When I was speak ing before Question Time I was making the point that the figures in relation to the Department of Local Government are disappointing, to say the least of it. The Minister might explain the figures in the Book of Estimates in regard to housing. In 1966, an estimate of £119 million was provided and the outturn was £105 million. In 1977, the estimated figure was £101.38 million which seems to be a rather drastic reduction for this Department. In relation to sanitary services for 1976 we had a figure of £27.80 million and this year it is 27.46 million.
Again, these figures are disappointing in that for any type of development it is necessary to provide a proper infrastructure. In Mayo, for instance, we have a situation where industry cannot be developed without the necessary infrastructure and I believe this is an area where a great deal more money must be provided. Because we are now in the EEC and funds such as the Regional Fund and FEOGA grants are available, one would expect that the Minister would have a great deal more money for this type of development. Promotion of industry depends to a great extent on matters of this kind. In one town in my constituency recently the IDA had, because of lack of water, proper sewerage and considerations of that kind, to divert to another area a certain type of industry which would have been complementary to an existing industry. It is also an area where employment would be generated if such works were available. The figure for this year being practically the same as last year indicates that there does not seem to have been much thinking or planning on that aspect of it. Perhaps it explains something to which the Minister referred and with which I intend to deal later—that 9 per cent of the capital budget estimate last year was not used despite the fact that during last year we had such a high rate of unemployment.
In relation to grants from Europe, particularly FEOGA grants, the Minister should look at the situation as regards local authorities. For instance, in harbour development a 25 per cent FEOGA grant can be obtained. The local authority do not benefit from this. The Department of Finance benefit directly but the same contribution has to be made by the local authority. In fairness, local authorities should at least get half the grant. When large harbour developments and works of that kind are concerned it means that very substantial sums must be provided by the local authority. When the FEOGA grant is paid the Minister can reduce his contribution by 25 per cent whereas the local authority's contribution remains at 25 per cent. They gain nothing from the grant from Europe.
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding as to how EEC grants can be applied, particularly in the case of the Department of Local Government. There seems to be very little information available in the Departments as to how grants may be applied to group water schemes and such matters. This prompts me to suggest that for the handling of grants from Europe and matters relating to Europe generally there appears to be a need for a special Government department to deal with EEC affairs in order to streamline the present situation and help local authorities and others to extract the greatest advantage from the various grants now being made available.
Great play has been made about the benefits being given to social welfare recipients but I do not think the Government have anything to boast of in that respect. What social welfare recipients are getting is only barely in line with what is being given to other sectors of the community. The trade unions and others demand increases in wages so why should the Government boast when the less well-off are benefiting to some extent from the present budget? The budget benefits must be related to what one can actually do with money at present; it is not the amount you have that matters but what you can get for it and with inflation soaring as it is, I think very much more would be necessary to keep pace with price and cost of living increases. In the last few weeks, since the budget was introduced, we have had several price increases. It is a question of having enough to pay for the necessities of life and I doubt if the budget provides for that.
One section of the community not catered for in the budget—and it is time the Minister and the Government had a good hard look at this question—is the self-employed section. They have no protection at present. I am sure many Deputies have the same experience as I have of small business people and others who have fallen on lean times for various reasons and find themselves in a sad plight financially. They apply for home assistance as the last resort. Probably their pride very often prevents them from going to the home assistance officer to seek help. When they go to the Department of Social Welfare, because they may have had a small business in the past or something like that, they find it very hard to convince the officials that they are entitled to assistance. The only other avenue of help available to them then is the home assistance officer. I think it is time for the Minister to introduce some scheme which would give some protection to the self-employed.
If something like a stamp were introduced, possibly on a voluntary basis initially they would have some form of protection if they fell on lean times. When the self-employed, for example part-time fishermen, look for unemployment assistance, they are asked to give an account of their earnings. Even if they give an honest account of their earnings—and I suppose most people err on the other side—their word is hardly ever accepted and the social welfare officer takes it that they are making a fortune. As a result, the home assistance granted to them is not accepted.
Another aspect of the social welfare payments is the question dealing with single people living with their parents. I have had hundreds of representations from people who were cut by £7 or £8 a week because, according to the social welfare officer, they have been afforded the privilege of board and lodging with their parents. I cannot understand where in one instance the social welfare officer may take £7 or £8 from an applicant while another person gets full benefit. This inconsistency is unfair and unjust. If a person is unemployed, whether he lives with his parents or otherwise, the same yardstick should apply. He should get the full amount that applies to a single person. This would ease the work of public representatives and it would save a good deal of money on postage if we were relieved of that situation.
There seems to be a fallacy abroad that people are not prepared to work. I refute this. I believe that if people were afforded an opportunity to work they would be prepared to do so. I accept, however, that it is hard to get people to do casual work but where permanent employment is available, people are more than willing to take it. We have several examples of that on the west coast. People emigrate to cities and around the country because there is no employment at home. They do not want to scrounge on the State. They will work if it is provided for them.
There is no planning at national or local level to try to provide more jobs. A great deal of money comes into my county from different Government sources—Social Welfare, Bord Fáilte, Roinn na Gaeltachta, Forestry and the county councils. If people were to plan, it would be possible to have a more productive response from State funds. For example, in a village in the West where £50,000 is being handed out in social welfare, this money could be spent providing amenities like water, proper roads, car parks, planting trees and so on. There are several projects that could be undertaken if there was some type of planning. The extra cost to the State would not amount to a very great deal. If £50,000 a year is spent that will amount to £500,000 in 10 years. If that amount of money is spent in any village at the end of 10 years they will have something to show for it. This would provide work and do away with idleness. The children would not grow up getting bad example because the people are idle. The Minister and his officials should look at this.
The Minister has provided £1 million for local improvement schemes for the whole country. In Mayo alone we have works estimated at £2 million. The argument is often used that it would cost too much to provide these schemes and that the appointment of extra officials would not be justified to provide the kind of work I am talking about. Mayo is an example where the work is already estimated, the schemes are prepared and all that is necessary is to get the workmen to do the jobs on local improvement roads, drainage and so on.
In a parish near me, through the initiative and guidance of the parish priest, schemes have been done on a voluntary basis. The people are doing the work and the county council are paying for the materials. If we got this kind of spirit moving at local level, we would be doing a very good job and the State funds would be put to better use than they are at the moment.
I was disappointed to find that the Minister made no reference to the Western Development Board which has been talked about for a long time. We expected that Board to be in operation by now, that we would see the benefits that were promised and that the West would see a great deal of progress being made as a result of the setting up of this board. We felt, too, that the EEC Regional Fund could be used to finance this board. There is no shortage of schemes which could be implemented if this board were in operation. When the Minister is replying perhaps he will let us know when this board will be established, where it will be located and where it will operate.
Another big disappointment in the budget is the amount provided by way of grants for third level education. These grants take no account of the increased costs which have to be faced by students. Charges for board and lodgings, fees, books and transport have all increased. Only those with plenty of money can now afford to send their children to the universities or regional colleges. The income level for grants is really a joke. An income of £1,800 is very little today and as I see it only the very poor and those who are at the other end of the scale can avail of university education. This emphasises the position of the person in the middle income group, particularly the wage earner, the person on a fixed income. He pays for everything but benefits from nothing at all. He cannot benefit under the medical schemes or the educational schemes. We are gradually moving back again towards the situation which existed 25 or 30 years ago and this is cause for grave concern. There are students who are making an honest effort to pay their own way through university by taking up part-time employment but when they have finished their education they may find themselves without a job. This is a very sad reflection on the state of our economy.
Bord Fáilte have in the past few years prepared a number of plans at both national and local level for the expansion and development of tourism. Again, the amount of money made available is very small. Last year in Mayo we received a grant of £9,000 and the local authority backed that by providing another £9,000 for schemes such as access roads to beaches and so on. What can one do with that kind of money in this day and age? It is a paltry sum. In view of the importance of tourism to the national economy the Minister should have been more generous in his grants for this very important industry. The tourist industry has run into problems because of the Northern situation, but it has a great future. Money spent in the development of the industry would bear fruit and it is disappointing that such a small sum is provided for Bord Fáilte this year.
I notice that the Minister has decided to make some extra money available to Óstlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta. He stated that the estimated expenditure of £15 million in 1977 is in respect of the provision of improved facilities and equipment in the company's hotels. This is rather ironic when Óstlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta are now closing three of their hotels. One of these is within eight miles of my own home and it has been a part of the place for about a century. It provided the only local employment. The Minister may say that the closure of this hotel is not his responsibility because it is owned by a semi-State company, but surely he has some say in deciding the future of these hotels. I am asking the Minister now to consider the decision to close this hotel which is of a very high standard. We do not have many hotels of that type in Mayo and I think that the Minister might ask Óstlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta to reconsider their decision.
The sum provided for fisheries is ridiculous, especially when one relates it to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs after the meeting at The Hague. We were informed then that Ireland was to increase its fishing fleet by 300 boats in 1979, that we were to have more harbour facilities and more grants and aids for processing. The figure provided makes a complete joke of the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at that time. It is quite obvious that there are no plans on the lines suggested by him. If there were, the figure would be shown in the budget to indicate that the Government are serious on this question. Everybody will admit that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was just talking off the top of his head without considering the whole question of the fishing industry or without considering the statements he gave to the people, the press and the media at that time. He has not done himself, the Government or the industry any good by using the press and the media to try to give the Irish people the impression that he got something for them.
In a BIM boatyard 30 per cent of the workers have been told that they may be laid off shortly. It is quite obvious that the Minister was only fooling himself by the statements he made on that occasion. It is next to impossible for a fisherman to get a loan for a second-hand boat. The Government policy is that the boatyards must be maintained. I agree with this. I do not want to see any unemployment in our boatyards, but the Government should surely make provision for people who want to buy second-hand boats. Many of our fishermen started off by buying second-hand boats They were in a position to buy these boats cheaply. After fishing for some time they were able to buy new and larger boats. It is a pity, with the importance of the industry and the necessity for expansion which is brought home to us every day, that we have not the money available to do a good job.
The Minister has made money available for an exploratory vessel, which is very welcome. When will we have it built? Money should be made available to get boats of this kind on hire until we have sufficient of our own available. Last week there was a statement from the Department of Oceanography in UCG saying they are not able to continue their research because of lack of funds. The information they are seeking is very vital to the industry. We are trying to prove to our EEC partners that conservation and other measures are necessary. It is deplorable that we do not have sufficient funds to carry on this very important work. The professor responsible made a public statement saying that it will be necessary to suspend some of the work and have some people engaged there released because of lack of funds.
This ties up with what I have been saying about the completely irresponsible attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his statements about what we were planning and hoping to get for the fishing industry. One might say, as a result of what has happened in the last few days, that the Taoiseach recognises this fact because he appointed a Minister for Fisheries and sent him to Brussels to get what appears to be for the time being a better deal for the fishermen.
I want to say something about income tax paid by fishermen under the PAYE system. This has been the subject of a High Court action. The decision has not been in favour of the fishermen. It is impossible to have a PAYE system put into operation as far as fishermen are concerned. There may be one week when they can fish and do reasonably well but there may be three when, because of bad weather or something else, they cannot fish and they have no income. It is ridiculous to try to apply the PAYE system where they are concerned. I am not saying that they should not pay tax. I accept that they, like everybody else who has sufficient income, should pay tax on that income. The Minister however might ask the Revenue Commissioners to have another look at this matter and devise some means of collecting tax from fishermen besides the PAYE system.
I know there is one port where an arrangement has been worked out. It seems to be working very satisfactorily, but they are slightly different from the situation we have around the coast in general. It would be to the benefit of the Exchequer if some other type of collection were arranged instead of using the PAYE system where fishermen are concerned. I do not believe that the tax can be collected effectively in that way or that it is fair to use that method to collect income tax from fishermen.
We should be spending a great deal more money on the development of our land. It is the greatest resource we have. The position in relation to arterial drainage schemes is that only a small sum is made available for this work. There is also a small amount available for local improvement schemes and joint works undertaken under the farm modernisation scheme. They are the only grants available for land drainage but the country is crying out for this kind of development. Huge sums are made available to the IDA for the promotion of industry—I am not saying this is wrong; I agree that most of it is well spent— but it is a reflection on ourselves that so much of our land is non-productive due to the lack of investment in drainage. A great deal more should be invested in that type of work. Many acres of bog could be developed and provide a greater income for owners of small holdings. An Foras Talúntais studied this matter in an effort to find out what could be done to make this type of land productive. The ground work has been carried out and the money should be made available to get on with the job.
In this regard I am sure a case could be made to the EEC to provide moneys for the underdeveloped areas. Such an investment would be of more lasting benefit than grants made available to industrialists who very often when something goes wrong pull out, with the result that the State loses thousands of millions of pounds. Money invested in land would show a return.
The amount of money available for the EEC retirement scheme is not attractive. We are not getting the response one would expect because people do not see any advantage in handing over their land to the Land Commission for division among young farmers. The pensions being offered are not attractive enough. It is hard to know what is the best course to adopt. Is a promotion effort necessary to sell the idea to the farming community? Are we doing enough to encourage elderly farmers to dispose of their land? On the question of the distribution of land there is a tendency where land is being divided by the Land Commission to give land to the person with a large holding. Looking at it from the point of view of the agricultural benefit of that situation it may be the best arrangement, but one must relate the division of land to the social structure.
Deputy Seán Flanagan often referred to off-farm employment for people who did not have sufficient land. He suggested that they be given employment. That is the best course to follow. Where land is available for distribution those most in need should get it. A great deal more would be done for the social structure if that method was followed rather than creating bigger holdings for those with a good deal of land.
A matter that will cause a big problem for industry is the proposed higher telephone charges. The service at present is desperate, particularly in the west. One must experience the difficulty involved in getting a call through from the city to any part of the west to believe it. I cannot see increased charges bringing in extra revenue because people will use the telephone as little as possible. Communication is very important to industry and one would expect a greater injection of capital for the improvement of this service. We are still awaiting the erection of automatic exchanges in the west and I hope we will not have to wait much longer.
The tax on farmers is unjust in many ways. We do not say that farmers should not pay tax; we accept that, like everybody else, they should pay their fair share. There are not many farmers in Mayo with big holdings but there is a matter in the Minister's speech which frightened farmers in Mayo. That concerns a farmer with a small holding who also has a job. The reason such a farmer had to take up a job is because his holding was too small to give him a decent living. Between the two, such a farmer is able to have a higher standard of living and it is too bad that he finds himself taxed as a result of this budget. Representations have been made to the Minister on this and I hope he will have a look at it because it is a harsh provision.
Recently we had before us a Bill to provide electricity in areas which have not had such a service. I understand the ESB are still awaiting instructions from the Department, that they still do not know whether money will be made available to enable them to provide this necessary service. I hope that instructions will soon be given to the ESB to proceed with this work and thereby help the backward areas.
Is oth liom a rá nach bhfuil aon tagairt in óráid an Aire do na buntáistí a bhéas le fáil ag muintir na Gaeltachta. Tá siad ag fáil chuid mhaith geal-lúntaí le cúpla bliain anuas, ach thairis sin is beag buntáistí atá le fáil acu. In óráid an Aire ní fheicim tagairt in áit ar bith don Ghaeltaacht, fiú amháin cúpla focal Gaeilge gur fiú trácht orthu. Is mór an trua é agus caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil díomá orm nach bhfuil tagairt ar bith don Ghaeltacht ann. Cruthaíonn sé dáiríre nach bhfuil suim ar bith ag an Rialtas seo sa Ghaeltacht nó i gceist na Gaeltachta. Tugann siad neart geallúntaí ach, mar adeir an sean-fhocal, ní bheathaíonn na briathra na bráithre. Ach beidh lá eile ag muintir na Gaeltachta leis an droch-mheas atá ag an Rialtas orthu a chruthú.
