Private Members' Business. - Building on Reality: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That, pursuant to Standing Order 47, Dáil Éireann hereby rescinds its Resolution of 18th October, 1984 approving the policies set out in the documentBuilding on Reality and in view of the mounting evidence that it is based on unreliable statistics and false assumptions and has been rejected by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, calls on the Government to withdraw the document and to prepare a credible plan for economic development based on accurate figures and realistic forecasts.”
—(Deputy Lenihan.)

Yesterday I referred to the statistics section of the motion and also to the contents of the ICTU document, The Jobs Crisis, which was published in September before the publication of the plan indicating disappointment that the Minister for Finance had not dealt with farmer's capital tax or the problem of pay, especially in regard to the public service.

I should now like to refer to the assumption that the services sector will automatically grow in the period under review. Congress is right when it rejects the idea that there will be growth in the services sector if the industrial sector is allowed to stagnate. Because the services sector is huge in the United States, this does not mean that in an industrially under-developed country like Ireland the same will happen — and Congress points this out — if we neglect industrial development.

I am going to repeat for the umpteenth time that the ESRI Report, Employment and Unemployment Policy for Ireland, 1984, edited by Conniffe and Kennedy has not received the attention in this House or from the Government which it deserves. It claims and justifies its claim to be not merely descriptive and analytical but prescriptive as well. The philosophy which underlies it is sounder than that which underlies the plan. I see the Minister for Labour here and I guess that he would subscribe to the philosophy behind the ESRI report but that he was beaten in Cabinet on that philisophy because the one that underlies the national plan is not one to which any sensible person could subscribe. This study would not go along with the objectives of the White Paper on Industrial Development which I mentioned yesterday and which said that the emphasis for the future would be on output rather than on employment. There is an indication that if output was substantially increased, increased employment would follow. There is no law of logic which indicates that that would inevitably happen and the ICTU have stated that they do not believe that could happen.

This report takes cognisance of the fact that there is and will be more women in the workforce as this century progresses. It examines the changing age structure of the workforce. Above all, it points to the evil of unemployment, not merely to the evil itself but to its cost which is referred to occasionally but seldom worked out, not merely the cost to the Exchequer on unemployment assistance, but the cost to the Government in loss of revenue, for example, in the loss of PRSI contributions per week and in the loss of indirect taxation which the employed person pays in the purchase of goods. It even puts in a modicum of costs for the results of the social evil of unemployment such as vandalism.

We called for the withdrawal of the national plan and the substitution of something worthwhile and positive and there is an obligation on us to indicate what we think can be done. The report indicates that from studying the demographic scene in Europe, it is apparent that the number of young people available for work with various degrees of skill in the EEC as a whole will decrease. The authors think that this will give young Irish people an opportunity. I presume they mean that industries will be set up in Ireland and that we will be able to attract them here because we have a young, well educated work-force.

References were made to emigration and the plan posits 7,000 to 8,000 emigrants per annum but the actual figure seems to be around 13,000. I do not know if we have a solid statistic in that regard. This is linked with the growth in the labour force. The plan says that annual growth will be in the order of 15,000 but this brings us into the area of flimsy figures. The White Paper on Industrial Policy indicates that the growth in the labour force will be in the order of 17,000. It is interesting to look at the report of Conniffe and Kennedy of the ESRI in that regard. They advance three possibilities in regard to emigration. The first envisages about 10,000 a year, the second says there will be practically none in the first five years and the third envisages an increase of about 1,500 from 1986 to 1991. According to the ESRI, two of the years covered by the national plan are 1986 and 1987 and, depending on which emigration statistic you adopt, for those two years you will either have a 15.8 per cent, a 20.4 per cent or a 23.6 per cent increase in the labour force. I am wondering if the figures were studied carefully and whether the Government used them honestly in forming this plan.

From chapter 10 to chapter 17 in that study of employment and unemployment by the ESRI, there are positive suggestions as to what could be done to revive our economy and to increase employment. Their emphasis is on increasing productive employment and not on increasing output from the manufacturing industry. I cannot go through all our resources, energy, agriculture, building construction and the manufacturing industry. In the United States seven out often people are employed in the services industry. We will not be able to provide large numbers of jobs in the services sector in this country unless we develop a manufacturing industry.

The public service employment problem is an important one. There are various aspects of it which need discussion. I will leave that aside. I want to say how disappointed I am that there is nothing in the plan in ease of the PAYE worker. One inevitable result of this is the brain drain. Young graduates in electronics, some of them with very high qualifications, are emigrating to the United States and elsewhere. Young men with degrees, diplomas and certificates in agriculture are taking to the emigrant ship. Even when a job is available, the burden of PAYE tax and PRSI is frightening people into emigration.

I recall that Sydney Smith at the beginning of the 19th century said:

The schoolboy whips his taxed top — the beardless youth manages his taxed horse, with a taxed bridle, on a taxed road;—and the dying Englishman, pouring his medicine, which has paid seven per cent, into a spoon that has paid fifteen per cent—flings himself back upon his chintz bed, which has paid twenty-two per cent—and expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid a licence of a hundred pounds for the privilege of putting him to death.

Translated to 1984 in the reign of a Government who promised tax reductions that would read: the young citizen buys his first car on which he pays 25 per cent excise, and 23 per cent VAT, fills it with petrol——

The Deputy's time is up.

—— on which the Government's take is 108p per gallon. His ill father whom he leaves behind as he flees the country may pay 23 per cent or 35 per cent on his medicine and lies back on his bed on which he has paid 23 per cent tax. The spoon he uses will have paid 35 per cent tax. I do not want him to go, but I understand what he is doing. Do the Government understand or care?

Unfortunately I did not hear the contribution Deputy Wilson made yesterday evening. I would like to enter into a debate which would educate not just both sides of this House but also the country on the realities which confront all of us. As a young person who has not decided to flee this country, who has put down roots and who intends to stay, I recognise that, of all the races of Irish people who have lived on this island — and there have been about 150 from the time history first records early settlements in the Deputy's province of Ulster and the province of the Ceann Comhairle around the shores of Lough Neagh ——

Neolithic man.

Neolithic man did not enter into a discredited coalition.

6,000 BC, to be precise. Of all the generations who have lived in this land since that time, this generation of Irish people are the best fed, the best educated, the best housed and the best trained. In economic terms they are outperforming any previous generation. We now have a short-term difficulty. We must recognise that it is there, and we will not solve any problem by saying who was directly responsible for it. That would not redress the needs of young people, or elderly people, or middle-aged people.

As politicians we have to speak the truth, initially to ourselves and secondly to the public. The public are becoming extremely cynical about politicians promising what they think the public want to hear while in reality the public know that those promises cannot be delivered, however attractive they may be individually. We owe that to the democratic political process to which we are all committed and which regrettably is still at risk in our society and on this island.

This debate is a second run, so to speak, on the national plan which was debated at considerable length. The debate is confined to a claim by Fianna Fáil that certain facts and figures in relation to the statistics have emerged since the publication of the plan, and since the substantial debate on it in the House, which would totally invalidate the premises and the assumptions — and some of them have to be assumptions since we are talking about 1987 — and that somehow these assumptions are wrong or have been wrongly assembled by the Government in order to minimise the case.

I would have thought any Government, and particularly this Government, a coalition of two separate political parties, who came forward with a plan and indicated that after three years of hardship and difficulty in some cases we will still have an unacceptably high level of unemployment, could hardly be accused of trying to cook the figures. If we wanted to cook the figures — and that is the assertion in this debate — we could have been a little better at cooking them than to say that at the end of three years, despite all the efforts and despite harnessing the taxpayers' money and the enthusiasm of young people, we would have that kind of output at the end. If we wanted to cook the figures we could have done so a little better than that. We published a plan that says to everybody: "The situation is bad, but it is not disastrous. It is difficult, but we can overcome it. In large part it is of our own making, but we can unmake it." The figures are there and the assumptions upon which the rest of the edifice of the plan rests are there for people to see. As the Taoiseach said at the launching of the plan in Iveagh House, and as other Ministers have said, we have taken the best assumptions which were available to us and we have given the sources. If people can show that the economic experts of the OECD are wrong, we will change them. If they can prove that the economists in the European Community are wrong, and show us where and how, we can change them. If we are wrong on the pessimistic side this will be a bonus at the end of the three year period.

The basis of the Opposition's argument yesterday and tonight was that somehow or other the statistics upon which this plan rests are wrong, inaccurate or mispresented, to use that euphemistic phrase. It is up to Fianna Fáil to show up precisely where. If we have been too pessimistic, nobody will be happier than myself if somebody can tell us that our estimates of world trade increase and growth or GNP growth were too low and should be higher. If they are higher the unemployment figures will be lower and that will be a bonus for everyone on this island.

Deputy Wilson referred to the philosophy which underpins the document published by the ESRI and asked whether I would not be more in sympathy with that philosophy than the one which permeates this document. This is the product of two parties with separate traditions and separate philosophies in Government. I am not happy with the philosophy. I never made any secret of that. We have 9 per cent of the vote and 16 seats in this House and a mandate from our party to participate in Government on an agreed joint programme. I am not responsible and the Labour Party are not responsible for the fact that 90 per cent of the electorate of this democratic society in free elections voted for two parties espousing separate philosophies. That is their perfect democratic right.

I want to say something to the largest party in the land, the Fianna Fáil Party, who are part of that conservative 90 per cent. In every country with a mixed economy where capitalist parties rule, despite the enormous success they had in creating wealth in pushing forward the frontiers of science and all the other marvellous things which have been done in those large countries, the one thing that they have never done, even in the most successful prolonged periods of growth in countries like the United States, West Germany and Britain, is to eliminate unemployment.

Let us be consistent and rational and, at the invitation of Deputy Wilson, let us look at the philosophy. It seems that Fianna Fáil in their conservatism refused to adopt radical socialist measures. The Irish electorate, as is their right, have not voted for parties that propose such measures. Yet, that electorate want the conservative party, on this island with a weak economy, to produce full employment while the US, France, Germany and Britain over very many years have never solved that problem. That is the philosophical response I would give to Deputy Wilson in relation to that issue.

Regrettably, we have lived with unemployment in our society for a long time. What is acute now, not just here but throughout the whole of the EC, is the traumatic increase in the level of unemployment in every part of the European Communities. Politicians in a democratic society have an obligation to provide leadership and education to a public that want to listen, not to the slogans trotted out at election time, with the paper hats and pop tunes with which they are festooned, but to what we think is actually happening because we are elected by them to try to provide leadership. We should start by trading in facts rather than myths. It is traumatic to have people in one's family suddenly lose their livelihood and have their skills for a lifetime eliminated overnight by a microchip. It is necessary for us not to curse the darkness but to try to explain what has happened and show ways in which we can counteract it and ameliorate the journey from where we are now to where we all want to be as soon as possible.

I want to put on the record of the House some broad historic facts. Today the United States, the wealthiest democracy in the world, is celebrating its expression of democratic choice. Approximately 120 years ago, 40 per cent of the then population of that country were engaged in the primary production of agriculture, working on the farm in Oklahoma, New England and right across the board to the opening-up land of California. Today, less than 3 to 5 per cent of an enlarged population are currently engaged in agricultural output. They are producing too much, far more than was ever produced 120 years ago. What happened to the other 25 per cent of that growing population? They moved in most cases into manufacturing employment because the first industrial revolution which brought about factories and industries in different parts of the United States absorbed that employment. The percentage of manufacturing employment out of the total of all employment in the United States was at its highest in 1950 to 1952. That was the peak in terms of young people having jobs in factories. From that time it has been declining and that pattern can be repeated in countries similar to the United States, like Britain, France, Germany and indeed Ireland.

While we are producing more from our factories than ever before, we are doing it with fewer people. We are doing it more efficiently and competitively, but with fewer people. Everybody in the working line knows this. We are, however, doing it very successfully in terms of output. It may come as a surprise to most Members of this House tonight that the Irish workers, men and women, are producing two and a half times more and exporting two and a half times more per worker than their counterparts in the UK economy. We have in many respects a healthy manufacturing base producing more than we have ever produced but with fewer people. That is a fact. It is not a very acceptable fact, but anybody who talks to industrialists or anybody in the trade union movement who talks to companies rationalising and bringing in new processes and new systems of extracting more value out of the productive process in which they are engaged knows very well that more can be produced with less in this instance. Every time you bring in a word processor, a forklift truck, or some kind of automated system that enables you to sell more goods abroad, one of the consequences seems to be fewer people needed in that enterprise.

About three years ago throughout the EC — and it is a very rich part of the entire globe — approximately 6½ million European citizens were unemployed. Of that number, approximately 100,000 were Irish citizens. Today that figure has doubled, not just in this country but throughout the whole of the EC — 12.4 million at best estimate, and I use that phrase because our statistics, as Deputy Wilson indicated in his contribution, are inadequate. We do not know for sure and where and for how long, but we do know that it is at least twice what it was before. It is happening in countries like Germany, the UK and France. Germany and the UK, on the one hand, and France on the other have applied radically different economic policies to combat the same phenomenon, but both economies and Governments — and certainly the public in those economies — would concede that, whatever else they have done, they have not dealt with the problem of how to reduce unemployment.

What can we in this country do against such a background? The first thing we have to do is to be in a position where the resources of the State can be used to provide productive employment, where the taxpayer's money that Deputy Wilson referred to can actually be channelled into processes, factories and services — any kind of economic activity that will generate wealth and thus generate jobs. That is what Fine Gael and the Labour Party want to do and I know that is what Fianna Fáil want to do.

Already, the net effect of previous policy decisions by previous administrations — and I am not going to be partisan in this debate because there have been different administrations over the last three to five years — has been to borrow so much money abroad that now requires to be repaid that by the time it is taken, and taken very painfully, from everybody — TDs, Senators, staff of the Oireachtas, civil servants and every other worker paying tax — by the time some of the moneys due have been repaid, we do not have the freedom for action that we all would like. That is a reality, too. It is not a very pleasant reality and is one that I would love to be able to wave away. However, as a society we have been paying ourselves, in global terms, more than we have been earning and have had to borrow to close the gap. Everybody in this room tonight knows that some day that kind of policy results in the bank manager, money lender or debt collector saying that enough is enough.

I would ask the House, and in particular the Fianna Fáil Party, to cast their minds back to December 1982 when this Government came into office. At that time, that Government were attempting to address themselves to major problems of which everybody was aware, so much so that we were then contemplating the formation of the third Government within the space of 18 months unprecedented in the history of this independent State. A little speech was made by the outgoing Minister for Finance — or rather he was then ex-Minister for Finance — before the Government in effect got going fully. I refer to Deputy Mac Sharry. He said that, irrespective of who was going to be Minister for Finance, the incoming Government were going to find it extremely difficult to borrow minimal sums of money from the international money markets to keep Ireland going and pay for salaries, grants, the provision of schools and all the other necessities because of the way the international market for money was and many countries much richer than ours had got themselves into major difficulties in relation to borrowing. That is a reality. We did not invent that. Deputy MacSharry from his traumatic experience of being Minister for Finance was painfully aware of it. He knew that that reality constrained severely the freedom for manoeuvre that any administration would have in trying to organise their affairs and deal with the evil of unemployment, an evil the description of which I will share with Deputy Burke and Deputy Wilson.

The Irish people have a marvellous reputation for playing with words and for mixing myth, fantasy, and mysticism on occasion, to the delight of our tourists. We do it fairly well. The tragedy is that too many people who practise the art of politics brought those unique skills into the mainstream of economic debate and would like to think that somehow or other the same kind of magic that beguiles our foreign tourists should be used to beguile the taxpayers and the banking institutions of this economy and outside. This Government confronted that problem that has afflicted too many administrations for too long, and we say that these are the facts, the realities. They are very unpleasant, painful realities which perhaps should not exist, but they exist because of decisions which were taken in the past and we are going to confront them. They have been made more difficult by decisions taken by Irish people in the past and now they can be turned around. That is what the document Building on Reality is about. That is why the very title is stitched in to the third word of that document.

What does it say? It says to the taxpayer, "We know you have been crucified over the last three to five years and that is going to end. We know you have had a rough time." The biggest peaceful demonstration that the streets of Dublin ever saw — leave aside 1916, 1918, 1921 and 1922 — was the taxpayers' march in 1979. Deputy Burke was in Government at the time. No doubt he recalls it.

I do, very well.

We have said to that category, the PAYE workers who have carried the burden for too long, that it is not going to get any worse. That is a promise and we would like to be able to say more.

Has the Minister ever heard of the Commission on Taxation?

Too many Governments invoked the wand of mysticism to say that it would go away and, what happened? The PAYE worker was paying more and more. Based on the realities that we have had the courage to publish, we can say in all honesty that it is not going to get worse and it is in all probability going to get better.

What does the document say in relation to that section of the community who have failed consistently to make an adequate contribution to the tax load of this community and have at the same time benefited disproportionately from the social infrastructure provided by taxpayers' money? I refer to the farming community, and in no disparaging way. We are saying that there will be a land tax, that it will take a certain form, that it will not confuse and complicate many farm holdings with unnecessary paper and form-keeping which resulted frequently in many farmers paying more fees to accountants in an effort to sort out their tax affairs than they paid to the Revenue Commissioners in the form of tax. All through the summer it was claimed that the Government would not bring in such a tax, that the Government were incapable of doing so because of the political realities out there beyond this House. As with the unpalatable economic facts which we have inherited and confronted, we have confronted that political reality also, and there will be a land tax. It will be double what the farmers are paying at the moment and it probably will be more efficiently collected than any other form of tax. Deputy Burke will recall from his experience in local government that the success rate of local government tax collection under the traditional structure was about 97 or 98 per cent. The money collected at local level will stay at local level. Some people claim that this is only farmers' rates under another label, and should the farmers not pay rates anyway? That is not the case because of the successive limits to the threshold below which farmers did not have to pay rates. What came through in the Book of Estimates as farming rates was a grant paid from central Government with PAYE workers' tax money appearing in the form of farmers' rates.

Many other things are costed, described and put into the plan in facts and figures spanning over three years. Many of them are not too pleasant. Many are things which must and will be done and many of them are infinitely better than they would otherwise have been if we had allowed the situation to drift as it was drifting. We had three Governments in 18 months. Talk to anybody in the economic commentary area or any of the senior civil servants who try to get any legislative programme through or anybody who is looking for a decision from Government and ask them what it was like to be waiting for some kind of concrete decision during that 18 months when we did not know from day to day or hour to hour whether we were going to have a Government or a Minister. That is no way to run a country, and that is how we were trying to run a country for 18 months. We have confronted that reality and we have published the painful but essential facts and figures in that document. I believe that they are accurate and the best available facts and figures that we can get. In some cases it would be preferable if they were more accurate, but that is a reflection on our own system of gathering statistics.

In conclusion, I turn to a theme I have spoken about previously here and at length in the European Parliament in my capcity as President of the Council of Social Affairs Ministers. I have described the way in which unemployment has doubled traumatically over the last two or three years in countries and economies that never previously experienced that kind of phenomena, for reasons totally outside the control of the worker in the work place, the manager in the office or the local politician. I put to the House as part and parcel of this plan that even if we were dramatically successful in the next three years in turning things around, even if our figures are pessimistically low and things turn out better and we have a substantial reduction in unemployment, we will still be left with an unacceptably high level of people unemployed for a long time, 12 months. Those at work, the 84 per cent of the workforce who have jobs, who get up in the morning and have somewhere to go and something to do, have an obligation to declare solidarity with the 16 per cent who are unemployed.

It is for that reason that I do not think it is right or proper to say to the unemployed that they should remain unemployed until such time as we get the economy right again. There is an obligation on us to develop programmes, schemes and measures to provide work and activity but, most of all, dignity for the long term unemployed as an interim measure until such time as we get the economy right and get them back to full time jobs.

Medical studies show that prolonged unemployment is creating diseases and medical problems of a kind never previously encountered and for which, perhaps, we do not have a cure. The drug pusher and the criminal have plenty of cures for that kind of phenomenon. I do not think we want to go into that type of solution. I believe that parallel with the realities that underpin this document the special social employment scheme we have introduced will address itself to that phenomenon which is not unique to Ireland but is more acute here than in any other member state.

I am honoured to speak to this motion which states:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 47, Dáil Éireann hereby rescinds its Resolution of 18 October, 1984 approving the policies set out in the document Building on Reality and in view of the mounting evidence that it is based on unreliable statistics and false assumptions and has been rejected by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, calls on the Government to withdraw the document and to prepare a credible plan for economic development based on accurate figures and realistic forecasts.

I sat with growing amazement listening to a Labour Member who is Minister for Labour in this administration make an unusual speech. At the outset he told us that Labour were not happy with the philosophy behind the plan and he went on to ask us for a type of fool's pardon on the basis that they have only 16 seats in the House. The Minister mentioned a lot about the philosophy of the various political forms in the US, the UK, France and Germany but we did not hear anything from him about principles. Where is the principle behind Labour participation in Government? Where are the Labour principles in the plan? We heard a lot of waffle about the reduction in the number of people involved in farming in the US and the economic plans being followed by a number of other governments, but we did not hear anything about what will be done to tackle the problems at home.

Our motion criticises the plan because it is based on unreliable statistics. The Minister told us that it would be preferable if the plan had been based on more accurate statistics, but unfortunately they were not available because of the system of collecting statistics we have here. That Labour Minister correctly dealt with the need for work. It was correct to refer to the dignity of our people and to remind us of the medical problems of those who are long term unemployed. However, that Minister is a member of a Government — I do not wish to concentrate on the Minister for Labour alone because the Fine Gael and Labour Parties are involved — who in this bleak grey plan tell us that at the commencement of the plan, in April 1984, 209,000 were unemployed and at the end of the period, if they meet their projections, there will be 210,000 unemployed. That Minister lectured us earlier on the philosophy of the Labour Party but did not tell us anything about the principle involved. He has told us about the medical problems of the long term unemployed. It is no wonder that he has scurried from the House because it must be sickening to have his own words thrown back at him.

An economic and social plan should set out one goal: the future welfare of the Irish people. This hotch-potch document of a discredited Government manifestly fails this basic test. One thing the country needs is hope and confidence in itself and in its people, especially the young people. Fianna Fáil would give people a belief in themselves, which unfortunately the Government are not doing and do not appear to be interested in doing. Building on Reality should surely involve identifying our problems and clearly setting out proposals to resolve them. The Government have constantly blathered on about unemployment being the top priority but their plan does not propose to do anything to solve that problem.

It is important to remember that the plan has the full backing of the Labour Parliamentary Party but not members of the Labour Party throughout the country. The plan states that unemployment will increase to 210,000 in 1987, but what way do they propose to trick around with those figures? They intend to put 11,000 people on new training schemes and 7,500 into early retirement. In other words, there will still be 228,000 not employed but eligible for employment against an unemployment level of 209,000. Is that reducing unemployment?

Fianna Fáil are committed to creating an environment which will encourage job creation. We expect the institutions of the State, which were set up to encourage and promote job creation, to actively pursue that objective. That is why we have called on the Government to produce a credible plan for economic development based on accurate figures and realistic forecasts. All State institutions, including the major one, the IDA, over the years have had at their disposal considerable State funds aimed at creating jobs. We are aware that the nature of jobs has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Many industries and companies have not been able to keep pace with technological changes and have suffered major job losses. We are aware that we have had to spend a lot of money to acquire new technological industries, but it is disappointing and alarming that after 20 years of industrial development our manufacturing labour force is still just the same despite the growth in our population.

It is particularly disconcerting, at a time when our unemployment level is at a record high, that the Government, our primary agency responsible for the creation of jobs, in their latest economic plan should be seeking to focus the emphasis of the IDA on the concept of wealth creation, downgrading the objective of the IDA, which is that of job creation, our major social need. That is not contained in this plan. We in Fianna Fáil do not deny the need for major, national wealth creation but at a time when so many of our people are unemployed, surely it is not good enough for the IDA, with the support of the Government White Paper on Industrial Policy, and their economic plan, to declare that their future focus should be on wealth creation. With practically 220,000 people unemployed surely the focus should be on finding ways of creating jobs rather than just caving in and saying, "We can do nothing about it", as we heard the Minister for Labour saying a while ago. He contended that it is happening all over the world and he told us about four or five countries and about jobs as a result of increasing the pool of wealth. We know and agree that wealth creation is important. But primarily within the needs of this country today job creation is important. This plan fails manifestly in job creation. Even the job creation figures shown are contradicted between their White Paper on Industrial Policy and their economic plan. The figures are totally different in both documents.

Just a few years ago the Coalition Parties complained that the unemployment level of 126,000 was catastrophic. I am sorry that the Minister for Labour has left the House because he would have been responsible for the drafting of some of these documents. I might remind the House of what Labour and Fine Gael were saying in the past about unemployment and what they are saying today. For example, at the Labour Party Conference in 1980, they said that in order to achieve full employment in the eighties the economy would need to grow continuously from 7 per cent to 9 per cent per annum, that the basis for Labour's policy for a planned economy was to make full employment the primary policy objective of all Government activity with a rapid increase in the growth of national income. They contended then that in the future employment would consititute the prime policy objective and that planning would be directive instead of indicative in nature. They contended then that a 15 to 20 year plan could not be allowed to founder in the face of short term financial problems or the inability or unwillingness of private enterprise to invest in the sectors where expansion was needed. One might well ask how does that sort of comment fit in with this bleak, grey document Building on Reality?

In the Labour election programme of 1981 it was shown that unemployment had climbed to 120,000 officially though it was contended that the real level was 150,000. It was said further that unemployment among young people had reached catastrophic proportions — 33,000 was the figure about which they were talking of people under the age of 25 then unemployed. The figure given in this House last week by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach was 72,000 under the age of 25 unemployed. One must ask what are this Government doing about that? They are doing nothing. To continue on this Labour election programme, they contended that a policy of deflation must be resisted as it would simply lead to more unemployment. What is this document Building on Reality but a policy for deflation?

In the Fine Gael-Labour Programme for Government 1981-1986 there appear these comments — that jobs must be protected and created, that investment for new job creation be maintained and increased. It was maintained that that policy would be achieved by giving aid immediately to vulnerable sectors which have been suffering as a result of loss of competitiveness, inflation, manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. What help is there for any of those sectors in this latest economic plan? Absolutely none.

I progress now right up to the December 1982 Joint Programme for Government in respect of which I have read much recently about Ministers talking about the support they received from the people for that programme. I want to nail that lie straightaway. They never put that Joint Programme for Government before the people. They went before the electorate as independent parties saying that they would not go into a Coalition. Then, after the election was over, they sat in smoke-filled back rooms and cobbled together a policy which they say now had the electoral support of the people. If they say it has the electoral support of the people, I challenge them here and now to go out and ask for that support, when I know the people will reject them. In that programme, cobbled together after the election, they contended that the most urgent problem was that of unemployment, with 170,000 unemployed, 50,000 of whom were under the age of 25. An alarming situation. They said emergency measures were needed to halt the rise in unemployment which had then reached disastrous proportions. They said the then emergency employment measures would be linked to the urgent need to remove bottlenecks in our infrastructure which, if not tackled, would impede future growth.

Then they went on to say that the national development corporation would be established as an early priority of the parties in Government, that it was to constitute a major vehicle for job creation.

It is a ten-year old baby now. It never grew up.

It never will and I shall have another few words to say about that in a moment. The Fine Gael-Labour Programme for Government — it was published on 14 December 1982 — said that the national development corporation would initiate new job creation projects and stimulate projects involving productive employment within the existing public sector. Of course, "the public sector" have become dirty words as far as this Government are concerned. The national development corporation, initially promulgated by the Labour Party back in 1981 but without the support of Fine Gael — who later only begrudgingly accepted it in a watered-down version as part of the Coalition Programme for Government — has been scaled down. It is a well known stalking horse of the Labour Party on which they fall back whenever they are really desperate — I see Deputy McLoughlin in the House here this evening — for example, food subsidies are removed, which constitutes the bottom line. When the bottom line was once again reached, like the moveable feast it is, then the corporation constituted another of those bottom lines. In the period since 1981, the scale of the NDC has dropped dramatically.

Fianna Fáil established the National Enterprise Agency as a vehicle to encourage new risk type ventures, whereas the NDC was to be an umbrella body for all commercial State investments, including CIE, NET, the ESB, Aer Lingus and so on. Indeed it received a very bad public and press response when Deputy Michael O'Leary, former Labour Tánaiste — does Deputy Reynolds remember him?

Where is he now?

He is now a Fine Gael backbencher.

He is never here.

No, but when he was Tánaiste he announced the proposed establishment of the NDC and it received a very bad public and press response. The main problem was that he really did not know what that corporation would do. In effect, it would constitute a place where semi-State, non-profitable bodies would be found. In 1981 Labour proposed that the NDC should have an equity base of £300 million, Government provided, with a borrowing power of up to £1,000 million. The 1981 Labour-Fine Gael programme announced that its equity would be £200 million, with its borrowing power £500 million, the figure dropping all the time. The White Paper on Industrial Policy of July last stated that the Government would provide the NDC with £7 million in 1984. We are now into November and that corporation still has not been established.

What does this economic plan, Building on Reality, this grey, dismal, dreary booklet say about the NDC? It says that the NDC will deal only with commercial operations, that the emphasis will be on developing modern industry, based on commerciality and profits and strengthening indigenous industry. Granted there is nothing wrong with that. But there is then added that, in view of this emphasis, the Government will be ready to make funds available to the NDC for such projects as and when needed. How about that for a back-down from the £1,000 million and the £300 million about which we heard earlier? Of course the NDC will be unable to sneeze without the Government allowing it to do so. And the Labour Party go along meekly with this proposed emaciated organisation.

What has happened in relation to the plans to deal with unemployment? The Government and the IDA have now changed the goalposts because the placing of the goalposts no longer suited them with regard to unemployment. Instead of focussing on the need for job creation we are now switching to wealth creation needs. That is a neat little trick.

The recently published IDA annual report refers to the White Paper on Industrial Policy and states:

The IDA sees the central focus of the new policy as the target of doubling manufacturing output over the next ten years and capturing the maximum added value within the economy aimed at generating further investment and additional employment in the economy.

While we subscribe to these objectives individually we feel that the emphasis on the social importance of job creation has been gravely relegated by this Government in their economic plan and by the IDA, with the support of the Government. As our premier job creating body perhaps we should ask the IDA and this Government how and where jobs could be developed, acknowledging their input in respect of the need to create wealth, instead of having it relegated to being just a function of wealth creation.

We can see and judge the success of job creation policies, of which there are none at all in this national plan, but there is a large question mark now over the whole question of value statistics for the economy such as growth and output of Irish industry or the value of exports as quoted by the IDA in their annual report. The Taoiseach's own economic adviser, Dr. Honohan, has highlighted the dubiousness of some of our economic data. In the circumstances this Government should be concentrating the efforts of their main job creating body, the IDA, on job creation rather than changing the goalposts because they did not like the game that was being played.

The Irish people have dismissed this plan as being a grey and gloomy document, as can be seen from the opinion polls. All the effort of the roadshow throughout the length and breadth of the country will not save this Government from the wrath of the people or breathe life into this document. Their Ard-Fhéis and their meeting at Castlebar reminded me of the Bible story of the man who sent invitations to the wedding feast but nobody came. They sent out 3,000 invitations. Fair play to the principled staff of the local authorities and institutions in Mayo who refused to be intimidated by this administration.

Last night in North County Dublin we had the Taoiseach night clubbing in Sardis at the Country Club Hotel in Portmarnock. This is in the middle of 290 acres of land on which the local authority placed a compulsory purchase order years ago in order to develop it as an amenity for the people. Unfortunately the local authority had to let their compulsory purchase order drop. They could not go ahead with the development of this environmental project to protect the sand dunes of Portmarnock for the people of Dublin generally because there was no money in the kitty. The well had run dry. The Taoiseach goes out night clubbing in the North county to tell the Irish people about the improved environment in the country as a result of this grey and gloomy document. It is a glorious irony that he decided to go to a place where the local authority did not have the necessary few shillings to complete a compulsory purchase order signed by us many years ago.

I wish to comment on an aspect of the plan which concerns my Department in particular. I refer to the subject of co-operation with developing countries. The fact that our relations with developing countries should merit a section in the plan shows in itself the importance with which the Government regard them. The present crisis in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa and the relief operation now underway in that continent highlight the major need for an expansion of our development and relief programme.

There are two initial comments I wish to make. The outpouring of generous support from the Irish people in response to the castastrophy in Ethiopia has not been equalled, as far as I am aware, in any other country in the world. As the Minister with special responsibility in this area I am intensely proud of this marvellous response and urge our people to continue their support for Concern, Gorta, GOAL and the other voluntary agencies active in this field.

I find it unfortunate that incorrect information should be given to the Irish people on the Government programme of aid to the Third World. This has arisen in the media arising from comments by Cardinal Ó Fiaich yesterday. Today's edition of The Irish Press stated:

Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich yesterday criticised the Irish Government for cutting its aid to Third World countries and urged the Cabinet to rethink its priorities.

I did not know the Minister read The Irish Press.

Occasionally the truth in the news. It is entirely incorrect to suggest that the Irish Government are cutting their aid to third World countries. In fact the contrary is true. The figures are very clear.

On a point of order, is the Minister calling the Cardinal a liar?

In effect, that is what he has just said.

Deputy Reynolds will have his opportunity to reply if he has any interest at all in this area. Such has not been displayed by his party in the past. In 1973 the official aid figure for Ireland was £1.5 million. In 1981, the year when I first took up my appointment with special responsibility in this area, the official aid figure was £18 million. In 1984 the official aid figure is £34 million. Over the period of the plan this figure will be further increased to £50 million by the year 1987. This is not as much as I would wish and does not approach the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP at the pace I would like or at the pace projected in the joint programme. To suggest or imply that it involves a cut in official aid is quite misleading and I take the opportunity to put the record right. It is important that the Irish people know the full facts and recognise that their own individual generous efforts are paralleled by a similar effort on the part of the Government.

What has this to do with the plan?

I do not for a moment refer to the Cardinal as a liar. He is either incorrect or was misquoted. It is my intention now to put the record right. I mentioned that the fact of a section in the plan on this subject indicates the concern which this Government have for developing countries. This approach is based on moral concern and other factors. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this aspect in more detail but my time is very brief. I can only look forward to a future opportunity of going into this important aspect of the plan which has not been referred to by the Opposition.

That is the most irrelevant speech I have ever heard.

That has been a disgraceful intervention by the Minister of State in using five minutes of the time of the House when we are discussing the national economic plan. He has been totally irrelevant and has either called the Cardinal a liar or claimed that what he stated was untrue. It is disgraceful. The Minister has enjoyed the privilege of the House in doing it. This is political delinquency of the highest order.

I said what was quoted was wrong and the Deputy knows that full well.

This debate shows up the emptiness with which the Government parties have approached our national economic problems.

It is political delinquency, nothing more than that.

I have the opportunity to wind up this debate which is unreal for many reasons. The Government have been in office for two years against a background of an extra 50,000 people unemployed since they came into office, with foreign debt increased from £3 billion to £8 billion in the middle of 1981, against commitments by this Government not alone to tackle but to reverse the escalating trend of unemployment and to put our finances in order. That is the background against which the man in the street will judge this Government. What did the Coalition come up with? A document called Building on Reality.

This Building on Reality is what I would describe as building on quicksand. It was interesting to note that the Taoiseach headed off for the Sands Night Club in Portmarnock to try to give a display of another building on reality. I asked questions of Ministers and the Taoiseach, and I challenged them to answer the questions I raised about the assumptions that form the basis of this plan and the figures which are supposed to be unemployment figures. I asked what will happen over the duration of this plan and what will be the results at the end of the day. Nobody took the opportunity to give a reasonable answer to my questions and nobody accepted my challenge during this debate.

The Government wonder why there is not greater acceptance of this plan. When anybody produces a plan the first thing the people look at is that person's credibility. I do not have to waste the time of this House telling the people what they already know only too well. The credibility the Taoiseach enjoyed two years ago no longer exists. He has discredited himself. This man said he would have open and honest government, he would come before the Irish people and tell them what was good for them, but the first hard decision he had to make was on the food subsidies and we all know what he did. It was hit and run medicine. He disappeared to France to enjoy himself at EEC expense. We were told he was on his holidays forgetting the Irish people, forgetting the 250,000 people who are unemployed. That is the type of medicine he dished out in absentia to the Irish people. That, more than anything else, ruined his credibility.

Two years ago the Coalition parties put a Programme for Government before the people. When the Taoiseach was asked in October 1984 if he could point to any policy, commitment or promise given which had been carried out, he had to admit on a radio programme that he could not name one. Now the Government wonder why the people do not believe what this plan says. That is the kind of Government we have. During two disastrous years in office this Government borrowed far more than they said the economy needed. In 1981-82 this Government instilled in the hearts and minds of our people a great fear when they said that the economy was on the point of bankruptcy and at that time our foreign borrowing stood at £3 billion. If that was true then, how much truer is it today when foreign borrowing stands at £8 billion and the national debt is £17.7 billion? We know the Coalition were conning the people then, and the people know it now, and the first chance the people get they will put the Coalition out of office quicker than they put them in. Even at this stage the Coalition do not appear to know what are the problems facing the economy. They said they identified them two years ago, but they did nothing about them. According to this document it will be more of the same for the next few years. Good luck to anybody who believes that because I do not believe in this document and I will tell why later.

In 1983 700 businesses ceased trading and we are fast approaching that figure for 1984. Unemployment is going through the roof; and borrowing is going through the roof. The Minister for Labour, Deputy Quinn, gave a solemn promise to the PAYE workers that taxation will not increase during the term of this plan, but what he failed to tell them was that the Government have found a new name for taxation — levies, local charges, increases in school transport fees, or increases in VHI charges. All these words mean an extra tax on the people and less money in their take home pay. There will be a definite increase in taxation. That is the reality. That is the dishonesty and the deceit which is running through this document. Yet the Government wonder why the people do not believe in it. I will tell them why: they do not have the credibility to sell it.

In Iveagh House this document was launched at a lavish party attended by trade unionists, business people, and every name one could think of — including men with six inch Havana cigars — and glasses of brandy. That was a nice sight for the people sitting at home who had no money to pay their bills on Friday, the people who were unemployed and with no hope of a job. What did the Government do then? They brought out a beautiful booklet called Building on Reality: A Summary.

I want to show the deceit and dishonesty that is attached to this whole operation. There is not a word to be found in that booklet about taking off the rest of the food subsidies, or that hospital wards would be closed down. All the good news was handed out to the general public but no word of the bad news. Would you believe what it says on the front page — this is not a definitive statement of Government policy. What is it supposed to be? It is supposed to be a con job which the Irish electorate, and even the Coalition back benchers, have seen through. The Fine Gael Party members did not attend their Ard-Fheis and the Taoiseach and his Ministers had to decide to go around the country explaining the document.

I will go through the basic assumptions in this magic document Building on Reality. Let us take the unemployment figures for a start. According to this document the growth in the labour force will be 15,000 a year. The White Paper on industrial policy published six weeks earlier said the growth in the labour force would be 17,000; ESRI and the NESC produced two different reports which said that the growth in the labour force would be 20,000. To this day there has been no explanation from the Government as to how these different figures came about. We are given the figures of 20,000, 17,000 and 15,000 and the Government say that is honesty, that that is building on reality and that we can believe what is in this document although they are not able to explain the difference in these figures.

It is the bottom line.

When did one ever hear of a bottom line in Clare? They would not know what one was talking about.

Fianna Fáil never had bottom lines——


Ask Deputy McLoughlin about his bottom line on the food subsidies.

Maybe the Deputy from Clare, his colleague from the Labour Party or the Minister of State would like to explain another fallacy, another spurious example, another falsehood in the figures on page 26 of this infamous document. It says that the number at work in manufacturing employment in April 1984 was 214,000 people. No one knows where that figure came from. The only clue I get is under an asterisk which says:

The Monthly Live Register data are used as an indicator of unemployment. The annual Labour Force Survey provides a better basis for determining numbers at work and those out of work, but is not available with the same frequency.

No one knows where this base figure comes from. I will produce the only Government document that gave the factual situation in April 1984. I refer to the CSO document which gives a figure of 195,700 people at work in manufacturing employment as the March-April figure. Yet, in the document Building on Reality we get a figure of 214,000, a difference of 10 per cent, or a difference of 18,700 people. If there was such a difference on that point, what will be the difference at the finish? According to the CSO, at the end of June the figure was even less; it was 194,900 people. Where did the Government get the fictitious figure? How can they expect this House or the people to believe unemployment figures that have been fabricated? We have the official document and we also have the Government's plan. Would the Minister like to explain the difference?

Is the Deputy yielding the floor?

I know he cannot explain it but I am not surprised. Throughout the term of office of this Government we have had a whole series of mistakes and miscalculations. First we had the "black hole" in the economy; the Government did not know about the £850 million.

What did Fianna Fáil do about that?

We do not see the Deputy here very often but, for his information, I should like to tell him that we have constantly told the Government their figures were wrong in relation to cross-Border traffic. We put the figure at £150 million but the Government laughed at us and said we were living in cloud-cuckoo land. However, when the Allied Irish Banks produced their report a few months age they put the figure at £230 million. That is a loss of between £70 million and £80 million in revenue to the Exchequer. The Government could not run a sweet shop on the corner and it is no wonder they cannot run the business of this House and this country.

There was also the mistake with regard to milk. The figures compiled by the farmers were sent to the Government but they could not even copy the figures and send them to Brussels. They were not able to put down correctly the gallons of milk which the co-ops had counted and which were sent to the Department of Agriculture. That Minister went to Brussels with the wrong set of figures and he is now the laughing stock of Europe.

The Government cannot even count the number of cattle going to Libya. The Government say that trade with that country amounts to between £50 million and £70 million but if they contact the people who are sending the cattle to Libya they will tell them that trade is worth between £124 and £127 million. They are out between £50 million and £60 million. That is the kind of record the Minister for Agriculture has. Is it any wonder the people of Longford have named him quite properly the Cliff Barnes of Irish politics.

I will not dwell on the £17.8 million in respect of VAT which was sent in mistake to Europe. They would not have known anything about it if the Comptroller and Auditor General had not brought it to their notice. Then, after all this mismanagement the Government expect us to believe what they say in Building on Reality.

One of the cornerstones of the plan and one on which it either stands or falls is a freeze in public sector pay this year, an increase of 1 per cent next year and the hope that if all goes well in 1987, the official date for the next general election, the Government will look after that sector if they get that far. As I said on the first day, the document is political polyfilla, evostick or super glue. Whatever name it is called, it helped to keep the Government together and it got them out of a problem when they might have cracked up a few months ago.

Has collective bargaining been thrown out by this Government? How can they put forward a policy that depends on having a pay freeze this year, a 1 per cent increase next year and good times ahead in 1987? There is a word that is synonymous with this Government and Deputy Flynn will remember it well — it is the word "eventually". To every question one asks in this House one is told that eventually it will be done. I am glad the Taoiseach is in the House because I wish to ask him if collective bargaining for the trade union movement has been thrown out the door. If that is so why not be honest with the trade unions and tell them the Government will legislate for it? Why leave the whole matter so vague in the document?

There is also the matter of the basic assumptions made with regard to currency. They say there will be stable relationships between the punt and the dollar. If the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are sure of that, then our problems are over. However, nobody else is sure of it. Economic commentators at home and abroad do not believe it, but yet the Government expect the country to believe what they say in that regard. The Westminster Bank says that the punt-dollar relationship in 1989 will be 75 cents to the punt.

Interest rates have to come down if this plan is to succeed. They have been high for the past two years. I looked at interviews of various people during the American election and not one of them said they would come down. In fact, they said interest rates would go the other way. A very important man in the US Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Volcker, said on 26 July:

Interest rates currently at high level will remain high and possibly move upwards, producing strains at home and throughout the world.

Another member of the Federal Reserve Board said on 2 October:

We are more likely to see interest rates rise than fall over the next three months.

The plan is for three years.

So much for the Government's assumptions regarding interest rates and the dollar. The growth in world trade is projected at 4½ per cent but that means that our exports have to increase by 4½ per cent in the world markets in which they trade. If the Government are basing those growth figures, as was pointed out by Deputy Lenihan last night, on the transfer pricing that is going on and what is called location preference operated by multinationals, the figures are also out on this count. This has been made known in documents that were supposed to be secret but that have been released by a man who is now working for the Government and who pointed out that 20 per cent of our exports could be fictitious.

Those are the figures and the assumptions we are asked to accept as valid. All I can say to the Taoiseach and the Government is this: this is the second wake I have been at in relation to this document. I know the Taoiseach believes that the patient is only unconscious and that he can revive the patient. His roadshow throughout the country started off in Castlebar but they had an attendance of 184 people, which figure has been doubly checked, even though 3,000 invitations were sent to their own supporters. Fine Gael supporters did not even attend the Ard-Fheis.

National and international commentators have said that the plan will not work. In my view the Government have demeaned the document by putting into it such items as late opening hours for pubs, giving licences to certain restaurants and bringing down the price of whiskey. If the document was a serious one it would not include such items but it is not a serious document. The wake is on for the second time. The cortege was moved to Castlebar but was returned last evening to the quicksands of Portmarnock. Let us give it a decent burial and give the Irish electorate the opportunity of dancing on its grave. It must now be put to its eternal rest.

I shall conclude by relating a small but significant incident which was witnessed at Iveagh House as the Taoiseach was walking to the podium to announce the plan. A civil servant standing at the back of the hall was whistling Nearer My God to Thee, the air that was played by the band as the Titanic sank. That civil servant was well ahead in regard to the reaction that the plan was to evoke. As the Titanic sank, let us now sink this document forever and celebrate the resurrection of Fianna Fáil.

The Deputy is sure to get the part in the pantomime.

He has it.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 71.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.


  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West); Níl, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Question declared lost.