Deputy Enright was in possession. He has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Management of Economy: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Kelly on Wednesday, 24 October 1979:
"That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's economic mismanagement, which has resulted in the credit squeeze and in a general loss of confidence in agriculture, industry, construction and other parts of the economy."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"approves the Government's economic policies and notes the progress which they are bringing about".
—(Minister for Finance).
When I spoke on this motion last Wednesday evening, I dealt with a widespread and rampant loss of confidence throughout our agricultural community and with a serious situation regarding a severe drop in cattle prices and with losses being suffered by people engaged in pig and cereal production.
For the first time for many years, our cattle and pig numbers have fallen seriously. There has been a drop in the yields of cereals. We have a situation where farmers, because of serious shortages of cash, are being obliged to sell cattle at prices far less than they paid for them earlier this year and suffering serious losses.
I have limited time, and I intend to deal with the present credit squeeze. On Thursday, 25 October, the Minister for Finance allowed an extra £10 million for bridging loans, to ease the "bottleneck" as it was described in one of our national newspapers. Following numerous representations from people on this side of the House, calling on the Minister to recognise the fact that the credit squeeze was having a serious effect on the building and construction industry here, the Minister decided to take some action. We had warned that, unless action was taken, there would be serious redundancies likely in the building industry, which would affect all the other people involved in the business of building, such as architects, engineers and auctioneers. I put it to the Minister that, in national terms, this extra £10 million was far too little. The number of new houses that this would help would be very limited and far less than was essential—between 400 and 500.
I put it to the Minister, as a senior Cabinet Minister, that this was far too little to alleviate the present situation. In the year 1978, the total number of new houses for which loans were obtained from building societies was 6,386 and other houses numbered 7,691, making a total of over 14,000 people who obtained loans from our building societies. The total money coming from building societies alone was £166 million. The money the Minister offered for bridging finance is only a drop in the ocean. The Minister and the Government must be aware that the building and construction industry is of immense importance to our whole economy and that this industry is slowly but surely grinding to a halt because of the biting, serious and severe effects of the present squeeze.
The Minister appears to know that there is a problem, but it looks as if he is going to do little or nothing about it. I would urge him to do something about it immediately. The Central Bank guidelines to which the Ministers and the Central Bank have referred were to run from mid-February 1979 to mid-February 1980. As far as I am aware, and the Minister may contradict me if he has evidence to the contrary, these guidelines were not issued by the Central Bank to the associated banks until towards the end of March of this year. These deal with a period of just two months. At that time I understand that most of the allowable ceiling of 18 per cent had been exhausted, or near enough exhausted. A period of just over two months had been allowed to elapse before the Central Bank set down this ceiling. There is an obligation on the Central Bank and on the Minister to ensure that finance will be made available before it is too late. I am dealing only with building societies but throughout every county council, loans of up to £9,000 are being granted—I have not the exact figure but it would be in the region of 67,000 houses. The Minister, with his extra allowance, is helping a paltry 400 to 500 new houses. I can assure him that this matter is extremely urgent. The Minister has said that if somebody gives him proof he will take action and is prepared to take further action, if the situation warranted. The proof is there. Ask any one involved in the business of building and if you want further proof, ask any bank manager what the situation is in regard to credit. The present severe credit squeeze is very serious for everybody. Credit must be extended to encompass further people and to be more widespread, otherwise the greatest possible hardship will be inflicted on young married couples, buying houses for the first time. They need houses, they have entered into contracts, into commitments, and find that, because of being unable to obtain bridging finance for two to three months, they cannot complete sales in many instances. This is a solid, actual fact, and the sooner it gets home to the Government the better for everybody. The Minister had better bring this across to the Cabinet table in the very near future. If action is not taken and this situation is allowed to continue there will be many people in the building industry facing a very severe winter.
I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here. The other night he stated that in the course of an interview I had on Radio Éireann I was asked if I had any answers in regard to increased costs and he stated that I had none. If he had been listening correctly he would know that I was asked if I had any magical solutions. I was honest enough to say that there were none. Instead of trying to look for magical solutions the Government should take off their coats and recognise the essential work that needs to be done, which would be better for us all. The Minister was less than honest in the statement that he made regarding that interview.
I should like to do three things in the time allotted to me. I should like to deal with the motion tabled by Deputy Kelly and others and then deal with some of the remarks made by Deputy Kelly last week since they did not have relevance to the motion before the House. Finally I should like to deal with the Government's amendment to that motion. The motion states that Dáil Éireann is expected to deplore the Government's economic mismanagement which has resulted in the credit squeeze and in a general loss of confidence.
I was reading through what Deputy Kelly had said in order to see what evidence he had produced that it was the Government's mismanagement that had resulted in the credit squeeze and general loss of confidence. I could find almost no reference in the whole of his 40-minute contribution to these matters. There were one or two paragraphs at most that could be held to be touching on these aspects, but most of his time was taken up with other matters, some of which I will turn to later.
A substantial part of his opening contribution is best described as by way of contributing to the entertainment of the Members of the House rather than having anything to do with informing them. I am sure entertainment has a valid role in our society and I do not dispute that Members of the House enjoy a little of it from time to time. I suppose we should be grateful that Deputy Kelly possesses these talents. However there was another aspect to it to which I should like to draw attention. I notice that the Deputy made various attempts to refer to me by reference to some character in an entertaining show rather than refer to me by name. Very interesting. I presume the motivation is to try to undermine or ridicule a person rather than deal substantially with their arguments or case. I put it to Deputy Kelly that in this approach of trying to engage in the rather school-boy practice of name calling he is indeed following in the footsteps of his leader who I notice has been indulging in the same practice with increasing frequency over recent weeks. If that is the best they can offer to the people by way of any opposition or alternative to the Government's policy let the message go out clearly to the people that on that side of the House they will be offered schoolboy entertainment and name calling— they must look elsewhere for any serious debate or discussion on the important issues that come before this House.
The motion has two substantive parts as I see it. We are expected to take the argument that the credit squeeze is due to Government mismanagement and also that there is a loss of confidence which is due to the same cause. Let us take each of those. In the very few remarks Deputy Kelly made on the credit squeeze being due to Government mismanagement he stated that the reckless and remorseless expansion of the Government's demand for money has left the private sector strapped for credit and that that will shortly be reflected in increased unemployment and so on. This is the substance of his case. He appears to want to argue that because of the size of Government borrowing this year this is reducing or restricting the availability of credit to the private sector. That is not true. There is no substance in that statement or no foundation for it whatsoever.
The Central Bank is the authority in this country entrusted by law with the management of the monitoring of credit policies of the nation. It draws up credit guidelines and considers the needs of the different sectors of the community quite independently. It is the Central Bank which lays down credit guidelines for the private sector indicating the priority which should be given to various productive forms of investment and indicating the degree of restraint that should be exercised in the availability of credit for non-essential purposes. It is because the banking institutions exceeded the guidelines laid down by the Central Bank, not once, not just for a temporary period, but over a sustained period of 12 months or so and after several warnings from the Central Bank to moderate their supply of credit—it was only after this process of excessive credit provision to the private sector had gone on for some time that the Central Bank imposed the more severe restrictions that have now been operating for some months. That is the essence of the situation in regard to the credit squeeze. If there is a credit squeeze at present it is due to the fact that the Central Bank is exercising the responsibility entrusted to it by this House.
The Government have nothing to do with it.
The Government have their own credit needs. These, like other credit needs, have to be financed, but the management of Government credit requirements is not the reason for the credit squeeze on the private sector. It is the Central Bank which manages the credit arrangements for the private sector. If the Deputy thinks that is untrue or disputes it in any way I would be delighted to hear the counter-statement put on the record of the House. I will gladly deal with it.
That is the basic truth of the situation with regard to the credit squeeze. Quite apart from our entry into the European Monetary System which would of itself have caused some changes and developments in our financial arrangements, we had the added short-term problems caused by the disruption of oil supplies internationally—we know that has unsettled the money markets of the world —and we had the more local destruction to our financial affairs associated with the various industrial disputes during the course of the year. It has been an unsettled year for the conduct of financial affairs. It is for that reason that one would expect the appropriate authorities, the Central Bank and the Government, with their responsibility for managing the public sector, to keep the credit situation under continuous review. This is being done. There have been various developments in the course of the year and the most recent, even since this motion came before the House last week, as Members will know is that arrangements have been made to make some additional credit available for bridging purposes in the case of housing loans and additional credit for farming purposes.
As the Tánaiste and other members of the Government have made clear, this situation will be continually reviewed so that if any further adjustments are deemed appropriate to deal with prevailing circumstances they can be made. There can be no question of a totally uninhibited expansion of credit.
I was appalled by some of the remarks that Deputy Enright made in his concluding statement. I can only assume that he did not really mean them, just as I can only assume that Deputy Kelly did not mean the remarks he made last week. In order to clarify that let me put it clearly and bluntly to Deputy Kelly before he replies: am I to take it that the Fine Gael position is that there should be no credit restraint, no guidelines laid down for the availability of credit, that it should be a simple case of letting everything flow without any direction, guidance or regulation of any kind? If that is not the case, and they are dissenting from the type of credit arrangements that are operated by the Central Bank, then I suggest that as a responsible opposition, as distinct from an opposition which sees its role as providing entertainment for the House, it is their duty to place their alternative views on the record. If they do not have such views, then we on this side of the House and the people are entitled to arrive at the appropriate judgment and to recognise their sham posturing for what it is.
The Fianna Fáil Party are in Government to govern.
We are governing. That is the point I am making.
We had a very quiet evening until now and Deputy L'Estrange should not interrupt.
Having dealt with the one about the credit squeeze, the second part of the motion talks about a general loss of confidence in agriculture, industry, construction and other parts of the economy. I have waited to see the evidence for this general loss of confidence. I cannot find any contribution whatsoever by Deputy Kelly on this aspect of the motion. In fairness to Deputy Enright, in the few minutes in which I heard him he made some effort to supply such evidence. If I heard him correctly, he talked about a reduction in cattle numbers and a drop in cereal yields as some of the indicators of this loss of confidence. Of all the examples to try to quote to this House, I have to say that he deserves a medal for bravery but not for accuracy. The drop in cattle numbers can be directly traced to the massive slaughtering of our breeding herd in 1975 in the wake of the worst winter of discontent for our farmers, when calves had to be virtually given away. We all know that that happened, and the numbers are there to show it. We know that the numbers of cattle will not be restored to a full level of output until 1982 because we have to pay a terrible price for the wholesale slaughtering that went on during that period.
The other example the Deputy gave was of cereal yields. With all due respect, it has nothing to do with any Member of this House. Does the Deputy forget that last winter was a very bad one and that it affected the whole of Western Europe?
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should not be interrupted.
Any farmer who knows anything at all about farming will tell the Deputy that cereal yields are down because of the effects of the poor weather last winter and the late spring. If the Deputy wants to dispute that fact, I should be delighted to see him, or any other spokesman for his Party, attempt to place on the record how a drop in cereal yields this year is to be attributed to the mismanagement of the Government. I would be fascinated to have such a case made to me.
How about pigs?
I did not hear the Deputy making any reference to pigs. If the Deputy has such a case to make, I should be delighted to hear it. I am simply quoting the two examples given in my presence.
I gave three examples.
No interruptions, please.
Those are the two main components of the motion before us. I have now shown that no evidence has been presented from the other side of the House to deal with them.
Now what did Deputy Kelly do with his time last week? I was so curious that I got the notes which had been taken by people who had been listening to him. Apart from the entertainment which he supplied, I see that a lot of his time went in making various inaccurate statements about different aspects of our economic performance. I want to pick up some of them because I think they are very interesting; they throw some fascinating lights on the nature of Fine Gael policy in so far as I can discern Fine Gael policy. At one stage we were told that the terms of the National Understanding were too generous. He told us that the result was that last year, and even more so this year, there was a national understanding which was far more generous than the country could afford. He said that when he was talking about what happened to pay increases. He went on to talk about the management of public finances and he accused the Government of bringing in a phoney budget. He said: "I must point out that we began the year with a phoney budget. I am not a financial expert but I followed as well as I could the passages between him and the Leader of my party earlier this year and I still think it is a phoney budget".
The issue has been debated both inside and outside this House. It is a matter of record now that the Deputy's Leader had to back away from his initial wild allegations. He withdrew the more serious allegations of fraud because he was impunging the integrity not just of politicians but of members of the Public Service. He recognised that danger and had a belated burst of common sense which enabled him to back away. If I had the time I would go through all the different statements which he made as he wriggled off the hook created for himself by his intemperate remarks.
The fact is that there was no phoney budget. If the Deputy asks why there is a difference between the likely outturn and the budget estimates, the major reasons for it are clearly identifiable. There is on the revenue side a substantial shortfall in tax revenue associated with the postal strike in addition to some of the other losses of revenue associated with the slower rate of growth that is now in prospect.
I call that a phoney explanation.
It is not a phoney explanation. In his remarks last week the Deputy said that he could not foresee the upheaval in Iran. It was not part of the Government's budget estimates either. I invite the Deputy to put his alternative view on the record of the House. The estimates which we have put forward as a Government indicate that at least 1 per cent to 1½ per cent of the slow-down in growth is attributable to the effects of the oil price upheaval. That is true not only for Ireland but for the western world generally. The remainder of the shortfall is attributable to the effects of the postal strike and the other disputes. If the Deputy disputes those estimates he should put forward an alternative. I am now saying that those are the main reasons for the shortfall on the revenue side. I just note in passing that one of the reasons why expenditure will be higher than the budget is that the level of pay settlement was higher than originally budgeted. The Deputy's leader criticised the provision which we had made in the budget as being excessive and suggested that a smaller provision should have been made.
When he was talking about the level of public borrowing, the Deputy said: "Last week the Minister for Economic Planning and Development said in relation to the need for scaled-down borrowing progressively that there is no ideal or necessary level of borrowing for any country. I hope the Minister will not be offended and that the Chair will not get excited if I say that that is the kind of looney talk that gets academics a bad name". I did indeed say that there is no ideal level of borrowing for any country. I did not say that it was only a fiction.
So that we may have the record right I would like to quote from an interview I gave published in The Irish Times on 12 October. I was asked a specific question about the philosophy towards borrowing and I drew an analogy between a country's state of development and the different ages of people in order to show that different levels of borrowing are appropriate to different circumstances. Deputy Kelly misquoted me. I said:
There is no ideal level of borrowing appropriate to a particular country. Each individual case stands on its own merit.
I went on to list some of the further reasons or characteristics which would be taken into account in judging this. Deputy Kelly seemed to think that because I said that there was no ideal level of borrowing that that made a nonsense of the various targets for borrowing which have been set out by the Government over the past few years. It does no such thing. The whole point was that the borrowing targets set out by the Government from 1977 onwards are to be seen as part of a coherent, consistent policy.
Where is the consistency?
There is a borrowing level to any given level of growth and output, any given level of inflation, any given level of balance of payments position. If those other factors change so too does the appropriate level of borrowing. So, with respect to Deputy Kelly, he did indeed demonstrate that he is no financial expert, because it would be the height of financial stupidity and absurdity and crass mismanagement to persist with a simple piece of arithmetic when the economic circumstances and realities had changed. The Deputy is making my case by saying that. If economic circumstances change of course it is sensible to adjust the arithmetic or borrowing requirement to take account of those changing conditions rather than to persist blindly and foolishly with an outdated and inappropriate set of numbers. It is the leader of Deputy Kelly's party who has always had an obsession with numbers which so blind him that he forgets to consider the underlying factors and circumstances which go to make up the economic performance of a country.
There are two other points I want to answer. Deputy Kelly talked about the increase in employment which has taken place. He said that many of these jobs were only apparent jobs; they consume wealth instead of creating it. What does that add up to? It tells us very clearly that Fine Gael's alternative to the Government's approach would be lower wages, thousands of people out of work and increased taxes. Those are the three basic messages that I drew from that. If Deputy Kelly thinks that is a wrong interpretation, again I invite him to refute it and to show how he can claim that the level of pay increases provided for is too generous. If that is so he must want to reduce it. How can he claim that he would not increase taxes, because unless he wants to cut Government spending or cut employment further in the public service then the only way in which he can reduce borrowing is by increasing taxes? If he thinks many of the extra jobs are only apparent jobs then presumably the logic of his own argument is that he would throw these people out of their jobs; incidentally many of them are in the civil service. Again he is being consistent in following in his leader's footsteps, since I notice that his leader took the time off to attack a civil servant who happens to be the secretary of a Government Department. So much for Deputy Kelly.
In the few minutes that remain to me I would like to deal with the Government's amendment. It will come as no surprise to Members of the House why quite clearly we could not accept the Opposition motion. I have given the reasons. They cannot even put forward evidence in support of their own motion. I have given the reasons why we would reject the motion in the terms in which it is before the House. I have also dealt with the inadequacies of the case made by Deputy Kelly and Deputy Enright, and I will now move on to say why the House should approve the Government amendment which asks the House to approve the Government's economic policies and note the progress they are bringing about. It is a fact that there has been very rapid progress in the last two years. There has been increased confidence. The evidence I would put forward for that is to ask what is happening to investment. The volume of investment in 1978 rose by 15 per cent, the largest increase on record. That is being repeated this year. Naturally we do not yet know the official figures, but it seems very likely that the growth in investment this year will be very close to the record increase of last year, so that for the two years as a whole the volume of investment will be up by about 30 per cent. That is a major signal of the revival of confidence which has taken place in the Irish people. It is not confined to any one sector. There has been a massive growth of investment in agriculture, in industry and in the building and construction industry. Along with that growth in investment, which of course holds the key to sustained growth in the years ahead and which therefore enables us to look forward to the future with confidence, there has also been a record growth in employment. Employment is up by over 30,000 since the Government came to office. There have been over 50,000 new jobs created, and because there is now a much lower level of jobs lost through redundancies the net effect is that there are over 30,000 more people at work. That again is a record which is unprecedented in the history of this State since independence. Another pointer of progress is that living standards are up by about 10 per cent in the last two years. This is again one of the fastest improvements on record.
Let me digress for a moment to refute the charge that is frequently made that we are not paying attention to the needs of the weaker sections in our community. Let me note that while the average increases in living standards is 10 per cent the real improvement in social welfare benefits is much greater. It is of the order of 15 per cent plus, thanks to the very substantial increases in social welfare benefits which have been made since we came to office in the summer of 1977. These are three major indications of the progress we have made in the short span of two years. We have already undone most of the damage caused by the Coalition's wasted years. In their period in office we know that investment, far from rising, actually fell. I have given one example of it in the agricultural area. Let me point out that the level of industrial investment also came to a halt in the awful period of 1975 and that even by 1977 it had only just got back to the 1973 level.
That is more fairy tales. We had the highest growth rate in Europe.
The Deputy should go away and equip himself with a few facts and a few bits of information.
What was our growth rate in 1977?
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy L'Estrange is not prepared to restrain himself he should leave the House. Nobody is asking him to listen. Deputy L'Estrange is taking the Minister's time, and the Chair will have to allow time if Deputy L'Estrange is going to take it.
The Chair would do that for the Government.
Whatever else Deputy L'Estrange does he should not make charges against the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is kept busy trying to reconcile the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach.
I have no difficulty in reconciling them.
The Minister is persisting with his inconsistencies.
I am persisting in the policy which the Government have been advocating. Let me say that at least we can identify the virtue of consistency on the Opposition side because the recipe which I read out that if they were given the opportunity there would be higher taxes, higher unemployment and lower standards of living has a familiar ring about it. That was what we had from 1973 to 1977. We campaigned on an alternative policy. The people made their choice. They voted for the Fianna Fáil policy——
They are sorry now.
——because they saw in them the prospect of breaking out of that depressing circle——
(Cavan-Monaghan): What did they do in June of this year?
——and the fruits of that alternative policy are there to be seen. There is the change, there is the record growth, and that growth and progress will continue in the years ahead.
There were a number of other points I wished to make but I see I have exhausted my time.
The Minister has about two minutes left.
Plus injury time.
There is no injury time in this game, unfortunately. One would like to give it in view of the interruptions.
As long as he is not knocked out, it is all right.
There is talk from the other side of the House about our failure to achieve targets. I make no apology to anybody for putting forward ambitious targets. While Deputy Kelly was apparently being very nice in trying to defend me last week on that score, I do not feel in any way threatened or apologetic for putting forward ambitious targets. The point in doing so is to show the kind of progress which can be achieved. It is to make the contrast with the gloom and despair which comes from the benches opposite. There has not been a single target or a single positive policy statement from that side of the House for the past two-and-a-half years.
(Interruptions.)
There is a lone bleat behind the Minister.
If targets are not achieved one can measure progress made towards them. It is the actual performance which will be judged at the end of the day by the people. Looking at the performance, I have no doubt that not only the Members of this House but the people of Ireland would unhesitatingly endorse the policies which have brought the progress achieved in the past two years and reject the alternative, which would be laughable if it were not so pitiable and lamentable, which comes from the Opposition benches.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when this would-be Erhardt of the Irish economy——
Amelia or Ludwig?
Do not complicate it.
I am talking about the German Minister generally credited with the economic miracle.
I thought the Deputy was talking about the aviator who crashed and was never heard of again.
I am referring to the man credited with the West German economic miracle. There was a time when this would-be Erhardt could have expected a larger audience in his own benches than he has had here tonight. I accept that members of his party are occupied elsewhere, but there is a sufficient regiment of the faithful in the House to have given the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, who has, after all, done his best during the last two and a half years, a better hearing. Now we have only Deputy Briscoe.
They are at a caucus meeting searching for true republicanism.
Will Deputy L'Estrange go to some sort of meeting or other and let the House proceed with its business?
The motion was put down by the Deputy's party.
It was interesting to hear the Minister in any case.
All the Chair is interested in is in hearing Deputy O'Leary, not Deputy Briscoe or Deputy L'Estrange.
It was very interesting to hear the Minister make such a strong case for a limited role for Government. The trade unions were responsible for a lot of nameless crimes over the years and responsible in the main for the disappointing revenue situation.
Is the Deputy saying that strikes do not inflict any damage on the economy?
I am making the point that there appears to be a very limited role for Government. The Central Bank are responsible for credit restrictions; it is not the Government at all, it has nothing to do with Government budgetary policy. The trade unions, on the other hand, cannot understand the wisdom and wise leadership of the Government. They act in an inexplicable fashion and more problems are left for the Government. Then there is the oil crisis, having nothing whatever to do with the Government, and this is responsible for other increases in costs.
To be accurate, I did not accuse the trade unions of any of the behaviour now described. I referred to the impact of strikes and did not identify who was responsible.
It would be a true description of the Minister's defence of the lamentable record of this Government that the trade unions, the Central Bank, and anyone one cares to think of——
I did not say the trade unions.
——provide the reasons for some of the difficulties facing the economy at present.
That is right, provided the Deputy substitutes the appropriate groups for the trade unions.
Interesting though the tete-á-tete might be, the Minister has had his opportunity to speak.
I am trying to be accurate.
We have had a plea by the Minister in trying to suggest that the Government are not really responsible for some of the unfortunate things at present occurring in the economy, such as the high rate of inflation and the targets which will not be met. One could say there is a headlong retreat by this Government from responsibility for leadership of the economy. While one could sympathise with some of the points made by defenders of a Government in pointing to external factors in regard to difficulties and nonperformance at home, one can have little sympathy for members of this administration who after all engineered their present large majority on the policy that under our own control it was possible to bring about what has been frequently referred to by this Minister as an "economic miracle". According to his most recent interview, the miracle is not yet over but still exists underground. He also made the point during his recent interview that we should not be obsessed with the arithmetic of the situation.
That is correct.
He said that the long-term course of the economic miracle continues unchanged, despite the 15 per cent rate of inflation and the credit restrictions, which he says are not the Government's responsibility.
The case that cannot be disputed by this Government—and it is the central criticism to be made of their economic policies—is that they dramatically misread the situation in 1977/78 when, in their reckoning, the economy needed a large infusion, in classical Keynesian fashion, to stimulate demand. We can now see, as many of us saw then, that the economy was in full recovery at that time. At this time, in the midst of an unmistakable recession, our manoeuvrability has been bartered and sold away. We have increased borrowings and increased investment and directed budgetary policy to expansion at a time when it was not really needed. Now when it is needed we are faced with restriction and credit squeeze.
This House should reflect the unease which is felt in the country regarding the economy. Last weekend we had the results of a survey from the Confederation of Irish Industry. They make it clear that their member firms around the country expect a very difficult year in 1980. They are very pessimistic about employment targets. Those fears are well grounded. We know that many leaders in the building industry are extremely concerned about the effect of credit restriction, and we have already had discussion in the House on the impact on young couples of the unavailability of bridging finance for house purchase. The larger impact on the economy is demonstrated by the replies received by the member firms of the CII. Nobody knows exactly how long this credit squeeze will last, but it would appear that it will last most of next year. The likelihood is that the credit squeeze may become tighter, and the international situation looks very grave. Because of the mistaken policies of the Government they have very little manoeuvrability left.
Throughout the country there is grave discontent about the tax burden of PAYE wage and salary earners, and one wonders about the scope there will be in the forthcoming budget to meet the legitimate demands for reform in this sector. I have made the case before that a substantial element of the reason for the industrial discontent, which has led to such a bad relations record over this year, cannot be confined to the four walls of industry itself, that we must go outside to seek general reasons for the kind of industrial malaise that has afflicted Irish industry in the past year. I have suggested that one source of a good deal of the grievance which has fuelled many disputes in the public service has been the discontent felt at the present too onerous obligations borne by PAYE wage and salary earners. One wonders what the Government will do in the forthcoming budget to meet legitimate demands for reform in that area.
The case will be made by PAYE industrial workers that it is hardly worth while doing overtime. There is growing up in Irish industry a very marked reluctance to engage in overtime because the taxation burden is too heavy and it does not make sense to lose the leisure hours that would have to be spent doing that overtime. Because of the fact that the successive budgets of this Government were the wrong ones for the periods in which they were followed, the Government must meet with empty hands many of the demands for reform. The case is that the economy was in full return to growth in 1977-78, that the expansion in employment had more to do with the work of the previous administration. The correct course was to allow the natural uplift that was occurring in the economy to take its course because it did not need the kind of fuelling exercise engaged in by the Government at that time. That general criticism could be made of Government budgetary policy.
Now, of course, various speeches are being made by Government spokesmen that seem to indicate a realisation of certain realities on their part, but many of the decisions which led to the earlier mistaken policy are now taking their toll. We have had reports from various international organisations pointing out the dangerous inflationary situation in the Irish economy, that our targets, which previously had been said to be attainable, cannot be met.
To night the case was made that credit restriction, which is holding back investment and which will have a very serious impact on jobs in the new year, had little to do with the general economic policy of the Government. I find it very hard to accept that. The fact is that Central Bank guidelines have been issued to meet a very serious situation, one for which the Government must accept a great deal of responsibility because of their budgetary policy. It is interesting to hear that the Government accept implicitly the kind of credit guidelines decided on by the Central Bank at this time. It is interesting to see that kind of obedience to criticism and advice from the Central Bank which has not obtained up to now. One recalls certain reports of the Central Bank in the past few years which issued very unmistakable and unambiguous warnings and the members of the Government almost took a pride in ignoring those warnings. Now they take an equivalent pride in saying, "We can do nothing because this is the advice of the Central Bank in relation to credit restrictions".
If these credit restrictions are persisted in during next year they will have a very serious impact on employment and many small businesses will go to the wall. Many such firms are very worried about the situation, and I can only conclude that Government Departments must be receiving the most pressing representations from businesses in peril throughout the country. I do not know what answers the businessmen are getting, but one can only worry about the fate of the employees and the concerns themselves. One cannot foresee in the immediate future any relaxation in the credit squeeze. High interest rates mean there will be a downturn in economic activity and it will be difficult to maintain the kind of expansion in employment that is necessary.
It is obviously not enough for the Government now to try to pass the buck, to suggest that if there had not been bad industrial relations during this year, if oil prices had not gone up, if a credit squeeze had not been imposed, everything would be all right. That is not the case. A good deal of responsibility for the present very serious situation must be laid at the door of the Government. They got the rhythm of the Irish economy all wrong from 1977 onwards. In a period of growth they considered it necessary to aid that growth. When we entered what would be referred to in the economist's jargon as the cyclical upturn they thought it necessary to assist it even further, and now that we are in an unmistakable downturn they find themselves unable to give any assistance other than to say what the economic Ministers are saying, "We are not responsible. Our hands are clean. It is somebody else's fault, not our fault."
That is not good enough. In the past the electorate have shown that they adhere to the philosophy that a party who win an election with comprehensive claims on their competence to run the economy will be judged on those claims. There was no shrinking in the ambition of the people who won office in Government in 1977. They knew the answers. They had the capacity. They would engender confidence——
And we did.
That is what the Minister says. At the tail end of 1979, with a 15 per cent inflation rate, the picture is far different from the scenario painted by the manifesto. There is poetic justice in that one of the principal authors of that document should now be spreading his excuses, his formulae, his explanations, his evasions, over every page in the national papers, that he should be in headlong flight from the tyranny of arithmetic, that he should be going to the Cork by-election area claiming that there are not as many unemployed as there appear to be——
That is right.
It is an interesting exercise to watch the Minister for Economic Planning and Development wriggling with the facts——
I am not wriggling.
——evading the facts——
Let us have one fact. The only thing the Deputy has mentioned so far is the credit squeeze. The Deputy talks about bringing down inflation. Will he tell me how that can be done if there is uncontrolled expansion——
Politics is not a seminar engaged in as the Minister would wish it.
The Deputy has not given any facts.
Deputy O'Leary is in possession and should be allowed to continue without interruption.
The electorate were told things were possible but they now appear not to be possible. The wheel is turning full circle. The author of the report that made those preposterous claims now has the embarrassing portfolio of economic planning and development. The economic planning in store for him during the next year is a matter of dealing with falling employment statistics.
I do not agree.
The rising inflation rate will be one of his responsibilities in the coming year.
The Deputy is full of bluff.
That is why the Confederation of Irish Industry are worried and are looking for action. They are not blaming the Central Bank. They are looking to the Government for leadership, the Government who claimed they had the secret of running the Irish economy effectively. Now, in conditions of world recession—the Minister for Economic Planning and Development at least recognises that fact—what may we do at home to withstand the full effect of that recession on our economy? We find the kind of budgetary strategy pursued by the Government is itself an impediment to taking the right steps, that the credit restriction must go on and the Government cannot afford or pay for any moderation in the kind of credit squeeze we have, that we cannot increase our rate of borrowing, that we must keep the economy tuned down and must look forward to rising unemployment.
That is a pretty dismal picture for the New Year. That is why the people have good reasons to ask awkward questions. It would be inexplicable if ordinary people would not be asking these questions when the Government have made the cost of living which ordinary people must face even more difficult due to budgetary decisions. We can point to increases that come from abroad, but when it comes to a political decision such as the removal of food subsidies the Arabs cannot be blamed. The blame lies on the Government. We had the Minister here tonight defending the economic miracle, as he is still pleased to call it, admittedly running away from arithmetic. We had the same Minister here quite recently saying that they were quite right to abolish the food subsidies. Also, on that occasion he was apparently silent when we said that if the inflation rate had reached an annual figure of 15 per cent, as it now has, surely the time had come to revise the policy of phasing out food subsidies. We had silence on that—blame the unions, blame the Central Bank but do not blame the Government. That appears to be the general cry from the Government.
They do not appear to have the answers. They cannot do anything about it if industrial relations, which they claim are responsible for so many targets not being reached, have been bad over the past couple of years. We shall not go into the reasons for certain large disputes, but it must be said that if much of the industrial disruption in the past year has been in areas directly under the control of the Government and their managers, some responsibility must attach to the Government in their handling of the way those disputes occurred. Without pressing that too hard I have made the point that much of the discontent which brought about a good deal of industrial unrest in the past year and which has given us such a bad record in industrial relations in that period has to do with the PAYE earners' discontent with their present rate of tax payments. One can only wonder if that sense of injustice on the part of the PAYE section has been made even more sensitive by the realisation that the Government could, by budgetary policy, deliberately absolve from tax payment the very wealthy in our society, as they did apparently without any consideration of the repercussions it would have on the general sense of fair play.
They have given us a society which is more divided than the one they inherited in 1977. They are now giving us an economy which is grinding to a standstill, an economy in which the building industry on which they have had to rely in the past for more than moral support is calling out for help and no help can be given to them.
Election speech.
The credit restrictions must continue and the case will be made that it is not the Government's fault, that it is the Central Bank's fault——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Leary is in possession. Interruptions will please cease.
These new Deputies may themselves be looking down on the proceedings from the Visitors' Gallery if the Minister for Economic Planning and Development does not improve his performance in the next year or two; indeed they may be joined by that Minister.
The Deputy is glad of the interruptions because he has nothing to say. He still has not made a point.
Deputy O'Leary on the motion without interruption.
I do not know what the present position of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development is within the Cabinet. Originally, he was brought before a wondering public as the architect—not the over-modest architect—of the miracle which brought the Government into power, the manifesto. There is some justice in politics after all in that he is now here defending their record. We know how he reached his present eminence, but the position he is defending tonight is quite different from the picture thrown on the screen by the magic lantern of the manifesto some two or two-and-a-half years ago.
In answer to the Minister's defence that it is not their responsibility the general case I would make is that the Government must answer for their budgetary policy over the past two years. They got the analysis all wrong; they tried to prime the economy when it did not need priming, and now when it may be in need of priming they are not in any position to give any help or leadership except the one kind of leadership we are now experiencing of many speeches blaming anybody else but themselves.
(Interruptions.)
They got their policy wrong. Such reputable organisations as the Confederation of Irish Industry have come out openly to say that their member firms throughout the country, on a survey of their business intentions for next year, can see nothing but rising unemployment. These business firms are conscious of the lack of leadership on the part of the Government. In a period when we are facing very serious recession, with very serious implications, all we are getting from the Government is——
Fifty thousand new jobs.
——speeches made here in defence of the continuation of the present credit squeeze.
(Interruptions.)
Some 1,300,000 emigrants left the country during Fianna Fáil's 26 years in office. They had 160,000 unemployed at one time.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Murphy can continue the debate outside. Deputy O'Leary has three minutes to conclude.
We are facing a serious balance of payments situation and rising inflation. It adds up to a dismal prospect for the country. One would have expected that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development or the Government would be able to give us some hope of measures contemplated to change this picture. The figures suggest otherwise. Business and union leaders throughout the country are concerned about the lack of leadership by the Government. We see reason for supporting this motion. We understand the political exigencies that make it necessary for the Minister to oppose it, but we do not believe his heart is in it. Certainly, his intelligence cannot go along with a defence of the present economic performance. That is why this motion can be fully supported; it is most in accord with the way the people are thinking at the present time.
Deputy Briscoe, and he has four minutes.
I shall avail of the opportunity——
The Government did not even have another speaker.
Am I to get my four minutes? Yes, I have my notes here.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): He was down with his mentor two or three times.
Thank you for bearing me out. First, unemployment has been reduced from 110,000 to 85,000 since the return of Fianna Fáil. In 1972 we had one of the highest growth rates in any year since the foundation of the State. That growth rate fell during the Coalition term and was not resumed until Fianna Fáil took office again, and we are now having high growth rate again.
(Interruptions.)
We are in the position that we have had to give cash incentives to get skilled workers back from abroad. One of our biggest problems in Dublin at present, and also in Cork, is the maintenance of houses because there are not sufficient skilled tradesmen. The complaints about people's houses is caused by a shortage of skilled tradesmen. We are having to bring these people back. We are the people who started tax reform here. In two years we have increased by 103 per cent the income tax allowance for married people. That is a fact. The gap between our inflation and that of our trading partners, Britain and the EEC generally and the United States, was 10 per cent under the Coalition—30 per cent as against 20 per cent. Under Fianna Fáil, we have narrowed that gap by 1 per cent, from 20 to 19 per cent—1 per cent difference as against 10 per cent under the Coalition. We have no Minister nicknamed the Minister for Unemployment.
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
We have no Minister nicknamed the Minister for Hardship.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please.
We have had no Minister for Hardship and no Minister for Unemployment. Deputy O'Leary will always go down in history by the nickname, Minister for Unemployment. He presided over the greatest unemployment that this country ever suffered. We have lifted the people off their knees. They were on their knees when the Coalition Government were thrown out of office. I have said recently that we were not elected; the Coalition Government were rejected by the people because of their incompetent performance, and you know it. There is no way, in any general election, for years to come, that the people will vote for another Coalition. They do not want it.
A Deputy
What are the odds for next Wednesday?
You wait for next Wednesday and you will find out. It is just jealousy and envy of this Government and what they have done for these people that inspires the Opposition to their hate.
(Interruptions.)
We have four Deputies having a debate between themselves. Please stop. Deputy Briscoe is in possession. He has only two minutes.
Of the industrial chaos created under the Coalition, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was a prime example. Minister Conor Cruise-O'Brien was thrown out by the people because he was too busy to look after that. He left one hell of a mess at that Department. You have all seen the announcement of a team which is going to get the phones and everything going again. The Coalition have neither the imagination nor the initiative.
Deputy Briscoe: Deputy Briscoe to conclude.
What about the flat dwellers?
I will deal with that on another occasion. I am very proud of this Government. I have been in it since 1965. It is one of the finest Governments we have ever had and the people of this country will give their verdict at the next general election. I am confident of that. We will be back here and you will be over there in your usual role as Opposition.
Deputy Kelly, to conclude.
I have only 15 minutes and I cannot expect that I will be heard in a cathedral-like silence. I observed from the half-hour speech of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development that, although he himself is supposed to be closing for his side in moving an amendment which approves the Government's policies and notes the progress they are bringing about—and I agree that he had difficulties to contend with—there was not one word about inflation, not one word about the trade deficit which is threatening the currency. It is inconceivable that a Minister for Economic Planning and Development could move a motion of this kind.
On a point of order, I am not moving a motion. The Tánaiste moved the amendment and the Tánaiste dealt with these items.
The amendment was moved by the Tánaiste.
This Minister is speaking in support of it. He produced an explanation for the credit squeeze which, if anything, is more discreditable to his side than the explanation I offered and which he rejected: that the credit squeeze became inevitable because of the Government's reckless spending. He said that was not the case——
That is right.
——because the guidelines laid down by the Central Bank related only to the private sector, quite unlike, of course, the borrowing requirement of the public sector. The reason he gave for the squeeze was that over a period of 18 months the commercial banks had neglected these guidelines. What did we elect here on 16 June 1977? Was it a Punch and Judy show? Was it something which would merely provide a backcloth for the power struggles between the Taoiseach and the skulking wolves and Guy Fawkeses——
(Interruptions.)
——or did we elect a Government? If it were the latter, there is no excuse for that Government not seeing what was happening and not making sure that something more happened than merely the periodical issuing of warnings by the Central Bank. How many of these warnings were public? Did the Central Bank issue warnings to the Allied Irish Bank, or the Bank of Ireland, or buildings societies, or anybody else, in a form that was public and could be monitored? How can I keep track of these warnings?
If you were doing your job, you would have known that a warning was issued in October of last year and again in the Spring of this year.
Deputy Kelly is in possession.
Is the Government not there with a plenitude of legislative powers to make sure that the objective of the warning is realised, even if the commercial banks are so irresponsible as to ignore it? The explanation given by the Minister opposite is ten times more discreditable to him and his side, because it convicts them of neglect, ignorance and indifference to what was happening. If the Minister is correct in saying that the commercial banks——
The Deputy has already admitted that he does not know the facts.
——were exceeding the guidelines, his job was to stop it in time, instead of letting it go on so long that the economy was seized by the throat by the sudden credit squeeze adversely affecting the building industry. Even the friends of the Minister—and, by God, it takes a lot to make them speak out—-even his friends in the building industry feel they are caught by the throat in consequence of this credit squeeze.
The Minister defended what he had said in a relaxed moment to a reporter from The Irish Times, in an interview with regard to the ideal level of borrowing and he related that also to what I had been saying about the level of the pay settlement. “The pay settlement,” said the Minister, a few minutes ago, “was something which came out higher than anticipated”. No one is so unreasonable as to forbid a Government some marginal room for manoeuvre when something quite unpredictable happens, but there was nothing unpredictable about the 1979 wage settlement. Even people like Messrs. Dudgeon and Company, whom I have never seen at a Fine Gael branch meeting, and I doubt if they turn up at Labour Party meetings either, government stockbrokers warned in their annual report that a moderate wage settlement was out of the question once the food subsidies had been partially phased out, and doubly out of the question, I would say, once, the cowardly and appalling and indefensible bungling about farmers' taxation took place. Why should a man who is living on £70 or £75 a week, and being taxed on every wage docket he gets, settle for a moderate wage increase when he finds things like that happening? I am not saying that for the first time. Those points were made from these benches, from the Labour Party benches and from forces outside parliament—which are not in the pockets of Fine Gael and whom I never met at one of our party's functions—in the early part of this year.
The Minister has absolutely no right to come in here talking about the unpredictability of wage settlements when the extravagance of the wage settlements, to which he and the Minister for Finance testified, was entirely predictable once they set themselves on the course which they outlined in 1977 and with appalling blindness have followed up to this present moment.
The ideal level of borrowing was something which the Minister was also inclined to make little of. Of course, he said there was no ideal level of borrowing because an economy is not static or does not follow predictable and chartable courses, and of course it has to react when things turn out in a way which was not anticipated, but the very thing we are talking about—the level of the national wage agreement—is part of the circumstances which created this situation. It was absolutely predictable.
For that Minister to spend half an hour talking here about the form in which the debate was conducted last week and to say nothing about the predictability of what he has been complaining about and how it was predicted from these benches in chapter and verse, in line, word and comma, a year ago and two years ago exhibits him as not having a serious approach——
The Deputy will not get away with that.
——I will not say to this tuppenny-halfpenny debate, but to this subject.
No. For the past two-and-a-half years we have had the same——
When the time comes the Minister will lose not only his seat in the Government—and I do say this in a sense of personal malice, as he knows—but his seat in the Dáil. He will have a university to go back to, and he will be enriched by many lessons he learned in his years here, and he will be able to tell the students the mistakes which were made and what to avoid.
Let me hammer home to him one lesson that has been roared from these benches for the past two-and-a-half years. Do not antagonise simple, defenceless people who exist in their hundreds of thousands. Deputy O'Leary mentioned them in the context of PAYE workers. If I have a chance before I finish I will come back to that very briefly. This Government alienated them at once. The benefits which the Government bestowed on them in terms of extra pound notes have been long since swallowed and forgotten, as we warned them they would be, but they are alienated in the sense that they do not see themselves dealt with with justice. There is no visible justice in the tax situation.
Will the Deputy tell us what is a just system?
I believe and say here that the rockfall which the Government have created, and which has fallen across the path of the people, and across the path of the economy, can only be shifted by inserting a crowbar at the right point—the taxation point. That is the first priority. I say that not in a partisan sense. I know there are many here who will misrepresent what I say, who will say I want to screw this, that and the other section. All sections have to be screwed equally if they are to get the level of services which they vocally demand.
If, on the other hand, they want to go back to the style of Government which we had in 1800 or in 1850 when the Government scarcely did more than provide a police service—and a damn bad one at that—then perhaps they can be let off taxation. But if people in all sections are going to expect the level of services to which they have become accustomed—and to which we on all sides of the House have invited them to become accustomed—then they are going to have to bear taxation. The large mass of the people who pay by PAYE have to put up with it whether they like it or not. They are defenceless. But there are others to whom the thing has not yet become so evident.
Unless the Minister can insert a fearless crowbar there—and I believe he is in the wrong party for fearlessness; he is in a party which does not go in for fearlessness, but which goes in for the easy way out—and unless he can relearn these lessons and convert his party, there will be room for him over here, as there is always for an honest man. I believe that at bottom he is that, even though a bit unreal. If he fails to do this I advise him, as a personal matter, to get out quickly before the next election, to resign, to find himself a visiting fellowship somewhere and no one will wish him good more heartily than I will, or follow his future career with more interest. He is building up trouble for the country and for himself and his party, although the party is a low priority there, if he allows them to continue suggesting to the people that they can have all they want and that somehow the Germans, the Dutch and the Japanese are going to get up at 6.00 a.m. and work that bit harder to pay for it, because they are not.
I want to end by taking one simple and very topical example of the way in which this Government have approached their problems. Every time the CII or any other independent body, or even dependent body, issue a statement from which a series of priorities in regard to economic development can be identified, or in which a set of obstacles to economic growth can be spotted, they never fail to mention infrastructural development.
We have the lowest telephone density and worst road network in Europe. We are a small country and have come from very far back. I do not want to take credit from people from the far side, and there have been many of them, who have pulled their weight trying to get this country off the ground where it was when we got independence.
We are agreed, I hope, that development, in particular, of the telecommunications infrastructure is of absolutely major priority here. I am not simply talking about the personal inconvenience of individual subscribers, or would-be subscribers of whom some 70,000 are waiting for service. I am talking about the millstone around the neck of industry and enterprise generally which our defective telecommunications system represents. What is the Government's response to this crisis and to this general chaos? It is to create, if you please, An Bord Poist and An Bord Telecom. Maybe there are some Deputies here who did not read their handouts, but that is their response.
I am sick complaining in this House about the way in which the party opposite, more than anyone, take their tone from the English. The English, so far as I know, are the only country in the EEC who have pushed off from the political Minister for Posts and Telegraphs responsibility for the Post Office and the telecommunications service. And so the sliveens in the Soldiers of Destiny——
That type of remark does not help, it should not be made and it should be withdrawn.
(Interruptions.)
——the Legion of the Rearguard, with their chronic inferiority complex——
The remark should be withdrawn. Deputy Kelly is bringing the House down on himself.
(Interruptions.)
I take back that word. The Legion of the Rearguard with their chronic inferiority complex think that because the English have a statutory authority, which is not directly under the Minister, called the Post Office Authority, that is more than good enough for us. I say that it is not good enough for us; unless it can be shown that these boards, those bouncing baby boards born only this morning——
That is a load of hypocritical waffle——
(Interruptions.)
Minister, please.
There is the man who cut spending on roads and telephones to the bone——
(Interruptions.)
The National Coalition in four-and-a-half years spent more on telephones than had been spent in the previous 50 years.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please. Deputy Kelly has one minute to finish.
This is a matter of concensus. The two things which are crippling the telecommunications services and the telephone service are lack of finance and bad, chronic industrial relations.
We have given the Post Office all the money they want.
The fairies have got hold of the Deputy.
I want to know, before the Government can invite a welcome for the bouncing baby boards, if they will have more finance than Deputy Faulkner, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, is being given; and where is the formula for magic industrial relations? Do not appeal to the British model for this, because the British Post Office Authority was not created in response to a crisis, it was not created to lift the country out of chaos; it was the result of 20 years of administrative development of which they may be the judge. I will not judge it. It did not arise out of crisis or chaos.
No one on this side of the House has any ideological objection to a statutory board rather than a Minister running either or both of these services—I want to make that clear—if it will provide a better service for the public. Where is the evidence so far that it will? So far as I can see the only visible benefit from this development will accrue to Deputy Faulkner, namely, that he will be let off the parliamentary hook for the disasters over which he presides.
(Interruptions.)
Until the Government can demonstrate that those two services are likely to have better industrial relations they have no right to demand public support for this measure. It is a prime example of the kind of purely cosmetic operation, which with them is a substitute for proper management of the economy, which this motion is designed to deplore.
That is the best Halloween entertainment we have had.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garrett.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McMahon, Larry.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Woods and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.