Not so.
Confidence in Government: Motion.
The Taoiseach: I move:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
I want to reiterate the reason we are discussing these matters this morning in response to a request last evening from the Leaders of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties that we have a motion of confidence or, alternatively, a motion of no confidence in the Government today.
In this motion we are asking the House to support a vote of confidence in the Government. There are many reasons we feel justified in putting this request to the House. I believe the first and most important reason is the mandate given to this Government by the people at the general election just over four months ago. At that general election we emerged as the largest party, with very near to an overall majority. The result of that general election and the strength with which we emerged from it placed on us in Fianna Fáil a serious responsibility to provide this country with a Government. We have sought since then to do exactly that, to provide the country with a responsible Government to the best of our ability and to discharge the duties of that office. We intend to continue to provide responsible Government, which I believe is the primary national requirement at this time. I do not have to emphasise in this House the difficulties we face, or any Government would face, not only at home but internationally. I have just come from a meeting of the European Council in Brussels where the leaders of the European Community stressed and stressed again the depth and intensity of the recession now besetting Europe and indeed the world. There are now more than ten million people unemployed in the Community. Individual countries which have had full employment less than a decade ago are now afflicted with lengthening dole queues and contracting markets.
These are not matters without concern or affect on us. As every Deputy in this House knows, we rely on exports in these contracting markets for sums equivalent to approximately half of all the goods and services we produce. If those markets are stagnant or contracting, we suffer. That is exactly what is happening. Irish industry has been going through a period of unparalleled difficulty in international markets but, encouragingly, it has been winning out. Exports of manufactured goods, including those in the agricultural processing industries, increased by 4 per cent last year and the year before and are expected to increase again this year by a further 10 per cent. In the first five months of this year our industrial exports increased by 14 per cent in the face of very difficult contracting international markets severely hit by a world recession. The reason that has happened is that in recent years we have transformed our manufacturing base so that now, instead of concentrating on a few traditional industries, we have a dynamic and technologically advanced industry exporting to a wide range of countries throughout the world. Those changes have been achieved with Government support for industrial investment, for the policies and operations of the Industrial Development Authority using powers given them under statute by this House. Overall they have been achieved and can be sustained only if there is continuity and stability of Government.
I mention industrial policy and the international scene in this way to underline the importance of our employment and prosperity of what is happening outside our shores. International events have a clear and definite influence on our economic progress. I do not need to emphasise to this House the importance of a clear and steady view by us of the world in maintaining our independence of action in external affairs. We are a sovereign, independent nation with an inalienable right to pursue our own policy based on Irish interest and in accordance with our own attitudes and traditions. I want to repeat here that we are not a client State of any other nation. We have our view of international affairs, how these international affairs should be conducted and what part we should play in them. We believe in the settlement of international disputes by peaceful, political and diplomatic means. We are committed to the United Nations. We believe that the United Nations is the forum in which international dissensions and disputes should be settled. We support fully the need for international disarmament as a matter or urgency. These are worthy and honourable policies. As a sovereign, independent nation we must be allowed pursue those policies in our own way, as we see fit.
We know there is a separate view of the role we should or might play in international affairs. That role has been expressed, either directly or indirectly, here from time to time, most coherently by Deputy John Kelly of the Fine Gael Party. It is a defensible attitude, but it is not our policy. Our policy is one of remaining aloof from military alliances, a policy of full and total commitment to the peaceful purposes of the United Nations, a policy of doing everything we can in international fora to promote the cause of universal disarmament. Dangerous as the scene abroad is, demanding, as it does, clear and firm policies from us, it is really what happens at home that is of primary importance — whether our people can find jobs; whether there is social justice and equity; whether economic growth can be stimulated and sustained; whether there is a fair balance between our different regions and security in our homes and on our streets.
We face this confidence motion debate with our policies intact and with a determination to follow them through. When we assumed responsibility for Government in March last we undertook to provide the country with competent and concerned government. We shall continue to discharge that responsibility, confident of the support of the country at large for our economic and social policies as outlined in our budget and to which we have adhered in this House in spite of the most intense pressure — indeed, I might say parliamentary harassment — from time to time. We presented a budget which alleviated the burden of taxation for lower-income families, that protected them against higher prices for clothing, footwear, food and public transport which our predecessors had proposed. We increased investment in the construction industry in order to maintain and increase employment. We introduced new, radical measures to deal with decay and decline in our inner urban areas which are both an affront and a threat to our society. We improved substantially the living standards of social welfare beneficiaries in continuance of what we had done in two previous budgets. We took special action to alleviate the housing conditions of the elderly living alone. We provided free medical cards, as of right, for all social welfare pensioners over 66. We increased tax on unwarranted gains from development land which have become a source of public scandal in recent times.
That was a budget of social concern in spite of difficult economic conditions which beset us and the rest of the European Community. It gave due priority to protecting the living standards of those sections of our community who need the protection of the State if they are to have a fair share in our national life. However, our budget proposals were based on the principle that we must, as the international economic trading climate improves, take corrective measures to bring down our internal and external deficits. These deficits have increased, as they did in most other countries, under the impact of the worst recession the world has seen since the thirties.
Now that trade in the European Community has begun to revive, with forecasts this year for a growth of 4 per cent as against a decline of 2 per cent last year, we can begin to phase out the budget deficit without the massive deflationary impact on our economy which would have occurred had it been phased out too early and too abruptly. Export-led growth is now within our grasp. Already, as I have said, in the first five months of this year our industrial exports have increased by nearly 14 per cent in volume.
It is against that background that we are preparing, as we promised we would, our economic plan. I want to assure the Deputies in this House that that economic plan is already at a very advanced stage, and it will provide a coherent framework for the development of our economy over the next three to four years. It will also provide an opportunity for the public to discuss and debate economic issues in a responsible and mature way, devoid of the sort of sensational irresponsible attacks on our economy which have characterised the Opposition in this Dáil since the general election. We will have to propose vigorous and disciplined measures to eliminate the imbalance in our economy which the budget deficit and the external deficit represent.
We see a clear need to reduce public expenditure, to make taxation more equitable and to bring about a more competitive economy with greater income restraint and higher productivity. We believe nowadays that there is throughout the Irish community a widespread reluctance to accept further increases in taxation. I believe, if the proposition were put to the Irish people today whether they want more Government services and if this means more taxation, their answer would be pretty universally against any higher levels of taxation.
Our economic plan will have to take cognisance of that reluctance among the Irish public to accept higher levels of taxation, direct or indirect. It is the only way forward. It is the way forward which growing international trade and falling inflation, however, will enable us to follow with reasonable success. The stark figures of unemployment which affect practically every home today should convince us all to accept the discipline and constraints which our economic plan will demand. It is only by building a more competitive and better structured economy that we can reverse these unemployment trends. Our economic plan will continue the high investment policies which we introduced to restructure our economy. We need a greatly enlarged industrial capacity. We need a more efficient economic infrastructure.
We have too high a dependence on imported products. The plan will certainly concentrate very specifically on import substitution. We have already identified £600 million worth of imports of industrial goods which should and can be produced here. In the construction and building industry alone we import £250 million worth of building and construction materials which, again, could be produced here. Our plan will include new intensive measures to correct this imbalance in our industrial capacity. We are confident the plan will be accepted by the country at large as a practical and sensible one and one designed to overcome our current economic difficulties. It is by a comprehensive and coherent plan of this sort, extending over the next three or four years, that we will ensure economic and social development while at the same time correcting the imbalances in our economy which have been brought about mainly by the international recession. We are seeking the confidence of this House as a Government committed to this comprehensive, practical and realistic approach to our current economic problems.
I want to give a quick outline of the priorities which the plan will set for itself. First of all, our primary economic priority will remain the provision of suitable, viable employment for our increasing population. We will seek to reduce the current budget deficit progressively and in accordance with economic circumstances. Allied to that we will be striving to reduce the external balance of payments deficit, to control public expenditure and to introduce a fairer tax system.
We have already begun a major review of our social welfare system. The purpose of that review will be to eliminate abuse of the system which, unfortunately, is far too prevalent at present and at the same time to investigate fully and realistically whether it is possible to get a greater return for the community for the vast amounts of money which are now going out in the form of social welfare benefits of one sort or another.
I would like to mention here that the trade union movement know that this Government, in their economic policies, have a full and fair regard for the interests of working people and the members of the trade union movement. We consult regularly with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and we take into account in our decisions the responsible views the congress express to us from time to time. The fact that actions in relation to the Clondalkin Paper Mills and Talbot Motor Company were taken in full consultation with congress and really based on proposals which they put forward shows that our economic management takes due account of major issues of industrial relations and the strategic security of the economy.
There are those who think economic policies can be pursued on the basis of confrontation with the trade union movement. We do not subscribe to that in any way. We have every confidence in the responsibility and maturity of our trade union leaders and we will continue to develop our economy on the basis of taking fairly into account the views of those trade union leaders and the trade union movement as a whole. We also maintain full consultation with employer organisations, again on the fundamental principle that in a small community such as ours the confrontation policies which the Opposition seem to favour will only bring dissension and division. Our economic plan will provide a basis for uniting all economic effort and interest in a concerted programme, to build up a more competitive and better structured economy, which is essential if we are to provide jobs for the labour force which we have and which is the fastest growing in the European Community.
The farming community also know that our successful negotiations in Brussels on farm prices and on the special aids for Irish farmers have brought substantial financial gains which have helped to alleviate the problems which have beset the farming industry over the last two to three years. We believe Irish farming has a very real chance this year to recover some of the ground it has lost. If we are to have, as there is every hope we can have, a good season, and with these increased prices and the special package we have negotiated, there is every prospect of a real increase in farm incomes this year. We have also introduced significant new aids for farming from natural resources and these are in line with our commitment to the industry as a primary source of economic strength and growth.
We have often assured the House that we will continue to defend the interests of our farming community in Brussels, as we have so successfully done in the past. Even if we had an overall majority in the House the Government in tackling the present problems, economic and financial, now facing the country would have a very formidable task on their hands. In a situation in which the Fianna Fáil Government does not have that kind of majority our task, obviously, is all that more formidable and difficult. We deplore the reckless and irresponsible attempts in Dáil Éireann in recent weeks to force a general election which we believe does not have any support whatever in the country. The Fine Gael Party, having preached the doctrine of financial rectitude over recent years, having paraded themselves as the custodians of public integrity and morality, have now attempted to bring about a defeat of the Finance Bill, an attempt which, fortunately for the country and the taxpayers, has not succeeded. Had it succeeded — I want to repeat this again and again — our national finances would have been plunged into chaos.
Mr. Bruton
Fine Gael supported amendments which were brought forward in good faith by some Deputies. But had those amendments gone through, in spite of all Fine Gael protestations about the need to get down the current budget deficit, they would have added many millions to the current budget deficit and the overall level of Government expenditure. That has all come from a party that has been endeavouring to get the people to believe that they are deeply concerned about the increase in the current budget deficit and in our foreign borrowing requirements.
Though this Fianna Fáil Government are in a minority voting situation in the Dáil we have pursued our budgetary policies and the undertakings we gave in the general election campaign. We have stuck to the course we set ourselves. I believe we are entitled to recognition of that simple fact. In the last general election campaign we were asked to do something very unusual. As an Opposition party we were asked, during the course of that campaign, to put forward the form of the budget we would introduce and, despite all the difficulties that confront an Opposition in that sort of situation, we did so. During that campaign we outlined clearly what we would do in the budget we would introduce. In the budget we stuck to the pledges we gave in the general election campaign, and we have continued to stay with that course ever since despite all the attempts that have been made to deflect us from it. I want to seek a vote of confidence in the House on the basis that we are going to continue to restore order into our national finances.
In the course of the debate in the House on the nomination of the members of the Government I said on 9 March that Fianna Fáil governments in the past had, from time to time, relied on support in the Dáil from Deputies outside Fianna Fáil. We welcomed such support but we accepted it on the basis that we must discharge our responsibility to the nation as we see it. That is the commitment I gave to the House on 9 March last. I believe we have discharged that commitment, and intend to continue to honour it while the Government retains the support of the majority of Deputies in Dáil Éireann.
We are now going confidently to ask the people of Galway East to reinforce that commitment of ours by returning a Fianna Fáil candidate to Dáil Éireann in that by-election. Whatever our country may or may not need in these troubled times, one thing it does not need is the turmoil and upset of a general election. We have a comprehensive programme in hand and we have a number of major valuable and important pieces of legislation which we have been prevented from enacting by the tactics of the Fine Gael Party.
I know that these are difficult times and that there are economic and fiscal problems confronting us, but when one looks around Europe today and sees the situation confronting other countries it can be legitimately claimed that we are not doing too badly and we have come through the recession in reasonably better shape than a lot of more developed and advanced countries. We see, for instance, the German Government, which presides over one of the strongest economies in the world, wrestling with very serious budgetary problems. We see that Government accepting a major deficit on the current budget for 1983, something which is very unusual in German circumstances. We see a very high level of unemployment in Germany, and we see the French Socialist Government imposing a very strict and rigid wage and price freeze. Those countries, like us, are beset by economic difficulties. When one looks at the situation that far stronger economies have to confront it is possible for us to say that we are not doing all that badly and that there is reasonable hope of an upturn in our situation in the period immediately ahead.
The Government have a coherent and consistent view of our situation and what is needed. We will soon have a document to put before the people which will chart the course we have to follow. But, first of all, we need the Finance Bill. That is the basic requirement. It is essential for the running of the country and the management of our finances for the rest of the year. When we have secured that base we will proceed to outline the economic plan I mentioned. We are going to outline the plan, secure a consensus for it and then proceed to implement it. It is a plan for economic recovery, and we want the House to endorse that programme which I have put before it. It is a programme which first of all demands and requires the passing of the Finance Bill and then moving on to the implementation of the economic plan which will deal with our economic and social problems for the next three or four years. We want the Dáil to respond now to the public need. The public need is for reasonably stable Government for the next three or four years; it is clearly not for a general election. We want a majority of Members in the House to agree with us in that and give us a vote of confidence to carry on on the lines which, in the short time at my disposal, I have briefly outlined this morning.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote on this motion, the fact is that this House has no confidence in the Taoiseach and his Government. There is no precedent in this State for a situation where the leader of the Government is opposed not only by half the House on these benches, but also by a large proportion of Deputies on his own. It is from those benches that the move came to unseat him after the last election and before the Dáil met. It is Deputies on those benches who have spoken in terms that no one has mistaken for anything other than hostility to the leadership of the Government — Deputies Colley, Gibbons and Molloy. It is from those benches that the effort has come from Deputy Molloy, to stem the flow of election promises before the by-election campaign starts. And while the attempt by the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers to halt the flow of criticism of the Government, and to stem the distrust felt about them, by trying to convert every criticism of the Government into an alleged smear, may appear to be directed at this side of the House, the criticisms which reflect on persons rather than political performance, have come from the Government benches rather than from these.
Thus it is not from this side of the House, but from Deputies on those benches, that the press learned on the morrow of the failed O'Malley coup, about Deputies hauled out of their beds at three in the morning, reduced to tears by a threatening horde of supporters of the Taoiseach. It is Deputies on those benches who tell the press and Deputies on this side of the House of threats they received and of the language used to intimidate them.
The simple fact is that the Taoiseach does not have the confidence of a majority in this House, and that the counting of heads in his own party by the leaders of those who have publicly, by their actions and their words shown their lack of confidence in him, is producing figures suggesting that he may not even have the residual confidence of 25 per cent of the members of this House. If in this situation he receives a formal vote of confidence, as he may well do, then the responsibility for all that follows from that vote of confidence rests squarely on the shoulders of those in Fianna Fáil or on the independent benches who, regarding him as an inappropriate person to hold the office of Taoiseach nevertheless, for reasons of political expediency, may choose to enter the lobbies by his side. History will not be kind to them. They need not think, if they fail to follow their consciences on this occasion, that if and when they do pluck up courage to wield the knife they have been brandishing for so long, that such a belated political assassination of their leader, after they have allowed him years in which to wreck our economy, will win them plaudits from the crowd or votes from the electorate.
These men, who in their hearts — and sometimes in their words — belong to the moral majority of this House, could even at this stage recover some of the esteem in which they have up till recently been held, if they take this opportunity to purge themselves of their association with a leader who has brought their party into disrepute. Correspondingly, if today, when he has been defeated in this House and can survive as leader of their party only with their votes publicly given here, if in these circumstances they follow him through the lobbies, and thus endorse policies that have led to the planned deficit for the whole of this year being exceeded in the first six months, the electorate will not look to them in any foreseeable future to lead us out of the moral and economic morass into which we have been led.
It is a measure of the crisis that has been brought about in this country since 1977, that so many people are today beginning to doubt whether our political system has the capacity to tackle the resultant situation. When people of good will in politics, and outside it, start seriously to canvass the merits of a "grand alliance" of the two major parties that would leave the Oireachtas without any effective Opposition, we are indeed in a state of mental and moral crisis. It may well be true that within the ranks of Fianna Fáil there may be a suppressed majority of people who share the concern of our party and its commitment to tackle the nation's problems whatever the cost. If that be so and if such a majority in Fianna Fáil came to grips with and ousted what they regard as a minority in their party, which in their view is endangering our economic and ultimately political stability, it might indeed be technically possible to find common ground between a reformed and purged Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael concerning the steps needed to save the State from the nemesis facing it as a result of what has happened in and through Fianna Fáil since 1977.
But those who advocate such an arrangement have to answer the question: would our democratic system be strengthened or weakened by having a Government controlling such a huge majority in Dáil Éireann that it would be impregnable for an indefinite future, and would leave a Dáil Opposition in such a small minority that it and all those who would find reason — whether of public or private interest — to be critical of such a grand alliance, would be in a condition of frustration at the practical impossibility of shifting such a Government from office? Would this, in the short run even, encourage cohesion in our society? Would it secure the kind of solidarity in the face of a crisis of undoubted major magnitude or would it before long destabilise the system?
These are questions that any sincere democrat must face and it is no answer to these questions to make a facile allegation that "nothing but the Civil War divides the two main parties". To someone like myself whose parents had opposite views about the Civil War and who was born well after it came to an end, this kind of talk is quite meaningless. My reasons for joining Fine Gael and the motivation I have as leader of this party has as much, and as little, to do with the Civil War as it has with the Battle of the Boyne or Poynings Parliament or any other event of our distant past.
It is time that this kind of sterile talk was dropped from the political vocabulary. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael today are separate parties because Fianna Fáil has been visibly untouched by liberalising forces in Irish Society because its members find no inspiration, as I have done, in social democracy and because the great majority of them find little attraction in pluralism but adhere to the older vision of a single-ethos society. So long as they remain an unreconstructed party in these matters, not open as Fine Gael has been to a new vision of our society, there will remain a fundamental political division between our parties and the people are entitled to a choice between them.
Having said that, I recognise, as most other people in this House do, that our economy and with it our society, face a crisis that will be resolved only by leadership.
From June last year till January this year I endeavoured to give this leadership despite the fact that my Government, as this one, lacked a majority in this House. That Government were criticised for some of their actions; no doubt we made mistakes, always easy to detect with the infallible eye of hindsight. But I do not think that we were ever seriously accused, even by our most vigourous critics, of dodging the great issues we faced or of lacking the courage of our convictions. We took head-on the task of turning our economy around and without looking over our shoulder at anyone, in seven short months we proceeded to halve the current budget deficit which but for our actions would have amounted to over one-ninth of total national output, and to reduce by one-third our Exchequer borrowing which but for our actions would have attained a level equal to one-quarter of that national output.
We were told by some at the time and by many after we were defeated, that this was magnificent but was not politics. Politics we were told is the art of survival. Never mind the public interest and the public good, never mind towards what national disaster your action may lead, politics is about staying in power for its own sake, we were told. Those who sought in vain to persuade us of this debilitating doctrine had an apt pupil in the wings. The present Taoiseach did not need to be persuaded that power was to be sought, and hung on to, for its own sake. He had shown already in his first 18 months in office that this was his philosophy and he has stuck to it with a cold passionate commitment since his return to power. No stroke is too obvious, no concession too great so long as he remains in office.
But to what end does he want to retain power? What are his objectives for this State? What are his aspirations for our people? Two-and-a-half years have now elapsed since he clambered over his defeated rival into the leadership of his party and of the country. In that time has anyone discovered where he wants to lead this country or how he envisages overcoming the deep economic crisis that threatens our stability? Certainly we learned little this morning in that regard. Or, at another level, how he envisages securing the coming together of minds between the Unionists of the North and the rest of the Irish people, a coming together upon which alone peace in Ireland can be built?
We have seen him lead us along the path of Anglo-Irish co-operation and have seen him then undermine this path by claiming counter-productively that it will lead us straight towards reunification regardless of the wishes of one million people in the North. And, having thus blown up the path in front of him, we have seen him, for the most short-term and trivial of reasons, in a by-election situation, blowing up the path of Anglo-Irish co-operation behind him by his gratuitous anti-British gestures over the Falkland Islands issue. He is not being thanked today for this self-indulgent action either by the Irish people in Britain, or by those at home dependent on tourism from Britain or exports to Britain, or by those in Northern Ireland who had placed some hope in his earlier efforts towards a closer Anglo-Irish relationship. He did not even secure the votes in Dublin West which this stupid antic was designed to win; the people of that constituency showed unambiguously their contempt for his contempt of them.
The time has come for this Government, under its present head, to leave office and give way to a new Government that will inspire and lead our people out of the quagmire into which they and all of us are threatening to sink.
Let no-one doubt the gravity of the situation we now face. Yesterday in Brussels the European Commission sounded a new note in its comments on the handling of our economy and that of two other member states, Belgium and Denmark. Let me tell the House what the Commission had to say: it said that we "have slipped into a markedly more unbalanced position than others" because we have "been less successful in controlling the accelerated rate of growth of public expenditure.""Very vigorous action is necessary", as we are "running a heavy deficit on both public finances and the balance of payments on current account...."
The Commission goes on to say that if "tangible results don't start to be recorded in 1982 and 1983 the increase in debt interest might worsen, lenders might grant shorter periods for loan repayment thus increasing the deficit, which might become more and more difficult to absorb, and this itself might increase the risks of larger demands on foreign markets." And they add that "a sustained effort in the medium term will be necessary to achieve lasting budgetary soundness; it must also be accompanied by the appropriate reformations of budgetary procedures or by a stricter application of the legislation which exists".
Figures attached to the Commission's statement show Government borrowing as a much higher percentage of gross domestic product in Ireland than in any other Community country, and public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product more than 50 per cent above that of any other Community country. These figures demonstrate the need for immediate action by a Government that would be willing, and able, to lead us out of a crisis which is now seen, by the European Commission as by others outside our shores, to be moving towards a dangerous climax.
The import of all this is clear. We need a Government that will govern — as we governed for seven months, without flinching from the task, without trimming, without "stroking". Such a Government would be most effective if it had a majority in this House. If such a majority does not exist and if it cannot be brought into being in this House within or outside the framework of the present party system, then let there be a general election.
Such an election is, certainly, not an end in itself. No-one, apart from a stray psephologist or two, wants it for its own sake. Most of us on all sides of this House would far prefer to avoid it, so far as our own personal interests or desires are concerned. But our interests and desires must take second place to the interest of the State, of society, of our people. If no Government can emerge in this present House with the will and the support necessary to halt the slide of our economy into chaos, then such a Government must be found by way of a general election. And given the pace of the deterioration in our economic situation, dramatically evidenced on this day by the Exchequer returns showing the whole of this year's deficit incurred in the first half and the stern warnings from Brussels, that election had best come sooner rather than later. Let us not slip further down the slope, nearer to the edge of the cliff, before we re-start the rescue operation begun on 30 June of last year.
The Taoiseach has raised a false objection to an election now, an election which he obviously fears. He said last week on radio and since in this House, that a defeat for the Government at this point, necessitating an election, would plunge the nation's finances into chaos. He appears to be referring to technical problems to do with the constitutional deadline for the passing of the Finance Bill. Our party are aware of this technical problem which can, however, readily be resolved. If the confidence motion, with which the Taoiseach has replaced the motions of no confidence put down at the end of last night's debate by myself and the Leader of the Labour Party, is passed at the end of this debate, we are prepared to enter immediately into discussions with the Government with a view to reaching agreement constructively on outstanding issues, and having the Finance Bill passed by this House before the Taoiseach would seek a dissolution from the President. The Taoiseach's attempt to suggest that unless he is given a vote of confidence, there will be a disruption of the public finances, has no foundation, and is designed only to confuse the public.
In conclusion, let it be clear that if the Government of this State changes, the policies to be pursued by any Government I lead will include:
The preservation and enhancement of the living standards of the less-well-off in our community, which in Government we provided for by means, for example, of the family income supplement, to be made available to lower paid workers; and the provision of basic services such as housing on the scale necessary to meet our people's needs, and on a basis that can be afforded by those involved;
The restoration of the incentive to work, tackling the defects in our system which allow people to earn less from working than from remaining idle;
The abolition of loopholes that allow tax avoidance, by whatever means, including the abuse of the basically legitimate device of discretionary trusts for this purpose, which Fianna Fáil dropped from the budget with the support of The Workers' Party. When an election comes we will have to remind voters that it was with the support of that party that the provisions for dealing with this method of avoidance were dropped;
The planning of the public finances, including measures to control expenditure — measures that will include both the introduction of genuine parliamentary control of spending along the lines proposed in our Government's White Paper, and measures to prune spending that contribute neither to the creation of employment, nor to the redistribution of income from the better-off to the less-well-off. These economic measures together with appropriate policies for incomes and prices provide the solid basis for a recovery in employment, the primary target of all our economic policies. We will be concerned to strengthen our laws against crime, now clearly inadequate, by measures that will include new safeguards against abuse. Lastly, our policies will include the creation of a pluralist society as a basis upon which to build a new relationship between North and South.
Let those who support such policies vote with us at the end of this debate. Those who do not support us when that vote comes must take responsibility for whatever further damage may be done to our economy through the continuance in office of a Government bereft of leadership, concerned to retain power for their own sake, without any conception of how to use that power for the good of our people.
I am supporting this call for a vote of no confidence in the Government for various reasons. The Government have shown no indication that they possess the political will to tackle the many problems facing the country, problems that are manifest in, for instance, the numbers of people out of work. The Government's budgetary measures will very much deepen the recession in the economy and there has been no attempt to tackle the underlying current budget deficit nor have there been measures that would contribute to the introduction of a fairer tax system.
The basic motivation behind our support for a vote of no confidence in the Government is what we consider to be the mishandling by them of the economy. Clearly, the Government have no policies to speak of in dealing with the crisis level of unemployment. The only policy instrument of an innovation nature on which they are relying is the one that was introduced by us while in Government. I refer to the Youth Employment Agency. The only other policy instrument designed to deal with unemployment, the development corporation, was discarded by Fianna Fáil in the election campaign. It is clear from the statements of the Taoiseach and of some Ministers that they see no merit in that kind of policy instrument. Apart from these issues there are other issues which though not related to the economy are important also and which the Government have shown no will to tackle.
The Government have shown contempt for the view of the Dáil. This was shown particularly in their attitude to the Ardmore Studios question.
Humanly speaking, none of us here wants an election. Three general elections in the space of little more than 12 months create problems both on the human level and in respect of finances. I do not think that any of the parties here can be confident about facing a general election, and while each party may have financial difficulties, we are worse off than the others in this respect. We get far less financial backing for our policies than is the case of any other party. Some of our views do not commend themselves sufficiently to get us the financial backing that we need at election times. For instance, our views in relation to taxation, particularly on capital taxation, do not meet with widespread approval. There is also the question of the attitude to the Bill put forward recently by Deputy Quinn and which is now the subject of an Oireachtas sub-committee. For all these reasons we lack the financial support that would allow us to be confident of putting forward our policies with the necessary projection in a general election situation. One makes excellent policy suggestions here in the Dáil but if one lacks the ability to project those to the people, then the electorate will lack the means to perceive or recognise those policies. It does not matter how we may perform and what policies we present here. What is vital is how we project them on TV and in advertising, but for these we need finance and we lack that.
Perhaps this vote of no confidence is a more seious matter than simply the fortunes of parties and their reluctance to face elections. Perhaps it is more important than their preparedness to face elections, financially or otherwise. Perhaps we have no choice other than to put this motion down and let the country judge the issues. If this motion is carried it is possible still from amongst our number here to provide effective government, but if that should not be possible, then again we may have to face that test which humanly speaking perhaps none of us wants, a third general election. Perhaps the issues which are not being dealt with by this Government make that choice inevitable.
Government statements continue to speak optimistically in terms of a recovery from the recession as a result of favourable external developments. Stagnating industrial output and the relentless rise in unemployment render these statements not only unreal but somewhat foolish. Confidence can be generated only if the Government's own actions are consistent with stated objectives. The Taoiseach in his speech today relied heavily on a forthcoming national economic and social plan, but on their own actions thus far in the management of the economy, public finances and Exchequer spending, the administration that the Taoiseach leads cannot merit our confidence, nor can we entertain great hopes for this projected national economic and social plan when seen through the deeds of this Government thus far. That plan will remain a statement of intent, and only that, unless agreement for stated goals leading to economic recovery is secured from unions and employers. The Taoiseach may refer to the fact that this Government consult heavily with unions. Surely no Government can simply think it sufficient to say that they consult with unions. That, as a matter of course, goes with every Government. The problem that worries the ordinary working people is growing unemployment. On that test and the paucity of their policies to deal with that test the relationship with the unions in the months and years ahead will deteriorate if this Government are to remain in office, continuing the performance they have engaged in so far. This national economic and social plan can succeed only if the Government seek to implement a plan which can secure this agreement from the major economic interests, and only when the major economic interests are convinced that the Government are serious in meeting the objectives of the plan can we talk of any possibility of success. At present this conviction on the part of the major economic interests is lacking. That plan would need to be backed by a Government with the courage to manage the economy successfully to give leadership in the management of that economy. When I say that the Government are weak and indecisive I am not referring to their lack of numbers and support here in the House and of Deputies who support them in divisions. We had the example of a Government of the same party who had a large majority here and who by every decisive test of Government were also weak. We fault this Government on the manner in which they refuse to face up to the economic difficulties. They judge every issue by the test of their own survival here in the House.
Therefore, I do not have confidence at this time, based on the Government's performance so far and their stated objectives, that they will have the ability to carry through any economic plan to successful fulfilment. God knows, a plan is needed because there is lack of confidence in the country at present and lack of direction in the management of the economy. One may overwork this question of confidence from time to time and may say that it is a term of which we exaggerate the importance, but observable on every side of the country at present is a total absence of confidence in the outlook and future of the economy, beginning from the top in a lack of confidence in the ability and capacity of this Government.
I like to call a spade a spade. Since there is this lack of confidence in the Government, and my case here is that the Government's actions contributed to that lack of confidence, it is right that the parliament of the country should discuss a motion of no confidence in that Government. On all sides, in business circles, on the union side, there is this lack of confidence that their future is being looked at carefully by this Government and that this Government have the capacity to carry any plan through to fulfilment. The Government carry a major responsibility to demonstrate by their own actions to the unions and employers that they have the political will to confront the present economic crisis and create the necessary consensus to implement any economic and social plan. To date the verdict must be that the Government have failed on both counts.
When we had a say in government, looking at this problem of dealing with the plan and realising the importance of having a plan, we resisted the temptation to cobble together various targets, string them on an on-going public expenditure project and label that an economic plan. Instead, our proposal was to establish a national planning board who would have carefully worked out terms of reference and would not simply issue a document but would take an active role in policy formation. The biggest single obstacle to the success of a planned approach to our economy is an apparent indecisiveness in the Government's own approach to tackling the financial crisis. I do not deny that some flexibility is required in fiscal policy in terms of how the current budget deficit is reduced. However, how can either the trade unions or industry be expected to co-operate in a national planning framework when the Government's own ground rules for financial management have been flouted three or four times in as many months since the Government took office? No one at this point can say whether the Central Bank would be forced to take further action with consequent adverse effects for employment to counteract the failure of the Government to meet their stated budget deficit target. The Exchequer figures out later today will illustrate this crisis pretty adequately.
The necessity for ensuring that economic policy decisions are consistent with socially just objectives is vital if the co-operation of working people is to be secured in a national plan. The Government have seriously weakened the possibility of such co-operation by making tax concessions which clearly are of more benefit to high income earners, and in the case of mortgage interest relief, exclusively so. Again, this is of a piece with the Government's whole pattern of government over the period. As to the problems that arose in relation to PRSI we do not even at this moment know where the £45 million has come from to effect the reform proposed by the Government.
If the co-operation of the working people is to be secured the objectives must be socially just, but the measures so far indicated illustrate a total absence of recognition by the Government that their own actions must conform with the stated objective of reforming the taxation code in an equitable manner.
Another part and parcel of the same ad hoc approach to our national problems is illustrated by their decision to proceed with the imposition of VAT at the point of importation. That is another example of how the Government in pursuing the objective of reducing the current budget deficit have chosen a policy instrument which is totally at variance with their stated objective to reduce unemployment. In fact, that measure is likely to contribute very little in the longer term to reducing the current budget deficit, as there is limited financial benefit to the Exchequer in accelerating tax repayments which normally arise in the next financial year. But, there is no doubt, and the evidence is overwhelming from both industry and unions, that it will lead to increased costs for industry and thus to increased unemployment.
Of course, there are proposals, we understand, from the Government to help industry to pay the £176 million tax bill imposed in the budget. That is a further example.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Excuse me, Deputy O'Leary. Would you kindly give way to the Taoiseach?