Deputy Tunney was in possession, and he has 56 minutes left.
Financial Resolutions, 1975. - Financial Resolution No. 3: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance).
On Friday last in the few minutes at my disposal I had begun to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister for Finance, the Minister who is, in the ultimate the manager of the financial affairs of the country, had presented to us in respect of this year a situation where, if we divide the year up into what is fashionable now, namely, the five day week, the Minister is short to the extent of £1 million per day. That is what the Minister told us he is short in respect of the current budget. Now £1 million per day over a five day week approximates to £250 million per year. If we want to draw the attention of the House and the attention of the people to the appalling position this figure must be repeated over and over again. It will not be necessary, however, to repeat it much longer, because the inevitability of this disastrous approach to budgeting must befall the country before much longer.
I return now to my deficit of £1 million per day presented to this House by the Minister for Finance. I draw the attention of the House to the enormity of the amount. We have become theoretically, at least, quite familiar with dealing in millions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is present and I would draw his attention to the fact that if we take the number of days that have passed since the Time of Our Lord——
A long time ago.
A long time ago and —would the Parliamentary Secretary believe it?—we have not yet reached one million days since the Time of Our Lord.
That is very enlightening.
I hope the Deputy in his quiet moments will check my mathematics. It is a long time ago. If we transfer days into pounds we discover that the Deputy's superior, the man he is happy to serve, the Minister for Finance, has budgeted for a situation where we are losing £1 million per day in every five-day week in respect of this year.
Mr. Kenny
Losing?
Losing, because we have not got it but we are spending it. Think about it.
Mr. Kenny
That is a conundrum now.
It is no conundrum. It is a fact and it should not be tolerated. We cannot continue at that level. The same Minister for Finance has looked for and got quite an amount of backing from some of his own party in respect of his wealth tax. He understands that the amount of money he will get from it may realise, according to the experts, £2 million or £3 million a year. Apparently the Minister is not concerned with the fact that he is spending £1 million per day more than he has. Again, apparently, he was aware to some extent of his mismanagement and lack of husbandry because we were being advised earlier on by some of the more responsible members in the Government that the day for tightening our belts had come. Before this budget, through what one assumes were leaks from the GIS, we were told to get ready for a tough budget. In the circumstances one would have expected a responsible budget. What do we find the Minister doing? Notwithstanding the unholy financial mess in which the Minister already is he proceeds in his budget to hand out goodies. He is prepared to cod the public into thinking the position is so healthy he can distribute goodies from a fund he knows is not there.
Years ago, when I was in my late 'teens or early twenties. I remember a certain amount of criticism of a Member of this House who was advocating what he called a monetary reform policy. Deputy Oliver Flanagan in his less enlightened days made so bold as to advocate the Government in office printing money. Naturally enough, people who did not have money were attracted to that type of financial philosophy. Eventually Deputy Flanagan and others realised that, if money were to have any real value it could not just be printed. The collateral had to be there. The backing had to be there. What the monetary unit represented had to exist. Otherwise it would be paper money and have no value. That was 25 or 30 years ago and the idea of monetary reform in the fashion advocated by Deputy Flanagan died a natural death.
In 1975 the Government who have the backing of Deputy Flanagan and who, apparently, could not contain in the Front Bench a man of the calibre of Deputy Flanagan, are now carrying out that type of financial policy. They are unashamedly printing a certain amount of money which has not got the appropriate backing at home or abroad. Two or three years ago, if a man left home with £10 in his pocket he could be reasonably sure that with that £10 he could purchase the services and goods of his fellow man. He would purchase very little now for £10. When his wife goes to the supermarket he is quickly reminded of how little £10 will purchase. This is due to the fact that the Government ran away from their responsibilities and are endeavouring to pander to the popular and to the ephemeral. In their 14-point programme they told the electorate that if they were elected people would get money without effort and there would be reward without effort.
I want to quote what I said in April, 1972, in an endeavour to vindicate my own position. I suppose a Member of the House need not necessarily be accused of vanity if he quotes what he said himself when his own Government were in office. I referred to my philosophy of life in the debate on the Financial Resolution in April, 1972. Those were the good days. Those were the days when there was full and good employment, when we had a strong and secure Government who were prepared to do the correct thing, which was not always the popular thing. They had the ability and the courage to govern in a fashion which led to the general well being of the people.
Mr. Kenny
Why did the people reject them?
Sin ceist eile. Beidh lá eile ag na daoine agus ceartóidh siad é sin. It is given to every generation to make one mistake. Perhaps it is only by such mistakes that the people have an opportunity of weighing the alternative against the factual and learning the lesson.
As reported at column 1000, Volume 260 of the Official Report for 26th April, 1972, I said:
There is another thing I should like to say and here, again, I am expounding my own philosophy. If there is anything of lasting pleasure to be got in this world it can only be achieved by effort, hard work and self-sacrifice.
That excludes the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes and bingo. I went on:
One can enjoy an occasional ephemeral pleasure or satisfaction by adopting a policy contrary to what I suggest but in the long term the best and only worthwhile system is one in which effort is compensated by reward. However desirable it might be for some people, you cannot have the lasting worthwhile situation based on the idea that reward can be gained without effort.
In 1972 I saw signs on the wall which did not appeal to me. I said elsewhere that I thought people were, perhaps, spending in excess of what they were producing and that was a dangerous long-term policy. As reported at column 1001 of the same Volume the then Deputy Donegan, now Minister for Defence, said:
Deputy Tunney's rather grim suggestion that the only pleasure obtainable in this valley of tears is through hard work, effort and sacrifice places him with the good priest in the Cistercian monasteries and the good nuns in the most stringent orders and places all the rest of us in the modern situation which he is right to criticise but which exists, and not only in this country.
There is a certain inarticulation about that quotation and a certain amount of ambiguity. I think we can take it that Deputy Donegan was preaching that there was some other road to enjoyment and satisfaction of a permanent nature and that there was some easy way in which you could create and maintain a standard of living other than that which I indicated. I might say in passing that if Deputy Donegan has been listening over the past six months to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and indeed to himself, he must realise I was nearer to the correct position then than he was. Deputy Donegan, now Minister for Defence, indeed, a senior Minister of this Government, said then—and it is appropriate that I repeat his views and relate them to what the Minister for Finance is doing—he did not believe in budgeting for a deficit. It is well to repeat that, as did Deputy Donegan on that occasion. Invariably, repetition occurs when a speaker is so sure of his point he has some doubts that the listener did not get its full impact. Deputy Donegan, speaking in this House in April, 1972—three years ago—said he did not believe in budgeting for a deficit. I wonder how does Deputy Donegan feel about budgeting for a deficit of £1 million per day? Is he happy with that situation? I do not believe he is. The sooner Deputy Donegan, now Minister for Defence, convinces the other members of the Cabinet that deficit budgeting to the extent we have now can have only catastrophic consequences and already has had the better. Even at this late stage when the country is financially prostrate there might be some hope yet that the Government would tackle the situation and govern the country as a country should and is entitled to be governed. If they are not prepared to do that I say to them in all sincerity—not that I am in any way envious of what is described as the power of office, but from a genuine and sincere interest I have in my fellowman, of a concern I have for my family, relations, friends and neighbours—for heaven's sake and, for the sake of the people, get out and hand over to an alternative government prepared to govern the country as it should be governed.
Obviously one has not sufficient time in one hour to make what might be regarded as a comprehensive statement but, as a reminder of the attitude of the Government to many things—and I accept readily there are competitive elements for the available money—I want to refer to the situation which has arisen and the attitudes the Government have adopted in regard to education. Throughout the years many worth-while strides were made towards creating a situation in which every boy and girl would have education available to him or her. It may have different interpretations in the minds of many people. I shall not delve into that here beyond saying there was general acceptance that it was an entitlement of every young person. The Constitution lays down that primary education shall be free. Indeed, that requirement was acknowledged until the advent of this Government. For the first time ever this Government have introduced a fee in respect of primary education; a Government which, on the one hand, is over-spending to the extent of £1 million per day and, on the other hand, cannot provide for the under 12s free education which is their constitutional entitlement. Under the guise of democratisation and the setting up of school management boards, we are told that every school where there is a management board prepared to extract £1.50 per student per annum, there will be paid a capitation grant of £6 per student. But, in the schools where that has not been done no capitation grant will be paid. In effect, that means there will not be adequate finances available for heating, lighting or cleaning.
We are aware of the situation obtaining already in the matter of school building, again a matter I consider to be unconstitutional. In my constituency, and indeed in others, local people are obliged to pay, or to collect any way they like, £5,000, £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 for a school site. I suggest that is entirely wrong. It is not fair to those people but, most important of all, is contrary to the Constitution. I hear many people expressing concern about matters I would regard as not being as important as those of constitutional rights. Those same people are very quiet on this new proposal of the Government to withdraw from our children their constitutional right to free primary education. Arising from that we have a situation now in which the church or chapel— which formerly was, and should be, a house of prayer—has become a taxgathering house. Every Sunday boxes are sent around to collect money in order that people may have their entitlement in respect of primary education. It is an appalling situation. I suggest it is a subterfuge to get the taxpayer to contribute once, twice or three times to what he has contributed already in respect of education. Later I may refer to the position in regard to secondary education.
For the moment I am attempting to direct the attention of the House to this most undesirable development in regard to post-primary education. I do not blame the Minister for Education for this but the Minister for Finance who has failed to make moneys available to give needed services to primary schools. Surely the priest or the person or the other religious engaged in primary education have enough to do to look after matters appropriate to their domain without having to make appeals Sunday after Sunday for funds to provide lighting, heating and cleaning for primary schools? They have to tell their parishioners that if they do not get £1.50 per pupil they will not get the capitation grant. Ancillary to that we have the situation where the local school principal is at his wits' end from Monday to Friday to try to fulfil his duties as secretary to the board of management. He has to introduce subterfuges to get the children to bring in money so that he can continue to operate his school.
In so far as the constitutional position is concerned, much the same is happening in respect of the second level education where, because of inadequate finance the religious orders and the good people who are managing the schools are forced to introduce all sorts of airy-fairy schemes because they do not want to be accused of taking fees from students in respect of what is described as free education. In the general collection of taxes, moneys are directed to the Exchequer to provide free second level education but this is not being done, while at the same time we have the Minister for Finance spending £1 million pounds per day more than he should in respect of other things. Time does not permit me to develop that aspect.
I wish to refer briefly to the position in regard to employment. I know there are people who for one reason or another have lost the urge to work. I readily concede there is a duty on us to rehabilitate those people as best we can. I will therefore not refer to the 100,000 unemployed because that figure includes many of those I have just referred to, but each morning there are 50,000 people who because of the inefficiency of the Government cannot avail of their right to the employment in which they wish to engage. In 1972 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at column 1532 of the Official Report is reported as saying that in 1968 half of those offered posts as administrative officers did not take them. We had a situation where junior administrative and junior executive officer posts, which by any standards are not inferior positions, were not applied for. Indeed many of those who had been in those jobs did not stay in them because there was more remunerative employment elsewhere.
As Hamlet said: "Look you now what follow". We have people with second and third level educational qualifications who would be happy to take jobs on the lowest rungs of the civil service, the messenger service or the paper-keeping service, at any grade. In 1968 the situation was the reverse and I remember in 1969 and 1970, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, hearing accounting officers telling us the difficulty they had in recruiting people to jobs suitable for second level education people. What has become of all the marvellous changes promised to us in 1973, notwithstanding all the efforts of the intellectuals who are now shown to be the ineffectuals? Notwithstanding the great Government promises and the thousands of jobs to be enjoyed by everybody, the position is worsening day by day. We have the Minister for Labour, who is so adept and efficient that if he wants to solve a CIE problem he thinks he can do it by taking a temporary residence in Australia. That was what he thought of his position as Minister for Labour on that occasion. During a CIE strike the Member of this Government who should have been at home endeavouring to find some settlement and to restore sanity and correct order decides to go on what was described by the gentlemen of the Government Information Services, those great propagandists, as a mission looking for industry in Australia, a country which, at the time, had an unemployment position which, relatively speaking, was as bad as our own. He was in Australia trying to bring industry to Ireland. I have not read since from the gentlemen of the Government Information Services details of how successful the Minister's visit was. Perhaps it would be no harm when he is making his contribution in this debate, if the Minister for Labour would indicate his position and how he is going to handle matters relevant to his Department. I am referring here to the wage agreement and when the crucial talks will take place. I know he will say he is not directly involved but when the good offices of the Department of Labour are sought a few months hence if the Minister is required will he have to be searched for in some Oriental country, will he be at home or will he be on one of his fishing holidays?
On the matter of employment in education reference must be made to the thousands of young people who are stepping on to the labour platform at present and who are so disappointed. We will have to look into other areas and perhaps not be as cautious as people on these benches in the past have been. There are matters which must be referred to in the current emergency. Some years ago when Fianna Fáil were in office in their desire and their concern to make the best possible educational service available and at a time when there were not sufficient trained teachers coming on the market a decision was made that married ladies could be recruited to the teaching profession.
Married teachers were recalled and the Fianna Fáil Government of the day were very happy that this helped to reduce the student-teacher ratio and helped to improve the service already in existence. An appalling situation exists at present. Hundreds of BA and H. Dip. students have been unable to get employment in second level education and are prepared to take employment, if they can get it, in primary school level. Perhaps we should now look at the advisability not of asking existing married ladies to relinquish their employment but of not recruiting any more married teachers for the moment. I know that in this women's year people will point a finger at Deputy Tunney and say that he is not being fair to the ladies. I would not like to be accused of that. I am concerned about young ladies who are leaving universities and who are leaving the training colleges and who cannot get jobs, even sweeping factory floors. Perhaps this is one of the perks of power. Perhaps all the friends of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance have succeeded in getting employment appropriate to their qualifications. I am only speaking for my own friends and acquaintances. There are literally hundreds of them who are qualified and who cannot get one hour's teaching. We should retain those who have shouldered the burden over the years and here too I would make a case for the untrained teachers who have been removed. I think the Minister was wrong to reject those 238 teachers who helped over many years. On the other hand, we should look at the question of continuing to recruit married ladies to the teaching profession while there are so many unmarried ladies who have as yet not had any opportunity of tasting employment. The time has come to look at the position and if necessary to redress it.
The subject on which I propose to finish is one for which I have some responsibility in this House. I refer to the Land Commission and the new legislation, legislation which would not have gone through as readily if I had been present. I was indisposed for two months.
I referred to the situation where the Government, who have so little to back them at this moment, are approaching the good farming community, the people who are not of the old absentee landlord type, people who were peasants and some years ago inherited or acquired land. They are now being approached by the Land Commission, who are concocting one reason or another for acquiring that property. Instead of paying the people from whom they are acquiring the property in money they are paying them in this Oliver J. Flanagan money to which I referred earlier on. The Government are confiscating the land of Ireland. They are not acquiring it in the spirit of the Land Acts, which have been there since the latter end of the last century.
When the last Land Act was introduced here I directed the attention of the House to the fact that the land bonds and the 16 per cent interest that was being paid would be at a discount in a very short time and that it was nonsense to say that we were paying these people. I am talking about the Irish farmer with from 50 to 70 acres whose land is being taken from him. The only compensation he gets is a barrow full of land bonds which, as far as I am concerned, are as useless as the Government whose idea they are.
I use the word "budget" in connection with this debate in its very loosest term because the budget statement of the Minister for Finance was only a loose definition of the word "budget". It was only a very slight attempt to tackle the three main evils facing the Irish economy and the people in general— the problems of unemployment, inflation and our balance of payments deficit. If there was any attempt made to cure those three problems it would bring the Irish economy back to the very healthy state it was in when the present Government took over slightly over two years ago. If the Minister made any effort at all he could have put the country back on the road to steady progress in which he found it when he took office.
What did the Minister do? He introduced some very minor subsidies, to, as described by one of the political correspondents, give somebody a Rennie when he was suffering from cancer. Major surgery and major decisions were needed but all we got was a little bit of this and a little bit of that. This comes back to the problem facing the country at the moment, that of a Coalition Government, a Government divided within itself. There are two parties standing on directly opposite sides of the political divide. Many members of one are ultra-right and many members of the other are ultra-left. How can they possibly make the decisions which are necessary for the good of the country? They were incapable of making the decisions in the first place and this resulted in us getting into the troubles we are in at the moment. Now they find themselves unable to make the decisions to get us out of our troubles.
Inflation is running, according to the Government figures, at between 25 and 30 per cent. In the budget the Minister said that the measures taken will perhaps reduce it by about four points. It will still be more than double what is now the average throughout the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. We have been told that a lot of our problems stem from the days of the oil crisis, the importation of oil and the increased oil charges at the time of the Arab-Israeli war. Other countries have been able to adjust to this difficulty. This régime keep falling back on the old catch cry: "It is all because of the Arabs. If they did not increase the price of oil everything would have been fine".
What have the Government done about the unemployment situation? There are over 100,000 people on the live register. If you take the number of people who left school last year who still have not got jobs and add to that the 50,000 who left school this year without having any place to go the figure would be heading rapidly towards 150,000 if we were given the true figures. I am not accusing anybody of falsifying figures, but I say that the system at present in use does not reflect the situation on the ground. The 50,000 people leaving school this year have practically no place to find work. They cannot go to the semiState bodies because we know they are not recruiting. They cannot go to one of the major banks, who normally took on quite a proportion of school leavers, because they have advertised that they are not taking anybody on. There have been enough quotations during this debate already, and I do not intend to give any. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a question, that there are still vacancies within the civil service, but only a small proportion of those unemployed will find employment there because employment in the civil service is not anything like it was.
Aer Lingus was the main employer for young people leaving school in my constituency in North County Dublin, although I know they employed many people throughout the country. This year there is a complete stop on recruitment. The story is the same in relation to many factories in that area. The Government must be aware of this situation because they have the advisers and they have the figures. They must know how grim the situation is. What major decisions are made? There is nothing except this package in the budget of 2p here and 1p there and, in order to make the situation worse, an increase in income tax. On the night before this so-called budget was introduced the Fianna Fáil Party had before the House a Private Members' motion relating to the building industry. Although I said I would not quote I think it is appropriate to quote this. The motion, as recorded at column 1751 of the Official Report of 25th June, 1975, was as follows:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to increase substantially financial investment in the building industry, with special provision for the private house-building sector, in view of the serious decline in the numbers employed in the industry over the past twelve months and the urgent need to create jobs to cope with the high level of general unemployment in the country.
Fianna Fáil did not lightly put down that motion. It was seriously considered that if the Government accepted that motion the action proposed in it would go a long way towards solving the three main ills of inflation, unemployment and the balance of payments. In March, 1975, there were 19,887 building workers unemployed despite the Government telling us that things were never better in the industry. The building industry can do more than any other sector of the economy to help in regard to inflation, unemployment and balance of payments. It can help directly and indirectly in regard to employment. It is the easiest industry to get going because the infrastructure is already there and it is only a matter of starting projects and starting building. It can also assist the suppliers and manufacturers of materials used in building, and over 80 per cent of those materials are manufactured within the State. This would help the balance of payments deficit because most of the equipment and material used would not have to be imported and the balance of payments problem would not be further exacerbated.
The Minister did make some contribution, and said he would get the banks to make available £40 million over two years, £20 million per year. How will that money be allocated? How effective will it be in getting the industry going again? The morning after the budget statement, in a radio interview, the banks' representative spoke of loans being available on a 20-year term at an interest rate of probably 12½ per cent. I suggest that not very many people will be in a position to take up loans on these terms. I think that if the Minister got this money from the banks it would have been better to increase the money in the SDA loan fund with a view to raising the SDA loan from £4,500 to £6,000 and the income limit from £2,350 up to £3,000. In that way the £20 million per year could have given an increased incentive to young couples to buy houses; it would have made more money available to them and would have brought many more within the SDA loan scheme. We could have had an immediate increase in employment in the building industry with a spin-off effect on ancillary industries. In its present form, while the £20 million is a help, it does not go far enough and the money is being allocated in the wrong way.
A sum of £20 million per year between two main banking groups represents presumably £10 million each, and assuming there are about 750 branches of each group and that the average loan runs to about £8,000, there will be less than two loans in every branch. How can this help on a national basis when what is required is a massive injection of capital?
I may be asked, why increase the income limit from £2,350 to £3,000? The answer is that it has not been increased since May, 1973 and we know the building industry has suffered a greater rate of inflation than most industries. Even on the Government's figures, inflation has been running at about 25 per cent but the £2,350 has been static—no increase. The average three-bedroom house now costs about £7,500 and the maximum loan available is £4,500, which leaves a gap of £3,000. To be eligible for the £4,500 loan you must be earning less than £2,350 a year. It is practically impossible to save a deposit of £3,000 on that figure of earning.
The solution to the problems of the private building sector should have been the injection of capital into the SDA loan fund, but this was not done. On the contrary, the Minister in his budget speech on 26th June, 1975 said:
As from today, therefore, interest on new advances from the Local Loans Fund to local authorities for these loans will be increased from 10 per cent to 11 per cent and the repayment period will be reduced from 35 to 30 years.
He says this would mean that the normal rate of interest charged to individual borrowers on new loans would be increased from 10½ per cent to 11½ per cent. So, instead of helping this section of the community that I am discussing, those that are anxious to buy houses at the lower end of the market, this Government have further exacerbated the situation by increasing the interest rate by 1 per cent, and reducing the number of years available for the loan. This is the Government who tell us the building industry is going very well. I would ask for some sincerity from the other side of the House with regard to these figures.
Another way the Government could have helped would have been by an injection of capital into the infrastructure required—the making of roads, the laying of sewers and so on. There is not much hope of an improvement in the building industry proper, but the creation of the infrastructure would provide employment. Pipes would have to be laid and roads built and the factories manufacturing the requisities for this sort of work would be fully engaged. Wavin felt so strongly about the problems that they took a full page advertisment in The Sunday Press on 9th February last in which they said:
Ireland's building industry has only two options—drawing bricks or drawing the dole. There is no doubt about the country's desperate need for more housing. Let us get building going again.
That was issued jointly by Wavin Pipes Ltd. and Wavin Pipes Workers' Council. The Workers' Council in Wavin did not take that decision lightly. We have a good idea what a full page spread costs but they were prepared to meet that cost because they were so worried about the industry and the effect the recession would have on their jobs. Up to 100 workers were laid off. If the Government were to put money into the infrastructure factories like Wavin would not be in the position they are.
What are the facts? The engineers in Dublin County Council—I know this from personal experience—asked for £6 million to carry out what they considered was the necessary programme of expansion this year in the provision of sewerage, roads, water, et cetera. They got approval from the Government for exactly half that amount. The engineers did not come to that decision lightly. They set out exactly what the programme would be, what pipes they would need, what quantity of cement, how many trucks and men they would require, and so on. They asked for £6 million and they got exactly half, £3 million. Obviously only half the work proposed can be done. That will mean men laid off, machines not properly used and supply factories employing fewer men. The spin-off effect goes right across the board.
We are told by the Government that everything in the garden is rosy and things could not be better. We have one glaring example of the effect of the balance of payments deficit on employment. We have spoken about the shoe industry on many occasions. We have tabled many motions asking the Government to protect the workers in this industry. According to the pink sheet again boots and shoes are reduced to zero rating from 1st July, 1975. What help will that be to our footwear factories? Imports are also free from VAT as from 1st July. I suggested that the Government should put a 50 per cent cash levy on imports from outside the EEC and 25 per cent on imports from within the EEC, the money to be held for six months and then refunded. This is an emergency measure, but we are in an emergency situation. If this were done on imports to the value of £1,000 the supplier would have to lodge 50 per cent or 25 per cent of that amount with the Irish Government for a period of six months. That would slow down importation, help our balance of payments and direct purchasers towards Irish made goods.
I may be told that this would be breaking EEC regulations. The British have been known to carry out similar measures. The Italians have been known to do likewise. The French have taken steps where lamb imports are concerned. It is my personal view—I emphasise it is a personal view—that we should put this 50 per cent or 25 per cent deposit barrier on imports. It is not a tariff. It is merely a cash deposit to be held for six months and then refunded. Such a deposit would make a major contribution towards helping our balance of payments deficit, which is running at the colossal figure of £200 million a year. That is a great deal of money. The deposit would also help our employment situation, because it would reduce imports and it would improve the chances of Irish people buying Irish goods.
In the short time available it is not possible for me to go into detail on all aspects of the budget. I should like to refer to motor vehicle duties and payments to the Road Fund. Irish motorists are not getting a fair crack of the whip. They are one of the most overburdened sections of the community. The sooner there is a general rethink at Government level on the role of the motorist in Irish life the better. The vast majority of cars on the roads are there for business purposes. People have to use them to get to their jobs and to get home. People such as commercial travellers and so on use them in their jobs. How could a politician get around his constituency without a motor car? People have to have cars. This does not seem to be realised at Government level. They cling to the old idea that the motor car is a luxury and they tax cars and petrol and provide inadequate roads. Recently the Minister introduced a further harassment of the motoring public by extending the role of the traffic wardens.
In the budget various items were excluded from VAT, or zero rated, with the exception of road fuels. Petrol is now costing about 15/- per gallon. Surely some incentive could have been given to the motorist and some clawback taken away by the Minister. This would have been of assistance to the car assembly industry. It is pointed out that under motor vehicle duties about £28.7 million is coming in and about £19.1 million going out to the road fund. Of the nearly £30 million coming in from motor vehicle taxation only twothirds is going to the road fund. Some of our main roads are little better than dirt tracks. Travelling from any part of the country to the major cities the traffic delays and the problems are appalling. How can you have a strong economy if you have not got the basic necessity of a proper road structure between the cities? How can you talk about moving factories to the west if you have not got a proper road structure from the main ports to the west? I would appeal to the Government to rethink this whole situation, even leaving aside the plight of the motorist and thinking of sound economics. We must have a proper road structure which will allow for the free movement of commercial goods from area to area. This will help our economy to expand in no small way.
The tourist industry has been suffering for a considerable time. There is no benefit in the budget of 26th June for that industry. The Minister could have made provision for petrol at a reduced rate for tourists. This could be done, as the Italians do it, by handing the tourist a certain number of slips as he comes into the country which he would hand in when purchasing petrol. This would encourage tourists instead of discouraging them. Instead of having to pay 15/- a gallon for petrol it should be available to tourists at 10/- or 7/6 a gallon. There is no encouragement in the budget for tourism. The Government should consider the plight of the industry at the moment. We are all aware of the number of hotels up for sale throughout the country. People are selling out literally for a song to get out of the industry. This is an industry which was built up under Fianna Fáil administration with grants and encouragement and, now, people who went into it with high hopes a few short years ago, find themselves with their backs to the wall because of the strain and stress caused by this regime.
We do not have to go any further than the national airline to realise the problems in the industry and the effect they are having. The situation at Dublin Airport at the moment is appalling. Within the next week or fortnight it will be without a restaurant to provide proper facilities for our tourists. One of the attractions of the airport was the standard of food and service in the restaurant. It built up an international reputation. It got a four-star rating in 1962 and now it has to close down because of economic factors. What did the Government do in this budget to help premises like that to remain in business? No assistance whatsoever was given. I appeal to the Minister for Transport and Power to approach the Aer Rianta authorities with a view to having the decision to close the airport restaurant reconsidered. From a national point of view it would be a pity if this facility which was widely used and widely commented upon were to close down.
In this debate I wanted to deal with inflation, unemployment and the balance of payments deficit, the three main problems facing the country.
Debate adjourned.