asked the Taoiseach if, in relation to his statement to the Confederation of Irish Industries to the effect that the Government will take whatever measures are necessary to keep the economy on course, he will indicate the measures the Government have in mind in the light of the accelerating economic decline.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Economic Situation.
1.
In my address to the confederation, I indicated the difficulties facing us which, while serious, do not provide evidence of "accelerating economic decline"; and I indicated the Government's intention of taking whatever action was necessary to keep the economy on course. Decisions to this end will be announced as appropriate.
I may also mention that the working party, arising out of the meetings between members of the Government and economic organisations, will be meeting very soon.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the indications of the decline in the economy were very apparent as far back as November last year? Why were appropriate measures not taken as of that date?
No, I do not agree. In fact, the budget was designed to stimulate the economy because of the recession both outside and inside the country. I should say that the volume of industrial investment shows an increase in each of the past years and I can quote figures to indicate this. There was £135 million worth of work approved by the IDA in 1972-73, £303 million worth in 1973-74, and £510 million worth in 1974. For the same period the value of exports was up 29 per cent.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the increase in the volume of money generated by the IDA was as a result of measures taken before this Government took office when the economy was on a sound basis? Will he further indicate why he denies that the decline in the economy is accelerating when all the evidence is pointing to that fact?
In fact, the value of exports which I mentioned was £254 million or 29 per cent in 1974 and industrial exports were up more than 40 per cent despite the depressed conditions in other markets.
Will the Taoiseach indicate why it was necessary to invite representatives of different organisations such as farmers, employers, trade unions and others to meetings when there was already in existence the National Economic and Social Council on which all these bodies were already represented? Will he say what expertise the new committees or groups have that the NESC does not have?
I am sure the Deputy appreciates that the NESC is a very large body and large bodies generally take time to come to conclusions. It was felt that because of the continuing rate of inflation it was necessary to take action more quickly. It was for that reason that an invitation was extended to the bodies concerned and the suggestion made that smaller representation from the different interests might result in more speedy action.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that there is already within the NESC a number of committees and more specifically an economic committee? If it were a question of the NESC as a whole being too unwieldy, would not the economic committee of the NESC have been adequate for the purpose which the Taoiseach has in mind?
As the Deputy says, there is the economic committee but I think it is correct to say that most of the representatives on the working party are also members of the NESC.
If they are all members of the NESC, why was it necessary to set up a new body? Was it not just a charade to try to indicate that the Government were doing something at last having been goaded and pilloried into taking some action?
In fact, the suggestion of a smaller working group came originally from one of the ICTU representatives as being the most effective way. The Government are anxious to co-operate in any ideas which these organisations put forward as constructive approaches to deal with the situation.
In view of the necessity which the Government saw for setting up this new group and these working committees, is it now admitted that the concept of a national partnership which was put forward by the Government in a White Paper last year has failed or is no longer effective? In view of the statement recently by the Minister for Labour urging restraint in wage claims, does that in any way prejudice adherence to the national wage agreement on the part of the Government?
No. So far as the national partnership is concerned, this is a follow-up to the suggestion contained in the White Paper when it was published but, in the meantime, as the Deputy knows, discussions had been proceeding on the national wage agreement and it was felt that intervention by the Government would possibly be regarded as interferences with those discussions. Now that the discussions on wages have ended it was decided to reconvene the meetings between the different organisations. So far as the statement by the Minister for Labour was concerned, I think he correctly represented the situation. One of the problems involved in inflation is the high level of the percentage changes involved in the implementation of the national wage agreement.
Is it the position now that the Government have no plans or proposals to keep the economy on course, to use the Taoiseach's own phrase, and that we must await the outcome of the discussions by the committees who are now coming together, and who may be engaged in protracted meetings, before any necessary measures will be taken?
No, on the contrary. I made it clear that the Government were anxious to proceed on the basis of consultation with the interested parties to which I have referred. I also made it clear that so far as action is concerned in the budget in January and on whatever other occasions seem appropriate the Government will take the necessary action.
Since one of these measures was the imposition of an enormous tax increase on petrol, would the Taoiseach indicate what consultations took place with the interested bodies?
Apparently when you take action you are criticised. On that occasion we took action.
The Taoiseach cannot have it both ways.
How does the Taoiseach reconcile his statement today with his recent statement that we are living largely on borrowed time and on the goodwill of our creditors?
I have allowed many supplementaries on this question. Question No. 2.