The debate on the budget has been so scattered over the weeks that it is difficult to follow any coherent pattern. That is not our fault. It is not the Opposition who have seen fit to relegate it to the background. We have it at the end of the day on Thursdays, at times when it is not likely to get much publicity. Towards the end of the Minister's budget statement he said:
Any critic, in this House or outside it, of the Government's budgetary strategy ought in all fairness to "hold his whist" unless willing to state publicly his alternative to our proposals.
In other words, do not speak unless you can produce alternative proposals. In spite of that statement, which is probably calculated to stifle discussion, I will comment on the budget proposals and why we must have such proposals at this time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach spoke on the budget. He referred to the ding-dong attitude of Opposition speaking and implied that it was only a waste of time having those speeches which were holding up important legislation such as the Broadcasting Bill, from which the main substance has been withdrawn anyhow. His speech refers mostly to our criticisms of the budget debate not being given prominence in the House. He made a rather personal attack on the Leader of this party. I will not waste the time available to me in discussing that approach except to say that at budget time every Deputy has the right—I would go further and say the duty—to come in here and examine the Government's stewardship during the year. The budget debate gives us an opportunity to examine the way in which they have been handling the economy over the previous year and their projections for the year ahead.
That opportunity was available to us annually in the past. It has become a rather frequent occurrence now. In spite of many budgets under different guises which were introduced during the year, the annual budget is still an important event in the life of a Government. To say it should be let go without debate, or to imply, as the Chief Whip of the Government party implied, that it is only a waste of time after the first day or two, is to deny to the House one of its most important functions.
I will have suggestions to make about what the Government can do now in the short term. I have the right to criticise the Government's mishandling of affairs in the past. I remember when the Minister came into this House with his first budget. In his opening statement he referred to the slack in the economy which was not taken up and said he proposed to remedy that. The volume of unused capacity was to be changed by the new Government who would go for expansion in a big way and we were to have a completely changed situation. We should remember how things stood at that time. We had a rapidly growing export trade. We had a manageable unemployment problem. We were still recording a decent increase in the national economy. We had a growing population as recorded in two previous censuses. Emigration was virtually at a standstill. We had inflation which was manageable. We had prices rising, but not to any serious extent relative to what we have witnessed since. That was the scenario when the Minister for Finance brought his first budget into this House.
Before that he warned of the dangers of inflation which he pointed out he had inherited. I remember seeing him being interviewed on television before he went to America. He referred to the serious inflationary situation he had taken over and the serious rising prices with which he was confronted. These were the immediate tasks which he had to face. In spite of that, he undertook to operate a policy which could have no effect other than the effect every member of this party pointed out at the time.
If Members on the other side of the House are not anxious that we should discuss the budget, that is understandable. They do not wish to be reminded of the gross negligence of which they are guilty, and their lack of performance over the past three years. I submit that, if any ordinary commercial company had managed their affairs for the past three years in the same way, the manager would be sacked without notice. Democracy does not operate in that way and we are stuck with what we have and must tolerate it. The Government continue on, hardly apologising for the situation into which they have led us. They must submit to the most serious criticisms both in the House and outside it in relation to their mismanagement of the nation's affairs over the past three years.
In his budget speech the Minister suggested that nobody should criticise unless he was prepared to offer alternatives. This reminds me of the black-guardly son who drove his father's Rolls Royce over the precipice and then said: "How dare you admonish me for doing so unless you can tell me a better way of getting it out". We have more to say about the situation we are in, apart from helping the Minister to get out of it. He went into it with his eyes open. Most of us know why. They elected to go for political expediency rather than the sane thing to do in relation to their budgetary performance.
I remember speaking from this seat on the Minister's first budget. I pointed out that, as sure as night follows day, the time would come when the Minister would have to come to the House to take drastic measures to correct the situation which could then have been averted. That is on record. We all knew from the action or lack of action in that budget that we would be in the serious critical situation in which the country finds itself today. I do not think there is any parallel in our history for the way the Government behaved, in the knowledge that what they were doing would sink us further and further into trouble.
Where do we go from here? The last speaker made a very innocent Alice in Wonderland speech. I do not blame him for that. He pointed out all the things he would like to see done. He did not for one moment suggest they were being done, or were likely to be done. He just hoped things would happen. We will not get anywhere by hoping something will happen in the future.
Belatedly the Minister admitted that we will have to take action. "Belatedly" is a rather mild way of saying that because the Minister should have been involved in action from the word "go". The action he should have taken was a mild form of the action he must take now in a more drastic way.
Economists do not agree on the action that should be taken when we have these alternating changes in the economy. They are known now as trade or business cycles and they have become well known features of world economy in recent years. Those people who have been quoting from Keynesian theory always find something suitable to quote. Most people are aware that even he changed his stance many times. People like Ricardo, even as far back as the Greek philosophers, advocated theories not always supported in practice. We have plenty of examples to draw from the many economists to suit our purpose at the time. It always reminds me of Papal Encyclicals, such as Rerum Novarum, because the workers and the employers could always find something nice to quote from it.
From all the economic theory that has been turned out in the past certain fundamental principles have emerged and been agreed on by all the economists. They are elementary and one does not need to be a student of economics to appreciate what they are. The Minister seems to be alone in refusing to acknowledge that this type of action is necessary. The first problem when inflation manifests itself is to ensure that no serious precipitate action is taken to deflate or reflate the economy but to ensure that the economy is "steady as she goes". It is necessary to ensure that employment is watched carefully and that nothing is done to upset the employment situation. That means production, a careful eye on costings, not putting any impediment in the way of productive development and the making available of incentives to ensure that the economy is kept moving in the direction of development and output. In that way a serious recession is avoided but the Minister failed to take action in that regard and must accept the responsibility for the serious situation in which we find ourselves.
A mild form of what he is trying to do now, without any crisis or panic stations, would have averted this serious situation. We will find it difficult to get out of it because in sending good money after bad money we have borrowed to the extent that repayments will weigh heavily on us at a time when we should be forging ahead out of the recession. All the forecasts we have been getting have been leaps in the dark. The Taoiseach made reference to a 2 per cent increase but that was a statement from the top of his head and nothing more. We had several such statements in the past but they were just prompted by wishful thinking. Those who made them were hoping that such statements would coincide with a turn-up in the world situation. We are now left in the position that even an improvement in the world economy would not give us any immediate benefit.
That is a situation of our own making. We cried about external factors beyond our control until we were sick listening to them but, in the end, we had to admit that the major factor giving rise to inflation was domestic inflation. Some months ago I spoke about the lack of planning by the Government and a few weeks later the Minister countered by saying that the was producing a plan before Christmas, without saying which Christmas. We all know that a Government cannot properly represent its people without a clear-cut policy and, based on that policy, a plan to guide the economy. It may be a flexible programme; it may be attainable but not attained as often happened in the past but it must give guidance to those willing to invest in the economy, to those who want to know where the Government are going and what the future holds in relation to fiscal policy, taxation and expansion.
All doubts will be removed if a suitable plan is presented outlining the direction in which the Government wish to go. Governments take so much of the people's money nowadays, and put themselves in the position of controlling to a serious extent the affairs of a nation, that they cannot hold themselves apart from the responsibility which is theirs to take in relation to every sector of the economy. We must ask if the people are being given any guidance by the Government as to where they are going in the future. I am not being in any way political when I say that the first essential of a proper policy and programme is a stable single-party Government, a Government with a unified outlook in relation to economies and which will not be blown off course at times of difficulty.
The problem is that the Government have no plan but they promise that one day they may produce a programme. This is not of much help because we are in a crisis situation. The Minister should direct all his energies towards getting us out of this emergency and should take whatever steps are necessary in this regard before we reach the point of no return. He should be endeavouring to instil into people a sense of emergency regarding any programme for the future. However, he is doing nothing in this regard in the budget. He should be concentrating on the one sector of the economy which can help to bring immediate relief to the situation, that is, the manufacturing or industrial sector.
When we were in Government I recall a situation in which there was an increase in the unemployment figures beyond what might be regarded as normal. We called special meetings of the Government to deal with the problem, to find out where employment might be created and also to ensure the cutting of any red tape that might have been holding up the provision of jobs. The Minister should do likewise in the present situation. Every possible incentive should be given in an effort to get us out of the rut in which we find ourselves. Much can be done by way of fiscal programmes but there is scarely any improvement in that situation so far as the budget is concerned. Indeed, the budget only presents further obstacles to solving the problem. One has only to consider the various reactions to the budget to realise that it is not geared in any way towards solving our problems.
Is it not time that the whole credit situation was examined so as to ascertain to what extent credit can be put to productive development? Is it not time to ensure that the banks operate in a way that would give private enterprise an opportunity to overcome their difficulties of liquidity? Has the Minister thought of discussing with the commercial banks the question of whether term loans should be abandoned and the old system of overdrafts reintroduced, at least for a period that would enable business people and those with small industries to extricate themselves from their difficulties and to re-employ some of those they have laid off? It is time, too, to examine all our financial institutions to find out whether they are giving loans for the right purposes. Has any effort been made to bring together all those involved in the credit business so that they might be made aware of the serious situation of the economy? If this were done these people might work together to assist in putting the economy back on its feet.
I wonder whether all the State-sponsored bodies have been called together and asked to participate in a drive towards recovery. What, for instance, are Bord Fáilte doing to implement the plan they issued recently? Are there any short-term plans to boost tourism or will the country be left to suffer from the serious adverse effects which the budget will have on that industry? Are means being made available to Board Fáilte to ensure that they can implement their policy in the short term and, thereby, bring about immediate results? All State-sponsored bodies should be warned that every penny they spend must be aimed at righting our economic situation and getting it back to the point it was at when this party left office.
We have been criticised for laying too much stress on the importance of the "Buy Irish" campaign but is it not ludicrous to have this pretence of such a campaign when we note what has been going on in the past few years, and particularly in recent times, when orders in regard to shipping, steel and many other important commodities have not been given the attention they should have received? We shall leave aside the question of furniture for the moment. The present situation justifies and demands that all those people who have vast amounts of money to spend be brought together and told that we are not living in times that can be regarded as normal and that, irrespective of what any EEC directive might contain or of what past precedents have been regarding the acceptance of tenders, we must do everything in our power to ensure that Irish industry is given every opportunity possible to survive and expand. It should get the benefit of any Irish money that is being spent for the manufacture or purchase of various commodities. Apparently there are some people who are prepared to place their orders with concerns outside the country and not to have any regard for Irish enterprise. Rather, they regard themselves as living in an open and free economy where they are free to purchase goods which to their way of thinking are more in keeping with the high standards they apply to themselves than are the Irish-manufactured articles.
All of this might be acceptable in times of a buoyant economy in which there was a movement towards full employment but they are unforgiveable during this time of crisis. We should not rely on the little note which appears on the box of matches urging us to buy Irish. That is all very well but much more is needed at this time when we are rapidly approaching bankruptcy. Nothing should prevent the Government from taking what might be regarded as drastic action in regard to all these matters.
The Minister went to great extremes to seek derogation from the EEC regulation and directives in relation to the postponement of the equal pay legislation which has been passed through the House, even to the extent of losing his head and letting down the country as well as himself and the Government by attacking one of the commissioners of the EEC, something which is an all-time low for any Government in the nine EEC countries. When the textile and footwear industries were feeling the draught which was attributed to the progressive reduction of import duties, why did we not seek derogation from the EEC directives on that occasion? We were very prim and proper and afraid to offend anybody then or put a foot wrong in relation to the EEC regulations. When it suited us in relation to a most serious social matter, we looked for a derogation and we castigated our own commissioner, of whom the country has a right to be proud, in regard to one of the most ugly affairs this Government have come through, and they have come through a good many.
This sort of conduct is not likely to lead to a situation in which we would have the complete sympathy of all other countries, particularly the member states of the EEC, in getting out of the serious crisis into which we have been plunged due to not taking the proper action at the proper time. We must look for help in every direction and we must particularly, if it is not too late now, ensure that no further orders will be placed outside this country for goods we can produce here ourselves.
I do not want to flog a dead horse but placing that furniture order outside this country was inexcusable and the Minister cannot extricate himself from responsibility for that happening in the first instance. If the Government had been approaching the "Buy Irish" campaign against the background of the serious and rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the clarion call would have gone out long before that no attempt should be made by any State-sponsored body to send orders outside the country in the volume that has been involved without having reasons which would be approved by the Government. Not merely did we lose an opportunity at a time when it was sorely needed but we also cast a great reflection on the Irish people whose resilience, whose capabilities and adaptability are second to none when called upon to do a job, even though it might not be the kind of work to which they are ordinarily accustomed. I refer to such jobs as steel fabrication, the expertise for which if it were not available, could be immediately acquired, and I am perfectly sure that not merely as good a job but a better job would be done than by any outside firm.
I cannot see what would be wrong with a furniture designer designing whatever type of special furniture or furnishings would be required, and then going around and asking firms if they could undertake to manufacture them or if they could do half of them, and getting another firm to do the other half. The reputation of our people as craftsmen would enable them to rise to the occasion and produce anything to meet the highest standards attainable in the manufacture of such goods.
The atmosphere created by the Government was such that people felt themselves free to go where they liked and get what they liked and ignore the economic situation, the seriousness of which was not brought home to them. It is no excuse to say it was too late when they heard what was being done. Months and years before it happened is when the message should have been delivered to these people. It must be delivered by the general behaviour of the Government who would not then have to sit down and write a letter to any body or corporation telling them what they should do.
