I move:
That Dáil Éireann gravely concerned about the serious economic mismanagement of the country by the Government declares that this House and the people of Ireland have no confidence in the Government.
I see an amendment by a member of the Government seeking to delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute "expresses satisfaction at the Government's management of the economy". We decided to table this motion in order to give parliamentary expression to the will, as we have found it, of the Irish people. One of the things the local and European election campaign have clearly demonstrated is that a majority of our people have no confidence in the competence or the willingness of the Government to handle our economy and many other aspects of our national life. Indeed, I can say honestly that in my 19 years in public life I have not met in election canvassing such a feeling not only of anger and frustration against a Government but worse, and more serious, a feeling approaching despair among large sections of our people.
They are in despair mainly because they realise that because they gave Fianna Fáil a majority of 20 in the Dáil in 1977, under our democratic procedures, though they can and will register their feelings forcefully on 7 June in the European and local elections, they will not have an opportunity to remove this Government from office in the next two and a half to three years. Any Member of the House who has been canvassing could not but realise that that would be the wish today of the majority of the electors.
I know that this motion of no confidence, because of the 20-seat majority Fianna Fáil have, probably will not be passed here tomorrow night. It is somewhat regrettable that the new-found selective exercise of conscience within Fianna Fáil in relation to voting will not find expression here tomorrow night. Although every Deputy on that side of the House, as on this side, knows in his heart of hearts that this Government have mismanaged seriously our national affairs, they will not give expression to that feeling by voting for this motion.
In regard to this motion which expresses no confidence in the Government's ability to handle our economy, there is an obligation on a Deputy moving such a motion to justify that. I intend to do so by covering five areas that are directly related to the economy. They are employment, economic growth, inflation, our taxation code and industrial relations. I will prove, not by my figures but by the Government's own figures or by impartial figures that are published on behalf of the State, that in each of those areas not only has no progress been made by the present Government over the last two years but in each and every one of those areas the situation has deteriorated seriously and the Government have undermined seriously our people's faith in parliamentary democracy. They have done so not particularly because of their gross incompetence but because of their gross incompetence combined with their gross dishonesty. That is fully apparent to our people at this stage.
If we take the area of employment and compare the situation that Fianna Fáil inherited from the previous Government in June 1977, we will find that on that date the number of registered unemployed in this country was 108,000 and approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people were emigrating at that time. It is proper that I say that. The last published figure for people registered as unemployed was 103,000 and the most conservative estimate of emigration is 11,000 although I believe that it is far in excess of that. Therefore, if you add the 108,000 to the 6,000 who are emigrating at that time, that is 114,000 people who could not find employment in their own country. If we add 103,000 to the 11,000 conservative figure for emigration we find that, despite all the propaganda from the various Ministers over the last two years, the situation has not improved one iota as far as employment is concerned.
It is only fair to say that in 1973-1974 the previous Government had to face one of the most severe recessions known to the western world since the 1930s. During that recession, which was world-wide and which was felt and felt badly by much stronger economies than our own, unemployment figures went up to 120,000 and inflation went to 20 per cent plus. It is also fair and objective to say that the budget of 1977 which was introduced by the previous administration had taken effective measures to stimulate growth in our economy, to try to introduce some element of social justice into our national life and to deal with the question of inflation. In their first year in office the present Government enjoyed many of the beneficial effects of that 1977 budget. Fianna Fáil came to office on a wave of glittering promises that bore no relationship to the real economic and social problems facing this country. The previous administration knew when the election would be and they could, had they so wished, have matched those promises and implemented policies that would have made the results of that election far more favourable for them.
However, there is this fundamental difference which the Irish people must realise, that if Fianna Fáil are left with two choices, political expediency for their own party and Irish national interests, Fianna Fáil's political advantage and expediency will win every time. It won the last election for them, but the cost of winning that election to Irish national interests, to Irish men, women and children is now being seen throughout this land. Their reliance on the private sector has failed and to some extent they have admitted that it has failed by agreeing in one of the provisions of the national understanding that they would set up what they described as a public enterprise agency. That, of course, is another name for a State development corporation. For political reasons they did not choose to give it the same name. I also doubt whether they will give it the same criteria as we would or whether it would have the same terms of reference that we had in mind in setting-up a State development corporation, but it was, nonetheless, a clear and open admission that their reliance on the private sector to provide employment had failed.
Also, by disbanding the youth employment agency they acknowledged publicly that by their approach this Government had not provided and could not provide employment for our youth. The result is as I have already said as far as employment in this country is concerned. There is not one person less registered as unemployed either for benefit or assistance, and when you take into consideration the number who have lost all hope of obtaining employment in this country under this Government and have left the country, it is clear that as far as employment is concerned, the Government have failed.
Another great hope for our economic advance was economic growth. We had to sit here week after week, month after month, listening to Fianna Fáil's spokesmen, and particularly the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy O'Donoghue, telling us about economic growth and how it would be achieved. That, of course, would be linked with inflation in this year not exceeding 5 per cent and the trade unions, would naturally, have to accept no more than 5 per cent of an increase in any agreement that was reached on that front.
Let us look at the record of economic growth after the lectures, both in the manifesto and since the manifesto, that we have had from the Fianna Fáil Party. Economic growth in 1977 was 5 per cent. That 5 per cent was achieved coming out of what I have already described as one of the worst recessions the world has known, and it was achieved by virtue of the budget of 1977. If we go to the year 1978 and the Fianna Fáil budget, which did pump money into our economy, which did stimulate growth somewhat, though not wisely, we get a figure at the end of that year of 5½ per cent growth. If we consider the present year it is predicted almost unanimously by the Central Bank, the OECD and other impartial observers on economies in general, that the most we can expect or hope for is a growth rate of somewhere between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. Therefore their performance in that area has almost halved what was being achieved when they assumed office in 1977. That is another proven example of the so-called progress and their incompetence as far as the running of our economy is concerned. As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned economic growth is an end in itself.
Let us suppose even for a moment that the flights of fancy of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and other Ministers of a 7 per cent growth were true, what would that mean to the majority of our people? For instance, what would it mean to the majority of our people seeking employment? What would it mean to social welfare recipients who are lower paid because the Government have stated openly and unshamedly that as far as social development is concerned that must wait? Therefore, economic growth and talking in terms of percentages of economic growth have very little relevance to the vast majority of our people and bear no relationship at all to the misery being experienced by tens of thousands of our citizens. It is time Fianna Fáil woke up to one simple fact about Irish life: the poor cannot wait; over 20 per cent of them are below the poverty line and that percentage under this Government is rapidly increasing.
If there is any possibility of getting a consensus for progress within this country it can be got only on the basis that economic and social development go hand in hand and that one is but a means of achieving the other. That is not the philosophy of Fianna Fáil. They have actively pursued policies benefiting a small, privileged, rich section of our community. They have used the tax code to do so. They have used the building industry to do so. They have used every mechanism at their disposal to pay back the people who financed their success in 1977. I have met many people over the last few weeks who have told me that they voted for Fianna Fáil in June 1977 and also that never have they regretted such an action so much. They were only too eager to be given an opportunity to rectify what they considered to be a grave mistake. They cannot do so on this occasion but at least we in this party will air their sense of grievance, of anger, of frustration, in this House, using this motion as the appropriate vehicle.
Our economic growth as predicted is a failure also. I might add that the 3 per cent to 4 per cent growth rate, which is the maximum predicted by the Central Bank, the OECD and others, does not take into consideration the disastrous effects of the postal strike which has been allowed by this Government to continue for 14 weeks. The damage that is doing to our economy, our social life, our international image is apparently of no concern to this Government. In my opinion they have picked the Post Office workers to beat them into submission in order to try to frighten off anybody else in the public sector from submitting any claim. I know Post Office workers; I have had a long association with them; they have never had a national strike before. They are one of the most responsible bodies of people one could meet. I say to the Government and the Minister that if they are planning to beat these people into the ground, to starve them, their wives and children into submission as an example to other trade unionists, they are backing the wrong horse. I have met them and they will not be crushed. They will be reasonable, as they have proved. They have gone on national television and said they were prepared to compromise. I say, for decency sake, for Ireland's sake, at least let the Minister meet the people whom he employs, no more. That gesture alone could be sufficient to bring about a settlement of this strike. I say to the Minister: for God's sake do so because the damage this strike is inflicting on our economy will not be realised until some time in the future. If this strike is allowed to continue any longer, or indeed even at this point in time, the forecasted growth figure of 3 per cent to 4 per cent will prove to have been a very optimistic figure indeed.
The other area I should like to deal with is that of prices. We heard a lot about prices from Fianna Fáil in their manifesto and again from the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. We sat here and had lectures on economics from him week after week. In fact he was like a child who had been given catalogues of very expensive, delicate toys. It was as if he had read all the catalogues, never for one moment imagining that he would ever own one of them. Suddenly, bang, there was one right into his lap but all he knew about it is what he had read in the catalogue. He knows the theory. He will stand up here evening after evening lecturing us all —Members of the House, the press gallery and those people in the public gallery—on the theory. God bless us, did ever a man know so little about practice? Did ever a country pay such a price for a bit of personal patronage by the Taoiseach in appointing a man with so little experience?
Let us look at the question of prices. The official figure published for inflation in the period May 1977 to May 1978 was of an increase of 6 per cent. That was what the present Government inherited; that was another achievement of the 1977 budget. What is the figure today? Today prices have risen by somewhere between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. That is not taking into consideration some figures being held in abeyance. As far as the increase in the price of oil is concerned, at the maximum, it would account for 2 per cent of that increase. Again the Central Bank—not recognised as a radical body, or as one that makes wild, unsubstantiated statements—said that over half of the inflation increase was due to food price increases. That, to a large extent, is due to the removal of the food subsidies. Increases in the price of foods do not affect me a lot. If the price of food is increased by a few pence my children will not go hungry. They will still get the same amount of milk, bread and the same dinner, but there are a lot of children who will be hungry.
I would like to read what the achievement of the Government has been in the area of prices. Between May 1977 and May 1978 food prices increased by 6 per cent. That is the official figure and it now stands at between 13 per cent to 15 per cent. This will go up because we still have applications from the ESB for very substantial increases and it has been announced, but not confirmed by the Government until after the election, that there will be CIE increases. We have had an increase of 11p on petrol and a clear indication by the Minister that there will be a further increase which will go right through the economy.
The 2 per cent farm levy which will probably be passed on to the meat trade will involve an increase of 10 per cent in the price of meat. Before that silly act, meat was a luxury for many families who were very fortunate if they could have meat once a week. The Government are taking on the butchers instead of the farmers because they think they are easier political pickings. This will result in the families who can afford meat once a week having to do without it on that occasion.
I would like to read some of the increases which the Government's brilliant strategy, outlined in their manifesto, has resulted in. Bread has gone up 7p a loaf, an increase of 31 per cent; butter by 16p, an increase of 30 per cent; cheese, 22p a pound, a 28 per cent increase; beef, before the levy, 27½p a pound, an increase of 29 per cent; lamb by 42½p a pound, an increase of 48 per cent; potatoes 42½p a stone, an increase of 39 per cent; and milk 3½p a pint, an increase of 44 per cent. There are many items on that list which are the only things some members of our Christian society can look forward to day after day, week after week. Many of those people can only look forward to bread, butter, potatoes and milk.
As far as increases in food are concerned, it has been clearly established that as far as social welfare recipients, old age pensioners, deserted wives, widows, the lower paid and people with large families, are concerned food constitutes 40 per cent of their total available expenditure.
I have already referred to the postal strike. Let us look at the Government's achievement on strikes and compare it with promises. One of the things the Government singled out in their manifesto was the Post Office and telecommunications. One is reasonably entitled to assume that they knew there were long-standing problems there under successive Governments and that this area needed quick, delicate and skillful handling. What is the record of the Government in regard to strikes in general?
In 1977 the number of man-days lost on strikes was 459,000, in 1978 it was 450,000 and in 1979, up to the end of May, five months through the year, the figure is 400,000. The vast majority of the man-hours lost in that period is in the public sector. The Government's employees make up the vast majority of that figure. If the performance of the Government in industrial relations had not had such serious consequences for many people, it would be laughable.
We have only to compare the performance of the Minister for Labour when he was on those benches, who not only had a solution for all the current industrial problems but was able to anticipate problems and solve them. Has there ever in any Government been such a failure? His first contribution since he assumed office was to say that he could not and would not intervene in strikes. That was the general principle he adopted when he assumed office. His second emergence from the bunker he has gone into over the last few months, when he broke his vow of political silence, was to make some vague threat of legislation against the trade union movement. He is silly enough and the Government are silly enough to try legislation in an area where one cannot successfully legislate. This is an area, however, where agreement is possible, if it is clearly demonstrated that there is a concern for social justice at the top, if there is a willingness to have equity in our society, if there is political will within the Government, to use the many instruments available to them to create social justice and equity in our society. But they are not there. I believe that in their absence, agreement will be very difficult to obtain.
Fianna Fáil in their manifesto sowed the seeds at the highest level of greed, self-interest and sectional interest, and they are now stumbling from one crisis to another from the effects of the seed they sowed.
I would like to speak about the tax code. When the Government came into office in June 1977 they had a tax code in which some start had been made to try to restructure it to ensure that all sections would be brought within its net and would contribute according to their ability. The foundation was there. I am not saying that farmer taxation, tax paid by the unemployed and other sections of the community, or even the taxation code, were perfect, because major restructuring was needed, but a start had been made. Fianna Fáil had been in office for 16 years and had not made a start. The last administration made a start. Fine Gael lost a number of seats because they had the courage and the sense of moral responsibility towards the nation as a whole to introduce farmer taxation. That cost them dearly in terms of seats but it did not cost them what it is costing Fianna Fáil in terms of credibility and political integrity. Fianna Fáil have neither. Fianna Fáil inherited a wealth tax, farmer taxation and capital gains tax. Almost immediately they came into office they abolished the wealth tax, changed the capital gains tax to make it 70 per cent ineffective, and the 2 per cent levy on farmers exposed their thinking as far as social justice was concerned. There was not the slightest element or consideration of social justice in that 2 per cent levy and this party opposed it for that reason. We believe in social justice. We are not and will not be selective about its implementation or its application. A farmer's income and his ability to pay the 2 per cent levy was not taken into consideration. It was a means of getting money from the farming community. If some of these farmers were in the PAYE sector they would not be liable for income tax because their incomes would not be high enough.
The Minister for Finance showed determination as far as the budget, the 2 per cent levy and the farmers were concerned. Even at this moment we do not know precisely if we have the budget that was introduced. There is still the possibility of further negotiations on many aspects of that budget. The Minister for Finance showed the sense of purpose, determination, decision and decisiveness of a well-heeled client in a Paris hat shop as far as the PAYE taxpayer was concerned. His answer to these people was to increase their contribution to the Exchequer by over £200 million and he gave them back £26 million in the budget, and offered an additional sum as one of the terms of acceptance of the national understanding.
How many man-hours are being lost by people queuing for petrol? It is not unusual now to see a queue for petrol of half-a-mile or a quarter of a mile, often starting at 11 o'clock the night before. We accept that there are outside factors but for six weeks the Government were told by Deputies on these benches that there was an oil crisis. We asked them to do something about it, to tell the people what the situation was. What answer did we get? We were told day after day that there was not a crisis, that there were no difficulties and no problems. We certainly have a problem now. When the Government suddenly realised that what we had been telling them over the last six weeks was true what was the response of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy? He called in the oil companies and started to lay down the law in an abrasive way.
