This Adjournment Debate brings to an end a further session of Dáil Éireann and——
Estimates, 1980. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £3,638,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
—(The Taoiseach).
In a disgraceful manner.
On a point of order.
The people opposite are the ones who are behaving in a disgraceful manner.
(Interruptions.)
I have been endeavouring to raise a point of order.
I wonder if Deputy FitzGerald realises that Deputy Browne had already prepared the motion that he was putting up and that it was clear that the whole thing was a set-up.
The Minister is wrong on that.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order.
The Chair has accepted all the points of order that he is prepared to accept.
I should like to thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the staff of the House for their excellent and courteous services during the past year.
(Interruptions.)
I should like to thank also the media for their attention to the House and to the affairs of State which were debated here.
(Interruptions.)
We are experiencing a difficult period internationally. What is involved is more than simply a downturn. It is a major redistribution of resources to the oil-producing countries. We have become over dependent on oil as a cheap source of energy.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister must be allowed continue.
I have been endeavouring for some time to raise a point of order.
On a point of order.
Would the Deputies please allow the business of the House to proceed?
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair prevented the business from proceeding.
On a point of order, I wish to know under what Standing Order you ruled. I am entitled to that information.
The Chair is not under any obligation to explain his rulings. If Deputies wish to question a ruling there is a way of doing so without behaving in this manner.
On a point of order.
Deputy Cluskey, on a final point of order.
I will not accept that this be a final point of order. If I find reason for raising another point of order I shall do so. If subsequent speakers in this debate from this party wish to raise the subject matter of the Magill articles will they be ruled out of order and, if so, on what grounds?
The Chair will not anticipate any speech. He will deal with each speech as it arives.
The Chair anticipated the whole debate.
The Chair is entitled to give guidance to Members on request. For the guidance of the House I wish to know whether, if any subsequent speaker from this party wishes to raise the question of the Magill articles during this debate, he will be prevented from doing so and, if so, on what grounds.
The Chair's ruling on that matter yesterday morning was accepted by the House.
Deputies:
That is not correct.
As I was saying——
I am entitled to the guidance of the Chair in respect of the question I have raised.
What is happening here this evening is unbelievable. It is incredible that people of the standing of the Deputies would subject the Chair to this sort of barrage. The Minister must be allowed continue.
We will not be suppressed. Under what Standing Order was your ruling made?
We in the western world have had to make significant adjustments to our targets for growth and for the creation of new services.
We are waiting for the Chair's answer to our questions.
This is street-corner politics.
The Chair is behaving disgracefully.
I would not expect anything else from Deputy Cluskey.
Not only has the Chair denigrated his own position but he has denigrated the House.
Though that sort of charge is not worthy of Deputy Cluskey, it is what the Chair would expect from him.
We in Ireland were forced to face this new reality, distasteful as it may be.
We are seeking the guidance of the Chair as to his ruling.
What is happening here this evening is unprecedented.
During the past number of weeks the Chair has made totally unprecedented rulings in favour of the Government.
Deputies:
Shame.
Is it the intention of the Chair to denigrate the position he holds?
(Cavan-Monaghan): He appears not to be fit to hold the office.
(Interruptions.)
Some indication of the magnitude of the oil price increases which occurred in the period in question may be guaged from the following figures:
Deputies:
Tell us about the arms crisis.
The Deputies should hold on to their sanity.
During the first quarter of 1977 the average price for a barrel of oil was 13.5 dollars. The present price is 34 dollars which is about 16 times the January 1973 price of 2.5 dollars per barrel. The Coalition in office failed to manage the economy at a time when oil was 13.5 dollars per barrel. They said that it was impossible to manage the economy in such circumstances.
(Interruptions.)
I should hate to think what the situation would be if the Coalition were on this side of the House now when oil is costing 34 dollars per barrel. Most objective commentators would agree that our performance to date in managing our economy in this new situation has been better than has been the case in respect of others who have been faced with similar difficulties.
Can the Minister name one objective commentator who said that?
The primary objective of the Government's economic and social policy has been and remains the restoration of a sound financial and economic base which would support the planned future agriculture and industrial development, a difficult task in the present climate; a major redistribution of resources in favour of the needy and disadvantaged sectors of our society; the attainment of full employment based on an expanding economy; the achievement of major reforms and greater equity in taxation, particularly in relation to PAYE contributors.
On a point of order——
Deputy Cluskey on a further point of order.
This is my last point of order, I am telling you. Would the Chair tell me the basis, the grounds on which he justified suspending a Member of this House for exercising his democratic right in an Adjournment Debate——
That is not a point of order.
In the absence of an explanation from you, or any attempt by you to justify such a disgraceful decision, I do not see any future for my party remaining in this House for the rest of this evening, and we are withdrawing in defence of democracy in this country.
We will examine the Government's performance during that period. The Opposition leaders, Deputies FitzGerald and Cluskey, directed most of their criticisms at the performance of the Government since the present Taoiseach took office, and particularly at the Taoiseach himself. I do not mind criticism, and I am sure the Taoiseach does not mind criticism, but what we were subjected to here yesterday and again tonight was to a large extent a personal attack on the Taoiseach, which was unbecoming of the leaders of the Opposition, and was used by them as an attempt to divert attention from the real achievements of the Taoiseach and his Cabinet.
It is a well recognised debating ploy to throw up a smokescreen in an effort to divert attention and to cloud issues at a time when you have no answer to the known performance and achievements of the Government. The opposition have clearly shown in their contributions to this Adjournment Debate that they have no alternative policies to offer to the people.
(Cavan-Monaghan): When is it proposed to call the next speaker?
The next speaker will be called when the Minister has finished. Labour are entitled to be called not later than 8.15—that is the order of the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to know when the next speaker will be called?
The next speaker will be called at 8 p.m.
In stark contrast to the lack of cohesion and direction in the Opposition's approach, the Taoiseach and his Government have given the people practical, effective and decisive management of our economic affairs at this difficult time. In the short time available it would not be possible to list the many worthwhile achievements of this Government. I will confine myself to the areas for which I have direct responsibility.
In the budget we recognise that circumstances at that time were difficult. The pre-budget prophets of doom predicted disaster. After the budget Opposition Members were speechless, then and since, on the whole subject of social welfare increases and taxation improvements. They have remained deafeningly silent on this subject, preferring to theorise and postulate on the future. Old age pensioners, widows and other long term beneficiaries received a 25 per cent increase in their benefits. The unemployed and disability benefits went up by 20 per cent. From 1 July children's allowances will be increased by 28 per cent. The Government, therefore, have clearly honoured their commitment to protect the weaker sections of society.
Looking at taxation, 83,000 people, those in greatest need of relief, were removed from the tax net—8,000 of them are pensioners. The married mother working at home for the first time got recognition in the tax band allowances and so did the working wife. This is real social change and redistribution of resources. It is beginning right now as the new tax free allowances are coming into effect.
Can Deputies Cluskey and FitzGerald deny these real practical improvements in the distribution of wealth, achieved at a time of great economic difficulty, when we are rightly committing our greatest resources to the most fundamental of social objectives, the creation of new jobs and the maintenance of those under threat?
Turning particularly to the health services, we are dealing with one of the major sectors of public activity in the country. Indeed, the Health Vote is the biggest single category in our Exchequer requirements. As Minister for Health I recognise that if we are to have health services to meet the needs of the people we must be willing to spend money on them. Since 1977, and indeed in all earlier periods when Fianna Fáil have been in office, we have not been slow to give the money needed to provide a good health system. Practically all major developments in the health services have taken place when we have been in office. The total expenditure on health services in 1977 was £344 million. In 1980 we are spending £688 million, double the level of expenditure of 1977.
There have been numerous improve ments in recent times in the hospital services. Eligibility levels have been raised to £7,000. The entire population are now entitled to free hospital services. Those who are over the £7,000 limit pay only consultants' fees and the effective means to deal with that are through the VHI scheme. The drugs refund scheme has been extended to the entire population. Expenses greater than £8 per month are refunded.
We have a huge hospital development programme in progress costing £28 million this year. In all, 304 projects are involved in the programme. Building is in progress in 91 projects, planning in 160 projects, 50 per cent of which are at an advanced stage, and 36 projects were completed recently. Despite economic difficulties real progress is being made in this area.
Today I circulated the new Mental Health Bill which will repeal existing legislation and bring us into line with modern thinking. I have circulated the Bill at this stage to give Members of the Oireachtas time to consider the Bill at length before the autumn.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Time is limited because of the unruly behaviour of the Opposition and I will have to omit some of what I was going to say and go to one of the major points I want to make. We are particularly concerned about the position of the disabled.
I am glad to announce in the House this evening that I am setting up a National Committee for the Year of the Disabled. The United Nations Organisation had designated 1981 as the International Year for Disabled Persons and has requested each member state to establish a national steering committee to co-ordinate and encourage activities for the disabled during that year. I have now appointed a committee for that purpose.
The chairman of the committee will be Mr. Joe Malone, Director General of An Bord Fáilte. The other members of the committee are as follows:— Brother Alfred, Director of the Brothers of Charity Centre for the Mentally Handicapped, Kilcornan, County Galway, Miss Anne Foley, Department of Labour and Honorary Secretary of the Cystic Fibrosis Association of Ireland, The Hon. Lady Valerie Goulding, Senator, Chairman and formerly Managing Director of the Central Remedial Clinic in Dublin, the Reverend Canon Hugh Gray, St. Peter's Rectory, Mountrath, and member of the management committee of the Rehabilitation Institute, Mr. Desmond Kenny, Secretary, Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped, Mr. P. H. Moloney, Executive Director, St. Michael's House, P. O Maitiú, Uasal, Special Education Branch, Department of Education, Eamonn O Murchú, Uasal, national teacher, Dr. Chantal McNamara, general practitioner, Waterford and Dr. Joseph Robins, Department of Health. The Secretary to the Committee will be Mr. Paul Barron, Department of Health. Members of the National Committee are appointed in their personal capacities and not as representatives of any particular organisations.
In addition to these measures I am also appointing an advisory council representative of the various interests in the field of the disabled as well as more broadly based groups. I shall announce details of the membership of this advisory council shortly.
I am fully committed to the International Year for the Disabled. I look forward, with the full support of the Government, to making a significant contribution to the disabled during that year.
Deputy Fitzpatrick. I will be calling the final speakers in accordance with the order of the House not later than 8.15 p.m.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is generally accepted that our economy is in a very bad state. It is accepted, I think, by most commentators that never before was our economy in such a shambles. We had a new Taoiseach elected some months ago. After quite a build-up about television and radio appearances, the Taoiseach appeared on television. On that occasion the country in general expected from him a state of the nation speech. The electorate expected some guidance, some suggested solutions to the problems we all knew existed. What happened? We had the problems spelled out in the greatest detail, problems we all knew existed, about which none of us had to be told. But sadly lacking from that speech on that occasion, or indeed from any speech the Taoiseach has made since, was any solution or any suggestions as to a solution. The only idea the Taoiseach seemed to put before the people was that in general they should tighten their belts, that they should forego their rights and really sacrifice everything in the interests of the country. I am afraid that attitude is necessary; I am afraid we do need a tightening of the belts. We do need our people to practise economic patriotism.
At a time like this it is necessary that we have leadership of the strongest and most respected character. It is essential that at this time we have in office a Government which has the respect of our people, a Taoiseach who has the respect of every Member of Dáil Éireann, particularly every member of his own party. Indeed, it is necessary that we have in government, a party who, while in Opposition, preached the same economic patriotism as the Taoiseach is preaching today. It is necessary that we have a Government seen to be consistent, that we have people leading this country who fought the last general election on the basis of reality, not a Government which, while they were in Opposition, told the people there were no difficulties, that there was no need for belt tightening, that all they had to do was to vote themselves a better time and, if they voted Fianna Fáil into power, all of their difficulties would be over. It is hard to expect the ordinary plain people of this country to listen to a Government who, while in Opposition, said there were no problems, who were elected to government on a manifesto that seemed to contain the solutions to everything.
It is difficult to expect the plain people of this country to accede to the request of a Government led by a Taoiseach who stands discredited before the electorate and the people of this world in the public press. How, I ask, can the people of this country be expected to follow the leadership of a Government led by a Taoiseach who, with a number of his Ministers, stands discredited—I will say it—in the Magill magazine, that has been published here and is serialising an episode which projects the present Taoiseach and a number of his Ministers in government as very doubtful characters, as people who have blotted their copybooks, as people who are not worthy of the confidence of the electorate. That is the state in which this country finds itself at present.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, it is very difficult for the Chair to deal with this sort of thing. The Deputy has now come in deliberately to defy and blackguard the Chair and the position of the House. There is very little the Chair can do with that. The Chair would like to appeal to the Deputy not to do that sort of thing. It is not worthy of the Deputy. That is all the Chair can say.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not going to get into a discussion with the Chair on its ruling earlier today. In the interests of democracy here I am driven to putting on the record of this House material which I think is relevant.
It is not worthy of the Deputy to do that in such a fashion. It is unbelievable. That is all the Chair can say about it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair is now driving me to say it. I regret now that it appears to me that the Chair is seeing the folly of its own ruling.
The Chair gave a ruling. The Chair is standing by that ruling. At this hour of the evening, on the last day of this session, if the Deputy wants to come in to do that sort of thing, I do not know what option the Chair has. It is deliberately flouting the rulings of the Chair. It is unfortunate that the Deputy should do that deliberately.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Here is a newspaper which was published this morning containing an appeal from the Taoiseach to the people of this country to realise the state of our economy and the need for the electorate to tighten their belts, to make sacrifices, to practice economic patriotism, as I have called it. Surely I am entitled to make the case that I think it is particularly unfortunate for this country of ours that we have a man and a Government in power making this appeal to the country in the national newspapers while those same people are being criticised in the clearest fashion in another magazine whose circulation has increased enormously as a result of the publication, and that——
The Chair has been accused of being a disgrace to the office the Chair holds. I think this is really bringing parliament to a very low level. This is really disgraceful. That is all the Chair can say. If the Deputy continues on those lines, then it is up to himself. Surely there is sufficient scope in this debate without this sort of thing.
Apparently there is nothing else to talk about.
This is a horrible effort on the part of the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not. If the Chair wants to discuss his ruling I will discuss it in public with him because——
The Chair does not debate his rulings with any Member of the House. The Chair gives his rulings and Members accept them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I totally disagree with the ruling which the Chair made. It is true to say that this House has had a very unhappy closing session. That unfortunate episode has been brought about through the rulings made by the Chair. About that there can be no doubt. I want to base this part of my speech on the appeal which has been made by the Taoiseach. The attitude of the Taoiseach over the years and his failure to deny what appears in Magill is the most important point. How can a Taoiseach and a Government stand up without one word from over there, without one intimation to the country that actions will be taken for libel, slander or for perjury?
It is a sad day for an Irish Parliament when a man of the standing of Deputy Thomas Fitzpatrick with all his legal knowledge and legal standing comes into this House under the very important cloak of privilege which the House has, that every word said within the House is privileged, and starts this sort of thing. I hope it is not the Chair which will come out on the wrong side of this debate.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Every word I have said multiplied by thousands has been said in public outside this House and there is not one intimation that in the interests of the Government those words and accusations will be challenged in the courts of this country.
The people have given the answer by their votes. That was a democratic decision.
There has been nothing about the allegations made yesterday.
The Chair must ask Deputy Fitzpatrick to desist from this sort of carry on. I would expect more from the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair pointed out that I was saying things which could not be said outside. That is not correct because Magill magazine through its editor has elaborated and spelt out in black and white everything that I am saying, except in far more detail.
The Chair has already said that the Members of this House will disgrace themselves if they start throwing allegations, innuendos, insinuations and imputations across the floor of the House. It is a sad day for an Irish Parliament that this should happen.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am standing here in the interest of the rights of the Members of this House. I do not normally share the views of Deputy Noel Browne and I am on record here and in Seanad Éireann as saying that I disagree with him. I stand up here in defence of the right of every Member of this House to raise on an Adjournment Debate matters that are relevant. It is because I believe that a Member of this House, Deputy Browne, has been wrongly deprived of his right to speak that I have been forced to adopt this attitude. If anybody is to blame, I regret that it is the present occupant of the Chair.
Deputy Fitzpatrick should show at least some respect for the Chair. It is now 8.15 p.m. and the final speakers should be called.
Whom does the Chair propose to call?
The Labour Party speakers should be here at this stage.
They have notified their intention not to speak.
Therefore I call the speaker from the Fine Gael Party in accordance with the order.
The order states that he be called at 9 o'clock. That order cannot be varied. It is the rule of the House.
He is to be called not later than 9 o'clock.
In the absence of the Labour speaker I take it other speakers may continue until that time comes.
The order states that the final speakers for the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party are to be called not later than 8.15 p.m. and 9 p.m. respectively. The order states "not later" than those times but they may be called earlier.
In the meantime other Members may speak?
The Chair is closing the debate?
I am not closing the debate. The order states that the final speakers will be called not later than 8.15 p.m. and 9 p.m. The Fine Gael speaker may go ahead.
As the Labour speaker does not chose to exercise that right and as the Fine Gael speaker is not due to speak until 9 o'clock, I do not understand on what basis the entire debate will be adjourned three-quarters of an hour early without agreement to that effect.
The agreement is already in the order of the House which says that the final Fine Gael speaker may be called not later than 9 o'clock.
Is it not possible to put in another speaker rather than the final speaker?
Certainly it is possible, by agreement of the House, to allow three or four other speakers. Is that the agreement of the House?
We must abide by the order of the House.
The order states that at this stage I call the final speakers.
Who is giving directions here?
(Interruptions.)
If there is not full agreement, the Chair must carry out the order of the House.
They are afraid to allow the debate to continue.
The order says that the final speaker for the Fine Gael Party shall be called not later than 9 o'clock; therefore I need not be called until that time.
(Interruptions.)
If the final speaker from the Labour Party does not wish to speak, the next speaker must be called. That has always been the rule of the House.
I appreciate your point. I would like it to be put clearly on the record that we could have been allowed to continue this debate but Fianna Fáil are afraid and refuse to give their consent. They have withheld that consent because they are afraid of what might be said.
Does this mean that the final speaker from Fine Gael may speak for an hour and a half?
He may speak for 45 minutes in accordance with the order of the House.
I presume Fine Gael would not like to hear what I have to say because they have deliberately destroyed my chance to speak about certain allegations made yesterday.
I call Deputy Peter Barry.
(Interruptions.)
I am the last speaker from the Opposition side of the House——
Remember the Deputy is commencing at 8.21 p.m.
——in this very sorry three days at Leinster House. I do not think any Member of the House is happy with what went on here for the last few days culminating tonight in Deputy Browne being suspended from the House because he sought to raise during the debate something which the Chair has been consistently ruling for the past two days could not be raised in the debate. As a consequence of that and in an effort to raise a number of points of order the Leader of the Labour Party withdrew his party from the House so that there is no concluding speaker from that party to this important debate on the Department of the Taoiseach.
Last week when this party had a motion down on the economy to be debated in Private Members' Time the Chair ruled it out of order because he said it anticipated the Adjournment Debate. I questioned that ruling on 17 June at column 795 of volume 322 of the Official Report on the basis that if your ruling held, nothing could be debated between the time you made the ruling and the Adjournment Debate. I asked the Chair:
Can a Deputy not speak on any subject he wishes on an Adjournment Debate?
Correct, and on the matter that the Deputy proposes to raise tonight.
Anything can be debated and that means that anything that comes up between now and then could be ruled out of order for debate in this House.
In accordance with precedent, yes.
The Chair's ruling was, in his own words, that anything could be debated during an Adjournment Debate. I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the magazine or the article in it about which the Chair ruled. I do not know if what was said in it is true or not. Some Members of the House obviously do know whether it is or not. I do not intend to bring the subject of that matter before the House tonight. What I am bringing before the House, regretfully—I want to assure the Chair that it is nothing personal against him—is the ruling of the Chair in this matter. That ruling now becomes a precedent of the House so that in future the Chair can choose to rule out from an Adjournment Debate a particular subject for some reason even though the traditions of the House and all the precedents are that any matter can be debated on an Adjournment Debate.
It seems that Deputy Barry is taking this in the right spirit. The Chair would say at this stage that serious allegations against any Member of the House cannot, would not and were never allowed to be raised casually on a debate of this kind. They could only be brought to the House on a formal motion against that Member. That has been the ruling of the House down the years.
I do not wish to go on challenging the rulings of the Chair but obviously the Chair could not know whether serious allegations about misconduct óf Members of the House were being made until the words had been spoken. At no stage did you allow the proceedings to get to the stage where actual allegations were made. It is unfortunate that the tradition that on the Adjournment Debate, on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach, the weaknesses of any member of the Government could be exposed by members of the Opposition and, indeed, members of the Government were free to hit back at members of the Opposition during that debate, is being broken.
A new precedent has been established that there is control on an Adjournment Debate. The ordinary rules of good conduct must apply at all times. Deputies should be careful about what they say to one another. They should be careful not to make charges in the House, although the law of privilege allows them to do so. They should use that very sparingly and carefully. I cannot accept that on an Adjournment Debate a ruling such as the Chair gave yesterday could hold or should be treated as a precedent in this regard. It is serious for the House. I shall leave it at that but when we come back or during the recess, in a calmer and cooler atmosphere, we shall have to look more deeply into that ruling because it is wrong.
Again seeing that the Deputy is taking it in the spirit that he is, one of the rulings given that have been given on this debate through the years to every occupant of this Chair is that criticism of or attack on a Minister is not allowed.
Is it not the case that the precedent is that the Chair is not concerned with the merits of the matter being debated, page 50 of the rulings of the Chair?
We could quote rulings for one side or the other, one after another.
I can accept the Chair would not wish——
The Chair does not wish to interrupt Deputy Barry in any way.
I accept that the Chair would not wish nor would any Member of the House wish to see another Member attacked here. We must maintain that, if this is a democratic assembly elected by the people, we will have the traditional right, the historic right and the right by precedent to speak on any matter we choose on the Adjournment Debate. If it is a debate on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach obviously if we feel that the holder of that office or any TD appointed to hold office under him in that Government is open to attack, he will be attacked by the Opposition. That has always been the tradition and will continue to be so.
I shall now move on to the debate and what has been said in it. This is an Adjournment Debate and, after the first six months since the Leader of the Government changed, it is quite obvious to everyone that even though the Leader and certain personnel in the Government have changed we still have the same irresponsible Fianna Fáil Party with the same irresponsible policies that three years ago did such damage to the economy. Anybody present at another Adjournment Debate, or who looks at the record when Deputy Lynch was Taoiseach, in December 1977, would see that the then Taoiseach listed a number of pluses in the economy: increasing exports, falling inflation, increasing numbers of people at work, balance of payments under control and the level of borrowing brought down. He referred to those as being a sound basis on which to build. This sound basis which he correctly said was a good base on which to build future growth in the economy was as a result of the policies patiently and prudently pursued during the latter half of 1975, 1976 and the first half of 1977. These were following through to the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Government during the first six months when Deputy Lynch was Taoiseach. Anyone looking at the same economy now would find it difficult to recognise the sound economy we handed over in July 1977.
The Taoiseach has told us that the prime cause of the present difficulties in the economy was the increase in the price of oil over the last 18 months. We pointed out on numerous occasions the damage such an increase can do to the economy. The first such waves shook our economy in 1973-74 and the National Coalition have gone through all the monitoring of methods to counteract that damage. It was irresponsible and reprehensible of Fianna Fáil in their manifesto and election campaign of 1977 to go ahead and gamble with the jobs of our people in the manner they did. They are now reaping the reward for their actions, their policies and their performance at that time.
We now have an inflation rate of 20 per cent and our unemployment is the highest for five years. The business sector get an attack of the jitters if they look into the future because they see so many things they will not be able to deal with. We will have to depend more on the private sector to act as the engine to pull this economy out of the slump into which it is now slipping. The budget in 1979, and this year, seriously damaged our second major industry, tourism. We have a balance of payments deficit of £750 million and an oil import bill running up to £800 million. Our growth in exports—thankfully there is some growth—is slowing down and our No. 1 industry, agriculture, is reeling under a series of body blows and a lack of attention and concern over the last two and a half years.
Members of my party who come from rural constituencies have told me that they have never known the farming community to be so depressed, fearful for the future and lacking in confidence as to what they should do or what the Government are willing to do to help them get out of their difficulties. We also have the frightening series of redundancies that have been occurring in almost every industry daily since the beginning of the year. The Taoiseach has told us that the problems we are facing are budget and balance of payments deficits, excessive borrowing and high inflation. At 20.2 per cent for the last 12 months our inflation is certainly amongst the highest, if not the highest, in EEC and OECD countries. The figure for mid-February to mid-May of 7.4 per cent is certainly one of the highest. The Taoiseach was hopeful that this level of inflation was at a peak. Why is it so high? That is a mystery to Members on this side of the House, to economists and those concerned with such matters outside the House. It has been obvious for the last 18 months that with the pressure amongst OPEC members for an increase in the price of oil, the turbulent situation in Iran and the strike in the oilfields there, that the world would be short of oil resulting in internal pressure on OPEC members to push up the prices. In spite of that being known in mid-1978 the Government in their budget of 1979 did not take any account of what was likely to happen during that year. They did not take any account of what the rest of the world saw as an inevitable hike in oil prices. Indeed, some of the price rises had taken place by the time the budget was introduced. The Government did not do anything to try to counteract those inflationary pressures. In fact, they did worse. In the same month they introduced the budget in 1979, they twisted up inflation by removing the food subsidies.
From January 1979 when the budget was introduced and the food subsidies were removed our economy which was going forward in growth—we had left it with the strength the previous Taoiseach spoke of—started to have problems. Most other countries foresaw, catered for and took steps to alleviate the effects of the obvious inflation on their economies. Inflation translates itself into non-competitiveness, into loss of jobs, into bigger budget deficits for government and into a sorry mess like our economy is in. Even up to the middle of last year Ministers were still talking about a 5 per cent end of year inflation. When that phrase was trotted out first in February 1978 it took some time to discover exactly what was meant by 5 per cent end of year inflation. Eventually, it was admitted by the then Minister for Economic Planning and Development that what was involved was an expectation that between August and November 1979 inflation would be at the rate of 1.25 per cent and if one multiplies that by four one got 5 per cent. Therefore, one had an end of year inflation rate of 5 per cent. It may be that that is a legitimate enough method of calculating inflation but if we apply the same method of calculation to the last quarter for which we have figures, February to May 1980, when the increase in the consumer price index for that quarter is 7.4 per cent, the mid-1980 rate of inflation is 29.6 per cent, using the same method of calculation that was employed by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and the Minister for Finance 12 months ago, presumably with the concurrence of all the members of the Government of which the present Minister for Finance was a member. Deputy FitzGerald, on the morning of the budget of this year, said that the effect of the budget increases would be to put the yearly level of inflation up to nearly 20 per cent. On that day the Taoiseach scoffed at the idea; he said it was nonsense, that the budget was only responsible for a 3.8 per cent price increase and it was ridiculous of Deputy FitzGerald to say that it would push the rate of inflation up to over 20 per cent. But we saw last week when the figures were published who was right and who was wrong. Deputy FitzGerald was right. In fact he underestimated what the effect would be. He said it would be something over 6 per cent; it turned out to be 7.4 per cent.
Regretfully we are still not finished with the inflationary effects of the budget. Until the end of this year they will be working their way through the economy because many of the damaging measures in that budget as they affected costs in industry have still not been fed out as far as the consumer. So we can look forward, for at least another quarter and maybe two quarters, to the effects of the budget on the consumer price index. This was foreseeable. There were enough inflationary pressures being imported into this country due to the price of oil. Nobody denies that the increase in oil prices over the last eighteen months was serious for the economy. Nobody denies that they had an effect on inflation and consequently on our competitive position. But what the Government will not admit is the damage they did in adding to that inflation by putting taxes on oil products which had a further serious effect on the economy. Yesterday the Taoiseach referred to the worldwide damage that was done to the economies of every country by the increase in oil prices. That is true. Every country importing oil had to pay this increased price. But every country in Europe except Ireland took steps to protect their economy from the effects of those increases and the action of the Irish Government was not to minimse the damage being done to the economy but, by adding further tax, to multiply it. That is the primary reason why the economy here is, to put it no stronger, in such a worrying condition at the moment.
If one is to read between the lines there is much exhortation in the Taoiseach's speech. He has made three or four speeches on the economy since he took over the office of Taoiseach and every one of them was strong on setting out what is wrong with the economy. Everybody in this House and, indeed, people outside this House are well aware of what is wrong with the economy. But the speeches were very short on solutions to deal with the problems. The Taoiseach listed the problems himself: the balance of payments deficit, the current budget deficit, excessive borrowing and a high rate of inflation. If there is any clue as to how he intends to deal with the problems it is in the fact that he twice said that he would not deflate the economy and will protect the less well off sections of our community. But the budget is deflationary. The cuts in the capital programme are deflationary because they do not provide the same funds in real terms as were provided last year in the infrastructure sector and other sectors. Therefore one must presume that if he is not going to deflate the economy there is some method by which he is going to at least keep the country ticking over. This cannot be done on the amount of money available for the capital programme for the balance of this year. The alternative is that he is going to inflate the economy.
I hope when the Minister for Finance is speaking later on he will let us know what that solution is because I suspect that what the Government are going to do is abandon their borrowing target, that, come the end of this year, on the basis of a real or indicated show of oil from the drillings at present going on off the west coast—even though it is doubtful from the evidence that will be available this year that such a course of action will be justified—they are going to abandon the borrowing ceiling imposed by themselves in the budget. If they do this and bring in more funds that will certainly help to bring about an improvement in the economy. But the Government must remember that if they do that—and it applies equally to their excessive borrowing for the last three years—they are deliberately adding to inflation in the coming years. That is what will happen; there will be a permanent topping up of inflation if they abandon their borrowing targets for 1980.
I would be interested to hear the Minister deny or confirm that. Further borrowing will add to the inflationary problems of the next Government of this country so that when we are over there I will be reminding whoever is standing here that part of the inflation is due to the fact that in 1980 Fianna Fáil deliberately abandoned borrowing targets.
As I said earlier, the appalling lack of confidence which has gripped our business sector in the last few months should be of great concern to the Government and, indeed, to all of us. Inflation affects our competitiveness which, in turn, affects our employment levels. Any Deputy in this House would agree that the number one priority for any Government in this House, given the age structure of our population, for the next 20 years, at least, must be creation of jobs to cater for an expanding young population. We cannot do that unless we also create the climate in which the people who make investments continue to do so to allow these jobs to be created. This Government have failed to do that by deliberately adding to the inflation rate by their Budget and by deliberately putting extra costs on the very people that they are, at the same time, imploring to export more, be more competitive, make more investment to create more jobs.
It is significant that the Confederation of Irish Industries published a report six weeks ago in which they list the four biggest hindrances to expansion of business and investment at the moment. One of those was the duty put on what are called "other oils" in the last budget. There is no doubt that this is the cause of many of the present redundancies. It was represented by some speakers during the Budget debate and the debate on the Finance Bill as being a conservation measure. It is not. It is a cost on industry and is a cost that only businesses in this country have to bear.
Hear, hear.
The people with whom we are competing, whether in the United Kingdom, Germany, France or any other country, have not to bear this tax. Not alone is this tax affecting us when we try to get a market in France against our British competitors, but it is affecting us in the United Kingdom when we try to export our goods there. Most tragically, it is affecting us here at home when we try to fight off imports. It has been listed, by the people who should know, as one of the four serious, damaging influences on business at the moment.
Damaging as the budget's effect was on business, what is equally damaging at the moment is the restriction on credit. I must say a word about the announcement made last night by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism. I am delighted with this announcement, which heralds benefit to business and certain help to many industries which find that they cannot stay in business if they have to pay 20 per cent interest on loans. These people cannot borrow abroad, because the Government will not underwrite the exchange loss on any such borrowing.
The Minister announced a £15 million Deutschmark loan, to be administered through the Industrial Credit Company. The details are not apparent, except that the maximum which any one firm can get is £¼ million, or half of their capital. The ICC may have enlightened business people today as to the other conditions attaching to this loan. I hope it will not be a replacement for a normal bank overdraft. The position would in that case be no better, except of course, to the extent that the money would be at a smaller rate of interest.
This money should be available on top of their normal overdraft. It should not necessarily be for capital purposes, for the building up of plant or machinery, but for normal working capital, to finance stock, because at the moment, due to inflation they must find that much extra capital to buy in stocks. They are paying very high interest rates for that capital. Their creditors are squeezing them as much as possible because they have exactly the same problem, whereas their debtors are doing the reverse, trying to extend their credit. They have the problem with banks as well. There should be as few conditions as possible attached to the granting of this money to businesses. It should be for ordinary working capital, as long as conditions of repayment are adhered to or agreed to. It should be left to individual businesses as to what use they put the money to.
It has not been made clear whether this money has been restricted to manufacturing businesses, but there are two other sectors which should be involved. Inflation affects the distributive trades and the tourist industry just as much as it affects manufacturing industry. Even allowing that the distributive trades take advantage of this, it would be of benefit to manufacturing industry because a lot of problems with manufacturing industry arise from the fact that with the depressed state of business the distributive trades find it difficult to pay for supplies. The trades find it difficult to dispose of goods and consequently are unable to pay the manufacturers. The vicious circle is affecting everybody in business. I would ask the Minister to ensure that this loan be available, not alone to the manufacturing business but to the distributive trades and, particularly, to the tourist industry, which perhaps more than any other industry has been damaged by this Government in the last two years.
When we came into office in 1973, tourism had been on a steady decline for a number of years prior to that. In every single year that we were in Government, the value of tourism increased and that trend continued into 1977-78. Last year was the first time tourism started to falter in that growth, specifically due to the actions, or non-actions, of the Fianna Fáil Party in Government last year, in their pig-headedness over the postal strike and the ostrich-like behaviour of the Minister for Energy—as he was at the time—Deputy O'Malley, over the petrol situation. This had serious and damaging effects on what is usually referred to as our second major industry. Not content with that, knowing that tourism needed a shot in the arm, a fillip to help them get back on the growth pattern again, this year's budget provided the final knock-out blow to tourism. Indeed, the increase in the price of drink, cigarettes and particularly petrol appears to have escaped the attention of the Government.
The areas that benefit most from tourism are those areas where industry is least likely to be established. Therefore every Government must be continually sensitive to the needs of tourism and to the beneficial effect to the economy of ensuring that we have a healthy tourist industry that encourages people to go to the remote parts of the country. This Government have done the reverse. They have made it more expensive to get to the remote parts of the country by adding on 20 pence a gallon to the price of petrol. Our prices for beer, spirits and petrol are now notably different from the price of the same commodities in our prime tourist market, the United Kingdom.
There is another indication of the damage this budget has done to the economy. In this morning's papers there is a report of the Irish Distillers Group's annual general meeting in which the chairman said that as a result of the penal taxes imposed by the budget they would have to postpone capital investment until trade improved. The chairman said that unless trade got better their work force would be put on short time in the autumn. That is a direct consequence of the budget, vouched for by the chairman of one of our most profitable companies. As a result of the budget, investment has been postponed significantly. Anyone who makes an investment makes it in the hope that he will see a return on the investment over the years. If one runs a huge factory or a backroom craft somebody is employed but if the investment is not made the jobs will not be there. As late as this morning there was evidence in the papers that precisely what we said last February is now happening. We said that the budget would damage the economy and particularly tourism.
It is still not too late if the Government have the will, to make funds available to remedy some of the harm that is being done to tourism. It is necessary to immediately give promotional funds to Bord Fáilte and that they employ all their staff in hunting up business in the United Kingdom but also on the mainland of Europe and in America. This must be done not through the normal process of discussion and inter-Departmental briefings. If the red tape is cut the Minister for Tourism, if he is interested, could direct the Minister for Finance and the Government to make funds available immediately. Then some of the damage done to the tourist industry could be undone in the latter half of this year. It is very important that the Government have an appreciation of the value of tourism.
It is difficult to see why the Government should have added to the price increase already imposed on oil products by the OPEC countries. It is easy to see that the damage being done by OPEC is sufficient without our Government doubling what the OPEC countries have done.
I praise the Tánaiste who since he changed Ministries has been very active in the energy sector. The Minister has been approaching this in the right way by examining every possibility so as to reduce our dependence on oil.
Hear, hear. The Minister has had the benefit of our document, in fact I suspect, a preview of it. However, so far it is only talk. The Minister is saying all the right things, he is making all the right sounds as a start. The Minister is certainly better than Deputy O'Malley who was doing and saying all the wrong things.
Deputy Barry is still in possession.
The Tánaiste is doing a lot of talking but we would like to see some action. I would certainly like to know the Tánaiste's attitude to nuclear energy as he managed to blur this whole picture since he came to office. I asked the Minister a question, to which there was a written answer today, if he had seen a report published by Exxon which said that at the turn of the century we would need three nuclear stations here. This report seems to be well put together by a big company and I feel it is authentic. It is about time we faced up to building nuclear stations if they have to be built although I hope they will not have to be built. There is no point in starting in mid-1995 to plan for nuclear energy because all the other options did not work out.
The Deputy has five or six minutes to conclude.
The Tánaiste and the Government must firmly decide if the situation in relation to energy here is to be taken care of without resorting to nuclear energy. If we have not to resort to nuclear energy I would be pleased for two reasons; the first is that like everybody else, I have a fear of what may happen with a nuclear power station and the second is that the cost of three nuclear power stations on an economy like ours would be enormous. If there is no alternative to nuclear power I am willing to accept that rather than see my children without jobs or energy in the period around the turn of the century. We cannot forever long finger decisions like that in the hope that the electoral disadvantage of making a decision in favour of nuclear energy will not catch up with us. Somebody must say firmly what they believe in this regard. To give Deputy O'Malley his due he came out firmly, right up to the time he lost responsibility for energy and afterwards, in favour of nuclear energy. The Deputy may be wrong but he at least had the courage to say what he believed to be the solution to the problem of energy here.
There is another thing I wish to say about the energy situation and again it relates to this morning's papers and the accounts of the Dublin Gas Consumers' Company reproduced there. There appears to be an impression that providing natural gas to that company would be the salvation of the company. That may well be right if they get the gas at a price that is very much below the oil equivalent price. As I understand the policy of An Bord Gáis—and I believe it is the policy of the Government as relayed to them—they are to sell natural gas at an oil equivalent price. I have no way of knowing whether it is true but I understand that it is on that basis that they are negotiating with the Cork Gas Consumers Company at present. I do not know what benefit natural gas at an oil equivalent price would be to the Dublin Gas Company if their energy bill is to be the same at the end of the day—there are much more fundamental problems to be tackled in that company—unless the Government decide rather than give continuous subsidies or hand-outs to give them natural gas at a price that is only 25 or 30 per cent of the oil equivalent price. We have not been told by the Minister for Energy or the Government what is their policy in this regard. The Dublin Gas Company, judging by the remarks of their chairman and members of the staff one meets occasionally, are under the impression that if given the gas they will get it at a price much below the market price that will allow them to compete with other forms of energy. I should like the Minister to clear up that point.
I wish to say a word about agriculture and the announcement by the Taoiseach in his speech yesterday that the resource tax would be removed at the end of the year. This is a tax imposed at an unfortunate time on a sector of industry—because agriculture is an industry—that has been most unfortunate in the past two years. It was insensitive of the Government to think that without any examination of a persons' ability to pay he should pay £3.50 in the £ on rateable valuation over a certain figure. Having done that and arranged to collect the moneys this year the Taoiseach said in his budget speech that this was intended to be only a temporary tax. Now he has said that at the end of the year it will run out and that is the latest explanation of what will happen. If the Government decided that the resource tax will not operate beyond 1 January 1981, why did the Minister for Finance resist writing that date into the Finance Bill a fortnight or ten days ago?
Because he did not know, because the Taoiseach had not told him the answer. He makes the decisions.
That is right.
Deputy Kelly has all the answers. Ask him another.
Apparently the Minister does not agree with Deputy Kelly. The Minister was pressed very hard by many rural Deputies here but he refused to put the date 31 December 1980 into that Bill on that occasion. Yet a fortnight later the Taoiseach comes in here and pulls the rug from under the Minister's feet. He had spent one-and-a-half or two hours defending his stand of not putting in the date and then this happens and the Taoiseach says it will be all over on 1 January.
He refused last Tuesday night in the Seanad.
I did not know that.
He kept going for two hours on this.
The Taoiseach then pulled the rug from under his feet. That resource tax was unfortunate and silly but even sillier was the spectacle of the Taoiseach dashing out to Dublin Airport a month ago to welcome back Minister for Agriculture, Deputy MacSharry, who had come from Brussels with his victory under his arm of 4 per cent. Deputy O'Donoghue, Deputy Calleary and every other Deputy knows that 4 per cent would not go one quarter of the way towards meeting the increase in costs experienced by the agricultural sector in the last 12 months. You do not fool anybody when you engage in that kind of publicity stunt. That is what it was. The Taoiseach is not fooling anybody when he engages in that kind of publicity. I would far prefer to see him at the summit in Venice or at the Council of Ministers in Europe telling the British Prime Minister that part of the cause of the common agricultural policy problem of surpluses is the insistence of the British Government and Mrs. Thatcher on special treatment for commonwealth countries. That is part of the reason for surpluses in the EEC.
I was very glad to hear the Taoiseach reiterate yesterday that they would defend the common agricultural policy because we can say it is the only economic policy that is being followed through in the EEC. He has plenty of friends in Europe for that and he should count on them and they should not allow themselves to be pushed around with a 4 per cent increase which is totally inadequate to meet the cost increases experienced by farmers not only in this country but in West Germany also where the common agricultural policy is of great benefit. They should be warned now that this will not do next year and whatever case it is necessary to make, whatever lobbying has to be done between now and next March, should begin immediately to ensure that the price increases that will be negotiated at that time are adequate to restore to our farmers the degree of prosperity they had two years ago.
We are here six months after a change of Taoiseach, not a change of Government, and we are now on the Adjourment Debate which has been a sorry debate in many ways. It has been sorry for two reasons, first, because I think it did not do the dignity of the House any good and, secondly, and this is more important, I think it diverted attention from the failures of the Government, from the bubble-bursting we would have gone on with here to expose the myth that is the present Taoiseach and the blunders that are his Cabinet.
On one matter certainly I can agree with Deputy Barry when he said at the end of his contribution that the tone and nature of the debate was regrettable and did not reflect any credit on the House. I suggest that tone was set by the leader of his own party in the very first contribution by the Opposition to this debate. Of course it is acceptable, valid and proper that one should challenge the Government's capacity for economic management, should charge them with mismanagement, should produce figures on which to base arguments in support. Those arguments I hope to answer effectively. When one adds to that, as Deputy FitzGerald deliberately did, allegations affecting the character and integrity of the Government stating that this Government collectively under the leadership of the Taoiseach were unfit to govern, unsuitable for government, undermining the role of the public service—I shall deal with that in detail when I come to it at the appropriate time—one can then see that the Leader of Fine Gael set a tone which, unfortunately, was taken up by many speakers subsequently in the debate leading to the conclusion that Deputy Barry reached that it did not reflect credit on the House.
If that is so this is the place to explain it.
(Interruptions).
Will the Deputies opposite take their medicine?
I have sat here through all the contributions and I insist that my time is not taken up by Deputy Kelly.
I ask the House not to interrupt, please.
I sat here for the last three-quarters of an hour and I remained silent as I have done on many other occasions. I am not about to allow anyone from the Opposition at this point to take up my time as I reply. If Deputies on the other side can make charges and criticisms and we have to sit and listen then the least we can expect at this stage is that we be allowed put our answer to those charges on the record.
The people on the Government side barracked and shouted.
The public can judge from the record. I intend to put things on the record which Deputy FitzGerald will find rather unwelcome. I know the public at least will be reassured but not by Deputy FitzGerald.
That solemn tone is not very impressive.
I want to be quite sure that I can have the protection of the Chair.
Acting Chairman:
The Minister will have the protection of the Chair.
I hope my time will not be curtailed as a consequence of Deputy Kelly's interruptions. The first thing I want to say in relation to economic management is that Deputy FitzGerald opened on a theme "I do not propose to follow the Taoiseach in his numerous excursions to the outside world." In the development of this speech subsequently he charged the Government, the Taoiseach in particular and the Government in general with distortion, implications not only of mismanagement but of misrepresentation of many issues of fact. I want to say that from the first moment of Deputy FitzGerald's speech he was distorting the reality. Deputy FitzGerald knows that it is not possible to look at the economic condition of this country in isolation, to attribute all the faults as he did, to Government mismanagement, to attribute everything from high interest rates, as he did, to Government lack of control or, as he put it, taking up the available credit and ignore the reality which exists all around us at this time. Deputy FitzGerald was clearly guilty in that the very things with which he was charging the Government, the balance of payments deficits, the budget deficits, the level of inflation, the reduction of growth——
And unemployment.
——and unemployment are not, as Deputy Collins must know, confined to Ireland at this point.
And political patronage.
In concluding this debate on what I hope is a serious note if I have to deal with the interruptions of Deputy Collins I will insist that I am allowed time in compensation. I have restrained myself and listened all the time to each of the contributions made here. If these are characteristics of an economy which has been hopelessly mismanaged then every economy in the western world at this time is hopelessly mismanaged.
That is not true.
Would somebody take out the singing bird who has just come in.
Acting Chairman:
Would Deputy Collins allow the Minister to continue?
On the last occasion I was asked to contribute to the winding up of a debate my time was taken up with interruptions. I hope we will not have the same pattern tonight. I want to illustrate what I have said by reference to a number of facts. Many of them are all too obvious in the economic international recession we see at the moment. There is no need for me to repeat them because they are staring us in the face. Those who wish to ignore the reality may do so. I would like to point to two further examples to illustrate the significance of them in this country at the moment.
First of all, oil prices this year will actually increase by something less than £300 million over the cost of oil last year. That, in real terms, would represent the amount that would provide 2,000 jobs for our people in infrastructural development this year. The increase alone over last year would provide that. Some may suggest that we should ignore that reality when that number of jobs are automatically taken by the impact of the oil prices. That is a very graphic illustration of just how serious that impact is. There is another matter which is only just emerging. People talk of the level of growth in the OECD countries, which will be well below half of that achieved last year. Current indications are—this figure has not yet been stated in Ireland—that in the second half of this year it is quite likely that the level of output in the OECD area will actually fall by a significant percentage. We will, in fact, get a negative growth as distinct from what we even have at the moment in the OECD area. This illustrates that the problems which Deputy FitzGerald would have us ignore as not being realities affecting Ireland are realities affecting every other country in the world. It is important, therefore, that we make some other comparisons which Deputy FitzGerald in particular will not like to be reminded about.
That is a lot of gobbledegook.
The fact that the oil price increases have taken place repeatedly over the past two years may have robbed the whole matter of novelty, unfortunately, but it must not blind us to the magnitude and severity of what has happened by comparison with the experience in the middle seventies. In 1973-74 the price of a barrel of oil rose by about 7½ dollars. Since the beginning of 1979 the increase has been 19½ dollars, almost three times as much as it was in 1973-74. The increase in our oil bill in 1974 was £141 million and the increase in 1979 was £180 million. This year, as I have already indicated, it could be about £300 million. The increase for the two years combined at £480 million is over three times the 1974 increase, which was the highest increase experienced during the disastrous period of the Coalition Government. Deputy FitzGerald went on to imply that because there is such a failure here all the indicators are indicators of gloom and doom in an effort to undermine the confidence of the people, which is so vitally important and, also of course, in an effort to undermine as he saw it, their respect for locally elected Government.
I want to make some comparisons which will not comfort Deputy FitzGerald. He stated that the forecast of a fall of 1¼ per cent in investment in 1980, which was contained in the Central Bank's annual report was subsequently revised to 5 per cent. He inferred that this would turn their estimate of a marginal growth in total output into a decline in output. Such is not the case. The Deputy will know that even taking what has been recognised to be the relatively pessimistic view of the bank the net effect on output growth of the revision would be far less than he suggests because of the high import content of the investment. However, in reality the outlook for investment is considerably brighter than even that suggested by the Central Bank. I would like to indicate that there will be overall growth of a level above that forecast certainly above the very pessimistic presentation which Deputy FitzGerald wants to convey. When it does come it will follow two years of quite exceptional growth in investment. The benefit of an investment growth of 15 per cent in real terms in 1978 and 1979 will continue to be seen in the economy this year. I want to compare that with that of the Government of which Deputy FitzGerald was a member. I am puzzled by his claim that in the last two years in office of that Government investment was rising by 10½ to 12 per cent a year. The official statistics show that in real terms growth investment fell by 4 per cent in 1975, that it rose by 2½ per cent in 1976 and that the increase in 1977 was 5.75 per cent, this acceleration occurring after the new Government had implemented their proposals to stimulate the economy and to restore confidence in investment.
What was the real growth rate in each of the years 1978 and 1979?
Acting Chairman:
Order, please.
Has the Minister got those figures?
Acting Chairman:
Deputy Collins should resume his seat.
Deputies:
He should leave the House.
I do not know what contribution, if any, Deputy Collins made to this debate but if he did intervene I should hope that the level of his intervention was somewhat higher than the level of those interjections. In 1979 investment accounted for more than 30 per cent of our GNP and will do so again this year. That is significant. The highest level achieved in this respect in any year of the previous Government's duration was just marginally more than 25 per cent. The level of investment measured as a proportion of GNP and which we have now reached—regrettably for the people opposite but fortunately for the country—is the highest in the Community, indeed, one of the highest in the world.
Deputy FitzGerald suggested that for the first time in two decades we will have failed to maintain the kind of economic growth necessary to compensate for a deterioration in our terms of trade. In response to his suggestion that we would look for statistics to challenge his statement, I would refer to Table 8 of the current CSO volume which shows that in 1974, the volume of GNP adjusted for terms of trade fell by almost 4 per cent. The same table shows that it was not until 1977 that the real value of GNP adjusted in this way surpassed the level which had been reached even in 1973. So much, then, for the Deputy's allegation.
What about the unemployment figures?
Acting Chairman:
Deputies should cease interrupting.
I find this very tiresome. It would be better for all of us that Deputy Collins would retire from the House. He might take a leaf from Deputy Barry's notebook. Neither Deputy Barry nor I have the habit of interrupting each other.
(Interruptions).
I want to indicate that the planning programmes and the priorities in public expenditure being pursued by us demonstrate clearly a consistent plan, a consistent programme, which was very obviously absent in the days of the previous administration when the then Minister for Finance, by way of deliberate policy, set his face against planning.
Deputy Barry suggested that we had cut back public expenditure, particularly in the capital programme, but I would remind him that the level of increases provided for in the capital programme were of the order, for instance, of 32 per cent in the increase in investment for infrastructure under that programme; 31 per cent and 27 per cent respectively for allocations to Córas Tráchtála and the IDA and close on 30 per cent for the telecommunications programme.
These figures are selective.
I agree, but——
What about investment in education?
Will the Minister let us have the figure in that regard?
Yes, but I shall do so in my own time or is Deputy Collins trying to make my speech for me? He may be an expert on education but he should allow me to continue.
Minister for Labour (Mr. G. FitzGerald):
Deputy Cosgrave, apparently, did not consider him an expert.
The Minister for Labour should get on with the job of solving industrial disputes.
Acting Chairman:
I would ask both sides to desist from interrupting.
Deputy Barry's statement was incorrect as the priorities we have applied in allocating our public expenditure programme demonstrate clearly. I recognise that there has been a curb on public expenditure but I note that Fine Gael called for further cuts in public expenditure. However, wonder of wonders, they failed to indicate where these cuts should be made. They did say, though, that the cuts should not be made in the areas of either housing or social welfare. We know that there were no cuts in those areas this year. We have applied the maximum amount of the increases of the order of 25 and 30 per cent and even more in the areas that we regard as priorities for jobs.
When the Opposition say that we should reduce our borrowing and effect further expenditure cuts, would they mind telling us also in which areas they would propose that the cuts be made, other than those areas in which cuts have been made already? Would they indicate also how they would intend to achieve the miracle of cutting the borrowing requirement further than has been the case already? So far there has not been any indication from them as to how they would achieve these miracles.
Deputy FitzGerald implied there was nothing in the budget which has succeeded, that everything that was contained in that budget has caused greater problems than the ones we had before. The priorities that are applied in respect of public expenditure form part of any budget exercise. The equity in the budget in terms of taxation and social welfare benefits, for instance, has achieved considerable consensus from the public. I wish to speak about the imbalances in the balance of payments and to remind Deputy FitzGerald that we tackled this question particularly in relation to our borrowing requirement in the context of reducing the balance of payments deficit. The House will know that the balance of payments deficit has been adjusting. I indicated at budget time and again since then that in total figures the balance of payments may be of the same order of magnitude as was the case last year.
That is what I said.
One does not achieve all of these corrections in one year but in real terms the situation represents a significant stabilisation in the situation.
How?
It is a clear vindication of the strategy I pursued in the budget and of the credit policy that we are pursuing with the approval of the Central Bank.
I am sure the Deputy will accept that there is progress in a situation in which there is a deficit that is more or less in line in real terms with the figures for the previous year, especially when one considers that our import bill for oil will have increased to the order of something in the region of £300 million, a £300 million improvement which, apparently, Deputy FitzGerald would wish were not there.
I wish to illustrate further how that improvement can be seen now and particularly since the budget, because the effectiveness of the budget in curbing the balance of payments can be seen in the monthly trade figures. Before the budget—in January last—we had a record trade deficit of more than £200 million. Since the budget there has been a dramatic fall, the deficit falling steadily from February to April. The average deficit for the four months from February to May has been roughly 60 per cent of that for January. This is a major fall and a notable achievement. That is progress. There has been a dramatic fall also as a consequence of budget strategy in the rate of increases in consumer goods imports. The rate of increase in this category on the corresponding months of last year had fallen from 49 per cent and 54 per cent in the first few months of this year to 25 per cent in April and to only 8 per cent in May. Our imports bill in May was higher than in April but not because of consumer goods imports.
As Deputies opposite may know, because the world knows, it was because of the increase in oil prices. Transport equipment played a part as well as iron and steel products and industrial machinery. The last items give the lie to the notion that we have a stagnant industrial sector. The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that in the absence of the increase in oil prices—though as I have said there is a recognisable and welcome trend—the trade deficit for the first five months of this year would have fallen by £65 million. In the time available to me I do not think I will contrast that with the experience of the Opposition when they were in Government. I will leave it where it should be left, in the hands of students of history.
I want to deal with other priorities that are clearly evident in the Government's planned approach to the management of public finances and the development of the economy. Here I will deal particularly with education and youth employment. As the Taoiseach said when he opened the debate, one of the major problems facing us and Europe is that of youth unemployment. That is not a quote from the Taoiseach's speech; it is the considered decision of the heads of government of the EEC. In Europe the average trend is 37 per cent of the population being under 25 years of age, and in so far as that is a problem in Europe, one can see how the position is aggravated here where the average pattern is 50 per cent under the age of 25.
To cope with that it is highly important that, in our planning for education and in the reaction of the public to that, we ensure that we maximise the training programmes and the education programmes, in areas that will promote growth activity and opportunities for our young people by the redeployment of resources in this area. I will answer Deputy Collins in relation to the Education Estimate.
Tell us about the capital expenditure.
I will give the Deputy that figure—I hope a referee is taking note of all this. I feel I am entitled to a little extra time because of the time taken from me by Deputy Collins.
Injury time.
I appreciate Deputy Barry did not interrupt me. The Book of Estimates this year provided for an increase of 32 per cent in net current expenditure over the corresponding provision for 1979.
Tell us about the capital expenditure.
When capital is included the increase is 27 per cent.
There has been a reduction of 7 per cent.
The total is £499 million in 1980 compared with the corresponding sum for 1979 of £393 million. The Minister for Education has indicated clearly in the House that this is a major allocation——
Capital expenditure in education has been reduced.
It is a 25 per cent increase.
Why was capital investment in education reduced?
Will Deputy Collins allow the Minister to conclude?
The Minister is misleading the House.
That is good coming from the Leader of Fine Gael who has been misleading the nation on the economic situation. I will deal with the allegations of corruption in public office later.
Why was capital expenditure in education reduced from £51 million to £48 million despite our rapidly increasing school population?
The Deputy will allow the Minister to conclude.
The level of our population under 25 years is one of our great problems, but it is also a great challenge. Today's problem in that sphere is tomorrow's guarantee. One can look at the achievements of the world's most successful economy, Japan, and recognise that the only wealth they have is their people and because of the priorities which this Government are applying to education and the other development areas——
That is not true.
——it will be clearly seen that our young people will continue to be given opportunities to make a major contribution. It is vitally important that their parents and the community at large should recognise where the opportunities lie and perhaps rethink in regard to the direction they would like their children to follow. Too much has been wasted in pursuing, over a period, satisfying outlets. In today's world with today's opportunities our education programme, with the priorities this Government intend to pursue, will be geared much more to the technological and specialist areas in order to ensure opportunities for the young and, through them, the guaranteed economic development of our society.
The planning we have been pursuing this year in relation to those priorities will be developed further in planning proposals I will be putting to the Government in consultation with my colleagues. We will see the consequence of this in the Estimates for next year which will clearly indicate a consistent pattern and plan to develop the priorities I have been referring to. A government can plan and the people respond and the people might not respond if they heeded the gloom and doom being spread around by the Opposition. They made some attempts by referring to companies which they say have been going to the wall every day.
More and more.
Here are some facts. The Deputy may find them unpleasant. The rate of liquidations of companies so far this year is not much more than half what it was in 1976 and it is likely to be less than half what it was in 1977.
We will see.
That is the year Deputy FitzGerald claimed to have shown the success of the Coalition's economic policies. Fortunately, a Government intervened to recreate activity. Those figures are available and I am sure Deputy FitzGerald will find them enlightening. They may discourage them from making such cases again. We were also told about redundancies. Here are the figures for redundancies notified by employers under the Redundancy Payments Act. The figure for the first quarter of this year shows some increase on the comparable figure for 1979.
How much?
It is less than that for any year since 1975 and far less than the figure for 1975. Are we experiencing an unprecedented rate of closures which is about half what it was in one of the Coalition's good years?
Yes.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is in possession.
I want to refer to the announcement made by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism last evening constituting a further boost to industrial development and to the procurement of industrial employment here——
It is a long time——
The Deputy knows little about how Governments operate if that is his view——
By public argument in this instance.
I am now about to give full details of the scheme which Minister O'Malley signposted last evening after full consultation with the Taoiseach, with me, and with appropriate colleagues.
Finally persuaded.
I want now to tell the House the full details because it is based on, amongst other things, the tripartite committee.
(Interruptions.)
Please, Deputies, no interruptions.
I want to welcome the responsible attitude of the partners to the tripartite committee, the Federated Union of Employers, the Confederation of Irish Industry, with whom I have been engaged in discussions on this matter on the Government's proposals and, I may say, particularly the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Obviously the need for this scheme proposed by the Government has been accepted by them. Perhaps I may now give some further details of it which will be announced in further detail through the Industrial Credit Company.
The committee this afternoon decided, by way of confirmation, to allocate £2 million from their fund to launch their scheme. This will enable the Industrial Credit Company to raise up to £50 million in deutschemarks for on-lending to manufacturing industry free of exchange risk. The cost to the borrower at present is expected to be about 13 7/8ths per cent which will include a contribution of 7/8ths per cent towards the exchange risk. This contribution and the £2 million from the employment guarantee fund will be paid into a special account in the Industrial Credit Company and will bear interest at the ICC's best rate. Any exchange loss will be charged against this account. Similarly any gains will be credited to it and any shortfall will be financed by the Exchequer.
The purpose of the scheme is to provide additional working capital for small and medium sized manufacturing industry. Eligible firms will be those with up to 250 employees and up to £2,500,000 fixed assets. Loans will be provided for periods from three months to five years. The maximum loan to any one company will be £250,000. The scheme will operate for a maximum period of five years. The Government believe that this scheme will make a major contribution to industrial output and employment at present. It should remove the inhibitions of many firms about borrowing abroad as well as enabling them to raise funds at a competitive rate of interest. I am confident that industry, which has long sought this facility, will respond positively and quickly.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify something for me. He has mentioned an interest rate. Is that fixed for the five years or will it fluctuate with exchange rates?
It will not be fixed for five years because obviously the rate of interest at which it will be borrowed will vary over that period. It will be rolled on over the period of five years.
It will be determined by the varying deutschemark.
Will it be confined——
The borrowing rate in deutschemarks mostly. I want particularly to put on record here my appreciation at this stage of the tripartite committee and particularly of the responsible approach taken by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in that committee in responding vigorously to what they saw as being a major contribution to job maintenance and job creation.
Hear, hear.
Will it be confined to working capital, or will it be——
I will let the Deputy have——
There should be no interruption during the Minister's speech. There can be brief questions at the end.
Allowing for the extra time to which I am entitled surely——
I asked the Minister a question when I was speaking and I expected him to reply to it.
The Minister has 15 minutes to conclude.
I do not know to which question Deputy Barry is referring.
Brief questions can be answered at the end.
I want to deal with some other aspects of the Government programme and plan which is evident from all I have said so far but also from the response which we are getting from the various sectors in, admittedly, difficult times. In relation to agriculture, which forms a major element of our economic development plan, it is particularly so when the balance of trade remains a critical factor in our imbalances. Anyone sitting in this seat, anyone sitting in any government, will recognise that the contribution which agriculture can make is a major one. The important thing is to encourage productivity on our land and in the agricultural sector generally. To do that in a period of restricted credit—and that is what it is, and one must acknowledge it—it is vitally important that the agricultural sector concentrate on productive employment. Unfortunately there is evidence that the manner in which credit was used last year particularly was not to the maximum benefit of agriculture nor the role which agriculture can play in our economy.
If one looks at the pattern of the use of credit one finds that a very considerable portion of it was taken up in land purchase, sometimes in competitive land purchase, at great cost to the credit pool available and at great cost to the successful farmer—if one might call him such—in this case. Unfortunately also a very considerable portion of it was used in over-investment—I think one can say—in farm plant and machinery. For that reason, after consultation with the farm organisations—and we have had very useful, positive consultations with them at every level—the Minister for Agriculture in his normal role, the Taoiseach and myself—and also in the course of their contribution to the planned development of our economy—have stressed that it is vitally important that the emphasis be laid on the area of productive investment. As a consequence of some of our consultations with them I introduced amendments to the Finance Bill which removed the restriction of 30 per cent capital allowances, say, for farm buildings, for farm improvement works and indeed farm plant in farm buildings, all of which will make a major extra contribution to the productivity so badly required in this area.
I want to say also that, in consultation with my colleagues, the Minister for Agriculture, I am making available to the Agricultural Credit Corporation—in addition to the scheme to which the Minister for Agriculture referred this morning, further details of which no doubt will be given later—authorisation to borrow a further £25 million, over and above that already borrowed by them, £50 million, for on-lending to Irish agriculture. I have instructed the Agricultural Credit Corporation that this on-lending will be directed specifically towards the productive sectors of agriculture. Hopefully—and I have no reason to doubt—because of the limited pool of credit and because of the experience which some farmers have had in over-expending themselves in land purchase or in farm plant or machinery, we will see now a readjustment appropriate to the reality of this moment and appropriate also to the great potential of agriculture. This adjustment will in fact be supported constantly and effectively by this Government.
I am pleased to have been able to announce a scheme similar to that which has been agreed in respect of industry. I have always seen—as have this Government—that these two elements in our community are not only interdependent but are the mainstays of our whole economic development.
Before turning to the second element of Deputy FitzGerald's attack on the Government I want to assure the House that the planned approach which I have demonstrated exists even in the budget this year, in our examination of public expenditure, in our definition and pursuit of priorities, will be pursued, will be seen to be pursued in such a way as the country can respond to it, to take us through what is a difficult time, but nontheless take us through successfully in a way that will prove the capacity of this Government and their clear and deliberate policies.
I want to turn now to the second aspect of things which unfortunately, at the beginning, set the theme and tone for this debate. Those are especially the attacks made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party and the allegations and implications in his contribution at the beginning. I do not have responsibility for the Department of Justice. But let me say, in passing, the Minister for Justice dealt effectively with this in the House yesterday, as he has done on many other occasions. I want to say once again that the Leader of Fine Gael used a subterfuge here last week on the Estimate for the Public Service, in the absence of the Minister who could reply, the Minister for Justice. He used that occasion to repeat allegations and innuendoes knowing that the Minister who is responsible was not here.
Why did he not speak?
Surely the occasion to raise those issues was during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. It is easier to pursue the self-righteous path, to make a virtue of it and then to leave a stain on the character of this Government which could, if it were allowed to go uncontradicted——
They have a lot of stains on their character. There were low standards in high places.
Deputy L'Estrange, please. Let the debate go ahead. There are only a few minutes left.
Why did the Minister for Justice not defend himself?
In fact, I am the Minister responsible since through the Revenue Commissioners I have responsibility for the customs service and I will reply in some detail. Deputy FitzGerald must be aware of the fact that to base his allegations on unproven charges is very damaging, even to him. It is certainly damaging to the standards of public life of which he professes to be the true and only guardian. Most of his allegations were based on allegations made recently in the media——
By a responsible officer.
——by the general secretary of the Association of Customs and Excise Officers. I repeat what I said last week about this matter. Immediately the allegations were made I contacted the Revenue Commissioners and sought details to confirm or otherwise the allegations made. This is what the position is at present. There was a second interview last Sunday during which the general secretary said that he was prepared to substantiate his allegations with dates and names and that such substantiation could be provided by Tuesday or Wednesday morning. The actual words used were: "We will have a queue outside his office on Tuesday or Wednesday morning". They meant of course, my office. Not having received any substantiation in response to my request I immediately contacted the Revenue Commissioners again.
Did the Minister contact the association?
They again approached the general secretary on Monday afternoon with a request that this information be supplied. They were informed that a dossier had not yet been compiled. Was it likely that one could be prepared before the end of the week?
There must have been a lot of cases.
The impression was created that all the information was there, but I am still waiting for it. One or two allegations were made by the general secretary concerning the Border seizure of a lorry by the customs authorities. I should tell the House that this incident took place in the Lifford area as long ago as the period between December 1976 and January 1977.
(Interruptions.)
I have been assured by the Revenue Commissioners that the legal decisions taken in that case were taken on legal advice by the Revenue Commissioners and there was no question of political representations affecting their decision in any way. As far as I am aware, they became aware of representations only after a court decision had been reached.
While continuing to pursue my inquiries with the Revenue Commissioners, I have not as yet received any specific information about the second allegation of recent interference by a Government Minister. If, as suggested, there were evidence of that interference it would be a simple matter to present it. I believe the interference is alleged to have been expressed as a demand. I am still waiting for anything to substantiate that allegation and until I have that information it will be recognised that the matter cannot be taken further.
I recognise that. When it is available will the Minister place the dossier before the House?
In the meantime Deputy FitzGerald has taken the opportunity to come into the House and use my incapacity, in the absence of the information, to deal with the matter clearly and openly as a base for a charge of corruption and unsuitability of this Government to govern the country.
The charge was made by a senior civil servant.
Deputy FitzGerald gave an assurance that if his party should find themselves in our position anybody who makes such reports will not be punished. I want to say the same. There will not be any vindictive action by this Government. I am entitled, nevertheless, to have furnished to me through the proper channels such information as is there. I have not as yet received it and I do not want Deputy FitzGerald to imply from that fact that only he or his party under his leadership could be trusted to ensure that officers who make complaints will be protected. Where complaints are justified they must and should be made. I have ensured in discharging my function that people will not be punished for making complaints. I am obliged also to ensure that the function of Government which is vitally important will not be undermined by unproven innuendo or allegation.
Will the Minister give the same assurance about the Garda?
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
The general secretary acknowledged that his comments about the high level of drug importation into the State in a discussion on that issue last Monday had been based on information contained in the public press and that his members had no confidential information in regard to it.
As Deputy FitzGerald knows, the Revenue Commissioners have statutory powers and from time to time Deputies, including Deputies from his own party, make representations through me—there are named Deputies in that party who have made them through me—and they are passed on as a matter of course to the Revenue Commission. They exercise their statutory responsibility and then reply to me or my Department. That is the position at the moment and it is the only position I know to exist. If Deputy FitzGerald wants to imply from that process corruption in this Government, I think he will have to travel a little bit further.
What about the £70,000 misappropriated to buy guns? Can the Minister tell us anything about that? What about the £100,000 given to the Red Cross? If that is not corruption, what is? Read Magill and answer the allegations.
Deputy L'Estrange, please.
The Leader of Fine Gael has more weight and importance than——
Tell us about the £70,000 which was misappropriated. If that £70,000 can be turned up, then we will say this Government is not corrupt.
Please, Deputy L'Estrange, conduct yourself. The Minister has only five minutes to conclude.
People in glass houses should not throw stones. Deputy Garret FitzGerald will never become a millionaire.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is trying to defend Deputy FitzGerald from the consequences of his own allegations.
Deputy L'Estrange. If you would wait for a moment——
They stabbed a man in the back, a man of integrity and got rid of him with their caucus meetings. If they find the £70,000——
Order, Deputy. That is not conduct fitting for the House.
Until they find the £70,000 they cannot throw stones.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has only five minutes left and should be allowed to continue without interruption.
Let the Minister not accuse people on this side of the House of corruption. Find the £70,000 and we will say the Government are not corrupt. Let them deny what appeared in the journal last week.
(Interruptions.)
I have just two more——
Deny it if you can.
Sit down, Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
How long more has the Minister left?
Five minutes.
(Interruptions.)
I am trying to tell Deputy Enright in case he is in any doubt that it was not I who was mouthing for the last five minutes.
Find the £70,000——
Deputy L'Estrange, please. This is not good enough.
They stopped the press from publishing it.
So far as it has been suggested that representations have been made by all parties—it is to be noted that the officer concerned made that case and he said representations—that would involve responsibility on all parties to inquire as to whether they were just representations or more than that. I asked Deputy FitzGerald if he had made any inquiries in his party before he started throwing allegations at this one. I believe that he had not at that time. I do not know, as yet, whether he has. This may help him in the course of his inquiries within his own party. In the Irish Independent last Monday, in response to an interview, Deputy Harte, from his party, is quoted as defending the right of politicians to plead for constituents caught for “a socially acceptable crime”.
They did not implicate anyone.
If Deputy FitzGerald wants to conduct inquiries and investigations he has only to interview Deputy Harte, who pleads guilty, honestly and openly to what he calls a socially acceptable crime.
Everyone pleads for constituents but we do not——
(Interruptions.)
What a note on which to conclude the Government's defence on an Adjournment Debate. The drummerboy concluding on the debate.
In fairness to Deputy Harte——
(Interruptions.)
I am not saying that Deputy Harte has done other than make representations but that he referred to the offence of smuggling as a socially acceptable crime.
(Interruptions.)
The true Pharisee.
(Interruptions.)
That is something that should be called to the attention of the leader of his party.
Will the Minister make the dossier available so that the public can assess the truth or fallacies of the allegations?
(Interruptions.)
Let the Minister finish.
The Minister is truly finished.
Will the Minister make it a available or cover it up?
I will make it available.
(Interruptions.)
Order. We cannot continue in this way.
On a point of order, how long will it be before the circus is over?
That depends on the Deputy's party.
The Chair was blackguarded here this evening for a full half-hour.
I am sorry to hear that. I was not here.
The House is not conducting itself very well now. It is time to stop this kind of thing.
The Chair is lucky because the people have been blackguarded for the past three years. Those responsible are over there, three of them and the big mongrel fox——
(Interruptions.)
Everyone here lectured the Chair this evening for half-an-hour on the way to conduct the House. At least you should live up to the standards you set.
I started my contribution by indicating that the Opposition under the leadership of Deputy FitzGerald, had attacked the Government on two fronts. The first was for alleged economic mismanagement which I have totally refuted by comparison with the record demonstrated by them in Government.
What about unemployment?
The second was with regard to our unsuitability which I have indicated has no basis whatever. Deputy FitzGerald chose to undermine both the authority of Government and the institutions of the State by making allegations of that kind. Having said that, if Deputy FitzGerald has evidence——
What about Commissioner Garvey?
He was sacked because he was a man of integrity.
The Government dismissed an honourable gentleman.
If by any chance the people were to give the responsibility of Government to the party opposite things would change——
That is for sure.
I have clearly demonstrated that in relation to economic performance they would change but would change to the drastic detriment of the nation. In terms of standards of integrity and respect for public office——
Brussels here I come.
——the memory of the Irish people is not so vague or poor as to forget——
It goes back to the £100,000 and the £70,000 used to buy arms that has not been accounted for.
Deputy L'Estrange is to remain silent and allow the Minister to conclude.
The Government want to forget but Magill are reminding them——
It was alleged that Deputy L'Estrange was trying to give the Chair a heart attack this evening, but now I do not know what the Deputy is heading for.
In the period after the people had given their decision in the last election the Government, of which Deputy FitzGerald was a member, in the most outrageous example of complete——
The Minister cannot talk of outrageousness. What did Deputy Charles Haughey do to Deputy Jack Lynch? He stuck a large knife in his back——
What about Deputy O'Donoghue? He lost his job.
Order. This will have to cease.
That Government, before they handed over the reins of office, rushed every day to fill every available place open to them on State boards. Deputy FitzGerald was a member of that Government. If his standards are so high now one is entitled to ask why he participated in what was recognised by the media and the public universally as being one of the most shameful exploitations of a last week in office?
(Interruptions.)
We never stifled RTE.
(Interruptions.)
In sharp contrast to the precedent set by the previous Government——
Tell us about the two commissioners who were sacked, the most honest commissioners we ever had. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Either Deputy FitzGerald shared in that decision and agreed with that approach or he did not have the moral authority to persuade his colleagues of the turpitude of what they were doing.
(Interruptions.)
Either way it proved to be a less worthy cause than the allegations he made at the beginning of this debate.
I am about to put the question.
Deputies:
Hear, Hear.
That is not a nuns' chorus I hear, it is a rabbits' chorus.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Niil, 38.
Tá
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Kit.Allen, Lorcan.Andrews, David.Andrews, Niall.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Sylvester.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Briscoe, Ben.Burke, Raphael P.Callanan, John.Calleary, Seán.Cogan, Barry.Colley, George.Collins, Gerard.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Gerard.Cowen, Bernard.Crinion, Brendan.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Sile.de Valera, Vivion.Doherty, Seán.Fahey, Jackie.Farrell, Joe.Faulkner, Padraig.Filgate, Eddie.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South Central)Fitzsimons, James N.Flynn, Padraig.Fox, Christopher J.French, Seán.Gallagher, Dennis. |
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Gibbons, Jim.Haughey, Charles J.Herbert, Michael.Keegan, Seán.Kenneally, William.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.Nolan, Tom.Noonan, Michael.O'Connor, Timothy C.O'Donoghue, Martin.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary, John.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Paddy.Reynolds, Albert.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael J.Wyse, Pearse. |
Níl
|
Barry, Myra.Barry, Peter.Barry, Richard.Begley, Michael.Belton, Luke.Boland, John.Bruton, John.Burke, Joan.Burke, Liam.Byrne, Hugh.Collins, Edward.Conlan, John F.Cosgrave, Liam.Cosgrave, Michael J.Creed, Donal.D'Arcy, Michael J.Deasy, Martin A.Donegan, Patrick S.Enright, Thomas W. |
FitzGerald, Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).Flanagan, Oliver J.Gilhawley, Eugene.Griffin, Brendan.Hegarty, Paddy.Keating, Michael.Kelly, John.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.McMahon, Larry.Mannion, John M.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, William.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Toole, Paddy.Taylor, Frank.Timmins, Godfrey.White, James. |
Tellers:
Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and W. O'Brien.
Question declared carried.
Vote agreed to.