Items Nos. 9 and 24. I call on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to move his motion, No. 9 on the Order Paper.
Economic Situation: Motion.
Before the Minister does so, may I enquire about procedure? This party submitted a motion initially. It has been superseded by the Government motion. It has been suggested to us that our motion may now take the form of an amendment. There is a question about the form of voting and whether there will be separate votes on the Government motion and on our amendment?
There can be, of course.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, being mindful of the serious problems created for the country by the deterioration of the world economic climate caused by shortages of sources of energy and other essential commodities with consequential price increases, and of the actions taken to date by the Government to deal with them, encourages the Government to take such further steps as may be necessary to minimise the adverse effects of the international economic situation.
I am moving the motion formally and reserve my right to participate in the debate later on.
The Minister for Labour.
Again this is unusual procedure. One would expect the Minister for Industry and Commerce to stand up and say what he has to say now, first.
Is it in order for another Government speaker to follow immediately after the first one? Should you not call on someone from this side of the House?
An agreement has been arrived at in this matter.
It was an agreement on the assumption that the Minister in whose name the motion appears on the Order Paper would speak first to the motion. That has been the procedure. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to stand over his policies.
There is no reluctance. This Government enjoy collective Cabinet responsibility.
What about the row last week?
What is the position about Members on this side of the House being called, the Minister for Industry and Commerce now having made his speech?
The Member from the Government side, on the motion, please.
Is it moved?
Yes.
Surely I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce moving it? Did he move it?
Let us not waste time codacting. Let us get on with this.
On a point of order, does the Chair propose to call on two Fianna Fáil speakers in succession when the Minister for Labour has concluded?
No. Let us not waste time. We have had no speeches yet from anyone.
We have had a speech from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Labour has now been called on to start his speech.
The Minister for Labour is making the opening speech for the Government.
Have you any idea, Sir, why the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not speak on the motion in his own name?
I will tell you when I do speak.
The motion standing in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce calls the attention of Dáil Éireann to the serious problems created for the country by the deterioration of the world economic climate caused by shortage of resources of energy and other essential commodities with consequent price increases.
The views expressed in the Dáil by Members of all parties will be of great significance in maintaining the confidence of our people in the relevance of democratic institutions at a time when generally throughout the country these same institutions are under attack. It must not be forgotten that while the State forces may represent the sword defending the free institutions of the people, as in the case of this Legislature, a responsibility also devolves on all Members of this Parliament to earn that respect by the nature of their contributions in a debate of this serious nature. It is important that the Dáil should live up to its responsibility at this time, a responsibility which is only fully discharged——
On a point of order, would the Minister arrange to have his speech circulated to Members in accordance with normal practice?
Surely that is not a point of order.
With due respect, the Deputies opposite would not be able to read my writing. This is a very hastily——
If the Minister proposes reading his speech—and he is entitled to do so—it is the normal practice as a matter of courtesy to circulate copies.
I would ask Deputies to realise that this is a debate to which there applies a strict time limit. Consequently, unnecessary interruptions of this kind are unfair and out of order. I call on the Minister to continue his speech.
As an ordinary Deputy of this House, I suggest that the procedures of the House are being completely vitiated this afternoon. We have one Minister who is responsible for a motion proposing it without explaining anything to us; another Minister is apparently speaking about democratic Parliamentary procedures that have nothing to do with the motion proposed by his colleague. Literally I do not know where I am.
That is hardly a point of order. We are wasting precious time.
If the Minister is going to read his speech we are entitled to see a copy of the speech.
I am reading from rough notes. I think this is permissible in this House, especially with regard to a serious matter of this nature.
Is the Minister for Labour speaking to the motion moved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
I am doing my best to move the motion.
The Minister appears to me to be speaking about Parliamentary democracy.
It is germane to the subject of this debate. This House will earn the respect of the people when the contributions of Members in a serious debate of this nature live up to the serious elements involved in the present situation. That was the point I was making: while the forces of security may defend against outside enemies——
Surely it is up to the people to make a judgment on this——
I must ask that the Minister for Labour be allowed to speak on this motion without interruption. Let us have some sense of fair play.
It is natural and correct that Government policies be opposed, that is in accordance with democratic practice. However, one would hope in a serious situation— mainly brought about by external circumstances beyond the control of the authorities in this State—any opposition that may be voiced here today with regard to Government activity or policies to meet present difficulties will be an opposition with a kernel of alternative policies, outlining a method of approach to our current problems which, while it might differ from the approach of the Government, nonetheless can be judged by reasonable men to be feasible counter-proposals to those the Government have been engaged in for the past year and those planned for the coming year.
It is a great conver sion.
The people who may hear accounts of this debate on television tonight or who may read about it will not be interested in the alleged superiority of one set of politicians over another. Neither will they be interested in personality disputes. While the chagrin of Members of the Opposition may be understandable— this is the anniversary of the week in which they made their fateful decision to seek a mandate from the people a year ago, a decision which brought about an end to their 16-year-old rule —I am sure their serious leaders, and they have more than one serious leader, will see that they bring forward in this debate the alternative policies the people seek when a Government's policies and programmes are under attack.
The motion refers to the world economic climate caused by shortages of sources of energy and essential commodities and it calls for the encouragement of Dáil Éireann for the actions we have taken. At the outset of this economic debate, it must be said that with all its difficulties the past year has been a year of unprecedented progress for our economy and for our society. Never before have we achieved a growth comparable to that of the last 12 months——
Thanks to inflation.
Gross national product rose almost 8 per cent, industrial production rose by nearly 15 per cent, over three times more than was achieved in 1972.
By how much did prices rise?
This was largely due to an increase of almost 20 per cent in the volume of exports of manufactured goods.
Normally when a Minister gives figures such as these he indicates whether they are volume terms or money terms.
I have given the percentage—20 per cent in the volume of exports of manufactured goods.
In the other cases, were they volume or money terms?
Gross national product rose by 7 per cent——
In money values?
In turn, this has brought about an increase of about 3 per cent in employment. The facts I am reciting are there for every man who reads a newspaper. There is nothing original about them. It is not as though we were manufacturing figures; they have been reported extensively in the Press and in economic journals. May I take it that Members of the Opposition have ceased to read the economic indices? When I was in Opposition I always made it my business to read the good and the bad figures and I would suggest a like course to Members of the Opposition because their case would be improved by such reading. These figures, which cannot be contested, have brought about an increase of almost 3 per cent in employment and I am sure Members of the Opposition will agree that represents a welcome change from the downward trend which commenced in 1971. Most of that improvement took place in manufacturing industries and, therefore, there is a good basis for stable employment and good working conditions being created.
Actions are referred to in our motion and I shall bring to the attention of Members opposite some of the actions we took in the last year which have an economic significance. Our first budget, the capital budget of £305 million, represented an increase of almost £56 million, almost 23 per cent over that of the previous year. The increase in the capital budget has an enormous significance for the entire economy. Roads, hospitals and the entire economic infrastructure are vital for national prosperity and the limits to this expansion are summed up in the extent and volume of the capital budget. Our budget last year was planned for an expanding economy and it helped towards an increase in employment.
The late Seán Lemass often said that the acid test of the effectiveness of the performance of any economy is the repercussion economic policies may have in the area of employment. I agree. By that test last year was an unqualified success—not as much as we would wish it to have been because the employment situation still leaves no ground for satisfaction, but undoubtedly it was an improvement on previous years.
The mark of our Government, of course, is that we do not put all our faith simply on economic advance alone. There must be a social dimension also to all the economic policies being pursued by our Government. I think most fair-minded men will agree that last year's budget, which organised the capital budget and which attempted to prime the economic motors that would generate national prosperity, had on its social side a marked change of emphasis. The outstanding feature of the 1973 budget was the increase of almost 38 per cent in social welfare expenditure, raising it from £163 million to £225 million. In a recent radio interview the Opposition spokesman on Finance is supposed to have said that the social welfare increases were not remarkable.
It was not accurately reported.
I understand the statement was made that the increases were not remarkable when savings on EEC taxes were subtracted. Even allowing for EEC contributions, the increase over the increases given in 1971 was of the order of 14 per cent. In 1972 expenditure was approximately £18.5 million. Therefore the increases last year were a vast improvement.
These were the positive features of Government policy last year. These were the decisions which made for economic expansion and for expansion of welfare facilities. While we are looking at the national record today in this important economic debate at the start of this new Dáil year, it must not be forgotten—what happened before has an import on what happens afterwards—that when the Tánaiste last year set his hand to improving welfare payments, he had in mind those dreadful figures available to every Member of this House which shows that almost half a million of our people were living below what were regarded as internationally accepted poverty levels. That, remember, is the underlying trend welding together every policy and approach of this Government. The aim of this Government, our long term project, is to combat the sources of poverty in our community, a problem which is unfortunately still too much in evidence here.
On the adverse side—and this is materially mentioned in the Opposition amendment—last year prices were a matter of great concern. The consumer price index rose by more than 11 per cent in 1973. However, it must not be forgotten when we examine those figures, those increases, that 50 per cent of them were in the area of food prices. Increases in food prices alone were of the order of 16 per cent. To meet these increases the Government did not simply sit back and wait. The Government took action and removed value-added tax from food items from 1st November. In the minds of most reasonable men that action had an important effect in slowing the growth of price increases in the final quarter of 1973. I believe that in the coming year we can be reasonably confident that the rate of increase in food prices will not have as important a bearing on any price increases that may take place.
Also on the prices front, the Minister for Industry and Commerce took vigorous steps to control imports and wholesale profit margins on essential items. Not alone that, but the inspectorate of his Department was expanded considerably, so that the level of authorised price increases would be properly enforced. Of course we must not leave out of the count the very considerable influence in keeping prices down exerted by the National Prices Commission. I do not think it is sufficiently well known that that body subject every price application to a searching scrutiny. They consider all the factors involved. Many uninformed people believe that price increases are permitted, that they just happen. That is not so. As Members of the Opposition who have had experience in Government will know, the commission subject all price applications to a very searching analysis indeed. It is fair to say there was immense saving to the consumer last year as a result of the activity of the National Prices Commission. Otherwise, far greater increases would have been passed on to the consumer.
Having said all this, it must be conceded that the single largest contribution to increased prices last year was in the area of imported goods and materials. This was responsible for almost 50 per cent of the total rise. Indeed it is difficult to see how we can impose any more stringent controls in this sector than those we have already imposed. In the coming year, it is only fair to say in this debate, we expect that import prices will continue to be a major problem and I am afraid it is in this area that any untoward price inflation will occur.
Another factor that must not be lost sight of in this situation is that we are in a period of immense international economic difficulties. To take the large economies, German growth prospects this year amount to only 1.5 per cent. In that major EEC and world economy, unemployment is expected to reach a peak in the January-February period of this year and in 1974 as a whole unemployment is expected to be at least double what it was last year. We see that in France there is a total break with the EEC currency system in an effort to withstand the problem I will presently come to, the oil crisis. Most of the major economies are engaged in meeting problems associated with economic recession. The French, the Germans, the Americans, the Japanese all are involved, all see their prospects of growth diminish. It would, therefore, be a very naïve person indeed who would suggest that an economy of so open a nature as our own could innoculate itself, no matter how successful its domestic policies could be, against certain adverse effects arising from problems in world economy.
Then, of course, there has been the problems associated with the oil crisis. I know the more reasonable Members of the Opposition will not suggest that these problems are the creation of this Government—the problems associated with the oil crisis. They arise from conditions completely outside our control. I heard the Opposition spokesman for Industry and Commerce speak on this matter recently and I got the impression from what he said that the Arabian Gulf was a Fianna Fáil fief but indeed it is not even an area of influence of the Coalition Government nor would we claim it to be so. These are conditions totally outside our control and undoubtedly the problems arising from the oil and energy shortage will affect our growth prospects in this coming year.
Last year we achieved a rate of growth of almost 8 per cent in our gross national product. A shortage, as is likely, in our oil requirements will undoubtedly affect that growth prospect in the coming year. There is also the question of the additional cost. Indeed, arising from additional costs, it may be calculated, looking at the experience of other economies, that the increased price to be paid for oil will, in fact, make its own contribution to the rate of price increases in the coming year.
These are factors beyond our control which will both affect our growth prospect this year and the cost of living index. Yet, so far in our experience, the situation since the energy crisis commenced is that employment has been continuing to hold up well and unemployment so far in this particular crisis has not been excessively unfavourable. Unemployment is still running well below the comparable figures in 1973. While there has been an increase in the actual level in January, this is something which happens every year. It is a seasonal increase. The latest unemployment figure is over 6,000 below the figure for 1972 and over 3,000 below the figure for 1973.
There are, apart from the oil crisis, other factors which are having some adverse effects on employment, particularly shortage of raw materials Many of these materials are oil based and, of course, are also influenced by the fact that many of them originate in Britain where the three-day week is causing dislocation and the possible threat, referred to more frequently of a two-day week will obviously contribute its own modicum of dislocation.
We have, however, taken measures with special services provided by Córas Tráchtála and the IDA to see that we find alternative supply sources and so far we have been in a position to see that these alternative supplies are provided and the employment situation so far is not too adversely affected. There have been some adverse employment effects in the motor trade due to the recession in the sale of motor cars and the reduction of work in garages which follows from the oil crisis.
In general, it can be said about employment that the economy has held up remarkably well so far, indeed far better than most people would have anticipated if they were given the facts which we now face internationally. It is too soon to say what the long term effects of the oil crisis will be but that they are beyond our control any reasonable man will admit. We may be able to reach near the target of the growth rate achieved last year if there can be large scale savings in energy use this year but this is a matter of conjecture at this time. It can be said, as I think most reasonable Deputies will agree, that our Minister for Transport and Power was absolutely correct when he refused, in response to the many requests which were made in the first month or two of panic, to introduce rationing, as I think the experience of those countries which did, in the first weeks of panic, introduce rationing has shown. The fiasco that attempt at rationing has become in many of these countries amply proved the wisdom of our own Minister for refusing to take that course at that time.
Here are certain of the problems before us, certain of the actions taken by this Government last year and certain of the problems that still remain with us, the problems of the major economies, the problems of oil and scarcity of commodities, the extraordinary travail of industrial difficulties undergone by our major trading partner, Britain. We may not innoculate ourselves against all of these things. One of the heartening features of the figures for last year is the increased diversification of our trade with the EEC countries. We can say that of the four new member countries of the EEC we have in this first year, and some tribute must be paid to the efforts of the Minister immediately involved towards the formulation of the regional policy, done extremely well in the first year of membership of the community in terms of employment.
Which is the fourth new member would the Minister say other than Ireland, the UK and Denmark?
I am sorry I did not hear the Deputy.
Which is the fourth new member other than the three countries I have mentioned?
I thank the Deputy for the correction. We have these problems that remain with us and further problems not of our making for the coming year but I think all Deputies will agree that the essential economic fabric of the country is in good shape and providing the world trade picture moves into a recovery stage our country will be able to participate in the upward swing of economic activity. There are no final or certain answers we can provide at this particular time because there are too many things outside our control.
One of the disappointing features that Deputies will expect me to refer to is the rejection of the terms of the national agreement. I know responsible Deputies opposite will share my disappointment in this matter as to my knowledge all Members of this House accept a bipartisan policy in accepting the wisdom of a national collective bargaining system for all our people under whatever Government are in office. The leaders of congress have expressed their disappointment and so have I because the national agreement concept gave a guarantee that every Irish worker would receive the gains, which were registered under that agreement, in full under the period of the agreement. No such guarantee is available in conditions of industry by industry bargaining or what is referred to as the so-called free for all.
Leaders of congress have declared they are uncertain of the reasons why the national agreement was rejected. Certainly there can be no doubt about it that the terms of the agreement recently drawn up were rejected decisively at the meeting of congress in Liberty Hall. I have met both sides during the past week in an attempt to see if there was a prospect of a renewed attempt at a centralised collective bargain for this year. Mention of the national agreement serves to remind us that the prices issue is a continuing problem with us. Members of the Opposition will have their opportunity to say what exactly is responsible for price rises but there is no doubt about it that external factors have been the biggest influences on the rate of price increases. If that continues to be a feature of our economic picture, if it is calculated in the neighbouring island of Britain that their consumer price index will rise, according to the forecast now made, by 15 per cent in this year it may be, calculated that a rise in that region could occur here in the consumer price index over the current year.
The tragedy is that a centralised wage bargain has the advantage that it may allow an escalator clause which defends the wage packet of the wage earner in a time of inflation such as we are experiencing at present. I am sorry on two counts that the national agreement was rejected, first, because all Irish workers will not be assured of the benefits they would get under a national agreement and, secondly, because the value of their wage packets will be imperilled in conditions of industry by industry wage bargaining, which would have no escalator safeguard.
Also there are unwelcome features which we know anti-dated the present national system of wage bargaining. Although it cannot be proved conclusively, it appears that there is a higher incidence of industrial disputes in the absence of a national agree ment. We have had a remarkable absence of industrial strife in the currency of the national agreements from more than a million man days lost in 1970 to fewer than 200,000 last year.
The structure of industrial relations in this country is largely the outcome of proposals from both employers and unions. I have every confidence that that fabric is sound and the strength of its success resides largely in the autonomy it enjoys from State control. Therefore, it enjoys the trust of both sides in industry. But the hazards of industrial strife which may more readily occur in conditions of industry by industry wage bargaining have increased.
I have met deputations from both sides and will meet with them again tomorrow. The congress side see their difficulty as one of lacking a mandate to meet the employers in the context of any collective agreement of a national character since, as the leaders of congress see it, the terms of such an agreement have, in fact, been rejected. As I said, their difficulty appears to reside in a lack of a mandate for a renewal of negotiations on new proposals. I still hope that any difficulties of a procedural nature can be overcome and a meeting between employers and unions may take place so that any possibility that new proposals may emerge which could be of benefit to working people could properly be explored. If new proposals emerge, these will involve greater advantages of a financial nature for ordinary working people up and down the country than could be theirs under any system of industry by industry bargaining. It must not be forgotten that any such gains would be theirs automatically without dispute, without argument and without fuss. I earnestly hope that any procedural difficulties which may be there, and seen by the parties to be there, can be overcome.
For their part, the Government will be ready to give serious consideration to any joint request arising from such negotiations of this national character which might lead to a national collective bargaining contract for the Irish people. I am aware that Fianna Fáil Deputies share my hopes for the possibility of a renewed national contract covering all wage earners. It has been brought to my attention that the spokesman for Finance, Deputy Colley, spoke to this effect, on yesterday's news. Admittedly, he attributed certain partisan reasons to the breakdown of talks but that is understandable in the give and take of democratic politics. I will forgive any member of the Opposition for being inaccurate on a radio programme, but in the main he agreed on the general desirability of maintaining the national agreement.
That portion of what I said was correctly reported.
Certain terms have been rejected but I believe that centralised collective bargaining has not been rejected nor could it be rejected by reasonable people when one sees the advantages it has to offer to all workers irrespective of their place of work.
As I have only 45 minutes at my disposal, I have confined myself to certain major features of the debate at this stage. I hope that this debate will address itself to the serious matters at issue. The standing of Parliament and the respect to which it is entitled are assured by the forces of the State against those who seek to overturn the people's free institutions. It also gains the affection and respect of the people provided it addresses itself seriously to the issues before it. The people are looking to this Parliament for a responsible discussion on certain problems before the country at the present time. There is too little understanding in the country of certain problems outside our shores in the major economies. There is too little understanding of the impact of this international economic recession —if that is not too strong a term— that we may not defend ourselves totally against the adverse repercussions outside our shores. We must trim all our expectations to these external facts which affect home conditions.
This Parliament can give a responsible lead to the nation in leading opinion in this direction and can bring to the fore certain facts which responsible leaders of the Opposition will recognise exist in the rest of the world and which, if not handled responsibly in this country, will impair our rate of economic expansion in the years ahead.
Members of the Opposition will raise certain questions during this debate. The Government see their primary task as one of creating conditions in which maximum growth can occur despite the difficulties posed beyond our shores. Our actions last year were designed to achieve maximum growth in our economy, and our actions will be devoted to a like course this year. Members of the Opposition have sought this debate as is their right and entitlement. They have questions to put and criticisms to make. It is for the Government to answer these criticisms, to point out the policies we will be pursuing and answer honestly regarding any difficulties we may see in our paths.
I would remind the Opposition that they must not delude themselves that questions may only be addressed to the Government. In all their contributions, they should remember that questions will also be asked of them and their policies scrutinised. Reasonable men will make up their minds on the quality of their contributions whether at any future time they are entitled to come back to the Dáil and deal with the nation's affairs from the Government benches.
We will make our own case.
I thank the Minister for his homily. I ask your permission to move my motion in the form of an amendment. That has been agreed, I think, to comply with machinery that was not of my making. Therefore, I move:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute: "deplores the failure of the Government to take effective steps to deal with the dramatic increases in consumer prices and calls on the Government to initiate positive action to control the rise in the cost of living".
By that device, our motion, which was put down to have a debate on prices, becomes an amendment of a Government motion which is contrived to throw the debate off what we actually sought the debate for, namely, the unprecedented rise in prices and the cost of living which are going uncontrolled without either help or hope from a Government. The people who do not know what the morrow will bring in respect of their standards and means of living, are asking for a Government or somebody to give them direction.
Since this whole question of prices reached a crisis stage, indeed what we might describe as a national emergency, we have been pressed by the people. As an Opposition, we have been accused of doing less than our duty in not bringing to the attention of those who should be concerned their lack of attention and duty to one of the most important matters affecting the whole economy today. The Minister who has just spoken set out to give us a lecture on the importance of preserving respect for Parliament, the dignity of Parliament and, indeed, concluded on much the same note giving us a warning, like a lot of schoolboys, as to what would happen us if we interfered with the dignity of this House and the respect there should be for it. I want to ask this House, in the context of this appeal for respect: do the people go on respecting a House where the party in power, or parties, come before them with an undertaking which is calculated to deceive them directly, mislead them completely and treat them as if they were gullible idiots?
I will read the section of the 14-point plan, the birth of which we are celebrating almost today. It was on the 8th of February of last year that the headings of the newspapers were emblazoned with the famous 14 points, not a promise but a solemn undertaking without equivocation, a definite understanding by those who agreed to come together to form an alternative to Fianna Fáil and on which they solicited the support of the people which they got in sufficient measure to put them here. The heading to the point to which my amendment is directed is "Stopping the Price Rise". It is rather interesting to listen to the preamble to this same point. It is just as true today as if it were prepared for today's situation. It went on:
The tragic events in the North have clouded the fact that the economy is in serious trouble because of the indecisiveness of a Government distracted by its own internal difficulties.
Mind you, that can be aptly applied today when I listened to the Minister for Finance moving a Bill for which he obviously has not got the agreement of the Government for, or he has not got agreement from the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Mining Bill, that has not even been agreed by the Government—something without precedence. If there are not the symptoms of a serious row there I am mistaken.
The Deputy is mistaken.
It goes on:
The immediate economic aims of the new Government will be to stabilise the prices, halt redundancies and reduce unemployment under a programme of planned economic development. It is essential to control prices if these important economic aims are to be realised——
In other words, these aims cannot be realised unless we control prices——
The Government will, therefore, immediately introduce strict price control. As an earnest of its good faith regarding the control of prices the Government will remove VAT from food. The Government will regard the control of price inflation as indispensible to the continuance of the National Wage Agreements. The two parties are convinced that voluntary wage agreements reached on a national level are the best basis for economic development, stability and growth in jobs.
This is set out in the most explicit terms, and I am quoting from The Irish Independent of the 8th February, 1973—the published 14-point plan on which the Government succeeded in getting support from the country and on no more. The other 13 points meant little or nothing. That one, more than any other, succeeded in capturing the imagination of the people because, in Opposition, the two parties who gave that undertaking were daily condemning Fianna Fáil for not taking proper action to stabilise and control prices generally. In fact, the new definition of inflation so far as this country is concerned is that it is something that is due to Fianna Fáil when they are in power but due to international circumstances when the Coalition are in office.
It is in order to rock the Government out of its sleep, to create some sense of awareness, that we have introduced a motion here which the Government have tried to circumvent by a diversionary tactic of putting down a motion under which the Minister has discussed everything except prices—what our motion is really about. We know as well as the Minister—and there are very few people now who do not know something about inflation because, God knows, enough has been written and said about it over the last 20 or 30 years—that so far as import inflation and export-based inflation are concerned we always pointed out there was not much we could do about them. We could do certain things to ease the effect of inflation on the economy. We have to import much of our raw material; perhaps we import a lot of luxury goods we could do without; perhaps something could be done about that but, if we are going to keep our economy expanding, we must necessarily continue to import growing quantities of raw material not available to us and other goods essential to services. I refer particularly to the sources of energy.
Equally, export inflation is something about which very little can be done at home. When good prices are secured, particularly for agricultural produce abroad, naturally they must fetch the same prices at home. This generates a good deal of inflation and price increases about which not much can be done.
There is the very important factor of inflation which is generated at home, domestic inflation for the want of a better term. Sometimes different groups blame each other about who is most responsible for it. The workers blame the employers for increasing prices and the employers blame the workers for demanding too high wages. Some people blame the banks for being too careless about lending and for their generosity in the availability of credit. Most people blame the Government who have certain definite instruments available to them in the fiscal and monetary controls they can exercise or in the things from which they can refrain in the matter of new taxes which contribute directly to inflation. It is in this whole field that the Government have done nothing.
Domestic generated inflation which contributes to inflation generally is one of the most important factors. It was in this field that we felt, as a Government, that we always had a responsibility to do everything we possibly could. We did it, and we were continually bombarded from this side of the House for not doing enough. One Deputy, who is not in the House any more, on one occasion accused us of creating world inflation. He is on the record; and he had a degree in economics. We went through a lot of his nonsense. We had to listen to it but we went on and did what was right and did the best we could.
A lot can and must be done about domestic inflation. In our time we set up the Management/Labour Conference to go into the question of orderly wage and incomes policies. We put Professor Chubb from Trinity in charge of it. It was a body representative of all sides of industry. It was a well established body and I should like to pay tribute to those people now for the work they did and the thankless work they undertook at a time when they did not get much encouragement from those in this side of the House. Now we are being appealed to to speak in a responsible manner about the important task before us and the position which is facing the country and threatening it with the greatest depression it could ever possibly run into.
We set up the Management/Labour Conference and immediately following that we set up the National Prices Commission without which one would be rather helpless. In my time I was hoping that we could get greater co-operation between the two, if not completely concerted action, or, indeed, an amalgamation of the two bodies working in unison because the work of one was very much contingent on the success of the work of the other. We set up these two bodies, one to deal with prices and the other to deal with incomes. They were two responsible bodies. They were representative and they did an excellent job. Yet they had to face all the criticisms that could be poured out from the then Opposition side of the House.
When the Coalition Government in that stupid manifesto of February, 1973, said they would control and stabilise prices, everybody felt they had some new plan, or something new, and that here was a set of geniuses who were coming up with a great new plan which was never heard of before, although it was not spelled out. Now they are a year in office almost to the day and people who are disillusioned find that they have been trying in a very awkward way to operate the institutions we left to them. The people who said we did nothing have used nothing and attempted to use nothing other than the institutions which we set up. In fact, by doing so they are paying a tribute to our efforts in our time to deal with the same problem. It is on record—I think it was in July last— that a recommendation of the Prices Commission was rejected by the Government and a price increase was given in spite of the Prices Commission. That is their only contribution over the year to this serious problem of rising prices.
VAT was to be removed from food. They waited until they were in office for a long time and, by the time they got around to doing it, prices had gone up by more than they were relieved by the removal of VAT. They then applied VAT to other essential commodities budgeting for much more than the total VAT estimate was originally, with the result that people must do without essential commodities at present. I had the honour of being on the radio for a short time this morning with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He reached for a copy of The Economist to see what they had done over the years. By carefully examining a small block of figures he worked it out that things were not as bad as they might be and that, in fact, food prices were somewhat reduced in a given quarter. He took me to task for not using some statistics as well. I have real statistics here.
Let us have them.
The Minister will not like them.
I pointed out, as I want to point out now that a reduction in the consumer price index at any given time is given on an average. A decent reduction in one item is given as a percentage reduction in relation to the whole lot of commodities that make up the cost of living index, as the Minister should know or must have learned by now. I contended that the only item which could contribute to the reduction which he mentioned was the dramatic fall in the price of potatoes which took place from spring of last year until autumn. They were in short supply and had gone up, as the Donegal farmers who produce them know very well, to the drastic price of £70 a ton. Then when normal supplies became available they dropped to £20. What had the Minister to do with that? What action by the Government created that situation?
The Government are holding up one reduction in the index figures as a victory for them. I asked the Minister to name one more item and he named meat. He said meat was down by a halfpenny or something like that. What had he to do with that? Is he claiming the ineptitude of the negotiations in Brussels, because of which cattle producers this year are losing £50 a head on their cattle, as a virtue and giving it to the public as a reduction in the cost of living? Where do the Government think they are going in asking us to have a debate which will uphold respect for parliament when they are trying to hoodwink the entire country in a manner which no person of average intelligence will accept. I would not mind if the Minister said: "We thought we could control prices but we discovered we cannot." Instead he still persists in trying to bluff the people. What did the Government do to bring down the price of meat? Perhaps they were careless in their negotiations in Brussels.
That is entirely incidental and it is not much satisfaction to the agricultural worker to know that the losses he suffers this year, unprecedented in the history of the State, are now being used to show that there is a reduction of a halfpenny on one item in the huge list of increases that have rendered people who were thought to have decent incomes unable to meet the necessities of life.
Here is a list given to me by a woman from her shopping basket from a competitive supermarket in this town. I would ask the House to bear with me while I put on record the changes in prices which have occurred from 1st January of this year to 1st February, one month, in regard to the contents of a basket which came to a little over £3 on 1st January: chicken: 65p then, 80p now; tin of peas: 6½p then, 8½p now; tin of beans: 8½p then, 11p now; packet of peas: 10½p then, 14p now; 1 lb of rice: 12½p then, 22p now; bar of chocolate: 10p then, 11p now; bottle of wash-up liquid—I think it had a trade name "Lifeguard"—12½p then, 16p now; packet of fig rolls: 9p then, 12½p now; margarine: 10p then, 12p now; salt: 6½p then, 7½p now; cookeen: 8½p then, 11½p now; jam: 17½p then, 18½p now; margarine: 16p then, 18p now; nappies: 14p then, 16p now; soup: 7p then, 8p now; a packet of beef curry: 16½p then, 17p now. This woman said she could not afford to buy ham, sausages or mince because they had gone up 50 per cent. Also included in the list were toilet rolls: 10p then, 14p now; paper hankies: 14p then, 17½p now; firelighters: 6p then, 7½p now; two kilos of flour: 21p then, 23p now; 1 lb of raisins: 25p then, 39½p now; sliced pan: 12½p then, 13p now; packet of detergent: 17p then, 21p now. That is a basket of groceries that came to only £3.36p on 1st January, a poor woman's ordinary weekly purchases, which have gone up by over 25 per cent in a month. The Minister stands up to move a diversionary motion, complacently asks for respect for Parliament and talks about everything except prices, and sits down, having done nothing about it and having no intention of doing anything about it. If this motion by Fianna Fáil has rocked the Government out of their complacency and even got them looking around to see if they can find something to do, it has already achieved something.
These prices continued to rise immediately after the Government came in. I am not saying they were not rising in our time, and it is no consolation to the public to tell them that they went up in 1972, 1971 and 1970. However, the public were told they were now supporting and putting in power a party who gave a solemn undertaking to reduce prices and to stabilise them—to reduce is very good but to follow it up by stabilisation is even better—and they want some answer other than what they are getting. Rhetoric is no substitute for action in regard to this problem.
These increases kept going up month after month to the extent that when VAT was removed from the few items of food it was removed from it was not noticeable. Now we have run into a period in which we do not know from one day to another what is going to be the price of the goods we buy. One buys the evening paper and finds: "ESB charges to be doubled" and there is not a squawk from the Government about it. Then you see: "Coal to be increased by £8 per ton." Has anybody examined the whole structure of purchasing in the ESB? Has anyone examined this system whereby they purchase their oil from three separate companies on a long-term contract which has a price escalation clause in it? Are they going to be allowed to impose charges which will put us out of existence? Our competitiveness is already seriously endangered, and the Minister who has just spoken on the motion has referred to the decline of purchasing power on foreign markets. Once that sets in with a rise in our unit costs, we could not possibly compete with our exports, and the increase in exports which the Minister boasted about and which was created absolutely and entirely by Fianna Fáil and has continued in the past year, is now in danger of going on the decline. This is not merely political propaganda; it is something which is very likely to happen.
ESB charges are a very important element in costs of production as well as of services, not to mention social amenities. In fact, the country is so dependent on power in that respect that at the moment people are literally frightened about what is going to happen. They will not be able to face the impost of ESB charges that will be foisted upon them. Sixty-five per cent of the output of ESB power comes from oil-fired stations. We can be thankful that men like Seán Lemass had the foresight to compel the ESB to erect a few hard fuel stations. It is a pity we did not erect a few more. Oil was a bit cheaper at the time, but the burning of peat and good Donegal hand-won turf and Arigna coal had a social aspect whose importance far exceeded any advantage from savings made in relation to oil. It is a pity we have not more of them. How soon will we have more?
I hear that an extension of the Arigna station cannot take place, that there will have to be a new station, and if it is to feed into the national grid it has to be brought nearer Dublin. I have got this information from a reliable source, but I am not giving it to the House authoritatively. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us some time what the position is, if he takes an interest in this rather important aspect of the crisis in which we find ourselves at present. I do not know if anybody can bear the doubling of ESB charges.
Then there is the other important source of energy, coal. I fail to see that any examination was carried out. It was just glibly announced one evening: "Coal is up. Do not tell them what amount it may be up." When you probe into it you find it is due to exorbitant freight charges, a shortage of shipping. Bulk shipping is now scarce because oil-restricted countries are in the market for shipping space. They are paying anything asked for that. Are we rushing in at such a time to stock up with coal or something else likely to be only temporarily scarce? I have a question on the Order Paper asking the Minister about prices. We will refer to normality in prices when the present unprecedented rush is over. Have all these aspects been examined before these unbearable costs are foisted on the poor people of the country? These are the questions we want answered and that is why we have asked for this debate. I do not think anybody will accuse us of merely trying to score points or of showing lack of responsibility or respect for Parliament. If there is any disrespect for the institutions of Government it lies in the broken promise, not only a promise but a definite unequivocal undertaking without any ambiguity. Are the people expected to have respect for Parliament and for the parties in Government that are the authors of something that could only be based on an assumption of gullibility of the electorate?
We want something more than merely being told that there is inflation in Germany and other countries: we know there is and we know little can be done about much of it. But we know much can be done, must be and should be done but has not been done. There is no excuse for this. If we were in power we certainly would not get away with it. I would guarantee that if we were in power the position would not be as bad as it is now. On radio this morning the Minister questioned my statement when I said that had we been in power we would have brought in a budget that would be to some extent deflationary, not one that would leave welfare payments worth about half what they were when they were granted. I said we would impose no taxation. The Deputy who was Minister for Finance during two budgets when, not only did we not impose taxation but actually reduced it and gave some relief in tax-free allowances of workers, will be speaking in this debate and I leave it to him to deal with this subject with which he is much better equipped to deal than I am. But I assert that had we been in power at the time of the current budget we would not have imposed taxation which directly put up prices and put a burden on our workers in regard to everything previously regarded as a luxury but now regarded as indispensable and something which workers are entitled to enjoy such as a motor car going to work, the pint and the packet of cigarettes, I need scarcely mention increased postal charges which put up production costs for every manufacturer and every service there is.
The Government will not satisfy anybody until they apologise. Deputy O'Connell who is the champion of down-trodden people—I pay him that compliment—recently assumed the role of teaching some professional groups how to dodge price control——
I think it should be obligatory for the Deputy to make himself aware of the facts of the situation. I think the reporter inadvertently omitted to quote the name of the man. For a Deputy to make a statement like this is irresponsible and I think it should be made clear that it is a very mischievous statement. The reporter forgot the name and has since verified that.
The Deputy will have an opportunity of making his own statement.
I accept Deputy O'Connell's word if he says it was not he. A particular medical journal, to use a modern phrase, did have "a go" at him. That is where I read that somebody was bringing him to task— it was the Prices Commission, I think. The Deputy has made it clear now. The Deputy is a professional man and has an interest in his profession and his colleagues. I was not bringing the matter up as something derogatory. I cannot think—and I must conclude now as my time is up——
The Deputy has another nine minutes or so if he wishes to use it.
I was trying to think of something that somebody on that side of the House did in the way of contributing to the solution of the whole question of rising costs and prices and inflation. I could not recall anything until I remembered having read somewhere somebody taking Deputy O'Connell to task for teaching the doctors how to get under the ropes regarding controlled incomes.
The Minister for Finance in column 1241 of the Official Report of May 16 last, speaking on the financial resolution said:
As Minister for Finance I am aware, however, that the agreement has other effects on the economy. Inflation arises from many causes —import prices, profits, costs other than wages, wage costs—nearly all of which are inter-related. Yet, if compensation is sought in full to meet rises in costs which have already taken place, the rate of inflation is consequently multiplied. It is in this context, and not overlooking the other inflationary factors at work, that I note that the pay increases given under both phases of the current agreement are likely to result in a rise other than 9 per cent in our unit wage costs this year and they will bring about a further substantial increase in the wage and salary bills for 1974.
It was a modest prophecy, but it was an acknowledgement that he was coming to one of the most serious points in the whole case, the wage agreement.
The Minister for Labour devoted the final part of his speech to dealing with the national wage agreement which, up to now, has been abortive. I want to use this House so far as I can from my knowledge to refute a statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce again on the radio this morning when he said that Fianna Fáil members of the unions were actively engaged in ensuring that the agreement would not take place. That is an extraordinary and a serious statement——
Scandalous.
——and one that should not be made. I hope the Minister will withdraw it when he comes to speak.
Too many people have told me this for me to withdraw it.
It is the most foolish statement the Minister has ever made.
An insult to the trade unions.
We brought in national agreements in the first instance and I know what I suffered to get them through in those days. I do not envy the Minister for Labour in what he has to face in this most important national work. I would not for a moment countenance anybody on this side of the House in any way interfering with or doing other than what would help the agreement. I know that the trade unions are people who are concerned with their own interests but I have no information available to me which would suggest— and the trade unions will answer this if it has been happening—that anybody in the name of Fianna Fáil, as a trade unionist, in any way tried to prevent the agreement taking place. I know that congress will be in a position to find out whether that is so. There was a vote and the agreement was overwhelmingly rejected. That is something the Minister should have said.
I want to conclude by hoping that some kind of an agreement will now be reached. An agreement is not made the day before the current one expires. It is something which must be monitored all the time, right through, and if the Government monitored the current wage agreement from the day they took office they would have been serving the dual purpose of controlling inflation and they would have taken fiscal and monetary action in order to ensure that a proper climate was created for the bringing in of a third national agreement. If anybody did anything to hinder it it was the Government through their lack of action over the year.
Britain is at present in a similar position. They have serious industrial trouble on their hands and perhaps very soon Mr. Heath will go to the country to get a mandate or otherwise from his people. I suggest that this Government should do exactly the same thing. They have completely let the people down on their undertaking regarding prices. There is no honourable course open to them other than to go to the country and ask the people: "What do you think about us now?"
Nobody is more disappointed than the Members of this Government that their hoped for control of prices has not been more effective but the Government's record must be looked at in the light of the fact that this country, in common with every other country in the world, is now lying in the path of a hurricane of inflation the like of which the world has not experienced in the last quarter century. Notwithstanding the fact that this inflation of unprecedented dimension is blowing across the world, Ireland has done very significantly better than the great economic giants over the last nine months.
The following is an indication of what is happening in the world. In 1973 compared with 1972 Canada had a rate of inflation which was two and a half times greater, the US had a rate of inflation three and a half times greater, Japan had a rate of inflation three times greater, Britain a rate of inflation twice as great, France a rate of inflation twice as great. Ireland's inflation was up by something less than 50 per cent on the previous year. At a time when the great economic miracles of the last quarter century have been trebling the rate of inflation our rate is up by only 50 per cent. It is a clear indication of the Government's effective control, so far as it is within our power to effect control, that we have succeeded where the mighty nations with all the massed resources they have available to them have failed.
As a result of the steps which we took in Government to control prices we have saved the Irish consumer £14 million which is not an insignificant saving.
Who has done that?
The Government.
In what way?
By the new discipline of price control which they introduced, by increasing the number of items which were subject to price control, by doubling the period of notification which had to be given to the National Prices Commission, by reducing VAT on food and by a whole range of different methods which have effectively reduced the cost of living in so far as it was within our power to do it.
Let us look at the true historical picture. Imported inflation is the inflation which is generated by the increased prices which we have to pay for commodities we import or the increased prices we obtain for our goods which are exported to the world market. The annual increase in respect of imported prices averaged for each of the years 1966 and 1967 1¼ per cent per annum. From 1967 to 1972 the annual rate of imported inflation was 7.5 per cent. It was against that position that we strongly criticised Fianna Fáil for their failure to keep down the rate of domestic inflation. Last year we had to contend with a rate of imported inflation which was about treble what Fianna Fáil had in the previous year because the imported inflation last year was 20 per cent.
What was it in 1972?
It was 7½ per cent.
That is not correct. The Minister said he was giving an average figure over six or seven years. Will he give the figure for 1972?
I shall try to find it before I conclude.
The Minister will appreciate that there is a difference.
Yes, but the figure is in that range and is certainly below two figures. I am not sure of the precise one. It may, in fact, be less. In 1973 we had to pay massive increases, as everybody who has a head and is literate in this country knows.
I noticed today two very objective leading articles in The Irish Times and Irish Independent. I have not had an opportunity as yet to read the other newspapers. I have only been back in the country a few hours. The interesting thing about the increase is that these people, looking at the situation objectively know what Fianna Fáil are trying to conceal, that is, that the world is now in an economic mess and the fact that we have come through this so far is due to the fact that we have in power a Government that have not adopted the line of Fianna Fáil policy which was repeated again here today by Deputy Joe Brennan when he said of Fianna Fáil and I quote: “We always pointed out that there was nothing we could do about it.”
About what?
About inflation.
That is not what Deputy Brennan said. The Minister should not misquote him. He said it specifically about import and export orientated inflation.
The Minister for Finance.
That is what he said and anybody having listened to Deputy Joe Brennan today moving an amendment which called for positive action on the part of the Government——
That is deliberate misrepresentation.
——would have thought it reasonable to have heard from him one positive suggestion during his 45 minutes. We did not hear from his lips one suggestion either positive or negative. He asserted that Fianna Fáil had not increased taxation. It seems to me that that comes rather foolishly from a man who was a member of a Government which by not sufficiently increasing the personal allowances for income tax effectively increased the income tax load by 90 per cent and between 1960 and 1972 increased the number of people who were obliged to pay income tax from less than 200,000 to 700,000. This is one of the major scandals that this Government are being called upon to reform instantly after more than a decade and a half of almost reckless disregard for the devaluation of money and of the fact that more and more people were being drawn annually into the tax net. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that the least difficulty facing this country in respect of shortage of energy was the actual shortage itself but a much greater difficulty faces this country, and every other oil consuming country in the world, and that is the extra cost that has to be paid for energy.
If this was related to energy alone it would be bad enough but we see the same constraints are applying to us and every other western European country by reason of the shortage and the much higher price for other commodities like newsprint, fertilisers, metals and a whole range of goods including, of course, food. These are the vital matters which we must accept as unpleasant, certainly, but inescapable, and if we try to delude our people into believing that the inflation we are experiencing is purely a Hibernian phenomenon and that it is not occurring elsewhere then we will mislead them into embarking upon social policies which could be unjust in our own environment. We may be tempting them to follow economic paths which would bring about serious unemployment, and, indeed, economic ruination.
We cannot escape from the fact that our balance of trade is going to be very seriously impaired, impaired to the tune of nearly an additional £100 million a year, by reason of the oil prices we have to pay. One way of avoiding this is not to buy the oil, turn off the lights and turn off the power, but we are not going to do that. This Government believes in a policy of expansion, an expansion in growth which was criticised by the Fianna Fáil members last year and which was criticised again today by inference by Deputy Brennan. Deputy Brennan stated that they would have had a deflationary budget last year.
One thing that has saved us economically is the fact that we have increased production, increased industrial exports by 40 per cent and agricultural exports by 34 per cent, and that by reason of taking up the unused capacity of our industry we significantly reduced last year the rate of increase of unit wage costs. If we had not done that our present plight would be worse than it is at present.
I had the privilege, and the duty, to represent this country at a series of meetings of Finance Ministers of the world, 126 Ministers in all who are members of the World Bank of the International Monetary Fund. These Ministers have convened twice since the oil crisis began. I also attended several meetings last year of the Finance Ministers of the EEC. At all of these meetings the pre-occupation has been with inflation, world commodity prices, monetary chaos, the imbalances that were developing in trade and the incapacity of countries to generate within themselves enough money and enough wealth to pay for essential goods. However, after months and months of deliberation and the calling in of experts nobody has yet found a cure which would be universally acceptable or economically wise to apply.
I should like to remind the Members of the House of what the OECD Report said last year about recipes for inflation. That report stated:
One lesson from past experience of prices and incomes policy is that over-ambitious targets are counter productive. To aim in too short a time to reduce the price rise from very high rates to very low ones, or to bring money wage increases sharply back into line with a productivity norm when they have gone well beyond it, risks drawing the whole strategy of anti-inflation measures into disrepute.
That is a constraint which applies to us and every other democratic Government in the world. We have done everything within our control; we have kept profit margins as low as is feasible and safe; we have taken action wherever it was necessary against people who were abusing the system and were making inordinate profits, and we have multiplied the number of inspectors involved in price control.
We are not satisfied, the Opposition are not satisfied and the people are not satisfied. The day we are satisfied we are destroyed. It is a good thing that people are expressing their concern. We accept that and we will work as hard as we can to get things put right.
It is an ill-wind that blows nobody good and out of this global curse of inflation has come, rather belatedly, a conviction that all nations of the world are interdependent and that there is no solution to this except by international agreement. Because the disease of inflation is world wide any cure must be a global one. Somewhat like the cattle disease there is no point in curing it in one area if there is a free movement of cattle. People can also move around from one place to another.
There is no possibility that any country, particularly one such as Ireland which has an open economy, can export its troubles for somebody else to take up. Even if it was feasible a beggar-my-neighbour policy would not be the right one for this country to embark upon. As everybody in this House knows that is not feasible and if we try to correct our troubles by some monetary policy or by some trade device it would not be long before someone would get his own back on us. There is no possibility that Ireland can successfully wage an economic war against the world. Any country that proceeds to engage in an economic war would want to be moving from a much stronger base than us who depend so much on the rest of the world to buy our goods which are, after all, not as essential as oil.
The position that the oil producing countries have taken up would not be one that they could defend, or one out of which they could make profit, were it not for the fact that the world is so thirsty for oil, and were it not for the fact that the world has failed because of the easy availability of oil to cultivate alternative sources of energy. Even for the oil producing countries the time during which they can make demands on the world is limited because as their demands grow so will other countries affected by these increases make alternative arrangements to develop their own energy supply. For a food producing country like ours, a country which is dependent for the balance of its exports on its own manufacturing industry, there is no opportunity available to make the kind of demands upon the rest of the world which the oil producing nations have been able to make.
Last year as Members know all too well, and regret, the cost of living here rose by 11.4 per cent. If import prices had not risen last year the actual rise in the cost of living here would have been 6½ per cent. That is the important figure to bear in mind. Instead of having 11.4 per cent we would have had last year a 6½ per cent increase. In 1972 the increase was 9 per cent in the total cost of living when the import rise was only 7 per cent as against the 20 per cent which we had to endure. In 1971 the total overall increase was 8.6 per cent when again the import increase was only 7½ per cent as against the 20 per cent that we have had to endure.
Earlier, Deputy Colley asked me whether I could give him the precise figure of the increase in import prices in 1972. I have said that the average increase in import prices between 1967 and 1972 was 7.5 per cent each year. Deputy Colley with his customary indignation and his great propensity for accusing suggested that I was being unfair, that I was suggesting a figure of 7.5 per cent for 1972 when in fact the figure was much less. This is an indication of how sensitive is Deputy Colley about these matters and how totally confused he is in regard to figures. However, I should not become too upset by him because he has long since lost any credibility so far as figures are concerned. For the record I will give the correct figures. The actual import price increase for 1972 was not 7.5—that was the average for the years in question —but 3.2 per cent.
A stupid question for him to have asked.
In addition to the difficulties arising from the global inflation to which we are all being subjected we have also the problem that arises from the state of the British economy. Britain is our biggest trading partner but her economy now is as sick as it is possible for any economy to be. As the Minister for Labour has said this situation is having a very serious dampening effect on our growth prospects for 1973. None of us knows for how long the present economic downturn in Britain will continue. Neither do the British Government know but even if some recipe were to be found that would cure the situation tonight we would still have to suffer from this serious downturn in the British economy for the first three months of this year.
In addition to the fact that there is a recession in world trade, a development that was anticipated last year, there is now this additional recession in England. This underlines the necessity not to be reckless in anticipation of what this country can afford to give to our people this year by way of increases in income. We are a Government that believes in expansion. We will promote expansion and will generate growth and certainly we will not add to recession by way of any governmental policy of restriction. However, we must face the realities of our time. Whether we will survive the present problems without suffering serious disadvantage will depend on the extent to which the nations of the world come together. For a long time we in western Europe were inclined to think that economic problems were to be solved within our own environment. That is not so any longer because we have become more dependent on raw materials from what we call the Third World. It is correct socially and justifiable economically that the Third World should demand better prices for their raw materials. For too long the rich of this world were given the opportunity to correct the imbalance but as we know the amount contributed by way of development aid has been inadequate to close the gap. That gap between the poor and the rich in the Third World is widening just as it is widening also in many western European countries.
Now, perhaps for political reasons, some of the producing nations, not only the producers of oil but of other commodities also, have decided to jack up their prices very substantially and within a very short time. One of the unfortunate consequences of this is that developing countries will be required to pay increased prices for oil within the next year to the extent of twice the total of development aid at present. That is some indication of the gravity of the present dilemna that has been forced on the world.
It has been suggested by the President of Mexico that we need a charter of economic duties and rights of States. Within the past few days I have supported that suggestion with the recommendation that we need to have effective international machinery established that would secure observance of such a charter. Therefore, I have suggested the establishment of an international fair trade commission. We must have some such disciplinary international institution to control the situation. It may be thought that that is a remedy which, perhaps, is appropriate to the long term but which will not cool the situation immediately. I would accept that criticism but if anybody knows of some instant cure for the present situation he has a clear obligation to let us know what it is. There must be some recognition in international trade that one cannot look for his pound of flesh without finding that the person from whom he takes that pound of flesh will at the same time be looking for his in return. What has happened to us within the past couple of years is that we have had these new extortionist prices and also high interest rates being charged by countries as though they lived independently of their fellow nations.
In recent times there have been some suggestions to the effect that the Government should ease the burden by massive tax reductions. I can understand people in a democracy blaming the Government. Perhaps one of the great advantages of democracy is that it allows people to blame the Government and to that extent they can rid themselves of their sense of frustration, but I have made an assessment of demands that have been made within the past few months on the Government for new expenditure. This assessment has been made by collecting some of the items from our newspapers. The demands exceed £160 million. At the same time as these demands have been made on the Government many of the people and of the organisations making them, people who have been getting the headlines, have demanded also tax reductions which, on a conservative assessment would exceed £90 million. A Government has no source of money other than taxation. At a time of roaring inflation it may be thought that a Government have massive increases in income because of the increases in incomes and in prices and, consequentially in indirect taxation. We admit that there is inflation. We are doing our best to control it but I would point out that while inflation exists the cost to Government increases and the cost to Government alone of meeting the terms of the negotiated but ultimately not accepted national wage agreement, would have absorbed 85 per cent of the Government's increase in revenue.
We are at a stage when each of us must take a cold shower, as it were, so as to bring ourselves back to reality, to the realisation that the whole scene has changed for this country and for every country in the world also. The expectations that we had in the past may not be capable of being fulfilled in this year or, indeed, for some years to come. We have a duty to our people to identify all the causes of the existing problem. We, in government, have been endeavouring to do that and will continue to do so while we are charged by the people with the obligation of managing this country.
Self-interest is a valid motivator. We do not chastise people for following their own self-interest and for seeking higher incomes in order to compensate for inflation and also to provide for themselves and their children a higher standard of living than they had previously. If we did not have this appetite to do better we would probably stand still or even slide back. Even as we accept self-interest as being a valid motivator we need to convince ourselves individually and collectively that our own self-interest in this country requires us to moderate our expectations. We do not ask anybody to lose; we do not want anybody to lose. We do not think it is necessary that anybody should lose. We believe that notwithstanding the constraints and price pressures which are upon us it will be possible in 1974 for the country to make a further advance.
Last year we achieved the fastest growth rate ever in this country. The final figures have not yet been produced to prove this assertion but I am quite satisfied that we achieved last year a faster growth rate than was ever achieved before. As a result of that, and notwithstanding inflation, we all have more money in our pockets than we had this time last year. I accept that we pay higher prices for certain commodities and it does not always feel as if we have more money but that is the reality of the situation. It would be wrong for us to assume that we could do the same in 1974. So far as we in Government are concerned, we will do everything we can to do as well and, perhaps, even better, if we can.
We do not live in an isolated world and if we did our standard of living would be less than it is. We live in a world in which we want to export and import in order to maintain our standard of living and we must accept the realities of the situation. We are now subjected to the appalling force of inflation which is running without control throughout the world. On our part and on the part of other countries we hope that a serious attempt will now be made to come to grips with the problem of inflation before we generate, or allow to generate, more serious economic chaos than that which is afflicting the world at present.
We have done well in this bad situation. We have moderated the rate of increase. As I pointed out in my opening statement, we have done better than the four economic "miracles" of the world. We have done better than most other countries in any comparable situation. That is because the Government have done everything which was within the power of a democratic Government to do. We will continue to do this until a better world situation exists in which, I hope, it will be possible for us to have economic sanity.
Like other speakers in this debate, I find myself with the problem of limitation of time so I will try to make my remarks as concise as I can.
The motion which caused the Government to introduce their substantive motion was one which was critical of the Government. The Government in their motion sought to justify what they have been doing in the present difficult, inflationary conditions and conditions of huge price increases. I can only say that the efforts made by members of the Government who have so far spoken in the debate have been feeble, to say the least.
It is now almost a year since the Coalition took office. The public have been indulgent with them. The Opposition, even though we have been criticised for it, have also been indulgent. The public and ourselves, reasonably enough, wanted to give the new Government time and a chance to prove themselves and to fulfil the promises which they made in their 14-point programme. We gave them a chance to fulfil the promises made in regard to prices and other economic issues. As we all know now, these promises have been shown as empty boasts. Bad as it is that the Government have failed in fulfilling their promises, it is far worse to realise that they have jeopardised the economic growth of the country and created amongst the people a sense of disillusionment with our political institutions and a despondency reminiscent of the kind of feeling that permeated the entire country during the period towards the end of the second Coalition Government in 1956-57.
In effect, the Government have shattered the confidence that the people had in the buoyancy of our economy just one year ago. They took over the reins of Government at a time when the country was enjoying a period of rapid, economic growth and enjoying the financial benefits that were available to us by reason of our membership of the EEC. Today, we are witnessing the almost incredible transformation that has taken place. Prices are soaring at a fantastic rate. Workers are so disillusioned that they are refusing to accept the proposals for a new national wage agreement. Businessmen are uncertain about the future. Investors and small savers are unwilling to lend the Government the necessary finances required for the capital development programme. House building is on a serious downturn. This has happened for the first time since the 'fifties. Also for the first time since the 'fifties there is growing concern, unease and doubt about the future of our country.
In times like this people look to the Government they have elected, as they are entitled to, for a lead and for positive and emphatic action. So far they have looked in vain. Government speakers have already said—and others no doubt will say during the course of this debate—that we can blame our present ills mainly on the oil supply problem. The Government certainly cannot be blamed for the oil shortage and its effects which we know are worldwide, nor do we blame them for other elements in the price rises, such as the increase in the cost of imported goods and imported raw materials. The oil shortage is not the real source of our malaise. This malaise had set in long before the oil crisis. The difficulties of the oil crisis became manifest towards the end of November last year. For the cause of the malaise we can point squarely and fairly to the failure of the Government to live up to their promises and in particular to live up to their promises to control prices. We can blame this malaise on their lack of policy and their failure to give a lead in economic matters.
This lack of policy and leadership was the objection we had from the beginning to the kind of Coalition that was elected last February-March. It is a Coalition formed by two widely different parties such as the Labour and the Fine Gael Parties. It was obvious from the outset that they could be little more than a fair weather crew. When things went well they could keep going without too much friction, but once the storms arose it was obvious that the basic differences between them would lead to difficulty about adopting the correct policies and to do what had to be done would lead to paralysis or, as I think will soon emerge, open dissention within their own ranks.
The oil problem was the first economic problem of any consequence to confront the Government and it provided a clear example of their lack of a clear-cut and emphatic policy. At the height of the initial oil shortages, the Government's failure to state clearly how they proposed to meet these shortages and the ill-timed statements made on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Transport and Power, far from doing anything to ease the situation, simply added to the widespread panic and uncertainty which prevailed at that time. Because we did not wish to do or to say anything which might damage the economy we withheld comment which might fairly be levelled against the Government at that time. This was demonstrated in the debate we had on this issue before Christmas. The forbearance and responsibility displayed by the Opposition on that occasion indicated clearly we did not want to compound the problems facing the Government. However, now that the immediate dangers have subsided we can draw attention to the ineptness, the lack of decision and the failure to show a lead which were obvious to all during the weeks prior to Christmas.
That lack of leadership has continued. Apart from the problems caused by the oil shortage itself— about which we have not had any clear statement or report from the Government—it was glaringly obvious that the higher oil prices would have a major effect on the prices of other commodities, on costs and so on. The public were entitled to expect the Government to inform them and to explain how they proposed to deal with the cases of hardship that were bound to arise. So far we have heard nothing.
There was a total silence from the Government, a silence shattered by the news of the staggering increase in electricity costs, followed closely by the news last week of the huge increase in the cost of coal. In the circumstances it was not surprising that the trade unions rejected the proposals contained in the national wage agreement. They know more increases are in the pipeline, or to use the words recently expressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce "more inflation in the pipeline". It was obvious that the trade unions were not likely to accept arrangements that would not safeguard their living standards. Instead of being provided with the fullest information, however unpalatable, they have been treated to a series of evasive and misleading statements in the entire area of price and income levels.
It may be asked what would Fianna Fáil have done in similar circumstances. As Deputy Brennan has pointed out, the crunch in wage increase negotiations does not come on the day the current agreement is about to expire. There are weeks and months when the Government should be seen to be doing something. I can answer the question what Fianna Fáil would have done by pointing out what we did in one particular area.
In the 1972 budget we increased income tax allowances, giving workers relief to a total of £11 million. The Government know what we did, I do not have to detail it. The personal allowances for single, widowed and married people were increased, as well as allowances for children and other benefits.
That was just part of Fianna Fáil's contribution to an acknowledgement of a reasonable wage agreement. As against that, what did the Coalition do? In their budget they provided a miserable increase of £500,000 by way of relief of tax on incomes. It is little wonder the workers were apprehensive about the Government's intentions, especially in the light of the effect galloping inflation is having on wages and incomes.
In the early days of this Government perhaps lack of policy could be glossed over or explained away in a number of ways. For one thing, Ministers were new and obviously they needed time to familiarise themselves with their new responsibilities. In addition—this is important and the Government know it—the economy was in such good shape when they took over there was no need for any urgent action. However, as months passed and new situations developed, such as the oil problem, the growing void in the field of economic policy and their great failure to show any kind of lead became increasingly apparent. The result is we have reached a stage in which there is no movement in many areas of policy, while in others the Government find themselves gratefully, and in most cases half-heartedly, continuing policies they have inherited from Fianna Fáil.
The areas of inactivity are many and, unfortunately for the country, they are growing in number. Let me remind the House that Fianna Fáil had legislation to deal with mergers and takeovers. Early in the Coalition's term of office we had the conflict between the pronouncements of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs reassuring business supporters of Fine Gael that there would not be any legislation on these lines, statements that were in conflict with those of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was so concerned the Fianna Fáil legislation would not be tough enough that he promised to introduce a stronger Bill before the Summer Recess.
What has been done since then? I would refer the House to an interview in the December, 1973, issue of the journal Management when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked the following question:
Back in April you were to introduce legislation to control mergers, takeovers and monopolies. What has happened to that?
Answer: Nothing ever happened. It is a delicate area. It is moving and is listed, I hope.
A full year has passed since the Government took over but nothing has happened.
With regard to regional policy, I seem to recall that the proposals in the Buchanan Report were dear to the hearts of many members of the present Government and the Fianna Fáil proposals, which placed greater emphasis on building up the smaller towns and villages, were to be rejected out of hand.
Where are the policies and the decisions which were of such burning and vital importance a year or two ago? Again, a year has passed and nothing has happened. This does not concern only regional planning. What about the overall planning of the economy? I recall the emphasis that many Government Deputies, particularly those in the Labour Party, placed on economic and social development. In those days, the Fianna Fáil programmes did not go far enough, they said, and we were told they would be replaced by far more comprehensive economic plans. What has happened? No fourth economic and social development programme has appeared. Are we not to have any development programme or can we say, as I have said in relation to the other questions, that nothing has happened?
What has happened to the prices and incomes policy of which Fine Gael were so proud as being an important part of their just society policy? Again, I ask what has happened and again the answer is nothing. This list could be added to by many other examples but I think I have said enough to show that the Government's failure on prices and incomes is not just a localised failure confined to just two issues but is instead merely a part of their total failure and total lack of coherent policy on economic matters—indeed, I would say, a lack of coherent policy on any matter.
If we look at the Order Paper today, having been reminded by the Government speakers that this is roughly the anniversary of the change of Government, we can see the thinnest list of legislation that ever appeared at the beginning of the busiest and longest session of the Dáil. Deputy Ryan today referred to his reading of two leading articles, in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times. He said he had not time to read The Irish Press and did not know what it contained. I can tell him what The Irish Press leading article contained today. It was a charge against the Government that they have been doing nothing and a request to them to get on with the job. This, of course, was echoing an article in last Saturday's Irish Independent entitled “Back to Business”. It refers to the many examples of the need for the legislation promised by the Government. It said there should be a package of legislation, and I quote:
Bills for First Reading which will demonstrate quite clearly that we are now moving from a period of promises to a period of realities.
Lower down, the writer refers to a statement by Deputy Tully that legislation on the Kenny report in relation to land acquisition and prices would be introduced before the end of the year. The article states:
This is simply not good enough. For a start, on the basis of the first year's performance of the Coalition, "by the end of this year" could be interpreted as being the end of next year. It is too long to leave a major sector of investment and employment uncertain about its prospects.
It goes on in that vein. It is characteristic of what we see here today in the Order Paper: four new Bills introduced, three of them innocuous, the fourth a Bill which may have substance and obviously has—the Finance (Taxation of Profits of Certain Mines) Bill, 1974. What do we find? We find the Minister for Finance introducing a Bill at the beginning of the session which is not yet drafted, not yet before the parliamentary draftsman and in connection with which there are outstanding consultations required with people who will be directly affected by that legislation. We had the spectacle of the Minister not only having to tell us that the Bill has not been drafted but that he did not know when—in conflict with all precedent and all Standing Orders—to order the Second Reading of the Bill.
This is typical of the kind of inaction that the Government have been indulging in, if one can use the phrase that one can indulge in inaction. The time has come when this Government ought to face up to their responsibilities and do their job. I have said they have failed on the two key economic matters of prices and incomes. Everybody recalls what can now be only described as the reckless promises made by the Coalition to "immediately introduce strict price control". Some of their more enthusiastic speakers went so far as to say that they would introduce a price freeze. What has happened since those promises were made? They were promises, mark you, primarily on which the Government succeeded in achieving office. Unfortunately, as in reply to the other questions that I have posed, I cannot say in reply to this one that nothing has happened in this area. Unfortunately, the rate of price increases has been accelerating not slowing down, as any housewife knows. Will the Government admit this? I feel sure they will not.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce carried out a window-dressing operation last year. He made four orders dealing with such items as the fixing of maximum retail prices for a number of food items, fixing the absolute price of importers' margins and altering the period of notice to be given for price increases. On the face of it, I suppose he can go around and say that he has fixed prices and curbed profits, but does he really believe this himself? More importantly, do the public believe him? I think the public and he know that he cannot nor they cannot do it. Again I should like to quote from the article I referred to earlier in the journal Management of December, 1973, in which he said:
It looks as if we have stopped about one-third of the increases that would have occurred in a free market situation. I think that was well worth doing.
The "we" he referred to, I think, means the National Prices Commission. According to reports of the commission, of the total number of price increases sought by manufacturers, distributors and producers, they reduced the increases sought by about one-third. To the best of my knowledge that is the basis for the Minister's statement. If I am wrong you may correct me. As he knows, the National Prices Commission were set up by the Fianna Fáil Government in the autumn of 1971. Now we have the interesting spectacle of the Minister for Industry and Commerce admitting that the only effective action and one which, to repeat his own words, "was well worth doing" was the action taken by Fianna Fáil.
I should like to refer to another publication, or another reported interview with the Minister in The Irish Independent of 22nd January. The report is of an interview he had on Radio Éireann on the previous day. He is quoted as having said that Ireland had improved its position in the EEC inflation league from being the country with the fastest inflation rate of the nine in 1972 to a present position of joint third with two other countries in the last quarter. Again, I am open to correction by the Minister, but I think his source of reference was a table in The Economist for 12th January, 1974 at page 54. The Minister for Industry and Commerce quoted only, in support of our position in this league, percentage increases in food prices, one of 3 per cent——
The source is not correct.
——one of 2½ per cent——
It is not correct.
Let me say that in this source, which is reasonably authentic, the figure given is that of the nine EEC countries, in respect of increases in the cost of living, we are on top of the league at 11½ per cent jointly with Italy for September/ October, 1973, not joint third. I could give the Minister a more up to date figure if he would like to have it. In Public Affairs of January, 1974, it is shown that the total change up to November, 1973, compared with 1972 was 12.6 per cent. Deputy Ryan a few minutes ago castigated Deputy Colley for being allegedly inaccurate about his figures, for not going to a proper source, but Deputy Ryan, who has all the figures at his disposal, quoted a figure of 11.6 per cent.
For 1973? The figure the Deputy has just given includes two months of 1972 when he was in office.
Keep cool.
The figure given in Public Affairs is from November, 1972. That is as plain as a pikestaff. However, I am not blaming the Government for being embarrassed about these things. I know the National Prices Commission is not the only part of Fianna Fáil policy that was taken over by this Government. They have done many other things as well. Now that I am feeling the pinch of time I will have to shorten my remarks. It would be easy for us to indulge in the type of destructive criticism which characterised the Coalition Parties when they were in Opposition, but that would unnecessarily assist the unfortunate downtrend of our economy. For that reason I want to emphasise that, despite the damage this Government have done, there is still an underlying strength in our economy by reason of Fianna Fáil policies which will ensure further progress in the future, but the Government will have to do their job. They will have to get away from the complaint that anything that goes wrong is somebody else's fault and from the boast that anything that goes well is to their credit. This progress which I referred to will not be possible unless the Coalition Government do their job.
Earlier on the Government announced schemes for expenditure, current and capital, as if money was no object. They boasted about providing £30 million, a record input into social welfare benefits, without acknowledgment by the Minister for Finance—but indeed it was subsequently acknowledged by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries— that were it not for the savings in the Department of Agriculture Estimate for farm subsidies this would not have been possible.
Months ago they announced drastic changes in mining taxation. Nothing has been done since except an unprepared Bill appearing on the Order Paper. They have done nothing except to scare off potential investors. We need positive and decisive Government leadership to deal with the rampant inflation now threatening to inflict major damage on our economy. In the area of wages and salaries there is need to move away from preaching the politics of envy, as we have heard so often from the Labour benches. We were moving towards a policy of creating, through the national wage agreements, a structure which would provide fairly, and would be seen to provide fairly, for each section of the community. We were pursuing this policy; we want to see, and assist the Government in securing if possible, a new national wage agreement. We believe this is necessary in order to ensure reasonable advances in incomes for workers, reasonable assurances for industrialists to plan ahead and reasonable assurances as well for the less organised trade unions and for people who are not members of trade unions that they will get their fair share.
The Government in their motion have asked the Dáil for encouragement. I fail to understand why a Government should ask for encouragement to do the job they were elected to do. We encourage them to strive further for a national pay agreement. We encourage the unions and the employers to put in that extra little effort and that degree of co-operation that produced two previous national wage agreements. We encourage the Government to face up to their responsibilities, to make up their minds and to do what they said they were going to do.
I intervene to advise the Deputy that his time is almost up.
I have only a few more sentences. Nothing dispirits a country or runs down its economy more than Government indecision and uncertainty. Our people, when told the truth of a situation by a Government, a Government they can trust, have always faced up to difficulty and faced up to reality. We encourage this Government to face up to their job generally. Let them realise that much of the misfortune of which they now complain is of their own making.
I am trying to pick out the theme of the speeches of the two Opposition Deputies who have spoken so far. As far as I can gather they would stop the world and let Ireland get off. We should not be involved at all. If anything happens outside these shores it has nothing to do with us. Of course, the other one is, as outlined in Deputy Lynch's speech and also Deputy Brennan's speech, that this is a divided Government and could not succeed. I do not know how many more Fianna Fáil speakers will follow but I would not advise them to speak on that line because there is no doubt that this is a united Government.
Tell us about last Tuesday's meeting.
I would with great pleasure except it is not the subject for debate. We had a debate some time ago on exactly the same lines— on prices, incomes, Government ineptitude and a split between Fine Gael and Labour. This was all thrashed out a few months ago, and Deputy Brendan Toal from the constituency of Monaghan is the result of it. We had one seat out of three there this time last year after the general election and we won the by-election last November. These people were asked by the Fianna Fáil Party to vote on the performance of the Government since they took office. The people of Monaghan voted on the performance of the Coalition Government since they took office and they elected Deputy Brendan Toal to be a Member of this House.
By less than 1 per cent.
A Deputy
You had a moral victory.
We have not claimed a moral victory.
You are welcome to your moral victory. We have Deputy Brendan Toal. I am satisfied with that agreement.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
We are quite satisfied to have Deputy Brendan Toal and let Deputy Collins have his moral victory. The record of this Government between 14th March last year and 28th November was put before the people of Monaghan and they voted for the Government. They were satisfied with the performance of the Government.
The people now are interested in prices and not in the Monaghan by-election.
Order. Deputy Lynch had a very good reception, uninterrupted, and I expect the same kind of reception for the speaker now in possession.
An effort was made by everybody, from the Leader of the Opposition down to the most newly elected Deputy and county councillor of Fianna Fáil, to interest the people in prices and all the other topics thrown out in Monaghan on the general state of the economy. There was a script factory operating on the third floor of this building turning out at least 20 scripts a day for circulation to newspapers. Deputy Collins, who was director of elections there, continually entertained reporters and journalists telling them how he was winning the election, that everything was going well, that the people were upset about the increase in prices under the Coalition Government and he would have his man in Dáil Éireann after that by-election. What happened? Deputy Collins is here, his man is not but Deputy Brendan Toal is a Member of this House and was elected on the record of this Government between the 14th March and 28th November.
Tell us about prices.
I will tell the Deputy about prices. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will tell you about prices. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour have already told you about prices. Deputy Lynch, who is leaving the House, referred specifically in his opening statement to the inept handling of the oil situation by, I presume, me. He mentioned the Government. I do not think he mentioned me particularly. I am quite proud to stand over my record in the handling of this oil crisis. I drew the attention of the country on the 28th October to what I considered to be the position about energy in this country in the months following the Israeli war. I was, unfortunately, borne out in what I said. As far as I can judge this was the first Government in any European country to bring in restrictions of the nature we announced on the 16th November to try to ensure that what oil was available to the country was distributed in as fair a manner as possible. When the Government decided what the priorities should be their concern all the time was that as many people as possible should be kept in jobs, that if sacrifices had to be made they should be made in the area of home heating and in private motoring. I believe, in view of what has happened since, that we have been proved to be correct in this assessment. Indeed, the figures published show that in January of this year there were more people employed in this country than there were in January last year. The figures are not the same in other countries in Europe. I have not the actual figures. I tried to check them this morning but could not. We have managed to come through this severe oil crisis, which was outside the control of the Government, as the Opposition have admitted, and keep our people in employment. To ensure that more people have jobs is the guiding principle of this Government and always will be.
The Orders I introduced last November were to ensure that the energy available would be distributed in as fair a way as possible. At that time I pointed out that I could not see the future of the energy situation, or what our supply situation would be in the new year. I presume that this is the "ineffectiveness" the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. No Government in Europe, or in the world, could have told in the middle of November, when I signed those Orders, what the position would be on the 1st December, not to mention 1st January. If Members of the Opposition had read their papers over the past two years, they would have seen the concern expressed by the great world powers—Great Britain, West Germany, Sweden, Japan, Australia, America—about the economic miracles, as the Minister for Finance called them. It was a traumatic experience for these countries to be faced with a situation in which the primary source of energy, which they had enjoyed for 25 years or more at a very cheap price, was now not alone going up in price, which they might not be able to afford, but its availability would be cut down. That was the situation in the middle of November.
Many people, including Fianna Fáil Deputies, tried to pressurise me into introducing petrol rationing. I particularly remember two occasions at Question Time when Deputies tried to pressurise me into introducing petrol rationing. Every newspaper in the country and every Fianna Fáil cumann said that this Government were mishandling the situation and the only fair system was to bring in rationing immediately. I have been proved right. It would have been foolish to ration petrol. The two countries in Europe which did ration petrol got into such a mess that they had to withdraw it within a fortnight. The right decision was not to ration petrol. There was sufficient petrol in this country, as I pointed out continuously from the middle of November until Christmas week. To say, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that there was a glorious silence from the Government on the energy situation is nonsense. I was in the newspapers, on television and radio every other day. I was sick and tired of seeing my own face in the papers. I was sick and tried of people saying to me: "I saw you on television last night." I kept the country fully informed. While the Dáil was in session I answered questions. We had a debate on the 11th December and, as I have already said, I was in the newspapers on radio and television almost every day up to the end of the year. As I told the House on 11th December the prophecy for——
We still could not get petrol down the country.
As I said in this House, the Deputy could have come to my office. Many others did and I was glad to help them. If the Deputy had quoted a specific case where people could not get petrol or felt they were entitled to a bigger quota than they were getting, I would have been glad to help.
The Minister cannot be serious.
I am very serious.
Did the Minister want a petrol queue outside the door of his office?
There was a queue and I was glad to help.
May I ask the Minister a question?
If there had been another Government in power people would have been told that the Minister had no function in this matter. I was glad to see as many people as I could in my office. Every case was dealt with, maybe not as speedily as I would have wished, but as speedily as I could.
Is it not true to say that people queued for hours for 20p worth of petrol?
That is true, and in many cases their tanks were able to take only 20p worth of petrol. This was the form of selfishness and greed that I preached against for the last six weeks of 1973. It is over now.
This caused more panic than any other—
Order. The Minister without interruption, please.
The position at that stage, as I pointed out in the debate on 11th December, was that there would be a 30 per cent cut-back in the availability of all oil supplies in January.
The Minister said at one time that oil and petrol would never be plentiful in our lifetime.
I still say that.
The Minister caused panic.
The Deputy must not misquote me. I said we would never see plentiful cheap oil in this world. That is the position today and it will be the position for as long as Deputy Haughey and I are Members of this House. The price of oil is four times the October price. It will come back but to what level I could not say. We will never see energy available at the price it was for the last ten years.
We will never see anything available at the same price it was last year.
I would not agree with that.
Will we see a plentiful supply of oil available?
I could not say.
The Minister, without interruption, please. I ask Deputies to be fair. The Minister has only 30 minutes and he should be given a hearing.
I should like to answer Deputy Collins. My assessment of the situation is that there will be a plentiful supply of oil, maybe next year. I would not like to be tied to that but sometime in the not too distant future there will be a plentiful supply of oil but at very high prices. That is the best assessment I can give. I might have to come back, as I had to do in the last three months, and say that the situation has changed.
Will the Minister make a forecast as to whether there will be sufficient diesel oil for ploughing in the springtime?
I can guarantee that there will be. The forecast in the middle of December, when we had the debate on the energy situation, was that there would be a shortfall of 30 per cent in our supplies for January. When the oil producing nations announced on Christmas Day that they would not apply the 10 per cent cut as originally intended, I decided that the best thing to do was to take a risk with the stocks we had on hands and not apply the more severe restrictions which we thought would be necessary for January. I decided to make the cut-back 20 per cent rather than 30 per cent and run down the stocks in the month of January in the hope that the extra supplies would materialise and we could balance our stocks in February. I am glad to say that that position has come about. It is hoped that this month and next month we will be able to get our stock position back to what it should be, 65 days under the OECD. At the end of January we made further slight reductions in the cut although not as great as I would have liked. We must be prudent in this regard and take into consideration the fact that there is a threatened coal strike in England. As has been the case for many years we are 100 per cent dependent on the oil companies for supplies in an integrated market, only 50 per cent of which are supplied from the oil refinery in Cork. It is difficult to look into a crystal ball but if I had any complaints about the handling of the energy situation by the Fianna Fáil Governments over the years, perhaps I would not have been any wiser——
What steps have the Government taken to ensure that there will be no stockpiling of fuel supplies until the price has increased?
Fianna Fáil Governments did not plan for increased storage of petroleum products here five years ago and did not encourage oil refineries to come in here over the years. There were a number of applications for oil refineries here, none of which was processed. It will be the concern of this Government to see that there will be available in Ireland 100 per cent of our requirements. This is at a growth rate of 9 per cent per annum. The Government made a decision in December to go ahead with a nuclear energy station. This will not go on stream of course until about 1981— certainly another seven or eight years. At that stage it will only take up the growth in our use of electricity in the meantime. Therefore we will have to seek diversification of our sources of energy. We will have to endeavour to see that our present economy, 70 per cent based on oil, is changed. We must try and get nuclear energy; we must try and get other sources of energy. It is too early to say yet but perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce will refer when he speaks, to the offshore gases, how soon they will be available and what amount of our economy they will provide with energy.
Up to now oil was so very cheap that it did not pay, or it was not economical, from the ESB's point of view, to produce electricity from turf; 24 per cent of the electricity generated in this country is produced from turf. Of course, this situation has changed in the last three months with the huge increase in the price of oil. Bord na Móna have now presented me with a proposal to reopen some bogs, to extend into new bogs and endeavour to get an alternative source of energy in that regard.
Many people still seem to think that any river can be dammed and electricity produced by hydro methods from that. But I am assured by the ESB and by people technically competent to assess these things that we have exploited to the full the availability of electricity from hydro-electrical sources and that any future expansion in electricity, will have to come from (a) turf—if it is still economical to do so in the new bogs now being opened up; (b) natural gas; (c) nuclear energy, or, (d) continuing dependence on oil. It appears to me that this country will for many years to come be dependent on oil. I am not sure whether we will still be dependent on Arabian oil.
In the meantime, we will have to try and ensure—as far as is possible within the limitations of our freedom of movement in this regard —that we will get oil as we require it, even at a price. This very regrettable increase in the price of electricity in the last month is because, for many years, the ESB have played the market: they have gone out and bought the cheapest oil they could and this has been of great benefit to the country. They were forced into the position, in January, of being asked to pay four times the price for oil compared with October last. The choice was there—to do without the oil, with a consequent loss of energy to industry, loss of heating, lighting to the people of this country, or to pay an increased price for oil and, with the permission of the National Prices Commission, impose a surcharge on electricity bills. They decided to go ahead with this. I think it was the correct decision on their part—first to supply electricity and ensure that electrical power was available in the country.
People are worried about the fact that the proposed increases in electricity will be 50 per cent. But I would remind them that the National Prices Commission will be monitoring this, admittedly retrospectively. Every three months the ESB will have to justify to the National Prices Commission the amount of surcharge they place on electricity bills. I should also say, in this regard, that I have asked the ESB to move towards a situation where people will be presented with their electricity bills once a month rather than once every two months. I know this will not make any difference at the end of 12 months but it may be easier for people to find £10 at the end of one month rather than £20 at the end of two months.
I would dearly love to see electricity going down in price. I hate the idea of 50 per cent going on to people's electricity bills but I hate more the idea of people being left out of work, people losing their jobs, because there is not electricity available. That was the choice facing this country. In my assessment the ESB made the correct decision: they bought the oil at an increased price to ensure that electricity would be available.
Perhaps I could say something now about the future of the energy position. As I said earlier on, up to now oil was so cheap that many industries did not take cognisance of it; it was not a serious element in their costing. When I say oil in fact I mean all forms of energy because the ESB is based on oil as well. Even though energy was costly to some industries it was not a significant element of their costs. But that position is going to change. I would advise all industries now to take advantage of the schemes available to them through the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the IDA who will provide 50 per cent of the cost of consultants introduced to assess for firms their ability to conserve and make better use of their energy supply.
This morning I was at a seminar being conducted by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in Dún Laoghaire. I was told there that one very big, efficient, cost conscious firm in the country had in the last fortnight called in the institute and asked for advice on how to save fuel. The result was an 8 per cent saving. If a very big, very efficient firm can save 8 per cent, I am sure there are many medium, small, very old firms who could make very large savings. This will be of importance to firms in their costing. It will be important to the firms themselves from the point of view of the cost element in their product being lessened but they will also be of importance to the country because of the balance of payments problem.
As the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, said earlier on, we are faced with a huge increase in our balance of payments deficit in the coming year because of oil. It is something completely outside our control. I was amused to hear the Leader of the Opposition saving that they did not blame us for the oil situation at all; it was not something with which we had anything to do. Of course when other commodities—and commodities are raging in price throughout the world at the moment—rose in price he blamed us for those all right. We were responsible for the increase in the price of iron, steel, all the other products going up, but we were not responsible for the increase in the price of oil. It is quite obvious that the thinking behind this is that people are very conscious of oil prices. The ordinary public know about the oil crisis because it is presented to them every day in very dramatic ways. But they do not realise that there is a shortage, not as severe, of all commodities in the world which are available only at exorbitant prices.
This is the kind of inflation that we have imported into this country. I am not blaming the previous Government or this Government. We are not responsible for world inflation. But it is an element in this country and is there for us to fight. I am convinced —as the people of Monaghan were convinced—I am sure I am running out of time Ceann Comhairle——
The Deputy has a little over five minutes.
I am convinced, as were the people of Monaghan, that the steps being taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in particular, in an effort to control prices in this country were the right steps and were effective until we got into the situation at the end of last year when every economical forecast had to be thrown to the wind as being useless because the attitude not alone of the oil producing countries but that of some of the very big powers in the world—who behaved in exactly the same way as the panic buying public did in this country during the petrol shortage, of going out, creating problems for other nations, by queueing up, paying exorbitant prices for commodities—resulted in a price for oil from now until 1st of April that will add roughly 175 per cent to our balance of payments problems for 1974.
These are the problems this Government have to face and these are the problems we will face. Members of the Opposition can be quite assured that when we go back to the people, as no doubt we will have to go back in a by-election in the next 12 months, possibly, or in a general election in four years time, we will get the same answer for the same reasons that we got from the people in Monaghan last November because the people do not believe Fianna Fáil.
Will you try a general election right now? The fact that this debate on the economy of the country is taking place tonight is, to my mind, a definite admission by the Coalition of Labour and Fine Gael that our country is in a very serious and most precarious position, mainly as a result of their own actions in some instances and their lack of action in other instances.
I should like it to be known that the Government motion is not a voluntary one. Indeed, far from it. It has appeared because of, and only because of, the demand by Fianna Fáil for Government time to discuss a motion dealing with the economy tabled by Fianna Fáil Members of this House. The Labour/Fine Gael Government are, to say the least of it, not to be congratulated for their brilliance on the wording of the motion. I am sure that, if they had not been in such a hurry in drafting and tabling it, they might have come up with a motion more carefully worded, a motion that might be more honest having regard to the economy as it can be seen today.
Perhaps the Labour/Fine Gael Parties when voting for this motion tonight will give the impression that nothing is wrong with the economy and that galloping inflation, as far as they care, must be the name of a greyhound running at our national coursing this week. No doubt they will, with their tongues in their cheeks, shuffle their way through the lobbies to vote "Tá" but their efforts to cloud over the stark realities of the situation, as we all know it to be, will surely fail.
I believe this motion will be regarded by the public at large throughout the country as the joke of the year. It will be looked on with grave suspicion as another Coalition gimmick. It will be further evidence to many people of the ostrich-like stand of the people involved in hiding their heads in the sand or, indeed, in the clouds of cuckooland, hoping that everything will right itself in its own time and in its own way.
Of course everybody knows, and what is more understands fully, that some of our problems are created to some degree by the deterioration in the world economic climate caused by a shortage of sources of energy and other essential commodities. We know that some of the increases in prices are beyond the control of the Government. The following words are in the motion: "... and of the actions taken to date by the Government to deal with them..." Are not the Government open to charges of dishonesty when they want the people of the country to believe that phrase? What, might I ask at this stage, are the actions taken by the Labour/Fine Gael Government to help our economy? What are the actions taken in the past or being taken right now? One factor is selfevident, that is, that whatever they are doing is a complete failure.
Further on in the motion we are asked by the Labour/Fine Gael Government to encourage them to take such further steps as may be necessary. What might I ask are these further steps we are being asked to encourage? Are the details of these further steps available to the people for examination and study? They should be, because the people have the right to know and, what is more, they want to know since their very existence is at stake.
One fact emerges crystal clear from the economic mess we now find ourselves in, that is, that the people have lost all confidence in the Fine Gael/ Labour Parties to govern the country. People are beginning to ask quite seriously now about the whereabouts of the infamous 14-point plan. Certainly they are disappointed at the lack of action by the so-called all-star Government. They can see now that the goods are not being delivered on any front. Indeed, the traditional supporters of Fine Gael are constantly making excuses for them, but only making excuses for their own party.
Already I believe they are beginning to sacrifice Deputy Justin Keating, Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is supposed to control prices. I should like to assure the Minister that the criticism being levelled against him by his own supporters is devastating and certainly bodes ill for the Government. Most important of all it shows the degree of unrest in the country. People are beginning to wonder what the Government have been doing for the past 12 months. People are trying to remember the achievements in all spheres over the past year.
I suppose some remember the reopening of Dún Chaoin school for political reasons which, as a matter of interest, now caters for five students from Dún Chaoin. Practically everything else is forgotten except, of course, the fact that children's allowances are now subject to income tax. People remember the fact that the Government raised the road tax from 50/- to £50 for the cutdown lorries and jeeps used by the farming community to transport their agricultural goods and livestock. People also remember that diesel oil at the agricultural rate can no longer be used in these vehicles.
(Cavan): Travelling at 60 miles an hour.
People want to know what is to be done with regard to the very vexed question of increased costs for feedingstuffs and their deleterious effect on pig and poultry production where, as we know, 80 per cent of the cost is due to feed. People want to know, particularly those directly involved, what their future is, people like the small farmer who depended on the income from pig and poultry production, to see him through.
The question must be asked right now and, indeed, answered right now: what are the Government doing to protect our pig and poultry industry which is contributing, as it did in 1973, £88 million to the national economic outturn? Because of the importance of these two closely associated industries, it must be clearly understood right now that any adverse effect on them is of major national significance. It is now a fact, according to statistics released last week, that the first signs of a most serious decline in pig production can be seen. The number of pigs received at bacon factories show a drop of 217,903 pigs, or almost 10 per cent on the 2,196,526 pigs sent to bacon factories in 1972. Many people, and particularly smaller farmers, are alarmed at the steep dive in the numbers received at the bacon factories in December last when the drop was over 11,000 or over 7 per cent.
The facts are that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of sows slaughtered at our bacon factories in recent times. The number of sows slaughtered last week was more than double the number at the same time last year. This, of course, is positive proof that the recent huge increases in feedingstuffs are beginning to have their effects. What, might we ask, will the trend be like for 1974? There are many who would dearly love to know what steps the Government might need encouragement on, what steps they will take that would prevent Irish pig and poultry production being wiped out and, again I say, particularly the smaller farmer.
The one output sector where falling prices have really eroded farmer confidence is that of cattle. Cattle prices have reverted to their normal seasonal low of last winter, and this period of low prices has been very greatly aggravated by a scarcity of feedingstuffs, due to two reasons, one being the inflated cost of compound feeds and the other being the very poor quality of hay because of the very wet summer we had last year. In our environment it is naturally essential to take every step possible to instil into the farmer confidence in cattle production to maintain the 8 per cent growth in cattle numbers we had in the last year.
In this context one can justifiably attack the Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who appears intent on scoring points over the Fresh Meat Exporters Society. From what we read in the papers and from what we hear and have been told, it appears that the Minister has criticised the society for the negative attitude to promoting and marketing Irish meat and for selling meat into intervention. On the other hand, the society claims that the Minister has refused to meet it. If this is true, then it is very bad. I would ask where is the Labour/Fine Gael Government by consultation at this stage?
The Minister has also accused the meat factories of not passing on the full £57 per ton refund that he obtained for boneless cow beef exports to the United States. We all know that a lot of appropriate noises have been made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to the £57 per ton refund, but we all want to know as well as what action he proposes to take so as to ensure that this money will be passed on to the farmer. Whoever is right or wrong, I believe the Minister should be more responsible and settle the differences I have mentioned directly with the society rather than have the two sides fighting in public. I say this because I honestly believe that this fighting is detrimental to farmer confidence, already at a very low ebb.
The increase in farming costs is an area of extreme dissatisfaction and grave worry. There has been an alarming and unprecedented increase in the cost of essential farming inputs in recent months, and while this development is related to an across-the-boards inflation in national economies, it has been compounded, first, by international shortages in essential agricultural inputs, especially animal feeding stuffs and, secondly, by the energy crisis, resulting in reduced availability of oil-dependent fertilisers.
In regard to fertiliser costs, we are told to expect frightening and staggering price increases up to 40 per cent for compound fertilisers, starting right now. The price of 16 per cent superphosphate is to go up by anything from 80 per cent to 100 per cent, certainly due to Morocco drastically increasing the price of rock phosphate. Nitrigín Éireann have been given permission to increase the price of their nitrogenous c.a.n. by 26 per cent, and ammonia by 33 per cent.
I wonder what the Minister and the Government did in regard to the stockpiling we were told was rampant. Stocks were withheld until such a time as the price increases were given. This is something which they could take positive action in. I would hope that later on in this debate tonight we would hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce or one of his colleagues what action they took then. Because of the present unprecedented prices in the world trade of fertilisers, I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that firms involved will not be wiped out of business altogether, thus allowing a monopoly to develop in this industry. We are told that right now basic slag sales have come to a complete standstill. All the importers have been notified of a break down in the grinding works. No doubt this is a prelude to a further price increase.
With regard to stockpiling, surely the Minister would agree that the method of sales of fertilisers calls for very serious examination right now, if, of course, he is in any way perturbed by the charges of stockpiling until the prices were increased. The facts are that sales of fertilisers are continuing on the basis that the price to be charged will be that ruling on the date of delivery. It was only on Monday evening last I was told by the manager of a large co-op in my own constituency in County Limerick that an order which he placed for fertilisers in early September was not met until the price increases were announced, and as a result of the delay by the particular company in filling the order this co-op was at a loss of £4,000. This is an area that requires far more positive action than we have been getting.
We now know that the Government allowed decontrolling of prices for animal feeds. This resulted in some very sharp increases in the price of some compounds by some manufacturers. It is no secret that one of the biggest manufacturers in the business is now charging twice as much for what they sell as some of the co-ops. This has resulted in consternation in the market. What action, if any, does the Minister need encouragement on or propose to take about this situation?
What is the Minister or the Government doing about maize which is currently costing about £70 per ton from the silo? Is he aware how much this maize cost when it was being put in? Is he satisfied that there is only a fair margin of profit in this instance? I should like to know what steps the Minister might need encouragement on and proposes to take in this case
What is the Minister or the Government doing about the merchants who are at present selling beat pulp at £80 per ton which we know they bought at a price in the region of £18.50 per ton. Is any action being taken here? Would this be part of the action referred to in the motion as already taken or is it action they need encouragement to take? What has the Minister or the Government done in regard to the identification necessary to distinguish between fertilisers manufactured from raw material not subject to price increases and those which are? We are told by the manufacturers when they are asked to do this that there are technical difficulties involved in their factories. Does the Minister know what these difficulties are in detail and is he satisfied they cannot be overcome? Is he making an honest effort to see whatever saving might be made in this area is being made? The Minister has been quiet in this case as he has been in many other cases.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, said on 1st February this year, according to The Irish Times of the 2nd February, that his pious hope is that the fertiliser industry would help farmers by absorbing as much of the cost increases caused by the oil crisis as the industry could bear in present circumstances. Naturally, this raises the question again of what he and the Government are doing about it. How about cheap imports, either by waiving import duties or issuing duty free licences or, if possible, providing a special fertiliser subsidy to cushion the farmer against higher costs? As regards advertising farmers not to cut down on nitrogen application it is noteworthy that the State-owned company Nitrigín Éireann Teo., was allowed a 26 per cent increase, as I have already said.
I am firmly convinced that we must make this country more self-sufficient in feeding grains for two reasons, because of the current high prices of animal feeding stuffs with soya beans now costing £115 per ton and maize £70 per ton and feeding barely and other grains having increased by 50 per cent to 60 per cent in the past couple of months. Possibly more critical than high prices is the restricted availability of some traditionally imported animal feedingstuffs. We must remember that the US placed an embargo on soya beans last summer. This is further reason why greater production of Irish feeding grains would help to make us independent of international supply and demand fluctuations. In this context one can again justifiably criticise the Minister and the Government for not doing something more positive in exhorting and encouraging farmers to increase cereal acreage. I was glad to learn earlier from the Minister for Transport and Power, when he did concentrate on the energy crisis rather than the Monaghan by-election results, that he is satisified that plentiful supplies of diesel oil will be available to the farmers during the coming months when it will be most needed.
Another farm enterprise which needs to have greater confidence instilled into it involves another tillage crop, sugar beet—a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I did not start on time. Members of the House, I think, would agree when I say that. We were running two or three minutes late, perhaps longer.
The Deputy's time is noted as commencing at 7 o'clock.
I am sure that either the staff or Members of the House will be able to inform the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who was not here then, that it was 7.05 when I began to speak.
According to the Ceann Comhairle and others 7 p.m. was the Deputy's starting time.
I certainly have been speaking about 25 minutes. Without wasting time arguing about it, I shall get through what I have to say very briefly, if that is all right with the Chair.
Very well.
I should like to assure the House that beet growers are gravely concerned about the entire future of the industry. They are naturally worried about the escalation of production costs mainly because of fertiliser price increases but also because of transport costs and other input costs. They are extremely worried about the absence of a clear policy on sugar beet and about the fact that merchant middlemen, as I have already said, have made all the money in selling molassed fat pulp at very high prices, between £60 and £80 per ton. I should like to know from the Government tonight what they and the Minister responsible are going to do to instil the necessary confidence in the sugar beet area of operation.
What has the Minister done or what will he do in a positive way with regard to the danger of shortages of liquid milk in the winter, the period of higher production costs? We know that the traditional price advantage which the liquid milk producer had over his creamery supplying counterpart has been eroded by the high prices the latter has received in the EEC. The liquid milk producer, to maintain parity, should be receiving more than the current 24p or 25p for winter milk. What does the Minister and the Government propose to do in this area?
I understand that from now on fertiliser manufacturers need only give two weeks notice of price increases to the Minister. I wonder does the Minister propose to decontrol fertiliser prices in the same way as he did feedingstuffs?
I should like to warn the Government in the strongest terms at my command that by their actions in some areas and their lack of action in other areas it appears that the Fine Gael/Labour Government will be the Cromwell of the 20th century as far as the 150,000 small farmers of this country are concerned. I demand to know what the Government propose to do to ensure that those small farmers, who are the backbone of rural Ireland, will not be driven off the land. There is a 90 per cent, if not higher, Dublin representation in the Government. I should like to say for the record that the small farmers can be assured that we in Fianna Fáil will make this Labour/Fine Gael Government live up to their responsibilities for as long as they are in office.
I have listened to various Fianna Fáil speakers from early afternoon. It is pathetic to witness the political transition of the Cabinet Ministers of February, 1973, to the Front Bench Opposition spokesmen of February, 1974. The transition is highlighted by the unremitting mediocrity and the lack of any constructive approach in the overwhelming majority of the contributions we have had today. Deputy Collins and I are both fresh from our return from Strasbourg. I was pleased to note his constructive approach this evening. It was a change from our customary flat exchanges.
Would the Deputy follow my example?
I will. I will take up the precise comment that Deputy Collins made, the heartfelt desire of the spokesman of the Fianna Fáil Party on agriculture, that we should now bring the whole range of agricultural products and the essential infrastructural commodities under the formal aegis of the National Prices Commission. I am quite willing to accommodate Deputy Collins by suggesting that the National Prices Commission should now assume total control in relation to animal feeding stuffs. It would be interesting to hear the views of the IFA on that proposition. I wonder how willingly would the Irish Beet Growers' Association, with Deputy Cronin leading them from the Fianna Fáil benches, come under the general aegis of the National Prices Commission. I wonder how willingly would they face the prospect, if the Government were to so decide, of all operations in relation to agricultural co-operative societies and their arrangements in relation to, say, fertilisers and the distribution of fertilisers, coming under the National Prices Commission. I wonder how willing are Fianna Fáil to advocate a policy of putting the operations of every agricultural co-operative society under the National Prices Commission. If that is what they want they should say so. I very much doubt if the IFA, who are wont to howl very loudly about the lack of agricultural representation on the National Prices Commission, will go along the road of seeking total Government price control over agricultural produce and over the inputs to agriculture. I say that to point out the inherent contradictions in the Fianna Fáil approach today. They have made propositions which they, given the opportunity, would not implement.
There was the specious suggestion from Deputy Collins to farmers that what we now need is a massive increase in cereal acreage. Even with prices as they are there are not that many cattle producers who will indulge in that kind of political transition just because Deputy Collins suddenly finds a rapid increase in the price of feedingstuffs. Some of the co-operative societies which exert considerable influence over the price of feeding materials might be inclined to examine their pricing and distribution structures rather than taking it out on the Government. That, too, is a contradiction in the Fianna Fáil approach.
Having listened to all of them, including the Leader of the Opposition who started off magnificently—I was waiting for one fell swoop—and finished up by resorting to a rather minor quotation from the Irish Management Institute about what the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating said last December— I am sure Deputy Keating was not unduly perturbed by what Deputy Lynch said in that regard—it is clear that Fianna Fáil have nothing new to offer in the way of policy in the economic field. Their opposition in the Dáil since March, 1973, has been very ineffective, quite irresponsible in many respects and fractious on occasions. It seems likely now that we are to have more of that kind of contribution over the next few months.
I would say to the Fianna Fáil Deputies, and to the country at large, that notwithstanding the serious economic position at present—which is undoubtedly going to be exacerbated by a mining dispute in Britain if that should take place, and the rather frantic efforts of Fianna Fáil, which are reminiscent of 1957, to gain political capital from these complex economic and industrial relations issues— that the Government will certainly stand firm and will not resort to panic measures. When, for example, Deputy O'Malley tried to panic the Tánaiste into a precipitous settlement of the junior doctors' dispute and made an unholy idiot of himself in the process we did not panic and we succeeded, by facing the issues objectively and calmly, in achieving a settlement of a dispute which was going to cause havoc to the health of the nation. The economic health will be dealt with in the same normal, calm and effective way.
Britain appears to be on the verge of internal industrial revolution. It is worth stating that we in Ireland have a sound economy. We have a competent Government and we have not any panic measures in operation at present. By all the basic economic criteria our mixed economy, based on agriculture and industry working in harmony in public and private enterprise, by and large is succeeding quite well. It did remarkably well in 1973.
The past year, I should like to stress to the country in view of the panic comments by the Fianna Fáil Party, was one of a very rapid economic growth for the economy. According to the authoritative estimates of the Economic and Social Research Institute and Córas Tráchtála the growth rate of the GNP in volume terms for 1973 was in the region of 7 per cent compared with 3 per cent in 1972. Only in 1968 was that rate of expansion exceeded. The average figure for the 1960s, the period of the greatest economic growth in the history of our country, was around 4 per cent. During this period Fianna Fáil made a dynamic contribution, at least one person in that party made an outstanding contribution. He was the late Seán Lemass who, together with Doctor Whitaker, took the conservative brake off the economy and gave us a period of rapid growth. It was only towards the end that, unfortunately, the late Deputy Lemass, when he gave the famous 12 per cent wage increase at the time of the Kildare by-election, pulled the plug on inflation. We have had to live with it ever since, including the current proposals relative to a national pay agreement which could of themselves be said to be somewhat inflationary but it is something we have to live with in 1974.
Last year, undoubtedly, was an extremely good year. The CTT estimate for the volume of growth rate of exports last year was a record 20 per cent. This compares with 6 per cent in 1972. The industrial sector also achieved an increase in output of about 11 per cent last year. This was double the 1972 increases. Agricultural output, notwithstanding the whining of Deputy G. Collins tonight, rose by 5 per cent in volume terms. In terms of increases in agricultural income I would not mind being one of the 120,000 small farmers with 30 to 40 acres of land to operate in certain parts of this country without income tax to pay. One would make as much if one was farming such a holding in certain parts of this country as one receives as a Member of this House.
Bearing in mind that in the agricultural sector prices rose by 27 per cent last year and the fact that there was a 5 per cent increase in volume terms, we had a very high increase in agricultural incomes in the order of 34½ per cent.
Admittedly, there are difficulties at present but they are not difficulties particularly of the Government's making. Combines involved in the production of animal feedingstuffs decided to muscle in on a monopoly situation and the previous Government failed to take action in curbing the particular agricultural monopoly tendencies which developed in some areas but the farming community is paying a bad price for it now. The pressure at that stage was not on Fianna Fáil because farmers were receiving very substantial increases in prices.
In exports, agriculture and employment the situation for the past 12 months has been quite good. I view it as the height of irresponsibility on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party to suggest that the situation is now at a crisis or panic stage. I resent and deplore the suggestion of Deputy Brennan that we have rampant price inflation currently operating in the economy. We do not have that. We have inflation, we have undesirable levels of inflation but if one considers the record of the Fianna Fáil Party over a short period one will see the relevance of the allegations of that party tonight.
From November, 1972 to February, 1973 prices rose by 4 per cent. This is equal to an annual average rate of 16 per cent. From February to May, 1973 prices went up by 3 per cent, an annual rate of 12 per cent, from May to August of 1973 the rate was 2.3 per cent or an annual rate of 9.2 per cent, and from August to November the rate was 2.8 per cent, or an annual rate of 11.2 per cent. Therefore, I suggest that for Fianna Fáil to state that there has been a sudden outburst of raging inflation in the economy in the first quarter of 1974, when they suddenly discovered this motion, is completely incorrect. They put down this motion because they were so abysmal in their parliamentary performance last year that they had to do something this year. If it was not a prices motion it would have been an energy motion and if it was not that it would have been a motion on Northern Ireland.
I suggest to Deputy Brennan that the rate of annual inflation in this country has been contained and, if anything, has been reduced over 1973 as against 1972. We have an indicator of that in terms of the inter-relationship with economic trends; one has the situation in the employment fund. If, as Fianna Fáil say, the economy is in an appalling lousy state why is unemployment not rising? In fact, unemployment, against the seasonal trends, this year has fallen. Did the Fianna Fáil members not read what was issued to them last week? Had they read that report they would have seen that unemployment on 25th January, 1974— I am taking unemployment benefit claims, I am not too worried about unemployment assistance because the dole is a rather peculiar thing in terms of employment figures in this country —fell from 39,560 to 39,052, a drop of 500. If one includes all those on the live register, adding the persons in receipt of dole, one sees that at present there are 72,394 on the register compared with 72,800 a week ago. Fianna Fáil will have to search elsewhere if they are to be the political jeremiahs they wish to be on this occasion.
Fianna Fáil made the rather perverse argument that the social welfare benefits given by the Coalition in the last Social Welfare Bill have been disastrously and totally eroded. This is absolute poppy-cock. The Social Welfare Bill last year pumped into social welfare payments an additional £62 million and this represented a rise of 38 per cent of the then level of benefits running at about £163 million. The fact that the Coalition Government at that time took a clear-cut political decision and gave the whole lot to social welfare cushioned the worse effects of inflation against those in receipt of social welfare benefits. Had Fianna Fáil been in power they would have done the usual trick-of-the-loop and given £10 million, a figure which probably would have been taken off local elections.
I should like to pass on to the national pay agreement and to make a number of comments on this. I am aware that one must be somewhat circumspect in that regard. I support fully the general principle of national wage agreements. As a member of the ITGWU I went to Liberty Hall to vote in favour of the recent proposals but these were rejected by a democratic majority of the congress consensus as a whole although some of us may have some reservations regarding the nature of voting of some unions. However, I accept the decision. It is my personal opinion that at this stage there is no prospect of a further national wage agreement for the next 12 months. No doubt there will be settlements in different sectors, settlements which in some instances may be either higher or lower than those which would have resulted from the proposed agreement. This would depend on the economic circumstances of the various sectors of the economy but that should not in any way obscure the fact that the general benefits which can be obtained from national wage agreements should not be lost to the economy. It is my belief that in the future many industrial workers will realise that, by and large, national wage agreements include all categories of workers. Let us remember that four out of every ten Irish workers are not in trade unions. These are the people who will not get wage increases during the next 12 months if there is to be a free-for-all situation although some of them may receive increases as a result of paternal decisions of their employers. In particular, those in the personal services industries will lose out in the absence of a wage agreement. I hope that those of us who are in relatively sheltered employment will bear this fact in mind in our rejection of a national wage agreement. Further discussion of the proposals will serve no useful purpose. The unions and employers must negotiate as best they can. That is their responsibility and I would hope that the Government in the forthcoming budget would make a general provision for setting a further and better economic social climate.
I suggest also that further relative improvements in the rates of pay of men and women in the lower paid jobs will suffer a setback in the absence of a national wage agreement and there is now no prospect of narrowing the difference in the various starting points for wage increases that apply in respect of many workers in Irish industry. However, we may recover in 12 months time when people realise how relatively unadvantageous is a free-for-all situation. Likewise, the prospect has been reduced of narrowing the gap in respect of equal pay for work of equal value. That is another factor that I hope will be taken into account by the large industrial labour force. This gap would have been narrowed considerably under the terms of the proposed agreement.
The proposals were unique. The agreement would have been for an exceptionally short period of 12 months. It has been rejected but we in Government will not in any circumstances allow ourselves to get into the kind of situation in which the British Prime Minister finds himself now and which he does not know how to get out of. Perhaps Mr. Whitelaw may yet save the situation before Sunday night. If the unions concerned show signs of being less obdurate than they have been for the past fortnight there may be an improvement in the situation. We would be affected seriously by a national strike of coal workers in Britain.
We should consider some positive steps whereby the Government can take considerable action to mitigate the worst effects of inflation. I accept that there are many areas where we have no influence particularly in relation to international prices of commodities imported into this country but I suggest strongly that our future employment prospects are dependent on a more global, a more coherent and a more co-ordinated economic and social policy being implemented by the Government during 1974. Admittedly, the Government have had to react to different situations during the past 12 months, for example, the energy crisis, the national wage agreement and other developments such as regional fund negotiations and different aspects of the Finance Bill, mining, et cetera. In many respects these factors are related. There is now a need for the emergence of a more unified economic and social policy. The Government can undertake that kind of exercise in the immediate future. If they do so, I am sure that with our policy of growth and with our priority for economic and social growth, we can have another major surge forward in our economy in 1974 similar to that of, say, 1964. No doubt it is within our power to expand rapidly the industrial base of our country and the formation of productive capital investment in the period ahead.
The economic expertise that exists within the industrial management of this country coupled with the growth of sophistication in the agricultural sector are sufficient to leave us very hopeful in facing the challenge before us. What we need is not simply another economic and social programme but a clear-cut and rather detailed economic strategy. Foremost in that exercise there must be every measure possible to maintain and develop full employment. That must be our basic priority. Our second priority must be on the social side. We must aim at eliminating disfiguring poverty and deprivation in our community. During the past ten years this country has known unprecedented massive improvements in living standards. Fianna Fáil may take credit for that if they wish but what we have failed miserably to do is to emerge with a dynamic social policy in this sphere of the elimination of poverty or in the bringing in of elementary educational opportunities. Educational opportunity was fashionable in 1960. We have not yet developed an effective national taxation system. We hear much nonsense in relation to farm incomes. I do not think that Mr. T.J. Maher has much time for the Labour Party but he has been threatening Fine Gael.
Watch it.
I would not be particularly perturbed about Mr. Maher. I have often wondered about his preoccupation with Parliamentary democracy. It may tend towards the corporate variety at times. I would suggest to him, irrespective of the political involvement, that we in this country are going to have an effective taxation system brought in. We will bring it in irrespective of the political consequences to any political party in this country. I know I have only three minutes left, but I would suggest as a means of achieving the overall national objective of this Government, which is a very good Government, four particular recommendations. First, we should set about using the National Economic and Social Council to have a new social and economic planning policy in this country. It should have a new trend and all the matters I have mentioned should be developed. Secondly, we need a massive extension in the public sector in this country. Let us extend the public sector into animal feedingstuffs and fertilisers. Let us stop the nonsense which is going on at present. Let us extend the public sector into a great range of agricultural products. Let us extend our public activities into the area of oil, gas and mineral exploration with the State owning a national development corporation.
We can do that kind of thing as a unique contribution by the National Coalition Government in the 1970s and make it an effective policy in that regard. Let us also develop an effective regional policy with economic growth centres built into it. We will make a real contribution here on that basis and in order to do that we will have to ensure that fundamental changes in the social structure of our country and in its economic system take place. There must be changes in the political attitudes of our people. We on this side of the House have the capacity to do that. I have no faith whatever in the capacity of Fianna Fáil to do it. They could not export a tin of dog biscuits to the most starved country in the world——
But you could increase the price.
I would suggest to the House that the contributions of the Fianna Fáil Party have been those of the politics of despair in Opposition.
The Deputy's time is up.
They are a party of retrospective political wisdom.
Having listened to Deputy Desmond I would not like to see him confronting a body of farmers in any part of rural Ireland and saying some of what he has said here tonight. I would worry about his safety. The Deputy said that the farmers were far better off in the past year and that their standards have improved, as well as their incomes by 37 per cent. The Deputy knows very little about farming and should not dwell on the subject.
My relatives in Cork do not seem to be doing too badly and they are engaged in dairy farming.
The Deputy should see them more often because he does not know much about farming when he makes statements like that. There are people in rural Ireland today selling cattle for less than they bought them 12 months ago, having fed them for the year. Cattle prices are down by £50 per head. Even people who bought calves last year for £70 or £80 are taking less than that for them now. I defy contradiction on that. Those of us who represent rural Ireland are listening every day to our farming constituents. Deputy Desmond should get his facts straight before he lambastes the farmers.
I would not lambaste the farmers. I have the greatest respect for them. I came from such people.
It was interesting to hear the Deputy saying that he believed there would be no wage agreement for the next 12 months. If I remember correctly, the Minister for Labour said that he is very hopeful that a wage agreement will be reached and is working hard towards that end. Deputy B. Desmond says that he sees no hope whatever for such an agreement, while his Minister believes very strongly in such agreements. There are other differences of opinion which we could quote here this evening.
Deputy M. O'Leary, the Minister for Labour, said during the course of his contribution that there is little understanding in the country of the current situation in regard to the energy crisis and its effect on prices. On the other hand I heard the Minister for Transport and Power saying that he was sure the people of this country understand the situation perfectly. These are conflicting statements coming from two Ministers of the same Government during the course of this debate. Deputy M. O'Leary also mentioned that the reasons for inflation included the fact that we had an open-ended economy. The Netherlands economy is open-ended and their inflation rate at the moment is 8 per cent. We have people like Deputy R. Ryan coming in——
The Deputy should refer to the Minister.
The Minister for Finance quoted figures and said that in Canada inflation increased two-and-a-half-times. In the US it increased three-and-a-half-times. In Japan it increased three times. In France it increased twice over. In Great Britain it increased by a similar amount and in Ireland by one-half. Actually the figure should be one-and-a-half-times in Ireland. The Minister did not tell us the base of his calculations. In referring to such figures he should have given us the base.
Last February the people of the country were presented with the famous 14-point plan. We have heard much about it and how it was put before the electorate on that occasion. The most important point in that plan was the promise made about prices and their immediate stabilisation. Prices have not stabilised. They have increased and the Government are trying to find a scapegoat for their failure to fulfil their promise. They are using the present oil crisis as a scapegoat, and are blaming the Arabs.
Last November we asked for a debate on the oil crisis. We did so in order to highlight the importance of the oil situation. Our fears have been fully justified, as has been proved by events since then. We ask what has happened and what the Minister for Transport and Power has been doing on behalf of the Government. He has done little other than issue statements to the media and exhortations to the public to go easy, but he has offered no solutions whatever. He has not taken any definite action but has drifted from one crisis to another, hoping something will happen. Warnings are of little consequence when one fails to deal with the reality. The business of any Government in power is to deal with reality and not just to issue statements through the media asking people to do this or that. The Minister's statements helped to create panic. We all remember the panic at the filling stations immediately before Christmas when people were wasting their time and energy queueing for petrol, following the statements and warnings issued. It will be very interesting when the facts come to light regarding the amounts of petrol and oil that were in storage in the country at that time. It will be even more interesting when we find out how much was imported during the last months of 1973. We hope to have these figures in the near future by way of answers to questions which I have placed on the Order Paper.
On 5th December, 1973, the Government dismantled the existing price control machinery on oils. We then became subject to what is known as the seven-day notice system whereby an oil distributor or company can give the Minister seven days notice of his intention to increase prices. I understand this applies to what is known as the United Kingdom Outer Zone. We know the result of this and the consequent colossal increases in the price of oil.
I am not saying the Government are entirely to blame. We know they have no control over the political or war situation in the Middle East but at least they should have adopted a more positive and realistic role with regard to the situation. The crisis is now four months old, but even at this stage there is no evidence of any Government initiative that would help the man-in-the-street or even help industry, agriculture or any other sector that is dependent on oil. In the last four months many statements have been issued but nothing concrete has been done to deal with the matter. Every aspect of life is affected by the situation: every household is affected by the increases on fuel, oil, gas and the ESB charges. The people are entitled to know if the Government will make a real effort to deal with these problems but they are not getting any guidance.
In fact, we did not know until after Christmas what would be the oil allocation for January—a statement on the matter was not issued until after Christmas Day. This was a dreadful situation for industrialists, farmers and all those who are dependent on oil. This leads us to ask on whom is the Minister depending for information with regard to the oil industry. Who are his advisers? Surely the Minister has advisers in his Department who are qualified to inform him regarding the oil exported from the oil-exporting countries and the oil arriving here at a given time. It appears the advice the Minister was getting at the time was not accurate or was not received until very late. I should like the Minister to tell us from what walks of life are these advisers taken to inform the Government on such serious problems.
The oil crisis will have a dreadful effect on our economy, not only for the next 12 months but for years ahead. Is it the case that the advisers are taken from the big oil companies which are internationally controlled from beyond our shores? I am not saying the people concerned have a vested interest but undoubtedly their employers have a vested interest in the matter. It does not appear to me to be a healthy situation if advisers are taken from the big international companies when one considers the accusations and allegations that have been made in many newspapers. These allegations have appeared not only in our papers but in American papers— most of the companies have their headquarters in that country—and they have appeared in English and continental newspapers also. In addition, allegations have been made even at Senate level in the United States, that the oil companies have been involved in the manipulation of the crisis in order to secure higher profits for themselves and their shareholders.
This is a matter that must be considered carefully. Are we completely at the mercy of these people with regard to our supplies of energy and the cost? The Minister should clarify the situation. He should give this House and the people some idea with regard to the origin of the advice the Government are receiving. He should tell us if the Government are satisfied they are getting proper advice. The people must be satisfied that anyone who has been involved in the manipulation of the oil crisis for the purposes of profit is not advising the Government on a matter of such great importance to our economy and the livelihood of our people. I should be very happy if the Minister would give us some assurance on this important matter.
In a debate last November, I remember the Minister for Transport and Power gave the House to understand that inquiries were proceeding with regard to the utilisation of fuel oil for industry and for all sectors of our economy. I should like to know if any results have been published from these studies. Have industrialists, the farming community and all others concerned received any advice other than what was said at the end of the year? Have any worthwhile conclusions come from the studies? I should like the Minister to tell us about this matter. Naturally we will be blamed for not putting forward constructive suggestions on these problems. It is not our business to do so. It is the business of the Government to do this and it is our business to criticise.
There are certain things we should like to ask questions about, one of them being the building industry. Has the Minister for Local Government any directive in mind or ready to go out to the building industry on how they might help to conserve fuel oil? I refer to some form of increased insulation in houses. Such a directive could be sent out in conjunction with the grants system which operates. I am unable to give the percentage of conservation of fuel oil which could be achieved by proper insulation but I am assured it would be big. This is something the Minister for Local Government should consider. He has not the same opportunities to travel abroad as the Minister for Foreign Affairs so he could be advised by the latter Minister who appears to be the Government's chief adviser on many matters, matters pertaining to the Vikings and so on. This is something that might be worth trying, or at least a subject which the Minister for Foreign Affairs might try to learn something about during his many travels.
On the subject of the ESB, we are facing a massive increase in charges this year. In a debate last December I asked the Ministers concerned to give me some idea as to the potential percentage increase in ESB costs during 1974. I am afraid I was way off the mark when I asked whether it would amount to £5 million or £10 million. The Minister for Transport and Power at the time could not give us any idea. We now know the increase will be in the region of £45 million. We hope that the Minister is better informed now, that he is better briefed than he was last year. Perhaps the Minister might consider diverting some of the fuel oil which is refined at Whitegate to the ESB. Approximately one million tons of fuel oil are refined there annually. The Minister for Industry and Commerce might give us some idea of where most of that oil goes to. If some of it could be diverted to the ESB it would help to stabilise their costs and to reduce charges to the Irish public. Instead of paying £60 per ton for fuel oil as at present, they might be able to get it at the £26 per ton which it is costing at Whitegate. It is worth considering and acting on.
What have the Government been doing about developing our native fuel resources? I refer to the provision of more turf burning stations. The Minister for Transport and Power said that Bord na Móna have put a new scheme before him. I hope he will consider it very carefully and act on it very quickly. We heard a lot about natural gas finds off the Cork coast. Have any decisions been taken about diverting some of this natural gas to the ESB or of permitting the ESB to participate in its development? The Minister for Industry and Commerce might be able to throw some light on this and tell us whether the ESB could be given some freedom of movement in this respect.
The Government may not be able to control the price of oil but surely they should be in a position to do something about the price of Bord na Móna briquettes, the price of which has increased so drastically in recent weeks. Surely the Government could exercise real control over such a home produced commodity? Action should be taken on it immediately.
With regard to coal, 90 per cent of our imports are from Poland. It now seems as if the good Communists of Poland have "screwed" us to the extent of £8 per ton. I suggest we look for alternative sources of supply. One place I have in mind is South Africa. EEC countries are importing from South Africa and I think there is no reason why we should not explore the possibility of buying coal from South Africa, no matter what Members on this side or the other may think of South African policies. After all, did not members of the other side march to Lansdowne Road to the rugby match? One of the best employers at Shannon is a South African industry. In my town the other day coal was being sold at £1.80 per bag or £36 per ton. I understand that at the pithead in South Africa coal is selling for £1.80 per ton. It should be possible for the Government to explore the possibility of importing coal from South Africa. They could explore the potential cost of transporting it to some coastal areas like Durban and of shipping it here. If it costs only £1.80 per ton at the pithead and if costs of transportation amounted to even £20 per ton we would still be getting it at half the price we are now paying. We can imagine the relief this would give to old age pensioners and other social welfare recipients about whose increased benefits in the last budget we have been hearing so much. At least they would not be paying £1.70 or £1.80 per cwt. for it every week.
One suggestion I would make to the Minister for Industry and Commerce might mean considerable revenue and be a help to our balance of payments situation. In the gas exploration areas in the North Sea there is a system whereby oil companies tender for blocks of the area. Should it not be possible for us to set up a system whereby oil companies would tender for blocks of our potential oil areas off the south coast—to allow the oil companies to tender for 50 per cent of the blocks within the Celtic Sea, or whatever area is involved? This would ensure that the people who won such tenders would have an Irish base and you could deal with whatever tax problem was involved later.
I intervene to advise the Deputy that his time is almost exhausted and he might now consider making his concluding remarks.
There is one instance in the North Sea where Shell Oil Company tendered as high as £23 million for such a block and they have not got a cupful of oil out of it at this stage of exploration. If this money were available to us we could impose an Irish base to safeguard against future taxation. This would not leave us open to the accusation of selling our birthright. This money would be most welcome into our economy at this stage particularly as our balance of payments deficit this year is likely to be very high.
I would like the Minister to tell us what increase in storage space has been built in the Dublin area since our debate last November. In view of all we said at that time and the stress we laid on the importance of storage facilities I feel that something should have been done by now to ensure increased storage in this area.
Before I embark on the area of the debate with which I want to deal I would draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whom I presume will reply to the debate, to the reply given by the Taoiseach to Deputy Moore's Parliamentary Question today in which it is shown that the total imports of petrol and oil for December, 1972, amounted to 312,866, for December, 1973, 472,576 and for January, 1973, 557,717. The substantial increase shown in the imports in December and January, 1973 would appear on the face of it——
Does the Deputy not mean January, 1974? He said January, 1973.
It is headed December, 1972, January, 1973 and December, 1973.
I just want to be clear.
Perhaps the Minister may not have this information. It is not an area of the debate with which I want to concern myself unduly but on the face of it the figures would appear to show that there has been a substantial increase in imports of petrol and oil during the period of most crisis. I think the people would like an explanation.
I would remind the House that this debate originated from a Private Members motion in relation to prices put down by Deputy Brennan. Consequently, I want, first of all, to deal with that aspect of the matter. We have heard from speakers on this side of the House about the promises and the undertakings given by the members of the Coalition and published by them before the last general election and on which many people believe they succeeded in gaining office. They made promises in relation to prices, to stabilise prices, to halt price rises. I know it probably becomes quite tiresome for Deputies opposite to hear about this but it is important that it should be spelt out and, as was indicated today by Deputy Brennan, that we should at least get now, to put an end to this matter, some apology to the people from the Government for making that promise.
I suggest that promise was made knowing that it could not be kept. If in fact it was not known that it could not be kept the situation is even more frightening. I suggest that Members opposite, and in particular the Minister for Industry and Commerce, knew at the time that 14-point programme was issued that they had no hope of carrying out that promise. We hear nowadays that there is an enormous problem in regard to international inflation. Of course there is a very substantial problem in regard to international inflation and of course it is affecting prices in this country. We are an open economy and we are affected by inflation raging around the world but this did not commence to happen on the 15th March last year. It has been going on for a number of years.
When the Minister for Industry and Commerce made that promise in the 14-point programme and expanded on it in the election campaign he knew that, but when he and his colleagues were in opposition and were attacking the Fianna Fáil Government in regard to prices there was seldom a reference to international inflation, to imported inflation. I would like to quote from a statement Deputy Corish, the present Tánaiste, made on the 13th July, 1972, in this House as reported at column 1579, Volume 262, when he said:
Prices have gone entirely mad. We need only refer to our wives or those who shop to know that this is a fact. Even though we have had a national wage agreement for the past 18 months there is a tremendous variation in food prices, a variation described by the National Prices Commission in their monthly report No. 8 as a difference of 8 per cent between the lowest and highest centres. We had some Bills which we were told were intended to control prices but the present situation shows there has not been a genuine attempt by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to provide any control.
If there was any semblance of truth in that in July, 1972, there is certainly a great deal more truth in it today but you will not find any reference in that to the effects of international inflation.
The present Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking in this House on the 13th July, 1972, reported in Volume 262, column 1801, said amongst other things:
The Government have a duty to them now to respond, even seven years later, and try to devise an incomes policy that will offer the necessary reassurance and enable the unions to continue to pursue this policy of responsibility and gradually to abate the level of wage and salary claims, and, consequently of prices so that we can get out of the inflationary spiral in which we have become caught because of past failures of the Government.
No reference there to international inflation or its effects on prices in our economy. I do not propose to waste the time of the House by quoting at great length but I should like to quote the present Taoiseach—speaking somewhat earlier, admittedly, but the situation was still relatively the same—as reported at column 1022 of the Official Report of 10th November, 1970:
This is a domestic inflation to a large extent and mainly created by excessive Government expenditure.
When Members opposite were on this side of the House they contended that price rises were due to the inactivity of the Fianna Fáil Government. They seldom, if ever, referred to the factors which operate in relation to price control which are outside the control of any Government in this open economy. Knowing what the situation was they promised, when they went before the people for election, to halt price rises and stabilise prices. What has happened? We never had such inflation in the past as we have now. We are faced with a situation in which what can be done within the community to deal with domestic inflation is not being done. Even if it were 100 per cent effective, we all know that because of what is happening around the world there would still be substantial price rises.
I believe that a Government which started out dishonestly on this matter, and continue to try to bluff their way even at this date, deserve to be exposed, deserve to have brought home to them their responsibilities, not only for their failure to do what they could do in regard to domestically caused inflation, but also for their cynical attempt to deceive the people. The Government are endeavouring to shelter behind the oil crisis. In almost all the statistics available in regard to price rises at the moment there has been little or no effect of the fuel crisis, because its effect has not begun to operate in the periods covered by the available statistics.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke on Radio Éireann on Sunday, 20th January and was reported in some of the newspapers the following day. He gave figures which were dealt with by Deputy J. Lynch, who showed that the statement made by the Minister that we had dropped to third place in the league in the EEC is not in fact correct. The correct position, even on the figures which the Minister was using, was that we were joint top of the league. He also made a mistake in regard to other figures he quoted—for instance, in relation to inflation in Britain. The significant thing about what the Minister said on that occasion and repeated since, was that he made this statement on 20th January, 1974. He was relying on the figures issued by the Central Statistics Office in relation to mid-August of the previous year. He had available to him——
That is not so.
I will prove it to the Minister.
I denied it when Deputy Lynch said it and I deny it again.
I will prove it to the Minister. He is reported in the Irish Independent of Monday, 21st January, as having said on the radio programme, among other things:
...in Ireland food prices had declined by 1 per cent for the period, giving an annual rate of 4 per cent...
For the period. The Deputy is talking about food prices and the period. Would he define "the period"?
Would the Minister define the period?
The Deputy is accusing me of misusing figures.
That is right.
I know the period I am talking about and I will say so when I come to speak. Would the Deputy like to define it now?
The report goes on:
Questioned on food prices he pointed out that Ireland had fared decidedly better than either Britain or Denmark in the last quarter of 1973.
That is the period we are talking about.
In fact, it is not the period. The period I was talking about was the period which included one month of the VAT removal and the two previous months, that is, July, August and September, ending on 1st October.
Is the Minister aware that the figure issued by the Central Statistics Office for the consumer price index for mid-August, 1973, is the only one which showed this drop of 1 per cent in food prices?
I am not saying that the Deputy is wrong but I am not so aware.
It is correct and the Minister can check it if he wishes. The Minister made statements on that occasion which got considerable publicity. He has repeated them since, as have some of his colleagues. I suggest that the figures he quoted in those statements are at the very least misleading. When he made a statement in January of this year he had available to him the figures issued by the Central Statistics Office for mid-November. Indeed, he may have had later figures available, but he certainly had those. When dealing with the vital question of rising prices and rising food prices, why did the Minister not rely on the official figures which were available to him? If he did not—and I suggest that the evidence is quite clear that he did not, because he will not find any reference to minus 1 per cent in the food prices for the figures for mid-November— then it becomes very significant that the Minister when pressed on what is, if not the most vital certainly one of the most vital aspects of his Ministry and of the Government's record, found himself reduced to dodging around the figures. That is what is wrong with the Government.
I propose to show in other areas that this is what this Government are doing. They are not prepared to come out and tell the people: "This is the position, however unpalatable. This is the way we think it should be done." If the Minister does that even at this late stage, if he has confidence in the Irish people, we can save the economy of this country. If the Minister and his colleagues persist in their bluffing, they will bring chaos to the economy.
The Minister has been juggling with figures in regard to the cost of living index on food and non-food items. One could argue that it is the cost of living which counts with people, not just the food or non-food items. During most of the period when Fianna Fáil were in office, increases in the cost of living took place in the non-food sector of the index. It is only relatively recently that this position was reversed and we have had higher increases in the food sector than in the non-food sector. When the Minister and his colleagues talk about figures in the non-food sector—some of which they have chosen to give an impression which is not correct; but even if one were to take the figures as being correct—the implication of what they are saying is that it does not really matter about increases in such items as clothing, footwear and fuel.
If anybody thinks I am being unfair to the Minister or his colleagues in saying that this is implied in what they say I would refer them to the first budget of this Government where they deliberately, by Government decision, increased the price of such things as fuel, clothing and footwear. It is not an accident that they are implying this; it is their mentality. Of course, what they have been doing is try to juggle around with the figures that would show up most and least in the cost of living index. But no juggling will conceal from the people, and has not concealed from people who have to go in and buy things in shops, what has been happening under this Government and this Minister for Industry and Commerce. The fact is that in the year ending November, 1972, the increase in the cost of living index was 12.6 per cent, which is the greatest on record. Certainly the outlook for the future is not very hopeful. Indeed, as far as the future is concerned, I might say I am reasonably confident that the next report of the items sanctioned for increase in price by the Minister for Industry and Commerce will show considerably more increases in prices. We expected that it would have been available before this debate, but apparently it will not be available until this coming weekend. However, that does not really protect the Minister or alter the position. I might say that what is happening in prices is perhaps underlined by something I have been told on what seems to me to be reliable authority—that coal is selling in Donegal at £40 a ton.
That is correct, yes. This week it is going up again; it was £40 last week; this week it will be more.
The Minister for Labour, when he was speaking, was purporting to quote things I said on the radio, although he did not hear me. I am in a somewhat similar position in regard to things that were reported to me as having been said by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the radio today that I did not hear. I am informed that one of the things he said was that he would quote in this debate a statement by me to the effect that prices could not be controlled. I do not know if that is a correct report, but if it is——
It is not exactly, but I will be quoting.
If it is I want to point out that any quotation the Minister can make from me will be to the effect that prices could not be controlled at retail level.
That is correct.
I want to point out to the Minister further that I did not say that orders could not be made to control prices at retail level; what I said was that prices could not be controlled at retail level. If the Minister does not know that by now, with his experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he can ask any housewife in the country and she will tell him. He is not controlling prices at retail level in case he thinks he is——
He is not even trying.
The net effect of this Government's handling of the situation is that the pound in mid-February last year was worth 92.2 pence. That is the result of this Government's attempts so far at handling the economy and controlling inflation.
That is not so if you are buying coal and you are in Donegal.
I am afraid the position will deteriorate.
By the way, just as a matter of record, I would like to say this. I was absent for a short time while the Minister for Finance was speaking. I understand that, while I was out, he referred to the figure for import price rises and, I understand, waxed rather eloquent in a disparaging way at my expense, although I had not quoted any figures. In fact, I have checked on the position and I find that the statement made by the Minister for Finance was without foundation. The figure he quoted as being the increase in import prices in the year ending December, 1972, was, he said, either 3.5 per cent or 3.2 per cent, I am not sure which. The correct figure is 7.8 per cent. No figures have been published yet for 1973 but, if the Minister doubts it, I would refer him to the Irish Statistical Bulletin, March, 1973, page 17. Would he please be a little more careful with his figures or at least his allegations in regard to them in the future?
There is a very important matter to which I would like to refer. On the Adjournment Debate in this House before Christmas I went into some detail on the capital position as it appeared. I asked for information, which I claimed the Opposition and the people of this country were entitled to know, in regard to what was happening to the capital position. I shall not go back over the details of this again except to say—and it is on the record; it can be checked— that if one takes, on the one hand, the amount of capital expenditure in our last year of office and, on the other hand, the proposed increase in capital expenditure for the public capital programme for this year, add to it the drop in resources as against last year, the drop in the national loan, the drop in savings and so on and also add certain other items of capital expenditure which it had emerged were proposed to be made, apart from the public capital programme, there emerged a gap of £100 million.
I asked how this was being dealt with. There was no reply in that debate. the Minister for Finance spoke shortly afterwards on the Appropriation Bill in the Seanad, which is a general review of the whole economy of the country, and he did not refer to it. He made some fairly important announcements during the recess at various functions but he did not refer to this. He spoke here today in an economic debate brought by the Government, not by us—we only sought a debate on prices; the Government widened it to include the whole economy—and he did not mention the subject once. I suggest that this is another example of this Government, allegedly an open Government, trying to conceal facts from the public because it is very important that we know exactly what is happening on the capital front. We should know whether the Minister proposes to get the money needed by massive foreign borrowing or by taking it from the banks here, thereby reducing the money available to the private sector; or by a cut-back in expenditure; or by taking it from the deposits made by the commercial banks with the Central Bank because, if that is what he is doing, he is simply fuelling inflation. The guidelines of the Central Bank result in the commercial banks having to deposit sums with the Central Bank in order to control inflation. If that money is being used by the Government for its public capital programme, then they are just fuelling inflation, making the position twice as bad, and the public are entitled to know what is happening. Once more I am asking the Government to tell us what is the position. The silence on this subject is extremely ominous.
Deputy J. Lynch pointed out that this Government took over our economy in a very favourable condition. On any front one looked at, other than inflation, the economy was absolutely set fair and, on inflation, the position was bad but not nearly as bad as it is now. The other aspects of the economy are now deteriorating. The capital position is certainly one that gives cause for grave disquiet. The balance of payments position, quite apart from the effects of the oil crisis, has disimproved very considerably.
I heard the Minister for Finance today, and I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce on other occasions and particularly during the Monaghan by-election, boasting about the rate of growth achieved during the past year, about an increase in employment, about the position in regard to unit wage costs and other matters. I want to remind the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleagues that those achievements are the achievements of Fianna Fáil. If he thinks that is not true, I would ask him how soon does he think there is a yield from public investment through the public capital programme or otherwise. Does he not know that the very minimum period is six months and more often it is up to two years? Does he now know that what he has been boasting about is the achievement of Fianna Fáil and that his Government are now going on test to see what they can do with the economy?
I would suggest that the general approach to the economy between this party in Government and the present Government can be compared with great interest. We are in a position of raging inflation. We are all agreed on that. I suggest that the management of the economy in that kind of situation requires a certain delicacy of touch but, more than anything else, it requires commonsense. I suggest that the right way to handle the economy in that kind of situation is the way it was handled in the budget of 1972. The first feature of that budget was that no new taxation whatever was imposed. That is important, I believe, in an inflationary situation. Certainly no new taxation on commodities in general use should be imposed because, if it is, the Government are deliberately increasing prices and the whole effort of the Government should be to do everything possible not to increase prices, to keep prices down.
This Government increased prices right across the board, as I mentioned earlier, on such essentials as footwear, clothing and fuel, and on everything else you can think of, plus the old reliables and the Post Office charges. They increased the price of anything they could get their hands on. I suggest that shows an appalling ignorance of what the economy requires at this time.
Could I ask the Deputy a serious question? Would he have introduced VAT in the budget in 1973 if he had still been Minister for Finance?
Would I have introduced VAT?
Yes. Would you have introduced value-added tax?
I had already introduced it.
There was a Bill about it.
(Interruptions.)
I will explain to the Minister. Value-added tax was in operation.
The Minister has bats in the brain.
What the Minister and his colleagues did was to take it off food and to increase it at an enormous rate on some items, but to increase the rate of VAT on everything else.
The Minister does not know that.
He knows it well.
Obviously he does not. However, I suggest that is the first basic requirement when you are dealing with an economy in an inflationary situation. The next thing which is required is that you should, in a budget of that kind, try to ensure as far as possible that you ease the burden on the worse off sections of the community. You do that through social welfare and income tax. I should like to remind the House again that in the 1972 budget where we imposed no new taxation, we increased income tax reliefs in various allowances at a total cost in that year of £11 million as compared with £½ million in this Government's budget, as Deputy Lynch pointed out. At the same time we gave more benefit in that year to social welfare recipients than this Government are giving if you deduct the EEC money.
I suggest that is the right way to approach the economy in the present situation but this Government went at it the wrong way around completely. The result is that by deliberate Government action the price of almost everything in the country was increased, by a decision in this House carried by the Deputies over there, and then they wonder why they did not get a national pay agreement. Anybody with an ounce of sense will see that the way they went at this was just inviting the defeat of the national agreement. I am not saying that with hindsight because I said it immediately after the Minister for Finance sat down when he finished his budget statement and I had to stand up and reply. In the course of that speech on 16th May, 1973, as reported at column 1310, volume 265, of the Official Report I said:
A major test of this budget will, of course, be whether or not it is effective from the point of view of its effect on prices and income inflation. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard some of the proposals which are clearly, and this must be in the knowledge of the Minister for Finance, going to cause further price increases, apart altogether from the direct effect of the increased taxation he is putting on. He must know of the effects on prices of what is contained in this budget.
I referred directly to the effect on the national wage agreement subsequently in the House. I referred in somewhat similar terms to the matter at column 702, volume 267, of the Official Report on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill. Speaking at the end of the budget debate, as reported at column 384, volume 266, of the Official Report, I said:
I wonder in the light of the increased taxation being imposed and in the light of the consequential increases in the cost of living how do the Government hope to get a situation in which a third national pay agreement will be entered into. I have no wish to sabotage any effort to get a national agreement because I believe it is vital to the interests of everybody in this country that we should have another national agreement, but I cannot forbear from saying that I regard the Government's action in this budget in the context of negotiating the new national wage agreement as nothing less than irresponsible.
I repeat that here and now. There is another very irresponsible and indeed scandalous matter in regard to the national agreement and that is the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the radio today to the effect that the national wage agreement was sabotaged by efforts of Fianna Fáil members of trade unions.
It shows he was out of touch.
I might say in this regard—and it will not surprise you to hear it, Sir, but just for the record —that the Minister for Labour issued a statement through the Government Information Bureau in regard to what he had said to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at his meeting of 4th February, 1974, in which he said:
The ballot is over and I fully accept the authenticity of that democratic decision on the terms of the national agreement. Indeed, I wish to congratulate those who attempted to involve their membership in decision-making on that vital ballot.
I would think that in this case the Minister for Labour was closer to the truth than the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I also want to say that, while in one way it could be regarded as a compliment to Fianna Fáil to say that their members and supporters who are members of trade unions could bring about this result, I would rather think that most people and particularly trade unionists will feel that, to suggest that they made a decision on the national wage agreement on the basis of party politics, is something for which they are entitled to an apology from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This is typical of what we get from this Government. They will blame anybody rather than themselves for their incompetence and their inactivity. There is a great deal to show that the Government's incompetence and inactivity have brought about the rejection of the national pay agreement. I suggest to the Government that they should consider what they did in the budget and what they failed to do: what they failed to do about income tax and what they did about prices. They deliberately increased prices in the budget to a very substantial extent. That was crazy in the context of a national pay agreement. We have a statement made by the Minister for Finance and, on the doctrine of collective responsibility, I presume he was speaking for all the members of the Government. He made what could only be regarded as a most provocative statement in telling members of trade unions that they had better take what was offered or else they might do a lot worse, and a week later an official of the Congress expressed his surprise and disquiet, and quite rightly so, at this statement.
We in office created a climate in which a national pay agreement was accepted on two occasions. This Government have failed to create a climate in which a national pay agreement could be accepted. Let us be clear that the failure occured because of the inactivity and the incompetence of this Government. I believe that a national pay agreement is vitally important to the economy in present circumstances. Not only does it ensure that some people who are either ill-organised or unorganised get increases which they would not otherwise get, but it also ensures that we have relative stability in regard to industrial relations, and this can have an enormous effect on the growth of the economy.
That being so, I very much regret that the national pay agreement has been rejected. I do not know if it is possible to have a national pay agreement now, but I do not think that no effort should be spared to try to bring it about, and I do not think that if there is any hope of it there is any chance of anybody else doing this except the Government. We, perhaps, have no obligation to make any suggestion to the Government; it is the Government's duty to govern, but since they have been so incompetent I will make a few suggestion to them before I conclude.
First, I would urge the Government to tell the people the truth about the economic situation and tell them what they propose to do about it, and the people will go with them. Let the Government have faith in them. Secondly, they should make a commitment—this is difficult but it is not impossible—in regard to income tax allowances and social welfare payments. Furthermore, some provision has got to be made for those workers who should have got an increase as from 1st January this year. They cannot go on waiting for more months for an increase. At least some provision must be made for an interim increase for them.
If the Government do this they will at least be contributing a substantial amount—if we can get a national pay agreement—to controlling domestic inflation, the only inflation that is under the control of the Government. That is the area in which the Government should operate at maximum efficiency; it is the area in which they have not operated at all up to now. While I make these suggestions and I believe they are worthwhile and should be tried, the most important of them is the first one. Would the Government please learn to have faith in the people? The people know things are difficult and they know they are going to get more difficult. Tell them the truth. Let the Government stop bluffing the way they have been bluffing up to now. They should tell the people what they propose to do and the people will go along with it. They have shown it in the past. Let them explain the position about the capitalist situation, about the fuel situation, about prices and how little the Government can do. Let us not be fiddling around arguing about the figures for one quarter and another. Let us acknowledge the problem that is there and let the Government concentrate on the area they can control, the domestic inflationary area. If they do that, I believe, although it is difficult to repair the damage that has been done, at least something will be salvaged from the wreck of this Coalition.
Inevitably, in a debate as wide ranging as this, it would be impossible to cover all the points raised. I want to say also by way of explanation at the beginning that my reason for not opening as well as closing the debate is that I thought it desirable at this time that there should be an opportunity in this House certainly to cover prices, which have been fully covered, but also to cover energy and some other aspects of the economy. I thought it desirable that as many Ministers as possible should get in. If I had claimed my opening and closing time I would have been excluding another Minister. I think that was a reasonable approach to things.
What I want to do first is to talk about the objective circumstances economically which exist in the world at the moment when we are having this debate. In a sense part of the decision of the public about who has the rights and wrongs of it will revolve around the question of how much of our difficulties are created by events and circumstances outside this country. That is the central point. I shall talk, indeed, freely and with trust in the people about our current difficulties. The question at issue is, first, are the causes with our incompetence or are they with the most difficult objective circumstances that have existed since the war; and, secondly, if the latter is true, as I believe, are our responses correct and measured and reasonable responses?
Let me talk about the objective circumstances because we have seen in 1973 and not, with respect to Deputy Colley, in 1972, the greatest speculation in world commodity prices that has occurred since the last world war, and that applies to all sorts of commodities. I shall be giving some figures later on, but that is the fact of the matter.
We have also seen the downfloat of the pound sterling for reasons that have to do with the British economy but not with our economy, but it is still the same £. It varies up and down these days somewhat between 17½ and 18½ per cent devaluation on the Smithsonian parities. That is inflationary in quite a measurable way, because everything you buy from outside the sterling area is already that much dearer. Therefore, in addition to the commodities inflation, which was enormous and was in 1973, you have the devaluation inflation which was at its most accelerated and acute in 1973. Interest rates worldwide have been, again not for reasons in the Irish economy, at an historically high level; everyone who has to borrow has to pass on some of that high cost of money.
All of those things were already operative and already producing predictions by the economic pundits of the world of a recession before the energy crisis erupted at all. The point I am making, therefore, is that the objective economic situation in the whole of the free market world is the most difficult since the war and it merits comparison with the situation in the war; indeed, it is a comparison that has been made by very eminent people, people who are not politically committed in any direction in the recent past, and I think correctly. On top of that, we see the country closest to us geographically, to which we have extraordinary ties of imports and exports, with a very major sector of investment in our-economy, again tottering on the brink of absolute chaos.
It is right that we tell the people-and this is the place to tell them-that the objective situation is as difficult and as threatening as that, and I think we are entitled to measure what is said from this side of the House and from the other side of the House to measure what everyone says in this debate against the recognition of that situation. I believe we are entitled and required to do that. Deputy Barrett said we are making the energy crisis a scapegoat for difficulties of our own making. I can only reply that in my understanding of the economy that is not true. We are not making it a scapegoat but affirming that it is as serious as it is.
Next, I want to talk about the record of the Opposition because I shall be making the case that in circumstances where none of the four acute, inflation-making factors operated they were not controlling inflation so that we were at the top of the inflation league. I affirm that our inflation is very serious but I also affirm that we are now performing better than we were in their period of office. They had a time when things were relatively easy and we were then at the top of the inflation league. Now we have a time when things are uniquely difficult and while inflation is still vastly too high—I am certainly not minimising it—our performance vis-à-vis our competitors and comparable countries is better and is improving and we are taking steps which are having a measurable effect. To do that I must say a little about the performance of the Opposition when they were in Government in regard to prices.
We could chop figures endlessly; I shall have something to say about that later. In fact, for the 12 month period up to february 1973 the rate of increase was 16½ per cent for food prices and 10 per cent for all consumer prices. Let us give both because I agree with Deputy Colley that both are relevant. In the three months prior to our taking office the figure for all consumer prices, as Deputy Colley knows, was 4 per cent and that is from the Central Statistics Office. This rate in Ireland for those three months was by far the highest rate of increase of all nine countries of the Community and the US and Japan. For all consumer prices in that period it was 100 per cent higher than the rate of increase in the nearest comparable country. That is what we inherited. I shall have something to say about the presentation of what we inherited in a minute.
I am sorry Deputy Lynch is not here because I shall refer now to a speech which he made on 14th March, 1973. I did not interrupt him then because he was a person who, as Taoiseach, had called a general election and I did not feel I should say a sharp thing. But we must challenge this record and I shall quote from the Official Report of 14th March, 1973 refferring to the Fianna Fáil record in the field of prices and incomes when Deputy Lynch said, as reported in vol. 265, col. 28:
The success of these actions on prices and incomes can be judged not alone on the falling off in the rate of inflation, which is now more than 2 per cent below the level of two years ago and is still falling....
He went on to say something else. To me this is incomprehensible. In the three months ending February, 1971 the consumer price index rose by 1.6 per cent; in the three months ending February, 1973 it rose by 4 per cent. That was the situation we inherited and how that can be reconciled——
Why is the Minister taking three month periods?
Because that is what is taken in this speech of Deputy Lynch which I am quoting. We are told that the rate of inflation was falling and was 2 per cent below the level of two years previously when, in fact, the level two years previously was 1.6 and in the quarter in question it was 4 per cent. What can you do with people who do that with statistics? perhaps it would be uncharitable to say that Deputy Lynch was quoting from memory. This is hopelessly inaccurate. I do not know how people can have such a mistaken idea of the situation as to say things like that.
The Minister should understand, considering the misquotations he has given us, exactly how what he has alleged can occur.
I listened carefully to the Deputy's researched and passionately presented case and it seems the mountain was in labour and brought forth a ridiculous mouse. I did not see the great pay-off.
Other people did.
Fine. The other point one might raise is whether it is possible to do anything about retail prices and whether we have added anything to the battery of powers in regard to price control and whether those extra powers we took have had any effect. The quotation I promised Deputy Colley is from the Value Added Tax Bill debate on 12th July, 1972, as reported in the Official Report vol. 262, cols. 1502 and 1503. It states:
... The price surveillance machinery of the Department of Industry and Commerce is geared primarily to the control of price increases by the manufacturers, and there is little or no experience of enforcing general price reductions especially at the retail level
Then there was an interjection after which Deputy Colley went on:
The Deputy—
Deputy Fitzgerald in this case
—ought to grow up. Has he listened to what has been said in this House time after time, that, with one or two exceptions, there is no control of prices at the retail level? If the Deputy does not know that, he should know that, and if he does not know why, he should know.
After another interjection Deputy Colley went on:
It has been said on numerous occasions in this House. The Deputy should not talk about alleging it. Where would he find an allegation that it exists? Where in the law does it say that it exists, apart from bread, milk, and one or two other items? I do not want to embarrass Deputy FitzGerald and his colleagues but there are a number of his colleagues who could explain to him why price control at the retail level is next to impossible...
That was the opinion of the Deputy who was then Minister for Finance, surely an influential person, in regard to prices.
And still is his opinion. The Minister has demonstrated it to us.
That, as least has the merit of consistency. The question is: faced with the objective circumstances, what did we do? I introduced in June a package of five statutory orders which were aimed at doing some of the things that Deputy Colley belived and still belives to be impossible and which I think are not easy but are worth doing and which have provided some measurable improvement if not as much as I would like, because one of these orders provided a mechanism for stabilising profit margins for importers and wholesalers.
That has nothing to do with the quotation from me.
No. That is extending the area away from resale price maintenance. The Deputy said you cannot do things at the retail level.
Effectively, no.
He also said earlier that you cannot do anything in regard to imported inflation either. I think that controlling margins for importers does a little, not enormous but better than nothing. That same order controlled wholesalers' margins. Again not retail. Deputy Colley thinks that is impossible but I think it is better than nothing. I think there is a little measurable benefit from it.
If it works, yes.
We also had an order for the profit margins of retailers which covered 20 headings. We extended very considerably the Maximum Prices (Household Goods) Order to 19 products with 67 separate prices. There were two other minor ones which were worth doing though I could not claim that there would be an enormous impact. They are more for the sake of clarifying the situation and arousing consumer attitudes than for any direct impact on prices. I believe that was a practical, constructive and useful package and I believe it has had some measurable effect.
We have had a fairly large number of prosecutions. I want to emphasise that price control is partly a function of Government but it does seem to me to be partly a function of the populace at large also. I gave the example today of meat prices. We had bitter complaints about how much the price of cattle had come down and it is true but this reduction has not been passed on by the butchers in recent months. Because each cut of meat is a different size and a different bit of the animal and a different weight, I agree with Deputy Colley that it is extremely difficult, in fact I would agree that it is impossible, to control the price of meat at retail level.
And many other things.
There is a very useful area for public pressure in that. I heard things today which, if they are true, had they been reported to the NPC or to me we would have had taken action on them months ago. If they are useful political points make them but please also tell us as soon as you hear them and we can initiate action because we do have some powers and some of the powers were produced by our predecessors. I am not disclaiming the machinery that they produced; I am saying we added to it, we strengthened it, we extended it into areas into which the previous Minister for Finance did not believe it was possible to extend it.
Tell us the measure. That is the point.
The National Prices Commission were, of course, set up by our predecessors and they have the same composition as under our predecessors. I have tried to strengthen the commission but I have not altered their composition. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I think their findings are reasonably objective. I do not try to distort them and I do not think our predecessors did. I am having some difficulty in finding the estimate by the NPC which indicates the amount of money saved to the public by the actions of the NPC.
I hope that is not the measurable amount the Minister is talking about.
Yes, it is.
That is a rather poor argument after all the talk.
It is interesting that Deputy Colley thinks this is a poor argument.
It depends on how much the person claimed. It has nothing to do with the real cost.
The estimate is that the quantity of money on an annual basis saved by the activities of the NPC was £26 million. That is £ 9 per person and is very nearly £ 50 per family per year. It is £1 a week practically.
The Minister is too intelligent for this.
If Deputy Colley thinks that is not worth doing and that the amount is not worth saving——
How is it arrived at?
By the calculations published in the NPC Report of which the Deputy is as aware as I am.
It is based on the amount the manufacturer claims, what they say they want and how much is given to them as against that. Is that not the way it is arrived at?
That is part of the calculation.
How reliable is that? Is the Minister serious?
Is the Deputy suggesting all manufacturers are dishonest?
The Minister.
The Department did did that before the NPC were set up.
I am interested in the suggestion that nothing is effective and nothing is worth doing.
The Minister said he could measure effectiveness of control at retail level and when he is pressed this is what he produces. The Minister made a big song and dance about it and when it comes to the point this is what he comes out with.
The Minister is entitled to his time.
I have talked a bit about comparisons with other countries which I do not propose to labour. The figures are there. What is essential is to compare our cost structure, our competitiveness, with other similar countries. The inescapable fact is that in 1972 we were head of the inflation league. If you take the nine countries of the Community now we are not, indeed, at the bottom, and I agree that no change of direction is rapid or easy, but we are joint third with two other countries instead of being at the top by a large margin. That at least means that in circumstances of inflation we retained our competitive position and vis-à-vis some other countries we improved our competitive position slightly.
What figures is the Minister quoting?
The OECD is one source and the figures of the Community itself is the other source.
I have them here and I am afraid they do not agree with the Minister's figures.
We can enter into printed exchanges on this and we will see who is right. In circumstances like this, if you exclude certain purchase products which are raging up in price —this is unthinkable because we need them to maintain the volume of our industrial production, we need them to maintain the volume of our exports, the volume of our employment—and if you lurch into ill-considered and seemingly attractive or dramatic price control efforts what you do is to undermine confidence and damage your economy. I think Deputy Colley has a point when he says that you do not change the direction of an economy upwards or downwards very easily and that there is a certain momentum in those things. That is true but in the past year if our activities had been undermining confidence, if we had engendered distrust in the business community, we would have seen results other than the results we have seen. Now is long enough for the thing to be coming through the pipeline, confidence or no confidence. We would have seen results other than the very remarkable results of the highest rate of growth our economy has ever seen and the sort of figures for gross national product, for growth of exports of both categories, the sort of figures that have been brought out in the debate. I want to bring out figures for one other sector because it is suggested by the Opposition that wages have gone up but that that is worth absolutely nothing because real incomes have not gone up, that all of the increases in wages have been undermined by inflation. There has been a very significant and large rise in real income in 1973. Personal consumer expenditure rose by 7 per cent which is in line with gross national product. National income rose by 21 per cent in current money terms, by over 9 per cent in real income terms. That was the performance of 1973. Personal consumer expenditure 7 per cent, national income over 9 per cent in real terms. Those are remarkable performances for a year as difficult as 1973 and they answer the argument that all of the gains of wages were simply cut away by price increases and that there were no real gains. There were, in fact, real and dramatic gains in what is generally agreed to have been an extremely difficult year.
If the position is as the Minister has stated why have we spent six hours discussing this?
I started by indicating that I thought the position was extremely difficult, extremely grave, and extremely sensitive for the whole future of the economy. It seems to me a very proper time to debate the economy.
What about the incomes of farmers?
I cannot touch on the details of all the speeches but I accused Deputy Brennan earlier today of irresponsibility and of wrecking. I made this accusation on the radio today and I am doing it again now. Deputy Brennan was Minister for Labour and he knows the delicacies of a national wage agreement. He knows, in fact, that on previous occasions it was not automatically accepted the first time and there was a rejection. He knows that the period afterwards is a very delicate one. I share the hope that we will get such an agreement. I believe in them as I know the people on the Fianna Fáil front bench believe in them. I shall refer to what Deputy Colley said in relation to my remarks in a moment.
We got a list from Deputy Brennan today of an unidentified woman at an unidentified supermarket for the month of January showing that ham, sausages, and mince had gone up by 50 per cent. Many of the items he referred to are price controlled and he should have reported them because action could have been taken in addition to the 600 odd prosecutions we have had. Taking all the items he referred to together Deputy Brennan told us that the rise was 25 per cent in one month which is equal to an annual rate of 300 per cent. Anybody who suggests that ham, sausages and mince went up by 50 per cent in that month is monstrous and irresponsible and, at a time as delicate as this both in regard to a national wage agreement and to the whole economy is wrecking.
If things like that are said to the people when, in fact, their real income has gone up by 7 or 8 per cent in the year, what does one do but make them desire demands that no economy could satisfy? How can one be so irresponsible and so wrecking? That was true when I talked to him this morning and there was the great suggestion that I should not have said it and that it was improper of me to say it, but the Deputy came into this House and proved his irresponsibility and his "wreckingness" by an idiot selection of figures like that. I am sorry Deputy Brennan is not here to hear me say "idiot" and I hope it is not unparliamentary to use the word "idiot".
Fifty per cent in one month for a number of meat products, 25 per cent for all the products, and the Deputy read all of this onto the record of the House as valid criticism and as a serious contribution to a serious debate on a serious day at a serious time. How irresponsible and wrecking can one become? Deputy Colley also had great fun with figures but I should like to ask him if he would like to make any comment on any of those figures I have announced. Would Deputy Colley like to agree with me that those figures are irresponsible and wrecking? He knows very well they are.
(Interruptions.)
If the Minister says that the situation is so delicate will he please explain, as he promised, his remarks about Fianna Fáil?
The Minister apparently is not interested in the price of coal at all. The Minister should be honest, all the bluff is over.
That was an irresponsible speech. It was an irresponsible, damaging and harmful speech at a very delicate time. I should now like to refer to my argument with Deputy Brennan on RTE and the words I used as already mentioned by Deputy Colley.
In this delicate situation.
Yes. I said I had information from all over the country of Fianna Fáil trade unionists doing their utmost at branch level to secure its rejection. I have previously welcomed Deputy Brennan agreeing with me that a national wage agreement was a desirable thing. I had welcomed that. We were at one on that point.
That is a lie and the Minister is out of touch.
The Minister is trying to divide the nation now.
Deputy Colley, Deputy Lynch, Deputy Brennan and myself are of one mind in this regard and we all feel that it is a desirable thing but now in the characteristic manner of Fianna Fáil who love to face in two directions simultaneously, and who have people who are for Sunningdale, who are not sure about Sunningdale, and who are against Sunningdale all at the same time.
(Interruptions.)
Some of them are for peace and reconciliation, and for bags of guns at the same time in exactly the same way. We have reasonable, calm, mature, responsible statements from the Fianna Fáil front bench but we have individual members of Fianna Fáil at branch level of trade unions trying to wreck individual members because Fianna Fáil likes to face in two directions. That is what I said and that what he has stated is not true.
What does the Minister know about trade unionists?
The Minister knows that is what I stand over.
What has the Labour Party done about it?
The Minister is wrecking any chance there is of reaching an agreement.
What the Minister has said is not true.
The truth always hurts.
I should now like to talk about the present and the projectable economic situation.
The Minister for Labour will not have any chance of reaching an agreement after the statement of this Minister.
The Deputy should cease to interrupt. The Minister to conclude.
The Minister is wrecking any chance of a pay agreement.
The shadow Minister is wrecking this chance.
I have gone on record as desiring such an agreement. If wreckage is being done it is being done by Deputy Brennan's price list showing 300 per cent per year of an increase.
The Deputies should allow the Minister who has only a short time to reply to the debate.
The Minister is telling deliberate untruths. It is an insult to the trade unionists and workers and I am quite certain the people in Congress will chastise the Minister accordingly.
If the Deputy does not resume his seat the Chair has another remedy.
Deputies
Chair.
Is Sunningdale relevant to this?
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Where is the freedom of speech now?
The Minister is using Sunningdale to cover up a mess.
I was using Sunningdale as an example of Fianna Fáil hypocrisy. I should now like to talk about the current economic situation and the predictable economic situation in so far as it is predictable. I found today's contributions from Fianna Fáil depressing. One or two Members, notably Deputy Barrett, on small specific issues made a serious effort to offer constructive suggestions. I welcome them and I will look at them seriously. I know my colleagues will do the same. In general we found absolute pessimism, absolute negativism, a whole series of words which would paint a picture of gloom and despondency at a time of difficulty. In my view that is a damaging and harmful thing. If the Deputies opposite talk a little more, for example, to people in business who are deeply concerned with the present situation——
We are talking to the ordinary working people.
Like the housewife.
——they will find that there is a recognition of a difficult and threatening situation but they will not find that there is alarm or despondency or pessimism or gloom or doom. They will find that there is a rather courageous willingness on the part of the people, with the exception of the leadership of Fianna Fáil, to face the difficulties and to come through them. But in an economic debate let us say something about these difficulties. Let us say that there are very serious economists in many countries who are talking of the danger of a world recession. Let us say that there are serious economists who are talking of the dangers of hyperinflation which would be fuelled by commodity prices, by devaluation and by wage rises. The whole thing becomes a self-accelerating cycle which brings inflation to a level that smashes society in a way similar to what happened in the 1920s. Let us say that there are serious people who recognise that that may be happening at the moment. Let us say, also, that when one asks for details regarding the energy crisis one is making a reasonable request. However, it is a request which, with the best will in the world it would be impossible to give a precise answer to. Will anyone say what will happen between the Syrians and the Israelis? Will anyone say what sort of withdrawal there is to be to the 1967 lines, that is if there is to be a withdrawal? Will the Arab States remain unified? Will anyone say whether in any unified way they will de-escalate their control of the oil and reduce the cost of that commodity or whether they will break up and go different ways? The stresses are there.
It is understandable, on a superficial examination, to want details; but people who were in Government until recently should be experienced enough to know that detail on many of these questions is impossible. Not only has the energy shortage produced the world-wide difficulties that are obvious, but it is influencing also the cost of many other commodities, whether oil based or not. It is refuelling an inflation that was already worrying world wide. In the circumstances and having regard to Britain's difficulties there may be specific shortages for our industry, not arising inside Ireland but inside the UK from where so many of our products come. It is not impossible that the £ may float down even further and every floating down of the £ increases the price of everything coming from outside the sterling area. Therefore, we have a circumstance which has real similarities with the Emergency. The situation is difficult and that is why it is so awful to hear the pessimism and the negativism of the Opposition without their putting forward a single constructive suggestion, apart from some little ones from Deputy Barrett.
I made some suggestions which I hope the Minister will comment on.
The Deputy made two or three and I have commented already on one of those. Perhaps I shall mention the other two later.
It would be interesting to have the Minister's comments.
Deputy Lynch said that we had jeopardised economic growth, that we had created despondency, that we had shattered confidence and that the workers were so disillusioned that they rejected the terms of the national pay agreement. He spoke also of a sort of national malaise.
All of which I believe.
I am sure Deputy Lynch would not say those things if he did not consider them to be true. In the circumstances I have been talking of and in the face of the economic performance of this Government during the past year these allegations are irresponsible and are damaging to our economy and are creating difficulties that need not exist. Also they are creating expectations——
Like stopping price rises.
Do not knock us when we are down.
I must be aware of the time at my disposal.
The Minister will have to be aware of the housewife.
He is on a sticky wicket.
We were accused of saying that we would reduce prices.
I was quoting from the 14-point programme.
I have that programme before me and the immediate sentence says that the economic aims of the new Government will be to stabilise prices, halt redundancies and reduce unemployment. Two of those things have been done dramatically and successfully.
Read on.
In regard to stabilising prices——
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has only a few minutes left in which to conclude.
Let the Minister complete the paragraph. It says that Fine Gael in Government will immediately introduce strict price control.
Which I did, but the Deputy is misquoting.
I have the programme here.
The Minister must be allowed his time.
I am referring to the agreed document but the point I am making is that in regard to stabilising prices, in the first two quarters after the 4 per cent inflation in the first quarter we had an improving performance. We did a number of things which I have enumerated. Deputy Colley said that we never acknowledged imported inflation. I did so in a speech.
(Interruptions.)
I admit that it was acknowledged from the Deputy's side of the House. In regard to stabilising prices we have improved our performance vis-à-vis other countries. In the first two quarters after coming to power we had some heartening results. We cannot do everything immediately. We have been seriously knocked off course by the oil crisis. We affirm that and we are embarrassed by it, but to suggest that no resolute efforts were made and that no serious results appeared before the oil crisis is simply to try to ignore the facts. All of us here are deeply concerned with the real practical difficulties of those persons in every sector of life, whether they be housewives, farmers, industrialists or whatever. Nobody has a monopoly of that concern but the kernel of the matter is that we are facing a situation of enormous difficulties. Fianna Fáil are trying to minimise matters. Deputy Brennan said that when Fianna Fáil were in office we placed the blame on them for the difficult situations that arose but that we blame external circumstances for the difficulties facing the Coalition. There is a real difference between 1972 and 1973.
Deputies
Of course there is.
There is this worldwide difficulty. In those circumstances the need is to recognise a raging inflation by which we are profoundly embarrassed, but to recognise also the 5,000 extra jobs that were created last year, as well as the exports, the output, the new investment and the real income growth. Previous speakers spoke of all these other matters but I added the real income bit. We can only survive the difficulties ahead by being calm and unified and by taking resolute action.
Perhaps it is the task of an Opposition merely to try pull down the Government but how much the people opposite would have upstaged us if they had produced a dozen practical suggestions.
Let us hear from the Minister in regard to my other suggestions.
I shall find them.
To refresh the Minister's memory they were, first, income tax and social welfare commitments and, secondly, what the workers are entitled to from 1st January.
The Deputy was not very generous when he was over here.
(Interruptions.)
I hope that I will be given extra time because I have been subjected to much barracking. "Have faith in the people" was his first point. That was a practical suggestion of how one could solve the current difficulties. If the Deputy had had a dozen practical suggestions it would have been marvellous. He would then have put us in the position that either we rejected them because they came from him—which would be doing the wrong thing—or else we accepted them, in which case we would be following his policy. After 16 years in Government the Deputy should have known better. The Deputy has three points and the first one was "Have faith in the people". The second point was concerned with income tax allowances and social welfare benefits.
Make a commitment now.
What would the Deputy say if we anticipated the budget?
(Interruptions.)
This is the cheapest sort of point-scoring. Deputy Colley wanted increases for the people for whom wage increases became due on 1st January. This, as he and I both said, is a very delicate point. We both want to see a national wage agreement, I trust.
That was intended to be helpful.
Does the Deputy think that a commitment from me on that would be helpful now?
We think some concern should be shown by the Government——
(Interruptions.)
I have recapitulated Deputy Colley's three main helpful points. If that is all they are, God help us all.
The Minister is just rejecting them. What does he propose to do to help the national wage agreement?
We have had today irrelevance and irresponsibility, and we have had a fantastic sort of wrecking of a ridiculous kind. We have been accused, after we came to office, of proceeding too quickly. Today we are accused of proceeding too slowly. We will proceed deliberately and calmly, with the trust and goodwill of various sectors in this country—the workers, those in industry and agriculture. We will not be frightened. We will not be stampeded. We will not even be impressed by what comes from the opposite side of the House unless they make it a little more impressive. The people will see this demonstration at this very difficult moment in our economic history. If ever we need a demonstration that the Opposition need to stay in opposition longer, we have got it today. We have got it on the basis of the absolute irrelevance and irresponsibility and, in certain cases, downright wrecking in all they have to contribute to a debate on the economy at one of the most delicate and difficult times for that economy in the history of the State.
(Interruptions.)
If that is the best you can do you deserve to stay where you are for a very long time.
Motion No. 9 in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to which an amendment was moved by Deputy Blaney to delete certain words and to substitute others. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided. Tá, 70; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Liam.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling. Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O' Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers : Tá. Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I am now putting the original motion:
That Dáil Éireann, being mindful of the serious problems created for the country by the deterioration of the world economic climate caused by shortages of sources of energy and other essential commodities with consequential price increases, and of the actions taken to date by the Government to deal with them, encourages the Government to take such further steps as may be necessary to minimise the adverse effects of the international economic situation.
Na Teachtaí atá ar thaobh na tairiscintí abraidís "Tá."
Deputies
Tá.
Na Teachtaí eile abraidís "Níl."
Deputies
Níl.
Sílim go bhfuil an tairiscint rite.
Deputies
Vótáil.
Since this is a motion that calls on the Dáil to encourage the Government to do their job and since they need all the encouragement they can get, and having recorded that encouragement during the debate, we do not propose to divide the Dáil on this motion.
Question put and agreed to.