When we adjourned last night I was discussing the temptation that there must be for the Government in their financial predicament to have recourse to continued borrowing. There is an obligation on them at the moment not merely to discontinue borrowing at the level of the past two budgets but to positively reduce the amount that has been borrowed. I said the temptation was there because it would be an easy political option in the sense that it would not bring immediate political retribution on the Government and would tend to lessen the need to reduce expenditure which of course is a hard political option and which can have a lot of political fall-out as far as Government is concerned. I do hope that the temptation will be resisted because, as I pointed out, one consequence of any more borrowing will be to drive our financial situation into a state of total disrepute internationally and I think possibly bring on top of us inspectors from the International Monetary Fund or some other similar agency. We would suffer the indignity that Great Britain suffered some years ago when those gentlemen came to the British Chancellor and told him what sort of a budget he would have to produce. I would venture to suggest, particularly to the Minister of State who is here present, that such a visit from those gentlemen would be a real infringement of our sovereignty, far more so than any casual trespass by British soldiers lost in the by-roads of South Armagh or of helicopters coming in to try to catch terrorists. A visit from inspectors from the International Monetary Fund to tell us how to run our financial affairs would be a real infringement of our sovereignty and would justify protests and motions within the Fianna Fáil Party far more than the matters which have provoked them so far.
I can well appreciate that one cannot sing ballads and blow bugles in the blood about the International Monetary Fund. It is not the stuff of which ballads are made and in that sense I doubt if it will get the attention it deserves, but nevertheless it would be an undesirable development, to put it at its mildest, if it were to happen. I strongly urge the Minister for Finance when he comes to prepare his budget to bear that possibility in mind. Of course it will be interesting, too, to see what is going to happen to the manifesto, to see if we are going to have any declaration about that document. Is the manifesto dead or is it a case of, "the manifesto is dead; long live the manifesto"? It will be interesting to know if the strategy and policies of the manifesto are now going to be totally discarded or are bits of it going to be discarded and some of it going to be kept. We are entitled to have an explanation on that matter, because we all know the importance that the manifesto has played in the political and economic scene of this country since June 1977. If that document is to be discarded either in total or in part, we should be explicitly told that.
However, I have dealt at some length, possibly too long for some people, with the economic situation as I see it, but because of its parlous state it deserves a fair amount of consideration from us all. I indicated the options last night. The option to increase taxation has been preempted by the Taoiseach in his statement regarding the reduction of expenditure. The only option is the reduction of expenditure but that will bring with it, unfortunately, harsh consequences and serious personal consequences for the people who are going to suffer the effects of that reduction in their own lives in the year ahead. It is a matter of great regret for us all that the nation's affairs have been so mismanaged that this option is the only one that appears now to be open to the country.
I understand that in this debate it is proper for comment to be made on the activities of particular Government Departments and there are a couple of matters which I should like to raise in that context. The first Department which I should like to mention is the Department of the Environment and allied to that, the Minister of State's new bailiwick, the Office of Public Works, in so far as those two Departments have an input to make or have functions to perform with regard to the shape of our country.
Many people are disturbed by the physical developments and physical changes which are taking place, particularly in this city which gets the most attention in this regard because of the ravages having been the most intense, but in addition there is concern about the physical changes which are taking place in the towns and villages throughout the country and which are radically altering the face of Ireland but not altering it for the better, I regret to say. "Plastic rules" seems to be the predominant theme, in changes which are taking place. The main streets of our towns and villages are being rendered hideous by the type of development being undertaken and particularly by the type of signs which are now appearing over our shops. Concrete and plastic will be the predominant physical features of this country in aonther decade.
In this city the changes which are taking place, and have taken place, are appalling. The first was the monstrosity of Liberty Hall and the affront of that is now compounded from time to time by political slogans. Then there was the rape of Fitzwilliam Street by a semi-State body, and another semi-State body, the Central Bank, have been responsible for the depradation of Dame Street and of a whole scale of the buildings along the quays with that new building cocked up in the middle of Dame Street. There seems to be no appreciation on the part of the relevant Departments, no urgency about their approach to preserving what we have. I would be proud to be called a conservative in this area because I think we must conserve what can be conserved and what cannot be conserved must be changed with the greatest taste and with the greatest care.
I must refer to the scandal of Wood Quay. On that site are historical remains of the greatest interest and with unique features, yet we are prepared to erect on that site between the River Liffey and Christchurch a new modern office block. I take pride in the fact that as far back as 1971 or 1972—at the time that the cattle market ceased to operate on the North Circular Road and when the corporation were acquiring the Wood Quay site—I proposed in the other House that that site in that most historic part of Dublin should be maintained as an open park for future generations. That was the only opportunity to propose that.
At that stage it had not been excavated. This was the heart of ancient Dublin and an open park on that ancient site would give a clear view from the Liffey up to Christchurch and would have been a desirable development. Those offices could have gone at that stage to the cattle market which then had gone into disuse. It was the property, so far as I am aware, of the corporation and was an open space. At that time, too, the north side of the city needed a lift, and to put the administrative headquarters of the capital there would have given that lift.
Apparently there is an inability in administrative circles in this country ever to change tack: once a plan has been decided upon it becomes gospel from then on and there cannot be any deviation from it, with the result that we are scandalised in the eyes of the people who are concerned about history and archaeology, we are scandalised throughout the world in their eyes because of the rape of Wood Quay and what is going to be done there. A compromise has been arrived at, but like all compromises I am afraid it is unsatisfactory. The very fact that offices are going there will spoil the scale of that area and be a further aesthetic blot on our capital city.
The Government in their approach to these matters are possibly reflecting the general indifference of the people to matters that are not materialist. These matters are more in the realm of aesthetics than materialism and I am afraid we have become a materialistic country, careless about these other features of life. We have become a country with much unrest in it and a lot of selfish lobbies, a country where people are prepared to use improper means to obtain their ends or are careless about the morality of their lobbying.
One example of that which I read in yesterday's papers struck me quite forcibly. It is the campaign that is being mounted against the Irish Rugby Football Union in connection with the Lions tour proposed for South Africa later this year or next year. I do not hold any brief for South Africa and its policy of apartheid—I would be totally opposed to it as would every citizen of any pretentions to standards. On the other hand, I do not think that the evil of apartheid can be tackled properly if the means used verge on blackmail.
The tactics used against the rugby union by threatening disruption of the Olympic Games is a form of blackmail. By all means, lobby the rugby unions, by all means castigate them if that is what you feel, but do not blackmail them into doing something that they are lawfully entitled to do. The Minister for Foreign Affairs allowed himself to be blackmailed in stopping—let it be good or bad or let it be merely window-dressing—what was a multi-racial team from South Africa. Ten years ago such a team would have been unthinkable. A multi-racial team went to Great Britain but did not come as far as this country because the Minister for Foreign Affairs acceded to the pressure from these lobbies which command a lot of media space and if one says anything in criticism of them he is immediately running the danger of not just being an objective critic but of being put on the side of the apartheid upholders. I often wonder if there was an element of bluff in the exclusion of that multi-racial team. It would have been interesting if the question had been asked in the other House, "What is the law whereby the Minister excludes that team from coming to this country?" Because as far as I know once the person lands in Great Britain, because of the free, unrestricted travel between these two islands, the legal powers to exclude somebody are extremely slim indeed. However, the rugby union whether they were given an indication that deportation orders would be served, very properly did not want to confront the Government of the day.
That type of unscrupulous lobbying is not confined to the instance which I mentioned as an example of what is taking place in our country, people being prepared to pursue their vested interests in a way that might not be totally honest and in a way that does not take into account the interests of other sections in our community. We are a country that is displaying at the moment a distressing and dangerous lack of solidarity. There is no realisation among citizens that we are all together in the body politic, and we all can exist successfully in that form of society only if we are all prepared to pull our weight, if we are prepared to take account of our obligations to our neighbour, and that we cannot always have what we all want.
That spirit of necessary solidarity, of one for all and all for one is lacking in our society and is the psychological cause of so much of our malaise. How that is to be removed, of course, is a very big question. One important element in removing it or in changing our attitudes towards each other, towards our obligations to live in a society that works—it is as basic as that—is the type of lead that we get from our political leaders. The lead up to now, and I do not exclude any political party from this criticism, has not been of the level required to change attitudes fundamentally. If people see politics and politicians playing their game in a cynical, selfish way—that the pursuit of power is all and that the means used for that pursuit are ruthless, that there is harshness and that all that earns reward is a willingness to conform and play the game—people themselves are going to react and their approach will be cynical in the same way and they will say "Why the hell should I bother giving way to my neighbour? Nobody does that any more, it is out of fashion."
There will have to be a change of style at the top in this country if there is to be a change of style in the type of society we live in. There is a great latent spirit here which, if it could be inflamed, would radically alter the type of society we live in. It is unthinkable that in this country, so recently independent, an independence fought for and gained at so much physical hardship, we should be so careless about what was achieved and should in a couple of generations become unpatriotic. I do not think that can be so. There is a latent patriotism waiting to be inspired.
There are certainly indications of that from the visit of the Pope here, when his visit was able to spark off something latent and good in the Irish people and provoke the tremendous reaction that he provoked. One could sense the spirit of solidarity that I have spoken of. People did not mind hardship on the occasion of that visit. People put up with disruption of their ordinary business and people made sacrifices. What we will have to hope for is some inspiration of a similar kind in the political field, from all sides, to try to inspire again the latent patriotism there must be in this country, so that we can get rid of the malaise of materialism and the pursuit of selfish vested interests that is damaging us so much. It is only in that way that unofficial strikes will come to an end.
Legislation—and I see that there was a kite flown in today's papers to deal with unofficial strikes—I am afraid will not do it, because it is something deeper; there is a malaise of spirit. Of course, that sort of climate is a climate in which the criminals will flourish. Unfortunately, we have had more than our share of criminal activities in the last number of years. Much of this can be laid at the door of the IRA. The cult of the gun was introduced by that sinister organisation and that pattern has brought this country to a state where lawlessness has reached a serious proportion.
I was becoming blase about it: it is no longer attracting the attention of the public or the condemnation that it demands. People just shrug their shoulders, say "I am all right, Jack", look away, and hope it will not happen to them. Some weeks ago there was a robbery in a Dublin store. The robbers were chased and in a crowded street they turned around and fired a shot indiscriminately. If we read about that happening in the Wild West, or in Chicago in the twenties, we would shake our heads and say, "That is an uncivilised savage country".
It is happening here today and there does not seem to be a sense of urgency on the part of the security forces, primarily on the part of the Minister responsible, but even more significantly, on the part of the citizenry, to rise up and turn against these people who are destroying our society. I think it is important that there be a constant lead given, even to the extent of boring or annoying people, by the Ministers to condemn lawlessness, to condemn subversion, and particularly for this Government to condemn the IRA.
I concede and readily admit that this Government are as deeply opposed and hostile to the IRA as was any Government in the country and will deal as severely with them as any Government ever did in this country. But the significant thing is that the IRA do not believe it. Why I do not know. It is a matter wrapped up in our history, it is a matter of attitudes. I do not know what the reason is, but the IRA do not believe that they will be dealt with as harshly. The IRA believe that there is within the ranks of the Government party, not sympathy for them but some sort of empathy with which they can identify. I think the IRA are mistaken in that, but there is a solemn obligation on the Government and the Government party to let the IRA see that they are mistaken in that belief.
An example of it was in September 1978. O'Connell, a convicted IRA criminal, announced at a press conference that "It is now easier for us to meet than in the time of the National Coalition". I do not think it is, but he believes that it is and, if he believes that it is, then the morale of that organisation gets a lift because they feel that empathy with the establishment of the day. One of the great battles that we have to fight is to break the morale of the IRA. One way of breaking that morale is to indicate to them that they are totally isolated from all streams of Irish political and public opinion. It is very important that, if they feel any identity with any group in Irish society, that group should make it very clear that they have nothing to do with them.
There are simple things. In Portlaoise I was careful to ensure that the regime was the same as in any other convict prison and that the people in it would be labelled as criminals, which is what they are, that there would be no question of suggestion to them by implication, or by doing a popular thing to get rid of the lobbies in the newspapers that they were in any way different, giving them colour television sets or giving them lock up hours or different unlock hours from the other prisons, giving them the impression that there is a feeling in certain circles that they are different and support this feeling among them that there is this empathy there.
It is a very solemn duty on the Government and their party to ensure that nothing they do or say can give any suggestion to the IRA than they regard them other than criminals of the most villainous hue. I think that has to be said. There is now a correspondingly greater obligation on the new Leader of that Government to try to undo his silences of the last nine years, to try to undo that part of his history. He will have to lean over backwards to try to make sure that these people now get the message that he is opposed to them not merely superficially but deeply and completely and absolutely.
They have to get the message that they are not wanted in this country. If we really had the hostility and hatred for them that we should have, because of the depradations they have perpetrated and the enormous tragedies they have brought to so many people, I wonder would we tolerate all the signs of their activities: their grafitti has disfigured every town and city in Ireland, yet citizens who are totally opposed to them are prepared to drive by. In one town only, that is Westport—Senator Staunton's presence reminds me of that—the citizens rose up to try to undo some of the slogans that were daubed in their town, offensive slogans, offensive to this State and offensive to our relations with our neighbours and, of course damaging, to put it on a material plain, to our tourist trade, though that must be the least consideration. The citizens in Westport came together on an all-party basis. That is something I would like to see happening all over the country. Wherever these people show themselves through their ignorant grafitti, I should like to see citizens reacting, scrubbing out these offensive messages.
Likewise, I think there is an obligation on citizens as individuals to show these people that they are not to be tolerated in polite society. There is a carelessness in our approach. In Longford County Council the other day they passed a resolution, at the behest of two Provisional Sinn Féin members, asking for repeal of the ban on their appearing on RTE. Unfortunately, that resolution was passed because the two Sinn Féin members got the support of the Fianna Fáil members in that council. This is another indication which leads these people to believe that there is this empathy within Fianna Fáil.
Of course, that is outrageous and I would urge the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs not to accede to those requests, because it would be intolerable that the spokesmen for the savages who have done so much harm and brought so much tragedy to so many people in this country would be validated by giving them the freedom of our airwaves. The new Minister is from my constituency. I read in the local paper recently that he is going to the United States to talk to the Longfordmen's Association on the occasion of something or other, and I would urge him to take the opportunity to continue the good work done by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, in bringing home to Irish-Americans what is the true situation here—that the Government are totally opposed to the IRA and that any Irishman who supports the caucus or any other of these front organisations is contributing to bloodshed in Ireland. When we see the statements made, and reported today, by Deputy Blaney, we must believe there is going to be a push again from the United States to try to validate this caucus, this IRA front.
Every Government Minister, particularly now after the change, and because of the change, will have an obligation when he or she goes to the United States to make it very clear that the line of Deputy Lynch with regard to the Irish National Caucus and IRA front organisations is going to be maintained and, I hope, intensified.
I have gone on for a long time, taking more than my share of the time, but there are many problems facing the country, economic and social security. We can only hope that we will get a lead, because there has to be a lead. We can only hope that the change of Government will not make matters worse, that the apprehensions that many people feel about the style of Government that we will have from now on will be misplaced. I can only hope that the leadership we now have will possibly be able to strike a spark that might inspire some practical patriotism in this country, because unless there is an outburst of practical patriotism here our predicament will be worse in the future.
