Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 Dec 1978

Vol. 310 No. 10

Adjournment of Dáil: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Dáil at its rising this week do adjourn for the Christmas Recess until Wednesday, 31 January 1979."
—(The Taoiseach).

When the Taoiseach opened his speech yesterday he said that when the House rises at the conclusion of the debate it will do so at the end of one of the most successful periods on record for the Irish economy. He proceeded to give figures in support of that statement. If we look at the record since we assumed office we will see the upward trend in the economy. I do not suggest that the going has been easy or that there are no problems remaining, but the House must agree that there has been progress in many areas, such as health, housing and in the employment situation. All these matters have been tackled.

The Taoiseach also said yesterday that no one owes us a living. Whether we joint the EMS or not, it is up to the people of this country to decide their own future. There must be self-reliance and the will to succeed and these should form the main plank in our efforts at full economic recovery. It is an easy exercise for us to look towards the EEC or other European institutions and to say that our partnership with them would bring an end to all our troubles. Unfortunately that is not so. I do not wish to forecast the effect for us of EMS membership but it will give us an opportunity to break fresh ground.

Much has been said about our industrial relations, and by comparison with other countries, as the Taoiseach has said, we are half way between the worst and the best. We cannot afford to have chaotic industrial or human relations if our economy is to progress. In this city last year about one-third of the population had a rough time because of industrial strife, and the sad thing is that those who suffered most were the less well off. We had a milk strike, a telephone strike, an ESB dispute and now we have a television strike.

In regard to the present RTE dispute, we who live in and around Dublin have a choice of channels, and indeed there are many people in Dublin who do not know when there is an RTE dispute because they can switch to outside channels and are quite happy. However, RTE have given us and will give us some great things and it is a pity if they are to be plagued by bad industrial relations.

I always regard housing and our approach to it as a national barometer of progress. Most people in Government over the years have tried to build as many houses as possible, but despite all the best efforts there are still too many people on waiting lists. It is the duty of a Government to create conditions in the country, particularly in the building construction industry, in which the required number of houses will be built as quickly as possible.

Many people have been on waiting lists for far too long. Of course many of them waiting for houses have suffered because of the locations in which houses have been offered to them. A person working at one end of the city, because of bus fares and other problems, does not want to take a house at the other end and people living in bad housing conditions sometimes cannot afford to accept offers of the housing authority to move them into a new house in another area. In this case Dublin Corporation take a man's choice as to where he works into account and give him points accordingly.

The only answer to all these problems is more dwellings. I do not suggest that any city will ever solve its housing problems, the only cities with no housing problems are dying cities. Our capital city is far from dying. We have one-third of the whole population here and the growth in county Dublin in recent years has been tremendous. In the figures quoted by the Taoiseach we see that the total number of houses completed in 1978 is expected to exceed 26,000 which I am sure is by far the greatest number ever built here. Most of those would be in the private sector. While we are making tremendous progress in housing I would ask the Minister for the Environment and the Government to take a long, hard look at the SDA scheme, the low mortgage scheme and any other scheme we have whereby loans or grants are issued to those wishing to buy their own houses. This refers to a major extent to young couples who wish to marry or are just married and do not want to go through the misery of living with parents or in-laws or rent a flat for which they would probably have to pay an exorbitant rent. While we have some control of rents legislation on the Statute Book I believe the time is coming when we will have to review this legislation.

Last night a couple came to an information clinic that I run. They told me they were paying £25 a week for a flat in my own constituency. How anybody in their circumstances can pay that amount I do not know. They cannot do it any longer. They are not Irish citizens but this young couple are in grave need of housing. Now, I suppose they may go to hostel accommodation. They typify the plight of many young people who would cheerfully buy a house if they could afford the deposit. We must examine income limits and loan and grant limits to ensure that they are adequate to enable anybody, particularly young couples, to buy a house. It is difficult nowadays to rent a house as very few of them are offered and because of the tremendous demand the price is going up all the time. So, despite our great progress—26,000 in a year is no mean achievement—we must not become complacent because there are still too many housing problems.

I see the stress and strain on young families due to the fact that they have no home of their own and if they seek a flat in a private house the fact that they have children will weigh against them. This is one of the major reasons why in any urban area so many young couples have marital trouble. The strain on parents and children must be great, and we can imagine the thoughts of a young expectant mother who must in some cases hide from the landlady as best she can the fact that she is going to have a baby. This is an area in which we must have State investment so as to assist all the young people who wish to marry. Day after day we see great evidence of selfishness in our society. There are people who demand more at all stages—I do not single out any particular category—but when one thinks of the suffering borne by young couples one should ask oneself if we are losing our sense of real values.

Therefore I appeal to the Minister and the Government to re-examine the SDA Act with a view to investing much more money in housing loans and grants and also in improvement grants. I plead also for development in the city. The Government might well consider giving a higher grant, especially in the case of improvement grants, for housing because preserving existing housing stock is just as important as building new houses. We have a tremendous number of houses that could be preserved if grants were a little more liberal.

The Government have been criticised very much for not controlling the price of land in the city. We must face the fact that the Government do not lack the will or the wish to curb land prices. That is a very difficult job and even the last Coalition Government found this beyond them. I do not want to become political, but the Kenny report on land values was initiated by a former Fianna Fáil Government and the report was received by our predecessors. No action was taken on it, and when they criticise the present Government for not controlling the price of land that fact always strikes me—they had the Kenny report but nothing was done about it.

I often wonder if we could adopt the Land Commission pattern. When they acquire rural land, they pay for it in land bonds. This is just a suggestion—I am no expert on finance—but could we not have some type of land bond for buying land in the city? Could we not say to the vendor: "We will pay you in cash up to a certain price but if the price is over that you must accept land bonds for the balance." The population at present requiring houses should not be asked to pay for posterity: houses last a long time. Therefore, I suggest that in centre city areas where land goes for something like £100,000 an acre, we offer cash up to a certain figure and after that land bonds which can be realised in ten, 12 or 15 years. This may not be popular, but one sometimes must take unpopular measures. The idea may not stand up to examination by somebody with expert knowledge.

I am sure everybody agrees that we have got to try to control the price of land because the price of houses is rising to such an extent. Dublin Corporation yesterday passed a tender for the erection of houses in the city area, which will cost at least £25,000 each. I back the Government for making the decision to build them. I want to thank the Minister for his wisdom in sanctioning the tender for those houses in the City Quay area. The people in that area have waited a long time for them. The vanishing parish of City Quay will now be revitalised, because apart from the sanction for the 31 houses which was passed yesterday a lot more will be done. We must accept that the cost will be very high, but I am sure that nobody will cavil at this expense. Houses will be costly no matter where they are built but we have to weigh the financial cost against the human misery of the people who have to live in bad housing conditions.

The first thing to do is to replace bad housing by good houses. I refer specifically to the inner city areas. People often talk about the living city, but the only way one can have a living city is by building more houses in the central city area. In the past, all Governments have probably been remiss in not pushing forward a housing scheme in the inner city areas as hard as it is being done now. We have to do our best to make up for lost time. Plans have been adopted this week for the erection of hundreds of dwellings in the inner city area. This is the pattern now. There are no decent housing schemes in the City Quay area although there are flats on the fringe of the area. I believe one of the happiest places today is the City Quay area, where at last all the barriers have been removed and the houses will be erected very shortly.

We have other problems in the city. Last Wednesday a young man doing his duty was brutally shot down by some gunmen. Perhaps we can, because of this tragic happening, stand back and examine this brutality in our city. I do not subscribe to the often-repeated assertion that this is a lawless city. In fact, 99.9 per cent of the people are law-abiding. The vast majority of people want a peaceful city built on social justice. They have not time for the gangsters who shoot people. They would be prepared to back any steps taken to ensure that the rule of law will operate in any part of the city.

We may condemn young people who get into trouble in certain parts of the city. Both young and older people who break the law must be brought to account. While one can condemn outright the people who killed that young man the other day we have to look at why young offenders commit crime. We have to bear a share of the blame for those young people who get into trouble today. We have not done enough to correct our social ills. In most areas of the city there is no crime. There may be some vandalism and illegal parking but there is no real crime causing young boys and girls to be sent away.

While I agree that Loughan House is necessary I regret that it is necessary. I feel regret the fact that it is necessary. I feel that politicians have not done enough to ensure that in all parts of this city and in most urban areas our young people were given proper guidelines. Crime is a form of protest by some of those young people because of the conditions they are forced to live in. I welcome the efforts of the Minister for Justice to provide non-custodial habitation for young offenders. I share his views that we should try to avoid having to send young people away.

There are some difficulties with regard to the recruitment of nurses. Most Deputies receive letters from young people all over the country asking us if we can get them admitted to hospitals for training. It is a very good sign that so many young people want to take up that great profession. They have a very hard life but hundreds apply for training every year. Those young people write to every teaching hospital. Some are taken on but others are not. The Minister is examining this position. I suggest that a central agency should be set up so that young boys and girls, who want to enter the nursing profession, could write there and the agency could let them know what the prospects are and which hospital is likely to take them.

We must give as much encouragement and help as possible to young people wishing to join the nursing service. In other countries the situation is the reverse of what it is here and there is much difficulty in attracting young people to the profession, with the result that people are recruited from all over the world. However, the fact that we have many people who are interested in the profession should not make us complacent in any way. The setting up of a central agency on the lines I have indicated would be a big step forward.

Regarding the hospital services I am sure that Deputies are aware of the difficulty experienced in finding a bed for an old person in a general hospital in this city. One can understand the position of the hospitals. Very often old people are put into hospital and ignored from then on by their families. Consequently, beds are being utilised that are needed for other patients and sometimes a hospital may not be able to admit an acute case because of a shortage of beds. We badly need an extension of our health services that will enable old people to stay either in their own homes or in small nursing homes. One possibility that comes to mind is the operation by the health boards of a nursing and medical service from the local health centres. Nowadays conditions in most houses are reasonably good. For instance, there is hot and cold running water in most cases. The ideal situation is for old people to be kept at home for as long as possible, and if the health boards could operate a type of flying squad of nurses and doctors many more old people could stay at home in the knowledge that help would be available when needed.

Much credit is due to those people not only in this city but throughout the country who are giving so much of their time in helping the elderly. Some of the associations that come to mind in this regard are The Pensioners' Association and the organisation known as ALONE which is run by a young Dublin fireman. Also, in my area of Dublin South-east there are a number of nuns who live in a housing estate for old people and who provide a 24-hour service for those old people. At any time of the day or night an old person only has to sound an alarm in order to summon one of those nuns to his aid. These people are the unsung heroines of our social system. They are saving the State thousands of pounds, but what is much more important they are enabling these old people to remain at home in the knowledge that in the event of sudden illness help will be at hand.

Another big problem is that of handicapped children. It is very difficult to find places for them in any home especially if they are badly handicapped. It is not a question of parents wishing the children to be taken away but there are circumstances in which they cannot be coped with at home.

In the light of all these problems there is need for the investment of huge amounts of money in such areas as housing, hospitals, better geriatric services and so on. With people living longer nowadays we will be faced with a big demand for facilities for old people in the future. This is a matter on which we should concentrate now. I am sure that the taxpayers would be happy in the knowledge that the money they were being asked to pay was for the purpose of providing all these very necessary services. Having said that, we must record our appreciation of the great strides that have been made in the field of social services generally. However, we must not become complacent but must aim all the time to make improvements. Money is limited but it is limited in any country, even in the richest. Although we are not considered a wealthy country in European terms we are regarded as being ahead of some of those countries in respect of the care of the aged, but there are still problem areas. As the Taoiseach has said, though, on reflection we find that the past year has been one of the most successful periods of any Government. Housing figures have increased and there is evidence now of greater prosperity. Unfortunately one of our greatest problems is the abuse of alcohol. Far too much money is spent on drink. I do not condemn drink as such but some of our greatest problems are the result of its abuse. Although we have curtailed the advertising of alcohol we are powerless to do anything in this regard in so far as cross-channel television is concerned. Consequently, very attractive advertisements are beamed into our homes. For instance, there is a commercial which seeks to give the impression that drinking whiskey is the inthing for the young set. The manufacturers of these products have a lot to answer for because of their influencing young people in this way.

As I said earlier, bad housing has been the cause of much marital trouble. Bad housing may well lead the breadwinner to distress the mother by his drinking. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health will have their hands full in trying to cope with the abuse of alcohol, particularly by young people, some of them very young. I went to a public house in my own area one night with a friend who frequented that pub. He said that it reminded him of Boys' Town because so many young people were drinking there. People are inclined to blame the publicans, but it is very hard nowadays to know whether many of these young people are over 18 years of age. The breathalyser tests are doing a lot to ensure greater safety on the roads, but I do not know how to deal with the problem of under-age drinkers. I am aware of attempts by the vintners' association to curb this practice. The members of that association are responsible people. One of them whom I know goes around speaking to young people in schools about the evils of drinking too early. Nevertheless the problem is increasing. Over £4 million a week is now spent on drink in this country. Some people get normal pleasure from this investment but it also produces frightful misery. The duty falls not alone on the Government but on each one of us, even at the risk of being considered old-fashioned, to try to counteract the abuses and to bring home to people the fact that drink is a gift to man which should not be abused.

We have a drug problem in this country but it is very small compared with that of drink. I am sure that the people who are in the business of producing alcoholic drink are well aware of the social problems created by it. We will have to introduce some kind of restriction on drinking, although, knowing how the United States dealt with that years ago, one must hesitate in suggesting what steps to take. The Council on Alcohol will soon bring forward their report which will contain some solution, perhaps not the full solution. If we were to provide better sports facilities and so forth, giving young people somewhere to go at night other than the pubs, we might well succeed.

We probably have a larger percentage of non-drinkers here than any comparable country in the world.

It is a terrible responsibility on the rest of us.

There are a large number of people here who do not drink, but as the Deputy says, other people make up for that. I believe Sweden has a rationing system for drink. I do not know whether I would approve of that because I am wary about restrictions after learning about America.

I commend the Taoiseach and the Government on their work since their election to office. In every aspect they have tried to achieve their targets and in some cases they have succeeded. We must go on providing employment. Here we have a big problem also which arises from the automation of industry. Recently I visited a motor car factory where the vehicles were built by a computer method. Therefore, if we do not need as many people as were needed ten years ago to build, say, a car or a ship, we have to consider educating people for leisure. The working week will be cut down greatly in the next decade and we may not need so many workers.

Like other countries, we have our problems on such matters as national pay agreements. I was in favour of these agreements. They did help the lower paid worker, but the craft worker may feel that he is entitled to a higher remuneration. If a man is doing expert work he should be better reimbursed than one who is not, but if we have a free-for-all the person who is going to suffer is, as usual, the lower paid worker. One can only appeal to the employers' organisations and the unions to sit down together and work out a system of wage and salary increases which will save the economy from damage. We may blame the Government, but we cannot legislate our way into industrial peace. We can pass all the laws we like, but unless they are generally accepted it is very hard to make any improvement. Therefore, while the Department of Labour and the Government generally must have a principal part in these matters, I pin my faith on the Congress of Trade Unions and the employers' organisations getting down to ironing out the problems. We have tried to ensure that the lower paid worker especially is not going to be injured by protracted industrial strikes. It is easy to say that, but this must be done, and done voluntarily, by the trade unions and the employers. In Britain the trade unions are very strong and they have some liaison with the Government there, but they have come out totally against the Government on this point. That Government threatened a few weeks ago that any firm who paid increases of over 5 per cent would be prosecuted. Yesterday it was announced that that action is being dropped now. We have a difficult problem here in industrial relations. We have got to pin ourselves to Government guidance and co-operation from the trade unions and employers, when, next year, our record in this field will be far better. We are not as bad as some countries but we are not as good as some countries either. Until such time as we achieve a Christian society here, with justice for all, we should not be in any way complacent.

I have respect for Deputy Moore in that he is the senior Deputy for Dublin South-East, having represented that constitutency since 1965. I had to pinch myself this morning and ask myself was I living in the same world as him, living in the same constituency or indeed were we talking about the same country. Deputy Moore made a reference to the Taoiseach's speech—and I suspect he was quoting him directly—when he said that the Taoiseach maintained that this was one of the most successful periods of any Government and that the housing figures were up. I do not wish deliberately to misquote Deputy Moore. I know what he was referring to when he said the housing figures were up; he meant the actual numbers of completions. What he did not refer to were the other housing figures, that is, the actual cost of housing. I shall revert to that specifically later on.

I did refer to the cost.

I was taking the more benign interpretation of the Deputy's quotation. If the Deputy is suggesting that one measure of a successful Government, or indeed the most successful period of any Government, is the fact that housing prices have now reached a level at which very few people can afford them, if that is Fianna Fáil's criterion of success, then we certainly do not represent the same kind of constituency.

We are now 18 months into the renewed Fianna Fáil Government. It is fair to say that, while people of this side of the House have made predictions over the past months, the bubble of the borrowed money that put the gloss on this Government is now beginning to burst. The intervening Christmas period will suspend any critical judgment by the ordinary people. I know, and I sense, from talking to people around the country, that like the headline writer of the Irish Independent last week, they feel they have been conned. That sense of being taken in is being felt by Irish people, they are not sure what the full cost will be or on whose shoulders the burden will eventually fall.

The Government know that they have mismanaged the economy in a number of areas. There would be some excuse, some reason for latitude, were we dealing with a Government with little experience; there would be some room after 18 months to say to a Government, the vast majority of whose members had never previously held office, that they should allow some time for self-education. But we cannot allow the Fianna Fáil party such latitude. They have dominated political office here since 1933 with three exceptions, I might add, when a lot of social progress was made in the face of severe external difficulties. To the extent that this country is in the second division of the European league, to the extent that we are impoverished, to the extent that we find ourselves in the position of being unable to afford to remain out of the European Monetary System, and not really being in a position to sustain the pressure the system will place on us, Fianna Fáil must accept responsibility. Indeed on the question of the EMS, which has dominated political thinking and comment over the last few weeks, I find it extraordinary that the Government have not got the courtesy to democracy at least to tell this House while it is still in session what is their decision. Most people around the country realise now that we are going to join the EMS, that the Government have left themselves virtually no option but to join—as has been pointed out in the course of the debate—that the increased terms, such as they may be, are minimal and certainly do not come up to the minimum requirements sought by the Taoiseach and his economic Ministers at the outset of the discussions. I would have thought that a Government with 84 seats, who have demonstrated their majority repeatedly in this House, at least would have had the courage, the guts to come in and say: "we are going to accept the conditions of the EMS and join the system," and say so in this House, rather than making an announcement in the week before Christmas, or probably after tomorrow's Cabinet meeting.

Fianna Fáil made a lot of promises to the people of this country. They have implemented some of those promises, but the tragedy is that their very implementation has aggravated rather than solved problems. The Taoiseach made reference to the fact that the new £1,000 grant could be used as a deposit on housing. The pre-election advertisements of this Government stated that they were going to transform housing in this country, they were going to encourage everybody to buy a house, that they were the professionals and knew how to clear up the mess.

The National Economic and Social Council in their Report, No. 44, which contains their comments on the Government's Green Paper, has a specific comment to make about the performance of the Government in the field of housing. In our Private Members' Motion on housing I have quoted already the independant commentaries of two economists from the Economic and Social Research Institute. That is a completely autonomous body. Messers Durkan and Menton were unanimous in their assessment of the mismanagement of the housing finances of this country through the specific actions of this Government. We have another report, coming this time from the NESC, the chairperson of which is the Secretary of the Department of Economic Planning and Development. They say, in subnote No. 4 of their report, that in the first quarter of 1978 the average deposit required for a house in this country was £7,000 and that if the loan limits—the House will recall that they were increases from £7,000 to £9,000 on 1 September last—which came into effect on 1 September 1978 had been in force earlier the average deposit required would have been £4,600.

I do not want to repeat housing comments I made in an earlier debate. However, I want to place on record that in one sector of economic management, for which the Minister for the Environment has specific responsibility, the combined effect of the £1,000 grant and the mismanagement of local authority housing funds, to the extent that a demand was boosted at a time when the regulated flow of loans did not keep pace, was such that the deposit for houses rose to an average price of £7,000 in the first quarter of this year. This economic report states that, if the Government had moved earlier and raised the level of loans from £7,000 to £9,000, they would have been able, by regulating the flow of cash and typing in demand with supply to keep the deposit down to approximately £4,000.

Why do I make these points? I make them for two reasons. First, there is a myth put out by that side of the House and by the supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party that they are professionals when it comes to economic management because Fianna Fáil, somehow or other, represent business interests since they themselves are good businessmen and, therefore, in the national context of being economic managers, they are intrinsically better at running the system, even though they may not care very much about reforming it. But, even on the neutral basis of comparison, manager with manager, they, rather than any other party or combination of parties, have some kind of magic touch.

Now the magic touch of the Minister for the Environment was vigorously denounced by the master builders association on the very same night that Fianna Fáil were voting here, congratulating the Government of their handling of that sector. In that specific area alone, an area which has a vast impact on the needs of people, the specific promises made and implemented by this Government—promises which were not just a scribble down in haste having been thought up in the weekend before the 20 May, the logical outcome of years of research by the "think-tank" of the Fianna Fáil Party and after years of economic professional input by various professional economists, some of whom now sit on the Government side of the House—have been evaluated by two independent economic sources and the result of that evaluation is that the impact of the Government's policies has not been what the Government said it would be because, instead of improving the situation, the policies have aggravated it.

Deputy Moore talked about housing figures being up, of housing needs and the importance of housing. I do not know how he can in one breath talk about housing figures being up, remembering the average price of a low-cost house is over £20,000, and the deposit is somewhere in the region of £7,000 and, at the same time, talk about concern for the lower paid worker and the necessity for some kind of national wage agreement. Why should there be any kind of national wage agreement when those who are repeatedly requested to make such an agreement see all around them a Government which is throwing money about in a wholly nonprofessional way, throwing it about on the basis apparently that the more money you have the more you will get.

Fianna Fáil, in their basic belief in the capitalist system of economic and social development, have taken the lid off private greed and thrown open to that greed the four green fields of Ireland. They have abolished wealth tax. They have effectively abolished capital gains tax. The Minister stated yesterday, speaking on the Appropriation Bill in the Seanad, that the actual take from capital gains is down by 80 per cent. So the real taxpayer is the person on PAYE and proportionately that person will pay more and more in the next two or three years. The euphemism of the private sector being the engine for capital development means that in reality the four green fields are now fair game for any private developer or speculator. Enterprise will be rewarded. Wealth will not be taxed There will be a minimised capital gains tax and, at the same time, Fianna Fáil want a national wage agreement.

Are there two laws applying? Is there one law for salaried people whose incomes must, apparently, be controlled, and whose enterprise will not be fully rewarded, and is there another law for some crowd of engine drivers who will drive the private sector and pull the rest of us somewhere along behind into the 21st century? If there is, where is the mandate for that distinction within the election promises of the Fianna Fáil Party? This document, referred to in hallowed terms by Deputy Flynn from West Mayo, this Fianna Fáil Manifesto, stated there would be a number of tax cuts. At page 6 it is stated:

The most important tax cuts will be: Income tax allowances for married couples raised to double the single persons allowance. ...Increase in personal allowance for income tax ...for single persons and...and for married couples. Abolishing rates on all dwellings from January 1978. Reducing Social Welfare stamp by £1 weekly ... Abolishing annual road tax.

There we have five most important cuts in taxation. No mention whatsoever about the virtual zero rating of capital gains tax and no mention whatsoever of the abolition of wealth tax. Why not? Did Fianna Fáil not have the guts or the courage to say in public what they had been saying in private to their financial backers who paid for the circus, and all the rest of it, in private deals made behind closed doors so private that they could not be put into the manifesto? We had the applause and the clapping that came from that side of the House on the announcement of the abolition of the wealth tax, the public and the private applause and the thank yous from the various Deputies in Fianna Fáil who knew just exactly whom they were applauding.

Where is the moral justification or the moral force of this party in Government looking for wage restraint, looking for consideration for others, and abolishing the wealth tax? Are we that rich that we do not have to worry about income distribution? But there is another point in regard to that particular argument. We have fought long and hard over the last three weeks in the context of the EMS debate about the transfer of resources. There must be a special school of English somewhere where journalists and commentators get trained so that simple concepts like taxing the rich to feed the poor get transformed into a nice neutral phrase like "transfer of resources".

We have been talking about transfers of resources which, in the context of Europe, means a wealth tax. I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs is here. He is a man for whom I have respect. I would like to know what his position will be when at a meeting of the Council of Ministers over the next few months he, on behalf of this Government, will be looking for an increased regional fund, looking for an increased social fund. What moral argument will he put up? That we need the money because the Germans have more. If that is the moral basis of his argument they will ask: Why do you not apply that policy at home? Not all of the people of Ireland are poor. Certainly under this Government there are a lot of them a hell of a sight richer than when this Government took office. Where is the moral force behind the demands of the Fianna Fáil Party for a so-called transfer of resources? Is not part of the humiliation the Taoiseach suffered in Brussels related to the fact that every other leader within the EEC, well briefed on affairs in this country, knew that Fianna Fáil were being totally contradictory when they looked for a transfer of resources at national level from the Germans or from the French? Yet at domestic level they have effected a real transfer of resources from the poor to the rich which has been applauded by every member of the Fianna Fáil Party. This is their totally contradictory position in Government.

They have stated that the EMS decision is one of the most difficult and historic decisions facing this country and that a lot hinges on the conditions. That is another euphemism and they are really talking about how much we are to be paid. Their whole position in this most important debate is significantly undermined by their contradictory approach to the solution of social problems. In his speech yesterday the Taoiseach said that nobody owes this country a living. That is fairly straightforward capitalist thinking which reiterates the thinking of the best capitalist this House has ever seen, Seán Lemass. He was an honest capitalist who believed implicitly in the private sector and was not frightened to say so. He would not have hidden behind euphemisms as the present Government are doing. The Taoiseach says nobody owes us a living and that we must live by our own expertise and initiative, while at the same time he is looking for a major transfer of resources. Obviously we will enter the EMS because the Government have no option but to accept the money which will come like manna from Heaven to fill the gaps arising in every Government Department as a result of their mismanagement of the economy.

The attempt by the Government to turn capitalism on its head would be acceptable if it were coming from idealistic people without political or business experience. Fianna Fáil, whatever they may claim for themselves, certainly cannot claim naivety, though some recent members seem to have the monopoly on it in some areas. To suggest in the manifesto that they would shift 3 per cent of consumer spending power to Irish manufactured goods and not in any other way to change the economic system is to believe that people are motivated by purely nationalist concerns. This 3 per cent shift has not occurred and any economist could have told Fianna Fáil that such a move would be more beneficial to the economies of Japan and other major exporters. Speaking in a Dublin hotel to a group of Japanese businessmen, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development said that the measures taken by the Fianna Fáil Government had not been unbeneficial to the Japanese car industry.

The people who drafted the manifesto, put it to the people 18 months ago and subsequently attempted to implement it cannot claim to be stupid or to have little or no experience of Government. The effect of their policy is that imports have risen, house prices have gone through the roof and the miraculous creation of jobs has not occurred. We have seen the most dishonest and sustained spectacle of a particular Minister juggling with figures in an attempt to confuse and muddy the waters so that at the end of the day nobody will really know what was promised or what figures apply to what.

This does not surprise me because one cannot attempt to make an irrational object rational or to direct a system of economic and social development which operates on the motive of private greed, to operate purely for the benefit of the Irish people. Economists and others who commented on the effect of certain measures taken by the Minister for the Environment and others are aware of the internal logic of the capitalist system. Antoine Murphy of Trinity College stated at the time of the first budget that the tax allowances and give-aways were less likely to create jobs in this country and more likely to precipitate a consumer-led boom in imports. He was saying that the logic of capitalism will work, that a system based on private greed has existed long enough for us to know what its performance is and what its likely direction will be given certain inputs. His prediction was correct.

I am sorry the people were conned, and more and more of them are beginning to feel that way. The party which promised so much, who had an obviously popular and much respected leader, came to the people after four difficult years of international recession and said they would solve all the problems. In Government they have done irreparable damage to the belief in the democratic system and specifically to the belief among young people that democratic politics can produce effective solutions to difficult social problems.

If this adjournment debate did nothing else but impress on Fianna Fáil the concern within their own ranks for the inordinate delay in bringing forward and processing new legislation, then we would be restoring some kind of confidence in the democratic system. Fianna Fáil have 84 seats and have not had to worry about a division since 5 July. There are Ministers in the present Government who have been members of Cabinets since 1957 and who have had experience of Government over a long period of time. How is it that the system is not working and it is taking so long to draw up and pass new legislation? How is it that the whole system of Government is grinding at a slower rate despite the fact that our social system needs it to speed up? We cannot again fight the election of 1977. While we disagree with many of the policies this Government are pursuing for some of the reasons I referred to, there are other areas of government for which there would be a broad measure of agreement on both sides of the House.

There are areas which all of us recognise as being in need of reform or change and on which this Government have promised action. Yet that action is slow in coming. For example with regard to the question of adoption, in certain areas of civil liberties, the question of local government reform and the problem of producing a national road plan ranging from major legislative programmes to small schemes, in areas like these where there is no great measure of disagreement and for which the country is crying out, why are there delays? Is the system of drafting legislation so archaic and old-fashioned that it is going to determine what any Government can produce, irrespective of the democratic mandate they obtain from the people?

When the Coalition were in office I raised similar questions then and some of the explanations given related to the lack of experience of some of the Ministers. Another one concerned the whole process of drafting legislation and the final process when it went to the parliamentary draftsman. The demand for legislation, and certainly the impact of EEC directives and the whole process of law-making within the EEC, should enable the Government to give new emphasis to the question of public service reform.

The Minister for Finance is a man of considerable experience and I think he has a personal commitment to the question of public service reform but he is just not delivering on it. We are into the last quarter of the second year of this Government and the legislative programme between now and Easter will be light, at least from what we can gather. I should much prefer it to be heavier and I should prefer if this House was given the time and resources to make it so. That may put an unfortunate load on the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but perhaps their load could be shared.

I make those points to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is here representing the Government. I believe sincerely that there is a democratic way to solve social problems, that there is a process of debate, dialogue and decision that can produce results that will lead to the resolution of major economic and social problems. My experience of people outside this House, of the young people who now represent nearly 50 per cent of the population, is that they simply do not have the time anymore to endure the delays that we have imposed on ourselves in response to problems. This House and the other House, with the big gates and the sentries on either side, are becoming increasingly remote from the people, particularly young people. The whole process of responding to problems is simply too slow. The Government have 84 seats. With the programme they outlined in the manifesto and with the experience they have—regrettably from my point of view—they should be doing something about it or at least they should do something about their own promises. The delays are just too long.

The strategy adopted by this Government in order to increase employment has an exclusive dependence on the private sector. Some Deputies on the other side of the House like to maintain the view that Fianna Fáil face in all directions at the same time on economic matters. The reality is that the economic policies of this Government are certainly right of centre and would be described by an independent economist in western Europe as being either Gaullist or Tory depending on whatever kind of political label one wishes to take. I think the Gaullist analogy is a better one because the link-up between Fianna Fáil and the Gaullist Party is a very logical one. It is the link-up of two reactionary parties. They have problems with regard to the European Parliament that complicate their liaison but domestically Gaullism in France did the same kind of damage to French workers and to necessary French reforms as Fianna Fáil are doing here to many of our people. While in the past some individual members of Fianna Fáil may have been able to claim that they believed in the public sector or that they were centre of the road, the reality is that under the economic trio—the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy—we have a Government who rely exclusively on the private sector for the creation of additional employment.

Either one agrees with that strategy or one does not agree with it. Obviously the Labour Party do not. We believe there is another way. We believe, as I think Fianna Fáil believe, that what this country needs is enterprise, that the people are the best and greatest resource and that enterprise should be rewarded and encouraged. Fianna Fáil believe this; but the difference between our party and Fianna Fáil, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, is that they appear from their actions to maintain the view that the enterprise of some people should be rewarded to an unlimited extent but not the enterprise of everybody. They are reinforcing an economic system which says essentially that the economic development of this country does not depend on everybody, that it depends on an elite corps of people who will dominate the private sector, who will make all the investment decisions, will decide where resources go and the rest of us will have to row in with that. We will have to accept their conditions, their constraints and their terms of reference. Certainly we can bargain and argue with them, but at the end of the day our future as laid out in this document, in the Green and White Papers and in the budget last year, has been consciously shifted away from a mix of the public and private sectors, into the private sector, into the hands of a small number of people who will act on behalf of the rest of the country. If that is an extension of democracy, let alone social justice, I do not know where we are going. The tragedy is that most people believe that kind of nonsense. They believe that if 100 people are put into a room or some kind of controlled environment because ten or 15 will emerge on top after a time that proves the effectiveness of the system. They believe that because countries like America have demonstrated that capitalism is an enormously successful economic system, it should be applied here. Capitalism is a system whereby for some people to get rich others must become poor. No capitalist state has eliminated poverty. There are few, if any, socialist states which have raised the level of liberty and living standards to a satisfactory level, but they have not created poverty nor are dependent on it. This country cannot point to any system operating in the world and say, "that is the one for us". We cannot import solutions and I am not suggesting that we do.

The bubble has begun to burst. The people do not know what the cost will be and they will certainly not think about it until after Christmas, which gives a certain air of artificiality to this debate. The strategy adopted by this Government will not work for the reasons put forward by the economists who commented on the implementation of the manifesto. They were able to predict in advance that there would be certain outcomes in the economic policies being implemented. When the bubble finally bursts we will not just be left with the same problems we had in 1977. As a result of this Government being in office for the last 18 months we will have the same problems we had in June 1977 as well as an enormous debt brought about by the mismanagement of this Government.

As we turn into 1979 our attention in our external relations focuses on the fact that we will have the presidency of the EEC during the second half of that year. Our attention has focused on Europe, on our relationships in Europe and in the rest of the world. Since we joined the EEC our economic trading and political relationships have been affected by our involvement. In relation to trade, for instance, 75 or 80 per cent of our total exports go to the EEC and the level of exports going to the UK has dropped from 75 per cent to less than 50 per cent. These two facts alone indicate the impact that membership has had on us in our external trading relationships. We must recognise that in terms of economic relations with countries outside the EEC we are now in a European framework which determines most of these relationships. I speak particularly of the GATT negotiations which are at present moving towards a conclusion, although we are all aware that problems have arisen as a result of the failure of the Congress of the United States to reach agreement on the countervailing duties which has been a matter of great concern for the Community. The outcome of these negotiations, while they have not surfaced as a major issue here, will have a major effect on our trade relationships over the next few years. The relations which are being conducted with the developing countries through Lomé are also of considerable importance in that they must reflect the trading pattern of economic interdependence, the changing face of the world, the reality of the emergence of these countries and of the place they must have in the future.

Our involvement in the EEC is a major element in the role we play in these negotiations, in our capacity to have our interests represented, our views expressed and our needs taken into account both in the multilateral framework outside the Community and in the Community. It has also changed the balance of our relationship generally in that because of our lessening dependence on the UK and our growing relationships with other countries it is evident that we have developed a healthier relationship based not on history but on the present, with all our EEC partners, influenced to a considerable extent by future potential.

Our attitude towards our European involvement in terms of our external relationship, our level of commitment and our performance in that arena is a matter of considerable importance. I am not suggesting that our external relationship are by any means the total scenario, but as Minister for Foreign Affairs I am sure I will be forgiven for concentrating on the external scenario. Our involvement since our entry into the EEC has been wholehearted and consistent. We had to take Europe as it was. We have never implied that all is well in Europe, or in Ireland for that matter. There are things in the EEC that have been a matter of great concern for us from the start, for instance, the regional imbalances that are very evident. At the same time the commitments of that Community, in particular the democratic base of the Community and its stated aims, are aims that we share, by definition. They were among the main reasons for our joining the EEC. For that reason a part of our status within the Community derives from the fact that we consistently adhere to these stated aims in terms of regional development, social development, economic and monetary union and, in this context also, the proposals for the European Monetary System. Anyone looking at Ireland from the outside or from the inside in Europe can see a clear and consistent pattern by which they can identify almost any issue on which Ireland is likely to stand. Our partners recognise that pattern. There is no doubt about what we might or might not do on an issue.

All of us with the European Economic Community naturally have a mind to the interests of our own country, but the really important thing is how we can promote those understandable national interests within the framework of our Community partnership, which is after all a reality, and within the framework of the new developing world order. No one member of the Community can put the clock back 15 years and say they will have some of it as it was, with whatever preferential markets they might have had in any other part of the world, and that they will have this bit of it as they would like it to be. For that reason it is fairly evident that we enjoy—and I do not want to make a meal of this—the respect of our partners within the European Economic Community and our positions are well and truly recognised. We have for that reason been able to play a very consistent role at all stages, to which I will refer later. From my own knowledge, particularly within the last year and a half or thereabouts—though I have acknowledged that this did not all start since the change of Government—the facts are that our growth rate last year and this year will perhaps be the highest in Europe, our level of inflation has come down from almost three times what it was to what it is now, and the general pattern of employment, at a time when unemployment is a crucial problem throughout Europe, has improved. These facts are noted by our Community partners.

I will make some reference in a moment to the question Deputy Quinn asked about the moral force of our arguments.

If we have an experience that is different from that of our Community partners it is that we have been able to maintain growth at a very considerable level while reducing inflation at a very rapid rate and also reducing employment. If our Community partners find this is unusual it is because their level of growth has obviously been lower, though it has to be acknowledged they started from a higher base so it is all relative. Inflation certainly has not been the same problem for them in the past as it has been for us, but nevertheless we are nearer the average. The significant fact is that when our unemployment has been coming down—and this is a fact whether we like to acknowledge it on both sides of the House or not—unemployment figures among our Community partners have been going up very considerably to the extent that even now several Ministers for Foreign Affairs at the European Council stated something that most of us are well aware of: that the period of the last three months has been the highest level of unemployment within the European Economic Community. It should be said of course that the basis of unemployment varies from country to country but if one takes the figures on their basis they would appear to be higher, though we would still say that they are, even from that point of view, in a better position than we are. I just want these simple facts to be known and people can make their arguments about them afterwards.

These facts show that we have in a difficult time with Europe made very considerable progress and I want it to be understood that that progress is fully recognised in the European Economic Community and our capacity for the future is fully recognised.

This has been the basis on which we have approached our relations with our partners over the last 12 months in particular—not, as some would suggest, with a begging bowl, not with a lack of any moral force but simply on the basis of the Community aims. The role of each Minister and each Council has been particularly strengthened by the positions taken up by the Taoiseach at the various European Councils. It was after all the Taoiseach who was very much involved in negotiating an increase in the Regional Fund. I say that, acknowledging at the same time that the increase was not anything like satisfactory. It was after all at the European Council that the level of our contributions to the budget, and that of others as well, was eventually agreed—and I say eventually because it was becoming a very serious matter for the Community—on a proposal made by the Taoiseach, much to the relief of his partners in the European Council.

It was, after all, the Taoiseach who made a proposal on concurrent studies as part of this new development towards the European Monetary System. Therefore when he addressed the Council on this last occasion he could speak, not only with the force of consistency himself, but also in the knowledge that our Community partners would recognise that this was not special pleading for Ireland but just acknowledging the reality which has been acknowledged in any event in terms of the protocol which was never effectively used until very recent times. I do not know how often it has been referred to; it is after all a protocol between Ireland and the Community and annexed to the Treaty of Accession in terms of the stated aims of the Community itself. All of these matters brought about a combination of circumstances where Ireland's special condition—though every country has a special position in its own way—is clearly recognised. It is recognised particularly by our partners within the Community who share our commitment to the development of Europe. There may be some who have a lesser commitment to this European development than we have. We are interested not in an inter-governmental framework in Europe which allows the strong to dominate; we are interested in the institutional framework of Europe. We are not interested, as Prime Minister Callaghan suggested some time back, in a loose framework in Europe. That is not the kind of institutional development that we see guarantees the protection of small states. That is truly recognised. For that reason, when our partners, at the European Council recognised the special position of Ireland, the historical economic connection through the sterling link, retarded economic development for a variety of historical reasons, they also recognised our recent performance. They knew we were relying not on our claim for charity but on our basis of consistent approach to the European Community.

Here I want to make a couple of comments on some of the criticisms that have been made during the course of this and other debates. I want to say deliberately that the Leader of the Labour Party commented, in expressions that did not seem to me to be appropriate to the leader of any party. I am not quite sure that the opinions he holds are appropriate to the leader of any party, but certainly the manner in which he expressed them did not seem to me to shed any lustre on the party he would hope to lead. However, maybe that is their problem and not mine. He said our whole Diplomatic Corps were going around Europe with a begging bowl to save Fianna Fáil's political future. That is the kind of thing we may all like to throw at each other from time to time. Deputy Cluskey made a smart remark, and I want to say to him, and I am sure Deputy Quinn will relay this to him——

I doubt very much if he will.

I am responsible for the Diplomatic Corps and that comment is totally without foundation. No member of our Diplomatic Corps went anywhere with a begging bowl in relation to recent developments in the EMS. I say that with total knowledge and conviction. It would help if we did not get misrepresentations of that nature from Deputy Cluskey, who perhaps from time to time is overwhelmed by what he might see as the sharpness of his own tongue. We all appreciate the Dublin wit, but there is a time and place in which to express it. I wish to say at this point that with overall political direction our Diplomatic Corps are very much alive to our involvement with our Community partners, but they were not engaged, as Deputy Cluskey said, going around anywhere with a begging bowl.

Indeed the contacts we have had with our European partners have been the other way, deriving from the goodwill of our partners towards us. We have been reassured by this clear indication not only of their goodwill but of their determination to translate that into practical and positive action to enable us to look again at the terms of entry. I have had calls from my counterparts in other countries, not at my instigation but theirs. I know what their interest is towards Ireland, and we know what our role is in the Community. I want to make it quite clear that it is not a question of Ireland going around cringeing. It is bad enough to have someone like John Taylor, who would look for an opportunity at any time to knock any one of us here, implying that we demean ourselves by begging, and perhaps the Leader of the Labour Party may reconsider his attitude in this respect.

How does one relate to the attitude taken up by Deputy Barry Desmond of the same party who said we were hanging around—not a very happy expression, but at least Deputy Desmond is not leader of his party—like corner boys waiting for something to happen in Europe. Apparently, on the one hand we were asking for too much, and according to Deputy Desmond we were hanging around like corner boys.

You were asking for the wrong thing.

Neither suggestion is true. Events will show exactly what our status has been and how effective our position. Then the public will be able to judge, despite attempts at confusion by any of the benches here. They will be able to judge how effective and co-ordinated the Government's approach has been throughout. I would invite those who have not yet read the conclusions of the Presidency at the European Council to do so carefully, or more carefully than they have been read. Even if all nine had joined the EMS on that day, that was not the final decision on how the system would operate. The role of the Commission obviously has not been noted by those who have been making comments on how much we are getting and are not getting. The review clauses in the agreement have not been looked at, and people have been looking for immediate answers to immediate questions.

Is not the initial parity of the currencies joining of vital importance?

Deputy Kelly has just mentioned one more matter. I do not intend to review the European Council. Within the framework of that system, regardless of the other facilities that may be made available to us, the Government at all times, before the Summit and since, have been effectively working to have clarified any matters that need clarification. I do not think the Opposition can expect that the Government will come public on this point and that point. That would be unrealistic. At this point I should like to make one personal reference. There was comment that for one reason or another I, who was at the European Council, did not appear at the Taoiseach's press conference. Far from there being any great Machiavellian decision on my part, the answer is very simple. The European Council were still continuing after the EMS matter had been concluded and we were dealing with such matters as fisheries and CAP which, as the Taoiseach has told the House, were not discussed in detail. Only two representatives from each country, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, are allowed in at one time, and because of the obvious interest which our people and our press had in this, it is understandable that the Taoiseach should have gone to talk to the press, and I do not suppose anyone would suggest that the Irish place at the meeting should have been left vacant while discussions on fisheries and CAP were under way. If explanation is needed as to where I was, I was simply doing the job that I am paid to do. I am glad that during that period I was able to remind our partners that our position in relation to CAP and fisheries was consistent, unlike some of the others perhaps——

What is the position now in regard to the fishery limits the Minister was ready to die for two years ago?

For Deputy Kelly's information, I was able to refer to that and to acknowledge the role that the Minister for Fisheries has been able to play in relation to the developing pattern in Europe, while still protecting our interests. He was able to use that position to remind our British colleagues, who are holding up everything at the moment, that we have a deeper interest in fisheries than they have and that we can pursue that interest without holding up developments in Europe.

It was 50 miles or nothing two years ago and the Leader of the Opposition then said we should leave the EEC if we did not get it.

I recall the debate very well. The Deputy will notice one major difference between the way this Government and the last Government handled it.

The difference is that we established a unilateral limit.

Deputy Kelly will have his opportunity in a few minutes. The Minister is in possession.

I try sometimes to set an example by restraining myself. Though I acknowledge that Deputy Quinn did not say anything to arouse my ire during his contribution, I allowed him to speak without interruption. I know this is too much to expect from Deputy Kelly.

The Chair does not find it very easy.

I think we should establish a principle of injury time.

If we do, I am due at least six or seven broken hours.

Whatever about injuries, in this game there is no injury time.

In case Deputies opposite have not noticed, the level of co-ordination between the various Departments and Ministers has not been accidental. The fact there there are not now two Ministers at odds with each other, as happened during the Coalition's term, is not accidental. The level of our co-ordination in regard to Europe has been planned at Cabinet and departmental levels. We will see much more of this as we assume our role of the presidency of the EEC. This co-ordination helps to strengthen our hand in the Community, and this has been cemented by the part the Taoiseach has played in the European Council and by the response there has been to that role. Whatever decisions we take at any time are based on the recognition that we can further develop and enhance our economic development in Europe, go further towards reaching and developing our social aims at home.

I take much of Deputy Quinn's point that we cannot concentrate merely on economic development because the whole basis of our approach must be to create an economic climate here so that we can, through that development, meet some or even many of the social problems that still persist. I believe, and I think our partners know, that our future in the EEC is a very secure and strong one. I believe that our economic capacity within the framework of our political and economic associations in Europe is great. If some countries are finding it difficult—one in particular that does not have to be named—to discover what exactly it is doing in Europe and where it wants to go in Europe and perhaps is trying to hark back to 50 or 100 years ago—other things are emerging now that show those of us who perhaps 50 or 100 years ago did not have it the opportunity which we now have. That opportunity will mean that our commitment will grow and, through that, our status. Those who do not have the commitment will lose status. It is no part of my role to advise others but I think that comparisons have been made in Europe and outside it and we are not suffering by these comparisons.

The level of interest in Ireland has grown considerably and will grow particularly during our presidency of the EEC. Already arrangements are well under way and consultations between Departments and in my own Department expecially have thrown up guidelines which will direct us during our presidency of the EEC. I am keeping the Government informed and I will shortly be given first indications of what our programmes will be and how to deal with them during our presidency of the EEC.

I have talked only in terms of the effect in Europe. I do not think I need go outside Europe to the rest of the world. Perhaps if I had more time I would. I am not trying to say that everything happens through Europe but our involvement has enabled us to further develop our relationships with developing countries, with many other countries that we would not have known at all, such as the countries of south east Asia and many of the countries that now want to have closer relations with us and with our partners in Europe. This has been a very healthy and challenging development for us. The whole level of the development of our diplomatic relations with other countries should also be seen in this framework. The fact that our trade balance with many of these countries is improving considerably as a consequence of our diplomatic relations should also be noted.

I hope that anybody looking at the whole pattern of our external relationships could see fairly quickly the external representation of the national conviction and national interest in its broadest sense. That, in my view, is the function of a Minister for Foreign Affairs. I do not work in isolation simply because I spend much time—and more time than most—outside the country. My job, obviously, is to express our conviction and consistency abroad and have it recognised and then have that channelled to our own interest and the interest of our partners.

I think that has also been recognised somewhere else which is important as far as I am concerned, that is, in the North of Ireland. For one reason or another I have been involved in this question on a political level since 1965 and during that period I can recall that there was always one bar that was presented as the major obstacle. We were told that even the Constitution is unimportant or even our laws, whether about contraception otherwise, were not important in comparison with our level of economic development. We were always being asked if we could honestly expect them to begin to look at any kind of relationship with us in the South while we were obviously so much deprived by their standards, while our standards of living were so much lower, while the level of income was so much lower and our unemployment so much higher than theirs.

Anybody with experience must acknowledge that we met this argument all down the years. I say as a fact that argument is dead; it has not been and cannot be presented by anyone any more however anxious they might be to do so. On the contrary it is now recognised, even by the media in the North, that the position has changed. Whether one looks at the Telegraph or the Newsletter—one might expect it, I suppose, in the Irish News—they are now focusing on the fact that the economic development in the South and the level of income is higher than in the North, that unemployment in the South is lower than in the North, that economic growth in the South is better than in the North. And all of this has been done on the basis of our own pattern of development and our programmes as a Government—not depending on handouts from any one man who might say what he has done for any country—by motivating our own people, the semi-State and the other sectors to take part in this economic development.

That has been a very considerable issue particularly in the past 12 months in our relations with our fellow Irishmen in the North. I have evidence that those who are concerned with the reality of economic opportunity and security are taking note of this, to say the least. It has been a major development in the whole pattern of relations with them and their attitude towards us. Of course there are some who wish to ignore it, who would prefer if it did not happen that way. While I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, of whatever background, are anxious to break out of the prison chains of the past and move towards new hope and confidence and new arrangements for the future, there may be some who present themselves as leaders of particular parties, as spokesmen, whose interest that does not suit and who find it easier to continue to feed prejudice and to try to present us perhaps as different from what we are.

You are——

Please. I do not know if the Deputy is trying to be helpful or not. I am pressed for time. The Deputy may make his speech in a moment.

You are the man who wanted the declaration of intent.

I thought you were trying to be helpful. I can cope with that very easily. One of the tragedies of the North at present is the fact that so-called leadership, with some elements in the Unionist Party, does not measure up to the changing attitudes of the Unionist population generally and in my view, unfortunately does not have the confidence and imagination to move forward instead of trying not only to move back themselves but to drag everybody else back with them. People in any part of any country are entitled to have views expressed by their political representatives which are based on present realities. For that reason perhaps even the long delayed general election which must come at some time in Britain—our view, perhaps, in terms of the North of Ireland, would be, the sooner the better—may give the population at large an opportunity of expressing their views on new thinking and new possibilities.

There is a good deal of evidence for that at political level. It must be recognised that at political level there are people who are trying to break out and there are always others who would hold them hostage and so, if somebody goes one step forward—it happened to O'Neill and Faulkner—what do they do? They take two steps back and isolate him. The list of those who tried to step forward down the years includes the two I mentioned, Robert Porter, Dick Ferguson and so many others, people who were obviously trying to find a place. Perhaps now they will be damned by the fact that I referred to them in laudatory terms. There was always someone else to say "I will step back and leave them in isolation". That lesson must be learned and I hope it has been learned. It is time we all began to move forward.

If we just look at the context of Europe in all of this, particularly the direct elections, we will have 15 people there representing the views of this part of Ireland while the North, with about half our population, will have three. I do not believe that message has been lost. We are committed to development within Europe. They are at the moment tied to a political association with a country, which has not that same commitment to Europe. If there were people in the North who really saw Europe as an opportunity for them to promote their interests they would probably decide that it would be better done and more consistently done through some new structures by agreement with us.

Those are the significant things which are happening. I do not expect that this will mean change overnight but it means that this applies to those of us who are in Government and it applies to the British Government particularly. I believe it is time we started to look for political developments. We have co-operated as much as possible, and I believe, effectively, and in a spirit of goodwill and respect for each other, in terms of security co-operation to preserve peace and human life. We have also, as the Taoiseach said, effectively co-operated in cross-Border projects which indicate those particular areas where the economic deprivation was in many ways the root cause of violence. I am not trying to justify violence. I mentioned some of the historically rather irrelevant attitudes of some people who have cast themselves as leaders. I believe that the continuing violence of the IRA more than anything else stands in the way of future development between the two parts of the country. Much of this violence diminishes from time to time but for one reason or another it surfaces again to try to prove something to whoever implies that the IRA have been beaten.

The Government are relatively happy that not only is our position understood by our partners in Europe but it is also understood very clearly by our friends in the USA. It is no accident that the level of support in the USA for violence has diminished very considerably. I have expressed the view from September 1977, when I first went out there, that it is not enough to tell the people in any country what they cannot do, especially an Irish-American community. It is much more important to tell them what they must do. I believe the Government have been able to reach the Irish-American community in a way that had not been done in recent times, and have been able to divert their interest into positive support for Government programmes and programmes shared by all parties in the House on the basis of the mandate of the Irish people which no minority here, in the USA or elsewhere, have a right to thwart. If people notice that some of the minority views, as expressed from the USA, are now less effective than before, it is because we have not told people what they cannot do but what they can do. We have expressed our appreciation for their positive support.

Deputy Quinn asked what is the moral force of our argument in the EEC when we do not seem to have any wealth tax here, a transfer from the rich to the poor? The moral force of our argument, as Deputy Quinn probably recognises for himself, is based on the aims and commitment of the EEC, what it says in its Treaty, in its Commission documents from the Paris Summit in 1972 and our conviction that if the Community act on those aims we can put that transfer of resources, which is a phrase the Deputy does not like, and that application of Community policies, to good effect.

I have concentrated on our external relations and how our place in them affects our internal relations, particularly our relations with the North of Ireland. It is time that both North and South recognised that nobody can live in isolation from present realities. None of us can secure our present political position by simply harking back to the past. I believe our people North and South will not accept that any more. There is a role for us, with the great challenge of Europe and the rest of the world. Instead of confrontation can we not be a little more confident about how we can co-operate together and try to share our economic future and our respect throughout the world together a little more? I believe this is the only offer we can make at this stage but I believe it is a significant one.

I have talked of partnership in Europe and I have briefly talked of partnership within the world. Surely it should also be possible to begin with partnership at home in Ireland? This is vitally important even within our own jurisdiction. There is a place for all in that role, which is clearly emerging for this country, a role of respect, a role based on the future and not the past. That will have a very significant effect on developments in this island in the next few years. I hope there is now a little more understanding of the complex arrangements involved in the recent EMS discussions. I believe it is fairly clear, whenever the Government decision is announced, that it was based to a very considerable extent on our knowledge of what we were entitled to and also the knowledge that our partners respect us and are anxious to show that respect in a very tangible way.

This debate at the end of the winter session should always be a debate in which the country is looked at from a fairly generous perspective and not merely a narrow or purely economic one. It is probably true to make a point like that of any parliament, but it is particularly the case in the parliament of a young country like ours, which owes its existence to a revolutionary convulsion, not one conducted on social lines but one conducted on national lines. That is important because that revolution, conducted for reasons of national sentiment, implied that there was some special reason why Ireland deserved, needed and was entitled to independence, some special reason implicit in the ideas that we might do things better for ourselves that the British could do them for us. I believe that and if I was alive 55 years ago I would have believed it then. I believe everybody else in the House thinks the same way.

It is because of the circumstances in which this State came into being that at least once a year—probably the end of the year is an appropriate time—we should not just look at the immediate problems which are around us and the topics of the day but at the progress we have made towards the things which people 60 years ago were willing to give their lives for. Even if they did not belong to the political force movement they worked and broke their hearts to produce a kind of Ireland which would justify by its performance the legislative separation from Britain. Every time I get a chance I say that we have to measure that performance on all fronts, not merely the economic, against what the people who went before us set out to achieve. When I find any Taoiseach, any Minister from any party regarding this debate as simply a kind of housekeeping rendering of accounts for the past 12 months I say to myself that we are getting away from what we set out to do.

This country did not set out in 1922 merely to raise the standard of living, to give ourselves proper agricultural prices or to make sure that there were properly equipped schools and hospitals. If that is all it had wanted it might quite as easily have done just as well by sticking with Britain. Nobody believed that. I do not believe it now and nobody else in the House believes it. We had a whole range of other ideas, objectives and ideas. I am afraid that in the pressures of modern life and of the economic forces and, above all, the pressures which are felt on both sides of politics by the necessity for one side to clobber the other, those objectives are being lost sight of and the things which the people who went before us set out to do are being forgotten and we are spending all our time battling for things that we might have got without battling had we remained as we were. I would not have advocated that because it is my belief that we could do better for ourselves but when we consider what has been achieved—and we achieved a lot—I ask myself whether our achievement measures up to something that was worth so much sacrifice of life 50 or 60 years ago and whether it has been worth breaking our hearts for in parliamentary politics for all those years.

I shall come back to that theme later; but for now I shall deal as quickly as possible with some of the points on which the Taoiseach leaned in his very pedestrian speech yesterday. He began by saying that when his Government were elected, the provision of employment and the reduction of unemployment were the criteria on which they would be content to be judged. For the past 18 months everybody on this side of the House has been trying to extract from the Government the truth about the employment situation but our task is similar to carrying an armful of eels upstairs so far as the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Economic Planning and Development are concerned. If one starts at the bottom of the stairs with 12 eels it is impossible to reach the top with the same 12 eels. If we ask about a reduction in unemployment we are told that the Government were really talking about job creation. It is very difficult to relate the various criteria which Ministers insist on using in order to satisfy themselves that they have achieved their aims but two facts stand out with crystal clarity.

One of these facts is that the reduction in the live register suggests that about half of the Government's target has been reached, that is, that about half the 25,000 reduction will have been reached by 31 December; but as the Taoiseach admitted yesterday many of the jobs concerned are only temporary jobs. They are not real jobs and the vast majority of the remainder, except for the increase in industrial employment for which the Government are not solely responsible, are non-wealth producing jobs.

The second point emerges from the EEC Labour Force Survey which was published quietly on Thursday last and which has attracted very little attention. This is an extremely technical and scientific survey conducted, not by visits to every house in the country but by way of a very large sample. In order to construct the survey 150,000 people were sampled. On the large aggregate it is a survey that has only a small margin of error. It was conducted in April-May 1977, those very months during which the election machines of all parties were beginning to be put into operation.

In those months when it was being alleged from this side of the House that there were 160,000 unemployed the figure was 100,600 as the labour force survey reveals now. Either what the Opposition was saying then was right or the Labour Force Survey is wrong. But it could not be alleged that a margin of error of that extent could have crept into the labour force survey. That 100,000 unemployed represent 85,000 people who would describe themselves as unemployed, having been employed previously and 15,000 seeking their first jobs. That situation is not reconcilable with what was being said here then or with what is being said here now. The other day I asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development whether he considered it conceivable that the number of unemployed people at present would be as low as 75,000. He said he did not think that was possible; but if the target he boasts of having achieved is a reduction of 25,000, and unless he is prepared to deny the accuracy of the Labour Force Survey, the answer should be 75,000.

The other aspect of the matter is one of which I only began to realise the seriousness on hearing an answer this week from the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. I put down a question which did not contain any trick. I asked the Minister if he would give the House, by way of a simple ratio rather than by way of tabular statement, an account of the proportion borne by wealth-producing jobs to non-wealth producing jobs among the jobs that the Government would claim to have created. The Minister refused to answer the question, not because of his not having the information but because he regarded it as meaningless. I asked him specifically if he regarded the question as meaningless and he said that he so regarded it. Later in the evening I had an opportunity of reverting to the same point while winding up on the EMS debate and I asked the Minister if it was true that no useful distinction could be drawn between wealth-producing and non-wealth producing jobs—in other words, to take the simplest instance, between a job in manufacturing industry or in agriculture on the one side, and in the Public Service on the other side—and, if so, could I take it then that if the female half of the population were all nurses while the male half were all gardaí we would be every bit as well off and have the same standard of living as we have now. The Minister's reply was that of course he had not said any such thing and that I was bringing his point of view to an absurdity. I did not have to bring it very far to reach absurdity because he must know that there is an important distinction between wealth-producing and non-wealth producing jobs. He must understand, too, that there is a limit to the number of non-productive jobs a country can carry. The people who make goods that can be sold, who grow produce that can be sold or who raise animals that can be sold must carry what the rest of the country spends and enjoys whether in £ notes, in services or in any other way.

In his speech the Taoiseach made a reference of the kind with which we are all familiar. I recall the late Seán Lemass making the same sort of reference constantly, that is, that we cannot pay ourselves more than we earn—though it was the same Mr. Lemass who handed out a 12 per cent wage round in the week before two by-elections that he considered he had to win. I am not measuring his practice against his theory; but his theory was that we cannot pay ourselves more than we earn. That does not relate simply to £ notes. A country can only produce as much as there is a market for and its wealth is what it drags out of the ground by the sweat of its brow or the raw materials it beats into usable articles. A country pays itself what it earns either in terms of money or in terms of services. If we recruit another 1,000 nurses, another 2,000 teachers or another 5,000 gardaí or if we fill the health boards with people sitting behind desks, we are paying ourselves because we are providing ourselves with services which we regard as necessary. I do not deny that such services are productive but they are a form of payment to ourselves for what we produce. However, as I have been saying repeatedly, we are paying ourselves too much in those terms. The growth in the non-productive sector is running infinitely too far ahead of growth in the productive sector.

I was amused that the Minister for Finance should have interrupted me to refer to my reasoning as old-fashioned economics. I should like him to come here and explain whether there is any limit to the number of non-productive jobs that can be created. Of course such jobs make an impact on figures. If we buy enough typewriters and enough desks and employ people to type or to do clerical work we are creating jobs but these jobs must be paid for because such delivery of service to the community is every bit as concrete as printing extra money or handing out extra £ notes.

The EMS debate was a short one and it took place last Wednesday. The Taoiseach came back to the topic of the EMS in his speech yesterday morning. That will entitle me to refer to the EMS once again. I would like to advert to something which the Minister for Foreign Affairs a few moments ago also mentioned, namely that the Taoiseach is officially given credit for the suggestion that measures should be taken concurrently to strengthen the economies of the less prosperous member states. That suggestion was included in the communique issued after the Bremen Summit in July. A few months later, when the final document emerged at the beginning of this month, we found that any help in regard to transfer of resources or strengthening the economies of the weaker states would be subject to this proviso. The funds thus provided are to be concentrated on the financing of selected infrastructural projects and programmes, with the understanding that any direct distortion of the consultative position of specific industries within member states will have to be avoided.

When I hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs patting himself and the Taoiseach on the back for their brillant negotiating effort in this EMS affair, I ask myself if they are living on the moon. We need infrastructural development here, and we would need it even if the EEC and the EMS had never been heard of. To take one of the more serious example. Gaeltarra Éireann complained only the other day that it was becoming harder and harder to get any kind of industry to settle in the west of Ireland because the roads and the communications are so bad. We know what the telephone system is like. We have to have that development. No possible amount of money would be anything more than a drop in the bucket of providing it. When I hear of funds pulled out of the air like £130 million a year for five years, which was what the Government started to ask for, I say, "Fine". That is great if we can get £130 million a year for infrastructural development, but it will be a drop in the bucket of what we are going to have to provide anyway, whether it comes from the EEC, whether we earn or save it ourselves, or whether we borrow it from some other source.

I will take the instance which everybody in Dublin will know about, the state of the Dublin railway system. CIE have put a fairly high figure of some hundreds of millions of pounds into renewing the permanent way, electrifying it and providing it with rolling stock which would not look as if it had been designed originally for cattle and not for human beings; but this is only scratching the surface of the infrastructural development we need. That is on the one side, and on the other side is the certainty that there are threatened sectors in our economy to which divergence in the exchange rates between the Irish £ and the British £ will make a serious difference. Were this team of geniuses looking for the right thing? Were they looking for what we really need? Of course we need infrastructural development, but it is not a case of our not getting it if the EEC will not produce £600 million. We will have to get it one way or the other, sooner or later. What is urgent, as the leader of my party has said twice in the House over the last ten days, is to do something for the threatened sectors of industry for which absolutely nothing seems to have been done.

Tourism is mentioned nowhere in the White Paper. I see that a printed version of what I described the other night as a school-boy's jotter has come out. It is the most pitiable effort I ever saw at a White Paper, which is supposed to be an explanatory document setting out all the issues and giving real information about what is at stake. I pointed out the other night that the White Paper contains nothing about tourism, which is very much under threat in the event of a serious divergence between currencies here and in Britain. The British tourist comes a very long way to closing our widening trade gap. Suppose he finds that his £ will not any longer buy what it used to buy in Ireland and that when he comes to Dún Laoghaire he can change it to only 70p or 80p, what effect will that have on our hotels and on the employment which those hotels give? There is not a word about it.

Certainly we are living on the moon. I have never met a Government who showed less evidence of realising or of having some competence to ask what they were up against than this Government have as evidenced by this White Paper. The Taoiseach and the Minister should have been looking for some assistance for our threatened sectors, in the event that the British do not enter this system and we do, and that our currency is necessarily dragged up by being shackled to stronger continental currencies and the British currency tends to drift down as it has so tended in the past.

Of course we want resource transfers. We have always been looking for a larger regional fund, a larger social fund and so forth. There is nothing new about that. But lumps of money put into the Government's fist, which may well be spent for electoral purposes—as Deputy Cluskey alleged—with the proviso that they cannot be directed to the very sectors which are threatened, is a disastrous result of our negotiations. I would have left those negotiations and come home in dudgeon rather than come home with a thing like that.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs in his speech just now told us how well and sympathetically understood our position was in Europe. The Taoiseach said the same after his visit to the French President, the German Chancellor and the British Prime Minister. He thought that they had a sympathetic understanding of our situation. Did he tell them that we have a serious unemployment problem, the worst in the Community? Did he tell them that it is politically explosive as well as being an economic and social drag on us? Did he tell them that the loss of another 10,000 or 15,000 industrial jobs would cause a politically explosive situation here that could threaten by infection the entire Community? That is by no means a bizarre thing to say. Did he tell them that we have an unique trading situation with one of our partners? I know of no other country in the Community which is so dependent for outward and inward trade on any other one country as we are with Britain.

That dependence, luckily, has diminished as the years have gone by; but the Minister appears to think that lessening of trade in both directions with the British has come only since we joined the EEC. In fact, thanks to the efforts of Córas Tráchtála and others, it had been diminishing some time before that. It is diminished very substantially from the 75 per cent which it was in 1972 or thereabouts to the 50 per cent or under which it is now. However, that is still a percentage of dependence which is larger than that in the case of any other member state, or so I believe. It may be that the dependence of the Danish on the German market is the same, but I do not believe so. With that possible exception we are unique in having such a high degree of dependence.

The dependence has been going in the wrong direction for the last year. In 1977 the January-August trade figures showed that 47 per cent of our imports came from Britain. This year the January-August figures show that it is 49 per cent. It has crept up again. If those imports are being paid for here by a currency which is some points below the level of our currency, they are going to boom even more than they have boomed already. They are going to drive Irish goods off the market at home and they are going to make Irish goods less competitive in Britain.

There are variables, and the Taoiseach was inclined to dismiss the idea of spelling these variables out. But the object of a White Paper is to explain what the variables are and to explore the possibilities. At least the Tánaiste in his speech in October made some effort to set out the various possibilities depending on things which were not debated here at all on Wednesday, such as the initial parity of the Irish punt on entering this system, which is a very important matter. The Taoiseach and the other Ministers did not hammer home that we are in a unique situation. I deplore it, but it is water under the bridge now and the reasons lie deep in history. It is a disaster that we import so much from one country and that one country takes so much of our exports. A more diversified market would have been less troublesome.

Surely there is a case here for saying that we want not transfers of resources alone, which will be represented as so much Fianna Fáil bounty when the time comes to build the roads or the railways or whatever it is. What we want is a transitional protection for the sectors which are going to be threatened. I do not mean necessarily protection in the sense of tariff walls. I am not advocating that, but permission from the Community to enable us to adopt some measures which will have the effect of counteracting that situation.

I know there is provision for a certain flexibility, a certain permission to vary the levels of parity down to six points. In other words, if the British £, on our joining, were to become depreciated vis-à-vis the Irish £ by six percentage points we would have permission, within the system to follow it down to the same six points. I want to remind the Government that the British £ has depreciated vis-á-vis the German mark by very much more than six points in the last few years. As I said to the House before, when I was a student 20 years ago in Germany I was getting 11.65 marks for a pound note. As recently as 1973 you could get six marks for a pound note. You are lucky now if you get 3.60 marks for it. There is a queer difference there as between sterling and the mark and the six percentage points, which is the band of variability now proposed to be allowed to us.

Had I been at those negotiations what I would have looked for would have been a device—and since the Community seems very fertile in spawning homely expressions to convey a complicated financial or economic arrangement—let me christen this device a thermostat. I would have suggested a kind of exchange thermostat which would have automatically operated to permit the Irish Government to subsidise industry and tourism after the point had been reached at which the currencies diverge beyond the permissible limit of 6 per cent. That would have been a most valuable and important device. I entirely realise—I do not need to be given elementary lessons about this—that the EEC is out to try and do away with these distortions of competition. I understand that, but do not forget that when we joined the EEC we were allowed a certain length of time to adjust. Our tariffs were dismantled, not all in one go but bit by bit. To join a European Monetary System in which our principal trading partner looks like being heavily devalued vis-á-vis us, or may easily become heavily devalued vis-á-vis us in quite a short time, will be a shock to the system, every bit as severe as joining the EEC in the first place. I would have said that we need transitional arrangements which measure up to and are appropriate to that crisis. They were not even sought, let alone obtained. What is so sacrosanct about the non-distortion of competition? The British distorted competition and got away with it and threw 3,500 Irish workers out of jobs in the process with their temporary employment subsidy. The Confederation of Irish Industry estimated last year— quite likely the number has gone up since then—that 3,500 jobs in the labour-intensive, vulnerable areas were lost as a direct consequence of the fact that the British Government were paying employers in those areas in their own country about £20 a week for every man and woman working there. Naturally, that made an enormous difference to their costs and to the prices at which they could sell their goods. Not surprisingly, it put these thousands of Irish workers out of their jobs. The British distorted competition in regard to the import of lamb. Why should we be the only ones, the weakest ones in the Community, for whom the non-distortion of competition is Holy Writ?

This negotiation has been aimed at the wrong thing. Although the debate has not been at a particularly acrimonious level—and I do not want to bring it down to that level—I honestly think that there quite likely is something in what Deputy Cluskey said here yesterday in regard to the purposes for which these resource transfers are being sought. Naturally, it would be a fine thing for a Government to have the equivalent of £45 million in cash put into their pockets for five years. Naturally, it is a fine thing for them to have soft loans for five years, or whatever number of years is envisaged. It may very well be part of the Government's calculations that if they can get into this system, even on the present terms—which are a million miles short of what they were originally looking for—it will carry them through the next election. I say that that is not the right way of looking at it; I do not need to emphasise that.

I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard the Minister for Economic Planning and Development here the other evening say, in regard to the loss of employment—which would be the result if the British £ were heavily depreciated compared with our own—Ah well, of course, the investment we would be making in infrastructure will generate employment too. He said: you cannot build roads without making people work on them, and, of course, the same goes for electrifying railways and everything else; of course these things have an employment content. Does the Minister seriously think that the industrial machinist, perhaps a girl—because in that industry a lot of the workers are women—if she is thrown out of her job because the shirts or pyjamas she makes cannot be sold even on the Irish market let alone the English one, will regard herself as adequately compensated if there are vacancies on the roads? I do not want to be making quite ludicrous what the Minister was saying here the other evening but he really invites that kind of comment. It is no use to an industrial population centred in two or three towns, in which these industries tend to be concentrated, to be told that somewhere else in the country there are vacancies for road workers.

That negotiation, I am afraid, was a disaster. We are all in favour here of the objects of the European Monetary System; we are all in favour of trying to avoid fluctuations in exchange rates and we are all in favour of trying to reduce inflation—although I am not too clear exactly what is responsible for inflation; sometimes in debates like this I understand that it is the currencies to which one is linked; at other times, when the inflation rate goes down, it turns out that it is Fianna Fáil who are responsible for a favourable inflation situation. Therefore, I am not too clear really what is the strength or value of this particular argument. To judge by some statements we hear from the Government, we do not really need the EMS because we are able, by the sheer brain power of the Government, to bring down our inflation rate by ourselves. Leaving that aside, I do agree that if the system will lead to a constant or at least only a very gradually rising inflation rate, then it is something we certainly need.

I hear then the Taoiseach talking about restraint and discipline. I hear the same stuff coming from every Minister on his front bench—at least those of them who appear to be still working at all; some of them seem to have gone into hibernation—but the rest of them are certainly producing, day in day out, calls for restraint and discipline. The Taoiseach yesterday said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the day of double digit wage increases would have to be regarded as gone. He is about the last man in Ireland who should be talking about restraint and discipline, about the necessity for us to realise that double digit wage increases are a thing of the past. He callously and deliberately, or, perhaps I should not say he, because I believe he does not know a lot of what goes on in his Government—just as was the case in 1970 when his position was that people were not telling him things—but the Government and the party took up their position at the time when their election programme was devised.

It was directed at persuading the people that if there were hard times, it was the Coalition's fault, that the only reason they were on short commons was because the benches over there were occupied by malicious incompetents who took pleasure in keeping the people on short commons; that it would be "all systems go" if Fianna Fáil got in, that it would be an immediate zip back to good times again. Of course, that is an attractive idea but it is not such a pretty sight to see people who got into power that way come along within 12 months and start preaching restraint and discipline—mind you, as some speakers have said here already, preaching it to one section of the population only; no question of expecting restraint or discipline from the people who came dashing back from Barbados and the Bahamas the day Fianna Fáil got in saying: "the all-clear has blown, boys; the lads are back", no question of expecting restraint or discipline from them. No question of increasing the possible political unpopularity at that powerful level, the political unpopularity that Fine Gael had the guts to incur by making sure that all the people were treated equally. No question of restraint for them. The only restraint was for the PAYE earner, not even for the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, you will not mind my appealing to you to be allowed to raise that point. No question of expecting the farmer to contribute something proportionate to the input which the economy and which the community make in him and which, to some extent, the PAYE earner around the city has to carry on his back. No question of restraint there at all. It is merely the PAYE earner and the social welfare recipient and the person negotiating for a wage rise to help meet his mortgage increase, these are the persons who must show restraint, these are the people who must keep their demands for a wage increase with a 2 per cent or 3 per cent bracket.

Now, Sir, I wish him the best of luck, but I consider, if ever a man disabled himself from achieving a solution he particularly wished, Taoiseach Lynch is that man and the party who go along with him are just as much to blame. Yesterday the Taoiseach spoke about failures to achieve the net overall job increase which the Government had been hoping for. He said, and not for the first time, that this was due to a regrettable persistent increase in the level of redundancies. When I hear people talking about reducing unemployment, and blaming their failure to do so on the fact that there are redundancies, I have to ask myself is any statement being made here at all? Blaming redundancies for unemployment is like blaming inflation on high prices or on rising prices. It is the same thing. What is the use in making 10,000 new jobs if 10,000 old ones go? The net result is exactly the same.

At any rate, if the statement has any meaning, the Taoiseach did attach this much meaning to it—that the redundancies he was complaining about, the closure of firms and so forth, were accounted for by factors over which the Government had no control, namely, a continuing degree of wage drift, of settlements in wages above what the national wage agreement envisaged. The national wage agreement at a 5 per cent figure was a dead duck from the moment the words "5 per cent" appeared in the Fianna Fáil election programme because it was regarded as a floor from which to negotiate upwards. Not only that, but the phenomenon of wage drift, as I hear it called, and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development admitted it here the other day when I asked him, that phenomenon has been known to economists since the early 1960s, I think he said. Now, if so, he must have known that even a paper settlement of 5 per cent would end up in practice nearer 10 per cent and he must have known also at the beginning of this year that a paper settlement of 8 to 10 per cent was in practice going to end up nearer 20 per cent.

Then, why all this belated bleating and why put the blame on others, on anybody at all except the geniuses who left themselves in this position? I do not mind that sort of thing from some of the more hard-nosed Ministers, like the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, who would argue that black was white on Monday and blue was green on Tuesday and tell you at the end of the week that he was colour blind anyway, and laugh at it. I object to it from a man who is an economist, a professional economist who was brought into the Government because he was a professional economist, who has achieved in his own Department, as far as I can see, no structural alteration whatsoever beyond allowing it to remain there as a suitable podium on which to enthrone his own genius, to hear from that man complaints about excessive wage drifts and excessive wage settlements when he must have known, if he was an economist at all, that that was exactly what was going to happen, that 5 per cent would end up nearer 8 to 10 per cent in practice and 10 per cent on paper means nearer 20 per cent in practice.

I had hoped to spend some time on non-economic matters but my time is running out. Coming back to the theme I started with, asking whether we ought not to have in this debate a national stocktaking related, not to the ups and downs of the economy, to consumer prices or the live register over the past 12 months, but to what progress has been made in the national effort which began at the beginning of this century, I wanted to say a good deal about the quality of life, the environment, the Irish language and the hopes which were entertained for it and which, I think, have now very largely been abandoned.

I will just mention one topic, because it was one the Minister for Foreign Affairs picked up towards the end of his speech. He became angry when I interruped him once—I interrupted him several times but he showed impatience on one occasion—when he was talking about achieving understanding with all sections in the North and how all sections in the North, when they looked down here, were now impressed at the economic progress which had been made in an area they were traditionally led to suppose was incurably backward. I agree with him that that must be an interesting thing for a Northern Unionist to find—at least as long as he does not include our telephone system, or lack of it, or travel on our trains, or our roads for that matter, or on our seamed and pitted streets in this capital city—it must be an impressive thing to find that average earnings have gone up, that unemployment is not as bad as it is in his own part of the country, and so forth. I am sure that does impress him but all that is set at nought by empty flag wagging of the kind the party opposite is adept at.

I just want to remind the House—the Ceann Comhairle will be reminded as well because I remember standing with him in the same street in Belmullet in the late part of 1975 while he denounced me from one platform and I denounced him from another—that the hot news that Sunday morning was the new Fianna Fáil policy on the North. That policy was that they were now going to join the Provisional IRA, not indeed in advocating violence, but in demanding a unilateral declaration of intent by the British to withdraw. That policy had been expressed by Deputy O'Kennedy, as he then was, two weeks previously and he had been instantly rapped over the knuckles by Deputy Lynch, the leader of Fianna Fáil, then in Opposition, but within a fortnight—mark you, I never credited Deputy O'Kennedy was such a powerful influence in his own party; it is possible he was being used as the front man by some more powerful clique behind him—within two weeks Deputy Lynch was made to eat humble pie. He was made to put out a statement conveying the very same line.

Now that line may be right or wrong. I do not express any view about it at the moment but I would think that where you have a large population who regard the British connection, rightly or wrongly, as their only protection, and it may be wrong that they should so regard it, a policy like that can only have the effect of terrifying them and of hardening their resolve to have nothing to do with this State even if every inch of road was a motorway, even if you could lift a telephone and get the number the first time you tried. To find a Minister like Deputy O'Kennedy to be preaching this sweet reason about impressing the North with our economic progress when he is the root of the turn which their policy has taken is a baffling experience.

Indeed, I must admit that the party he belongs to have shown every sign of retreating from this policy. I have not heard a peep out of them this year about British withdrawal. That phrase has not been heard. It was all very well to use it when Deputy Liam Cosgrave and Senator Pat Cooney were sitting on those benches. Nothing was too low to say to mobilise unthinkable opinion against them, nothing, absolutely nothing, and no policy was too unthinking or too reckless to adopt if it could embarrass and hang that Government. They are quiet enough about it now. It has now been toned down, as it was in the Taoiseach's speech yesterday, not to a declaration of intent to withdraw—what he said was he would regard it as being very helpful if the British expressed their interest in the ultimate unity of the island. I want to remind the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, and the rest of his Government that the British declaration made at Sunningdale in 1973 amounts to anyone except a casuist——

I must interrupt the Deputy for a moment. I have to announce that that the Taoiseach will make a statement in the House at 1.45 p.m.

I hope he has been listening to some of the things I have said about the negotiations he conducted up to this development. The statement he made yesterday amounted to a suggestion that the Sunningdale declaration by the British had never been made. In fact the British have gone, as anybody except a casuist or someone in the tradition of Document No. 2 would agree and would appreciate and admit, every inch of that distance. They did it five years ago and the only thing that galls the people on the far side is that they did it, not for Fianna Fáil but for the National Coalition, and the only other thing that galls them in this regard is that the National Coalition and Deputy Liam Crosgrave were the only group of Irish Ministers ever to sit around a table with a group of representative Unionists. So we will take very little lecturing from Deputy O'Kennedy, Minister for Foreign Affairs, or Taoiseach Jack Lynch, about what we should seek to be achieving from the North.

Any progress made there was made by the National Coalition Government with no help from the far side of the House. The present Taoiseach when Leader of the Opposition called day in and day out for "fresh political initiatives". What were the initiatives he wanted? What initiatives did he think the Dublin Government led by Liam Cosgrave could have taken? If he had them up his sleeve, why have we not seen them during the past 18 months? Are they under wraps? What is the reason for not telling us about them, let alone putting them into effect?

There is only one useful initiative in the North of Ireland for any Irish Government and that is to try to win the respect and trust of people who now would rather fight than have anything to do with us. That is the only initiative worth a damn, and the National Coalition Government I was proud to work for did that from the day they were elected until the day they were defeated. Unless the present Government have the honesty and the guts to follow the same pattern, they will bring this country into deeper trouble.

The adjournment debate is an opportunity to look back briefly over the concluding Dáil session. As it is the end of the year it gives us a broader opportunity to look at the performance of the Government during the past year. Fianna Fáil backbenchers can look in detail at what the Government have achieved. This is a time when the Opposition, particularly their senior spokesmen, can review the Government's performance and put forward their own positive suggestions. However, that does not appear to have been the case.

When the Minister for Labour spoke yesterday and gave an account of his stewardship, there was no spokesman for Labour on either of the Opposition benches. We have had during Question Time what one might call "media headline-seeking" questions trying to undermine the positive work in that crucial area of job creation and the schemes which the Department of Labour have initiated under this Minister. Unfortunately those spokesmen were not here to get specific details of what has been achieved. Since September 1978 the Work Experience Programme has succeeded in placing 1,400 young people in work experience employment for a six-month period with an organisation, semi-State or otherwise, where there is a real potential for positive long-term employment. To date 110 participants have withdrawn from the scheme to take up permanent employment.

We have heard cries from the Opposition that this is cosmetic employment, yet if we look at the OECD report which deals with the preparation for working life during education, we will see that in this scheme there is a real opportunity for young people to gain experience leading to long-term employment. This is a very disheartening for these young people to hear the Opposition disregarding the real potential of this scheme and undermining their future.

The Department of Labour have also initiated the Environment Improvement Scheme and this has benefited my own constituency. To the end of October there were 2,071 placements under this scheme.

It verges on the ridiculous to hear Deputy Mitchell continually criticising what have already proved to be practical and positive initiatives in the area of creating employment, whether of a training or permanent nature. This matter greatly affects my own constituency. It is one of the most rapidly expanding constituencies in the country and there is a tremendous inflow of people to new housing developments and a huge increase in youth numbers. The schemes which have been announced and are in progress are very well accepted and very worthwhile.

It might be useful to dwell briefly on the real benefits which can accrue in particular from the Work Experience Programme. No sensible organisation employs people without an initial trial period. That is to the benefit of the individual and the organisation. Are we to understand that the Opposition do not see my validity in placing over 1,000 young people with the prospect of gaining secure and lasting employment? I assure the Opposition Labour spokesmen that they have lost the point of the scheme. It has already proved to be a tremendous success.

I have visited the AnCO training centre in Ballyfermot and met the people concerned in promoting these employment schemes for young people. It is irresponsible to continually undermine the work of these people. Many of them give up their leisure time and meet various community organisations in order to explain the potential of these schemes. To date in 1978 over 9,000 young people have been placed under the various schemes. The figures are there and do not lie.

I appeal to business organisations and trade unions to look seriously at these schemes, particularly the Work Experience Programme, to see how they can be of most benefit. Last year the Irish Business Equipment Organisation decided, as an umbrella body, to request the placing of 50 young people. Those 50 young men and women have now been placed in permanent employment. With a centralised and co-ordinated approach, many business organisations and trade unions could very quickly bring about a tremendous upswing in the numbers who could benefit.

Let us now consider the overall situation in 1978 and the position as we now stand. It is very hard to understand how Opposition spokesmen can continually criticise without putting forward positive alternatives. The budget proposals have been debated and implemented and have proved a success. The Department of Economic Planning and Development and the Minister responsible have produced positive documents for study and comment. It is this type of open, progressive and forward-planning government which has brought about the conditions which prevail.

The Green Paper has been published. No doubt the Ministers responsible have had detailed discussions on the contents. There is one comment that is worth referring to and it applies in particular to the Opposition parties. The Irish Management Institute, having studied the document, said that Deputy Martin O'Donoghue, Minister for Economic Planning and Development, had put forward a very practical and detailed document and after the various organisations have studied it it is worthy of comment. Those who do not agree with the contents should put forward an alternative.

There has been much criticism from the far side of the House but they have not given an alternative set of proposals or policies that will improve on the performance of the Government in 1978. The Opposition parties are on a negative critical path. I am a new Member of this House and that is the only assessment I can make having watched their performance since mid-1977.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of wage structure and the desired results regarding union rates and wage increases in 1979. Recently the Minister for Economic Planning and Development suggested that a co-ordinated approach, possibly not with the restriction of the national wage agreement, would be more beneficial. It would allow organisations to be flexible with their employees and in a sensible way it would ensure a co-ordinated approach.

I should like to refer also to semi-State companies and to the progress being made particularly regarding recent legislation concerning the Air Companies Act. I am pleased to see that one of our most successful semi-State organisations, Aer Lingus, propose to continue their expanding and outward role by bringing a major industrial development to my constituency. Possibly this development will be a pioneering operation in the European context In this kind of development I can see a tremendous benefit accruing in employment, particularly in the technical content of the employment and the long-term benefits that will arise as a result of the Act dealing with air companies and the development at Baldonnel. The type of technical quality that our workforce can provide is a compliment to the training organisations, and in particular to AnCo. We have heard much criticism from the Opposition but the interest shown abroad with regard to that organisation is a confirmation of the great progress that has been made.

I should like to refer to some of the comments regarding the Department of the Environment by Deputy Quinn on what he considered lack of progress. I should like him to visit my constituency and to see the many houses in course of construction. In County Dublin housing by the corporation, the county council and private enterprise has been developing rapidly. It is no consolation to the people concerned to hear spokesmen for the Coalition—I do not know if they are still a Coalition or separate parties—undermining the work of semi-State bodies. When the Coalition were in Government they neglected completely to review those semi-State bodies and they did not carry out any updating of the structures.

This Government have reactivated the Develin Review Committee and, as a result, there is a new air of optimism. Semi-State companies, particularly the technical and export-orientated organisations, are an example to our European partners and to the developed countries. Many of them have been called on to provide consultancy and technical advice in countries around the world.

This morning the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke of the progress to date and filled in details on the talks in Brussels last week. He highlighted the other advantages and fringe benefits with which he was associated in the aftermath of the EMS discussions. The Minister quite rightly had to point out that the Opposition parties in their criticisms of the overall negotiations had done nothing to help the image of this country. They were negative and damaging. In the past few days the Opposition spokesmen did everything to undermine the Government's position in their negotiations in the EMS and in their negotiations on the other benefits that can arise from membership of the EEC.

In May of this year the bulletin from the Department of Foreign Affaris outlined a new direction in Irish foreign policy. The Minister outlined in detail the contacts he made and the travels he undertook and the new aggressive approach that people in Europe and elsewhere see as our new position. There has been a completely new image put on our country by the performance of the Government, particularly in 1978.

The Opposition spokesmen have done nothing but criticise. In The Irish Times of today's date there is a heading stating, “Food prices bring down the inflation rate”. In February 1977 the increase in the consumer price index figure was 16.7 per cent but in November 1978 it was 7.9 per cent. This was a positive move forward and is an indication of the progress of the Government.

I should like to refer to the Department of Education grant scheme.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share