I would consider it positive political thinking. I would suggest that the Government, who were charged with running the affairs of the country, cannot do so. Therefore, when their mandate has become exhausted they have an obligation to test the electoral will of the people. We believe that the electoral will, so tested, would favour the return of the Fianna Fáil Party.
That is one immediate solution to the economic problems. As an Opposition we have a responsibility, when the country is going through a period of economic crises not to rock the national boat. If the Government, from time to time, take unpopular measures which Fianna Fáil consider necessary, in the interest of the nation we will support them. That is responsible Opposition. That would be our obligation in assisting the Government to guide the country through the present economic morass. We would be prepared to do that, as stated by our leader on a number of occasions. Deputy Lynch has set out clearly what he considers to be the responsibility of a party in Opposition, the responsibility of the largest single political party in the country. This party, in Opposition, have been responsible. We have been guided well by the leader of the party.
Nevertheless, the public—the people on the electoral register—must be concerned about the fact that the second official budget introduced on 26th June, 1975, was to reduce the cost of living by some 4 per cent. Who in this country can put their hands on their hearts and say, a month later, that the cost of living is still at the same level as it was a month ago? As I said when I reported progress, if one was to put down a Parliamentary Question about the rise in the cost of living between 26th June, 1975, and 26th July, 1975, the percentage figures would be most revealing. They must show an increase.
During the course of this debate we have a responsibility not to endanger the possible favourable outcome of the national wage agreement. I appreciate that, but are we to suppress our knowledge of the continuous and fatiguing price rises? It is well known that the housewife in suburbia, in any of the conurbations, or in rural Ireland, cannot keep up with the continually harassing and fatiguing price rises. I once described this Government as the Government which made meat a luxury. I now have to revise my description and call them the Government that made food a luxury because of their unwillingness to tackle inflation. The Taoiseach has taken a number of stands on inflation: he tells us one day that outside influences are responsible, the next day he says we can control it ourselves, and on the third day he tells us again that it is due to outside influences. He came rushing back from Brussels with the latter state of the nation message. One wonders does the Taoiseach really know.
The Minister for Finance has proved that he does not know how to control inflation. Deputy Colley, the real Minister for Finance, indicated time and again how the Opposition, when they become Government, will deal with this eroding problem—inflation, job losses and so on. We all know how Deputy Colley would deal with this problem so I will not burden the House by repeating it. The present Government are not capable or willing to deal with it.
It is recognised that inflation can be controlled nationally and that there are certain measures that can be taken. But the Coalition Government —Fine Gael and Labour Parties— have to accommodate one another. That is where the country suffers. The weakness called compromise in Government—one party compromising with the other—is the weakness of Coalition. The strength of Fianna Fáil or any single-party Government is that they do not have to engage in political compromise. Compromise in a political sense is an unwillingness to take action, particularly in relation to the economic situation.
When housewives daily go to their local shopkeeper or supermarket, the owners have to announce price increases. We read the headlines in the newspapers. No later than last night a headline in The Evening Herald, Tuesday, 22nd July, 1975, read: “EEC deal to put up prices.” It would appear that every time the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries goes to Europe he comes back with the devaluation of the green £ or with news for the farmer, who is the backbone of the country.
I come from a Dublin constituency and would not engage in the political exercise of setting off the farming section of the community against the non-farming section. This is a dangerous and bad national exercise. It makes for a form of political competition. It is not my intention to engage in that form of political exercise. We know that the farmer is reasonably badly off and is entitled to what he gets.
At the same time, it appears that the middle income group, particularly the white-collar worker, seems to have had enough under the present régime. Some time ago certain sections of the community were brought into the PAYE system. Not only will they have to pay last year's PAYE but this year's, too, on this year's earnings. This seems grossly unfair. As a Member of the Oireachtas, I am in no way engaging in special pleading because we are included in this system. Maybe it is as well that I do not discuss it because I might be accused of special pleading. This is an example of the type of convolutions the Government are engaging in and the hardships the white-collar, middle-income group have to put up with. I represent a constituency which can be described as a middle-income constituency. I can only reflect in the Dáil the type of response I get from my constituents. To my knowledge, a large group of people who might have voted for the Coalition parties on the last occasion, will take the first opportunity to correct that error with a certain amount of happiness. That is understandable.
They are being taxed, either directly or indirectly, by a Government who consider borrowing to be the panacea, who seem to borrow themselves from one difficulty to the next, and the figures are there to prove it.
So much for the middle-income group. This can be described as the second official budget. We have had so many unofficial budgets it is very difficult to list them all. We had the January and June budgets. Either the leader of our party or our spokesman on Finance said there can be little doubt but that there will be a third budget before the end of the year. That appears to be the situation.
With regard to the food subsidies, we are now informed by clever, subtle Government leaks that there will probably be an increase in these subsidies in the not-too-distant future. If there are to be increases in food subsidies in the not-too-distant future does that mean that there will be a budget to provide for these increases? That appears to be so. As I say, budgeting has become meaningless in the hands of the present political Government group. It has been a meaningless exercise. We have had two budgets already and we can expect a third.
As I understand it, the purpose of a budget is to balance income and expenditure. If that is the principle of a budget, then surely it is recognised that the Government have made a mockery of the whole concept of economic budgeting for the survival of the country. You list the number of expenditures, add them, and borrow to meet the deficit. I understand that is the Government's system of budgeting, but what an extraordinary way to run the country. Borrowing this year will amount to somewhere in the region of £814 million. If a Deputy went to his bank manager trying to service an overdraft, or whatever, bringing it down to simple language, and he said he was trying to follow the Government's example in the matter of catering for the finances of his own home, I am quite satisfied the bank manager who, knowing the present Government's incapacity and incapability for running the country, having brought it in borrowing alone to a figure of £814 million in one year, would have him committed. My own bank manager is an extremely decent man and I know it would be the very last resort as far as he would be concerned in relation to me and his other customers.
The fact is that if people trying to service an overdraft or with a credit account in their banks went to a bank manager and said they were running their bank accounts on the same lines as the Government are running the country the bank manager would laugh them out of court and would ask them to take their bank accounts elsewhere, and properly so. We would like the Government to take themselves elsewhere, and the elsewhere we would like to see the Government taking themselves is to the people and let the people decide who should run the country.
With regard to the £814 million borrowed in one year, what country the size of our country could withstand that sort of borrowing? It cannot withstand it. The simple truth is the Government are living on the credit rating, in the eyes of the world, achieved by the last Government. That credit rating, the legacy of the last Government, will run out and with it the credibility of this country. The credit of the nation is about to be used up by the present Government.
I did not realise that there were other speakers anxious to contribute and I apologise for holding my colleagues in my party unnecessarily long, but I would like to urge upon the Government that they should recognise their obligations to the nation. As I said, the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party has already indicated what he considers to be the responsibility of the Opposition to a Government who have quite clearly lost their way. It would now appear as a matter of record and fact that the Opposition are leading the economic thinking of the country because the Government, six months after a view articulated by the real Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, brought in much of what he said—unfortunately too little and too late. We would ask the Taoiseach after the recess—the Taoiseach is entitled to a holiday as are all of us—to sit down with his more responsible and more responsive Ministers and work out some form of economic plan for the future of the country.
The position now is that the Government are leaving the coffers of the nation almost bankrupt and Fianna Fáil will once more have to lead the country out of that situation. They will do just that. In the meantime, the present Government are charged with the running of the country, and they might consider when they return from their holidays —I will not say well-earned holidays —my modest proposal, to paraphrase the late great Dean, in a different context, of course.
It is a pity that this is not to be a general debate on the state of the nation. It appears that we are not going to have the opportunity of engaging in an adjournment debate. In the meantime, it is just as well to conclude by mentioning the Government's record. That was typified particularly between the hours of 6.30 and 7.30 this evening when the guillotine came down on their own Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Industry and Commerce turned on the Opposition spokesman and suggested that the Opposition were, in some way, to blame for the introduction of the guillotine and the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not have an opportunity to reply. The scandal of that statement is that the Bill before the House had only one hour for its Second Stage. Three Fianna Fáil Deputies spoke on it and it was discovered in the last two or three minutes that the Minister would not have any time to reply. The real erosion of freedom on this aspect is that the Minister will now have to reply to the Deputies seriatum and privately. It is a damn shame and it is indicative of the fact that what the Minister might have wanted to have got on the record of the House, where it should be, will now be placed in letters to Deputies. The Government are guilty of the erosion of the principle of the freedom of debate and speech in this House. The record should show that the Minister for Industry and Commerce replies on a Bill for which an hour was given, by correspondence.
