Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1977

Vol. 296 No. 6

Financial Statement, 1977: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Financial Statement made by the Minister for Finance on 26th January, 1977.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Carter

Before Questions I was referring to the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If one were to follow the Minister's argument one would be more destructive than constructive. I do not propose to be destructive if I can avoid it. The Minister spoke about our paper. He raised questions based on the hypothesis that we would be self destructive in the policy we issued and that it would not work. I want to get away from that and get down to some of the ministerial statements in the budget. If we want democracy to work, if we want to shape it and to further the prospects of democracy, it would be better if we were constructive rather than destructive, no matter how nimble our arguments may be or how poor they may be on the one side or the other.

I said earlier that the Minister not only in this budget but in last year's budget appealed for restraint in incomes and in relation to the current demand for increased incomes. Everybody knows that rising incomes not met out of production lead nowhere. It might be all right in theory to talk about an incomes policy and how a Government could regulate such a plan. I believe no Government in Europe have a plan for an incomes policy. They only have a plan for restraint.

It is the same as trying to curb violence. One often has legitimately to use violence in order to bring the total violence occurring under control. In order to curb the demand for excessive incomes the Government must be ahead in leadership and they must practice what they preach. The Government have not in the past three years supported the resolutions they made. The community are crying out for rising standards of living and better incomes not met out of production. If we are to try to bring our economy into line and to bring stability into the purchasing value of money we will have to have a second look at this matter.

The Minister expressed a number of aims in the budget and he has taken some of the steps to try to implement them. Last year he imposed something like £80 million extra taxation. When he levied the extra taxation he taxed the most progressive members of the community, the people who work hardest. They can only bear a certain share of taxation. Some of them said after last year's budget that roughly one-third of their income went in taxation and in social welfare deductions. The House should welcome the reliefs given in the budget. It is better to give reliefs by lowering taxation because it gives an incentive to those with good ideas to implement them.

Last year was quite a good farming year when there was a good return from crops. It was much better than 1974 and 1975. There was a decrease in cattle numbers in 1975. We should see that we have good cattle numbers in the future. Farmers will need a certain amount of credit for development. They will need a more progressive policy with regard to land leasing, something which the Land Commission for some reason refuse to implement. Four or five years ago Macra na Feirme brought out a very useful booklet on succession. They have also brought out a document on the leasing of land. There is not enough land in the hands of young farmers prepared to engage in good husbandry and earn sufficient income for themselves and their families.

The price of land is astronomical at the moment. No young farmer could be expected to purchase land. Firstly, he would not be able to raise the necessary money and, secondly, he would not be able to pay the interest on it. We should give some thought to this matter. The Land Commission are behind the times in not having a proper land leasing system which would give land to good, young farmers. This would be much better for our economy than having speculation based on tax levels. People who have a lot of money are very anxious to invest in land. We should see that the Land Commission have a proper leasing policy, the same as is available in Europe and that we speed up the rearrangement of holdings. I do not believe that there is a very great deal of land left. I should like to see a more forward policy pursued in this regard.

I was glad to see the announcement last week that the Agricultural Institute decided to extend their activities to include research into meat and products. Meat and meat products could mean a bright future for our farming community if we invest money in such research now.

Before the introduction of the common agricultural policy there was no great incentive in this regard because the British market was the road to nowhere. At the time we relied on the export of store cattle on the hoof but we did not give enough thought to the full development of the meat trade or the downstream products. Now that we have the assistance of a guaranteed market for our products at a guaranteed price we should develop our trade in meat and meat products.

Last year was quite a good year for farmers. While the yield could have been greater we came out fairly well, even though we experienced difficulties in regard to drought. May was a good month and when that happens it is a good sign. It pleased me to hear the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries recently encouraging the spread of tillage in spite of the high price being paid for cattle. In the past when a product went at a high price everybody trooped after it. Irrespective of what price is available for meat and meat products we should continue to have a good tillage policy. Such a policy would protect the farmers, the home market and our balance of payments. In this way it saves us in times of scarcity from placing undue demands on outside resources.

For many years now we have had a very dear money system here. It is impossible to buy money at present because it is too dear. It is not possible to have a proper set of priorities in this regard and, instead of having a subsidy and grant system, relying more on the initiative of the farmer or businessman? If they could borrow money at cheaper rates they would make better use of it. I urge the Government to study this matter. Because of the present situation we must rely on the grant and subsidy systems and we all know that they are like the dog at his tail, wasteful. We should try to aim at a cheap money policy for capital development. It would be better than having a range of grants and subsidies administered by expensive Government Departments. I am not decrying the effort of the officials of those Departments because they have proved their worth in the community but we should rely more on the worth of the individual. At present there is no respect for the worth of the individual and down the years "profit" was a dirty word. People enter business with the profit motive although one would think it is a crime now.

We should return to the idea that the profit motive is a good one, provided it is not exercised by a multinational company with no regard for the aims or objectives of the government or the people of the country in which they are operating. More scholarships should be provided for business methods and more scholarships should be given to those anxious to enter agricultural colleges. We should help our people rather than throw stones at them and do everything to bring them down. Time and again I have come across the notion that the person who starts a business in his own country with a profit motive in mind is an enemy of the people. We should change that frame of mind and show better example.

I was very impressed while watching the "Late Late Show" on RTE on Saturday night with the variety of food dishes produced. Unfortunately, there is not a great desire on the part of girls to take up the subject of domestic economy. If we were moving in the right direction every second girl would be involved in domestic economy courses. We should upgrade this subject which at present is not considered by our pupils because they all want to do office work which is not there for them. They want to crowd out the typing pools.

Now that married women are continuing in employment we have feweropenings for school leavers. I suggest that some of them should considerdomestic economy. Associated with domestic economy was the idea that one was a household drudge. We should get away from that idea and we would give a lead to youngsters; otherwise, with some exceptions, they will not move in that direction. Some hoteliers who talk so much about the tourist trade and who are sometimes ready to find fault with the range of aids available should do more to encourage this type of activity.

I think we can get away from the situation of loss of value in money by becoming more independently-minded and getting rid of the idea that the State can provide for us from cradle to grave. Perhaps I am indulging in generalities but we could do a good deal more to foster the worth of the person in the directions I have mentioned.

It is almost impossible to be competitive in industry today because we have Third World countries and countries outside them all competing, with different standards of living and of wages, which are able to dump goods in certain parts of the world. We should first have a thorough examination of our agricultural methods and then of the downstream products based on agriculture. I mean that in a blanket sense. Also, we should examine the whole range of assistance available to young farmers and we should study the question of how quickly we can get them into production. Those are some things that might help to reduce our dependence on the State, reduce calls for monetary incomes and earn ourselves better incomes. We should also aim to get back respect on the hearthstone where it should be. When I hear some of the professors I often say that it is no wonder life has drifted away from the hearthstone. They talk in percentages; they juggle figures and make comparisons between one country and another and they have some hypothesis and theory thrown in, but without very much practice, with the result that they miss the mark sometimes.

I blame the Government for not giving more attention to private building. No matter what the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance may say, we could do much more in the construction industry. I say that in good faith. I offer the suggestion that we could do this without the fear that it would further endanger the value of our money. Building products are mostly produced at home, and that is one of the greatest incentives in this direction. We are now at a stage when for a few years, with the techniques available now, we could use some of our own timber. We have the labour and the other necessary raw materials. The construction industry is a wonderful employer and a wonderful agency for distributing and redistributing money. Therefore, the Minister should use his influence at Government level to get this aspect of the economy examined again with a view to a new drive. It is all very well to talk about public building which is going ahead strongly, but this is very dear building especially if we have not concurrently a good competitor. We could have a leader in private building, by which I mean the man buying a site for a house, building it himself or getting somebody to build it for him. Much could be done in that regard with greater co-operation.

I am not briefed for prepared today to go into the Minister's speech in detail. He says all the right things; let us hope he will practice them also. If I could find fault with him or his colleagues in the Government it is for expressing intentions and not following them home to the hilt. Unless we do that we shall not get the results from the budget which the Minister hopes to get from it. Unless the example is shown in this House it is doubly certain that we will not get these results. As regards administration in general we have the best of personnel. I was talking to two public servants the other night who, between them administer nearly £100 million, ordinary fellows like myself. It is a wonderful tribute to our public service that we have men of this calibre and that we have never had a major money scandal in our community. That is a great incentive for our youngsters. If they are right-thinking youngsters they will have respect for such people. We should foster those people in the community because they set a great example.

We can only try to implement the aims of the budget even though we may disagree with some things in it. We may disagree with the range of taxes and say that the Minister gave insufficient relief. He may reply he could not afford it and that may be so. We should all resolve to get away from over-dependence on the State because the Government can become inured to this and become a kind of sugar-daddy. This is a bad situation in a democracy. We should realise that a man should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. We are getting away from that precept and many people think they should not work at all. There are those who say that possibly we shall never again have full employment. If we want to have sensible, balanced human beings in the community we must have employment and it must be shown that everybody has a job to do.

Those are my sentiments on the implementation of some of the aims in the budget. I may not agree with all of them but I defend the Minister's right to say what he said, to levy taxes and so on. We should not rebel, because there is another way of fighting this on democratic lines. Despite the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs found so many faults with our programme for economic expansion I ask him to look at it again and he will find some good points in it. He did not give us credit for anything. I offer this programme to the country and consider it should be read and studied. We have a right to our views and the Minister has the right to condemn them but not totally.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to point out that there is no Member of the Fine Gael or Labour Parties in the House to support the Minister or to speak for the budget. This is an indication of their faith in it. In my view this is the greatest con job of all time. If it were possible to call in the fraud squad to examine this budget and the Department of Finance, we should do it. We should expose the Minister for what he is.

In October when people were due social welfare increases they could not be paid because the Minister did not have the money. Between October and November £126 million appeared. Where was it? Who utilised it? Did the Minister mislead the House or the people? Did he crucify the weakest section of the community, the unemployed, when he denied he had money? If he misled the House we want to know why. In my opinion he is a con man and this is a con budget. An examination must take place to clear the air and to show where he had the hidden millions of which he deprived the weakest section of our community.

I will now deal with my constituency, Ballyfermot, the surveys that have been carried out there and the lack of information the Government have about the real problems of the workers. The worker is being conned all along the line. He will want to know how much the Minister is giving in the budget, how much he is getting from the national wage agreement and then he will see how far off the beam the Minister's figures are. It is necessary to clear the decks on this occasion. I hope the national agreement is carried.

I was speaking to the people of Ballyfermot this morning. The housewife can assess the budget fairly and effectively. There is no greater leveller than the common sense of the average housewife. She knows exactly how the budget will affect her and her family. If she has three children and children's allowances she will get 100p per week which is equivalent to 1p per child per day per month.

This is a serious situation. The Minister has been fiddling somewhere. Was he misled by his officials? Did he mislead this House or are the facts presented in the budget erroneous? Where did the money come from? Last October he said he would have to look for an additional £8 million to meet the increases in social welfare. We should know how the affairs of the country are being handled, where the money is and if the Minister has it. Yet in the short time between October and December he was able to find this money. Is there inefficiency in his Department? Are his officials concealing facts from him? Perhaps he will deal with that in his reply.

No later than the 7th December I put down a question to try to assess the situation in the area which has the highest unemployment figures in the country, Ballyfermot—we were told this not too long ago by a Labour Deputy. The Minister is unaware of what is happening in the country. There is no census, and there will be no census, which would help with long-term economic projections. The Taoiseach said he did not have the information I wanted. How can the Government solve the problems of the country if they do not know what they are?

Let us see how this con budget affects the problems in my constituency. The budget can be and has been described in many ways. Some say we are dancing to the Cosgrave symphony, overture and interval. That appears to be so since the Government have made overtures because of the coming election. This con job must be forcibly exposed inside and outside the House.

A survey was carried out recently in the Ballyfermot area by a group of TCD students and people from the Ballyfermot Area Community Association. They carried out a survey of the school leavers of 1969. What did they find? There are 35,000 people living in 5,000 houses. Forty-six per cent of those people live in houses of ten people or more. In this year's capital budget we have a reduction in the estimate for 1977 as against that for 1976 of £18 million. Of the people interviewed on that occasion 24 per cent of their fathers were unemployed, 29 per cent of their fathers were unskilled or manual workers and 20 per cent of their mothers had to go out to work.

There is no relief in this budget for the mother who is forced by economic necessity to go out to work. If the husband cannot get a job the wife must. The serious situation that has developed in Ballyfermot has been exposed by this excellent report which shows clearly the problems in Dublin city. Dublin is a very special case because of large built-up areas like Ballyfermot and Ballymun. A large number of the 1969 school leavers still do not have jobs.

The tragedy is that many families have not been given any relief. The man earning £20,000 has been given substantial relief. The relief that he is being given is so great that many of the unemployed would be able to live on it. This is a rich man's budget. The parents of three children will get a penny per day in children's allowances. This budget is the greatest con job that was ever done. The Government will have to get their facts straight. They should know how many people are unemployed in this city.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs told us that unemployment is being reduced. This indicates how far removed Deputy Garret FitzGerald is from the situation. No wonder he had to do a pub crawl to bolster the budget on budget day. I condemn RTE for allowing him to hold a meeting in a public house. The Minister and RTE know that it is illegal to hold a political meeting in a public house. Not one member of the Opposition was invited to this meeting. For the benefit of Deputy FitzGerald, the unemployment situation is as follows: On 18th January, 1974, the unemployment figure was 72,806. On 21st January, 1977, the figure was 117,753, which was an increase of 44,800. When a Minister of State in a Government of collective responsibility does not know how many people are unemployed we must get a budget such as this. In Dublin city On 18th January, 1974, there were 18,284 people unemployed. On the 21st January, 1977, there were 33,428 people unemployed, an increase of 15,144, according to the Central Statistics Office. That is not the end of the story. Female school leavers have not been included in the figures because it only refers to people in receipt of unemployment benefit. The unemployment figures do not include people doing AnCO courses or unemployed professionals. The real figure is nearer 150,000 and Dublin would have a higher figure than the 15,000 indicated by the Central Statistics Office.

The people in Ballyfermot are endeavouring to relieve their situation. I attended a meeting in Ballyfermot last night. It was held by a responsible group of people who are trying to reduce unemployment in the area by a number of schemes. In the last few years we have heard a great deal about the training schemes of the Minister for Labour. All the Minister has done is to train people to stand in dole queues which are growing longer day by day. The Government should introduce a scheme to alleviate the distress in Ballyfermot and other areas. It is sad to think that promises were made by Ministers during the by-election campaign in these areas; indeed, Deputy Garret FitzGerald complained that he was not recognised when he knocked on a number of doors. He was recognised in the public house because he had the aid of an RTE announcer.

The tragedy I refer to is common to other areas of the city. It is about time the Minister understood the problems of the working class people. What is in the budget for the unemployed and the large family, many of whom will be worse off when they receive an increase under the national wage agreement? The inflation rate will be nearer to 18 per cent if the Minister balances his concessions with increases under the national wage agreement. The Minister has done an excellent job in bluffing the workers of this city. In a recent survey on school leavers of 1969, 23 per cent, or a quarter of the people interviewed, were unemployed. This is far above the national average.

This is the area about which the Government have no information. The Taoiseach himself does not know the distress in this area. I am going to tell the Minister the situation and ask him to introduce a scheme whereby the young people of Ballyfermot can be taken off the streets and put to work. They have talents, educational qualifications and training and I appeal for an immediate effort to assist them.

This is the area I represent and will represent in the future and I am asking for something in addition to the provisions of the budget. Many people from Ballyfermot have been very successful. There are excellent schools and colleges in the area but there are no jobs for these young people. Something must be done now. The school leavers of 1969 are still unemployed. What about the school leavers of the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976? They are in a pathetic situation. Surely the Attorney General must have told the Minister from time to time that this is a distressed area. There are people there willing to work and willing to fit into any scheme initiated by the Government to relieve the distress. There are many excellent voluntary bodies and associations who would be only too happy to help.

I have outlined some of the problems of this area. There are 35,000 people living in Ballyfermot in over 5,000 houses. A substantial number of people are living in vastly over-crowded conditions and yet we have a capital budget which reduces the building and construction estimate. The amount set aside in the previous estimate was not spent. This was a con job because the Minister deliberately issued instructions to the Board of Works to slow down and to conserve as much money as possible in order that there would be finance available for utilisation in this budget. One woman said "That robber Ryan will not get away with this". She was speaking for the majority of women in the area. Her husband did not get any increase and he was unemployed, as were her children. The Minister disregarded them. These people have been disregarded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour. This is a con job by the Labour Party who have yielded to the pressure of the Minister, aided and abetted by the Taoiseach and the Attorney General. Two members of the Labour Party represent this area in Dáil Éireann, and another representative is a member of Fine Gael. At some stage they should have spoken out and tried to influence the Minister to do something about the problems of their constituency.

The reduction in the estimate for building and construction from £13.4 million to £10.56 million is a clear indication of the slow down dictated by the Minister in this area of collective responsibility. I appeal again to the Minister to do something to alleviate the distress in Ballyfermot, Ballymun and other areas on the perimeter of the city. Fathers, mothers and children are unemployed. The Minister for Local Government has brought in a scheme to victimise people who seek a job, even on a temporary basis. A man who was unemployed before 19th September last paid a low rate of rent. If that man, through his initiative and desire to work, took one or two weeks' employment at Christmas his rent was automatically increased from 75p or 80p per week to £3 or £4 per week. We were told this was an incentive. The Ministers should examine their consciences and not hide behind the smoke screens being sent up by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who tries to tell us now that we should sell out, that we should prostitute our religious and political principles. We are not going to be dictated to by agnostics or so-called lefties who are not concerned——

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Dockrell)

This does not arise on the budget. The character and private beliefs of any Minister do not arise on this budget. The Deputy must desist from that line.

Mr. Dowling

These Ministers are not concerned about the progressive development of our nation. They would sell us out tomorrow just as they did before. These are the people who try to tell us what is good for us. There is nothing good enough for the man without a job, for the child who cannot get a job, for the 20 per cent of people interviewed whose mothers are out working. There is no relief whatsoever for these women who try to maintain their families and to ensure that their children will be educated.

This is a pick-pocket budget and the Minister could be classified as the greatest pick-pocket of all time. The Minister for Industry and Commerce in his efforts over the years has indicated that he is to be the saviour of the working class, that he will see that prices are maintained as laid out in the 14-point plan. No effort was made to ensure that the purchasing power of the unemployed or the workers would be maintained. Every day the hand of the Minister is dipping into their pockets. It is about time this stopped. The price of coal, fuel, baby food and a variety of other items has increased since the budget. This is well known to people with small purchasing power. These people were under threat from the Minister for Finance who again, under another smoke screen, said the children's allowance system is under examination, and this was never withdrawn by the Minister. If this Government are returned there is absolutely no doubt that the children's allowance, bad as it is and little as the Minister gave, will go by the board in the near future.

Let us take the man in Ballyfermot who, whether he is travelling to the labour exchange or to work will have the whole portion of the increases he gets under the national wage agreement and from the Minister burned up in increased bus and train fares alone. Some of these people who have to commute across the city to where they are employed will have to face substantial increases. It has already been announced that they will have to pay an extra 60 pence a bag for coal, which will average out at £1.20 per week per family. There was no allowance made for that in the budget or in the national wage agreement. How many increases are being held back or slowed down until this budget debate is over? We have seen the avalanche of increases from time to time, when the position would appear to be a little favourable, when there is nobody to raise a dissenting voice in Dáil Éireann. Then the Minister can run riot, although the increases are not published in the newspapers as they were before.

The Government should stand up and be counted in relation to their promises. The 1973 affair was a con job. They misled some of the people. I do not blame the people for voting for the Coalition on that occasion. Many of the Ministers had a cure for everything, from bald heads to bunions. Whatever the problem was they had a cure for it, prices, unemployment or anything else. They solved the problems all right. They put the people out of work, and this was a deliberate attempt to cut inflation; which is a very bad way to manage the affairs of the State. If they wanted to reduce purchasing power there were other ways of doing it besides deliberately putting people out of work. I would like to quote the actions of Ministers during the year which led to unemployment. Footwear for the Irish Navy was purchased in England, Saville Row shoes, when shoe and boot factories here were closing down. Is there any excuse for the purchase by the Minister for Defence of foreign footwear for the Defence Forces? Surely the trade unionists and the Labour Party members should have spoken out. Sports boots for the Army were brought in from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a variety of eastern European countries that could have been produced here when the Cork Shoe Company and other such firms were closing down. It is pathetic to see Irish workers being cruified by the Labour members here, aided and abetted by the Fine Gael members. "If they are not able to do their job"—and it is obvious that Labour members are not able to do their job—"give some assistance". Have Fine Gael a gun to their head telling them if they raise a dissenting voice they are out?

That is not the only indication of Ministers betraying the workers. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gets some of his labels printed in Britain when the printing industry is on its uppers here. I hope the workers will come to realise the sabotage of the Labour Party and, indeed, of the Fine Gael Party. True to form, Fine Gael have always run the one course. In my constituency, when the first Coalition came in—and I am not blaming the Minister, Deputy Ryan, for this—they sabotaged the engineering industry that had been developed in Inchicore. The machinery was purchased and when it was about to go into production the equipment was sold abroad. The first Coalition also sabotaged the transatlantic air service when they sold off the aircraft to the Pakistanies and other people. They sold to the Turks the equipment that was bought for a shortwave station.

How many industrialists will come here while this Government remain in office? The first question such industrialists ask is, what Government are in power? They certainly do not inspire confidence. They have destroyed Irish industry. How long will it take us when we get back into power to put it back in the viable position it once was in? It will take a considerable time, but I am sure the workers of this city and of the country will respond when they get the opportunity, and the sooner the better. I would ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, to test this budget by going to the people now and let the workers express themselves fully and effectively in the ballot boxes, because that is the only way we can know the minds of the people. They know their efforts have been sabotaged by the Labour Party.

From the construction of the budget and the reliefs that have been given, it is obvious that the Labour Party had to yield to the pressures of the banker belt that Deputy Garret FitzGerald, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and other people approached prior to the last general election, a fact that was so ably exposed in Hibernia at the time. However, as I said, there is no regard for the workers; a man with three children on £50 a week who is purchasing his own home gets no relief in the budget. He gets a penny a day for each child per month by way of children's allowance.

Then there is the question of shipbuilding. The Japanese are at work at the moment building a number of ships for us. The Minister has certainly done a great job for the Japanese. He has put thousands of Japanese workers into jobs building ships for us to utilise, while Irishmen are on the labour exchanges in the ever-swelling dole queues. Welshmen are also building ships for us. Why cannot Irish workers who are as effective and efficient as any other workers build our vessels? We have the dockyards, the manpower and the capacity to build these vessels for ourselves. Some good boats have been built here but this Government are prepared to allow contracts to go abroad. We have seen examples of this in relation to NET and other bodies. This attitude is an insult to our workers, to AnCO and to all those engaged in developing the potential of our young people as well in the development of Irish industry. We recall what happened in relation to Irish Life when furniture that could easily have been made here was ordered from abroad. This was at a time when some of our furniture factories were closing.

I would remind the Minister that our workers have always been in demand on the labour market abroad because of their efficiency and their ability. They are being disregarded by this Government in a ruthless manner. So long as the Coalition remain in power this situation cannot be remedied. It is what we have come to expect from the Cosgrave symphony—overtures at intervals in the nature of throwouts of one or two premium employment programmes. It is time that the Government realised the necessity for stimulating employment. On this occasion I shall not go any further into the question of employment as already I have educated the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the situation. How far removed is that Minister from reality when he can tell us that the number of unemployed is diminishing? The information I have put on the record in this regard was ascertained from the Department of Social Welfare and from the Central Statistics Office.

I wish to turn now to the question of the Defence Forces. This is an appropriate occasion to deal with this subject having regard to the amount of money being spent on defence. I have carried out a comprehensive study in this area, perhaps a study that is deeper than any carried out by any member of the Government. I have visited most of our military installations in all parts of the country and I know the problems that are involved. There is a dedicated body of people in the Defence Forces but they are being tee'd up by the Government.

A serious situation has arisen in relation to our Defence Forces. First, there is interference with the inflow into the forces. There is interference with the intake of personnel to the Cadet School. This is interference of a ministerial nature but it is shaping the future of the Army in so far as certain personnel are being chosen. Many of the appointments are ministerial with the Minister assuming the responsibility of Chief of Staff in the appointment of senior Army officers. These appointments are being dicated by the Minister for Defence at the behest of the Taoiseach. On the other hand, the Defence Forces are being bolstered up by additional powers of search and arrest. This is a very serious situation. We read in the Sunday Independent a few weeks ago that the security of a prison within a military encampment is now being tested. What is this prison for? Is it a place in which to incarcerate politicians? We must know how the money being voted is being spent. It is disturbing to think that the Defence Forces are being moulded by this Government. This may result in the forces, against their will, finding themselves in a precarious situation. They are being pushed both at the bottom and at the top with promotions being a matter for the Taoiseach or for the Minister for Defence, irrespective of military efficiency or capability. It is clear that the Taoiseach's personal friends have been pushed into positions of authority. We may be reaching a very serious situation as a result of all this interference. It is the sort of behaviour that led to certain happenings in many other countries.

Therefore, the sooner this Government are put out of office, the better for all of us because we could then get back to the democratic way of life and to the type of responsibility that is necessary in relation to people in senior positions. Friends of the Taoiseach in the Equitation School have been promoted. He has told us that these promotions occur on the basis of ability on the sport field or in the area of horse sales. No consideration was given to our military personnel who excelled on battle fields abroad in terms of military efficiency. there was no recognition for them. The ability to ride a horse is the criteria.

I trust that very soon the electorate will be given the opportunity of showing their discontent with the manipulation of the Defence Forces as well as manipulation within many Government Departments. I hope, too, that very soon we shall be afforded another opportunity of discussing this vital matter of the Defence Forces. In this context I challenge the Minister and the Taoiseach to bring before us as the first Estimate for the year the Estimate for the Department of Defence so that we may discuss frankly what I would call Taoiseach corruption in relation to the Defence Forces, with the aiding and abetting of his ministerial colleagues. We should have fair play in relation to any service for which money is voted here. There should be fair play in relation to promotions and appointments but the present attitude would seem to be an effort to bring about an unhealthy situation.

The Minister has crowed about the tax concessions being given in the budget. Let us examine what he has done in this area. We are told of the importance of the family and of how family life must be safeguarded but in a copy of The Cork Examiner I have here there are some interesting figures in relation to this rich man's budget which resulted from the dictates of the bankers' belt. We find that the family is totally disregarded because under the new provisions a single person with an income level of £2,500 will benefit by way of tax concession to the extent of £63 whereas a married man with two children will benefit to the extent of £57. Where is the justice in that? Similarly, a single person earning £3,500 a year will get a tax concession of £98 while a married man on the same salary will benefit only to the extent of £83. What regard have the Government, then, for family life and, in particular, for the larger families? Again, the saving in tax to a single person earning £4,500 a year will be £133 while a married man with two children will have a tax-saving of £118.

Despite the pub crawls by the Minister for Foreign Affairs he is not able to convince the married man that he is better off. The facts speak for themselves. The single man earning £15,000 a year will save about £1,200 a year whereas a single man earning £2,500 will only save £53. A married man with two children earning £15,000 a year can save £1,117 as against £1,238 for the single man. There is victimisation of the family man and the family right along the line. The Minister cannot say truthfully that families are being protected and supported in this budget. In times of large scale unemployment people work for less than they normally would so that the tax concessions being granted amount to nothing. The Minister is really giving nothing to the wage earner in this budget. A man asked "What is the definition of an elephant?" and the reply was "A mouse made to Government specifications". That sums up the budget. It is very big in presentation but it contains nothing. I would remind the Minister that when baiting a mouse trap one should always leave room for the mouse. The Minister in this budget did not leave room for the mouse. The Minister will not fool anybody by this budget. The Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government know that every day the glitter is wearing off this budget as people see the realities of the situation.

I would put the Minister for Local Government ahead of the Minister for Finance in his attempts to con the people. Dublin is a city of "digs". The housing list has not reduced in the last few years. We know there is a problem in this city. Many people are on the waiting list; many people cannot get on the waiting list. We are being conned day in day out by the Minister and his advisers in relation to housing problems. Where are the houses? I cannot find them and neither can the people on the waiting list. We know that sales of cement, timber and other commodities used in the building of houses have gone down and that there has been a reduction in the number of people employed in the building trade. I fail to see how the Minister can build more houses than ever before, without the commodities or the men. The Minister produces figures in relation to housing starts, housing finishes, loans applied for and loans granted, in a way that gives the impression that he is doing a great job. The job is not being done. The people will not be conned much longer, as they have been conned, in relation to the rent increases and in relation to the housing drive.

The Minister's capital budget does not give great hope when there is a reduction of £18 million in the budget estimate. The average rate of inflation is running at about 20 per cent, so there should have been an increase of 20 per cent on the budget estimate. How can the Minister meet the housing requirements with this substantial reduction? How can houses be built without men or money? The Minister had the money before and apparently he was not able to use it. I would be glad to know how the Minister will produce these houses, as would the people on the housing list throughout the country.

If we look at the figures for the various labour exchanges we can note that in Werburgh Street there are 11,631 unemployed; in Gardiner Street, 12,334; in Cumberland Street, 5,824; and in Victoria Street, 3,639. A report of the Dublin City Council, based on scant information, told us recently in relation to projections for the future that, with the development of Dublin and the inflow of people, even on the most favourable terms the situation in Dublin by 1999 will be that approximately 75,000 people will be unemployed.

A census of the population should have been taken so that realistic projections could be made. It would not have cost a lot. There are plenty of people on the labour exchanges, people who are getting about 80 per cent of their pay who could have been put to work compiling statistics. The Government are afraid to have real factual information because it would expose them for what they are. When the time is opportune they will move out, as they did on previous occasions, leaving a mess. A census to get the information required will have to be taken. Apparently the Government do not care about all the people in this country, they only care about certain well-off sections. The representatives of Dublin city are calling on the Government to do something to ensure that this tragic situation will not develop to the extent that is likely. The report was drawn up by competent officials of Dublin Corporation and based on the information they have at their disposal. Even at this late stage the Minister should have a census so that we can fully assess all the problems of the people.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 8th February, 1977.