I move:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the stated policy of the Government to phase out food subsidies, regards the effects of such a policy on the cost of living generally and in particular on the living standards of the poor, the underprivileged and large families as most retrogressive, and calls on the Government to review its policy intentions on this grave issue of national concern.
The Labour Party tabled this motion as a matter related to other activities in which we are engaged, including a national campaign to solicit signatures right across the political spectrum urging the Government not to carry out their stated intention of removing food subsidies because of the repercussions and social consequences for so many of our people in the event of that taking place. The Government have seen fit to table an amendment to our motion asking for an examination and a comparison of the management of the economy from 1973 to June 1977 and from June 1977 to the present day. I welcome the amendment because it gives much greater scope to deal with all the issues involved, and our motion and that amendment are by no means unrelated.
The implications of the proposal by the Government in the Green Paper to remove food subsidies are only now percolating through to the general public and to members of the Fianna Fail Party at rank and file, grassroots level; obviously, from reports we have had of a parliamentary party meeting of Fianna Fáil held this week, they are now beginning to register on members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. That, coupled with the proposal to tax children's allowances, has stirred the parliamentary party of Fianna Fail in two ways. Undoubtedly a number of people in the Fianna Fáil benches and tens of thousands of people throughout the country who voted Fianna Fáil in the last election have some sense of social justice, and they never for one moment, when they were casting their vote for Fianna Fáil, envisaged that such a proposal as the removal of food subsidies could seriously be made by that Government in a society such as ours is today. Despite the misleading statement by the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance in this House some weeks ago that the proposal to remove food subsidies was contained in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, having gone through the manifesto I cannot find even a suggestion that such action was being contemplated by Fianna Fáil when they sought the support of the electorate in June 1977. I am totally convinced that had such a proposal been made public by them at that time they would not have been returned to office.
It has been suggested by the Government that the removal of food subsidies is totally justified. No time limit has been put by the Government on the proposals to remove these subsidies. They say rather vaguely in the Green Paper that it should be done over a period of time. But done it will be, and the timing of the removal of food subsidies will be determined far more by party political advantage than by any other considerations. Because next year we are facing both direct elections to the European Parliament and local elections throughout the country it is quite conceivable that the timing for the removal of food subsidies, the taxation of children's allowances or any of the other anti-social measures that the Government have mentioned in the Green Paper will be determined by the fact that we are entering into a dual election year. The intention is there, the thought is there and the implementation will be there and it is purely a question of when.
I would like the Irish electorate to realise that no Government would put down in black and white as their stated intention a measure so conservative, reactionary and controversial as the removal of food subsidies or the taxation of children's allowances unless they intended to implement that policy. If the start of its implementation does not take place next January in the budget it will be because we are then in a dual election year and the decision to postpone its implementation will be for purely party political interests. We should look at the situation and the kind of society in which we live and in which a Government is proposing to remove food subsidies. The result of the removal of food subsidies on three items that have been mentioned will be as follows: for one lb. of butter the price would be £1.5; for a pint of milk 16p; for a loaf of bread 31p. These three items are fairly basic food requirements of the average Irish family and the total saving in the removal will be in the region of £57 million.
That would not happen all at once; it would be, as the Government say in their Green Paper, during a period of time. The reason that the Government have given for the proposed removal of food subsidies is that they were introduced at a time of high inflation. Those circumstances, according to them, no longer exist and they are now justified in proposing that the subsidies be removed. I do not accept their argument in so far as inflation in relation to food prices is concerned. If we look at the last price index figures we will see that from April to mid-August 1978 the increase in the price of food was 7 per cent, and over a yearly basis it is quite clear that the increase in food prices goes well into double figures.
There are also other factors such as the Green £. The operation of CAP in the EEC has a very definite beneficial national effect in that quite substantial sums of money come into this country through the operation of CAP. One of the side effects of that policy is that, while it is beneficial to some of the farming community—not all if we take the west of Ireland—it has a detrimental effect on urban and industrial workers in that it increases the prices of certain commodities.
That is not the fault of the CAP. It is not the fault of the EEC. At national and European level we have always supported the operation of the common agricultural policy. We have also said repeatedly that the Government have the responsibility to ensure that, when the money arrives here from the EEC, there is a proper redistribution of that beneficial effect of our membership of the EEC. Not only have the Government neglected to attempt any redistribution of the existing wealth within the country, but also, by deliberate action, they have increased the difference between the very wealthy, the very poor and the middle income group. By removing the food subsidies they will increase the burden on the urban dweller and cause further friction and division between rural and urban Ireland. That is very undesirable in itself. It is an inevitable result of the Government's past actions and it will be aggravated by their proposal to remove the food subsidies.
Let us have a look at some of the people who will be affected by the removal of the food subsidies on bread, butter and milk. Almost immediately after taking office the Government removed the wealth tax, they increased the benefits available under capital gains tax, and they ensured that those who already had an abundance were handed back £2,000 per year, those in the wealth tax category. The removal of the food subsidies will hit them because they will have to pay more for bread, butter and milk. It will hit Members of the Oireachtas because we will have to do the same. It will hit other categories and I will name just a few of them: the unemployed, the old age pensioner, the deserted wife, the unmarried mother and her child, widows and orphans, and a whole range of people. It will hit them differently from the way it will hit us or the people to whom Fianna Fáil saw fit to give back £2,000 per year.
Sometimes we become so confused and so involved with the masses that we do not see the individual. Can anybody in this House, in the Press Gallery or in the country who is fortunate enough to be able to provide a good home, proper clothing, proper meals for their children, envisage a situation where a child comes in from school—and there may be four, five, six, seven or eight children in the family—and asks for a glass of milk or a slice of bread and butter and the parent of necessity has to say no? That is the implication behind this proposal to remove the food subsidies.
A committee financed by the EEC was set up to investigate the extent and the cause of poverty within the EEC. The Irish Committee to Combat Poverty made an interim report yesterday. They estimated—accurately, I believe—that approximately 25 per cent of our people are living in poverty. I am talking of approximately 750,000 Irish men, women and children living in poverty in 1978 in a European society. Of those 750,000 people approximately one-third are children. That is why we have tabled this motion and that is why we will use every means at our disposal to solicit the support not only of people who normally support the Labour Party but right across the political spectrum in telling this Government to halt. Their Tory approach to Irish society has gone on long enough. I believe that once the cry of halt is clearly spelled out we will be joined by active members of the Fianna Fáil Party at parliamentary and constituency level.
The Government put down an amendment to this motion. I welcome that amendment because it gives us an opportunity to compare what happened to our economy before and after June 1977. Before the election there was the Fianna Fáil manifesto and afterwards they published another document entitled Development for Full Employment. The latter is something of a joke when one considers the number who are still out of work approximately 16 months after Fianna Fáil's return to office. However, they put forward the two documents I have mentioned as objects for economic beatification. But they must be subjected to very close scrutiny and I intend engaging in such scrutiny this evening.
If we consider the situation in terms of economic growth we find that the rate in this respect in 1976 was from 3 to 3½ per cent. That was at the end of a three-year period of the worst recession that the western world had known since the thirties. Indeed, it was perhaps an even worse recession than that experienced in the thirties. In 1972 the western world was shaken to its foundation by the very unexpected and high increase in the price of oil when economies that were much stronger than ours were rocked to their foundations. It is acknowledged that we were coming out of that recession in 1976. Impartial economists acknowledged that, despite the severity of the recession, Ireland came through it relatively well.
Economic growth, so far as this party are concerned, is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to an end, because unless economic growth and development are paralleled by social growth and development, it is meaningless. Economic growth must be translated into something more than a percentage figure which, in terms of what this means to the ordinary working people, does not excite us very much. It has always been and will remain the policy of this party that economic growth is merely a means to an end. It is not a question of waiting until those who have will, of their own volition, say they have enough. In our society we might have to wait a long time for someone to say he had enough. The fruits of economic growth and development should be spread and distributed among the people.
When we consider the record of Fianna Fáil and their commitments we find that they forecast a 7 per cent economic growth in 1977. However, it transpired that the rate was 5 per cent and the latest Central Bank figures indicate a figure of 6 per cent for 1978. It is predicted confidently by impartial economists that the growth rate for 1979 will be 3½ per cent. Is that progress? Is it an example of the dynamic economic policy we were told we could look forward to?
