to manufacturers. Only negligible quantities are now being returned to farmers for livestock feeding.
The price for liquid milk shows a differential of 7p per gallon over the prices I have mentioned for milk for processing and this is regarded by all as a fair margin. I know that people with a decent herd of cows are making plenty of money. The difficulties due to adverse weather conditions have meant that milk supplied to creameries is expected to be slightly down on 1973. In 1973 the supply was 600 million gallons. The present position is around 4 per cent down on last year.
Sheep prices were at a very favourable level throughout 1973 and up to the end of August of this year. It is not easy to explain the recent fall in prices because the lucrative French market for carcase lamb continues to remain open, our exports to Belgium are being maintained and our exports to Britain enjoy a subsidy under our export guarantee scheme. The fall in wool prices has also had an adverse effect on sheep prices. I received some information today which leads me to expect that we are going to have fairly substantial exports in the near future and I hope that the price will rise. Again, the competition with cheap beef has, to a considerable extent, been responsible. However, we are continuing to assist our sheep producers by our subsidy payments under the mountain lamb and hogget ewe schemes at the favourable rates of £1.50 per lamb and £3 per ewe. Payments to producers under this scheme this year will amount to £2,300,000. Further assistance is given to our mountain lamb producers under the extension to the mountain lamb scheme whereby fatteners of these lambs presenting them at factories or for export will receive an additional subsidy of £1 per head from the beginning of September to the end of December, and £1.50 per head from then until the end of April.
Pigs are doing extremely well and the prices here are the highest in Europe. Our main market in Britain could not be better. Unfortunately, breeding stock is down by 30 per cent and this is due to the fact that for six months pig producers in the main were in a loss situation. Fortunately, we have got over that period but we are not able to take full advantage of the opportunities that are now available to us because of the fact that the number of sows has reduced substantially. It has its own lessons for us all.
It was my intention to refer to the prospects for tillage, for more grain and for more beet and to the quota which we negotiated recently in Brussels. Our A quota has gone up to 182,000 metric tons and next year farmers can produce 264,000 metric tons and pay no levy. I am extremely anxious to see our farmers taking full advantage of the situation. Beet is a good crop which can be followed by grain and we need an amount of extra grain. I regret I have not more time to go into other aspects of the industry.
The Minister will be familiar with the European custom, which is never practised here, of thanking the previous contributor to a debate for his contribution. Following the European practice I thank the Minister for his contribution. It was a brave effort. It was a brave effort to put some sort of skin on the most critical situation that has been encountered by Irish farmers in living memory. The Minister condemned people for using expressions like "crisis" or "disaster", and said that people who used expressions like that are doing a disservice to the country and to the people involved in the situation they are describing.
Every member of this Government in front of me at present could be described as a city man. There is not one Member of the Government that ever depended on the sale of cattle for his daily bread. I am in a different situation. I and all belonging to me made our living in that way, and so we take a different view. The person with the guaranteed income regardless of the rises and falls of the agriculture market can afford to philosophise to a much greater degree than those who are involved in what I call again the worst crisis, the worst disaster that ever befell the farming industry, in my time at any rate. I can recall, indistinctly, admittedly, the disaster of the thirties. I remember going to the fairs in the thirties and being surrounded by the Blueshirts who sought to stop us selling our cattle. I can remember the desperate times that existed then, but the situation we are in now is worse than that. I do not apologise to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for saying that this is so. Neither do I apologise to him for laying the responsibility for the creation of that situation fairly and squarely at the door of the Labour-Fine Gael Government.
The Minister in his speech got down to what I believe to be the nub of the whole question. It must be nearly 12 months since I asked his colleague sitting beside him over there, Deputy Ryan, the Minister for Finance, whether any devaluation of the £ was contemplated. Speaking from memory, I think the reaction of the Minister for Finance was to sneer at my suggestion that this might be a good thing. That Minister has since proved his own incompetence right across the spectrum of his own activities, and even then the sneers of the Minister for Finance will have no effect whatever on me.
We pursued this matter from this side of the House. I must now repeat that I do not seek to deny that when the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was speaking he spoke what he thought was the truth. I would not ascribe anything else to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, although the party to which he belongs spent two years trying to establish in this House that I did not speak the truth. Their Leader, Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach, who has the most disagreeable habit of slander and character assassination which he practises even on his own party from time to time, would have no hesitation whatsoever in making suggestions about the veracity of people from this party, and there is no one who knows it better than I do. I do not want to repeat that kind of practice on the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
However, in the conversation I had earlier this year with Commissioner Lardinois, there were no "ifs" or "buts". I do not know whether it is right for me to repeat what was a private conversation, but it is necessary that the people should know, and I shall loosely paraphrase him from memory as best I can. He said this to me: "Why do the Irish Government not devalue the £? If they did they could ensure that the incomes of Irish farmers would rise by at least 20 per cent and rise at once." He expressed a readiness on the part of the Commission to accept any such proposal from the Irish Government at the time on that subject.
Whatever explanations the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries might offer about this, I cannot accept them, because I frequently meet the Commissioner and I discussed this matter with him on more than one occasion, I am absolutely certain that the Socialist-Fine Gael Government that we have now, by failing to hit when the iron was hot, by dithering and wasting time, cost the Irish farmer an enormous amount of money. The Minister was talking with great gaisce about the £50 million that he produced as a result of the September negotiations. He should go down to any cattle market in the south or west of Ireland and tell that to the farmers who are taking £5 less for their young cattle. How much of the £50 million that he was talking about are they getting? When did cattle like that reach such a low ebb before, and whose fault was it? It was the fault of that Government over there and nobody else's fault, and they are seeking to wriggle out of their responsibilities. The responsibility is theirs and theirs alone.
I want to refer to a contemptible habit of this Government, and it is tainting the record of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries too. Last week the Council of Agriculture Ministers met in Luxembourg to talk about sugar. It is estimated that there is a 400,000 ton shortfall in the sugar supply in the Community, even allowing for the fact that there will be a Commonwealth importation of 1.4 million tons into the Community, and even allowing for the fact that thereafter the Community will subsidise importations of sugar from the West Indies and elsewhere on the part of the United Kingdom. What will we get? Our aims were not ambitious and our wishes were but small, as the song says. We wanted to grow the sugar requirements of this island— this island, incidentally, that some members of the Government want to keep divided, in the same divided conditions that their fathers put it in.
That is all we required. The price of sugar within the Community is about half what it is outside, and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries came home with great pomp and circumstance, and reported another splendid victory, that we had got an increase in our quota of 28,000 tons. The reality is that the Community are dying for sugar and the difficulty is that even though we have this quota, when you take the efforts that have been made by this Labour-Socialist-Fine Gael Government to control prices, Deputy Clinton or his eulogisers in the newspapers did not advert once to the basic costings of growing an acre of beet. Of course we must explain that not a single member of the Government ever grew an acre of beet in his life. Indeed, I doubt very much if some of them ever saw an acre of beet. Therefore, they would not understand the difficulties and the cost of growing an acre of beet.
I will tell a little bit about it, because I grew it. It is not excessively complicated even for the two-house families who holiday in the nicer parts of southern Europe and who from time to time divert themselves in different parts of that continent. To produce an acre of beet you need about three-quarters of a ton of compound fertiliser. That last year cost £32. A similar quantity will cost £75 in the coming year, a difference of £43. As a beet grower that is the way I reckon it. We can leave aside the contribution of the Minister for Finance this year to the farmers' prosperity. He introduced income tax. It is not without its graveyard humour to have got this from our Socialist-Labour-Fine Gael Government that in the most disastrous year ever to hit Irish agriculture, certainly since the foundation of the State, this is the year to impose income tax on farmers with a valuation of more than £20.
The beet grower will have to face that income tax and his rates which have been jumping up. He must also bear the cost of sprays, and anything even remotely related to oil will have its price trebled and may be quadrupled. Still, the daily Press accept the handout from the best public relations man in the business, a man appointed by the Government to the highest rank in the Civil Service bar one in order to sell the individual Ministers to the public at the public's expense. He did a first-class job. That is probably the only unquestionable victory the Government have had, this business of conning the public with the greatest public relations man I have ever known. This man went into action and the few little tons of sugar that came out of the sugar agreement the other day suddenly became one of the greatest victories of all time.
A few minutes ago the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries told the House—what there is of the House— that beet is a very good crop. I love being lectured by city folk on what is good for me. I love being told how to make my living by fellows who have a far better way of doing it themselves.
I have been induced by the contribution made by Deputy Clinton to diverge a little from the pattern I had hoped to follow. I had hoped to recall the arrival of the Socialist-Fine Gael Government on the scene and the universal rejoicing in all the media at the arrival of all these brilliant, talented people, all bound together in a bond of unbreakable brotherhood who would take down prices to their 1972 level and who would institute a crash programme in housing. Some programme, some crash. From the Tánaiste we were to have a free for all health scheme— we were all to be emancipated. I think last April was to be the deadline for our health scheme. Fair do for the Tánaiste, he navigated it through what Deputy Dowling has been calling the speak-easy in the Fun Palace in Galway the other day —the most hollow and the most cynical promise of all. I understand it emerged from post mortems held after the mid-Cork by-election and secret negotiations that took place here.
A solemn undertaking was given about death duties, these serious impositions on the business of succession in farming. The farmers now know, and if they do not know now they will know when D-Day comes with the call of the inspector of taxes, how that promise was carried out. If I wished to go down through the catalogue of genius of those we have got in charge I could recall such things as the celebrated law and order Government and the laughing stock that is being made of us through the length and breadth of the world by the antics of people like the Ministers for Defence and Justice and the disrepute into which the whole country has been brought by the idiotic security situation that we have got.
There is a European periodical of very great influence called Agence reporting EEC matters every couple of days. From time to time they do essays on the member countries and political developments in them. Early in October there was an essay on Ireland. The whole thing was a skit mainly on the activities of people like the Taoiseach. They found it impossible to swallow—this is not a bit of the British press or of any sort of yellow press: it is a reliable source of information—they goggled in incredulity at the kind of Government we tolerate in this country where the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, would allow the time of the House to be frittered away week after week on a Bill about contraception and then, having allowed his Minister to condemn people who would oppose it, would go up those steps and slink in behind the Opposition Party, accompanied by one of his Ministers and a couple of late-coming Fine Gael Deputies who did not want to support the measure at all.
What can you think of a Government like that? What can you think of a Taoiseach like that? We must speculate that Deputy Cooney's Bill on contraception came before the Government for examination and that it was discussed. Other members of the Government like the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House openly recommended that contraceptives be given not only to married couples but to people with what he called a mature relationship. The Taoiseach had at his disposal in the files of the Department of Justice a great deal of information about the same Minister for Industry and Commerce whom he himself at a Fine Gael Ard-Fheis in Cork a couple of years ago described as a subversive. They are the people who sat round a table with the Taoiseach, and evidently he held his peace, kept his cards to his chest and did not take his Ministers into his confidence. When we saw their faces in the lobby with the Taoiseach trotting in with the Opposition it was as clear as amber that he had not taken them into his confidence. One of the daily papers described it as his finest hour. That was the most far fetched piece of reasoning I ever came across. If it was his finest hour and if he was in conscience and principle opposed to the measure as I was, why did he not say so? Why did he not tell his colleagues? He must have been afraid that the other Members of the Government would run away from him. If that was the finest hour of the Taoiseach it is a very poor thing to say about anybody because in my opinion it was the sneakiest and most contemptible action I ever saw in this House.
This came from the same man, as I said previously, who spent two years for his own political gains, trying to pin the responsibility on a person he knew was innocent. He sat over here, when his own party ran away from him, until he was saved by the bombs in the streets of Dublin. Is he fit to be Taoiseach? Are we supposed to have confidence in him? I have nothing but contempt for the Taoiseach. I think he is a most despicable person. I will say no more about him because I do not want to fall into his habit of vilification and slander.
What else did we get from the Government? We got the biggest display of nepotism that was ever seen in Irish politics. We had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs bringing in his brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and all his relations and installing them in key positions. We had the widows of ex-Fine Gael Ministers installed in the Civil Service as flower arrangers and becoming permanent and pensionable. We had the Labour Party advertising to all their members: "Do you want to be a PC?" In one day a Fine Gael Minister for Justice appointed 423 of them. They got the Coalition degree of PC.
In more recent times we had the appointment of the defeated candidate in the Presidential election as Chief Justice. It is a long succession. They brought in their uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews and installed them in the Civil Service. They are now being paid by the Irish taxpayers. We have never seen such an exhibition of nepotism. Every single Government board was absolutely purged out of existence and party hacks were installed right across the board in the most ruthless fashion that was ever seen. These same socialist-Fine Gael people are the protectors of the national conscience.
I am sure everybody remembers the posters on the lamposts stating: "Cosgrave puts the nation first". He is putting the head of the nation into a noose at the present time. I am glad the structure is falling. The first little crack in the plaster appeared at the stomp-in in the Fun Palace in Galway when we had the official scapegoat—it was like a Greek tragedy—the Minister for Education, Deputy Richard Burke, the silver-voiced Oxford-accented Minister for Education from Upper Church. All the coolies from the Labour Party all over the country, well-drilled by Senator Halligan were told: "Pick the guts out of him and do not touch Brendan". They wanted his resignation. Five of his colleagues sat on the podium in the Fun Palace in Galway and not one of them opened their mouths to defend him. I do not know if his other colleagues will defend him. If they do what will they say to their Labour colleagues? I cannot imagine what they will do.
Constituents of mine have come to me recently and told me they have lost their jobs and others have said they are going on short-time. The figures for unemployment are rising at a very dangerous rate. If the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries were here he would probably ask me to desist from saying this, that one ought not to cry havoc. If one went to Waterford city today, where a lot of my constituents work, one would find havoc. In one fell swoop the other day Goodbody's factory closed down. That is only one of several. I believe before Christmas they will be joined in the dole queues by a great many others. It is no pleasure to me to say that and it is no good to me to say it, politically or otherwise.
We can point to the people on the Government benches and then ask the public to remember the promises they made in their famous 14-point plan. How false these people can be who set themselves up as judges of other people's morality and veracity and who spend weeks, months and years, trying to destroy them because character assassination is the hallmark of the Fine Gael Party. We had a contribution from the Taoiseach on agriculture. I believe the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who spoke before me, supplied him with notes because his own remarks were very similar to those of the Taoiseach last week.
The Taoiseach said there was difficulty in the agricultural sector. That is true. There never has been greater difficulty. We get back to the cause of the difficulty, to what was available and when it was available. The Taoiseach said last week, and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries repeated it today, that if he had moved in spring it would have been too early. The Taoiseach said that it would only benefit the dairy sector if the Minister moved in spring. The Minister said that it might even have had an adverse effect on the export of beef. The brief was evidently prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries because the Minister was reading rather than speaking for a considerable time. Of course, the Minister would not know and neither would any of his colleagues, that practically all cows calve in April or May and milk production in the first four months of the year is very low.
More bull.
What is troubling the Deputy? He should go back to his anvil.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Gibbons without interruption. Every speaker has only a limited time and must be heard without interruptions.
I was talking about milk production. I do not know how the Taoiseach could reason that it would benefit the milk sector alone when very little milk production takes place in the early months of the year. Neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries adverted to the fact that last year a calf fetched £60 to £70 and this year will fetch only £10 and that intensive, high quality dairy people commonly carry a cow to the acre or near it. Therefore, the profitability of any acre—and this is not excessive—would have been reduced by the drop in calf values by at least £40 an acre.
I would not expect any member of the socialist Government to understand this because they are concentrating on the city. They have rigged the city for the next general election so as to keep themselves in office whether they have a majority or not. It is certain that what the Taoiseach and what the Minister said was not in accordance with the facts. The dairy men could not survive outside the EEC; there is no doubt about that because whatever we produce we can sell profitably. But part of the production here is the production of calves and this is the most notable and disastrous failure that the Government brought upon the country. Their trick for evading responsibility is to blame Brussels. When something goes right and some crumbs fall from the EEC table it is trumpeted in headlines: "The Minister for Agriculture returns in triumph, tired but victorious having got X, Y, Z." If something goes wrong—and God knows everything has gone wrong— they blame Brussels.
I have been talking to very senior people in the European Commission. They follow the Irish newspapers very closely, as they do the Press of all member countries, and they take the gravest exception to this misrepresentation because it is false and untrue. When one considers that our Ministers are members of the Council of Ministers, which is the governing body of the EEC, it is grossly unfair to ascribe responsibility for some disaster like the cattle disaster to something they generically call "Brussels" or more specifically, blame one Commissioner or another. The natural result is that this is very deeply resented and the Irish Government are getting into very bad odour in Brussels—rightly because they are seeking to ascribe the blame they themselves should take to persons who are in no way responsible.
Absolute nonsense.
The Deputy should not interrupt because the Deputy, like myself, is a member of the European Parliament. He is, in fact, a vice-president of it. My colleagues and I, the Fianna Fáil group in the Parliament, have assisted Deputy McDonald in the past with problems concerned with agriculture. We have told him how to vote—and he voted the way I told him—and if he does not conduct himself, we shall have to turn him loose on his own.
You should have instructed your colleagues.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies should allow the Deputy in possession to make his speech.
I recall that in a major agricultural discussion in the European Parliament earlier this year on prices where a great many amendments had to be put down, mostly by my group, by myself, being approached by Deputy McDonald who came from his Christian Democrat benches to consult me as to how he should vote. I marked his amendment papers for him, one after the other and—fair play for him—he went back to his place and he and his colleagues voted accordingly. If he conducts himself in the future I will do it again.
You will not be there.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Gibbons on the confidence motion.
Before Deputy McDonald interrupted I was talking about the inescapable fact that the dithering and messing and the basic anti-farmer attitude of the present Government leaves firmly at their door responsibility for the financial ruin of so many thousand Irish farmers. If they had moved early this year to devalue the £ to its full devaluation, we could be exporting cattle to Germany and Belgium and the other countries and even now with the partial, pale victory we got, we cannot get into the German market because although the MCAs have been somewhat lessened they are not removed altogether, as they might have been if the people over there had the wit to move when they should have moved. The people who must pay the piper for their omission are those who are now being ruined. The Government do not care because the people being ruined at present are smaller farmers who habitually vote for this party. To those farmers I say that if the Government do not care about them, we do, and we shall seek to see that they are put back into business.
I was glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries say at long last that—I think it was a few hundred—young cattle, young bulls, went to Italy. We cannot get a large market for young cattle in Italy because they do not want young steers but I am certain that the Irish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries were well aware that there is a market for young cattle in Greece and other third countries in Europe. If we explored and tapped these markets we would get assistance from the EEC to put cattle into these markets in order to relieve the situation in which we find ourselves.
They are being exported to Greece.
The Deputy should not interrupt.
I am not interrupting; I am trying to help the Deputy.
The Deputy should go back and teach in his school and God help the pupils.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has only six minutes. Deputies should allow him to continue without interruption, as he has only a limited time.
The Minister made a sidelong allusion to this fact and what it really amounts to is the breeding herd in the country has been damaged very gravely because cow slaughtering in the current year is running at a much higher level than normally. What frightened me was that he dismissed any responsibility he might have for the fact that cattle were increasing and propounded what appears to me to be a very dangerous heresy. He said: "I never advocated production of beef." I do not know what he advocated but I know I did advocate this because beef is the main source of our income and the more beef cattle we have the better. The Minister seemed to be saying he does not believe this is so and that a cattle husbandry like Holland's would suit us better. I do not believe that. The desperate failure was that the movement of cattle through the whole feeding process from the purchase of the store to its slaughter and export was stopped and stopped by the omission and negligence of the Government. If that had not happened our exports of beef and our return from them would continue to grow.
There will be a downturn in the size of our cattle herds in the coming year and the year after. The potential mothers of the cattle of three years' time are hanging on hooks. There was wholesale slaughter of in-calf cows during the last nine months.
When I was leaving the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries I had a firm undertaking from the Commissioner that a common market in sheep and sheep meat would be established. Beyond any shadow of doubt in the European Parliament the Commissioner said that such a market would be introduced before last June. No such market has been introduced. The possibility that sheep farmers had of placing their surplus sheep—and they are surplus now because we cannot sell them profitably—was closed by the Department because somebody objected to the shipping of sheep to Tunisia. That would have taken a vital amount and kept the market in some sort of shape. Have members of this Government ever handled, owned or sold a sheep? I have. I keep sheep and always have, in order to make my daily bread. That is not done by anybody in this Government. My market was taken from me by the direct action of this Government.
What will the glasshouse industry do? They are competing against highly-subsidised Dutch and British competitors. They will get no assistance whatever in dealing with the oil crisis. All the other member countries in similar positions are able to do that. The chaos which exists now so far as meat factories are concerned was touched upon, but by no means explained, by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. There is the gravest anxiety among producers that the beef producers who are sending their cattle into factories, or attempting to, are being deprived of what they ought to get and the profits which are properly theirs are being syphoned off by people other than the producers.
I request the Minister to tell the House and the country to what are we entitled? Who gets cattle interventions? I hear of large fortunes being made by cattle being bought at the rate and being shot by the purchaser into a meat factory where the seller cannot get access. Some of these factories are alleged to be farmer-owned.
This is just another example of the hopeless botching and mismanagement which is the hallmark of this Government which had so much talent. This is a city-based Government which has driven our farmers into a very bad position. If they were any good this Government would get out and let somebody who knows do something about it.
The Minister for Finance. The Minister will note that his time concludes at 8.30 p.m.
This debate has served no purpose except to show the Opposition's delight in mischief-making. What has this debate availed the nation? It is clear that the Opposition's only intention in seeking this debate was to try to delude the people into believing that the troubles which now afflict us were due to domestic mismanagement and in no way were they attributable to the rampant economic fever which has struck the whole world and caused an upheaval on the world scene of a dimension which has never been previously experienced.
In embarking upon this useless and unpatriotic exercise they have wasted the time of this House for three days. Throughout the whole debate they have offered no alternative policy to the policies which the Government have offered——
Mr. Murphy
Which motion are we discussing? Is it not the Government motion?
Will the Deputy please resume his seat. He must not interrupt.
They have offered no solution. They have offered no alternative policies. Therefore, I propose briefly to remind the nation of the policies with which Fianna Fáil disagreed since we took office in March, 1973.
They were against the removal of value-added tax from foodstuffs. They have pledged that if returned to power they will again impose taxation on foodstuffs which would send them rising by a further 6 per cent. They have opposed the massive increase of 96 per cent in welfare benefit. They have voted against those increases. They have opposed the raising of taxation to give those benefits, indicating once again that if returned to power they will slash them or maintain them at their still inadequate levels. They will also look after the rich because they have disagreed with our legislation to remove the 20 year tax exemption from mining. They would allow people to make money out of our national riches and to export those resources without any reward to our people.
They have also opposed ruthlessly, in our two budgets, our deliberate package which was an expansionary economic policy and financed to a sensible degree by foreign borrowing. They have declared their opposition to foreign borrowing. At the same time as they objected to these expansionary budgets which gave us the highest rate of growth in the EEC last year and the second highest this year, they had the temerity, as they criticised the money we were spending, to demand more and more for a multitude of conflicting policies from which they seek some passing advantage.
There are many other lines of disagreement between the Coalition and the Opposition but these are the major and most fundamental. We should bear them in mind especially when we hear from the Opposition the allegation that our present troubles are due to what are called "disastrous budgetary policies". They opposed our budgets because they were expansionary. They opposed them because so much was spent on welfare and because of the tax reliefs. They opposed our continuing progress towards a progressive modern system of taxation. It is quite clear that were they to return to power, they would move contrary to the policies on which we have engaged over the last 20 months.
A new and very welcome departure here is candour on the part of the Government. We have spoken openly of our concern about the trends which were developing in our economy, particularly in the field of employment. I would ask the country to contrast this with 1971-72, when unemployment rose from 62,000 to 79,000, a rise of 17,000. This was at a time when there was no international oil crisis, no recession in world trade, when the rate of imported inflation was only one-fifth of what it is today and when there was no shortage either at home or abroad of cheap money at a rate which was 5 to 6 per cent less than that at which it can now be obtained. It was at a time also when there were no redundancies at home due to free trade under EEC and when there were no difficulties in relation to agricultural exports. Yes, and in these trouble-free, halcyon days, when governments did not have the difficulties with which we are now faced, unemployment was 8,000 higher than at present. There was no admission on the part of the Government at that time that there was any problem they should be trying to tackle. It seems that the vote of no confidence tabled by the Opposition is, in reality, an admission on their part that they have no confidence in themselves, or in their own judgement or policies because everything they have said or done since we assumed office shows a complete confusion of outlook and an inability on their part to understand the problems with which this country is faced at present.
The test of any Government is performance. Performance has to be tested not by the value of the cards dealt to a Government by fate but rather by the skill of the Government in playing the cards dealt, irrespective of the value of the suits. Never in the history of this country has any Government been dealt such a rotten hand than has this one over the last year. That is as a result of the world economic upheaval of which everybody is aware with the exception of the Fianna Fáil Party. Had we not got in Government skill, candour, judgment and acumen then this country would be as bad as are several other countries at present. I propose to refer briefly to the plight of several other countries, including many countries which have resources and wealth far beyond anything which we could ever hope to achieve during the lifetime of any person now living or, indeed, of many generations to come. What are the bad, rotten, lousy cards which have been dealt to this Government? The first one is the price of oil. The Leader of the Opposition, and some people following him, have said that the Government, belatedly, have recognised the problems created. I want to return this House to 11 months ago. At that time, making a speech in the Seanad, I said:
...we cannot overlook the dangers looming ahead which may seriously alter the present very favourable economic picture. These dangers, which threaten our entire economic future are the oil crisis, inflation and the problem of soaring interest rates.
——I am quoting from the Seanad Official Report, Volume 76, column 436 of 19th December, 1973, and I went on:
Probably the most immediate and serious of these problems is that presented by the oil situation. Indeed, the prospects for the economy in the year ahead are very dependent on the assumptions about how this situation develops.
I could go on at greater length. I spelt out the consequences, the terrible consequences, for this country caused by the oil crisis. My remarks received the comment from the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad that my contribution was deserving only of derision. That was the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party when the first warning went out in this country, spoken in very clear and direct terms, and that warning was repeated ad nauseam throughout the last year. If anybody wants to refer to the record all he need do is go to my financial statement of 3rd April last when I warned the country precisely what was the dismal picture ahead. I justified our budgetary policy at that time through necessity to try to overcome those unavoidable consequences of a world recession in trade, of the oil crisis which was one seen clearly in April as not of shortage but of price and of a tremendous transfer of the resources of this world from western Europe to the oil-producing nations. Again our policy, which was to produce expansion, to try to overcome some of the slackening in demand, was attacked violently and irresponsibly by the Opposition.
The truth is now that the situation as we foresaw it has become worse than even the greatest pessimist thought last April or May. It has become worse because, internationally, nations have behaved in the very way in which a year ago they were encouraging one another not to act. There is now a recession in trade. Countries have taken more and more measures to protect their own markets and their own economies and, as they have taken them, they have sunk world trade into a greater depression, all of which brings us up against a number of very unpleasant but unavoidable choices. We have to decide now whether or not we are going to moderate our own expectations in accordance with what will be the capacity of this country in this totally new, unfavourable economic climate. If we decide not to moderate our expectations in that climate then the damage done to us from outside will be grievously multiplied.
I want to remind the House and the country that our budget policy in 1973, and particularly in 1974, was attacked by one organisation only in this country and that was the Fianna Fáil Party. It received a welcome from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Irish Industry, the National Economic and Social Council, the Economic and Social Research Institute and the Federated Union of Employers. I have never known any previous budget by any Government in this country to have been received so favourably as was our budget of earlier this year. If the budget policy is now seen to be wrong, or if the people now allege it to be wrong, I would ask them to say precisely how it is wrong. It can have been wrong only because we did not go for a greater deficit, because we did not go for greater borrowing; or is it argued that we should have gone for an increase in taxation? An increase in taxation, may in certain circumstances, be necessary but in the circumstances of this year—when this country was faced with an unavoidable reduction in consumer expenditure, which was going to dampen demand as a consequence of having to pay a much greater amount for oil—it was not the year in which to increase domestic taxation. If the Opposition say we were wrong in that policy they should spell out precisely in what way we were wrong. But I doubt very much if they will so say. If they do, it will be very interesting to see how they would have increased domestic demand here at the same time as they would have increased taxation.
It has been alleged that our economic policies would lead to a decrease in international confidence in the Irish economy. It was alleged, time out of number, in this House, particularly during the debate before we went into recess, that there was an outflow of money from this country; capital was rushing away to safe havens in order to avoid the package of fairer taxation which this Government were proposing. What is the reality? The reality has now proved that the latest figures from the Central Bank—which are even more favourable than the figures which the Taoiseach quoted last week—show that since December last our external reserves have increased by £33 million. That in any year of favourable trade, would be something very much to our credit but, in a year in which we had the most unfavourable trade experience of our history, it is nothing short of miraculous that there has been such a massive growth in our external reserves. Never did the international business and financial community give such an unqualified vote of confidence as has been given to us by this very significant move in our external reserves this year. This is something of which we can be proud: that of the nine EEC countries, this little country has had the greatest growth in its external reserves this year. Over the last year the growth in our external reserves was 18 per cent. The nearest to us is Holland, which has massive resources that have already been developed, and indeed which are being exported, of natural gas. Even Germany, with all its great wealth, with all its surplus has had a fall in external reserves; so too has France; so too Italy and Denmark. Belgium has had an increase of a mere 2 per cent.
This augurs very well indeed for our economic policy and for its future. Tomorrow we will be floating a new national loan. The details will be published tomorrow and people should feel reassured about our financial health and the wisdom of the economic policies we are following, having regard to the tremendous vote of confidence which has been given to our economy by people best in a position to know and who can move their money from one end of the earth to the other if they so wish.
We had hoped, at the time of the budget—as a result of our budgetary policies—to achieve a growth this year of about 4¾ per cent which would be particularly high having regard to the European experience this year. I am sorry to say that we will not achieve that. Nobody is more disappointed than are we but whatever is the growth—and it is expected to be 3 per cent—it will be significantly higher than it would have been had we followed the budgetary policies recommended by Fianna Fáil, because that would have meant that the bad situation in which we are at present would have been immeasurably worse.
Some idea of how well we are performing can be gleaned from the fact that our nearest neighbour and greatest customer, Britain, had expected a growth rate of 3½ per cent this year and is going to have no growth but is going to fall back by 2 per cent. The US, which is the wealthiest country in the world, instead of having an expected growth rate of 2½ per cent will have a rate of minus a half. The great Japan, the wonder of the modern economic world, which expected to have a growth rate of 7½ per cent, will instead have a recession of 1½ per cent. Across Europe there is a similar pattern of countries that had expected to do much better but who will have to accept either a negative growth rate or one that is insignificant.
Far from being complacent we are very perturbed about the present situation. In particular we are perturbed about the trends. We are one of the greatest trading nations in the world because a greater percentage of our total national product is involved in trade, both in imports and in exports, than that of practically any other country: an island country with a comparatively small population must trade. Therefore to that extent we should be pleased to have survived without having a worse recession. That is very much to the credit of the people who are involved in industry, commerce and agriculture and in Government.
Energy will be one of our greatest problems for some time ahead, both in relation to prices and availability. What was the situation in relation to energy when we came into power? We found that our predecessors in Government had taken a deliberate line not to consider the development of nuclear energy. Within a couple of months of assuming office I had this matter on my desk. At that time many people were advising that it would be wrong to engage in the development of nuclear energy because of the availability of oil at low prices and because there might be oil off the Irish coast. That was long before the Middle East war, long before oil became a political weapon and an economic tool. But we decided to make it possible for the ESB to have a nuclear power station because we considered it basic sanity to ensure that our energy was not dependent overwhelmingly on one source. As a result of our decision we will have a nuclear power station in the early eighties, whereas if the Government had not changed this station would not come into being until the late eighties because of the rush that has taken place across the world since for equipment for nuclear power stations.
In the time available to me I shall not be able to deal with as many points as I would wish. However that may not matter because the Government will publish a white paper shortly which will objectively, sincerely and with unusual candour for a Government, explain exactly what is the economic picture. We will indicate how limited are the options open to us. We will make it clear that there will be no soft options open to us for many years to come and that the best we can hope for is that we can maintain our standard of living. The Government's priorities in this situation of great constraint will be to maintain employment and to maintain living standards, particularly the living standards of the less well off sections of our community. This will call for unusual discipline, for pragmatic and realistic patriotism, which I believe our people will be prepared to give so long as the situation is put before them honestly.
It is unfortunate that as we were about to embark on that exercise the Opposition should have tried to cloud the issue. However for as long as there is a democracy there will be a Government to be blamed and I would not wish to deprive the Opposition of whatever passing pleasure they get in casting blame. However I would plead with them to have some sense of responsibility, responsibility such as was displayed at the weekend by Deputy Jack Lynch when he said that he supported unreservedly the Government's appeal for moderation in income expectations in the near future because unless there was this moderation our problems would be aggravated. I express my appreciation of the Deputy's aptitude. If the Opposition had approached this debate from beginning to end on that level they would have enhanced considerably their own reputation and would have assisted this country in facing up to the problems that lie ahead.
Deputy Haughey said that during the next three or four years it would be necessary for this country to engage in foreign borrowing to the extent of £800 million. I was interested to hear him say that. Obviously, he is in conflict with the official spokesman on Finance for his party, Deputy Colley. I shall be interested in seeing whether Deputy Haughey will be prepared to maintain that attitude in the weeks, months and years ahead.
It will be necessary for us to engage in some foreign borrowing. This is in line with our present requirements. We are very perturbed in relation to the extent of our current balance of payments deficit, which this year will be in the region of £300 million as against only one fifth of that last year. This increase has arisen primarily because of the increased cost of oil, which we must import, but it is attributable also to the massive increases in the costs of essential commodities and components, most of which are required for further production for re-export.
We should not be alarmed unduly at the extent of our balance of payments deficit because during the coming months, and during 1975 in particular, this will be compensated for through exports.
Our unfortunate experience this year in agricultural exports should be corrected throughout 1975, and this in itself would provide a further corrective. Notwithstanding these corrective measures it will be necessary for us to take action in the medium and long term to correct the balance of payments situation because a balance of payments deficit, regardless of how it is dressed up, is something which involves a country in debt and we all know that sooner or later debt must be repayed.
However it would be wrong for us to take sudden, irresponsible or drastic action to correct our balance of payments deficit which has arisen because of sudden and extraordinary action of the type that arose as a result of the oil crisis. It is our intention not to do anything in the nature of an upheaval of our economy which, in turn, would do worse damage than is being done already by the present world recession. We think—and I am sure we can count on public support for this—that if we remain calm and maintain our confidence it will be possible for us to see this country over the hump of 1975 and 1976 that has been inflicted on us by the tremendous changes that have taken place throughout the world. Having regard to the fact that we have suffered less this year than have most other countries, we have every reason to remain calm and confident.
The economic order in the world is changing—I do not think the Opposition would be so naïve as to pretend otherwise—but the shape of the new order is still unclear. The one sure thing today is uncertainty. It will not be possible for this country, which is a very small power in the world economic field, to change that order to our own advantage. All we can do is to ensure that we do not suffer unnecessarily from these forces which are running against us in the short term.
I will conclude by saying that we have been concerned that in the first eight months of this year the growth in credit for productive industry was only 17 per cent. This was less than was required by productive industry, it was less than I, in my budget statement, said should be made available and, as the Central Bank said last week, it is less than they considered should be made available. Therefore, we welcome the approach made by the Central Bank to the commercial banks to increase credit for industry and to increase working capital in order to maintain firms which are fundamentally sound and have great employment potential. We propose to take further steps in the not-too-distant-future to ensure that the credit necessary in these difficult days will be available.
I was a little surprised to hear the Minister refer to the national loan which is being launched tomorrow because earlier this afternoon I received a copy of the official communication about it but it was embargoed until midnight and, therefore, I did not intend to refer to it. However, since the Minister has referred to it, on behalf of this side of the House I wish to say that we fully support the national loan and we trust it will be as successful as it possibly can be. Anything I say in this debate will be on the basis that our economy is fundamentally sound, that we have many complaints to make about the manner in which it is being handled but that does not affect the fundamental soundness of the economy nor does it affect the proposition that the economy is a very sound source of investment for anyone who wishes to invest. At this difficult time for investors, there are few investments open to them that will give greater security and return than the national loan that is being launched tomorrow.
This debate concerns the general record of the Government since they took office, the performance of individual members and whether that record and performance entitle the Government to the confidence of this House. In assessing this matter it is important to distinguish between what has actually happened and what Government propaganda would have us believe. I say this not just as a debating point but because any other approach is unrealistic and because, as I hope to show later, an important contributory factor to our present difficulties is that the Government, believing in their own propaganda and ignoring the available statistics, have persisted in misguided budgetary policies.
On this side of the House we are not happy about many aspects of the Government's performance as indicated by previous speakers in the debate, but I propose to deal first and primarily with the economic aspects of the Government's record.
To do this it is worthwhile very briefly to contrast the situation the Government found when they came into office with the position today. If we do this we find that in the short space of only 19 months the grave and potentially disastrous shortcomings of the Coalition Government's handling of economic issues has become painfully obvious to all.
In that short period the change that has come about is highlighted by the fact that in the spring of 1973 the economy was growing at a record pace, unemployment was falling, emigration had halted completely and there was a widespread air of confidence for the future resulting to a great extent from our entry into the EE, a membership which had opened up new opportunities for industry and agriculture. At that time the largest cloud on the horizon was inflation, with people understandably concerned that prices had been rising at what then seemed the dangerously high level of 8 per cent to 10 per cent per annum.
Let us contrast this with the present situation. Inflation has almost doubled to 18 per cent in the last year. Early in the year I predicted it would reach 20 per cent before the year was out and, although I was criticised for saying this, it looks very much as if it will happen. Unemployment is rising to record heights despite a rising influx of new industries which, incidentally, is a direct consequence of our EEC membership. Farmers are suffering the effects of a drastic slump in cattle prices coupled with cost rises that, in combination, could cut their incomes this year by up to 30 per cent. A growing number of firms are worried about their financial ability to cope with rising costs and falling business. There is a general air of uncertainty and doubt and even in some cases there is grave fear for the future.
Up to recently the Government were claiming that this dramatic reversal in our fortunes was almost entirely due to international factors over which they had no control. However, in recent times the Taoiseach has acknowledged that a great deal of our difficulties are under our own control. Not for the first time, the Minister for Finance has tried to have it both ways depending on which argument he is putting forward at any time. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who seems to me to be a man who will always get out from under his responsibilities if he can, persists in blaming other people for what has happened to us.
The facts are that this Government which promised to stabilise prices are presiding over a price rise likely to reach 20 per cent this year, of which half is caused here at home. It is not caused by oil prices or by international inflation but here at home. Some of this domestic inflation was caused by deliberate Government action through such things as exorbitant price rises such as the recent increases in postal charges and TV licences. One gets figures of 33 per cent or 40 per cent when one looks at these matters that are directly under the control of the Government. They have been imposed as a result of a Government decision but the Government refused to allow them to be investigated by the National Prices Commission. When one looks at the postal charges, the TV licence increases and the refusal to allow the matter to be examined by the National Prices Commission, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has well earned the title of the greatest inflator of them all. There is a lot of competition for this title but I think the Minister is heading for it.
The Minister's speech to which we have listened referred to budgetary policy and our criticism of it. The fact is that the Minister's budgetary policy, by a decision made by him and his colleagues, has deliberately added to our domestically created inflation. He will recall that in his first budget at a time of what was even then a raging inflation, although nowadays it may look mild, he and his colleagues by deliberate action increased the price of almost every commodity. By increasing VAT rates he increased the price of almost every commodity and added on the other tax increases as well and the net effect was to shove up the price of practically every commodity.
Then, in this year's budget, the Minister provided for a deficit of £76 million over this nine-month period. The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to this at the Labour Party annual conference in Galway as evidence of a conservative approach by Fianna Fáil——
That shook you.
Order.
On last Wednesday, 23rd October, he referred to this again at columns 94 and 95 of volume 275 of the Official Report. He said:
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...
He then dealt with some statements made by me in the budget debate last year and at column 95 he said:
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.
He goes on to make the same point again in a different way. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking in this debate, on 24th October——
Take out the spicy pieces now.
Order. Deputy Colley, without interruption.
Speaking at column 181 of Volume 275 of the Official Report the Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
...They have the record of the speeches of the Shadow Minister for Finance on our last two budgets in which he said they were too expansionist. Obviously, he is suggesting if they had been in power and he had been Minister for Finance, which I suppose is quite probable, he would have brought in budgets which would have let the economy decline and we would have had less employment and less growth when, in fact, we have maintained one of the highest growth rates in these difficult times...
What are the facts? The facts are that in the debate on the budget this year I said I calculated that the deficit should have been in the region of £25 million to £30 million. Can it be said that this is deflationary? Is it deflationary to budget for a deficit? I was the first Minister for Finance in the history of this State to budget for a deficit. But I knew what I was doing.
The Deputy brought down Fianna Fáil. That is what he was doing.
I knew what I was doing and what I was doing worked. Deputy Coughlan's erudite contribution to this debate on the economy is much appreciated, but, perhaps, someone might appreciate it more in another place.
If Deputy Colley wants to come that with Deputy Coughlan I am his man any time any place.
Order. The Chair is anxious that we should have orderly debate.
Misleading statements have to be corrected.
There is a time limit to this debate and I appeal to the Deputy's ingrained sense of fair play to allow Deputy Colley to proceed without interruptions.
As I said, I advocated deficit budgeting should have been in the region of £25 million to £30 million. I gave the reasons. Basically they related to the capacity of our economy to grow. They took into account the fact that there was a shortage of raw materials in certain areas. I spelled out how I arrived at this and I invited the Government to debate the proposition. No member of the Government has ever done so then or since, or even in this debate. We have had, as I said, statements from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, from the Minister for Finance tonight and from the Taoiseach last week suggesting that the alternatives are expansion or deflation. Once more I want to put the proposition now in the hope that the Tánaiste, when he comes to reply, will deal with it on this occasion. He failed to do it before. I want to put the proposition again and let him disprove it if he can.
If you have a deficit in a budget which exceeds the capacity of the economy to grow, the amount of that excess—in the budget of last April it was approximately £50 million—goes directly to fuel inflation and does not produce one ounce of growth. If that proposition is not correct then I would ask: Why stop at £76 million? Why not have a deficit of £760 million? If the proposition is that all you have to do is have a deficit and pour the money into the economy, and that will produce growth, if that is the Government proposition, then why did they stop at £76 million? Once you think about that proposition, of course, you realise the nonsense to which we have been subjected by members of the Government purporting to speak seriously on economic matters.
We had an invitation in this debate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce for serious debate on economic matters. But this is the kind of proposition we are getting. I would suggest that if the Government have not yet and do not, in concluding this debate, attempt to disprove the proposition I have put, then let us have an end to this nonsense that we were advocating a deflationary budget. Of course we were. We were advocating a budget geared to produce the maximum growth possible, a budget which would not add to inflation. That is the job of the Minister for Finance, but he did not do it. I believe he did not do it, not because he was mistaken, although there is some evidence that makes one doubt it—he knew, or had available to him, the advice which told him precisely what I have just told him now and told him better than I have done—but he did not do it because he was trying to prune the Estimates as much as he could and he had finally reached the stage at which he could not do any more. He could not get agreement from his colleagues and it was for purely political reasons that he did what he did. It was not done in the interests of the economy. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues, through the budget, put approximately £50 million current money into the economy which produced no growth but which added £50 million to our inflationary problems. I would be delighted if some member of the Government would take up this challenge and disprove what I have said.
There is some evidence to suggest that the Government believe their own propaganda, believe that their two budgets produced growth. Indeed, the Minister for Finance referred to this a few moments ago. I want to suggest to him that he need not rely on me, one whom he might regard as a biased source in commenting on this and I refer him therefore, to a magazine called Liberty for the month of July, 1974. Liberty is the organ of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, hardly to be regarded by the Minister as a tainted source which would be favouring Fianna Fáil. I want to quote from the July issue which says:
In the March issue of Liberty some doubt was cast on the Government's hopes regarding the expansionary impact which the large deficit of the 1974 budget might have on the real rate of growth in the economy. Some of these doubts arose from the unrealistic assessment by the Government of the performance of the economy in response to last year's budget deficit. Indeed, the Quarterly Industrial Inquiry statistics for December, 1973, which the Central Statistics Office released at the end of May, gave further evidence of a slowing down in the rate of growth in industrial production.
It is true that the average annual increase in the output of manufacturing industry was 10.6 per cent for the whole of 1973. It would however, be fundamentally erroneous to regard last year's budget deficit as being the cause of this high rate of expansion. In fact, the highest annual rate of increase in manufacturing output was that of 13.7 per cent in the first quarter of 1973——
when we were in office, of course
——before the budget measures were introduced at all. Subsequently the annual rate of growth in the manufacturing sector has instead declined steadily—from a rate of 12.3 per cent in the second quarter, to one of 10.8 per cent in the third quarter and to one of 6.3 per cent in the final quarter of 1973.
I suggest that there, from a source which can hardly be accused of being biased in favour of Fianna Fáil, is the evidence of what I was saying: that the budget which the Minister produced last year did not produce growth that, in fact, the growth began to go down when he took over, and that it has continued to go down. I suggest that this year's budget did not produce growth, that all he has done is to add to inflation, and that it is time the Government faced up to the implications of that. Of course, the statistics were available to show what was happening before this budget was introduced. The Government ignored them or else they believe their own propaganda that the budget has produced growth.
In introducing this year's budget on 3rd April, as reported in column 1460 of the Official Report, the Minister was talking about the budget deficit and he said:
Increased economic growth will, as it did last year, generate additional revenue and reduce the deficit.
The Minister knows that the deficit is not being reduced and that the official figures issued show that it is not being reduced. The proposition I want to put is this. All the statistics available, including some I got in reply to a parliamentary question which show the fall in the volume of retail sales, the figures available in regard to Exchequer returns which, despite the steep increase in the cost of living, because VAT is built in, bring in more money as prices go up, show that, despite all this, there is no buoyancy in revenue this year.
What I want to ask is this. How could the Minister tell us in April last that there would be this growth and that it would reduce the deficit? What has happened since April that has changed that position? Do not let anybody tell me it is the price of oil. We knew all about the price of oil and the cost of it last April. In fact, the Minister may recall that I criticised his budget stance because it took no account of the increased price of oil. Indeed, I pointed out that, even if we achieved a growth of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, we would have no increase but probably a fall in our standard of living because of the price of oil.
What has happened that the Minister was not aware of in April that has changed the position? He was then expecting growth, buoyancy of revenue, a reduction in the deficit and they have not happened. It is worth pursuing this question to find out what has gone wrong. It is not oil prices, despite what some members of the Government would have the public believe.
In opening this debate the Taoiseach spoke about growth rate. I listened carefully to the Minister for Finance a little while ago and, like the Taoiseach, he quoted growth rates in other countries. I did not hear him actually give a figure for what he now expects the growth rate to be this year in this country. In opening the debate, speaking on Wednesday, 23rd October, as reported in column 52 of the Official Report for that day, the Taoiseach said:
Deputies will know that the projected growth rate here this year is of the order of 3 per cent.
He went on, like the Minister, to pick out growth rates from a whole lot of other countries in order to show how well we had done. I wonder does the Taoiseach know, or does the Minister for Finance know, that what is happening this year is not a growth rate but a negative rate. The Minister for Finance thinks that is not so. It is a pity he did not spell it out when he was talking.
I thought I did.
The report of the ESRI published today estimates that the fall in living standards this year will be 4¼ per cent. A few weeks ago, on a very crude basis admittedly, I estimated it at 4 per cent. That is a drop. That is negative, not plus. To start telling us about other countries with negative growth rates does not really make much sense if we have a negative growth rate here.
The rough method by which I arrived at this calculation of 4 per cent was this. Higher import prices for oil, approximately £200 million, equals about 7 per cent of national income; a drop in agricultural income of up to 30 per cent, which is on the cards for this year, means a drop of 5 per cent in overall national income. This gives you a total of 12 per cent. Offset by the increased balance of payments deficit of, say, 8 per cent that leaves you with a 4 per cent drop.
It is important that people should understand that as a nation we are not paying this year for the increased oil price. We have not paid it and we do not propose to pay it because we simply increase our balance of payments deficit. We are not actually paying out that money as a nation. Therefore the cause of what has been happening, the cause of the fall of 4¼ per cent in our standard estimated by the ESRI today must be looked for. The real reason is the drop in agricultural income. That has been contributed to very substantially by the Government's failure to go for the green £ when they should have and could have gone for it.
Many months ago we urged the Government to go for the green £. At the same time we urged that steps should be taken to offset the impact of the green £ on the cost of living. I would remind the House that the green £ increased cost is borne approximately two-thirds by exports and one-third in the domestic market. That is the kind of measure of money the Government were faced with in trying to deal with this but they took no action, either to offset the effects of it or to get the green £. The consequence is that the overall standard of living here is down this year by almost 4 per cent. That is as a direct consequence of the Government's failure to go for the green £ when they could have done so. It should be remembered that that does not just affect farmers although they are the hardest hit because their income drop this year could be up to 30 per cent. It affects everybody else. It is also one of the major reasons for the increase in unemployment, the drop in retail sales and the general rundown of business.
Of course, a major factor in the appalling unemployment problem that is building up is the housing situation. We all know, with the exception, perhaps, of the Minister for Local Government, that the private housing sector has been in trouble for some time but I find it very disturbing to discover that there is evidence that the whole construction industry is now being hit. The evidence I refer to is the fact that domestic cement sales are down in the second and third quarters of 1974 as compared with the corresponding quarters in 1973, and the rate of decline is growing. That reflects the position in the overall construction industry and is a very good indicator of what is happening. If the sales in the next quarter of this year are down substantially more, I am afraid the message will be clear.
In the first five months of this year only 1,576 local authority houses were built as against 2,329 in the same period last year. This is the area in which the Government have been boasting that they have been achieving growth but these figures show a substantial decline. This all adds up to indications that the whole construction industry is now getting into trouble. It is important to realise how key a factor in our economy the construction industry, and, in particular, the private housing sector, is. When the construction industry is going wrong it is not just the people who are employed by builders who become unemployed. Those engaged by builders' providers, those employed in industries providing materials for the construction of houses such as furniture and other household needs, are all affected, and this is reflected in the figures now available.
I should like to remind the House that the great bulk of material used in the construction of houses is produced at home and is not affected by conditions abroad. If the Government would take our advice, advice which we have repeatedly tendered, and got money flowing into the building societies and out to borrowers they would get the housing industry back on its feet and, in addition, would help the many thousands of others who are affected in other industries.
The rate of inflation which we are suffering now—officially it is 18 per cent but it could well be 20 per cent before the year is out—combined with the down-turn in the economy is squeezing industry and commerce hard. I have no doubt but that the credit policy has been mis-timed. While I was glad to hear what the Minister had to say about the credit policy I urge him to ensure that it is quickly reviewed. The major consideration in that review should be to ensure that no viable firm is put out of business because of a mis-timed credit squeeze. In the present economic climate, difficult economic climate, we need the shilly-shallying from the Government on the Tara mines issue and on the Kenny Report, and we need the half-baked and unthought-out capital taxation proposals like we need a hole in the head.
The Taoiseach dwelt at some length on the fact that we are a very open economy, something which I accept. This has always been a fact of life and, for the foreseeable future, it will continue to be. One of the consequences of that is that the kind of hazards with which we are beset from time to time arising outside the country and over which we have no control are normal hazards of government. Irish Governments are faced with these from time to time, have been in the past and will be in the future but this Government goes on as though they are the unfortunate victims of circumstances of destiny. Irish Governments are always the victim of the kind of things that happen outside the country because of our open economy. Let us recognise this and accept it as part of the normal hazards of government here.
While in office we were faced with problems of this kind. We were faced with the British import surcharges which, having regard to the extent of our trade with Britain at that time, was a body blow to our economy far worse than anything we are faced with now, but the Fianna Fáil Government dealt with it promptly and effectively. I am not saying that the Government are not faced with problems from outside. Of course, they are but they are not dealing with them promptly or effectively. When we faced these problems in the past we did not have the advantages which we now have as an economy.
Our economy has been built up over the years, primarily under Fianna Fáil, and it is a great deal stronger than it used to be when we faced these hazards. In the past we did not have any EEC money available to us. This year it is in the region of £60 million. We did not have any real access to continental Europe for our industrial exports and these exports to Europe are now a bright feature of our economy directly because of our EEC membership. In the past we were almost completely dependent on the British market for our agricultural exports but there is no doubt in my mind that the situation in agriculture today would be much worse if we were outside the EEC than it is now inside it.
Our position is serious. Our economy which has been built up over the years by Fianna Fáil is basically sound. The position in agriculture, in my view, will improve next year. In particular, the position in regard to cattle will improve and this will get us back on the growth path. Even if that growth is at a modest rate, part of the growth can be used to help the weaker sections of our community and to maintain employment and part to pay some of the increased oil costs. I believe also that there are immediate actions which the Government should take to deal with short term problems. I have mentioned them all before but, because little if any action has been taken on them, I shall mention them again.
The coming budget should not, in my view, be deflationary. It should be geared to our capacity for growth as this year's budget should have been. It should not be geared to any more than that, because, as I have tried to demonstrate earlier, anything more than that is directly inflationary and does not produce one iota of growth. That is the first thing.
The aims of the Government's economic policy should be to preserve employment, to control inflation, and as far as possible to improve our balance of payments position. I want to agree with the proposition which the Taoiseach put forward some time ago, and that was that the preservation of employment and the control of inflation are not contradictory but are complementary. Some people pose the idea that you must have one or the other but you cannot have both. The truth is that if we can control inflation, we are, by making ourselves more competitive, directly maintaining employment. If we let inflation rip, there is nothing more certain than that we shall throw many more thousands out of work. The proposition that the two are complementary is one to which I fully subscribe.
I want to urge the Government again that steps should be taken to offset the effects of the green £ on the cost of living, particularly the effects on the old and the poor, who are suffering in an appalling way as a result of the overall inflation but especially because of the huge increase that is occuring in fuel and heating costs. The Government should now, belatedly, accept the proposition we put in this House on the Finance Bill, that is, to provide that investment of up to £5,000 in building societies should be free of tax. I tried to spell out what a vitally important sector of the economy the house-building industry is and how it affects so much more than the building construction industry. There is only one way to remedy this and to get the economy moving again, that is, to get the money flowing out of the building societies into loans, get the houses sold and the workers engaged in building again. If the Government have no other way to do it, would they look again at that proposition that we put to them——
And encourage speculators.
——and not allow ideological difficulties to stand in the way? Would the Deputy rather have thousands of people out of work or would he rather pretend to be an ideological socialist? Deputy Coughlan does not convince anybody as a true blue socialist.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Coughlan must desist from interrupting. Deputy Colley has only a little over a quarter of an hour left and he should be allowed to utilise that time without interruption.
I urge the Government once more to step up the returns on State savings schemes, and especially the prize bonds. I do not want to waste time going into the figures on this, but the figures show that these savings schemes are disastrously down. The money is flowing out of them. How are we to get the economy going again if we have not got the capital? Even if it were a good idea, we cannot borrow it all abroad, and unless our people are encouraged to put their money into savings, this will not happen. The National Loan being floated tomorrow does not meet the requirements of the kind of people I am talking about.
The Government should also introduce a scheme to help the small farmers, especially those in the west who are having shocking problems in regard to their young store cattle. Any rational Government in the present climate would forget all about their proposals for a wealth tax and come back when they think it is a more suitable opportunity than the present one.
There are some suggestions for immediate action to meet short-term problems, but there are long-term problems and immediate action should be taken on them, too. First—I have already advocated this and I am amazed that nothing has been done on this ground, because I advocated it at the time of the last budget—if one thinks about the problem we are faced with because of the increased oil prices, is it not obvious that, while we can borrow for a while, ultimately we will have to pay these increased prices or reduce our standard of living? There are the stark choices; there is nothing else open to us. There is only one way we can do it and that is to step up our exports.
That being so, should it not be a top priority of the Government to do anything they can to encourage our exports? There is one step, though not by any means the only step, ready and waiting for the Government to act on immediately, that is, to expand substantially the scheme of credits at special interest rates for exporters which I introduced some years ago. I introduced it on a test basis intending to expand it, and it should be done now of all times in the national interest. There is an insurance scheme for exporters, too, which has a number of flaws and difficulties. Again, attention to that would immediately improve our export performance. I urged this at the time of the budget and nothing has been done. Could I ask the Government now in the name of our economic difficulties, which they are belatedly recognising, to take action in this regard?
Another matter on which the Government surely ought to have taken action before—and would they please do it now—is fuel conservation. Does it make sense to have public buildings blazing with lights? Does it make sense not to have any real effort to communicate to people the amount of savings in fuel that are possible by proper insulation? One would expect a massive campaign to have been launched by now by the Government with the object of reducing our fuel consumption? To the best of my knowledge, apart from a couple of advertisements in newspapers earlier in the year, nothing has happened. I find it almost incredible that this should be so. If the Government do not know what to do and come back to us, we shall tell them what to do. I do not want to waste time on it now.
The most important thing the Government could do in regard to our economy is to restore confidence. I do not believe that this Government can restore confidence, but Fianna Fáil can. In the next general election, which cannot be long delayed, Fianna Fáil——
Almost three-and-a-half years.
It is my belief that it cannot be long delayed, and in that general election Fianna Fáil will offer the people policies which will set them realistic and attainable targets over the whole sphere of economic and social endeavour. These will be far-reaching policies designed to enable our people to seize the opportunities which are being neglected now and to create the kind of dynamic society geared to support the aspirations of our young people and to restore their confidence in the nation's future, a confidence which is fast ebbing. They will be challenging policies, but they will enable our people to shake off the confusion created by the bungling of this Coalition Administration, and they will enable us to return to the steady advance that we had been making up to recently.
In the ten minutes left to me I want to talk about matters other than the economy. First of all, I want to refer to what has been happening about the proposition of collective responsibility, indeed the constitutional provision of collective responsibility.
We have had, of course, the various speeches from the various members of the Government which have been stigmatised by the Leader of this party and have been demonstrated to be a breach of collective responsibility. We have had the appalling spectacle of members of the Government who are members of the Labour Party sitting, in a phrase, if I remember it correctly, used by former Deputy Mr. James Dillon of a previous group of Labour Party members, "meek as mice", while all-out attacks were launched on one of their colleagues. According to reports, some of these attacks were passed unanimously in the form of resolutions.
One thing is certain: no member of this Government attempted in any way to defend his colleague, and indeed they acquiesced in, at the least, the passing of a resolution calling for the removal from office of the Minister for Education. I have no brief for the Minister for Education, I might agree with that motion of no confidence that was passed in him, but I am not a member of that Government and I have no obligation of collective responsibility to the Minister for Education. But the Tánaiste and his colleagues in the Labour Party have, and it seems to me that that was a pretty disgraceful performance on the part of any Government.
We had the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to defend himself and some of his colleagues from the charge made by the Leader of this Party. He spoke here on Thursday, 24th October and he is reported at column 180 of the Official Report for that day as follows:
Collective responsibility does not mean that Ministers should be unable to express personal opinions. It means that in respect of points which are matters for Cabinet decisions and matters of Government policy, the Government must be collectively responsible.
This however does not mean that there is not room for the expression of personal opinions by Ministers in other areas.
May I ask, in all reason, in which area would you place the constitutional position defined in Articles 2 and 3? Is it in "other areas" or does it come into the area as defined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs "matters for Cabinet decisions and matters of Government policy"?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Posts and Telegraphs and Justice have all been flying kites on this and, even on the definition given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is a matter for collective responsibility. Recently at Question Time, when Deputy Lynch referred to this matter, the Taoiseach tried to defend himself by referring to events of 1970. The Taoiseach was rather unwise to do that because he was reminding everyone that the Taoiseach at that time took action whereas the present Taoiseach not alone has not taken action but he cannot take action, for two reasons. One is because he is the head of a Coalition Government and because of its construction he cannot act; and the other is because he himself is the greatest offender in this respect.
The Taoiseach was guilty of the gravest breach of collective responsibility in regard to the Contraceptives Bill. It does not matter which view one takes on that Bill, of its merits or demerits, the fact is that Bill was introduced here under the rules of this House as a Government measure—it got the precedence given to a Government measure. It went through the Government and a decision must have been recorded by the Government accepting that Bill and deciding to promote that legislation. When it came to a vote the Leader of the Government, in defiance of all constitutional obligations of collective responsibility, voted against it. I am not talking about his motives; I am not talking about the merits of the Bill. I am talking about the breach of collective responsibility by the Taoiseach. How can one expect that there will be any action to comply with the constitutional obligation of collective responsibility from a Taoiseach who himself is the greatest offender and who has lost all moral authority—if he has any other authority he has not got that, anyway —to enforce collective responsibility by his action in that regard.
The final matter I want to refer to is the situation in Northern Ireland. I do not want to go back over a whole lot of old ground on this but I want to say what I have said here before, and it bears repetition. No mater what happens in Northern Ireland, if there is a civil war, when it is all over the problems which we are facing today will be exactly the same and the solutions of these problems will be exactly the same. Nothing will be changed by any civil war, by any armed action.
For that reason the Government should be insisting, day in day out, with the British Government especially, that there must be power-sharing and an Irish dimension. Nothing else can work. The British Government should be pressed to spell out the stark realities, economic and otherwise, to the Loyalists. Some of the Loyalists are obviously living in cloud cuckoo land where they think they can have everything their own way and that Britain will go on forever more footing the bill.
I want to say this to the Government. The whole record of recent events in the North shows that the intransigents on the Loyalist side will take full advantage of any weakness shown by their opponents. They found themselves dealing with a dithering, uncertain British Government at the time of the UWC strike and so they were able to overturn the power-sharing Executive. As if weakness in Whitehall was not enough, we have had since then a series of pathetic statements from members of the Irish Government which in my view show a frightening weakness of will and an appalling lack of understanding of the hard realities of the situation in Northern Ireland. These Ministers have humiliated us and they have dismayed the Northern minority by turning cartwheels of appeasement which could only evoke derision from the people they were meant to impress.
One after another, these exercises in ministerial kite flying, these Press leakages, these indications of panic retreat have reinforced the unyielding extreme Loyalists' position. They must surely tempt the British Government to believe that the Government in Dublin will put up with any excuse for a settlement. What is more, these statements by Ministers will be seen in Whitehall as a clear indication that the minority in the North cannot rely on any worthwhile support from the Government in Dublin. It seems that the present Government are initiating a new type of diplomacy in which you throw away everything you have got, all your trump cards, before beginning to negotiate.
In my view the Minister for Foreign Affairs could not have chosen a worse time to talk about fundamental constitutional principles. What he is advocating would divest him and the Government of any right at all——
The Deputy's time is now up.
I thought I was entitled to a little more.
The Deputy may contine——
Thank you. I was about to say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs' proposition about Articles 2 and 3 would divest him and the Government of any right at all to be involved in Northern Affairs. He should know that no generation of Irishmen will ever give up the aspiration to unity nor will they ever consent to the right of the British Government to rule any part of the national territory de jure. We all recognise these are changing times and circumstances and that they will call for constitutional change in a number of areas, but the national aspirition to unity is not one of these areas.
What about the Northern minority, part of the national majority, whom we tend to forget? Are they, too, in this time of crisis to look over the Border and see Ministers of the Irish Government going around the country appealing to the people of the South to abandon them? If only from the point of view of the Government's performance in relation to Northern Ireland they do not deserve the confidence of Dáil Éireann.
Deputy Colley ended up with the remark that we do not deserve the confidence of Dáil Éireann. Would he mind throwing his mind back to May, 1970, and consider whether or not it was then necessary for us, from the Opposition as we were then, to table a motion of no confidence in a Government who had discredited themselves not alone in this country but in the whole world? If they had any decency or honesty at that particular time they would, with four Ministers having been sacked or resigned, have resigned.
Deputy Colley talks about collective responsibility and various statements from different members of the Government. Is he too young or was he in Dáil Éireann at the time when ex-Deputy Micheál Ó Móráin flew a kite in Mayo about NATO and was repudiated by the Taoiseach at that time? Does he remember the outbursts of Deputy Blaney when Deputy Blaney was a Minister and when the only rebuke we know of, as was solicited from the then Taoiseach when he was over on this side of the House, was that he asked Deputy Blaney what he meant by this speech when he passed him one time in the corridor?
Deputy Colley should also remember that it was as a result of the irresponsibility of members of the Fianna Fáil Government that he became Minister for Finance and that he now occupies the position as spokesman on Finance because of that sordid incident in May, 1970. Deputy Colley and the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party must remember that this Government were elected on the 28th February, 1973, on the basis of a statement of intent, published before the election. The people knew exactly what they were voting for: despite criticisms of Fianna Fáil of the statement of intent and of the idea of a Coalition, it was debated by and was thought about by the people. I assume Deputy Colley accepts that the decision of the people was on the basis of that statement of intent and on the basis of the Labour Party coalescing with the Fine Gael Party.
All of the statement? All of the 14 points?
Yes, but not yet. Fianna Fáil promised to drain the Shannon for 32 years and never got around to it. Fianna Fáil on that occasion did not offer any sort of policy but, as I often had occasion to say, they took the people for granted. They did not advance any policy whatsoever only the old slogan: "Let Fianna Fáil carry on", "Let's back Jack" or something to that effect. They, having persuaded themselves at that time that Coalition was impossible, deluded themselves after the election that Coalition was unstable, that it would not last more than 12 months. Of course, none of these delusions materialised. Now they have the gall to propose a vote of no confidence in this Government. We had the petty criticism from the ex-Taoiseach that because he put down a motion of no confidence we put down a motion of confidence in order to get the right to open the debate and to close it. He has often done that sort of thing himself.
It is a petty criticism from Deputy Jack Lynch, the ex-Taoiseach, who will be in that position for quite a long time. The only reason for this vote of no confidence is to try to bolster up the shattered morale, if they ever had one in recent years, of the Fianna Fáil Party. Of course, it is not totally unconnected with the election that is to be held in NorthEast Cork. That is fair game. I suppose we often did the same sort of thing when we were in Opposition on an occasion such as that.
One of the main reasons Fianna Fáil gave for tabling this motion of no confidence was the prevailing economic difficulties again, let me say, purely for party political interests and with total disregard for the national interest. That has been displayed by several speakers, particularly the last speaker, Deputy Colley, during the past hour. He could not, and neither could Deputy Lynch, have proposed such a motion this time last year because it must be admitted by them that the economy was going through the strongest ever period of growth directly as a result of Government economic policy and especially in the first budget of which Deputy Colley was so critical.
It seems to me, listening to Deputy Colley, who poses as an economist—I am not one—that what he would propose as Minister for Finance if he were on this side of the House, would be a policy which would create massive unemployment. That is exactly what he was proposing no matter what arguments he may have used to the contrary. I would like to reiterate that the budgetary policy of this Government in the first and second budgets has given a stimulus to output, to demand and to employment. The Government after their first year of office showed records for economic growth, the creation of new jobs, an increase in exports and an expansion of output. The Opposition know that but they are not now prepared to admit it. That was the situation then and it was the situation up to recently.
As they fail to admit progress in all sections of the economy they fail to admit there is now a recession all over the world. One would imagine from Deputy Colley and other speakers from Fianna Fáil that we could isolate ourselves entirely from things that were happening not alone in Europe but in the whole world as well. They also fail to admit in any of their speeches that this country cannot avoid the effects of that recession. They fail to admit, as we readily do, that there is damage to our economy. It is a threat to our progress and one which is outside our control and outside the control of any of the oil-using economies.
We recognise this threat. We are prepared to admit it and we are prepared to spell it out to the people and to give them the full facts. In another week or two the Government will publish their White Paper outlining the situation and spelling out proposals as to what all of us must do in the present crisis. They will also spell out what must be done to minimise the effects on the economy. Is it too much to expect—or should I say: it is too much to expect—that Fianna Fáil would admit that the damage which has been done has been due to outside factors? Is it too much to expect their co-operation and understanding in a situation that requires the understanding and co-operation of the whole nation?
I am sure Fianna Fáil will not fail to misrepresent outside the House as they have in the House the economic facts to the detriment of the community and for purely party political advantage. The Government are not responsible for creating the world economic crisis but they have a responsibility for dealing with its effects on the country. We accept that responsibility and if Fianna Fáil misrepresent the world economic situation we will not deny or minimise its seriousness for party political advantage. The Government have sought and will continue to seek the co-operation and understanding of the entire community in meeting this crisis and I am confident we will get that co-operation and understanding.
In this debate much ground has been covered from the appointment of peace commissioners to the establishment of pumps and the repair of roads but little reference has been made to the factor causing this crisis and which has damaged and will damage our economy for some time to come. It has not been a real debate in that the price of oil has been very little mentioned. In fact, Deputy Colley dismissed it entirely and said the price of oil had nothing to do with the crisis in which we now find ourselves. It seems, therefore, that there is no realisation or, if there is, there is no admission by Fianna Fáil that such an event had had such a drastic effect on our economy. Dramatic increases which affect practically everything one can mention— such as manufactured goods, services and import prices—were all dismissed by Deputy Colley and most of what we heard from him was what he would do if he had been Minister for Finance. I forget how long he was Minister for Finance; I think it was about two years but there was no dramatic change in the economy, in taxation, in social welfare; no dramatic improvements in health, in house building; no dramatic changes in agricultural policies except what we got from Fianna Fáil speakers prior to our accession to EEC—the benefits that would accrue to farmers. If anybody has responsibility for the situation as regards agriculture, Fianna Fáil must take the major share of that blame.
(Interruptions.)
Let nobody contend that this Government or any Government can ignore or wish away the international crisis nor can its impact be avoided now or for some time to come because we must recognise that every EEC economy has suffered a major setback in the last ten months. Nobody can suggest that we should be able to escape the setback experienced in these countries and in others. Britain and France have been severely damaged; as everybody knows, Italy is practically on her knees. We cannot surely go on as if nothing has happened. All European countries are affected and, not only Europe, but the great and powerful economies of Japan and the United States are undergoing depression and are suffering from inflation.
Fianna Fáil spokesmen pretend that the outside world does not exist and that these events are not taking place and that we are completely responsible for the present situation. There have been grudging references to the world situation but the obvious implication of their attacks is that Government action is responsible for virtually all our present difficulties. Deputy Colley quoted figures from the ESRI to try to prove that Government action had brought about this situation but if we were to employ the policies advocated here tonight by Deputy Colley we would find ourselves in a far worse position than we are now.
The OECD forecast in the June issue of Economic Output for seven of the largest economies taken together, the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy, actually indicate a decline of 1.5 in gross national product for the first half of 1974, compared with the second half of 1973. For the whole of the OECD countries there is a forecast in the same journal for the entire year of 1974 of only 1 per cent growth as compared with 6.3 per cent for 1973. This is an appalling forecast when we remember that over the last 15 years the average growth for these OECD countries was between 5 per cent and 6 per cent each year.
Therefore, the oil crisis has affected every oil-using country so seriously that their collective growth rate is now down to one-fifth or one-sixth of what it was in the past year or so. Because OECD growth is down to 1 per cent, one would think, according to Fianna Fáil speakers, that Governments throughout the world were engaged in some sort of international programme to increase prices, to jack up inflation and deliberately create unemployment. Fianna Fáil should have regard to the fact that merely because we are an island we cannot be immune from world recession of which there is ample evidence. Fianna Fáil did describe themselves as the party of realism or the party of reality. This is a time for them to be realists, understand the position and appreciate all the difficulties and not be trying to get party political gain by criticising in a mean and niggardly fashion as they have been doing during this debate.
The reality is that the growth in world trade is down to half what it was last year. Growth in all major economies has either slowed down to a crawl or come to a standstill. In some cases there will actually be a fall in output. Without exception every country is recording a rise in unemployment. However, as far as this country is concerned, because of the budgetary policies of the Government in the last two years, the growth rate for 1974 for Ireland as forecast by OECD is one that will be the highest at between 2 per cent and 3 per cent. This is the result of the expansionary budgetary policy which the Government employed in the last two budgets. This policy was requested by the trade union movement. There was a magnificent response, particularly during the negotiations which led to the last national wage agreement. That expansionary policy was also sought by industry. They responded well in promoting exports to a record level last year, despite, as I said, the gloomy speeches made by members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
As a result of Government policy and the response from both sides of industry, it is forecast that our economy will grow at one of the highest rates in the OECD, even in the face of such immense economic difficulties. The Government's expressed economic objectives are to protect employment while encouraging growth in the economy. Deputy Colley said he subscribed to this policy also. If he employed the policy to which he referred tonight, it certainly would not protect employment and, at the same time, encourage growth.
To meet these objectives the Government will do everything in their power to protect and sustain employment. They will avoid doing anything which could add to the depression and create further unemployment. As I said, these are deliberate policy decisions which have been made by the Government because they are primarily concerned for the well-being of citizens and their families. In my view, the main threat facing this country is not inflation but depression. The Opposition are not doing a service to the country, to its people, or to its economy in making the type of speech we heard from Deputy Brennan last Thursday.
The country can be assured that this Government will consciously do everything to keep employment at the highest possible level while, at the same time, protecting the weaker sections of our community from the effects of world recession. In a week or two the economic objectives and analyses and the policies to help overcome these crises, will be published. The response of the nation will then be sought. The co-operation and understanding of every sector of the economy will be vital if we are to overcome the difficulties which face us.
As I said at the Labour Party conference in Galway recently, we are threatened by economic events without precedent in our recent history. I called on that conference for moderation and tolerance. I also made the same call for help from all sectors to help overcome that crisis. I am confident, in spite of the propaganda spread by the Opposition, that the people will show their confidence in this Government by responding to that call and we will effectively protect our future together. In particular, we must protect the future of those who depend, directly or indirectly, on the State as their means of livelihood. They have a special charge on all our responsibilities. People who have secure jobs and steady incomes owe a duty to those who have neither.
This is the essence of what we mean by national partnership which we are seeking to create. Unless there is moderation in salaries, profits, wages and dividends, professional fees and earnings, then our future could be damaged irreparably. If there is moderation in the spirit of national partnership, then we can minimise the effects of the word "depression" and in particular we can save jobs and defend the weak.
This policy depends on public understanding and voluntary co-operation. I believe both will be forthcoming because of the enormous damage which could otherwise be done to our future and to those who have gained most from our policy of social reform. It was, indeed, welcome to hear from Deputy J. Lynch over the weekend, that he subscribed to that type of policy. He subscribed to a call for moderation in earnings and incomes generally. I hope he will be able to lead his party on that particular road. From the Opposition speeches it appears that they have tried to sow the seed of discontent among certain people rather than call for, as we and the Fianna Fáil Party Leader have called for, moderation of all incomes. The policy of the Government will be, as I said, to protect jobs. It also will mean that we are committed to the protection of the weak.
We heard very little from the Opposition about social services generally. There was a suggestion that the increases given were eroded by price increases. One of the principal planks in the platform of the Coalition—certainly one of the principal planks of the Labour Party in all elections—was that in respect of social reform and social welfare. We said, in the statement of intent, when we were in opposition and in various campaigns, that one of the Labour Party's priorities was to attack poverty. It must be admitted, even by our most bitter opponents, that that has been done vigorously over the last 18 or 19 months.
Social policy must logically be one of the major areas for examination in debate, after the Government's performance in the first 19 months in office. I can say without hesitation that the record of this Government in respect of social welfare, social insurance and social assistance, is better than any Government we ever had. Our record is better not alone in terms of expenditure but in the expansion of services, in innovations in the new schemes which were brought in and the dedication of the Government and the Department to the poor and the weak.
We made promises in respect of social welfare and kept them. I will give the House a few figures to indicate the extent of the improvement in money terms so far as these particular services are concerned. In keeping with the promises made in respect of social welfare, the figure for 1972-73 was £92 million. By 1974-75 that figure had increased to £171 million. The amount spent on health increased from £64 million in 1972-73 to £127 million in 1974-75. Since this Government took office on 14th March, 1973, the combined health and welfare services have received an extra £142 million. I am sure some Deputies opposite would like to question me on certain aspects of it. This is an increase of 90 per cent in terms of expenditure. But it far exceeds the rate of inflation during that period. In every single category, in social insurance and in social assistance, there has been a real increase in money terms. Therefore, it certainly does give lie to any allegation that these increases have been eroded by inflation or by price increases.
I should like to give some examples to the House. From the first quarter of 1973 to the third quarter of 1974 the consumer price index rose by just over 25 per cent. I should like to repeat that: from the first quarter of 1973 to the third quarter of 1974 the consumer price index rose by just over 25 per cent. But, in the same period, the following percentage increases were recorded in social insurance and social assistance: widows' contributory pension increased by 39 per cent; unemployment benefit by 40 per cent; unemployment benefit for a man and his wife by 38 per cent; old age pension, contributory, by 37 per cent; old age pension contributory for a man and his wife by 45 per cent; child dependants of widows by 70 per cent; old age pensions, non-contributory, by 42 per cent; unemployment assistance for a man and his wife 40 per cent; non-contributory widows' pension by 42 per cent; child dependants 78 per cent; children's allowances, for the first child 360 per cent; second child 120 per cent and the third child and other children by 80 per cent. I suppose, with those figures, there could not be much criticism from the members of the Opposition. It must be agreed in any case, in that vital part of the statement of intent, not alone did we deliver what we promised we would before the election but we exceeded it in many cases threefold and fourfold.
In addition we brought new categories into the social welfare system— divorced wives and their children, elderly single women with low or no means, adult dependants of non-contributory old age pensioners, unmarried mothers and dependants of long-term prisoners. We promised— and we were derided for it and told it was impossible and even when in opposition we were told it was impossible—to reduce the qualification age for the old age pension to 65. We were ridiculed even though we asked many times for an easement of the means test. We have fulfilled our promises in respect of a reduction of the eligibility age for old age pension. It was reduced from 70 to 68 years and we will in accordance with the promise we gave to the people and the commitment we made to this House, further reduce it until it is 65 years of age. Do we not remember the time when there was this awful means test, under various Ministers for Social Welfare of the Fianna Fáil Party, whereby if one had one penny one could not qualify for the full old age pension? We changed that in the first budget in 1973; we further eased the means test in 1974 so that now these unfortunate people, who had to live in such poverty before, have means of £5 per week and still qualify for the full old age pension as against a policy pursued by a Minister for Social Welfare under which, if a person owned a vested cottage, that person was not entitled to the full amount of old age pension because of being owner or part owner thereof.
We went further than our promise because the Government have extended the easement of the means test to other categories as well-to widows, deserted wives, the blind and those in receipt of disability allowance. I know there are some people on the far side who would like to dismiss that and say: "But you got all that money from the EEC Social Fund", or "You saved that because of the withdrawal of subsidies from the agricultural community". This was money that was produced by the people for the poorest sections in our community.
Would the Tánaiste explain that, please? Would the Tánaiste explain how the money from the EEC does not count?
I did not say it did not count. What I said was that there are members of the Fianna Fáil Party who would allege that all these increases were provided entirely by savings in respect of our membership of the EEC.
EEC, plus normal social welfare payments.
Does Deputy Colley mean to tell me that he would have done all that had he been Minister for Finance? Perhaps he would have done better?
With the EEC behind us we sure would, and it is no thanks to you that we——
What was the saving in 1973 in agriculture with the withdrawal of subsidies?
£34 million; £60 million this year.
Deputy Colley should not talk such nonsense. That is the sort of argument he used employ when he was beaten so badly on radio and television.
The Tánaiste should ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In this debate he quoted a figure of £60 million; does the Tánaiste know that?
I have a little more for you in respect of social welfare in any case.
(Interruptions.)
There were very many other new categories of persons who were included under the health and welfare schemes. I do not think I need go through all of these. It is sufficient to say that there were 37,000 extra old age pensioners brought in; single women, 2,100; unmarried mothers 2,000. In addition, 70,000 extra people are now covered by social welfare insurance because this Government abolished the income limit. Children between the ages of 16 and 18 years of age were brought into the children's allowance system in our first budget. All in all, apart from the categories existing when we came into office, an extra 180,000 persons were brought under the umbrella of the social welfare and social assistance codes.
We said we have special concern for the children. As I have already indicated to the House, the very substantial increases we have given to the child dependants of all these welfare recipients are twice as high as those in the general rates. I asked my colleagues in the Government to grant these special increases because of the plight, particularly of mothers of families with no fathers, such as widows, unmarried mothers and deserted wives. These exceptional increases were granted by this Government in their very first budget. Also, in our first budget the Government increased children's allowances, as promised also in our statement of intent, by £1.50 per month and an additional 30p per month was granted in the second budget. For the second time since children's allowances were introduced they were increased in successive budgets. When we asked for this, when in opposition, we were told: "Ah, sure, they got it last year; they will not need it for another few years." I should like to make a comment on the children's allowances. All families in the State have benefited and now some 375,000 families are included in the system. Our children's allowances are now comparable with those in Northern Ireland and in certain cases, superior to them. For instance, a family with three children here receives £9.65 per month compared with a figure in Northern Ireland of £9.23 per month. In all cases up to that, of a family of seven children, the children's allowances here are superior. This satisfactory comparison reflects in a particular way the fact that this Government have bridged the gap between British and Irish rates of benefit to a considerable extent, a gesture that is far better than the type of speech we heard from Deputy Charles Haughey over the last weekend when he talked about the North.
As I have said, our special concern was for children and the Government's concern for the children of the nation extends beyond the field of income maintenance. Serious consideration has been given to the many anomalies in existing law and to the gaps in the existing services. I should like to remind the House again of an announcement I made last week to the effect that we proposed to change drastically the outdated Children's Act of 1908 and to change and improve the inadequate services there are for children in this country. It was a little amusing to hear Deputy David Andrews calling for these changes when, for 16 long years and even more, nobody in Fianna Fáil seemed to think about the 1908 Act, children's courts, services or anything like that. But this has been done during the second year of the term of office of this Government.
As well as that—this was recommended by the Kennedy Report and various reports of CARE—the responsibility for children's services and the Children's Act has been vested in one Minister. We have been criticised for not making decisions and for not doing things which the Opposition said needed to be done. Let it be remembered that when Fianna Fáil left office the Kennedy and CARE reports were lying on the desk of some Minister and had been there for four or five years but nothing had been done about them.
I wish to mention briefly other steps that have been taken in respect of social welfare. Community information centres have been established. The Department have been asked to prepare a discussion document on an income-related pension scheme. I am certain that such a scheme is necessary and will be of benefit to all concerned. One of the most important changes announced by the Government is that in relation to the awful poor law system of home assistance. A former Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare promised many times that he would reform and rationalise the home assistance service. That is being done now and I promise the House that within the next month or two there will be proposals that will alleviate poverty of the type that is worst among us, that is the poverty in respect of those who must have recourse to home assistance.
Hear, hear.
One would imagine from what has been said by Deputy O'Malley that nothing had happened in the field of health during the past 12 months. I do not know whether the Deputy wants flashes of gimmicky legislation.
We give credit to the Minister that, unlike some of his colleagues, he has not been guilty of flashy legislation, legislation that means nothing.
If there is a flash boy in this House it is Deputy Colley. I do not wish to be offensive in any way but has he not been referred to as "gorgeous George"? In respect of the Department of Health, expenditure increased from £64 million which was the amount for 1972-73 to £127 million for 1974-75. One does not have to have legislation in order to make improvements in the health services. Shortly after coming to office I provided a constant care allowance of £25 per month for severely mentally and physically handicapped children. This did not involve a means test which in itself was desirable. Apparently this was something that had not been thought of before. Also, I eased the means test in respect of those people in receipt of disablement allowances from local authorities and 800 people extra benefited from this.
It is very difficult to know what is the mind of Fianna Fáil on the question of medical cards. One of the major tasks I undertook on going into the Department of Health was to endeavour to have uniformity. I could not direct CEOs but I brought them together and told them there should be uniformity and there are uniform guidelines in operation throughout the country now.
Each year a review will take place. This was an undertaking I got from the CEOs. It is difficult to reconcile some of the statements of Deputy O'Malley when he talks of medical cards with his defence of other members of the medical profession although he says he has no wish to take sides. He would prefer to sit on the fence all the time. He seems to complain that there are not sufficient medical cards but on the other hand some of his doctor friends say that there are too many medical cards. Deputy O'Malley will have to make up his mind on that and to indicate, if not to us, at least to his own party, what he wants.
I have decided to include also in the long-term illnessess luekemia, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. This will take in about 7,000 people extra into the scheme. It should be explained to the House that in respect of these and other long-term illnesses, the expenses are extremely high. It is impossible to include all the various long-term illnesses but I thought that a start should be made in what I regarded to be some of the most expensive illnesses.
So far as mental illness is concerned the House will share with me my concern for the treatment of these people. Reform in this area is long overdue and I would expect that the House and the health boards would assist me in trying to ensure that better facilities and treatment would be introduced. I decided on a certain initiative in this area and I will recommend also, in respect of handicapped children, a radically new policy for their retraining and employment. I promise, too, to introduce a White Paper in respect of the mentally ill and the physically disabled.
There are many Deputies who are concerned about the problem we have in relation to hospitals. About two months ago I announced that the first major scheme for approval would be that in respect of the Dublin area. In reply to questions I have said that so far as other areas are concerned I was concerned, as I should be and as any other member of the Government should be, with the capital cost of improving the various hospitals. Decisions cannot be made lightly but I am anxious to ensure that the best possible services in the best locations will be provided for our sick people.
I know of the concern there is in various areas but I reiterate what I said some time ago—that every provincial town, no matter how big or how small, cannot have an acute general hospital. These are the facts. I undertook also to have regard to the recommendation of the various health boards who are assisting me in trying to determine where the locations of these hospitals will be.
While listening to the debate on the intercom I was amused to hear Deputy O'Malley say that the country awaits a decision in respect of these hospitals. Again, I am forced to ask Deputy O'Malley what happened during five years. I do not know whether it was Deputy S. Flanagan who established the relevant committee but for five years the matter remained in the Department. No action was taken in regard to it. Not one word was written about it. I do not know whether it was pressure from Fianna Fáil that resulted in the issue being shelved. However, it is my responsibility now and I will try to ensure that the hospitals are located in the best possible places and that the best possible treatment is available at them.
I also started free treatment for long-term diseases.
I believe the Deputy added a few and I hope the next Minister for Health will add yet another few. Deputy O'Malley got the impression also that I had made a decision in respect of Wexford town. So far as a hospital is concerned I have made no decision in relation to Wexford town. I do not know what was the implication of the Deputy's remarks.
Would it not be as well for Deputy O'Malley to apply himself to the problems of Limerick?
The House is aware also that we are committed to making available free hospitalisation for the whole community. On this, too, I find there is not unanimity although we were accused of not being unanimous in the policy that we had adopted as a Government in respect of free hospitalisation.
That is wrong.
I remember some quotes from Members on the benches opposite who spoke in favour of the proposal which was agreed by the Government.
The Tánaiste is right in saying Members on this side supported the idea but the policy is still wrong.
I think the Deputy himself was fairly well inclined towards this. At one time when somebody asked: "What about the consultants?" he made a remark in a journal that: "The snobs will look after them." Am I right in that?
The Tánaiste may be smart but he is not being serious. The fact is I was against free hospitalisation for all and I still am. It is wrong.
I have been accused by Deputy O'Malley of engaging in unseemly squabbles with the consultants, in contrast to ten years of peace with the doctors under Fianna Fáil, according to the Deputy. I do not know if it is ten years ago but ex-Deputy McEntee had an all-out squabble with the lot of them; so much so that when they invited him to dinner one night he was so annoyed with them he sent them the price of the dinner. Many of the problems we have were left there by various Ministers and one was the situation with regard to the junior hospital doctors. That was there for years but I was pressed by Deputy O'Malley who was making a lot of mischief at a time of delicate negotiations. That dispute was fixed in four short weeks although it had been festering in the Department for a number of years.
I am sorry Deputy Molloy is not in the House because he became hysterical about housing when he spoke last Thursday. So far as the performance of the Government in local government matters is concerned, particularly in housing, it is second to none and that is due to the activity, the energy and the pushing of the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully. We promised, and the obligation was put on him, to build 25,000 dwellings per year. That was done in the first year of office; as a matter of fact, he exceeded the figure by 635 houses, compared with an average of 15,600 during the previous five years.
Why not take the year before?
Some 6,539 dwellings were completed in 1973-74 as against 5,400 provided for by the previous Government. There are 12,000 dwellings in progress as against 8,720 on 28th February, 1973 when they left office.
How many are occupied?
The Minister for Local Government fulfilled his promises. There was an unending row between the tenants of local authority houses, and the Department of Local Government and the city manager but the Minister solved that problem and it was accepted by the country. He promised that the conditions regarding sale of local authority houses would be eased and he fulfilled that promise. He scrapped the proposal of Fianna Fáil to abolish the smaller local authorities and gave democracy back to the people; he restored local democracy in Bray and Dublin; he provided votes at 18 for local elections; he shifted the burden of rates for housing and health charges. All these were promised by the Coalition and they were delivered by the Minister for Local Government. No other Minister for Local Government has worked harder than Deputy Tully.
I should like to say a brief word about the North——
What about prices?
And redundancies?
The Government inherited the task of dealing with the ongoing crisis in Northern Ireland. I should like Deputies to listen; I do not know if they are serious but I can assure them I am serious when I talk about the North. In Opposition, the two parties now comprising the Government had supported the Government of the day in a bipartisan policy based on the rejection of violence for political ends and in securing the unity of our country by persuasion, dialogue and co-operation with the North. Our first months in office were dedicated to detailed consultation with the democratic parties in the North and the British Government in working out a completely new constitutional structure in Northern Ireland and a totally new form of co-operation between North and South. Throughout those long months of arduous negotiation, this Government gave more time to the resolution of the Northern problem than any previous Government and it is only fair to comment on the application and dedication of the Minister for Foreign Affairs not only in dealing with the technical details but also in opening and maintaining contacts with the Northern community. I should like to commend him for his efforts.
Hear, hear.
Because I was one of that team, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Faulkner, and to the members of the SDLP and the Alliance Party for the efforts all of us made to try to ensure there would be power-sharing and a Council of Ireland. Unfortunately it could not be so. The agreement at Sunningdale was one of the most courageous departures in relations between the communities of this island. We all realised there were dangers involved because the new Executive in power-sharing depended on growing reconciliation between the Northern communities and on a growth in tolerance and mutual understanding. We knew it was a fragile beginning and our professed policy was to encourage and support the emergence of a power-sharing Executive. Regrettably, that experiment has failed for the present because of continued violence within both communities, and because of growing intransigence particularly in the Northern community.
During the course of this debate the stain of violence in the North has intensified. The number of deaths has increased rather than diminished and sectarian passions are at their worst point in half a century. We can no longer afford the luxury of myths and fairy tales because innocent men have died on Irish streets, not only in the North but in Dublin and in Monaghan also.
As I pointed out last week, it is the Government's policy to do all they can to prevent further needless loss of life. There can be no alternative for men of sanity and compassion. It may be that in pursuing this policy we will disturb those who wish to maintain a high profile or who wish to demand ends they know are unattainable. That is a risk we must run in trying to bring about an end to violent deaths both North and South. The Government's policy, as I pointed out last week and as the Taoiseach outlined in opening this debate, is to secure a return of power-sharing in the North allied with an expression of the Irish dimension.
At a time when sectarian loyalties have been expressed so ominously in the recent British general election, it would be futile to expect that power-sharing would be reconstructed in the coming weeks or months. When the power-sharing Executive fell the Government decided to begin again the task of reconstructing the elements of the Sunningdale package and they are now engaged in that task. We have faith in the goodness of people in both communities; no matter what are the present difficulties, there will emerge sufficient support once more for power-sharing and inter-community co-operation. We are not without that faith and our policy is based on the belief that such a hope is justified. The faithless men are those who see no hope, who have no policy except in the repetition of old clichés.
So far as the Government are concerned, bi-partisanship on the North rests on the fact that all parties in this House have subscribed (a) to a rejection of violence for political ends and (b) their belief that unity can be brought about only by peaceful means. There must logically follow from these two principles a commitment to a policy of patience and persuasion. If at times the policy of patience is seen to be under stress in this House that is understandable because of the difficult times in which we live. There should be no presumption on the part of anyone that the unified approach of this House is in any jeopardy on the fundamental principles of Northern policy. There is room, as there has been, for differences in matters of tactics and emphasis but there has been no divergence on fundamental principles and I wish to commend the Leader of the Opposition and his principal spokesmen for their attitude particularly in the difficult and harrowing months since the collapse of the power-sharing Executive.
It will be necessary for us in the coming months to look a long and hard look at our Constitution. We must examine for ourselves any obstacles which it may contain to peace and unity. Naturally the House will await the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution but personally I hold in government the belief I expressed in opposition, namely, we should have an entirely new Constitution rather than piecemeal amendment of the existing Constitution.
There have been attempts to criticise individual expression of views on major policy matters by individual Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition has joined in that criticism. So far as I am concerned, I reject completely such attempts to prevent individual Ministers from contributing to public debate before a Cabinet decision is made. I would not wish to be restricted in my public utterances on matters of general concern and I am happy that members of the Cabinet have felt thus free to contribute to important matters of national debate at times when they considered it appropriate. As I have indicated, I have a personal preference for dealing with the constitutional problems. I hope the Government and the Opposition can come to a mutual agreement as to what requires to be done but, if this should prove impossible, then each side should make the decision it believes to be in the best interests of the country as a whole, North and South, and not based on the interests of its own party and its own political future.
This debate of confidence or no confidence in the Government must of necessity be a debate on broad policy of all fronts. As leader of our party, I want to say that this Government have received and are receiving growing support and that certainly was indicated at our open and democratic annual conference in Galway.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This is the third Coalition and it is one of significant change, advancement and achievement. The Government, I want to assure the House, is united and unified. In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to my party colleagues and to my Fine Gael colleagues in the Cabinet for what they have done and for what they have achieved for the country. I appreciate the support of all the Labour and Fine Gael members of this House because this support has been a source of great strength to the Cabinet and I know that, especially in this difficult period of world crisis, their support will not lessen because they participate in a government who have such support and I ask the House for a vote of confidence now in the Government and their policies.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond: Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 30th October, 1974.