It is dangerous to intervene between lovers but the wisdom of decreasing the level of the tax free interest last year on bank deposits and of increasing it this year may be lost on people who are committed emotionally. Last year the figure in this respect was reduced. Before resuming his seat Deputy Sheehan assumed the role of father confessor by asking us all to confess. No doubt, the Minister confessed to the Deputy that reducing the figure to £50 last year was wrong. It is unlikely that the Minister will be in office next year but if he remains penitent perhaps he will increase the £100 to £200.
We are faced with consideration of the Finance Bill and I should like first to comment on the income tax situation. Yesterday our spokesman on Finance reminded the House that one of the major planks of the Coalition platform was that the burden of taxation on the PRSI worker would be reduced. This has not happened. The Minister must realise that he has reached the point of diminishing returns. The April 16 edition of Iris Oifigiúil indicates that income tax returns this year are down at this stage by £35 million. Admittedly, in taking a figure like that at an arbitrary date, the full picture does not emerge; but it is an indication that at this stage in the year the income tax take is dropping. The levy is down by £3 million on the corresponding period for last year. This indicates that, with the combination of high unemployment and the severity of taxes, the Minister has got the income tax section of the Finance Bill all wrong.
I welcome the provisions with regard to the relief granted to widows and single parents as far as they go. A realistic view of the problem indicates — although I do not want to make wild suggestions— that the Minister could have gone a little further down that road. I also welcome the relief granted to people of 65 years and over and I am sure that the Minister's intention to encourage people to put money in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Bank is a good one for social reasons as well as for his own reasons of getting more money in which may be used for productive purposes. The increase of £120 to £240 and that of £50 to £100 which were mentioned by Deputy Sheehan are welcome but as the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Bank are State controlled perhaps he has started on a road upon which some future Minister for Finance should continue to travel. I know that during the year some malicious people spread rumours about the Trustee Savings Bank and the Minister had to assure the House that there was no truth in them. The Trustee Savings Bank was not and is not in danger and is a desirable place in which to deposit money. The interest rates are good and it is available to the State for proper use.
I agree with our spokesman on agriculture that the relief from income tax with regard to the leasing of land is a very small pourboire as far as that area is concerned. However, the idea behind it is right because we had a European farm retirement scheme, for example, and it was so badly constructed and operated that it is now a dead duck. Allowances were made to people but no cognisance was taken of their rights under the social welfare code and the result was that there was no great change in ownership of land and no retirement on the scale originally expected. Consequently, it is being done away with altogether. The thinking behind relief on money received from leasing land is right and if it were applied across the board in the case of transfer of land from an aged farmer to — I do not know where we can send it now because this lunatic Government are getting rid of the Land Commission, the only bulwark for the small man against the cheque book speculator — a young farmer with the proviso that the retiring farmer was properly looked after and not precluded from social welfare benefits, I would subscribe to that kind of philosophy.
I am slightly irritated by the priority which the Revenue Commissioners and other State institutions have with regard to funds when there is a liquidation or a bankruptcy. I am a little worried about the position vis-à-vis the private citizen because very often the private citizen gets 1p in the pound or perhaps nothing when the priority institutions have taken their cut of the funds available. It should be established by law that the individual citizen has at least equal rights. I know that very often the management or persons responsible for bringing down a company had not exercised due care and had not lived up to their responsibility regarding the State and I am sure other members of this House are also worried about the position of the private citizen vis-à-vis that type of institution. But when all is said and done the private individual can often suffer the greatest damage compared with public institutions which will continue to exist one way or another. It can be argued, of course, that the public institution is holding money for the citizen, and that is true. However, I should like consideration to be given in our thinking and legislation to the position of the individual citizen and his rights in circumstances where he or she find themselves in a big league.
I cannot but praise the effort to encourage the allocation of moneys to research and development. A country which is basically not very wealthy has to use all the rat wit because sometimes we are able to avail of research which can be costly in some fields and which has been done elsewhere. On the industrial scene, unless a company are going to establish themselves and stay in the country, the results of special research done in the company will be applied for the benefit of the company in whatever country in which they may be operating in a major fashion.
One of the complaints about industries invited in, financed and looked after very well here in the past was that they did not provide funds for research and development. We have particular advantages in that we have a very strong, young population and we are trying to provide them with the basics in education and to prepare them in such a way that they will be capable of doing research. Therefore, anything that encourages native companies or those from abroad to carry out research and development in the country should be encouraged. I refer in particular to the fact that this extends the facility with regard to the College of Commerce in Rathmines, the two National Institutes for Higher Education, the colleges of technology and the regional technical colleges. A wide diaspora of institutions can now gain by that measure. I hope that the people responsible for the funds in various industries will act on this. It is a primitive view that you should not spend money on research and development and that you are not gaining anything for yourself or for shareholders, if it is a company.
The building societies are carrying a very high burden of responsibility. There does not seem to be any doubt about the fact that the Government deliberately set out to run down the construction industry. That is the only conclusion which anybody can come to by dispassionately and objectively examining what has happened since they took office. There are close on 50,000 skilled people unemployed in that sector, people with skills ready to deploy those skills if the opportunity is made available to them, and all the activities, positive and negative, of this Government have been to run down the construction industry. Apart altogether from the capital programme which is the major one this extra 5 per cent VAT was imposed on new houses this year. It is impossible to understand it. It was rapped on the day of the budget and of course a furore was to be expected, or at least if the mandarins in the Department of Finance did not expect it that is further proof that they are insulated from the realities of life. Some small time contractors stood to lose £1,500 each on houses that they had already signed a contract for at that time.
Admittedly the imposition was postponed until 1 May and that at least saved them the immediate burden, but the 10 per cent goes on on 1 May anyway and that is simply incomprehensible. Therefore, the building societies should get special favour treatment because they are shouldering most of the responsibility as far as private housing is concerned. Without building societies the whole thing would collapse and, of course, people who have skills which are not being used tend to lose those skills. Therefore, the Government and in particular the Minister for Finance are especially culpable in this regard.
With regard to section 19, I do not think that the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism or for that matter the IDA are making enough effort to fill the advance factories which are already available. The allowances are generous in anyone's language and I cannot see how the failure has been so great. It is not merely regional, although my region is particularly badly affected, but all in all the effort is not being made to fill the empty advance factories.
Section 20 is a pathetic gesture, and this is relevant to what I have been saying about the construction industry. That industry itself and people who have expertise in that area have stated bluntly that it is a pathetic gesture to the building trade and that it will have no major effect on employment in the construction industry. There is an indication in Iris Oifigiúil that as far as corporation tax is concerned the Minister has crossed the boundary. Up to 16 April 1985 the corporation tax yield was £33.9 million. For the same period in 1984 it was £33.5 million, practically the same, and when inflation is taken into consideration one can see that it is a falling back. There is no surprise about that. That 230,000 people are out of work is an indication of how many businesses and industries have closed down. You cannot knock blood out of a turnip, and the Minister should realise that also.
All Deputies from all political parties who represent constituencies along the Border have been talking in this House ad nauseam about our problems. The trouble is that nobody believes us. It is apparent that nobody believes the combined wisdom of Deputies from the Border constituencies. It may be the old story that he who cries “wolf” too often is not finally believed when the wolf comes, but we have been adhering to the facts with regard to the economy along the Border but to no avail as far as official Government thinking goes, with this Government anyway. That creates no surprise because our area is not represented in Cabinet, it is not represented in Government. For that reason there is no voice to indicate the parlous position of the economy.
An EC social committee high powered team examined the social and economic problems along the Border. Of course, they would not say the obvious but it has been obvious to us for so long that the thing should not be there at all anyway; there should be no Border. Belfast was our economic capital when I was growing up and I was born after the Border was established. Gradually the Border became more of a reality as time went by. People went to work from my area to Belfast, but there is an unnatural Border which has done violence to the economics of the historic province of Ulster which, as this House knows, has nine counties. The social committee, looking at the scene objectively and far more dispassionately than I can look at it, said that it is one of the most deprived areas in Europe and they made suggestions which were thrown aside churlishly by the Minister for Finance who is responsible for this Finance Bill.
This is not an occasion to go into the whole economics of the Border area and of the Ulster position generally, and I accept no definition of Ulster which does not make an Ulsterman out of me, but what have we now? We have this Minister coming in and putting an extra excise duty on petrol and diesel. The result is that within a certain distance of the Border no petrol retailer is selling petrol or diesel. He just must close shop and go. As Deputy O'Kennedy said yesterday, the excise duty on petrol and diesel is absolutely savage and unjust. It is doubly savage and unjust in our context. An increase of £1.78 per hectolitre was put on by the Minister and that is incorporated in this Bill. I do not find much satisfaction in the fact that offcourse bets have been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent in that context, having failed to have all of County Cavan and County Monaghan declared severely handicapped for the purposes of the Common Agricultural Policy. We have failed on that but we are going to keep talking. We are not going to be silenced. We will continue to point out the position there.
With regard to the reduction from 25 per cent to 10 per cent on motor vehicle parts, any reduction is welcome. I see that it does not come into operation until 1 February 1986. It escapes me why if it is good in 1986 it is not good now and why it is not brought into effect. The answer we used to get in the past in those circumstances was that it would be administratively difficult to do it immediately but I do not know what answer will be thought up for this.
The Minister is going in pursuit of the mineral water manufacturers. Would he tell his inspectors to be civil and respectful to the citizens? I had to raise this matter in the House on a number of occasions with regard to social welfare inspectors. We do not have a good tradition, I regret to say, of public servants dealing with citizens respectfully. The result is that when a household has a visit from one of these inspectors, for whatever purpose, there is immediately an atmosphere of hostility generated. I know our public servants are well trained and well educated and I think the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, was starting a campaign telling public servants they would not be welcome in the public service if they did not treat citizens with respect. When I see in a Bill that inspectors are to be let loose on the makers of mineral waters, I suggest that these inspectors be told that they should treat the citizens with respect.
I note the provision in the Bill for the reduction of excise duty on spirits. When the economy was sinking slowly Deputy Haughey suggested that a move like this would be beneficial and would not cause any loss of revenue but might even increase revenue. At that time it was useful for the national handlers to ridicule that suggestion because of where it came from. It is one of the mysteries of politics and of many organisations to which I belong that suggestions are not assessed on their merits but rather on their source. This is a major error. When Deputy Haughey made his suggestion for a reduction in the duty on spirits and beer there was a big build up in the newspapers that Fianna Fáil were being irresponsible again. I have had letters from people around the Border areas saying we should press for a reduction in the duty on beer.
Deputy Sheehan referred to the reduction of excise duty on television sets when he was involved in his love-in with the Minister for Finance. The people in the Border areas do not regard the reduction as significant so far as the smuggling of television sets is concerned. Any reduction is welcome but the fact is that the reduction will have to be very considerable before it is of any use.
I mentioned already that there was a reduction in the number and rates of VAT from 35 per cent, 23 per cent, 18 per cent, 8 per cent, 5 per cent, 2.2 per cent and zero rating to 23 per cent, 10 per cent, 2.2 per cent and zero rating. The point I have already made is that this Minister introduced the 35 per cent rate and we will not burn incense in front of him for having a maximum of 23 per cent.
There have been many discussions about the imposition of VAT on footwear. This subject has been teased out, discussed and debated enough and I will not delay the House, but, in my view this VAT should not have been imposed. I know shoes for children up to 11 years have been excluded but it could be said there is difficulty in identifying children's ages up to 18 years. There is a lot of pressure on the PAYE wage earner because he pays very high PRSI and now he has to pay heavily for footwear, much of which I regret is imported.
The labour-intensive industries which have gone to the wall have left a large gap in the economy and have put many people on the unemployed list. I remember Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn telling me that some years ago she bought children's shoes in Galway. When she asked where they were made she was told they were made by a shoe factory in Bailieboro, County Cavan. She said that for style and quality they were superb. That factory has closed and I am sure much shoddier shoes, both from the design and quality point of view, are on the market now. She bought these shoes in a big store and I am sure the price was competitive. Irish Shoes Supplies of Belturbet have also closed down.
It is gratifying to know that there is some soul in the Department of Finance. The provision for theatrical and musical performances should be welcomed by all civilised Members of this House. We all know the Abbey Theatre is in financial difficulties. They have had to reorganise the theatre, something I regret very much. It seems strange that a theatre called The National Theatre should go over the top because of the production of one play by Eugene O'Neill. The board are trying to cope with this problem at the moment. I hope they will not lower their very high standards and that they will continue to make available to the public plays which, in the normal course of events, we would not be able to see in Dublin.
The people involved in the tourist and hotel industries are very anxious that the VAT on meals should be, if not eliminated, then at least reduced. We are reducing the VAT for accommodation and the hiring of boats, which is important in my constituency. Caravans and so on are probably used more extensively in other parts of the country. I know that as far as the Erne is concerned leasing boats is a thriving industry.
I have already referred to the VAT increase of 10 per cent on new houses from 1 May. I do not know if there is any point in appealing to the Minister to do something about that at this stage nor do I know what the thinking was in the Department but it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that the industry is in the throes of death. Many firms have gone out of business and what the Government have done is inexplicable. I hope that reason will prevail.
The question of a bank levy is always a difficult one. In a sense it is illogical to say that we will take so much from them. There is a modification of the method in this year's Finance Bill but it is very difficult to maintain that there should not be some money taken from the profits made by the banks. It is easy to attack and criticise the banks. Many people have had their legitimate transactions hammered by the banks. I would hate to think that anyone would be afraid to criticise the banking institutions. However it is important to have a banking business in which the public have trust. The ICI debacle did not help in this regard.
Years and years ago, a distinguished Deputy, Deputy Frank Aiken, was convinced that the Government should be in a position to demand financial facilities for industry, whether farming or manufacturing, at a fixed low rate of interest. Most of the arguments he advanced then would hold good today. At the time he was arguing, in the thirties, I am sure the profits the banks made in a world which was severely depressed were invested somewhere else to develop other countries.
I am pleased for two reasons with section 56. This deals with the voluntary transfers of agricultural property to young farmers who hold certain training qualifications. There is a dual aspect worthy of commendation in this. First of all, there is the emphasis on educational training. This provision will encourage people to avail of whatever agricultural education is available to them in their own localities. I believe the pressure for places in agricultural colleges is very strong and I am delighted to hear that. ACOT are doing a good job in that respect. They put together educational packages which young people working on farms could avail of. Suggestions have been made that any money made available for development should only be made where certain educational courses have been followed by the young farmers or certain certificates or diplomas received. That would provide a great impetus to young farmers to avail of agricultural education. I understand from educationalists in the agricultural field that they are hardly able to cope with all the demands they have received. Voluntary organisations, particularly Macra na Feirme, did a great job in educating young farmers. Now we have formal education encouraged through section 56. Lending institutions will look with more favour on a young man with agricultural education when he seeks loan facilities.
Section 58 will get support from all sides of the House. Those of us who run clinics know that people who could not by any stretch of the English language be considered wealthy could suffer as a result of a severe inheritance tax on the passage of a farm from husband to wife or wife to husband as a result of death.
There was a new attack from various quarters on the provisions of section 59. That section makes provision for a special insurance policy to cover inheritance tax arising on death. If those who have strong objections to it could spell out the reasons for them I would be interested to hear them. I am not saying the objections are not there but I do not understand them. There is no income tax relief for the person paying the insurance policy. If there was it could be argued that the State was subsidising an individual so that he would avoid having to pay the tax himself. The State does not lose with regard to the actual amount of tax because the insurance policy covers that. I do not think even a strong ideologist of whatever hue could logically attack that provision.
In section 66 there is provision for the purchase of shares by the Minister for Finance in Bord Telecom in addition to what is provided for in section 22 of the 1983 Act. I am more than disappointed at the attitude of the Government and the Minister for Communications to the management of An Bord Telecom. I put it on the record that the action which led to the withdrawal of Mr. Byrnes, the chief executive, from Bord Telecom should be condemned by the House. I had the privilege of hammering out most of the arrangements with the chairman and chief executive prior to the 1983 Act going through the House. They were a unique team, a unique combination. They had flair. They had a commitment. The chairman gave his time with no benefit to himself. I thought the least a Minister might do was to preserve that team and see them over the next four or five years for the benefit of the country.
I will now come to the tax free Government securities section. I think it is section 67. I have some doubts about this whole provision. It is somewhat of a gamble. It is difficult to talk about it because nobody will know how it will work out until it has been in existence for some time. In this House we debated the black hole syndrome for long enough. The Minister for Finance was very reluctant to admit there was any such thing until finally Deputy O'Kennedy and outside commentators indicated to him that it did exist, that it was there and that it was serious.
People who were encouraged to come here and set up industries were told they were free to repatriate their profits. Therefore, we have no legitimate grouse if they did just that. There is an obligation on the Government to see to it that the conditions exist for investment, either further investment in the industry concerned, or in an allied one, or in a different industry, which will lure and entice those people to keep the money invested here. The Minister has promised tax freedom on Government securities provided that the companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign companies. He said yesterday that interest has already been shown in the scheme. He was not able to tell us very much about what the actual conditions will be.
We are glad these companies have come here and started industries and employed people, but we should not be unmindful of the fact that they got very substantial incentives to do that. When we are providing this opportunity for them to invest, I hope the investment will rate the title of productive investment. We want to be very careful. We do not want them to have the money and the bun when the whole operation is over. I suggest that the Minister is attempting to cope with part of the black hole. I spoke already about the part of it which affects my own constituency, namely, the money going out across the Border.
This is another aspect of it. If this is not successful — and the touchstones, the yardstick of success I would apply is whether the economy is benefiting substantially — I would cut it out. I would give it a try and if it does not work out to the benefit of the economy in a way that satisfies the people who created the idea, I would cut it and cut it fast.
When the Government were campaigning for office, as was their right, and when they were entrusted with the Government of the country, they told us they would get rid of the large budget deficit. In my opinion the public were conned in this regard. Figures given in the House yesterday indicated that there have been no major tax reductions. People are suffering from tax more than ever before. If it were a question of employment or unemployment I would opt for employment even when it is severely taxed. I would be traitorous to the whole society in which I grew up if I did not maintain that. Some people are suffering very severely because of the heavy burden of taxation.
I am disappointed that the Miriam Hederman-O'Brien income tax tribunal results have never been debated in this House. The Minister talked about growing confidence in the economy and said that the first phase of the recession has been passed. He must be joking. That is codology. I suppose he has to keep up some kind of a front but that is the greatest of nonsense. The US boom is petering out. We did not even gain from it. We exported chemical, engineering, electronics and office equipment. We did very well there, but it has not resulted in increased jobs. There is no return of confidence. Most of the world's economists think that, with the huge deficit in the United States, that whole economy is in a very coddlesome position. Admittedly if the dollar flops a bit we will probably gain because we have borrowed so much in US dollars.
The Minister is a very intelligent man so he must be bluffing. He must know that to say the worst phase of the recession has been passed or that there is a growing confidence is wishful thinking. I have not met that animal for a long time, Mr. Growing Confidence. The Minister gave himself a way out of the question of a second budget. He said the required steps would be taken. It reminds one of the joke about the policeman — long steps there will be if there is a necessity for a second budget.
We have had declining employment and yet the income tax burden has increased by £2,191 million since 1982. This means the burden is much heavier on those who are actually paying tax. Our foreign debts have almost doubled in that time. We know about the debacle about interest rates in the fall of last year because the Minister scooped up all the money available for governmental purposes. Pressure came on interest rates and unfortunate devils who had borrowed modest sums for their own productive purposes suffered accordingly. We had a drop in rates and hopefully they will drop still further.
We should be proud of our workers. They have done their job, particularly in the field I have mentioned and their productivity has been high. I am tired of people challenging our productivity record. I have already read into the records of this House comparative figures for other countries and we have nothing to be ashamed of. I also read into the record details on various other matters as well, such as absenteeism. We should always look at the general scene before we castigate our own.
Exports have increased all right but that is in a special field and the labour intensive industries have been suffering very badly. We will have to be conscious of that. As all the studies indicate, unemployment is the big problem. The NESC report simply says: "On the debt side unemployment, which in the Council's view is the indicator of paramount importance, continued to rise and stood at 16.7 per cent of the labour force in December 1984". There has been a little lift in the most recent figures from the Central Statistics Office. I hope that trend will continue, but I am not all that optimistic about it.
We have been speaking about money going out of the country. The rate of investment is going down, also. It is sad, in the context of unemployment and my mention of the Border areas, that the Minister has to put 181.1p duty on a gallon of petrol. It is terrifying and is inhibiting any kind of development.
We made a strong effort to provide education and training over a number of years. In our wisdom, we told young people to learn a trade. All kinds of pundits told young people to be aware of academic studies and to get into electronics, to get a trade. We have at present almost 50,000 skilled people in the construction industry without jobs. I know for a fact that many of the graduates of the national institutes for higher education, the colleges of technology, not to mention the universities, who have degrees and diplomas in electronics and in computer science are surreptitiously crawling away to New York and Boston. That is a fact that cannot be contradicted.
One of the old chestnuts as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, which was scrambled out of the fire or love nest or whatever Deputy Sheehan was talking about, was the national debt. I do not have to repeat the figures given here in the House of this Government's performance, which give us pause.
We had a report from the ERSI about the incidence of pay-related social insurance and people being made to pay 8.3 per cent of their wages, even if they have not enough income to pay income tax. It would not be a bad idea for the Minister to consider giving special income tax allowances for the workers who are involved in export industries whose productivity is high. There would be an outcry against it and we would probably be told that it would be difficult to administer, but it is not too difficult to pinpoint the factories that are producing for export as of now. We have given relief to the exporters, in fact, what they export is created by the workforce. It would be a very healthy thing in our economy if we had people clamouring to get jobs in industries that export a great deal, to the benefit of our economy.
There has been talk about work incentives. One is in a very delicate area in talking about wages of a certain level, if unemployment assistance, plus allowances with regard to local authority rents, plus some allowances for fuel, would leave a worker better off than if he were working at a low rate of wage. I know that it is difficult to make comparisons between one economy and another and sometimes not very illuminating because circumstances are so different, but if we want to be positive in our approach to something like the Finance Bill we could ask the Minister to have a look at what a neighbouring Chancellor did with regard to workers. If a firm in the UK are employing someone at £30,000 per annum, there is a £1,700 impost on that person and those under £130 per week are cheaper to employ. That is two-fifths of the total workforce in the UK. Those over £265 per week are much more expensive to employ. There should be an argument for the Minister for Finance here to cut out PRSI on all wages under a certain figure. I do not think that in the end he would lose very much by it. It is something that we should think of as a possibility.
The pay-related social insurance contribution made by the worker is another form of income tax. What is the difference? It is money taken out of his pocket. As far as the employer is concerned, it is a kind of payrole tax on him. He has extra money to pay on each person he employs, so that if it were removed below a certain figure — although there might be certain dangers in this — there would be an incentive for the employer to employ and for the employee to seek out the job. The ESRI report published in today's newspapers has some relevant remarks in regard to that.
We could also consider — and I have no statistics on it at the moment — the cost of our taxes. I have a figure from The Economist which indicates the price of taxes in the neighbouring country. The land tax is collected at a very high cost; income tax is next highest; customs duties next highest after that; capital transfer tax next after that; capital gains after that. Pay-as-you-earn has a low cost as distinct from income tax in general, because it is easy enough to collect. The employer passes it on, or should pass it on. Corporation tax has a low cost and also VAT, for the same reason. Fuel and tobacco taxes have a very low cost, indeed. Again, this is an area that we could study, to see how our economy could gain by that.
We can be proud of our entrepreneurs and workers in that manufacturing output has gone up, including agricultural output. I do not think it is appreciated by the people in general how important agriculture is to the economy. I remember getting a shock at a press conference called to outline policies with regard to agriculture and other areas of Government when it transpired that not one single question was asked with regard to agriculture which I regard as the premier industry in our economy. There is a blindness with regard to agriculture.
Since 1973 agricultural output has increased by leaps and bounds and even before that farmers had increased productivity. We have run into trouble with regard to milk production but that should not blind us to the fact that it is better to be in that position than to be the sick man of Europe, not able to produce at all or producing half of the amount we should produce. Obviously we are not producing all that we should produce but generally farmers deserve credit in the matter of productivity and output.
Consumer spending is down according to all indicators and investment also is down. In 1984 the major items exported were chemicals, metals, engineering and office machines. These are highly commendable but there has been no visible result with regard to employment. I hope the Minister will resist any temptation to put pressure again, as he did last year, on the money market and thus cause interest rates to increase
Manufacturing industry has always been regarded as the area where employment could be increased and wealth created. We will have to have another look at that area because the type of manufacturing industry on which that judgment was based has changed considerably in the recent past. In the United States the employment figures in the services industry are simply amazing when one compares them with the figures for manufacturing industry. They are way ahead of manufacturing industry and there may be a lesson for us there. Perhaps we could concentrate on that area.
On a number of occasions when I spoke on the Finance Bill I mentioned our difficulties since the breakdown of the major international monetary arrangement made after the last war. Even if we had the best experts in the world in the Department of Finance and if we had the top Minister for Finance in the world, the whole matter of international exchange could impoverish us even though we were working hard and making the right decisions. For that reason I advocated that the Minister for Finance in all the councils to which he belongs should push either for the ECU or some other Euro reserve currency. For example, he should push for the ECU as a petro-currency. We have to pay for every gallon in US dollars and thus action taken by Mr. Volcker can cause us to pay more for our petrol. I know that the Ministers for Finance of the Ten were to meet in Palermo in mid-April and one of the matters on the agenda was the position of the ECU. The idea was to enhance the ECU as a reserve asset. There are difficulties. The biggest difficulty is that the United Kingdom did not join the European Monetary System. Some people say they are having second thoughts but I do not know if that is so. Of course there is a strong link between Washington and London on financial matters and that may be the reason they stayed out in the first instance. The Federal Republic of Germany is a little cautious about advancing the ECU to the status of reserve currency.
I should like the Minister in his reply to indicate if any progress has been made as a result of the meeting which I presume took place at Palermo in mid-April. They intended to increase the interest rates on ECUs held by the various central banks and to encourage its use in the interventions that have to be made from time to time to keep the currencies within the 2.25 or 2.5 band which is the essence of the EMS. They were also to consider if they would allow non-EC banks to hold ECUs. Until that matter is regularised we will be at the mercy of something we cannot control. The dollar and the yen are reserve currencies. If we had a Euro reserve currency we would be to a greater extent masters in our own house. Sometimes this is interpreted as an anti-American attitude. It is not. It is simply looking after our own shop.
The Finance Bill should be used as a weapon to attack the large pool of unemployed, both skilled and unskilled, but that is not the case. The problem is the provision of jobs. In the first place the Government and in the second place this House will be judged on our ability to face up to this problem. It is sad to see rural villages and parishes being denuded of young people who were trained perhaps at the RTC, at NIHE or at university. One asks where is John Brady and one is told he qualified as a plumber, that he did his course at RTC and has gone to the United States. He is better equipped to emigrate than many of his forefathers but there is plenty of work for him here and there is plenty of potential for development.
Despite some of the statements in the White Paper on Industrial Development, I hope that during the year the Minister for Finance will address himself to this problem. If he does not he should move over and let somebody else do the job.