Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 1981

Vol. 328 No. 16

Private Members' Business. - Government Economic Policies: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy B. Desmond on Tuesday, 19th May 1981:

That Dáil Éireann, having regard to the wide range of crises which beset the nation at present including:

—the continuing rise in unemployment which, it is forecast, will rise to 135,000 by the end of the year;

—continuing dramatic increases in prices, which rose by 21% in the year to mid-February last and which are forecast to rise by 18% in 1981;

—the crisis in our balance of payments and the dangerously low level of our external reserves;

—the recent increase in interest rates, which reflects growing pressure on the Irish Pound and which will create further difficulties for industry at a time when this sector is already in deep crisis;

—the cuts in local authority and health board expenditure which have led to substantial reductions in the quality of the services provided by these public bodies;

condemns the incompetence of the Government, and recognising that the Government has disastrously mismanaged the nation's economic affairs, resolves that it has no confidence in the present administration.

Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute:

"Dáil Éireann re-affirms confidence in the economic policies of the Government and expresses approval of the measures being taken by them to mitigate the effects of the present world recession, to promote growth in output and employment, to combat inflation and to promote general economic development."

—(Minister for Finance.)

Mr. Bruton

The Government are proceeding on their economic policy in the innocent belief that as long as there are bankers prepared to lend them money it is all right to go on borrowing more. There are many farmers in Ireland who worked on that philosophy in 1977 and 1978 and who now know how horrifyingly wrong that philosophy can be.

As a result of the free borrowing policy of the Government we have by far the worst trade deficit in Europe. At 13½ per cent of GNP, our balance of payments deficit is three times as bad as that of the next worst country in Europe, Belgium, whose trade deficit is 4.5 per cent of GNP. Government borrowing which is not matched by increased production leads inevitably to increased imports and is therefore directly responsible for the yawning gap between our imports and exports. This year the Government have borrowed 17 per cent of our gross national product. In contrast Britain, which is extremely worried that its borrowing is far too high, will borrow only 4 per cent of its GNP. A huge debt and a huge deficit might make some sense if we had something good in return for them. But by any standards we do not. Since 1978 when the foreign borrowing really got under way our economic performance has actually got rapidly worse. As compared with our 16 major competitor nations in Europe and North America, as stated in the Central Bank Report, Ireland's economic growth has fallen from the top of the list at 5.8 per cent a year in 1978 to the very bottom of the list, minus growth of .5 per cent in 1980. Likewise our rate of inflation has worsened from sixth lowest of the 16 countries cited in 1978 to second highest in 1981. This borrowing was supposed to save jobs. It has not done so. The Economic and Social Research Institute predicts that unemployment will reach 135,000 by the end of this year as against 122,000 at the end of 1980 and 88,600 at the end of 1979.

A continuance of current policies will probably lead us to an unemployment level by the end of 1982 of double the 1979 level. The present economic policy simply has not worked and that policy can only be changed by a change of Government. The following are, in my view, necessary to devise an alternative economic policy: we must control inflation and to do that we must control Government borrowing and spending; we must devise institutions to keep a check on irresponsible spending and borrowing by governments whose time horizons extend no further than the next election. In former times fixed exchange rates and the gold standard restrained governments in this way. These constraints which have been removed, the first in the twenties and the second in the seventies, must now be replaced by new ones in the national interest. It is no coincidence that those countries which have significant restraints on the Government's ability to spend money, for instance, West Germany, have suffered least from inflation and have made superior economic progress. We must therefore look anew at the role of the Central Bank in our economy.

Second, we must reassert parliamentary control over Government spending which is the major cause of foreign borrowing. This involves a radical reform of Dáil procedures, considering Estimates for Departments before and not after money is spent as is the case at present, and subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny. We must ensure that Government investment is properly balanced. Government capital spending, often on imported goods, has shot up in cost away over official budget targets in recent years. For instance, last year the public capital programme overshot the budgeted target by 24 per cent. The Government arbitrarily calls this capital spending investment. But much of it will not yield the financial return with which to repay our debts. Government investment should in future be planned on a five-year basis and not on a one-year basis as is the case with the present so-called investment plan. It must be subject to a proper analysis here in the Dáil before the money is spent. Our tax system must be reformed to put the emphasis back on employment and on working. Our industrial relations system must be reformed to reward long-term thinking and penalise the wreckers. These issues are all vital issues to our national economy and they are all issues which have been dodged or postponed by the present Government. It is time to elect a Government which will have the courage to face them.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

If I did not know him better I would take the previous speaker seriously. He talked about Government spending. I sat here yesterday and listened to the debate on agricultural rates relief. The Deputy's party talked about giving over £31.5 million for rates relief. He sat here on Tuesday of last week and listened to his own colleague on the front banch talk about offering £35 million to the landlords of this city and of this country to improve their buildings and offer tax reliefs on rents to the rent payers. Now he comes in and has the unmitigated neck and gall to talk about putting the public finances in order. The Deputy's party cannot have it both ways and the people of this country will judge them on that.

I would like to again remind the House of mine and the Government's commitment given last October and on a number of occasions in the meantime to ensure that local authority services will have resource allocations commensurate with their importance to the economy. The investment plan for 1981 and the budget and the action since taken deliver in full on this commitment and I take the opportunity to again put on record the massive increase in funds provided for local authority services. Moneys on a scale unprecedented have been made available for housing, roads, water and sewerage services.

The reference to cuts in local authority expenditure is of course very relevant to the period in office of the former Minister for Local Government who signed the motion. Before dealing in more detail with certain matters I will emphasise some of the main and more striking facts, statistics and comparisons of the depressed Coalition times. An amount of £87 million allocated to road authorities for road works in 1981 represented a massive increase of some £29 million or over 49 per cent on 1980. This figure of £87 million for a single year compares with total allocations by the Coalition of under £68 million for the last three years in office, 1975, 1976 and 1977. A figure of £74.7 million was provided by way of capital moneys for public water and sewerage schemes for 1981 as against £51 million in 1980, a huge increase of over £23 million or 47 per cent on this year. Again this compares with a total increase of a paltry £12 million by the Coalition in their four years in office. Indeed their allocation for 1977 was less than that for 1976. A figure of £242 million was provided for housing in 1981, giving an increase of 33 per cent on the original provision of £183 million for 1980. Expenditure by the Coalition actually dropped by 57 per cent in real terms between 1975 and 1977. The Deputy of course, as spokesman on Finance, should know something about figures.

Mr. Bruton

I know about local authority house building anyway.

Mr. R. Burke

I would expect that the Deputy would know something about figures, but obviously he does not.

Mr. Bruton

I know about the homeless in my constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not interrupt.

Mr. R. Burke

There was a record 12 per cent upper limit in 1981 on the increase in the rate in the pound to be struck by local authorities and the grant in relief for rates for 1981 is £120 million. This grant arises from the Government decision to derate domestic dwellings and certain other properties, a measure which has benefited some one million ratepayers.

Over 103,000 new houses have been completed by this Government over the past four years, including 25,000 local authority dwellings, with an all-time record of almost 28,000 completions in 1980. There have been consistent and continuous incentives by the Government to stimulate the building industry and to assist first time house purchasers. These arise from a decision to introduce the £1,000 grant and from the package recently announced by me which introduces a special mortgage subsidy of £3,000 in addition to the £1,000 grant. These measures contrast sharply with the Coalition's inactivity when in office. The income and loan limits for local authority house purchase loans have been increased on four occasions over the past four years by 198 per cent and 211 per cent respectively. The Coalition, with their customary disregard for the plight of the building and construction industry and for persons in search of housing, allowed these limits to remain unchanged between September 1973 and 1977 despite the fact that new house prices and earnings had more than doubled in that period.

The Opposition are fond of drawing attention to the so-called parlous state of the building industry. What is conveniently forgotten is that under this Government the industry's output has been at a higher level than ever before. There are now substantially more people employed in the industry than when we took office in 1977. Direct employment in the building industry increased by 15,000 since 1976 and total new house completions for 1980 were at an all-time record of almost 28,000. Public capital support for the building industry has never been at a higher level in real terms. In 1977 public capital expenditure in the industry was £387 million and this year it will be over £1,000 million. Government investment in major infrastructural services has increased dramatically over the last four years. This increased investment is of major economic significance because it provides a basic modern infrastructure without which future sustained economic growth would not be possible. As a direct result of the increased public capital investment in the building industry in 1981, which was announced in the Government investment plan, I am confident that building industry output will increase significantly and that employment will also increase between now and the end of the year. The Government's concern to ensure increased economic growth and to encourage increased investment in key sectors of the economy should not be construed as implying a lack of concern for social issues. The housing package 1981 is designed as an incentive to increase new housing output by helping first time purchasers of new houses. However anyone who studies the package will know that it also provides generous assistance for many of the weaker sections who were neglected when the Coalition were in power.

I will contrast the remarkable achievements of the Government in the housing field with the abysmal record of the previous Government. In 1973 Fianna Fáil had sown the seeds for a major upturn in housing completions and in their early years in office the Coalition reaped the harvest of our foresight and claimed record levels of completions. Predictably, the Coalition failed to continue the good work and failed to recognise that if housing policy is to be successful it must be flexible and responsive to housing existing needs. The Coalition's failure to take positive constructive initiatives meant that housing completions began to decline. There was a fall of nearly 3,000 between 1975 and 1976. During the first half of 1977 completions declined further to an annual level of 21,000, when the housing need was clearly 25,000 new houses per annum. When we returned to office we took the type of courageous action required to arrest the decline set in motion by the previous Government's inactivity and sterility. We introduced the £1,000 new house grant scheme, as promised in our manifesto, and since that was introduced about 28,000 purchasers have benefited. This grants scheme represented the Government's considered response to the need to help first time owner occupiers. Naturally, we recognised that housing policy must be receptive to changing circumstances and that was why in April of this year we decided that the first-time purchaser was again in need of assistance. Accordingly, having considered various alternatives, we introduced the special mortgage subsidy scheme under which my Department, in addition to the £1,000 grant, will pay a subsidy of up to £3,000 to first-time purchasers of new grant type houses to help them meet mortgage repayment in the early years of the loan when the burden of repayments is at its heaviest.

The second area we looked at on our return to office was the local authority house purchase loan scheme. Here there was even more glaring evidence of the Coalition Government's total insensitivity to the legitimate demands of that section of the community who seek to provide their own homes with finance from their local authorities. Between September 1973 and June 1977 the former Minister for Local Government, whose name appears as one of the proposers of the Labour Party motion, turned a deaf ear to requests for increases in the loan and income limits governing this scheme despite the fact that during the period in question house prices and earning more than doubled. Expenditure on house purchase and improvement loans in 1977 amounted to less than £20 million. This year's allocation is £96 million. We have in four years increased the normal loan and income limits on four occasions by approximately 200 per cent and they now stand at £14,000 and £7,000 respectively. Mainly as a result of the actions by the present Government in these two areas housing completions rose in each of the past four years, culminating in the record figure of 27,785 completions last year.

The building societies, of course, also play a major role in the financing of the Government's housing programme. Almost 75 per cent of all private housing finance is provided by building societies. They advanced almost 17,000 house purchase loans to the value of £269 million in 1980, providing mortgage finance amounting to £126 million in respect of 7,807 new houses and £143 million in respect of 9,137 others. A major factor in attracting the inflow of funds to the societies was the Government's decision to make an interest subsidy available to societies with effect from 1 June 1980. I expect that the societies will make in excess of £300 million available towards financing the Government's private housing programme in 1981.

I am pleased to inform the House that in discussions I had today with the building societies the societies are increasing the investment rate to their depositors and that the Government have once again, recognising the needs of the mortgage holders as they did in June last year, decided to re-introduce the mortgage subsidy for mortgage holders to keep their mortgage repayments at the percentage level they are at at the moment.

The provision of housing for those unable to provide houses from their own resources is an essential element of our policy and some 24,600 houses were built by local authorities between 1977 and 1980. The total public capital programme provision for housing in the current year is £242 million which represents an increase of 34 per cent in real terms compared with the 1977 provision by the Coalition Government.

Interestingly the people who tabled tonight's motion were party to a Government which allowed expenditure to drop by 57 per cent in real terms between 1975 and 1977 and I am not at all surprised to hear the Labour Party speak of cuts in local authority expenditure. After all, it was their Minister who excelled in making such cuts over the period 1974 to 1977. Take, for example, the roads area alone. The grants allocated by the Coalition Government in its first year 1973-74 fell short of £19 million whereas the present Government in its first full year in 1978 allocated grants up to double that amount. In fact, immediately on taking office in July 1977 we felt obliged to supplement by £5 million the inadequate grant allocation already made by the Coalition for 1977. For the nine months in the financial period April to December 1974 the Coalition allocated grants of £16 million which would represent about £21.3 million in a full year. In 1975 the Coalition Government, despite sharp cost increases, failed to meet even the figure of £21.3 million with road grants. The grant for 1976 at £20.4 million showed a further reduction. The total grants allocated by the Coalition Government in their last three years in office — 1975, 1976 and 1977 — fell short of £68 million.

I would like now to contrast our performance with the abysmal record of the Coalition in this area. For the current year alone — I am sorry Deputy Tully is leaving us because I know the figures are of interest to him — we allocated grants of over £87 million, which represents and increase of nearly 30 per cent over the paltry investment made by the previous Coalition Government in their three years in office. Starting with grants totalling £37.55 million for our first full year in office, 1978, we have maintained a steady annual increase in road investment. The grants for 1979 were increased to £48.39 million. They were further increased to £58.46 million for 1980 and for this year they have reached the unprecedented level of £87.2 million, an all time record.

The Fianna Fáil Party, while in opposition, fully recognised the disastrous effects of the totally inadequate investment being made by the Coalition Government in the road system, a system we fully recognise as essential for agriculture, industrial, commercial, tourist and social development and, on assuming office in 1977, we undertook the preparation of a major road development plan designed to anticipate the demands of the eighties. This road development plan was published in May 1979. It marked a milestone in road planning, being the first plan of its type since the foundation of the State. The plan is both imaginative and realistic, outlining the Government's objectives for the development of the road system in the current decade.

We fully recognised that our task was only beginning with the launching of this plan. More important still was ensuring that the necessary finances were provided to implement the plan. We have not been found wanting in this regard. The investment plan for 1981, in highlighting the importance of productive infrastructural investment, provided a massive £80 million for roads in 1981, on foot of which I have made grant allocations totalling over £87 million to road authorities. This represents an increase of 49 per cent on road grants allocated last year and an increase of a remarkable 227 per cent on the level of grants provided by the Coalition Government in their last year of office. Investment on this scale clearly indicates our commitment to seeing that the works under the plan are carried out and our recognition of the importance and value of a satisfactory road system.

I have provided grants of over £31 million for over 80 major improvement works which are listed in the road development plan. I am very encouraged by the results of a special progress report undertaken recently in my Department in relation to these schemes and I am confident of significant developments before the end of the year on the many new relief roads and by-passes for which grants have been made. Among the major schemes for which I have made grants in the Dublin region are a new road from Whitehall to the airport; by-passes of Swords and Balbriggan; a new road linking Clontarf road with the East Wall road; a new bridge adjacent to Heuston Bridge and a by-pass at Palmerstown on the N4 to the west.

In Cork city I have allocated grants for three new bridges over the Lee and a new ring road, as recommended in the Cork Land Use and Transportation Study. I have also provided grants for ring roads in Limerick, new bridges in Waterford, Athlone and Galway and inner relief roads or ring roads in Sligo, Dundalk, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Tralee and Clonmel. Outside the main urban areas I have provided grants for other major projects including the Naas by-pass; new Cork — Mallow road; new road through the Curragh, and ring roads or by-passes at Mullingar, Navan, Carrick-on-Shannon, Dunleer, Coolooney, Ballinasloe, Oranmore, Roscrea, Donegal, Midleton and Dungarvan.

Mr. Kavanagh

Nothing for Wicklow?

Mr. R. Burke

Yes. There was a few bob in there.

Mr. Kavanagh

I did not hear a word about that.

Mr. R. Burke

It is such a vast extensive programme it would be impossible to identify every individual unit. You could identify things in 1977 when the Coalition were in office because the money was abysmal but, with the vast allocation of £87 million this year, if I were to read out the list of schemes I would take up too much of the time of the House. I am more anxious to get on the record the achievement of the Fianna Fáil Government. While the road development plan highlights the major works to be undertaken it also provides for an extensive programme of normal improvement works designed to bring all sections of the national primary routes and significant sections of the national secondary routes up to a specified minimum standard. I have allocated grants of over £21 million for this programme in 1980. I have also provided substantial block grants to supplement the resources of road authorities and grants for special works, including bridge works on roads other than national roads.

This year, for the first time, I have provided, in addition to normal maintenance grants, £6 million for a special programme of works for the strengthening and renewal of critical sections of the principal roads. Work of this nature is essential if we are to ensure continued benefit from the considerable sum invested annually in the road network.

I am satisfied that the roads programme I have briefly outlined, with particular reference to the major improvements of the principal routes, will serve as a valuable contribution to the Government's policy for regional and industrial development. In addition, the programme will have valuable supplementary benefits in that it creates increased activity in the construction industry; generates employment both on-site and off-site and utilises materials and equipment of Irish manufacture. Towards this end I have impressed on the road authorities the need for the maximum use of Irish materials to ensure that employment in Irish firms is protected and increased.

The Government recognise that adequate investment in piped water and sewerage services is an essential precondition for development at national and local level. As in so many other areas, this cannot be said of the Coalition Government, who actually reduced the capital provision for sanitary services from £25 million in 1976 to £24.91 million in 1977. This represented a cut in real terms of almost 15 per cent in sanitary services investment. It is indeed something of which they should be ashamed and the Irish people will never forget it for them. We have steadily increased capital spending on piped water and sewerage schemes since our first budget in 1978 to an unprecedented level of £67.3 million in 1981. Sanitary services investment is now about 170 per cent above the level fixed in the last budget of the Coalition Government. This increased level of investment has enabled us to approve for commencement almost 200 major public water and sewerage schemes costing £166.5 million since 1977. Direct employment on sanitary services has increased from 1,300 in 1977 to about 2,000 in 1980 and a further 350 jobs will be created in 1981. Direct employment on sanitary services has increased from 1,300 in 1977 to approximately 2,000 in 1980 and a further 350 jobs will be created in 1981.

Due to the record capital provision for sanitary services in 1981 I have recently approved 55 public water and sewerage schemes estimated to cost over £31.5 million for commencement, including such schemes as Listowel regional water scheme, Saggart-Ballyboden trunk water main, Tramore River Valley sewer, Ballinasloe water supply improvement, Kells-Oldcastle regional water scheme — I know Deputy Tully will be particularly interested in that one — Lough Gowna water supply, stages 2 and 3, Ballybay-Louth Egish water supply and, I am pleased to be able to tell the House, I was in a position to sanction the Lusk sewerage scheme, one in my area needing attention. In selecting schemes for approval I have had regard to the priority of the schemes—

Mr. Kavanagh

Not in Wicklow.

Mr. R. Burke

Wicklow did well. The Deputy does not come in often but, now that he has mentioned it, as he knows Wicklow is being well looked after this year. In selecting schemes for approval I have had regard to the priority of the schemes and also the locations of work in progress and of schemes approved already but not yet commenced. My objective has been not only to provide services but also to secure a wide spread of works which will contribute to local employment and facilitate the creation of further job opportunities by improving Ireland's attractiveness for industrial investment and employment.

The small schemes programmes of local authorities are designed to respond flexibly to urgent needs arising from the on-going process of development. The Government under-lined the importance of this programme by increasing the cost limit for small public water and sewerage schemes from £20,000 to £30,000 and increasing the budget for small schemes more than fourfold, from £1 million in 1977 to £4.5 million in 1981.

As Minister for the Environment I am determined that a substantial effort be made over a period of years to eliminate pollution caused by inadequate local authority sewerage schemes and to ensure that economic and physical development can proceed in harmony with the environment. The expansion in the overall financial provision for sanitary services has enabled a substantial increase in investment in new and improved public sewerage schemes. As evidence of the progress being made I might mention the following examples of the treatment works nearing completion or completed: the Naas sewerage treatment works, Swords treatment works, Tipperary town treatment works, Charleville treatment works. Major sewerage schemes in progress or approved for commencement include Ballina main drainage, Mallow main drainage, Gorey main drainage, Edenderry sewerage treatment works and Thurles sewerage treatments works.

I should mention that contract documents for the remaining stages of the Greater Dublin drainage scheme have been approved. This major scheme, which will involve a total estimated investment of £40 million, should be completed by 1984 and will meet the needs of Dublin city and environs for the next 15 to 20 years. In catering for the sanitary services requirements of the larger populated centres I have not overlooked the needs of the smaller communities.

The private group water supply scheme programme plays a vital role in bringing piped water to rural houses and associated farms. Fianna Fáil launched a programme in the early sixties and, on returning to office in 1977, gave a major boost to that programme by increasing the maximum State grant from £100 to £300 per house.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has two minutes remaining.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is not doing well but he has two minutes left.

Mr. R. Burke

I am looking forward to Deputy Tully's loaves and fishes contribution, when he will tell us about all the schemes that he delivered on with half the money or not with the amount of money I have spoken about.

Mr. Tully

So the Minister does realise that can happen.

Mr. O'Toole

What about the reconstruction grants?

Mr. R. Burke

Perhaps I should remind the House of what has happened in relation to the farming sector. We had a debate on the farming sector here all day yesterday on the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill under which rates relief for many farmers has been dramatically improved. To date only farmers with land valuations of £20 or less received full rates relief. This year farmers with a valuation of up to £50 are relieved of all rates on land and those with valuations of between £50 and £70 receive partial relief.

In the time available to me I have illustrated fully the massive increase in funds made available by the Government for local authority services. We will continue to act as and when necessary to provide any additional funds needed for building and construction, including housing, road works, sanitary services and other miscellaneous services in order to stimulate further economic development. I fully endorse a vote of confidence in the Government on their handling of the economy. Regrettably, on the basis of their performance when in government, no such vote of confidence can be in the Government on their handling of the economy. Regrettably, on the basis of their performance when in government, no such vote of confidence can be given the Coalition Parties who had the building and construction industry, indeed the economy generally, in a shambles when they left office in 1977.

Mr. Tully

For sheer audacity and hard neck it would be difficult to beat the Government amendment to the motion of no confidence tabled by the Labour Party which reads:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute:

"Dáil Éireann re-affairms confidence in the economic policies of the Government and expresses approval of the measures being taken by them to mitigate the effects of the present world recession, to promote growth in output and employment, to combat inflation and to promote general economic development."

What measures may I ask? As far as the country is concerned people are prepared to listen to arguments but they are perfectly satisfied that the largest failing of this Government is that they have not taken any measures. In fact they do not seem to know where they are going.

In the Minister's final comment about the farmers he seems to have forgotten that it was a Fianna Fáil Government who last year decided that it would be wrong to continue to give rates remission to farmers and therefore reduced the remission to those with valuations of £40 and under. On top of that they proceeded to add a 2 per cent levy creating a situation in which farmers who were already in serious trouble were pushed further into the mire by an uncaring Fianna Fáil Government. Of course they were then a further year away from an election and they thought it would be all right.

The Minister has been talking about housing. He was bragging about the fact that they claimed to have built slightly over 28,000 houses last year. I would be the first to congratulate the Government on any such achievement. But there is just one little point that should be made about that. When we took over we said that we required 25,000 houses a year in our period in office. In the four years we were in office we succeeded in building over 101,000 houses — that is 25,000 a year. The big mistake Fianna Fáil made was that, rather than aiming for at least 30,000 houses per annum they continued our programme. They should have been aiming for at least 30,000 because of the proven increase in population, because people needed those houses. I suppose it would be too much to expect them to do anything else. If we go back to 1966-67 all the houses built in this country under Fianna Fáil amounted to 11,354. The following year, 1968, that figure was 12,447, the following year 13,533, yet the following year 14,169. In 1970-71 they were down again to 13,971. In 1971-72, the year before we took over, the best they could do was 16,421. We took over the following year and, despite the fact that we had to re-jig the budget, that we had to change the whole system developed by Fianna Fáil, we succeeded in having built in this country 22,422 houses, an increase of 6,001 on the best Fianna Fáil could do. The following year that figure rose to 26,190, the following year 26,892; in 1976 the figure was down to 24,000 and for 1977, the year in which the Minister's predecessor took over, the figure was 24,548. Reconstruction grants show the very same pattern, up from 8,576 in 1966-67 to 14,389 when he handed over.

With regard to water and sewerage, to which the Minister has just referred also, all the grants they could give when we took over in 1966-67 were 6,747. There were 12,066 given in 1965 and when we handed over, the figure dropped to 12,542, not unexpectedly because that is the pattern of Fianna Fáil. I want to repeat what I have said here on a number of occasions — for years Fianna Fáil were under the impression that if they could build anything up to around 18,000, 19,000 or 20,000 houses in the eighties — and I have it on record from a predecessor of the Minister — that would be sufficient. I have that in a minute from the Minister's predecessor.

The Minister has taken over the mantle of Fianna Fáil in that office and he must take the rough with the smooth. He talks about the additional building workers that are employed. I noted he was not here today, which was rather a pity because we had a very interesting Question Time, during which his Minister of State had to admit that it was expected that the number of building workers this year would drop by over 1,000 on 1980. What does the Minister see in that to boast about? I am glad he has decided to pay an interest subsidy to the building societies in order to keep the interest rate from going up but he must remember that neither he nor Fianna Fáil began that idea. All through the years they refused an interest subsidy. I introduced it when I was a Minister in the Coalition Government and we kept it there longer than the present Minister kept his subsidy because he rushed away to save a few bob at the first opportunity.

He also talks about housing completions and all the people who will avail of the new £4,000 grant. I would not be surprised if he got a tremendous number of applications for the £4,000 grant but I would like it very much if he could do something about paying people who are waiting over two years for the £1,000. They cannot get it because there is no money to pay them. All possible excuses are being made, the most recent one being: "Send it to the Minister for Finance; ask the income tax authorities for a certificate"— anything to delay payment of the grant and save a few bob in any way possible. That is what the Government are doing. The question of the £4,000 is a joke with people who are waiting for the £1,000. Many of them asked me next morning if they would qualify. I said: "I do not think so but I will try to ensure that you get full particulars". I got the particulars more quickly than some who spoke here today who did not get them for a long time. I got them fairly quickly from the Minister's office.

Mr. R. Burke

Efficiency of the Minister's office.

Mr. Tully

Efficiency of the officials, who are tops. The Minister, like his predecessor, did not even know what the grant was because he got slightly mixed up when declaring it and some of the facts he gave do not appear to be right, the date of operation and so on——

Mr. R. Burke

They are absolutely right.

Mr. Tully

I do not want to get into an argument now; we shall have the next three weeks for that. The £4,000 grant would not apply to all the people who are waiting for grants or loans, some of them had to sell their houses, having built them, as they could not get the SDA loans they were promised because the Government would not give the local authority the money to pay those who wanted to borrow money to build houses. It is the greatest disgrace ever known. Meath County Council, for example, were promised £5,700,000 up to the end of December last. This year they got £3.4 million. Out of that —"the loaves and fishes" the Minister referred to — they are supposed to pay £5.7 million for last year and the balance for this year. Where would it come from? The Minister does not know. There is no use in asking him because he did not know at the time how much money would be required. It is the greatest joke ever known that we have a Minister who claims to know everything: he knows what happened four or five years ago, according to himself; he does not know what is happening now. He also talks about building societies——

Mr. R. Burke

What happened since September 1973 until June 1977 regarding SDA loans? Why did you not increase them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully without interruptions, please.

Mr. Tully

The Minister dodged Question Time today when there were questions down to him. He had not the guts to answer them. He put in somebody who was unable to answer them and had to say he did not know. The Minister was outside and would not come in. Let him not ask me questions now. I did not interrupt him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully without interruption from any place, through the Chair, please.

Mr. R. Burke

I am sorry to interrupt but he did not answer my question.

Mr. Tully

Of course, the building societies paid a lot of money because of a change which took place. The one good thing about joining the EMS was that we had money which had to be brought back here and which was invested in the building societies. What is happening now? How much money did the building societies get last month and the month before that? Is it not idle to talk about big increase in the amount of money to be lent by building societies when the Minister knows they are now at the pin of their collar to meet the loans that are being sought? Applicants cannot get loans because people would not invest with the building societies because they did not have the money; they had to buy bread and butter with it. Money for saving is not there now; Fianna Fáil saw to that.

The Minister referred to the question of the ring road in Drogheda. Sometime he should show me that ring road. The only money ever spent on an attempt to put a ring road in Drogheda was money spent on the bridge when I was there and the money spent on the approach to it. That is there still and will be there because the present Government will not be able or prepared to spend money there. The same applies in Navan. You can promise them money but so far no work has been done and work cannot be done without money. The Minister is codding himself if he thinks the people are being codded by what Fianna Fáil are doing. They got away with it in 1977 but they will not get away with it again —"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

As regards prices between May 1977 and February 1981, all prices increased 61.6 per cent. In the UK it was 50.8 per cent; in the Netherlands, 20.1 per cent; in Luxembourg, 20 per cent; in Italy alone it was 75.8 per cent; in Germany, 17.6 per cent; France, 46.5 per cent; Denmark, 43.8 per cent; Belgium 42.4 per cent. Ireland is next to Italy at 61.1 per cent, out on a limb. That is the way this Government like to run the country. They do not know; they change their minds from day to day as with the calling of the election. The Taoiseach is like a man about to commit suicide by drowning. He goes up on the bridge, changes his mind and gets down. He looks at the water and says the water may be deeper in a couple of months and he will not hurt himself so much. That is how Fianna Fáil are governing the country, as everybody knows.

What price the economy of the country in the past fortnight when the Government refused to govern and allowed thugs in the centre of this city to run riot with the result that trade has dropped through the floor? Similarly in country towns north of here where, through people being threatened and cajoled you have a situation in which the economy is suffering badly. People are losing on prices, wages and everything else. The Government are doing nothing about it and if the Garda are doing nothing about it, there is one reason and that is that the Government told them not to do it, if there is no other reason why they should not, in case they would lose a few votes when the election comes along.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy knows that is incorrect.

Mr. Tully

I do not know it is incorrect. I can only observe——

Mr. R. Burke

It is a terrible reflection on the Garda authorities and as a former Minister the Deputy should not make a charge like that against the Garda authorities——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is an economic debate. We are not going to get into a security debate.

Mr. Tully

I did not interrupt the Minister and I do not want him to interrupt me. I am right and I am perfectly entitled in an economic debate to point out that the economy of this country is being ruined. Go to O'Connell Street and you will find it; go to Drogheda and Dundalk and you will find it and in other towns in the North. Look at the coming tourist season. Will tourists from Britain come here when everywhere you see slogans on the walls threatening them and everybody belonging to them? And nothing is being done about it. When I was in office I made local authorities clean the walls. Here in Dublin, when they said they could not do it because they could not rub it off, I insisted that it be done and they put brown paper over those slogans. What are they doing now? They are just leaving them there with the result that every place in the country is destroyed with slogans. I do not care whether the Minister is for or against them but it is wrong to allow any group to destroy the appearance of the country and destroy the economy by insulting tourists. That is what is happening under Fianna Fáil. There is no way they can get away with that.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy is trying to paper over other cracks as well.

Mr. Tully

I appeal to the Chair to ask the Minister to cease interrupting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should not interrupt. Deputy Tully should be allowed to continue without interruptions.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy does not like to be interrupted; it puts him off his stroke.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not like any Member being interrupted.

Mr. Tully

One thing Fianna Fáil were never able to do, either by telling lies or truths; was to put me off my stroke because as the Minister is aware, I am pretty well able to look after myself. The increase in all prices over the four-year period was 61.6 per cent. Food prices over the same period increased by 51.9 per cent; alcohol by 79 per cent; tobacco, 85.3 per cent; clothing and footwear 56.5 per cent; fuel and light, 91.4 per cent; housing rents, 28 per cent; durable goods, 55.4 per cent and transport, 62.5 per cent. That is not a new increase. When Fianna Fáil took office we did not go back to square one and start up again. That is on top of the prices which Fianna Fail in their manifesto said they would reduce by 1 per cent in the first year, 2 per cent in the second year, and 3 per cent in the third year to bring us to 1980. The Minister may try to smile that one off, but he will have a bit of a job proving that Fianna Fail can survive with that as their record.

Unemployment, as the Minister is aware, is officially 126,000. The unofficial figure is about 140,000. If we adopt the system used by Fianna Fáil — when we had 110,000 unemployed they said the figure was 185,000 — we must be close to 200,000. I am being generous when I give the figure of 140,000, but that figure is rising weekly. The forecast of the ESRI recently was that the unemployment figure would reach 140,000 by the end of the year but in my view, unless Fianna Fáil are turned out of office, the figure will be 170,000. With the possible exception of Belgium, our unemployment figure is the highest in the EEC. When we joined the EEC the Government told us there would be work for everybody. If there was no work here all we had to do was to arrange for our workers to go abroad where there would be plenty. What has happened? All countries are in the same boat but, with the exception of Belgium, they are not as bad as us. We are at the bottom of the pile and there is not one thing we can do about it.

Mr. R. Burke

The hypocrisy of all that. Not one question was put down to the Minister for Labour in recent times.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should not interrupt.

Mr. R. Burke

I cannot resist when the Deputy goes on with that waffle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have to resist.

Mr. Tully

A big number of those who are unemployed are under 25 years of age. I can recall the former Taoiseach telling the unemployed before the last election — it is also in the manifesto — that there would be employment for all school leavers. They would be all working within one week of leaving school, but now there are 35,000 unemployed and it is estimated that there are at least another 5,000 who have not registered. The situation is deteriorating rapidly. There has been a drop of 10,000 in the number employed in the manufacturing sector in the last 12 months alone. Is the Minister aware of that?

Mr. R. Burke

Does the Deputy like the new factory in Navan?

Mr. Tully

The Minister did not get the new factory for Navan; it was got by the IDA. The sooner people stop trying to take responsibility for something they did not do or were unable to do the better for everyone concerned.

Mr. R. Burke

I should not have said that to the Deputy; it was a bit sensitive.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister looks as if he is sorry, but he should not interrupt.

Mr. Tully

What I have outlined occurred against the background of the Fianna Fáil manifesto. Fianna Fáil were explicit about their figures; they knew what they were talking about. I am sure Deputy O'Donoghue knew his stuff when he forecast that the figures would be down to about 26,000 by now. I am sorry the Minister cannot afford to wait a few more minutes in the House. Usually when I get up he leaves and I cannot blame him.

Mr. R. Burke

I have listened to enough waffle.

Mr. Tully

It would be as well if the Minister kept going.

Our inflation is the highest in the Community. From mid-February 1980 to mid-February 1981 prices rose by 21 per cent. The forecast for this year's net inflation is that it will be at least 18 per cent. The huge increase in inflation is coming at a time when price increases in the UK are beginning to slow down. In fact there is a price reduction coming for oil in Britain. Coal and oil have been increased recently here. The price of coal here was increased by £5 per ton a few weeks ago, but in Britain it went down by £7 per ton. I would like if someone could give me the answer to that one. I put it down to the incompetence of the Government who do not know where they are going or what they are doing.

The current budget deficit was targetted at £515 million by the Minister for Finance last January, but there is universal agreement now that it will be at least £700 million or possibly £800 million by the end of the year if Fianna Fáil are still in power. Last year the deficit exceeded £500 million, as it did in 1978 and 1979. Since Fianna Fáil were returned to office they have borrowed more than £2,000 million just to finance the current deficit and we hear Fianna Fáil speakers talking about borrowing for the purpose of productive employment. As a result of this borrowing interest payments amount now to almost 77p out of every pound collected in income tax. On current trends I am sure it will soon absorb the entire income tax revenue. It is only fair to point out that in 1977 the amount of income tax collected from the PAYE sector was £498 million and last year, although we were told of the wonderful reductions in income tax the PAYE sector would get under Fianna Fáil, it had risen to £1,124 million in 1980. That is another of the Fianna Fáil promises which they could not keep and I believe they never had any intention of keeping it.

There can be no argument but that the Exchequer finances are completely out of control. The chaos threatens future employment and the maintenance of the social services. I am worried that we are reaching a stage under the Government where there is a great danger of us being unable to continue State service because Fianna Fáil, having started on this squandermania, cannot stop. They will reach a situation where they will not be able to raise enough money to pay for the services of the State. The extraordinary thing about it all is that Fianna Fáil are doing this while at the same time they are blaming us because of what they call reductions in the years 1976-77. We experienced the biggest recession ever. We had to borrow money to get out of it and, having succeeded in getting out of the recession, we reduced the amount of borrowing deliberately by reducing certain payments. We did that in an effort to put the country on its feet. Having handed over to Fianna Fáil with an inflation rate under 10 per cent, we found that Fianna Fáil, who promised a 5 per cent inflation rate in the following year created, a 20 to 21 per cent rate and the rate has been up and down from 15 to 18 to 21 per cent since then. They are the people who tell us that they are the only ones who can run this country. We know what they can do. They should after that word "run" and insert the letter "i" because they are the only people who can ruin the country. In the last four years they have gone a long way towards doing that.

The balance of payments has reached such dimensions that drastic remedial action will be imposed upon us if the Government do not act soon. Last year the deficit exceeded £700 million. This year it is forecast by the ESRI and the Central Bank that it will be around £1,200 million. This means that the deficit will be around 12 per cent of GNP and some forecasters believe will be even higher. Even at 12 per cent of GNP it is ten times the Community average. It has been brought on by the Government. Some of the members of the Government are whispering that devaluation might get them out of trouble. Of course, it is unavoidable if the deficit continues at that rate.

I am afraid that devaluation within the EMS, if it is forced on us, would only in turn increase the cost of energy, particularly oil which is priced in dollars. The last thing I want to see is the devaluation of our punt but this Government seem to be running riot with it and if they are allowed to continue it will not be very long before that happens. Deflation is offered as the only solution to both inflation and the balance of payments deficit. The Labour Party reject that process emphatically because it will simply increase unemployment and cut further into living standards. The solution must be based on a planned approach to managing the economy with the immediate objectives of cutting down the rate of inflation, reducing the current budget deficit and the frightening dependence on foreign borrowing, eliminating the balance of payments deficit over a phased period, preventing devaluation with the EMS and restoring for everyone's satisfaction the economy to growth.

Fianna Fáil claim that the economy is recovering. To say that simply is laughable. For example, the OECD forecast no increase in personal consumption this year in Ireland. New inquiries with the IDA are falling off and unemployment is rising. A recent EEC study of other member states' economies had this to say of Ireland: "The outlook for the recovery in activity in 1981 will not be reflected in a great improvement in the employment situation. Unemployment may continue rising." Therefore, on all grounds the Dáil and the country cannot have any confidence in this Government.

Let me conclude with a few short comments. We have a big blow in this House again and again and advertisements on radio and television about buying Irish, buying "guaranteed Irish". Of the goods being sold in this country at present far too high a proportion are not Irish. Some of them are being sold "guaranteed Irish" when they are not Irish. They or portion of them are assembled in Ireland. It is ridiculous. On top of that we are told, "What can we do? The EEC countries and the third countries throught the EEC have the right to send goods into this country". I had a question down on 7 April to ask the Taoiseach to give details of the level of imports of furniture from Eastern European countries to Ireland in each year since 1975. To my surprise I find that from the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in 1975 furniture to the value of £195,100 was imported. In 1980, last year, £1,143,000 worth was imported. Is there any point in talking about buying "guaranteed Irish" where we are allowing this country to be flooded by EEC countries and third countries through the EEC, who have no right whatever to destroy our industries, and very few of whom are buying from us in exchange? I am particularly annoyed about furniture because Navan, the central town where I live, is the home of furniture and the people there are kicking up a row. Rightly so, because VAT has been increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent and yet this stuff is coming in from abroad.

Finally, we have the farmers complaining that this year, as in previous years, despite a solemn promise from the Minister for Agriculture, Cypriot potatoes are being brought into this country in enormous quantities across the Border every week and being sold here in competition with the Irish potato. The only confidence I can have in the Government is if they tell us before this debate concludes that the Taoiseach cannot be here because he is on his way to the Park to have the Dáil dissolved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Liam Lawlor has ten minutes.

Mr. L. Lawlor

I welcome this opportunity to come in on this debate which obviously is of crucial importance. It has covered a wide range of aspects of the economy. I have great respect for the work that Deputy Tully did when in the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Tully

I thank the Deputy very much.

Mr. L. Lawlor

However, I will quote from a document from which the Deputy has just quoted on the CPI. The Deputy chose to be very selective. There is a second column on the sheet of paper that I have and I assume that we are both using the same document. Deputy Tully went down the various items and referred to the price increase from mid-May 1977 to mid-February 1981, a three-and-three-quarter-year period. He pointed out correctly that food prices had gone up 51.9 per cent. He did not refer to the previous three-and-three-quarter-year period when food prices increased 81.1 per cent, from mid-August 1973 to mid-May 1977. That trend has continued down down through the recent figures produced by the CPI.

There are other very interesting figures here. I do not want to go back over the ground that Deputy Tully went over but just to come to the total figure for the basket of products referred to in the CPI. During the three-and-three-quarter-year period that the Coalition Government were in power there was an increase of 87.2 per cent and in the same period 61.1 per cent. One can use figures for one's own argument and not make direct comparisons.

Mr. O'Toole

The Government promised the bring them down in the 1977 manifesto. This is the difference.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Toole

You will find out in the next few weeks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lawlor has only a few minutes.

Mr. L. Lawlor

We have agreed on all sides of the House since I came in here that we have an international recession. Probably when we were on the far side of the House we were criticising the then Government and now the Opposition are doing it. I see it as a very negative role in Irish political life and people outside are becoming more and more frustrated with the political cynicism of Opposition attacking Government and vice versa.

Mr. Cluskey

Does the Deputy recommend the Deputy McCreevy approach?

Mr. L. Lawlor

I do not. Deputy McCreevy and the five economists have recently put together a very comprehensive presentation in the recent issue of Magill where they went on to point out all the ills concerned. Deputy McCreevy is an accountant and an academic.

Mr. O'Toole

Is that the excuse for him?

Mr. L. Lawlor

He and his economic colleagues play a vital role in the country. I think that normally they are advisers rather than people with decisions to take.

Mr. Meaney

Would you be with Miss Stack's policy?

Mr. L. Lawlor

I say to Deputy McCreevy and to any economist who wants to make criticisms that they should come along and put together alternative suggestions as to how they would achieve what they are suggesting needs to be achieved.

Mr. O'Toole

And join the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. L. Lawlor

That is up to them, but do not come in with theories about what is wrong without putting on the record how to put it right. I say that to Deputy McCreevy and all economists of gloom and doom.

Deputy Tully referred to four headings which have to be dealt with, inflation, possible devaluation, current deficit and foreign borrowing. These matters must be dealt with. I have not heard one concrete suggestion as to where the two Opposition parties would cut spending, get the current deficit down or reduce foreign borrowing. They are in here every day that we have Question Time criticising Ministers for not spending money.

Mr. Cluskey

How terrible.

Mr. O'Toole

How unpatriotic.

Mr. L. Lawlor

Today again an offer made by the Labour Court rejects it. Why does the Minister not do something to find a solution? The aim of Question Time is criticism of Government finances. Let us hope that we are going to have this campaign in the next three or four weeks and let us have some concrete suggestions. I would like to think that I would always be practical enough to accept good ideas. They have not come in this debate. There is continual criticism. That is an option that the Opposition have but they must also be prepared to put on the record of the House how they would do what they think should be done. It has not come from either of the parties, and that is the real crunch. We are there to be judged by the electorate, and let us be judged. If we get criticism for such an aspect of Government spending it is because we have not adopted the approach of our near neighbour. Are the Opposition parties recommending savage cuts in public spending? If so, let them spell out where these cuts should come.

If they want to be factual about the situation they should also point out that during the previous Government period there was a lot of lag in public sector pay awards. There were a lot of areas where issues were not faced up to. Since then the Labour Court have made some very substantial awards to the public sector. Should they have been honoured? The Labour Court considered they should be honoured. The Government honoured those recommendations and have been criticised because of increases given to the public sector. It is up to the general public to decide this issue. The Opposition parties have been critical but they have not been practical about whether they would have granted those awards or whether they would have rejected them and cut back on public spending.

The present situation with regard to public spending is not as ideal as one would wish. We are a young, rapidly growing country with a number of major demands on Government spending. My constituency is a typical example. In the past four years a vast sum of money has been spent on the bricks and mortar that go into buildings which provide education. We have the choice of borrowing the money, spending it, investing it in their future or letting them go without education. This approach can be criticised. The Government feel it is the right approach and we feel that when the opportunity comes for the electorate to decide they will endorse that.

Fine Gael recently said they would not have a manifesto, that they would have a charter. I heard some Members of the Fine Gael Party say that is what the Fine Gael Platform will be. We are anxiously waiting to scrutinise their document to see how they will rectify all ills. Their colleagues in the Labour Party have produced some documents but they have not put in figures. They have stated that, politically, this is not practical, that they will have to wait until they assume office to decide how they will implement it. This is not factual policy making and I do not believe the electorate will accept it.

We put figures on paper in the manifesto and we can be judged on whatever has or has not been achieved. Let the Opposition parties produce their alternative blueprints and let the electorate decide. I suggest that the Opposition in a political sense have criticised a lot but, in a practical sense they have not come up with any positive recommendations. I do not believe that is the proper approach. I believe the public are demanding more from Dáil Éireann. They demand a co-operative effort from politicians. They want them to be much more practical in their approach and not have this "us and them" situation with the Government and Opposition.

I was not in the House during the last recession and I have no doubt that many of my colleagues may have been unfairly critical of the then Government. I recommend, when the election campaign starts and when the Opposition parties put forward their documents, they should be clarified and discussed in a practical way rather than criticising and not providing an alternative. That has been the trend in the debate so far.

Mr. Cluskey

The only thing that emerged from the last speaker's contribution was in his last remarks, when he clearly demonstrated that he has deeply held political convictions —"We are all the same. Why should there be an Opposition? Let us all be together." How could we be together with that Government and that party after the damage they have caused the nation in every single sphere? That Government whom the Deputy supports, and will support again, are directly responsible for the situation in the country at the moment and the dismal future which our young people face unless the Government go out so that there can be a real change in policies.

Somebody asked me why the Labour Party put down this motion. We put it down for a number of reasons. We wanted to remind the people of the economic programme on which the Government were elected and we wanted to point out not only what they stated categorically they could achieve but to compare what their claim was and what the misplaced confidence of the electorate resulted in. I would like to say, first of all, with all sincerity, that the country now and for the last five or six weeks has been in a state of political and economic paralysis because the man whom some of the Deputy's colleagues — the Deputy was possibly among them — saw fit to elect as Taoiseach is so indecisive that he cannot make up his mind if he should come or if he should go. We are ready, whether the Taoiseach goes now, next week or next April.

The Taoiseach has the right to decide within a five-year span when he should call an election but with that right he has a very grave responsibility. I would like to remind him — he is not present as is usually the case when we are likely to be critical of him or his performance — that the Irish people also have rights. They have the right to demand, particularly of their Taoiseach and their Government, that this situation be clarified now in the national interest. The Taoiseach should either go to the country or make it clear that there will not be an election in the immediate future. He owes that much to the country.

The election atmosphere, which the Taoiseach and his colleagues have generated in the House and throughout the country since before the Easter recess, has undoubtedly done very considerable harm on the economic and political fronts. These are very serious times. Surely the man who was elected Taoiseach must realise that and must also realise that he has this responsibility to the people he governs. I believe that if there was a free vote tonight on this motion of no confidence in the Government, many of the Deputies who sit behind the Taoiseach would support this no confidence motion. This indecision, this lacking the capacity to be able to make a firm decision, is not new. It is on a major issue this time, the general election, but we have had clear indications of it before from the same man. I listened to a former Minister for Finance, who has now gone to Brussels, stand up in the House on behalf of the Government and introduce a budget. In that budget reference was made to the farmers' resource tax. Exactly one week later the Taoiseach stood up here, made his contribution and backed away from his own budget.

Another example was that the Taoiseach made it clear he was going to remove the Irish Ambassador in Washington from his post and send him somewhere else. Two weeks after making clear his intention he went to Cork and confirmed the Ambassador in Washington. I did not agree with his original decision because in my opinion, that Ambassador is an excellent man. This is a further proof that the Taoiseach is so indecisive. He has done, is doing and will continue to do damage as long as he stays as Taoiseach because he is not capable of making a hard decision. On a Labour Party motion on neutrality he decided to block a vote. The media put on the heat because of the despicable parliamentary tactics employed. Next day we had the vote. That was done by the leader of Fianna Fáil, but unfortunately he is a leader who has been imposed on me and tens of thousands of other people too and we are paying a very heavy price for it.

In electoral terms it is only important in this respect: the overriding consideration is not who gets back but the future of the people of this country, particularly the young people. There is no way they have a future here as long as the Government continue with these policies. Our only hope of getting out of this deep economic crisis is for this Government to be kicked out of office. What is happening — and I predicted this nearly 12 months ago — is that major economic decisions are being avoided or decisions which are taken and implemented are not taken for economic reasons. They are taken for party political electoral advantage with the result that we are sinking deeper and deeper into an economic mess. A terrible price is being paid and will continue to be paid by the ordinary people.

One has to wonder about parliamentary democracy. Over the past two months since the Ard Fheis, when the "goodies" business started again with the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Burke, telling of the £4,000 package for which we have yet to see legislation introduced, our friends in the media have been telling the people that these measures were being introduced for electoral reasons. They say the Taoiseach must go to the country soon because he cannot continue to be so irresponsible. He can inflict damage on our economy, and he can do it blatantly for electoral advantage. But in our democracy we are conditioned to such an extent that it is accepted and openly commented on by every newspaper, television and radio commentator in the country. Surely we are more mature that than? Surely the people realise that, irrespective of what party are in power, who the politician is or the political philosophy followed, a Government's first responsibility and only responsibility is the welfare of the people. That simple fact has never penetrated the minds of the Fianna Fáil Government and it certainly has not come to their minds over the past four years.

In 1977 we went before the Irish people. The Fianna Fáil manifesto told us that in 1981 23,000 people would be unemployed. It is 126,000 now and it would be 9,000 higher if the figures had not been adjusted for the live register. If the number of young people and women seeking jobs but not registered, because there is no financial benefit to them in registering, were taken into consideration, it would probably be another 25,000. What are we getting from the Government, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, from our friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs and every other Government spokesman? We are told things are improving, that they are looking up. The Minister for Finance said that in this House last night in his amendment to this motion.

I ask any Member of this House to name one independent economic agency or one responsible independent economist who has not publicly and consistently said we are going through a deep economic crisis and that it is worsening? There must be some sense of responsibility on the Fianna Fáil benches. There is in the Seanad. Senator Whitaker does not agree with Fianna Fáil. They do not like what he is saying, but it is true. Somebody associated with Fianna Fáil is telling the truth —one out of 150.

This is not just an economic debate. It is a plea. Somebody in Fianna Fáil must have a sense of responsibility. Somebody who has been in political life for a number of years must have some commitment to the Irish people rather than to his own political advantage. If there is, for God's sake speak up. You owe it to the people. We, as individuals, will not pay the price. We are told time and again that 51 per cent of our population are under 25 years of age: they are the people who will really pay the price.

They should not be asked to pay the price for Fianna Fáil's lack of commitment, lack of courage, lack of honesty and last but not least, lack of any policy whatsoever. When members of the Government stand up here or go on radio or television to tell the people things are looking up they never acknowledge what everyone else in the country knows, that there is a most serious problem to be solved. I think it is appropriate that Deputy Woods should be going around singing "One Day at a Time", but it is a bad way to run a country — one day at a time, staggering from one 24-hour period to the next, wondering not how they will get the people out of the mess Fianna Fáil have got them into, but what will be their next political stroke. That is what is occupying their minds.

With all the defects our democratic system has, it has one advantage: whether we like it or not, at least every five years we must give an account of our stewardship to the people and it is in the people's interest. The Taoiseach has a major responsibility: either he goes to the country immediately and accepts the verdict or makes it clear that there will not be an election in the immediate future. The damage the Government are inflicting on Irish political and economic life is totally unjustified, unworthy of any Irish Government.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 48.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Loughnane, William.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Coughlan, Clement.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom
• (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Morley, P. J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Browne, Noel.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Horgan, John.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• Lipper, Mick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and Horgan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.