By agreement, and not withstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members will be called during Private Members' Time this evening as follows: 7.00-7.15 p.m. Government speaker; 7.15-7.20 p.m. The Workers' Party speaker; 7.20-7.25 p.m. Progressive Democrats speaker; 7.25-7.40 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.40-7.45 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.45-7.55 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.55-8.15 p.m. Government speaker; 8.15-8.30 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Unemployment and Taxation: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Haughey on Tuesday, 17 June 1986:
"That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for their failure to honour specific undertakings in the Joint Programme for Government to halt and reverse the growth of unemployment and reduce the proportion of tax taken under PAYE from the wages and salaries of employees.".
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
1. To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann approves the policies of Government to develop the economy, in the face of difficult conditions internationally and domestically, and, in particular, the measures it has taken (a) to promote investment and employment and (b) to curb the growth of public expenditure and, thus, of the requirement for high taxation".
—(Minister for Finance.)
Is that agreed?
Agreed. I take it the matter has been agreed with the Fianna Fáil Whip.
I rise in support of the amendment proposed by the Government. One of the basic points is that the Government faced an appalling situation when they came into office three and a half years ago. Fianna Fáil had been in Government for between five and six years and the economy was in a mess. The problems our Government faced were frightening in the extreme. A serious recession was facing us as a nation, brought about by the reckless manner in which the economy had been handled by the Fianna Fáil Government, particularly in the period 1977 to 1981. They did not simply allow the economy to drift but through their mismanagement it was in turmoil. Unemployment was rising rapidly, particularly in the period 1979 to 1981. Inflation was rampant and there were serious doubts among economists about the extensive borrowings undertaken by Fianna Fáil. We as a Government had to tackle those enormous problems.
One of the great economic successes of this Government's term of office has been the huge reduction in the rate of inflation. In folk memory the mid-seventies and early eighties will be remembered as the years of inflation. These were years of instability and uncertainty. Those on fixed incomes faced damaging cuts in their real income each year. For those on wages and salaries these years will be remembered for the constant spiral in wages and inflation as those at work tried to maintain their real income. One of the main problems the Government inherited was raging inflation and the accompanying problems. Chief among the tasks facing the Government was that of restoring our international competitiveness which had deteriorated alarmingly in previous years. At the beginning of this decade our inflation rate was about 20 per cent, which was alarming in itself, but particularly damaging was the fact that inflation here was twice the average among our trading partners in the industrialised world and far above the level in the United Kingdom, who are still our main trading partners. As earnings strove to keep pace with inflation, nominal wages were also rising by more than 20 per cent each year, leading to a serious erosion of competitiveness at home and abroad. This added to the task we faced in maintaining the level of employment in the face of a deepening world recession, particularly in our traditional industries which were exposed to fierce international pressures. As a major priority, the Government faced up to the task of repairing the damage to our international competitiveness by bringing cost and price increases into with those of our competitors. This was no easy task, given the many other difficulties we faced, especially in relation to the public finances.
There is a startling contrast between that period only four short years ago and the situation we face today. By last year our inflation rate had fallen to 5.5 per cent, which was actually lower than the inflation rate in the United Kingdom and well in line with the EC average. It is my guess that when figures are next issued they will reveal an inflation rate of between 4 and 4.5 per cent. The rate is dropping all the time. The rate of increase in manufacturing earnings, which was over 20 per cent at the start of the decade, is now down to 7 per cent. This compares with 9 per cent in the UK, so helping to improve our competitive position against UK producers.
The decline in inflation has not yet reached bottom. As the full effects of the fall in oil prices and the weakening of sterling and the dollar work their way through into domestic prices and costs, inflation will continue its downward trend. In the second half of this year inflation could be less than 2 per cent and by the end of next year it could be zero. Some people will say that inflation is falling in other countries and I accept that this is correct, but the important factor from our point of view is that our position relative to other countries has improved significantly. It will continue to improve in the future.
It is essential that we take this opportunity to strengthen competitiveness, which means in essence holding on to existing jobs and creating new jobs. The Government are making every effort to maintain current employment and create extra employment. We can do this by ensuring that increases in wages and salaries reflect the reality of falling inflation. Most of the reputable economic commentators believe that inflation will fall to very low levels which we have not witnessed in Ireland or Europe in the past two decades. This means that wage bargains in the coming year must take account of dropping inflation rates. We have not yet seen the full benefits of the drop in inflation rates.
The fall in inflation is only one indication of the turnaround in the economy which has taken place. Growth averaged over 3 per cent in the past two years. There is every indication that this year the growth in the economy will again reach or exceed this level. It is worth bearing in mind that the rate of real GDP growth between 1984 and 1986 was faster in Ireland than in other EC counties. That is a sign that our economy is on a path of steady growth brought about by Government policies.
It has been argued by commentators that the growth that is taking place is largely based on an increase in exports rather than a rise in domestic demand. It is vital that our export market should expand to develop our industrial base. We must find new markets for our products. However, last year in addition to a major growth in exports we experienced a pick-up in home consumption for the first time in several years. Progress continued this year and already retail sales are up on last year. I understand that in the first quarter they were up by more than 3 per cent on last year's figure. Retail sales increased each month in the past ten months. Domestic demand will be boosted further by an improvement in consumer confidence and a rise in real incomes as inflation falls.
The income tax reliefs in the 1986 budget have boosted real incomes and that should help to improve consumer demand. The recent fall in interest rates will help to maintain and improve demand this year. Those indicators suggest that the economy is emerging from its difficulties. The past five years have been very difficult for the economy. The Government could have adopted the easy and popular way out; they could have turned their backs on the problems which threatened the stability of our economy. Instead, the Government chose the more difficult and more unpopular road and faced up to these problems. It is my view, and that of many economic commentators, that those policies will bear fruit. Our economy is able to take advantage of the upturn on the international scene.
Where would we be now if the policies of promise of the Opposition were adopted? It is depressing that the policies which served the country so badly in the late seventies and early eighties have been revived by Fianna Fáil. Most informed economic commentators are aware that those policies will lead us not just into a blind alley but within a short time to economic ruin. The Government have adopted the correct approach and whether or not Deputy Flynn thinks otherwise——
He does.
——the policies being pursued by the Government are working.
I do not know who wrote that speech for the Deputy but it is incorrect.
The Deputy has but two minutes and he should not be interrupted.
The economy is responding positively to the Government's policies. The Government are tackling the problem of unemployment which commenced in 1979, as Deputy Flynn is aware. Our efforts to control inflation, reduce interest rates and manage the economy will show results. In the next three to five years, if the Government are given an opportunity to continue their policies, the Irish economy will prosper.
The Workers' Party, in the course of their amendment, have put forward proposals to combat unemployment and reduce taxation.
In order to be technically correct the Deputy may not move his amendment but he can speak to it.
Our amendment details the radical policy changes required if we are to reduce unemployment and create an industrial base that will increase jobs and it sets out the changes necessary in the collection of taxes. The motion and the Government's amendment do not make any proposals in regard to those topics. Unemployment is the principal issue the House should be dealing with. It is in the background of everything we do and we must work to provide solutions to that problem. It is interesting to note that there were more people out of work when Fianna Fáil went out of office than there were when they took office. In the case of every Government since 1973 workers were paying more in taxes at the end of their term of office than they were when they were elected.
The Workers' Party believe that full employment is attainable and we have made proposals in regard to that. The projections for the economy are for a boom period but those who are predicting boom tell us that unemployment will continue to grow, that the boom will bring more money to certain people but it will not bring more jobs. That is the flaw in the Government's policies. They are relying on boom as a result of international factors but they do not have a policy to benefit from them. At least 17 per cent of our workforce are unemployed. Unemployment is higher than 17 per cent in certain areas and the level of poverty has increased enormously. The figure for those on or below the poverty line is one million people, one-third of our population. Unemployment is one of the major causes of poverty which is widespread in my constituency.
In regard to the current debate on divorce any person with an eye to see can see that unemployment and poverty in the home are the major causes of conflict within families and result in marriage breakdown. It may be the unemployment of the parents or the children or the lack of hope by schoolchildren of getting a job. Conflict in the home resulting from unemployment leads to marital breakdown on a wide scale but many people refuse to recognise that. Some of those who are opposed to divorce legislation may be the cause of unemployment.
In a document entitled "End to Crisis" issued three years ago, we made the point that Coalition and Fianna Fáil policies in regard to unemployment were to throw money at private enterprise in the hope that jobs would result. The belief was that the way to make the climate right for private enterprise was to have money pouring out in the form of grants, subsidies and tax reliefs. It was felt that if this was done private enterprise would provide jobs, but that is not a solution; it is a waste of money. They are what we call spending policies.
We have made an argument for production policies. If we had production policies we would have economic planning and an investment policy. If we had a system under which private enterprise in order to get grants had to meet production targets or produce a production plan, then there would be some meaning to the spending policies of the Government. Without investment and economic planning, and unless we concentrate on the development of industries based on our own natural resources and the productive State sector, the Government will not make any progress.
On the other hand, can we expect that a Fianna Fáil Government would alter the policies they radically pursued during the past 60 years? Nothing else will do, but where is the evidence of such a radical alteration? It was Fianna Fáil who destroyed a growing food processing industry which had been developed by the State sector. Would Fianna Fáil alter their tax policies? I do not believe there is any evidence that they would.
I move amendment No. 2:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the appalling seriousness of the unemployment situation and of the resurgence of emigration and the connected problems of excessive personal taxation and excessive public expenditure, calls on the Government and on all political parties to signify their determination to reduce public expenditure over the next four years by such amount as would enable a standard income tax rate of 25 per cent to be achieved by that time, in order that an economic climate might be created in the country which will restore an incentive to work, to invest, to take risks and to employ."
In the five minutes at my disposal I can only barely touch on the matters being discussed. As our amendment makes clear, we feel that the core of the problems which this motion and the amendments discuss lies in the level of public expenditure which, in turn, is responsible for a penal level of taxation which, in turn, is responsible for a climate here in which there is no incentive to work, to invest, to take risks or to employ anybody. Consequently, we see large numbers of our people departing for good every day. Unless the Government of the day and all political parties are prepared to agree on the necessity to address the whole public expenditure question, we will never break out of the vicious circle that exists today. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that we will.
I must comment on the use of Private Members' time from which we, as a party, are excluded, and the motions proposed here by Fianna Fáil in the last three weeks. In successive weeks they called for increased expenditure on education, agriculture and health. I have no doubt that in the coming weeks increased expenditure will be called for, too, on items they have in mind.
This party, therefore, and anybody in Ireland in touch with reality, face an unreal choice in being asked to choose between Government policy, which most assuredly we have no wish to follow because nothing has been proved to be more unsuccessful over the past three and a half years than the economic policies of the Government, proof of which is in the unemployment and emigration figures, and the Fianna Fáil policy of being all things to all men and promising this, that and the other to everyone and anyone who will listen. It is a sad reflection on our time and on the political straitjacket and paralysis in which most of this House is gripped that on the same day a couple of weeks ago the Leader of one of the major political parties was opening Knock Airport and the Leader of the other major party was bailing out Bewley's bun shop. While that attitude remains prominent throughout the generality of political representation here, we are in for a very serious time.
They are the problems we have to face, and in the context of Irish politics as practised these days we will not achieve the sort of cuts in public expenditure which are the key to success in the taxation and employment results we would like to see. There must be widespread agreement on that. This party is the only one preaching that doctrine, and I would like all other parties to indicate that they also accept that this is the key, that it is something that must be agreed between all of us in the national interest.
Emigration is now a key instrument of the Government's discredited policy. Since they came to office more than 100,000 have been forced to emigrate permanently because of lack of any employment opportunities at home. The actual figure for unemployment would be 300,000 were it not for this mass outflow of our people. The most alarming aspect of our emigration trend is its particular focus on our young people, who have abandoned all hope of employment in their own country. Very highly qualified and educated people are being forced to apply their knowledge and energy outside their own country at great cost to our economic well-being and to our future potential. With their qualifications in technology, marketing, engineering and management they should be making a major contribution to our economy through the added value of their knowledge and skills.
I will say to Deputy O'Malley that Fianna Fáil always, not just today, in periods in which we both served in Government together, made education a key element in our economic development programmes. The decisions to locate the Institute of Higher Education in Limerick and to promote the capacity to exploit the opportunities in this era of technology, were collective decisions of Fianna Fáil Governments on the informed basis that the guarantee for economic development always must be laid firmly on the application of knowledge. We do not always have to talk about the Japanese, but we might note the fact that 50 per cent of first time employees in Japan have third level qualifications or the equivalent. Yet we wonder why Japan is the economic leader in the world.
Fianna Fáil will never apologise to any Member here, much less Deputy O'Malley, for pursuing, as we always have done, the need for expenditure on education and agriculture. Instead of applying the knowledge which these young people who have been forced to emigrate possess, to the benefit of the whole community, the Government content themselves with providing short term schemes which are no substitute for constant employment. The Minister now in the House presided in the Department of Labour over the biggest growth area in the current budget. The growth in Department of Labour current expenditure was in the order of 66 per cent in one year over previous years, yet the Government pretend that they ar engagaged in controlling public expenditure.
Fianna Fáil would switch that kind of expenditure to education for permanent employment as distinct from short term schemes for temporary relief which have proved to be not only ineffective but totally frustrating for the young people involved. The Youth Employment Agency report published today — the YEA are a creature of the Department of Labour — indicates clearly that the future is very bleak for young people, particularly those who have been unemployed for more than one year. The trouble is that at least 20,000 young people currently unemployed have been out of work for more than two years.
Here we have a statement from a Government a agency saying that the future is very bleak for those young people. The number of those young people unemployed represents a five fold increase on the numbers of young people unemployed when this helpless, hopeless Government came to office. The Government have failed totally to honour their commitment to reduce the numbers unemployed. They are now relying on emigration, 100,000 to keep the live register numbers down. They have introduced these schemes to give the impression that the numbers out of work are much fewer than we all know them to be. This Government have failed totally to honour their own commitments to reduce the level of unemployment and taxation and it is not surprising the public have lost confidence in them.
As far as I can see, other parties in this House pay more attention to opinion polls than do Fianna Fáil. Therefore, I commend to them the findings of the latest opinion poll that are consistent with all the others. They show that 68 per cent of the people now want a change of Government. This motion offers an opportunity to all political parties here to recognise the disastrous failure of the Government and the wish of the public to terminate their period in office as soon as possible. Tomorrow is a day later than the public wish that to be done. This has been expressed in many opinion polls. Other parties here, particularly the Government parties, are sensitive about opinion polls and apparently they rely on the trends of such polls with regard to other matters.
Some people may say that this motion is a political ploy. We are all engaged in the business of politics. We put down this motion deliberately, to invite the other parties to join us in condemning the Government. It is not a ploy: it is a simple fact I am prepared to acknowledge. It is up to the other parties to decide if they wish to join us in condemning the Government and to give effect to the wishes of the people. It is not good for Deputy Mac Giolla to talk about successive Governments, trying to shelter under that phrase, or for the Progressive Democrats to do likewise. The Government are the Government and either one supports them or one does not. If parties in this House do not support this motion, let that be judged by the people. It will be seen that they are keeping the Government in office despite the disastrous effect they are having on the country and on morale generally. Any party who refuse to support our motion will be shown as responsible for maintaining this discredited Government in office.
The Progressive Democrats have been loud in the criticism of the policy of the Government. Now is their opportunity to offer the people new hope and the opportunity to have new policies that will realise the great potential of the country and that will encourage the investment potential that has been suffocated during the last few years.
With regard to promises, the tax proposals of the Progressive Democrats would cost £2 billion in a full year. That represents one-third of total tax revenue and everyone must acknowledge this is way outside the capacity of the Exchequer at this point. It is a matter for the Progressive Democrats themselves to explain how they can reconcile such outlandish proposals with their stated commitment to abandon the politics of promise.
Every person is entitled to state his position but if there is one thing the rest of us, including the Government parties, feel somewhat impatient with is the notion being promoted that all integrity resides exclusively with the Progressive Democrats, that suddenly a new period of integrity has dawned in the person of those who are now members of the Progressive Democrats. Incidentally, some of them were effective and active members in Government of which I was a member. Apparently integrity starts from today. It is a strange kind of integrity that promises tax reductions of £2 billion in one year, but that is a matter for them to explain.
Their main obligation at this stage is to rid the country of this Government who have presided over the most disastrous decline in our economy and who have undermined the moral of our people. Over 100,000 of our people are now out of work for more than one year. The total tax burden has increased from £4 billion in 1982 before this Government came to office to over £6 billion. That represents £6,000 per annum per worker since this Government came to office. That is the burden of taxation now. Income tax has increased from £1.45 billion to £2.5 billion, an increase of 70 per cent in the same period and total taxation as a percentage of GNP has increased dramatically from 33 per cent to 36 per cent.
Clearly the Government have abandoned all their stated targets with respect to the current budget deficit and foreign borrowing. The Government's first target was to eliminate the budget deficit by 1987, in four years. In the document, Building On Reality this was revised to “reduce the deficit to 5 per cent of GNP by 1987”. The Government abandoned that target, this Government of rectitude who came into office on that basis, and today we had a statement in the House from the Minister for Finance in which they confined themselves to the good intention of “getting the deficit down as low as possible”. That is a long way from the very firm commitments they had and on which they rode into office on the basis that they were the only ones who were responsible and capable of doing the job.
In the first three months of this year the deficit already totals £641 million, more than half the stated deficit target in the budget of £1,250 million for the year. There is not a chance of the Government living within the stated budget deficit of £1,250 million, which is well in excess of the deficit they inherited of £780 million.
This Government of fiscal rectitude have abandoned all control over our deficit and our borrowing programmes. Total national debt under this Government has increased from £12.6 billion to £21 billion in the space of three and a half years, an increase of well over 70 per cent. In the same period the total State foreign debt has increased from £6.7 billion to £10.7 billion. This represents a burden of foreign debt of £7,500 on each worker.
Let us have an end to the nonsense of this Government that they are controlling borrowing when it is obvious it is spiralling at an unprecedented rate, when the gross amount in the past three years has nearly equalled the total accumulated national debt under all Governments since the foundation of the State. Yet, they proclaim themselves to be proper custodians of the public purse. They have been banqueting on borrowing and because of that profligate borrowing they have not been able to provide any relief in the burden of taxation or to provide employment opportunities. There has been a decline of 40,000 in the number employed in manufacturing industry and the total unemployed in the country now exceeds the total number employed in the manufacturing sector. Is it any wonder the mood of the country is one of depression and despair?
The public are fully aware of the disastrous failure of this Government. They do not need a litany from any of us. The business community are discouraged from investing. There is no scope for private sector development. The taxpayer, and particularly the PAYE taxpayer, has been singled out as a target for this Government. It is time to put an end to this litany of failure and despair. It is time for this Government to acknowledge honestly that they are unable to meet the needs of our people. It is indeed time for a change.
If this Government invested as much time, energy and effort in every other direction as they do in public relations, if they showed themselves as committed to developing and exploiting the great resources of the nation as they do to the presentation and projection of their public image, our country would be much better off. Announcements are made outside this House, long before we hear of them here, daily and constant offences to the parliamentary function of this House. If the Government directed all that energy to their proper job, then at least we could begin to make some progress. However, all the diversionary tactics and the public relations exercises have only one aim in mind, namely, to try somehow to distract the people from the problems of which they are too well aware. Dáil Éireann now has the opportunity to end this period of unparalleled oppression for our people. Those who fail to take the opportunity will have to answer to the people for maintaining in power the most discredited Government in recent experience.
I am pleased to avail of the opportunity to support the motion which condemns the Government for their failure to provide jobs, to reverse the spiralling growth of unemployment and to reduce the proportion of taxation under the PAYE system on the wages and the salaries of employees generally. These terrible twins of massive unemployment and vicious taxation are the greatest courage and affliction which our people have experienced since the foundation of the State.
The neglect and exploitation of our young people in particular is surely the greatest scandal of all as revealed in the Youth Employment Agency report out today. A startling revelation in that report is that the number of under 25 years olds who have been jobless for over a year has shot up five fold from 1980 to 1985, from 3,800 in 1980 to approximately 20,000 in October 1985. Half of them have no educational qualifications, 11 per cent possess the leaving certificate and only one in every 200 is a third level graduate. This is a serious indictment of this Government. The treatment meted out to our young people is a shame and a disgrace and is fraught with the most serious repercussions. The social consequences for the individual, the family and the nation are the terrible to contemplate if nothing positive is done to reverse that trend and to put our people to work.
When I think of work I mean productive work, gainful, satisfying, remunerative and long term employment, not mere part time, short term, blind alley jobs of a soul destroying nature leading back after a few months to the dole, the emigrant ship, or worse, to a life of crime and drugs. To be without a job today is bad, but to have a job and to be systematically robbed of one's hard won earnings by a tax system which is generally regarded as one of the most vicious and unfair systems in the world, is worse. I believe that patently unjust system of taxation, the PAYE system, has contributed in large measure to the financial chaos and the economic stagnation which we are experiencing today.
It is time to end the policy of monetarism, to end the policy of ruthless Thatcherism which this Government have practised for the past few years, a policy of trying to resolve all our problems, financial, social and economic, on the backs of a vast ever growing army of unemployed with the application of a crippling system of taxation on an ever dwindling number of people at work.
No Labour man or trade unionist worthy of the name could support such policies. I certainly will not. It is time for a change. Fortunately, this House by its composition and numbers is in a position to effect positive change, a change of Government, and the sooner that change comes about the better. I will lend my full support to bring about that change as speedily as possible in the interests of all our people, but in particular, those I represent in South Tipperary.
I hope more Members will take the serious view of the economy which has been taken by Deputy Treacy instead of living in a world of fantasy. They should use their vote to bring about a change of Government policy if this Government intend to hang on. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to talk about the real situation without going back over the past 15 years and saying who did what and when, although the Coalition Governments were in power for most of that period. I want to hone in on a few important areas.
This economy is on a downward slide and the worrying feature is that Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, as well as Government speakers this evening do not appear to know the facts. They should not live on the backs of reports based on information obtained at the end of 1985 when encouraging economic signs were showing. I have heard Government speakers talk about growth in the Irish economy this year. I received a copy of the OECD report in May and I am sure Deputies are using data in that report as the basis for some of the figures they have given in this House. I am asking the Minister, Deputy Quinn this question: where will the growth in the economy come from this year? The first sector that comes to mind is agriculture, but we all know there is a crisis in agriculture, that milk supplies are running 11 per cent behind, and that it is doubtful that we will reach our milk quota. Can anyone say there will be growth in this very important sector?
Would anybody even dare suggest that the building and construction industry have hit bottom? In my view they are still in the quicksand and they are trying to find the bottom. Cement sales are the best indicator of all. Recent figures show that cement sales are only 55 per cent of what they were in 1979. That is a serious devastation of any industry. There is no growth in tourism. The tourist industry is suffering a very serious setback. There has been 25 per cent drop in the number of tourists from America and coach hire figures are down 40 per cent. There will be no growth in that area this year.
I suggest that this year will see zero growth in manufacturing industry. It is time Government Deputies came down from cloud cuckooland and faced facts. They should look at the reason for the crisis facing that industry. The import export figures for the first four months of this year are very relevant. The import figures were down 9½ per cent. We all know that approximately 50 per cent of our imports are the raw materials for manufacturing industry. The figures for May show an increase of 3,200 in the underlying unemployment trend. This happened during a month when everyone expected that unemployment figures would be reduced. I know the Government were shocked by those figures and almost everybody else was shocked but that is reality. If one were really studying the economy one would not be shocked. If the Coalition continue to live in a fool's paradise they will be twice as shocked next winter when they see the drop in the economy.
For the first four months this year exports were down 3.7 per cent compared with the same period last year. That does not point to growth. When anybody here talks about growth, will they please tell the House from which sector this growth will come? Ministers should go into the marketplace and talk to the people who count, those who are the best judges of consumer spending. I spoke to some of these people in the last week and they told me that consumer spending is flat. If there is an improvement in consumer spending this year I can tell the Minister where it will go. It will find its way back into the banks because two thirds of the bad debts this year are in the personal borrowing sector.
What is really happening in our economy? What has happened in the past four months? I want to point to one factor which is outside the bounds of the private sector but into which the Government have their own input in relation to what can happen. I know inflation is coming down but not as fast as in the countries with which we are trading. We see a minus or a deflation of 0.5 per cent in Germany, plus 0.5 per cent in Belgium, 2.6 per cent in the UK, 2.7 per cent in France, 1.7 per cent in the US, and we gloat over 3 per cent here. We have not even come down as fast as the others have, and there are no great thanks or bouquets for the Government because outside international events have achieved it — basically the drop in oil prices and in world commodity prices. The serious signs are there.
One factor causing untold damage in the indigenous Irish sector to which the Government should direct their attention fairly fast is the result of the realignment of currencies in the EMS recently. I do not know on what assessment we took the strong stand we took that our currency was not going to move. It may well have been on the basis of keeping a low inflation rate, but France devalued by 3 per cent and their inflation rate is lower than ours. Britain devalued in relation to the Irish scene by at least 7 per cent. Is anybody trying to tell me that Irish export industry can live in moving currencies of approximately 30 per cent in the US Dollar and 7 per cent in the UK market? Our business in the Far East is governed by the dollar exchange rates. That area has gone out of the control of anybody in the business sector. In the short time I have left I will give one example of what the repercussions of that will be.
Take the Irish confectionery section. We know the companies who are operating and I will not name any of them. We know the position. I am putting it on the record of this House that not a single company in that sector can operate with a 90p punt in this situation. The closure of the Irish confectionary sector will bring in its wake the following. Thirty million gallons of milk are used by the Irish confectionery sector, and the sugar required for that sector represents the total output of the Mallow sugar factory,. Those are the downstream implications of letting an Irish confectionery sector go under in the economic circumstances in which they have to operate at the moment, and all we hear from the Government are lectures to industry to take down costs.
Industrialists are working slavishly at taking down their costs, but when your price on the export market is reduced over a couple of weeks by 7 per cent, and that has lasted for the last six months if you are in the UK market, and if you are in the US market it has been reduced by 30 per cent, how long can you stay in business? It simply does not add up. It is time for a national debate. I am calling here tonight for a national debate on our exchange rate policy because it is the most important factor affecting the economy at the moment and no individual has control over it. It may well be that the Government based their exchange rate policy on getting inflation down, but it would come down anyway as France has proved. The other matter was to alleviate the problems of servicing our national debt.
Those are very laudable objectives, but if the narrow assessment on which they are based is to continues throughout the remainder of this year, all the Government will do is continue along the foolish road of seeing more and more industry closing down, the productive base eroded and more taxation having to be taken from the few people who will have to bear an additional burden to what they are bearing at the moment. You cannot bring down taxation without addressing the twin problems of taxation and unemployment together. You must get more people back to work so that more people will be paying into the Exchequer and so spread the burden more evenly.
The problems are not small and the solutions to them are not instantaneous. I am addressing a problem here tonight that this Government have failed to take cognisance of. The repercussions are signposted in the May unemployment figures. What will those figures be next November or December? That is the reality but it is not what is put forward by economists because they see a rosy picture. I am reporting the real economy on the ground and I defy contradiction on any aspect of it that I have mentioned here tonight. I hope when Members come to vote they will think in terms of how to put the economy back on the right path.
The Minister, Deputy Quinn, to conclude at 8.15 p.m.
For the duration of this Government our major priority has been to seek to halt and then reverse the growth in unemployment. Contrary to the simplistic assertions which have emanated from the Opposition benches in the course of this debate, dealing with our unemployment problem involves a great deal more than simply throwing borrowed money at what Deputy Haughey likes to refer to as "selected targets" and hoping that, with a bit of luck and maybe a few favourable shifts in the international trading environment, some of the money will stick and job creation will result — in the short term anyway.
No one can disagree that the current level of unemployment is unacceptably high. What the Opposition consistently ignore is that the growth in unemployment has markedly stabilised. The rate of increase has declined from 15.6 per cent in 1983 to 8.4 per cent in 1984 and 6.4 per cent in 1985. Between May 1985 and May of this year the rate fell to 3 per cent. These figures have to be set against an increase of 27,000 in the labour force between April 1982 and April 1985. The latest economic projections suggest that unemployment will start to decline in 1987, even allowing for the continuing growth in the labour force.
I will have a bet with the Minister on it.
In conjunction, OECD and ESRI forecasts predict growth rates in GNP of 3 per cent and 4 per cent for 1986 and 1987 respectively. The ESRI expect the level of industrial employment to increase by 1 per cent to 2 per cent per year and service employment by 1 per cent per year over the next four years. It is obvious, therefore, that on the basis of these independent assessments of the economic outlook for this country, the Government's policies for tackling the major problem of unemployment are beginning to bear fruit slowly but surely.
Our economic strategy, in all its aspects, is directed towards maintaining the economic momentum and at the same time helping those who have been hardest hit by the recession. I should add, at this point, that as far as this Government are concerned, an indispensable element of any strategy to counter unemployment must be improved international co-ordination of economic policies, particularly within the EC. No state, least of all a small exposed economy like ours, can succeed by going it alone. If Europe is to find its way out of its current economic predicament, then a co-ordinated and structured approach to economic growth and to employment creation is necessary.
I should like to give just one brief example of how this international co-operation can work. At a recent Social Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 5 June, I was pleased to be party to an initiative, in association with my British and Italian colleagues, whereby a jointly agreed document, containing a series of positive proposals for action, was submitted to the Council. The document, which will be a principle item on the Council's agenda over the coming months, is intended to have the battle against unemployment designated as the central issue facing the European Community and to ensure that adequate resources are provided for that purpose.
The major constraint facing this Government in their work of stimulating the economy, promoting job creation and dealing effectively with unemployment and its effects has been the incredible mess in the public finances which was our unwelcome legacy from Deputy Haughey's administrations.
(Interruptions.)
Every time they are reminded of it they go bananas because they hate to think people remember that far back.
(Interruptions.)
I do not propose to go into this question. I did not propose to elaborate on it but the heckling intervention of the guilty Deputies across the floor——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Reynolds, nobody interrupted you.
I want to put on the record of this House the very real progress which this Government have made in tackling the priorities in the face of the real constraints.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies. allow the Minister to continue please.
It is a matter for measurable and testable record — I use the words advisedly — that alone in Europe this Government have protected the income and entitlements of the deprived sections of our community.
Social welfare payments have been maintained and increased at the rate of inflation and in some cases, in excess of that rate. We have also successfully targeted resources in the manpower area towards those groups and categories among the unemployed which experience the greatest need, in particular, the long term unemployed. Deputies can test that.
Most Deputies will be aware of the report published by the Youth Employment Agency this morning on long term unemployment as it affects the under 25s. The survey shows the young people who are most likely to be long term unemployed have very low levels of education and training, are from families with a high concentration of unemployment and have had unfavourable employment experiences. It also shows that the young people concerned have low aspirations and are mainly concentrated in certain parts of our large cities and towns.
These conclusions confirm what other surveys, including successive annual school leavers surveys, have consistently shown, namely, that in present day circumstances those with little or no educational and training qualifications have the poorest job prospects. It underlines the correctness of policy decisions such as the implementation of the social guarantee for youth. Under this scheme all educationally unqualified school-leavers who are unemployed for more than six months will be offered a place on a suitable programme such as the AnCO skills foundation course to help them gain a foothold in the labour market. It is a pity that Deputy O'Kennedy is not here, but if he sincerely believes the views he enunciated here today he should call into the AnCO training centres and tell the trainees that they are wasting their time and money.
They know that because these courses do not lead to anything.
Deputy Gallagher is of the same view?
How many of the trainees get permanent jobs?
Deputy Gallagher should also go into the AnCO centres and tell the trainees that they are wasting their time.
It is a disgrace.
The report also underlines the correctness of the Government initiatives announced last October which included incentives to stimulate activity in the construction industry covering redevelopment of our so long neglected inner city areas, home improvements and the development of community and tourism facilities. This strategic utilisation of resources is of general benefit to the communities concerned but it is also of benefit to the unemployed in those communities, both youth and adult. In 1982, the Government identified the long term unemployed as a category of greatest concern and immediate need. Regardless of the overall improvement in the economy and increases in employment, the long term unemployed experience greater difficulties than any other category in securing a return to the active labour market.
In this regard the social employment scheme has made a marked contribution to growth in employment for the over 25 age group. The target level of 10,000 participants on the scheme has been reached. There are 10,555 on this programme. About a third of the projects now in operation are sponsored by voluntary organisations. The remaining 70 per cent of projects are sponsored by public sector bodies. These include local authorities, schools and health boards. The high standard of the projects is impressive and the scheme is credited in many communities with counteracting many of the adverse effects of unemployment.
The AnCO Building on Experience programme for the long term unemployed has been similarly successful in achieving both its participation targets and its general objectives. This programme is especially tailored to the needs of the adult long-term unemployed and combines formal training with practical experience in a work environment. To date, placement rate from the programme has been 57 per cent and it is expected that 3,000 long term unemployed people will participate in 1986.
These are just some examples of how the limitations imposed by the very real financial constraints facing this Government have been overcome in a way which is strategically of benefit to the least well off and the most disadvantaged in our community. As far as I and the party of which I am a member are concerned, this is what the skillful deployment of scarce resources in a time of grave financial difficulty is all about.
I noted that the Opposition bandied about some curiously derived statistics concerning emigration levels during this debate. There is no accurate information available on the level of emigration from Ireland in the eighties.
That is a disgrace.
I agree. We have estimates from the Central Statistics Office on the level of net emigration, that is the balance of people leaving and entering Ireland. These estimates shows that net emigration has increased in recent years, changing from a new inflow of people in the second half of the seventies to an average annual net outflow of 6,000 per annum from 1981 to 1984 and of 14,000 in the year to April 1985.
Those figures are not correct.
That is the net figure, the Deputy is not taking into account the 10,000 to 12,000 people who return every year.
Are the figures wrong?
No, I admit that there is a real problem.
Tell the truth.
We do not know the extent to which this change in the pattern of net mirgration is due to increased emigration and what portion is due to a fall in the number of people entering Ireland. Particular attention has been paid to the question of youth emigration. It must be remembered that youth emigration has been a constant fact of life in Ireland. Even in the years when there was a net inflow of people to Ireland, in the high point of the seventies, there was always a positive level of youth emigration. There is no clear evidence of any very large increase in the level of youth emigration in recent years.
(Interruptions.)
There is a growth in interruptions.
Successive surveys of school leavers carried out for the Department of Labour have not shown any substantial increase in the proportion of school leavers living abroad one year after leaving school.
(Interruptions.)
This is a very serious debate.
The Deputies opposite should listen to what I am saying even though some of it may not be acceptable.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
It is extraordinary that, when facts and figures are given, Opposition Deputies, especially in Fianna Fáil, scream, shout and roar. I did not interrupt Deputy Reynolds once although I disagreed with much of what he said. The kind of democracy he supports is to shout down his opponents.
We are trying to get information.
In 1980 2.2 per cent of the 1979 school leavers had emigrated while in 1985 2.9 per cent of the 1984 school leavers had also emigrated. I will give the Deputy the references if he does not trust me.
Give them to me.
My concern and that of this Government is to ensure that nobody leaves Ireland seeking work in Britain or elsewhere who is either ill-prepared for the experience or ill-informed. The implementation of the social guarantee is one mechanism which is being used to identify and to offer early school-leavers who might otherwise feel tempted to emigrate the option of training and development opportunities specially geared to their needs. Another necessary development which has been set in train is the provision of adequate and up-to-date information to young people who are thinking of emigrating. This is currently being organised through the National Manpower Service and through projects funded by the Youth Employment Agency. I would also point out that since I became Minister for Labour I have reconstituted the support services for Irish communities in Britain and I have also increased by more than 300 per cent the allocation of financial resources to this work. It is, therefore, blatantly wrong for anyone on the Opposition side of this House to suggest that this Government have in any way shied away from dealing with the problems which may result from unplanned emigration by young people.
Launching scathing attacks on the concept of public enterprise and the public service has recently become something of a national political sport. That is not my policy or my party's policy and it is not the policy which this Government have pursued over the past three years. In so far as it falls within my brief as Minister for Labour and for the Public Service, I am determined to see the development of an efficient, streamlined public service whose delivery of services to the public will be as cost-effective as possible and untramelled by unnecessary bureaucratic rules, delays or impediments.
How are health, social welfare and education going to be financed? There is a very real distinction to be made between fair taxation and low taxation. The policy which is being pursued by this Government, as exemplified in the tax changes in the recent budget, is one of moving towards an equitable and fair system of taxation where each category contributes fairly and which will stimulate employment and economic growth. In any debate on taxation it is important for all of us to bear that distinction in mind.
Deputy Reynolds made a couple of points in his own speech which I would like to refer to briefly because he made a very constructive contribution. But he failed to recognise that Great Britain, if one accepts that it is as a single unit the largest group with whom we are trading, is not in the EMS and some of the difficulties in relation to currency movements are caused by the fluctuation in the value of sterling. I accept the difficulties that are encountered by the manufacturing sector in relation to the position that currently prevails. But if the Deputy looks at the levels of fluctuation in their currency in the last nine months relative to other currencies he will see the extraordinary difficulties anyone would have in anticipating in advance the level of exchange rate between one currency and another.
I accept what the Deputy says about the need for this economy to be poised to take advantage of certain external improvements in international trading. If we do not do this we will lose out on the opportunities for employment in the manner he suggested. He was correct to point to the downstream effects of, for example, the confectionery industry. But all this points to the necessity for a controlled approach to the economy and of getting our own economy in order. Given the constraints and pressures on our society at present, that is precisely what we have tried to do. Many factors, both external and internal, have significantly improved relative to what the position was two years ago and the same business community that the Deputy is referring to would have said, if we had reported back from the coalface two years ago, that the reason there was no investment was that interest rates were too high and inflation was too high.
They are still too high.
But interest rates are beginning to come down. They have moved. We are always going to have explanations and excuses. I am simply saying that the Government of the day must provide a clear framework within which public and private investment decisions can be made. That is what we have been trying to do against a background of incessant demands for more consumption and less tax. Frankly, I have to say that, while there are many areas that could be dramatically improved in our society, nothing that has come forward from Fianna Fáil in the generality of this debate gives any indication that they had any proposals. As Deputy O'Malley said in his own five minute intervention, in the last three Private Members' debates we had in this House Fianna Fáil were calling for the spending of more money and now they are calling for a reduction in taxation. There is no logic to it.
If you ignore the exchange rate position you do it at your peril.
The last contribution by the Minister is symptomatic of the general attitude of Government Ministers who come in with prepared scripts put together by their bureaucratic advisers without any basis in logic. I propose to deal logically with this matter and quote sources for the logic in which Fianna Fáil are engaged in putting down this motion.
This motion condemns the Government on two basic fronts: their failure to honour specific undertakings in the Joint Programme for Government in relation to the growth of employment and in relation to a specific commitment to reduce the proportion of tax taken under PAYE. That is written into the document which I have here and which the Minister can peruse any time he wishes, the Fine Gael/Labour Programme for Government. Our motion deals with economic and social policy, which, although part of the document published by the Government before they took office, appear to be areas on which the Government cannot agree and have failed miserably to perform on.
Unemployment has risen by 3,200 in this last month of May. It now stands at 234,000. This is not just a Fianna Fáil figure but a figure acknowledged by the Government and specified as being very serious and of grave import in a publication out today issued by the independent consultants DKM dealing with current economic trends. I will be referring to page 2 of that document later. Direct Government policy has made a major contribution to this startling increase in unemployment by cutting the public capital programme in productive investment in 1985 by £88 million. These moneys have been switched to pay, in the last analysis, for Government blunders like the ICI debacle. In the budget statement of the Minister for Finance he commented on the public capital programme for 1985 on pages 152 and 153. There we have a positive Government direction of policy leading to very serious problems in the public capital programme precisely in the productive area for which borrowing is justified, affecting employment in industry, agriculture and infrastructural development. According to the DKM report, the number of persons under 25 years of age on the live register has increased substantially in May and is viewed very seriously. We are dealing with current economic and social policies at present. I quote from the report:
This year on year increase in the under 25 group has been growing steadily upwards and is more disturbing than last month's increase in the global unemployment figures.
On top of all this, at a conservative estimate, 30,000 people are now emigrating on a permanent basis and we cannot get the Government to admit to that and draw up practical proposals to face up to that problem. So, on top of the highest ever unemployment rate of people under 25 years of age, we now have a rising emigration rate which the Government do not even agree exists. I listened here appalled to the last Minister speaking a few minutes ago not admitting to that fact. It is a fact. There is no point in behaving as if one did not live in current Irish society. Unfortunately, the present emigration rate is at a conservative figure of 30,000. That will be seen quite clearly when the computer delivers the results of the recent census some time in autumn.
Private sector employment is decreasing due to a series of disincentive taxes which have deterred investment and expansion. The notorious 10 per cent VAT slapped on to new house sales is a real example, amongest many others, of muddled Coalition mismanagement in introducing disincentive taxation in the construction industry which needs instead incentives to promote jobs in what is essentially a labour intensive industry. What is needed is a whole range of selective incentives for employment, particularly in construction, tourism, the land and natural resources, together with all the related industries. This should be backed up by a substantial increase in productive investment by the State. Labour Ministers within a Government, if their philosophy means anything, should be to the forefront in developing policies along those lines. The trouble with the Labour Party within the Government is that they have become a lame collection of careerists who are no longer interested in Labour philosophy or policy.
Basically, Ireland's present economic and social problems stem not so much from economic and financial mismanagement, although this is a contributory cause, but from a lack of political will. The future development of this country depends fundamentally on confidence in the political system and the capacity of that system to yield people at the top in Government with the political will to make the necessary decisions that will cause things to happen in the economic sphere.
They never happened on the Fianna Fáil side of the House.
That will lead to the required social improvements and bring about positive economic decisions flowing from the exercise of political will.
There is a pig in the poke.
Positive leadership is the major factor required to stimulate employment. It is quite a clear that the investment climate has already been seriously damaged by the failure of the Government's economic and financial policies. That situation has been aggravated substantially by the spectacle of fumbling political leadership from the Taoiseach, right through his various Ministers from diverse political parties who are pulling away from each other under an incompetent leadership on which they cannot rely. They have a leader in charge who has lost not just the confidence of the people or of investors, but the confidence of his own colleagues——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——whom he is willing to throw in the mud at the drop of a hat if they make decisions with which he has agreed but which are troublesome. He ditches them. He tries to dissociate himself from those decisions and leaves his colleagues in the mud, struggling to survive. He has done that more than once.
That is how Fianna Fáil left the fishermen.
He did it more than once, more than twice, more than three times. He has made a habit of that form of weak-kneed political leadership.
Let the Deputies ask the Minister, Deputy Desmond.
We could ask a number of people who have taken the Fine Gael shilling, Labour Party Ministers, but now we have even Fine Gael Ministers who have taken the FitzGerald shilling and made decisions in regard to planning in Dublin, collective decisions in which they and the Taoiseach participated, but who have been subsequently dropped in the mud at the whim of a Taoiseach who fails to follow through on decisions taken politically.
The Deputy's Party have taken the shilling.
Buns and coffee in Cork.
I cannot emphasise too much that the country's economic recovery will not start until there is a change in political direction. On any political analysis, Fianna Fáil alone can provide that political direction and guarantee the stability which is inherent in a single party Government commanding a clear majority in this House and getting on with the business of governing the nation. There is a psychological malaise in our society at present which is leading to disillusionment, disenchantment and cynicism among our people. This is blocking progress everywhere at every level. That must change if we are to succeed as a nation in the immediate future. There is no hope for Ireland today unless this happens. Bringing down inflation statistics are meaningless while investment stagnates for lack of venture capital and projects will not come forward unless confidence exists.
Inflation was at 24 per cent in Fianna Fáil time. Now it is down to zero.
Zero inflation and zero economic activity represent a recipe for disaster and that is where we are heading, because zero equals zero equals zero. You can have the books perfectly balanced at zero inflation and at zero economic activity and at zero people unemployed.
There are now more people employed.
You can certainly balance your books at that level if you want to pursue that political philosophy which we in Fianna Fáil reject.
There are more people employed now than in the past few years.
Order, Deputy Sheehan, please.
We have faith in this country's future. This country has the resources, both in its people and its basic capacity to yield productive results, to deserve investment for the present and the future and to deserve borrowing for productive investment and productive purposes. If you adopt a negative monetarist attitude of balancing books for the sake of saying that zero equals zero equals zero, that is a dead end philosophy.
Ireland needs economic expansion primed by investment policies at every level which will lead to more employment, creating a broader and fairer tax base. We must reject the social crime of a young and intelligent workforce, in many cases well educated and trained, who cannot find work and are forced to emigrate in growing numbers. The proportion of tax taken in PAYE from the wages and salaries of employees is grossly discriminatory and we reject it. In a worsening economy it is blatantly unjust that the amount of tax taken under PAYE in 1986 is 25 per cent higher than in 1982. This Coalition Government cannot agree to implement a single recommendation from the Commission on Income Taxation designed to alleviate the PAYE situation.
Not true.
One of the basic solutions is to create an expanding economy, with a greater volume of jobs and a greater spread of more equitable taxation. We must invest in our human and our natural resources and borrow for such productive purposes, rather than as at present having the State borrowing for current purposes to keep an uncaring and discredited Government in office because of their fear to implement or prepare policies. The Government are staying in office for nakedly careerist purposes.
To pay for the borrowings imposed upon us by the Opposition.
Order, please.
The first prerequisite at present is that the Government must go. They may be technically in charge, sitting in seats over there, but that is only a matter of physical presence. It means nothing.
(Interruptions.)
They may be technically in charge, but they have lost all moral authority.
Hear, hear.
They have no real legitimacy, and I say that advisedly, to continue governing when they have openly and clearly lost the support and confidence of the people. It is a confidence trick to continue in government in that situation.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Deputy knows about that.
This Government are lurching from blunder to blunder.
They did not go on the rocks.
Let them go before democratic government suffers irretrievable damage.
(Interruptions.)
It is appropriate for them to go at present with some residue of tattered honour. If they continue to lumber on they will be disgraced at the polls when the people make their final decision.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment No. 1 declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá 74; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.