I am sure that Deputy P.J. Burke, looking around at some of his former colleagues, can recall what his late colleague, Deputy Seán Dunne, said: "With friends like these what need we of enemies?" I have been here quite a long time and, in my early years here, on the occasion of the Taoiseach's Estimate, it was usual for the Taoiseach of the day to give what we genuinely referred to as something similar to the American President's "State of the Nation" speech. He usually tried to review what had happened during the year that had gone and what the prospects were for the coming year and, indeed, he did it quite well and, in his reply at the end of the debate, he would deal with the points that had been raised during the course of the debate
This was the pattern in the days of Mr. de Valera and in the days of Mr. Lemass. It happened in the first year, I think, of Deputy Lynch but he, becoming very astute as the years went by, developed a new technique. What he does now is he gets up and talks for three-quarters of an hour or so, saying things which any of his backbenchers could say, not giving much information, not being a bit contentious, just passing it along quietly and waiting until everyone else has spoken, and then, knowing there is no opportunity to reply or comment for a period of two or three months, while the House is in recess, he launches his attack on everybody and, as Deputy Corish said yesterday, he usually finishes up by saying we can go off on our recess quite comfortably because the country is in safe hands. At least, he has said so up till now and I will be very interested this evening to see if, finishing his speech in reply to this debate, he once more says that the country is in safe hands because, while I do not want to introduce a note of acrimony, I would like to point out that, judging by recent happenings particularly, it would appear as if the country is in anything but safe hands.
Surely we can all see that what has happened over the last six or 12 months is simply the chickens coming home to roost on the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil. Surely Fianna Fáil must understand that they have brought this upon themselves by closing their eyes to what they knew or, if they did not know, must have had an educated guess about, was happening even within their own Cabinet. I do not want again to drag out here the events which were discussed two-and-a-half to three years ago as a result of the arms trial and what followed, but anybody who comes in here and pretends all this did not happen, pretends there was no truth whatever in it, pretends that Fianna Fáil, the pure-souled patriots of this country, sailed along over the years without doing anything out of the way, nothing which anyone could be ashamed of, is either distorting the facts or is not prepared to face up to them.
I honestly believe that the situation which has arisen has left us, along with the worry of the North, a worry for the South because, if we are to take seriously the activities of some of the people who have been going around masquerading as patriots over the last few months, we must realise that the Government, the very State itself, is in danger when we hear people talking about the State as if it were a puppet state, as if the Government had no authority to rule, as if the right to rule lay in the hands of self-elected people outside this House. When we hear people in this House saying that authority has gone outside, that Dáil and Seanad Éireann are no longer as important as they were, that they do not really matter, then surely the Government have something to think about and surely the people have something to think about.
May I repeat now what Deputy Corish said yesterday. There is one way to test. If the people who claim they have the authority to speak for the majority, and that includes Fianna Fáil, if they have this authority, then why do they not test it? Why do they not give the people the opportunity to decide? We had by a mistake, or a trick—call it what you like—the moving of the writ for the Cork by-election, the by-election resulting from the lamented death of a Member of this House. Now, if Fianna Fáil win, which is very unlikely, they will say the people are behind them; if they lose, they will say it does not matter. God be with the days when Mr. Seán Lemass spelled it out openly and said: "If we lose we will have a general election immediately" and was as good as his word. Unfortunately, those who now control the destinies of this State do not seem to be of the same calibre as Mr. Lemass. Whether we agreed with him or whether we did not, he was man enough to stand up to realities. If any of the so-called republican bodies feel they have a right to talk, then the place to do their talking is at a general election and, if we cannot persuade, coax, entice the Government to have a general election, then let us see what the colour of their money is in the Cork by-election. Let us see how far they will go. Let us see what the popular support is for them. I honestly believe we are now reaching the stage at which, unless we are very careful, those people to whom I referred will do here what they have been promising or threatening to do for a long time; they will succeed in persuading enough people that they represent the people and they will do untold damage before action is taken to either control or prevent it.
While we blame these people, and rightly so, it is only less than half a century we have to go back to find the example they are following. They are doing exactly what was done before and it is no use for old men to come along now and say: "We were wrong. We should not have done it." They did it and the youth and the not so young today are now following their example.
With regard to the North, as far as what is happening there is concerned, while we must condemn what is happening because of acts by the British Army, we must also remember that atrocities are being committed by both sides. It is a shocking thing that the Irish nation should have some of the things which are being done in the North bandied around the world as the normal activities of the Irish people. Whether a person is murdered by the British soldiers, by the UVF or by the IRA, he is just as dead. If he is maimed he suffers just as much if one does it as the other. Therefore, the sooner we stop, or persuade these people to stop, doing these things—in the name of Christianity, if you do not mind—the sooner we will be able to face up to the rest of the world and say that we are, in fact, civilised human beings. Certainly the activities of some of these people cannot be described as civilised by any standards.
To come now to the economy of the country, I am sorry that the Taoiseach in his opening address here yesterday did not go into a little more detail about what was happening and what he hoped would happen to the economy over the next 12 months. Even if he had given a guess as to what was likely to happen over the next few months it would have been a help. It does appear that the Government are reasonably satisfied with the way things are going but they must know that on the economic front the signs of Government failure are everywhere to be seen. Whether we measure them by high unemployment, by escalating consumer price trends or in terms of real economic growth, the Government have failed on all counts. The late Seán Lemass said on one occasion that the way to judge whether a Government were doing well or otherwise was to consider the employment and unemployment figures. If we go by that and consider our present unemployment figures, it is obvious that the Government must be condemned for their failure.
There does not seem to be a clearly defined strategy for economic development. It seems to be a question of playing along and the recent IDA report can in no way substitute for a detailed comprehensive approach in planning for our need of a long-term sustained growth. The Government have not resolved the problem of increasing productivity fostered on income increases. They may say that is not entirely their fault and that the fault lies with the trade unions and the workers who are looking for more than their share. In this context we must consider prices. Surely the Government understand that if they allow price increases there must be corresponding increases in wages. A Bill was passed here a few days ago for the purpose of taking action in respect of price increases but on the following day the Minister for Finance said there was no way in which prices could be controlled at the retail level. If that is the position why did this House waste its time passing a Bill to control prices? Was that Bill merely eye-wash to cod people who do not understand the position as well as the Minister for Finance understands it and who might be led to believe that some effort was being made to control prices?
If prices cannot be controlled the workers are entitled to seek compensation so that they can live at least as well as they lived 12 months ago and that is not the situation now. The position has not been helped by the proposed introduction of VAT. I was amused to hear the Minister for Finance tell us, not once but on a number of occasions, that we need have no fear of increases in prices as a result of VAT because this tax is simply a substitute for another tax. When it was pointed out to the Minister that he had said something similar in relation to the introduction of decimal currency he did not seem to understand that what happened then could and would happen as a result of VAT. At the time of the introduction of decimal currency, the Minister suggested that there was a danger that people would be inclined to charge too much for small articles but that this would be offset by reducing the prices of other articles. It did not take very long for certain people who believe in collecting a fast halfpenny to add on the halfpenny to the fast selling items and take it off the slow selling ones.
Under VAT something similar will happen. I do not wish to go into this question in detail because it has been discussed at length already. But the Minister must be prepared to accept that there will be a lot of trouble in having wage adjustments fixed because the workers realise there will be increases in prices. That is the reason why we in the trade union movement are having so much difficulty in having a long-term agreement accepted by the workers. The workers know that there is no point in accepting an agreement for 12 months when the Government, who are supposed to be controlling certain prices, allow such increases to take place that any increase granted would be eroded within a very short time.
If anybody wishes to verify whether consumer price increases have increased to the extent we are suggesting, we would remind them that during the past 12 months the consumer price increase has been 8 per cent. The increase in respect of food prices alone was 10 per cent as against 4.5 per cent for the previous year. Is it any wonder, then, that people who must live on a weekly wage are not satisfied to accept that an increase which they are being offered now will not be sufficient to carry them over a period of from 12 to 18 months?
I would like to see a period of stability. I would like to see a situation where we could be sure that during the next 12 or 18 months there would not be an increase in the cost of living. However, nobody could guarantee that for as long as the present Government are in power because, apparently, they have decided that prices will be allowed to rise in any way that those who control prices wish them to rise.
Another problem in respect of this wage increase is the question of house prices. If we take into account rent and rates, we find that during the past 12 months the cost of housing has increased by 13.5 per cent. The extraordinary thing is that while many people are living in accommodation rented to them by local authorities, the Minister for Local Government can stand up here and assert brazenly that there is nothing wrong in charging rents of between £4 and £8 per week. That might be all right for a Minister or even for any other member of this House but it is not all right for any man who is trying to rear a young family to have to put aside one-sixth of his earnings, and in some cases, one-fifth, before he can spend any of the money that he has earned so hard. In addition to that the State have refused to do anything about the personal allowances for income tax. Twenty years ago when the standard wage was £6 per week the income tax allowance for a single person was £6 10s per week and £10 10s for a married couple but now the standard wage is more than three times what it was then but the income tax allowance is almost the same. If it was considered wrong to charge income tax then on what was considered to be the minimum required for existence, surely it is very wrong now to charge income tax on two-thirds of earnings? Apparently so far as the State is concerned there is nothing wrong so long as people do not notice the wrong. They seem to think there is nothing wrong in taking one-third of a £2 increase and then to take a further one-sixth of that increase by way of rent. When all these expenses are considered as well as the extra social welfare contributions is it any wonder that a man should have asked me recently to whom the increases in wages were being given because, as he said, he got very little by way of them?
When a man finds that he is not getting sufficient to live on he asks his employer to allow him work overtime if possible but of course the State is waiting for its 35p in the pound on every pound he earns and the overtime is taken into account also in assessing his rent. Yet we are told that this is the affluent society and that everybody should be happy with the situation as it is. It is obvious that anyone who says this votes Fianna Fáil and has been indoctrinated with the idea that whatever Fianna Fáil do must be right.
In relation to housing the situation is that the number of new houses built by the local authorities in 1967-68 was 4,045, and of other houses built by private individuals, 7,972; in 1968-69, local authorities built 4,613; others, 8,420; in 1969-70 the figures were 4,706 and 8,938 respectively; in 1971, they were 3,875 and 9,796; in 1971-72 they were 5,106 and 10,815. In the North of Ireland, about which there is so much talk of how bad things are, and we know how bad they are, the situation is that the ratio is three to one of local authority houses against private houses. Here it is two to one the other way round. Surely there is something wrong. If the Minister for Local Government could stand here yesterday and the day before and tell Deputies that although he knew that schemes submitted for sanction to his Department, schemes submitted for payment of loans from the Local Loans Fund which would allow them to start, were held up by his Department he could not see anything wrong with that. He said it was all right, that he would release them en bloc when he thought the money would be released.
Would the Taoiseach, when replying, say if we have reached the stage where money required for local authority housing, even with the exorbitant rents being charged, is no longer available? If that is so, we should know it because there is no point in Government Ministers issuing statements about the high level of housing and saying that any money required is available if it cannot be got from the Department of Local Government because that is the acid test. I am sure there is no Deputy who in the past 12 months has not had occasion to bring this to the notice of the Minister for Local Government— with very little result I may add.
Similarly, people building new houses or reconstructing them apply for grants to the Department. Is the Taoiseach aware that it is almost impossible to get any money out of the Department of Local Government and the only way we appear to be able to get a response is by putting down a question to the Minister. Then, in some peculiar way the money becomes available and the grant is paid and the Minister can stand up and say: "That grant was paid." When he is questioned it is revealed that it was paid the day before the question was answered or two days after it was asked. If the present Government, for whatever short time they will be here, are prepared to stand up to 100 or 150 questions on housing loans and grants being asked every day that these questions are to be taken, I guarantee to the Taoiseach that those questions will be put down.
I am glad the Taoiseach has come in for the final stage of the debate. I should like to know if he is aware of the situation in regard to factory closures. There is a great song and dance about new factories opening and we are told what a great thing it is if a factory is opened, usually in the West of Ireland or occasionally near the area I represent on the Cavan or Monaghan border. They do not build in County Meath because they do not get the grants they get in Cavan or Monaghan which are represented by people with sufficient influence to have them classified as undeveloped areas and they are, therefore, able to qualify for increased grants. We do not hear of the factories that are closing.
Navan has been known for many years as a furniture town but a couple of large furniture factories have closed there. The last one to close was Crannac and the workers there decided to take steps to protect not only their jobs but an industry which had its roots in that town traditionally. I am glad these workers have been successful but I want to ask the Taoiseach: if those workers could prove that they were in a position not only to keep their factory open and keep their jobs but to increase an export business which the factory had and thereby produce wealth for the nation, is there any explanation as to why, when factories are closing, no effort is made by any Government Department to see if there is a way to keep them open?
I instanced here what I considered to be a scandalous case, a case where a factory closed putting 140 workers out of jobs. Those workers signed on the labour exchange and on average they got over £10 per week and were entitled to get that sum for 12 months. Most of them had long service; they had about £25 per week and were entitled to 50 per cent of that in redundancy payments leaving them a net £22.50 a week for 12 months. In addition, the State lost the production of the factory, lost social welfare insurance and lost the income tax which would have been paid by these workers. It is estimated that about £140,000 was lost in the first 12 months and that, over a little longer period when all the redundancy money had been paid, almost £250,000 of a loss would have accrued to the State. That factory could have been kept open with a loan of £60,000. Surely there is something wrong when something like that happens. That is a case I know of without reference to the many hundreds of factories that have closed without any explanation.
The State should carry out, in the case of every substantial factory at least, a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is cheaper to keep the factory open or to close it. If it is to be closed there should be a good reason and, if it is to be kept open, it does not matter who keeps it open. The State must enter into this matter in a much bigger way. I believe it is up to them to take control and run factories which some people want to be rid of in order to get some liquid assets and they do not mind about people who lose their livelihood as a result. This situation is ludicrous and should not be allowed to continue. I ask the Taoiseach to make some effort to remedy it.
There are so many things which should be dealt with on this Estimate and such a short time to deal with them that I must omit quite a number of matters I had intended to deal with—I do not blame Deputy Burke. Apparently, no effort is being made to do anything about employment despite the fact that we had 80,000 unemployed last winter and now have about 68,000 and that, unlike other years, in June and July of this year when the normal trend in unemployment is downwards, we have an upward trend. Surely something has gone seriously wrong. Apparently, the State are not interested in doing something about it. Yes, they have talked about a Fourth Programme of Economic Expansion, the Second Programme having died a natural death and the Third one being forgotten half-way through in case anybody would think of referring to it. I suppose the Fourth one will not fare much better.
When Deputy MacEntee was Minister for Local Government some years ago he used talk about crystal balls and he would look into the crystal ball to see what was happening. Apparently, he did not pass on the crystal ball to his successor. The result is that the Taoiseach is unable to say what is going to happen next week. He had better buy himself a new crystal ball or get somebody in his Department to try to find out what is likely to happen. Without talking about the EEC at all, it does look as if our industrial expansion has ceased and we are now running into a slide which must get greater as we come nearer to entry into Europe.
Deputy Corish said yesterday, and rightly so, that we contested the referendum against entry into the EEC, that we did everything we possibly could to prevent it. We put the facts before the public and, while doing so, met and discussed with members of both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, and particularly with Fianna Fáil, various things which we believe would bring ruin to this country. We got what they considered, and what the public considered, to be satisfactory answers. The answers having been given and accepted by the public, we are now committed to entry into the EEC the very same as the other two parties are. That having been said, however, it is rather a pity that those who are now striking notes of warning—I think that is the expression they are using—about things that can go wrong, should have had those notes of warning struck before the referendum took place.
Surely the farmers of Cork who fatten pigs, as quite a number of them do, for a living should have been told there is no future for the bacon industry in this country in EEC conditions. They might as well have been told that because it is the truth. Did they not hear the gentleman from Denmark who was interviewed on "Farmers Forum" on Radio Éireann just before the referendum, who explained that in Denmark there are 12 million pigs per year fattened and handled in 12 factories, each of which handles one million pigs. When he was asked: What about expansion in the EEC? he said: "We hope to expand to 16 million." Then the interviewer, feeling he was on good ground, said: "Does that mean there is a prospect for pig-fattening in Ireland in the EEC?" The Danish gentleman was a little taken aback but he gave an answer, and I do not think it was the one that was expected, because he said: "Any person in Ireland who is fattening more than 1,000 pigs per year will be all right, but if he is not I would advise him to get out of the business now."
I am sure they will be heartening words when they are eventually passed on to the people of Cork who are depending to a certain extent on the fattening of pigs for their livelihood, and when it really comes down to brass tacks I hope it will not be denied any longer and that the people will be told this. The Government knew this before the referendum took place and did not go to the trouble of telling them this was so.
The balance of payments has been going screwy for some time and I understand that the deficit for 1972 was expanding to around £70 million. I take a peculiar view of this, because the balance of payments deficit may not mean an awful lot to the ordinary man, but if the upward trend continues it is bound to cause concern, although the Government do not seem to be very concerned about it.
As far as the whole question of investment in this country is concerned, there are some people who believe there should be some way whereby external assets should be brought back to this country. I do not know how it could be done because most of it is held by private individuals or private concerns. However, the Government themselves are responsible for generating the industrial expansion which will be necessary if the country is to continue at all but they are not doing anything about it and had not, indeed, until the timorous step taken this year by the Minister for Finance when he decided he would go for a deficit budget. This was the first step in that direction, and, as I say, it was a timorous one. Those of us who have been watching those figures over the years are satisfied that something similar to what happened over the past two years is bound to happen again. I referred earlier to the question of the increases which are granted in wages and which are taken back by the Government in income tax. In view of the amount of increased income tax which is being collected by the State I would suggest that when the Minister was going for the so-called deficit budget he was quite satisfied in his own mind that by the end of the year enough money will have come in—let us call it buoyancy of the revenue or anything else—to compensate for that and that we will have a balanced budget. The unfortunate thing is that unless some effort is made by the State to accept that it is its responsibility to try to create full employment we will not have full employment. Therefore if this Government do not accept that responsibility, and I am satisfied that this Government do not want to accept it, then they must get out and make room for a government which will be prepared to face up to this problem.
It has been stated on a number of occasions that State investment is perhaps greater in this country than in any other country except the Soviet Union. That may be so, but it is the type of State investment we are not looking for. We firmly believe that the State should be able to take up a great deal of the money which is uselessly spent on imports and spend it in this country, thus creating employment. I would refer, as I did on one previous occasion here, to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. A very substantial amount of equipment for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is required annually for replacements and expansion of the service. Most of that is at present and will continue to be imported for no reason at all except that the Government have not decided that they could set up an industry which would manufacture this type of equipment and thereby make employment available.
Time is running out so I want to conclude on this point. Recently we had an example of muddling in this country which should never happen again. We have, thank God, and have always had, a police force and an Army which have been loyal to the State, and, I hope it will long remain so. However, last year the Garda were treated shamefully before eventually a report that was prepared gave them a promise of a little of what they were entitled to but which has not yet been fully implemented. It has solved some of their problems but does not solve the problem at senior level and that is where it must now receive attention.
Secondly, the Army should have got an increase. It should have been paid to them, not promised, many months ago. It was only when there were threats, which should not be necessary, of unrest in the Forces, at a time when it is essential to keep the Defence Forces happy, that the Minister for Defence announced that an increase was being given. Even the announcement being made officially by the Department was incorrect in its content and therefore caused a lot of extra trouble.
Would the Taoiseach realise that both the Government party and the other two parties here are interested in keeping the ship floating, are interested in ensuring a happy and free Ireland, that they are interested in seeing things done in the correct way. He should realise that if he is prepared to say "I want this done; it is in everybody's interest that it should be done", he can call on the support of both Fine Gael, I am sure, and ourselves in doing it. However, if he shilly-shallies, makes double-meaning statements and suggests something which eventually turns out to be entirely different, he can hardly blame us if we wonder whether or not it is worth pursuing the matter any further or supporting him any further. We, therefore, say to him now: "You are having a by-election in Cork. Why not go the whole way? Why not either dissolve the Dáil this evening and have a general election instead, or if you are not prepared to do that do as your predecessor did and say that if you lose Cork you will take it as evidence that the people are dissatisfied with your Government and test them in a general election."
