When I reported progress I was dealing with the question of employment and the situation we are passing through at the present time. It has always been accepted by political parties in this House that one of the best yardsticks by which one may judge the performance of a Government is that of employment, the amount of job opportunities which a Government can make available for the people. This test has never been too rigidly applied in this country, because we have always had the safety valve of emigration. If we did not have that safety valve we could possibly have had a revolution on our hands by now. Our total working population is always something over one million.
At mid-April, 1971, we had 1,071,000 at work which is, mark you, 54,000 less than the number at work in 1956, the last year of inter-Party Government. In other words, we have not measured up to the provision of an increasing number of job opportunities to balance the demand arising in our society. From 1966 to April 1971 we have been creating on average 11,000 non-agricultural new jobs per year and we have been losing 10,000 agricultural jobs per year. This pattern has continued up to the present and may continue into 1973.
My difficulty here is the acceptance of projections which have been made. We have become accustomed to those projections in the three programmes for economic expansion which have been produced here. It is safe to say that the hopeful prognostications we have been making as regards what we would be able to do in the field of employment have not materialised. It is one field in which we have failed. Are we in any better position now? Are the projections being made for us now any better? I accept that our economic forecasters and soothsayers have become a little cagey and the Third Programme does not attempt to quantify to the same degree as the First and Second Programmes did. I suppose they have burned their fingers so much that they have learned and are more cautious about giving firm figures. However, the White Paper which has been prepared for the Government in respect of our entry into Europe projects that during the transitional period, 1973 to 1978, non-agricultural employment will increase to an average of 14,000 extra jobs per year and the flight from the land will drop to an average of 7,000 a year. One is hesitant, in view of our present situation, to accept that the increase in job opportunities of 1,000 per year which obtained during the sixties will average 6,000 per year from 1973 to 1978. It seems rather too good to expect. I am not saying that in any spirit of opposing entry into the Common Market on the basis of employment because I believe that if we stay out our position will be worse but we should be realistic about these things and this six-fold increase seems rather optimistic in view of our present unemployment tendencies.
Even if we accept this projection of extra job creation and, of course, it will have to come in the latter part of the transitional period—it would have to arise more in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978—we will still have with us a good amount of our 77,000 unemployed, our 4,500 redundancies and, I suppose, 6,000 or 7,000 school leavers, less retirements, every year clamouring on the market. The Minister for Social Welfare is here now. If he is speaking later I should like him to elaborate on these figures in the White Paper, which have not been elaborated on, because they have been questioned.
The safety valve of emigration has been pretty well closed against us. According to the figures I have, emigration has come down from 10,000 in 1969 to 5,000 in 1970 and to 1,000 in 1971. That, with a million unemployed in Britain, is a serious problem which will continue into next year. Even allowing for the expansionist budget introduced by Mr. Barber in Britain I cannot see that there will be sufficient easing of the British economy to hold out great hopes for an improvement in our unemployment position by next winter. I think we will have a position pretty similar to what we had in the winter just past.
There is one thing which I must confess is difficult for me to comprehend. In the "Review of 1971 and Outlook for 1972" which we got before the budget, there is, on page 86, a table which gives indices of output and earnings per hour and of wage costs per unit of output in manufacturing industry. It covers the USA, Japan, West Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Ireland. For a number of years it has been pointed out that we are head of the league as far as wage costs per unit of output are concerned. It has been mounting at a higher rate here than in all of the other countries. I do not know how that figure is calculated. On the face of it it looks very impressive. It gives the base at 1963 as 100 but we would need to know more about what the starting point was like before we could reach a full judgment merely on these figures. Perhaps the Minister could explain that to us. I certainly do not understand it.
I am again at a loss to understand why such emphasis is placed on this unit wage cost. Nobody seems to question it. Everybody accepts it. I am not saying that it is without validity. It certainly has validity but in our particular society is it as important as in other societies? We make a comparison and then the conclusion is drawn that our workers are the people who are responsible for all the trouble, that their demands for higher wages have upset our economy. We must look at it from the point of view of exports. Half our exports are agricultural and unit wage costs do not impinge very directly on the costings of agricultural exports. There is very little of an import side to it. Most of the people employed in agricultural production are self-employed.
There is the industrial aspect of it. Here one wonders also is it so important. Take, for example, our labour force engaged in exports. I understand that most of our exports now are capital intensive exports with a low labour content and that as a consequence the question of unit labour costs would not project so much into the argument as it otherwise would. I put these two points to the Minister for Labour. When he is dealing with these particular problems he may be able to explain to me whether the points I am making about unit wage costs are valid.
I am rather disappointed in the financial statement by the Minister for Finance because of an omission of something which has got a good deal of publicity in recent years, that is, the question of speculation on property and particularly on building sites. If the building site amounts to 20 per cent of the cost of a house, it is a serious matter in a country where land should be reasonably accessible for that purpose. The only effort made so far by the Government to help society in this respect is the making of a pool of land available and that was practically confined to the Dublin area. I think £3 million was set aside. Otherwise local authorities are allowed to invest in property if they can, at their own expense and at their own risk.
It has been suggested that there should be some constitutional amendment made in order to nationalise building land. Here, again, I understand that there is a committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of Justice Kenny to investigate the constitutional aspect.
This speculation which I have mentioned arises from three factors. It arises from the fact that there are not enough houses being built by local authorities to provide for the people and, consequently, a number of middle class or lower middle class income groups are being forced into the market to buy houses. The second factor, of course, is inflation, which the Government have failed to control. You will not find speculation in the absence of inflation, or very little, because the old doctrine is that in an inflationary period property mounts in value.
Finally, there is this question of planning. The ordinary person does not know how planning arrangements will go. Others apparently do know. Our planning administration does not make decisions openly, as we on this side of the House have been advocating for years. It is done behind closed doors by the political head of the Department and raises serious doubts in the public mind.
Again, one misses from this budget any reference to a capital gains tax. A capital gains tax operates in Britain. There may be reasons for not imposing it here. If, for example, this question of speculation on property, particularly on housing sites, cannot be controlled, if it is unconstitutional to nationalise land for housing purposes, if there are difficulties in acquiring a pool of land, would there be any great difficulty, for example, in introducing a selective gains tax to deal with that particular situation as it affects us at the present time? I mention these points to the Minister for his observations and comment, if he cares to give them, when he is replying.
There is another matter on which I want to say a few words, that is, the question of regional development. This matter is dealt with slightly in the review of 1971 but I do not think it is covered in the financial statement. I raise it because it is of topical interest at the moment and is of great importance to us. It is one of the most important aspects of our proposed entry to the Common Market. I raise it because I feel the Government have not done their homework in regard to this line of country. The Buchanan Report was issued in May, 1969. I do not know whether that was one of the expensive reports or not. They are all expensive but some of them are extraordinarily expensive. The Government stated at that time that the report would be considered in the context of proposals for regional development organisations. Many organisations have made many reports. We have had a planning study of Cork city and county by An Foras Forbartha. Planning proposals have been commissioned in the past for Dublin—the Wright Report and others. The Industrial Development Authority has prepared regional industrial plans. There is an interdepartmental regional development committee which has been coordinating this material. One Mr. Scully has presented a comprehensive report on western conditions. Mr. Kinsey—I think it is—has presented so many reports that I could not possibly enumerate them. There has been a small pilot farms scheme in operation, particularly in western areas. The Land Commission has been operating its resettlement, retirement schemes, particularly the 1966 scheme, particularly for small western holders. It has been very unsuccessful.
Every day we are being promised that we will eventually have a formulated regional development policy put before us but so far nothing has happened. If we are to get the full benefit from our entry to the EEC it is important that we should have a regional policy properly prepared, properly tailored, before we are in. The Regional Development Commissioners of the EEC will not do that for us. They will merely examine the proposals that we put to them and will accept or reject them. They will fund much of the expenditure involved but the actual planning and the ground work must be done by each country concerned. I submit that we have so far failed here beyond this spurious activity of setting up a whole host of committees and have not produced anything tangible. We have promises. I hope these promises will materialise fairly soon. This is given some urgency by the fact that now Britain also is taking an interest in regional development. The people in the west would be well pleased with our application for funds for this purpose.
Britain is now moving in for the first time to try to secure that urban areas should also be concerned in regional development. There are numerous depressed areas in the North of England. Britain can put in her claim very quickly for money for such development. These funds are very limited and 90 per cent of the money so far distributed has gone for rural agricultural development. This is the first time such a movement has been put afoot. It has been begun by Britain, who are not yet members, and it has received sympathetic consideration.
It is for that reason that I raise this point and urge on the Minister and the Government to try to speed up preparation of our regional development plan so that we will be ready not next year but next month or the month after to submit our proposals for our undeveloped areas before Britain and other countries get in before us and perhaps make it more difficult for us.
I was disappointed that the Minister for Finance did not deal with particular sectors of our economy which are now facing difficulties. We understood that these sectors were mostly the older ones which were developed here under protective conditions. Is it too much to hope that at a later stage in the debate we will hear something, perhaps from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the sectors of our economy which are in difficulties, how they stand at the present time and what the hopes are?
For example, there is the woollen and worsted industry. The difficulties there have been highlighted in the last 12 months and the Minister for Industry and Commerce proposed the establishment of an in-depth examination by consultants. So far, we have had no result of such an in-depth examination and if the Minister has information he should make it available to us for the benefit of these industries. The footwear industry is in real difficulties and our clothing industry is also in trouble. People in the furniture industry are complaining and those in the tanning industry—there is a factory in Carrick-on-Suir in my constituency—are getting restive. They fear a shortage of hides. That should not be so if the Government looked after the hide infestation schemes which were in existence and which were so successful.
One of the most serious problems facing us is the position of our meat factories. Here again the Government have been rather dilatory. Our processed meat industry is one of the most important, involving £65 million a year. It is passing through difficult times because our best cattle are being bought and sold, perhaps as Scottish or British beef, in stalls throughout Britain so as to avail of the 2p differential. A meat factory must, of necessity, process and sell its produce immediately but those who buy live cattle can keep them and speculate on hopes of a rise in the market. To my mind the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been sitting on the fence in this respect. He has not been taking action to see how these problems could be resolved. Perhaps he will come in during this debate and make a contribution, particularly in regard to our meat factories, but also on our agricultural economy as a whole. Our processed meat industry is a source of big employment and if our beef industry progresses towards carcase beef exports rather than on the hoof, there will be prospects of bigger employment there.
Our tourist industry is the Cinderella of the piece at the moment. Our hopes that we could keep our income here from tourism at £100 million annually have failed and a drop of £20 million is expected this year. It was thought that a holding operation, as it were, could be carried out in respect of North America and the Continent. That may be possible but as regards the UK and Northern Ireland we are out. I understand we have dismantled some of our advertising machinery in Britain.
This is the third year, and the worst, in which we have faced difficulties in this industry. There has been a tendency, I suggest, to overblame the Northern situation for this. It was a most important factor but even before it arose we had been falling down in our own costings side. There were many complaints of increased prices here particularly in regard to the things tourists require. I made a suggestion here when Deputy Haughey was Minister for Finance that we should give cheap petrol to tourists. He did not agree and we have lost in an industry which will take us many years to recover.
At the same time, we are faced with difficulties in regard to demands for landing rights at Dublin Airport, the American airlines pressing for the removal of our landing rights in New York. As well, Irish Shipping, B & I and CIE are all faced with difficulties because of a deteriorating situation. Ironically, at this time, we are embarking on a campaign to see Ireland first, linked with an ethnic campaign in the UK. At last we have discovered the Irish emigrant—the poor relation from whom we have been drawing £20 million for very many years but for whom we did not provide any guidance when he left this country. We always took the remittances the emigrants sent, but we never gave one penny towards the provision of social welfare centres for them in Birmingham or London or any other place. On one occasion I asked a Fianna Fáil Minister if he would ensure that a leaflet containing addresses of hostels and similar information was given to every person leaving here. To that simple request I got the shortest answer I have ever received in this House—I was told "No". The Minister concerned was Deputy Aiken.
There is little in the budget for agriculture. In 1971-72 the Vote for agriculture was £80 million but this year there has been a drop of £4 million in this amount. They got £1.8 million as a result of the chopping and changing in the budget. In the meantime there has been a drop in the amount paid by way of subsidy. Because of the rising prices of dairy products, the drought in New Zealand last summer which resulted in a reduction of production, and because of the Mansholt policy which resulted in a reduction of production on the Continent, the subsidy dropped from £30 million to £24 million.
There is nothing in the budget with regard to the huge investment demands which have been mentioned by some economists and by the President of the Irish Farmers' Association, Mr. T. J. Maher. The economist, Mr. Walsh, during the year spoke about a £1,000 million investment as necessary for the agricultural industry. One suggestion was that this should be spread over ten years; another suggestion was to spread the amount over a five-year period. However, there is little of this kind of thinking in the budget despite the fact that we hope to gain the greatest benefits for this industry when we enter the EEC. There has been little encouragement given to the farming community —not what I expected that there would be because the money is not available to meet the cost.
Much play has been made about the social welfare increases. This is a political baby that is brought out each year. One could say it is a foster child of the Minister for Social Welfare who likes to see that this matter is looked after. An additional sum of £8.3 million has been given for social welfare but, having regard to the fact that inflation is running at the rate of 9 per cent and that the increases for social welfare will not be paid until August and October, one can appreciate that the extra benefits will only cover the increased cost of living. It is contended that the increases in social welfare benefits are greater than the increased cost of living but, if this is so, the margin is very thin. If we have an increase in the cost of living of 9 or 10 per cent it will absorb the £8.3 million. So far as the social welfare category are concerned they will not be any better off.
Last year the Minister for Finance introduced an extension for estate duty activities. There has been criticism at different times regarding the wisdom of estate duty because it has never been a major source of income. Approximately £5 million or £6 million has been collected but this has caused a considerable amount of stress to the people concerned. This has been aggravated by the abolition of the marriage settlement concession by which is was possible to obtain exemption from death duties. This concession was of considerable help to farmers.
I have had considerable complaints about the effect of estate duty on ordinary farmers, particularly in view of the high inflation with regard to land properties. I accept that the valuation for estate duty purposes in respect of a farm is a notional value and is not a market value. Nevertheless, the duty is onerous and there have been many difficulties since the marriage settlement concessions were abolished. By increasing the revenue from estate duty it makes it correspondingly more difficult to abolish that duty. Estate duty has increased from £6 million in 1970-71 to £9 million. I do not know how much of this is due to the extra money arising from the abolition of the marriage settlement exemptions. I asked a parliamentary question in connection with this matter but apparently the figures are not compiled in a form to show that information. Therefore, I am at a loss to know what effect this imposition has had in the increase from £6 million to £9 million. The reduction this year of £13 million must be taken into consideration and set against the increase from £6 million to £9 million.
I am glad to see that the Minister introduced the matter of pension parity. This has been advocated on this side of the House since I first entered the Dáil and probably long before that. I am sure it is merely justice long delayed. I do not know to what extent we may thank the Minister for it: one must recognise that those seeking parity formed an organisation which continued lobbying and eventually, I understand, put a notice in the paper saying they would oppose EEC if they did not get parity. I do not know if that influenced the Minister but they got parity.
The newspapers, the public, the publicans and porter-drinkers all seem to be happy that no increased excise duties were imposed. This was regarded as a stroke of genius on the part of the Minister. The truth is he dared not do it. There was the old danger of the law of diminishing returns but even that would not have stopped him: he was stopped by two considerations, first, that our tourism is already humped and to add any more taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco would make the position worse. The second consideration was that taxation in the EEC on these commodities is considerably lower than here and the Government know the time will come when harmonisation of taxes including excise not only as regards items but also rates will become a factor in EEC agreement. It would therefore be out of line and out of step if he further increased this form of taxation. Therefore, he could do no more and I think nobody should give him any credit for not putting the extra penny on the pint and the extra 2d on the glass of whiskey. In fact, at present a Double Diamond, to take one example, costs 10p in England and in the bar here costs 14p. That does not leave much room for adding to the bill on beer and spirits if we are to get any visitors to holiday here.
