The Chair understands that we are now to have three statements of 30 minutes duration each—one each from the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Cluskey.
Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Statement by Taoiseach.
May I indicate, first, that the House will adjourn tonight until Wednesday, 20 February 1980 at 2.30 p.m.
The changes taking place in the Government provide us all with an opportunity for a new beginning, an occasion for every individual and all the major groups in our society, trade unions, employers, farming organisations, and all those who have a contribution to make to the political, economic and social advancement of our people, to set aside sectional differences so that we can all harness and pool our energies to achieve our common purpose, which is simply the welfare of all the people of this island, North and South. I was very heartened by the countless messages of support I received from people from every part of Ireland, North and South and from every walk of life.
I said on Tuesday in this House that the problems facing us as a nation were many and grave. Let me deal with the economic situation first. This year the economic growth in the European Community, of which we are a member, is estimated to be about 3 per cent. Next year experts think it will be lower. In Britain where we sell the biggest part of our exports it is, in fact, widely forecast to decline, perhaps by as much as 2 per cent.
These forecasts are made against a background where the supply and price of oil are likely to move dramatically against the countries of Western Europe and other industrialised economies. The consequence will be to aggravate what are already serious threats of recession, to increase inflation and to worsen the prospects for employment. Indeed, the developments on the energy front could well pose some of the most serious threats to stability and growth we have faced for many years.
Energy problems are compounded by what is happening to the social fabric and stability of government in many countries. I do not need here to go into questions like the prospects for rearmament in Europe, or the nature of East-West relations which are becoming increasingly fragile, or the experience, so obvious to all, of countries in different parts of the globe where society appears to have broken down completely. There is evidence enough before us of this disorder, even in the developed societies of Western Europe, in the new laws governments in so many countries find it necessary to enact to protect societies against the effects of terrorist attack. What I am saying is that economic recession is aggravating and being aggravated by political instability.
How in this troubled world do we fare in Ireland? We cannot isolate ourselves from what is going on in the world, but we can ensure that our policies contribute to the fundamental objectives and interests of our people. I will deal later with the first of these objectives—the attainment of Irish unity by peaceful means and through reconciliation. Here, I want to speak of the second objective, which is to promote the economic development of this country in every way, so that our young people can find jobs, so that unemployment is reduced, if not eliminated, so that inflation is brought down and the Irish people can live in security and prosperity, in the simple hope that, as in the past, the next year will be better than the year before. Above all, the economic advance of which I speak will enable us to sustain welfare arrangements for those in our society who live in need.
Major problems face us now on the economic front. We will probably have a balance of payments deficit of the order of £650 million this year, which must be reduced. Government borrowing which helps to fuel both this deficit and inflation is simply too high.
More than most countries in Western Europe we must rely on volatile and undependable external sources for our energy supplies—of which we buy approximately 80 per cent from abroad. And this dependency worsens the two most serious problems I have mentioned. It affects our hope of conquering inflation because no country can keep prices generally down if a commodity, as basic to every day life as oil, increases in price by 50 per cent and 70 per cent or 100 per cent in the space of a single year. The effects spread right through every household and through every industry, through transport, agriculture and distribution. And these direct effects can be worsened by attempts by business and workers to protect themselves against the decline in standards which the real transfer of resources abroad must bring in its train. The consequences for our rate of inflation of these direct and indirect effects could be extremely serious.
These effects spill over also into our balance of payments. In 1972, this country spent £53 million in buying oil from abroad or 2.4 per cent of national output. This year we may well spend close to £500 million or about 6½ per cent of output. In fact, if one might be fanciful, if oil prices had remained basically stable for us over the period, we would have saved about half of all this year's balance of payments deficit.
These facts will, I hope, give some of the background to my decision to put so much emphasis on energy policy in the Cabinet changes I have announced, my decision to set up a new Department of Energy and ask the Tánaiste to take charge of that vital area. We cannot in the eighties continue to rely, as we have done in the past, on cheap and dependable energy from abroad. If we solve our energy problem we will have gone some way towards solving our balance of payments and our inflation problems and thereby make a significant contribution to reducing unemployment.
I say "some way" deliberately because important as the subject is, it is only part of the picture. The early years of the eighties will be deeply troubled in most parts of the world. There is no reason why we in Ireland should seek to add to these troubles. But that is just precisely what we are doing in an area which affects every man and woman in the country. We are doing ourselves serious damage by our attitude to industrial relations.
In 1976 almost 800,000 days were lost through industrial disputes. In 1977, that figure declined to just over 440,000. In 1978, we lost 624,000 man days. In 1979, to date, the total number of man days lost through industrial disputes has been over 1,350,000. Admittedly, 1,118,000 were due to the Post Office strike. If this loss is omitted, the record, to date, this year has not been too bad, in comparison with the recent past. This is particularly so in the private sector where there was actually a reduction of about one-third in the number of man days lost in the first nine months of 1979 in comparison with the same period last year. I do not, however, think that anyone looking at the industrial relations scene in Ireland today can be undisturbed by what he or she sees.
I do not want here to blame one side or the other. There are stresses in society which are not the fault of either management or labour. Inflation is disturbing old relativities. Communications convey the impression of total knowledge of everyone's pay packet. It is another matter whether this knowledge can exist without expert analysis and explanation which are impossible in the short space of a newspaper paragraph or a television announcement. The fact is, impressions are created, that workers and management can be set at odds by the fear of being left behind in the race for material well-being and by jealousy caused by nothing more substantial than rumour or imperfect knowledge. I do not expect these problems to be solved overnight but tackle them we must.
There is now, I believe, widespread support among the public for ending the current disorder and establishing some code of practice in industrial relations which is fair to all. The national good demands that there should be an orderly and disciplined approach by both sides of industry in sorting out problems between workers and their employers.
As things stand at present, responsibility for industrial relations in the public sector, comprising about 290,000 workers rests with the Department of the Public Service. Responsibility for industrial relations generally, including the private sector, lies with the Department of Labour. While this division may have had some justification in the past, I do not think it is helpful now. If we are to take positive action in this most sensitive of areas, where goodwill is required from unions, management, Government and workers alike, it is vitally necessary to rationalise and co-ordinate, to the fullest possible extent, the State's own approach. This essentially is my reason for proposing to bring together the two Departments I have mentioned, Labour and the Public Service, under one Minister as a fully co-ordinated unit. I hope that under the Minister, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, in charge of those two coordinated Departments in the future we will be able to create a climate in which problems in the industrial relations field can be settled and before they get out of hand and disruptions ensue.
Turning to another area, this year Government expenditure will probably be equivalent to well over 50 per cent of gross national output. The services provided by the Government are valuable but their cost and their financing have the most profound effects on the economy. Taxation must not weigh so heavily that extra effort is penalised to the point that it is not worthwhile. Conversely, it should not drive up prices needlessly and cause even greater inflation. Similarly, the balance between current expenditure and capital expenditure in the State budget can determine whether we will prosper or decline. If we use too much of our resources for day to day purposes and too little to provide the factories, farm development, communications, the houses and hospitals for the future, it will not be too long before we as a nation feel the effects.
We now spend well over £1,000 million a year for capital purposes, and most of that is borrowed. Every £1,000 million spent in this way gives rise at current interest charges to debt service charges running into hundreds of millions of pounds which must be met from current revenue, from taxation in the main. A picture of this sort of interaction can be built up only by looking at expenditure in all its aspects over a period of years ahead.
I mention these aspects to explain, in part, the reason for the third of the structural changes which I am proposing in the machinery of Government. It is essential, in present conditions of uncertainty in the world about us, to knit together all aspects of economic planning, including Government revenue and expenditure, welfare, industrial and personal incentives and the burdens and benefits of taxation so that our approach to economic growth can be coordinated, over time, within the one Department with the one set of priorities and the power, skill and ability to see that these priorities are observed in all the functions and services of Government. I will, of course, be dealing in more detail with aspects of these matters when we come to discuss the budget which the Minister for Finance has indicated to the House will be introduced on 27 February next. So much for the economic scene.
Let me turn now to the political area. I want to emphasise that it will be the constant endeavour of this Government, as it has been of their predecessor, to achieve the unity of the people of Ireland by peaceful means, by agreement, independence and in a harmonious relationship with our neighbour, Britain. We totally reject the use of force as a means of achieving that end. We will be concerned to ensure full civil rights and equality for all the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure also that security in the area operates impartially through acceptable channels and structures. I hope to take a keen interest in encouraging and promoting the development of social, cultural and economic links between North and South. It will be our aim to bring about a condition where all the people of Ireland, regardless of class or creed, can live in peace and harmony under the common name of Irishmen. Any person who wishes at any time to contribute constructively to that end will find my door open to him.
Our top political priority is progress towards the coming together of the people of the country as a whole living in harmony and prosperity under the common name of Irishmen, as I said. The principles of the policies we will pursue to that end will be those which have guided Fianna Fáil since it was founded. These were as stated in our policy statement of October 1975. There may be changes of emphasis. The ways along which progress can be made towards reconciliation or political solutions will not remain fixed or unchanged. Conditions in Northern Ireland have changed fundamentally in the last decade and that process of change continues. The international context in which we are set has also changed fundamentally and has continued to change. All these factors affect the application of our policies, but the basic principles remain the same. Since our 1975 statement has been so often misrepresented let me here repeat the opening paragraph:
A central aim of Fianna Fáil policy is to secure by peaceful means the unity and independence of Ireland as a democratic republic. We totally reject the use of force as a means of achieving this aim.
We are determined that that principle of the rejection of force will be clearly translated into practice. Our security forces, our Garda and our soldiers will maintain the maximum security on the Border preventing totally, if that is possible, any cross-Border activity of any illegal or subversive nature. Cross-Border security operations will be maintained to ensure the most effective action against violence within the rule of law. May I summarise in a single sentence. My policy and that of the Government will be to encourage by every means at our disposal every development which brings Irishmen and women of both major traditions closer together and actively to discourage and prevent whatever drives them apart.
Let me now look at the European Economic Community and the developments in that area of activity. A reduction in the differences between the poorer and the wealthier areas is inscribed as an objective in the Treaty of Rome. It was emphasised again in the Accession Treaty under which Ireland joined the Community and it was emphasised by the arrangement for Ireland's entry into the European Monetary System. Yet, despite this long history of aspirations stretching back over more than 20 years regional economies are not moving closer together in relative wealth. The Community budget, as it is now framed, is unable to do enough to provide a solution. The absence of convergence is one of the most serious flaws in the progress of the Community as we see it.
The second problem, which is part of this basic difficulty, relates to the British contribution to the budget. The British claim that as the third poorest member of the Community, after Ireland and Italy, they should not have to pay to the Community over £1,000 million a year more than they get out of it. While one can have a certain sympathy with this view it is essential to bear in mind that to speak of any country contributing anything to the Community is to misunderstand the nature of the Community and its finances. The Community's revenue from duties, levies, and up to 1 per cent VAT belong, under the Treaties to the Community as its own resources. They do not belong to the country which happens to collect them. And this rule is fundamental to the nature of the Community. While it can be modified in its effect over a short period where an unacceptable situation for any country arises it cannot be set aside without danger to the very foundations of the Community. Our interests, and those of the Community, are to ensure an equitable solution to the problem which will not work against the principle of convergence as far as Ireland is concerned. That will be my concern at the next European Council meeting to be held early in the new year under Italian Presidency.
Next we must ensure that any restructuring of the Community budget of approximately £11 billion, of which more than 70 per cent goes on agriculture, does not work against this same principle. Although certain adjustments may be necessary, it continues to be the policy of this party and this Government to ensure that the fundamental principles of the CAP are maintained intact. These include—I make no apologies for repeating them
—to increase productivity in agriculture by promoting technical progress and rational development of production
—to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community,
—to assure availability of supplies and
—to ensure that they reach consumers at reasonable prices.
We must keep clearly in our minds that more than 20 per cent of our population are engaged in agriculture and depend directly on the fair application of these principles.
It is disquieting to learn today that the European Parliament, by a very substantial majority, rejected the budget. This has serious implications from the point of view of the CAP, and it has very real and intimidating consequences for this country and its economy. It was surprising to learn that members of the Labour Party who are members of the European Parliament voted for the rejection of the Community budget.
As Deputies know, I announced today the nomination of ten Deputies to be junior Ministers or Ministers of State in different Government Departments. I also indicated that it would be the intention of the Government to increase the number of Ministers of State from ten to 15. That is something which the situation in Government at present simply dictates to us. Most Deputies are aware of the enormous expansion which is taking place in the roles, the function and the activities of our Government Departments. This expansion has taken place in the domestic field apart altogether from the EEC dimension.
All of us in public life are aware that the general public today are much more demanding in the services they require from their politicians, from the Government and from Government Departments. It is essential, if we are to provide effective Government and try to meet the problems which confront us, that we would have available to members of the Government the assistance of an adequate number of Ministers of State in these changed circumstances.
This Government and the previous Government from time to time have been criticised for perhaps the inadequacy of their attendance, or their presence, at various Community meetings and bodies, and the strain and the demand now made on members of the Government who have European Community functions are enormous. I believe that a Minister of the Government who is committed substantially to the EEC by reason of his office, or who has substantial EEC commitments arising from his office, finds it essential to have available to him a competent, energetic Minister of State to help to service all the demands that the Community institutions and organisations make upon him.
As the Taoiseach did in Social Welfare and Health.
I am encouraged in the decision I have taken in this regard by the comments which Deputy Garret FitzGerald made when the Government were bringing in this legislation. At that time he expressed doubt as to whether ten Ministers of State were adequate for the purpose of discharging the Government's responsibilities these days.
This arrangement we have made between the parties in the Dáil about winding up the debate is a very truncated one. Between us, by agreement, we decided not to have a full-scale Adjournment Debate, and in all the circumstances that was a sensible decision. The leaders of the parties have agreed to contribute for possibly 30 minutes an outline of their respective positions. I am simply dealing with principles of approach and of attitudes rather than with any major policy matters or any outline of strategy in any one area.
I have been in my present office a little more than 50 hours. Most of that time has been spent in this House. Obviously, therefore, I can touch only lightly on the many problems facing Ireland today. As I have said, they are many and difficult, ranging from how international events affect us, how we ourselves advance or slow down our social and economic development, the structure of Government, what is happening in and about Northern Ireland, events in Europe to which we are tied by geography, trade and law, and above all by sentiment and feeling.
In this complex of issues it is difficult to find a common thread, a common policy or combination of policies whose elements hang together for the greater good of Ireland and the world in which we live. But of this one thing I am sure: that common thread exists, and we can bind the Irish people together in a united approach to our many problems. I said when I spoke of the problems facing us that this is also a time of great opportunity. Our economy is growing, although perhaps at too slow a rate. Our population is young and increasing. Agriculture and industry are only beginning to realise their potential. New technology has possibilities beyond imagination. But we can grasp these opportunities and realise them to the full only if we take the present as it comes and make the future conform to our needs in so far as it is given to us individually, or as a nation, to achieve that end.
As the Taoiseach has said, it has been agreed that instead of the usual and very long Adjournment Debate we should have a rather truncated debate. The reason for this is that over the last couple of days, when we debated the appointment of the Taoiseach and his Government and especially in the latter debate, most of the ground has been covered which would normally be covered in an Adjournment Debate. The Chair does not approve of repetition and the Chair might have had a lot of it if we had a full Adjournment Debate.
It is important that the Taoiseach should have an opportunity before the Recess to give an indication of his overall assessment of the situation that faces him and of his priorities. With much of what he has said on the economic situation I can find myself in agreement. I note his reference to a new beginning. They are interesting words and they seem to suggest a distancing on his part from the pretty disastrous economic events of the last two-and-a-half years, but I do not think he can credibly distance himself from them because he shares responsibility for the manifesto which has contributed so much to the economic difficulties now facing us. Attempts to pretend otherwise are not convincing. References to a new beginning in that respect will not carry much weight.
I am glad that the Taoiseach has come somewhat cleaner than the Government have done hitherto on some issues, on the scale of the external deficit about which there was a lot of hedging up to now, and that the figures which the Central Bank and the ESRI mentioned, which I have cited in this House and outside, are now accepted by the Government. I am glad he has come cleaner on the gravity of the problems in regard to energy, inflation and employment. They seem to be more fully grasped or more fully admitted than previously, as well as the problems of industrial relations. I note what the Taoiseách said about the level of Government expenditure, the burden of taxation, the need for a better balance between capital and current account and the problem of excessive borrowing. In all of that I find much with which I agree.
In what the Taoiseach said and the emphasis he placed on economic growth I did not hear the corollary: any reference to the need for social progress. Indeed, when dealing with the problems of the younger generation he confined himself to that crucial factor: the creation of jobs for that new generation without referring to the other elements of their basic needs, the need for education before they ever reach the stage of having jobs and the need for housing when they finally get employment and are in a position to settle down and get married and start a home. He did not refer to the many desperate social problems of this country, partly in the area of housing and partly in the area of the inadequacy of social welfare for which he must bear his share of responsibility by the low priority he gave to it as Minister.
It is an undoubted fact that even after the considerable efforts of the National Coalition Government who changed the whole level of social benefits and the relationship between social benefits and our national output and income, the level of long term benefits such as old age pensions, widows pensions and so on, are not merely low in absolute terms here but are, compared to all our neighbours, low in relation to our GNP. In the strictest sense of the term, we are meaner than any of our neighbours with the underprivileged. Nothing in what the Taoiseach said suggested a recognition of this or a concern to face up to it. Perhaps he was embarrassed to say much about it after his own failure to tackle these problems during the last two and a half years when he concentrated more on certain aspects of the health services, some of them important but, relatively speaking, peripheral to those crucial social issues.
However, at the end of his speech he referred to the country's potential. I echo what he said there. There is no doubt that the country has, in the under-utilisation of its land after centuries of exploitation through cheap food policies of our neighbour, in its ability to attract new industries on the scale which is quite remarkable and is a tribute to talents and skills of those engaged in this—from the Ministers who have undertaken this task, Deputy O'Malley and his predecessor, Deputy Keating, and those who went before them and the IDA—a great potential. We are tapping this potential with more success than is realised. Much of the successes in this area have been obscured by the fact that we have gone through a period of recession, a period when with the freeing of trade existing jobs have disappeared and when the new jobs had to compensate for redundancies rather than create a net increase in employment. We have a great potential there. We also have this remarkable potential of our younger generation which the Taoiseach referred to. The fact that we have so many young people needing education, housing and employment creates problems and, in one sense, it is a burden. But it also gives us an enormous opportunity to be a vital and expanding community. The Taoiseach was right to emphasise that aspect.
I listened carefully to what the Taoiseach said about Northern Ireland. I find it hard to be sure whether in what he said there was, in fact, a change of emphasis. He referred to the fact that there may be changes of emphasis but I am not certain whether in the words he used he intended to convey a change of emphasis or a continuity. There will be some parsing and analysing to be done on the text of his speech in due course in that regard. On this we must certainly reserve judgment. I feel sure the Taoiseach will want to contribute to the resolution of the problem in Northern Ireland and I hope his approach to it will be a constructive one. The emphasis he has placed upon the importance of encouraging contacts between North and South and of his door being open to anybody with constructive ideas is encouraging. Too little has been done by all of us to encourage contacts between the two parts of the country at every level—personal, human, political, economical and social. If the Taoiseach put some effort into that area it would be helpful and some of the problems created by events of the past in regard to his making a positive contribution in this area could be diminished if he approached it in this light.
I should like now to deal with the question of the appointments of the Ministers of State. The Taoiseach referred to my remarks at a time when the numbers were increased to ten. He was quite right. It has been my view that in one sense we are undergoverned. There are too few people of ability engaged in the work of Government. We need more such people engaged in this work, but the need is for people with a capacity to take on economic and social problems, to have the imagination to tackle them and the willingness to get down to and stay at their desks getting on with the job.
I do not wish to be harsh but I have to say that the appointments so far made do not conform to this need. I should like to leave aside from this criticism Deputy Moore, whom I know well will undertake this task with dedication and will, like his predecessor, seek to smooth the work of the Dáil. The remaining new appointments, I am afraid, are too obviously a reward for political services to one section of one party and do not offer any realistic prospect of an improvement in the quantity or quality of the Government in tackling the actual tasks to be undertaken inside Governments Departments. Those appointments which have this characteristic and will be seen by objective observers as having this characteristic—I do not think that on this I will be seen as making any kind of political point because it is the view widely shared by people who are not particularly political. That is a bad atmosphere and background for the creation of new appointments however desirable these may be in principle. Moreover, the fact that there is another element in this, the necessary deferral because of the need for legislation of appointments for three or four months at least, because of the long adjournment and the fact that it will be followed by the budget and financial legislation, cannot but give rise to suspicion that there may be a hope that leaving these appointments in abeyance may help to damp down unrest in the Government party by leaving to a significant proportion of backbenchers the hope of promotion for many months to come.
The inadequacy of the Taoiseach's approach in this area is emphasised by his last words where he referred to the need to relieve Minister's engaged in EEC affairs of part of the burdens of their office. I agree with what he said there, but the trouble is that he did not do that. He put two Ministers of State into the Department of the Environment whose involvement with the EEC is pretty peripheral, as I can recall from my time in Government, and none in the Department of Foreign Affairs which has a very heavy burden in this area. Were it the case that he was concerned primarily with relieving the burden in this area of EEC affairs he would not have acted in this manner. While his good intentions were indicated by what he said on this subject, his actions diverge so far from this intentions that they cast doubt on how serious he is in relation to this matter.
We have had several long debates in which much has been said and this is the time for the Taoiseach to have his say and to respond briefly to relevant points. I must raise one matter with some regret, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, which I hope that the Taoiseach will be allowed to answer. Will the Taoiseach set at rest the deep concern and disquiet throughout the public service today due to persistent rumours that the deputy Secretary of his Department and the two Assistant Secretaries in his office, the entire top staff, are to be replaced either by retirement or by transfer? I seek assurance from the Taoiseach that these officials will not be removed and that these rumours, which are very damaging to public service morale and to the reputation of the new Government, are false. Will the Taoiseach make this clear, because whether he is aware of it or not these rumours are having a very disturbing effect and the sooner they are put to rest the better?
I was not aware of them and they are without foundation.
It will be very reassuring to the public service to know that.
Deputy FitzGerald will agree that this seems to be a time of incredible rumours of every sort, but that one has no foundation.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is right, there are many rumours. It is bad enough if the rumours have some truth in them, but when they are untrue it is better that they be set at rest at once.
I know the Taoiseach recognises the extraordinary magnitude of the task facing him. If the Taoiseach wishes to bring people together, as he said at the outset and to try to recreate some of the sense of consensus upon which our society is based, I would urge him to reconsider his almost instinctive lack of emphasis on the social as well as the economic aspect. I am convinced, as are my Party, that economic growth cannot be secured by a singleminded attempt to achieve it without regard to other factors. At this moment our economic growth trend, which was healthy in 1977 and remained so in 1978 has been disturbed in part because of tensions within our society which showed themselves in strikes and disruption. This reflects the fact that there is not a conviction on the part of the people in different sections of society that there is a desire on the part of the Government to create a society of justice as well as a society of wealth. If the Taoiseach wanted to succeed with economic growth, if that were his sole purpose, he would defeat that purpose if he were to underestimate the importance of the social aspect. Economic growth, however, is only a means to an end, the end of creating a society that will be healthy, not merely in the narrow sense that a Minister for Health might be concerned with, but healthier in a broader sense. For that, there must be a feeling that Government is concerned about the quality of life, about the problems, about the underprivileged and about social justice. If that feeling does not exist, even if at a given moment there may appear to be a certain quiescence in public opinion, an absence of radical movement and even if the unrest shows itself merely in strikes, there are dangers. I urge the Taoiseach to try to see the broader perspective and not to confine his analysis of the problem to his treatment of it to the purely economic sphere. There can be no success if that path is followed. It is the conviction of my Party that economic growth and social justice not only can be combined, but while there are tensions between them because one must choose where to spend the limited resources, these tensions can be constructively resolved. A failure to resolve them will undermine economic growth, which is the means by which greater social justice will be achieved. I urge the Taoiseach to rethink his approach which in its first statement has been deficient in that respect, although a healthy note of realism appeared in his economic analysis, which is a good sign as far as tacking the problems of the economy is concerned.
I was somewhat taken aback last night at the end of the debate on the appointment of the new Government when the Taoiseach did not avail of the opportunity to address the House and the people in order to give his views not only in identifying political, economic and social problems that face the country, but also to give some indication as to how he and his Government intend to approach these problems. I was glad that the Taoiseach responded, although somewhat reluctantly, this morning and made at least a relatively brief statement before the House rose for an unprecedented long recess for this time of the year, and gave some insight into how he identifies the difficulties facing us. As he stated, the Taoiseach did not put forward in great detail any course of action as to how they should be approached.
The Taoiseach said that this was a new beginning. In some respects that is true, but one would not accept that it is a totally new beginning as it would be after a new election or a new mandate from the people on a new set of proposals. The Taoiseach was a Member of this Government since June 1977 and as such he is responsible as anyone else for the manifesto on which this Government and many Members of the House were elected. A few days ago on a radio programme we heard extracts from interviews that had been conducted with Deputy Haughey during the 1977 election campaign, and Deputy Haughey strongly defended and advocated the terms of the manifesto, as indeed did the former Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Professor O'Donoghue. The Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party are still committed to the terms of the manifesto, and if they are not they should say so clearly and unequivocably so as to let the country know where they stand. It is a little late to depart from some of the approaches in the manifesto, because they have already done incredible damage.
The economic approach of the Government over the last two-and-a-half years has not, by any objective assessment, been successful. There were some indications, although somewhat ambiguous, in the Taoiseach's press conference but there were aspects of economic policy that had been pursued over the past two-and-a-half years which he was not fully in agreement with. It would be regrettable if the Taoiseach did not make these aspects he does not agree with known to the people and tell us by what approach he intends to replace them.
First of all, we should get a clear statement: is full employment still the first priority of this Government? That should be answered "yes" or "no". If it is still the priority how is it intended that it be attained? Is the emphasis to be put even more on the private sector for job creation? I would expect that that would be the approach, knowing the political philosophy and views of the Taoiseach. If it is the approach how is it to be done? What further incentives is it intended to give the private sector and what guarantee can be obtained from them, if they are in receipt of more incentives, that they will produce the number of jobs that are required? Or is there to be an expansion of the activity of the public sector in job creation? Is, as I understand from some discussions that took place under the national understanding, the National Enterprise Agency to come into being? If it is, what precisely will its role be? What will its terms of reference be and what money will be made available to it?
Deputy Martin O'Donoghue is gone. One would like to know and the people would like an assurance on whether the economic policy he was pursuing on behalf of the Government is also totally gone as he and his Department are. If there is to be a change what form will it take? If there is to be a change in the full commitment of the Government, given by him on their behalf regarding the National Enterprise Agency that any shortfall in job creation would be made up by the Government, it should be made known now and in clear unequivocal terms. If the National Enterprise Agency is to be brought into being when will it be? What role precisely is it to play?
The Taoiseach is facing an extremely difficult task in practically every area of our national life. I and members of my party have profound differences with the political philosophy of the Taoiseach and obviously of the party which elected him. I bear no personal animosity towards any man in this House but I have a strong political philosophy and a deep commitment and conviction of the correctness of that philosophy. I make no apology to anyone inside or outside the House for advocating that policy and pointing out the incorrectness of the policy that I believe the Taoiseach and his Government will pursue in future as he and his associates have pursued in the past. Not only is it an incorrect approach but it is an extremely damaging and divisive approach as far as the national community is concerned. The end product is undoubtedly—I make no apology for repeating myself—very considerable hardship and misery which is unnecessary, and that is what makes it an abomination in our society. There is an urgent need for a real genuine redistribution of the wealth that exists in our society and an assurance that any wealth that is created will be redistributed on an equitable basis.
I do not expect that approach from the Taoiseach or his party. I am confident that it is a fact that a large number of Irishmen and women are becoming aware of. They are becoming aware of this one basic political fact: unless there are fundamental changes in our social and economic structures the evils that manifest themselves in that human misery cannot and will not be abolished.
At present—the Taoiseach faces these problems and is mainly responsible for their solution—we have an inflation rate of 15 per cent. The Taoiseach mentioned the EEC countries and compared our prospective growth rate with theirs as being encouraging. It is not encouraging. They have reached a state of development that we as yet still aspire to. While they may have a lesser potential growth rate next year, the year after or the year after that, the state of development which they are at now leaves them far ahead of us and the quality of life that we enjoy. Remember this: this Government inherited a growth rate of approximately 7 per cent. We are now optimistically hoping it will be 3 per cent. They inherited a situation in which the inflation rate was brought down to 7 per cent. Now that figure has more than doubled. The unemployment rate is still approximately 9 per cent. We have had cutbacks in real terms in all our social services. Local authority housing, I am given to understand, will not exceed 5,000 houses this year. These are only some of the problems.
I am trying to put this into terms that the ordinary people understand. When we talk about GNP and estimates for this and inflation for that and relationships with something else, a lot of people do not understand that what we are talking about is that they will not get a house, their family will remain in one room next year and the year after and their daddy, husband, son, or brother will not get a job. Their son or daughter, if they get the advantage of third level education, which only approximately 11 per cent of our population get at present, attained at considerable sacrifice by their fathers and mothers—the likelihood of them getting a job in Irish society and the way it is developing is diminishing and not increasing. These are the things that count.
The Ministers, Tánaiste and Taoiseach will face major problems in the immediate future. They will face them in the budget. What will they do about PAYE? What will the Taoiseach's and the Government approach be towards farmer taxation? Are farmers going to be asked to contribute on the same basis as other earners? Is there going to be a genuine attempt to have an equitable tax system that will include all people, farmers, professional classes and so on? Such decisions will not be popular politically but in the interest of the country the right decisions must be made.
The new Taoiseach and his Government will be watched closely by people in Ireland. I know that if we are to judge by his record when he was Minister for Finance we could anticipate a sharp increase in indirect taxation. I know the Taoiseach cannot disclose his intentions regarding the budget but I sound this note: indirect taxation is unjust because it imposes a tax without any regard for the ability of the individual to pay. I can tell the Taoiseach that if his Government go down that road trying to avoid facing up to the correct but hard decisions regarding the taxation code, he will meet with severe opposition from this party. We do not intend to allow even greater inequities to be brought into existence between the haves and the have-nots in our society.
The Taoiseach gave only two indications as to what he regarded as his priorities. He regarded energy, and correctly so, as being an issue that is going to loom very large in the future development of the country. The decision we make in that area will be extremely important for the future of the country and its people. Nuclear energy will be an issue, a very controversial issue, in Irish society in the foreseeable future.
We understand that Deputy O'Malley gave an undertaking at a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that there would be a public inquiry into the question of nuclear energy. Then, as things developed—we are subject to correction by the Taoiseach if we are wrong in this—after giving the undertaking to have a public inquiry it was indicated clearly that irrespective of the findings of the inquiry the Government had already made up their mind to go ahead with nuclear energy.
The position of my party is as follows. We believe this to be an extremely important issue and one that will become even more important, particularly in a society like ours where there is such a large percentage of young people. They are more conscious, more concerned and possibly more far seeing than people in an older age group. Our approach is that there should be a full public inquiry and that all interested groups or parties should be facilitated in giving evidence before the inquiry. It would stimulate public debate and it would ensure that there was an educated population with regard to this question. It would take approximately 18 months or two years to go through that process and after that whatever arrangements that are necessary should be undertaken to have a referendum on the question whether we should have nuclear energy as part of our energy development. During the course of that public inquiry, all other possible alternatives to nuclear energy could be gone into fully in order to see if they were valid or feasible. That would be a major contribution.
The Taoiseach spoke about Northern Ireland. This matter is very delicate. I do not believe anyone in this House wants to gain political capital out of this matter. I do not believe anyone here would raise issues or ask questions that would be damaging towards furthering peace and reconciliation in that part of our country. We want to bring an end to the terrible violence that has gone on for the past ten years. I say this without animosity. The Taoiseach has a reputation on Northern Ireland which, to say the least, is unhelpful towards those ends. He must accept full responsibility himself for that reputation because of his silence and because he had allowed other people to appear to speak in his name during the past nine years. There is a tremendous responsibility on him now to remove that suspicion as fast as he can. If he does not hold those views, if he holds different views, let him make them known. I promise him that if he adopts an approach that will help towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland he will get the total, unreserved support of this party.
There is a great responsibility on the Taoiseach. He did the damage and only he can undo it so far as his image in that area is concerned. There is worry—I will not use a stronger word—in many southern Irish hearts on that issue and on the Taoiseach's image in that area. How much more so must there be on the northern side of the Border? Let him remove the fear. If it is a false image, let him remove it fast. We will help him. I must be honest if I am to be of help. The Taoiseach will not remove that fear by quoting the first article of the 1975 Fianna Fáil policy statement. He will remove it by spelling out and making clear what the second article means. If it means what I read it to mean and if I am to take what the Taoiseach said here this evening as being sincere and honest, let him repudiate it.
Hear, hear.
It is necessary. The wild men will not help peace and reconciliation on this island. They will not help to make the type of society to which the Taoiseach referred in his speech. There is a strand running through many things on this island. That strand cannot, must not and will not be allowed to be one of violence, hatred, death and murder. There is a strand of brotherhood, that we are all Irish, that we are all human beings and that we should at least be able to respect the dignity of a human being. The Taoiseach has a major part to play. It is a most urgent matter. He must do it very quickly. We will help him.
Deputy FitzGerald raised one point which I should like to clarify, that is, the ultimate purpose of economic activity. I am on record many times indicating that, in my view, the ultimate purpose of all economic activity must be social and that the objective of economic progress and development must be to achieve social progress.
The arrangement was that the three party Leaders should make three statements and that we should then adjourn. It simply remains for me to repeat that we will adjourn until Wednesday, 20 February at 2.30 p.m. I wish all the Deputies in the House a very happy Christmas.