Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Mar 1987

Vol. 371 No. 1

Appointment of Taoiseach and Nomination of Members of Government (Resumed).

Mr. D. O'Malley

At the outset I would like to take the opportunity of offering on my own behalf and on behalf of the Progressive Democrats our congratulations to you on your unanimous election to the Chair and to wish you well for the currency of the 25th Dáil, however long that will be.

Next, I would like to offer my congratulations to Deputy Haughey on his election as Taoiseach and to wish him well both for his sake personally and for the sake of the country because of the Office he now holds which is the most onerous in this country. He is holding this Office at a time which has few parallels in terms of difficulties that the country faces at present.

This debate is on the appointment of members of the Government and I have before me a list which, to put it mildly, does not contain any surprise, or anything terribly imaginative, new or radical. It looks to me as a recipe for a lot of the same again. In many respects that is a pity. I am not just talking about personnel, I am also talking about some of the ways proposed to tackle some of the problems and some of the changes which are proposed, some additional agencies of one kind or another.

The great disappointment in many respects is that it is only additional agencies. A country which is absolutely weighed down with agencies, bureaucracies and offices of one kind or another is to have additional ones rather than fewer. It is, for example, disappointing to find that the Department of the Public Service is now to disappear in a nominal way. It will no longer have a separate Minister and will once more be a minor adjunct, as it was in the past, of the Department of Finance. The only time in my experience that any worthwhile progress was made in regard to reform of the public service was when Deputy Boland was Minister for that Department and for no other for a period of some years. It is not possible for a Minister for Finance, particularly at a time like this, to devote the sort of time that is needed to the reorganisation of the public service.

Our public service is enormous. It is extremely costly. It is full of people of excellent calibre but it is not particularly effective given the structures under which it has to continue to operate and which have long since gone out of date. In relation to the very limited amount of reorganisation that is taking place I welcome particularly one aspect of that reorganisation, that is the merging of the tourism and transport functions, functions which have been together for many years.

I welcome the Taoiseach's statement that:

Transport must be managed and developed in future as an essential element of a dynamic tourism policy and, in particular, access costs to this island must become more competitive if we are to recover the ground we have lost in recent years in the growth of international tourism.

I fought a lone battle on that point in 1984. I challenged a number of divisions on what was essentially that point but the divisions never took place because the count was one in favour and everybody else against. It is remarkable that within a two year period what I was then derided for has now become the official policy of the Government and of such importance that it is set out in the initial short speech of the Taoiseach on the appointment of the Government. It is surprising what can be achieved by someone who insists on fighting his corner in this respect.

In relation to the five Ministers of State — I suppose a consolation list — announced tonight, I would have thought no more than two further appointments would be necessary, but I am sure many more appointments will be made. In some respects it is a pity that areas such as the food industry, trade and marketing and science and technology which are of enormous importance and which the Taoiseach is right to recognise in a specific way, will be operated by Ministers of State rather than by members of the Cabinet. I hope that will not have the effect of downgrading them in the sense that agencies of different kinds which are run by Ministers of State tend to get overlooked if members of the Cabinet are not involved.

I did not have an opportunity to speak in the earlier debate today and it is appropriate that I refer to some of the things said. We had an avalanche of the new terminology which has been in use in this country in the past few months — references to the three right wing parties and, particularly, references to what Deputy Blaney and others described as the far right. This amuses me because if some of the things we as a party are talking about and in respect of which we got an exceptional response in the recent general election, are to be described as right wing in the pejorative manner in which people use that phrase in Ireland at present, then nearly everything the late Seán Lemass did in his time as Taoiseach, and in part of his time as Minister for Industry and Commerce, could be described as being of the far right. If to encourage enterprise is to be regarded as of the far right, then those using that terminology are rather wide of the mark. If to do what some of the leading socialists in Europe are endeavouring to do in their own countries is to be described as of the far right, it shows how foolish political terminology in this country has become.

At the core of our problems is the excessive appetite which has been generated in this country for public expenditure. Last year 68 per cent of our gross national product was consumed by the State in one form or another, a percentage which is way beyond anything in western Europe, a percentage which is way beyond the figure in Britain, France, Spain and various other countries. Nonetheless, people like Fabius, who up to recently was the socialist Prime Minister of France and Gonzales, at present Prime Minister of Spain, find it necessary to take steps that they regard as of commonsense in their efforts to curb the level of public expenditure in their respective countries. If they regard that as a matter of commonsense, why is it a matter of ideology for us to want to curb our level of public expenditure when it far exceeds that of any country in western Europe? Why is it regarded as right wing and ideological to want to curb public expenditure in this way in order that we might achieve a situation where this country will no longer have the highest level of direct and indirect taxation?

Tomás Mac Giolla

It depends on how you do it.

Mr. D. O'Malley

There is only one way to do it, and that is the hard way. You cannot go through the illusion that there is a soft and easy way of doing it, as the motley group — motley in the sense that they are of varied types and hues and describe themselves as the alliance of the left — would propose. Their proposals amount to nothing better than attempting to come together and they have not done that with much success up to now.

Mr. Desmond

It cost you £1 million for 12 seats——

Mr. D. O'Malley

High spending results in high taxation, high unemployment and high emigration. We have seen all that over the last four years. We have seen the Fine Gael Party realise the difficulties they were in. We have seen them try to establish themselves separately and think in terms of commonsense at the very last minute rather than in terms of ideology. We saw the Labour Party decide that they had enough commonsense to flee back into the illusory realms of ideology.

Mr. Desmond

That is terrible.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The truth is that employment is the greatest single agent for social justice, and clearly we are not going to achieve the level of employment we need if we pursue some of the rather ridiculous policies which have been pursued for so long.

When I look at the Government proposed here tonight I wonder if they are prepared to make the radical changes needed for us to face with reality and with some likelihood of success the situation we are in. In this week's Christian Science Monitor certain figures are given for this country compared with others. It is no harm to quote these very briefly in order to put our position in some perspective and ask ourselves whether a continuation of what we have had over the years will solve those difficulties. Our per capita debt is US$8,000 per head of the population. The corresponding figure in Britain, which is not a successful economy by any standards, is US$330 and the corresponding figure in the United States is US$127. Yet, we seek to act as if we were a country in their type of league and as if we were entitled to the level of service which they have. Our national debt is 133 per cent of our GNP while the coresponding figures in Britain and the United States are 43 per cent and 39 per cent respectively. That is an enormous burden for us and no economic debate here can be meaningful unless it takes into account the effect of those matters. Of our 3.5 million people, as that journal points out one-third of them, one of the highest proportion in any developed country in the world, are on welfare. Our problems will not be solved until we get many of those people off welfare and into employment. Our problems will not be solved until we approach matters in that way.

I heard with some trepidation today the speech of Deputy Blaney in relation to Northern Ireland. I was not particularly concerned about or impressed by his various other references but I was rather amused to find that the reason he gave for justifying his vote on the motion for Taoiseach was his fear of the Progressive Democrats. I thought that was stretching it a bit but at least it gave him some reason to do what he wanted to do. I listened with some concern to what he had to say about Northern Ireland. I should like to say to the Government in relation to that and some economic matters that that conditional support given to the Taoiseach today is the type of support on which he, as I am sure he knows as well as I do, would be very unwise to rely. I can give the Taoiseach, the Government and the House an assurance that they need not rely on Deputy Blaney's support on matters such as that because they can look elsewhere. In regard to Northern Ireland they will have plenty of support in the House for a reasonable course of action. I would define a "reasonable course of action" in many respects as being the direct opposite of what Deputy Blaney suggests or recommends.

The same is true so far as economic matters are concerned. The Progressive Democrats will not seek to defeat or bring down the Government on specific policy issues where we judge the Government are trying to do the right thing. We will encourage and support them either by voting with them or by not voting against them as appropriate in such cases. Although I have reservations about some members of the Government and I have reservations about the way portfolios and Departments have been distributed, I am prepared to give the Government — a Government who have been elected by the narrowest possible majority in the House, the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle — as and from tonight the benefit of the doubt.

No matter how narrowly they are here, by the closest possible margin, they are at least a Government. Some of us were concerned for some weeks past that we might not have a Government and in giving them the benefit of the doubt the Progressive Democrats are prepared to start that from tonight. We will not oppose the appointment of the members of the Government, although we have reservations about some of the personnel and the way some of the Departments have been distributed. We are in a most difficult period. Minor variations on the policies pursued here in recent years will not come to grips with or solve the difficulties of the nation. There should be a much greater anxiety for change within the House than is reflected here or in the personnel of the Government. It is only a willingness to accept that change, to see the necessity for it and to put it into practice that will solve these difficulties. I encourage the Government to think in those terms.

Do not think, as I feel some of them will, that achieving the seat in which they sit tonight is the be-all and end-all of their political objectives. There is an enormous task to be undertaken where great risks will have to be taken but without those risks and the courage that is entailed in taking them we will not have solutions. We are only going to put off the evil day. A change of Government will only amount in those circumstances to a change of faces. A change of faces is not enough. A fundamental change of attitudes is what is called for and I ask the Government to respond to that.

Mr. Spring

I should like to offer my congratulations to the Taoiseach and his Government on an individual and collective basis. It is the Taoiseach's third run over the course and I trust he will get on better than on previous occasions. I wish the Ministers luck in their portfolios because, having served in Government for four years, I know the responsibilities they are undertaking and the difficulties that face them in their Departments. There were some strange appointments and nothing very innovative. The people of Limerick West must feel extremely privileged in that they have to have two Ministers.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Deputy McCoy caused that.

Mr. Spring

Whatever the reason the real McCoy will appear in due course. The belated conversion of the Taoiseach to the affairs of the Gaeltacht is something which I have no doubt will be explained on Radio na Gaeltachta 24 hours each day. I wish Deputy Woods well in the Department of Social Welfare and I am glad to note that it has been left as a separate Department. I wish him well on the north side of Dublin city if he proceeds with the proposals which are on his desk in that Department.

I should like to congratulate Deputy O'Hanlon on his appointment to the other major Department, the Department of Health. It is of value to the Departments of Health and Social Welfare that they should remain as separate Departments because the workload in them is enormous.

Today we set out on what could have been a very interesting day for constitutional lawyers. However, having witnessed the prancing of Deputy Gregory across the stage for most of the past fortnight and noting that he did not have the basic dignity of voting in the House — whatever the thought-out and well-reasoned cop-out he devolved for himself today — the constitutional lawyers were not called on to give further advice to the outgoing Taoiseach, the incoming Taoiseach and all and sundry as to what would happen had the Taoiseach failed to be elected but for the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle. Thus, the Taoiseach faces a very difficult task but he has faced difficult tasks in the past and has shown himself to be a man of resilience and determination. He held on to the throne when many others would have left it for other people. I wish him well.

I should like to refer to a matter that was touched on by other speakers, that no individual Deputy should hold this, or any Government, to ransom. Having heard the remarks of Deputy Blaney in regard to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I must remark that I do not believe he is the custodian of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or of what he might call republican or nationalist matters. I do not believe the Government should bow to his wishes on that agreement. Certainly, Deputy Blaney, who has been a Member of the House for many years, should not attempt to dictate to the Supreme Court.

I should like to tell the Taoiseach that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, with which I had a very deep involvement, is something of value to the island, North and South. It recognises for the first time the identities and differences that exist on the island, things we have to recognise. It may be that there is room for development, for building on the foundations that exist.

In relation to the portfolios and the slight innovations, I do not believe that by themselves these will be the panacea for our economic ills. Some of them verge on being cosmetic and the examples given by the Taoiseach are unfortunate. I do not believe anybody in the commercial world would regard the present position regarding the Office of Public Works or the Revenue Commissioners as being the optimum we could achieve in new areas. Likewise I believe the Taoiseach is already creating a problem for himself because the Book of Estimates before the House makes no provision for new offices and there is obviously a cost factor. Whether the transferring of forestry to the Department of Energy, which in the past has had absolutely no connection with it, is a good or a bad thing remains to be seen. We will have the opportunity of debating at a later date the portfolios, the responsibilities, the amalgamations and the transfer of responsibilities.

There is no doubt that the incoming Government will face enormous problems, although Deputy O'Malley, if he continues in the tone he adopted in the past 20 minutes, may keep the Opposition so divided that the Government may have a very easy ride. That division probably will not last for very long. If I can divert from my extreme right to my temporary minor left, Deputy O'Malley delivers his opinions in this House as if he has never had the onerous task of being involved in Government. We should put the bona fides of the Progressive Democrats to the test at a very early date when we put before the House a Private Members' Bill requiring that contributions to political parties should be registered. I believe the amount of money spent during the past six weeks by the Progressive Democrats was nothing short of scandalous. The bona fides will be tested because I saw two blatant examples of their lack of bona fides in the past few months. Any time the outgoing Government were brought into this House by the Opposition on any question relating to public expenditure, whether it concerned the teachers or any part of the public service, the Progressive Democrats failed the first test. Likewise in relation to the closure of the Tuam Sugar factory — this was outside the House when Deputy O'Malley was speaking on radio after the 1.30 news.

A Deputy

He seems to be worrying Deputy Spring a lot.

Mr. Spring

Deputy O'Malley's comments do worry me and the trend of his comments would worry anybody.

A Deputy

It is hardly the issue tonight.

Mr. Spring

If he raises them, they will not go unanswered. They said during the election campaign that they wanted to roll back State expenditure and they wanted to close down the Great Southern Hotels — until, of course, they visited South Kerry during the course of the campaign. Then they had no plans for closing the Great Southern Hotels. Political expediency tends to be the order of the day. I would have far more respect for Deputy O'Malley's comments had he not been one of the strongest advocates the IDA ever had when he held ministerial office but within six months of leaving ministerial office he believed we should not have an IDA. Other examples will arise as time goes by.

This is the day for the incoming Government. There is one lady but I thought there might be more. I wish them all well, individually and collectively. They have a very difficult task and the Labour Party intend putting them through the hoops. They made fair efforts to do that during the past four years. I assure the Government they will not be allowed to relax, week in, week out. As someone who appreciates small majorities, I can see that the Government now have something in common with me.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome you to the Chair and hope that you will have the co-operation of the Dáil. We in The Workers' Party intend to co-operate with you. I wish the new Government well in the task before them and indicate that as far as The Workers' Party are concerned there will be no honeymoon for this Government. Various surprising statements have been made by a number of speakers from Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats that they will support this Government in the harsh or tough measures which they believe need to be made to put the country on its feet. This is surprising because although we know that they had fully agreed before today on the kind of measures they wanted to have implemented, they refused earlier to support the Fianna Fáil nominee for Taoiseach. That highlights the fundamental flaw of Deputy Gregory's abstension which allowed a Fianna Fáil Government to come into power and allowed the Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael off the hook in relation to voting to put a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach into office. The net effect has been to create an alliance of the Right far stronger than it would have been if the Left had united in Opposition to all the nominees from the Right.

Deputy O'Malley takes umbrage at the use of the terminology "Left" and "Right". I do not know why, because his party articulates very clearly the kind of philosophy which the Tories in Britain have been articulating so strongly in the past seven or eight years. They talk about getting the State off the people's backs. Since Deputy O'Malley does not like the term "Right", perhaps I should avoid using it. He tries to differentiate between the Left and "sensible policies". That is a typical Tory usage of terminology which one can hear on the BBC or Channel 4 any night of the week. It is interesting that while the PDs do not like to be placed on the Right, the whole thrust of their policies and terminology places them clearly in that category. Obviously people can put any label they like on themselves but they must be judged on what they say and do. While the Progressive Democrates do not like to be labelled right wing, any sensible observer would clearly understand them to be on the right and would understand their policies to be right wing. That is not to say that they are not radical policies. The Thatcherites glory in being radical Tories. It would be more honest for the PDs to understand themselves in that light. One has to agree with Deputy Spring, however, that their policies tend to be toned down a bit depending on the part of the country in which they are campaigning and the issues that may arise in a particular area, but I suppose that is par for the course when parties of this nature are attempting to win seats to the Dáil.

There are a couple of things I should like to welcome in the Taoiseach's statement. The proposal to make the food and forestry industries a prime target in the attempt to develop and create jobs is important. However, we have yet to see specific proposals in this area and I will withhold judgment until we hear what they are. At least it is recognised that these are two key areas for the development of jobs.

An immediate opportunity arises in relation to the forestry industry, I refer particularly to Clondalkin Paper Mills where a receiver has been placed. The workforce are determined to ensure that this country retains the only paper processing factory in the State. The nature of the Government's reaction to this challenge will be their first test. They should move in immediately to ensure that Clondalkin Paper Mills becomes a State company and that the trained and dedicated workforce are retained to enable them to give the kind of service they wish to give by producing millions of pounds worth of paper which we import at present. I hope that the new Minister will not let the grass grow under his feet and that he will be on the job tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. to ensure that Clondalkin Paper Mills are kept open, the workforce retained and that they will be part and parcel of a viable forestry products industry.

I wish to criticise the Fianna Fáil administration in relation to their attitude to the Single European Act. In this House not too long ago the Fianna Fáil Party were highly critical of that Act and Deputy Haughey made a specific statement that he was not satisfied that the Single European Act protected Irish neutrality. I read recently that Deputy Haughey said in Brussels he had no difficulty with the European political co-operation process as enshrined in the Single European Act. I have argued in the House that the Single European Act should be renegotiated. Fianna Fáil did not support my arguments but they proposed adding a codicil or addendum to the Act to try to ensure that our neutrality was more tightly guaranteed. If they are not prepared to renegotiate the Single European Act, at the very least the incoming Taoiseach should implement what he proposed in the debate on the Single European Act some months ago.

I welcome the Ceann Comhairle to his new position. I wish the Government well and we will be pushing all the time to have proper policies implemented in relation to jobs, tax reform and the protection of those on social welfare.

Mr. Boland

I should like to congratulate you, the Taoiseach and appointed Ministers. I find it rather surprising that I should need to speak in this debate. I wish to make a point in a non-party political way. I am disappointed to have to say at such an early stage in the lifetime of the Government that the Taoiseach made a fundamental mistake in his allocation of portfolios.

As one who occupied the post of Minister for the Public Service for three years, I believe that if that Department are to be assigned to another Department they should be assigned to any Department except the Department of Finance. From the day the Department of the Public Service were created some 13 or 14 years ago, their avowed enemy — and the organisation which set out to thwart their every effort — have been the Department of Finance. They have been disgraceful and outrageous in their attacks on every attempt to reform and modernise the Civil Service and the public service.

The Department of the Public Service have responsibilities other than merely pay and staffing matters. They are responsible for computerisation, training and organisation and, in my experience, every single proposal was opposed — unfortunately very often successfully — by the Department of Finance. They were the biggest opponent of computerisation, new technology and training in the Civil Service. To assign pay and staffing matters to the Department of Finance will, ultimately, cost the taxpayer money because the function of pay bargaining should be kept separate from the Department of Finance; if you amalgamate pay bargaining with the paymaster, it will cost you more.

I invite the Taoiseach to carefully reconsider the assignment of all the functions. The Taoiseach's speech is a little difficult to understand, he seems to be appointing Deputy MacSharry as Minister for Finance and also Minister for the Public Service. However, he referred to the administrative statutory shell left by the Department of the Public Service. That appears to indicate that the two Departments will be merged which has been the aim and goal of the Department of Finance since the day the Department of the Public Service were created. However, the Department of the Public Service were created for a specific purpose because the Government of the day, following a major review, recognised that certain functions were not being properly carried out by the Department of Finance and that they should be assigned to another, separate, Department. As a result, the Department of Finance resented that and have thwarted the many efforts at reform which were attempted, not just during the time when I was Minister for the Public Service, but also during other periods. The Taoiseach should recall, from his experience in Government, the many times the Department of Finance have used tactics and tackles which would not be allowed by a referee in their efforts to defeat modernisation, computerisation, the spread of technology, access to information and training of civil servants. All those things have been retarded over the years and it grieves me that this has been the fault of the Department which should be the engine house for change, the fountainhead of new ideas. The Department of Finance should be leading the economy and advising the Government but instead, they have the most debilitating influence on Irish life. I am amazed that so soon after leaving Government I am obliged to say this in the Dáil. I had intended to say it at an appropriate time but the Taoiseach created the opportunity now and he is creating many difficulties for himself in this proposal.

I urge him most strongly in his own interest and in that of his colleagues — but much more importantly in the interest of the public — to reconsider at least some of the proposal. If the Taoiseach wants to have a statutory shell left to create a new Department then he should take most of the functions of the Department of the Public Service under his own aegis, but do not put it on the other side of Merrion Street, for the sake of the country.

Mr. Quinn

Let met start by congratulating you, Sir, in public as I have done in private, on your accession once again to the Chair. It is appropriate that I should follow my former Government colleague, Deputy John Boland, on this item. Like him, I had not intended to speak in this debate tonight and I do not intend to be long. As his successor in the Department of the Public Service I repeat and endorse the intent, the thrust, the passion and the advice that Deputy John Boland has given to Deputy Haughey as Taoiseach. I have no quarrel with his intent to make rearrangements but if he has to make rearrangements I advise him not to bundle them all up into the one end of Merrion Street. Deputy Boland was a unique Minister for the Public Service in the sense that he had sole responsibility for the task and his record will long live after him. I suggest the Taoiseach should not end up by transferring all of the functions to the far end of Merrion Street. A great deal of wisdom is contained in the energy and the passion of the advice he has received this evening and he would do well to listen to it and reflect upon it because it is given without rancour or prejudice by people who have — for a short time in my case — some reason to be able to say we have been inside the cave and have seen part of the resource residing within it. I have also seen on the other side of the field some of the tackling that would not pass Triple Crown refereeing standards in relation to changes that were necessary.

I want to say two other things because this is a night for rejoicing, not just for those who have won but for all of us who live in this democracy and who can celebrate the victory. Of all of the generations who have lived on this island we are among the very few who have been able to celebrate the peaceful change of power among ourselves, within ourselves and between ourselves. To the victors tonight I extend congratulations because this victory is contained within our own people and belongs to all of us. If they have to lose in the future let them celebrate tonight because their victory is a celebration of the process of democracy which was for too long denied to all of the people to this island to be celebrated by themselves. Therefore, I say in a democratic fraternity of which I am proud to be a part that if tonight is their night, in their celebrations they celebrate for all of us. Very few countries among those whose flags fly outside the UN building in the lower east side of New York can orderly transfer power among one another and between themselves in the manner that has occurred today, even with this uncertainty. We would do well to reflect on that, consolidate it and celebrate it. It took our grandparents long enough to deliver to us what we have witnessed this afternoon and we should not take it for granted.

I have one last point to make to the Taoiseach and his Government. Unemployment and employment have been and will continue to be the major item on their agenda. In so far as the Labour Party and my personal contribution to this House are concerned, any measure that the Government take, any risk they take, any new idea they test and any advancement they make for which they seek the support of this side of the House will be regarded with an open heart and an open mind and without prejudice, because that is the final test upon which all of us will be judged, and perhaps have been judged. That is the final foundation upon which the free democracy which we currently enjoy must ultimately rest.

I say in conclusion to the Taoiseach, to the Tánaiste, to all of those Ministers who have been Ministers previously and to those who are Ministers for the first time, that they have my personal congratulations for their personal success. They have my personal support for the difficult task which now confronts them and they have the offer of co-operation from this side of the House in so far as they come forward with inventive, progressive and risk-taking ideas that challenge the conventions that previously have denied us success. They have difficult times ahead of them and in so far as we can be of assistance it is our function at this time, on this evening, to offer them solidarity and support, because, I regret to say and as my leader has said already, that there will be enough hoops through which they will have to jump in the coming months and perhaps years. On this evening let them celebrate what is a democratic decision.

Mr. Keating

I wish to join with other colleagues in the House in congratulating you, Sir, on your election, and the incoming Taoiseach on his new Ministers and Ministers of State on their appointments. I wish them personally and collectively every success in their endeavours. I hope that nobody will quibble if I pay particular attention to my constituency colleague, Deputy Ahern, and say that I wish him well. If the endeavours which he has brought to all of his political life to date are anything to go by I have no doubt that he will make an outstanding success of his new portfolio. I wish him well as I know do all of his constituents from all shades of political opinion.

It is also appropriate that we say a word of gratitude and appreciation to the outgoing Government for the earnestness of their intent and the integrity with which they approached their task. It is important that that be said and important to echo what Deputy Quinn said, that it is right that we remind ourselves that we live in a democracy where the transfer of power happens in this kind of circumstance peacefully, properly and in a civilised fashion. I must admit that for a few moments earlier I thought it was the Progressive Democrats who were going into Government. We were the subject of so much attack from one or two sources but there will be another day and another time for explaining to recent political opponents that realpolitik is all about and how out-dated are the faded attitudes to left and right and how irrelevant they are in terms of this small economy. We all have a collective responsibility to work together to provide whatever assistance is possible to the elected Government of the day and we should debate the other issues on another occasion. This is not the time for getting into ideological diatribes, of rediscovering the touchstone of left and right politics or talking about the alliance of the left, a totally new fangled concept which I had not heard mentioned at all in Irish politics until a few months ago but which happens conveniently to have arisen in recent times.

The manner of the election of the Taoiseach today augurs well. By all accounts it is perfectly clear that there was no attempt, despite the temptation there must have been, to engage in any discussions which might have led to the allegation that there was a deal of any kind with anyone. That is heartening and should be commended. We all have learned from experience in the past that that is not ultimately the way in which we should proceed. Neither is it right or proper that any individual Deputy or small group of Deputies or party of Deputies should exercise a degree of power or leverage above and beyond that which is democratically appropriate for them in pursuing policies. That is why I endorse heartily the comments of my party leader and of the leader of the Labour Party again in taking to task the extreme demands of Deputy Blaney this afternoon, so out of character with the overwhelming view not just of the parties in this House but of the people. If that veto is ever to be exercised it will not matter very much because I have no doubt that it will be vastly out-numbered by those who will be willing to support the Government in rightful pursuit of policy relating to Northern Ireland and its related issues. I felt that the way that note was injected by a very seasoned and experienced politician was unwise.

However, let me say to the Government that if this Dáil is to succeed it seems that a new type of Government is needed, as is a new type of administration in this House. This is a minority administration and it cannot work unless the undoubted goodwill that exists in this House and outside it towards working for a resolution of major national problems can somehow be translated into creating in this House a forum more meaningful in that respect than it has been to date, which seems to involve and incorporate the wisdom and experience of all sides in this House while retaining the executive function in the hands of the Government. If a Government wish to proceed on the basis of coming in here daily and seeking to get nodded agreement on an Order of Business decided elsewhere and proceed without reference over months to details of legislation without willingness to take amendments, to consider the views of the Opposition or to consult in advance, that administration cannot succeed because it forces all of us into the old roles which perhaps many of us do not wish to adopt.

An attempt in so far as it is possible to operate this House in a different way is vital. An attempt to recognise in that context the good will which exists all around is important. That broad base of good will should be translated into a mechanism which allows us all to make some form of reasonable input while recognising the right of the Government at all times to say "no" or to say: "This is our view and ultimately you have to take it or leave it". Unless that attempt is made it will not work. That is something that has not happened to date. That form of dialogue or consensus seems to be an essential ingredient if this Dáil is to succeed, particularly in view of the enormous tasks it has to confront in the economic area.

The Government party received the lowest vote of any they got in the last 25 years. The number of TDs they have falls short of their expectations in the election. The Government have to govern as if they got a lot more votes. They must have the courage of their convictions and they have to govern without fear or favour in the knowledge that there are very many people in this House and outside it who believe that the national interest, a much used cliché, has to come first. If the Government have the courage of their convictions they may surprise themselves by their own success.

This is a night for celebration by individual Ministers and I wish them well. I am very pleased to have been re-elected as a member of a new party with 14 Deputies, which surprised a number of people on all sides of the House. We look forward collectively to playing an extremely constructive and determined role in this House. I would not like anyone to misinterpret or misconstrue that willingness on our part as weakness. We are not personally or collectively afraid of any electoral test that may come next month, in 12 months time or in three years time. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about doing business in a different way to see if it can work. If the Taoiseach sets that process in motion this Government may very well have a successful term of office which I know all of us hope they will have in the national interest.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I should like to add my voice to the words of congratulation to you, Sir, on your unanimous election to the exalted post of Ceann Comhairle, a post you occupied with distinction before. I wish you every success in that post. I also wish to congratulate the Taoiseach on his election as Taoiseach for the third time. I sincerely hope that this time it will be a turning point in the affairs of the country, certainly in regard to the economic issues, problems and challenges facing the country. It is a time for celebration and congratulation for all the Ministers. It is a Government of great experience. I think 11 of the 15 members proposed have already been in Cabinet and, of the remaining four, two have held junior ministerial posts. It is a Cabinet of great experience. I should like to congratulate in particular my constituency colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, a man of great experience, on his elevation to the post of Tánaiste. I also wish to congratulate my predecessor in the Department of Communications, Deputy John Wilson, on his reappointment to that Department. I can assure him of the same courtesies and co-operation in Opposition as he extended to me.

I want to speak about the reorganisation of the Department of Communications and the policy issues raised in the Taoiseach's speech and by other speakers. The rearrangement of Government Departments and the assignment of positions announced by the Taoiseach make a good deal of sense in general even though I would have done one or two other things. The assignment of the Department of the Public Service to the Department of Finance is probably a mistake. I might not say that with the same venom and flourish as my colleague, Deputy John Boland, but I suppose the House will understand the passion he feels because of the major work he did in the Department of the Public Service.

I am not as critical of the Department of Finance as Deputy Boland. As I see it, they were just doing their job as they thought best. Of course there will always be interdepartmental disagreements and so on. I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should reflect on whether the Department of the Public Service should come under the Department of Finance which in any event is a very major burden for any Minister especially in present economic circumstances. It may well be that the Department of the Taoiseach is the Department under which the Department of the Public Service should come. A Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach should be responsible for the Department of the Public Service. There are precedents in other countries for that.

In relation to the division of the Department of Communications it seems that the Department will be divided among three Ministers which is great testimony to the great work load I carried during the past four and a quarter years. That work load will now be carried by three men. I take that as a great compliment from the incoming Taoiseach. The joining of the Departments of Tourism and Transport makes eminent sense. I am only sorry the Taoiseach did not go further and transfer the roads function from the Department of the Environment to the proposed Department of Tourism and Transport so that for the first time we could have a properly co-ordinated transport Department. That has been proposed many times in many reports but it has always been resisted, I suppose understandably, from within the Department of the Environment.

The Taoiseach went on to announce that the non-transport functions of the Department of Communications will be the responsibility of the Minister for Energy. I do not object to that proposal. The Taoiseach also proposes to set up an office of science and technology in the Department of Industry and Commerce. An office or a department of science and technology would not be complete without having assigned to it the telecommunications function because that is vital to the information revolution that is going on in the world. The Taoiseach has rightly identified that as an area of opportunity. It does not seem to make a lot of sense to have the telecommunications area divorced from the rest of the technology area. If the Taoiseach was saying the remainder of the Department of Communications was being assigned to the Department of Industry and Commerce that would make a great deal more sense because the rest of the technology function already comes under that Department. The National Board for Science and Technology comes under that Department and that is the Department responsible for the promotion of industry in general. I ask the Taoiseach to consider these points in the rearranging of the Departments. In general, his approach has been not too radical, but sensible.

You will forgive me, A Cheann Comhairle, for guffawing at the claim of Deputy O'Malley of the effects of his influence on air transport policy and on bringing about low access fares, a matter to which I am delighted to see the Taoiseach giving such priority. Deputy O'Malley repeatedly told this House, among all sorts of excessive claims, about the depredations the Air Transport Act would bring about, for example, that it would increase air fares generally. That Deputy was the only Member of this House who was wrong.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The Bill was amended 32 times.

Mr. J. Mitchell

One hundred and sixty-five Deputies agreed that it was only prudent management to make provision for the Government of the day to have reserve powers to regulate the air transport industry. I repeated constantly to Deputy O'Malley that what was important was the policy which was pursued under that power. I pointed out that since the appointment of the outgoing Government in 1982 there had been an opening up of the airways. That started in March, 1983 with the licensing of Avair. That policy has been progressively pursued with enormous success. The only Member who was repeatedly in gross error, who had not the grace to admit that he was in error when it was pointed out to him, was Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I saw the first effects come to pass.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am very glad to see that my policy on low access fares, not only in air transport but in sea transport, is to be a priority of the incoming Government.

That leads me to another question. The Taoiseach is proposing to set up a Department of the Marine. That is the most questionable part of the reorganisation he proposes here today. Is this just a Department of Fisheries renamed with a bit of a flourish? Or, for instance, does he propose that the shipping function of the Department of Transport be assigned to the Department of the Marine? If he does, that is a mistake. There is a long overdue need for co-ordinated transport policy. It just does not make sense to divorce shipping from the rest of the transport function. It certainly does not make sense to divorce shipping, which is a key part of tourism access, from aviation and the tourist function. I would ask the Taoiseach, in reply, to clarify if the shipping function will remain with the Department of Tourism and Transport.

I do not wish to detain the House very much longer but wish to say a few words to my friends who call themselves the left wing. We have had to endure a great deal of rhetoric over the past few weeks as if the left wing, so called, were the only people concerned about poverty——

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Mitchell

——or concerned about unemployment. I have no doubt that there is not one Member of this House who is not passionately concerned about unemployment and poverty. It is idle for certain Deputies to pretend that we can go on spending the present amount of money without causing more unemployment and more poverty and then call the rest of us, in derogatory fashion, right wingers. There are very few right wingers in this House, in the normal meaning of that term. In the two major parties there are more people who would be generally perceived as left of centre than some of the so-called left wingers, in reality. There are more people in the two major parties who represent intuitively the values of working class people than are generally represented in what is called here the left wing. Let us stop this rhetoric. Do my friends on the left wing agree or not that excessive debt is causing unemployment, that unemployment is causing poverty? Do they agree or not that debt must be reduced? Do they agree or not that debt can only be reduced by curtailment of public expenditure which, in the main, is in four areas which have been declared out of bounds so far as public expenditure cuts for the left wing are concerned — health, social welfare, education and pay? We are not being true to the people we represent, we are not being just, compassionate or honest if we pretend that these areas cannot be addressed.

I believe very passionately that we must curtail and cut public expenditure if we are to eliminate injustice in our society, which would in turn eliminate poverty and reduce unemployment. I totally agree that those cuts should be applied in a way that protects most the weakest in our community and offers them the most hope. If we postpone the evil day the situation will get worse. This is something which the so-called left wingers have not addressed. They consistently mislead those they purport to represent. I ask for much more honesty from them than has been apparent to date.

In other countries where there are socialist governments, more has been done to redress imbalances in the national finances than has been possible here. For instance, the present Australian socialist Government only last year halved their budget deficit in what would be called a savage budget. Mr. Gonzales has already been referred to as addressing the problems of public expenditure in Spain. He is not being called right wing. As a previous Deputy has said, he is merely addressing the laws of arithmetic which say that you cannot go on spending more than you bring in. If you do, you will be in the hands of the moneylender, as are so many unfortunate people in the suburbs of this city at present. They have got into the same position as the Government. I ask those who call themselves left wing to be honest and acknowledge the fact that public expenditure must be reduced. Yes, this must be done in the best way possible for the least well off in our society. Yes, there must be a vigorous attack on the other areas of our economy where there are abuse and evasion of taxes and responsibility. However, that will not be enough to avoid the need for cuts in public expenditure. It is only if we cut public expenditure that we shall be able to continue providing services for the needy, services which we all want to be continued and improved.

Mr. M. Higgins

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom tréaslú leat féin, a Cheann Comhairle, as ucht an phoist atá bainte amach agat. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leat agus tá mé cinnte go mbeidh tú féaráilte i gcónaí le gach duine a theastaíonn uaidh nó uaithi labhairt.

Chomh maith leis sin, tréaslaím leis an Taoiseach agus leis na hAirí atá ainmnithe aige chun na dualgais éagsúla a chomhlíonadh.

Tosnóidh mé leis an chéad cheist san ráiteas a chuir an Taoiseach amach maidin, mar shampla, le dualgais Roinn na Gaeltachta a choinneáil leis féin. An gciallaíonn sé sin go bhfuil tábhacht faoi leith ag baint le cúrsaí Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta, nó an bhfuil cúram Roinn na Gaeltachta imithe síos ionnas nach bhfuil sé chomh tábhachtach agus a bhí sé go dtí seo?

Equally I should like to take up some questions other than mine as to the intention that is precisely involved in keeping the responsibilities for Roinn na Gaeltachta to the Taoiseach's own Department. Unlike the last speaker I want to welcome the establishment of a Department of the Marine. It makes eminent, logical sense to have all matters to do with the sea brought together under one umbrella. At present people dealing with marine matters find themselves perhaps dealing with a dozen State bodies and several different Government Departments. Anybody with the slightest familiarity with the sea will know that the establishment of such a Department makes sense. There are Deputies who have no familiarity with these issues and who do not support the reforms suggested but I welcome those reforms.

However, I want to side with those who say that the movement of the reforming functions of the Department of the Public Service under the deadly tutelage of the Department of Finance, as it has been so colourfully described so far, seems to be an extraordinary move in its own way. Curiously, I have not a jaundiced view of the Department of Finance. It has a very honest presentation of itself; it always has had. To use a word which Deputy O'Malley has been using all evening, it has been an ideological Department. It has built up a conservative ethos of its own over the years since it was founded. Indeed in its early days it managed a continuity with the British Treasury for which it was commended in its day by different senior Treasury officials who have left us their memoirs. It is hardly the place to which to entrust the reforms that are necessary in the public service.

I rise merely to wish the Taoiseach and his Ministers well in tackling the enormous problem of unemployment which afflicts this economy at present, in tackling the crisis of investment affecting our economy and the many related forms of poverty connected with unemployment and the crisis of investment. I include in that the problem of emigration.

I felt I had to speak because of what has been said up to now in a pejorative sense by people who have recently started using the language of politics about the so-called Left. The phrase, "the motley collection that constitutes the so-called Left" has been used. There was an appeal to the so-called Left — I suppose I would be one of them — to be honest and so forth. Some of us have got used to living with Deputy O'Malley's conversion in public but, when he decides to proceed with his political education in public, it can become a little tedious. Many of us are familiar with the meanings of the terms Left and Right. In most civilised democracies people us these terms without the great trauma it appears to cause Deputy O'Malley; it seems to fire him into some extraordinary disability. In a curious way both of us being from the same part of the country, he should know a lot about ideology. Nearby his city, Limerick, when the ESB was being founded it was opposed by the loose alliance of electrical suppliers at the time. It was opposed by the farmers as something that would never catch on. There was a host of ideological statements that the State has no role in Irish life.

As this Dáil begins its work tackling unemployment, tackling poverty, tackling the problem of emigration, dealing with the crisis of investment, at the background of all of the arguments is the issue of the role of the State. Those of us who are on the Left, who know what the term means, who are not worried about gabbling on about Left and Right as if we were standing like chickens in the middle of the road, like Deputy O'Malley's party, know what we mean by it. Regarding a role for the State, for a start we believe that our unemployment problem is of such crisis proportions that only the most gullible people would be arguing for a cutback in the right of the State to innovate, invest and provide the jobs needed. Equally we know that to go around with a pencil totting up the number of State agencies and, in a rather ignorant fashion saying, "this must go, that must go", without asking the question which of them is contributing to which form of production within the economy is simple-minded nonsense.

The Leader of the Progressive Democrats mentioned a host of agencies. My point is that there is a need for reform of the public service, but I suggest it is interesting. It is populist to start saying that we have too many agencies and to start attacking the State. There are votes in it. It is that mixture of populism that has precisely nothing to contribute to our economic problems at present. Our people deserve better economics. If the Government propose economic strategies they will have the support of those of us on the Left where such strategies lead to employment, investment and reform of public institutions. That is the kind of economics we need rather than this fashionable notion, every bit of it borrowed, via England back through the new Californian economics, back to Professor Hayek and bits and pieces of Friedman, all mixed up together, like people standing in the middle of a street saying that all of these different agencies have been wasting our time. The fact of the matter is that this country would have none of the great State agencies if there had not been people who said, "there are tasks that have to be accomplished that are beyond the abilities of individual companies and single individuals who are investing." That was the thinking that gave us a turf industry, energy authorities and a national airline. Equally if it had not been for State investment we would not now be able to start talking about jobs from information technology and the reform of telecommunications. We would not be able to start talking about a wood or food industry had there not been State investment in research and development. Yes, I will assist the Progressive Democrats if necessary, but let them go back and look at the agencies that are inefficient. Let them tell us where we have made mistakes in investment, in science, research and technology. But it is a little too much to sit and listen perhaps having spent years thinking as to how Irish politics have divided and the price we have paid for mindless and useless divisions to the notion that we are all in agreement on our approach to solving our economic problems. We are not. We differ in relation to the State. There are people in this House who must have the courage to say they are hostile to the idea of an expanded and effective State role. Those of us who are described as being on the Left are in favour of an effective State role——

Mr. Keating

An expanded State role.

Mr. M. Higgins

Equally there are those of us who look at our society and who take as indicators of income and wealth, the manner in which transfers are made to education and health. We say, in this small country, we do not all share the same experiences. Is that true of the purchasing power of the top quintile of people and incomes in this country and the lowest quintile? Is it true of the people who have inherited wealth and those who have not? Is it true of any of their children? For example, is it not bothering anybody that we might be transferring taxpayers' money to private education and to private health? Is it not true that if we were not subsidising private education and private health we might have a better, more general educational and health system? There is a difference there and, as the invitation was thrown out from this side of the House, let us be honest about these differences. There is a difference between Left and Right in these matters, equally, in relation to the task of tackling our economic problems and reproducing the kind of society we have. Many of us see that compassion is not enough. I am moved by the genuine sincerity of people who say there is not a single person in the House who is not moved to tears by the sight of a poor person lying on the side of the street. But we are not talking only about compassion. We are talking about the structures of our society, the manner in which one generation succeeds another, in which, for example, my children might have 15 or 16 times the chance of participating in third level education than the children of an unskilled craftsman. That society is not produced by accident.

I note in the speeches this notion that life is accidental, that it is a terrible disaster to suggest that there might be two approaches to tackling our social and economic problems, one interventionist and the other casual. I find there is growing up in this country at present a clear view that the push toward the removal of inequality must be stubbed, that if we could freeze the State at present, freeze public expenditure, we would, in some miraculous way, create jobs and solve our economic problems. The interesting question I will be posing during the course of this Dáil is this: which State are we speaking about rolling back? The people who speak about freezing the State at present are those who have benefited from it already. We need positive State intervention and positive State discrimination to remove the inequalities that exist.

Once again, there are two sides. One is either on the side of moving towards an egalitarian society or one is in opposition to that egalitarian thrust, and as to the people who have taken to giving us lectures in their heady new days using all this language, vulgar people, left, right and all the rest of it, it is time they discovered honesty and courage themselves, and if they be against the State and against further equality, if they be for reducing the different State agencies and if they do not believe that we should use the State to invest and so on, let them say so and we can have an honourable difference among ourselves.

It is very interesting this evening that the group of 18 Deputies should be singled out by two parties here as people who had to be some kind of political lunatics. The left is a word that describes a certain political philosophy and we have lost much in this country by not listening to that political philosophy. In the fifties we sent people at the rate of 50,000 to 60,000 a year on the boats, because we were not able to intervene directly to provide employment. We could do so again, and it is this kind of redneck political philosophy, that has been borrowed via every kind of backward economic textbook from Professor Hayek on, that is now trying to suggest that a country that is full of young people should roll the clock back to the 19th century and that we should not have an effective role for the State.

When we come to this Dáil session we have an opportunity of taking every bit of that argument apart, in every one of the proposals in relation to the different areas of the economy. But I hope that when they get beyond simple abuse——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. Higgins

It is certainly nothing of the kind. Deputy O'Malley was not well up in his speech before he began practising to be an antiquarian saying he had never heard the words left or right and so forth and we were all supposed to be very impressed by that. I listened, a decade and a half ago, to that stuff from Professor Kelly who was much better at it than Deputy O'Malley.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. Higgins

There are three things I would say in conclusion. I wish there had been more emphasis in the Taoiseach's speech on investment. People are being accused of rhetoric. But in the second paragraph of the Taoiseach's speech he said that the Government would concentrate its main efforts on areas of the economy with particular development potential. I agree with that. But he says this will be within a framework of consistent, fiscal, monetary exchange rate policies — that is fine — that will create an economic climate conducive to confidence and enterprise. This climatology is another nonsense, the idea being that if one creates some kind of atmosphere or some set of conditions, automatically one will get investment. There is no evidence that it has happened in the different economies in Europe without a conscious interventionist investment policy, and I would hope that when we move past the budget to discussing economic policies the Taoiseach will have the courage to look for assistance from those who believe in State intervention to establish interventionist investment policies that can give us the job creation or prospects that we need if we are to impact on unemployment.

I said that in relation to the administration of the different Departments that are involved, I am worried about the Department of the Gaeltacht because all of the problems that I mentioned are worse there than they are in the rest of the country. In relation to the Gaeltacht we have to ask what strategies there will be in relation to providing jobs, for example, in an area with a worse infrastructure than the rest of the country and a number of considerable disadvantages. I worry about the demotion of Roinn na Gaeltachta.

I welcome the establishment of the Department of the Marine and I join with those who have been critical about the movement of the Department of the Public Service within the conservative ethos of the Department of Finance.

I am delighted that the Tánaiste has been given responsibility for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I remember recalling as a Member of this House before, and as a Member of the other House, that there is a demand for knowledge as to what is being done in our name through foreign policy, and I am not satisfied that mechanisms exist to establish a proper accountability in relation to Irish foreign policy. We are unique in European democracies in not having a foreign policy committee in which different issues could be discussed and in which we could decide whether we should take a particular voting position or not. I hope that, when the new office holder, Deputy Lenihan, comes to review his policies for the years ahead, he will find it possible to allow both Houses and the Irish public to have far more access to information about foreign policy which is being enacted in their name.

Mr. Dukes

I have already had an opportunity of congratulating you, Sir, privately on your appointment to the office that you hold and I am very glad to be able to do so in the House. I want also to congratulate the Taoiseach and the members of his Government on their appointment. I can fairly say that tonight the Taoiseach the members of his Government deserve the respect of the House. From tomorrow morning on they will have to begin to merit and earn the respect of the House. But certainly, for tonight, I warmly congratulate each one of them. They are embarking on what will be a very difficult task. I do not intend to give them a lot of advice tonight, although there are some over there who gave me good advice when I was in a similar position to them. I hope that those who have had previous experience in Cabinet will not look askance at me if I say quite sincerely that I want especially to congratulate and encourage those members of the Government who have not previously had Cabinet office. I think that their colleagues will join with me in saying that, even though it is extremely hard work and is a very onerous position, most of us who have held office — I speak for myself and I know I speak for others — look back on the experience as having been a privilege. I know from personal experience that many, if not all, members of this Government will approach their duties in that spirit.

The Leader of my party, the Leader of the Opposition, has set out the terms in which we will support economic and budgetary policies to be brought forward by this Government. I reiterate that, and I expect, in supporting policies to be put forward by this Government over the next few months, particularly in the context of this year's budget, to be able to say and to advocate on this side of the House a great many of the things that I have said and advocated on the other side of the House. I can give one undertaking to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Finance in particular, and to other members of the Government. They will not be able to say to me that these are words I must eat. Nor will I succumb to the temptation, as so many of us here have done in recent years, to use rhetoric instead of thought. I do not intend to throw labels such as "bookkeeper", "monetarist" and "Thatcherite" across the House, although I am quite sure that in the logic of the situation in which we now find ourselves those labels might be just as apt, just as appropriate, to many of the statements and proposals that will be made on the other side of the House. But I do not believe that labels of that kind add anything at all to the sum of human wisdom. They certainly do not add anything to the sum of human welfare on this island and the stupid, misguided use of those labels has been more an obstacle than an advantage in Irish politics and public affairs for too many years. I do not intend to feed that process any further.

I do look forward — nor will I stint myself of the pleasure of doing so — to illustrating to members of the Government just where they will have to eat their words and why. There are others indeed, on this side of the House, to whom I will have the pleasure of pointing out the same thing. But I will do it in a constructive spirit and I will do it in order to bring about the result that we have been striving to achieve in just over four years in office which is, quite simply, the greater welfare of the people of this country. We must do it in a framework that looks not just at today or tomorrow but further than that. That is why we on this side of the House believe that the Government that bring forward the kind of policies we have said we will support deserve support, because they must be the kind of policies that have the longer-term interests of all of the people at heart.

I give the same undertaking to the Minister for Justice that I have given to the Minister for Finance because there also the use of labels has obscured more of the issues than it has enlightened. The "fly" remark, the easy resort to short-term criticisms of both expenditure and policy measures has disrupted Irish politics and has contributed a great deal to the kind of cynicism that is often talked about by politicians and it has contributed to the cynicism we find now affecting the practice of politics in this country.

Where the Government decide not to provide the items on Deputy Blaney's shopping list, they will certainly have my support. They will have my support in resisting Deputy Blaney's extraordinary approach to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They will have my support in resisting Deputy Blaney's extraordinary claim today that something should be done to interfere with a matter that is now before the courts and that that something should take the form of repealing the 1965 Extradition Act, an Act which Deputy Blaney seems to forget was passed while he was a member of the Government of this country. It was one of the regrets of my most recent career that on Committee Stage of the debate on that Bill we did not manage to get to section 3 of the Bill so that we could smoke out what Deputy Blaney really wanted. I suspected he would get to the point where he would be forced to say that if we had information here that there were people in Northern Ireland who could be reasonably suspected to the point of being charged with carrying out a bombing incident here, that we would not ask for their extradition so that they could face charges before our courts, because that is the end of the road upon which Deputy Blaney set out today. To the extent that the Government need any outside help in dealing with Deputy Blaney on those matters, I will be very happy to provide it.

A number of the reorganisation proposals which the Taoiseach put before us this evening will obviously come up for further discussion in the months ahead. There is no great point in reorganising something into a new office or setting up a new structure unless the function of that reorganisation is to focus resources and effort specifically on a particular problem. If the energy and the resources can be focused without adding a new bit to the bureaucracy, that is the way it should be done. I am sorry Deputy Higgins is gone. I did not want to contribute any further to his great passion and what seems to be a kind of persecution complex of the left now caught between Fine Gael on the one hand and Fianna Fáil on the other as a kind of central buffer in between. However, there does not seem to be any point in setting up a new office if an enlightened approach to focusing resources and efforts can bring about the desired result. I will wait to see, but I am not convinced that the setting up of a new office just to give a new name and function without a specific focusing of resources and effort will contribute anything to the solution of the problems they are set up to solve.

From the debate we have had so far this evening, it seems there will be a slightly different mixture of flavours to the 25th Dáil to what we had in the 24th Dáil. The sauce that has been added is not one that many of us would particularly relish but there will be some difference. I would advise those who claim to be adding something new to look more closely——

Mr. Keating

Who has got the persecution complex now?

Mr. Dukes

I am tempted to diverge as I feel a little bit persecuted tonight. I will go home to my constituency and I regret that I will have to tell my constituents that there is now not a Minister in Kildare. That is a pity.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Power

There are three former Ministers.

Mr. Dukes

Deputy Power knows perfectly well that I will always resist the temptation to shed tears for him. He was near enough shedding tears for me on the night of the count. Those who want to put forward the image of providing something new should be very careful about the symbols they use. For example, a couple of weeks ago I looked at a newspaper advertisement making the extraordinary claim that one man alone, of all the Members of this House, had brought about changes in air transport. It was a good trendy advertisement. There was a picture of a jumbo jet and one was meant to get the impression that the thing was taking off, but if one looked carefully one saw that the jet was in landing configuration, and that instead of taking off it was coming down.

Mr. Keating

There is something to that.

Mr. Dukes

The symbols must be looked at very carefully.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dukes

I sincerely wish each member of the Government well but I would point out that where they have to eat words which they may have unwisely used in the past four years it will be with the intention of contributing with the rest of this House to the welfare of the people.

Mr. Shatter

As previous speakers have done I will commence by congratulating the Chair on his unanimous election to the Chair. I congratulate the Taoiseach on his election and each of his Ministers on their appointment in what is a very difficult time for this country. In offering congratulations I want to avoid covering ground that has already been covered by other speakers this evening and I will resist the temptation of adding to the joys of the Government by showing how the various Opposition parties fall on each other and fight like dogs, so suggesting that the Government's task might be somewhat easier than they envisaged it some hours earlier.

The task of Members on this side of the House in all parties is to provide a coherent and constructive Opposition which will deal with major national issues in a responsible way, that will facilitate the Government in tackling the major economic and social problems which need to be tackled. We will be in a position to point out where the Government are failing and to steer them on course where they go off course. The problems facing us require, according to the Taoiseach in his announcements this evening, reorganisation of Government Departments. Comment has been made on that reorganisation, some critical and some supportive. I suppose at the end of the day the usefulness of the reorganisation will be judged not by names given to individual Government Departments but by the results achieved in the areas which need to be tackled.

If it is accepted that changes in Government Departments are necessary to make the Government's management of the economy more effective and responsive to today's needs, I suggest to the Taoiseach and the Government that the reorganisation that is required of Government Departments also applies to modernising and reorganising the procedures of this House. This is something which has not been adverted to yet this evening. If it is accepted that there is a need to modernise Government Departments, to reorganise them, to make them more finely tuned to meet the problems we are confronting and to avail of the opportunities which exist in new areas of technology to provide employment, I implore the Government to co-operate with all Members of this House and individual parties represented in this House in thorough modernisation of the procedures operated by this Parliament. The time has come to sweep the cobwebs out of the corridors of power.

For too long in this House we have talked about the need for change. As a backbench Deputy throughout my period in this House I acknowledge that the previous Government implemented changes of some significance in the provision of various Oireachtas committees and Dáil committees which enabled some aspects of the business of this House to be dealt with more efficiently and which facilitated this House to respond to particular issues and needs when they arose. However, the steps taken in those areas were only the first steps along the road to providing what is a 19th century parliamentary structure with the type of reforms which are necessary to drag it screaming into the 20th century and to enable us to face into the 21st century.

Now that the Government have been appointed there is an absolute need during the course of the next few weeks, for us to look at the way in which this House functions and to render it a more efficient and effective parliamentary assembly that it has not been in recent years. It should be done not having in mind the idea of throwing up some sort of stones in the way of the Government. I am not suggesting parliamentary committees should be created that are deliberately going to create difficulties for Ministers or are going to deliberately slow down the effectiveness or usefulness of Government.

Mr. Keating

They never did.

Mr. Shatter

I am suggesting that committees should be established that will facilitate the Government to confront the major economic issues we need to confront, that will facilitate this House in ensuring that the issues are promptly confronted, that public expenditure where it is incurred is properly incurred and met and that the taxpayers' money is not wasted by Government Departments whose financial procedures are lax and out-of-date and whose officials are not fully accountable for the spending of public moneys.

I urge the Government to provide a major impetus for Dáil reform and to do it in co-operation with all the parties. People outside this House look askance at the number of sitting days in this House. Since I became a Member of this House I cannot understand why this House does not sit regularly on Fridays. I do not understand why we cannot commence sitting at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday morning instead of 2.30 p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon. As a very minimum this House should sit four days a week. Many people would say it should sit five days a week. That is a reform which should be introduced.

We have talked for long about the need to modernise the system of Private Members' Bills. There is a need to provide a proper and adequate structure to deal with that area so that economic and social issues that require confronting, which Governments do not have time to confront, can be dealt with at a parliamentary level. There is a need to make this House more responsive to the major issues of the day when they arise. I recall Deputy Haughey during the previous Dáil as Leader of the Opposition trying with difficulty to raise serious issues, issues that deserved to be raised in this House, which required a response from Government. All too often when those issues were raised instead of the specifics of the issues being discussed and their substance being confronted the debates descended into procedural wrangles with the Chair as to what procedure should be adopted to raise the issues and whether it was appropriate that they be raised in one way or another.

For the efficient operation of this House and the efficient functioning of Government there is a necessity to revamp the procedures which are used in these areas. In calling on the Government to establish new Dáil committees I urge that some of the committees which existed in the past Dáil be re-established such as the Committee on Public Expenditure who performed a major and important role in the work they undertook. There are other committees that need to be looked at again and revised. I suggest to the Government and to this House that if this House is to operate properly, if Ministers are to be truly accountable to this House and if we are to have an efficient and modern parliamentary structure we should have a series of Dáil committees that directly reflect the responsibilities of individual Ministers or groups of Ministers. Ministers should be accountable to those committees and those committees should be in a position to call Ministers to account for the work they do.

Those committees should also be in a position to suggest policy innovations which could be adopted on a non-party political and non-contentious basis to tackle the major economic problems which confront us all. I suggest it is urgent that we reappoint those committees. The committees we previously had are worth reappointing. The various parties in this House should get down to the business of reaching agreement on the new types of Dáil committees that will enable the House to function more efficiently. In that context, I join with the comment made by Deputy Higgins. I would not agree with a lot of what Deputy Higgins said but there is one particular issue I do agree with. I made this point during the course of the last Government's term of office.

Since I became a Member of this House I have been amazed that we do not have a specific committee to deal generally with the area of foreign affairs. This must be the only Parliament in Europe which does not have such a committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs effectively have a monopoly on the development of foreign policy in this country. Debates on foreign affairs in this House are debates of an incidental nature. Issues of foreign affairs are discussed incidentally in a debate relating to some specific meeting of Heads of State of the EC when the Taoiseach comes back to report on what took place, or debates take place incidentally if some major disaster occurs in some far-flung region of the world or if, as happened during the course of the lifetime of the previous Government, groups of Deputies get together to try to propose an all-party motion on some specific issue relating to some aspect of foreign affairs. The reality is that this House plays no real role of any substance in the development of foreign policy. The reality is that in effect the Minister for Foreign Affairs conducts foreign policy with the assistance of a very able Department and with a back-up of officials who have the admiration of us all but he conducts a policy which is not accountable to this House and in respect of which this House can make no contribution in its development.

I particularly urge that in the context of a new committee system we establish a committee with responsibility for foreign affairs both in the development of foreign policy to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be accountable and in which foreign policy would be developed, discussed and debated so that it is not something left to be dealt with purely within the hallowed walls of Iveagh House.

I also urge that a further reform be introduced. Much is said about the contributions of politicians in this House to debates, about their contributions to the development of legislation and their contributions as legislators in the parliamentary process. Much of what is said outside this House is derisory about the lack of contributions made by people elected to Dáil Éireann. Most people outside this House do not know how it functions and do not know what contributions are made by individual Deputies. The manner in which this House conducts its procedures does not lend itself to informing the general public or the electorate outside this House as to the capacities of the people they elect to this House.

It took some years for this House to agree to allow RTE to rebroadcast parliamentary debates on radio. We regard it as a major innovation that RTE can now broadcast in their news programmes on radio and television what Members are contributing to debates in this House. Most European Parliaments, ironically except Westminster, are televised. The debates of most democracies throughout the world are televised. The television cameras have access to parliamentary debates and can show them live when the national broadcasting stations wish to do so or in their news and current affairs programmes. It is unique in Europe that the proceedings of this House and the British Parliament in Westminster are not televised. The time has come for us to get away from this colonial mentality to our parliamentary procedures. Not only are we currently slaves to the Westminster model of parliament, which is largely unchanged since 1922, but we are slaves to an attitude which seems to believe that in some way democracy is enhanced by excluding television cameras from broadcasting and covering the proceedings of this House.

In the interests of democracy and to allow the people who elect us to this House to learn how the democratic system works, the time has come when Members of this House should regard the televising of the proceedings of this House not merely as something to be tolerated but as something desirable. In this way the people can see the parliamentary process in action and they can see how democracy works. I urge that this major reform be considered and implemented. People feared that the rebroadcasting of proceedings of this House on radio would diminish the proceedings of this House and create problems for the democratic process. Those fears have proved to be nonsense.

Since I was elected to this House some years ago, I have been very conscious that there is a particular problem in areas of legislation being brought before this House. There seems to be a lack of sufficient parliamentary draftsmen with expertise in specific areas, particularly relating to social reform, to bring before this House the type of comprehensive legislation necessary to introduce major social reforms which are long overdue. I accept that the major work of this Government will be dealing with the economic problems confronting us — unemployment, taxation and ensuring that there is not further growth in the budget deficit, that we contain public expenditure and reduce borrowing. The fact that we have to tackle all these problems does not mean we should totally abandon providing some of the major social legislative initiatives which are so badly needed. For example, it does not mean that legislation which was before this House or before Dáil committees, but which was not completed during the lifetime of the previous Government should be abandoned. I am thinking of the Children (Care and Protection) Bill and the Status of Children Bill, which is on the Order Paper.

There is no reason why this Government cannot tackle the major economic problems confronting us while also dealing with the areas of social reform which badly need to be confronted. In some of these areas there has been great difficulty in getting legislation drafted in a manner which would facilitate its passage through this House and in a manner which would make the legislation workable. For example, there was the mental health legislation which Deputy Woods brought through the House and which, through no fault of his, was seen not to be capable of working. There were acknowledged difficulties with the original drafting of the Children (Care and Protection) Bill. I urge the Government while containing public spending and not encouraging growth in the public service to provide additional parliamentary draftsmen with the necessary expertise to tackle these areas and to deal with them in an efficient and precise way to facilitate the work of this House.

I wish you well in your position as Ceann Comhairle. I wish the Government well in the work they must take on. I hope this Government will not shirk the major problems which need to be tackled. I also hope that the major interest groups which need to be taken on will be confronted and that, through a constructive parliamentary process, both Government and Opposition will take major steps towards tackling the many problems facing us.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I want to make a very brief contribution. First, may I congratulate you on your elevation to this very high office and wish you success in your term as Ceann Comhairle? I extend to the Taoiseach and the Government my best wishes in tackling the very difficult tasks which face them.

I am cheesed off with the attacks being made by some politicians on other politicians for cheap political gain. I am sick and tired listening to the nonsense about politicians' pensions. Admittedly something needs to be done about this, but there is a view abroad that politicians are milking the system and that we are all millionaires. The fact is that most Members of this House are paid less than higher executive officers in the Civil Service. We never hear from the Marxists or the new right wing in this House about public servants, chairmen of State boards, secretaries of Departments, assistant secretaries, principal officers and many other officials. I earn my few bob in this House and I am sick and tired of cheapskate politicians smirking at other politicians in an endeavour to appeal to the public, a bit like the page three pin-ups in some of the cheaper imported newspapers.

We do a good job. The Irish people get their politicians on the cheap and they get good politicians. To whom are they comparing us? They will not find a Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons who works as hard as 95 per cent of the Members of this House. I am cheesed off with these constant and regular attacks on politicians by other politicians for cheap political gain. Politicians are entitled to be paid, just like everybody else. We are not as well paid as most people in the public service, even junior public servants. I want to put that on record and I make no apology for saying it. I am making these comments because this matter was raised today by a number of Deputies, particularly a Deputy in her speech nominating somebody for election to the office of Taoiseach. The only reason politicians are supposedly held in contempt is that we continually treat each other with contempt and try to gain advantage by constantly knocking each other for short term gain.

I question the suggestion that the public have no confidence in politicians. Look at all the people who worked voluntarily to get us elected. Every Member of this House had many people working voluntarily to get him or her elected. Look at the number of people who sought election to this House, people who held excellent jobs and belonged to many of the professions. It is time we stopped succumbing to this so-called public view which is being created by some politicians to gain short term political advantage over their colleagues.

There has been a suggestion that a certain dogma or ideology would present the solution to our problems, whether right wing or left wing. Ideology and dogma have created an economic apartheid here which has 300,000 working in the public service. Those people have secure employment, promotion prospects and pensions. However, there are 250,000 people who do not have any promotion prospects, no job or security and little hope for the future. That has been created by ideology. It is nonsense to think that a community enterprise scheme in Terenure that could create 15 jobs for young people for two years in Mount Jerome Cemetery has to be sanctioned by an anonymous committee of ideologues in the Department of Labour. Too much power resides outside the House. All the responsibility lies with the House but the authority is outside. It is time we took back that authority and used it to the advantage of our people.

I am nervous about the Taoiseach's Office becoming a microcosm of the entire State machinery. I am not referring to the new Taoiseach but former holders of the office. This all comes back to the question: should the Taoiseach be chairman or chief, or part chairman and part chief? What should be the role of the Taoiseach? I am happy that Deputy Haughey has assigned to himself the Department of the Gaeltacht because something should be done about that Department. I am not an Irish speaker but I have a great interest in the Irish language. I am learning the language and I would like to have more time to devote to it. My eldest child is attending an all Irish school. It is time that a Minister for the Gaeltacht promoted the use of the Irish language outside Gaeltacht areas. It should be developed in Dublin where there is great support among parents, many of whom cannot speak the language. It is worth looking at Gael-Scoil Inse Chór. The management of that school kept it going against all odds in St. MacDara's in Templeogue and in St. Damien's school until they acquired a site. A lot remains to be done for the development of the Irish language in the urban areas of Dublin where there is a love for it.

In my view the Taoiseach can make a great contribution in developing an interest in the language. I wrote to the committee established to examine the use of Irish in the House and pointed out that I was interested in developing my skills in the use of the Irish language. Many imaginative things can be done about the use of the Irish language here. Is there any reason why Members who want to learn the language should not get an opportunity to lock themselves up in the Gaeltacht for a month, even at the expense of the State? If we can develop a skill in the use of the language we can encourage our constituents, and others to use Irish. The Taoiseach should concentrate on giving Members an opportunity to develop a skill in the Irish language. Officials in the public service are given that opportunity.

I do not agree with the proposal to reduce the number of Ministers of State. Nobody has said that we should have fewer secretaries or assistant secretaries of Government Departments. The only call has been for fewer elected Deputies. I do not agree with that. We are living in a democracy and I do not see why it should not be possible to delegate to Members executive functions and to hold them accountable to the House. The development of the Dáil committee system will have to be looked at. In Canada which has an adversarial parliamentary system similar to ours Ministers and departmental secretaries are reshuffled from time to time. Citizens in that country do not bat an eyelid when those changes take place. I want to see more involvement of public representatives in the running of the country and I suggest that the Taoiseach look at the Canadian system with a view to reshuffling departmental secretaries occasionally. That system works well in Canada.

I note that Deputy Ray Burke has been appointed Minister for Energy. As a Dublin Deputy I should like to ask him to look at the question of the safe use of the gas grid in Dublin. I hope the Minister will be in a position to report to the House soon on that matter. I am sure he is aware of the public concern about gas. Last December I expressed my concern about the gas grid in Dublin, long before the tragedy at Raglan House or the incident at Dolphin House. I am genuinely concerned, like other Dublin representatives, about the safe use of the gas grid in Dublin. I hope this can be got under control before a major catastrophe occurs. The Taoiseach will be aware that I raised this matter in a calm way before any explosions occurred. I appeal to the new Minister to get involved in this and report to the House at an early opportunity because we may face a major problem. I wish the Government well and I wish the Ceann Comhairle well. I hope we can have a constructive working relationship in the House and that the 25th Dáil will be successful.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before calling on other speakers I should like to ascertain what the intention is in regard to this motion. I understand that it is the intention to conclude the debate on this item at 11 p.m. and, that being the case, I am sure the House would be glad to afford the Taoiseach an opportunity to reply to the debate. May I have agreement, therefore, to the Taoiseach being called to reply to the debate not later than 10.45 p.m.? Agreed.

Mr. Harte

I should like to congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on his appointment and wish him well in that office. I should like to congratulate Deputy Haughey on his election as Taoiseach and to wish the members of the Cabinet every success in the onerous tasks that lie ahead of them. I am sincere about that because at this time in our history we have to put other considerations aside and act in the national interest. Many subjects have been touched on tonight and I do not intend to go over the ground again but I was disappointed that the Taoiseach in appointing his Cabinet, and junior Ministers, made no reference to Border areas. As a Deputy from a Border constituency I accuse all parties, including my own, in relation to trading across the Border. There is little point in the kettle calling the pot names. The Fianna Fáil Party have been guilty of misreading the problem, as have Fine Gael, but the sad fact is that there is an economic crisis in Border areas. Petrol filling stations on our side of the Border have closed down and hotels and licensed premises are finding it hard to exist. Family businesses are just holding on. The problem will not go away and we will have to do something about it. If we do not tackle the problem it will get worse.

Some months ago Members from all parties decided, in the best interests of Border areas, to establish an all-party committee to monitor what is going on in those areas. The problems there demand the attention of all concerned. We are caught up in a dangerous situation. I am aware that the Government, like the previous administration, have a responsibility to get our economy into a proper state and that that means facing serious challenges. However, in meeting those challenges we are putting businesses on this side of the Border in peril. Unfair competition across the Border is driving many people on this side out of business. It is becoming a wasteland.

Whatever help I can give as an Opposition Deputy will be given in the greater interest of all concerned. This requires the attention of all parties. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that he should look seriously at the possibility of structuring an all-party committee with secretarial back-up to monitor what is wrong and to make sure that measures taken to deal with domestic problems in the Republic will not exacerbate the position in Border areas. The Taoiseach might give one of his Ministers or junior Ministers the responsibility for dealing with this and I hope I would be allowed to make an honourable input, in the interests of resolving problems rather than scoring party political points.

The question of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be part of the debate that lies ahead in the next three or four years or whatever time this Government remain in office. I had responsibility as spokesman for the Fine Gael Party between 1977 and 1981 and I was disappointed that I was not given the responsibility to see that things I believed in could be achieved, but that is yesterday's news. Because of my experience I had the occasion to lecture British politicians, before the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and tell them that they should take up a neutral position in Northern Ireland and stop looking at the two traditions, one as an enemy and the other as a friend. Most of us in this House come from one of those traditions but we are not enemies. Tens of thousands of our people went off and fought wars for Britain; enemies do not do things like that. Hundreds of thousands of our people went to England, Scotland and Wales where they married and brought up families and lived as law-abiding citizens; enemies do not do things like that. We as a people objected to the politicies of the British Government in Northern Ireland and to that extent we were anti-British, but only to that extent. I pointed out that the people whom they looked on as friends were only friends because they agreed with the policies of the British Government in Northern Ireland, but if it ever came to pass that the British Government were to change their position in Northern Ireland and take up a pro-united Ireland stance, then their old enemies might become their new friends and their old friends might soon become their new enemies.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement has given an insight into what is happening in Northern Ireland. The agreement has been criticised by people who do not understand what it claims to achieve. The agreement was brought about to put something in place which was not there beforehand. Something had to be done. Two sovereign Governments came together and produced what we know as the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is a constitutional agreement entered into by two sovereign parliaments. I support the terms and the spirit of the agreement, but I feel entitled to say that it is lacking in a human dimension. We are dealing with a human problem in Northern Ireland and one cannot solve a human problem by looking at books and being academic. One cannot solve a human problem by dealing with constitutional matters without getting people together behind the effort. We will not succeed with this agreement if we do not win the confidence and goodwill of those Irish people who call themselves pro-British or Unionists. I hope we will become more human in our approach and offer the hand of friendship to those people who find it difficult to give their hand in thanks.

I have a personal relationship with the new Taoiseach because of the number of years we have both served in the House. It would be easy for people in the North of Ireland to generate a hate image for our Taoiseach. That would be a tragedy. My advice, for what it is worth, is to make sure this does not come about. The leader of the nationalist people in the South is not deserving of being put into a position where he is made a hate figure. That would be very dangerous. I know the Taoiseach is probably aware of this and I hope he will take appropriate steps through public relations to make sure that he will overcome this terrible divide which separates our people and bring a quick end to the carnage which is taking place so that we can create a society where all people will share a pride in calling themselves Irish, no matter what church they go to or whether they go to none.

My colleague, Deputy Blaney, spoke earlier about Patrick McIntyre who is appealing against an extradition warrant. I know this boy very well. I visited him a couple of times in Long Kesh while he was there and I know his family exceptionally well. Having given the matter very serious consideration. I must say that the sentence initially was too severe for the crime he committed and I hope that may be taken into consideration in dealing with his case. In protesting against the extradition of Patrick McIntyre it should also be said that Deputy Blaney was a Cabinet Minister in the Government which introduced the legislation which is now being used to extradite Patrick McIntyre.

I say to the Taoiseach and the new Government that any help I can give, any service I can provide in helping to overcome the many difficulties that confront them is to be had for the asking and I will work in the national interest in any capacity they may require. I wish them every success in the work which this House has given them the responsibility to discharge.

Mr. Yates

A Cheann Comhairle, I warmly congratulate you on your new position. You are the most fortunate Member of the 25th Dáil in so far as you do not have to seek re-election by the public. I know that, as in the past, you will distinguish yourself in your current office. I extend my congratulations to the Taoiseach and the members of the Government and in particular to the Minister for Finance. Every cutback starts in Finance and every new expenditure has to be sanctioned by Finance. Very quickly the Minister for Finance becomes the most unpopular internal member of the Government and I wish him steel nerves in the weeks and months ahead. He certainly does not have an easy job.

I will briefly make some constructive comments which I hope the Taoiseach and the members of the Government will take up. Over the past four-and-a-half years as a backbencher I have tried in my own small way to make sure that the procedures of this House work. I was chairman of an Oireachtas committee and I produced a Private Members' Bill seeking to ban below-cost selling. In both areas I must say that in principle Dáil reform works but in practice it does not. If a Private Members' Bill gets past Second Stage it must go to a select committee of this House. Unfortunately our whole system is a pyramid structure. I am sure that Fianna Fáil backbenchers and even Ministers of State will find out very quickly that the Cabinet have all the executive authority. It is not possible on the basis of confidentiality to extend that. We need to develop along the lines of every other parliament in Europe. We should have a lottery system for Private Members' Bills, especially where Bills would not incur new expenditure. They should be facilitated and the Government should take an open attitude towards them. The procedure relating to a select committee of the House after Second Stage should be dropped and Government Departments should be available to assist. It is wrong to assume that a monopoly of wisdom in relation to legislation lies within State Departments. The Oireachtas committees worked in so far as there was a commitment by the members of those committees in the 24th Dáil, but unfortunately at the end of the day they were only talking shops. Unfortunately they were only talking shops because there was no effective follow-up in terms of the implementation of any of those constructive reports. I hope that some procedure will be devised to overcome this problem.

In relation to the restructuring of Government, an opportunity has been missed tonight because the Department of Defence are the most lightweight and there is a strong case for combining them with the Department of Justice. I know that responsibility for the Department of Justice is particularly onerous but with evolvement in the whole area of security, one Minister could do both jobs and, more importantly, would allow within the constitutional limitations of the number of Cabinet Members, the appointment of a Minister for Tourism. I was appalled two years ago to see that in the Department of Industry and Commerce a section of eight people headed by an assistant principal officer was dealing with tourism, it had the same ranking as legal metrology which means that the encouragement for people to use kilos and litres was as great as our whole tourism effort. This is the greatest growth sector in terms of the international economy and we have the potential to increase our share. It is worth £1 billion at present and will be employment intensive in the future. Nevertheless, we only commit £28 million of State resources to this area.

I support the Taoiseach in his ambitious plans for that area but I should like to see a full ministry involved — not just for the sake of having a ministry — but because the biggest problem in tourism is that the effort is disparate in so far as the Office of Public Works are responsible for monuments, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry look after wildlife services and local authorities deal with signposting. The B & I also took for their share, they all move in different directions and, unless tourism is central to the Cabinet table, with a proper Departmental secretary along the lines of the "Yes Minister" on television, it will be left behind.

Science and technology are rightly recognised as the most significant area in relation to employment because of the numbers of workers who will be displaced. The NBST submitted a proposal to the Government in 1984 recommending the setting up of infrastructure for biotechnology and AMT involving the private sector and third level education which would form the background for creating 600 jobs in the area of technology. Those plans need to be implemented and I hope they will be included in the Estimates because it is the most significant step that any Government could take, creating a framework for employment creation through new technology.

I hope that the establishment of an office in the area of forestry will not negative the proposal to include it in a semi-State body because the transfer of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to a semi-State body has been successful and I am sure that there would be equal success if there was such a move in the forestry area. I also hope that the Taoiseach will not forget to nominate someone from County Wexford as we are a neglected area in many ways.

I wish this minority Government well, they have enormous problems but they can take comfort from tonight's debate in so far as the Opposition spent more time attacking each other than attacking Fianna Fáil. Fine Gael will be putting forward constructive proposals, I hope they will be accepted in that spirit and that we will bring about political stability through co-operation.

The Taoiseach

I am greatly heartened and encouraged by the general reception my new Government have received and by the constructive tone of the debate. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I wish to express our appreciation of the generous offers that have been made of support for our efforts in dealing with the many problems we will confront.

The debate ranged over many issues and many of the Deputies who spoke put forward genuine inquiries about the form of the Government, the changes proposed, their extent and implications. I hope in due course to deal with them all but not this evening. I wish to refer to the proposal which has attracted some attention, to allocate the Department of the Gaeltacht to the Taoiseach. I can assure my old friend, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, that this proposal is meant to upgrade that Department and to award it greater priority and importance than it has had up to now. Successive Governments have been guilty of the practice of tagging the Department of the Gaeltacht on to another Department and making it an appendage and it was to get away from that practice that I have taken this — perhaps unusual — step.

In forming this Government, I am conscious of the fact that we face tasks and challenges which are greater than any incoming Government have had to face for decades. Public confidence and morale need to be restored if we are to put the failures we have suffered for some time behind us and revitalise our national life. That revitalisation, I am convinced, must begin with economic recovery. We must take the measures necessary to put the economy back on the path of greater growth in employment. These measures will require many difficult decisions and will certainly have to be implemented with skill, energy and resolution on the part of the Government and indeed with understanding and support from the House in general.

Deputies will have heard me say on other occasions that there is more to running a country than managing the economy. I want to emphasise that at this stage in our affairs it is the effective management of the economy which must take priority. We on this side of the House published in detail during the election campaign a programme for national recovery setting out specific policies and programmes for the various economic and social sectors. We now have an opportunity to rebut the criticism of that programme, that it contained nothing but aspirations. We accept the challenge to prove that the programme can be implemented and can be more than simple pious hopes and aspirations.

I wish to reiterate the essential principle with which we will implement that programme and manage the economic and social life of the nation in its present precarious state. Generally, we accept the broad thrust of the recent National and Economic Social Council Report entitled A Strategy for Development. That strategy consists of four elements, the correction of the fiscal imbalance, tax reform, greater social equity and the development of the economy to give increased growth in employment. These elements are consistent with our view of what is required and we are heartened by the fact that consensus on that strategy exists among the principal economic and social partners represented on the council. It is my intention to meet shortly with the council to discuss their findings and recommendations in greater detail.

We intend to manage the public finances so as to reduce progressively excessive levels of Government borrowing particularly for current expenditure. The current budget deficit will be progressively reduced and we will commence that process in 1987. Just how far we will be able to go in 1987 will not be clear until we have had an opportunity to measure and assess options and choices which are there. Already we know, for instance, that because of the delay that unfortunately happened in bringing in a budget because of the political situation there has been a slippage in the Estimates of expenditure and revenue for 1987 but, as we have already announced and I now reiterate, we will at least contain Government expenditure in 1987 at or below the 1986 expenditure levels measured as a percentage of GNP. As stated in our programme and as recommended in the NESC report, the growth of the national debt as a percentage of GNP will be slowed and reversed by firm fiscal policy. That policy will be accompanied by consistent monetary and exchange rate policies. The result of these policies firmly pursued will be to improve confidence and to create a monetary and economic climate — with due apologies to Deputy Michael D. Higgins here — which will be conducive to greater economic activity but will also stimulate actively that greater economic activity and increase investment in employment. We will review immediately in consultation with the financial institutions the other interests concerned and the composition and causes of the exceptional flight of funds from the country in recent times to see what measures can be taken to encourage such funds to remain in or to return to our economy.

Increasing employment and reducing unemployment are our major economic and social objectives and I know that those objectives are shared on all sides of the House. Our growth and development programmes for industry, agriculture, food processing, real resources, horticulture, forestry, tourism, the construction industry, international financing services and semi-State companies are comprehensive and constitute a dynamic action programme to generate employment and growth in output. The reorganisation of Government Departments which I have announced has been made with those development programmes in mind. I take fully aboard some of the criticisms that have been made about the changes that have been proposed and as a first step in the constructive and co-operative attitude about which we have been talking here this evening I propose to talk particularly with outgoing Ministers who have made some criticisms and, indeed, with other Deputies, about these proposals that we are making before their final details are settled. I hope that I can assure the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, that it is not intended to set up a number of costly new bureaucracies but to try within the existing resources to reorganise the administrative structures more efficiently in the form of the offices that we propose, administrative structures which will be able to focus more directly on the particular development areas and programmes which we have in mind.

In the EC we will support the measures which the Commission envisage to bring about greater economic cohesion in the Community. I have already had the benefit of wide-ranging discussions with the Irish Commissioner, to whom I would like at this stage to say a very sincere word of public thanks for his help and co-operation, and with the President of the Commission. I have received very firm assurances from the President and the Irish Commissioner of full understanding and support for Ireland's special problems. I was glad to avail of the opportunity to assure them of our commitment to the Community's objectives for greater cohesion and I explained particularly to the President our special concern that in any revision of the CAP the needs of the family farms throughout Europe should be differentiated from those of other agricultural enterprises in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Treaty.

Our taxation policies will seek greater equity and relief initially by recovering arrears which are due by the introduction of a system of self-assessment for the self-employed and by the achievement of a situation in which two-thirds of our taxpayers will pay tax only at the standard rate. Our ultimate objective, of course, will be to lessen the burden of taxation particularly on the lower paid and, as everybody in the House recognises fully, that can be achieved only by having more people in paid employment paying taxes. Social welfare benefits will be maintained in real terms. Payment of the increased benefits in 1987 will be made from July 1987.

We will work to create a consensus on the direction and development of education and we will guide that development more closely towards employment opportunities that are available. Our health services must be safeguarded and developed with efficient use of resources and emphasis on community care rather than on hospital-based care, the promotion of personal health and the widest role possible for the VHI.

We will support fully and press for all and any worthwhile reforms and improvements in the position of the people of Northern Ireland — particularly the Nationalist community there — which can be brought about through the Anglo-Irish Agreement without prejudice to the reservations which we sincerely hold on the constitutional aspects of that agreement.

The Government come into office in circumstances which threaten the economic stability and the social solidarity of our society. Our principles and programmes are clear and our intention is to implement them with courage and resolution. We will look for goodwill and support for our efforts both at parliamentary level here in this House and from the nation as a whole. The task we face in containing and improving the stability of the fiscal, economic and social life of our nation is complex and difficult. All of us in our different capacities in this House must work together to the greatest extent we can to meet the challenge that confronts us today on every side.

Let me say that I am greatly encouraged by the general atmosphere in which this discussion has been conducted, the contributions that have been made and the very patent and sincere wish by so many on all sides to help Government in this difficult task. It will be my particularly earnest personal wish to the greatest extent possible to avail fully of the great reservoir of experience and knowledge that exists in the membership of this House and to accept and look out for and seek constructive advice and comments, and particularly to listen to what is said in our debates here and to get the maximum possible guidance from the membership of the House. That may be a very important contribution indeed in helping us to overcome our difficulties.

In conclusion let me say that we hope very shortly to get down to looking at constructing and devising procedures for the more efficient carry on of our business here in the House. A number of Deputies have spoken about the committees and I know that there will be a general wish on all sides that we set about recreating the committee structure. We have learned a great deal from the committees that were established in the last Dáil. Perhaps I interpret the wishes of the House correctly in suggesting that maybe there should be a lesser number of committees and an effort to make them more effective, but we can discuss that matter in a total non-partisan way. However, I think we all agree that there should be more effective use of the committee structure. We made a fair amount of progress in the last Dáil and we should build on that progress in the future.

Again I express my appreciation to the outgoing Taoiseach for all the very generous and helpful co-operation he has afforded me prior to the take-over by this Government. He and his Ministers have been quite exceptionally co-operative and helpful in making sure that in so far as they were concerned I would not be at the slightest disadvantage in coming into office today. I appreciate that greatly and I think it augurs well for the future. I would like members of the general public who criticise us politicians and the political process to know that sometimes we can work together in a general spirit of co-operation for the common good.

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, and the Members of the House for the welcome which was given to the Government. It is now our responsibility to accept the duties which the electorate placed upon us and which Dáil Éireann has confirmed today. I hope we will be able to use all our abilities and our capacities to successfully undertake the difficult task and the challenge that lies ahead.

Question put and agreed to.