Before speaking about the budget and the economy generally I want to join the previous speakers in their expression of sympathy to those who suffered so much as a result of the Stardust fire. It is appropriate that I should take this opportunity to add my voice to theirs. I would add one further comment. Later in the day there will be a motion in regard to the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry. At this stage I would merely say that I hope the Government will not merely set up an inquiry and rest at that. In my own constituency the last major disaster at Whiddy took place and I saw the huge report coming from the inquiry and I am still waiting for the Government to take steps to implement that report. I also saw in my own county a major train disaster which was not quite as big. Again inquiries have been going on but I want to see some action and a bit of force to ensure that this type of disaster will be prevented in the future. I will leave it at that. It is not appropriate that I should say any more.
I was rather amused by the previous Deputy from the Government back benches talking in glowing terms about the ability of the Government to balance the budget. I do not know whether he has read much of the budget figures but on the Minister's own admission the budget is based on a deficit on current account of £515 million so it is a bit of a joke to be talking about a balanced budget. Even that figure is not a true one because it is based on sums which, quite frankly, do not add up and we will end up the year with a far greater deficit. But at this stage I merely want to point out to the previous Deputy that any thoughts that he has that this budget is presented on the basis of being a balanced one can be quickly disabused by looking at the last page of the Minister's budget speech where there is an explanatory table of the current budget. He will see that on the Minister's own figures the budget is based' on a deficit of £515 million.
By general agreement it is accepted that at present our economy is in a mess. Many of us who are interested in the future of our country, who are genuinely looking forward to the Government producing a strategy which would commence and stimulate a move out of the economic morass in which we are in. I judge the budget on that basis. It has to be accepted that in this budget and the accompanying plans and documentation, particularly the Book of Estimates and the capital budget, there is no planned strategy to improve the economy to any appreciable degree, to tackle the underlying problems of the economy. Therefore I have to say that this budget does not get anywhere near the pass mark; in fact it is a total failure.
In case it might be suggested that the basis on which I make my case is not a tenable one I want to quote a few figures to prove it. The basis of my case is that the economy is in a mess and this budget does nothing to bring it out of the mess. We have to look at the main economic figures as they were in 1980 as opposed to 1977, the year the Government took office. A quick glance at these figures will indicate quite clearly how much damage has been done to this country by the Government, how bad the economy is, and will sketch the dark and gloomy picture which would require a bit of imagination and a bit of vision to change. In 1977 unemployment figures were falling; in 1980, the unemployment figure went up by 34,000. In 1977 the growth rate was 5 per cent; in 1980 it was nil. In 1977 the increase in agricultural output was up by one-third; in 1980 it fell. In 1977 the national debt was £3,600 million; in 1980 it was £7,500 million, double the 1977 figure.
That is the major economic fault which I lay at the feet of this Government. They actually doubled the national debt since they came into power. One would see some excuse for that if one could see its results in an improvement in our employment figures, if we could see its result in improvements in our infrastructure. But unfortunately we have had a combination of increasing unemployment, pot holes in the roads and a doubling of the national debt. What use has been made of the borrowing since this Government came into power? I would accept a Government that would borrow if the money was put to good purpose. But what have the Government been doing with it? They have been paying the houshold bills with it over the last four years. On that basis it is clear, judging this Government since 1977, they have been a total disaster. The borrowing figures are so enormous that we are inclined to get confused and I see people using the foreign borrowing figure in relation to the overall one. But the foreign borrowing figure is very important and very relevant to the disastrous state into which this Government have put the country.
In 1977 our figure for foreign borrowing was £170 million. It is now almost ten times that figure. Everybody knows the difficulties associated with foreign borrowing. At the end of 1980 the figure was £1,600 million and that is only the foreign borrowing part of it but it is very important from the point of view of the falling punt, the extra cost on repayment of the currency in which we borrowed. The State gets nothing out of the interest because it has to be paid free of tax and there is no recovery. It is a matter which has to be emphasised and it is one in respect of which the Government can take no credit.
They are the comparisons between 1977, when this Government took over, and the situation today. We can talk about percentages and statistics but these figures cannot be disputed. What is the excuse of this Government for sinking this country into so much debt over their term of office? What is their excuse for doubling the national debt since they came into power without making good use of that money, without having a consequent reduction in our unemployment, a consequent improvement in inflation and a consequent improvement in our infrastructure? In comparing 1977 with 1980 I almost forgot one of the major parts of our economic make up, that is the inflation rate. How can members of this Government, with straight faces, stand up here and talk of what they are doing for the country when in 1977 we had an inflation figure of 10 per cent and which nearly trebled last year? That is the background and that is the comparison as between 1977 and 1980. It was in the context of that background and of the damage done over that period that one would have expected an improvement and a strategy to bring this country back from the economic bog into which it had been sunk by the present administration.
There is one other comparison that should be mentioned, that is, the projections included in the 1977 Fianna Fáil manifesto. I know people get sick and tired of that infamous document but it is no harm to bear in mind that this Government made certain serious projections in 1977 upon which they went to the electorate and got a huge vote of confidence. Those projections have proved to be totally wrong, totally false and, I can only come to the conclusion at this stage, totally dishonest. In these areas to which I referred the projections were that unemployment would now be down to 32,000. How can this Government face the people with straight faces and say they are able and willing to honestly tackle the problems of the economy when that figure is four times higher? There was a projection of an inflation rate of 5 per cent. Fianna Fáil said there would be no problem bringing inflation down to that figure, but what is the figure today? Nearly four times higher. There was a projection of a growth rate of 7 per cent. What is the comparison today? Nil.
The projection that really took my fancy, and which I would have strongly supported if there had been any solid effort made to implement it, was the strategy to be adopted which would result in 3p in every pound spent being switched into the purchase of Irish goods. This was to have the incidental effect of 10,000 extra jobs. What has been the outcome? It has gone into reverse and almost 3p in the pound less is being spent on Irish goods.
It is very important that we bear these facts in mind. We cannot just look at the budget as presented by the Minister for Finance. We have to look at the background to it and the record of this administration since they came into power. On that basis we have to assess what should have been done and to what extent the budget fell short of that objective. I believe that, based on those figures and many others which have been quoted recently, one has to come to the inescapable conclusion forced by all the evidence (a) that the economy is in a mess, (b) that there should have been an overall strategy to effect an improvement to map a path out of the economic bog into which we had sunk and to steer the economy in that direction and (c) that this budget is a total failure when one judges it by those criteria.
Hopes were raised at the time of the palace revolution within the Government party. In fairness I thought there were grounds for some hope that the present leader would take a grip of the economy. Ten or 15 years ago in certain Ministries in which he was involved he showed a certain amount of initiative and imagination. From that point of view I watched him gathering the economic powers of the State under his control, directly or indirectly, and, like many other people, hoped that he would make good use of those powers. He gathered them in more than any other Taoiseach since the foundation of the State. He did this in a number of ways, de jure and de facto. De jure he abolished the Department of Economic Planning and Development and assumed entire and direct control over that area himself. He considerably expanded his own Department and, directly, and without any apology to anybody — least of all the last occupant of the Ministry — took direct control. In a more indirect way he also took control of other aspects of the economy and undoubtedly has exercised an influence over the Ministry of Finance greater than that exercised by any previous Taoiseach.
I do not propose to comment on the position of my fellow Corkman in that office except to say that since the present Taoiseach took over he has appointed two Ministers for Finance who, to say the least, had shown little interest in or knowledge of economic affairs. It would be fair to say that they were people who would have a degree of political subservience to the Taoiseach. I do not believe one should talk about personalities when in politics, but this has been the comment of many commentators.
I will look at the more tangible things, such as the Taoiseach's control over the finances of the State. There is a direct example in the supposed £100 million planned to solve our crime problems. In the Irish Independent of Friday, 5 September 1980 there was a full page spread “War on crime; £100 million to beat the bandits”. The other national papers carried similar headlines, not spread to the same degree on their front pages, but the background to that £100 million is what is important in proving my point. I will speak later about spending it because it has not yet been provided, and that is another day's work.
This arose out of a meeting between the Garda Commissioner and the Taoiseach following a tragedy in which a number of our Garda force were killed. The Garda Commissioner was instructed to draw up a plan. Last July the Taoiseach directly advised that whatever resources of the State were needed to implement that plan would be made available. There was no reference to economic problems or to the Minister for Finance. The Taoiseach confirmed that it would be done. When the commissioner carried out his instructions and drew up his plan there was a further meeting. That plan was approved by the Taoiseach. The fact that it was going to cost £100 million did not worry him; he gave the go-ahead. Was that not the action of someone who was taking over direct control of the finances of the State without any reference to the Minister for Finance?
That point is given further proof when one considers that with all the talk, the interviews on television, with everybody breathlessly hanging on to every word dripping from the Minister's lips, all the party political broadcasts and all contributions on this resolution, the entire budget only involved a net increase in revenue of £160 million and a net increase in expenditure of £150 million. That is what was done in the budget when one boils down the changes that took place, and yet at one meeting the Taoiseach was able to guarantee £100 million to implement a war against crime. That shows the extent of his control.
The Taoiseach has gathered the power. There were expectations and hopes throughout the country that he might be able to show a degree of economic wizardry and start to solve our problems. I am afraid that the awful realisation has dawned. It is clear from what was expected of the wizard and what has been produced that the emperor does not have any clothes. It is clear that the hopes and expectations of our people in that area have been totally dashed. The vision, imagination and innovation expected in the economic area are all lacking. It is only now that the extent to which the Fianna Fáil Lynch-style Government mismanaged our economy is becoming fully apparent. However, it is clear that the inefficiency then shown appears like genius when compared to the Haughey experiment.
The economy has got worse since it was taken over by the Taoiseach. The strategy one would expect to effect an improvement is totally lacking. The total dedication one would expect in regard to the important areas such as unemployment, prices and balance of payments is not evident. An attempt has not been made to establish a strategy to deal with those problems on a solid long term basis. All the efforts of the leader of the Government appear to be directed towards one objective, that of being re-elected. I am not so innocent in politics as to suggest that any politician should forget he has to face the people if he is to be re-elected. That is part of the democratic system, but if somebody is elected to do a job the carrying out of that task must be his primary objective. While one must bear in mind the need to be re-elected and the need to work towards ensuring that, it is letting down the people who elected one if one's abilities are not primarily devoted to doing the job for which one was elected. It is clear that that is not so at present and has not been so for the past 12 months.
The whole strategy appears to concentrate on publicity and press relations, to avoid any positive action and, in the words of McLuhan — if I remember him correctly — we end up with the medium becoming the message. I can only classify that type of approach as government by mirrors. Everything is assessed in the context of the publicity it will gain, the public reaction to every move made and the effects on the polls from the popularity point of view. A great disservice is being done to the country with that as the primary and fundamental approach of the leader of the Government.
The action in relation to the £100 million to be devoted to the war against crime is typical of the style of Government we must suffer. There was an emotional reaction here following the sad deaths of two members of the Garda. It was clear that the country demanded that action be taken to ensure as far as possible that such an awful occurrence would not happen again. The initial steps taken by the Government, directed and controlled by the leader, were: to have full discussions with the Garda Commissioner, to look for a plan and to commit the resources of the State to the implementation of that plan. There was a lot of publicity following that, culminating in a heading in a national newspaper telling us of the war on crime and that £100 million would be spent to beat the bandits. That was indicating decisive action by the Government who were committed and concerned. The leader of the Government gave the impression that he was going to make sure our people could be satisfied that appropriate steps were being taken to beat the criminals. That was a totally cynical exploitation of the emotional feelings of our people and of the demands and worries of the Garda in relation to increasing their strength and efficiency.
That money was never made available and from the manner that operation was approached by the Taoiseach it is now clear he did not have any intention of making that money available. Time does not permit me to go into this matter in great detail but I hope to deal with it when the Estimate for the Department of Justice comes before the House. That propaganda effort stated that £42 million would be spent on helicopters and airplanes in the establishing of a police air reconnaissance unit. In November the Minister was asked about the provision of the money for that purpose. The Minister mentioned that there was not anything he could offer in the 1980 Estimates but he would be making a provision under a separate subhead in 1981. He duly made a provision in the Estimate for 1981 under a separate subhead, aircraft. Bearing in mind his own figures when he talked about some eight helicopters at the time at roughly £5 million apiece and four light planes costing about £.5 million apiece amounting to about £42 million, what is the figure provided in 1981 towards meeting that portion of £100 million? Also on that figure let us judge the credibility of the Government and the commitment which they had to their £100 million crime package. The figure was £1,000 and that amount was included as a separate subhead in the 1981 Estimates. That is the actuality, the reality, as opposed to the wild, extravagant promise made last September, the cynical publicity exercise that was carried out at the time.
Other promises were made. They were going to increase the strength of the Garda force from 10,000 to 12,000, a very worthy object, no problem. They promised that the resources would be made available. There was direct commitment by the Taoiseach himself. What is the situation today? After six months of the 18 months in which this was going to be done the number in the Garda force is not even 10,000. It is actually less than the baseline which was going to be increased. If one is to judge by the recruiting efforts at the moment — or the lack of them — there is absolutely no intention of increasing that figure, and this is borne out by the fact that almost half-way through the 18-month period during which this was going to be done the Minister has not even gone to the trouble, as far as I can see, of increasing the statutory maximum number beyond the figure of 10,000 which was fixed some years ago. That again shows the extent of the commitment of the Government and it shows even more, and very saddeningly so, the cynical propaganda approach which has been adopted by this Government of an absolute pretence that they are dealing with the problems supported fully by a propaganda machine and then letting the problem fade, at least they hope, into oblivion. That is an important factor that has to be borne in mind and it is time to put it on the record of this House.
I do not object to the present Taoiseach or members of his Cabinet, sub-Cabinet or party using public relations. It is a modern part of politics, but at the same time one has to question the extent to which it is being used today. One has to question the manner in which things that are not happening are presented as being about to happen. One has to consider whether this is a total abuse of power. I do not intend to attack the media. As far as I am concerned the media do their own job, but in that area a few comments might be no harm. One expects the Fianna Fáil newspaper group to give the Fianna Fáil line, obviously. Indeed, one is pleasantly surprised now and again by a show of independence by some of their writers but in other areas I question the extent to which the Government party control the media. This is provided for me by the take-over of yet another paper, the Sunday Journal, by a company noted for their support for the present Government party.