Deputy Harte is in possession and has five minutes left.
Confidence in Government: Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
—(The Taoiseach.)
When I reported progress yesterday I was making the point that the economic policies which have been pursued have been in total contradiction to the policies which have been preached. The negative policies being pursued were brought into focus by the break with sterling, making the Border an international frontier. This was brought about by a party who preach anti-partitionist policies. The strange thing is that until we broke with sterling we were not looking clearly at the picture. We had negative policies starting with the economic war and the Control of Manufactures Act which made it impossible for Irish people abroad to bring money back to this country. If that legislation had not been repealed by the 1948 Inter-Party Government the IDA could not have been set up and the First and Second Programmes for Economic Expansion could not have been introduced.
If the parties in this Parliament hold as sacrosanct the ideal of a united Ireland they must not adopt economic policies which are not consistent with that ideal. Until this is realised by all parties we will not make any contribution to the peaceful coming together of the two major traditions in this island. Failure to make such a contribution will condemn future generations to the conditions experienced in the past and also by the present generation. After 60 years of native Government we are not going in the right direction either economically or politically and we must examine alternative policies.
If there is a general election and I am re-elected, I will be arguing either from the Government side or from the Opposition benches that the break with sterling was the greatest mistake made by this State. This fact is realised by ordinary people in Border areas, people who never had the opportunity of going to school, old age pensioners and even school children. The tragedy is that there are Deputies who still cannot see this point. They are talking about policies without understanding what they are saying.
A Fianna Fáil Government brought us into the European Monetary System, preaching that interest rates and inflation would reduce and that the exchange rate against sterling would increase and put our exports at an advantage. Inflation did not reduce, interest rates rose and the rate of exchange against sterling has fallen by 25 per cent. In view of the experience we have had, would the Government take the same decision today? When we joined the EEC we held a referendum. The people were influenced in their decision by the fact that Britain was joining and they felt that we should also join. When we joined the EMS we did it by decision of this House. If the Government of the day had asked the people to decide on our entry to the EMS on the same basis as our entry to the EEC I wonder what the decision would have been. It may have been well intended but it was a major mistake. If it was a major mistake then if we want to lead the people in the right direction, to a peaceful coming together of all the traditions of this island, then the honourable thing to do is to admit the mistake, say that we were wrong, unscramble the position and try to find the right direction. If we do not do that we are being less than protective to the people and we are not doing our job.
I welcome this opportunity of rising to comment on and support the vote of confidence before the House. The most vital need of our country today is government, good government, the type that has been given and will continue to be given from a Government who are committed to taking the right measures whether they be popular or unpopular. The country, the economy, our young people need good government. A period of stability was never so badly needed here as it is now. We are determined to continue to give the country the government it needs and to direct the economy along the lines required to bring that about. We believe that the people want us to get on with the job. Those who seek to frustrate the Government, who are constantly seeking to undermine the confidence of the people in the Government, who are prepared at home and abroad — we have had many instances of it — to sow the seeds of cynicism about and distrust of the Government are doing severe damage to the institutions of the State at a time of most urgent need for a spirit of co-operation to be engendered throughout our community and are misjudging the mood of the country, as they will find to their cost.
Earlier this year we set about the business of government. Of course, we were faced with difficulties unprecedented in our time. We have been carrying the responsibility of shielding the economy and the population at large from the worst effects of a severe international recession. We have only to look around at Europe to see the effect this recession is having on even the strongest economies there. I could give a list, but every Member of this House knows the difficulties facing every member of the Community. At Social Affairs Councils over the past months it has been a question of who represents what country because of the difficulties facing these governments, caused by the deep international recession.
During all this period while we have been taking the right and correct measures, what have the Opposition been doing? Their main concern has been to denigrate the Government in every way possible and to undermine their efforts for the rehabilitation of the economy. Let us look at the performance of the Leader of the main Opposition party. What has been his constructive contribution since this House resumed this term? Not one constructive phrase has been spoken in this House by that Leader. Last week we saw him rise to comment on the appointment of new Ministers. His comments were negative, typical personal vilification and accusations, but did he speak on the plan? No, he did not. It is not going too far to accuse him and his party of a campaign of national sabotage which reflects no concern for the people we all represent or for the economy but is directed solely to the attainment of political advantage. It is hypocritical in the extreme. I have never before now seen such hypocrisy as I have seen in this House over the last few months by the Leader of the main Opposition party and by that party themselves. Smears, insinuations, allegations and charges have been made at each and every member of the Government and our Leader. To take an example, we had this great story about telephone tapping, and we all know now the true story there. We know now that that was concocted and arranged by the Leader of the main Opposition party and some of his colleagues prior to the election last year but it was not proceeded with then. Why? Because it did not suit their purpose at the time.
What about Deputy Jim Mitchell?
Deputy Jim Mitchell was deeply involved in all of this.
He covers up everything and he was never around when the accusation was made and he never answered the accusations.
Deputy Manning is a decent man and I would not charge him with doing that or being involved in that type of vicious smear campaign, tactics and practice that Garret the good, Garret the holy, Garret holier than thou was involving himself in. Here is an Opposition leader who continually encourages smears and personal attacks and accusations, yet for some reason appears to be a nice, honourable, honest person. Surely his performance in this House in the past months in Opposition has left him very short in those ——
It seems to be a contradiction for the Minister to condemn our Leader.
I did not interrupt Deputy Harte.
The Minister without interruption.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister.
I do not want to quote Members who are no longer in this House and who have gone to their reward. A reference was made to those days of Opposition and the Deputy adopts the same practice now of jumping, jumping and jumping and rising but never saying anything positive. Hypocritical it has been, is and will be. I have referred to the big story about telephone tapping. Here was something that the Taoiseach had to be charged with and should be ashamed of. Then it transpired when the investigation proceeded that this was part of the smear campaign and really there was no story there at all other than it had been attempted by the Fine Gael Party a few days prior to the general election and they decided then that it might rebound against them and they did not proceed with it then. Later they thought the time appropriate to raise it in this House. It was a damp squib, unreal, not a charge. Many similar attempts have been made since then, culminating in the events of this week in this House when the main Opposition party Leader moved a vote of no confidence. Why? He talks about strokes. He saw his opportunity of pulling the biggest stroke ever pulled by a political leader. He was not interested in the country or the economy or whether there would be an election. He wanted power and he intended to have it at any cost. Because one colleague of mine was buried in Clare — go ndeanagh Dia trócaire ar a nanam — he saw an opportunity. Because another colleague of mine was in intensive care in a Kilkenny hospital he saw another opportunity. He was prepared to pull this stroke and to use anybody to ensure that he would get power at all costs.
Whatever happens here this evening he will certainly learn his lesson and realise the mistake he is making. The people must realise that that is why we have this vote of confidence. It is not because any positive constructive approach has been offered from Fine Gael on the plan before us. Their leader did not even speak on the plan. It is simply because, in an opportunistic way, it was seen there was a possibility of getting power. That is what this vote of confidence is all about. It is obvious that the Government, through extremely difficult times and despite their narrow majority or a minority situation in the House, were prepared to take the measures needed to redress the economy. The Opposition have constantly criticised us for being vague, inconsistent and lacking the courage and the strength to implement our policies.
Let us contrast this with the chances, the U turns, and the turnabouts they have been trying to take while in opposition. It is entirely immaterial that they are contradictory. It is entirely immaterial to think that we had a Government in the first month of this year and the latter months of last year who preached financial rectitude. They were then preaching cutting costs. Let us compare that with the same men who came into the House and moved amendment after amendment on our Finance Bill that would have put enormous costs on the taxpayers. Where is the honesty and the integrity? I believe they have been exposed but they have one thing going for them. They are very good at public relations and at promoting a certain image. We saw that in almost every Department when they were in Government when experts were brought in from outside to promote and to project not what was happening but the Ministers in charge of particular Departments. The type of people who were brought in were not neutral politically. They were not Fianna Fáil supporters but were all strong, solid party people of Fine Gael. This is the true story.
Let us compare that with what would have happened if we adopted those tactics. We relied mostly on the sound and solid advice of the civil service and our own experience of the ordinary problems of the country. We did not have to be dictated to by ranchers, too many academics or people of that ilk. The main Opposition party stand exposed for what they are now, absolutely devoid of political principles. They are opportunists, always with an eye for the chance. They are happiest going over the events of years ago and are not prepared to look forward. Their track record in 1982 will probably go down in history as being the most contradictory one of any party in the history of the House. The fulsome self-righteousness they preached soon became unimportant and was replaced by the opportunism that was appropriate to frustrate the efforts of a committed Government.
Where is responsibility? I believe this is irresponsibility of the highest order. The collection of ranchers, laywers and academic economists tell us they know best how to run the country but I always regard them as a party without any reality, a party of dreams, beliefs, but without their feet on the ground. Fianna Fáil in Government are determined to realise the targets to which the Opposition pay lip service. We are determined to do this in a manner consistent with the overriding need to safeguard the interests of the weaker and the more vulnerable of the community, the aged, the sick and the unemployed. It has always been our philosophy and it will always be, despite our present economic difficulties. This has always been our main platform.
We must put first and foremost the interests of our youth who need an ideal and an opportunity to realise that ideal far more than they need elections which are all about power for the sake of power and no more. They need the ideal of playing their part, building up the future of the country through the contribution they can make in secure jobs in good employment. They need sound and solid leadership which the Taoiseach is giving them. I want to pay a compliment in the House, which was paid by a senior and experienced civil servant of independent beliefs recently when he described him in my presence as the hardest working Taoiseach he had seen in the history of the country. The Opposition have set about character assassination of the Taoiseach and every member of the Government. We had the same approach in relation to our candidates in the various by-elections.
I want to talk about the approach to The Way Forward, into which we put so much hard, dedicated and committed work. Some parts of the plan were not popular. They were very tough, stern measures which would have to be taken. This plan, perhaps with slight variations, will have to be implemented whatever Government are here next week or next year. All the parties in the House and all the Independent members of this House will have to realise that too. There will be some variations but it is the way forward. I will go so far as to say it is the only way forward with slight amendments. The Taoiseach generously offered the opportunity of a committee of the House to discuss the plan but the Opposition parties scoffed at this. A steering committee was established which had independent people. I am sure most Deputies will have read the article in The Irish Times last week by Dr. Ciaran Kennedy when he said that the approach by the Government was a brave one because the observations, comments, suggestions and proposals of the steering committee were accepted. The support by independent groups was overwhelming. The only criticism offered was by Fine Gael. It was criticism of a purely political nature and without much research.
Deputy John Bruton, who spoke first in the debate when his leader did not and has not yet spoken on it, used words completely out of character with a serious debate on a plan on The Way Forward, childish words from a childish mind. I have no idea what gobble-de-gook means but Deputy Bruton should realise that we are talking about a serious problem, the problem of governing a community in extremely difficult times. Despite these difficulties that was the sort of approach from the Deputy. So far as he was concerned positive recommendations were very scarce. The Taoiseach asked that a committee be set up to examine the situation but that request was treated with derision. That is where responsibility ends and irresponsibility begins and that irresponsibility has never been more evident than has been the case in the past seven or eight months.
The plan is a comprehensive analysis of the problems facing us. It contains proposals for restoring the economy to full health within a five-year period. On the one hand the plan is corrective in its nature and, as such, must contain quite an amount of detail while at the same time there is the developmental aspect of it, though obviously it is not possible to be as precise about the future in terms of planning as one would wish.
Another reason for the plan can be attributed to the type of government that we have always believed in, that is, government by consensus. In relation to the preparation of this plan we consulted with both sides in industry as well as with the farming organisations and with various other relevant bodies. During the latter months of 1981 we were having serious consultations with these various interests, though perhaps I should not go into too much detail regarding what can only be described as the lecturing, as opposed to consultation, that was engaged in by the Leader of the main Opposition party.
The plan we have brought forward is one that must be followed by whoever happens to be in government in the future if we are to tackle the nation's problems. The Taoiseach has said generously that any worthwhile suggestions that could be included in the plan would be included.
Already we have begun to put into effect one of the fundamental tenets of the plan. I refer to significantly reducing public expenditure. There can be no question of the public service continuing to grow steadily as has been the case in recent decades. It is essential, if the taxpayer is not to be asked to shoulder an impossible burden, that there be a reduction in the numbers employed in the public sector. In this year some 1,500 vacancies in the civil service have remained unfilled and there are similar restrictions in other parts of the public service. During the coming four years there is planned a net reduction of 4,000 in the public service. Any new service or activity will have to be provided for from within the existing staff numbers even if that means that some other scheme or programme must be cut back. One of the longer term effects of the plan should be greater efficiency throughout the public service as a result of the extension of clear personal accountability for the management of staff and money.
In stressing the need for streamlining the public service and improving efficiency I do not wish in any way to take from the tremendous asset the country has in its public service. Public administration here has attracted some of the country's brightest talent and best brains. The integrity and impartiality of our public service are testimony to the dedication of the staff down through the years. Some observers have hinted that the cutbacks will mean an end to recruitment. But natural wastage by way of retirements and resignations will provide a steady flow of vacancies. In addition early retirement and job splitting are ways in which recruitment can be maintained without expanding the size of the public service or incurring significant extra costs.
In my dealings with the Council for Social Affairs in Europe, I have learned that this is the sort of step being taken by our partners in that council. As a result of the actions taken by this Government and by previous Fianna Fáil Governments we have come through the recession far better and with less damage to our economy than has been the case of our partners in Europe though we have a greater problem in that our population is growing at four times the European average while our labour force is growing by twice the European average. Those two figures alone mean that instead of being opportunistic and hypocritical, instead of being insincere and endeavouring to project an image that is totally different from reality by the skilful use of a large public relations organisation, both paid for and voluntary, the people opposite should face reality.
I am having studies made regarding the scope for actuarial-reduced payments before normal retirement age in certain circumstances and also for job sharing, that is, splitting full-time jobs into a number of part-time jobs. Similar studies are being conducted throughout Europe. One tough decision that we have taken already has been the tackling of public service pay. It was on this issue that the Opposition have been most two-faced. It is obvious from some of the comments made by the Leader of Fine Gael that he does not know what the whole issue is about and that he is not interested in knowing. However, when the public service pay agreement was negotiated last year by my predecessor, Deputy FitzGerald was not happy with it nor was he clear as to what it really contained. So much for the brilliant brain that has been projected so often. We were faced with a mounting economic crisis, with a falloff in revenue. Consequently, we have no choice but to renegotiate the payment of the final phase of the public service's pay agreement and to move on the issue of special pay increases. This was a decision that was not taken lightly. The Opposition said they were willing to bring down the Government on the issue. They tried to make political capital out of the Government's difficulties though that meant flying in the face of the nation's best interest. Indeed, the Leader of Fine Gael saw fit to return early from what was to be a month's holiday in France because of the problem. There was not to be any Irish holiday for Deputy FitzGerald.
What about Deputy O'Malley?
Deputy FitzGerald rushed in with a statement at the most delicate time thereby usurping and thwarting the business of the ICTU who had a meeting arranged for the following day to consider the position. The statement from the Leader of Fine Gael was mischievous and was timed deliberately to frustrate the Government's efforts in going about their business. The Government were left with three options. First, there was the option of increasing taxation. We realise the need for a lessening of the burden of taxation. That is a goal we are working towards in government. We must have a fairer distribution of the tax burden and a lightening of the load on the PAYE worker. In those circumstances increased taxation was not a possibility. Further borrowing was not a possibility either. For the first time we had a budget that was totally on target on the expenditure side but, as has been the case in other western economies, there was a shortfall in revenue and that shortfall meant that in July we had to take certain decisions. Obviously, the decision to reduce public expenditure was the best of the three options we were faced with. When one realises that, discounting debt charges, pay now constitutes 50 per cent, one realises that it is impossible to cut public expenditure without also making some pay cuts.
The leader of the main Opposition Party hurried home from his holiday in France and hastened into a scene with which obviously he was not familiar and tried to frustrate the efforts of the Government and the efforts of the ruling body of the trade union movement. He said they would bring down the Government. That was not an issue when the Dáil resumed. Draft proposals were worked out and re-negotiated between the Public Services Committee of Congress and myself, and these proposals are now being voted on. I do not wish to pre-empt the decision; perhaps I could speak more freely if the issue had been decided, but, irrespective of the outcome, when I was asked in a radio interview if I saw this as a victory I said no, that in pay negotiations or industrial relations discussions there were no winners or losers. I did see a victory for responsibility in that a Government Minister could sit down with the Public Services Committee of Congress, they on their side having the problem of honouring agreements and the concept of free collective bargaining, and we on our side completely committed to free collective bargaining but having a serious financial situation which meant that no further money could be paid in 1982. Because of that responsible approach by the negotiating groups and my team and myself, draft proposals were worked out which are being voted on. Yet the Leader of the main Opposition Party was prepared to thwart those efforts. In this House last week he indicated his ignorance of the whole situation. I should like him to explain somewhere, whether in this House next week or elsewhere in the event of anything happening to prevent that, some of the things he said. Perhaps Deputy Manning could help but I do not suppose he knows his Leader's mind; it is hard to follow a mind like his.
In the Official Report of the Dáil debates, volume 338, column 113 the Leader of the main Opposition party says in reference to public sector pay:
The people are disillusioned because the result of this £500 million splurge in a desperate search for electoral popularity has meant drastic unplanned cuts.
I do not know to what that refers. He goes on to say:
It can be seen in the attempt to welch on the third phase of the public pay agreement, which failed, ——
which failed
—— as it was bound to do, and reduced the Government's capacity to renegotiate as distinct from re-phasing payments of special pay increases.
Would Deputy Manning ask his Leader to say what he was talking about? What does he mean by re-phasing and renegotiating special pay increases? It seems he does not understand what it is all about.
In a further comment he says — this was during his wonderful performance in condemning Ministers of the Government, character assassination, his only contribution last week when the major plan was before the House but he did not refer to it: I am now quoting from column 116 of the Official Report where he said:
There is the Minister for Labour who was responsible for an unnecessary 5 per cent confrontation....
What was he talking about?
—— and the resultant costly settlement which could impose an intolerable burden on public finances in 1984.
Could any man be so dishonest as to say that in this House? I have already clearly spelled out the position. I am rather reluctant to go into details because the voting decision has not yet been finalised, but Deputy FitzGerald must know that the greatest problem facing the Government was the public services pay agreement which his Government negotiated and which was estimated to cost £250 million in 1983 in special increases alone. I can stand over that figure; everybody accepts it. The draft proposals effect a considerable reduction on that figure if accepted. In the interests of the country that is essential because this is the way forward. Here we have Deputy FitzGerald trying to create a dishonest case.
How much time do I have, please?
Seven minutes.
I believe in being open and honest in dealings with the community and the House; that has been my policy and I have never resorted to personal smears but the time has come when allegations made here and outside must be answered. I want to refer to some other proof of this Government's commitment to take all possible action in areas of concern for the people. Since our return to office I have guided through the House an Act to amend the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 which had long been hanging fire. A commitment had been made by me before leaving office in 1981 and it was no fault of my predecessor, Labour Party Minister Deputy Kavanagh, that the Bill had not gone through. He did take it to the Government. He knows, as I do, why it did not go through and why it would not have been put through by any Government other than a Fianna Fáil Government.
It had become a very sore and irritating issue with the Trade Union Congress because of how some unions particularly were suffering and had suffered under it. Basically you were bringing public sector workers into line with workers in trade and industry. In fact what happened was that decisions of the courts here under the 1906 Act had meant that this anomaly, so to speak, had arisen and therefore there had to be an amendment. It was not Deputy Kavanagh's fault that the amendment was not carried through. It was because strong, solid Fine Gael conservatism made sure it did not go through. A commitment was given in the document to have it amended. In our system of free collective bargaining responsibility rests with management, workers and trade unions for effecting improvements. Industrial relations is an area where everyone can make a contribution to economic recovery. Good industrial relations are based on good human relations. In a country as small as ours we should be able to have improved industrial relations.
I have already indicated my intention to invite both sides of industry to discuss ways and means of improving our procedures and structures. To those who scream and say "legislation, legislation" I say, if industrial relations could have been legislated for, then every western country would have legislated the problem away long ago. That they have not done so is an indication of how right I am.
I shall speak now on how we are meeting head on the challenge of the problems facing us. AnCO will double their throughput of trainees between 1981 and 1986. At that time it will be catering for more than 35,000 trainees. We applied for an increase of over 30 per cent from the social fund for the current year. This is the highest figure to date. I met the EEC Commissioner on a number of occasions to ensure that we will not suffer in any way because of an extension of the social fund to other countries. I have been given that assurance.
Important though AnCO's efforts are for the young they will not be solely directed at them. The additional capacity being developed will contribute significantly to providing for the needs of older workers whose skills may need updating or adjusting to changing circumstances because of the trauma of people at a certain age being made redundant. The youth employment agency is fully operational and has been given the objective of ensuring that all young people who are unemployed for six months or more are offered an employment or a training opportunity. CERT have also increased their training activities and more people going through their training system this year. That trend will continue. The Department of Labour are fully aware of the problem of the unemployed and are making a contribution to help alleviate the problem.
It would be remiss of me not to avail of this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Chairman of CERT, Mr. Michael Mullen, General Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. He was Chairman of CERT before my appointment as Minister for Labour in 1977. He was appointed by my predecessor and I reappointed him during my term of office. I wish to put on the record of the House my sincere and genuine tribute to a man who contributed so much over the years to the hotel and catering industry. I know how committed he was to the growth and development of CERT and how many mornings we met at times which suited us both whether 8.00 a.m., 8.30 a.m. or 8.45 a.m. to discuss the problems of CERT. I convey my personal sympathy and that of those on this side of the House to his family, the ITGWU and the Council of CERT. I know he will be a great loss. He was a great trade union leader and a great Irishman. His contribution was great. It would have been remiss of me not to avail of the opportunity when referring to CERT to say how sorry I am that Michael Mullen passed away and say to his family, widow and the Transport Union that we are all poorer for his passing. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam cróga, calma.
I wish to refer to the work experience programme. This year the premium has been increased from £20 to £30 and the number of new participants will be in the region of 9,000 this year which is almost a 50 per cent increase over last year. I have so much I could say in this debate but time is limited. This debate is not about confidence. It is a question of availing in an opportunistic way of the dilemma which faces the Government because of the death of a fine colleague of mine in Clare a few weeks ago and because of the serious illness of another fine colleague of mine in Kilkenny. The leader of the Fine Gael Party has availed in an opportunistic way of this and is disrupting the nation's economy and undermining the whole fabric of government. He is prepared to have an election campaign which will disrupt us for the next few months. That is what it is all about. It is not about confidence in the Government. It is power for the sake of power and I hope in my contribution I have highlighted some of the hypocrisy which emanates from that side of the House.
I should like to be associated with a tribute paid by the Minister for Labour to the late Michael Mullen. I came to know of his very fine qualities, in particular when I joined him here as a Labour colleague on these benches in October 1961. He was a man of outstanding ability. It would take a very long yardstick to measure the good Michael Mullen achieved in his lifetime as a member of this House and as General Secretary of the largest trade union in the country. He played his part as a true disciple of Connolly and Larkin in seeking consistently to uplift and ennoble the lives of working-class people. I wish to convey to his family, his union, his colleagues and friends my personal sense of loss and sadness at the passing of this great man. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam dhílis.
I am very conscious, in addressing the House in this its dying moments, of the death pangs of the Government which we have witnessed for the last few days and which are far from edifying. The wheeling and dealing goes on unabated and shamelessly. Parties and Members of the House are being bullied, cajoled and virtually bribed to keep this pathetic administration in office. All kinds of promises are being made and everything one desires is on the table for the taking in terms of privilege, office or policy. Plans, programmes and principles are simply thrown out the window by the Government in a desperate bid to hold on to office. Thank God there are individual Members and parties in this House — and my party is one of them — who will not be bought, bullied or bribed. There are still men and women of principle in the House who when it comes to 5 o'clock this evening will be prepared to stand up and be counted and, with a sense of pride and achievement, bring to an end this Administration which has brought nothing but shame, ruin and misery to the vast majority of our people.
As a result of the activities of this Government in recent months, and especially in recent days, I believe, as a long serving Member of this House, that we have reached a new low in Irish politics. Gimmicks have replaced policies and the Government and their agents operate on the basis of a ruthless Mafia, on the basis of power at any price. The Irish people have seen this sad spectacle for themselves and they will not stand for it. I believe they are as anxious as we on the Opposition benches are to end it all and to have a general election so that they may be afforded an opportunity of bringing back once again to the country and to this House honour and dignity.
My primary purpose in coming here was to deal with the Government's so-called economic plan. Unemployment is the fundamental issue and has been for some time. It now stands at an all-time record. The register shows 160,000 people out of work but there are probably another 40,000, many of them in their teens, looking for their first job. Irrespective of their high academic or vocational attainments and despite the fact that they may possess leaving certificates or university degrees, there is no glimmer of hope on the horizon of their securing jobs. The future for these young people is bleak.
The unemployment trend is still upward. Nothing the Government have done has had any effect on this continuing upward spiral. Since Deputy Haughey became Taoiseach in 1979 the numbers out of work have increased by 50 per cent. Our present level of unemployment is the second highest in the European Community. It is a source of shame and disgrace to all of us. The most disturbing feature of this situation is the vast growth in our labour force in recent years. Our population is the fastest growing in Europe. Between 1971 and 1978 our population rose by about 500,000. Our labour force is expanding at twice the European average. This is a daunting prospect for us and places an enormous burden on new job creation.
What have the Government done to deal with this problem? In his first term as Taoiseach Deputy Haughey did nothing except to deny that the problem existed. In his second term he did nothing except to belatedly publish this plan. The only effective and original proposal introduced by the Government was the youth employment agency scheme, a Labour Party proposal put into effect by my colleague, Deputy Liam Kavanagh, as the then Minister for Labour.
What are the future prospects? Against this background what does the future hold for us? The plan admits that if nothing is done over the next five years by 1987 unemployment will reach the horrific figure of 300,000. The plan indicates that there will be substantial job losses in the public sector, that the balance of payments deficit will affect the value of our currency, that the national debt will rise to one-and-a-half times the present gross national product and that our ability to borrow abroad will be utterly destroyed.
This crisis situation and sorry mess are attributable in the main to the Fianna Fáil Party, who were charged with Government for so many years. Gimmickry and the policy of borrow, borrow, borrow, irrespective of the consequences, have brought about this sorry situation. The plan's proposals are to phase out the budget deficit by 1986. This will involve massive and horrific cutbacks in all sectors, services, Departments of State and local authorities, plus payments for many services which are now free. A quarter of the savings will come from increased charges for services and the public service pay increase is to be limited to 5 per cent for each year up to 1986. How do the Government expect to sell a plan of that kind to the working classes or the trade union movement — a 5 per cent increase for the next five years at a time when the reality has been that the increase in the cost of living was, on average, 20 per cent in recent years and is estimated this year to be 17 per cent? Inherent in this is a demand on the working classes and the trade union movement to take a severe cutback in their standard of living. That is an intolerable suggestion which cannot, and will not, be accepted. It is rejected by the Labour benches as an intolerable, insolent demand on the working classes.
National pay agreements have brought peace and harmony to industrial relations but under this plan they are no longer tolerable or seemingly acceptable. We are told a commission will investigate ways and means of moderating special pay claims. The workers will not accept the blame for the misgovernment of Fianna Fáil, their waste, inefficiency and extravagance.
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Treacy, but I understand the Whips have agreed that in respect of today's contributions speakers will be limited to 30 minutes.
I was not aware of that.
Neither was I until just now but I am advising the House that that agreement was made.
This curtails my speech but I will doubtlessly have other opportunities to make my arguments at the hustings.
(Dún Laoghaire): In fairness to Deputy Treacy, there was a disagreement after he started to speak, so we would not object if he were given extra time.
I am grateful to the Deputy but I will accept the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I do not mind if the Deputy is given extra time.
The Chair is advising the House of notice which the Chair has received. If Deputy Treacy wishes to speak all day and if the House is happy about that, it is not a matter for the Chair. I have made the announcement and Deputy Treacy may proceed.
I am grateful. I was saying that the trade union movement and the working classes cannot be expected to accept what is contained in this plan which involves a very serious reduction in their present standards of living at a time when many of them are at subsistence level. The public services are being cut in this plan by 4,000 jobs up to 1986. The social welfare increases will be limited to 8 per cent per annum below the expected long-run rate of inflation. Pensioners, we gather, will be exempted; but all other categories of social welfare beneficiaries such as the unemployed and the sick will suffer substantial reductions in their allowances if this plan is put into operation. Subsidies will only be permitted to grow by 4 per cent per annum. This means enormous price increases on such things as local authority houses, and we understand the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment has plans to increase differential rents by upwards of 50 per cent.
We are all acutely aware of the massive cuts in the health boards and the effect on employment in these boards. Cutbacks next year in the public capital programme will amount to 3 per cent or approximately £250 million short of what should be spent on our roads, our sewerage schemes, our hospitals and so on. All this at a time when local authorities are deprived of revenue they so badly require to maintain essential services. Those of us who are members of local authorities are acutely aware that for the past few years our councils have been merely ticking over. We have been unable to make any positive plans for future development in respect of the proper maintenance of our roads, the implementation of sewerage schemes or water supplies. House building has also been adversely affected. The same applies to schools and hospitals. An increase in PAYE between now and 1986 will yield approximately £1,500 million. Other taxes, including VAT and excise duties, will be increased by £400 million, that is about a quarter in 1986, under this plan. This is a very substantial increase. There will be for all those people employed in the private sector the harrowing news that their incomes will be restrained very considerably. The wording in this document is "moderate pay increases" presumably in the case of the public sector personnel 5 per cent per year irrespective of the inflation rate that prevails at any given time.
The primary social and economic objective of the plan is said to be to try to reverse the current upward unemployment trend. This, it states, can only be done by achieving development in manufacturing industry, building and construction and the private services. In the plan there is this great reliance on the private sector. We know to our sadness that private enterprise has consistently failed to provide the required number of jobs. We have had to rely on State bodies and semi-State bodies. There has been a duty on successive Governments, which many of them, including Fianna Fáil, conformed to, where private enterprise was unwilling or unable to provide jobs, to intervene directly by the creation of public service work to provide gainful employment for our people.
Under this plan it is expected that the numbers employed in agriculture will fall by some 12,000 people. It is expected— I do not know why this expectation is there — that industry will provide an additional 38,000 jobs. That is a pious expectation. It is expected that the building and construction industry will provide an additional 11,000 jobs, that public services will be reduced by some 2,000 jobs and that private services will give us an increase of 41,000 jobs over the period of this plan. This means a job creation of approximately 18,500 per annum. There is nothing in this plan, apart from pious hopes, to ensure that wage moderation will persist or that inflation will fall, nothing to suggest that any new jobs will be created. In fact, some 54,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last two years and that trend is continuing. The total numbers engaged in industry have fallen consistently from 221,000 in 1979 to 207,000 last year. The plan offers nothing concrete to correct that kind of worrying decline. The plan is simply a set of proposals designed to restore stability to public finances. It is a banker's plan; it is a financier's plan. It is not an economic plan and it most certainly is not a social plan. Admittedly this is badly needed but its achievement is not a national economic plan and should not be described as such. It is a sham to do so. It is simply another Fianna Fáil con job which will not work.
We have reason to be suspect of this plan because we remember vividly other Fianna Fáil economic plans. I remember as a Member of this House the grandiose plan in the late fifties and early sixties during the Seán Lemass era which we were told would solve all our problems. I was then studying economics and the lecturer was a very fine Fianna Fáil man who was convinced that the plan would solve our problems and bring about full employment within five years. What was the outcome? During the five-year period covered by the plan 170,000 people were forced to emigrate. Fianna Fáil introduced a second plan containing targets which were not achieved. It was a flop. They then introduced a third economic plan which simply did not get off the ground.
We have had other plans recently, including the Martin O'Donoghue plan. It was magnificent, the greatest gimmick of all time which is primarily responsible for the financial and economic mess of the country today. It was such a con job, such an abysmal failure that when Deputy Haughey took over as Taoiseach he removed from office the author of that plan and abolished his Department. How then can we in the Labour benches who witnessed the sorry betrayal of our working class people have any confidence in this, another gimmick?
I now wish to refer to health matters. Of all the cutbacks we have seen in recent times the one which is the most harrowing and has most deeply wounded our people, especially the poor, is the massive cutback in health services. Deputy Woods, the Minister for Health, has already passed into folklore as the man who did most in the shortest possible time to destroy the health services. I have here a document containing a list of over 900 items which are no longer available free of charge to medical card holders. The list includes drugs, appliances, bandages and many items necessary for the sick and disabled. Fianna Fáil did not tell us about this measure during the last general election. Colossal hardship has ensued for many people.
I was frankly nauseated earlier this week as I listened to the Minister for Health trying to explain away this despicable act by saying he could assure everyone that cases of hardship would be dealt with. There have been many cases of hardship in my constituency among people who are gravely ill, whose life span has been diagnosed as being very short, and for whom tablets and drugs have been prescribed. One medical card holder went to her chemist with a prescription from her family doctor but was told she would have to pay for the drugs because by direction of the Minister for Health they were no longer available free of charge. She was a woman of very little means and was unable to pay but the chemist would not let her have them for nothing. I made the strongest representations to the health board to have something done, saying that if she did not have the drugs she would certainly die and that by refusing them to her they were setting themselves up as executioners. I was told that nothing could be done. I then asked for the payment to the woman of a supplementary welfare allowance to cover the cost of the drugs. This was also refused because the money would have to come from health board revenue. This woman's condition deteriorated and her doctor had no option but to admit her to hospital. I understand that the estimated cost of keeping a patient in hospital is in the region of £700 a week. For the sake of a few paltry pounds on these essential drugs we have this kind of lunacy on the part of the health board and the Department of Health.
Throughout the country health boards are faced with the appalling prospect of the imminent closure of hospital wards.
This was threatened in our hospital at Cashel but we successfully fought it. We are threatened with the withdrawal of services for the elderly, the bed-ridden and the most deprived and the sacking of unskilled as well as skilled and professional personnel. No matter what the financial difficulties of any Government might be, certain things should be sacrosanct. The Labour Party believe that health is sacrosanct. We helped to create the welfare state by our stance in this House and the ideology to which we have always subscribed, and we will not lightly stand for the tearing down of services, especially health services.
We will fight it everywhere with all the powers and means at our disposal. It is simply intolerable in a seemingly caring and civilised society that the victims of Government action should be the sick poor, the people who by definition require most help and are least able to protect themselves. No government since the inception of the State have displayed such a callous and ruthless disregard for those who need help. Deputy Woods, Minister for Health, is fulfilling a role in this Government as the person who will be remembered for helping to destroy the health services which have taken generations to establish and in which process my party played a proud role. No politician with a sense of personal self-respect would do what is being done in this regard in the name of fiscal rectitude and no politician with half a heart would permit his colleagues to compel him to do so. Deputy Woods, therefore, by his complicity in this dastardly conspiracy has shown himself to be unfit for the high office he occupies. He is about to go and he will be remembered as the man who did most in the shortest time possible to destroy the essential health services here and wreak misery on the poor, especially the holders of medical cards.
The cutbacks in the health services have been particularly savage. In one fell swoop the Minister for Health and the Fianna Fáil Government have thrown our people back into the atmosphere of the poor law era. At least under the poor law system if you presented yourself for the red ticket, as it was called, you were guaranteed the drugs, medical applicances and hospital attention that you required. That right has gone and the lives and health of people are in danger. We are back to the old poor law system, and that was a retrograde step for this Government to take.
I have always contended that, had the health services and the maintenance of our hospitals been permitted to rest with the local authorities rather than handed over to the new regional health boards, this sorry state of affairs would never have occurred. As a member of a local authority since 1955 I was a witness of the dedication, duty and herculean efforts of members and managers of local authorities to build up the health services in their various local authority areas. In my country we transformed workhouses into modern institutions. We transformed old, derelict barracks into modern nursing homes and hospitals. We poured in the necessary money to improve these amenities, to abolish the Dickensian atmosphere of these old institutions and transform them into modern institutions. When the health boards were established all the personal concern for the maintenance of our local hospitals and health services was gone and we now have very large anomalous bodies trying to perform this work. The late Deputy Childers when Minister for Health sold us a pup when he sold us the idea of the establishment of the health boards. The pup has developed into an avaricious monster which is gobbling up millions of pounds per day and providing very little in return. The health boards are remote, cumbersome and inefficient. It was a bad day's work for this country when they were established and the powers taken away from local councillors and borough authorities who were dedicated to the task of providing good hospitalisation and a good health service on a human and decent basis. I express the hope, perhaps vain, that now that these institutions are in dire trouble and are imposing charges left, right and centre, withdrawing services, cutting back on bed accommodation and so on, consideration be given to handing back once again to the local county councillors and local borough authorities the rights, responsibilities and duties of caring for the health services of the people in their respective areas.
My concern about the cutbacks is rather selfish. I am concerned that the hospital services in my constituency of South Tipperary shall not be diminished or curtailed. We helped to create and maintain our magnificent hospitals at Clonmel, Saint Joseph's Hospital and Saint Luke's Hospital. We are intensely proud of our hospitals in Tipperary town, Cashel, Carrick-on-Suir and Clogheen. I helped to contribute to their maintenance as a member of the county council since 1955. I applaud our various county managers for the good they did in transforming these old institutions into modern hospitals. I warn the Minister and the next Government to be established in this House that any attempt to worsen the health services or interfere with the hospitals in South Tipperary will be resisted with all the powers and influence at our disposal. I speak for all the people of South Tipperary irrespective of party. That is why I am sending out the clarion call loud and clear in this Parliament — hands off the hospitals and health services in South Tipperary. No Minister and no Government will succeed in destroying what we helped to create with such great sacrifice and expenditure of money over such a long time.
I have a lot more to say but it will have to wait for another time. I hoped to talk about the threat to the leather and tanning industry. I sought to raise a Private Notice Question on Tuesday to ask the Minister for Industry and Energy if he would take such measures as necessary at national and European Community level to cut back on dumping practices into the European Community which are threatening the jobs of Irish employees at Irish Leathers at Portlaw, Dungarvan and in Carrick-on-Suir in my constituency.
The Deputy's time is up and I must now call the next speaker.
Perhaps the Minister will respond to my appeal.
I had a request from Deputy Treacy, just before he sat down for a reply to something he said he sought to raise. The Minister responsible for dumping is the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism. I am surprised Deputy Treacy was not in the House when we had an Adjournment Debate on the particular industry he is concerned about when I outlined the whole case. This is part and parcel of the political hypocrisy that has abounded in the Dáil in recent years and it should be seen for what it is.
I was speaking about developments.
When I was coming in here this morning I heard on the radio a member of Deputy Treacy's party, Deputy Higgins, which is part of the whole operation that has gone on here recently, say that the Fianna Fáil Party had meetings with The Workers' Party to try to hang on to power. This is part of the same type of sentiment expounded by Deputy Treacy this morning. I want to tell Deputy Treacy and convey to Deputy Higgins and for the benefit of the House and everybody else that the Fianna Fáil Party, neither the Taoiseach nor anybody else — I have just checked with the Chief Whip — had any meeting with The Workers' Party good, bad or indifferent since they announced their intention of opposing this motion.
Another aspect of the same sort of symptoms we are encountering in recent years in politics here is expressed by Deputy Treacy today in his sanctimonious delivery in the House. Maybe because of his flights in and out of Europe he is not really up to date with what has been going on.
(Interruptions.)
I am a respectable politician and I will walk out of this House a respectable politician defending my integrity and the integrity of the party I represent.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Treacy will have to remain quiet. The Deputy has had his opportunity.
We have had this political scene in recent years. The Deputy made certain allegations here about bribes and offers being made to people to keep Fianna Fáil in power. I ask you to withdraw those serious allegations or shut up. There were no deals, there were no offers good, bad or indifferent made to any particular individual. In the interests of politics and in the interests of democracy this sort of thing should stop once and for all; otherwise all politicians will suffer. You should not throw out stupid allegations without being able to back them up. This is the lack of sincerity I am talking about that has crept into politics recently. I do not know how he can equate the philosophy I have listened to him expounding here with the philosophy of the Labour Party who are now obviously headed to going into a coalition with Fine Gael, to join their long lost friend and great socialist, Deputy Michael O'Leary, to agree on a programme which they hope to put together, if we have an election, for the next period of Government in the country.
Fine Gael have said that our plan is not tough enough at all. The Labour Party say it is far too tough. Where is the middle ground to be found for an honest to goodness politician sitting out in the public arena listening to those two parties coming out trying to convince the people that they can give an alternative Government to the country when one fellow says our plan is too tough and the other says it is not tough enough. This is the sort of hypocrisy which really sticks in my throat. I heard you talk about health cuts and this and that should not be done.
I ask the Minister to refrain from the use of the word "you". Ordinarily the Minister should be addressing the Chair.
When the Deputy spoke about the health cuts he must not have listened to or read what Deputy Eileen Desmond said in the House the other night. If he did he would find that she was expounding a slightly different philosophy from his — this is part and parcel of what has been going on in recent days — when she said that there were abuses in the health scheme and something has to be done about it. There are hardships and the Minister for Health recognises that there are hardships. I recognise there will be hardships in any scheme that is brought in. It is a Minister's job to look at the hardships and to have them sorted out. The fundamental principle remains. I do not believe there is anybody inside or outside the House who does not genuinely subscribe to the view that we have got a difficult financial situation which has got to be faced. If we are to face up to this problem there will have to be cutbacks. It is not good enough for any Deputy from any party or any leader of any party to say that you cannot have cutbacks here, you cannot have cutbacks there, without at the same time saying where the money is to be provided.
There is agreement all round that the level of taxation here has reached the point of diminishing returns. I do not believe anybody will deny that there is enough taxation imposed on the PAYE workers. We have also reached the limits in borrowing and I do not believe any sensible person will try to deny that either. We were always committed to a philosophy of borrowing for capital investment but we see in the difficult world of the economic circumstances in which we have to operate that we must cut our cloth according to our measure. If we have reached the limits of our borrowing and if we have reached the limits of taxation on PAYE workers and diminishing returns, as the revenue returns for the last half of this year show, is it not time that the honest question of where the money is to come from was answered? This is a simple question which a simple person out in the street would ask.
We cannot have it from taxation and we cannot have it from borrowing. There is agreement that there will have to be cutbacks, so where is the money to come from? If people do not hear honest answers from politicians they will lose all trust in them. I will come back later to how much that trust has been destroyed recently in Irish politics. We are helping the enemies of democracy by the way we are carrying on in recent years.
I intended to come in here to discuss our economic plan, The Way Forward, to flesh out the areas of responsibility for which I am honoured to have responsibility, which concern industry and energy, to flesh out the policy decisions and the directions in which they were going. I did not have the opportunity of listening to the debate yesterday but from all the stuff I went through last night I saw quite clearly from what was said by the frontbench spokesmen on the far side that there was very little interest in the economic plan. There was more interest in playing politics with a difficult financial situation.
I must now say that I am deeply suspicious about the real motives behind the Fine Gael Party in this motion of confidence in the Government. I suspect, to use a phrase which has become very fashionable since the now historic Labour Party Conference, that this motion and the approach of the Fine Gael Party really represent a cop out on their national and political responsibilities. From Fine Gael we have had a good deal of hypocritical posturing in the past eight months. This leaves me very suspicious in so far as they are concerned though I try to be as openminded as possible. Their attitude on this occasion represents the crowning act of self-righteousness and opportunism in their pursuit of power. Apparently there is no price too high in terms of their being returned to power. Their approach to that end must be considered seriously.
We recall that on the day on which Deputy Haughey was elected Taoiseach we also had the beginning of what was to be a story of personal vilification and character assassination on the part of Fine Gael. This was something that I had not ever before heard of in Irish politics. I have been interested in politics for a long time, but never before had I known of people in public life to stoop so low in their efforts to make a case against the person who was at that time being proposed as Taoiseach. Perhaps it is possible to understand to some extent the disappointment of Fine Gael on that occasion, but the worst part was to come, because the clique that Deputy FitzGerald had gathered round him took up the same theme, and that is a theme that is very worrying in terms of Irish politics. There are people in Fine Gael who are dragging down the good name of politicians and who are responsible for the cynicism that has crept into Irish politics.
In the general election campaign that followed I was director of elections and I received so many complaints about character assassinations in North County Dublin and elsewhere that I decided to go out into the constituencies and to ask people to put tape recorders on their doorsteps in order to record what some canvassers were saying. Subsequently I got some of those recordings. Obviously, they do not contain the names of the canvassers but the tapes make very interesting listening. I could hardly believe that a party who are supposed to have integrity could stoop so low. Though the tapes are sickening to listen to I listen to them regularly. We had the same sort of campaign in the Dublin-West by-election, but perhaps the worst of this type of thing that I heard was in Loughrea when an innocent old rural lady pointed to three canvassers down the road and said that the one in the black suit had told her that Charles Haughey was a member of the INLA. She did not know what the INLA meant. I would not ever wish to be party to any group of people who would stoop so low to get what they wanted. The sooner the Irish people realise what is going on in Irish politics the better. I do not have to be here but I came here to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
Of course, being in the public arena we are subject to criticism, but should we have to bear the campaign of vilification that has been engaged in against our Leader and some members of the Government? I am aware that at a meeting of the Fine Gael Executive a decision was taken to annihilate some members of the Cabinet, to try to destroy their reputations of integrity. We are all human. We all have families and relations but that is the type of campaign that we have had to tolerate. The decent people of the Press have related to me some of the stories that they were asked by the people opposite to investigate. My reaction was that the Press should go ahead and investigate, find the truth and publish it. The Leader of Fine Gael says that our plan does not have any backing from economic commentators. What about the Central Bank, the IFA, the ICMSA, the CII, the FUE and, to go outside the domestic scene, Senor Ortoli? Is it the situation that Deputy FitzGerald's role in Irish politics is one of, hear no evil, see no evil; that he may say what he wishes?
Yesterday in his contribution he said that there is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous one, that his Government prepared their budget and brought it before the House and that in doing so they did not seek beforehand to make any deal. Is it not well known that Deputy FitzGerald was put into government with the support of Deputy Kemmy and the then Deputy Noel Browne? Is Deputy Kemmy not on public record as saying that he had meetings with Deputy FitzGerald every second day during that period? Was it not the reason for Deputy FitzGerald's failure to introduce the pro-life amendment during his term in office that he could not do so because of his dependence on the support of the two Deputies I have mentioned? We recall seeing the then Taoiseach on the occasion of his budget on his knees to Deputy Kemmy pleading for support. Deputy Kemmy had notified Deputy FitzGerald beforehand that if food subsidies were removed and if a tax were imposed on footwear and clothing he would not be supporting the budget. Deputy FitzGerald apparently considers himself the Mr. Good of Irish politics, the one who can do no wrong. In his speech he says that his Government were faulted for being politically naive. Whatever about that, he certainly can be faulted for being politically inept.
At the time of that proposed new budget we were told that no change could be made, but the then Taoiseach during the election campaign that followed indicated his willingness to restore food subsidies and to remove the VAT on food and footwear in return for the support of certain individuals. Time was running out for him to get support. He did go to Deputy Gregory and offered him a deal in twelve sections, all of 49 pages. This was a well kept secret. I got a price put on that and it differs little from the overall price of Deputy Haughey's package with Deputy Gregory to be carried out over a period of years. It was a cardinal sin for Deputy Haughey to do a deal with Deputy Gregory; it was all right for Deputy FitzGerald to present 49 pages and sign it up that he would join the others and put them into Government. Fine Gael put the country first — Fine Gael put Fine Gael first and the attainment of power. That is the philosophy of Deputy FitzGerald who tries to convince the nation that he is Mr. Good —"I see no evil I hear no evil". I hope I live to see the day in Irish politics when he is exposed for what he is. That is the sort of hypocrisy he expounded from the first day he took over. He is followed by his headhunters. When he felt he was going overboard with the Taoiseach of the day, they decided to switch their emphasis in character assassination to the Members of the Cabinet.
The greatest sin Deputy Haughey committed as a politician is that he sat and took it all. But he is right because in the interests of democracy that is what we should do. There are people opposite who want power and black cars and are prepared to pay any price for them. I have not yet seen anything to tell me that they have the country's interests at heart. There was a man who sat in those benches and was the subject of the same vilification, not from politicians in this House. He is a colleague of mine in Longford-Westmeath, Deputy Cooney. He lost his seat as a result but he came back to this House to disprove the things that were said about him. He stood up for democracy. He may be a political enemy of mine in that constituency but I have the height of admiration for him as a man of integrity in contrast to the people who are headhunting to get back into power.
Why are Fine Gael rushing this matter? What are they trying to get away from? Another glorious example of the hyprocrisy of Deputy FitzGerald is that during the last general election campaign, when a colleague in Government leaked a story to a particular newspaper and when it was fully investigated and the story ready to be printed Mr. Liam Hourican representing Deputy FitzGerald and the Government, rang that newspaper and asked them to kill the story because he said the Government had fully investigated the alleged phone-tapping that Deputy Haughey was supposed to be engaged in. They were told to stop the story or the Government would issue a full statement the following day categorically denying that there was anything involved and that they had fully investigated it. The paper did not print the story. Now, Deputy FitzGerald is running away before the Committee on Procedures and Privileges has fully examined the matter and can fully vindicate Deputy Haughey who had nothing to do with it. The reasons given are interesting because it was a few days before the television confrontation between Deputy Haughey and Deputy FitzGerald and his lovely image was not to be tarnished or even have a finger in the pie of doing anything that might spoil the Mr. Good image.
Deputy FitzGerald is running for many other reasons. He ran away before the vote on the health cuts because again Fine Gael hypocrisy would be fully exposed. They could vote against the health cuts but they know that in the public arena their own supporters would be asking: "Where are you going, left or right". Are you trying to go in the middle?". The day of the middle is over because there is a situation of reality to be faced. The Deputy opposite, with three of his colleagues was there when I said some time ago that the day of reality was facing us and I got a clap from all of them. The day of reality will face these people very shortly. They have to say what they are for or against. If they want to take money let them cut back here but if that money is to be replaced they must tell the people where they will get it. They are trying to fudge the issue and get into an election fast, fudge the issues so that the Labour Deputies will help to put them into Government and when that is done they will do as they did before — blame everybody but themselves.
Dr. FitzGerald, in his statement yesterday, said they were there for seven months and they took decisions. I scratched my head last night trying to think of such decisions. What decisions did they take? They spent seven months blaming everybody else for the state of the country but they were prepared to do sweet damn-all about it. They talked and talked and ran a PR Government and a PR opposition but the PR day is nearly over because some Government will have to bring in the next budget and they will have to face reality. They will have to tell the people the true situation. Unless there is a printing machine to produce money they must get it by taxation or borrowing and they must tell the people so.
That is what the ordinary citizen wants to know; the young people want to know. The days of fudging are over. The party of reality is here. We say in that plan what the party of reality stand for. That is an honest assessment of the situation. It is not tough enough for the Opposition. Fine Gael produced a plan that must be the thinnest document in Irish economic history. It refers to only two figures. Yet they say there is nothing in our plan. Deputy FitzGerald also said yesterday that our assumptions were out of date, that they were based on EEC forecasts for the years 1980-1985 and had been prepared 18 months ago. This is factually incorrect and I want to put that on record. The forecasts were based, as Dr. Kieran Kennedy said in his article in The Irish Times on Thursday, 28 October, on the latest available EEC medium-term forecasts which were obtained from the services of the European Commission and confirmed in mid-September this year. Had Deputy FitzGerald checked he would be informed that as reported on page 3 of the Financial Times of 3 November the latest EEC Annual Economic Revised Review gives the latest EEC medium-term forecasts including those for unit wage costs which were consistent with the unit wage cost assumptions in our national plan. This is another of the fairytales being propounded here; he would not even bother to check the record; he is not interested in truth but in fudging and conning the Irish people.
Where are the decisions they took in that seven months? When I walked into the Department of Energy, piled high on the floor were files concerning the gas pipeline for which the Government had signed a contract with a penalty clause of £400,000 to £500,000 per week. I went in on 9 March and the contract was supposed to start on 1 April with penalty clauses. All day and all night we worked to save the taxpayers' money but Deputy FitzGerald would try to tell us that they took decisions. I took the decision and I put the gas pipeline there from Cork to Dublin and it will be a clear demonstration of what our contractors and workmen can do when motivated and given proper leadership. They have done the job within budget and within time but had it been left to that competent Government that was supposed to be there before we took office, the taxpayer would be paying £0.5 million a week for God knows how long.
You took decisions. Where are they? You did not take one there. You fudged the Whitegate issue all through the election campaign because Deputy Barry did not want anything to do with it. You left the decision on my desk. I had 24 hours in which to act before the whole thing would have fallen apart. I took the decision and went ahead with it. I withstood the barracking which went on. In the House yesterday Deputy Collins said the Government were right. He said he was surprised, from his experience, that the EEC are contemplating taking us to court. Deputy Barry said the opposite. He is a man who should know because during his time as Minister for Energy in the Coalition Government of 1973 to 1977 he had to go cap in hand to the British Government twice within ten days to ask for a release of fuel oils for this country. They were not given. Deputy FitzGerald was party to the negotiations. Where were the honourable, upstanding men of Fine Gael? Why do they not say something about Whitegate? Is it because in the last few weeks both fuel oil and heavy fuel oil is now cheaper from Whitegate? When it comes right they jump on the band wagon. When the going is rough they stay out but when it is good they come back in.
I took my decision and will stand by it. I have always said the diseconomies of Whitegate will come and go. The situation was totally misrepresented by Fine Gael but now there is a prospect of a general election they are trying to come back in on it. I could go on for hours and thrash out the whole economic plan. I know what Fine Gael did for unemployment. Deputy FitzGerald threw up his hands in horror and said unemployment in this country next spring would be 200,000. The deputy Prime Minister at the time, who has now joined Fine Gael, said they could do nothing about it. However, 200,000 people are not unemployed this spring because the rescue agencies worked day and night. Since we came to office 11,000 viable jobs have been saved. Hypocrisy and desperation.
This is a proud nation with proud people and do not forget it. If you do, you will find out too late. The people want men of action who are prepared to do the job. See your hypocrisy on Field-crest. You came in here, a conservative right wing party, marched up the steps and voted with Labour to nationalise the Fieldcrest operation. I said to the Government that day that we would be beaten but it would be on an issue we believed was right. This was the greatest fake motion ever brought before the House. Fine Gael called on the Minister to direct the IDA. I have great pleasure in telling the House and in particular Fine Gael who knew before they put down the motion, that, under legislation, we cannot instruct the IDA. That has been confirmed by the Attorney General. That was another occasion on which Fine Gael sought to embarrass the Government. Now we come to the greatest one of all. There is a man lying sick in his bed and another hardly cold in his grave. Fine Gael make the accusation that we did the same with Deputy Desmond. We all know she was in the House that evening. Fine Gael can have their opportunism but they will have to answer the questions people will ask.
Where will the money come from? The people know where we stand. They know our plan. Where will Fine Gael get the money? Whether the Government fall or not I will have an opportunity to go through the Fine Gael plan and see where the industrial policies of the future will be. This is not something that should be rushed into as Deputy Manning will agree. New industrial policy for the next decade will be one of the most important policy documents we will have. This House should have an input into it. We are at the crossroads and must change. I will have a White Paper ready. If I am replaced my successor will find that most of the work has been done and, as a democratic House, we should have an input into it and we will whether we are here or there. I do not mind which it is because I come in here to work for the country. However, I will expose the charade, the hypocrisy, personal vilification and character assassination which Fine Gael are involved in. Fine Gael are supposed to be a party founded on democracy. They will keep good people from coming into politics unless they change their ways. Fine Gael will have to give the people honest answers and face reality. They should tell the people what the problems are and that they cannot be solved overnight. They should tell them that we must work to a plan. We will take you on any time, any place, to discuss the issues.
If there was to be an Oscar award for sheer effrontery and a brazen performance it would have to go to the Minister opposite. In a short space of time he has re-written history and given an interpretation of recent events which is at variance with any objective study of the facts. I stopped taking him seriously when he said there was no more time for PR.
That is correct.
There is no better practitioner of the noble or ignoble art of PR than the Minister opposite. There are few politicians who do not envy his skill in this regard.
Do not tell lies, deny the facts.
The Minister spoke at great length about borrowing, fiscal rectitude and cutting our cloth according to our measure. Various other worthy cliches rolled off his agile tongue. I was astonished. This is the same man who swept into politics in 1977 on the back of a manifesto which initiated the greatest borrowing spree in our history, which is at the root of our present difficulties.
I never read it.
In fairness to the present leader he did not approve of the manifesto.
Neither did I. I did not come in on the back of it. I came in on my own.
Fianna Fáil were swept into power on the basis of that manifesto. I did not come here today to speak about the contentious issues of the last few months. However, I must mention the Talbot deal, the inflationary wage deals, and Knock Airport. I will not go on but are you trying to re-write history? One party in the House doing that is enough.
What about Bula and £9½ million for shareholders?
I did not interrupt the Minister.
It is all right; I am leaving.
The Minister had two minutes to go and interrupted five times, breaking his own record.
The Minister spoke about cynicism in politics. Nothing has done to fuel cynicism more that the events of the last eight months. These events have been mentioned often enough. The public know about the attempted coup, the all-cloak and no-dagger after the first election, the various events since then, the U turns and wriggling to stay in power. These have done more to damage the good name of politicians and the standing of the House than at any other time in our history. That is why we need an election to clear the air and why the party opposite need to go into Opposition and get its own affairs in order. Perhaps it will come back in a better state to govern the country.
I have no pleasure in opposing this motion. I want strong, consistent, good government. When Fianna Fáil came to power they had an opportunity to lead. People were prepared for sacrifices and tough decisions. Had the Government taken these decisions then on policies which were well thought out, they would have had support from all sections of the House and would have had understanding from the people. That did not happen. The chronicle of events listed by other speakers is ample indication of what happened in those seven months. I did not intend to go into that or to mention recent events in Fianna Fáil. People outside the House have lost confidence in the Government in a way which is unparalleled in our history in such a short space of time. Day after day I meet Fianna Fáil people who tell me they are sick and tired of what is happening. They are confused and astonished and point to the loss of business confidence, the obvious hatred and bitterness in their party and they talk of the growing cynicism and loss of faith in our system among the people. They have had enough. They want a chance to have their say.
When I spoke here for the first time last April — a proud moment for any new Deputy — I said the last thing I wanted was an election. I love being in this House and being part of this Parliament. A new person whose seat is not secure is the last person to want a quick election. I said then I thought that we needed an election. I said the present situation was unhealthy, led to a paralysis of government and to an immobility of policy. That was a bad thing for us then, and it is much worse now. It is a bad situation when major decisions have to be taken in this House, not on principle as part of a consistent or coherent policy but simply to placate small groups. That is bad no matter who is in power. The situation is so bad that we need to get a clear mandate from the people to tackle the enormous social and economic problems we face.
The events of the last months underline the point I was making and point out the weakness that any Government face when they have to depend on small egotistical self-seeking groups for support, groups who strut around here with a self-importance out of all proportion to the interest or group they represent, groups representing sectional interests which are often at variance with the real needs of the people. No Government should have to depend on these groups for support. No government should have to talk to opportunistic small groups simply to stay in power.
It is not my purpose today to comment on the blatant opportunism, the inconsistency and the U-turns of the self-styled party of peace, justice and class politics who have proved such an undependable ally for the Taoiseach in his hour of need. What I am saying is that we need an election and we need it now. The people want the chance to put in a stable, strong Government. I was personally prepared to give this Government one more chance if even a fraction of the expectations which had been invested in the national plan could be realised.
I do not intend to match the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Energy in personal invective. It is clear that the Fianna Fáil strategy in the forthcoming election compaign will be of personal invective against Deputy Garret FitzGerald. It is obvious why this is so. It is intended to cover up the absence and poverty of policy, the U-turns on financial and economic matters and the sorry events, shameful and embarrassing, of the past couple of months. If that is what they intend, it will fail because the people will not be fooled by a campaign of this sort.
The people see Deputy FitzGerald as he is — a person of honesty, courage, sincerity and ability, a man who showed quality of leadership and toughness in his seven months as Taoiseach. Like everybody else Deputy FitzGerald is human. He has his faults and can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, he is seen by the people as he is and no amount of invective or personal attacks on him will change their views. I hope Fianna Fáil strategy will be along those lines because the more they attack Deputy FitzGerald the more it will help us in the election campaign. I am telling Fianna Fáil this strategy will fail but I do not expect them to change.
As I said, I was prepared to believe in this Government, to give them one more chance if I thought even a fraction of the expectation invested in the plan, and embodied in the public relations exercise which surrounded the publication of the plan, could be achieved. Having read the plan very carefully — which is more than the Minister for Energy, Deputy Reynolds did with the 1977 election manifesto, as he admitted a few moments ago, and listening to him this morning I wonder if he read parts of the plan because it does not appear to have been the same document I read — listening to the debate and seeing it vaunted as the plank on which Fianna Fáil fortunes will be restored, I have to ask if it was really necessary, and if it adds anything new to what we know already. The answer is an emphatic no. Over the past number of years we have had a series of reports on our economy. The one thing we are not short of at present is an analysis of our current economic and financial problems. Our problems have never been analysed more often than over the past few years, and for the most part there has been agreement on what needs to be done.
I suggest that the public mood and the popular perception of our people as far as our financial and economic problems are concerned, have altered dramatically over the past year. People now see clearly how damaging, how nationally suicidal, were the series of give-away policies initiated in the 1977 manifesto, the real source and origin of our present trouble. More than ever before people are aware of the harsh economic facts of life facing us as a small open economy in a world recession and people are prepared for action; they want action. They have waited since 9 March for that action. What they got instead was this plan, a seriously deficient document in many ways which the Government attempted to filibuster through and then decided to set up a committee where it could be talked about for months on end, all in the interests of party survival.
If this plan had given us a startling new insight or provided a radical new analysis, it would have been worthwhile. If it was a plan for action or if we could believe it contained specific hard proposals backed by the political will to implement them, we could welcome it, even if we disagreed with some of the actual proposals. But we know action was never intended because the hard options were never spelled out in this plan. There are in the plan a few hard proposals, a large number of vague aspirations and a continuation of the soft centred approach which characterised this Government from the beginning. On that score I cannot welcome it because I cannot see it making any difference.
If this plan were to bring about a new sense of national unity on fundamental economic propositions, it could be welcomed as a basis for action, but once again the plan falls down. In spite of the frequent courteously-worded requests from the Opposition to discuss the assumptions on which the plan was based so that there could be agreement at least on the factual basis of the plan, no response was forthcoming. Once again the soft cosmetic option was chosen. Had we been invited to discuss the assumptions of the plan we would have disagreed with some of them simply because they are wrong, as we pointed out yesterday, but on other areas of the plan it should have been possible to establish the facts, and then we could have agreed to support the subscriptions and proposals of the plan. No partnership was possible because that would have meant exposing the spurious foundation on which this plan was based and they would have been exposed as unrealistic, unattainable targets.
On all these scores and in spite of all the talk over the past few days, it is almost impossible to justify the plan. It tells nothing new; it does not provide a plan of detailed hard-nosed action and the assumptions on which a large part of it is based are open to serious question. No serious attempt was made to bring the Opposition parties into a national consensus which would give the plan urgency and acceptability. The plain fact is that the plan is an excuse for inaction, a barrier to the type of action so urgently needed.
The key assumptions in the plan are frightening in their simplicity. The plan tells us pay restraint can be achieved almost effortlessly over the next few years, that this in turn will make our products more competitive and reduce unit costs, that our share of the export market will rise substantially and consistently over the next few years and it assumes, naively, that our competitors will not match our performance and that there will be a growing demand for our goods, at the same time as every other economy is in a state of recession and difficulty.
These are the assumptions. They are simplistic, they are naive and even the most cursory examination of these assumptions, upon which the plan is based, show very clearly that it was never meant to be a serious plan for concerted national action getting at the roots of our problem, analysing them and then making proposals which could gain and hold national support for their implementation. The foundations are simply not there.
Let us look at the world economy and the demand for our goods. We see in OECD report after report that there is an alarming similarity of trends in every western country. Unemployment worldwide is higher than at any time since the Second World War. In the UK it is 13 per cent, in Canada 12 per cent and even in Germany it is 8 per cent of the workforce. The level of bankruptcies in almost every country is up by 40 per cent this year. Interest rates are at a sensationally high level even still. Most countries are now making control of inflation their priority rather than the creation of jobs or the control of the money supply.
Most countries like ourselves are faced with almost untenable choices. They are caught, as we are, in the defence trap, spending far more than they can afford on defence and security. Most of them now spend so much time servicing their national debts that an enormous drain is placed on the tax structure. The OECD reports point to a worsening situation in every western country. Yet we are basing our plan on the assumption that the international market and demand for our goods will grow at a rate never equalled in our past. I do not know how that is going to happen. I would love if it could be the case. In other countries experiencing their own enormous difficulties, there is a growing tendency towards protectionism. How do we expect on the basis of the vague assumptions of the plan, to increase our productivity, keep our wage rates down and at the same time increase the demand for our goods?
The plan says we can raise our exports by 12½ per cent a year. I hope we can. It says we can increase output. It does not tell us how this can be done in any of the sectors covered in the plan. It does not tell us how we can hope to get a greater share in the world market. It does not advert to the fact that other countries have become and are becoming far more competitive as they too have had to face up to the recession.
This is not a debate on the plan, although the plan will be at the centre of the election campaign starting here this evening at 5 o'clock. I do not want to be negative about the plan. I would love to see the objectives in that plan realised. None of us would quibble with the targets set in the plan. However, the time is long past for the mere setting of targets. It simply is not enough. What this country needs are hard tough decisions set out in black and white knowing that they can be explained to the public, a public which will back a Government which takes it into its confidence and tells it honestly what has to be done. We have now reached a stage in our national development where, without prejudice, all our economists, our forecasters, our statisticians, our research institutes could all be closed down for a year or two. It would make no difference. By now we know what the problem is and we know what needs to be done. If we do not we will never know. What we need is action, and that is what we have not got from this Government over the past eight months.
The plan ignores the hard facts and concentrates on the soft options based on doubtful assumptions. It offers neither reality nor leadership. It ignores completely any part to be played by this House either as a controller of wasteful expenditure or as a scrutineer of the doubtful activities in semi-State bodies over the past few years. It offers us here no real input in the devising of financial or economic policies over the coming years. The plan simply ignores the House. It contributes further to the relegation of politicians to the sidelines, especially in the formulation of plans and policies.
Much has been said about this plan. It was preceded by much PR and ballyhoo. One would have expected from it sensational new insights, one would have expected it to be written on tablets of stone so great were the hopes invested in it. The plan is a suitable and appropriate finale for the dying days of this Government. It is weak and ineffectual. This Government have been weak and ineffectual. They have staggered and reeled from one crisis to the next.
When I spoke for the first time last April, on a day which was a very proud one for me, as it is for any new Deputy, I said that this country needed an election, that this was unlikely to be a fruitful and constructive Dáil, that it was unlikely to provide us with good or effective Government. Unfortunately this Dáil and the Government have been worse than I expected. It has been a short time but it has been a bad time in our parliamentary history. When this Government fall it will be unwept for, unhonoured and unsung. You have been here too long. It is time for you to go. It is time for you to give the people a chance to speak. The country wants to be heard. The country wants a Government, and it will get it very soon.
I listened with interest to the rhetoric of Deputy Manning, for whom I have a personal respect, but it is strange that he should give so much attention to the economic plan while, at the same time, his Leader and his Party have taken an opportunity to deprive this House and the people of the country of an opportunity to discuss this economic plan in critical and positive terms over the last number of days. They have done so in hot pursuit of political power, of achieving for themselves Government at any cost. Today we are debating a motion of confidence in the Government. We are doing it at a time when there are no issues before the House which could justify a general election. We again saw in one of our national newspapers this morning a headline which is a lie. It says: "Frantic Deals Fail: Desperate Haughey men lose survival battles". That is a lie because it implies that we attempted over the last 24 hours to strike bargains and deals in order to maintain ourselves in office. That is not true. If we are forced by the Fine Gael Party into a General Election we will face it confidently in the knowledge that we have got the requirements to ensure that this nation can go forward competently and confidently.
I will not introduce any note of bitterness or rancour to the debate, but for the past two months I have been vilified, I have been pursued by certain elements in the media, by politicians in the Fine Gael Party, in this House and outside it. I do not wish to say more than that I will not allow my character, my integrity nor indeed that of my wife or children to be impugned and vilified in the way it has been attempted.
What is happening reminds me of what occurred in 1979 when Deputy FitzGerald demeaned himself when addressing the Taoiseach. What has happened since has debased this House, its purpose and its meaning. Deputy FitzGerald must be the only leader of any party who has pursued that type of politics. He gave the lead and others followed him in a campaign which has serious implications for the office of Minister for Justice. It seriously damages Parliament and in many ways affects the capacity of the Minister for Justice, whether the office be held by me or by somebody else, to pursue his function in the way which is so essential at this difficult time.
It is a pity that Deputy FitzGerald, as well as Deputies Barry, Mitchell, O'Toole and Shatter are not present. They are the people who flaunt themselves as the whiter than white and the purest of Irish politics. During the past few weeks there have been daily reports in the news and in the newspapers and comments have been made inside and outside this House of the most scurrilous kind that I and my colleagues have ever witnessed. I was accused of driving a car in Listowel and of having passengers in it. It was suggested that my behaviour and the way I transacted my affairs in public required certain questions to be answered. It is surprising that there has been no mention of the accident in which Deputy Nealon was involved when he was a Minister of State. Similarly there has been no mention of the accidents involving Deputy Eddie Collins, Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Spring when they held ministerial office.
What about the accident involving Deputy Flynn.
There have been no references whatsoever to accidents involving Deputies Harte, Barry and Mitchell. It is a pity Deputy Mitchell is not present. I ask him to tell us if his State car was involved in an accident, if there was a passenger in it, if that passenger was a lady, if anybody was injured and if his driver had the full visual capacity to hold that position. I invite Deputy Mitchell to come into the House and answer those questions. I repeat that there were no references to the accidents I have mentioned, to the circumstances in which they occurred or to the payment of the bills involved. Such questions were posed to me. In the case of Deputy Spring there was a tragic and unfortunate accident in which someone was killed and Deputy Spring suffered serious injury. Damage to the extent of £12,870 was caused. Deputy Spring is reported in today's paper as saying that there are further questions to be answered by me and he is surprised that I did not know the details sooner. Strangely enough, in his case a decision has not yet been taken. All these matters are ignored.
In respect of the Dowra affair, as it is known, I have been accused of almost everything. I have publicly stated that I am not my brother-in-law's keeper. I have no responsibility for the actions of someone else, in the same way as Deputy Mitchell is not responsible for the actions of his brother and Deputy Barry is not responsible for the actions of his niece. Unfortunately, because of the type of political performance in which individual Members of Fine Gael have engaged I must be pursued and vilified in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the office of the Minister for Justice, the credibility of Fianna Fáil as a party and the credibility of the leader of that party. There can be no other reasons. It is extraordinary that certain Members of what should be a serious political party are pursuing that type of politics, denigrating this House, endangering democracy and giving an opportunity to the people who are not friends of this country to undermine what has been dearly struggled for over many years. The predecessors of some of the members of Fine Gael would have been very disappointed if they thought that a modern political party would engage in such ugly and debasing methods of achieving political power.
Let us talk about political interference. I am quite satisfied that it is esential for Dáil Deputies to carry the views of their constituents to every quarter that is necessary and to communicate what they feel. I describe it as justifiable and legitimate political representation, but there is a considerable difference between representing one's constituents and using one's position to impose some type of duress on subordinates, whether gardaí or others, to bring about a decision contrary to the legal requirement. There is no reference whatsoever to the fact that this has happened. I ask Deputy Mitchell to deny in this House that during his period as Minister for Justice he called individual members of the Garda into his office, without the knowledge of the Garda Commissioner, and required them to communicate information to him and to indicate what line of action would be pursued and demanded that that personal report be given to himself. It is an extraordinary way for a Minister for Justice to behave. I am amazed that a Garda inspector would be called by telephone and asked to arrive at the office of the Minister for Justice, at that time Deputy Mitchell, to indicate his views and how he intended to go about a certain investigation.
I came into this House and I had to regret addressing myself here in Private Members' Time some months ago to an accusation levelled at Deputy Mitchell in a case of direct interference with members of the Garda Síochána in the course of their duty when he described them as a posse. That was the description levelled by him at members of the Garda Síochána. It is strange that at that time I did everything I could to ensure that his office, himself and the serious function he was engaged in would not be undermined or damaged. That being said, I find it essential today to make reference to the fact that it happened.
It also amazes me that over the past number of weeks no reference whatsoever has been made to the fact that the question of far more serious political interference in the time of Deputy Mitchell as Minister for Justice has been raised in some circles inside and outside this House. Will this House tell me who is Peter Mitchell with an address in Tallaght, County Dublin, who at eight minutes past six on 17/10/81 was taken to a Garda station in Dublin, was breathalysed — I will read it out:
Certificate to be issued by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety under section 22 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. 1. Name and address of person from whom the specimen was taken or who provided the specimen Peter Mitchell ... Tallaght 2. Nature of specimen Insert "blood" or "urine" as appropriate. Blood. 3. Garda station in which specimen was taken or provided. Dundrum. 4. Date on which specimen was taken or provided-17th October 1981. 5. Time at which specimen was taken or provided 6.08 a.m. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety certifies that on analysis by the bureau the specimen to which the above particulars relate contained a concentration of 163 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres blood or urine. In this case it was blood. The certificate was signed by Patrick Hayden, Analyst.
Was that case prosecuted? I am told, and the dogs in the street are barking it, that it was not. I am told that the certificate I have referred to was issued by the analyst's office but it never arrived at the station. It was sent out by registered post. Will somebody answer that question for the people of this country? In all fairness, surely there is serious justification for answers in this House from Deputy Mitchell.
Do I take it that the Minister has set up a judicial committee to investigate all these matters?
I tell Deputy Enright that his party did not have an opportunity the other day to decide whether the motion put down by Deputy Mitchell should be on the Order Paper.
The Minister can still agree to it.
That decision was taken by Deputy Mitchell himself. Was that motion for the purposes of concealing and putting under the carpet for the time being at least certain matters that need replies and that he must give answers to? Deputy FitzGerald stood in the House here the other morning on a debate concerning the appointment of two Ministers to Government and went through the ten Ministers and scandalised and vílified them here. He accused me of political interference and when asked if he wanted to know the real truth he stopped. It is not my intention or wish to do any damage to or undermine or debase parliament for which I have the greatest personal respect not alone as Minister for Justice but as a proud Irish citizen who has had the honour paid to him of being elected to this House.
Deputy FitzGerald made, as he has been known to do in the past, woolly-headed, rash, wild statements without ever examining the consequences or the risks attached to such statements. If he has something that he wants to get off his chest let him say it, but I hate to see people who live in glasshouses throwing stones when the panes in those glasshouses are smashed, and the panes in Deputy FitzGerald's glasshouse are smashed.
It would be better that a judicial committee be appointed and as the Minister has the power to appoint such a committee I challenge him to do so.
The Deputy must allow the Minister to conclude.
The people around Deputy FitzGerald ——
The Minister ——
(Interruptions.)
—— not all of them, some of them and I appreciate what Deputy Barry has said and I am glad that she feels it essential to be excused from inclusion with some of the people whom I am referring to — apart from those questions needing answers it is about time that the Fine Gael Party would take the opportunity to put the record straight in the national interest instead of hunting individual Fianna Fáil members, either the Taoiseach or individual Deputies, around this country as if this was open season for the hunting of Fianna Fáil politicians. I read in the papers recently again about my interference with a Garda recruit in Templemore. If the party opposite have views on it they should express them. I am sorry Deputy O'Toole is not here. Will he deny that he had a number of communications with a national newspaper and asked them to investigate what he described as a true accusation involving the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, that we were responsible for bringing about a situation where evidence was not supplied to a District Court regarding the appearance of a man charged? We were accused by Deputy O'Toole of ensuring that the charges were not proceeded with. Will Deputy O'Toole deny having made contact personally? I defy him and ask him now to tell the truth and to let it be known that he has acted in a scurrilous way in order to ensure that the dirty function of political power in the way that he wants to achieve it could be brought about.
Have the people across the House any positive contribution, any recognition of work well done by me as Minister for Justice in the last seven months? No, there is no reference whatsoever to the fact that I was prepared courageously to put my head on the block in this House in relation to the campaign against crime and vandalism. When the old, young, women and children of Dublin were being vandalised and burgled what was said from the other side? I was asked how I posted the letters. That was the positive contribution from the other side. Was there any recognition of the fact that we needed 1,000 Gardaí urgently last March when we were only getting 27? I am sending 27 out to Tallaght in a few days' time with the consent of the Commissioner. That is all Deputy Mitchell had to offer to the people before his political demise.
Was there any reference to the fact that overcrowded prison systems here had to be financed by the Minister for Finance in a Fianna Fáil Government, otherwise there would have been a total collapse this year? That is what we inherited when we came into office. Still, we have to listen to the negative side of Irish politicians' lives from the Fine Gael Party, so far as they pursue the type of vilification and filth which I have already said debases this House and political life as well as endangering democracy.
Was there any reference whatsoever to the fact that Templemore had over £500,000 spent on it to accommodate recruits? Was there any reference to the fact that I approved something that Deputy Mitchell did not approve in relation to a diploma course for inspectors and superintendents recently in Templemore? Was there any reference to the fact that new offices in Harcourt Street were allocated after being left lying idle throughout the period of Deputy Mitchell's term of office as Minister for Justice? Was there any reference to the fact that I approved £3 million for the radio communications link so vitally essential to the Garda operation? There was no reference to that.
Was there any reference to the fact that I civilianised many posts in the Garda Síochána to release members onto the streets where they were urgently needed? Was there any reference to the fact that I provided additional staff in the forensic laboratory to ensure that the backlog of criminal proceedings, which had built up there during Deputy Mitchell's time, could be got moving again and some very dangerous criminal personnel brought before the courts? There was no reference to that either. Was there any reference to the fact that the welfare system in the prisons had a considerable number of people appointed to ensure we could bring about a situation where people who were not to be accommodated in our prisons could be properly supervised? None of these things was referred to.
The Minister has five minutes.
It is a pity I have not five days and I would have a lot more to say. If I had five hours ——
There are five hours left.
At the end of the five hours the Deputies opposite will have three weeks when the people will positively and in a sensible way assess the demerits of their party. They are a can of worms, and I have taken the lid off it today. They can get out now and they will be used as bait by the people when they play with them for the next three weeks.
We can stand over anything said on this side of the House.
Deputy Enright is a man of mild demeanour but it is a pity the Deputy ——
Acting Chairman
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy and other members of his party were too engaged over the last 24 hours with elements in other parties, especially in the Labour Party, in order to bring about divisions to ensure that the political demise of Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach this evening could appear more embarrassing. That was the intention of the Fine Gael Party over the last 24 hours. The Deputy was not here when we had reference to the frantic deals that were supposed to have taken place by Fianna Fáil, as stated in a national newspaper. I have already stated that that is a lie, because we did not make any deals or pacts. We did not pull any strokes. I have highlighted quite a number of instances which the Deputy would be better employed pursuing rather than having some kind of a barney across the floor with me. The Deputy will have plenty of opportunity for that over the next three or four weeks.
It is an extraordinary situation that essential exercises which should be pursued by a serious-minded Opposition party have been abandoned. Rather than engaging themselves in what I would consider as normal, positive, political functioning they have pursued the type of activity which I think has left many discerning and concerned Irishmen and women wondering in what direction Irish politics are now going. It is a strange situation that there has not been any reference in any of Fine Gael's contributions in the past to the desirability of having a sound, stable, political type of forum here. There has not been any reference to the fact that the destabilising of our political system can do nothing more than enhance the opportunities for the violent and subversive criminals in the country.
The leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, left the country like the Scarlet Pimpernel, went abroad and undermined Anglo-Irish foreign policy. He supported a situation that has resulted in the present political chaos in Northern Ireland. He pursued pluralist policies in the United States and Australia and across the free world with one purpose, to enhance his image, to popularise himself. He is prepared to do so without recognising that while he popularises himself and abandons the Irish people, their traditions and Constitution and everything that is national and dear to them he is doing that for one purpose, to achieve political popularity for himself at home, regardless of the consequences. This is despicable. Over the next three weeks he can make some of those issues election platforms and he will be hotly contested.
(Interruptions.)
As I begin, my first hope is that the election campaign, which will obviously follow this vote of confidence, should it be defeated, will not take on the character of the exchanges we have just heard. It is important that it does not. There are many similarities between the prevailing social and economic conditions and those which prevailed at times of previous elections. On those occasions when there were serious economic and social challenges facing the Irish people the people got a diet of exchanges of a personal nature from one faction to another. I suggest that there was never a time less appropriate for tribalistic factionalisms being exchanged than at present.
On a motion of confidence like this it would be conventional if a person began with one's own spokesmanship and then moved on to other areas. My spokesmanship is in the area of foreign affairs, regional policy and the Gaeltacht, and I will come to those areas in a moment. I would be very unrealistic if I did not advert to the fact that the question of jobs and unemployment is the one that is being considered in every house in the country at the moment. I will not just repeat something and leave it there. There is an onus on those of us who accept that the problem of unemployment is the greatest single issue facing us today to turn aside from the specifics of our political interests and address ourselves to the central question of the structure of the economy and the competence of those administering economic policy. I believe what is far more important altogether is the adequacy of the policies and the strategies that are being put forward to deal with the problem that everybody agrees is wreaking havoc in homes throughout the country. I want to emphasise again that I hope the electorate will reject each and every politician who takes to the road and substitutes for serious consideration of this kind, any kind of personal allegation and counter-response. The lessons and the fruits of that experience are in our history books.
In the fifties we needed an economic strategy but the boats took our people away because again we had a mixture of personal confrontation and of beating the green drum. In order to avoid any responsibility for domestic, social and economic policies, we occasionally cast our baleful eyes towards the northern part of the country and decided that we would interfere there. The type of language that was used down here caused irreparable damage in that other part of this island. Obviously, we are facing something of the same kind. To use an unfortunate analogy with one who was once a friend of the Labour Party, Dr. Cruise O'Brien, when he in his book, States of Ireland drew a distinction between benign models and malign models, there is a malign version to this cult of the personality. That consists of character assassinations, but equally there is a benign version of it which suggests that the goodness of an individual can stand as a substitute for policy. I reject this trivialisation of politics, and I do so on the basis that the unemployed are entitled to better, on the basis that those who are not now unemployed but who reject unemployment as a moral blemish on our society are entitled to better policies from politicians.
What I have to say this afternoon deals with economic factors as I understand them and as I understand them to affect the lives of people and their families as well as Irish society. It is indicative of our attitude that we do not even count the unemployed properly. We know that the real figure in unemployment is far greater than 160,000 but it is indicative of our lack of concern that we have not even assessed the volume of the unemployment problem in sheer numbers. This is a criticism of every administration, because all of them have run away from the problem of unemployment.
Another aspect of this problem that is most important is that while we could cost unemployment in terms of what we pay out — the £150 million that we transfer to those who cannot find work or who have been driven out of jobs or who are on short time — there is also the aspect of the demoralisation that extends into the homes of those people. There are reports concerning the consequences of unemployment on the prospects of the children of the unemployed. There is evidence of the over representation of the children of the unemployed in terms of crime statistics, in addition to reports of the failure of parents who are unemployed to be able to motivate their children to participate in education. There is also the sickness both mental and physical, that follows unemployment. In addition there are the diminished relationships between parents and children. There are the devalued social relationships within communities where unemployment has been allowed to remain. If during the election campaign the attitude to be adopted is one of finding flaws in the personalities in any one party, that will be little short of a scandal. We must not have a situation in which there are suggestions of purity in one place and of flaws in another. That would be a dishonest approach, because people who engage in such tactics and who waste money in that way cannot be seen to have any credibility in terms of speaking about the economy.
There is an obligation on anyone putting himself forward for election to say whether his priority is to be the reduction of unemployment. In the various econiomic documents that have been circulated throughout the present economic crisis, varying views have been put forward. In their Newsletter on 15 June, the CII published the views of Dr. Kennedy, of Mr. Brendan Walsh, of the Minister for Finance and of the Confederation themselves. They say that there are many choices facing people who wish to analyse the crisis. For example, many regard as a problem the competitiveness of Irish exports. Others say they wish to take interest rates as a starting point, while others say that their starting point would be the whole question of the size of the balance of payments problem. Yet others concentrate on whether the deficit will be phased out in one period of years or another. There is an honesty on the part of people who offer these constructive views of our economic crisis. I challenge those who will be putting themselves forward for election to go before the people on the basis of what their economic analysis is. Mine rejects all of those. I say that we must begin with the problem of unemployment, that the question of unemployment cannot be simply filed in terms of a piece of rhetoric in the chapter of some document. Either one has or has not as his economic priority the tackling of the unemployment problem. If one says he has as his primary purpose the question of the reduction in the numbers of unemployed this means that one pays less attention to putting right the balance of payments or the budget deficit.
I am anxious to respond as positively as possible to this Government plan. It reports on, for instance, what might be regarded as progress, that is, that interest rates are to fall. We must not forget what happened in Britain. There, when the interest rates fell investment did not take place, with the result that unemployment figures increased. We are simply following the path of Britain in the strategies that are being offered to us, but the path of Britain is the road to more unemployment and consequently the creation of more human misery. There is nothing to be admired in the British strategy. The British are experiencing an unprecedented level of unemployment and have begun to make cuts in what was perhaps the model for the world — the British social welfare system. Such cuts are not to be admired.
Some months ago I tabled a question to the Taoiseach asking when the economic plan would be published. He said then that it would be published within a few months. I then asked him a couple of supplementaries. The first was whether the plan would have a social dimension. He replied in the affirmative, as was the case also when I asked if the plan would have a regional dimension. However, the document that has emerged contains no reference to either such dimension. It contains no social philosophy or set of social aims. Neither does it contain any statement that could be said by any stretch of the imagination to be in any way an acknowledgment of the regional differences within the country.
I am not criticising this Government in particular. The response to it have been no great shakes either. The response from the main Opposition party is indicative of much of the philosophy as contained in the plan, if you can find philosophy in it. Rather, I should say it shares the absence of philosophy, of stated social aims. There is a sharing also of the rectitude which, in fairness to this honourable party on my left, they have held for quite some time and which needs to be contrasted with the newly discovered rectitude across the floor. These are not just polite terms; there are horrific consequences if you follow through a casual policy of, on the one hand, making claims — listen to how bizarre it is — for an incomes policy with no price control so that workers can sit still and be hammered by staying still and also by rising prices. In addition to that, there is no resource strategy whatever as to the identification of resources and how they might be used to plan to create future jobs.
I want to emphasise that I am not criticising the personnel in the present administration. I personally believe, and I am speaking on my own behalf, that the present incumbent for example of the Ministry of Fisheries is as good a Minister as we have had. I think he is a conservationist and a courageous one. I welcome some of his recent decisions regarding fisheries. I want to put that on record. That is why I note that when I turn to the section on fisheries, by way of example, on page 69 of The Way Forward there is reference to aquaculture. It says:
Private enterprise and co-operative endeavour will have a key role to play in the development of this sector. The provision of technical advisory services will be further co-ordinated and expanded where necessary. Financial incentives will continue to be made available for the development of the sector and the terms will be reviewed and varied as appropriate. It is estimated that by 1987 the value of farmed fish production will have risen to some £15 million with employment more than doubling to about 2,500. The bulk of the produce of fish farms will continue to be exported and a carefully planned marketing strategy will be developed in consultation with producers.
One would imagine that we had hit on a new resource that it is being adequately funded, that we know about marketing its product and that there are further benefits to accrue to us and that we will have 2,500 jobs to look forward to by 1987. I wish that it were true. This piece of descriptive prose — that is what it is — is symptomatic of what has gone on in the name of planning. The difficulty a Minister for Fisheries has to face are these words, to take the resource potential of aquaculture, for example. You might think it important — something we have not done — to decide who owns our coastline, who may have access to it. That has not been done. You might think there could be a policy regarding the issue of licences to those who want to get into this industry. That has not been done. You might think it appropriate that somebody should not have to apply to eight different sections in the public service to carry out a survey of the waters surrounding our coast. That still is the position.
You might think there was an educational structure to teach people the techniques of this new science, but that is not so. You might think there was some way in which you could take the findings of science, the technology that is possible, and combine them in some community development way, but this is not happening. So, on the simple elementary definition of planning, that you assess the quality of a resource, develop a strategy to develop that resource, say what aims you are pursuing, this descriptive statement is symptomatic of the kind of prose that has gone on in the name of planning.
A long time ago I remember reading the first Programme for Economic Expansion, 1958-1963. If Deputies wish to read the debates in this House when that document was introduced they will find occasional references to the distinction between what was called a "programme" and a plan. Perhaps while I am in this House I could say a word on that. In 1958 there were powerful, conservative forces in our society who went into print to say that they felt the concept of planning interfered with the rights of private individuals and that it was an aspect of the State which would be unwelcome given the majority theological orientation of our community. So, people decided that you would vary references to planning because somehow it meant that you were looking at planned systems in other parts of the world. We took what was our national cowardly response; we ran for cover with the question of words with our title of "programme". That thinking to some extent has been eroded, but some of it is there still.
This document is not a plan. The Way Forward is a piece of programmatic prose with nice aspirational touches in the beginning which quickly collapses into descriptions of what might or might not be possible.
We need to plan the economy, and the structure of any planning exercise would be to set out our social aims. Perhaps the people who sit in these benches and those who sat there formerly or in other parts of this House will tell the elected representatives whether any progress has been made in regard to social planning. The Minister for Health, for example, will agree that before this summer Deputy Desmond and I assisted him in getting through legislation here which would have dealt with the numbers of people in poverty. Is it our policy to have more people sinking below subsistence level into poverty? If we do not believe in egalitarianism or in stopping people sinking into poverty, is there any limit to the degree to which we will allow people to sink? It would be more honest to say that we are conservative people; we believe in letting the market take its course; in better times there might be a little for the poor, and on we go. You cannot have it every way. In the desire to have it every way, the next thing is to top it off by a series of personal attacks that will masquerade as some substitute for policy.
We need a social programme to specify the aims of the economy. If we accept the concept of planning it means identifying resources and developing a strategy for their use and development in accordance with the social aims specified and for which we have sought a mandate from the people. I want to be positive in the few minutes left. There are things you can do tomorrow morning to help employment. We could have an attitude towards the financial institutions that would penalise speculative investment and assist productive investment, to move resources from speculative holding locations to where they can be put into productive use and create jobs. That requires political will. You could negotiate meaningfully with the partners to production and you could tell the trade union movement that you will embark on two things, extension of taxation to include capital taxation at much higher levels and a programme of redistribution. The trade union movement would respond positively to this kind of invitation.
There are other things we could do. There is the whole question of a growth of a non-market international market kind which we are refusing to address. There are houses and schools to be built. Houses, schools, roads and bridges are needed. There are insulation tasks to be carried out. There are aspects of the quality of life that could be improved. These are short-term measures that could use capital to create employment. Yet, we do not turn our face to those matters. However, we do something that is disgraceful. We put into print a known fallacy that has been rejected time and again by every respectable historian, politician, economist and social scientist. It should be said that the private sector has never accepted, I repeat, never accepted, that it should and never wants to, supply the country with the jobs our young people so badly need. Yet that fallacy finds itself in between the covers yet again, that the private sector will provide us with the jobs we need. Combined with this dishonest — I use the word carefully — assertion that the private sector has the capacity to provide the jobs we need is the suggestion that the State sector has to be trimmed. The State sector has never been unleashed into the area where it could provide many jobs.
We need more State investment, not less. We need State investment in areas of science based industry and high technology so that when we take the taxes out of the pockets of our workers and spend them on something, those taxpayers will be able to see where the money has been spent. If that is done there will be an accountability in the House of the performance that results rather than taking taxes off workers and scattering them indiscriminately across the various industrial enterprises most of which have been on a most shaky basis. The Telesis Report which preceded the Government's plan is not incorporated in any way in The Way Forward.
I have been speaking about the economy and the absence of a social policy that will establish the aims of economic activity. The reason I have no confidence is that that social philosophy has not been expressed. Economic planning after all is an instrument for the achievement of social objectives. The plan is deficient in that regard.
I find the attitude that has prevailed towards the Irish language and the Gaeltacht little less than hypocritical. We have not done anything new to expand the production of text books in Irish for the learning of Irish. We have not done anything about the question of making use of the media, radio and television for the teaching of Irish. We have not done anything to improve the quality of life in the Gaeltacht. There is nothing in the document to even acknowledge the existence of a science called regional economics.
With regard to foreign affairs I must express my disappointment that our neutrality, one of the most important principles of our foreign policy, is something that is not being clearly expressed. There is an exception in the economic morass that is western Europe at present, Austria. In that county unemployment stands at 3½ per cent. That should go on the record of the House in this conservative Ireland. Inflation in Austria stands at 5 per cent. Austria is a neutral nation which deals with the rest of the world on the basis that its neutrality is an economic as well as an international advantage. It trades with the non-aligned nations in a positive manner and it has a good balance of payments relationship with them.
The Austrian economy is a planned one. The aims of that plan have been spelt out many times by such people of the immense stature of Bruno Kriesky who said: "These are our aims". He negotiated the social partnership that was necessary. There is planning in Austria but unfortunately, as we wind down this Dáil, we have as we often have had, long, windy, boring speeches punctuated with personal attacks, while all around us our houses and schools are filled with young people who have only the rhetoric of windy politicians to look forward to and no greater progress along the road of reason and rationality towards economic planning and social progress.
I rise to support the Taoiseach's confidence motion. I listened with considerable interest to the submission made by Deputy Higgins and will refer to it later. What he had to say is very relevant. I should like to ask the House why we are having this vote at all. Is it, as some suggested, because of the health cuts which Fine Gael feel must be criticised and condemned? I listened to Deputy FitzGerald speak yesterday about the drugs refund scheme. I shall refer to that later. Is it because of the plan which has been produced? It is not for either of these reasons. It is because of the death of our very respected colleague Dr. Bill Loughnane and the critical illness of another colleague, Deputy Gibbons. Fine Gael have made no secret of the great desire of their leader — his almost, lust for power — to get back into power because he feels he lost it too soon. There is no real concern for the national interest in the proposals put forward by the Opposition. In his contribution yesterday the Leader of the Opposition made a personal attack and clearly indicated his animosity for the Taoiseach.
As regards the other parties in the House, The Workers' Party recognise clearly that what we are doing is less severe than what Fine Gael were doing. This is clear in relation to the health cuts and other areas. It has been reported that the Leader of the Opposition says that we are not going far enough. Why should The Workers' Party at this stage want a general election? Has it to do with the policies being put forward or is it because they see the weakness of the Labour Party because of their difficulties at this time? Has it to do with polls which have been carried out outside the House and the desire of some of their party members to get into this House at whatever cost to the national interest? The outcome of an election is almost certain either to be a Fianna Fáil Government or a new Coalition dominated by Fine Gael. That would be bad for supporters of both the Labour Party and The Workers' Party in relation to the policies which they profess. In the event of a general election Deputy FitzGerald said he wanted to form a Fine Gael Government. He said he wanted to go to the country and come back with a clear majority. His party has 63 seats.
Sixty four.
He knows he needs 19 seats to get an overall majority. Does he expect us to believe this is a practical proposal? I can see no way in which he can advance his position to that extent and I am sure he is convinced of that himself. He wants to toss up the cards in Leinster House and see if the deal would give him some minor advantage. In contrast Fianna Fáil are a strong party. We need only a few additional seats to form a single party Government and run the affairs of the State. That is what the country needs at present. We have plans and have laid them——
What category would you put the Deputy Burke stroke into?
We have the Estimates prepared and the commitment to carry them out.
Will they be as bogus as last year?
Acting Chairman
The Minister without interruption. Each speaker is limited to half an hour and the Minister should be allowed to proceed.
We need only a few seats and if it is a question of going to the country for that support we will. The Labour Party have lost an opportunity. Their leader has gone to his rightful place where he belongs and wanted to be for some time. That gives the Labour Party a chance for a new beginning to develop an independent position. They know that if Fine Gael increase their seats they will be a right wing dominant party when they come into this House. They are not concerned about the working man, as has been obvious from their record and as can be seen in their present plan. It is obvious that their former Leader had planned this move for weeks, hence his attempt to tie the annual conference of the Labour Party to Coalition. That did not work and he did the decent thing and went to his rightful place — the Fine Gael Party. I thought this gave the Labour Party an opportunity to be independent in this House and to advance their policies. I appreciate they had some heart-searching about this but they have obviously decided against it.
Why change a winning team and captain? Interest rates are falling, mortgage rates and inflation are down, the balance of payments is coming into line, agricultural production is up, there has been a very exceptional performance so far as our European exports are concerned and it is planned that the budget deficit will be phased out. This Taoiseach has turned the economy around in seven months and pointed the way forward. That was a major undertaking.
This Fianna Fáil plan is a mixture of containment and growth. This is one of the points missed by Members of the Labour Party, particularly Deputy Higgins. He does not seem to understand the fundamental objectives of The Way Forward. There has not been a great deal of time to tease out this plan, because when the debate was under way the Leader of the Opposition looked for a vote of no confidence in the Government and consequently the consideration of that document was cut short.
Our policy differs from that of Deputy FitzGerald and the British Prime Minister. They both plan policies of containment with no real hope. For them it is merely a question of bringing about the containment, waiting for the economic indicators to come into the right position and things will come right in due course. The consequence of that plan is as Deputy Higgins mentioned — greater unemployment. The policy adopted by Fianna Fáil is one of containment on the one hand and growth on the other. It is in our attempts to achieve growth that we have had the most scathing remarks from the members of the Opposition because they claim our attempts to achieve growth are unrealistic and that because they are unrealistic, we are doomed to extraordinarily high levels of unemployment in the future. This is where Deputy Higgins misses the point in The Way Forward. That document, above all else, is about unemployment. As Minister for Health and Social Welfare I welcome that plan, the principal objective of which is to order our economy, plan for the next five years and create the necessary employment. This is the most fundamental social objective in the plan. It must be remembered and recognised that growth target goes side by side with the policy of containment.
In his speech yesterday the Leader of the Opposition attempted, once again, to divide and conquer Fianna Fáil. He spent a great deal of time trying to encourage Fianna Fáil Members to defect and to stir up trouble in the Fianna Fáil camp. This is a very old British trick which has been used frequently in the past on Fianna Fáil as a Party. It is a sophisticated, well-planned and cleverly executed trick by which the British divided our people and our land. I want to assure Deputy FitzGerald that he will not succeed in dividing Fianna Fáil. His plan has been to carry out malicious attacks on the Leader of our party from the day he was appointed Taoiseach in the earlier Dáil and in this Dáil. This plan has reached saturation point, and his advisers have told him to desist. Consequently the Minister for Justice, Deputy Doherty, was selected for special treatment by Fine Gael.
He selected himself.
He has been pursued in a well co-ordinated series of whispering, rumours, innuendoes and lies ——
On the contrary.
The Minister without interruption, please.
I challenge Fine Gael to deny that. I want to tell Fine Gael that Fianna Fáil will not be divided, and I would like to send that message to our members throughout the country if we decide this evening to have a general election.
I had the privilege of bringing before the House this week the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The text of the Bill was circulated this week. It contains the considered views of this Government on the amendment to the Constitution to meet the wishes so widely expressed that the Constitution should give expression to the right to life of the unborn. This Bill gives effect to the undertaking of this Government to introduce in this Dáil an appropriate Bill to amend the Constitution.
The nature of the amendment to be proposed has been the subject of mature and prolonged consideration, and our decision not to be rushed into the production of an amendment but to devote the time and thought necessary to ensure that the amendment when produced would be acceptable has been vindicated by the manner in which the proposed amendment has been received by those who have commented on it up to now. This Government can in all honesty say they have fully delivered on the promises they made in relation to this matter.
One might say the proposed amendment to the Constitution is intended to give expression to the value which all sections of the community place on human life. It extends in a very positive and compassionate way the existing constitutional protection of a citizen's life to the life of the unborn while at the same time respecting in full the rights of the mother. I am glad to have circulated this Bill on behalf of the Government in an honest fulfillment of the policy commitment we made in this regard.
This contrasts with the failure and refusal of the Coalition Government to put forward such an amendment despite the promises of the Fine Gael Leader. It also contrasts with the failure of Fine Gael to support even the proposal to bring in such an amendment, as evidenced by Deputy FitzGerald's statement last week at a meeting in Trinity College when he said he would not consider introducing such an amendment until, at some time in the future, a new Constitution was introduced.
It is clear that only a Fianna Fáil Government have the will and capacity to introduce and pass this Bill, which will enable the people in a referendum to assert their fundamental respect for the life of the unborn and to provide for its protection. This Bill would never be introduced, let alone passed, by any other grouping of Dáil Deputies forming a Government other than a Fianna Fáil Government.
One might ask why there was such a sudden conversion of Deputy FitzGerald on this amendment. Only last week he was expressing serious doubts and earlier he said it must await the complete reappraisal of the Constitution. On 18 October in The Irish Times the reporter, Dick Walsh, covering the Fine Gael Ard Fheis said the Fine Gael spokesman for Justice, Deputy J. Mitchell, made it clear that the party now favour delaying any referendum for another year at least, or until a set of constitutional changes can be put to the electorate. One wonders what are the views of the Fine Gael Party on this matter now, and one also wonders how one can rely on them to deliver on this promise. In a Coalition, of course, it could be even more difficult for that party to get the support it might need to put through those measures.
The Way Forward is being discussed at this time. Fine Gael say that the underlying assumptions are completely unrealistic. Deputy Manning waxed very eloquent in saying that we were going for the soft options and the soft centred approach. I would hate to go back to the health service with the hard centred approach because my task following the introduction of the Estimates with which we were left at the beginning of the year, was a very difficult one. I would not like to have to return to the kind of severe treatment which was being meted out by our predecessors.
The books were thrown open to you.
They say that the average medium-term growth rate of 5 per cent is unrealistic. The Leader of the Opposition spent a great deal of time trying to emphasise this, although we achieved this rate of growth through most of the sixties. At that time a Professor Charles Carter wrote of Ireland's economic miracle in this period. I am very familiar with it because I happened to be a young person not long out of university in 1958. I remember the sense of enthusiasm, the energy and the keenness to tackle our problems which was typical of that time and the belief in ourselves which it represented. Can the gloomsters and the doomsters in Fine Gael never foresee Ireland attaining a respectable rate of economic growth again? Surely we can at least strive to attain our potential growth which, given our recent rise in productivity, must be at least 5 per cent? If we cannot achieve this how will we create employment? If we do not get that growth we will not achieve the employment levels. If we do not even look for it we certainly have no possibility of achieving them. This is the essential difference between the Fine Gael and the Fianna Fáil approach to the economy. The Fine Gael approach is very much akin to the British approach which Deputy Higgins mentioned. Where then will we put the growing numbers of unemployed except on the emigrant ship? Even that is no real option now. For the sake of the work force we must strive for growth.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald has challenged the statement in the plan that average unit wage costs of our trading partners are forecast to rise annually by about 7½ per cent during the period of the plan. This is a typical Deputy FitzGerald approach, to try to claim that the figures in the plan are irrelevant or wrong or out of date and consequently to try to have it set aside for purely political reasons. The Leader of the Opposition, in his own peculiarly irresponsible way, said that the 7½ per cent figure has been derived from an EEC document now almost a year-and-a-half old which relates to a different period. He said that the latest EEC figures indicated that the true figure for our trading partners would be only a fraction of the 7½ per cent. He went on to tell us, from his great store of knowledge and his very special position, to forget all the economists that he was telling us to listen to earlier, debunk them now and set them aside. Why? Because they are not convenient at this time. Instead we are to listen to what he has to say.
He concluded that the target of 4 per cent annual gain in unit wage costs competitiveness, which implies a rise in our unit wage costs of 3½ per cent, was completely out of line with current realities. What is the truth then? Who is out of line with current realities? Is it Deputy FitzGerald or is it the Taoiseach? The issue is a crucial and basic one to the validity of the plan. He said that the document was published 18 months ago and related to the period 1980-85, three-fifths of which has now elapsed. He said it was not at all relevant to the next five years and that to pretend it was so, in putting forward this plan, was an attempt to mislead people.
There is the leader of the Opposition, speaking in the Dáil yesterday, suggesting that the representatives of the major economists in this country were attempting to mislead people. Sustainable growth, of course, and a level of job creation in line with the expected rapid rise in the labour force over the next few years depends on export expansion and the key to this is improved wage cost competitiveness. If we look at the latest EEC report, which was not available when those economists prepared the plan we see that it is dated October 20th, that it predicts that average unit wage costs in the ten EEC countries in 1983 will rise by 7.4 per cent. Were they really far out at 7.5 per cent? Over the medium term, 1983-87, the average rise in gross domestic product prices is predicted as 7.8 per cent, not the 7.5 which was given in the plan. Why, therefore, does Deputy FitzGerald come in and suggest that such people were attempting to mislead the House in talking about a figure of 7.5 per cent? Of course they knew the basis of the figures which they were using and, of course, they had to use their own predictions and forecasting techniques to carry those figures forward. If Deputy FitzGerald would like to look at the latest EEC report — it is the Annual Economic Review 1982/83, a commission staff paper dated October 20th — it is very relevant to his false accusations in this House yesterday. This is clear evidence that the assumptions are in line. It demands, in my view, an apology from Deputy FitzGerald to the distinguished economists who made the Irish predictions, based on the best of their knowledge. Why should we always denigrate our own? Because it happens to be suitable at the particular time. Why should we not, as Irish people, be prepared to stand up and rely on them and not debunk them at every turn? This is what has been done in recent years. We use them when they are useful and set them aside when they are not. On the basis of these most recent EEC predictions the targets set in the plan for national production, employment, improvement in competitiveness and export expansion are within our grasp.
Basically, the plan contains two alternative strategies. This is fundamental to the present debate and to any debate which will subsequently take place. The first strategy is Fianna Fáil's of containment and growth, leading to increased employment, with clearly set out targets for this employment and the second is Fine Gael's of containment, without confidence in the growth that can be achieved. I hope that those recording the proceedings here yesterday and today will, if there is an election after this evening, remember what has been said in this House by the people who claim that we cannot achieve a growth rate of 5 per cent. If we cannot do that, we are faced with containment without growth, which would equal unemployment and be equivalent to the conservative British approach which was so repugnant to Deputy Higgins. It is also particularly inappropriate to our present needs and aspirations. This is something of which the Labour Party would do well to take note.
I would like to say a few words on the general question of the health cuts which have been referred to recently.
The Deputy has three minutes left.
The Ceann Comhairle timed it very well. I want to make it quite clear that any cuts which we have been forced to make were along the lines of the general Government policy of containing public expenditure. They were less severe than those proposed by the Coalition Government when in office. I appreciate that at that time the Labour Party had a different leader from today's. Our cuts were applied in a manner which ensured no hardship. I have mentioned here before that I am prepared, as I made clear to the Labour Party when speaking on the motion recently, to review this position as it goes on. We are monitoring it constantly. However, we must stick to the basic elements of improving our management and avoiding and doing away with abuse of the system. We can no longer afford a good health service with abuses. We must have a good health service without abuses. This is the difficult task facing whoever may be handling that problem. The classical case is of the incontinence sheets costing last year £1.25 million and this year £250,000. That is very clear evidence to all that there are abuses and wastage which can be tackled without bringing hardship on anybody.
I commend to the House the policies put before the House and the country by my Taoiseach and my Government. They are the correct policies for the present time, policies which will give us the growth and containment we need. They are policies with hope and promise which are suitable for a country with such a large young population. I have great pleasure in commending these policies to the House and in asking the House to support them.
This debate is taking place on the vote of confidence in the Government at a time when the country is in the grip of an economic and political crisis unprecedented in the history of this State. The crisis permeates all aspects of our society. It is ironic that a debate should take place now, 60 years after the foundation of the State. In those 60 years we have succeeded in running our economy on to the rocks. We have more than 160,000 unemployed, out of a small population, a yawning balance of payments deficit and foreign borrowing almost out of control. In addition, we have a young and fast growing population. In my book, those ingredients make up a national crisis.
The country is without a sense of purpose or of direction. The political parties and politicians must take some, at least, of the responsibility for the situation. The parties to whom the general public have traditionally turned for leadership are at present incapable of giving that leadership and guidance. The present Government do not inspire confidence, to say the very least. They have lurched from one crisis to another during the last eight months. Fianna Fáil kept power in this 23rd Dáil as the party of boom and bloom, in the words of the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry. The problems of the economy were pushed aside with a cavalier attitude and we were promised a period of expansion in our economy and in employment. I, for one, took these promises with a pinch of salt. It was clear, even to a casual observer, that the country was then in the depths of a grave economic crisis. Pretending otherwise would not make this crisis go away. It was clear, from Deputy Haughey's term as Taoiseach under the previous Fianna Fáil Government, that he had neither the ability nor the will to tackle the problems confronting us. Others in this House, including unfortunately some socialists, thought otherwise and literally fell over themselves to vote for the Taoiseach.
Now we see how the bloom has faded from the political cheeks of Fianna Fáil. This party are now widely seen as having become corrupt and incompetent. For all the party's faults in the past — and there were many over the last 60 years — these words "incompetent" and "corrupt" would hardly have been used to describe Éamon de Valera or Seán Lemass. Fianna Fáil came to power in 1932 and since then have seemed the natural party of power. De Valera built up a party which came to terms with the reality of the Treaty, while never acknowledging or accepting it. Perhaps this political schizophrenia is one of the seeds of destruction that were sown in Fianna Fáil in that period and are now bursting out in a number of directions, pulling that party asunder.
De Valera, because of his stature and political skill, was able to keep his party together and carried out his ambiguous policy with style. But then, he had far more basic political ability than his modern successors. While much of de Valera's social legislation of that period was reactionary and conservative, one never doubted his sense of purpose.
Fianna Fáil under Seán Lemass responded to the challenge of the sixties by opening up the economy and creating much needed jobs. With this, also came the opening up of our society to new ideas and new influences.
Today, it has become clear that Fianna Fáil cannot respond to the challenge of the eighties. Economically, the party have failed, even by their own standards. The Government's economic policy The Way Forward published a few weeks ago cannot be taken seriously as an economic plan. It is, in reality, little more than a narrow, theoretical exercise concerned with the public finances and has little to offer towards resolving the major crisis of mounting unemployment and economic stagnation.
The Government's philosophy, as revealed in this so-called plan, is one of uncritical dependence on private enterprise. Essentially, the plan calls for cuts in the living standards of the ordinary people through wage restraints and reductions in public spending. It simply assumes that private enterprise will take advantage of the profitable environment created in this way, to invest in economic expansion. It is a kind of Mr. Micawber policy of hoping that something will turn up.
There are no firm proposals in this plan for the establishment of any new initiatives to ensure that real economic growth and the creation of new jobs will result from the sacrifices being demanded of the ordinary people. Neither are there any new proposals for workers to become more involved in the economic planning process, or in the setting up of expenditure priorities, despite the fact that it is they who are being asked to make these major sacrifices.
I reject this so-called plan as élitist and undemocratic, a wrong approach to economic planning. Irish workers have no reason whatsoever to trust in private enterprise to deliver full employment now or in the near future. Private industry's record on employment has proved inadequate throughout the history of this State over the last 60 years and it looks set to get even worse. New foreign investments which have been the main source of growth in our industrial employment since the sixties, are proving more difficult than ever to attract, while industry's failure to generate any significant increase in employment over the last 20 years speaks for itself.
The Telesis Report on industrial employment, which has not been backed up by the NESC has made it clear that a low wage policy cannot be relied upon to generate the industrial development so badly needed. Telesis concludes that the way forward, as distinct from the Fianna Fáil document, is to develop new high productivity, native industries in sectors in which low wages are much less important for competitive success than technology, marketing and the development of large scale enterprises capable of competing with firms already established in more advanced countries. The development of such industries cannot be expected automatically through unplanned efforts by private enterprise, which is what has been happening up to now. It will require strong, decisive action and planning which no Government here has shown the will to do in the last 60 years.
We have been promised new developments in taxation. I have read those proposals carefully. They are vague and inadequate. In the past decade the dominant taxation issue has been the demand by the ordinary PAYE worker for the end of the blatant injustice of the present tax system. Now we are being told that more tax can be raised from profits, capital gains and so on.
However, the Government's only response to this has been a cynical one. In a cynically worded proposal we are told that £400 million can be raised by 1986 "from capital profits, the self-employed, farmers and VAT". Why wait until 1986? Why have we not been told how much each tax group will contribute and why cannot they be made to contribute now? Why is VAT lumped in with taxes on the wealthy and the self-employed? We can only conclude from reading this plan that it is another calculated attempt to confuse and dodge the issue of a fair and equitable tax system.
At a time when our people, especially the young, are looking to the Dáil for leadership and guidance, the political response, to put it mildly, is inadequate. Instead, our people see corruption, cynicism, complacency and petty squabbling on all sides. They see gimmicks and stunts being exploited as diversions from our social and economic problems. The green card continues to be played on the Northern Ireland issue and the Catholic card is now being played on the so called pro-life amendment. Our foreign policy in the past eight months has been a disaster. Deputy Haughey's visit to America was an unqualified disaster. We have seen the undermining of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of such experienced diplomats as Noel Dorr and Seán Donnellan. We have seen instead a presidential style of cavalier politics, a swashbuckling exercise as if Ireland was some sort of major power that could dictate world affairs.
Our intervention in the Falkands issue was a total disaster, unwise and foolish and in the end very costly for us. Our contribution to world affairs in the past 18 months has been one of the most foolish, extravagant of any period in our history. We have done nothing whatsoever to contribute to an understanding of difficult complex international affairs. Instead, we have had the bull-in-the-china-shop attitude displayed by the Taoiseach and Deputy Collins.
I must indict not only the Government but Fine Gael on the so called pro-life amendment that was tabled in the Dáil this week. It is capitulation to blackmail by the so called pro-life people. Anybody coming here from outside, and it need not be from another planet, and seeing us proposing this so called pro-life amendment to the Constitution, would think this is a major factor in our society at a time when the country is in ruins, on the rocks. This is a cop out. This is not a vital issue. It is merely giving in to blackmail by the so called pro-life people who are promoting potential life as a major issue in our society while real life all around us, the problems of real people here and now, should be our major concern. I have never seen those people championing the under-dog or the under-privileged or leading crusades for better facilities for our people here and now. I have not seen them in the vanguard of efforts to create a better society for our people. That would really be pro-life: it would demonstrate their sincerity of purpose if they used their time and energies to build a better society here and now, not for potential people but for people living and working in Ireland now. I am sceptical of the motives behind this, because many of the people involved in that movement have not shown themselves to be compassionate or humanitarian. They have a very narrow view of morality, which does not contribute to a solution to the problems of this society.
I indict our political parties for giving in to them. This type of blackmail is being used on all politicians on the eve of an election when politicians are at their most vulnerable. All my political life I have endeavoured to withstand this sort of pressure on the eve of elections, because I refuse to barter for the sake of a few hundred or a few thousand votes. If you do that you are on the slippery slope of opportunism and deception. We should reject this sort of blackmail and stand four square against it. Instead of that, politicians endeavour to placate people like the pro-life group, and the matter escalates.
Is it any wonder, then, that our people are so demoralised and disillusioned? In recent times all parties have been guilty of opportunism, but Fianna Fáil have reached a new political low in our history. It is one of my regrets that the left in this House and society has failed to respond to the opportunities presented in a united and purposeful way. After the last election I proposed an alliance of the left in this House to deal with the political deadlock. My initiative was rejected and an unprecedented opportunity to maximise the socialist influence in the policies of the Dáil was squandered. Now we are facing the inevitable end of the Dáil after a period of unprecedented losses and increasing living costs for Irish workers.
However, at the conclusion of my talk today I do not intend to cry over spilt milk and lost opportunities. Irish society now needs a drastic change to tackle the urgent problems facing it. Drastic re-orientation is needed. The left in Ireland must respond to this challenge with a new approach and a new vigour. We must turn our backs on the sterile divisive politics of the past. We must work to build a strong principled socialist movement here. At a time when Europe has moved to the left, with socialist Governments in France, Greece and Spain, and strong socialist movements in Italy and Portugal, we remain the weakest and most fragmented socialist movement in Europe. That is an indictment of and a reflection on people like me and others on the left who tend to be socialists.
However, I am not pessimistic. I am optimistic about the opportunities for us for the development of a new type of politics here. The new type of politics must answer people's needs for jobs, decent housing, fair play and above all peace on the island. It must give voice to the idealism of our people. It must not look to the past for answers to today's problems: we can learn from the past but not live in it. Particularly it must respond to the idealism of our young people. The left must respond to this challenge since it has become clear that the conservative parties have no answers for the problems of our people. We must now face the concept of sharing in our society. We must use the limited resources we have for the one priority, the one principle above all in our society which all politicians should support: the principle of full employment for our people, adequate housing and peace on the island. I shall be voting against the motion of confidence in the Government at 5 o'clock this evening.
A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to give you notice that I intend to speak at 3 o'clock if that is all right.
Thank you.
This is a case of Government about to fall due to public demand. This Dáil has been in the death throes for many months, one might say since its inception in March last.
No politician welcomes an election. In normal circumstances the public would not want an election. But such has been the odium generated by this Government that there is a desire that they — supported as they have been by an Independent and on occasion by the Workers' Party — should be got rid of as quickly as possible. It is true to say that politics and politicians in this country have fallen into disrepute. It is a very sad day that such a situation should obtain. Indeed it reflects on all of us. The time is long past when that situation should be rectified. Let us see an end to "stroke politics". Deputy Kemmy referred to pressure groups, to people squeezing commitments out of politicians and political parties in the run up to a general election. I could not agree more with him. The time has come when parties will have to cease promising, will have to cease committing themselves to policies detrimental to the country. It has been going on for too long. It reached a climax in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto of 1977 and has continued unabated. Let us not be afraid to say it — we on all sides of the House have been guilty to a certain degree. I believe it has been responsible for a great deal of our current problems. It ties the hands of a Government in office, does not make for good government. Neither does it make for proper policy-making or lead to good management. It must cease.
A certain amount of blame lies with the media in indulging politicians who are self-publicists to a great degree. It is very simple for a commentator or reporter to take a script from a politician rather than ferret around for the true facts; it is much easier to take it and publish the public relations man's handout. As I see it that has become a major factor in politicians' publicity-seeking in recent years. We are in a situation now in which some people can afford to hire public relations personnel, thereby publicising themselves ad nauseum. This is not a healthy sign in any respect. I should like to see politicians being judged on their merits, not on their ability to employ somebody to publicise them. The media might well adopt a more objective attitude in this regard. These are the days of high profile in politics, when people rush to the Press and media generally on trivial matters in an endeavour in many cases to get cheap publicity. It is an element associated with what I have referred to as “stroke politics” and must come to an end.
In this forthcoming election I hope the major parties will resist any temptation to bring out manifestoes or make specific promises, because the days of promises have gone. Indeed, any party indulging in that type of pre-election promises will find the exercise counter-productive. I would say: woe betide the politician or political party who may think they will fool the public with such enticing offers. The harsh reality is that no matter who comes into government in a few weeks' time the years ahead will be extremely tough. We are not going to eliminate the unemployment problem or reduce inflation to zero per cent. Neither will we dramatically reduce interest rates overnight. It will be a slow tortuous path back. We have got ourselves into this mess and now we must show great resolve in finding our way out.
What Deputy Kemmy said contained a lot of truth. We need politicians with plenty of gumption. The days of politicians acting as messenger boys to serve constituents, I hope, is going. People gaining political favour by sending Christmas cards, telegrams or circulars must face reality, and that type of activity must cease. We are elected here to effect legislation ensuring that the country moves along the right lines. All too often we engage in activities not designed to help that process.
Of course there is urgent need for Dáil reform. A lot has been spoken on this subject over the past two or three years but very little has been done in a practical way.
More specifically, this confidence motion relates, above all, to the leadership of Fianna Fáil and the activities of the Fianna Fáil Party as an entity.
The Deputy has two minutes remaining.
This is a Government crippled from its very inception because it has been relying on an Independent and on three members of the Workers' Party whose policies and ideology are absolutely converse to the wishes of the vast majority of our people. These people represent something like 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the electorate. It is not good enough that these people's policies should be those which determine our destiny. They are completely at cross-purposes with the views and wishes of the vast majority of our people. We must revert to a realistic approach to our economy. In the four year period 1973-1977 when the Coalition were in power — particularly in the period from 1975 to early 1978 — we saw a decrease in inflation from 24 per cent to 7 per cent, brought about by prudent management of our affairs. We are now in a bigger mess than ever. Having improved our situation during that period, we undid all that good work by virtue of the 1977 Fianna Fáil Manifesto — the removal of rates on houses, of motor taxation, the feeling that we were living in Utopia, that we need not work for a better future. We will have to pick ourselves up off the floor and get ourselves back into a proper state. There is no need for me to stress that Members do not want this election. Naturally, none of us has a wish to be touring around our constituencies and working exceptionally hard for three weeks but we accept that it is necessary. Hopefully, as the polls indicate, Fine Gael will be returned with a considerable increase in their representation, sufficient to have an overall majority to form a Government.
As Minister of State with responsibility for housing I am fully confident that any objective appraisal of our record in housing will show that Fianna Fáil have every reason to be proud of their achievements. Our economic plan, The Way Forward, sets out the basic framework for our housing policies for the next five years. In particular, for the first time ever, an Irish Government have given a commitment to maintain the level of public capital expenditure in real terms over a five year period. Members of this House will appreciate the significance of this commitment when I point out that, when Fine Gael and Labour were in the middle of the last recession they reduced public capital expenditure on housing by 57 per cent between 1975 and 1977. In plain language, housing was very low in their priorities. The Coalition showed a callous disregard for the people living in unfit and overcrowded houses. Despite our present economic difficulties, Fianna Fáil are prepared to face up to their responsibilities by providing enough money to ensure that the national housing programme is maintained at a reasonable level.
I am very proud of the work done by the task force for the elderly, which was set up this year under my chairmanship. We have undertaken an emergency programme to improve the living conditions of elderly people living in unacceptable conditions. Typically, aid is available for works relating to the provision of water and sewerage facilities and necessary repairs.
I should like to remind the House that when the Coalition were in office last year they demonstrated in many ways how they did not want to know the real needs of people in regard to housing. The Coalition introduced a scheme under which people had to produce a letter from the local clergyman indicating that they intended marrying. SDA loans were not available and the mortgage subsidy was not paid to those who were about to be married. The Coalition amended the rules and caused havoc but when we were returned to power we gave a commitment that we would change all that. Those who are about to be married realise that now they qualify for a local authority loan and a Government grant provided they meet the criteria laid down. We also reduced interest rates from 15½ per cent to 12½ per cent.
I am pleased that the former Minister for the Environment is present to hear my contribution although I believe it was necessary for him to get Government approval to change the housing schemes. The alterations by the Coalition caused great hardship to those planning to marry. The result was that many people were moved to the local authority housing list. Our housing record can stand up to scrutiny. In our plan we have outlined the amount of money that will be available for housing. In the event of the Dáil coming to an end today I am sure the people will be anxious to know if it will be the policy of Fine Gael, and whatever party joins them — there is no hope of them gaining an overall majority with the result that they must tie in with another party — to return to the programme they followed last year in regard to housing. Will they insist on the production of birth certificates and certificates from local clergy specifying that it is the intention of a couple to get married before they are sanctioned for a house loan? That situation never existed before. For instance, if he or she did not line out what would have been the position in regard to the land they had purchased? It would have resulted in a field day for the legal people. Banks would not give bridging finance under such arrangements. Fianna Fáil did not agree with that and we removed such anomolies when we returned to office.
The public are aware of Fianna Fáil's housing programme. When we were returned to office we amended the improvements grant scheme so that more houses could be restored and improved. That resulted in the creation of more work for tradesmen in the building industry. My Department are receiving in the region of 400 applications weekly for improvement grants. That is an indication of the interest that has been generated in the scheme. Fine Gael are taking a mean advantage of the position we find ourselves in because they are afraid to face the Clare by-election. They know we would have a resounding victory there. If the Dáil comes to an end this evening so be it, but I have no doubt that in the course of the election campaign our people will accept that it was Fine Gael, and others, who brought this Dáil to an end. I have no doubt that they will act accordingly.
Fine Gael have now rowed in with the pro-life amendment although some months ago they had reservations about it. In America, and elsewhere, Fine Gael representatives were expressing the view that there was no need for the amendment. They were saying they intended carrying out a crusade on the Constitution but when the gun was put to their heads they had to move in behind the amendment whether they liked it or not. However, the public know that Fine Gael have reservations about it.
Like Deputy Deasy, I do not mind facing the electorate of Laois-Offaly because I am confident that the people will take into consideration the fact that the election was brought about by Fine Gael and others. Many people are asking why it is that we are having a general election and, undoubtedly, they will vote against those who brought it about. Leading economists had agreed that the proposals in The Way Forward are correct. As far as I can recall the Leader of Fine Gael yesterday felt the measures proposed in the plan were not harsh enough. In other words, he is anxious to tax children's shoes and clothes; he wants to clobber all around him. He will have to spell out his policies in the election. I should like to tell Deputy Enright that Fine Gael will have to spell out their policies clearly. They will have to tell the people where the finance will come from.
Deputy Gallagher, who is concluding on behalf of The Workers' Party, has very kindly agreed to give five minutes of his time to Deputy Tony Gregory.
I thank both Deputy Gallagher and the Ceann Comhairle. It is my intention to abstain today in this vote of confidence in the Government. There are a number of reasons for this decision. The issue is the Government's social and economic policy, cutbacks in the health services and the indications of more extensive cutbacks outlined in the economic plan. The philosophy of the Government's strategy appears to be that when in recession those who are to be hit most are the poorer sections of the community. That is a philosophy I reject and one in which I could have no confidence, particularly at a time when the wealthiest sections, property speculators and financial institutions, are reaping enormous profits.
The question then arises as to what is the available alternative. Fine Gael are the party who have played the most prominent part in support of speculators in the great re-zoning scandal. They are the party who only a short time ago sought to tax even food and clothes. Certainly that is no alternative in which I could express confidence.
It is therefore with some relief that I am conscious today that my vote will not be a determining factor. Given the stated position of Fine Gael, Labour, The Workers' Party and Deputy Kemmy, their combined vote will defeat the Government and bring about a general election. My vote could not save us from an election at this time.
What of the strategy of those plunging us into an election? Is it in the interests of our people? I certainly think not. Fine Gael have acted with indecent haste and did not even take the time to consider the effects of their action. Their sole motivation was that of petty self-interest and opportunism while the Government are short the votes of two legitimately elected members. Such opportunism I find most distasteful. What of The Workers' Party who only last week voted for the appointment of four new Ministers, giving in effect a vote of confidence to the Government? I regret to say that self-interest appears to be the only explanation of their actions. They see Labour in disarray with the defection of their former leader to Fine Gael. Their Ard Comhairle believe this is their best opportunity to destroy Labour and reap the benefits themselves. I do not believe the electorate are so gullible as to be fooled by such cynical and narrow self-interest.
The position of the Labour Party, still in the straitjacket woven for them by their former leader, makes them incapable as never before of establishing their ability to act in an independent manner. Nothing has changed for them. They must trail on the coat tails of Fine Gael. At least Labour cannot be accused of opportunism, only of inability to act as an independent political force in this Dáil.
It is of particular regret to me that at a time when in some senses the Irish left have made such rapid advances in electoral victories all is to be jettisoned at the most fragile stage of development. Their failure to unite and use their combined strength to win badly needed concessions from a minority Government will be their own downfall, a terrible mistake for which I fear both history and the working class people of this country will not forgive us.
If my vote were to have been the determining factor today, it would weigh very heavily on me as to whether or not I was taking the right decision. No matter what Opposition politicians might say, the various concessions made by Deputy Haughey's Government, particularly in the inner city of Dublin, the most disadvantaged urban area in this country, were worth while and morally essential. If any future Government deliberately wind down those measures they will do so to their own eternal disgrace.
I would never have involved myself in discussions with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael but for the enormous moral responsibility placed on me as an elected representative from central Dublin holding the balance of power. I make no apology whatever for my actions. I would do it all over again, and if there is to be an election I will fight it on the basis of my commitment to those on whose behalf I have worked as best I could.
(Waterford): It is an indication of how democratic The Workers' Party are that we conceded, not for the first time, portion of our time in order to allow Deputy Gregory the opportunity of attacking us. He referred to the Ard Comhairle as having made the decision as to how we would vote. That decision was made entirely by the three Deputies who represent The Workers' Party in this House. In making that decision our thinking was quite clear. It might be of interest to Deputy Gregory and others that the Ard Comhairle of our party have not had a meeting for the past four weeks.
It is clear that Fine Gael Deputies want an election and, given the momentum of events this afternoon, an election is inevitable. They want it to be contested on the basis of personalities. The Workers' Party will not allow themselves to be diverted into the cul de sac of personality politics, and we have no intention of engaging in the character vilification and assassination which has been indulged in by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
There is absolutely no difference between the two major parties. They are exactly a mirror image of one another and if by some strange quirk or metamorphosis they changed places overnight no difference would be discernible. Their ideology is the same, as are their economic and social policies. They are both offering the same hair shirt — only the buttons are different. We have only to look at the attitude of both these parties to the two major items put forward by The Workers' Party. I refer to the Bills dealing with divorce and ground rents. Because of the vested interests within these parties they will not tackle these issues since both of them defend the divine right to property and take to themselves the role of guardians of morality.
We are concerned with two issues. namely, the health cuts announced by the Government and the economic plan. The cuts in health services represent the most savage and bitter attack on the weakest section of our society, the ill and the old. Deputy Sherlock spoke of incidents in his area in Cork where patients instead of being offered three slices of bread are being offered two, in order to effect economies.
The Fine Gael Party do not want to be forced into a situation where they would be seen to be opposing the Government on the health cutbacks, because if they return to power they will implement precisely the same cuts in precisely the same manner. I had occasion during the past few weeks to make representations on behalf of a patient in Waterford who is suffering from a heart condition and has been waiting for two years for cardiac surgery in a Dublin hospital. I was successful in my efforts. In correspondence with the consultant surgeon it emerges that people will actually die because of these cutbacks. The waiting list for cardiac surgery is growing, and the inevitable result is that patients will die. That is the harsh reality, the savagery and the brutality of the cuts being implemented in the health services. In effect, the political guns of the major parties are being trained on the most defenceless sector, the old, the ill, the unemployed, for no better reason than the refusal of these major parties to take on the monolithic medical and pharmaceutical professions who are making a fortune on the misfortunes of this sector of our society.
We are opposed to the Government's economic plan and we make no apologies for that. The only certain thing about the plan produced by the Fianna Fáil Party is that it is a plan for poverty. The Taoiseach in his address to the Dáil asked a number of questions. He asked if we agreed that the situation was serious. Of course we agree it is serious. The present depression is becoming worse. I do not have to look far from my doorstep in Waterford to see where yesterday 200 workers were thrown on the scrap-heap in an area which has the highest unemployment of any urban area here. He asked if we agree that an increased output is necessary in order to export more than we import. Of course we agree. We stated that quite clearly in our own plan titled An End to the Crisis and we know that an overall increase in output of 5 per cent a year is necessary in order to find a way out of the present crisis.
Our party cannot be accused of failing to take note of the serious nature of the crisis. Because our intention to find a way out of the present crisis is so strong we reject the present Government's plan for the economy. Our economic plan puts full employment back into the place of first importance and we have no intention of trading in this objective for greater profits for speculators or bankers. Our plan does what no other plan submitted in the present crisis does. It shows how a goal of full employment can be reached and all the details in our plan are worked out to bring this about. The only solution offered particularly on this question of unemployment by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is to tax, for instance, short-term social welfare benefits which they say are a disincentive to work. The only disincentive to work is that the work is not there because of the economic policies pursued by the conservative parties in this Chamber.
In the last couple of days, with the defection from the Labour Party of Deputy O'Leary to the Fine Gael benches, The Workers' Party have been accused of capitalising on the misfortunes of the Labour Party because the Labour Party is in disarray. This speculation is being broadcast in the newspapers and on television, but I would like to refresh the memory of the media who are making this speculation. We stated on entry to this Chamber last February that the three Deputies of The Workers' Party extended the hand of friendship to the members of the Labour Party but this extension of friendship was rejected. However, we want to see a strengthening of the left. We want more seats for The Workers' Party and for the Labour Party. The Labour Party are suffering at present because of their association with the Fine Gael Party. Labour policies as decided at the Labour conference have much more in common with those of The Workers' Party than those of the Fine Gael Party.
We see now the entry of the new Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring. On behalf of The Workers' Party I would like to extend congratulations to him on his appointment.
During the course of this debate it has become quite clear that what the conservative parties believe the country needs is strong government. This country has never been more governed than in this period of parliamentary process. Since last year when Deputy Sherlock was elected as the first member of The Workers' Party to this House of Parliament this country has never been more governed because each and every Deputy, irrespective of party, was where he had to be, here working and representing his constituents. We need strong Government, and God help the working class people if either the Fianna Fáil Party or the Coalition achieve an overall majority. The policies they intend to implement will be crucifixion beyond anything that the working people have seen to date. The Workers' Party are acting as a brake on the worst excesses of the Government but we see our role as protecting the unemployed and the weaker sections of our society. I and my party colleagues have no intention of making any apologies and we have no embarrassment about going before the electorate on our record.
At the outset I would like to record my gratitude to the Taoiseach, to Deputy FitzGerald, Leader of the main Opposition party and to Deputy Gallagher (Waterford) for their welcome to me as Leader of the Labour Party and for the courtesy they have shown me. I express formally my thanks and appreciation.
In relation to the motion before the House the inevitable is about to happen in that this Government are about to be forced out of office after what can only be described as eight months of mismanagement of the economy on a grand scale. For the second time in two years Deputy Haughey is about to go to the country before the full facts of the public finances have been revealed.
The departure of Deputy Haughey's Government will be regretted by few people. His administration was founded on the quicksands of political expediency and financial juggling. The reception by Deputy Haughey of the awful financial legacy of his previous administration resulted in a policy of savage expenditure cuts. The public service workers who had provided a basis for moderation in pay settlements throughout the economy were attacked and asked to accept a pay freeze for the last quarter of this year. The health services were indiscriminately hit and medical card holders were asked to pay for essential medicines. Last week brought announcements of further cuts in the general medical service. The cuts as made in the GMS show a total lack of sensitivity or caring for those people most dependent upon the provisions of that service and are not in a tradition which Fianna Fáil would have told us over the years that they were proud to represent. This was a different stance.
The Government have shown no political backbone. They have always attempted the political stroke to survive and seldom have taken a stand on their policies. Their economic plan called The Way Forward— a sad title and God help us all if we are to rely on it — obviously was drafted with an election in mind. Its political life-cycle is at a maximum two months as the Exchequer returns for the last quarter of this year would undermine any confidence remaining in Deputy Haughey's economic policies.
Governments are elected to govern, not to hang on to office as has been the hallmark of this Government. The credibility of Deputy Haughey's approach to economic planning was torn to shreds when he offered to refer his plan to a select committee of this House. Initially Deputy Haughey refused to consult any other political party in the formulation of that plan. Consultation became an option available only in the jaws of defeat. The game was up when Deputy Haughey decided to play outside his initial terms of reference and to look to options which he himself admitted did not exist when he went about formulating his economic plan. He may now claim that his offer of consultation with Opposition Deputies in select committee is an attempt to achieve a consensus on the plan.
At the press conference announcing The Way Forward the Taoiseach stated clearly that any Government would have to implement his plan in full. As the political strains on his creaking administration increased to fever pitch this week, the Taoiseach discarded the ill-fitting hairshirt he donned on 30 July. The Labour Party under my leadership stand united and determined against a policy of indiscriminate cuts in public expenditure with reductions in living standards of the working people of this country.
The Labour Party have fought too long the lonely fight to establish our health and social welfare services and we will not stand for their dismantling while the better off sections of the community remain untouched. The Labour Party will fight this election on an honourable record in Government and in Opposition. Alone among the major political parties in 1981 we refused to offer tax reductions and hand-outs to the electorate in our election manifesto. We tackled the crisis in our finances courageously and stood over measures which are not Labour Party policy but in the national interest. We showed in the last Government what political courage can achieve and it will be our intention to repeat that political courage on future occasions.
Ideally, as Leader of a party who have had to adjust to the shock of the departure of a former leader to other benches in the House, I would have preferred another moment to remove the Government from office but the Labour Party, despite our modest resources, despite the foraging of our seats from left, from right and indeed from the centre on occasions, will never flinch from our duty to defend the working people of the country and in the national interest.
I cannot and I will not declare confidence in a Government who only came to power by paying a massive price for the support of some Independent Deputies. Let me make my position quite clear in that regard. I would like to place on the record of the House that I do not attach any blame to Deputy Gregory, as some do, in pressing home his political advantage on behalf of the poor of the inner city. I fault the basic political approach of the Taoiseach to the question of Government. I am sure Deputy Gregory would have settled for much less than he asked for yet anything he asked for seemed to be considered without any thought for the consequences of this action.
It is true to say that political considerations of a very expedient and short-term nature governed the Taoiseach in forming his Government. The nightmare of his reckless policies which were followed from 1979 to 1981 is now surpassed by his naked espousal of economic policy of a crude right wing character. What trade union member in this country can trust the word of this Government? The Taoiseach broke his word last July on the 5 per cent pay limit on public service pay and in the economic plan effectively tears up the terms recently negotiated between the Minister for the Public Service and the trade union movement. The message from this Government to the trade union movement is this: "Accept pay moderation and reduction in your living standards and we will come back for more and more". What future does that hold out to the trade unionists in this country?
The trade union movement and the Labour Party stand together against any attempt to resurrect the diktat on pay of 31 July by either of the major parties. The Labour Party entered the last Government to implement specific labour policies. We knew that the state of the public finances warranted emergency action and we stood bravely behind the two budgets of that Government which tried to implement fiscal rectitude and paved the way for the proper development of our economic policy. Because of the explosion in our labour force caused by our growing population and the unemployment level, which exceeded 120,000 at that time, we established the Youth Employment Agency under Deputy Liam Kavanagh, then Minister for Labour and Minister for the Public Service. By placing this measure on the Statute Book we ensured that, despite the economic climate, increased funds were made available to AnCO and new job creation programmes were established forthwith.
It is our aim that the £90 million, which will be made available next year to the Youth Employment Agency, will be fully utilised and that its scope will be expanded to create job vacancies for young people who are now looking for jobs, knocking on doors and finding those doors closed. We will be asking the electorate to give us this mandate so that some of our young people will be taken off the hopeless dole queues which they are now in.
Because of the present financial situation the need for a more selective approach to grant-aiding new industry is all the more necessary. The National Development Corporation that we wish to establish is now more urgent than ever. I want to make it quite clear that the Labour Party's understanding of the National Development Corporation is individualistic to the Labour Party within the terms of Labour Party policy and differs from the concepts of other parties in the House. We want the National Development Corporation to become the premier vehicle of industrial policy in the years to come.
I believe that the Telesis Report clearly indicated that the blanket capital grants and tax incentives to new industry do not amount to an industrial strategy. We have been losing jobs in the same industrial sectors where we are grant-aiding new industry. We have been giving grants to four and five companies in the same industry, when concentration on those firms with the best prospects would yield much better results in terms of jobs and output.
If we want to cut out waste in public spending, if we want to stabilise our foreign borrowing, then surely we should not be over-financing industry, to the extent that it leads to excessive competition.
The National Development Corporation, as the Labour Party envisage it should have two basic functions. (1) They will provide funds to take a shareholding in existing or new companies in the private sector, on a joint venture basis. Investment decisions will be governed by normal commercial criteria, but obviously conditions will be attached regarding employment targets. It will similarly act in joint ventures with State commercial enterprises where this is commercially possible. (2) A major difference that we attach to the NDC's role and that assigned to them in Fine Gael's proposals is the relation to State industry. We recognise that many of our commercial State enterprises need reorganisations, financial restructuring and a new impetus if they are to maximise their contribution to our economy.
We want a development plan for each of our State companies which would identify the commercial objectives of these companies. Given a fair opportunity to operate with a new mandate, I am convinced that the State sector of the economy can boost both its output and employment in the years ahead. We stand against piecemeal privatisation of the State companies. Not simply on ideological grounds — but on practical economic, social and national grounds.
The Labour Party stand in the breach against the major parties' plans for stripping away the public monopoly from one of our oldest state institutions, the Post Office. We have tabled amendments to the Postal and Telecommunications Bill to defend both the rights of the employees and to prevent the passage of clauses which would allow the private sector to cream off the profitable activities and leave the loss-making activities to An Bord Post and An Bord Telecom. This strategy, as outlined in the Bill is not acceptable to the Labour Party.
I would now like to refer to matters which among other things influenced our decision to reject talks with the Government. The public disquiet which has arisen as a result of certain incidents where interference with the due process of the law took place, has weakened the community's trust in this Government. That is something which cannot be ignored and must be stated openly and honestly.
The mishandling of the Attorney Genmunity' eral's resignation was only the culmination of a series of events which the commentators have indeed described as grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre and unbelievable. These are not my words but the words being used openly and which describe correctly that sad event in the country's history. The double voting charge against the Taoiseach's election agent, the open disquiet at the interference in the administration of the Garda, have heightened public feeling that this Government cannot be trusted.
The schizophrenia in this Government's handling of the frightening growth in crime and vandalism in our cities was evidenced by the Minister for Justice's decision to launch an expensive, largely self-promotional campaign against crime. In a total volte face the cutbacks of 30 July in Garda overtime has resulted in a serious reduction in the numbers of gardaí on the streets. Crime prevention has been badly hit and as one garda said to me referring to the criminal community, “they are having a field day out there: it is like Christmas day every day.”
Labour have always stressed that a dual approach is necessary to crime prevention. We insist that the social causes of crime be simultaneously tackled. These are unemployment, bad housing, poor education opportunities, along with firm action against law breakers.
There is no society that can remain healthy and thriving and see its law treated with contempt and openly flouted. The danger in this course of action is that we will over-react and settle for the mailed-fist approach when what is required is toughness and decisiveness coupled with respect for individual human dignity.
At this stage I must comment on remarks that were made here today by the Minister for Justice in relation to events that have taken place. I do so in the national interest but I have no wish to personalise in any way anything that I may have to say. The serious economic crisis in which we find ourselves has left our people looking for direction and leadership. In such circumstances we should avoid in so far as possible making any petty personal attack. People outside the House have no interest in any such conduct.
Last week I submitted a question to the Taoiseach and despite the fact that that question concerned activities very close to the Minister for Justice, the Taoiseach saw fit to shed Cabinet collective responsibility and to pass the question to the Minister for Justice. He told me by way of reply that a formal Garda report had not been received by his office concerning the matter in question but that when such report would come to hand he would let me have a copy. At the time I expressed the opinion that that was a totally unsatisfactory manner in which to handle the question. Today I received from the Minister a copy of the reply that was issued by the Government Information Service but which I do not regard as a direct reply to my question and to that extent represents an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the Minister for Justice to answer a question that was put before him lawfully. The Minister is shirking his responsibility in merely giving me his Government Information Service's standard reply which I had read anyway in The Irish Times some days before tabling the question.
I maintain that the statement issued in relation to the accident in question, having regard to the serious security implications of it, is totally unsatisfactory and is flouting what we expect from our democratic institutions. The accident involved an escort protection car that was supplied to the Minister and it occurred at 5.15 a.m. on 22 September 1982 near Ballyduff, County Kerry. We must ask why that car was in that place at that time. Was it being used in the course of lawful duty on that morning? The second question that remains unanswered is one that has serious security implications: must we accept that it was normal to leave weapons in that car for a period of at least one hour on a deserted country road? I will not rest here until those questions have been answered by the Minister though I doubt if he will now have the opportunity of answering them.
I regret very much the implications in the statement made by the Minister for Justice this morning concerning an accident in which I was involved and one which I shall never forget. That accident had tragic repercussions not only in terms of the loss of life but also for the family of the person who was killed. However, I can stand over the accident in the sense that it happened in the course of my duty as a Minister of State. I do not like the implications in what the Minister had to say about that accident.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I regret having to be personal in terms of events that happen in the course of duty and which unfortunately have lasting and sad memories for some people through no fault of their own but the direction of the Minister's speech in referring to that accident constitutes a danger to this institution. Would it not be much better that he answer the questions that are put to him and avoid the sly innuendo?
Returning to the question of the serious economic situation, the Taoiseach is seeking sanction for his proposals as put forward in the Government plan. But instead of being entitled The Way Forward, this document ought more aptly to have been called the last ditch, the ditch on which the Government will fall. The plan is based on wild speculation. It is artificial in its content and its predictions are totally unfounded. Even if the plan might work and that would be stretching imagination to its limits and ignoring what all the economic commentators say, the Government will not have a chance of putting it into operation as the vote this evening will ensure.
In the share of national income with the plan working, it is predicted that profits will rise by 1987 from 14 to 22 per cent and that the share of income allowable for wages and salaries will decrease from 75 to less than 70 per cent. To date all the forecasters on the economic front have said that incomes from wages and salaries will decrease from 75 to less than 70 per cent. They say also that living standards will fall although we have the hopeless forecast of the Department of Finance that there will not be a decrease in the standard of living, while others are talking of a decrease of 3 per cent. The Central Statistics Office forecast that retail sales in the next few years will decrease by 13 per cent and that the average decrease in the living standards of the ordinary person will be of the order of 6 per cent. Even if we were to have a neutral budget, and that is totally unlikely considering the extent of the budget deficit, even in the absence of budget correction, which we all accept as being gravely necessary, the standard of living must decrease by 3 per cent. If these implications in a plan which is doomed to failure were allowed to work, I would say that in its complete content it is anti-employee and anti-the people the Labour Party are representing. It is stacked in favour of the profit motive which is acceptable to a reasonable extent but in this case The Way Forward is stacked in favour of professional fees, the self-employed, corporate and partnership profits. It takes from the workers and gives an increase to the wealthier sections of the community, the ones who should be asked in times of shortfall of cash and financial difficulty to restrict their demands on central funds. I believe these people, if asked in a proper manner and in a spirit of negotiation would respond to the grave financial crisis we are facing and not allow the Government to act in the cold, callous way they have acted throughout this summer as regards setting out, not in the tradition to which Fianna Fáil would claim to belong, to take from the employees in favour of corporate and partnership profits.
On the taxation issue as set out in this plan, the PAYE tax burden is at present regarded as 18 per cent of national income. If this plan was to work — I repeat that it has no possible chance of working — then the tax burden on the PAYE worker as a proportion of national income would have to increase to over 20 per cent by 1987. But with the failure of a 5 per cent growth in income the percentage would surely rise to over 25 per cent. I repeat that this plan is one of low incomes and higher taxation which cannot expect a response from the Labour Party because it does not take due account of the people we represent. We cannot stand over this plan.
The Government are trying to say that there is no price for their deflationary policies. That cannot be accepted. They are also saying that they can create growth, increase growth and employment and have a balance of payments surplus. They also say we will have a growth in exports and that this will result from their deflationary policies, from taking money out of the economy. I say these deflationary policies will result in unemployment and decreased growth. This will certainly be the case in the short term and in this situation the Labour Party are not prepared to stand over these financial projections because they are not in the interests of the workers. They are not in the interests of those who will have to bear the burden, who are least secure in their employment, least secure in what they are obtaining from the State and stand to lose most in respect of this Fianna Fáil plan.
It is ironic that the Government's last testament as I would describe it is a document entitled The Way Forward. Deputy Haughey's Government want us to go backwards, to stop the clock and freeze the status quo of the various groups in society when all around us drastic changes are taking place. The Fianna Fáil Government policy of 1977 is seen by the people as an abysmal failure. Now Fianna Fáil are trying to sell a package which is a total reversal of the Fianna Fáil policy of the 1977 election. That speculative effort by them is not good enough and will not be accepted by the people — when one fails they rely on another equally untested method of saving our finances.
Under my leadership the Labour Party will not shirk its responsibility in ensuring that this country has a stable alternative Government. But we in the Labour Party have a responsibility to our own people, the working people of Ireland.
Seventy years ago this party was founded to give the Labour movement a political voice. This voice in the present circumstances will be heard; let the major parties have no doubt about that.
It is often the case when there is a bereavement in a family that the members of that family assemble together; brothers and sisters and distant cousins return to their roots. In this hour of peril for our nation, with Labour's own people suffering daily from unemployment, poverty and deprivation, Labour must return to its roots, reassert its loyalty to the older family of labour, the trade unions, the factory and office workers, the agricultural and forestry workers.
Labour will stand alone in this election, but not apart. I left the last Government headed by Deputy FitzGerald with no sense of shame. No one in that administration could say that Deputy FitzGerald did not strive to give this country decent and honest government.
We on the Labour benches, of course, had our differences and our battles with Fine Gael in that Government, as we still have. But I recognise that the people of this country have emphatically said "yes" to Deputy FitzGerald and "no" to Deputy Haughey. I am sure our supporters throughout the country will register their views on the respective merits of the alternative Taoiseach available to them through the ballot box, when the Government face the electorate.
But what I say on behalf of Labour is that honest government while essential is not enough. It must be compassionate, economically and socially progressive, and fearlessly face up to the vested interests in our society. Labour is the party which holds the key to the future of this country. If the major parties who for years adopted and implemented many of our social and economic policies now wish to stop this process, then we will say no to their forming a Government.
This is not to say that we will not accept the verdict of the electorate. Of course, we will, and I will use all the talents at my disposal to ensure that this country will have a stable and socially just Government after this election. But the major parties have questions which they must ask themselves and to which they must give clear answers both to the electorate and to my party. Will they move towards a genuine redistribution of wealth and income in this society? Will they put country before party interest? What is the national interest that we all wish to defend but that of our people. To Labour, the people of Ireland are the national interest. It is they we wish to defend against the vested interests in this society.
From what I have said in speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, as previous speakers for my Party have indicated, it is clear that we will totally reject the plan put forward by Deputy Haughey and his Cabinet as the solution to the problems facing the country. The Labour Party will outline what we consider as the necessary economic measures which must be taken if we are to get out of the financial crisis created by the present Taoiseach's administration in the past six or seven years. We shall let the people judge us on our action. I feel confident that the people will see that the Labour Party are being honest with them and that we are prepared to be compassionate to our people who need protection and also that we are prepared to be socially progressive and that we will return to this Chamber in the tradition of a democratic party which we are proud to maintain.
That was Deputy Spring's maiden speech as leader of his party. We have been very fortunate that since the foundation of the State the vast majority of the leaders of the political parties were men of courage, integrity and patriotism. Deputy Spring is in that mould and I wish him well.
We are opposing the motion before the House not just on behalf of our party or on behalf of the Opposition parties but in the interests of the people. A confidence motion is a very serious matter: an expression of the democratic process that is properly reserved for the gravest circumstances. On this occasion let us be clear that in expressing no confidence in the Government this House is simply not playing politics but reflecting the will of the people and, in a situation unprecedented in our political life, is reflecting the publicly expressed will of many in Fianna Fáil.
Confidence and trust are two of the most precious commodities in public life without which no party can govern. They have been systematically squandered by the Government over the past few months. That more than any policy detail or ideological disagreement is the central issue of this debate. The tragedy of this Government is that their regard for the traditions and standards demanded of those who occupy the highest offices of the State cast doubt not only on the individuals concerned or on Fianna Fáil but on the House and those elected to it.
I do not think there would ever have been a good time to have this Fianna Fáil Government but it is surely the cruellest of ironies that it is at this moment in our history when trust and integrity are most needed and when we are facing our greatest challenge that Fianna Fáil should provide for the people a group of men who, by any stretch of the imagination, are lacking in the two qualities I outlined. What a shameful arrogance they display in seeking a vote of confidence in this House. In their desperate efforts to evade responsibility for inflicting this Government on the nation many in Fianna Fáil, men who themselves bear the guilt for our present economic ills, would have us believe that the problem lies not with the party but with the leadership. Surely this is a preposterous notion. What a bankrupt explanation to lay before a people fighting for their economic life.
The reason the Opposition and the people have no confidence in the Government is that we have had no Government in the Dáil. They have stumbled from shabby scandal to shabby scandal. The nation is being left to speculate not about policy but on whether the highest offices of the State are occupied by fools or knaves. Given the patent inadequacy of those who have occupied these positions my deepest contempt must be reserved for those in Fianna Fáil who claim to be free of guilt for these matters. They are driven by political cowardice, by expediency in its more shocking form. Those who over the last two years had been trying publicly and privately to take their leader's political life will this evening follow him into the lobby. What cynicism. They seek from the people what only a few days ago they would not give themselves — a vote of confidence in the leader of their party. What dreadful arrogance. What a crushing insult to the nation that those who, at some future date will seek the nation's trust now seek to impose on the nation a leader they sought to dispose of two or three weeks ago.
As we watch them today and as people will judge them in the future we must be concerned about the standards we are setting for the younger generation. This is not just the standards of the leader of Fianna Fáil and his cronies but that of those who put them where they are today and who keep them there. Those who seek to con the people politically today were also guilty of trying to con them economically in 1977. Almost all our economic problems stem from that infamous election and the patent boosting of demand by pumping into the economy excess purchasing power when whatever damage had been done to the economy as a result of the oil crisis had been repaired by the Coalition Government of 1973 to 1977. When the oil crisis of 1979 occurred it passed by almost unnoticed by the Government at that time. There was no change in policy. There was no change in direction or no taking account of the inflationary effects on the economy of the boost in oil prices.
As members of that Government have since admitted that was a serious blunder on their part. Despite the operation mounted against the then leader of that party, with the change in leadership in the winter of 1979 many people felt that a change had come about and some control would be brought back into the public finances. That appeared to be confirmed by the Taoiseach's broadcast to the nation in 1980. He correctly outlined the problems in the economy and said that sacrifices were needed. At that stage people were ready to make changes and tighten their belts if given the lead. The television sets had hardly gone cold that night when the whole process of bending to every wind that blew and giving into every pressure group started off. This culminated in the shameless vote buying exercise in a Donegal by-election that year. Any store of goodwill the Taoiseach had built up as an economic wizard who would lead not just his party but the country out of the damaging morass that the Government of which he was a member had stumbled into for the previous three years was totally gone.
That was followed by the travesty of the 1981 budget with its false assumptions, doctored figures and unrealistic buoyancy expectations, all to win an election everybody saw coming. It failed. The party which won a 20-seat majority in 1977 threw away that majority. They were put out of office by an unprecedented swing of opinion in the summer of last year. The Government which Deputy FitzGerald led at that time quickly established the credibility of what we were saying about the position: that the country was not being governed in a way that made it possible to restore the finances of the nation.
We got a response from the people and introduced what was a "harsh" budget in July last year, to be followed early this year by another "harsh" budget. It is history that we lost that election although in my view we did not lose the election, because we gained more votes and managed to convince the electorate that what we were saying was correct and that the medicine we were prescribing was what the country needed. We were accused of being politically inept, naive and not being with it in matters of gaining votes and holding on to power. The clocks could be turned back, but does anybody believe that if we were to go again to the country in those circumstances we would not be swept back into office with a huge majority, because of the handling of the economy over the last eight months and the dilution of the trust that should be placed in parliamentarians and in this House by the Irish people?
The tragedy of the return to power of Fianna Fáil is that they do not appear to have learned anything in the last eight months. The doom and gloom of which we were accused was to be replaced according to the Tánaiste with boom and bloom. That lasted up to the summer of this year when the Dáil went into recess — and after a by-election. The Fianna Fáil Party lurched from by-election to by-election manipulating the purse strings of the country to gain seats at by-elections. When the Dáil went into recess boom and bloom were out and doom and gloom were back. In as shabby a piece of politicking as this country has seen, on 31 July last Fianna Fáil introduced their package of public sector cuts. Not one Minister had the guts to sit opposite members of the media and answer questions about those cuts.
The Deputy is wrong, as usual.
They introduced their cuts, went on holiday and left the civil servants to face the media.
Withdraw that; the Deputy is wrong. This is typical of the reports——
I am not wrong. If I am wrong the Tánaiste can correct me——
I am correcting the Deputy now, to give him a chance to withdraw another lie.
The Tánaiste will have an opportunity to refute that statement——
(Interruptions.)
In accordance with the procedure of the House, will the Tánaiste withdraw the word "lie"?
I did not hear the word "lie" used.
Did the Tánaiste use the word "lie"?
I did.
If the Tánaiste used the word "lie" I ask him to withdraw it.
When Deputy Barry withdraws what he said, I will withdraw the world "lie".
(Interruptions.)
The Tánaiste knows that that three letter word is not permitted. Accordingly, I ask him not to depart from tradition and to withdraw the word.
If, as is the case, Fine Gael have lived so long under the tradition of the House, I will change the three letter word I used to say "another untruth from Fine Gael"——
Thank you, I am calling Deputy P. Barry.
——which is the same thing and they have accepted it.
If I am not correct the Tánaiste in his speech can tell me who was present, but my understanding is that no Minister was present on that occasion.
I was on the radio on Sunday.
Now who is telling untruths.
(Interruptions.)
Let me repeat: I said when the package was uncovered on 31 July no member of the Government would face the media to answer questions about it.
I did.
Not on the day it was produced.
When I was asked.
Now we know who uses three letter words.
It is the truth.
The point has been made. How can this House or the people have respect for their Parliament when it is so shamefully used for political ends? This House has no confidence in Fianna Fáil nor have the people. They have run their course and next month the people will have their say. We in Fine Gael will seek to restore the people's trust in this House and in the institutions of the State. That is the rock on which leadership and policy is founded.
In the next Dáil integrity, intelligence and ability will be the criteria for holding the offices of State. Before we can govern we must remove the strain of second class behaviour from public life. This list of second class behaviour is endless, starting with the charges against the Taoiseach's election agent for double voting; the appallingly sinister and cynical exercise of offering a commissionership in Europe to an Opposition Deputy in the hope of increasing the Government majority in the House, a gambit which became unstuck because of the good sense of the voters of Dublin West who decided they would return in May 1982 the same political representation they had in February 1982; what has become known as the Connolly affair, with the Taoiseach not knowing, even though he was acting Minister for Justice, or not caring, what happened over that sorry weekend, or what is probably more true, hoping he would get away with it; the disgraceful outburst at a meeting in Kildare by the Minister for Defence — an outburst which was not withdrawn by the Minister who was left in office — and more recently the fisheries dispute in which the Minister went back on an assurance he had given in the company of three Deputies of his party, and which resulted in fishermen spending a number of days in prison. This was such a shameful incident that one of those Deputies felt he had to go to the papers to protect his own honour and let the public know that what the fishermen said was correct and that the Minister had broken his word.
Then there was the extraordinary episode of the Minister for Industry and Energy who assured this House that the increase in the price of petrol from Whitegate would be 1p to 2p, and he stuck with that figure of 2p right through the summer. When he was proved wrong, in an unprecedented manner he blamed the civil servants of another Department for his blunders.
There was also the political expediency in trying to get the constituencies redrawn so that they could remain in office. A commission — consisting of three members, independent of politics — had been established four years ago and they were given their terms of reference to draw up the constituencies. We reappointed that commission with the same terms of reference before we left office, but almost the first act of this Government was to dismiss the commission. Did they give no credit to the intelligence and integrity of the three people appointed not to take account of what had happened for the last two years when drawing up a new set of boundaries? Then there was the case of Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien who was appointed by a friendly country to be Honorary Consul in this country and was turned down for what I believe were petty, mean, selfish reasons purely because he has, with his tongue and his pen, lashed the Fianna Fáil Party for the last ten years. Many people in this House would not agree with many of the views put forward by Dr. Conor-Cruise O'Brien but I would hold that his views have done far less harm to the cause of Irish unity than have the warlike undertones of Fianna Fáil rhetoric.
The Minister for Justice — what can you say about him? Virtually every newspaper that appears has some reference to him in it — Dowra, Tully, Kerry. Every week there is something in the newspapers about him. I was mentioned twice in his discourse today and that is a great honour. I think I should really ignore what the Minister for Justice said. Deputy Spring dealt with it quite adequately. The extraordinary thing is that he gave us a lecture, at the same time I understand, about people in glasshouses throwing stones. I do not ever remember a publication by any unit of the Garda Síochána with a leading article talking about political interference such as appeared last week. That is a sorry list and indeed an incomplete list of low standards in high places. It is not an example to this new, critical and educated generation of young Irish men and women whom we are trying to teach that democracy is worth preserving and that it can solve our problems.
In terms of policy and conduct the years since 1977 represent a dark age in Irish politics. We have disappointed a generation of Irish men and women, devalued the political currency and squandered the people's trust. Today in this House we are about to begin the restoration of that trust. We owe it to the people. We owe it to our predecessors from all sides of this House from whom we inherited the values and traditions that have been so abused in recent times. Given the economic crisis facing the country the restoration of good government is not only a debt but a duty. It is a duty we, as politicians on this side of the House, must fulfil. Nobody wants an election but nobody concerned for the future can deny that we need one. Politics is the business of this House. Elections are the people's business. I have no doubt that after the House this evening has passed judgment on this Government the verdict will be endorsed by the people who are, in the final analysis, the real victims of the Fianna Fáil administration.
Fine Gael intend to fight not just on this Government's record but for our party's vision of the future. As we did in our brief spell in Government, so once again we will speak honestly to the electorate. We will be voting no confidence in this Government in another half hour and we will be going before the people of this country in the next month seeking a mandate from the people to govern again. We will be seeking a mandate to govern honestly and determinedly in the finest tradition of this House and this nation. We will be seeking a mandate to build an economically strong future for our children and an economically just society for the present and future generations. We will be seeking a mandate to tackle crime on the streets. We will be seeking a mandate to ensure decency in high places. We will be seeking a mandate to lead by example rather than follow by expediency. Our people, our history and the traditions of this House will, I believe, ensure that we get that in the next month.
It is interesting to note the exchange of views between the Fine Gael and Labour parties. Obviously the leader of Fine Gael — and I want to say this while he is in the House — is not satisfied with taking the leader of the Labour party but from what he said in praise of Deputy Spring, which I would not disagree with, there is a place in Fine Gael for Deputy Spring as well when the occasion arises.
I take grave exception to the statement made by Deputy Barry about manipulation of the State finances. This is the kind of innuendo that has been scattered around the country by Deputy FitzGerald and others in Fine Gael. One statement that struck me and many right-thinking people very forcibly was the one made by Deputy FitzGerald the night before last, and widely reported to the effect that the EEC figures on which the external assumptions of the plan are based, that is the foreign unit wage costs, export market growth et cetera are out of date and taken from an EEC document now almost a year-and-a-half old. The document Deputy FitzGerald was referring to is the EEC Fifth Medium Term Programme published in mid-1981 and covering the period 1980-1985.
The Tánaiste will recall that I specifically quoted from Dr. Kieran Kennedy and pointed out that I had been given different information in a reply in this House.
The Deputy had already got the correct information from me in reply to a question on that evening. He still went ahead and delivered such a damaging speech, damaging to the country and to our credibility in the EEC. The facts are that the plan figures are based on detailed unpublished data, as he had been told, relating to the period 1982-1987 which we sought from the EEC Commission and which were confirmed in mid-September. Those are the facts, whether Deputy FitzGerald likes it or not. It is this kind of statement from this infallible saint that we have as Leader of the Opposition running around the country that has led this Dáil to be brought into disrepute.
(Interruptions.)
I only have 30 minutes and I have quite a lot to say about another point, that is, the present economic situation and the management of the State finances. That is the main thing I want to deal with this evening. I do not intend to become involved in too much detail in the various points which have been raised during the debate. This Government have a deeply-held belief in the fundamental soundness of our economy. Our faith is based on fact and sound analysis. It recognises the problems facing the economy as well as its strength. It is on that basis, and that basis alone, that we have formulated the economic plan for solving the country's major problem.
At the best of times, there is no shortage of sceptics and pessimists who are willing to underrate the capacity of our economy, but when we are experiencing a global recession which bears comparison with that of a half century ago and one which has particularly badly hit small, exposed economies such as ours, their ranks are swollen, even by those within this House. What is the evidence on which we base our assessment of the capacity of our economy? Real output in the OECD area and the volume of world trade are both flat this year. Ireland's GDP however is expected to grow, albeit moderately, and it seems probable that this year's performance will be a little better than that of 1981. The basis of this achievement in the face of a policy stance which was of necessity defensive lies in two factors — on the one hand, our industrial exports have managed to surmount the difficult conditions in external markets and look set to achieve a real growth rate this year of over 10 per cent. This performance speaks for itself. On the other hand, our farmers have taken full advantage of their improved circumstances to generate a substantial increase in output.
Together, these two developments are indicative of the capacity of our economy to achieve the export-led growth to which all have long aspired. The Government's plan, which has as a key objective the improvement of our competitiveness, will support and build on that performance. Crucial to the plan's key objective is the development of incomes and the general pattern of inflation here. In the course of 1982 the rate of pay increase has moderated to a degree which few would have thought feasible a few short months ago. Pay is not the only element of cost. The events of recent years have brought home forcibly the role of interest rates in this respect and the equally important area of investment. The downturn in international rates was a prerequisite for a lowering of domestic interest rates. However, this could only be realised in the context of lower inflation and better balance on the external accounts. The three recent substantial cuts in interest rates, to the relief of industry, farming and householders, were in large measure facilitated by the improvement in our trading account. At a time when an increasing number of countries face balance of payment problems, our trade gap has narrowed dramatically in the first eight months of the year. The import excess fell by £345 million on the same period of 1981, a reduction of more than a quarter. Despite a substantial increase in interest payments on foreign debt, we are on course for a reduction of no less than 5 percentage points in our balance of payments deficit relative to GNP. This is an improvement on which we must build in future years and in this way progressively relax one of the main constraints on economic policy.
As regards the Government's record in managing the public finances, the facts prove conclusively that in difficult circumstances we have done an excellent job, despite attempts by the Opposition parties to disrupt our efforts. Firstly, in framing the March budget the Government, subject to the amendments explicitely made in that budget, accepted the expenditure and revenue Estimates as presented by the former Government in the White Paper on receipts and expenditure and in the January budget. That is a very important point for Deputy FitzGerald and all others on that side of the House to realise. As compared with the January budget proposals, we added about £100 million to current expenditure. It is worthwhile recalling that over £34 million of this was accounted for by the maintenance of food subsidies which Fine Gael and the Labour Party were not prepared to continue. On current revenue it provided, as compared with the January proposals, additional revenue of £146 million, while not proceeding with the former Government's proposals to put VAT on clothing and footwear. Those are two very important points worth remembering by the Labour and Fine Gael Deputies.
This gave an objective for the current budget deficit of £679 million, or £36 million lower than had been aimed at in the January budget. In other words, while working from the same expenditure and revenue base as presented by the Coalition Government in the January budget, we not only removed the unpalatable elements of that budget but we set a more ambitious target for the current deficit. Secondly, apart from one major exception on the revenue side, we have kept rigidly to those budget objectives in so far as they are within the Government's control. The one exception on the revenue side was the PRSI income tax allowance concession, which cost £45 million. This was a deliberate policy decision made by the Government to deal with obvious hardship and, despite all the talk by the Opposition, I have heard no one say that it or some similar type of concession should not have been given. If that is their viewpoint, let them come out and declare it openly.
The Government tax proposals were included in the Finance Bill. We stood by them, without yielding to pressure from the Opposition benches for costly revisions which would have deliberately and substantially increased the budget deficit. It is, therefore, total hypocrisy for them to turn around and point the finger at us for mismanaging the public finances when their efforts on that occasion, if successful, would have undermined the budgetary targets.
Thirdly, the Government at the end of July acted promptly and decisively to deal with the emerging budget position as it was then perceived. At that stage it was clear that unavoidable pressures on expenditure were building up due, for example, to the increased cost of unemployment. Recessionary conditions were also threatening shortfalls on the tax revenue, while the emerging position for 1983 was becoming increasingly gloomy. The Government recognised that substantial cuts in expenditure were necessary and acted accordingly. Cuts of the order of £100 million in current expenditure were implemented and a chain of developments in respect of the public service pay was initiated which should substantially reduce the pay bill for 1983. What has been the response of the Opposition party to these essential measures? They have feigned to oppose, if not sabotage, the Government's efforts while at the same time preaching financial rectitude. I will let the people draw their own conclusion.
Let me deal with the emerging outturn. The outturn for the current deficit will, as already indicated publicly, be in excess of £900 million. This, frankly, is a major disappointment to the Government. Exchequer expenditure has been tightly controlled, so that we expect total current expenditure to be some £30 million lower than in the March budget, despite unavoidable increases of about £40 million on the cost of the Central Fund services. There has, therefore, been no slippage in 1982 in expenditure.
Where increases in allocation have been necessary these have been unavoidable and would have arisen no matter what Government were in office. The measures the Government have taken have more than offset these unavoidable increases. This is a tremendous achievement by any standards. I would point out, for example, that current expenditure at the end of 1981, mark you, was £76 million up on the allocation fixed by the Coalition Government in the July budget of 1981. Revenue, however, has fallen far short of expectations. The shortfall looks like being in excess of £250 million, of which £45 million is attributable to the cost of the PRSI income tax concession. I should make it clear that the extent of the shortfall in revenue only emerged during the summer months and it has been revised upwards as detailed revenue returns became available.
The economic recession has bitten deeper than expected and has severely affected tax revenue. There is little the Government could do to deal with this situation. To impose additional taxes when a situation of diminishing returns had already set in would not have helped. We had already gone as far as we reasonably could go on the expenditure side in 1982 in the July budget which tightly controlled expenditure. I will take this opportunity to dispel any notion that revenue would have held up if the January budget had gone through. All the indications are that the revenue shortfall would have been of similar if not of larger proportions.
In summary, the Government have performed well in difficult circumstances. We have resisted efforts to undermine budgetary targets. We have set tight controls in areas which were within our control and have responded correctly to developments outside our control, such as the tax revenue shortfall which was unexpected and substantial and would have happened regardless of which Government were in office.
Looking to the future, the Government are determined to take firm and strong action to promote new growth on a long-term basis. Our plans in this regard are set out clearly and unequivocally in our National Economic Plan. There are plans aimed at resolving the current major problems facing the economy and at laying foundations for sustainable growth. These measures are by no means popular but they are firmly put forward by the Government as a necessary and sound basis for a significant turn around in the economic course of the country.
The central objective of the plan is to provide employment for our growing labour force. There are two other major objectives, the correcting of the imbalance in the public finances and the current balance of payments and the improvement of our competitiveness. These two objectives are closely related to the first and must be realised over the next five years if we are to deal efficiently with the challenge of creating new jobs on the scale required.
Deputy FitzGerald has attempted to take on the robe of fiscal rectitude for the exclusive use of his party. I will put one fact on the record in this respect. This Government are the first since 1977 to ensure that expenditure outturn was within the amount provided for in the budget. We achieved this by being willing to take tough and decisive action as soon as the need for it began to emerge this year. The measures we took in July both in relation to pay and non-pay expenditure were designed as the first steps to sustain medium-term effort to re-order public expenditure in line with the economy's ability to sustain it from taxation. We did not hesitate to tackle head on the endemic problem of special pay increases rather than simply deferring the problem to another day as the previous Government did. This approach has been carried through in the light of the planned target in the 1983 Estimates and public capital programme.
There are many other areas in our plan that I would like to touch on in my conclusion to the debate on the motion of confidence in the Government but I do not have time to go into them. However, it is important that I refer to two major areas affecting the economy — inflation and interest rates. If the Coalition Government had stayed in office and had implemented their January budget the inflation rate would have shown little or no improvement throughout this year, but by the action of the Government in the March budget major improvements have been made. Indications are that by end-November next the inflation rate will be down to about 13 per cent, ten percentage points less than 12 months ago. That is a major achievement.
The Coalition Government refused to allow interest rates to be increased because an election was pending. Commentators said when we took office that there was no way in which interest rates could be reduced before the end of the year. However, because of the Government's resolve in managing the economic affairs of the country, interest rates have come down not only once or twice but three times in as many months. Therefore, great progress has been made. This has been of great advantage to the business community, to the farmers, mortgage holders and potential house builders. All of these things had added dramatically to the economic situation.
One must ask why this motion of confidence has appeared at this time. There can be only one conclusion. The Government have been doing their job. They have not been defeated in any major aspect of that job or financial policy. It has appeared because of the unfortunate untimely death of Dr. Bill Loughnane, a respected Member of this House, and the unfortunate sudden serious illness of Deputy Gibbons, leaving the Government party short two of its Members. Deputy FitzGerald engaged in the opportunism of the moment. After robbing Labour of their Leader——
Mr. R. Burke
They can have a second fellow.
What about the gang of 22?
There was nowhere else for him to go. When the photograph on this newspaper was taken it was not known where the home of Deputy O'Leary would be, but now we know where it is. I have the Western People before me. Deputy FitzGerald visited Ballina in County Mayo last Saturday. The heading in that newspaper is “A Coalition of Left and Right”. We see now that it is Deputy O'Leary's shoe Deputy FitzGerald has on his left foot and he has his own shoe on his right foot. The absent-minded professor has two different shoes on him.
Deputy FitzGerald put his own words on it: he has been kicking with both feet and if he had three feet he would be kicking with all of them. As Deputies vote confidence in the Government they must consider seriously what the alternatives are. One alternative is the absent-minded professor. I do not see how anybody could have confidence in Deputy FitzGerald's ability or that of his party considering their behaviour here in the past six months. This behaviour in recent months has been prompted by a cell in Fine Gael, a cell of four or five people hand-picked by Deputy FitzGerald. We see a newspaper heading today "Frantic Deals Fail". We have this motion of confidence because Fianna Fáil refused to make any deals with anybody. That is the reality.
If it has to be done, we will let the people decide this issue. If that is the way it has to be in ten minutes or 15 minutes, I am confident that the people will know why they are being asked this question. They will know it is because of the opportunism and the greed of Deputy FitzGerald to become Taoiseach once more because of unfortunate events in Fianna Fáil — the death of one Deputy and the serious illness of another. They will know that the result of this vote will not be a true reflection of confidence in the existing elected representatives of this Dáil, present and absent. That will be the reality and the people will decide accordingly. When I mentioned earlier a cell within Fine Gael promptly ringing various contacts in the media, I should have said that I know of a particular contact that was made, as one of the members of that cell of smear campaign and innuendo — Deputy O'Toole from Ballina — who contacted a prominent journalist in The Irish Times——
The Minister's true colours are coming out now.
——and tried to initiate another effort at smearing a Member of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Irish Times took him at his word, went down and investigated but found nothing. Now the situation has been reached in which even the media are not accepting the little stories of innuendo and smear from Fine Gael we have been used to in recent times.
The reason for this debate has been the greed of Deputy FitzGerald, thinking that, arising from an election, he will become the Taoiseach. Lest Deputies may not know, the main reason Deputy O'Leary resigned as Leader of the Labour Party——
Deputies
He is up now in the back benches.
——he might be able to confirm this from on high — was that he did not succeed in getting his way on Coalition at the Galway conference. Deputy FitzGerald had told him, as a prospective Taoiseach, that there was absolutely no way he was going to have Labour in Government with him again, that they could support him if they liked, as a minority Government. Therefore Deputy O'Leary saw no way into his being the Tánaiste or having a State car, so he opted over, resigned and joined Fine Gael. That is the sidereal motive behind this vote of confidence here. That proves the hyprocisy of Fine Gael and of Deputy FitzGerald. We have had Deputy FitzGerald and spokesmen of his party talking about the destabilisation that could be caused arising from the election of various Deputies and members of smaller parties to this House. If there is to be any destabilisation of this economy and country Deputy FitzGerald must carry the can because he is responsible, not the Deputies of the smaller parties. He is the responsible party because he knows in his heart and soul that were it not for the circumstances of this week, or for the next two weeks, it would have been impossible for him to defeat this Government on a vote of confidence, which he has not succeeded in doing yet, mind you. Because he has taken advantage of that situation no credit will attach to him and he must accept responsibility for any destabilisation that may occur.
Very often man proposes but God disposes.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 82.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Ahern and Lawlor; Níl, Deputies Barret
Question declared lost.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Allen, Lorcan.Andrews, David.Andrews, Niall.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Barrett, Sylvester.Bellew, Tom.Blaney, Neil T.Brady, Gerard.(Dublin South-East).Brady, Gerry.(Kildare).Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Matty.Brennan, Ned.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, Seán.Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Hugh.Byrne, Seán.Calleary, Seán.Colley, George.Collins, Gerard.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Ger.Coughlan, Clement. Lyons, Denis.McCarthy, Seán.McCreevy, Charlie.McEllistrim, Tom.MacSharry, Ray.Meaney, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P.J.Murphy, Ciarán P.Noonan, Michael J.(Limerick West).O'Dea, William.O'Donoghue, Martin. |
Cowen, Bernard.Daly, Brendan.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Francis.Fahey, Jackie.Faulkner, Pádraig.Filgate, Eddie.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzpatrick, Tom.(Dublin South-Central).Fitzsimons, Jim.Flynn, Pádraig.Foley, Denis.French, Seán.Gallagher, Denis.Gallagher, Pat Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Charles J.Hilliard, Colm.Hyland, Liam.Keegan, Seán.Kitt, Michael P.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Leyden, Terry.Lynch, Michael. O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary, John.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Paddy.Reynolds, Albert.Treacy, Noel.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Joe.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael.Wyse, Pearse. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Allen, Bernard.Barrett, Seán.Barry, Myra.Barry, Peter.Begley, Michael.Bermingham, Joe.Birmingham, George.Boland, John.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Conlon, John F.Connaughton, Paul.Cooney, Patrick M.Corr, James.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cosgrave, Michael J.Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.Crowley, Frank.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Martin A.De Rossa, Proinsias.Desmond, Barry.Desmond, Eileen.Donnellan, John.Dukes, Alan.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala.FitzGerald, Alexis.FitzGerald, Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom.(Cavan-Monaghan).Flaherty, Mary.Flanagan, Oliver J.Fleming, Brian.Gallagher, Paddy.Governey, Des. |
Griffin, Brendan.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Paddy.Higgins, Michael D.Hussey, Gemma.Kavanagh, Liam.Keating, Michael.Kelly, John.Kemmy, Jim.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.McGinley, Denis.McMahon, Larry.Manning, Maurice.Markey, Bernard.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Molony, David.Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Liam.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael.(Limerick East).O'Brien, William.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Leary, Michael.O'Sullivan, Toddy.O'Toole, Paddy.Owen, Nora.Pattison, Séamus.Quinn, Ruairí.Ryan, John.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick J.Sherlock, Joe.Skelly, Liam.Spring, Dick.Taylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Yates, Ivan. |
In view of the outcome of this vote, I will now go to the President and advise him to dissolve Dáil Éireann. At the conclusion of this, the 23rd Dáil, may I convey to you, a Cheann Chomhairle, and to every Member of the Dáil every good wish and every blessing for the future. Beannacht Dé oraibh go léir.