I would like to——
Adjournment of Dáil: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Dáil at its rising this week do adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
—(The Taoiseach.)
On a point of order, a ruling was given in the House by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to the effect that there would be one Government speaker and one Opposition speaker. This is totally contrary to long-established precedent in the House. That precedent, Sir, was maintained by all of your predecessors. No satisfactory explanation was given by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle as to how he arrived in the middle of a debate at this ruling or for what reason the departure from a long-established precedent was made.
There are short memories.
It is one that could not be accepted by this party. The Parliamentary Secretary refers to short memories. If he is referring to the last administration, in the last administration we were in coalition with another party——
Subsumed.
——and we were a member of and participating in Government. This party since the general election are, as are Fine Gael, a separate, distinct and independent party, and we would expect, Sir, that you would continue to observe the long-established precedent upheld by all your predecessors.
The Chair is not aware of being held by any precedent in the matter of calling speakers, but the Chair must be concerned with fair representation on both sides of the House with regard to Opposition and Government.
This is a departure from precedent. Speakers have rotated between the three parties since the Dáil reassembled in October, and this is changed now on 14th December. Even when there were fewer speakers for one party, the Ceann Comhairle has called them in their turn.
There are not enough members in the Labour Party to take it up.
(Interruptions.)
The concern by the party——
We will not have a debate on this now. If anything is felt to be irregular about it, I would suggest it be brought up later. The Chair is the sole judge as to who should speak.
The function of the Chair, with all due respect, is to ensure the observance of Standing Orders and to be guided by established precedent. There is no way in fairness that we could accept anything but continuance of that long-established precedent. This decision to reverse that precedent has been made in the middle of the debate. It has been made without even an attempt at justification for the making of it. One does not want to speculate at this stage as to what motivated that decision, but I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that you have not only the right but the obligation and responsibility to uphold the dignity and impartiality of your office.
The impartiality of the Chair is what the Chair is attempting to uphold. There is nothing in Standing Orders which makes any ruling with regard to how Deputies should be called. The Chair should endeavour to see that there is fair representation in debate from both sides of the House.
I accept there is no thing in Standing Orders, and where Standing Orders are silent on any matter it is clearly and firmly established that precedent would guide the decisions of the Chair. That has been upheld since the creation of the office which you now have the honour to hold.
Sixty want to muzzle 80.
Would the Chair say whether or not the Leas-Cheann Comhairle consulted with him before he made this change? The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said he was creating a precedent. We want to follow the precedent that has been there since this Dáil was established.
(Interruptions.)
We are going to be heard.
It is your responsibility, Sir, to follow and observe precedent, not to create it.
There is no responsibility on the Chair other than to use his judgment as to——
I am asking the Ceann Comhairle whether or not he consulted with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle before he created this precedent.
I am using my judgment with regard to calling Deputies and I am not aware of any arrangements being made prior to the debate other than that setting out a time for those concluding and those opening.
In view of what you have just said, that you are not aware of this decision and that you intend to use your own judgment, at this point we will wait to see what form that judgment takes and how much it takes into consideration long-established precedent at this stage.
I point out again that I do not hold myself in any way guided by precedent in the matter of who should be called to speak in the House. The Chair has been all along using the best possible judgment with regard to representation and to the time made available to both sides of the House for the debate.
In view of the statement that you have made, Sir, that you are not aware of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's departure and of your further statement that you would use your own judgment, we will reserve our action on this pending the exercise of your judgment.
The Chair has clearly stated that I am not aware of any prior arrangement with regard to the manner in which Deputies should be called in this debate. I have been given, and it has been made an Order of the House, a time schedule covering the time speakers will be allowed to speak and having regard to the proposer and the speakers. Other than that I have no instructions with regard to the debate.
I should like to make it clear, in case of any misunderstanding, that this party are a separate, distinct, independent party and will exercise their rights within this House and will expect you, Sir, to respect those rights.
It is a good precedent.
I am glad that, just approaching six months after resuming office, we get an opportunity to hear from the Taoiseach in detail about the present state of the economy. This morning the Taoiseach gave us a detailed report on the economy and detailed the major political decisions which are being considered by the Government. It is an opportune time for the Taoiseach to return from the Heads of State Summit with such an attractive financial deal for 1978. It augurs well for the economy that our contribution to the EEC has been agreed at the figure which the Taoiseach was successful in negotiating.
I welcome and congratulate our three colleagues on their appointments as Junior Ministers. Their appointment is an indication of the attention these Departments need—the Departments of the Public Service, Environment and Industry, Commerce and Energy. The Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy has a senior and two junior Ministers. The provision of energy for industry and domestic use has been brought under the Minister responsible for job creation. No greater assistance can be given to industry than the provision of energy at an economic price. Energy is one of the main cost factors in job creation.
The setting up of the industrial development consortium will be a major contributor to job creation in 1978. It would appear that our exports in 1977 will rise to £2,500 million, a 35 per cent increase on 1976. The significant and rapid rise in our exports augurs well for 1978.
The most significant contribution to next year's performance is the successful and realistic conclusion of the Employer/Labour Conference. Much has been said of industrial problems and strife and it is only right that we should put on record the favourable industrial relations that exist in 95 per cent of our industry. Unfortunately, a few problems have been highlighted and blown up out of proportion. Over the years, Government and industry have displayed a constructive and responsible attitude towards labour relations. Complicated negotiations are going on at present and the Government have issued the necessary information to ensure that the right financial mix will come out of the negotiations.
The major success story of our short term in office has been the building industry. Cement sales are already showing a significant increase. In my constituency, which is rapidly growing, the building industry have reaped the benefit of Fianna Fáil's return to power. Building in the private sector is pressing ahead and there have been 6,000 applications for the £1,000 grant which was speedily introduced by the Minister for the Environment. Yesterday's introduction of the home improvement scheme by the Minister for the Environment follows on that decision and will have great potential for job creation.
Deputy Bruton referred in detail to agriculture, with which he is familiar. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by him, particularly in relation to the introduction of added value to our first-class agricultural products. In regard to added value, I would refer to the report of the IDA on the beef processing industry. We now have two sectors in this industry, the co-operative movement and the private operators. In that way we have an ideal mix of interests which should ensure fair competition. We all agree that it is wrong to export 700,000 live-stock and that there is tremendous potential in this area if we expand existing operations and introduce new developments in the food and beef processing industries.
The Minister for Agriculture is making more headway in a short time in regard to sheep by bringing about the possibility of a solution rather than a long drawn-out legal wrangle. The beef processing industry has excellent potential and I would ask the Government to assist investment in that industry because it is a real natural resource. It is not subject to the shortages of other natural resources such as minerals and oil. The dairy industry is an example of the way in which we should be endeavouring to introduce a quality brand name for Irish beef.
On 1st January we will gain full membership of the EEC. That has its challenges. It will have its competitiveness and its potential. It is its potential that we must endeavour to capitalise on fully. We cannot expect to gain its possibilities without having to face its competition and that is where the present round of wage negotiations will have a major and significant effect for 1978.
From the EEC we have a great degree of confidence coming in the way of financial incentives. We foresee in 1978 a real regional fund. In the past we have seen that the moneys from the regional fund diverted in to the Central Exchequer and never really getting to the regions they were intended for. There is real potential for us within the EEC and other member states recognise that under the new Fianna Fáil Government funds made available from Brussels will be used to the maximum to give the necessary uplift and expansion which is possible within our economy. The development of industry, under the guidance of the IDA, has also been fully debated here since Fianna Fáil took over. We are all aware that under the new IDA legislation there is great potential for changing the financial strategy of that body. We are aware that the IDA will be in a position to make a lot more money available to Irish companies, co-operatives and other organisations prepared to put in their part of the investment and work on whatever project is approved. This is a situation where they are budgeting for 50 per cent Irish investment and 50 per cent foreign investment in 1978. That is a changing situation from that which existed in the late sixties and early seventies. It is a situation where Irish entrepreneurs and co-operative movements have an opportunity of doing their homework, planning and programming and producing to the IDA factual plans with a request, indirectly, for Government funds.
The previous Minister for Labour, following discussions with Industry and Commerce, had Dublin city and county designated a special area for the creation of employment. Unfortunately, the situation had deteriorated a little too far when that recognition was given to Dublin and surrounding areas. For the IDA to take some positive action in this planning, financing and programming was necessary. In the last couple of weeks the IDA have made the first real moves to assist Dublin in the employment area when in the Walkinstown-Clondalkin area, they agreed on the building of a nine factory-cluster. Likewise, they have agreed on a development in the Liberties. Advance factories will be erected there for Irish companies either to commence operations or expand. There is a positive and real challenge to a number of our small organisations to produce plans and seek new markets making use of their existing capabilities. As the IDA assess applications they want to see a proven track record and many operations can provide this. It is a challenge to them and I hope a number of existing Dublin companies accept that challenge and seek extra factory floor space to expand their operations and create more employment.
The question of young people seeking employment is a matter which is dear to us all. Based on the fundamental shift in Fianna Fáil's educational policies when in Government we now have a good mix of technical and academic students. It is possible that the numbers are still unbalanced. One finds that when trying to create employment in sectors other than agriculture to get the technical expertise from new applicants is often not possible. AnCO are providing a valuable service but there is no compensation for practical experience. This will be a problem in the future and one which needs the attention of the new industrial development consortium. The setting up of that consortium means that for the first time Government Ministers will have a forum, with the executive charged with the responsibility of spending the taxpayer's money in investing in job creation and in exports. It is an ideal opportunity for Government Ministers to direct spending in a most constructive and positive way. As our semi-State bodies, private companies and the Government are charged with accounting for their stewardship annually we will have in that consortium the expertise necessary to direct finance in a way in which it can quickly and most efficiently assist the job creation programme.
It is neither helpful nor constructive to our economy that one should continually be critical when an air of confidence and optimism is necessary. As we approach the closing days of 1977 we are experiencing a restoration of confidence in the Irish economy and in our people. That, coupled with the forthcoming budget, can mean the laying of the foundation for our policies and our programmes. It is the duty of a Government to create the environment and it is the duty of the many capable people here to operate and improve within that favourable environment.
It has been said continually by public and private enterprise that while the Coalition were in power there was not much point in making an effort because taxation had gone out of proportion. People felt it was not worth the effort. Our task is to ensure that the situation cannot prevail where it is not in the interests of our people to work. They must be given the opportunity to improve their own lot and that of the community.
The coming year will give us an opportunity of moving forward and judging by the fact that our export figures for the year so far show an increase of 35 per cent there are grounds for cautious optimism. This must be recognised by politicians, employers, educationalists and those charged with the responsibility of manning and operating our economy.
This morning the Taoiseach dealt with those issues at length. He mentioned many other relevant issues, one being industrial relations. He said:
If we are to prosper we must create employment in industry and services. There can be no question that our tax and grant regimes provide attractive incentives for industrialists thinking of investing here. But there are intangible factors which can often be as important to an investor as incentives measured in terms of cash-flow and discount rates. Social stability is one of these factors. A pleasant environment is another. And good industrial relations is a third.
In 1977, social stability has led to a reopening of the potential of our tourist industry. Tourists came back to Ireland. It was a most successful year. In the coming weeks and months, if we can restore that optimism and co-operation in our industrial relations, there is no reason why, as in agriculture and tourism in 1977, job creation and forward movement in industry cannot be achieved in 1978.
Now that we have been in office for six months, I hope all political parties will support the Government who are committed to carrying out the task for which they sought a mandate from the Irish people. A recent poll confirmed the results of the election. The people are still of the same frame of mind. They are confident that the Government can deliver, not on promises because this party did not make promises to the electorate. They laid before the electorate a detailed document with short-term, medium-term and end of term policies, and strategies. To date we have lived up to that document.
The £1,000 new house grant and the abolition of car tax were not promises. They were forward looking and creative policies. We realised a financial injection was needed in the building industry. Surely it is better to create employment than to pay out large sums of money in social welfare when people want work and are willing to work. Already the results are there to be seen. Over 6,000 people want to buy new homes. There is a tremendous spin-off of employment in the production of fittings and fixtures as well as the actual buildings. It will be the task of the Department of the Environment to keep the supply of serviced land available for housing development. That will be a big draw on Government spending. It will have to be faced up to.
The Government quickly saw another need for major investment and introduced the Telephone Capital Bill. As politicians we have had representations from industry and from private individuals and we realise that major investment is needed in that area. After our first six months in office, we are pleased to report that the Bill is advancing rapidly and money will be available very shortly for investment where it is so badly needed.
Yesterday a group of consultants produced a detailed report on cross-Border development for the Derry-Donegal area. There is need for an investment of £50 million in this area. The infrastructure, telephone service and communications must be improved if we can ever hope to make any progress in that area. Positive action has been taken. The Government and our EEC partners must make a commitment to provide the funds. Let us hope it will be forthcoming as a step in the right direction.
I should like to look forward to 1978 as a year of real potential. We must create an environment in which positive development can take place. I hope the people negotiating the wage agreement will appreciate that, whether you get cash in your hand through an increase in your salary or wage or a tax relief, your net take home pay is what matters. This morning the Taoiseach spelled out what that means in terms of finance. I am satisfied that, given a proper wage agreement, there are real possibilities for 1978.
Over the weekend I listened to a radio programme in which the Leader of the Fine Gael Party was interviewed. He was asked one very relevant question: What did he think of the performance of the new Fianna Fáil Government in their first six months in office? His comment was very direct: "They are still on their honeymoon." I am afraid their political happiness will have to be disturbed. Concerning the Ferenka affair we were asked to let the dust settle. We cannot let the Government off the hook for the mess they made of the Ferenka affair. When they ask us to let the dust settle, they are really asking us to brush it under the carpet and forget the whole mess.
I can well imagine the vicious attacks which would have been made on the previous Government if such a closure had occurred during their term of office. Need I name the leader of the pack and the back-up he would get in exchanges on that closure? I refer in particular to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, and the Minister for Labour, two Ministers now deeply involved in this whole terrible mess. In no way will I remain silent. I must be critical because I come from that region and I can now see with regret the terrible consequences of the closure.
In mid-west Limerick, North Tipperary and Clare, when the votes were counted on June 17th, 13 Deputies were elected to Dáil Éireann. Eight were Government Deputies and five were Opposition Deputies. When the newly elected Taoiseach announced his Cabinet later, we were delighted to have four Ministers in the area. We felt the mid-west region would go places. When these Ministers were in Opposition they castigated the Government as being irresponsible. I was looking forward to greater concern, greater involvement and greater responsibility from the new Government. Where is this great concern now? Where is the job creation manifesto? What does this manifesto mean to the 1,450 men who lost their jobs in the Ferenka dispute?
Over the weekend announcements were made about impending trade union legislation in the new year. I wonder are we panicking. I believe we have sufficient legislation to handle trade disputes. Over the years there have been good relations in local and foreign firms between trade unions and management. I am afraid the unions and workers are being put on the chopping block and made victims of the circumstances that surrounded the closure. Perhaps the powers that be should look at this a little further. Would they not accept that there is an urgent need to draw up a code of activities and standards for non-national firms in the area of labour relations?
In the ensuing debate over the past few weeks charges and counter-charges of irresponsibility have been made against trade unions from all quarters. These are unwarranted attacks on a body of men who for the last two years, because of an appeal from the then Taoiseach to control and minimise wage demands, in conscience and in service to their country accepted wage agreements far less than were needed to meet the demands of rising costs at that time. These charges of irresponsibility should be refuted.
Now I come to another aspect of the problem at Ferenka. What about management? Were they wholly innocent when you come down to basic facts and the incident that led to this unholy mess? A man was asked to clean a toilet. Was the man who issued that order not irresponsible when he knew in his heart that he was asking a man to do something which in the normal course of his duties he should not have to do? Was this not provocation on the floor of the factory?
When the problem was resolved over the weekend, everybody was happy to go back to work and all sides said to forget the past and work would start on Monday morning. Was it not provocation when twenty minutes after starting time the seven men involved were told to get off the premises or the management would get somebody to put them off? To my mind this was premeditated provocation and indicates that this firm was looking for an excuse to close the concern. These statements must be made no matter how distasteful they are, because if this unholy mess is to be put on record historically all the facts that led to the closure must be revealed.
A suggestion has been made that we should let the dust settle. Perhaps if we analyse the dust, as I see it, we can appreciate why the people in my area are so angry over the failure of the Government to resolve the problem. One thousand, four hundred and fifty jobs have gone to the wall. So far as small towns are concerned that is equal to 28 small industries and the lives of approximately 10,000 people have been disturbed, giving a net loss to the region of approximately £10 million a year. This has been a terrible blow to the dependants of the employees and the commercial life of the area. We must not forget the £9 million State money involved when this firm was started.
Because of all these facts the Government of the day must stand indicted for their handling of the whole sordid affair. I can appreciate the anger in my region and to express the feelings of the general public I must say these harsh words tonight.
Last week I listened to the debate— unfortunately I was unable to make a contribution. Before the debate I was critical of the situation but after it I was even more critical, particularly with reference to the activities of the two Ministers directly involved—the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. In the opinion of many in my area both can be accused of a lack of courage, interest, concern and adequate expertise in their handling of this dispute. As a window dressing operation to cover up their failures, last week the Taoiseach met the bishop, the workers and the Limerick council of trade unions. This is not good enough.
Because he comes from the region I lay the major portion of the blame on the table of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. In his contribution to last week's debate he referred to a statement he made on 21st October indicating the imminent prospects of the direct loss of more than 1,450 jobs in the industrial estate at Ferenka. He said that as the Minister responsible he was satisfied there was a grave and imminent danger of the group closing down. He went on to ask what clearer warning could any Minister give than that statement? He said that if he were divinely inspired, which he was not, he could not put the matter more clearly. Does he as a Minister and a Deputy really believe that a warning in Dáil Éireann was sufficient? How can the people of my area accept that he was a concerned Minister and Deputy? At no stage—and I emphasise this—did he make a genuine attempt to unite the Limerick people in an effort to save the industry. About a month ago he did a Pontius Pilate act at a very critical and difficult stage, and bowed out of the dispute.
Even after last week's debate I still have many relevant questions to ask him, and I believe the workers and the people in my area are most anxious to hear some answers. First, did he inform the Government of what happened at his first meeting with the AKZO people? Second, was there a threat made at that stage? Third, was there any request made to him for State aid and if so, how much was requested? Fourth, was the Cabinet involved in any discussion on such a request, if made? Fifth, why could he not have called a meeting of all the Limerick people involved in the dispute and given them the benefit of his talks with AKZO?
I now come to the contribution and involvement of the Minister for Labour, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. I listened to his contribution last week. Basically his contribution was, "there is machinery available to remedy such situations and I cannot be expected to be involved in every dispute". Was that answer satisfactory to the people in my area? How can they have confidence in this Minister who stood idly by as 1,450 jobs went to the wall? Can he not be accused of indifference to the problem which beset the biggest industry that ever came to this country? There was a serious threat to 1,450 jobs and his only answer was "I cannot interfere in every dispute". These were the words of a Minister who, up to last June, was a severe critic of our Government even if only one job was at stake. Too well I remember his attitude in the last four years. No matter what the Government did they were wrong. On that basis his performance in the Ferenka dispute has not been up to the standard we should expect from a Minister for Labour—a senior post in the Government.
I wish to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous efforts made by the executive of the Limerick council of trade unions. Their one objective in the dispute at all stages was to keep the discussion open, and this they achieved with great patience and endurance. They displayed a sense of responsibility and, in my opinion they validated the theory that such bodies can contribute to the well-being and development of our economy. Regretfully the two Ministers I referred to showed little interest in and regard for the efforts of the council. In fact they practically ignored them. Their attitude was incredible in view of the seriousness of the situation, and it does not indicate to me and to many people in my area that they are concerned about the employment situation. They were not concerned enough to get deeply involved to ensure that this vital industry would be saved. Indeed, their performance in the dispute can offer little solace or consolation to the 180,000 unemployed, and I am sure it will not go unnoticed by the trade union movement.
Six months ago the people were given in the Fianna Fáil manifesto a set of the most seductive promises ever made to an Irish electorate. On the whole they believed it—certainly many in my area did—and Fianna Fáil were returned to power. By far the most attractive and important promise was that of creating 20,000 jobs in the first year. After two years of recession the people were almost pathetically eager to believe anyone who claimed to have the answer to the dreadful problem of unemployment and they turned to Fianna Fáil. If the promise of 20,000 jobs in the first year is achieved, my region—the mid-west region—should benefit to the extent of 1,400 jobs—a most ironic figure.
Even before the Ferenka dispute people were beginning to question the prospect of such a target being reached. Even though they read in the papers daily that the recession was over it was meaningful only when their husbands and children obtained employment. Political commentators assured them that the good days were back, but they were still in the dole queues. To say that people were becoming uneasy is an understatement. They were beginning to fear that the people who spoke so confidently last June had nothing but words to offer. Even before the Ferenka affair people were wondering if once again they had been conned by Fianna Fáil.
The closure of Ferenka had a shattering effect on the people in my area. Instead of the hundreds of new jobs promised 1,450 were lost. This is not just another statistic. Scores of these workers are my constituents, my friends and neighbours. During the past weekend I have spoken to men aged 50 years and they have accepted the fact that they will never again have employment. I have spoken to fathers and mothers who dread the prospect of Christmas because instead of bringing presents Santa Claus may be taking away the car outside the door or the furniture in the house.
I hope an independent and unbiased investigation will be conducted into the whole sordid background of Ferenka if only to silence the chorus of uninformed comment that is presently filling the air. To me the right to work comes second only to the right to live. Last June the electorate chose a Government to guarantee them that right. It is not the duty of the trade union movement or the multinationals to guarantee that right. It is the duty of the Government, a Government who made this the number one plank of their election manifesto. These are the people who will still assure us that they intend to create 20,000 jobs this year. I am appalled, as are many of my constituents, at the prospect that faces the mid-west region and the country as a whole if the Government's handling of the Ferenka dispute is an indication of the urgency, determination and efficiency they will bring to bear on the much larger national problem.
The Government have major responsibility to the 1,450 employees and to the community that depends on their earnings. They cannot wash their hands of the affair or hope to make good the loss with a number of very small industries. An industry on the scale of Ferenka is needed immediately, and if the IDA are in a position to do something they should get the full support of the Government. If they are not in a position to do something they should not build up false hopes. The Government should come out into the open. They owe it to the people in my area.
I read in the papers last weekend that the Minister indicated that he was classifying the mid-west region as a designated area. I hope that when he is drawing up the plans that he will include North Tipperary. My information is that there are approximately 350 people from my constituency who have been affected by the closure of Ferenka.
Having dealt with the most alarming industrial disaster that has struck this country, I should like to deal with employment generally. So far as industrial development and job creation in the mid-west region is concerned, for this year the only clear figure for job creation is 191. I learned this at a meeting of the Mid-Western Health Board last Friday week. It is a job creation programme initiated by the previous Government with the objective of creating 3,000 jobs in the health services. For the year ending 1977 the realistic figure for job creation in my region is 191.
I have listened to many speakers refer to the need to develop our natural resources. I am completely behind this idea. In my area we have a very valuable natural resource—I refer to our bogs. I welcome the decision of the previous Minister to locate a briquette factory near Littleton which will give jobs to approximately 250 people. I would ask the new Minister to consider extending the scope of operations far beyond the Littleton-Templetuohy area right across to Roscrea where there is ample scope for further development of this natural resource.
Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister for Justice on the necessity of reopening a Garda station in Littleton, one of the fast developing settlements in my constituency—either the reopening of the station or placing a garda in permanent domicile in the area. I mention this because I believe the Minister has it in mind. I wish him success and hope he will see this objective achieved.
There is grave need for a rethink in relation to Garda stations in rural areas today. Ten years ago, with the rush from rural areas to cities and the denuding of rural populations, there was less need for security and Garda protection. I can assure the Minister and the people of Dublin that rural Ireland today is in grave need of better Garda facilities and the reopening of many small stations. People living in rural areas are becoming very concerned because the emphasis at present seems all to be placed on resolving the vandalism problem in the city of Dublin. We in rural Ireland are not immune from this unfortunate curse that has befallen our country; we suffer the same type of vandalism, but not to the same extent. Many people living in isolated areas do so in continuous fear, particularly at night, of a break-in or of having some frightening experience at the hands of some wrongdoer, perhaps with the intent of robbing.
I urge the Minister for Health to take note of recommendations submitted by the health board of which I am a member, a submission that will be with him this week, on the urgent need for improving and modernising the services in our region. An estimate of the total works we considered necessary amounted to something over £4,500,000. We know that all of the promises made last June cannot be met. We were realistic about them. We submitted a priority list of approximately £2 million needed for the most pressing services needed in our hospitals.
On a regional basis I would refer in particular to the need for improving our orthopaedic services at Croom serving the needs of the mid-western region.
I might inform the Deputy that he has just two minutes left.
There is also the need for extra services at the County Hospital in Nenagh. Need I emphasise again the unease felt by the people of North Tipperary at the delay in the appointment of senior staff at Nenagh County Hospital, which has been awaited since the October, 1975 decision of the then Minister for Health to retain the hospital there as a county hospital?
I should like briefly to refer to our small farmers, the backbone of our agricultural community. The other day the Minister for Finance introduced a Consolidation Bill giving the Agricultural Credit Corporation more money to assist farmers in building up their farms. I hope small farmers will get sufficient assistance from the ACC in building up their stocks, thereby continuing to contribute to the economy.
I am sympathetic to the questions of the Land League and the plight of small farmers, in particular with regard to the division of land and the farm modernisation scheme. I urge the Minister concerned to give these matters due consideration.
It is an appropriate time of the year to look back and examine progress made. It is also an opportune time for us on this side of the House to offer our congratulations and help to the Taoiseach and his Government for the work they have performed in difficult times. It is appropriate also that we congratulate Deputies Raphael Burke, Ray MacSharry and John O'Leary on their new appointments. We shall look forward to their contributions in their respective Departments. I believe they are realists in the truest sense. We in Government must be confident that what we are doing is correct, is for the betterment of all our people or for as many as possible of them.
After the last general election the most appropriate task facing us as a party in Government was to instil and build up confidence in our people. It is a slow process but it is being done and, as the Taoiseach said this morning, the results are becoming evident. Gone are the days when we had Ministers—particularly from the financial aspect—flying all over the world borrowing money, making arrangements for loans without any positive plan or confidence that what they were doing was correct; without any confidence being felt amongst our people that what that Government or Minister was doing would be to their benefit or achieve any solidarity. Hence the slow progress of building up confidence was the first and most appropriate task of the Taoiseach and his Government during the past six months and indeed will be for some time to come.
A key factor in all of this is the creation of a positive jobs programme. The Ferenka affair was an outstanding one in itself. But crying in the wilderness will not gain any momentum for anybody, least of all for those unfortunate workers who may have a very bleak Christmas. But it may not be as bleak as they may think. I remember in my town and in the city of Galway industries which went to the wall in the last four years, when there was compensation given by way of social welfare and other means. Certainly the workers there were not denuded as they might have been many years ago. When such a catastrophe occurs poverty is not as evident as it would have been heretofore. Of course, there is a certain amount of sympathy to be sought in such a plight, but it does not constitute the answer to the question and we must learn a lesson from the experience.
The Government can usefully turn their attention to the creation of employment in rural areas, particularly by way of small industries where enough is not being done. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, with the assistance of his new Minster of State today, might well turn his attention to this sector. Most of such industries are family-owned. Any one industry today employing, say, ten people could be assisted if the Industrial Credit Company loosened their purse-strings on a solid proposal to give ten more people employment with, perhaps, a grant from the Industrial Development Authority. Indeed it would constitute a cheap way of the Minister getting over this problem of the creation of employment. When one takes account of a small industry, the type of which I have spoken about or of proposals incorporated in a county development plan of a qualified man who might want to form a small industry employing four to ten people— were such to be given a grant of £4,000 or £5,000—it would constitute a substantial help in getting them off the ground. Again if the facilities of the Industrial Credit Company were offered it would be an added incentive. Would it not be a cheap way of creating ten or 12 new jobs in comparison with the techniques employed by the multinationals? The multinationals are needed to absorb much of the manpower available in say, the cities of Dublin, Limerick, Cork or others.
A great deal more could be done for the small industry and the small industrialist. There is a major role to be played here. If we build correctly, we will reap the rewards. Small industrialists will not go to the wall. They are not the people about whom questions will be asked in this House with regard to unemployment and loss of jobs. These are family units. There is pride in a family name, and these units should be given all the help we can give them.
In my constituency we have a good semi-State body. There is room for expansion. The Irish Sugar Company give good employment in Tuam. At the moment, farm machinery in excess of needs is being imported. The sugar company know what the farmer wants and could play a far greater role still in providing more employment. I have referred to this before. It is a hobby-horse of mine. You have the technical knowhow in Tuam to produce all kinds of equipment, and the production of such equipment would provide good sound jobs with no danger of the industry going to the wall. I should like the Department to investigate the position to see if something could be done. There is room here for solid expansion of an existing industry which would provide good jobs.
Is it most heartening to hear the Taoiseach say that agricultural output rose by an estimated 30 per cent in value and 9 per cent in volume? Over the past four years, every time something was proposed in regard to agriculture a halo was hung over the Minister's head and Government spokesmen said the Minister was the greatest thing that ever happened. We have no halos now, but we have results, and the results speak clearly for the performance of the Minister and his staff. Unfortunately, there are facets of agriculture which have not shown improvement. Sheep and potatoes are two. The Minister has intimated that he will examine these aspects. I look forward to something really effective being done where sheep are concerned.
A whole new structure is required in potato marketing. This is an industry that suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune because in one year there is a fluctuation in price which is against the consumer and the following year the price fluctuates against the producer. This must not be allowed to continue.
The advisory services must be taken out of the confines in which they have been placed over the past four years. The agricultural sector is suffering because now the advisers are locked up in offices signing forms and documents. The staff must be increased so that the advice the farmer needs will be available to him or the papers must be taken away from the advisory service. The personnel of the advisory service were trained to give advice to the farmers. That is the work for which they are paid. I look forward to their return to that work.
The Land Commission now seem to be without a head. We do not know where we are going. Neither do we know from whence we are coming. All the directives from Brussels seem to affect the Land Commission, and the Land Commission are no longer doing the work they should be doing. They have a major role to play in the abolition of congestion. That is the first priority. Under the retirement scheme, land bought by the Land Commission must be given to development farmers. In my county, 80 per cent of the farmers have a poor law valuation of less than £25. The retirement scheme is in jeopardy and so too are the congested farmers. We must have a Land Commission with a responsible political head. At the moment, there is great uncertainty amongst small farmers when they see bigger farmers getting land. The Land Commission are not doing the kind of job they did up to 1970 or 1971. Abnormalities seem to be creeping in. There is a major role to be played. Deputy Bruton and other speakers on this side of the House referred to the small farmers. The Land Commission appear to be a ship without a captain, irresponsible and floating as they will. We cannot afford this in days of rapid progress because those depending on its services cannot afford to be left so far behind that they have no hope of recovery.
Great credit is due to the Minister for the Environment who has done a wonderful job in a difficult Department, as the Taoiseach rightly pointed out this morning. There is great buoyancy now in the construction industry and in all its subsidiary industries. The 6,500 houses produced by the Minister for the Environment up to 1st December has been an achievement unparalleled in the private sector in my time in politics. The local authorities schemes are still going ahead. Deputy Tully said today that the 25,000 houses predicted by the Government would not be reached this year. The figure will be reached in one year of Fianna Fáil administration. If the efforts of Deputy Barrett, the Minister for the Environment, in four or five months are sustained, the target will be reached. We will have the best year yet in the building industry. These results have occurred because of the clear policy of the Government in relation to that Ministry.
When Deputy Tully was speaking I felt like reminding him that he was the Minister who cut out the grants in his time. The restoration of the £1,000 grant is the lifestream of many people and is a most welcome development. The increased reconstruction grants have contributed to a buoyancy in a section of the community which over the past number of years has been held back because the grants available were unrealistic. Rates remission was also introduced by the Minister for the Environment and was welcomed throughout the country. In rural Ireland a lot of work still remains to be done. It worries me that a former Minister for Local Government would dare stand up in this House and criticise the performance of that Minister. Car tax relief was also welcomed. The 11 per cent increase in the rates is most welcome. It is almost 6 per cent more than the Dublin County Council allowed themselves last year. That is a significant increase to the people of this city. Last Monday we in Galway County Council could strike our new rate within the 11 per cent and grant practically everything that the county Manager and the council requested of us.
The Department of Agriculture could lessen the rates burden, particularly in County Galway where the committee of agriculture carries on an agricultural educational programme which costs a certain amount of money. I believe this to be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. The county council should be left with more money to complete their other works.
The Fianna Fáil election manifesto has been referred to on numerous occasions by the Opposition front benches. Almost every time I come into this House I see the manifesto on the Opposition front benches. On almost every question and on almost every major piece of legislation, the manifesto is produced. This is the first time in our history that there has been such unanimity. The manifesto produced by Fianna Fáil was so unique that all sections in this House are interested in it, and it is used here daily to insist and ensure that its promises are implemented by the Government. If the Opposition remains consistent in helping us to implement the manifesto I have no doubt that at the end of this Dáil we will be in a position to prepare a second manifesto and we will have plently of time to do so. I welcome the Opposition's performance in insisting on the implementation of every idea in the manifesto. It is a pity that they did not ask us to give them a few ideas before the last general election. It is our job to see that the manifesto is implemented. The people voted upon it. I can assure the Opposition that if their agreeable performance in regard to its implementation continues, the manifesto will be fully implemented and we will have the next manifesto ready well in time for the next general election.
The Taoiseach mentioned the regional fund in his address. The underdeveloped areas in the West of Ireland are now included under the regional fund. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture should come together and make this blanket agreement because the regional fund will be of great benefit to the West of Ireland. Eighty per cent of our farmers are under the £25 poor law valuation. We should have blanket coverage of Connacht as an underdeveloped area, because Connacht needs special help.
Money from Brussels was recently allocated for drainage proposals. Drainage is a serious problem for areas west of the Shannon. That river is causing untold flooding and the problem of drainage must get absolute priority. The Taoiseach in his remarks referring to the health services said:
to see if legislation requires revision, facilities are in need of rationalisation or other changes are necessary to improve the quality or the efficiency of the service.
At last we have come to tackling the problem. I have questioned the expenditure of the Western Health Board and how in 1971 the cost was a fraction less than £1 million and six years later the cost is £37 million. We have no extra beds at the Regional Hospital in Galway, and despite the fact that the other hospitals have closed or have been put in danger and we must absorb their patients. There are a lot of things wrong in the health board services. They are overladen with officials and the money is not reaching to where the services were intended. I welcome the decision of the Government to review the position of the health services. I do not envy the Minister who has to sit down and do it. He has a formidable task in trying to breach this blanket of officialdom which seems to stifle every iota of good that we try to do for the health services. I have asked in this House about the number of medical cards in my county. I was astonished at this reply, that since 1971 we have an increase of only 5.2 per cent.
The Deputy has three minutes.
There is an enormous increase particularly in the spending of funds. The health services seem to have absolute autonomy, this right to make decisions, and yet when it comes to paying the price at the end of the year we in this House have to make this money available. We, the public representatives have to be responsible for the money. We have to look after the budget of the health boards. We have to beg the Department for the allocation of that budget, and yet if we make one suggestion as to how at local level the services could be improved all we get is a nasty reply from the health board. I have said that about the Western Health Board on every platform I have stood on. I welcome the statement from the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government that this revision is going ahead.
Last but not least, we have a junior Minister responsible for Posts and Telegraphs. I do not envy him the job he has. It is a terrible task, because he is in a Department which has been denuded of any leadership for the last four years while the man who held the post of head of that Department talked about every other Department in Government. The new junior Minister has the unenviable task of tackling the telephone problem. In every walk of life from small industries to big industries, agriculture, health services and so on, a phone is a necessity. The deficiency in this service for the last four years has been appalling. I understand that any money that was spent there was spent for political purposes. I hope that at the end of the next session we will see the progress that the end of this session has seen, and I look forward to working towards that achievement.
Deputy Boland.
I want to make a point of order. My party are demanding the observance of long-established precedent in this House, that a member of this party be called as every third speaker. We have had an extra-ordinary ruling by yourself, Sir, that would have the effect of depriving the Labour Party's voice from being heard in this House. You are attempting, Sir, to confuse the issue with regard to the present political arrangement of representation of this House. There is a Government speaker and there are two separate and distinct Opposition parties. To my knowledge during the period from 1957 to 1973 until the Coalition was formed that procedure was honourably observed by all holders of the Chair irrespective of party.
Deputy Cluskey, the Chair has already ruled. This matter has been raised on two occasions already. The Chair has ruled on it. The Chair's ruling cannot be challenged. It is out of order to challenge the Chair's ruling. I am calling on Deputy Boland to speak. Deputy Cluskey is out of order.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Cluskey is out of order. The Chair's rulings cannot be challenged. I want to make it clear that there is no question of denying the Labour Party their due proportion of this debate. Deputy Boland, please.
If I could make the point——
Deputy Cluskey, would you please resume your seat? I have said the rulings of the Chair cannot be challenged and I would be out of order to discuss it with Deputy Cluskey. The rulings have already been given twice or three times today.
I have no wish to come in conflict with the Chair. The ruling is one of such fundamental importance and fundamental principle that it is necessary, unfortunately, to pursue it. It is necessary to insist that if there is going to be this type of ruling which has no precedent, which could not on any grounds of Standing Orders be justified——
Deputy Cluskey, as he knows quite well, has a way of pursuing it. He has two ways. By motion through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who could produce a Standing Order to direct the Chair in the matter. The Chair has ruled on this and that ruling cannot be challenged. Deputy Boland, please.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Cluskey, please resume your seat. The Chair has to handle this matter in its own way. I have asked Deputy Cluskey to resume his seat, and there is a Deputy in possession.
Could I ask a question?
No, we have ruled.
On what basis?
The Deputy has open to him the way to deal with this matter if he wants to.
I am entitled to ask the Chair on what basis it was justified.
Will Deputy Cluskey resume his seat?
Could I ask——
You cannot challenge the rulings of the Chair.
Could I ask for the Ceann Comhairle?
The Ceann Comhairle has already given a ruling on this.
The Standing Orders of this House——
Does Deputy Cluskey want——
I am entitled to ask——
Does Deputy Cluskey want me to adjourn the House?
No, Sir, all I want you to do is get the Ceann Comhairle.
You are out of order, Deputy Cluskey. Deputy Boland is in possession.
Are you refusing to send for the Ceann Comhairle?
I will have to adjourn the House if Deputy Cluskey does not resume his seat.
Are you refusing to send for the Ceann Comhairle?
I am. I am in the Chair at the moment and I have ruled on it, the Ceann Comhairle has ruled on it, and rulings of the Chair cannot be challenged. The Deputy is being disorderly.
(Interruptions.)
I am the voice of the Labour Party in this House down the years. We have been given——
If the Deputy does not resume his seat the Chair will have to adjourn the House.
We are being denied the right——
(Interruptions.)
The last thing the Chair wants to do on a time-limited debate is to adjourn the House, but the Chair will have to do that if this disorder continues. I want to give Deputy Boland an opportunity to speak. Will Deputy Bermingham please resume his seat?
I have not yet commenced. May I take it——
The Deputy will get half-an-hour from the time he starts—from now.
The most important task facing us in the next ten years will be tackling unemployment and the creation of new jobs, not to mention the task of maintaining the existing level of employment.
The Government were elected last June on bright promises of reducing unemployment and creating new jobs. In that context it is now fair to ask, six months later, where they stand in relation to those promises. As part of the 1977 budget programme the previous Government undertook to create and provide the finance for 7,000 new jobs in the public service. They also operated the youth incentive employment scheme under which a further 2,000 jobs were created. That under-taking and the finance provided for it are separate and distinct from the plan put forward by Fianna Fáil in June. The area in which the Coalition jobs were planned was mainly in the public service, particularly in the area of health, where 3,000 jobs were to be created.
It appears from the latest figures supplied by the Minister for Health and his colleagues that the jobs which we set about creating earlier in the year have been created with the moneys we provided and that the bulk of them have been filled. Bearing that in mind, it is fair to look at the latest unemployment figures. Those figures show a total of 106,930 people out of work at the week ending 2nd December in comparison with 111,292 for the corresponding week of last year. That is a decrease of between 4,000 and 5,000. It is accepted by everybody that 7,000 jobs were created under the Coalition's programme and filled by them and the present Government. It is fair that those 7,000 jobs and the 2,000 jobs created under the youth scheme should be subtracted from last year's unemployment figure, which would leave us with a figure for this year of 102,000. In fact, last week's unemployment figure is still 106,900.
In the Fianna Fáil election manifesto an undertaking was given that they would provide 5,000 more jobs during 1977. It is fair to ask where the Government stand on their claim. One may well ask where these 5,000 now jobs are. If they have been created, as is being asserted in a vague way, the unemployment figures ought to have been reduced by 14,000, that is, by the 7,000 jobs created in the public service under the Coalition's programme, by the 2,000 jobs created under the youth employment scheme, and by the 5,000 jobs that were promised by Fianna Fáil. It is now clear that the Government are bereft of any ideas to create the thousands of new jobs that are needed, not just for adults but for the young people who have never been in employment.
Admittedly, if belatedly, the Government set up a youth employment action team, ostensibly for the purpose of, and I quote from the manifesto, "initiating immediately suitable employment schemes for school leavers and other young people". Although the youth employment action team have been in existence for two or three months, a rather startled public was recently informed that their first report had been submitted to the Government. Its main recommendation is that 800 young people should engage in a 12-week crash course to be trained as physical fitness instructors. Having been trained, they, in turn, are to set about the task of making tens of thousands of other young unemployed people physically fit. A novel concept it may be, but it is hardly going to take away the 106,000 people who are officially on the live register.
For some time I have been endeavouring to highlight the projected population figures for the next 15 years for the Dublin area, based on the natural growth of Dublin and taking into account a moderate figure for net immigration. Apparently that policy is to be continued by the Government if one is to judge from the many interviews given in the last few weeks by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. On that basis, Dublin will have a population of 1,150,000 by 1991. More disturbing is the forecast for the short-fall of jobs in the Dublin area. The best job creation figure for the Dublin region was achieved in the decade 1961 to 1971. In that ten-year period an average of 3,750 jobs was created each year, or a total of 37,500 jobs. If one takes the figure for the natural growth of the population of Dublin, a moderate figure for net immigration into Dublin and if one assumes that for the next 15 years we manage to achieve the record level of job creation which was achieved between 1961 and 1971, and projects the job creation figure of 3,500 each year for 15 years, by 1991, assuming 18,000 on the live register in Dublin who do not want to work, one will find a short-fall of 50,000 jobs in the greater Dublin area.
The second most successful period for job creation was from 1966 to 1971. During that five-year period an average of 2,500 new jobs were created each year in Dublin. If one projects that second-best record against the population forecast for greater Dublin, one will find that by 1991, if 18,000 people were unemployed, there will be an additional job short-fall of 75,000. In other words, the second-best job creation record in the Dublin area would show 93,000 people unemployed in Dublin, almost as many as are unemployed in the whole country at present.
These figures were produced by the city and county planning departments in connection with the review of their development plan. They are based on statistics prepared by the Central Statistics Office and are accurate.
Does any member of the Government appreciate that these are the projections for job short-falls in Dublin? If they do, do they care, and what are they going to do about it? With those forecasts on the second-best record for job creation in Dublin, I do not believe that we will be left with 93,000 people unemployed in Dublin in 15 years' time.
We are not talking, then, about the options between a Fianna Fáil Government, a Fine Gael Government or a National Coalition; we are not talking about social unrest. If we are talking about almost 100,000 people unemployed in Dublin we are talking about the survival of democracy, about whether that many people out of work —many of them never having worked in their lives—are prepared to continue to say that they accept the democratic system. In this case we are talking about the options between democracy and revolution. The official figures are there to be seen, and unless some Government does something about the problem perhaps there will not be any successors to the existing political parties in 15 years' time.
The Taoiseach touched on the problem today, and he indicated the concern of the leaders throughout western Europe. He told the House that none of them are able to provide the expectations of young people on the question of employment. We have the most dangerous problem because we have the highest percentage of young people, compared with the remainder of the population, of any EEC country. We have the lowest percentage of middle-aged people of any EEC country and we have lost the traditional safety valve for unemployment, emigration. We must provide per capita more new jobs for a greater number per capita of young people than any other European country. That is why the task facing any Government here in the next ten years is a formidable one, but it appears that none of the Ministers, certainly not the Ministers for Labour or Industry, Commerce and Energy, have any proposals, plans or course of action to deal with this problem.
This fact is best highlighted by the fact that the youth employment team set up by the Minister for Labour to find new jobs and to tell him what to do could only come up with an ill-conceived scheme based on an experience in Britain of employing young people for six months or one year to give them experience. Those young people finished up sweeping seaweed off the beaches. The other scheme was that local authorities should employ apprentices. That was a good idea and one I mooted on many occasions. The proposal was to employ 150 young people. The main proposal of the team was the most ludicrous of all, that 800 young people be given a crash course for 12 weeks to become physical training instructors to train the rest of the unemployed to be physically fit. The fourth proposal was of a limited nature, that young people take a census in their local area in relation to specific matters.
They are only some of the official proposals. Some of the other hair-brained ideas suggested by members of that team included a suggestion that young people should be encouraged to build beehives and keep bees. There is no way we are going to provide gainful employment or get to the sort of situation we have all been talking about if the total merit and the total output of the high-powered youth employment team is to be discussing whether we build beehives in Cork or grow shrubs in County Meath. We are not going to employ young people or satisfy them that way. We must provide real programmes of employment for them.
As far as the provision of new jobs is concerned the record of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy should be examined. So far he has succeeded in announcing, two or three times in each case, proposed new industries which were negotiated by his predecessor, agreed under his predecessor and announced by his predecessor. During the past six months he gave us a litany of repeats of the announcements that these industries were coming. Some weeks ago, after the Ferenka debacle, he announced a new toy factory for the Limerick area, but as far back as June or July there was a public advertisement seeking applicants for managerial posts in that toy factory. Who does the Minister think he is fooling? He is the Minister responsible for Industry, Commerce and Energy. Without going into the Ferenka dispute in detail I should like to point out that within six months of Deputy O'Malley assuming office as Minister responsible for industry the Government found it necessary to declare his constituency a disaster area, to be the beneficiary of the highest level of grants normally paid to the most rural and most remote parts with unskilled labour, a bad transport system, no infrastructural services and no port of entry. Limerick has all those things and a highly skilled industrial labour force, and yet in that constituency six months after the Minister took office the Government had to declare it a disaster area. I am told that it was said in Limerick that the Minister's greatest achievement within the last six months was that his constituency now has the reputation of being the industrial blackspot of Europe. That is not a great record.
The Minister also promised, in the manifesto, to introduce a "Buy Irish" campaign, a campaign that would produce 10,000 new jobs over three years and reduce the cost of living by 3 per cent. Last week the Minister mouthed platitudes here that he meant not only for people to buy Irish but to think Irish and be Irish. Yesterday the newspapers announced that there would be a bumper Christmas for spending, that there would be £400 million in circulation but where is the "Buy Irish" campaign? Last week the Minister told us he had been too busy doing other things to launch the "Buy Irish" campaign; he was too busy at a time of unparalleled spending when people are buying in a way they do not for the rest of the year. There is no such campaign, no advertisements or exhortations to our people to buy Irish, but yet the Minister thinks he is going to get 10,000 new jobs out of that. I doubt that.
In the field of stimulating employment I suggested on occasions two areas which would do this. The first was that the social welfare contribution be abolished in respect of all people under 21. That would have two effects. A young person under 21 often gets small wages, and a full social welfare stamp out of that represents a big cut in his take home pay. The employer often resents having to pay the full stamp in respect of young people who may not be doing a full week's work. Such a move would be a stimulus to employers and employees. I also suggested that employers who have part-time work available are reluctant to give such employment because they must make the full weekly social welfare contribution in respect of the employee. People are reluctant to take up such jobs because they must make the full contribution also. I suggested the introduction of a graded stamp, graded in accordance with the number of days per week a person works. The first time I suggested that the Minister for Social Welfare conveniently forgot to answer, and the same happened on the second occasion I mentioned it, but when I reminded him at the end of that debate he answered, as reported at column 657 of the Official Report of 1st December, 1977:
Strictly speaking it is not a social welfare matter. If my colleagues in the economic Departments and in the Department of Labour and those who are primarily concerned with employment decided upon this as a policy matter then the Department of Social Welfare would implement it. Basically it is an employment matter as distinct from a strictly social welfare matter.
Surely everybody in the Government, especially when one considers the theme that ran through their election manifesto, should be basically concerned with the creation of employment. It is clear that the Minister for Social Welfare sees the real dangers of Fianna Fáil's economic proposals crashing down around somebody's ears, and it is not going to be Mr. Haughey's ears. Some time ago he took the opportunity in the House of putting a distance between himself, in his position as Minister for Health and Social Welfare, and the economic cabal of Ministers. So much for the notion of collective responsibility, but Charlie Haughey is not going to be blamed if there are no jobs; he is not going to be blamed if a set of stimuli are not created for employment; he is not going to be blamed if the social welfare stamp for those under 21 is not abolished, because all he does is implement this. Other Ministers for Social Welfare told us that the ideas came from them, but this fellow tells us that all he is going to do is implement things and if the other fellows do not come with the good ideas he cannot implement them.
The blinkered approach to social welfare shown by the Government emanates from no less a place than the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. In relation to social welfare the manifesto told us that Fianna Fáil intended maintaining the living standards of social welfare recipients by regular adjustments of the level of payments, at least in line with the cost of living. Lest there be any doubt that the Government did not intend pursuing the vitally necessary and socially just policy of enlightened economic reform of the social welfare code introduced by the previous Government, the Minister again took the opportunity in the course of a debate on social welfare in this House as reported at column 559 of the Official Report of 1st December, 1977, to say:
...it is my intention in accordance with Government policy, to continue to compensate social welfare claimants for increases in the cost of living.
Today the Taoiseach said:
It is the intention of the Government to ensure that the value of welfare payments is, at the minimum maintained in line with cost of living increases, and where possible to increase those payments especially where there is greatest need.
Rather inadequate statements from the Minister responsible and from the Taoiseach in relation to an entire area which has undergone massive reform over the past four years and is still in need of a continuation of that enlightened reform. I hope the sharp reminder I gave the Minister for Social Welfare on the occasion when he uttered those words in the House recently may have bent his political antennae if not his social conscience.
The Government also undertook to work towards the elimination of discrimination against single, married and widowed women. Yet, only three weeks ago in reply to a question I put down as reported at column 404 of the Official Report of 30th November, 1977, the Minister said:
...the removal of discrimination must be achieved in a phased and orderly fashion because of the considerable expenditure and the degree of administrative planning involved and also because of the significant changes which will have to be made in social welfare legislation. It is my intention to put appropriate proposals to the Government in the matter in due course.
Not exactly an earth shattering revelation after five months in office or, indeed, the remark of one who, as Minister, would appear to have his heart consumed by the fires of reforming zeal.
Perhaps, however, we should not be too surprised, because the same Minister also has responsibility in the area of health, a responsibility which has developed into a carefully orchestrated and almost daily public relations campaign, all designed to give the impression that the Minister is busy in revolutionising his Department. Yet, when one carefully examines the record of what he has done, one finds that, in relation to any matter, he has merely promised in answer to questions, in debates, in Press statements, and so on, (a) to investigate, (b) to look into, (c) to favourably consider, (d) to consult with, (e) to bring forward proposals and (f) to examine in detail.
He is not alone in this. Virtually all his colleagues, including Ministers at Question Time yesterday and today and every day since Question Time started in this Dáil, have used the same clichés, the same kicking to touch, to give the appearance of being busy without actually doing anything. The most classic example of this investigative policy, as I call it, which, incidentally, has the added advantage that it costs nothing, while putting on the gloss of being very busy, must surely be the neat foot-shuffling adopted on the question of family planning legislation.
In Opposition the Minister and his colleagues consistently and regularly asserted that, when they were in Government, they would introduce the necessary legislation in this field. When he was asked about it in the Dáil the Minister's answer was that he must first ascertain the views of interested parties and a number of bodies involved in the health field. He enumerated some of them. Extraordinarily, every single body he mentioned already had their views on family planning on public record. Everybody knows their views. Last October the Minister successfully kicked to touch, and the matter has not reared its head since to annoy him. That has happened all through the field of Government.
Admittedly the Minister did three positive things. He introduced and passed through the two Houses the Medical Practitioners Bill, a Bill he found on his desk, left there, prepared and ready for him by his predecessor. Secondly, he introduced 130 extra new public health nurses into the health service with money provided by the previous Government under their job creation programme. Thirdly he promised and introduced an order to reduce by £1 a week from 1st January the social welfare stamp for those earning less than £50 per week. When he was introducing it in the House he said it would benefit 300,000 workers. The manifesto said it would benefit 400,000 workers. Who is right? If the Minister is right the manifesto was wrong by 33? per cent in that single forecast alone.
Thanks to the inadequate statistics of the previous Government we could not find out.
If the manifesto is right and the Minister is wrong, the Minister is wrong by 25 per cent. It is much more likely that both the Minister and the manifesto are wrong. The true figure for those earning less than £50 a week is probably in the region of 250,000 and, in the light of whatever wage increases come about in the course of 1978, it will probably be reduced to under 200,000 during 1978. I see the Minister for Economic Planning and Development nodding his head, which seems to indicate he agrees that his manifesto and the Minister are both wrong.
I am agreeing that pay rates are rising as befits an improved economy.
Let us look at some of the other Ministers. Within a few weeks of assuming office the Minister for Fisheries completely enraged the fishermen on the east coast in relation to the herring industry. He tried to hand over the entire control of the Irish Sea for herring fishing to the Isle of Man Government. When he managed to scramble out of that, he wed us in a most incongruous way to the British Government in an area where the previous Government had spent six months trying to establish a case of our own for an exclusive zone because our demands for a 50-mile zone were not compatible with British demands for a 12-mile zone and Britain's much more important demand, to themselves, for the right to fish in third countries. The Minister wed us to the British. We warned him he was wrong. He spent the past fortnight trying to scramble out of that marriage, surely the most unfortunate and short-lived political marriage of all time.
As Deputy Fitzpatrick said recently, the Department of the Environment got a new name, a new Minister, new notepaper and a new rubber-stamp but, apparently, no new functions. Arguably it is correct, and I would be inclined to agree with it, that all environmental functions should be assigned to one Department and made the responsibility of one Minister. This was not done. The Minister is unable to say what responsibility he has which his predecessors as Ministers for Local Government did not have. He is not able to say what he is supposed to do as Minister for the Environment. That appears to me to be the granting of a name for the sake of granting it.
Through the ineptitude of that Department also, the local authorities did not know until a fortnight ago what their estimates would be for 1978. They did not know what they could spend or what areas they could spend it in. I am confident that they still would not know if this party had not instructed their members to call special meetings and insist on the estimates being put forward. As a result of that, the Department were stung into action.
The 11 per cent Deputy Killilea lauded here tonight will not be adequate. In the case of my own local authority, it will leave us in excess of £1 million of a shortfall. The question remains: what do we cut out? Do we cut out the provision for increased wages and salaries next year? Do we cut out certain works? If the Government want to make that restriction— and perhaps they are entitled to, if they are to pay a large share of the Bill—they should say what works they do not want the local authorities to carry out. On that basis the local authorities were given no guidance whatsoever. The Minister will find, as the years go by, that the members of local authorities, including his own members, will indicate to him how unhappy they are at the power and responsibility, the real reason for their existence, being removed from them. They will find—and already a number have found, I am afraid—if I may coin a phrase, that the Government's attitude to the abolition of rates will become the cloud without a silver lining.
In a number of exclusive interviews on the same topic, the Minister for Defence appears to be preoccupied with the style, cut and design of the uniforms to be worn by the new women's army. The Dáil has heard nothing about this new women's army, which may be a good thing to create employment. All we have read about with avid interest is the way they may be dressed.
So far as the Department of the Gaeltacht are concerned there has been a deafening silence in two languages. We heard very little from most Departments. The heat and the publicity have been on Ministers who investigated, examined, consulted with, looked into and will put forward proposals. In areas of hard reality, very little has been done. No new jobs have been created that I can see, bar the jobs created and paid for by the previous Government and filled by this Government.
The bills will have to be paid next year, the bills for the rates, car tax and, most important of all, the question will be asked next year by the young people and the parents of the young people who voted for this Government last June: where are the jobs they promised? I predicted that, if it does not happen, democracy is at risk over the next 15 years, so I hope for all our sakes the Government will create and fill more jobs during 1978 than they succeeded in losing in 1977.