National Economic Plan: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 27 October 1982:

That Dáil Éireann takes notes of the Government White PaperThe Way Forward.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To add to the motion the following:—

"and rejects the conclusions reached in that document as an inadequate and ineffective response to the grave problems facing the country."

—(Deputy J. Bruton.)

Mr. Sherlock

As Deputy Desmond concluded his contribution with a reference to the plan issued by The Workers' Party I should like to make a brief statement on it before dealing with the Government plan. Our plan states that the economics of despair has been fully reflected in Ireland, where the propagandists of pessimism maintain that defeatist measures such as work-sharing, the black economy, phoney work experience or training programmes, or the removal of disincentives to work, are the only means available to counter the ever-growing problem of unemployment. We reject this defeatism and assert that it is the duty of every political party which seeks to serve the people to formulate a realisable and realistic programme to create full employment. Full employment is the demand of our society, and it cannot be shirked. In stating clearly that full employment is our priority in economic policy, our plan goes on to say that we do not intend to underestimate the difficulties that exist for the creation of employment in the immediate future. One could say that the dogmatic adherence of the conservative political parties to free enterprise policies has placed the Irish economy in very deep difficulties. The balance of payments deficit and the level of foreign borrowing cannot continue without a compensating increase in national output. The reckless destruction of the economic foundations of the country, and the stubborn refusal of Fianna Fáil and the Fine Gael-Labour Coalitions to plan this economy, to mobilise its resources, mean that in the immediate future all increases in national output must be devoted to reducing the unsustainable foreign debt, instead of expanding the productive work force. Our plan continues:

We cannot borrow to meet the very great social and economic needs of the population until the problem of the balance of payments deficit is solved. Thus a realistic plan for full employment must necessarily incorporate a programme to solve the foreign debt problem.

Thus the programme which we outlined for the years up to the beginning of the nineties incorporates a strategy consisting of two phases: (1) a recovery plan to stabilise living standards and the unemployment level, meet the growing social needs of the population and bring down the unsustainable balance of payments deficit and (2) a programme for full employment that will involve the creation of an additional 300,000 jobs in the next nine years.

Full employment — which involves the provision of socially necessary and productive jobs for the available work-force — can be achieved by the beginning of the nineties if the annual increase of national income can be raised to 5 per cent in real terms. This is an eminently realisable objective if the resources available to the country are mobilised through a national production plan in which State intervention is made the engine of growth.

The land of Ireland is the country's greatest natural resource. Unfortunately, Irish farmers have so far failed to realise anything like the full potential of this land and all past policies which were aimed at increasing production have been almost total failures for one reason or another.

I should like at this juncture to refer to the vast sums of money being given by way of State aid, incentives and services to the private sector. In the Government plan the whole emphasis is on the private sector and the estimated cost to the Exchequer in 1982 is £2½ billion. The Fianna Fáil plan is a deception. The first part carries a grim statement of what is in store for the less well off in our society. The second part of the plan is pure fantasy, it will never become a reality. I am not suggesting that the second part of the plan is intended to become a reality, it is there to help sell the first part of the plan. The second part of the Fianna Fáil plan pretends to believe that it is possible to get increased output by giving more grants and bribes to private enterprise. This formula has never worked in the past and, therefore, there is no possible chance that it will work now.

I should like to deal with the first part of the plan. In paragraph 18 there is an insulting message for the unemployed: "to remove the present disincentive to work, flat-rate unemployment benefit for short-time workers will be limited to ensure that it will be related to a five day working week and pay-related benefit for those workers will be withheld". The expression, "disincentive to work", is a grossly ignorant insult to the unemployed because they did not choose to go on the dole this year rather than last year or the year before. People are on the dole because they cannot get jobs and for no other reason. If there were jobs to go to in Britain, as was the case over the greater part of former terms of office of Fianna Fáil, our people would be on the emigrant ships in search of them. Fianna Fáil, more than any other party, know that people want to work but if they admitted to this knowledge it would be impossible for them to justify robbing the unemployed of a part of their benefits.

The Fianna Fáil plan also intends to rob the disabled because overall benefits will be reduced from the ceiling benefit of 100 per cent at present to 80 per cent of, as they state, reasonable weekly earnings. Pay-related benefits for those entitled will be reduced from the current level of 40 per cent to 30 per cent for the first six months and to 20 per cent for the remaining nine months. The Government, according to the plan, will rectify the anomaly whereby employees by a combination of tax refunds and social welfare benefits can receive more than when they are whole-time at work. This is used as an argument against the unemployed when any reasonable person can see that it is an argument against lower wages.

There will be fewer employed in the health services and those services, such as they are, will become just illness services to an even greater degree. Our health services are costing a vast amount of public money but it is not the services that our people are getting that are costing such an amount of money. It is the system, particularly the fee-per-item system, payable to doctors and pharmacists that needs to be reviewed. A national health service can be introduced while committing very little additional resources to the health services. The only thing that is required is the reallocation of existing expenditure and the restructuring of the present service. In Ireland the pharmaceutical and medical professions have been allowed to serve their own interests. They have not been compelled to serve the public interest as is the case in most European countries. Successive Ministers for Health have failed to tackle the monolith of the medical profession in this country. Consequently, we have the high cost of the services without any real benefit to the people.

There is a statement on page 24 of the plan that £100 million will be lifted from the shoulders of those who pay tax under the PAYE system but this must be read against another statement further on in the plan that VAT will be increased. This is an increase in indirect taxation which will be payable by the same people as pay tax under PAYE. If the statement in the plan were to read "increased taxation from farmers, self-employed and professional people" without anything else we would accept it. The fact that VAT is also included means that the £100 million, which it is stated will be collected, will come mainly from VAT.

In table 6 on page 35 of the plan a fairly clear view is given of what the plan intends to do. Over a period of five years wages and salaries will increase by 10.5 per cent and consumer prices will rise by 9.25 per cent. I suppose we are expected to take that figure seriously. Profits are forecast to rise by 23.5 per cent. Wages will be kept well below the forecast rate of inflation. This means that the Fianna Fáil plan is one to reduce living standards. Nobody believes that inflation can be reduced while the rezoning of land multiplies its value by 10. The result of this is that many young people intending to get married and start a family face a levy on rent and massive mortgage repayments. Food prices and house prices are higher in real terms than is the case in New York where pay is about three times higher than people get here.

The plan seeks to shift the responsibility for housing from the public housing programme to the private sector and this must be rejected. Housing is an essential social necessity and houses must be provided at a reasonable cost, even if that means incurring a loss. It is proposed that the number of houses be reduced annually. Anybody who believes that the need for housing can be taken up by the private sector has got it all wrong. Untold harm is being done to family life because of the length of time young people have to live in grossly overcrowded and totally inadequate living accommodation before qualifying for local authority housing. The majority of such people are earning less than £100 a week. If those people were to take out the cheapest mortgage, which is £14,000 on an SDA mortgage, the repayments would be £150 per month. How could a person earning less than £100 a week take out a mortgage and meet those repayments? There is no way they could provide the essentials of life for themselves and their families if they did that. The plan states that the cost of public housing has risen so sharply in recent years that it places a limit on the extent of State support and that the emphasis over the planned period will be on encouraging householders to provide their own houses and reducing the degree of State support for public housing. The number of families in deserving need at this time is increasing annually, so the number of people who will apply for local authority housing is likely to rise.

Table 6 on page 24 spells out a clear intention to reduce living standards by putting iron restraints on pay increases. Less will be spent on education and there is more than a broad hint that school buses will be withdrawn. We are spending less on all levels of education than any other country in the EEC and now we are to have another cut to put us further down the ladder. What will the Fianna Fáil plan do for the class that party represent? CIE will have to give more of the profit-making road haulage section to private enterprise. This will mean greater subsidies to CIE because any enterprise must make losses if their profitable sections are cut away. One cannot over-emphasise the madness of that policy to hand over the lucrative road haulage business to the private sector. I come from an area where at this time of the year we see the extent of the private road haulage business. One will not see a CIE truck any day going into Mallow sugar factory. A few years ago quite a number of CIE trucks were hauling beet. I am giving that as an example to prove we know what we are talking about in relation to the question of handing over the lucrative road haulage business to the private sector. It reduces the chances of those who will find themselves unemployed by the introduction of one-man buses, as suggested in the Fianna Fáil plan, getting alternative employment with CIE. If they are lucky to get jobs they will be forced to work for one of the notorious cowboy hauliers who remain in business by breaking every rule in the book.

What has the Fianna Fáil plan to say in relation to increased output? The plan states in relation to agriculture that a £70 interest subsidy is available for each calved heifer retained in the herd, a calf premium of £20 payable when the calf reaches six months and then there is the suckler cow scheme. This is a repeat of the policies which have failed in previous years. This is a policy of throwing money at farmers in the hope that it will stimulate them into producing. Why should it work now when it has not worked in the past? The beef cow herd is smaller now than it was in 1974. On page 35 of the Fianna Fáil plan there is a blunt statement that living standards are to fall. It is qualified by saying that this is a short-term expectation. To say the cuts in living standards are intended to be of short duration is a deception because if Fianna Fáil really believed in their plan the cuts in spending on the unemployed and those suffering from disability, the spending cuts on health and school buses would not need to be made as the increased output which the Fianna Fáil plan pretends to believe will come from the private sector of the economy would provide a surplus. We say so in detail in our plan. The long-term intention as well as the short-term intention in the Fianna Fáil plan is to set standards of living of ordinary people on an ever-descending spiral.

The reason why an ever-falling standard of living is an essential part of the Fianna Fáil plan or the Fine Gael plan is obvious; it is to enable us to go into competition with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Puerto Rica as low pay countries in order to attract the cheap assembly end of this or that industry. We call in our plan for the development of skills and for high technology industry and this means a high pay economy. Anyone who thinks that this is an extreme view or an unreasonable view should read the Telesis Report which was so damning of the outlook contained in the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael plans. We wonder if this is what caused a long delay in the publication of the Telesis Report. We despaired of it being published at all and some months ago we released it to the media ourselves. Perhaps this was a factor in forcing the release of this report which shows clearly what the Fianna Fáil plan is about. It is the way forward to a low pay economy.

What is the attitute of the Fianna Fáil to the State sector? It is to reduce all mention of this sector to the question of pay, to load all the worries of the economy on this single item. We say that this is not true for the following reasons. The Fianna Fáil plan ignores the fact that many public sector workers are highly skilled manual workers and technicians. It can be said without fear of contradiction that the only serious engineering industries in the country are located in Aer Lingus, the Sugar Company, the ESB and Bord na Móna. There is more technical know-how in the ESB, the IIRS and NET than in all the private enterprise sector combined. The Fianna Fáil plan prevents this skill being harnessed for economic recovery. The Fianna Fáil plan makes economic recovery impossible by reducing all this skill and expertise to a mere prop and support for private enterprise. The State sector needs to be given its head to lead the way out of the present depression. Money now being wasted on one or other sector of private enterprise should be diverted into the sort of high skilled output activity which is the only road to full employment. All establishment parties shrink from proclaiming that the goal of our society is full employment. We say that full employment is possible and in our plan we show how it can be achieved. Selling off State company assets to private enterprise is not the way. Many people are now beginning to see clearly that we no longer have real private enterprise; we have a number of privately owned firms receiving handouts of taxpayers' money. I gave the figure earlier, £2.5 billion. We have the expertise of the State companies placed at the disposal of the profit makers.

The Fianna Fáil plan will be a failure because it relies on the sector of the economy which has failed to deliver the goods on so many occasions in the past, the private sector.

Before concluding I should like to refer briefly to the situation regarding social welfare cuts and to say that when it is proposed to cut social welfare benefits at present the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 1981 people who applied for unemployment assistance are being assessed on their incomes in the previous year. This has resulted in leaving sick people, where this section of the Act has been applied against them, without being paid supplementary welfare allowances by the health authority.

My final point refers to the road policy. Nowhere in the Fianna Fáil plan have I seen any reference to the county road system. All the emphasis is on national primary and national secondary roads. I do not have the figures now but in my county the county road system is very highly rated. An effort has been made to have a reclassification programme. A plan that refers solely to the national primary and secondary roads without any reference to the county road system whose users are entitled to have a policy for county roads so that maintenance and improvement programmes can be undertaken, is sadly lacking. In this plan there is no indication that that will be done. All in all we say that the plan is in no way acceptable to us as a workers' party.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

Realism, responsibility and purpose are the hallmarks of the national economic plan now before us. The world economic recession poses testing problems for our growing nation, with its young population and its industrialising economy. Nobody owes us a living; we are full and committed members of the European Communities, but our independence as a nation requires us first and foremost to rely on our own efforts in face of the challenges before us.

The National Economic Plan begins by rightly emphasising the efforts now required of our people as a test of national spirit and independence. This Government have no fear of the people of Ireland been found wanting in the demanding situation before them. Unlike the previous administration, we feel no need to fall back on unproductive sermonising or on sterile analyses of the many woes which face us.

Our job is to govern and in The Way Forward, we seek to exercise this role in two ways: first, and without apology, by encouraging the great store of energy, potential and resilience which this nation enjoys; and secondly, by seeking to harness this effort into the most productive and beneficial channels possible by means of the particular programmes which the national plan draws up.

Contrast with this planned, purposeful and fully costed approach to economic recovery over the next five years the many half-truths and facile analyses which have already been offered on behalf of the Opposition. I am little concerned about the unheeding opportunism involved in this approach. What is more serious, however, is the discredit which it does to the sober perception of the country's problems already held by the Irish public and especially by our young people. Very simply, the people know that problems occasioned by a world economic recession are not going to dissolve in face of petulant criticism of the Government or easy political opportunism. Our plan of action is now drawn up and the best service which the Government can now offer the people is to set about implementing it without delay.

As Minister responsible for the building and construction industry, including such essential services as housing, roads and sanitary services, I feel it important to focus attention on what I may call the development elements of the plan. A study of the plan will show that despite the difficult financial circumstances facing the Government, these infrastructural needs are carefully catered for. Our particular priority has been to concentrate the limited financial resources on key investment, including productive infrastructure and, of course, on necessary social services.

The plan is particularly concerned for the needs of the building industry. Public sector support for the industry, currently running at 70 per cent of total investment, is crucial to its welfare at all times, but particularly in times of recession. Since 1980, the increased public sector support has had a counter-recessionary effect on the building industry, helping to maintain output and employment to a significant degree against a massive drop in private sector investment. For example, between 1979 and 1981, private sector investment fell by over 30 per cent while overall output fell by less than 4 per cent.

The building industry is still suffering from lack of confidence, depressed demand and the general effects of recession, and the likelihood is that recovery will be difficult. Given this general scenario, the commitment to a five-year capital investment programme for housing, roads and sanitary services will be warmly welcomed by all elements of the industry. Between them, these three programmes add up to about half of total building output; the commitment to maintaining capital investment in housing at the 1983 level and to increased investment in roads and sanitary services will, therefore, go a long way towards stabilising the industry and generating the confidence needed to bring full recovery.

One of the main concerns of the plan is to direct public capital investment into productive and cost effective projects in an orderly and purposeful way. The roads programme will be a particular beneficiary of this policy. The National Economic Plan endorses and renews the Government's commitment to the Road Development Plan for the 1980s already adopted by us in 1979. It provides for a capital investment in our major road network of £100 million in 1983; £111 million in 1984; £122 million in 1985, 1986 and 1987. These amounts, which total £577 million, are at 1983 prices and this investment will bring the road plan substantially towards completion by the end of 1987.

Underlying the priority accorded by the Government to roads is the accepted need to bring our major road network closer to the standards obtained in the rest of industrialised Europe. The most pressing reason for this is the economic one; the geographical isolation with which Irish transport has to cope should not be compounded by internal obstacles to the flow of goods and services on our roads. The major schemes envisaged by the plan will accordingly give priority to key works designed in particular to meet industrial and commercial needs. But important environmental and safety benefits will also flow from this ambitious roads programme. New by-passes, bridge crossings and inner relief roads will relieve many of our towns from the environmental disadvantages of traffic congestion. These and other improvement works will also enable our roads to cope more safely with increased traffic.

Many major road schemes are at present under way and should reach completion during the period of the National Economic Plan. The Naas by-pass, which is of motorway standard, is expected to be open to traffic in mid-1983 and in conjunction with a planned by-pass of Newbridge, will significantly improve the route to the south and south-west. Similarly, the Dublin-Galway route will benefit from major improvements at present under way at Palmerstown, from improvements scheduled for the Lucan-Kilcock section and from the by-pass of Athlone which includes a new bridge over the Shannon.

A concerted series of improvements to the N1 (Dublin-Belfast) route will take place in the next five years and will include by-passes of Santry, Swords, Balbriggan, Dunleer and a relief road for Drogheda. Work on the third phase of the Drogheda inner relief road is about to commence as is the construction of the Swords by-pass, and improvements to the route between Whitehall and the airport are proceeding.

Major improvements are also scheduled for other areas throughout the country. New bridges are proposed for Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Kilkenny and, as already mentioned, Athlone, with two Custom House bridges and an Opera House bridge planned for Cork.

Many other schemes will contribute to the improvement of the national road network over the plan period. These are designed to bring the national routes up to a specified minimum standard and will involve realignments, provision of hard shoulders, eradication of accident black spots and strengthening of pavements.

The average direct employment generated by the £577 million in capital investment in roads provided under the plan will be 4,200 jobs annually. Added to this will be the substantial indirect employment afforded by road works, which allow a high use of Irish made materials. Ongoing road maintenance will of course continue to make its contribution to both direct and indirect employment.

The momentum started by the road development plan for the 1980s is being maintained and consolidated by the National Economic Plan. The outcome, I am confident, will be a national road network of proper European standard to which industry, business and the people of Ireland themsleves are fully entitled.

On the plan's provision for housing, it bears saying first of all that for the first time ever, a Government commitment has been given to maintain the level of public capital expenditure in real terms over a five-year period. This will give maximum flexibility in planning and adjusting housing policies to meet changing requirements while at the same time giving the building industry the assurance that the existing high level of public capital support for the industry will be maintained. Full advantage must be taken of the projected level of investment to keep the number of houses produced as high as possible and to channel aid to those most in need of it.

Despite present difficulties, we are making a generous allocation of £210 million available to the local authority housing programme in 1983 — an increase in real terms on the allocation for this year. We have at all times given a high priority to rehousing those who are in real need and are unable to house themselves. Deputies may be assured that this commitment will continue. The capital allocation for housing construction has already increased by 127 per cent since three years ago — a rate of increase well above the level of inflation in the building industry generally.

As envisaged in the national economic plan, it is the intention that local authority house building programmes will be subjected to a critical review which will be carried out in conjunction with a detailed analysis of the housing needs in each area. It seems to me to be vital in the present economic circumstances that local authorities should maintain housing lists of approved applicants and should keep these lists updated annually. This is, of course, already standard practice in many areas and is, in fact, an essential element in ensuring that overall resources can be distributed among local authorities on the basis of the relative degrees of housing needs existing in the areas.

In assessing applications for local authority housing there is a responsibility on local authorities to ensure that those persons seeking rehousing who might reasonably be expected to house themselves are made aware of the grants, subsidies, loans, tax relief, and so on, available to house purchasers and are given positive encouragement to house themselves. This has become a vitally important part of housing policy because not alone does it give such persons a stake in their own homes but it ensures that the scarce capital resources which the Government can make available for the purpose are used to the best advantage to provide housing for those most in need. I will be looking to all local authorities to pursue active and vigorous policies in this matter from now on.

The economic plan refers to the levels of subsidies — amounting to more than £80 a week on average — now falling to be paid on new local authority houses to the extent to which the aggregate rents from all local authority houses fail to meet even the costs of their maintenance and management, let alone contribute towards the cost of loan charges. In 1982, the shortfall between total rental income and total maintenance and management charges is estimated to be in the region of £23 million. In addition to this, the State's outlay on subsidies towards the cost of local authority housing will amount in 1982 to over £96 million. In 1983, this cost will increase to £128 million. The maintenance of a good standard of existing local authority housing is obviously desirable and one could argue that more money should be spent on improving and maintaining the stock of such houses. It is clear, however, that the levels of subsidy on such houses now being carried by the taxpayer are a serious barrier to what can be achieved in raising standards of existing housing. Further, these subsidies are now growing at a rate which, if it were to continue, could in time give rise to a completely unsustainable burden. At the same time the average weekly rent of a local authority dwelling is under £5.50 per week which, as Deputies well know, is significantly below the levels of rent in the private rented sector for dwellings of very moderate quality. The Government, through the differential rents scheme, are determined to ensure that tenants on very low incomes will continue to be protected, but the inevitable consequences of this is that those tenants who are able to pay more must be asked to do so.

The statements in the plan on house prices and the provision of finance reflect the genuine concern and commitment of the Government. Part of the strategy of the plan is to reduce inflation which will have the effect of reducing house prices. The Government will continue to encourage the building societies to make funds available to purchasers of modestly-priced houses. In fact, the Government at present require societies to allocate at least 70 per cent of all mortgage finance towards providing mortgages for house purchasers whose mortgage requirements do not exceed £20,000. The societies are also obliged to allocate at least 40 per cent of all loans for the purchase of new houses. There has been an encouraging improvement in the inflow of funds to the societies in recent months which, I am glad to say, has resulted in a relaxation of the conditions for obtaining loans from the societies.

I have also been very pleased to note the continued downward trend in interest rates which I believe will soon be reflected in reduced building society interest rates and lower repayments for borrowers. In this connection I should now tell the House that I will be meeting the building societies' association tomorrow at noon to discuss this question and I am confident of an early decision resulting to reduce interest rates.

The Government are committed to ensuring as far as possible that sufficient mortgage loan funds will be available from public sources through the SDA scheme and the Housing Finance Agency. The SDA scheme with its fixed interest rate is most suitable to those on lower incomes. The agency, although still in its infancy, is already proving to be popular largely due to the lower repayments under the scheme in the initial years. The agency expects to advance £15 million to local authorities this year and I have allocated £60 million to the agency for 1983. I am asking the board of the agency to consider possible improvements in the loan scheme in the light of their generous capital allocation of £60 million for next year.

Deputies will be aware that a change is being made in the structure of payments made under the mortgage subsidy scheme under which the payments made will take effect over a five-year rather than three-year period as heretofore. This alteration in the scheme should not, however, be viewed in isolation from the overall effects of the measures proposed in the plan. Lower interest rates and lower inflation, for example, will mean that the outgoings of house purchasers will be reduced. Looked at against the background of the difficult economic conditions, the modest change made in the terms of the scheme cannot, I feel, be regarded as unreasonable. Even with the alterations, a £1,000 subsidy will be payable in the first year which together with the £1,000 grant represents a substantial State assistance for first-time buyers in their first year of home ownership.

The Government have also retained the scheme of house improvement grants at their existing levels. This is designed mainly to encourage the conservation of the existing housing stock and ensure the provision of basic amenities in these houses.

Before I leave the subject of private housing, I want to refer to the scheme of tax relief for private rented residential accommodation, which we introduced in the 1981 budget. This scheme now accounts for about 3 per cent of total housing production and the question of expanding the scope of the scheme to meet the need for extra private rented dwellings is now being examined as a matter of urgency. Such an extension is foreshadowed in the plan and I am hopeful that an early announcement can be made in the matter.

Despite some undoubtedly difficult problems, then, for housing there are a number of matters which give cause for optimism. Building society interest rates have come down significantly and a further reduction is now in the offing. The effect of this development is to bring about a welcome reduction in mortgators' outgoings and also to bring house purchase within the reach of increased numbers of persons. Coupled with this, the societies' requirements for the granting of loans are now more liberal than they have been for some considerable time and conditions in the housing outlet are favouring the buyer. The Housing Finance Agency is being given the resources necessary to make it a real force in the overall housing situation. The incentives under the scheme of tax relief for private rented accommodation are to be improved. The Government are committed to the maintenance of the 1983 level of public capital expenditure on housing. All in all, I am satisfied that these and other matters dealt with in the plan exemplify the Government's continuing strong commitment to the central importance of housing and represent a most commendable effort, despite the adverse economic environment, to maintain the programme at the highest practicable level of output. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are few Governments anywhere which, faced with the problems with which we have had to deal, would have been prepared to accept a degree of commitment to housing comparable to that assured by this Government.

Now I want to refer to a most important policy initiative in the plan. It concerns import substitutes. It is a fundamental requirement for the success of the plan that Irish goods should capture an increased share of the domestic market. The trend towards increased import penetration which has been apparent in recent years in all sectors of the economy from food to building materials must be reversed very quickly. This is essential both in terms of maintaining and creating employment and of correcting our unsustainable balance of payments deficit.

There is a huge potential for replacing imported building materials with domestically produced materials. In 1981, imported building materials were valued at £350 million, of which approximately £170 million could have been made at home. This indicates that, although the building industry has a relatively low import content, there are nevertheless substantial opportunities for Irish enterprise which could result in the creation of 5,000 to 10,000 jobs. I intend to see that the many initiatives of the National Economic Plan which affect the building industry are harnessed in support of this policy of import substitution in every way possible. It will, of course, take an intensive and sustained effort on the part of this country to bring about the degree of import substitution that is required. It will involve the public and private sectors of the economy and above all the ordinary consumer. We must begin by ensuring that our products are price competitive. We must aim for unsurpassed quality and a wider range of products. We must counteract the prejudice against Irish goods which, regrettably, is evident in some quarters, and promote a greater consciousness of the benefits which accrue to the country from the purchase of quality Irish goods. It has also been shown that ignorance of the availability of Irish goods has often militated against their use. As far as building materials are concerned, a major effort has now been made to overcome this problem by the preparation by An Foras Forbartha of the "Irish Building Product Register" which is a comprehensive guide to the full range of Irish-made building products.

It is along these lines that the new units which have been set up in my own Department and in the Department of Industry and Energy will operate to develop greater opportunities for Irish resources. The latter unit will be concerned with the manufacturing sector generally and the former with the building industry. It will be the role of these units to monitor performance in their respective areas and to provide advice and information to all those concerned in achieving the stated objectives. As far as the building industry is concerned, I am determined to ensure that in the case of publicly financed works, Irish enterprise are fully aware of the potential that is there to be exploited by them.

The advancing physical development of the country, which sees new houses, factories, offices, agricultural and other buildings proceeding at an accelerated pace, is now using up serviced land at a rate of over 6,000 acres every year. The only guarantee of the continued supply of such land is a sustained programme of water and sewerage schemes. The National Economic Plan fully accepts this requirement and sets forth a bold policy of investment in sanitary services over the coming five years. I am confident that this will be seen as a landmark in the planning and financing of these services for our generation.

The plan provides firstly for a total sanitary services investment of £118 million in 1983 — a very substantial increase in real terms on 1982 expenditure of £95 million approximately. The plan then provides for increases in the volume of sanitary services investment to £128 million in 1984, £139 million in 1985, £144 million in 1986 and £150 million in 1987, all at 1983 prices. At the end of the period of the plan, sanitary services investment will be over 40 per cent higher in real terms than in the current year.

The enlarged programme of water and sewerage schemes will increase employment on the programme during the coming year, which will help to reduce unemployment at local levels and at the same time provide an essential service.

The priorities for selecting sanitary services schemes for approval and financing are clearly set out in the plan and are as follows: schemes required to cater for new housing and new industry; schemes needed to make good deficiencies in existing water and sewerage services; schemes of headworks and trunk mains required for the development of private group water schemes in rural areas; and schemes needed primarily for the prevention and abatement of pollution.

The benefit of the Government's commitment to the sanitary services programme will be substantial. First, I have now approved the acceptance of 13 tenders for sanitary services schemes held in my Department. Second, I intend to release a significant number of high priority water and sewerage schemes for which contract documents are in the Department. Thirdly, I hope that the plan will encourage local authorities to speed up the planning of other high priority schemes so that these schemes can be undertaken during the period of the plan.

The major schemes to be financed in 1983 include two further contracts in the Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme, Tramore/River Valley Sewerage Scheme, County Cork; West Clare Regional Water Supply (Extension) Scheme; North Roscommon Regional Water Supply Scheme; Rosses Regional Water Scheme, County Donegal and Edenderry, County Offaly, Dungarvan, Ballinasloe and Castlebar. In addition to the major schemes outlined above, the plan also includes continued provision for private group water schemes and for public water schemes eligible for grant assistance under the Western Aid Package of FEOGA. In 1983 the provision for these grants will be £12.8 million, which is included in the total sum of £118 million. These schemes are an important element in helping the maximum number of people from rural areas to reside in their native parishes. This can only be done if rural housing and living standards are brought up to those in urban areas.

The benefits of this enlargement of the country's stock of serviced land do not need emphasising to this House. The Industrial Development Authority have repeatedly stressed the importance of adequate piped water and sewerage in attracting new industry. The supply of serviced sites has, moreover, a major influence on the cost of building land. The national plan is determined to win for the people of this country the benefits of an increased supply of serviced land. We are launched on a programme of sustained and unprecedented investment of sanitary services. We will thereby create more capacity for industry. Finally, by halting the inflation of land prices we will provide sites at reasonable cost for new houses, factories, schools and hospitals.

In addition to the three main areas of roads, housing and sanitary services which are set out in detail in the plan, the Government will continue to provide for other essential services, such as the fire and emergency services, the local improvement scheme, libraries service, local authority office accommodation, waste disposal, and so on.

In 1983 six million pounds will be provided for the fire and emergency services. This amount provides for a real increase over the current year's provision of £4.75 million. The need for new and improved services is necessary to cater for the increasing population and the increasing dangers which arise from the transport and use of dangerous materials. The six million pounds will finance continued improvements in the fire services, both stations and equipment. At present major new fire stations are under construction at Phibsborough, Rathfarnham and Donnybrook in Dublin and at Midleton in County Cork. Construction is likely to commence in the near future on a number of other fire stations including major projects at Blanchardstown, Athlone, Limerick, Clonmel (phase II), Killeshandra, Bray and Tinahely.

Mrs. Hussey

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. R. Burke

In addition Dublin Corporation have purchased the O'Brien Institute at Malahide Road, Marino, and will convert it into a training centre for fire services personnel.

During the past year I have initiated a comprehensive review of planning legislation in order to identify changes in the law which would make the planning system more efficient and more effective. I feel that there is scope for improvement, and in view of the importance of job creation all avoidable delays in decision-making at local and at appeals levels and obstacles to legitimate development should be eliminated. My aim is to ensure that environmentally sound development, which is consistent with social and economic progress, may be stimulated and promoted.

To assist local authorities in reviewing their own procedures, I have arranged the preparation in my Department of a substantial memorandum containing advice and general guidelines in relation to development control. This memorandum issued to local authorities on 26 October and I am hopeful that it will have beneficial effects.

In order to help overcome the severe problems which have been created by the decline of the inner city area of our capital, I have recently presented to the Dáil the Dublin Inner City Development Authority Bill, 1982. The object of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of a new Authority to co-ordinate and supplement the work of a variety of agencies affecting the Dublin inner city area and to provide by way of grants, loans or otherwise for inner city projects. The proposed new Authority will replace the existing non-statutory Dublin Inner City Group.

The House is already familiar with the Government's new approach to the problems of physical redevelopment and urban renewal in inner city areas, as expressed in the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, which passed the Second Stage during the last session. This legislation is intended to allow intensive revitalisation to be undertaken at an early date in areas of special need and two areas have been selected for initial projects — the site at the Custom House Docks in Dublin and the area covered by the medieval walled city of Dublin.

Apart from the legislation currently before the House, I am having a general review of the position on urban renewal throughout the country carried out with a view to assessing the extent of the need, particularly outside the Dublin inner city area. This review will include an examination of the existing powers available to local authorities and which could, perhaps, be used more actively in the promotion of redevelopment in inner urban areas.

I have advised local authorities within their existing housing programmes to have regard to the desirability of providing houses in inner urban areas, towns and villages. The provision of new dwellings in inner urban areas can improve their general appearance by renewing obsolete and decayed areas and by encouraging private investment in redevelopment. I also expect local authorities to avail themselves to the full of the powers available under the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, to eliminate dereliction and in particular to encourage the redevelopment of privately owned derelict sites. I feel there is important scope for co-operation between the private and public sectors in this area. Many of our towns contain unused backlands, and the provision of access and services to them would facilitate their development. The best results one often achieved by programmes of gradual redevelopment rather than by wholesale demolition and renewal. In our circumstances I feel that much can be gained by this approach which helps to preserve the character of the areas and causes the least disruption to the population.

The provision of the extra funds for necessary infrastructural services must be balanced by the restoration of balance between Exchequer receipts and current expenditure, the reduction of total Exchequer borrowing to manageable and economically justifiable levels and, to the extent that the borrowing constraint permits, the expansion of public capital expenditure to make the economy more productive and efficient.

Local authorities, who will spend some £1,200 million in 1982 and who employ about 35,000 people, will also be required to play their part in achieving economies, as well as other parts of the public sector. In this connection, the Government intend to establish without delay a special investigation team to go into the local authorities to investigate their administration and finances with a view to ensuring the most efficient use of existing resources and providing full value for money to both the ratepayer and taxpayer. The very considerable expenditure now incurred by the local authorities warrants a rigorous examination of their structures and any special measures which might be necessary to ensure the greatest possible efficiency and economy in the provision of services and to eliminate waste, duplication or over-lapping.

I began my contribution to this debate by emphasising the need for realism and credibility in formulating solutions to the serious problems which face the country. The Opposition have at times during the past months attempted to assume a monopoly on credibility and in particular to query the bona fides of the so-called Gregory deal between Deputy Gregory and the Taoiseach.

Let me say first of all that this Government offer apologies to nobody for a set of policies aimed at systematically renewing the centre of our capital city. But the motives of those in Fine Gael who have seen fit to criticise us, and in particular of their party leader, need to be examined somewhat further.

Recently the full text of an agreement with Deputy Gregory apparently proposed by Deputy FitzGerald in the dying days of his discredited administration has become available. The contents have not so far, to my knowledge, been denied. The document ranges over an extensive list of initiatives for the Dublin inner city, about which I will inform the House in more detail in a moment.

But some items in it are of special concern to my area of ministerial responsibility, and I would like this House to appreciate their import in a little more detail. I have in mind the document's proposal for acquiring the Dublin Port and Docks Board site, its promise to boost Dublin Corporation's housing programme, and its undertakings for increasing employment in Dublin city under the environmental improvement scheme.

First I refer to the Opposition Leader's proposal for securing the 27-acre Port and Docks Board site. His administration had already determined, by a decision of 5 March 1982, to buy this site. But where were the practical means of ever putting this pious intention into effect? The document includes a statement of intention to promote a consortium to negotiate with the Port and Docks Board for the 27-acre site. That was all. How the statement of intention would or could be translated into action was left unsaid.

The Government on the other hand have made specific provision covering the procedure for acquisition of the site and for settlement of the price to be paid. In contrast to the vague proposal for the development to be carried out by a consortium of conflicting interests, the Government have also made specific provision for a statutory Urban Development Commission to be set up and provided with the powers and resources required to do the job properly. All this is provided for in the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982 which has passed Second Stage in the House, despite a vote against it by Fine Gael. So much for continuity and consistency.

The fact is that the unique importance of this site and its development have been recognised long before the election or any question of a deal arose but it was left to this Government to tackle the need head-on and to make practical provision to enable a worthy scheme of redevelopment to be undertaken.

The next hollow feature of the purported agreement by Deputy FitzGerald relates to his promise to achieve a target of 2,000 housing completions for Dublin Corporation by 1984 — again, a laudable ambition in itself and one on which this Government are in fact committed to deliver. But by what means did Deputy FitzGerald propose to translate this promise into realisation? By the addition of a mere £7 million supplement to the corporation's previously agreed housing allocation.

I can state categorically that this would have yielded a mere 1,400 completions in 1982, and that the task of stepping up the programme from this base to achieve 2,000 completions by 1984 would have been physically impossible. Deputy FitzGerald's document both grossly underfinanced the investment requirement for the target it set and misunderstood the physical constraints of accelerating a housing programme.

The third promise of the document which I will detail to the House was the addition of £1.9 million into the January budget provision of £500,000 for the environmental schemes programme and on undertaking to boost employment under the programme to 300 in Dublin. Again, the contrast with the present Government's practical achievement in this area is noteworthy.

We have made a special additional allocation of £2.5 million to Dublin Corporation to enable the scheme to be continued and enlarged and the number of employed to be raised to 500. All in all, almost £9 million has been provided in 1982 for employment on environmental works in all areas including a total of £4.266 million to Dublin Corporation.

The FitzGerald document contained 49 pages of detailed promises for

—establishing pre-school centres;

—providing courses for pre-school operators and interested parents;

—extending the Rutland Street project;

—establishing the needs for curriculum development and special pupil-teacher ratio for inner city schools;

—establishing of a back-up psychological service to support each school's remedial programmes;

—inservice training programme;

—a physical aid programme to assist primary schools;

—additional appointment of play leaders;

—scheme to improve participation in second level education;

—scheme to improve participation in third level education;

—scheme of free books for primary schools in disadvantaged areas;

—extension of literacy schemes and other programmes for adult education.

—continuation of community, youth recreational and employment programme;

—inner city industrial employment.

All in all, this adds up to a perfectly laudable attempt to tackle the problems of Dublin's inner city and its inhabitants. But why, having themselves put these promises on the table, have Deputy FitzGerald and his party — and their friends in the media — sought to attribute insincerity to the Government, in preparing our action plan for the inner city? So much for Garret the Good and his Band of Christian Democrats who through their continuing policy of whisper and half truth to the media about the character and personalities of members of this Government are so debasing the Irish political system. Where is the Christianity in this slander?

A basic tenet of Christianity is truth. Indeed, the motto of Fine Gael's Christian Democratic colleagues in Italy is "Veritas". Yet since their dismissal from power, we have had from Deputy FitzGerald and his party a policy of hypocrisy on Dublin inner city matters such as this State has not seen before. Their addendum to this motion is another example of the dishonesty, double-think and half truths which, unfortunately, Fine Gael have been attempting to sell to the Irish people.

I allow that many of his party members will not have been privy to the agreement which Deputy FitzGerald has unsuccessfully tried to conclude and I invite them to form their own judgement as to his subsequent behaviour. But one way or another, the people of Ireland will eventually have the opportunity through the ballot box, at the end of this Government's term of office, to pass verdict on this unprincipled posturing. I do not doubt that the result will be one of rejection of Deputy FitzGerald.

What I say now I say with deep regret rather than in any spirit or feeling of anger. At the end of February next, between my father and myself we will have had the honour of representing County Dublin in Dáil Éireann for 40 years. We served it as well as both of us could, and God willing will continue to serve it in the future. In that long period of service, a campaign of vilification, rumour and innuendo has never been indulged in by any party or party leader such as is now being conducted by Deputy Garret FitzGerald and his party.

We had evidence of it in this House yesterday when, once more, Deputy FitzGerald donned his whiter than white political garments and presented himself as the only honest and pure politician in Ireland. What a load of rubbish. Deputy FitzGerald's portrayal of himself and his party as the only embodiment of morality quite frankly is nauseating. Fine Gael's apparent belief that they are in some way untouchable and set apart from ordinary mortals not only defies the truth but is silly, and silly in that particularly schoolboyish fashion in which only members of his party indulge.

The sinister aspect of the current campaign is that Fine Gael, in conspiracy with a number of highly politicised journalists, believe that by spreading rumours, indulging in innuendo and following a nod and wink policy in relation to members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Cabinet, will slowly but surely sow the seeds of dissension, division and doubt, hopefully leading to the eventual disintegration of this great national movement, Fianna Fáil.

Because Deputy FitzGerald has shown himself to be unrelenting in this campaign, nothing that I say now will change his mind. I want to say this to him. When he is hawking his conscience around the country and appealing to young people to take an active interest in politics, he should stop and think of the damage he is doing to people's faith in our democratic institutions. Obviously he does not care what damage is done as long as his cleverly concealed lust for personal power is satisfied. Garret FitzGerald stop now. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country of ours who are continually asking: "In God's name what are our politicians doing?"— a sentiment, I might add, that does not discriminate between party labels.

Yesterday Deputy FitzGerald came into this House and once again attacked the Taoiseach and the Cabinet. He advised the Taoiseach to distance himself from those around him. Those men around him are the members of the Cabinet. Contrast them with those who were around Deputy FitzGerald when he was Taoiseach. They had no constitutional role and were there as advisers of one type or another.

In case the statement I made with regard to the media may be misunderstood, I should like to refer to the debate before us today, the debate on the economic plan, The Way Forward. In last Sunday's Sunday Tribune there was a heading “The Way Forward to an Economic Wonderland: Moore MacDowell analyses the National Economic Plan.” The final words were “... retreated to an economic wonderland”. I give this gentleman as an example of the people who were around Deputy FitzGerald when he was in Government and leader of the Fine Gael Party who portray themselves as the whiter than white souls.

How can you expect responsible comment when the same Mr. MacDowell, at the request of my predecessor, Deputy Peter Barry, and approved by the then Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Kavanagh, was engaged as a consultant as and from 5 October 1981 to advise the Minister, my predecessor, on such financial and economic matters as might be considered by him as affecting the Minister's function, at a fee of £60 per day?

These are the same people who purport in the media to give unbiassed interpretations of the contents of an economic plan. I am not saying there was anything incorrect in the employment of that adviser. If the Minister felt he needed him, so be it. I am saying that, having appointed people around him, the least Deputy FitzGerald should do is not to proceed with this hypocrisy we are seeing week in and week out, day in and day out, in the media and from his pals in the media, and from himself in this House. Democracy deserves better.

There is a mountain of work to be got through by this Government and this House. Deputy FitzGerald and his party should devote their energies to something more positive and constructive instead of constantly feeding the voracious appetites of gossip columnists who care not a whit whether the muck they peddle contains a germ of truth. In conclusion, I want to remind the House of the positive and responsible set of measures the Government have developed in the present plan for our economic progress. I commend the plan and the motion before it to the House.

Mrs. Hussey

Unlike the Minister who has just spoken I cannot claim such a long pedigree of service in this House, being one of the breed of politicians who came into politics without any relative preceding me. In dealing with the allegations made by the Minister about members of the media I find it difficult to understand how he can explain away the comments of all economic commentators since this plan was published which run along precisely the same terms, although perhaps expressed in a different manner, as those of the journalist to whom he has just referred.

For example, can he explain why Mr. Joseph O'Malley should take such an extremely strong line in condemning this document as totally unrealistic? Can he explain why Mr. Colm McCarthy should condemn the document as being full of economic loopholes which will sink the plan? Can he explain why The Irish Times editorial writer of 23 October condemned the plan unequivocally as having targets which are outside the bounds of reality?

I can understand the Minister's anger and annoyance about the fact that the plan was criticised. However, to go down the road of attacks on commentators who are earning their living by examining documents on the economy and commenting on them is to go down the short road to disaster for any serious politician or Government, and I would commend more prudence to him in that area.

I am sorry that he feels that the Fine Gael Party are — I think he used the word —"schoolboyish". I do not want to be accused of being schoolboyish and a great many of us in the party would consider that that does not apply to us. Unfortunately, the Minister's perception of the Fine Gael Party's actions over the last considerable time is at variance with that of the general population. The Party now find themselves, according to the result of the most recent opinion poll, at level pegging with Fianna Fáil for the first time in either party's history and that is a fairly eloquent comment on what the general public think of that kind of accusation.

One stands to speak on this economic plan against an extremely sombre background which becomes more distressing by the day. It is very difficult to speak about a way forward for this part of the country when from day to day the northern part sinks further and further into total chaos with tragic news of deaths, kidnappings, retaliatory slayings and wholesale carnage reaching us every day. This country will never have a real way forward while that problem remains unsolved. The sombre news from Lebanon today is another reminder of upheavals and dangers right across the world which obviously cannot and will not leave this country unaffected. The discussion takes place against the background of the anxiety of the parents of young people and of young people themselves about their future. It takes place against the background of a breakdown of security in so many parts of the country and particularly this city where people have lost confidence in the ability of society to protect them against lawless and violent elements. Most serious of all for any of us in this House, it takes place against a scenario of politically uncharted waters where the expression "a week is a long time in politics" has taken on peculiar significance for Irish people.

The dangers inherent in the political time we live in cannot be overestimated and they make discussion of any Government's plan necessarily slightly difficult if not slightly unreal. Ireland at the moment is trying very painfully to adjust to a new situation in the eighties. The eighties may prove a difficult decade for most western countries but particularly difficult here given Irish peculiarities today. We should be aware that we are all on trial in this House, that the kind of debate and words which have gone on in this House for a long time are no longer adequate or relevant to deal with the problems of the country. I may return to that idea later.

Any national plan from any party which ignores the necessity for reform of the general procedures in this House in their fundamental elements cannot be described as a serious plan. The major consideration in people's minds when they hear about parties coming forward with plans, particularly as they hear about a Fianna Fáil plan, is why it has taken so long to arrive at a plan which states that very serious problems are facing the country and very extraordinary measures must be taken if we are to pull out of this downward spiral, a plan which tells us that hard times are ahead and that we have four years or so of great difficulty before us. People are asking with amazement how it has taken Fianna Fáil so long to come out with the truth. It would appear that Fianna Fáil were living in some kind of wonderland, but the trouble is that the people who were propounding this wonderland to the population occupied their seats in Dáil Éireann and in the Cabinet offices in Government while they proceeded to go through these twists and turns and arrive eventually at the inescapable conclusion that they would have to agree with Fine Gael about the serious position of the country.

This question raises further questions about how we arrived at this position in the first place. The Irish economy faces a range of economic problems which are unprecedented in their size and seriousness. Our inflation rate is twice that of our major trading partners, one person in eight of our labour force is unemployed and output in the economy is almost at a standstill. We bear a growing and unsustainable burden of debt to our international creditors. There are a variety of causes for these problems and many of them have their roots in the recession which has been gripping the world economy for the last two years, but others have arisen because of decisions and actions taken within our country, and these problems must and can be tackled by ourselves and ourselves alone. We can work harder and more efficiently We can sell our output more competitively. We can exploit our resources and apply our inherent strengths to better effect.

We in Fine Gael consider that the single most important contribution in this regard in terms of recovery can and must be made by Government. Five criteria must be applied when talking about Government leading the country to an economic recovery. Government must lead by example, by planning, by efficiency, by developing trust, by authoritative and sensible explanation and negotiation and by realism. If any Government now held firmly to these criteria in governing the country, we could be on our way out of the present serious situation. We must give priority in our recovery programme to the maintenance of our economic independence. We cannot allow it to be further eroded by the shortsighted and ill-considered incurring of foreign debts. We must commit ourselves to an outward looking, export-orientated approach and not allow present circumstances to tempt us back into protectionism.

These are the principles which must inform any Government hoping to tackle the present economic crisis. These are the principles which form the basis of Fine Gael's economic policy document In discussing the plan before us from Fianna Fáil, The Way Forward, it is important to ask ourselves what its antecedents are. We must remind ourselves of the recent history of Fianna Fáil plans which, like this one, have set some daft targets. That is the only way to describe them. Who was it that talked as recently as 1978 about full employment by 1983? It was Dr. Martin O'Donoghue who quite recently, perhaps the very day on which he departed from the Cabinet, expressed himself as proud of having played a part in framing this latest economic document.

In June 1978, a plan came before us from Fianna Fáil entitled Development for Full Employment. According to this document, unemployment was to fall by 25,000 per annum to 1980, output to rise by 7 per cent per annum, inflation to fall to 5 per cent by 1980, Government borrowing to fall rapidly, the current budget deficit to be virtually eliminated by 1980. This was the eagerly awaited Fianna Fáil economic document of 1978. The country did not quite so eagerly await the present document, despite the marvellous amount of heralding preceding it. Once bitten, twice shy. The document of 1978 followed on a manifesto of 1977 which had laid the ground and basic framework for disaster. It told people that they did not have to pay domestic rates, or car tax, and that it was easy to play a never-never game with money from the United States, West Germany, or the World Bank. It said that the money was somewhere and that Governments could pluck it from abroad if they were afraid to pluck it from the taxpayers, which the Government have finally decided to be a limited golden egg. They got many into a frame of mind of never-ending boom and bloom. When speaking about that type of background, it is very difficult to avoid clichés, despite the fact that they are true, such as that Ireland has been living beyond its means, that the world does not owe us a living, and the challenge of our young population. Our young people must be amazed to hear themselves referred to in every second breath of politicians, while their unemployment rate still rises and their hopes still go down. It is another example of words expended over so many years, particularly in this forum, which have turned out to mean very little.

It is relevant here to mention something referred to by the Minister. He was very hurt indeed that his party, or the Cabinet, should be criticised. That is a phenomenon in Fianna Fáil which I would describe as a Messiah complex. In criticising people for daring to cast doubts on the capacity, veracity or general sanctity of the Cabinet, the Minister was very much fulfilling Fianna Fáil's Messiah-like complex, which complex is very relevant to this discussion, as it has had an extraordinary effect on the country's progress, or lack thereof. This is a very deep feeling among Fianna Fáil people that they, and only they, are the rightful rulers. It finds its expression in the present document which we are told is absolutely the only way forward. Unfortunately such thinking leads, and has led in the past, to a situation where everything else is unimportant if it stands in the way of Fianna Fáil actually being in Government. That is why there is at the moment such distress in the ranks of Fianna Fáil. It is now seen that their dominance of Irish politics is coming to an end, which must be extremely painful for them. That Messiah complex finds expression, for example, in the justification I heard recently for double voting in an election — that it did not matter what the means were, that anyone in government who was not Fianna Fáil was somehow an aberration, a temporary problem to do with a quirk of PR, that the system must be used to get the rightful Government in.

One of the reasons for the necessity of this economic plan — despite its inadequacies, there are some true statements in it — is that between January 1980 and June 1981 the Government embarked on a programme of extraordinarily profligate spending of the taxpayer's money to ensure that there was no slip-up at the general election of June 1981. That effort to buy that election resulted in not a little of the chaos which we face now and which this plan is supposed to set out to rectify. The country now has before it the Fine Gael policy document, the Fianna Fáil document, The Way Forward, and a plan from the Workers' Party. The Government could be expected to command a great deal more attention than the parties in opposition. That is why many more column inches were expended by all the commentators on this plan than on the Fine Gael plan. Unfortunately for the Minister, the column inches were, alas, not favourable, but that is the risk you take if you build up something, as this plan was built up over the last six months.

We must face the question of whether Oppositions should plan and Governments should act. When I heard about six months ago that we were to have a plan which would indicate to us what were the Government's intentions, it occurred to me immediately that the Government, instead of planning to do something, should be doing something and that an Opposition's role is to plan and to present the people with details of what the party would do should they be elected to office. However, for six months the answers to questions were couched in such terms as, "that will be part of the Government's plan". In other words, we had to have the six months planning involved in bringing forward a plan. Now we have a plan and we are debating what it may or may not achieve. Irrespective of which party are in Government such a delay is very long. Other than pulling themselves apart in the past number of months I do not understand why Fianna Fáil have delayed so long in bringing forward this plan when all those public servants whom the Government intend getting rid of in their thousands are there to run the country as opposed to sitting down and writing more documents.

The first question to ask ourselves is whether the Government can be trusted to bring forward a document that contains only the truth. The next question is whether their record is one that enables us to have confidence either in their willingness or in their ability to put the country before the party. Thirdly, we must ask whether this is a plan or whether it is simply an economic aspiration. This is a question that has caused commentators many problems. Allied to that is the more serious question that, given the make-up of Dáil Éireann and with a minority Government who have been weakened seriously by catastrophic internal divisions and who have failed manifestly to win public confidence, is it realistic to imagine that if the document had been believable, the Government could have forecast any length of time for its implementation?

The details of the plan have been commented on considerably but the basic problem seems to be that the assumptions inherent in it and the targets it sets out are so out of line with reality and past experience as to render it at best an imaginative leap in the dark or at worst a cynical public relations exercise. It is a serious matter to describe a Government plan in those terms but unfortunately that is how we must speak about it. One commentator who, luckily for the Minister for the Environment, did not print in his newspaper a remark he made to me said that the plan reminded him of the Dublin city bus timetable, a document which he tries to use. He said that the timetable was fine if we could have a situation in which traffic flowed in a pattern that is not the norm, if at the same time there was no rain, if there was no maintenance or other strike and if drivers and conductors did what they were supposed to be doing. However, since those conditions never coincided the bus timetable remained a nicely produced document but with the wish unfulfilled. That, the commentator added, appears to be the case with this plan.

Just before the plan was published I heard that the Government had three plans, that there had been a good deal more work going on than we were aware of. Apparently, a decision had to be taken as to which plan was to be produced. One plan was, I understand, the civil service option which was a severe, rather dry document containing realistic targets and judgements. Another was the Government plan, an attractive option without too much realism while the third was an in-between document. Perhaps even those people who have since left the Cabinet were in favour of the in-between document. We may never know that but what appeared eventually was the attractive, the soft option, entitled, The Way Forward. That is a simple statement of reality. There are several brave statements contained in the document but unfortunately these are not backed up by reality.

One must consider some of the assumptions made and which are basic to the kind of results the Government are setting out to achieve. The plan assumes that export margins will increase between 1983 and 1987 by 4 per cent. The problem is that our unit wage costs were assumed to increase by 7½ per cent on average each year while all the economic forecasts, both domestic and international, put the figure at 4 per cent. In other words, our trading partners' costs will rise by about 4 per cent at most but possibly by only 2 per cent on average in the four years in question. This fundamental basic assumption requires international movements totally outside our control but which are not deemed to be possible. If by way of some fantastic achievement, we succeeded in holding our unit wage costs to 3½ per cent for those years it still would not help to achieve the targets of this plan. If other countries' unit wage costs are to be similar to or less than ours, we will not get the advantage which the plan assumes we will get. We will not get this wonderful accrual of benefits envisaged in the plan because we are supposed to be much more economical in our unit wage costs than they are.

That is the sort of basic assumption made in the plan on which it has to stand or fall. Therefore it will be suggested that the commentators who have forecast that it must fall had no choice but to come to that conclusion. Another assumption in the plan is in regard to agricultural prices. The document states that one of the basic ways in which agricultural production can be stimulated and prosperity brought back to the agricultural sector is through our agricultural prices rising side by side with EEC inflation. That flies in the face of all EEC declarations on farm prices. The EEC is committed irrevocably to a farm price increase lower than inflation, considerably lower than EEC average inflation. This anomaly renders the whole section on agricultural prosperity development equally suspect.

An assumption has been made about consumer spending. Apparently consumer spending will increase by 2 per cent per annum which is to be an essential way to boost our economy, people being able to buy more from our producers. But how can consumer spending increase by 2 per cent per annum because in another part of the document there is the definite statement that incomes will be falling? Will people continue to spend more when they will have less? I do not understand how that can happen and I hope somebody can explain it to me.

Deputy Sherlock described this document as a plan for the lower paid, for the workers. I would describe it in a different way. The plan states that total exports from Ireland will rise by 12.25 per cent per annum, an amazing target in itself because it implies that manufacturing exports will rise by approximately 17 per cent. Any overall judgment on total exports implies a higher export ratio in the manufacturing sector. An essential component in the plan is that wages will rise hardly at all. I do not understand how this or any Government can convince workers to accept lower pay in the middle of a massive export boom. It seems to be an illogical joining of two ideas, because if manufacturing exports embark on this magnificent programme of increasing by 17 per cent a year I cannot foresee Irish workers accepting tiny increases and being told that they cannot join in the boom because it has nothing to do with the national plan for prosperity: "It does not affect you; you must continue to accept low pay". I am afraid that projected export boom has a large element of wishful thinking about it. One commentator described it like this: "The Government have decided to assume away the problem by whistling up an export boom". I am sure Deputy Burke, the Minister, would castigate Mr. O'Malley of the Sunday Independent in the same way as he attacked The Sunday Tribune commentator. Last Sunday, Mr. O'Malley began his comments with three ifs:

If things happen that never happened before, like huge increases in output in manufacturing employment, if people behave as they never have behaved before by accepting major cuts in living standards over a five year period, if Mr. Haughey survives to act as he has never acted before, then the National Plan is a realistic document.

I wonder what combination of circumstances are supposed to have arisen in the last few months to make those three ifs some kind of a reality. I believe that at least the plan faces the reality that the people will be required to make a sacrifice together to get the country on the road to recovery, but we must consider very carefully how the Irish people will be brought to make a great united sacrifice, a great unselfish effort, of the kind that will be needed in the next few years. The only way that will come about is through leadership and Government of exceptional standards. It will need the kind of criteria I cited earlier. It will need example from the top. There are various kinds of examples.

We will have to get rid of national white elephants which, as Deputy John Bruton said yesterday, involve the State in a massive financial input for industry and State-owned organisations sited in various places for purely political reasons. We will have to consider realistically what to do with our steel mills, airports, disease eradication programmes, all the areas which have represented enormous white elephants that have soaked up taxpayers' money and have caused an enormous credibility gap.

I will give an example which on the face of it appears to be extremely small, but it is valid. I refer to our system of State cars. Despite its relative importance it has assumed a disproportionate importance in people's minds. I believe the public see the State car system as something which is unjustifiable in a time of economic problems. I should like to discuss this for a moment because, if we are to ask the people to make sacrifices, we ourselves in politics must show that we too can make sacrifices and will do so. The emergence of this syndrome as a problem in the public eyes warrants a response. It is a symptom of the kind of respect, or lack of respect, which so many people have for politicians. I should like to pose the simple question: is there any need for Ministers and Ministers of State to drive around in their very large black Mercedes cars chauffeured by highly-qualified individuals whose pay I understand in many cases exceeds that of the people they are driving? I do not believe for a moment that the hedgerows of Ireland are full of heavily-armed desperados waiting to jump out to assassinate every Minister and junior Minister. Having said that, I accept that the provision of a driver is necessary for the enormous round of duties demanded all over the country from Ministers and Ministers of State. Certainly the provision of a driver is necessary. I accept also that the holders of some Government posts and some individuals are particularly vulnerable or sensitive and need special protection in terms of accompanying cars and armed drivers in that kind of area.

However, an immediate decision should be taken to dispense with the black Mercedes fleet which should be replaced by a fleet of modest energy-consuming cars which would be altogether more in keeping with the style of this country. In every possible case ordinary drivers should be employed to drive those public servants except where it has been decided by the Government, after advice from the security forces, that special protection is necessary. Of course it goes without saying — and I am sure it is already the case — that the use of these small, modest cars must be confined to the office holder on official political business only. This may seem a small item but a rationalisation of that system, which so annoys the public, would constitute one aspect of example from Government so necessary for beginning to work together on the road to recovery. Revision of that system should form a very small part only of the overall reform of procedures and privileges of both Houses, procedures crying out for modernisation and reform. The whole system cries out for renewal and a reaching out to the population, particularly young people. The time for talking about reform is over; the time for beginning that reform has come.

There was one enormous problem touched on by Deputy Bruton yesterday and to which I should like to refer once more. The Government's economic plan states that the opening deficit for next year will have to be 5.5 per cent of GNP, which is £750 million. This is what the plan aims to do as part of its target to cut the deficit altogether. But the plan also states that next year we will have a 5 per cent increase in public sector pay, that the existing tax bands and levels will be maintained, that food subsidies will be increased by about 4 per cent and that social welfare benefits will increase by about 8 per cent. Having done one's sums on those targets for next year in terms of expenditure, one finds that they add up to an opening deficit for the budget of 1983, a few months away only, of £1,250 million. But the plan says that the 1983 opening deficit will be £750 million. That means that between now and the introduction of the 1983 budget the deficit will have to be brought down by £500 million. That money must be found either by way of tax increases or cuts in expenditure. That is perhaps the biggest credibility gap in this plan because we are not told how that £500 million is to be found. Taxpayers need to know how that £500 million will be found before they can be expected to subscribe to a document setting out those targets. The poor of this country should be told what further cuts there are going to be in Government expenditure in different Departments so that they can ascertain whether they can subscribe to this plan.

These are enormous questions raised by the blithe declarations in the plan which are not backed up by solid criteria. Perhaps in the civil service plan, one of those rejected by the Government, those cuts were detailed. Perhaps that is why plan one did not get printed or come before the people.

I might refer to the closing part of the Minister's speech when apparently, more in hurt than in anger, he brought up the question of Deputy FitzGerald's discussions with Deputy Gregory about the inner city development aid. Throughout the Minister's perambulations in that respect it was not quite clear to me what he was endeavouring to prove. Every second sentence was saying: of course Fianna Fáil approve that these plans must be brought forward for the inner city. Then he would revert once more and condemn Fine Gael for having had discussions with Deputy Gregory. Of course Deputy FitzGerald met Deputy Gregory in as equal a blaze of publicity as did Deputy Haughey. Every evening television gave us these accounts of people meeting with different people and it was general knowledge that these discussions were taking place. I am very glad to say that Deputy FitzGerald responded to the request of Deputy Gregory for help for certain parts of the inner city. That is an absolutely correct thing to have done. I should have liked to have asked the Minister was he seriously suggesting that Fine Gael should have been the only party not to meet Deputy Gregory, because that appeared to me to be what the Minister for the Environment was saying. In the heel of the hunt, as has been shown to be the case, Deputy FitzGerald went as far as he felt it was possible and necessary to go and not one step further. Deputy Gregory on the floor of this House on 9 March last made that absolutely clear.

I can recall the Minister for the Environment referring also to the fact that perhaps members of Fine Gael did not know about those discussions. I can recall, still with some amazement, the expression on the faces of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench, particularly on the faces of the two recently departed members of the Cabinet, as Deputy Gregory read out the price he had extracted from Deputy Haughey for his vote. I can also recall the warm applause for Deputy FitzGerald from his own side of the House when Deputy Gregory announced that Deputy FitzGerald was not prepared to go that far. I do not know why the Minister for the Environment felt it necessary or important to bring up something that was well known, documented and was no secret, as if it was some type of triumph. Perhaps it is another example of the difficulties Fianna Fáil are facing as the gap between them and Fine Gael closes.

The Minister's outburst can only be described as a red herring in an effort to distract attention from the universal, rather condemnatory attitude of all commentators to the Government's plan. I should like to quote from an editorial in The Irish Times of 22 October which discussed the plan. I do not believe Deputy Burke will accuse The Irish Times of being anti-Fianna Fáil. If he accuses The Irish Times as well as the Sunday Tribune and the Sunday Independent he is saying there is very little left to Fianna Fáil except their own newspaper. The editorial I am referring to sums up the problems which arise in the plan and the disappointment which is justifiably felt by all sections. It states:

The plan has little chance of meeting the ambitious objective it sets itself. It will not work. It will not work because it attempts to tackle too many of the country's problems too quickly. It will not work because the preconditions on which it is based are faulty. Most of all, it will not work because it assumes away the problem by postulating a rate of economic growth and an export performance which are outside the bounds of reality.

sad that the Government who have taken six months to produce this document should have fallen at this fence yet again. It is sad that a public service which we are told was very much involved with the plan should have had to be associated with it. It is sad for the country that the apparent conversion of Fianna Fáil to the kind of reality which we hoped they were learning from Fine Gael is not being followed. Fianna Fáil hope that cosmetics will get over harsh realities and sugar the pill quite easily.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling on the Minister for Transport.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that there is a Minister involved but I thought the speakers would rotate among the parties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. The precedent is that after the initial speakers, the leaders from the three major parties, the debate moves from one side of the House to the other.

Mr. Ryan

In other words the Chair is saying that Fine Gael and Labour are the same party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not saying that, but I am outlining to the Deputy the precedent in this regard. I am calling upon the Minister.

Minister for Transport and Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Wilson)

I should like to refer to the contribution of Deputy Hussey who indicated that the Minister for the Environment in some way was not prepared to listen to critical comment or to accept comment from commentators on the plan as published. Members who were listening to the Taoiseach at the press conference when he launched The Way Forward will recall that he invited constructive criticism of the plan. The Taoiseach said that if the basics of the plan were preserved in any new suggestion coming as a result of open debate on the plan they would be incorporated in it. Deputy Burke was talking about something quite different. He was referring to an assumption of moral precedents on the part of the Fine Gael Party, about the assertion that probity and integrity resided only in the Fine Gael Party and about something which has saddened many people who have given themselves to public life. In the general election campaign earlier this year very strict principles were laid down according to which the country would have to be ruled if we were to maintain our economic independence. We were told: “These are our principles even if it means imposing penal VAT on the necessities of life for the weaker sections of the community.” No independent person could withhold a certain amount of admiration for the Leader of Fine Gael in his campaign on those principles which, it was stated, would not be changed. In fact, when the general election was over we saw that it was the old dictum: “Those are my principles and if you don't like them I will change them.”

Mr. L'Estrange

There was no £100 million-Tony Gregory deal.

Mr. Wilson

The stern Cato of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Kelly, saw the illogicality of the situation and withdrew himself from the scene two or three benches backwards as fast as he could possibly make it.

Mr. Dukes

He did not have 21 others with him.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Burke was referring to something else, he was not talking about constructive criticism of an economic programme but about a new industry that has grown up. Crawling over the body politic we have the maggots of innuendo, of whisper, of gossip and of malice and that is what the Minister for the Environment was talking about. In the last decade the quality of life in politics has deteriorated and no less a person than whom no Member has more experience, Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan, has remarked on this in a very illuminating speech in the comparatively recent past. The Minister for the Environment was referring to that and not to criticism of our economic plan.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 28 Oct 1982

National Economic Plan: Motion (Resumed).

Mr. R. Burke

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Oct 1982