I have no confidence in this Government. The country is in a shambles: the economy is on the brink of ruin; the budget is scuttled; millions of pounds are leaving the country causing upward pressure on interest rates, and next year's budget is increasingly looking like an instalment from "Mission Impossible". The Programme for Economic and Social Progress which was to provide the economic foundation for this country for a decade has been abrogated by both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. Unemployment is at an all time high and our young people queue for American visas in a scramble to leave the country.
The people have no confidence in this Government. In a recent opinion poll only 29 per cent of the public expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Government. I have no doubt that this 29 per cent spoke from party political loyalty rather than from conviction or satisfaction with the performance of the Government.
[1055] The people are angry and worried. They want a competent, clean Government to get on with the business of running the country, allowing them to get on with the business of running their own lives.
The people are angry and have every right to be so. They are angry with the Government, because when economic success was within reach they have let it slip through their fingers as a result of incompetence, greed and lack of cohesion. The people are angry because they cannot make ends meet. The burden of income tax on PAYE people is overwhelming. Small business people see their turnover decreasing. The building industry is at a standstill, there is a bus strike, the post is not being delivered and the country is rocked with scandal. These scandals involve what the Minister for Industry and Commerce described as a "golden circle" of people in the business world. Now, a circle always has a centre. The people are angry because they believe that the Taoiseach is the centre of that golden circle.
In passing, I should say that the people are angry not only with the Government, they are angry with the Dil. Most of what happens here is remote from their day to day concerns. The concerns are of mothers trying to make ends meet, to manage their families, to ensure that their children are well dressed going to school. The concerns are of parents worried about their older children who cannot get jobs, who become increasingly depressed hanging around the house, who have the look of despair in their eyes when their hundredth job application is not even replied to and who feel ashamed when they join the dole queue. Finally there is the sorrow when these young people finally emigrate.
The debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the old - the loneliness of being alone, the inadequacy of the transport system in rural Ireland which prevents old people from [1056] visiting their families, the fear they have of illness, of overcrowded public wards, of delays in being admitted to hospital.
The debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the poor and the homeless, their struggle to survive below the poverty line, the impossibility of being motivated when all around you 80 per cent of your friends and neighbours are unemployed.
The debate in this House did not reflect the views of the farmers who now have no confidence in the Government to protect their way of life in the Common Agricultural Policy renegotiation. The debate does not express the concern of workers in the food processing industry who will lose their jobs through the same botched renegotiation, nor the views of the rural communities of the west who are on the brink of annihilation.
When Cromwell planted the country, the native Irish were banished to Connaught. Is it not ironic that a native Irish Government are now involved in planting Connaught with coniferous trees, in denuding the countryside of people, and out-Cromwelling Cromwell?
What is the response of the Government, and in particular of Government Ministers in this House - a barrage of charge and counter charge, the politics of the smear, the allegation, the innuendo, made by those "willing to wound but yet afraid to strike".
That type of politics dominated the House yesterday, but reached its climax in Deputy Dick Roche's contribution. The Deputy spread slurry in all directions and in the process became a "bawd in the way of good service" to his Taoiseach. I have no doubt but that he would qualify for one of those anti-pollution grants from the Department of Agriculture to clean up his act.
I have no doubt that the ordinary decent members of the public deplore this type of politics and are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated at the failure of the institutions of State to address their real needs.
[1057] There is a social cohesion which is always necessary to underpin parliamentary democracy. The consent of the governed is a prerequisite of Government. The events of the past six weeks have delivered a very serious blow to the foundations of our system of Government. If the rules do not apply to the privileged few, the consent of the many to be ruled, cannot be expected.
When ordinary decent people no longer believe that the country is being governed in their interest and in the interests of their children, a Government cannot continue. When ordinary people believe that the Government, the parliament and the courts no longer are capable of responding to their needs, a Government are finished.
The people no longer have confidence in this Government and that lack of confidence does not arise from their dislike of one aspect of policy or another, but from a fundamental doubt about the ability of this Government to do anything at all now to meet their needs.
The scandals of recent weeks have contributed in a major way to the erosion of confidence, and the inability of the Government to deal adequately with the scandals has further eroded public confidence.
There is no evidence available to me that Government Ministers are personally stained by these scandals, but the responsible Ministers are and were guilty of gross negligence in not having proper arrangements in place to ensure the accountability of State agencies under their control. They are also guilty of gross incompetence in not dealing with the scandals when they emerged.
Circular 1 of 1983 issued by the Department of Finance, when Deputy Alan Dukes was Minister for Finance, in March of that year lays down in the most explicit manner the arrangements which should have been in place to ensure the accountability of State bodies to their parent Department and the Department [1058] of Finance. Not the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and Food nor the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications properly performed their duty under the terms of this circular.
When the various scandals became public the first inclination of all Ministers was to distance themselves as far as possible from the events in question and only half-hearted action was taken. Consequently, the Taoiseach impulsively dismissed Mr. Parceir and Mr. Smurfit in the course of a radio interview. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, had to replace Mr. Shields as his inspector within a matter of days of his appointment. The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, rushed into a departmental inquiry which failed to establish the key facts. He then appointed an inspector under section 14 of the Companies Act who has no power to follow the money trail of the various transactions rather than appoint an inspector under section 8 of the Act who would have such power. The Minister's inquiry is now stymied through lack of power under the Companies Act and procedures being taken in the courts.
In respect of the Carysfort College controversy the Minister for Education has consistently failed to answer the key questions. She is running from it in case it damages her reputation. The ball is being passed to her by the Taoiseach but she refuses to field it and runs further away.

There are questions which must be answered in this House. Was the property offered to the Department of Education for 8 million prior to its sale to Mr. Pino Harris? When the then owners had almost agreed to sell the property to Mr. Harris for 6.5 million, did not the then [1059] owners again offer the property to the Department of Education for 6.5 million? This being so why did the Department refuse to buy it and within six months agree to its purchase for a higher price of 8 million? The Minister who spoke shortly before I got to my feet again failed to answer these precise questions. That is where the issue lies; it is not a question of who told who what six months later.
I would now like to turn briefly to the latest agreement between the Coalition partners. I find the whole charade of renegotiation between Fianna Fil and the Progressive Democrats farcical. The Progressive Democrats in July 1989 signed on for four years. They participated as Ministers in the two budgets which have eroded the economic progress made between 1987 and 1989. They actively participated in all the decisions which during the two years have increased public expenditure by 1.1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent against an inflation rate for the two years of 7 per cent.
One of the Ministers, the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has specific responsibility for job creation has presided over the highest level of unemployment since the foundation of the State. There is no change in this reheated document today, in this policy, which will deliver a single job. Not only did the Progressive Democrats actively participate in the key decisions which have led to the present economic shambles but they actually boasted of their contribution and frequently upset their Fianna Fil colleagues by claiming all the credit for the so-called miracle - some miracle. The Progressive Democrats actively supported the unfortunate Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This programme is a policy of great detail for the next three years and purports to lay down the foundations of economic and social policy for a decade.
[1060] I welcome the Minister for Finance to the House and I am glad he is still a member of the Government.

The Progressive Democrats enthusiastically endorsed the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and claimed credit for the agreement and all its details. That was done less than 12 months ago. How in all honesty can they now claim that there is some kind of alternative programme which they always had in their hearts but which they were not allowed to implement by their big brothers in Government?

Is not the whole bogus negotiation process of the last few days simply an attempt by the Progressive Democrats to justify to their supporters their willingness to continue in this failed Government? Is not the posturing about policy simply an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the public to blind them to the fact that the Progressive Democrats have sold out on every principle they purport to have and are now merely a convenient annex to the Fianna Fil Party supporting their failures, ethos, leading personalities and narrow mono-cultural vision of Ireland and every policy issue which flows from that vision or lack of it?

This new whiter than white policy document is a [1061] microwave document, a reheat of yesterday's dinner, a loin cloth to hide the indecent exposure of the Progressive Democrats. It is as dishonest as it is shameful, a policy which reveals all the carrots but none of the sticks, a document which fails to state the specific tax decisions which will be taken to fund the tax promises. A conservative estimate of the tax proposals comes to not less than 600 million and yet not a penny has been identified to pay for this. Commitments to cut expenditure by in excess of 400 million are made to achieve specific fiscal targets. Where will the axe fall and what are the implications for the health services, education, public service pay and social welfare? Do the Fianna Fil backbenchers realise the pig in the poke they have bought? Paragraph 3 of the tax section states, "the tax system should not unduly influence choice". Does this mean mortgage interest relief and VHI relief are gone?

When the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Finance, assured the Fianna Fil backbenchers this morning that this was not so, did they actually believe him? Did they have the confidence to believe him? Did he ever cod you before?

Where is the 1.1 billion, the total cost of this document, going to come from? Paragraph 7 states that employee PRSI will be restructured to make it more progressive. Does this mean that the PRSI income ceiling is being abolished and can it mean anything other than that? The section on [1062] social welfare makes a commitment to further broaden the scope of social insurance. Can this mean anything other than an extension of the top rate of PRSI to teachers, garda, prison officers, public servants of all sorts negativing any progress they might make through lower income tax bands?
What magic formula has been discovered to enable the Government to fund a 1 billion package of tax promises and expenditure cuts to achieve the objectives of this programme if the Taoiseach can assure the Fianna Fil Parliamentary Party that none of the explicit measures which they fear are going to be taken? Where is the money going to come from?

I would like to have a full debate on this programme but I will confine myself to one further issue today and I ask the Minister for Finance to deal with it when he replies. Minister, are you a man or a mouse?

How can the Minister diminish his high office and its position which is enshrined in the Constitution by allowing himself to be undermined by two of his Cabinet colleagues and by persons outside of this House.

How can he sit idly by and agree to a policy which is driven by the political requirements of the Progressive Democrats and not by the needs of the people of this country? How can he agree to the detail of the next budget now when he does not yet know the outturn of the present failed budget, when he has no idea of the level of growth in the economy or of the tax [1063] buoyancy which he can expect on which to base the 1992 budget? Why does he participate in this charade and cede the functions of Government to the strident advocacy of persons outside this House, some of whom failed to be re-elected to this House?

 We now have a Government and Government parties where, to quote W.B. Yeats, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." The Government may survive today with this cobbled arrangement but they are finished. The Progressive Democrats are finished and Fianna Fil are badly in need of a long period on the Opposition benches to recover their soul and restore their heart.


