Vol. 354 No. 13
The session of the Dáil which ends today has, I suggest, been more noteworthy for all the things it did not do than for what it actually did.
Despite very clear commitments to do so, and an attempt to reap political advantage from these commitments, this Government have again failed to have the Estimates for 1985 debated in the House in this session. Another broken promise; another parliamentary commitment reneged upon.
Is the Deputy sending around his script?
I have only notes. The Official Reports of the last two years contain a long list of promises and undertakings in regard to legislation which have not been honoured. Apart from the Criminal Justice Bill, which was carried over from the last session, there has, in fact, been no major legislation even commenced this session. It is becoming increasingly obvious that legislation of any consequence is not being brought forward because it cannot be agreed by the warring factions in the Coalition parties and inside the Government themselves. This Government's legislation performance to date has been a dismal one.
There is no sign of the legislation, local government reform, the EC Equality Directive, the Dublin Transport Authority, bankruptcy, company law, air transport, the National Development Corporation, a free port for Cork, family planning, illegitimacy and the children Bill.
Is this the Deputy's contribution to the Adjournment Debate? If it is, he is making a speech.
Listen to the truth.
The Government did not have much to say after the summit.
Give Deputy Haughey an opportunity to speak.
Where were the Government after the summit? They ran away to hide and raise their little flag another day.
Order, please.
I will read them again for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. These are things the Government promised but reneged on: private radio broadcasting, local government reform, the EC Equality Directive, Dublin Transport Authority, bankruptcy, company law, air transport, the National Development Corporation, a freeport for Cork, family planning, illegitimacy and the children's Bill.
(Limerick East): The Bankruptcy Bill is before a committee of the House.
The Deputy would not know that.
Order, please.
The major political event of this session was, of course, the meeting at Chequers, between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. The disastrous, humiliating outcome of that meeting is now a matter of history. The reality which we must face, following that meeting, is that the situation in Northern Ireland has been frozen in its present tragic dimensions for an indefinite period. British policy is now firmly committed to maintaining the status quo. Any hopes which we might have cherished of progress towards a solution have, for the time being at any rate, been discounted. The British Daily Telegraph feels it appropriate to talk about “the Unionists in their hour of triumph” because the guarantee of their entrenched position, power and privilege has now been extended and copperfastened. The shutters are down; the outlook is grey and depressing.
I have already confirmed that we in Fianna Fáil do not accept this unilateral imposition of a barrier to progress; that we will fight it in every forum available to us; that we will highlight British intransigence around the world and will continue to advocate the only possible solution designed to bring peace and stability to this island and to finally establish permanent and satisfactory relations between this country and Britain. The historic recital of the events which have brought Northern Ireland to its present tragic state, the presentation of the realities of that situation and the agreed conclusion arrived at in the New Ireland Forum report are all valid. They have not been upset by argument or reason. What is required now is for all the parties in Ireland who seek to achieve the nationalist ideal of peace in unity to renew their efforts to this end. We should be clear and specific about our objectives and we should learn the bitter lesson that vagueness about objectives, and an apparent willingness to appease, can only lead to the sort of major setback that this nation suffered at Chequers.
Just as we were about to adjourn, the latest unemployment figures have been disclosed. They show that once again there was a further disheartening rise of 4,000 during November to bring the figure to a staggering 216,517. This figure would, of course, be considerably greater, perhaps by as much as 10,000, were it not for the fact that Irish people are once again being forced to emigrate in search of employment, particularly young people. From these Opposition benches it is our responsibility to keep reminding this Government that these levels of unemployment are the direct result of their monetarist policies, that they constitute a national scandal and that they contain within them the seeds of serious social disorder. What is inexcusable in this context is the failure of the Government to undertake any action to protect existing employment. The depressing list of closures continues unabated. It now sometimes seems that nothing is safe or secure any more. I submit that, in a number of recent cases, closure was not inevitable and could have been avoided given the political will. Rescue packages could have been prepared which had every prospect of succeeding. A malaise seems to have spread throughout the corridors of power under this Government affecting all Departments and agencies of the State. There is an atmosphere of defeatism and an almost automatic tendency to send for the receiver. Ministers of this Government seem increasingly prepared, as their political ship sinks, to bring the whole nation down with them. They are politically paralysed as the dreadful truth comes home to them that they got it all wrong and that their policies have started a downward spiral that is now feeding inexorably on itself.
The recent dramatic demise of such companies as Verolme Dockyard, Clover Meats and Irish Shipping can be attributed directly to Government policy. There is no longer any attempt to save jobs, as these three cases in particular demonstrate. This Government are prepared to stand back and let jobs go without any effort to save them. Do the members of this Government not realise, can they not understand, the tragedy that follows when a firm of long standing closes down; the saga of human misery and sadness that takes place when men and women who have given the best years of their lives to a firm suddenly find their livelihoods taken away from them and their dignity and self-respect as well? Fianna Fáil Governments acted time and time again to save jobs. But there is now no longer any policy of job protection on the part of this Government. Such efforts find no favour with the new Right which is now dominant in the corridors of power in this country.
Our approach to the problem of permanent mass unemployment is first of all to identify its solution as the priority objective of economic policy and secondly to adopt a coherent multi-sided policy approach to tackling it.
In Fianna Fáil we start by rejecting a policy of acquiescence in emigration to help solve the problem, because we want our young Irish people to be able to stay in Ireland and find here a satisfactory and fulfilling way of life in their own country.
We believe that the Government must play an active role in the economy by planning and implementing policies for the creation and maintenance of jobs. There must be a real attempt made to restore investment to its 1977-82 levels. This requires a positive commitment to provide whatever resources are required for job creation and the rejection of that part of this Government's Industrial White Paper which states that the state of Government finances does not allow for any real expansion of expenditure in job creation. It also requires a more positive climate for investment in terms of cost, taxation and public utility charges and positive support for a carefully selected programme by the IDA.
We shall have to select those sectors for growth which will provide added value to the economy and will bring with them technological spin-off benefits. We have comparatively one of the best educated young populations in all of Europe. We must exploit that situation and establish firmly once and for all our reputation as a nation of high skills and high productivity. We shall have to develop a competitiveness which is based on technological and technical skills, quality, high productivity, expert marketing and back-up service rather than a competitiveness — to which this Government are committed — which relies exclusively on depressed wages. Our aim must be to be a high wage, high technology economy.
We must immediately and comprehensively strengthen our scientific and research base. As I have already indicated on our return to Government, we will appoint a Minister of State for Science and Technology. High priority will be given to the modernisation of equipment, the restoration of staffing levels in key scientific institutions and a concentration of efforts and technological innovation in the areas of biotechnology, microelectronics, food-processing, mariculture and engineering. Public procurement policy must be used to stimulate the development of new technology based on products developed by Irish firms. Our entire education system must be more technologically oriented and the weight of investment in third level education placed in that area.
There must be a major expansion of our efforts at every level, particularly Government, in promoting export marketing and finding and establishing new markets. We do enjoy great goodwill in many parts of this world. We must build on this goodwill and use it as a base for a successful export trade. In spite of our fairly long period of membership by now of the European Community there is still a need to penetrate European markets much more deeply than we have done.
Taxation policy can be used as a very powerful instrument for promoting employment opportunities. I was not at all surprised to hear the chairman of Irish Distillers claim that the lowering of excise on spirits has more or less brought cross-Border smuggling to a halt. Members of this House know that I advocated this type of proposal frequently in this House before it was at last adopted. The appointment of a committee to look into the effects of VAT on cross-Border trade is a further step in that direction. The validity of my argument for self-financing tax cuts is now acknowledged. I hope that a much greater attempt will be undertaken in this direction in the forthcoming Budget.
The public capital programme is an important instrument for job creation both directly and indirectly. Since this Government took office investment in the productive sectors of the economy has fallen off disastrously. Investment in agriculture and fisheries in particular is now less than half the 1980 levels. Agriculture, of course, still is one of the most important sectors of our economy. It is particularly unfortunate — at the time we should be building up our cattle stocks and the quality of our beef production— that the Fianna Fáil four year plan for agriculture has been virtually ignored. We, in Government, will reverse that policy. It is equally disappointing that there is still no concerted effort to expand substantially our marine resources, mariculture and fish farming.
The bringing of natural gas to centres round the country must be immediately undertaken. There are jobs to be established there and a source of energy for our industry. We have been very slow in exploiting this major natural resource. There is evidence that the Government are bogged down in ideological difficulties while in the meantime nothing gets done to exploit this very important energy resource at our disposal.
Our State companies and indeed local authorities, have an important role also to play in economic recovery. They are major employers. They should not be starved of resources so that they cannot reach their potential, although obviously maximum efficiency must be demanded of them. Local authorities also have the powers — which they have not widely used — to act as development corporations in their own areas. At this time of economic and social crisis they should and must turn their attention to using those powers.
The management of the public finances over the past two years has been characterised by a series of bad decisions, poor judgment and policy reversals.
This bad management has been particularly emphasised and underlined by the recent rise in domestic interest rates when interest rates generally around the world were falling. This is, of course, directly attributable to the mistaken borrowing policy adopted by the present Minister for Finance. First of all, he made the inexplicable decision to switch our borrowing out of European currencies into dollars. Secondly — transfixed by his own partisan, political propaganda — he restricted foreign borrowing and placed unnecessary pressure on the domestic market.
The Government can offer no prospect of any relief in the present crushing levels of taxation. In fact, the reverse is true. Increased local charges and local authority rents are on the way as are levies on the ESB, Bord Telecom, Bord Gáis Éireann, and all of them certainly will be passed on to the hard pressed tax payers.
The Government's policies in the area of social welfare and health have been callous and insensitive and have hit the poorer and weaker sections of our community very hard indeed. Increases in social welfare rates have been derisory and insulting. The abolition of the food subsidies has brought an additional measure of deprivation to those who can least cope with it. I would have thought that it was by now universally accepted as a principle of a modern, enlightened Government that whatever the state of the national economy, whatever the extent and the depth of any particular economic recession, whatever the fiscal and budgetary disciplines that had to be imposed, the poorer and weaker sections of the national community would be protected and their standards of living, already low and inadequate in many cases, would not be allowed to deteriorate. It is to the shame of the Government that they have not adhered to any such principle and that, in fact, to a large extent, their attempts to achieve fiscal rectitude have been at the expense of the poorer and weaker sections of the community — the old, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the disabled and the lower paid.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have recently undertaken a programme of meetings with the political parties. We in Fianna Fáil welcomed this initiative. We were very glad to have an opportunity of an exchange of views with the trade union leadership on the current state of the economy and, in particular, about the social evil of mass unemployment. We were glad to avail of the opportunity to assure Congress that we were in agreement with and fully supported the broad economic strategy outlined in their valuable document, Confronting the Jobs Crisis. We found a basis for agreement between us in accepting the importance of increasing infrastructure expenditure and the use of the public capital programme as a means of stimulating economic recovery, the importance of developing our natural resources, and the vital and necessary role to be played in economic progress and development by the semi-State sector.
I would not attempt to suggest that there would not be differences of emphasis between Fianna Fáil and the trade union movement on a number of issues. As a matter of practical economic management, we would probably attach some greater significance to the private sector and to the relative contributions to be made to overall development between the private and public sectors. But there would be no difference between us about the urgent need for economic development and the corresponding need for every sector to make the maximum possible contribution to such development. We would also find common ground in identifying unemployment as the central problem in our society and on the need for policies based on the acceptance of that reality.
The construction industry has been one of the major victims of the present Government's policies. There are now over 40,000 building workers unemployed. Even in monetary terms, the provision in the public capital programme for 1985 for the construction industry is below the level in 1982. The Government's document, Building on Reality ignores the key importance and potential of the construction industry, and foresees employment in that sector as static at best over the next three years.
A major revival in the building and construction industry, with a major increase in public capital expenditure and incentives for private investment, will be a key element in our programme of economic revival.
To close down, sell off or devalue a State company seems to have been turned to by the economists and other spokesmen for the new Right as a demonstration of political virility. The demoralised and irrelevant Labour Party can no longer offer any resistance. If this process of dismantling the State sector is brought much further, the Government will get to the point of dismantling the State itself. Without a ship building or repair capacity in the State or a merchant shipping fleet to bring us essential supplies, we are now left vulnerable in the event of a serious international crisis. It is surely extremely foolish for us, as an island nation, to deprive ourselves of any significant maritime capacity to supply our vital needs in an emergency situation. The next Fianna Fáil Government will have to rectify this situation and restore a strategic minimum of shipping capacity in this vital area.
We must accept, however unpalatable it may be for most of us to do so, that our creditworthiness as a nation has been detrimentally affected by this Government's decision to repudiate specific financial obligations as it did in the case of Irish Shipping. At another level, it is clear that the Government have a responsibility for the closure of Clover Meats and for the action of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which led to over 1,000 Irish farmers being left with cheques they could not cash. The cumulative damaging effect of instances of this kind is very great. It shatters confidence and greatly harms our commercial and financial standing at home and abroad.
These are critical days for the future of our oil and gas resources. The extent of these resources has not yet been ascertained, either on land or under the sea. It is clear, however, that we have hydrocarbon deposits, however large or limited they may be. There have also been some recent developments in regard to these resources which need to be carefully watched if the interests of the Irish people are to be fully protected. These natural resources belong to the Irish people, and they must be developed exclusively for their benefit. At this stage we look to them as a possible major source for generating future economic development. They represent a great potential, and it would be unforgiveable if the enormous possibilities they could offer are dissipated and lost to future generations because the wrong decisions are made at this stage.
Recent developments must be a cause of misgiving. There have been a number of speeches and statements which are clearly designed to create a climate favourable to particular commercial interests. It is being claimed that certain changes should be made and concessions granted allegedly in the interest of exploration. I want to make it clear that Fianna Fáil will watch these developments very closely indeed. We will not tolerate any lessening or diminution of the legitimate rights of the State or the interests of the Irish taxpayer. We will not stand for any cosy arrangements or special treatment for favourite groups. We know that the so-called early production system, while it might provide a quick return for the commercial interests involved, would be detrimental to the proper exploration and development of the oil field as a whole. It is absurd to suggest that the Irish Government should be in any way concerned about the troubles of large multinational concerns or have any obligation to come to their aid. The Irish Government's responsibility is to the Irish people and the Irish tax payers. I feel it necessary to place on record, for the benefit of anyone who may be contemplating entering into any particular arrangements, that when we resume office these arrangements will be fully and carefully scrutinised and unless they can be clearly demonstrated to be in accordance with the best interests of this State they will, if necessary, be radically reviewed. It is only fair to everybody concerned that I should make our position crystal clear and that nobody should be under any illusion as to where we stand on the vital question of the development of Irish natural resources for the benefit of the Irish people and not for the advantage and profit of particular favoured groups.
The same situation will apply to the arrangements for the initiation of satellite broadcasting. This too is an area of great potential and one from which substantial benefits can accrue to the Irish taxpayer. We will also scrutinise any arrangements made in this area and subject them to the same test of public interest and benefit to the State.
One of the favourite myths of Fine Gael and their media friends used to be that they were good at foreign affairs. The line handed out was that they knew their way around, spoke French and could deal with foreign politicians, diplomats and officials.
I do not think that we will hear much more about that particular piece of fraudulent misrepresentation. It is not just that their handling of Anglo Irish relations has been disastrous, but we have fared very badly in Europe also. There is evidence that our relations with the Federal Republic of Germany have not been good for some time. This mishandling of our relations with Germany is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that since we joined the Community, the Germans have been particularly friendly and have supported our case on many different difficult occasions.
Our handling of the Presidency of the Community has been inept and unsuccessful. The Greeks, who it will be recalled, made a comparatively generous offer on the super-levy at the Athens Summit last year, are now talking about having been betrayed by Ireland. Despite the massive selling job carried out by the Government's media machine after the Dublin Summit, it is now slowly but clearly, emerging that it was far from the success it was presented as being. The President of the European Commission, Gaston Thorn, has said that it was poorly prepared and that he is pessimistic about the timetable for enlargement being able to be kept. We all took the statement about extra aid for famine stricken Ethiopia at its face value and warmly welcomed it. It now appears to have been something of a confidence trick. In fact, it has been described in The Guardian of Sunday, 8 December 1984 by a Commission official as hypocrisy of the worst kind. The Taoiseach's very dubious statement last Sunday seemed only to confirm the truth of the accusations which were being made, namely, that next year's development aid for famine stricken countries would be reduced by a corresponding amount.
The Government have signally failed to defend Ireland's vital interests in the Community over the last twelve months. Ireland's EC diplomacy has, I regret to say, been a disastrous failure, and we have allowed long established positions to be swept away with only token resistance. The Government's efforts to win exemption from the super-levy ended in fiasco. If the Government were going to settle for the best deal available, they certainly missed the boat in Athens, when a 10 per cent exemption was put on the table by the Greek Presidency, something which was a great deal better than what was finally accepted. Then we discovered that the concession obtained was even less than first appeared, because of a disastrous miscalculation by the Minister for Agriculture, which should be the cause of the resignation of any honourable Minister. As a result Irish farmers will lose £10 million a year. The Commission in the meantime are docking payments to Ireland, and have rejected out of hand bravado posturings by this hapless Minister. So much for our foreign policy.
The Government have capitulated to British demands for general restrictions on the CAP, which are designed to hold farm spending below the growth in own resources. In other words, Irish farmers are condemned to a low income situation in the Community for the foreseeable future.
It is appearing increasingly doubtful if the survival of our fishing industry will be ensured in the negotiations over enlargement. The Spanish fishing fleet will be the largest in the Community and within a comparatively short number of years will have free access virtually up to our shores. If now seems likely that this vast Spanish fishing fleet will be operating within six miles of our shore in less, possibly much less, than ten years time. That is the Spanish demand. Unfortunately at this stage the Government seem to have virtually given away Ireland's position, and an effective policy of protecting our fishing grounds will become difficult, if not impossible, once a huge armada of Spanish fishing vessels descends upon our waters.
The depressing net result of the Government's EC diplomacy over the last 18 months has been to leave Ireland without protection for its vital interests, unpopular, without allies and with our overall interests in the Community seriously damaged.
I believe the Government must be well aware of the serious misgivings which have arisen about recent happenings in the legal and constitutional area. The Chief Justice has indicated his intention to resign from that office and to take up an appointment in the European Court for a period of ten months. The Attorney General has resigned and has been replaced by a relatively junior lawyer whose appointment is a major break from long established tradition. A piece of legislation has been published covering the remuneration of the judiciary which contains a number of extraordinary features. On the face of it, we are entitled to assume that these different events are all connected in some way. If so, this should be fully explained to this House and to the people.
The Bill which has been published has very serious constitutional implications. It gives a Minister of the Government specific power to confer substantial benefits retrospectively on a member of the judiciary and that power is not subject, apparently, to review by this House. This runs completely counter to the whole concept of a judiciary which is totally independent of the Government, and opens up alarming possibilities of individual members of the judiciary being rewarded substantially by the Government of the day. I believe this proposal will be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of legal and constitutional opinion in this country whether academic or practising, whether on the bench or at the bar and that it must be withdrawn. If it is not we will fight it every step of the way through the Oireachtas and we shall exhort every Oireachtas Member who values the constitutional independence of the judiciary to support us.
The Bill which has been published also proposes to reduce the qualifying period of pensions for judges from 15 to five years. I have no hesitation in describing this as utterly outrageous at a time when all sections of the community are suffering hardships, reductions in their standard of living, cutbacks and pressures of every kind and the general public service generally is being abused by Ministers for being feather-bedded and having their rights to negotiations and arbitration in effect suspended. This Government propose in those circumstances concessions of this magnitude for a comparatively well remunerated section of our community, namely, the judiciary. It is difficult to understand or to comprehend the reason for the proposal. It certainly does not derive from any normal revision and there must be something involved which has not been disclosed to us, and which must be disclosed to us.
Our national political life had been debased by the lengthy, semi-public and unprecedented wrangle which has taken place between Fine Gael and Labour over the appointment of the new Attorney General. It must raise serious doubts about the discharge of his constitutional responsibilities by the Taoiseach. The appointment of the Attorney General is reserved exclusively by the Constitution to the Taoiseach. It is certainly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution for the Taoiseach to have allowed anyone, a member of the Government or anyone else, to dictate to him who should be chosen for this fundamentally important constitutional office.
The Attorney General's post is one of great and far-reaching responsibility. His duties are onerous and demanding and call for great personal qualities. On him, ultimately, rests responsibility for the proper and just functioning of the legal machinery of the State. Very often he will be, in practical terms, the ultimate protector of the rights and the freedom of the individual. Today he is often called upon to discharge important international duties affecting the basic sovereignty and security of the State. The new Attorney General has never conducted a case in the High Court, still less the Supreme Court.
I must confess that in considering this matter I find myself a little inhibited because we on this side of the House have no wish to attack any particular individual, but we have to attack the process by which this appointment was made. I am not at all reassured even by an account which has been given by the security correspondent of The Irish Times this morning about the matter, and in particular about the new appointee. Mr. Rogers, we are assured is very tall, has dark features and, when he is pleased, a big wide smile. It would be very strange indeed if he did not smile when he is pleased. The same penetrating correspondent goes on to say:
Spring needs Rogers. He doesn't trust the other three (Mr. Desmond, Mr. Kavanagh and Mr. Quinn) at the Cabinet table and wants to be able to counter their influence with Rogers. He trusts him but he is unsure about the others. People in the party who support Spring reckon that he needs Rogers for his support.
That is a strange way of doing business.
I want, on behalf of a wide section of the community who are deeply concerned about this matter, to put the direct question to the Taoiseach, whether he is satisfied that the person he is nominating to the President for appointment has the qualities, the experience and the qualifications traditionally demanded for this high constitutional post. Was it not simply a very basic matter—you approve Sutherland for the job of Commissioner in Europe and I will approve Rogers for the job of Attorney General in Ireland?
It has invariably been the practice up to now that the person appointed to the position of Attorney General should be an eminent practising member of the bar. There was a time when the Fine Gael Party would have prided themselves on upholding that time-honoured legal and constitutional tradition. It would once have been anathema to the leaders of that party that it should be seen to all that the main qualification of the appointee is that he is a friend and adviser of the leader of the Labour Party. Is there no limit to the lengths the present leader of Fine Gael will go to hold on to office? Is there much point in being Taoiseach if you cannot even appoint your own Attorney General?
This is unfortunately but one more, even though the most important so far, of a series of appointments which reflect no credit on the Government. For years we have had to put up with nauseating sanctimonious cant from this Taoiseach and from the Fine Gael Party about political patronage. Their November 1982 election document spoke of the need to ensure that the standards of political life are not only raised, but seen to be raised to a level compatible with our people's expectations concerning their political leaders. The actual appointments made by the Taoiseach and his Ministers make a hollow mockery of all that. Political jobbery is rampant under this Government and this Taoiseach.
This Government are now a masquerade. Everybody knows that they no longer have a mandate to govern. They cannot attempt to tackle the serious and urgent problems which confront the country today. It is undemocratic for any Government to remain governing and have lost the capacity to govern. The actual position is that the people are waiting anxiously to get rid of a Government that are unpopular and unwanted. The members of the Government themselves know that that is the position. It is demonstrated to them, often forcibly, every day by a very disillusioned and very resentful public.
Every day people in the street ask me "When are we going to get rid of them"? To these anxious questions I can only reply that if I thought there was any last vestige of principle left in a Labour Party which has seen practically everything it stands for trampled underfoot by a right-wing anti-social Government, we would immediately put down a no-confidence motion. But I can find no trace of such an honest reaction among the present representatives of the Labour Party in this House. I think that is sad. It is something that future Labour historians will certainly record with dismay and disbelief. At this stage all we can do is to ask how long more Labour Deputies are prepared to continue to play this, for them, totally unnatural and unworthy role in our national life.
Two years of this Fine Gael/Labour Coalition Government have brought our country politically, economically and socially into a state of deep crisis. Their administration of the nation's affairs is universally regarded as having been disastrous. Harsh monetarist policies have created widespread hardship, deprivation and alienation. Continuing mass unemployment threatens the very fabric of our society. There is a widespread feeling of hopelessness and disenchantment. The industrial and social foundations of our State have been badly shaken by a combination of commercial disasters and Government neglect. There is no enterprise or initiative in either the public or the private sectors. A deep and widespread depression emanates more than anything else from the obvious incapacity of this Government to accomplish anything. The Government can be clearly seen to have failed in almost every area and fumbled every project to which they have put their hand. People have lost all confidence in their Government, and this has undermined their confidence in themselves and their faith in the future.
I believe that at this stage any impartial observer cannot avoid the conclusion that only a change of Government, only a new direction and a new quality of leadership, can get our country out of this morass of mistaken policies, maladministration, poor decisions, political patronage, favouritism and plain bad government. There is a widespread, intense demand for change. There are people in this House who could ensure that the popular wish for change is acceded to. I believe it is their democratic duty to respond to this popular cry for relief. Everyone knows that this present situation can only get worse under the present incompetent management. There is no Minister in that Government over there who does not know that this administration has in fact collapsed in failure and that there is no hope or possibility of their redeeming the situation. The question is have they the political integrity to take the only honourable course of action open to them and to take it now.
We have heard brave, high blown rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition spoken in terms that one might expect from a Leader of the Opposition, perhaps attempting more to address himself to the role of Opposition than some of the instances preformed by his party inside and outside this House over the last number of months. Words, while they may address themselves properly to the role of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps do not sound so well when we realise that the applause this morning is in the context of uno duce, una voce.
What is the Minister talking about?
The Chair intends to have order in this debate. We had order for the last 45 minutes——
There must be order for the Minister.
When we realise that the speaker this morning is the same person who said in a recent magazine interview that we could instance a load of—unparliamentary language — persons whose throats he would cut and push over the nearest cliff that there is no percentage in that——
I wonder which of the Deputies opposite who applauded so strenuously this morning falls into that category.
You.
Whose throat was the Leader of the Opposition looking at when he made that remark? Was it those of the present members of the Fianna Fáil front bench; those who have been recently promoted; those who have been reinstated; those who still languish in the wilderness; those who have been expelled from the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party?
What about those disappointed about Europe?
Just whose throats does that Leader of the Opposition really want to cut?
Not all the workers in the semi-State bodies, Aer Lingus and so on, as the present Government are doing.
It weighs fairly heavily when one thinks of the internal dissensions which have rent that party over the last number of years.
What about John Rogers?
We have seen their performance, both inside and outside of Government, that of a party continually debilitated by their internal problems and divisions.
We know the problems.
What about the change in the communiqué after Chequers, and about the Fine Gael Meeting? Then the Minister talks about dissension.
I appeal to Deputies to give a hearing to each speaker.
The Opposition have an honourable role to play in the political system. It is the duty of an Opposition to advance policy, to generate discussion, to contribute to debates, not always destructively — to contribute constructively when the need arises, when the proposal is there. It is the duty of an Opposition to provide, in short, through alternative policies, clear direction and unity, an alternative Government. It is equally the duty of the Opposition to endeavour to see to it that the standard of debate and business in the Houses of Parliament is conducted at the highest possible level so that this House retains the best possible reputation in the minds of the general public. What have we had here over the last number of months?
The Minister could take his own Government's case.
What is the daily routine in this House now?
Will the Opposition Deputies be making speeches?
Order, please.
We are not permitted to have debate now.
Order, please.
(Dún Laoghaire): Would the Opposition Deputies stay quiet over there?
As custodian of this Chair, I am not going to tolerate the obstruction of and denial of a hearing to any speaker today. If the House must be adjourned to get a hearing, then the House will be adjourned.
This is only a knock-about session. It is not a speech.
The Opposition have seen fit during this debate to tell the Government what they are not doing. Surely I can come in here as a Member of the Parliament and suggest to the Opposition what they are not doing?
Would the Minister tell us what his Government are doing?
We are speaking here in the context of a Parliament. Everybody should have the right to speak. I presume Deputy O'Keeffe will be able to put on the record of the House his views of the modern IRA and his admiration for them as expressed in the Evening Herald a fortnight ago.
That will be interesting. Tell the House.
I look forward to hearing that. I look forward to seeing how well that corresponds with the official pronouncements of his party policy in relation to Northern Ireland and to violence. In this House in the last number of months the Order of Business has been turned into a daily ritual farce.
Let the Minister tell us his own story.
Any Member here who has any respect for Parliament must realise that every time that happens, Parliament, politicians and parliamentary democracy suffer another blow. They must know in their heart of hearts that that performance, every morning for sometimes as long as 40 minutes, is doing no more than eroding our democracy.
The Minister has a short memory. It is only two years since he was in Opposition on this side.
The Government have made a number of attempts, through changes in procedure, through the establishment of Dáil committees, to make Parliament more meaningful, more appropriate and to make it address the issues of the day. What have we seen, for instance, in relation to one of the most important committees established, except a deliberate attempt by certain Members, I would have to say, not all, of the Opposition party, to deny that there is such a thing as a problem of marital breakdown, to attempt at every meeting of that committee to ensure that they cannot reach conclusions, cannot make recommendations and, in fact, are not allowed to address themselves to the very real social and human problem for which the committee were set up.
Question Time, one of the principal prerogatives and rights of Members, has been turned into a farce because this single, united Opposition — a party supposedly of great discipline — cannot control the number of questions which its members enter, in any meaningful way, so that Ministers may come in here regularly and give an account of their performance. Usually now, a Minister may expect to answer questions once in a session if he is lucky, sometimes not at all. Who controls the pace at which Question Time operates? The Opposition.
The Government backbenchers are asking the questions.
We have seen the Standing Orders of the House abused and derided by Members of the Opposition in a way which would not have been tolerated among the most lowly Town Commissioners of Ireland.
That reflects on them.
All proposals advanced by the Government have been derided, all achievement has been knocked. Every attempt is made to shake the confidence of the Irish people in themselves. I can only suggest that there will come a time when people will see clearly for themselves that the Duce has no clothes. Abuse will last for one year, vulgar abuse perhaps for the second year, but not over the full term of a Parliament. No Opposition can survive on the basis of no policies, no cohesion and with one naked purpose and objective only — regaining power at all costs.
This party are so united, so representative of the Irish people that, in my 16 years as a Member of the Oireachtas, never once have the Fianna Fáil Party allowed their members a free vote. Never once have they admitted that there is more than one view contained within a party supposedly representative of all shades of opinion in this country. Never once has a single member of Fianna Fáil been allowed to speak on a social issue and to speak in the most important way possible, by walking through those lobbies to express their opinions. Is that a contribution to the development of parliamentary democracy? It seems to me that the Press Officer of Fianna Fáil reflected better upon it when he said "Uno duce, una voce”.
Marvellous. The Continent has gone to the Minister's head.
That is what we have seen from the Fianna Fáil Party in the last number of months. Indeed, from what we read in the papers, even up to the level of their Parliamentary Party meetings, if you have missed correspondence, you have missed the best part of the day.
The Minister missed an opportunity of hearing what Deputies Begley and Flanagan said about that.
Order, please.
Could the Minister tell us about the denial of his own Members to speak?
That is the stage to which we have got in the conduct of parliamentary business.
Each speaker is limited to 30 minutes and should not be interrupted.
In an attempt to get power at all costs, the Opposition in the last month have, as detailed by the Tánaiste in the House yesterday, made commitments totalling, at a conservative estimate, a further £577 million in spending. These commitments were made through an undertaking being given to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to honour the pay demands being made by the public service members of that group — cost £312 million; an undertaking given to abolish water charges, presumably only domestic — cost £25 million. If one wants to include non-domestic charges, the cost is £40 million, but we will take it at £25 million; an undertaking given to re-establish and meet the full debts and liabilities of Irish Shipping Limited — sadly, costing £200 million; an undertaking given to re-open Verolme Cork Dockyard, at the most modest estimate the annual cost of which would be £25 million.
There were further undertakings given which the Tánaiste did not advert to yesterday. They have not been given so publicly as yet but it is better that we know the full cost of the Opposition's recklessness. At a meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions the Leader of the Opposition undertook to pump at least £200 million into the construction industry — running costs now £777 million. He also promised at that meeting to lift the embargo on public service recruitment, an embargo that was difficult to implement but which has been implemented faithfully since 1981 with the exception of a short time in 1982. The cost would be £22 million annually.
We are talking so far of the promises known and the commitments given but we do not know what other chips have yet to come down. Of those we know, we are talking about a cost of £800 million.
This year Government expenditure will take up 48 per cent of GNP. In 1970-71 it took up 29 per cent of GNP. In 1960-61 it took up 21 per cent of GNP. Over a period of 20 years, as a proportion of GNP, current Government expenditure has more than doubled and now represents a proportion of almost half total gross national product. We all know — the Opposition have been in Government recently enough to know — what is facing the country. We know the level of our indebtedness and the fact that this year alone the Exchequer will spend £1,900 million more than it receives in income. We know that debt servicing now absorbs one-third of total tax revenue. We know that if that process is not contained by 1990 the proportion of tax revenue absorbed by debt service will be in excess of 40 per cent. We know that the balance of payments deficit in 1975 which was £50 million rose to £1,600 million by 1981. We know that corrective action is necessary. The Government have consistently continued to take that action and have outlined clearly how they intend to achieve their objectives. What is the Opposition's answer?
On the undertakings which are known so far, their answer is to spend a further £800 million. Further borrowing is out of the question. Inevitably that leaves one other area, personal taxation. Yet the Opposition have in the last month given firm commitments to reduce personal taxation. The two do not balance. The total cost of the commitments known to date would have the effect of increasing personal income tax rates and bands by 50 per cent for all income tax payers. There is no other way.
We cannot borrow any further. It would be no harm for the House to reflect on some of the other countries who borrowed in proportional terms to no greater extent than Ireland. One country was a major oil producer but the international creditors lost confidence in it and reduced the amount of borrowing they would make available to that country by half in one year. That country has suffered extreme consequences. I am talking about Mexico. If the same thing happened here and if our international creditors felt that our Government were so feckless and reckless with the public finances that they would make promises such as the ones I have outlined and if they had the same loss of confidence in this country as they had in that major oil producing one, all current Government expenditure in the year it happened would be reduced by one-third. One-third of all social welfare payments, one-third of all transfer payments, one-third of the money available for the public service would just no longer be provided. That is the sort of option the Opposition are offering the country. It is as well to understand where those options are likely to lead us.
It is easy from the comfort of Opposition to undertake to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, or any other group that they decide to trail their coat around to meet the cost of pay demands. What kind of negotiation is that? It is interesting to reflect on the document The Way Forward produced when Fianna Fáil were in Government. The foreword states:
...All relevant facts and figures have been assembled; all the calculations carefully made. It is firmly grounded on realistic assessments and attainable goals.
It is the only way forward.
That was signed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Taoiseach. That plan provides for control on public service pay levels during the lifetime of the plan which was to run until 1986. Taking the money provided by the Government this year and last year and the amounts set out in Building on Reality and comparing them with the figures on page 19 of The Way Forward we discover that over the period that total increase provided by the Government in 1983 and 1984 and provided for in the next years of the plan to 1986 is 15.8 per cent. Taking the effect of the 5 per cent limit placed by The Way Forward on the years until 1986 on all pay claims, general and special, the total increase amounts to 15.8 per cent. To the same decimal point the Opposition, when in Government, provided for public service pay control. Now two years later they promised to increase that figure for next year alone by £300 million. What is another day?
We have provided in the plan for only a nominal pay increase next year. I have clearly indicated in the House that it is the Government's hope that additional moneys provided will be devoted to the lower paid workers in the public sector and that in the case of some of them, especially those qualifying for the family income supplement scheme, they can expect to see an increase in their income from two different sources of Government funding, the family income supplement and the total moneys available.
Let us put it into perspective and work out what pay really costs. For every 1 per cent increase in the Civil Service pay bill it costs £3.6 million. For every 1 per cent saved, £3.6 million is the equivalent of employing 400 executive officers or 480 clerical officers or 560 clerical assistants or 310 professional staff. In the greater public service every 1 per cent increase costs £23.8 million. That is the equivalent of 19,000 jobs in the public service at an average wage. So for every 10 per cent the Opposition promise they put in jeopardy the prospect of 19,000 jobs. Is this the role of a constructive Opposition? Is this the way forward? Where stands this document now in relation to the policies of the Opposition? Or do the Opposition have policies? Have they become so consumed with their leader's ambition to regain power at all costs that it has amounted to that, power at all costs? Ignore the possible sources of funding and the devil take the hindmost. Power to the strongest, power to those with most muscle. Pander to every interest group, but get in there at all costs. Uno duce, una voce.
Yesterday here in the House I heard the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Justice promise in one, two or three months 600 extra gradaí, more civilians in Garda stations, some new scheme costing £2.2 million. We hear regularly the same spokesman in the House advocating greater security, more police on the streets and particularly more attention paid to one of the greatest problems in our urban society, the problem of stolen cars, of people being knocked down, seriously hurt or killed by those driving stolen cars, yet what leadership do the Opposition give in this matter? In the interview to which I referred earlier and which the members of the Opposition did not appear to want to remember although it was as recently as a fortnight ago, the Leader of the Opposition told the magazine in question, "I do not think I could say that I approve of youngsters knocking off BMWs. I must admit I always had a hidden desire to do something like that." Is this the leadership the Opposition are giving? How does that remark stand with the plaintive bleats of Deputy Woods and with his undertakings? Is this likely to point to young people in areas of urban deprivation the error of their ways? Is this the sort of thing that is going to make young men and women feel that they have a different role to play in society? Is this the leadership that any politician should give, never mind the Leader of the Opposition? Indeed, one can almost see the day that a defendant in the Dublin District Court will advance as mitigation of his crime the fact that not only he but those who aspire to be Taoiseach always had a secret desire to knock off BMWs.
Minister, you have five minutes remaining.
Uno duce. Anyone's BMW, apparently I suppose as long as it is not his. We had here in the House in the last month one of the shabbiest, most sordid episodes I have seen in the Parliament in the last 15 or 16 years, where a small exchange scheme between British and Irish civil servants commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Taoiseach, arising from his meeting with the British Prime Minister in December 1980 and carried on then in talks between officials in the early part of 1981, was attacked and every effort for cheap, short term publicity was made to represent that this was some attempt by the Irish Government to allow the secret affairs of State to be thrown open to an outside administration. In the debate on 28 November last on at least three occasions the Leader of the Opposition denied categorically that he had commissioned those talks which led to the agreement. For the record I want to remind the House of the document that was published on 11 November 1981 entitled Anglo-Irish Joint Studies and I refer in particular to the report of the joint study group at the back of that document and page 57c — secondment of officials — where the kernel of what was signed ultimately by way of memorandum of understanding was set out in four points. It reports on page 47 that on 30 January 1981 part of the specific terms of reference, including measures in the field of youth and other exchanges, was secondment of officials. I remind the House that speaking to that debate on that day in November 1981 the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote from the Official Report, column 1588, Volume 330:
The progress of the studies was monitored closely by both Governments. The general approach on key matters by Irish officials was approved personally by me.
The general approach on key matters was approved personally by him. When I reminded the Leader of the Opposition of that, as reported at column 950, Volume 354 of the Official Report dated 28 November 1984, Deputy Haughey said,: "I never did". There are other references right through that debate so that, in toto three to four times, the reports of a worthwhile initiative commissioned by the then Taoiseach were some years later when they came to fruition attacked and vilified by him in the House, but worse, he denied that he had commissioned those reports. One role in Government, another in Opposition.
I do not see that the Opposition can claim realistically that they have advanced any real alternative to the difficult path that the Government have tracked out and laid out clearly in the Government's plan Building on Reality which during this session was discussed and voted on in this House not once but twice. That plan for the first time sets out clearly the limits of Government spending over the next three years. That plan is more specific than any other ever advanced previously, and hope and confidence can be based on it. I ask the people to look to that plan, to realise that it has been adopted by this House. It is a national plan. The Opposition in their activities, posturings, reckless commitments, do no more than bring discredit to this House, to the duty of an Opposition and to the important task of building the confidence and morale of the Irish people.
Deputy O'Hanlon and he has 30 minutes.
We have listened to a most extraordinary speech from the Minister for the Public Service. He is a Minister in Government. He says that we should raise the level of debate in this House, then with the problems that exist in his Department with the pay for the public sector and the strike in the Central Bank, he spends a full 30 minutes telling us how an Opposition should behave. He said not one word in defence of the Government, not one word in favour of what the Government are doing, not one word in defence of their policies. Is it not extraordinary that he should go along this road? I have noticed at county council meetings over the last year that the members of the Fine Gael Party, not alone in our county but I understand from reading reports every county, will not stand up and defend the Government's policy. That is new in Irish politics. It is particularly surprising in this House. Yesterday the Tánaiste who opened this debate followed the same course. He attacked the Opposition. In fact, I think he discovered The Way Forward, the Fianna Fáil document, only yesterday or in the last few days. The main thrust of his speech yesterday was towards the Opposition.
This morning the Minister for the Public Service, with not one word about the policy that he as a member of the Government and his Department are pursuing, not one word in defence of the Government's policies, just comes here and lectures the House on how he sees the role of Opposition and how an Opposition should behave. I say to the Minister for the Public Service, and indeed to his county council friends outside, that in the interest of democracy they should defend Government policy, if that is possible, because it is unknown to have a situation in which at least one or two councillors would not be prepared to defend the policy of the Government of the day, regardless of which party were in power.
The Minister has told us that Question Time is a farce. In the past Government Deputies rarely tabled questions. This was because they had ready access to the Minister in his office but it appears that this is not the case with this Government. One may ask why this is so and why it is necessary for Government backbenchers to table so many questions.
The Minister referred to our party not being allowed a free vote. It is in the interest of democracy that a party discuss an issue in their party rooms and then stand firm behind whatever decision is reached. One wonders what the result would have been if the Government had allowed a free vote on the cuts in the health services. Would those Deputies who voted for the motion that the Government are providing an excellent health service have done so if they had been allowed a free vote?
The Minister referred also to the provision of services and to the cost of providing them and he accused this party of having recommended services within the past few days that would cost millions of pounds. He then said something that I considered extraordinary for a Minister to say. He said there are only two ways in which money can be found for the improvement of services, one, by way of borrowing and the other by way of tax increases. If we had our priorities right and if Ministers were concerned with the fundamental problems of the country instead of being concerned with what they perceive to be the role of the Opposition, they would realise there is another way in which money can be found but the problem is that the Government have not addressed themselves to that other way.
Self-financing subsidies.
I am talking about the creation of jobs. How much of the money that is going to support the 60,000 extra people who are unemployed would be available for services and for other economic activity if the Government had a proper job creation programme? The Taoiseach told us in May 1983 that the policy to be pursued by the Government was diametrically opposed to the policy necessary to create jobs. He was anxious to put the books in order but even at that the Government have not been able to live up to their financial policy. They have abandoned it. If we were to create jobs for our people and to rectify our economic problems, as any Government would be expected to do, we would be in a position to provide the money for necessary services and other economic activity and we would not be depending either on borrowing or on increases in taxation.
I was surprised to hear the Minister this morning lecture us on how we should behave and then tell us there were only two ways in which money could be found for necessary services. The Minister also gave us his interpretation of a meeting that took place between the ICTU and our party on Monday last. I was not at that meeting and I am not privy to what took place, but I would have expected the Minister, especially a Minister whom the Government expect to be responsible, to have checked his sources before coming into the House and giving his interpretation of what happened at a meeting at which he was not present.
Yesterday the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism told us that we should be very happy about the creation of 1,000 jobs in Coolock. We are very happy about that. We should be making every effort possible to attract industry from the Far East, especially from Hong Kong, because there may be potential in that regard as a result of the change that is to take place in the constitution of that area in 1997. However, one must ask if the sorry saga of Irish Shipping has improved our image in Hong Kong. Before the Government decided to liquidate the company they should have had regard not only for the implications for Irish Shipping but also to the question of attracting industry from the Far East. If they had considered such factors they might have dealt with the matter differently. For instance, they could have appointed a receiver or they could have tried to renegotiate the deal which I think all of us would accept was not a good deal.
The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism told us also that the increased interest rates were due to the borrowings undertaken by Fianna Fáil in Government. After the Coalition came to office they seemed to succeed in brainwashing some people into believing that borrowing by this State began in 1977. The Taoiseach appeared on television with a chart to indicate that that was the case. However, as the Taoiseach said about the public relations in regard to his meeting with the British Prime Minister, public relations in this area, too, have fallen down. The people realise that the Coalition parties have been in power for seven of the past 11 years and that the borrowing began on a major scale in 1973 and has continued since. In their four years in office between 1973 and 1977, the then Coalition borrowed on an unprecedented scale, the highest percentage in terms of GNP having been borrowed in 1975.
It is time that the Government stopped accusing Fianna Fáil of having started borrowing on a big scale. It is not in the interest either of the democratic system or of good parliamentary behaviour for Ministers to try to mislead the public in that way.
It was understandable that towards the end of his speech yesterday the Tánaiste had so much to say about The Way Forward and the events of two years ago. Speaking about the progress that he claims the Government have made since coming to office, he said that in their first two years they have had some success, that their main success lay in Labour policies and that he was offering no apology for pointing that out. He went on to say that these Labour policies have protected and in cases improved the living standards of those who are dependent on the State for support and that the Labour Party are the only Labour Party in Europe who can make that claim. I do not know about Labour Parties in the rest of Europe but in so far as this country is concerned we all know that there has been a decrease in the standard of living of our poorer people. There is poverty on a level that up to now was not experienced from the time the State was founded.
The Government have removed the food subsidies but finding that this action was creating so much hardship for some people, they decided to introduce a family income supplement. However, this scheme does not cater for the needs of the unemployed, the small farmers, small business people or part time workers. They are not included in the family income supplement. They suffered severely from the withdrawal of the food subsidies but were not catered for by the family income supplement scheme. Indeed the 35,000 people who were entitled to it did not claim. Less than 5,000 people claimed this supplement. This indicates the public reaction to the scheme. They will say it is a miserable scheme. The Minister went on yesterday:
We have, despite the immense scarcity of resources, protected the integrity of the health services. No one's life or well-being has been threatened and no one has been charged for services who has never been charged before;
Nobody can say that the Government have maintained the integrity of the health service. Any Member of this House who is in touch with reality knows that this is not the case.
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare and other Ministers are telling the public that services have not been curtailed. This is creating a serious problem because it raises people's expectations. They expect to get a service and when they go looking for it they cannot get it. The Tánaiste tells us that the Government have succeeded in protecting the integrity of the health services when anybody can tell us that that is not the case. The Minister also said in his speech:
We have introduced new schemes, and will be introducing more. The Child Benefit Scheme announced in the plan will be one of the most radical and redistributive to come before this House for many years;
The child benefit scheme has not been introduced yet. This plan also says that all food subsidies will be maintained until the new child benefit is introduced in 1986, so we can expect that food subsidies will finally be abolished by this Coalition if they are still in power in 1986. From what I have read of the child benefit scheme it appears to be a gimmick. What they will do is take all the child benefits that we have, the children's allowance, the dependant's allowance and so on and put them all into one child benefit scheme. Parents will come out at most with the same amount of money or possibly as has happened in other schemes with less. The Tánaiste also said in his speech:
We have increased opportunities in the housing area, and are about to embark on the biggest road-building programme in the history of the State;
Whether one can claim it a success to be about to embark on something is debatable particularly having regard to promises made by this Government and what they have achieved.
I do not know if the Tánaiste is aware but I am sure the Chair is aware of the deterioration in the road network since this Government came to power. County roads are not being maintained. At one time in County Monaghan roads were resurfaced every ten years. It is now every 25 years that the county council will be in a position to resurface roads and the county engineer who is independent in his thinking has told me that the structure of the roads will collapse. There is nothing in the Government successes as outlined by the Tánaiste to say that they will do anything to improve the condition of the county roads. When the Tánaiste speaks about the biggest road building programme in the history of the State it is nothing compared to the road building programme that will be necessary. If the Government pursue their policy of starving county councils of money for the upkeep of county roads, we will have to rebuild every county road in the country.
Finally the Tánaiste tells us that:
We have passed legislation strengthening and protecting the rights of workers, particularly in the case of an insolvency.
That legislation was very weak and the Government refused to accept an amendment to it from my colleagues Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Ahern. That is an outline of what the Tánaiste perceives as success in the last two years. I will leave it to the public to judge where the success is in those paragraphs in the Tánaiste's address to the House yesterday.
The economy of the Border areas is of fundamental importance. When Deputy Boland was speaking he might have given some consideration as to how the State might change the situation in the Border counties and receive more revenue without borrowing or increasing taxation. It is estimated that £150 million has been lost to the Exchequer as a result of cross-Border trading and shopping. In January 1983 this Government increased the price of petrol by 35p and that succeeded in sending people across the Border to buy petrol. The result was that in Carrickmacross two petrol stations have closed down, and three petrol stations have closed down in Castleblayney. This is the pattern right across the Border counties from Louth to Donegal. When people started to cross the Border for their petrol they began to do their shopping there. It is not that there is any great advantage in shopping on the other side of the Border, except for petrol and electrical goods, but it became a novelty for people, with the result that now there is an unprecedented number of people crossing the Border to shop with a loss of revenue in excise duty and VAT to the State. The loss has been estimated to be as high as £150 million. I blame that on the fact that this Government do not have a Minister from a Border county. Through 60 years there have been Ministers from Border counties who served the State well. A Minister from the Border areas is essential because there are very special economic problems in the Border area. There are difficulties in the building trade especially in relation to grants available so that small builders are unable to compete with their competitors in the Six Counties. In case people should misunderstand, I would emphasise that anybody in the 32 counties has the right to move freely for work and trade. The point I am making is that the competition should be fair. If there was a Minister from a Border county he could point this out at Cabinet level and it would be acted upon. We were told that the Fine Gael TDs from the Border counties met the Minister for Finance and explained the position. This knowledge only aggravates the situation. In my innocence I believed that perhaps the Government did not know the facts. If they have been told the facts by the Fine Gael Border TDs and have done nothing, it is a very serious charge against the Government.
We are concerned about the lack of Government support for agriculture. The western drainage scheme has been suspended and the farm development service curtailed. Increased productivity is fundamental to getting the economy going again. We must have confidence between the officials of the Department and the farmers. On 9 February 1983 the Minister decided to stop payments for farm development schemes which had been drawn up for farmers by agricultural advisers as part of a five-year plan. An agreement had been reached in good faith, but it was not a written agreement. To breach the confidence between farmers and agricultural advisers is a disaster.
Recently we had a debate on the health cuts and we highlighted what is happening. Yesterday the Tánaiste said the Government had maintained the integrity of the health services. If he read The Irish Times yesterday he would have seen that Dr. Steeven's Hospital is closing down for a month and nurses are being laid off. If he read any reports from his own Southern Health Board area he would know that 50 or 60 people were laid off permanently and that hospitals have been closing down. Advertisements have been placed in the local papers to inform people about the services which are not available. God be with the days when health boards were advertising to recruit new people into the service.
There are a few things the Government could do rather than cut back the health services in the manner in which they have cut them back over the past two years. They should have the courage to defend their actions if they believe in them. They should tell the people they are reducing the level of the services to an almost intolerably low level in the coming year. They should tell the people lives will be put at risk. Because of their economic mismanagement they cannot provide money for a proper level of health service. They should not tell the people the money is there for any service they need and that the integrity of the health service is being maintained. People know that is not true. It reflects on the Government and on the whole system of parliamentary democracy. They should tell the people the truth instead of trying to give them a false sense of hope and expectation. When they look for the service it is not there.
There is no doubt that the Government's social policy is dismantling the health service which it took many years to build up. No account is taken of the fact that we have an increasing population and that technology in medicine is expensive. The cutbacks next year in the allocation to the health boards will amount to £37 million. That includes the deficit which the health boards will have to carry over from this year. I do not know whether the Government care, but they do not seem to know what is happening in the health services. During the debate on the health cuts the Minister of State said the allocations would be going out to the health boards within the next few days. He said the projected deficit for the health boards in 1984 was not known.
One week previous to that the Minister for Health wrote to the health boards and told them exactly what their allocations would be. The Minister for Health also told the CEOs and the chairmen of the health boards that the deficit was expected to be £10 million. It appears to me that the Government are not interested in the consequences of their actions. They are too concerned about financial rectitude and getting the books right. They are not concerned about providing an adequate level of health services for the people. We are not asking for anything grandiose.
We had numerous suggestions from the Minister as to how the services might continue within the reduced allocation next year. It is estimated that 4,500 jobs will be lost in the health service. The Minister talked about reducing the level of admissions to hospital, about a five-day week, about reducing advertising. He said having staff in the hospitals on Sundays was too expensive. This is all very unrealistic. It is not possible to organise illness in relation to a 40-hour week. It would be ideal if we could organise crime on the concept of a 40-hour week. Unfortunately we cannot do that. The Minister must be very out of touch to make such suggestions to the CEOs and chairmen of the health boards.
Over Christmas I hope the Minister will look at the amendment to the Nurses Bill and consider what the nurses want and try to accommodate them. There should never be confrontation between the Minister and a group who will be regulating their own profession. The Government are running away from their responsibilities. In the area of health and social welfare it is obvious that this is happening. The performance by the Tánaiste and two other Ministers yesterday, and by the Minister for the Public Service today, indicated that they are not prepared to defend their Government. They seem to be jumping off a sinking ship. If that is the way they feel, they should go to the country and let the people decide on their policies.
Previous speakers on the Government side drew attention to the childish performance of the Opposition, particularly since the summer, in racking up enormous totals of public expenditure on promises, while fighting shy of any suggestion on how to pay for them. They talked about the PAYE burden, the VAT burden and the excise burden, and demanded a reduction in the tax levels generally, while also refusing to explain exactly where the money would otherwise come from except by borrowing, either domestic borrowing which, as we discussed here last week, has the necessary effect of pushing up interest rates if it gets too high, or foreign borrowing which has far more serious consequences, with exposure to exchange risks, and the fact that the debt service on foreign borrowing goes out the window and is lost to the economy for good. In other words, it creates jobs somewhere else.
I do not want to waste time on this because my time is limited, but we had a novel suggestion from Deputy O'Hanlon just now that there is a third option, that we do not need to borrow any money and we do not need to impose any more taxation, that we can solve the State's problems by simply "creating jobs". From anything I know about Monaghan people, no more hardheaded people exist in Ireland. It is possible that in Monaghan there are people who will work for the State for nothing. It is possible that there are people in Monaghan who will work for nothing out in the open, and bring their own typewriters with them. But outside those possibilities I do not know how job creation is at the State's disposal without paying salaries, without making provision for pensions, without housing the public servants taken on, heating them, transporting them and making all sorts of arrangements for their perquisites and other overheads. If that is not what Deputy O'Hanlon means he will have another opportunity to say so, or perhaps Deputy Noonan who is beside him will put me right.
Apart from their usual childish policy of making expensive promises but refusing to say how they are to be paid for, even worse is their effect in demoralising people who undoubtedly have enough to contend with in these harsh times. If there is one thing I am particularly sick of it is hearing from the Opposition benches that there is "no hope for our young people", that they have "nothing to look forward to", that 60,000 of them are coming out of school for whom there are no jobs. Any Deputy on the far side who indulges in that kind of ráiméis should ask himself what effect it has on the mind of a 14 or 15 year old child. Does it not lead the child to ask himself whether there is any point in working at school, whether he should bother trying to get a better result when there will be no job for him in the end? Deputies who are honest, belonging to whatever party, will recognise that even in these hard times the vast majority of school leavers do get jobs. It was very thoroughly documented by Christina Murphy in last Monday's edition of The Irish Times. She looked at the cohort of 60,000 school leavers in 1983 and found that a year later the huge majority were either in employment or in further education, and that only a small proportion were attending temporary training courses or had no job. She also found that the better the school results, the better effort the child had put into it, the more likely it was that the child would secure a decent job.
The Fianna Fáil Party would like us to live in dreamland, in which they want us to be like leprechauns sitting on toadstools playing tin whistles, in which they turn their backs on all the possibilities the world is thrusting at us, in which they shout down somebody who points to the fact that in the first decade of the next century there will be 6,000,000 fewer people in West Germany than there now are and a huge labour shortage there. This will not be a shortage of hewers of wood and drawers of water but highly skilled people in well paid and very rewarding jobs. This will be within an hour's flight time from Dublin airport, perhaps less if air technology improves further. Fianna Fáil do not want the people to know about these things. They want them to whinge, whine and cry that there is no future for our young people. That is wicked and any Deputy on this side who would say such things in Opposition would be just as wicked.
Encouragement is what young people need, and an educational system which trains them to go out and find opportunities for themselves, to develop in the Irish mind the disposition not to queue up in their tens of thousands for public service jobs paid for by a shrinking productive sector, but the disposition which is second nature to people like the Greeks and the Jews who have had to come from nothing but end up prosperous and able to look the world in the eye. That is what we want. It is being postponed for as long as possible by a reckless Opposition who talk about the hopelessness confronting our young people.
According to a short report in The Irish Times three days ago Fianna Fáil have indicated their full agreement with the general strategy outlined in the ICTU document “Confronting the Job Crisis”. I want to warn people who support that party and who are in any way associated with or depend on anything in the private sector — any farmer, shopkeeper, self-employed person or anyone who depends on somebody running a small business in which he has a job — that this document has much material which, if I were in their situation, would lead me to think twice about where my vote would go next time.
This document admittedly contains some good points. I am not damning it out of hand. But by and large it is essentially the usual soft-witted, barren muddle which one expects from the armchair left. I do not mind betting that most of this document was put together by somebody who never got up a sweat in his life at anything, and never created wealth but only consumed it. It recommends at several points more public spending on more public service jobs unrelated to the creation of wealth, and the setting up of yet more State bodies and authorities to run industrial enterprises, of which not a single example is offered. There is plenty of general stuff about high technology, higher valued-added and moving with the times; but not a single suggestion for an actual business which could be adopted by a school leaver or anybody else before Comhairle this or Bord that or Údarás the other catch up with it. How dare they sell this sort of stuff? How dare a party who claim to be the largest party in Ireland, forgetting of course the Unionists who get more votes than they do, behave like that and affect to suppose that this is the way out of the job crisis.
That document insinuates that foreign industrial investment here is inherently undesirable, and should be dispensed with when the moment is right. This velveteen leftie has inserted in this document the statement that Congress agrees that in view of the present critical unemployment situation it would scarcely be advisable to actually reject foreign investment but we must be much more selective. It is damn nice of them not to recommend actually rejecting foreign investment, and that we are spared in that document something that would tell the Hong Kong people setting up in Coolock that they had better stay away because their future could not be secured under the kind of Government which that document would produce. That is very big of them. I am sure the people of Coolock will be delighted to know that the factory is coming on the temporary sufferance of the ICTU; but that when times are more propitious it may be the moment to do a Ho Chi Minh or a Chairman Mao on the factory in Coolock.
The same document described private enterprise as characterised by "selfishness and profit-hunting". I want the tycoons with the heavy gold cufflinks to listen carefully to this. You know them and I know them. I know that private enterprise is characterised by somebody trying to do the best he can for himself. Is not everybody animated by the same feeling? Is not the whole secret in life to try to strike a proper balance between that natural instinct, which is the engine of all effort and all production, and a sense of social responsibility towards others? How is this to be taken by a small shopkeeper or a salesman trying to sell electrical goods, having to contend with the problems we heard about some minutes ago? Is such a person supposed to feel inferior compared with the worker who collaborates in closing down a factory so that he can get his hands on a redundancy lump sum bigger than he ever thought he would see in his hands at one time? I will not single out firms or districts but we know there are areas in industry and geographical areas which have been closed down in part by the workforce. I do not absolve the management or anybody else, but the idea is false that there is only one section which is above reproach and in which selfishness is an unknown vice. It is time we were willing to say "booh" to that idea. Nonetheless the ICTU single out private enterprise as characterised by selfishness and profit-hunting.
They also attack the promotion of small businesses. And, believe it or not, in a document produced by the ICTU there is no section about industrial relations. Surely these are the industrial relations experts. There is not one word about strikes, stoppages whether official or unofficial, inter-union rivalry or the proliferation of trade unions to the extent that CIE, a puny little enterprise which would scarcely be visible in the Ruhr, never mind Japan, has to deal with 28 or 29 different unions. There is nothing about productivity, wasteful work practices, about absenteeism or featherbedding.
This will give you a laugh, Sir. It has got a section on education with five recommendations. Do you know what two of them are? That we should "eliminate sexism from education," and that we should have more "courses in politics" for young people. In the name of God, Sir, would they cop themselves on — that in a document about "confronting the jobs crisis." If I knew what sexism was in education I believe I would support its abolition; if somebody could clearly explain to me, without the usual intoxicated waffle, about what sexism in education is, possibly I would support its elimination. Equally I have no objection to children learning about politics. I assume that that, citizenship, civics, and all these other things on which they waste time in schools, should be communicated to the child by his or her parents at home. He or she should breathe it in like the air in which they live, and not be building a school curriculum around these soft subjects which contribute nothing to his or her intellectual formation or his or her capacity to produce wealth or chances of a materially successful future. Those are two of the five recommendations in all they have got to say about education in confronting the jobs crisis. That is what the Fianna Fáil Party is now stitched into. I want everybody in the country to understand this and to question them when they come to the doorstep: how do you stand on the ICTU programme "Confronting the Jobs Crisis"?
It calls for a National Development Corporation about whose likely activities not a single concrete hint or example is provided. It is left to the corporation, once set up — and provided with wall-to-wall carpeting and a stainless steel logo at the front door — to "identify suitable projects." The ICTU cannot name a single suitable project themselves, apart from general mentions of this sector or that. But the National Development Corporation, once they have hired a few highly-paid people on to the public pay roll, on to the backs of the productive sector, are to sit back and have action groups, employment teams, "identifying suitable projects." In other words, the whole package is the same tired old waffle with nil inspiration, and nil inventiveness; and there is every sign that, whatever inspiration it has, was derived from no further away than the United Kingdom — no brain that ticks east of Macclesfield or Scunthorpe contributed a tittle or a jot to this document, but plenty of the ones that do operate in that kingdom did.
Perhaps rhetorical exaggeration will lead me to say something unfair about this. I have virtually finished what I wanted to say about the document the Fianna Fáil Party have expressed general agreement with, which they are going to sponsor in the hope of stealing a few votes from the Labour Party or from the people in the union movement who support Fine Gael, and they are there by the tens of thousands. It makes the impression on me as though the people who put that document together would be happy if we turned into a nation, not of shopkeepers or farmers, but of social service administrators, living on taking in one another's problems, and subsisting on the proceeds of the confiscation of what they imagine is bottomless wealth.
This is an inescapable thing. There are two ways only out of this. Either this is seriously meant, in which case everyone in the private sector who belongs to or is dependent on that sector must take fright; or it is not seriously meant. Of course it may be insincere, it may have the same degree of sincerity as had Deputy Haughey confronted by the television cameras at Dublin Airport three weeks ago when he prettily expressed surprise at finding them there at 7 o'clock in the morning —"we had hoped to slip away quietly with no fuss", he said, after his footman, ex Senator Mara, has been touting the press for nearly a week about the trip; "we were hoping to have slipped away quietly, unobserved"— in the background one could see Deputy Albert Reynolds circulating hungrily around the concourse looking like the Thief of Baghdad —"hoping to slip quietly away." If that is the degree of sincerity which the Fianna Fáil adhesion to the ICTU document carries, I do not suppose anyone need worry about it. But I certainly want to warn the ICTU that, for better or for worse, they had better stick to whatever politics they now have because, if the sincerity which I have described is to be imputed to the Fianna Fáil sponsorship of their document, they are not going to get it.
I mentioned the United Kingdom a moment ago. I want to finish on this note in the time remaining to me. That United Kingdom — as I never tire of saying in here — represents for us an intellectual burden and an incubus which we must throw off, whether it be in the field of copying their industrial relations, their administrative systems or anything else. This is a good moment to reassess our approach to it, in the time after the Chequers Summit, which allows us an opportunity of taking a cool look at what passes for national policy in regard to the world outside our frontiers.
It is essential here to treat Northern Ireland in a special way, and not just as an ordinary item of diplomacy, to treat it separately from policy in regard to the rest of the world.
The Northern Ireland problem was confronted, in theory, by the New Ireland Forum but from the first day that New Ireland Forum was led astray by the Fianna Fáil Party, under its present leadership — I do not believe all of their members would have gone along with what they did — and by a small element in the SDLP. Deputy Haughey — who knew the Government's anxiety to achieve consensus, who knew the Taoiseach's passionate commitment to the object of the whole exercise — insisted on dragging the whole operation on to ground which was, to use a military metaphor, indefensible. One can use what metaphor one likes. He lorried the Taoiseach with an absolutely unsaleable document, insisted on doing so; it was as though, Sir, he had pushed the Taoiseach out of an aircraft with a parachute designed so that it would not open.
One tends to exaggerate, put things in superlatives when, by next week, some other superlatives will have come to one's mind — but I do not think I have seen a more revolting spectacle in the time that I have been in politics than to see what then happened, that that Leader of Opposition, who had made certain that the Taoiseach was going to London with an unsaleable package, turned and rent him, savaged him for not being able to sell the dud which his party had insisted on wishing on him. Naturally, he was secconded in it, by his own Forum team. I will not damm them all, because there were some honourable exceptions among them but, by and large, the Fianna Fáil New Ireland Forum team showed no interest in what the Forum was up to. That was seen by the public in their absolutely perfunctory examination of the bishops last February when the Hierarchy's representatives were at The Castle. They showed no interest in what anyone of the Unionist kidney had to say. Their ears were stopped up when anyone of the Unionist, or even Alliance persuasion came to The New Ireland Forum to talk. They behaved from the beginning, as they were designed to behave, like a bus-load of Bodenstown gasbags. They had nothing to contribute, no single idea. Their whole approach to the thing is so wildly adrift from any form of reality that it is obvious their party leader never, in his heart, expects to have to deal with Northern Ireland people in any constitutional structure but the status quo. He knows that he himself is stitching himself and, to the extent that he influences its future, this whole country into the status quo, and that permits him all the Bodenstown talk.
It amazes me that that person should be the subject of a rehabilitation programme now being industriously promoted by a very prominent and well-thought-of journalist in The Irish Times, a rehabilitation programme which is so ludicrously ill-timed, so inapposite to the person about whom we are speaking and the policy of the people around him, that I suspect a sinister influence at work here. I think we are seeing here the work of a foreign government, deliberately trying to destroy the people in office on this side. I think Libyan intelligence are at work behind John Healy's efforts in The Irish Times; I believe he is in the pocket of Libyan intelligence. One should get someone to write a book about it. It might be called “Operation Rogue”.
We should conduct ourselves towards Northern Ireland like people who genuinely want to live in peace and harmony with all Northern people, work without offence, without causing them offence, for the time when they will all share our vision of a mixed Republic, a mixed Republic which is proud, which is different, and which intends to be the best in the world. The Unionist people are at the core of the problem here. Unless we have their hand loyally and faithfully in ours, no unity that the British might be ballyragged into imposing would be worth having or would be worth living in.
Towards the British, and towards the rest of the world, we should conduct ourselves without complexes; without either the complex compounded of the grievance and resentment of recently emancipated people in our dealings with the British, and without the complex of sanctimonious superior wisdom and virtue in our dealings with the rest of the world, such as we display when we talk about "our traditional policy of neutrality."
Where the British are concerned we should maintain a neighbourly, civil but firm distance, a reserve such as Mr. de Valera would have understood and practised, but such as the teapot ballyhoo and idiotic overplay of, for example, the 1980 summit excludes.
The British are in many respects some of the most decent and best people in the world — as many Irish people, perhaps most Irish people who have lived there as I have, would, if they were honest, acknowledge: however, in regard to Ireland whether because of their oldest colonial adventure having brought more shame and hostility on them than any other, or possibly because they resent our rejection of what they consider the privilege of Britishness which they cannot understand our not claiming — because they think all the people of these islands are entitled to it — they have an unsure but unfailingly destructive touch in Irish affairs. They may not mean it like that, but that is how it comes out. Their combination of resentment and exasperation, and their distraction by other issues which, perhaps naturally, loom larger in their own minds lead them in Irish affairs into folly after folly and, occasionally, into crimes.
We should, in trying to settle the island we have to live on, steer clear as far as we can of inviting their clumsy offices. We should have enough dignity and self-respect to treat them as we would treat our other European and Atlantic neighbours. We should be big enough and men enough, and not slaves, to support them when they are in the right, as I believe they were in the right in the Falklands War. I do not defend all their actions, then, but mainly they were in the right. They had been attacked; another civilised state had broken the first rule of civilised states by taking the law into its own hands and attacking them. I am not pre-judging the long term legality of the Falklands sovereignty, but, as far as the immediate issue was concerned in the war, they were clearly in the right and we should have been men enough to put behind us whatever resentment the Government of the day felt about other things and supported them.
Conversely, when they are in the wrong we should stand unbendingly up to them, in the way the Government in the fifties and sixties failed to do when they allowed the British to turn a blind eye, on what was going on in their Stormont backyard. That was a failure on our part just as bad, indeed far worse. At all times, whether in supporting them or in standing up to them we should keep them at what I might call a diplomatic arm's length, and not be falling over ourselves to meet them and to be patronised by them, or putting ourselves in positions where we can be offended by them or setting ourselves up to get a black eye which was quite predictable from them. We should treat them at a neighbourly and civil but full arm's length.
Any closer contact we make in this part of the world should be reserved, as soon as they are willing to accept it, for the Protestant people in the North of Ireland. Those people have characteristics that may not appeal immediately to the emotions of somebody from this part of Ireland, and that is not necessarily their fault. They are, to some extent, a different people even though we have a lot in common. But there are things about them which we do not acknowledge often enough, which we allow our resentment at their follies and their crimes to obscure. We owe the tradition which they stand for a great deal. When the Orangeman sings about the man who "forsook the old cause that give us our freedom, religion and laws," the freedom and laws he is talking about, whatever about the religion, are the freedom and laws of which this State is also the inheritor.
Althought most of us were brought up in school by the ludricous way history was taught in those days to regard ourselves as having lost the Battle of the Boyne, the fact is that most of the things that make life tolerable in a country like this, which qualifies the State to rank as a Western democracy, the rule of law, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom to be in Opposition without endangering one's own life, are things that the Protestant people of the North defended on the side of King William and that we, on King James's side, because of an historical combination which was, as usual, tragic, were led to oppose. Not one of those values was upheld by the Stuarts. Not one of them was admitted. Not one of those freedoms was conceded but the story of human rights, the rule of law and the freedoms we take for granted in the Western world contains within it as one of its chapters the victory of King Billy on the Boyne.
I share, because of my ethnic membership of the thing, in my blood and guts the feeling of disappointment about the Battle of the Boyne. I try to put it behind me naturally. I would not, I suppose, fight it all over again. What I would fight over again if I could, and win this time, would be an earlier battle at the beginning of the seventeenth century which destroyed what might have turned into a Celtic monarchy and ultimately into a distinctive modern Celtic state. We have to acknowledge, whatever the feelings that were bred into us by our race or our schooling, that the Protestant tradition which we appear to make little of is regarded by the people in the North of Ireland as their religion. Their civil and religious liberties are, in their eyes, intertwined. That explains the fact that they have clergymen in parliament and clergymen ranting and raving. I do not defend the ranting and raving of some of them. One of them has done more than any single man in Ireland to bring misery, bloodshed, hatred and misfortune on the country and I could never say anything else about him. The reason is, in spite of those excesses, that their impression of religious and civil liberties is intertwined. It is part of a history of which we have been and still are the beneficiaries. When they express apprehension about what is going to happen to them if they are absorbed into an Irish Republic we should occasionally say, "The liberties you are concerned about are ones we could not live without either, and we acknowledge your contribution in the history of civilisation in having asserted those liberties, and upholding them, at least for this part of the world and for the part of mankind which, broadly speaking, can be described as Western democracy".
They are the people we have to share this island with and conciliate. It cannot be done by fire and slaughter, and it cannot be done by Bodenstown gasbags either. It has to be done by a Government which does not bother about raising a cheer at an Ard-Fheis or raising a drunken howl at the end of a ballad session but works patiently to make some bridges and contacts with people with whom we must live in peace if those who come after us are to have an island they can be proud of.
(Limerick West): The speech by Deputy Kelly is similar to those made by his colleagues on the Government side, Ministers and backbenchers in the Fine Gael Party, since the debate commenced. As one listened to Deputy Kelly one wondered if he was living in this country. It is time he returned to reality. He must realise that Fianna Fáil are not in Government and that his party, supported by the Labour Party, are in Government. It is time he realised his responsibilities as a backbench Member. In the last 30 minutes we listened to his ranting and raving and idle rhetoric but we did not hear any concrete proposals for a way forward. We did not hear any proposals to build up the country or resetore the confidence of our people, particularly our young people.
At the outset Deputy Kelly mentioned job creation but he was far removed from reality. The greatest job creation programme of the Government is within the Department of Social Welfare with more and more of our people becoming unemployed daily. This Government give no hope to the unemployed. Deputy Kelly should realise it would be more logical to spend money creating jobs rather than on social welfare benefits because this is money down the drain. It is not a question of asking the taxpayer to provide the funds. The funds can be provided by ensuring that only sustainable jobs are created.
In 1983 we spent more than £800 million on food imports. Surely jobs could be created in this area? Deputy Kelly referred in a derogatory way to the successful deal which was copperfastened by the leader of our party, Deputy Haughey, during his recent trip to Libya. Deputy Kelly is completely removed from reality because if he spoke to anyone in the farming community he would be told all the benefits that will accrue to the farmers because of this deal. Cattle prices have reached new records recently and our problem is that export demands for our cattle will exceed supplies. Here again there is hope for the future. Instead of castigating members of this party who are prepared to build up our resources and institutions, Deputy Kelly would be better off making constructive suggestions. I was dismayed by what he had to say today. He holds out no hope for the future and in my view the people should be protected from people like him.
This party maintain that it is important to build up our resources. This has been a fundamental approach of Fianna Fáil both in Government and in Opposition. A glaring example of this is the fact that this Government failed miserably to renew our cattle trade agreement which was negotiated by members of Fianna Fáil with the Libyan Government. Instead of castigating this party Deputy Kelly should support our efforts. That would be progress, but we will not have progress if we follow Deputy Kelly's approach.
We are coming to the end of 1984. It has been another very difficult year for our farmers who deserve special congratulations because for the third year in succession they have recorded an increase in gross agricultural output and have set a headline for the rest of the country. They have achieved this progressive growth not because of anything the Minister or the Government did, but in spite of them. The farming community can take credit for this achievement. Like other Coalition Governments this Government have neglected the vitally important role the agricultural industry can play in building up our economy.
Over the past 12 months this discredited Government have increased the statutory levies, reduced the farm modernisation scheme and abolished the AI and lime subsidies — money which was, and still is, available from Europe — but the Government have not applied for this money because they are not prepared to match these subsidies on a pound for pound basis. So much for this Government's record in agricultural development. In the Estimates for 1984 and 1985 they reduced the allocation for the farm support services and, more important, they have allowed the introduction of the EC milk super-levy. They reduced the calf premium and the calf heifer scheme and, something that is not well known, they increased by 2 per cent the co-responsibility levy on milk. This means an extra 2p on every gallon of milk produced. This is another tax on our dairy farmers and this tax was agreed by the Minister for Agriculture at the EC agricultural negotiations on the price review earlier this year.
While congratulating the farmers and the agricultural industry on their overall performance, it would be remiss of me not to note some disturbing trends which developed in 1984. There was a 23 per cent increase in the output of cereals. This increase was unique and was due mainly to weather conditions, with the shift to winter wheat and higher yields. The same results cannot be expected in 1985.
Another disturbing trend is the fall in cattle numbers and the serious fall in the number of in-calf heifers. The introduction of the milk quota does not hold out any great prospect for increasing the number of dairy cows in the future, which we all know forms the bulk of the beef cattle herds.
The third area of major concern is the ever-increasing input costs. This is something the Government should and can control but they have failed miserably to do so. Since 1975 input costs have risen by something in the region of 181 points, while output prices have risen by only 153 points in the same period. In 1984 there was a further increase of about 7 per cent in input costs for farming development. This is especially significant as input costs are the major non-native expense in an otherwise self-supporting industry.
There will be further difficulties facing dairy farmers in 1985, as they have always been the leaders in advancement of Irish agriculture. The well-being of this sector is vital, not just for the industry but for the economy as a whole. The EC quota is an artificial restriction on production and does not make any sense in an Irish context. It acts as a serious disincentive to dairy farmers to increase their output. Many of them are considering reducing their herds and starting new enterprises. However, opportunities for starting new enterprises are very limited. I advise dairy farmers to stay in milk production because of the uncertainty of the future for other farming enterprises. Great care must be taken by farmers before they start new enterprises to get the best possible advice from support services prior to making a decision. Notwithstanding the imposition of restrictions and quotas, milk production is still the best farm enterprise.
The Government must act, with or without the assistance of the EC, to protect dairy farming. They can make the same arguments as those offered in the super-levy negotiations to win concessions for Ireland. If any slack is not taken up in the overall EC quota, it should be made available to this country. The Government should argue in the EC that this country produces something in the region of 5 per cent of the total dairy products in Europe. It can be seen from that figure that we have not caused the glut in Europe. A super-levy should not have been imposed on Irish farmers because we produce so few of the dairy products in Europe. Restricting milk output will curtail expansion in the beef sector, which is very important to this country.
Another point worth mentioning is that the contribution of the dairy sector to gross national product is five times more important to Ireland than the Community average and almost three time more significant than in Germany and the United Kingdom. Dairying is the most important sector of the agricultural economy in the context of future expansion in agriculture. Ireland's dairy farmers have not had the same opportunity for development as those on the Continent and the industry's full potential is far from being realised. Until such time as milk production reaches the European average, a super-levy should not be imposed.
Community average yields per cow are 26 per cent greater than in this country and, furthermore, our production is from natural sources, hay and silage in their natural and preserved form, whereas in other member states milk is produced from imported feeding stuffs from third countries at a cost to the EC. These are resonable arguments for an improvement in the quota in 1985. I hope that when the agricultural price review comes up early next year the Minister will put forward a good case for reducing the super-levy. The IFA and the ICMSA say that as a result of the Minister's blunder the economy has lost about £12 million in a full year. It is estimated over the period of the imposition of the super-levy that there will be a loss of upwards of £60 million to this country, which we can ill afford, also as a result of the Minister's blunder. This is unforgivable and, being a dairy farmer, I can well understand the fury of the farming organisations and their demand that the Government should reimburse this amount. The Exchequer and the taxpayer can ill afford to shell out an extra £10 million or £12 million because of the incompetence of the Minister and his Department. The bungling and incompetence of the Minister in the handling of the super-levy negotiations are unbelievable.
This can be more clearly seen by the farming community and the public at large. The Taoiseach described these as the single most important negotiations since we joined the EC, but our case was not prepared with the necessary professional thoroughness and care. The Minister for Agriculture on many occasions in Brussels presented our case, but ignored always the importance of our dairy sector. That was bad enough, but now our quota has been reduced and there are difficulties with regard to the super-levy because the Government figures were not accurate. The Minister has from time to time blamed everybody and anybody but himself for his incompetence. The officials in his Department are the best among all the Departments and I would like to compliment them. I ask the Minister to ensure that farmers are protected and allowed to make progress and that they will not suffer the loss of this £10 million or £12 million because of the incompetence of the Minister in the whole area of the super-levy negotiations.
The EC quota represents an artificial restriction on production and it does not make sense in an Irish context. However, that quota is now a fact of life and we will have to live with it. Provided the Minister does the right thing, he will have the support of myself and all my party, but I shall certainly be watching his conduct of negotiations very carefully over the next couple of months.
There is another very important area which has been neglected by the Government — the food processing industry. The Government plan, Building on Reality, has paid only lip service to the food processing industry, as to other sectors. Food imports into this country in 1983 totalled £850 million. The thinking in Irish agriculture has been exclusively on farming, without the realisation that farming is just the first stage in the food industry. The food is produced and thereafter there is a whole range of operations to be carried out in urban centres. This area has certainly job opportunities and job potential — jobs which can be and are sustainable.
In Building on Reality the Government talk about developing a food industry, about setting up a marketing consultant. We have plenty of marketing consultants. The Government say that this is a problem for the National Development Corporation. This corporation is a plank of the Labour Party and I hope that the Minister for Labour will make a comment on it in his contribution today, telling us when it is to be set up. The present situation is not satisfactory in that regard. We have been told that we should concentrate on the development of consumer type products and I support that. When discussing this framework we must know what incentives will be available and how to develop these products.
We ask, is this building on reality or are these statements just bland assertions of intent? I should like an answer to that question. The real commitment of the Government should be to the development of our food industry. I hope there will be a coherent policy between the agencies now dealing with this matter, and that they could be operated by one Government or body. We are not at present getting the coherent and positive approach which is necessary, particularly with regard to job creation. I should like to make a suggestion to Deputy Kelly who spoke on this matter earlier. Job creation should be considered of paramount importance and this is an area of worthwhile job creation. We must have opportunities for sustainable jobs.
I thank the Opposition Deputy, Deputy Noonan, for his contribution in this Adjournment Debate and for the constructive tone in which many of his remarks were couched. I should like to match that tone in attempting to respond in a similar fashion to some of the points which he raised, before I address myself to the issues which I have come prepared to speak upon.
The Deputy asked a specific question in relation to the National Development Corporation. It is fair to tell him that the draft legislation is in process of being prepared. Frankly, it had been hoped to introduce it in this session, but that has not proved to be possible. It is the intention of the Government to introduce it in the next session, so that the entity is legally constituted and the legislation enacted here in the Oireachtas.
The Deputy's concern was specifically related to some of the job generation activities to which the corporation might apply their energies and substantial capital. I share very much his view that food import substitution of particular commodities is the most obvious manner in which added value food processing should commence here but I do not profess to be an agricultural expert in the same manner as Deputy Noonan is. Tragically, the relationship between State companies and farmers in the past has not been as satisfactory as any of us would like. Deputy Noonan, speaking from an agricultural background which I respect, will have to understand that I, speaking from an urban, trade union working background, find it very difficult to understand the situation, for example, with relation to Erin Foods in Galway and Tuam with regard to potato crisps. The food producers run enormous risks even in relation to a climate such as we have today and in price fluctuation and unless some kind of trust can be developed between them on the one hand and the food processing industry on the other, any type of venture into this area would be fraught with many of the difficulties which tragically we have seen in the past. It is a crime and a shame to walk into any supermarket in Dublin, as one could have done over the last year or two and find potatoes and onions from as far away as Cyprus and The Netherlands, when those vegetables could quite easily be produced and grown here.
Food processing has the triple benefit as far as the Labour Party are concerned of import substitution, added value to the economy generally and the agricultural sector in particular and offers a degree of price stability to the primary producer which must, having regard to the financial outlay of many farmers, be of some benefit to them. It is up to Deputy Noonan, in the sense that he represents the agricultural community and not the Fianna Fáil Party, to recognise that there has not been a happy relationship in the past between both sides in the food processing industry to maintain the necessary flow of supplies on the one hand and a level of certainty on the other.
This debate began yesterday, the second anniversary to the day of the coming into office of this Government. It would be useful if the House reflected on what precisely the circumstances were that surrounded the taking of office by the Government and of your good self as Ceann Comhairle. We came through a period of unprecedented political instability. Not since the foundation of the State had we been confronted with such instability. We had three general elections within 18 months. We had two Governments who collapsed in the Dáil, one on a budget and the second on effectively a vote of no confidence. When this administration took office it did so against a background of total despair, fear in relation to what was happening to the administration of the country and outright alarm at the enormous rate at which unemployment was rising. The security of the State seemed to be at risk.
If Deputies reflect on the situation in November of that year, allowing for their own interpretation of the events, they will agree that it was without precedent. The economy was in a dreadful condition and the people who had to make decisions within the economy did not know what was happening. In addition, in the North there was a dreadful political impasse which resulted in extraordinary violence of a sectarian nature, which is abhorred by every Member of the House, going on relentlessly and the political process seemed to have no role to play. There seemed to be no possibility that there was even a prospect of a political solution being discussed let alone emerging from the dreadful situation in the North two years ago.
When the Labour Party met in Limerick and debated the joint programme negotiated between the new leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, and the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy FitzGerald, and their collective advisers, as one of the members at that conference I was aware of the enormous difficulties we would face as was every other delegate in that hall. No other party, right or left, give their delegates the right to decide whether to go into Government or that kind of lien on the performance of their party in office. We were not under any illusion at that time as to how difficult the task was that confronted us.
In adjourning the House for the New Year we should take stock of where we started from, how far we have travelled, what we have achieved, what we have learned and what we should do for the next three years. I have already attempted to set out where we started from. They were difficult times, probably the worst the country has ever seen in terms of political instability and the uncertainty that brought about compounded by an economic crisis of unforeseen proportions. We never experienced anything like it before.
In the intervening period we have been able to entirely stabilise the public finances so that we have retained the fundamental political and economic independence for which successive generations fought long and hard. That was seriously at risk this day two years ago. Between the coming into office of this Government and the departure of the minority Fianna Fáil administration, Deputy MacSharry, who was Minister for Finance, predicted that the incoming Minister for Finance — as it turned out was Deputy Dukes — would find it virtually impossible to borrow money on behalf of the people because of the state of the international monetary situation combined with our level of indebtness and political instability. That statement is on the record of the public newspapers. We have put that part of the chaos back into some kind of acceptable order. We have still some way to go in that. It is necessary to do so because it is the foundation on which our economic independence and liberty rest.
We have introduced a national plan. For the first time, it is an honest document and one that presents the realities as they are. It is for that reason we chose the phrase "building on reality". None of us in our private lives believes we can construct any kind of edifice on an inadequate foundation. That is not real. The real position we inherited from the period of political instability brought about in part by the recklessness of the last administration and their mismanagement, was unacceptable but just because we did not like it we could not pretend it did not exist. The plan that we have sets out for the first time very clear figures, targets and objectives that can be achieved in a range of areas. Like all plans it has a cost. Like all plans, it contains elements which are acceptable to some but not to others. It will not go far enough for some people. It may not go far enough for those who formulated it. If you start out from the point of view of building on reality you cannot change the reality of your premise simply because you do not like the conclusion that emerges.
Today political opposition has something to oppose. Political comment has something to object to in a tangible form. Today political debate can agree or disagree with what it is we are putting on the table. Two years ago there was no agenda. Two years ago there was hardly any debate. Two years ago there was total chaos. The level of stability we now have is a mark of the achievement we have made in the last two years.
Two years ago the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland were in total despair. There was no apparent political formula for a solution available to them within Northern Ireland, and no attempt was made by anybody in Dublin, London or Northern Ireland to produce such a political formula for a solution. In the absence of such political activity and in an environment confronted by violence on all sides it was inevitable that the vacuum left by the political process would be filled by the militarists, the men of arms who are not politically accountable as men of arms to anybody. What has happened in the last two years in relation to that tragedy which still confronts not just Northern Ireland but this entire island of Ireland and the island of the UK? We have had the historic debating dialogue process between the four main parties in this island of the Nationalist tradition — though in some respects I hesitate to use that phrase because I do not think it describes adequately the tradition that the Labour Party embrace within their ranks, but it has become a shorthand which for the purposes of debate we will accept. In the last two years we have had an historic debate in Dublin Castle, with all of the symbolism implicit in that, by the parties who represent 90 to 95 per cent of the Nationalists in this island, trying to state, first to themselves, what they meant by a United Ireland, what the reality of a United Ireland might be and what the prospects of obtaining a United Ireland were, and in so doing trying to advance in a political manner the prospect of engaging in debate with people of the Unionist tradition and non-aligned people. There are people in the North who are neither Unionist nor Nationalist.
That was not here two years ago, and the Forum would not have taken place had it not been for the support given by all three parties in this House, but in particular by the Labour Party and Fine Gael who were the first and second respectively to endorse the proposals for the Forum. The present question of relations between Northern Ireland, Dublin and London is for another day's debate to which we could devote some time. I am constraining myself. I do not want to be up to date on where the issue is today but simply to record on the Adjournment of the Dáil the progress we have made in the last two years on that issue along with the question of the financial affairs of this country and the development of a national plan.
I put it to Deputy Noonan, who has some experience of these matters and is a long serving Member of the House, that set against the background that we found ourselves confronted with two years ago, we have travelled some distance. It has not been easy. We have not travelled as far as we would have liked and undoubtedly, as is the experience of all travellers who tread on paths uncharted, mistakes, misjudgments and variations of a kind unforeseen have inevitably crossed our path on that journey. However, travelled we have over the last two years and further than was conceivable to anybody campaigning at the doors of this city. Cork or West Limerick where Deputy Noonan represents the dairy industry. The Dáil on adjourning today should take note of that marker that we can put down legitimately.
What has happened to the other side of the House during all of this? We have had, not constructive political criticism, I am sorry to say. If we had had the kind of constructive political debate that we had just half an hour ago or less from Deputy Noonan, we would be a better Government and the Opposition would have mobilised a substantial portion of the population into realising the political realities. Sad to say, that has not been the case. The most extraordinary sprint has been undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition, as detailed fairly substantially by the Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, in this House yesterday, over the last few weeks in a desperate attempt to court publicity at any price in order to return to power.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, before you entered the House I pointed out that effectively we are celebrating the coming into office of this administration two years ago to the very week. It is unlikely that there will be another election for at least two-and-a-half years. On the promises that have been made explicitly by the Leader of the Opposition over the past few weeks — I mean explicitly because we do not know what inexplicit or private promises were made; we do not know, for example, what was promised to Colonel Ghadaffi in exchange for the publicity coup that the Fianna Fáil delegation obtained in going to Libya — on the basis of explicit endorsements, promises, undertakings, agreements and unilateral support for any group that happened to have the good fortune to cross the path of the Fianna Fáil Leader, the figures have been running at the rate of approximately £10 million per day, a figure quoted yesterday in the Dáil by the Tánaiste as today approximately £557 million——
That is about as convincing as this statement just now.
On that basis, given two and-a-half years to run, if Fianna Fáil maintain this kind of political opposition it will cost them promises before they come into office of the order of at least £1,000 million.
Deputy O'Kennedy has joined us, and as a former Commissioner and former Minister for Finance and Minister for Foreign Affairs, he will recognise in an Adjournment debate and in the role of an Opposition that there are ways of winning support and ways of opposing Government. The political process is not helped at all by the kind of populism we have seen over the last few days. What I say is not tinged with any sense of envy or anguish on my part in relation to the position the opinion polls might suggest the present Government hold. None of us had any illusions when we embarked upon office two years ago that the course was not going to be difficult and we knew that as a consequence unpopular things would have to be done and that we would have to live with some of the consequences of that unpopularity. The kind of opposition put forward by the largest party in this House with manifestly more governmental experience than any other party is not up to the standard of democracy set for that party by its founding fathers and does not relate to the reality that was focussed upon by the founding chief of that party, Deputy the late President Eamon de Valera, or their most celebrated elder statesman, the late Deputy Séan Lemass, who, whatever else they did, dealt in the real world and talked about reality in terms of politics.
In the time allotted to me I want to address myself to the comments made in this House yesterday during my absence. Ireland has the Presidency of the EC which will end at the end of this month; it will end effectively in a week and a half from now. During this week and last week it was essential that formal decision-making Councils of the EC should be not only properly attended by Irish Ministers but attended in such a manner and with a level of preparation that would ensure their successful outcome for the Presidency, the Community and this country. In these circumstances I regret that Deputies on the other side of the House who should know better, especially Deputy Ahern who has had experience in the role of Chief Whip, staged the kind of manifestation that was witnessed here yesterday.
I am saddened at what happened. The reason neither the Minister of State nor myself were here to answer questions in relation to the technicalities surrounding the Social Welfare Bill should have been clear. That Bill was to give legal effect to the Government proposal for a social employment scheme to deal with the problem of long term unemployment. At the time Deputies opposite were raising these questions, the Council over which I presided adopted a substantial document on the whole matter of the long term unemployed within the entire Community. They were taking effective action to deal with what in modern terms is a totally new phenonomen. It does not matter whether a society is being governed by, as in the case of Britain, the most hardened right wing, ideologically-dominated conservative government that Britain has known since the turn of the century or whether we are talking of a society that is governed by the most expansionist socialist democratic government such as France experienced both during the Fourth and Fifth Republics, the phenonomen of the extension of long term unemployment has occurred simultaneously in both types of economy. Therefore, the answers are not to be found within traditional orthodox political philosophy.
Whatever we may have thought about the French Government, they had an excellent record in respect of economic policy so it was not that record that brought them down.
I make the point to emphasise that the phenonomen of long term unemployment arose simultaneously in two countries adopting totally different economic measures and that therefore, with any measure of objectivity, one must ask whether the conventional system of political thought explains adequately what has been happening in European economies.
That may be of interest to the theoreticians or to the politicians but it is of no benefit to those who find themselves in that situation. It was for that reason that the Government, at my instigation, took steps to deal with the problem. Today marks my first anniversary in office. Since becoming Minister for Labour my aim has been to try to come to terms with the contradiction of having thousands of people unemployed permanently and paying them miserable sums of money in the form of unemployment assistance, as has been the procedure under successive administrations, as a compensation for the fact that they cannot get work while stipulating that they can only receive that benefit on condition that they do not work.
We must find ways of breaking down that self-evident contradiction. The social employment scheme is a direct attempt to do that. Time does not permit me, and even if it did I would not consider it appropriate, to give at this stage the full details of how the scheme will operate. Suffice it to say the criticism offered in this House yesterday about my not being here or about the details not being provided, was unfair and also dishonest. When the work experience programme, the enterprise allowance scheme or the employment incentive scheme were launched by the Department of Labour, details were not demanded in the House by the Opposition.
It is my intention to make available to all Deputies early in the new year full details of how the new scheme will operate and full details also of all the other interventionist schemes that the Department are operating as a direct means of dealing with the phenonomen of unemployment, a phenonomen that is the curse of the last decade and half of this century. We ignore the problem at our peril but we are bereft of adequate orthodox solutions to resolve it, as is evidenced by the anguish that can be witnessed in the other member states. Two years after the coming into office of the Government, having regard to the position from which we started, to the background of uncertainty and chaos of a most fundamental kind with which we were confronted, we can legitimately report progress. It is my regret that there could not have been more progress and that we could not have gone further, but I am confident that in the coming two and half to three years we will have progressed sufficiently to enable people to realise in their honesty and in their generosity that we were given an extremely difficult task and that set against the criteria I have outlined and against the bleak despair of Northern Ireland, we have been doing a reasonably good and acceptable job.
On a personal level I wish to express my good wishes to the Minister on what is his first birthday as Minister. I would like to be able to wish him many happy returns, but, irrespective of my personal disposition towards him, I am sure he will appreciate that in the national interest I could not do that any more than I could wish the Government many happy returns. On a personal note I say to them, go maire sibh i bhfad but I cannot apply that sentiment in so far as their remaining in office is concerned.
In his concluding remarks the Minister said that after two years in office the Government can report very significant progress. Any Minister in this Government who is prepared to say that has to be totally out of touch with reality and consequently totally unequipped to deal with the many problems of the economy or to give a new hope or a new opportunity to our people. I appreciate that we all defend our positions but, leaving aside Fianna Fáil, for the Government to tell the people that significant progress has been made in the past two years, is, to say the least, making a mockery of the English language. During this session the document, Building on Reality has been produced. The only reality is that the Government are totally out of touch with reality. That is very serious, not only for them but for the entire political process. It is not a question of relying on the views expressed here in our own little area or on the views of the press who report us. The views we must listen to are the views of the people outside, the people in the cities, in the towns, in the villages and on the farms. The only verdict on those views is that the country is in a state not only of economic but of moral depression and is in need of a lift and a purpose which the Government have a fundamental role to provide.
All of us here must be conscious of the mood of the people. It arises for obvious reasons that I need not underline. I will focus briefly on the problems and then give some fairly obvious prescriptions for dealing with them without even requiring the major change of policy that Fianna Fáil will introduce in Government. The major problem is unemployment. About 23 per cent of our people are unemployed. All the short term training schemes and work experience programmes do not give permanent fulfulment. This unacceptable level of unemployment gives rise to economic and social tensions. In my own town I have seen the frustration of people and I have seen the attitude directed towards politicians because of people's perception that none of us seems to be able to help them. It is the Government who have failed.
There is no point in a Labour Minister saying that we have made progress. That is stretching credibility too far. The Labour Party for political reasons have decided to stay on this ship. They decided that the waters they would have to jump into are far more dangerous than being on this ship. There is no point in them pretending that issues such as unemployment, which should concern a Labour Party, are being dealt with effectively.
Emigration is also an important issue. The Minister who has now come into the House will probably be able to say at the end of this year that the Estimates provided for social welfare will not have been fully used. He will say that they have worked within the budget deficit in terms of payments for unemployment benefit. The reason for this is that thousands of our young people are leaving the country and they will not figure in the social welfare costs in the current budget. That is a terrible indictment of the Government. I hope that anything the Government will do will not be on the basis that those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to stay here can secure our "good fortune" on the basis that others of our people who are entitled to the dignity of living and working here, will have to clear out in their thousands. Any survey will show that no fewer than 10,000 people are emigrating each year. It is a terrible indictment of Government that we are prepared to tolerate that drain of our young people. If anyone checks with the Irish societies in Britain he will find that the conditions in which our young people live there are quite unsuitable for them and that they are unprepared for them. A survey by the Confederation of Irish Industry recently published shows that almost all the firms interviewed who employ a number of top executives expect to lose a significant number of their executives because of the high tax levels and the lack of incentive for skilled executives who should be encouraged to make their contribution. We are watching that brain drain and the drain of our young people. I suppose this Government may take credit for it because if enough of them go, unemployment figures will not be as high as they might otherwise have been. Of course the proportion of increase, percentagewise, will be less on a growing figure. A 5 per cent increase on 250,000 is a lot more than a 5 per cent increase on 100,000, so do not talk about percentages but about real people.
The fact that we have the highest tax levels in Europe has helped to give rise to this condition. We have the highest levels of indirect taxation and the second highest levels of direct taxation and taking both together we have the highest level of taxation in Europe. We proposed selective reductions in certain levels of excise duty and VAT. It was predictable that the Government would say, "That is Fianna Fáil doing their high fling again". We are now in the best of company with that suggestion. We agree with the Confederation of Irish Industry in terms of a conservative approach to fiscal management. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Irish Industry and the employers agree that our tax levels, particularly our VAT rate of 35 per cent, are the highest in Europe and that they must be reduced to ensure that further moneys accrue to the Revenue. There is now clear evidence that what we have been saying for the last two years is a fact. The self-financing tax relief that one can get by a reduction of the standard rate of 35 per cent on basic household items, electrical goods, pet food and so on, are well documented in submissions to the Government. It is quite clear that if the Government, even two years late, reduce that 35 per cent level of VAT the benefit to the Revenue would be positive. I am even more certain that the impact it will have on employment will be positive and that the impact it will have on the general morale of the people will be positive.
In the electrical trade alone in the last two years employment has dropped from 9,000 to 3,500. We were prepared to sit back and watch that for the past two years and make a nonsense of our customs control. The customs people cannot cope with what is happening with over £230 million being spent in cross-Border shopping each year. Deputy McGahon from the Fine Gael Party has suggested that as a consequence of this we need a special task force in Government for the Border regions that have been hit by this cross-Border trade. That is a laugh. We had a special task force for the whole country.
The first task the Government should undertake is to reduce the penal level of VAT at 35 per cent. There should be a selective reduction in the tax on beer and petrol. The industries concerned have indicated that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the consumption of beer and petrol in the past two years as a consequence of the inordinately high level of excise duty. That should not have to await a change of Government. It does not involve any false promises from Fianna Fáil, but Fianna Fáil prompting the Government to help themselves and, much more important, to help the country.
The second point deals with the levels of direct taxation. This Government introduced a 65 per cent level of direct taxation. It was a deliberate decision to bridge the budget deficit. Everything was to be secondary to the aim to reduce the budget deficit. The proposed reduction has now been left aside in the Government's change of policy over the past couple of years. Trying to reduce the deficit by taxation has had depressing effects on the economy. I appeal to the Government to reconsider a level of taxation which requires a 65 per cent band for a man earning £12,000. Nowhere in Europe is there that kind of nonsense. No economy could begin to generate a climate for activity and investment with that kind of nonsense. To that must be added the levies at 2 per cent and the PRSI charges for employers and employees. It is quite clear to all, except the Government, apparently, that whatever measure of revenue comes in from a band of 65 per cent, it is only a fraction of what would come in if the climate for activity and investment were improved by reducing that penal level of 65 per cent tax.
I want to make one other suggestion to the Government in relation to tax. Would the Government for heaven's sake get rid of the nonsensical income-related property tax? It was one of the prices paid to the Labour Party for entering into a Coalition. It demonstrated the fact that they had muscle. No one is interested in that kind of thing any more. No money is coming in, and revenue is the first purpose of any tax. The impact it is having on the building sector is enormous. People who would normally do the prudent thing and improve their houses, thereby generating employment and activity, will not do that while that nonsensical tax is there.
I am not saying this from the point of view of protecting the wealthy or, as some might say, the selfish. It has yielded nothing. It may yield a little more in 1985 but, whatever it yields will be only the smallest fraction of what would have been gained in enhanced indirect taxation, with a more buoyant building sector which the Government have turned their back on, if the housing market were released from that straitjacket.
Those are three simple obvious examples. The Minister for Finance seems to be out of contact with the realities except the reality in his own Department in Merrion Square. He seems to think that what is prepared for him by civil servants there, whom I know and respect, is the only reality in the nation. He should at least take this to heart, otherwise he is at risk of engendering further frustration and bitterness. He talks to the Irish workers about competitiveness. He tells them the only answer to our problems is for them to be much more competitive. In that cold, detached, constant sermonising way of his in talking about competitiveness, he is at risk of giving rise to a very bitter reaction. They see him as the man responsible for making them uncompetitive vis-à-vis other countries because of the high levels of tax he has imposed, and because of the levies which have to be paid by employers and employees. The very Minister who has made us uncompetitive is constantly preaching competitiveness. He should take note of the reaction he is causing in the workforce generally by the inconsistency of his whole approach.
I have talked about the tax levels and the impact they are having, and how some minor adjustments would bring about an effective change which would retain jobs which are being lost. I have not got to the point of talking about the generation of new jobs. We have prepared a very broad and comprehensive programme for tax reform. We are not in Government at the moment. It is not our function to put up for debate, as if this were a debating society, what it is the Government's function to present. They are in management.
What we have prepared takes account of the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation, not surprisingly, because we set them up. They are a representative group. Four years after the Government are ignoring the realities. We have had a proliferation of VAT levels. We have six different tax levels, not to mention the fact that they are the highest in Europe. Obviously this has to be dealt with. It is causing the most extraordinary problems for traders.
We will be tackling the range of VAT levels as well as a selective reduction in tax. We will ensure that whatever is invested in employment by the business sector will be treated at least as fairly as what is invested in capital equipment. At the moment under this Government, there is a bias of at least 2 to 1 in favour of capital equipment of all kinds from typewriters, to desks, to chairs, against money invested in employment. The recommendations in the plan which the Government ignored pointed this out.
At a time of high unemployment, the tax system should be neutral as between employment cost and capital cost. Far from being neutral it actually penalises employment investment costs. We intend to deal with that in Government and to bring about a change without any loss of revenue and at the same time recognising that one of the priorities must be to generate employment.
Our marketing effort at this moment is deplorable. I do not want to be critical of CTT only. Our whole marketing penetration of Europe is on a level with that of Malta. That is a disgrace. In 1984 the grant for marketing and processing of agricultural products was the ridiculously low sum of £300,000. This Government showed such little awareness of the need to expand in that area that they are providing £276,000 in 1985, and this will be presented to us as evidence of controlling public expenditure. That is a drop of 8 per cent. It shows a deplorable lack of awareness of the need to get into those markets, to improve our market strategy and techniques, particularly in relation to the agri-food industry. We hear this spoken about every day on radio programmes yet there is a cutback. On a wet Sunday in Tipperary we collected £276,000 and that is what this Government are providing in terms of the development of our agri-food industry. It is a disgrace.
This will be another sharp distinction between us and this Government. Our own resource development programme, whether in forestry, agriculture or fisheries, will be a priority in our policy in Government and we will give clear details of the funding programme.
During the past three months many top class representatives from investment houses and representative groups who have channels into investment have come to me, as spokesman for Finance in Opposition, with programmes for investment that will release funds, which are now being channelled out of the country, into investment in resource development, be it in the food industry, forestry, agriculture or fisheries. This will not involve extra public expenditure to be funded by the taxpayer. We are aware of funds which are available but will not be invested while this Government pursue their tunnel vision policies in relation to high levels of taxation. How could one expect these funds to be invested in the current climate? Instead they are finding safe havens, not at home but abroad. While that is unfortunate, at least there is a clear indication that potential investment is available and a change of Government will have enormous effect in bringing about a renewal of the economy.
The levels of VAT are killing our tourist industry. In 1975 60 per cent of French tourists coming here expressed the view that they got good value for money but in 1983 that percentage had fallen to only 18 per cent. Tourism is a growth area internationally, despite the economic recession, but it is being killed here by the levels of indirect taxation being imposed. A proper marketing and investment programme would realise its immense potential.
Economics is not the only function of Government. We must retain the confidence of the people and from time to time we have dented that confidence somewhat. It must be said that recent events, particularly in respect of the Government appointment to the office of Attorney General, have dented that confidence. I know that young man and I respect him. Those who know him personally respect him as a young man of integrity but let nobody tell us that John Rogers is a man of competent experience and qualification for this job. The Tánaiste has tried to tell us that he has all the experience. According to an article by Peter Murtagh in today's edition of The Irish Times Bar Library sources did not think that Fine Gael hopefuls would be resentful of Mr. Roger's appointment. I have just come from the Bar Library and I know the reaction of the qualified Fine Gael people. The statement in the article is nonsense. When people say that kind of thing for their own purpose they are making a mockery of journalism. Any established constitutional lawyer will give the reaction. I wish that man well because he is a fine young man but he has not the experience for this job.
This seems to be the only way the Labour Party can prove they have a role in this Government. They are prepared to vote for anything—increasing interest rates, not protecting pension funds, Irish Shipping—to keep themselves in those seats for the time being. The only way they can prove they have a role in Government is by something like this—"we are there because we get jobs for some of our people". We all have done that in our time but it is not the function of any party in Government. I cannot think of one other contribution the Labour Party have made. When they go back to their own constituents they will face the reality that they do not represent those interests any more. I wish they did. This Government might be more respected if we did not turn our backs on our obligations to all our people.
At the outset of my contribution I congratulate the former Attorney General, Peter Sutherland, on his appointment to the European Commission.
I join with that.
I have attended meetings of Health and Social Affairs Ministers in Brussels during the past two weeks and there is considerable satisfaction, not least in Irish circles, that our new Commissioner has been allocated the major responsibilities in the area of Competition and Social Policy.
On behalf of the Labour Party I wish him well in his new work for the country and the Community. I also place on record my high regard and that of my colleagues in Government for Peter Sutherland's outstanding work as Attorney General on issues as diverse as the Constitutional referendum, the Criminal Justice Bill and the liquidation of Irish Shipping and all its ramifications.
No doubt the House will have heard with considerable jaundice the criticism of Deputies Haughey, Lenihan and just now, of Deputy O'Kennedy of the appointment by the Taoiseach of John Rogers as the new Attorney General. Such criticism, emanating from, in particular, a former Taoiseach who had such an extraordinary relationship with his appointees not only to this post but to the portfolio of the Department of Justice reeks with political hypocrisy. To use the phrase of Deputy O'Malley about the criticism, I would use the phrase he used about the return of Deputy Doherty to the back benches of Fianna Fáil: it is, to say the least, somewhat tarnished. I congratulate John Rogers on his appointment. In my view he is quite competent to hold this high office. I wish him well in his future work for the Government of the day and for our country. I have no doubt but that this Taoiseach and present Tánaiste will not be ringing him up from a remote island off the coast of Kerry on a tired and emotional line on any given evening. We need say no more about that.
That is a scandalous allegation. I guarantee the Minister will not say it outside the House.
Therefore may I suggest that Deputy Haughey and his colleagues should adopt what might be called in Department of Health parlance a cardio-visual approach before they decide to criticise the Government on such matters.
I turn now to more pressing, serious and immediate issues. In these difficult economic times it is very important to take a balanced view of the economy rather than over-reacting to individual sets of economic statistics. Ever since this Government took office we have stated clearly and honestly the serious and, at times, almost intractable nature of the economic problems confronting us. But the present situation is not one of unrelieved gloom. There are many positive factors which should not be overlooked. I want to list some of those. First of all, there is the balance of payments which, despite the latest trading figures, shows a large excess of imports over exports for October. The general trend for the year as a whole is very good with a deficit of £17.4 million only for the first ten months of the year while, last year, the ten months deficit amounted to nearly £400 million. And, for the whole year, the Central Bank are predicting a very small deficit compared with the situation over the last ten years. Such an improvement in the balance of payments is generally heartening.
The improvement in exports has been caused by a buoyant and encouraging export performance throughout the economy. Attempts by the Opposition to detract from this performance by quite exaggerated reference to, say, transfer-pricing questions or to black holes should not be taken too seriously. For example, transfer-pricing has always been a normal aspect of business behaviour and, in particular, for any vertically-integrated company, such as many foreign companies operating here. For the American companies — and here I would point out that they comprise nearly half of the foreign industry based here now — the US Customs and Revenue authorities are well aware of the possibilities of tax avoidance which transfer-pricing may create and do maintain a strict watch on the imports and exports of their subsidiaries located in other countries. While there may be some nominal element through transfer-pricing in our industrial exports structure for one or two sectors of industry, it is unlikely to affect materially the overall position, as has been suggested with some degree of exaggeration.
Equally we can take comfort, that is the Government — and I would hope also the Opposition — from the inflation situation which has been an encouraging factor. Unfortunately, no one ever notices prices that remain stable or indeed ones that fall, such as those for potatoes or, more recently, petrol. But we all notice prices that have increased. After many years of much higher rates of inflation than now we have become so conditioned to regular price increases it has become a standard topic of conversation outside any supermarket. But studies undertaken some years ago for the National Prices Commission show that, when questioned after shopping, many people had little clear perception or knowledge of specific prices they had paid for certain items. Therefore it is important that we move away from this inflation mentality. Perhaps the National Prices Commission, together with their regular listing of price increases, should now give equal weight to investigating and listing the retail prices which have remained stable or those indeed that have fallen over six months or a year. Therefore the inflation trends in our economy are reasonably encouraging.
The reduction in net, new foreign borrowing comprises equally an encouraging aspect of our economy. Despite the tremendous burden of foreign borrowing we inherited from the previous Government, in the last two years there has been a significant reduction in that net new foreign borrowing in our community. Unfortunately — and I say this to a former member of the Cabinet present — in 1977 to 1981 the Fianna Fáil Party discovered the Euro-dollar loan market. Instead of treating it as a Euro-dollar loan market they thought they had discovered an oilfield. That was the measure of their economic competence at that time.
Arising out of the appalling situation which we identified when we took office it was impossible to stop all foreign borrowing at once because it had become then a regular source of revenue for many necessary, statutory Government expenditures. Therefore it is indeed a considerable achievement in so short a time span as two years and, with there being so many other constraints on us at present, to have reduced net, new foreign borrowings. As well, the foreign debt profile is now reasonably well structured, has a reasonably good balance of the various currencies involved which, in itself, is a measure of considerable achievement in the past two years. I congratulate the Minister for Finance on his exceptionally good work in this area despite the extraordinary difficulties obtaining.
The international situation also is reasonably encouraging. We are a small, open economy. Often overseas events, such as the oil crisis of 1973, will completely overshadow the home economic situation, rendering the development of Government policies immeasurably more difficult. At this stage, fortunately, there are a number of hopeful signals. First of all, on oil and petrol prices, many analysts are predicting a fall in prices, and even a partial break-up of the OPEC cartel. Clive Jones, EC Energy Policy Director, has suggested that oil prices will not significantly increase until the nineties. The supply of oil remains high while most countries have now achieved considerable economies in their use of oil, placing a strong downward pressure on oil prices. Equally, for example, in the Department of Health, I have been endeavouring to conserve energy that has massive consumption levels within particular institutional structures. Clearly then, for Ireland — more dependent on imported oil than many other countries — such a development will be very welcome.
Additionally, the situation in the American economy appears to be more in our favour than for some time past. Despite a slowdown in the United States economy in the third quarter of 1984 the general consensus is that this was temporary only. Machine tool order books have already built up. The demand for cars and houses is strengthening also. Of course these are prime indicators of an upturn in economic activity. Of more importance, there are clear signs that financial policy in the United States is beginning to move in a more helpful direction. Paul A. Volcker, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, is reported as being in favour of lower interest rates and of a lower value for the dollar. United States interest rates have fallen by 2½ per cent in recent months, with further falls predicted. These changes will improve our balance of payments — through lower oil, dollar, prices — as well as improving our foreign borrowing burden through lower interest rates. Therefore, as well as the United States situation, we have the United Kingdom situation in which interests rates have been reduced considerably as have those in Canada, France and Japan. Despite our domestic interest rate increase caused by the determination of this Government to avoid a shortterm, easy option of increased foreign borrowing, the overall genuine indicators are quite hopeful. No doubt our interest rates will be strongly influenced by those trends in due course. Those are the positive factors in our economy and with the hyped-up appallingly negative and incredibly badly-put-together criticism of the Opposition, it is essential that the effective, optimistic prospects for our economy in the eighties should be stressed at this stage. Those are hopeful factors.
There are, of course, negative factors which are overshadowed by the current problem of an entirely unacceptable high level of unemployment here, by a very high ratio of total foreign debt to gross national product. We are one of the highest of all the OECD countries in this respect. We have an increasing absorption of Government revenues by the debt interest charges on top of this high level of borrowing. We have a taxation system which, as well as being excessively complex, has reached near saturation point in PAYE taxation and in VAT also. Those are the negative aspects, ones we shall have to take care of in the years ahead and certainly this Government will not be found wanting in that regard.
With regard to the unemployment problem the Government are introducing a number of new initiatives. The Department of the Environment are on target now for their expenditure of £420 million in the next three years on road building, in itself creating a considerable number of jobs. In addition, the Department of Labour have been allocated extra funds for a variety of schemes. The enterprise allowance scheme is expected to provide 11,000 new jobs; while part-time, training and work placement will provide for a further 12,500 for the long-term unemployed. It is disappointing and a cruel misinterpretation of these shcemes to hear the Opposition deride them as "artificial" employment or "make-work": especially when their own economic programme of October 1982 laid great stress on part-time work, job-sharing and training schemes as a way of combating high unemployment: and when they state that "over-reliance on traditional measures to combat unemployment such as adjustments of economic, industrial, fiscal and other policies have been only partially successful".
It is essential that we adopt all possible measures in this area. The unemployment scourge is so great that the Government will use all the policies at their disposal including traditional and nontraditional to try to make some impact on this enormous social problem. The only thing we will not do is to borrow more abroad or to increase general income tax levels to ameliorate the levels of unemployment.
Borrow it at home instead and jack up interest rates.
I should like to make some brief observations on the taxation system. With so many demands on Government revenues — from my own two major spending Departments, Health and Social Welfare — as well as from Education, Environment and so on, the Government have found themselves in an impasse as far as the very necessary major revisions of the tax system are concerned. While tax reform is vital, the actual changes necessary are difficult to achieve in circumstances where every penny of revenue is vitally needed. The various suggestions of the Commission on Taxation on phasing and implementation of the necessary changes are not sufficient to cope with the shortfalls in any new tax system introduced. Thus, various attempts at farmer taxation in the past, as well as the situation with income-related property tax have shown the difficulty of getting a decent revenue from new taxation within a short space of time; we have constitutional challenges, refusal to fill in forms or complete assessments and it is a strange reflection on the morality of our society when the Government are blamed for the refusal of individuals to pay their legal taxes and where tax evasion or avoidance is not considered by many to be morally wrong is a so called Christian society. We must have revenue in order to continue our essential social services.
With regard to our economic plan I should like to state that despite the great economic problems we face the future is not black in our economy. Firstly, we have the positive factors in our economy which I have outlined and there are also reasonably moderate factors in the international scene. Secondly, in our economic plan the Government have outlined in clear terms for the first time in the history of the State the budgets we will be facing in 1985, 1986 and 1987. For the first time we have outlined the departmental budget profiles for the three years. The books have not been fiddled in an immoral way as happened under the previous administration. I regard their taking £300 million out of investment overnight as one of the most disgraceful happenings in Governmental activity.
With the difficulties and harsh decisions with which we are faced at present it is essential that we look ahead, that we are not swayed too much by one set of figures or by a locally difficult problem. We must have a longer view than yesterday's news or the latest piece of public relations by Deputy Haughey.
Or from the national handlers.
We must have a co-ordinated programme to handle and integrate the many aspects of the complex modern economy. This, I suggest, is provided in the national plan which is already providing a degree of stability and security for the business community and the country at large. I notice that the December issue of Irish Business states:
... the best set of Exchequer returns for years. The weekly accounts have shown the Government has kept both spending and revenue as close to budget targets as could reasonably be expected ... The same is true of borrowing targets...
That is a simple analysis of the work done here. For the first time in the history of the State, Cabinet have regular two-monthly reviews of the implementation of each detailed proposal in the plan and of the detailed profile of expenditure in each Department. At grass roots level we have the valuable work being done by the Sectoral Development Committee. Those initiatives are being put into effect with the very fruitful collaboration of employers, trade unions and State agencies. I have news for Deputy Flynn, and his colleagues: the work will be done over the next three years. The Government will not be hyped-up into a general election atmosphere no matter how desperate or hysterical the Opposition become or the type of hyper-mania that is displayed by the Leader of the Opposition. We shall continue to implement our social and economic programme. A major element of social legislation is going through Government and that is to be put through the Dáil in the new year. I do not have the slightest doubt that we will go to the country in three years time with a solid achievement and record behind us.
The Opposition paid lip service to their own plan. I do not intend to dwell at any length on that plan but it is important that statements made by the Opposition should be shredded by the Government because they amount to nothing more than an effort to exaggerate the position and create fears among the community. For example, Deputy Frank Fahey went on radio and talked about non-contributory old age pensions. He upset the elderly who are entitled to have, if single, £3,000 in the bank or, if married, £6,000 without running the risk of losing their maximum old age pension. The name of the game as far as the Opposition are concerned is stir it up, but it will not work.
Deputy Haughey in spite of his strong statements in The Way Forward two years ago regarding public sector pay, is now advocating sizeable increases in pay for the public sector regardless of the impact on the nation's finances. For example, he is aware that a 5 per cent increase in public sector pay would mean either an increase of £120 million in taxation or the creation of redundancies. That would have to be done in order to give the remaining public sector employees higher incomes. Deputy Haughey has not learned anything since 1980. He has a renewed obsession to regain power at any cost to the country or his party.
Several new employment measures in the plan have been derided by Deputy Haughey despite the fact that if one examines The Way Forward one will see that many of the proposals are virtually identical to a plan put forward by him when in office. In the recent unfortunate but inescapable demise of Irish Shipping, Deputy Haughey, disregarding the views expressed in his own plan about the right way to monitor the work of State-sponsored bodies, immediately reversed his view. That is the kind of situation we are faced with.
Similarly, in my own field of health expenditure, Deputy Haughey, while calling for firmer measures to reduce the imbalance in the State's finances, and while demanding a reduction in taxation, promises to spend another £85 million on new hospital buildings if returned to power. There is not a constituency in the country which he has visited in recent months where he did not promise another extension or another hospital but without referring to the costs involved or saying who will employ the staff and who will pay their wages in the years ahead. Once again I presume he will resort to the soft term option of foreign borrowing.
I think the worst example of the leader of the Opposition's approach was in his response to the recent very successful EC summit chaired by the Taoiseach in Dublin Castle. According to Deputy Haughey, Ireland has little interest in the successful resolution of EC wine problems, in the accession of Spain and Portugal or in Greek development. The impression given, especially when coupled with his recent deplorable remark about the "bovine English", is that for Deputy Haughey the world outside Ireland is totally unimportant and is to be neglected. Fortunately, this is very far removed from Irish attitudes as expressed over the years in our involvement in the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Communities and in our deep concern for poorer countries, such as Ethiopia and these comments should not be taken seriously.
I do not know if any Deputies have been to America recently, but if they are there and if they visit Disneyland they will see a plastic version of Abraham Lincoln who repeats every ten minutes the Gettysburg Address. Deputy Haughey on Northern Ireland is no different than that. There are the same bland, ambiguous, deliberate, Republican slogans, wrapping the green flag around him, talking about nationalism, republicanism and putting all shades of meaning on them. I find that kind of contribution odious. That is the only thing I can say about that.
This Government can and will continue to deliver our comprehensive system of social services even if such a delivery implies a continuation of a relatively high level of taxation. There are no soft options of income tax cuts while at the same time increasing social expenditure.
Only yesterday when debating the equality order, the Fianna Fáil Party suggested that we should not spend only £17 million but £47 million. They did not give any indication where this money would come from. This brings me back to the options. The Leader of the Opposition says we can afford to do all these things and, as Deputy McCreevy knows, we have the immortal phrase of the Leader of the Opposition that we can have growth and self-financing tax reductions. That type of charade is an insult to the intelligence of an economics leaving certificate student. We hear this type of inanity from the leader of the Opposition about growth, taxation, our natural resources and so on. This shows that that party in Opposition and in Government dodge the realities of our economic situation.
The Opposition Deputies are not allowed show a shred of open conflict with their Leader. In Cabinet I have the political consolation of saying directly to the Taoiseach that I disagree or that my party in Government are not happy about his proposals, and that we will challenge him. I do not lose my position as Minister for Health and Social Welfare overnight if I made these observations.
The Minister must conclude.
The only conclusion which can be drawn from the general stance of the Opposition as daily dictated by their Leader, whom many Fianna Fáil Deputies distrust and fear in pure cowardice, is that the needs or requirements of the country, statesmanship in EC relations and statesmanship in terms of our relations with the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, are thrown out the window in the hope of winning a few possible seats. As far as the Opposition are concerned, any policy stance will be quickly changed and very few definite policy statements will be made in order to leave Deputy Haughey the maximum freedom for rapid change to align himself with one group or another, and to shift his position on any issue as often as his fancy dictates. It may be fulsome praise in the adoption of the proposal of the ITGWU, and the executive of that union laugh at the Leader of the Opposition, or the IFA who meet the Fianna Fáil spokesmen and having reached an agreement, laugh because "Charlie is back to his old tricks again". In a world of credibility he will go down in history as nothing more than "access Charlie", instant accessibility, instant credit, accessible to all and sundry for expenditure which knows no limit until he comes into office. The country will be aware of the new irretrievable position of the Leader of the Opposition who will shift his position on any issue whenever and as often as his fancy dictates to regain power. Therefore, it is not in the national interest that he and his associates should ever again regain office.
The country is well aware of the difficult circumstances we face and the need for determination and steadfastness in resolving them. In the course of the next two years our major difficulties can be overcome. We have published our plan for the next three years; we have published our budgets and our Estimates and we will not be deflected by the inconsistencies, incoherencies and contradictions of narrow day to day party political advantage expressed by Fianna Fáil.
The Minister's time is up.
I have been in this House for 15 years and I have rarely heard such a miserable contribution from any Opposition, and God knows I have served in a number of them. The country is in good hands.
I must ask the Minister to conclude.
In the old days a liner had two captains, one to keep the passengers happy and the other to run the ship.
The Chair must call the next speaker because the Minister has taken more time than he should. Deputy Flynn has until 3.10 p.m.
The Government have made no serious efforts to address any of the economic or social problems of this country. They have a dismal record in legislation for the two years they have been in office. They have no record of legislation on law reform of any consequence, and there has been no effort to reverse the terrible air of despair, despondency and depression that prevails in every section of the community. The Government by their own plan are committed to spiralling unemployment, and Government policies are leading to a total alienation of the youth of our country, the business element and all those involved in the motivation of growth and development in the economy.
It is extraordinary that since the start of this debate we have had to suffer from the Government speakers, a return to that favourite pastime of defeated politicians, character assassination. We have heard character assassination from every speaker on the Government side in this debate. They are devoid of any policies to deal with the crippling burden of taxation and unemployment and, therefore, are reduced to innuendo and winding up the muck spreading machine at which they are so adept. That is the last refuge of a barren politician and, if the Minister, Deputy Desmond, were here, I would challenge him to repeat the allegations which he made against Members on this side of the House, particularly the leader of our party, outside the House. If he is not prepared to do that he should hold his breath and save his energy for the general election which cannot be delayed for much longer.
Politicians know, from experience, that when a Government party are devoid of anything useful to say they have to resort to muck spreading and we know that the Government are in imminent danger of collapse. Far from offering policies for continuing in Government the Labour Party will continue what they are best at — character assassination.
The Government are suffering from political dystrophy and their degeneration and lack of co-ordination leads us to believe that they have not got the motivation or policies to continue in Government or to protect the people who are most in need of proper support. Let us look at the kind of dystrophy to which I referred. They have not introduced any worthwhile legislation in any areas where there might be controversy. It is known around the corridors of Leinster House that the Government will not be bringing in any legislation of a controversial nature because they cannot command the support and loyalty of their own backbenchers. Where is the local radio Bill which we have been promised? Where is the social legislation that has been preached and promised by Government Ministers, in particular by the Minister of State with responsibility for Women's Affairs? Where is the company legislation which they said was essential for the future development of company law over the past few years? It was promised in the past four sessions but there is still no sign of it. It is obvious that the Government, because of ideological differences between the two parties in Government, cannot reach agreement and there will be no improvement in this area.
Where is the National Development Corporation, that stillborn organisation which has been around since 1974 when we had the Halligan-Keating alliance? It was promised again in 1977 by Deputy Michael O'Leary and has been promised by the Labour Party in every one of their submissions and manifestoes in every election campaigh since 1974. It was supposed to be the main plank of Labour Party policy but they do not seem to be able to exercise any influence over their Fine Gael masters. That is why all this legislation, which has been a matter of urgent national priority for the past two years, has not seen the light of day. We have been reduced to emergency measures, the only kind of reaction politics which this House has endured in the past two years. We have seen it in many different areas, from the insurance legislation in 1982 to the Copyright Bill which was amended and subsequently amended again and which we understand is now withdrawn. We had legislation in regard to Irish Shipping, the Air Transport Bill and the recent Bill in regard to financial control. Support was sought for these measures on a minute by minute basis because the Government had particular difficulties. None of these measures should have been introduced in a rushed fashion but it is well known that the ideological differences which exist and persist between the Coalition parties were not prepared to allow legislation to be brought in here in the normal way. That is why this Government have been labelled as the reaction politics brigade and it is all we can expect for the foreseeable future.
We are determined to take the jobs crisis seriously. No Government Minister in this debate so far indicated any worthwhile way to deal with the enormous employment crisis. We do not wish to see the national cake diminishing any further and we want to reverse the present trend in economic thinking. We do not wish the Government to continue the policy of controlling the money market and borrowing internally rather than borrowing abroad at preferential rates. Deputy Desmond said they would not be borrowing abroad but they are borrowing from the national fund and savings of small investors which has resulted in the increasing of interest rates in the past few weeks by several percentage points, thereby making it much more difficult to maintain our competitiveness and our export drive for the foreseeable future. We are interested in growth, not stagnation, and throughout Building on Reality the Government accept that mass unemployment will be the order of the day until the end of the century. We do not accept that philosophy. We wish to restore economic activity and development which was always present under Fianna Fáil administrations. Between 1977-81, when Fianna Fáil were in Government, 80,000 new jobs were created which was more than adequate to deal with new entrants to the labour pool. That kind of philosophy and activity is needed now to deal with unemployment.
We want to create an investment environment which will induce people to provide the extra money necessary to create new growth in the economy. We wish to adopt a proper attitude to profit to reassure businessmen that by investing their money and making a profit they will not be regarded as tarnished. Profit is a dirty word in Irish business life. We recognise what business has to do to provide job opportunities and we are determined to create the proper environment to do so on our return to office.
We want to utilise our national resources to their maximum potential. There is no proper product identification system here or a framework of inducement to first time entrepreneurs so that they will be prepared to take the necessary risks. We want to see the venture capital programme revamped so that the situation that exists today will be the same in the foreseeable future. I wish to say to the Taoiseach that of the £3 million which was allocated in the 1984 Estimates in this regard, only £1 million has been committed. This is in the area of venture capital where one would have expected bigger demands to be made on it by those wishing to be involved in business for the first time.
We are concerned about the construction industry because therein lies the great motivator that could create a large number of jobs in the short term and put many of the 45,000 unemployed building workers back to work. Institutional funds are not going into the construction industry and we want to create the environment whereby those institutional funds will be redirected into the construction industry to get our building workers back to work, thereby ensuring that they will not be such a drain on the social welfare fund as they are today.
We are not satisfied that manufacturing industry lost 11,000 jobs last year, or that there were 700 factory closures and liquidations last year. Those figures are to be 14,000 and 850 respectively this year. We do not regard that as adequate Government protection of existing jobs. We are not interested in Government policies that will result in 10,000 permanent jobs lost with the local authorities and eight health boards being replaced by 10,000 part time half jobs. By this foolish policy the Government are helping to extend the black economy.
We are supporting selective reductions in indirect taxation because it is the only way to maintain the existing staff complement in such areas as the electrical goods trade and the tourism products section. We have shown, by figures which have been quoted and carefully analysed here, that selective tax cuts made in particular areas of our economy will create further employment and bring bigger revenue returns to the Exchequer.
We want to maintain and strengthen the semi-State sector. There is nervousness now in that sector and a sense of insecurity. They do not know who will be next for the axe. Government action in regard to Irish Shipping will result in the public sector being introspective and will lead to stagnation. We will give them the mandate to innovate and to create jobs. That was why they were set up originally. They can, and will, do an effective job if given the necessary resources.
Why have the Government not got their priorities into proper order? Our priority has always been full employment in this economy. It is the entitlement of our people to look forward to job opportunity at home. We are not prepared to settle for the emigration trail as a means of reducing unemployment figures. That leads to national debilitation and provides educational and technical resources and skills for our competitors. The free education system introduced by this side of the House was never intended to do that for our competition.
The plan launched recently, Building on Reality, did not give any specific proposals for job creation or nominate in any great detail the sectors that might make jobs available. It did not support the mechanisms necessary to create the 20,000 new jobs in the labour pool each year. The plan, in effect, has institutionalised unemployment. The Coalition regard full employment as an irrelevant target. We do not accept that. We do not believe that the people of Ireland wish that to be the statement of Government policy. We are not afraid of the robotic revolution, or of technological change. If full cognisance and understanding of technological change is backed up by proper education in the technological field, we could benefit enormously. This has helped in other jurisdictions to bring about increased employment. That is why the Leader of the Opposition today stated that on our return to Government we will be concerned with science and technology and will change, without fear, the educational system to bring about technologically orientated education. That is absolutely essential if we are to achieve the job targets and employment opportunities necessary to cater for the 20,000 new entrants into the labour pool every year until the end of this century. That is just to stand still. The Government stand indicted on their policies in that area. More than anything else, they will never be forgiven for their attitude and statements in Building on Reality concerning jobs.
The Government are on a collision course on the question of public pay. There is good reason to believe now that there was Government interference in agreed procedures. That is a dangerous role for the Minister of the Public Service to play. It is a recipe for economic disaster. The Minister is effectively killing off any possibility of negotiations. This is a much maligned section of our community. We do not accept that they should be maligned. That sector are essential to our economy. They cannot and will not be railroaded into accepting a lowering of their living standards and of their pay structure by Government dictate. They are the new poor and the Government should be ashamed at the way they have treated the public sector by public statements in the past few months. That sector must contribute to everything and are entitled to no State grant by way of education or health support. Of the public service pay increases, 50 per cent is returned to the Exchequer. It is a fundamental matter that arbitration proceedings be allowed to continue unhindered and unaltered. The Government must be warned that they set these arbitration procedures aside at their peril.
The scandal of food imports into this country is well known. A task force of silent junior Ministers have been working on this for quite some time. The only consolation given to the people in this sector is that another international food consultant will be appointed during the coming year. Over £800 million of food is being imported each year. Every £1 million is equivalent of 100 jobs. If there were a proper and co-ordinated "Buy Irish" campaign by the Government and their Department, there would be a considerable reduction in these figures.
The Opposition were in power for 50 years of the last 75 years.
There has been a continuous stream of shoppers across the Border recently and smuggling has gone on unabated. It has reached crisis proportions. The shoppers from the Republic are spending in excess of £2 million a week. Weekly bus trips are organised by voluntary groups as far south as the Dublin-Galway line. The Border customs staff are unable to cope with the torrent of people crossing each week. Smuggling is widespread and Border towns have suffered seriously. It is said to be affecting trade as far south as Galway and Limerick. Local communities will suffer enormously, but still we have no response from the Government. The people crossing the Border should remember that when sponsorship or promotional money is needed it is the local shopkeepers to whom they have to go. I doubt very much if it will be the shopkeepers in Newry or Enniskillen who will provide it.
If a close examination were made of the price differential — and this should have been done by the Government — it would be discovered that people travelling across the Border can be penny wise and pound foolish. When the difference in the rate of exchange, the cost of transport, the dangers of travel and the uncertainty in the price structures in the North are considered, the prices in clothes in the Republic are upwards of 25 per cent to the advantage of the consumer. Many food items, particularly food and vegetables are much cheaper in Dundalk then in Newry. Economies may be made regarding some detergents and electrical and in certain other luxury goods, but only if they are illegally imported. If selective tax cuts had been practised a bit more wisely by the Government, smuggling would have diminished and £150 million to £200 million that should be spent here would not be crossing the Border.
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare made many references to his pride in the position so far as the health services are concerned. Page 20 of the Tánaiste's contribution here yesterday should be prescribed reading for Christmas by the Government. He said that they had protected the old and those who were dependent on social welfare. He also said that they were proud of the way they had protected the integrity of the health services. There is a litany of cut-backs, hospital closures, job losses, five-day weeks, medical card withdrawals, waiting lists being extended with regard to the hospital services and, as far as the protection of the old and the infirm is concerned, food subsidies and price increases have got out of hand.
We have been subjected by all the Government speakers to another attack on the Leader of Fianna Fáil as their answer to the current difficulties. I challenge the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to say outside the House what he said about Deputy Haughey. I doubt that he will. We have had to listen to the kind of dallagh mullóg politics that we are accustomed to from the Coalition. They are more concerned with the public relations presentation than any sense of urgency or commitment to the problems that affect the country. The phenomenon of political appointments by Coalitions on the eve of departure from office is well known. It is nothing new.
The Deputy has neck.
When the Government are finished moving personnel hither and tither perhaps they might do the decent thing and give the people the Christmas present they want by moving sideways and leaving us to rule the country properly.
