Green Paper on Development for Full Employment: Adjournment Debate (Resumed) .

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann

(i) takes note of the Green Paper "Development for Full Employment"; and

(ii) at its rising this week do adjourn for the Summer recess.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. L. Lawlor

: Before Question Time I was saying that one of the major factors which has real significance and is a very positive development is that inflation, as indicated by the Taoiseach, is down to 6.2 per cent, a very acceptable and tolerable level. With a programme growth rate of 7 per cent for 1978 the economy is on a steady and positive course.

There is a new trend which puts up a challenge to this country and which must be seen to create an urgency within the economy. I refer to the well known fact of the application of three more countries for membership of the EEC. The countries concerned are in the throes of development themselves and are probably a bit behind in their state of economic advancement. This situation will create expansion of the EEC and open up greater demand on funds but it will also open up three new markets of tremendous potential for this country. We must gear ourselves and be prepared to undertake the challenge of exporting to these nontraditional outlets for our many products.

In the last 12 months the CTT trend of expanding into the Middle East and beyond the EEC countries is welcome. Because of our very advanced and sophisticated food processing industry we have developed an expertise which has tremendous export potential in both carrying out contracts and providing technology which can be a major earner for us. We must be expansive in outlook and leave nothing undone in trying to travel far abroad so as to get full capitalisation of the potential now developed at home. Before we joined the EEC the British market was our main area of activity: now, the mainland of Europe is an outlet and probably the most competitive patch on the globe. We must be brave and pioneering in wanting to go further afield and develop our exports in this way.

The expansion of the EEC will give us this possibility particularly in the case of Greece and Spain which traditionally have large tourist industries which are in need of upgrading to the European type of clientele. With our food exports we should be able to capitalise on this situation and we must now plan accordingly. The trend in that area is very encouraging. The Taoiseach was able to inform the House that agricultural exports are up 40 per cent. An increase of that magnitude indicates the confidence of the agricultural sector and the sound and positive planning this Government have brought back to that area. Industrial exports are up 20 per cent, also a very encouraging figure brought about with great co-operation between unions and management. It is no mean achievement. Dáil Éireann should compliment the people concerned. In recognition of the positive and forward-looking Government, the acceptance of the national wage agreement was a real indication that everybody was solidly behind the Government in wanting to get on with the job and end the talk about pious suggestions and ideas that had gone on for so long under the previous Government. We brought about a situation where the trade union movement solidly supported accepting a very constructive and positive deal for themselves and the country as a whole. This area requires on-going attention. AnCO and the trade unions are making great strides in improving relationships and communication, but there is room for still further improvement. The Minister for Labour has decided to recognise that need by setting up a working committee which will report and make recommendations to update our communications structures in the labour area.

Dealing with the Green Paper specifically and some of the very positive suggestions in it, it was enlightening but very distributing to hear that Deputy Barry had very little to offer this morning other than criticism without facts or figures to back it up. The figures detailed in the Government planning right through from the manifesto, the White Paper for 1977-80, the Green Paper and the proposed White Paper in the autumn, show a Government confident of being able to deliver the goods and do the job they were elected to do. There is no point in having policies without facts and figures to support them. The Government so far have been very frank and open in being prepared to put on paper specific targets and aim and work towards them. This has the worth-while benefit of bringing the whole country along with us, particularly the social partners. These people now have an opportunity, with the Green Paper, of contributing to the future programming and planning of the economy. This is good, practical, open government. The Taoiseach also pointed out this morning that the Government intended, after having the necessary discussions to do the job, that the people had elected them to do.

In a recent radio interview the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, after he had explained some of the finer points of the Green Paper to them, asked the two Opposition spokesmen on finance if they had any constructive comments to make, because all they had offered up to then was criticism. The comment of Deputy Barry was, "You are the Government. You get on and do the governing".

This morning the Taoiseach said that in making public their proposals the Government were not absolving themselves from their duty to direct the Irish economy along the road to full employment, and he went on to deal in detail with this matter. He said:

But, in the final analysis it is the Government who will decide the nature and scale of the action to be taken.

The Opposition parties are stunned by the novelty and dramatic nature of these proposals.

That was obvious since the release of the Green Paper. The reaction of the trade union movement and management, as was demonstrated in a recent TV programme, was of a positive nature. They wanted to know more about what was planned and how the targets could be achieved. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development, with other Ministers responsible, has stated that detailed discussions will take place.

The trend of the Taoiseach's statement this morning was positive and forward looking. It was not a case of re-living old problems. We must realise that we are at the dawning of a new era. The next decade will be twice as demanding as the 1960s. We must be twice as aggressive, twice as positive and twice as demanding on ourselves and on the people concerned in employment, on management and labour, to achieve the results that are so necessary. As members of the EEC we are in the unique situation where we have a rapidly growing young population. This creates problems with regard to employment but it also has a tremendous potential. Because of the standard of education in this country we can have young people who will be capable of becoming the finest technicians, craftsmen and operatives available anywhere.

The Government have produced the Green Paper as a forum for discussion. We have put an agenda on the table that can be considered by management and trade union representatives. We want to bring about a situation where the individual gets more for a job well done. We had a situation where our resources were going into non-productive purposes, such as the high unemployment situation we inherited, and until we make real inroads into that we will not get the return that is necessary to help the economy. We have asked trade unions, management and the farming community to discuss with the Government how we may implement the detailed proposals in the Green Paper.

The Government have committed themselves to produce a White Paper in the autumn. That is approximately one-and-a-half years after resuming office and, in view of the state of the economy when we took over, that is no mean achievement. It is opportune that this debate should give us the opportunity of looking back briefly, but only briefly. We must look forward —and this was emphasised in the Taoiseach's address—in a political and in an economic planning sense. We received tremendous support from the people in the last general election. We have had support from all sections since then and I am confident that that support will continue. I am confident that the Government will implement the proposals in the Green Paper. We are well on course to achieving the kind of country we all so dearly wish.

Mr. Pattison

: In an adjournment debate it is usual to discuss all aspects of Government policy in the previous 12 months. In the time available to me I shall relate my remarks to the recently published Green Paper. That document tells us much about the thinking of the Government.

In setting out his general conclusions to the Green Paper, the Taoiseach this morning set out to abuse those people who found fault with that document. He attributed to them ulterior motives; for example, that Opposition Deputies were not interested in solving the unemployment problem, and so on. That kind of abuse was his first reaction. His second reaction was to say that the Green Paper had the full support of all the people because it reflected what was in the election manifesto. The Taoiseach said that this is what the people supported 12 months ago and this is what the Government now feel obliged to give them. I do not think any of the members of the Government would like to have this Green Paper as an election manifesto. If it were used as such I do not think the Government would come back to this House with such a large majority.

This morning the Taoiseach set out how the aims and objectives of the Green Paper were going to be achieved. His main conclusion was that those people already in employment are being asked to consider accepting a slower rate of increase in the standard of living than they might otherwise have expected during a period of rapid growth. In other words, those people are being called on to carry the weight of the Green Paper. He passed the "whistling past the graveyard" comment and said that the people would accept the principles underlying these proposals. He then said that in the final analysis if the people did not accept the proposals the Government would decide what was best. The Taoiseach concluded with a rather flowery comment about the principles and motivation which are the life of Fianna Fáil. He said that the principles and motivation are the fuel which fires the imagination. What was the fire of imagination must be cinders. It is not there at all.

It is difficult to know where to begin and end in dealing with this Green Paper because it is riddled with contradictions. Any Government, any set of politicians or any political party, are usually strong on aspirations. The Government, the Minister and we all want to see full employment. In the Government's proposals we look for ways and means by which that can be achieved. We want something more than aspirations. We want something practical, and not a paper that tends to pass the buck particularly to middle and lower income groups, in other words the social partners. This is what this Green Paper does.

The document is a clawback of the so-called benefits of the 1977 election manifesto. It must be one of the few documents in the history of Irish public administration which purport to assist growth and end unemployment and which at the same time advocate short-term policies designed to reduce demand by increasing taxation and reducing expenditure in vital areas. It is indeed a strange philosophy. One of the major contradictions in the Green Paper is the increasing of the borrowing requirements in the first year of office in the clearly stated interests of those who supported that increased borrowing on the ground that it was needed for employment creation, and in the second year reducing that borrowing requirement drastically and stating that it will not affect employment. I am not an economist, but I cannot understand how those two sets of principles can be reconciled. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development might explain that contradiction.

This morning we were accused by members of the Government party of refusing to debate the options. The options in this Green Paper are taking a voluntary cut in income, be it earned or social welfare benefits, and the Government taking it by way of additional taxation. This is Hobson's choice; it is no option at all. We are certainly concerned with and want to debate any worth-while Green Paper or White Paper put before this House containing positive proposals for solving unemployment.

When the Bill setting up the Department of Economic Planning and Development was before this House almost a year ago I put down amendments to that Bill seeking greater powers for that Department. Those amendments were not accepted; nevertheless, I still hoped that additional powers and greater independence from the Department of Finance would become fact even though they were not written into the Bill. After almost a year in operation it is quite obvious that the Department of Economic Planning and Development are as completely tied up with the Department of Finance as they ever were, and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development is a very articulate public relations officer for the Department of Finance. This Green Paper could be described as a public relations document, because the final purpose of it is not really related to the massive national task of full employment creation; it is a preparing of the way for financial stringency over the next two years. It is trying to prepare the groundwork for the next two annual budgets. The Green Paper spells out that it is quite possible that we will have more budgets than the two annual ones in 1979 and 1980. The Green Paper also strives to place the blame for continued unemployment on those in employment and on the large volume of middle-income and lowerincome groups. Of course in the process it shifts the blame over to the trade unions.

It is also interesting to note the "fail safe" device in page 11, paragraph 1.5 of the Green Paper. This is something that Fianna Fáil have awakened to since they came to office, because, prior to that, there was no such thing as external economic factors governing our economic performance here, but now built into the Green Paper is this excuse that there are factors completely outside our control which may prevent this miracle from taking place.

The other interesting thing about the Green Paper is the paltry five lines devoted to emigration. In the past 12 months there have been clear indications that emigration has started all over again at an alarmingly high level. For a Green Paper of this size to dismiss that problem with five lines is, to borrow the Taoiseach's word, stunning. The Government apparently, or some members of it, believe that a rise in public spending stimulates employment. They also believe that a cut in public spending also in some way stimulates employment. This is a contradiction I certainly cannot understand. The cuts in Government expenditure in a paper dealing with the expansion of employment are in themselves quite contradictory.

The real issue here is the Government's honesty. It would have been better, and I think people would have accepted it, had Fianna Fáil stated that they entered office in a period of strong economic recovery and, in order to obtain office, they unfortunately made extreme promises. They had to borrow money, hundreds of thousands of pounds, in order to try to fulfil the promises about rates, tax reductions, new houses and so on. They did all that in the big print in the manifesto. There were some little things in small print in the manifesto, little things like reducing public expenditure. Now we are in 1978 and the small print in the manifesto suddenly becomes the big print in the Green Paper. That might be all right up to a point, but we have now reached the stage when we must ask who is going to pay for all this and, of course, one section is mentioned repeatedly in the Green Paper as the section which will have to pay for all this. Basically it will be those presently in employment and also those who are not in employment, because there are clear indications that social welfare benefits will be cut back. Despite what the Green Paper says about no cut-backs in social welfare benefits, it is interesting to note in this context paragraph 2.12 of the Green Paper the last sentence of which reads:

While controlling the growth of this spending, the Government will ensure that the 1978 level of social services is at least maintained——

Is at least maintained.

—despite a growing population, for those who genuinely need them and that income maintenance payments will be raised in line with the cost of living.

The Taoiseach had something to say this morning on this. He said:

The commitment of this Government to the maintenance of the present level of welfare services for those in need and the improvement of their effectiveness and relevance is not in question.

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that, with the economy supposed to grow at 7 per cent per year in real incomes and private consumption rising sharply, those on social welfare payments will be asked to stand still in real terms? Is that what it means?

Again, the Green Paper refers to the social services being maintained for those who genuinely need them. Who will determine that? We have had experience of the selectivity of Fianna Fáil in regard to genuine need. We know the way in which certain means tests were operated. Genuine need is something that will have to be spelled out. There is a clear indication that the Government regard a great many who are receiving social welfare benefits as not being in genuine need. There are many people who never had to depend on social welfare benefits, and never will, people such as the income tax beneficiaries who would support the Government on that particular line— that many people are getting social welfare benefits who do not need them —but I can assure the Government that very, very few are getting social welfare benefits who do not need them.

Part of the answer to the maintenance of the present level of social welfare benefits is contained in the White Paper. What exactly it means we shall have to wait and see, but I must say it does not sound too hopeful for those in receipt of such benefits because simultaneously the question is raised about the withdrawal of food subsidies. Fianna Fáil would, of course, be running true to form here. In 1951 and again in 1957 on their return to office they removed the food subsidies. As Deputy O'Toole correctly pointed out, it is the lower income groups, particularly the social welfare recipients, who are worst affected by increases in food prices. I know there are figures in the cost-of-living index to show that the cost of living went up by only so much, but in that calculation there are things like the removal of car tax, rates and so on which do not, and never did, constitute any part of the household budget of an old age pensioner. To tell these people that according to the index the cost of living has gone up by so much and that they will be better off over the next 12 months because they got a 10 per cent increase, is false and misleading. We may argue about facts and figures, about the numbers employed and unemployed, but the one thing we cannot argue about is that social welfare recipients, especially old age pensioners are worse off now than they were 12 months ago. They got nothing in the election manifesto and they get nothing in the Green Paper.

Recently the Minister for Economic Planning and Development argued that when we have a greater number employed we will be able to look after our social welfare recipients. He also said that now Fianna Fáil are back in office they will do as they did in 1960 — they created employment and everyone had jobs. If we accept that argument, which I do not, we must ask ourselves what was done in the sixties to provide an overall social welfare system? Absolutely nothing. In 1973 when the Coalition Government came into power we had one of the worst social welfare systems in Europe. As I said, there is nothing in the Green Paper for these people, except bad news.

I want to refer to industrial policy. There is nothing new of substance in that area outlined in this document. It is a question of continuing present policies and hoping for the best. These policies are merely adaptations of past policies. There is no evidence that by themselves they will succeed in the attainment of employment. The table on page 14 shows the past rate of growth in manufacturing industry employment.

The potential employment contribution in the public commercial sector is written off in one page, indicating that there is a total reliance by the Government on the private sector. Reference was made to work sharing. This morning the Taoiseach called that a novel thing, but we have had work sharing for many years. Every national agreement has a built-in work sharing arrangement. The purpose of national agreements is to negotiate a level of increase that will be most advantageous to workers, to give a real increase and at the same time provide opportunities for employment. To say at this stage that work sharing is a new idea is wrong. I would like to develop that point further but unfortunately time does not permit. As spokesman for Economic Planning and Development, 30 minutes is a very short time to make a contribution on the Green Paper.

There are many contradictions embodied in work sharing. There are two kinds of overtime, one is a built-in arrangement, it is permanent, and the other is seasonal. There are many people providing employment who started as workers. Because of extra money earned by overtime they could start out on their own. They could never have achieved that if their income had been limited. Another contradiction in the Green Paper is the reference to our increasing population and workforce and local authorities are being told they need not build as many houses as they did previously. I do not know where these people are going to live, if they stay here and fill the jobs that are going to be provided. The Green Paper says there must be a critical appraisal of our housing needs. That contradiction leaves me at a loss. Perhaps these people are expected to live in caves or tents.

There is a great need for local authority houses. Many people are trying to build their own houses because they are earning more. If the Government succeed in curtailing earnings this will mean that more people will be looking for local authority houses. I am sorry I do not have more time to expand this point.

Mr. Killilea

: The Adjournment Debate is the time when we must not only look at the proposals for the coming year but also look back. This time last year when I was first elected I looked forward with enthusiasm to debating matters of great importance. But I have been disillusioned completely by the performance of the people opposite. The newly-elected Government have made promises which in the opinion of some people could not be fulfilled. At least one would have expected the critics to have put forward constructive alternatives, but that was not to be.

During the year I have heard nothing that would lead me to change my opinion of the Opposition. Indeed, it has been frustrating to sit here even for short periods and listen to them and to see before them every day the Fianna Fáil manifesto, a document that the Opposition used page by page particularly up to last Christmas. I note that recently, though, it has been dropped from the Front Benches, particularly so far as Fine Gael are concerned. Obviously they have seen the light and realise that speaking conservatively at least 80 per cent of the promises made in that document have been implemented already. There is not an idea on the benches opposite. To-day, again, all we have had is an unjustifiable attack on a document which was prepared with great care and which has given hope to many people. It is not my intention to go into detail on the Green Paper.

Mr. E. Collins

: The Deputy is wise.

Mr. Killilea

: This debate gives to a new Deputy the opportunity of examining the situation of the past 12 months. To give an indication of the twisting and turning of which the Opposition are capable I recall that before Christmas last, Deputy Cluskey, Deputy FitzGerald and Mr. West from Northern Ireland were united in their condemnation of the Taoiseach for a statement he had made regarding Northern Ireland. However, not very long afterwards Deputy FitzGerald refused to attend a function because the Taoiseach had not been invited to attend also. Fine Gael took a dive away from the realities of politics.

Mr. E. Collins

: The Deputy is well aware of the circumstances surrounding the issue to which he refers.

Mr. Killilea

: I recall, too, that during the three weeks after which the Opposition had been rejected by the people, they clung to power and gave jobs in State Departments and in State bodies to the happy hookers of both parties. However, I am sure that some of the people opposite will be ashamed to be associated with that type of performance. The performance of the Opposition both in Government and out of Government is never likely to be forgotten by the people.

If we had got constructive opinions and criticisms from the Opposition we might have been able to derive something from them or at least something that would give even a little hope to the people for the future of the Opposition, but that has not been the case. All we have had from them is a false approach on every occasion, even at Question Time. I have become so disillusioned with them that I rarely stay in the House for any length of time. Perhaps my red hair has some bearing on my quick temper, but I find it impossible to sit here for any length of time and listen to the sort of contributions that have come to be every-day experiences so far as the Opposition are concerned.

As I have said, practically every undertaking of the manifesto, that document with the three nice colours on its cover, has been implemented. For instance, we are aware of the performance of the Minister for Agriculture. It cannot be said that he has been helped in any way by the Opposition. From the first negotiations the Minister had in Brussels after assuming office he was able to bring back an agreement that was equal to if not greater than the four previous agreements. In Paris, too, at the stroke of a pen he reached agreement on the land question. In Galway particularly we are experiencing the benefit of that agreement in relation to the profitability of sheep farming. More important has been the attitude of the Minister in the sphere of job creation. He extended the carcase-boning process to include 4,000 extra jobs for the people in the meat-processing industry. I am not talking of the £110 million that was received in cash but about the byproducts.

For too long we as one of the finest food producers in the world had to tolerate a situation in which other nations could take our raw materials and do with them as they wished. Now there is a change of attitude, and all because of the performance of the Minister for Agriculture. But there is much more to be done in that area. For instance, I look forward to the day when our farm produce will be presented in the market places of Europe or of other parts of the world after it has been processed finally at home. Only then will our agricultural industry be in the envious position of being a complete and absolute entity. One can appreciate the wonderful employment opportunities that that situation will bring about. It is heartening to see this aspiration written clearly into the Green Paper.

I wish the Government luck in this project and in all the projects that are required of them by the people. I welcome, too, the new proposals relating to land structures. There has been a lot of talk about it throughout the country. The Land Commission were a very reliable organisation doing a good job within their terms of reference. They fell by the wayside during the last four years. I believe that when the new land structures Bill comes to the House it will receive an enthusiastic welcome from the agricultural people throughout the country. I feel, after one year in the Dáil, that all we will have from the Opposition is a particularly tight line of destructive criticism. The Minister for Agriculture and his Department have fulfilled every promise made in the manifesto.

Mr. W. Ryan

: Plus the rates.

Mr. Killilea

: The manifesto was not intended to be promises.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: We had a very peaceful time up to now. The one speaker without interruption.

Mr. Killilea

: The fruits of the four years of dedicated work by people doing a responsible job are paying off, as I am sure Deputy O'Brien is well aware.

Mr. W. O'Brien

: Is the Deputy referring to the Tuam factory?

Mr. Killilea

: The Tuam factory will shock the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Deputy O'Brien has only entered the House and should not interrupt.

Mr. Killilea

: We saw their performance in Tuam then and we have seen it since. I assure Deputy O'Brien that they have two seats out of eight in my county and if they are not very careful they may have none. I would be sorry if that happened.

: When I started to speak the Minister for Fisheries was here. I remember early last year, when the then Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Donegan, came home to the television cameras and the newspapers and said: "I have drawn a line across the sea and inside that line no ship shall be". He was illegal then and he is illegal now. It was proved in the courts of Europe that that performance was illegal. I believe that Deputy Lenihan was appointed to the most difficult portfolio. I complimented him on his Bill last week when the Opposition Deputies who spoke spent two minutes talking and then sat down because they could not criticise it.

Professor O'Donoghue

: I take it you will subtract it from the time available to the Deputies opposite?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: I would like to do that but I am afraid it is not feasible.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. W. O'Brien

: What about the agricultural grant?

Mr. Begley

: What about the potato factory?

Mr. O'Donnell

: He is very good.

Professor O'Donoghue

: You could have fooled me.

Mr. Begley

: What about the potato factory?

Mr. Killilea

Mr. E. Collins

: I have no intention of following the hares raised by the previous speaker. I take exception to his remarks in relation to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, and to the leader of our party, Deputy FitzGerald, and in relation to the integrity of our party, nationally or ininternationally.

It is only appropriate to have a full debate one year after Fianna Fáil were returned to power. Their victory was decisive. It was based on the manifesto which was clear but expensive for the people. I think the people are still happy because they are paying neither rates nor car tax, and they have been given a £1,000 house grant. Everything seems to be nice on the surface. Even unemployment has been reduced. The reduction in the unemployment figure is due to the general recovery from the recession and to the policy of the Government. I believe the surface prosperity will be short-lived. The Green Paper belies our true economic position and points to a period of budgetary stringency. It is obvious that the present position is untenable. This is acknowledged in the White Paper and confirmed in the Green Paper.

It is generally acknowledged that the Coalition Government handed over the economy in a good state. Although the Coalition Government went through a difficult economic period, they handled fiscal and monetary policies successfully during their period in office. They protected those who needed protection by means of social welfare benefits. All these matters were acknowledged by independent commentators if not by Fianna Fáil.

Because of their budget, the Government have not created the proper atmosphere for long-term development. Their untenable level of borrowing will cause a reservation in the private sector before the year is out. The Government's policy in relation to industrial expansion, a policy which was also pursued by the previous Government, is welcome. This policy is not widely contested in the House except for our preference for a development corporation.

The objective of the Government's agricultural policy is to maintain our export markets and the supply position at home. It is important to encourage as much home processing as possible. It is therefore unfortunate that industrial expansion will be damaged by the budgetary policy being pursued by the Government.

The White Paper on page 21 set out the targets which were laid down and which formed the basis of the Government's policy. The rate of inflation is taken at 7 per cent for this year, which may be achieved but which may not, and 5 per cent for 1979 and 1980. As an economist I would say that the prediction of a 5 per cent inflation rate for 1979 and 1980 will prove false, and this will have serious repercussions on the whole strategy employed by the Government. I say it will not be attained since inflation is not under the control of any Irish Government because of the openness of our economy. There are many international and multinational implications even at Government level, and the budgetary policy of a substantial deficit will fuel inflation in the economy even this year. I am sure the Minister is well aware of that. I see inflation in Europe and especially at home being higher than predicted and if it is seen to be increasing to a level not acceptable to industrialists then there will be a downturn in investment which is so vitally needed. The present budgetary policy of Fianna Fáil indicates that there will be an increase in inflation, and if it comes about the Government can bear responsibility for doing a certain damage to the healthy atmosphere for expansion of industry.

Even the Minister had reservations about the national pay agreement. The figures were above what he originally stated were a maximum. He swallowed the agreement because he wanted industrial peace, but it is another indication that inflation will be higher in the next three years than the Government have planned for. That is a very important aspect, because the inflation which occurred from 1974 to 1977 did serious damage to our industrial expansion potential. I am sure the position throughout Europe and in America was similar. If we are to return to a period of inflation we could again put off investment decisions nationally and internationally, which will have severe repercussions on employment potential and industrial expansion potential. The present Government budgetary policy will fuel inflation over and above what the Government have planned for certainty in 1979 and 1980, and I shall be very interested to see the final outcome for 1978.

The second target or assumption which the Minister and the Government have decided on is increased national output which for 1978, 1979 and 1980 has been established for planning purposes at 7 per cent. This is a very high rate and a great challenge to our economy and if attained I shall be the first to congratulate the Minister and the Government. Bearing in mind the capacity of the economy and the capacity of the agricultural sector to produce continuously at a high level this is an extremely high rate. We are also in the EEC which currently has a growth rate of less than 3 per cent, and the Taoiseach said that the likelihood for next year was that there would be a similar figure. If that is so, it indicates that Europe including Britain, our main customer, is not expanding its economy sufficiently to justify the increases in output planned for by the Government.

If these output targets are not attained there will be serious repercussions—a shortfall in budget revenue, an extra burden on the Exchequer in relation to benefits and assistance and a greater burden on the population in respect of the financing of the current and capital budget. If these objectives are not attained the great gamble, as I think the Minister openly described it, will have failed. I do not believe any Government have the right to gamble with the future of the economy or the future of the people. If their approach is one of buccaneer gambling with our future I think it will rebound seriously on whatever Government is seen to be doing the gambling. If the objectives are not reached —and I consider the indications are that they will not be reached over the period—we shall be in a serious financial position.

Because of the Fianna Fáil election manifesto their budgetary policy as it emerged last February with a current deficit of £405 million and I think a capital deficit of £416 million was untenable. As an economist I would say that budgetary policy was irresponsible in the context of emerging expanding industrial and agricultural sectors of the community.

Professor O'Donoghue

: How many jobs would that expansion have produced?

Mr. E. Collins

: Jobs are very difficult to estimate. I am talking about an atmosphere in which expansion can take place, and a policy of deficit budget financing presents very difficult problems. Certainly Keynesian economics justify it in recession, but where you are going into an expansionary period I am sure the Minister knows it is quite possible to overheat the economy, to add fuel to the fire, not of the imagination of the people as the Taoiseach might like, but of inflation which could endanger the objectives originally set out.

Budgetary policy of such serious deficit financing led to a position where borrowing as a proportion of the GNP rose to 13 per cent. The objective set down now is that this borrowing should be decreased to 8 per cent of GNP by 1980. I should like to develop this aspect of the matter, because it has serious implications for budgetary policy in the light of the Green Paper. If, in this year, the budget deficit turns out to be as envisaged there will be a very serious budget situation in 1979 and 1980.

The Green Paper states:

This public finance policy implies a sharp fall by 1980 in the significant deficit on current account which first became a feature of Government budgeting in 1974.

The position is that the capital deficit which is required for national development will not be touched. It is needed for capital expansion and infrastructural development and I support that. There is a need to establish here a sophisticated money market which is needed in a complex Irish economy.

The burden of a reduction in borrowing will fall on current expenditure and this is stated quite specifically in the Green Paper. If it is going to fall on current expenditure and if the services remain the same in 1980 as in 1978 while reducing the borrowing requirement to 8 per cent of GNP, the budget deficit in 1980 will not be £405 million but £31 million. In 1978 price terms that implies a reduction on current expenditure or an imposition of extra taxation of approximately £374 million. If expenditure is reduced by such an amount, there will be slashes right across the board during the next few years.

The marvellous manifesto, with its abolition of domestic rates and car tax, will be seen in the next two years to have been a trick. If it is not paid for this year it will have to be paid for with interest in 1979 and 1980. Fianna Fáil have mortgaged the future in order to get back into power. They have done irreparable damage to the economy in the long term. I deplore the gamble that was taken and the long-term effects on the economy in the coming years.

Indications have been given of cuts. First, let us consider the question of health services. Even today at Question Time it was clear that the Minister for Health is at odds, to say the least, with his financial colleagues in the Cabinet. The reason is obvious when one reads the Green Paper which states:

7.22 .... the financing of the health services has posed special problems for the Exchequer in recent years ....

7.23 While the problems in financing our health services should not be exaggerated, rising health costs cannot be allowed to pose excessive problems in the context of our general economic and public finance policies ....

7.28 .... There is some public concern about over-visiting and overprescribing in the service and the steps to correct this will be strengthened ....

In relation to limited eligibility, paragraph 7.30 of the Green Paper states:

... It might be more appropriate if these charges ultimately reflected the actual cost of the services.

It is quite clear from reading the Green Paper that savage economies will be imposed on the health services at all levels and in the context of a rising population this will mean serious problems for poor families. It is obvious that the country is in for a very bad time in the next few years.

With regard to social welfare benefits, children's allowances are clearly mapped out for revision. Paragraph 7.14 in the Green Paper states:

... One possible approach is to treat these allowances as taxable income. The adoption of this option would yield about £8 million to the Exchequer in the current year.

This is an indication of what the Government think of children's allowances. They will be the subject of a means test and if this is followed through, the old catch-cry of Fianna Fáil in 1969 of one shilling of the old age pension will sound quite charitable by the time the Government are finished. That is only one aspect of the cut-backs that are on the way.

Other cut-backs were referred to and I agree with one of them. That was in reference to tightening controls to combat fraud. That is not a change of policy. Honest working people feel very aggrieved to see chancers and layabouts steal money from the State coffers. It is quite proper that such people who abuse the system should be brought to justice but I hope that we do not have a spy state where people have to look over their shoulder all the time.

There will be a reassessment of local authority housing needs. In other words, there will be a cut-back in houses for the workers and that is not on. Many people may be able to afford private houses but others will always need to be housed by the local authorities. I regard the proposed reassessment of local authority housing needs as a retrograde step, one that is not in step with a policy of social justice.

Regarding education, I understand that teaching posts in regional technical colleges and the Dublin College of Technology have not been sanctioned for some time. Some appointments made last January could not be sanctioned. This is destroying the whole planning flow of these colleges and is only symptomatic of the real trouble.

: Yes, I am saying that. I am satisfied that I can say so with a certain degree of social ethics, and I decry the attitude of the Government.

Another slash is to be made at the farmers by way of a resource tax. That has not been spelled out fully and I do not know what the strategy is going to be. Is it to be a tax on the holding of land? This needs explanation. It seems to be just another way of taxing the farmers. Not all farmers are rich. Many of them are struggling and they need protection as much as any other section of society.

This Green Paper marks the beginning of the end for Fianna Fáil. It marks the beginning of a serious period of stringency. It marks the beginning of either serious wide-sweeping taxation or serious cuts in expenditure on employment in public, socially desirable services, all because of the short-term wish of Fianna Fáil. The budgetary policy which they have pursued will do damage to the economy in the long term. I am highly disappointed that a more responsible position was not taken by a Government who are supposed to be committed to the long-term needs of the Irish people. I decry their budgetary policy and the results of it. It is going to mean serious cut-backs in service. Because of the untenable budget deficit position there will not be an expansion of employment as promised by the Minister.

Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy (Mr. O'Malley)

: In the short time at my disposal I can deal with only a few limited aspects of the rather broad Department of which I am in charge.

The first matter I want to speak about is the promotion of Irish goods under the Irish Goods Council. Since the publication in January last of the Government's three-year programme for the promotion of Irish goods there has been a generally satisfactory response from all sectors. Manufacturers, particularly in those areas seriously affected by competing imports, have demonstrated an encouraging willingness to co-operate with the Irish Goods Council in marketing and in promotional ventures. The Sell Irish Campaign is being supported actively by the retail trade. Industrial purchasing management in both the private and public sectors have increased their efforts to identify import substitution opportunity. Community groups have undertaken a variety of consumer promotions throughout the country.

It would be inappropriate at this early stage to seek direct comparison between the impact of the programme and the month-by-month fluctuation in import statistics. However, the figures for the first five months of the year indicate that the rate of growth in competing imports of manufactured goods has declined in 1978 compared with the same period in 1977. While these trends are encouraging, the increased level of consumer demand coupled with the slightly healthier state of world trade generally suggests that competing imports could be on the rise again in the coming months. Already there are disturbing import trends in a number of sectors such as footwear and the furniture industry. The growth of imported food products will pose a continuing threat to whole industries in the foreseeable future. In short, the need to maintain and intensify the momentum of support for Irish-made products will become even more important as the year progresses.

When launching the programme early this year I described it as the people's job creation programme. I pointed out that it gave the ordinary citizens, as well as those in positions of responsibility, an opportunity to use the spending power at their disposal, no matter how limited that might be, for the benefit of the community. This message is being heeded but there is scope for it to be heeded to a greater degree.

Increasingly, priority is being given to ensuring that the manufacturing sector take full advantage of the improved selling environment that is being created. There are still pockets of complacency in Irish industry as well as a serious absence of essential marketing and selling experience. For many companies, particularly those in the small and medium categories, the effective answer is greater co-operation and a willingness to plan for growth. Those who do not do so will inevitably find their market share further eroded. We can help only companies who are prepared to help themselves. There are more than enough success stories already recorded to show that, given the right spirit of enterprise and market aggression, Irish manufacturers have the opportunity to fight back to regain a substantial share of the domestic market.

I want to say a few words on the question of State aids and incentives to industry about which there were rumours, speculation and a good deal of concern some six months ago. The House will be generally aware of discussions that have been taking place for some time now with the European Commission concerning our regional aids, including export sales relief. These discussions were part of the preparation of general arrangements to apply to all member states. I am glad to say that the new arrangements, which will be formally announced by the Commission very shortly, will represent a satisfactory outcome of the discussions from our point of view. The Republic of Ireland, together with Northern Ireland, the mezzogiormo, West Berlin and the French overseas territories will be allowed to maintain the highest level of regional aid in the Community.

Secondly, and more important from our point of view, export sales relief will be excluded from the aid ceilings which are being imposed in this present coordination. As I indicated last month, the Government intend to replace export sales relief by an alternative incentive scheme which will come into operation on 1 January 1981. Work on the preparation of the new scheme is in progress but it will not be completed for some time. However, the Commission have agreed that all commitments entered into under the present scheme of export sales relief before the change-over to the new scheme on 1 January 1981 may be honoured in full. This will apply right up to the statutory export date in our own legislation of 1990 and will apply to all firms who either physically establish plants here before 1 January 1981 or who sign grant agreements or similar agreements with the IDA before that date for the establishment of manufacturing industry here. The successful conclusion of these very prolonged discussions with the EEC Commission, which dispelled any adverse speculation in regard to export sales relief, enables the IDA, SFADCo and other industrial promotion agencies to press ahead unhindered with their investment promotion work.

In 1977 manufacturing employment increased on average by 5,400 or 2.8 per cent while manufactured output rose by 7.8 per cent. The employment out-turn would have been higher but for a decline in the final quarter which ran counter to a substantial increase in output in that quarter. However, employment growth in 1977 represents the best performance since 1973. The most recent indications are that manufacturing output is growing even faster in 1978 than in 1977 and this should add to manufacturing employment this year. Industrial exports during the first five months of 1978 are over 20 per cent higher in value terms than in the same period in 1977.

The IDA Industrial Plan 1977-1980 has set a target for the creation of a total of 49,500 new jobs over the four year period of the plan. It is envisaged that 47,000 of these jobs will arise in the manufacturing sector and the remaining 2,500 in the services sector. To achieve this level of job creation the IDA will have to approve projects over the period 1977-80 with a job potential of over 100,000. For 1978 the IDA has adopted an approvals target of 27,000 jobs; this figure is over 17 per cent greater than the 1977 target and about 60 per cent greater than the target set for 1976.

The general economic outlook for 1978 is favourable to the achievement of this target, high as it is. Rapid growth of gross national product and of manufacturing output and exports is expected to continue in 1978. Indeed, Ireland is expected to be the fastest growing economy in Western Europe in 1978. World trade is not, however, expected to increase significantly in 1978 and only a modest increase in market demand is expected in Europe, although the US market continues to be relatively buoyant. These factors, together with the continued high rates of unemployment in Europe, are combining to intensify competition, especially from the UK and Belgium, for internationally mobile investment. However, the IDA has intensified its promotional activities both at home and abroad and is confident of achieving its stated target of 27,000 job approvals in 1978. The maintenance of Irish industry's competitiveness, a favourable industrial relations situation and the continuation of the IDA's incentive package at a competitive level are, however, important conditions which must be satisfied in order that this target will be achieved.

I might mention at this stage that some weeks ago I was asked a parliamentary question in regard to the nature of some of the competition for industrial investment which we are now encountering from abroad and misleading statements that were made in regard to this country by one of the promoting authorities of another country. At the time I said that I believed these activities had come to an end. Since then it has come to my notice that there has been a repetition of a certain aspect of this activity, again in the United States of America, by and EEC country, the same country about which we had cause to complain in the first instance. The IDA are taking the appropriate steps and, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I shall be asking our Ambassador in the country concerned to take whatever steps are open to him also to try to put a stop to this unfortunate activity. It has been a feature of Ireland's promotion of its industrial development that we did it on our own merits and did not go around criticising other countries, and one would hope that other countries would adopt the same attitude towards us and have a positive rather than a negative form of promotion.

So far as progress to date is concerned, I understand from the authority that the preliminary results of the small industries programme and of the enterprise development programme are particularly encouraging. Over 130 small industry projects with a total fixed asset investment commitment of almost £8 million had been approved by the end of May. These projects have a job potential of 2,000, indicating that at this point the programme is 20 per cent ahead of target. I am particularly gratified by this achievement as I see small industries as being particularly suited to smaller towns and villages throughout Ireland, meeting the local employment needs of rural communities. In this connection I might make reference to the fact that, in addition to what the IDA are doing, SFADCo have responded in a most commendable and enthusiastic fashion to the task I set them earlier this year in regard to the promotion of small industry projects.

In the enterprise development programme, some 14 projects involving an investment in fixed assets of £4.2 million and with a job potential of 700 new jobs have been approved under the programme launched in January of this year. The IDA are providing substantial financial support towards this investment by way of fixed asset grants, training grants, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and equity participation. The prospects for further substantial job approvals under this programme during the remainder of the year are good. This is a new programme, its object being to help the establishment of projects by Irish people employed in industry but anxious and able, with the right kind of advice and assistance, to start up industrial undertakings of their own.

Since the beginning of the year the IDA have completed 570,500 sq. ft. of factory space at 16 locations. In addition, work has commenced on 34 other advance and special factories. Further advance and special factories are at the planning stage for 26 locations. This represents the largest ever industrial construction programme undertaken by the IDA, and is ample proof, if proof were needed, of the seriousness of the approach of the Government and the authority in the face of the job creation challenge.

I want to say a few words now about the inflation situation at the moment and as it was over the past number of years. About one week after the people had gone to the polls to vote in the last general election the consumer price index for the quarter ended mid-May 1977 was published and showed an annual rate of inflation of 13.9 per cent. The CPI figures for the quarter to mid-August 1977 showed a very slight reduction in the annual inflation rate to 13.5 per cent. However, it is no mere coincidence that the figures for the first full quarter for which this Government was in power showed a dramatic reduction in our inflation rate. The mid-November 1977 figures recorded an annual inflation rate of 10.8 per cent. The Government did not just accept this situation, gratifying as it was, and action was taken to ensure that this progress was not just maintained but was improved upon. The fruits of the Government's efforts were realised in the CPI figures for mid-February and mid-May 1978 when annual rates of inflation of 8.2 per cent and 6.2 per cent respectively were recorded. Thus, within one year of taking office, by a combination of factors, a combination of international movements, over which admittedly we had no control, and a lowering of some commodity prices, plus a temporary improvement of the currency situation from our point of view—by a combination of those factors, and because of the determination which the Government have shown to tackle this problem, the annual rate of inflation has been reduced by more than half within that year.

We are frequently accused, without much evidence to back it up, of not honouring manifesto undertakings. It can be truthfully said that we have not honoured this one in regard to the rate of inflation because what we undertook and said in May 1977 we believed was possible, was that we could achieve an inflation rate of 7 per cent by the end of 1978. At the time that flation rate by May 1978 was below the figure we said would be attainable by December 1978. At the time that projection was published as being capable of achievement it was scoffed at, laughed at, we were told it was totally impossible and that anybody who believed it could be brought about was naive, foolish, ignorant and so on. I will allow the figures to speak for themselves.

It is worth noting that the present annual inflation rate of 6.2 per cent is the lowest recorded since mid-February 1970—a period of eight-and-a-quarter years. It is also worth recalling that the annual rate to May 1978, 6.2 per cent, is less than the rate for the three months November 1974 to February 1975. Inflation then was 8 per cent, that is an annual rate of about 33 or 34 per cent. The annual rate up to mid-1975 was 24.6 per cent.

Those were the days when people did not bother complaining about inflation or price rises. There was a feeling that we had entered the banana republic league, that nobody would ever straighten things out, and that we were committed to these abnormally high rates of inflation almost indefinitely. There was a feeling of helplessness all round and at that stage the people might have been described as punch drunk. The most enormous increases used to take place at regular intervals with virtually no public comment. There was the feeling which stems from one of hopelessness that there was nothing one could do about it and therefore it was not even worth complaining about.

I am glad to hear that people are beginning to complain again about some of the recent price increases we have had in the last couple of months, which are running at an historically low level. It is right that people should complain, because they now feel there is hope. They have seen decreases in the price of major commodities and they have come awake to the fact that it is possible, up to an extent of 50 per cent as we preached for so long, to control inflation. We can control inflation if we have the will and the commitment to do it. The Government in regard to the 50 per cent under their control showed their commitment over the past 12 months and our commitment has paid off in a way that is extremely gratifying.

In relation to future movements in inflation, the Taoiseach, when he opened this debate, estimated that movements in commodity prices and currency fluctuations were likely to cause a slight increase over the annual rate of 6.2 per cent, which has been recorded to mid-May, and he estimated a rate for the 12 calendar months ending December 1978 of about 7½ per cent. It would seem to me on present indications that that figure is likely to be fairly accurate. A high proportion of that inflation rate, which is very slightly higher than the present rate but nonetheless is commendably low, is due to the increases in the price of food products, where prices are fixed not in this country or by the Government or by anybody under the control of the Government but by the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

I would remind people who are complaining about these price increases in agricultural produce, and accordingly in food products, that they cannot have it both ways. Are they against the common agricultural policy of the Community, as it appears some members of the Labour Party, such as Deputy O'Connell, are, or are they for it? If they are for it, they cannot complain about the consequences of it. It is as simple as that.

Another factor we will increasingly have to give some consideration to, although I am not suggesting that anything should be or will be done in the immediate future, is the question of the relationship of our currency with sterling. The British economy is now coming into a situation where it should be at its strongest for a long time to come, because within a year or two they will be self-sufficient in hydrocarbons. If at a time when Britain is about to become self-sufficient in oil and gas, her currency lags behind those of other industrial nations to the sorry extent that it has done over the last number of years, and still does today, what will be the position in five or ten years time when she is no longer self-sufficient in hydrocarbons and when she will not have the advantages she enjoys today and which can be foreseen for the years immediately ahead? This is a matter which we will have to ask ourselves about, not in the short-term because it would be unwise to do anything in the short-term and I am not advocating that it should be done, but in the longer term, because if we are going to tie ourselves permanently to a currency that has such apparently poor prospects, we might begin to think now about what it would be appropriate for us to do in 1985 or the later part of the next decade.

Finally I want to turn to the general question of minerals and hydrocarbons. As regards the development of mineral resources, the picture both onshore and offshore is one of considerable activity at the present time, despite the very unsatisfactory position of the base metals market. In 1976 new rules applicable to land prospecting licences were introduced with a view to inducing licensees to accelerate prospecting or to surrender licensed ground which could be made available for other competent applicants.

The evidence to date is that the introduction of the new rules is having the desired effect. There is, however, some concern that the continuing depressed state of the metals market might begin to affect prospecting budgets—although most reputable companies try to avoid this since the fruits of current prospecting work are long-term and are recognised as such. However, the present general situation is that there is no significant let-up in the volume of exploration being done in areas which have any substantial potential and there is satisfactory competition for most ground of any significant interest which becomes available for allocation and there is keen, competition for promising ground.

Consideration of legislation necessary to deal with the vexed question of minerals ownership is at an advanced stage and I expect to be in a position to introduce a Bill on this subject when the Dáil resumes after the summer recess.

Keen interest has been aroused recently in uranium exploration in Country Donegal following statements of interesting results from preliminary investigations. The search for uranium in Donegal and, indeed, in other parts of the country where indications of interest have occurred, has long-term implications which could be profound indeed. However, at this point, it is necessary to be realistic and to emphasise that, though developments to date are encouraging, and might lead one to express a sort of limited qualified optimism exploration work in the areas concerned is at much too early a stage and too little advanced work has been done to justify firm conclusions. It will, however, be my objective to ensure that the search for radioactive substances which are of great strategic and economic importance will be intensified.

The position of our existing mines is that in common with mining elsewhere in the world, they are suffering the effects of low prices, poor demand and high stocks overhanging the markets. The mining industry has had to live with the fact that they are in a business subject to cyclical price movements but the present poor trading conditions are particularly bad and most commentators are finding it difficult to be optimistic about the immediate future, although the somewhat longer outlook appears to be reasonably favourable.

The current market situation was the influencing factor in the decision by New Jersey Zinc to withdraw for the time being at least from participation in the zinc smelter project. As I have already announced, the IDA are continuing to study the possibilities in this regard and, so as to maintain our momentum, I have authorised the IDA to apply for outline planning permission for a smelter at a site near Bally-longford on the Shannon Estuary.

Offshore, there is a very satisfactory level of activity and this will be the most active year so far. A number of wells have been completed already and, while nothing of commercial interest has been discovered in these, there is still a lot of drilling to be done between now and when the season ends. Judgments on the year's operations, must, therefore, be deferred until all the results are in and are fully analysed.

Work is proceeding on the development of the Kinsale Head Gasfield. The onshore pipeline is, for practical purposes, ready and the drilling of production wells is proceeding offshore. Assuming no major problems arise we can look forward to first deliveries of gas commencing later this year.

Mr. Bermingham

: Having regard to the time limit I shall be as brief as possible. This year's budget was described by some people in Fianna Fáil as the best budget ever introduced but at the time I said that it was more likely to be the worst budget we have ever had. Nothing has occurred since then that would lead me to change my mind.

It is my intention not so much to discuss the Green Paper as to emphasise the various sectors in which during the past year there has been evidence of bad government. There was an undertaking in the Fianna Fáil manifesto that there would be a revised farm modernisation scheme. What we have had is a scheme that is worse than the one that went before with the result that fewer farmers now are in a position to avail of the scheme and at any time the figure was less than 20 per cent. From the manifesto one might be forgiven for getting the impression that the new scheme would be a big improvement, that it would hardly be necessary at all to consult Brussels in regard to it. The Government have failed utterly and irresponsibly in this sphere.

We were promised, too, that all food produced here would be processed here but I have seen no evidence so far of any initiative in this area. Regardless of what may be said about mineral finds, the ten inches or so of soil at the top of our land is our most important asset, and we must use it to the best advantage especially in terms of the creation of employment. What is happening is that the food we are producing is being sent to other countries where, in more advantageous situations, it is processed.

Also in relation to agriculture there is before the Government a report on land structure but although they have had that report now since coming to office they have not made any effort to implement its recommendations. We are told that a Green Paper or a White Paper will issue shortly on the subject. I look forward to positive moves to set up a decent and proper land structure.

Mr. Smith

: Will the Deputy tell us what action the Coalition took in this regard during their term in office?

Mr. Bermingham

: The report of the commission that was set up while the Coalition were in office was delivered at the time of the general election but the Government have done nothing to implement its recommendations.

Mr. O'Donnell

: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bermingham

: Let there be no more interruptions from Deputy Smith unless he knows what he is talking about. It is not my practice to interrupt other speakers and I expect the same courtesy from Fianna Fáil. The Government have failed to take any action on the report on land structure although it is well known that huge international combines are buying up our agricultural land. Unless some action is taken it is doubtful that the present land structure in rural Ireland will have a chance of even continuing as it is. Nothing concrete has been done in the last 12 months. I hope something will be done to stop the land speculation which is going on because if nothing is done rural Ireland will be destroyed. A limit must be put on the amount of land a person can own. That may not be popular in my area but if it is not done rural Ireland will be a thing of the past.

Fianna Fáil have done nothing with the report which they have for the last 12 months. The people who are buying agricultural land hope that it will be a great investment. They are borrowing money and are being allowed to claim tax relief on it. They are in a more advantageous position than the unfortunate small farmers who cannot compete with them. If they go to the bank they have to pay the full rate of interest because they are not in the tax net.

A section of people within the agricultural industry have been let down by the Government. Fianna Fáil are noted for doing nothing for the farm workers, who are small in number but are an important sector of the agricultural industry. Last week the Labour Party introduced a Bill to do away with a fault in previous legislation. The Government have admitted that this was reacting in an unfair way against farm workers but they trooped into the lobbies to vote down the Bill. We said that if they wanted to introduce their own Bill or put their name on our Bill we were quite willing to allow that. They trooped into the lobbies to ensure that farm workers cannot get their rightful increase under the wage agreement until next October, even though they were due it in March.

Any small or medium sized farmer with a valuation of under £20 is free of rates. Farmers with a valuation between £20 and £60 are the only people in the agricultural community who will pay rates. They have to pay the rates if they are in the income tax net. They should be allowed to claim the rates as a payment of tax the same as the better off farmers.

The previous speaker asked where we stood on the common agricultural policy. I agree with it and I welcome the money which comes into the State because of it. It is our job to redistribute all the wealth of the nation in such a way that the unfortunate poor will not be crippled by increased prices. The Minister also asked a Fine Gael speaker where he stood on food subsidies. A redistribution of money should be made so that unfortunate poor people, such as old age pensioners and widows, are not asked to pay an increase of 7p on a lb. of butter. That is a dreadful increase to an old age pensioner living alone who got only a 10 per cent increase last year when the increase in the rate of inflation was 15 per cent. The Government have refused to give those people an increase which they received for the past few years in October in line with the cost of living. The Government should have introduced subsidies on food to offset the huge increase in the price of butter as a result of an agreement reached under the common agricultural policy for the devaluation of the green £ and a new set of prices.

Mr. O'Malley

: Where does the Deputy feel that should be paid from?

Mr. Bermingham

: All subsidies would have to be paid from general taxation. There was a subsidy last year to offset the increase. The big farmers got the benefit of the recent increase in the price of butter. The Government are not getting enough tax from them.

They should be asked to pay tax on accounts and not on a notional basis. The Government have let down the old age pensioner, the widow, the orphans and the people who cannot afford to pay an increase of 7p on a lb. of butter. I do not believe that there is a Fianna Fáil Deputy who would like to see any poor unfortunate widow or old age pensioner in that category, but they are not prepared to say that the money could be found to subsidise the butter increases even though £10 million can be got to hand to people in the higher income group to relieve them of paying wealth tax. Half of that sum of money would introduce the subsidy I am talking about. The Minister for Finance said that those people in the higher income bracket ran out of the country because they were asked to pay their fair share of tax, that he was bringing them back by getting rid of the wealth tax and they were bringing their money back into the country.

The previous speaker spoke about a reduction in the rate of inflation. That does not mean much to the ordinary person. He wants to hear about prices. Fianna Fáil went around before the election with what they called the shopping basket. The shopping basket was very important in my constituency. They were pointing out the prices of certain items in 1972 and the prices in 1977. It was a very interesting shopping basket, specially picked of course. It would be interesting to see that shopping basket now. It contained bread, the price of which has been increased since Fianna Fáil took office. It contained butter. I am not an economist and rates of inflation do not mean much to me. The price of cheese has been increased by 5p per lb and it is to be increased again. A subsidy on cheese was deliberately withdrawn by the Government. Because of the price of meat, cheese had become a basic food for the unfortunate widow and her orphans and the old age pensioner. They will now not even have cheese. I am talking about the basic necessities for the poor.

I have spoken to reputable builders and it is reckoned that the price of a house has gone up by about £3,000 since this Government took office. There is a grant of £1,000. A person can get a loan from the county council provided he earned under £3,500 in the previous tax year. The average price of a three bedroomed or even two bedroomed house now is £12,000. Such a person has £4,000 to make up. I discussed this with a bank manager and he said that when the loan of £4,500 was available it was not enough and he was prepared to lend a couple of thousand but there was no way he could lend an ordinary worker any more than £7,000 because he would not be able to pay it back. Therefore, an increase is necessary in both income limit and the amount of loan if a person is to be able to build a house. I am putting the cost of a house at £12,000 but it would be difficult to find a house for £12,000 in any town in my county.

There has been an increase in car insurance. Car tax was removed and that was a great thing for people with cars, including myself. It was a great thing for people who had to drive long distances to work but I think they could have been compensated by tax relief and I blame every Minister for Finance who has held office in this State that such people were not granted tax relief. I believe it was irresponsible to withdraw the subsidy from cheese, the food of the old person, and give the man with two or three cars outside his door relief from car tax. I know it was a winner in the election. We are now told in a Green Paper that social welfare, education and the non-productive areas will have to be cut back. The Government took tax off the car of everyone in the country and still only allowed a 10 per cent increase to social welfare recipients even though in the previous year there was almost a 3 per cent increase in the cost of living. That is the kind of Government Fianna Fáil have always provided.

They state publicly that they rely completely on private enterprise to supply the necessary jobs. They tell us that the number on the register of unemployed has decreased. I think they had a celebration when the number dropped below 100,000. It is a fact that 14,000 people left our country which means that there was very little real job creation. I would ask the Minister to stand up here and say how many were in gainful employment this time last year and how many are in gainful employment now. If he can tell me there are 20,000 more I will say he is doing fine but I am bloody sure there are not.

Fianna Fáil have much time for profit and much time for advancement in industry but there were fewer people in gainful employment at the end of the sixties than at the end of the fifties and that is the result of the kind of policy that Fianna Fáil have been pursuing down through the years. They made more grants available to industry but they had no undertaking from people that they would increase employment. They made tax concessions of all kinds in the budget to the private sector but there is no compulsion on industrialists to use that money to increase employment nor is there any evidence that they are doing so.

In their first budget since the election Fianna Fáil could not afford to reduce the qualifying age for old age pensioners by one year which would bring it into line with the norm in other EEC countries. When Lloyd George introduced pensions in England they were also introduced here, and the qualifying age was 70 years. When Fianna Fáil left office in 1973 the qualifying age was still 70 years. Is that progress? During the four years of Coalition Government the qualifying age was reduced progressively to 66 years. That was progress. Fianna Fáil could not afford to reduce the qualifying age for pensions by one year but they could afford to give £10 million to 5,000 people in the top income bracket in our society, people who own property and land to the value of £100,000 and £200,000 respectively. That is the Government we are being asked to believe has a social conscience. I do not believe they have or ever had a social conscience.

We had the court jester of Fianna Fáil in the House earlier. He said that the principal achievement of the Government was the reduction of the unemployment figure to under 100,000. He forgot to mention the people who emigrated and those who finish their education this year. I see no evidence in my constituency that there is one extra job available for them. Last year there was an outcry in the House about the thousands of school leavers facing unemployment. That cry helped to elect Fianna Fáil.

The Department of the Environment was referred to by our illustrious friend, the court jester. I would prefer to be charitable and not to mention his name, but he seems to be pulled into the House every time a bit of bashing is necessary. The Green Paper indicates that less money will be available for local authority houses.

Mr. Moore

: It is not quite true.

Mr. Bermingham

: It seems to be. I do not know what Deputy Moore's interpretation is but my interpretation is that there will be less money available for local authority housing and that people will be expected to build their own houses. When Deputy Jim Tully was Minister for Local Government he achieved a housing target in 1973 of 25,000. Not alone was I proud of that—it was a great achievement in the circumstances—but I was more proud of the fact that a greater proportion of that number was local authority housing. Generally speaking, people who build their own houses are not living in caravans or in horrible conditions. People who are unable to build their own houses should have first charge on our capital, as have our old people, widows and orphans. If we can afford to give a £10 million handout to the wealthy few in our society then we have a duty to provide decent housing and a decent standard of living for the less well-off members of our society. I believe that Fianna Fáil intend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I believe that Fianna Fáil have always operated in that fashion.

Speaking of the Department of the Environment, I must say that our roads are unfit for today's traffic. We have huge lorries with trailers using narrow roads down the country to collect milk and to deliver goods. A massive investment is needed in our roads.

The Minister for the Environment has failed to implement a report on the fire service which has been before him for a long time. This report was also before the previous Minister and he failed to implement it. Neither Fianna Fáil nor anyone else has reason to be proud of our fire service.

If Deputy Moore has superior knowledge I bow to it, but I believe that the Green Paper indicates that less money will be available for local authority housing. The Government have not introduced the kind of programme that is necessary in relation to housing, and I believe they have no intention of doing so.

I sympathise with the Minister for the Environment in having to face massive expenditure on our roads if we are to compete with the other members of the EEC. Anyone who has ever been abroad knows that our roads are below standard and have been that way for many years. I believe there must be massive expenditure there. Traffic, particularly in my constituency is clogged up for want of proper roads. Recently, I saw in a local paper that the county manager said he was not holding up the Naas by-pass but the Minister was. I do not say who is holding it up. I admit not having much knowledge of that matter but I can produce the newspaper containing the report if necessary.

Mr. Moore

: In the brief time allowed we must do our best to emphasise the points we wish to make. This morning the Taoiseach told the House:

1977 was a good year. Our growth rate of over 5 per cent put us at the top of the EEC league. Industrial production showed a substantial rise, agricultural output increased, employment grew, exports remained buoyant and inflation dropped sharply. All the indications suggest that 1978 will be another good year. Economic growth is likely to be even higher than in 1977.

The Taoiseach stated the truth of the present situation. His figures are official and cannot be controverted. The Green Paper, which I am glad to see is being avidly discussed, is the basis for further progress. We must make it a success. In saying "we," I speak collectively for the social partners and each Member of the Oireachtas because the people are watching the performance. It may sound well to score points against the Government but that does not impress people at present; they want results. The Government have prepared their economic plan and when this comes to fruition we shall have a very prosperous nation—but not without problems. In the present age every country has problems but let it be said for the courage of the Government that, having acknowledged the problems, they set out in no uncertain terms what we must do to bring about as nearly as possible full employment. If I speak of full employment I am taking the West German figure of about 3 per cent as being an acceptable norm of unemployment. We have never come near that before but we now feel we shall get there.

I do not want to score points against the Opposition but they have not come forward with alternative proposals on the economic front. They may condemn the Green Paper and criticise it and it is their privilege to do so, but unless people see them put forward alternative proposals they will realise that false arguments are being advanced and they will act at the next election as they did the last time.

Our young people leaving school are seeking jobs. The not-so-young people who are unemployed also want jobs. Although one hears from time to time about people who do not want to work these are a tiny minority. The vast majority want gainful employment and it is up to us to repair our economic system so that we can offer employment up to the stage of full employment. That will be a very great task but we now have resources and faith in ourselves that we did not have years ago. We can drive forward, on the basis of the Government document, towards full employment. The Government have teased out the economic difficulties and offered a solution. There is no doubt therefore that we shall make progress but it will take all our time to do this.

I am satisfied that economically we shall make progress but I want to see something else in our programme, something that will change the quality of life. If we are so foolish as to wish to copy some other nations who feel they are progressing towards a better society let us examine their progress. From a material point of view they have made progress but on the social side they have made very little. So, we see another sick society. There are people here who want us to ape other countries not so much economically as socially. We must resist this : we must solve our problems in our own way. We must draft laws and regulations and design our welfare service so as to give us a high quality of life with real meaning. With our small community we can do this. It will require a lot of money, for instance, for welfare services. The Taoiseach's remarks this morning are very apt. He said:

In what I have been saying I deliberately refrained from referring to the welfare services. The size of the shock which our society has suffered in recent years from the rapidity of changes within it and from the extent of unemployment has made the old approaches to welfare irrelevant. It is no longer enough to say that this or that benefit has increased by this or that amount or that so many new schemes or services have been introduced. The commitment of this Government to the maintenance of the present level of the welfare services for those in need and the improvement of their effectiveness and relevance is not in question. We have always held that economic advance is valuable to the extent that it makes possible and is used for the improvement of the quality of life and is concentrated to the greatest possible extent where the need is greatest.

This has always been the corner-stone of Fianna Fáil policy. Today we meet new challenges in the social area because society is changing rapidly and, as the Taoiseach said, it is no good just increasing this grant or that grant; there must be overall social planning if we are to achieve a better quality of life. As we look around the world we see people growing tired of the materialistic attitudes and outlooks of their own Governments.

The time has come to change our outlook. It is not enough that we give the old age pensioner, the blind person or the widow a few pounds extra each week. We have dire social problems that must be faced and I refer to one in particular, namely, alcoholism. Yesterday, with the support of all sides of the House, the Dáil passed a Bill concerning drinking and driving. It is hoped that this will be of considerable help in reducing accidents on the road.

It is frightening to realise that two out of every nine admissions to mental hospitals are alcoholics. We must ask the question what is wrong with our society that people drink so much. People who do not drink do not feel superior to alcoholics. They know they must do all they can to rehabilitate them. All of us are anxious to give as many benefits as possible to the old age pensioner, to the blind person, to the widow and to the handicapped child. A considerable amount of money is spent on the rehabilitation of alcoholics.

A very large number of patients in long-stay hospitals have been in those institutions for as long as 25 years. This is the fate of thousands of people and a point must be made about them. We can be happy in the knowledge that we are making economic progress, but that happiness is qualified when we consider that so many of our people have been in hospitals and institutions for many years.

There must be some reason for the fact that two out of nine patients in mental hospitals are alcoholics. Is it the stress of modern life that makes such people turn to alcoholism? Apart from the social factor, it imposes a huge cost on society to rehabilitate the unfortunate people who have this disease. The Government, through the Minister for Health, are tackling the question of our health services with great vigour but a lot more must be done before we can say we are on the right road to fashioning a good society. The problem is not peculiar to this country. It is common to many other countries, but that is no reason why we should accept it.

There are more than 11,000 people in long-stay hospitals—by that I mean more than a one-year stay in hospital. Some 60 per cent are more than ten years and 25 per cent are more than 25 years there. Unfortunately some of these patients are beyond rehabilitation. I am not referring to alcoholics now but to the people who have mental troubles. However, having regard to advances in science and medicine, I think the time has come to examine the situation and I am glad that the Minister for Health and his Department are doing that. We try to provide employment for those who have no work and we try to house the homeless. Therefore, we should not—nor will we— stint on the money to the health services to help those in dire need. We must change the system where thousands of people are condemned to spend 25 years in long-stay hospitals.

We realise that improvement works in hospitals cost money, but if we do not perfect the system in hospitals and homes we will pay a much higher cost in in money, quite apart from the cost in human suffering to the person concerned. It is frightening to think that many people in hospitals are not aware of the many changes that have occurred in the world in the past 25 years. One of the worst aspects is that perhaps they need not have spent that time in the institution if their problems had been tackled. I should like to pay tribute to the religious orders who have done so much and also to the lay people who serve in such hospitals. We should use our resources to ensure that these places are as efficient and comfortable as possible. We are told that the public spend £4 million per week on drink and the cynics say that the Government get the revenue. That is so, but we pay out a great deal. However, the real issue is the sorrow to the alcoholic and his family. This affects young and old people.

The Government have laid the basis for making progress on the economic front. We must create wealth if we are to spend it on our social services. We need to use a new approach and the Taoiseach spelled it out today in his speech. Because of what has happened in the past few years we must change our whole attitude towards our social services. In the old days we salved our consciences by giving a few shillings increase to old age pensioners and to others in need. We were a poor country then but now we have a considerable number of affluent people. I do not think any section would begrudge taxation to the Exchequer if it were spent on eradicating some of the ills I mentioned.

Large numbers of very young people are in hospital because they are disabled or mentally handicapped, some of them only mildly. We must take them out of the institutions and fashion a new pattern of life for them in society and in our suburbs and cities. They should not be locked away in some big building; instead they should be living in houses as ordinary people do. I commend the organisations who look after the mentally handicapped and who provide suburban houses where there is a house-mother or a housefather and where these young people can go to live. Those who are only mildly handicapped can work at a job in the daytime and return to the house at night. We must remember the fears of the father and mother of a handicapped child about the future of that child after they pass on. The society we wish to achieve will provide for the care of the handicapped. Our health and social codes must be expanded to enable us to do what is necessary in this regard. The necessary work is being pioneered by the Department of Health and the Government generally and thousands of voluntary workers are helping. The Government, the voluntary workers and society all recognise the great need to do this work.

The education of the mentally and physically handicapped is another field we must enter into. The Minister for Education will lend a willing ear to any suggestions as to how his Department can help in this educational programme. Even though a child may be handicapped he still has his full human and civil rights. Next year as our economy grows and as many people become more affluent the yardstick of our progress should be the way in which we treat the people in our institutions. We must ensure that as far as possible we will not have a person spending 25 years in an institution. It will cost an immense amount of money to examine each case and to devise an alternative hospitalisation scheme, but this is something worth while. We all have our selfish points, but people generally would not cavil at the imposition of new taxation the proceeds of which would go towards a new deal for the handicapped and the maimed. We must ensure that as we go forward in the economic sphere we will do the same in the social sphere.

People complain about the abuse of our social welfare system and particularly about people who draw the dole even when they are working. That is wrong and should not be done, but it happens. The Department prosecuted in some cases. I do not know how big the problem is but I do not think it is too great. This abuse of the system is not by the mentally or physically handicapped. These are looking to this Government and to the Opposition also to make sure that we fashion our whole society on the basic beliefs that we hold. We look at the outside world across the channel, the USA or anywhere else and we see the progress made in hospitals and so forth. Let us take the best from them but always be on our guard to ensure that we solve our problems in our own way to suit our people. That is not being insular, it is using common sense. We see the frightful problems in some of the more advanced states and we ask, "With their wealth and everything where did they go wrong?"

In conclusion, the Green Paper prepared by the Government is the basis for further advancement on the economic side. The policy of the Government as outlined at the last election in the manifesto encourages confidence that we can fashion a social welfare system for the disabled and the maimed and those who are denied the full fruits of life. When we have built up the economy to a prosperous stage, as we are doing, we will be able to say that we have created wealth and now we are going to distribute that wealth where it is most needed. I suggest that the greatest need is to be found among the young people who are handicapped in any way, physical or mental. We must direct our economy towards creating wealth first of all and then distributing that wealth to these people. That is not charity, it is justice. We have many societies only too willing to help and they do not put a price on their help. Many of them give it voluntarily. We must act in a responsible manner, saying "There is your blue-print for progress" and getting the social partners to join in this drive to make ours a better society. We have the means and ability and I am sure we have the will.

Mr. O'Donnell

: Tugann an díospóireacht bhliantúil seo ar athló na Dála le haghaidh sos an tsamhraidh seans do na Teachtaí Dála ar gach taobh den Teach cúrsaí tábhachtacha a phlé. Ar an gcéad dul síos, cé gur thug an Taoiseach ráiteas an-fhada uaidh inniu ag tosnú na díospóireachta seo, is oth liom a rá nach ndearna sé tagairt ar bith do chúrsaí teanga ná do chursaí Ghaeltachta, agus cé go bhfuil tábhacht ag baint le cúrsaí eacnamaíochta, le forbairt eacnamaíochta agus forbairt thionsclaíochta agus mar sin de, aontaíonn gach duine sa tír seo go mbaineann tábhacht ar leith le forbairt chúltúrtha na tire chomh maith. Dá bhrí sin is cúis bhróin nár bhain an Taoiseach feidhm as an ocáid seo chun tagairt a dhéanamh don teanga i bhforbairt chultúrtha agus go háirithe chun tagairt a dhéanamh do na pleananna atá ag an Rialtas faoi láthair chun forbairt na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn.

San manifesto roimh an toghchán tugadh geallúintí faoi leith do mhuintir na hÉireann agus go h-áirithe do mhuintir na Gaeltachta go mbunófaí Údarás na Gaeltachta roimh dheireadh na chéad bliana nuair a bheadh Fianna Fáil i mbun oifige. Dúradh an rud céanna ag Ard-Fheis Fhianna Fáil cúpla mí ó shin. Labhair an Taoiseach féin ag an ocáid sin agus thug sé an gheallúint céanna. Tuigimid anois ón méid adúirt Aire na Gaeltachta cúpla lá ó shin nach mbeidh sé in ann Údarás na Gaeltachta a bhunú, 'sé sin nach mbeidh sé in ann an gheallúint sin a thug Fianna Fáil roimh an toghchán a chomhlíonadh.

Tuigim féin, ón treimhse a chaith mise mar Aire na Gaeltachta go bhfuil deacrachtaí faoi leith ag baint le bunú Údarás na Gaeltachta, ach mar sin féin bhí bunú an Údárais sin mar ábhar spesialta nuair a bhí ant-olltoghchán ar siúl ar fud na tíre anuraidh. Dá bhrí sin bhí mé ag súil go mbeadh cúpla focal ar a laghad le rá ag an Taoiseach inniu faoi Údarás na Gaeltachta agus faoi fhorbairt na Gaeltachta sa todhchaí nuair a bhí sé ag labhairt inniu.

This debate offers the House an opportunity of analysing and assessing the performance of the Government over the last 12 months. This particular adjournment debate takes on a special added significance because of the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government have now been in office for just one year and, therefore, the debate enables the House, particularly those of us on this side, to assess and analyse the performance of the Government against the background of the three documents produced over the past 12 months—namely, the Election Manifesto, the White Paper and, more recently, the Green Paper. Side by side with that, we had a major statement on Government policy from the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance when he introduced his budget.

No Government since the foundation of the State was elected on the strength of so many specific, categorical and definite promises as were the present Fianna Fáil Government elected just 12 months ago. Furthermore, the promises were put on record and so it is a relatively easy exercise to compare the actual performance with the promises, the commitments, the projections and the hopes adumbrated in that election manifesto. I was very amused with the speech made by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy here this evening. He was a man who, as spokesman for Fianna Fáil in Opposition, was exceedingly vocal. He had all the answers to job creation, industrial development and so on. Today he comes in here, a different person altogether, much more subdued, attempting to point out the difficulties. He delivered the same type of speech that my colleague, Deputy Justin Keating, often delivered as Minister for Industry and Commerce, pointing out the difficulties of competitiveness in trying to attract investment to this country.

While the relatively short time at the disposal of Deputies does not enable one to do a complete analysis and assessment of the performance of the Government, I want to devote myself in particular to what I consider the most important areas of Government policy and the most important problems confronting this small nation at the moment, problems of concern not merely to the Government but to all elected representatives on both sides of this House. I refer to the enormous challenge and task facing us at the moment of creating full employment for a rapidly growing work force. Thousands of young people are leaving school this week. In my own constituency of County Limerick there are 2,600 leaving school. We are faced with an enormous task. It is not a task which can be solved by an election manifesto. It is not a task that can be solved with Green Papers, White Papers, or multi-coloured papers. It is not a problem that can be tackled effectively or a problem in regard to which progress can be made towards its solution by political acrimony or the scoring of political points by one side or the other.

This enormous task will have to be tackled. It is a task in regard to which the present Government have a very particular responsibility in the light of the very definite and specific promises they gave the people a year ago, particularly the promises given to the younger generation and the hopes and expectations that were raised as a result of the manifesto. These hopes, these expectations, will have to be honoured and realised, and the Government have a bounden duty to honour the promises and the commitments in regard to employment and job creation. Indeed, there is a moral obligation on the Government to honour the assurances, overt and implied, given to the thousands of young people all over the country a year ago.

These promises and these assurances undoubtedly influenced the thousands of young people who were voting for the first time to cast their votes for the Fianna Fáil Party. This Government will have to honour their commitments, and if they do not do so they will have done a great disservice to our young people, a disservice for which they will pay dearly come the next general election.

In regard to the manifesto promises about job creation, the most important job creating sector is constituted of those agencies under the aegis of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. In the Fianna Fáil manifesto the following appears:

Hundreds of thousands of our people are going to be unemployed over the next five to ten years if there is not a major shake up in the provision of employment, particularly manufacturing employment. A revolution must take place in the management of industrial expansion if the essential employment targets are to be achieved.

Having outlined various ways and means by which these targets would be achieved under a Fianna Fáil Government the manifesto goes on to talk about an imaginative incentive programme to attract investment. The manifesto goes on to say that there are tens of thousands of secure jobs only waiting to be created when Fianna Fáil get into office. Remember, that was in just one sector of the economy, the sector which might be described under the term "natural resources". This was probably the most dishonest statement ever made. In the last 12 months this Government have shown no evidence or have given no indication of any realistic or practical steps being taken to honour this implied commitment, that is, that there are tens of thousands of new jobs waiting to be created.

The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy talked about the job creation programme of the IDA, industrial employment and so on. The rate of industrial development by the IDA, let us face facts, is not satisfactory. I agree with the general idea in the manifesto that a revolution must take place in the approach to industrial development and job creation, but there is no sign of this. On the contrary, there is the type of evidence that, no matter what side of the House we are on, we would prefer not to see.

The Minister briefly referred to the fact that there is competition for investment, that we are in competition with other countries. Of course, we are. During the recession we were in competition with other nations for industrial investment. If this competition has increased, we have to ascertain why. We read examples recently of a number of major projects, which the IDA had brought to almost the final stage of negotiation, being lost. Admittedly one has been given to Northern Ireland and we do not object to that because we regard that as part of this country. What I am worried about is that these are known examples, but are there other industries where the IDA have been pipped at the post? We know the Ford industry went to Wales.

Does this not mean that the time has come when a serious look will have to be taken at the industrial promotion strategy of the IDA and their modus operandi abroad in making their presentation of our facilities and attractiveness to foreign industrialists? A hard look will have to be taken at the promotional strategy of the IDA. Down the years I have frequently praised the IDA. We are very conscious of the fact that our predecessors established the IDA in the fifties. Every organisation at sometime needs reassessment. As I said, it may well be that the time has come when the approach and the policy of the IDA need to be reviewed in the light of what appears to be the greater competition in attracting new investment.

We are aware that the IDA must compete with development agencies in other countries, but that was there during the world recession. Unfortunately this competitive situation has been affected very severely by certain happenings here since this Government took office and over which the Government should have had control. Our image abroad as an attractive base for industrial investment has been eroded very severely by two things which happened since this Government took office. I stand over this and am prepared to produce the evidence if necessary. The first was the unfortunate tragedy which took place in my constituency, the closing of the Ferenka plant; and the second was the prolonged telecommunications dispute. The Ferenka closing should never have happened and the Government must shoulder the major share of the responsibility. The telecommunications dispute was largely due to the stone walling of the Minister. It directly involved a Government Minister and Department and therefore was completely indefensible. This, along with the Aer Lingus strike, has added up to a situation where influential journals circulating in the business world abroad are beginning to publish articles which do not help the work of the IDA.

Our industrial relations record should not be judged solely on these two instances. The Government have a major job to do in the field of public relations abroad. The Taoiseach referred to this problem today and to the fact that industrial relations and the number of unofficial strikes were causing concern. He cannot deny that there is a special obligation on him, as leader of the Government, and on his Government colleagues to show good example in this area. There is a very special obligation on Ministers, such as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who is directly responsible for thousands of employees, to give good example and to create a climate of harmonious industrial relations.

Unfortunately the Government's mishandling of the Ferenka and telecommunications disputes has damaged our image abroad as an attractive place for industrial development. I believe that today Ireland is just as attractive as a base for foreign industry as it has been at any time in the past. But there is a message to be put across and those members of the Government directly concerned must pull up their socks. A special public relations campaign should be mounted and perhaps more intensive and aggressive promotional techniques should be adopted by the IDA to ensure that our relatively stable industrial relations image is maintained. We need foreign industry. We realise that foreign investment is necessary for the creation of some proportion of the jobs that are needed if we are to achieve the target that everyone wishes for—the target of full employment and also the provision of a decent standard of living at home for our school leavers.

The Minister must take a new look at the whole situation. Much emphasis has been placed by the Government on the establishment of small industries. The impression has been created by Fianna Fáil that this is a new idea. There is talk of the establishment of clusters of small factories on a big site, as if this were a new concept. The former Minister, Senator Keating, placed much emphasis on the important contribution that small industries can make to our economic development and to the provision of jobs. The IDA have had a small industries section since the time when the Minister for Finance was Minister for Industry and Commerce. In addition SFADCo have done tremendous work in this sphere, as also have Gaeltarra Éireann. Even in the most industrially advanced democracies—in West Germany and in the US, for instance—the proportion of total industrial employment in small industries is surprisingly large.

The performance of the Government in the area of job creation has been disappointing. Deputies on all sides of the House must, in the final analysis, judge the Government's performance and their policies as they affect us in our constituencies. The situation in my constituency, and indeed in Limerick city and county as a whole, is deplorable and indefensible so far as employment is concerned. Last week I got figures from the Central Statistics Office which showed that on 2 June 1977 the number on the live register in Limerick city and county was 6,100. The figure for this year was exactly the same.

Fianna Fáil are admitting now that emigration is beginning to accelerate. Of the 13,000 or 14,000 who have emigrated we may take it that about 1,000 of those have been from the Limerick city and county area. Admittedly, the situation in that area was exacerbated by the unfortunate Ferenka disaster. Everyone knows that there is a time lag from the time an industry is approved until it begins production. Factories must be built, services installed and so on. Those industries that have begun operations since Fianna Fáil were returned to office, including the industry that was opened the other day at Inishmaan, were under way when the previous Government left office. On average the time lag between approval and commencement of production is about 12 months, so that the Government must not claim credit for the increase in industrial employment since they came to office. A week ago I asked the Minister the number of jobs created in Limerick city since Fianna Fáil came to office. These were projects that were approved by Fianna Fáil during the past 12 months. The number was 280 and I was informed that the remaining new jobs, more than 350, were in projects that were approved by the previous Government.

This is by no means a satisfactory situation and indicates the unsatisfactory performance of the two Ministers vitally concerned—the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy and the Minister for Labour. In saying that I have no wish to be personal because at all times I endeavour to avoid personal references.

I regret very much, as everybody else in the mid-West region regrets, too, the bad news of the past 24 hours, and which was confirmed today in reply to a written question tabled by me to the Minister, that a major American car-manufacturing industry is not to set up at the former Ferenka plant although the Minister was wildly excited about the prospects for this plant when he addressed a conference at Limerick on 6 June. In addition, Mr. Killeen of the IDA had said that the project was almost at the stage where a contract was being signed.

I know that efforts have been made to bring industry to the plant but there is dire need for the employment that would be re-created at that plant. The Government should consider a new idea entirely in relation to the Ferenka plant. I understand that Aer Lingus are in the process of establishing a major engineering facility within this country but that this project need not be based near an airport, that fabrication and so on is involved. I suggest that Aer Lingus be directed to establish this major facility at what was the Ferenka plant at Limerick.

Mr. N. Andrews

: I find it difficult to know exactly where to begin because so much has happened in the past year, so much that was exciting both for the people generally and for the Government. In a very short period this Government have succeeded in restoring the people's confidence not only in themselves but in their ability as a nation to stand on equal terms with the other nations of the world. National morale has been restored. The people know that they have the leaders, the Government who can provide the direction necessary for the future of the nation. We had been through four years of Coalition Government and, as I have said here before, there is no one here who has not the best interest of the nation at heart. However, collectively, down through the years, Fianna Fáil have provided the kind of leadership and the kind of unity that can motivate the people for the future.

While I believe in the goodwill and the genuine enthusiasm of all Members of the House I have felt uneasy sometimes because of some of the remarks and some of the efforts by the Opposition in opposing issues in this House. It is almost as if they would be glad if the nation self-destructed in five minutes. I know that is not in their hearts but that is the way it appears to me. It is a wrong way to begin their first year in Opposition.

The problem is to decide by what means the best interests of the nation can be served. Fianna Fáil placed before the people a programme of economic, social and cultural recovery before the last election. They accepted the undertakings given. For the last year we have had the manifesto waved at us from the Opposition benches, every paragraph gone through with a fine tooth-comb and the threat of dire consequences if we did not deliver on those undertakings. We have had very little waving of the manifesto for the last six months, because they have got the message from the people in the constituencies that we have delivered the goods and the undertakings and we are continuing to deliver on the undertakings in that manifesto. Less than a week after publication we now have the Green Paper waved at us. I am sure it has been accepted generally as a very worth-while document, one which will provide the leadership for the years to come. I hesitate to say that the kind of opposition we have had in the past year has been, to say the very least, deplorable. The people must be warned that some of the actions of the Opposition in the past year have brought about a feeling of unnecessary division in the House.

One of my colleagues earlier today referred to the fact that the Fisheries Bill was presented to the House recently and there was very little opposition to it. When things are going right the Opposition should stand up and say: "You are doing a good job," because the people know we are doing a good job.

The Green Paper is a discussion document. It is imaginative and is a constructive approach to the future well-being of the country. It offers parents and young people a goal and an ideal. The young people have been crying out for ideals over the years and now they have them. It calls for sacrifice from all of us. It calls for courage from not only the Government but the Opposition. There are some things in it I would not necessarily agree with, but it is a discussion document and I will be arguing my case in the appropriate place as will the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the people in our constituencies. I believe that, overall, it is a wonderful document. It is a tribute to the Government and to the wisdom of the people who drafted it.

I heard a radio interview quite recently in which the Minister for Economic Planning and Development was confronted by Deputy Michael O'Leary and Deputy Peter Barry on the subject of the Green Paper. Apart from the fact that it was quite apparent that neither of the Opposition Deputies had read it they as much as admitted that they had no alternative to the prospects enunciated in the Green Paper. I believe that, given goodwill on all sides, we can achieve what no other democratic nation has achieved, full employment as outlined in the Green Paper. It is a very comprehensive programme, and I believe that the people will accept the principles underlying the document.

Fianna Fáil have the optimism and the courage top rovide a plan whereby these target can be achieved. Many have sought to unfairly cast aspersions on the Minister for Economic Planning and Development as the university guru, a man out of touch with reality as many people believe the people in universities are. I do not accept that. They have been very wrong. Not for him the pious hopes or the lazy attitude on the future of this nation. He believes in the future of this nation and he articulates that belief. He has committed it to paper. I have heard people in the House say today that we have had three documents before the people in the past three years. This is probably three more than the Coalition brought out in their four years of office.

The Green Paper is a very important document. The people recognise that for the past year we have had total Cabinet responsibility, something which they had grown unaccustomed to. Rarely have a Government worked so hard or so diligently. They have committed themselves totally to the undertakings the Fianna Fáil Party gave in their manifesto and have produced what I consider is a very fine social document. It is clear from the manifesto and the Green Paper that we have recognised the value of what the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would call the infrastructure and the investment in it. It shows that money spent on roads, schools, hospitals and bridges is clearly money which will go to providing jobs. I am glad to see that the Government have taken one item and isolated it. They have made it a priority, work for all levels in our society. When the work on the infrastructure such as roads, bridges, schools and hospitals has been completed this obviously will improve the potential of the economy for its own growth, and it is bound to attract industrialists from abroad.

One of the problems during the term of the Coalition Government was that the Minister for Local Government indicated that there was very little money in the kitty for roads and so on. There was so little money in the kitty that the roads almost literally went to pot. Minor moneys were spent on the main arterial roads but the minor roads were neglected completely, the roads that carry the agricultural products, the roads that should bring investors to the less well-off areas. This was counter-productive. Those roads are essential to the overall well-being of the country. This was one of many things that went wrong. Investment in roads is a sure way of helping to keep people at work and also keeping our goods competitive.

To the people of south country Dublin this Green Paper brings hope. South Country Dublin is an area where traffic has ground to a halt because of neglect, the muddling of the last administration and the lack of proper planning. The Green Paper reads:

An accelerated investment programme in road improvement would not only provide welcome extra employment both directly and indirectly but would also lead to the up-grading of deficient parts of the road system. An allocation of up to twice the 1978 provision of £23 million for road improvement could be put to good use by 1980. If these funds were made available the works undertaken would be chosen from those to be programmed in the Road Development Plan promised in the Government's pre-election Manifesto. Work is well advanced on the preparation of the Plan ...

South Dublin has been looking for an increased commitment on the part of the Government to roads, and in the Green Paper they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. The Southern Cross study group proposals would cost in the region of £9 million. I would urge the Minister responsible to insist on a decision being made on the future of the Southern Cross motorway. It is caught between the local authorities and local pressures. Grants are available from the EEC and I hope the Minister can make a firmer commitment to the development of this road in the south Dublin region to alleviate the traffic, to attract industrialists who would take their goods to and from Wicklow and Wexford and to open up that whole region.

It is clear from the Green Paper and from the Taoiseach's speech this morning that schools and hospitals have a high priority in the Government's plans. Some of our schools are substandard and are a disgrace by any standard. Fianna Fáil were first to recognise this and in their manifesto they proposed to embark on a school building programme to cope with existing suburban pressures and to replace obsolete schools. The capital provision in the Book of Estimates for national schools this year is £14 million odd or an increase of approximately £3 million on the previous year. That shows our commitment to the undertakings given.

It is interesting that we have had almost a day of debate and I have not yet seen our manifesto waved from the Opposition benches. They are embarrassed. The Green Paper is another step in the economic development programme enunciated at the last election. The Minister for Education is not necessarily directly involved in the management of schools but it is clear that he is very concerned in this regard. He is a man who has made an enormous impact on people in education, on teachers and on parents. His emphasis on primary education is welcomed by all the people. His commitment to the reduction in the pupil/ teacher ratio and the provision of secretarial help in the schools is welcomed. His patience in tackling things and his unending energy have brought credit to him and brought peace to the education system. He is at present compiling a census of the accommodation and facilities in national schools and, in his own words, he does not intend to exert any bully boy tactics on parents. In his first year in office he has brought about a significant improvement. His concern is reflected in the Green Paper despite what the critics said prior to its publication. The commentators were once again wrong.

The people in Shankill and Sandyford in my own constituency waited years for a secondary school. Even though the Coalition Minister for Education represented that area there was no sign of the long awaited school in Sandyford. I am happy to be able to say that I received a letter this morning from the Minister stating that a contractor has been appointed and that work will begin on that school in July. The Minister's total commitment to all aspects of education, first, second and third levels, is magnificent. The people of Shankill and Sandyford have waited years for a secondary school. Even though the then Minister represented that area, there was no sign of a community school being provided for Sandyford. I am happy to be able to say today that I received a letter from the Minister advising me that work will begin on that school in July. Only this afternoon I had a call from one of the community representatives who had met Minister Burke six times on the subject of the community school for Sandyford.

Mr. Tully

: It bore fruit.

Mr. N. Andrews

: She met him six times and got no undertaking that a school of any sort would be built. Three months after Deputy John Wilson became Minister for Education I brought her and another group of residents who were interested in the development of a school in Sandyford to meet the Minister. They expected to have an argy-bargy for an hour or so, but the Minister told them within a few minutes that they could have the school. That is the kind of decision that was lacking in the past. I think it is wonderful and full credit is due to the Minister.

As a representative of the people of South County Dublin I have had nothing but good reports of the Government's performance. Listening to some of the speakers here today, it seems that they too are getting the message that the people are satisfied, so satisfied that the level of criticism from the Opposition this evening is very muted.

The most outstanding contribution in the year was made by the Minister for Health. He took an interest in good health rather than bad health. He also took a special interest in the mentally handicapped and made provision for many more places for them. Unlike the Coalition, who dilly-dallied about hospitals and the control of hospitals, the Minister has taken spade and shovel in hand and started construction work on sites which had lain dormant for many years due to the Coalition's indecision. In my view he is another jewel in the crown of success of the Government.

The best the Opposition could do this morning by way of interrupting the splendid speech of the Taoiseach was to ask where Deputy Haughey was. What a mean approach to something so important. When one looks across at those benches one wonders if they really want things to happen or whether they want us to stumble from pillar to post as they did. I can assure them that we have the finest Government this country is capable of producing. I hope the Opposition will take stock of what has happened this year, review their strategy and be more generous in their approach to our success. I do not expect them to wave flags, but when things are going right we should have agreement and people should admit that we have done a good job.

Deputy Charlie Haughey has done a wonderful job. He has made people aware of the need for physical fitness, of looking after their own health. In the context of financing the health service, I welcome the Government's proposal to examine the inequities which had developed in relation to the limited eligibility category for medical cards. I welcome the Government's continuing concern that persons should provide for illness through the increased use of health insurance, which is relatively inexpensive.

Deputy Moore referred to the evil of materialism. What is known as the public house society seems to be developing. Instead of looking outwards people are looking inwards. It horrifies me to see cigarettes and drink included in the cost of living index. What in the name of goodness have drink and cigarettes to do with the cost of living? It only encourages an attitude of permissiveness towards these items, both of which I partake of. I was recently in the company of 80 children from a housing estate in Ballybrack who went on a train trip which cost each of them 24p to go from Killiney station to Howth. They spent half a day in Howth for 24p, having brought sandwiches with them. They have not been in Howth since but they cannot wait to get there again. Our society has almost frozen itself on the television set, frozen itself in the pubs, so bad is our materialism. Recently I saw a pair of shoes for sale for no less than £76.50. The fact that those shoes are on sale is indicative of our emphasis on materialism when we have people in need of proper pensions and care. Those are the people who will ultimately have to make sacrifices.

Mr. Tully

: On a day like this one tends to come into the House with a prepared statement instead of using one's time commenting on the speeches of the other speakers. I do not propose to fall into that trap, but I cannot let some of Deputy Andrews' remarks go unanswered. I do not doubt his sincerity, but he should have checked some facts before coming into the House. Deputy Andrews talked about bad roads, particularly country roads, and Deputy Killilea was smiling. Nobody knows as well as he does that during my time as Minister for Local Government I changed the system which Fianna Fáil had operated for 16 years and introduced one which gave a substantial block grant to local authorities so that they would not spend all the money on national primary and secondary roads but where it was most needed. In many cases that money was spent on county roads which had nothing spent on them in the previous 20 years. Deputy Andrews did not know that.

Mr. N. Andrews

: In 1975, the vote for roads was——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Desmond)

: Deputy Tully, please, without interruption.

Mr. Tully

: Deputy Andrews did not know that. He opened his mouth and put his foot in it. This is the sort of thing——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

: Deputy Tully should not be interrupted.

Mr. Tully

: Quite a number of people who spoke before Deputy Andrews, Government Ministers included, all tried to give the impression that everybody was delighted with the Green Paper except the begrudgers in the Opposition benches. That was the general idea and theme of their speeches. I have here a copy of Business and Finance for 22 June 1978. It could not be described as a Coalition document but it begins by saying:

It is difficult to know whether it would be better to review what is omitted from the Government's Green Paper on the economy than to discuss the Green Paper itself. For the document simply ignores the fundamental economic questions surrounding the Government's present strategy. It ignores the possible, indeed certain, relationship between public spending, taxation and the state of the economy and presupposes that the growth path set out in the White Paper of December 1977 can be achieved without any new effort or initiatives.

This is not a Coalition document, not written by the begrudgers but by somebody who had read into the Green Paper what anybody with common sense would read into it, that it is a lot of nonsense.

: She was announced as the Minister in charge of prices, and the lady in charge of the Housewives' Association, whose name I am not permitted to mention here, was very anxious to say that it was the greatest thing since the sliced pan because this new Minister would finish for ever any price increases. A few weeks afterwards the Taoiseach sheepishly let it out that it was not Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn who was Minister in oharge, but the other Minister, Deputy O'Malley. Deputy O'Malley has not been in this House to answer questions on prices since the day he was officially said here to be responsible. The prices question gets quite a big heading on page 10 of the manifesto where it is said:

The Prices Commission will be carefully and thoroughly examined, and restructured and brought up-to-date, as it is widely believed to be inadvertently protecting inefficient firms and in itself to be incapable of proper investigation of many applications made to it ....

The Government have completely forgotten this. I intend to send this copy to the Taoiseach because I am sure he has not a copy of his own manifesto. Otherwise, he would have looked at it and decided that something should be done about prices.

Mr. Killilea

: Tell us about local government.

Mr. Tully

: I shall deal with that later and the Deputy will not like what I have to say. The manifesto said:

Government policy must be directed towards discouraging increased costs and prices in all areas where it has control or influence. This policy has been absent in the last four years.

Since the Government took over, price increases have occurred daily. The only difference is that when we were in office we announced the increases so that everybody would know what the fixed price was; the first decision of the present Minister in charge was not to publicise prices. I have heard people here talk of bringing down the cost of living and saying that the cost of living has come down.

Has anybody ever heard that being discussed or noticed it in the newspapers? Has something gone wrong? Has the post failed to deliver or have newspapers, television and radio decided——

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

: If the Deputy listened on Friday mornings he would know about prices. He should get his facts right before coming here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Now let us have Deputy Tully to make his case in his own way and I shall call other Deputies afterwards.

Mr. Tully

: I am making my statement and anybody may contradict it afterwards if they wish to do so.

Mr. Killilea

: There is no local government here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Would Deputy Killilea please desist?

Mr. Tully

: Recently three items were announced on the radio and published in the newspapers as having been increased in price and when the Prices Advisory Body report, which had been sanctioned by the Minister—I grant it is only a matter of form, sanctioning it—came out there were 43 items in it. The other 40 were lost somewhere. People did not know about it unless they got a copy of the report of the Prices Advisory Body. That is the kind of reporting we have at the moment.

There was mention some time ago of the Department of the Environment, formerly the Department of Local Government. I spent some time in that Department and was a member of a local authority for 15 years so I know a good deal about the working of the Department. Deputies opposite know about it too because they were in and out to my office and were received courteously at all times. Any assistance that could be given to them was given.

Mr. Killilea

: It is the Government—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Will Deputy Killilea please allow the Deputy in possession to speak without interruption?

Mr. Tully

: On page 26 of the Fianna Fáil manifesto under the heading "Local Government" there is the following statement:

A forward looking and socially committed Department will be the centre of our Local Government policy. An immediate injection of an extra £30 million for the building and construction industry will create 5,000 new jobs in the first year of Government.

That first year is up. In this House last week the Minister, who was answering questions, replied that the number of new jobs in the building and construction industry was 1,500. What happened to the other 3,500 jobs and what happened to the £30 million? Do the Government need a copy of their manifesto to remind them of what they said could be done? I was interested in Deputy O'Donnell's assertion that before Fianna Fáil took office they gave the impression that they had just to wave a wand and thousands of people would have new jobs. I remember distinctly two nights before the election when the present Taoiseach was asked when he proposed to reduce the dole queues he answered "immediately". I could not believe my ears.

Mr. Briscoe

: What is the Deputy quoting from?

Mr. Tully

: It was the evidence of my owne eyes. I saw the television programme in question and I heard the Taoiseach make that reply. The 3,500 people who were without jobs did not get them. An announcement was made last week that 99,450 people were unemployed and it was claimed this was a great breakthrough for Fianna Fáil. However, they did not mention that in the 12 months they were in office 13,000 people left the country. Emigration has been resumed even though the conditions to which the people are going are unbelievably bad. Some of them are prepared to take a chance and to go across the water because they know that under Fianna Fáil they will not get anything.

What the Government are talking about in the Green Paper is getting people who are in jobs to carry those who have no jobs. It reminds me of the old man who talked about cats feeding themselves with their own tails. That is what Fianna Fáil are attempting to do. They are trying to put the burden on the working class at a time when they abolished the wealth tax. It is their attitude that the man with the week's wages can be got at easily, but the Government will probably find that they will not get away so easily if they attempt to push that through. I have said frequently that if working people get a decent wage there should be no necessity for them to work overtime. The reason people work overtime is that they have not enough wages on which to live. Whether or not we like to face the fact, there are people with large families who do not see meat from one end of the week to the other. It is a terrible situation that we should have reached that stage in an agricultural country, but that is what is happening.

Last week one of my colleagues tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill in an effort to get farmers to pay £3.50 per week which was due to the farmworkers from 1 March. The Government threw it out. Farm workers do not count. They counted last year and they will count in three-and-a-half years' time, but not now. Those people are being deprived of approximately £100. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development, who was dealing with the Bill, blandly informed us that the next wage agreement in 12 months' time would take care of the problem. I am not talking about the next time. I am talking about now and I am saying that these people who really need the money and who are entitled to it will not get it. The Government's attitude is that the workers should look after their fellow-workers, that the people with money should not be asked to help. They got away with that once but they will not get away with it again.

At least two speakers on the Government side made a comment about people on the dole. A few weeks ago I was at a function. There were three employers in my company and we discussed various matters. Two of them expressed the opinion that people on the dole should be made to work and I asked them how they proposed to do that. They had a vague idea that their labour should be offered to some industrialist. For those who do not know, the live register will show that most of the people who are drawing benefit are not drawing the dole but are drawing unemployment benefit. They have paid for it in their stamps and they are entitled to get it for 15 months because of an arrangement made by the former Government. The dole is for those people who have no stamps. I wish that speakers would differentiate between the dole and unemployment benefit. It is just too bad that this kind of statement is being made again and again.

The Taoiseach said that the Opposition are not prepared to accept the statement in the Green Paper, and other statements since, that the Government will be able to abolish completely the dole queues in the next five years. He thought we were being unfair to the Government because we did not accept that statement. I am not prepared to accept it. As a matter of fact, I think it is pure poppycock. No effort is being made to improve the unemployment position. For 16 years Fianna Fáil were prepared to accept that 70,000 people each year should remain unemployed while, at the same time, 25,000 people emigrated each year. Anyone who would believe that Fianna Fáil are going to abolish unemployment should have his head examined. The Taoiseach should have another look at what is being presented to him. If he did so I am sure he would understand that what is being suggested is not true or possible.

During my period in office I was very proud not only of the number of houses being built but also the standard of housing. Nobody can deny that the standard of local authority housing is very high. What is the situation now? We have an arrangement by the Government where they are not even prepared to give enough money this year to complete the number of houses started under the old scheme. In my constituency the local authority this year wanted to build 58 rural cottages but they got money to build only 15. Nobody should tell me that the Government are lashing out money on local authority housing. As a matter of fact, the White Paper which was published before the Green Paper—a reversal of the usual order—referred to the fact that because 73 per cent of those looking for local authority houses consisted of families of three, a man, wife and child, it was felt that there was not the big need for local authority houses that had previously existed. Then, in a peculiar, woolly sort of way, they went on to say that people would be encouraged to build their own houses.

Do the people who drew up this Green Paper and the White Paper, or any of the Government Ministers, understand what it costs to build a house at present? We hear talk about too much money being spent to subsidise the building of local authority houses. We must house those who are not able to house themselves. To suggest that people with £3,000 or £4,000 a year should be able to build their own houses indicates that they do not know what they are talking about.

I am sorry that Deputy Briscoe has gone because I am going to talk on something which is dear to his heart, and that is the inner city of Dublin. With the co-operation of Dublin Corporation I made massive sums of money available for the building of houses in the inner city. I signed compulsory purchase orders, which Fianna Fáil Ministers had refused to sign ten years ago, for the purpose of approving the building of houses in the inner city. What did I get? Deputy Moore came in here in Opposition and attacked me saying that I was not giving nearly enough money to Dublin and that it was terrible that this situation was arising. Deputy Moore must have known that in two successive years Dublin Corporation refunded to the Central Fund over £1 million which they were unable to spend on their own housing. Now I see, according to the Green Paper, that the inner city housing is so expensive that maybe it should be reconsidered and it might not be a good idea to continue it.

I will have a bet with anybody who likes to take me on that we have seen almost the end of building in the inner city of Dublin. It is going to be wiped out; it is too expensive. Everybody forgets that if instead of building in the inner city you allow it to tumble down, and then you go out and build on the outskirts, you are going to have to provide schools, churches, even pubs, and everything else that goes with it in those areas and there will be also the people using the roads in their hundreds travelling in and out to work in the city. If people want to look at the cost of housing they should look at the whole cost. The proper place to build houses for the people of the city is the centre of the city where they have been used to living and where they should be allowed to continue living.

We have the famous Buy Irish Campaign. We are told that everybody should buy Irish and that with another 3 per cent Irish bought much new employment would be created. For goodness sake, come in here some time when there is a vote and look at the people who are voting. You will find that the Crombie overcoat, the Peter England shirt and the Italian shoes are as common on Deputies in this House as they are anywhere else. Let us forget the idea of "Buy Irish" unless we are serious about it. What do the Government do about "Buy Irish"? I put down a question here last week about workmen's huts for the Board of Works for work on the Boyne. Workmen's huts are simple things and thousands of people in this country could make them. The Board of Works bought them in Wales. They would not buy Irish.

: The Chair will not allow Deputy Tully to do so.

Mr. Creed

: Deputy Lemass asked the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Deputy Lemass now, through the Chair. Never mind Deputy Tully.

Mrs. Lemass

: I am not listening to him. Obviously housing is improving. Deputy Tully also said that we should house those who need local authority housing. I agree with that absolutely but in all the years the Coalition were in Government no way would Deputy Tully increase the local authority loan and neither would he increase the income limit above £2,200. He was asked to do so time and time again. Everybody pleaded with him but, no way— he would not budge. At that time houses were much cheaper than they are now and if Deputy Tully had yielded just a little a great many people on the housing list in Dublin Corporation would now have bought their houses and be living in them. But Deputy Tully would not do anything. No way.

Deputy Tully was also very devoted to the man who drove a small car. When he was in Opposition he was always talking about him and saying how he should be looked after. When he came into Government he quadrupled the tax on cars until no one could own or drive a car.

The Opposition talk ad nauseam about our manifesto. I feel sorry for the Opposition. It galls them to see how well we have done. We have done a great deal in this one year. We have fulfilled so many of the manifesto promises that the Opposition do not know which way to turn or what to talk about. They have not got an idea between them and they never had during the four-and-a-half years they were in Government. They were bereft of ideas. I remember speaking at a meeting down the country during those years. We were talking about factories closing down and we suddenly realised that there was one factory a day closing down. In the 1960s under Fianna Fáil we were opening a factory a day.

During the four-and-a-half years the Coalition were in Government it was really sad to see the numbers who lost their jobs. We have always had unemployment and, if we had full employment, no one would be happier than I would be and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil. During the term of office of the Coalition I saw men made redundant, men who had worked from the time they were boys of 14, 15 and 16 years of age. They suddenly found themselves unemployed with young children to rear. Hopefully, when we get on our feet—one cannot work miracles in a year but we are doing very well in the miracle business and I am very proud to stand on this side of the House a year after our election and see just how much we have accomplished—these men will find themselves once more in employment. But we have done extremely well so far and in the years ahead we will do even better. We will work miracles.

The Opposition have no imaginations. They can find nothing better to do than ballyrag those people who are trying to improve the lot of our people generally. We have fulfilled so many promises and done so many things that the Coalition would not do. We have eliminated the clawback. There has been no mention of that here. It is, of course, a matter really for the city council. But we eliminated the clawback. It was a pernicious thing. Deputy Tully introduced it. If a person owned a local authority house and resold it within a period of five years he had to hand over one-third of the money he got for that house to the corporation. In what other sector did that happen? Did it happen in the private sector? Did it happen to the man who bought a house in Foxrock or Dún Laoghaire and resold it after a year at a big profit? Of course it did not happen to him. He kept the profit, and rightly so. It was his house. But that was not the policy in regard to local authority houses when Deputy Tully was Minister for Local Government. We have eliminated the clawback.

We also promised to reimburse people who bought their homes pre-July 1973 under a tenant purchase scheme. Deputy Tully, in an effort to appease ACRA and other bodies, brought down the price of houses after that year, which was really rather ridiculous because all other house property was increasing in value. Suddenly people buying the same house could buy it £1,000 or £1,400 cheaper and naturally those who had bought a year before were upset. They wanted to know why they should pay more for the same house. We decided to reimburse these people and we have given them back a percentage of the money if they purchased outright and we have given them a reduction in the repayment period in the case of those paying over a 25- or 30-year period. Those are two things we did for these people. All Deputy Tully did was to antagonise them by a pernicious differential as between people buying the same house in one year and a year later.

With regard to prices, we all know some commodities have to increase in price. That is a fact of life. We are not living in a dreamland. In the past year inflation has been reduced from an average of about 20 per cent when the Coalition were in office down to 6.2 per cent. How can anyone argue we are not doing better than they did? How can Deputy Tully say it is no good when inflation is only 6.2 per cent? I am a housewife and I know for a fact prices have stabilised over the past year. Certain things are going up, and we have to accept that, but I find that housewives who do the shopping are much happier now because prices are stabilised.

We all have our little pet hopes. One of mine relates to widows. The abolition of rates went a long way towards helping people in that category. There were widows who were left in big houses with high valuations. Sometimes they had to sell their furniture and belongings to meet the rates bill. Sometimes they had to sell their homes in order to pay their rates. One would hear others ask why one person should live in a big house, why should she not get out, or do this, that or the other? Why should any widow have to sell her home in order to pay her rates? The abolition of rates really helped widows. But they need more help. They should, for instance, be taxed in the same way as a married man and I hope that in the not too distant future the Minister for Finance will look into this aspect of taxation and improve the situation. They are single parents and they should be taxed in the same way as married men. A widow is father and mother to her children. She has to look after them. She has to educate them. Life is much more difficult for her. She must pay for things for which she did not have to pay when there was a man in the house. She has to pay for maintenance. She has to pay a man even to do jobs in the garden. She probably cannot do that on her own. All that is extra expense. She should be given consideration and helped with the education of her children.

Mention was made of children's allowances. This is the single most important factor for many women; it is their money. In my view it should not be abolished. Some well-off mothers do not need children's allowances as much as others. When these allowances are being reviewed the amount being paid at the moment could be left to the women who do not need extra money but widows, unmarried mothers and wives whose husbands are unemployed could be helped if the children's allowances were increased considerably.

The working wife is reasonably happy at the moment. She got a little concession when separate taxation was introduced. The Minister took into account all that was said by the working wives some months ago after the budget and I think he will continue to do more on their behalf.

We need women in professions and we should encourage them now that so many more women and girls are being educated to a higher standard. Some years ago if parents could not afford to educate all their children, they educated the boys because the girls were going to get married and they did not need education. This is a real old Irish idea. However, things have changed. Girls are being educated to a high standard and they should be encouraged to go into the professions and take their place in society equal to men. That is what life is all about—equality between people. I look forward to more women going into professional life.

In October single women and girls will be eligible for unemployment benefit. I am glad to see that happening.

The investment programme in road improvement has been mentioned in the Green Paper. In spite of all his talk about two-and-a-half years ago, Deputy Tully, when he was Minister for Local Government, backed out of the motorway scheme at the last minute. As a result, a vast amount of road improvement needs to be carried out in this city. I hope this Government will consider increasing the amount given last year—£23 million. It has been said that it might be doubled this year. We need much more money for the investment programme in road improvements. This city is becoming a very strange place. A new road system needs to be undertaken. Anybody who tries to drive around this city will understand what I am talking about. Every year there is a very big increase in the number of cars coming on our roads. If we do not do something quickly about the roads in the city and the surrounding areas, in about five years time we will be at a complete standstill. Traffic is building up to such an extent that if we do not make quick and decisive moves to do something about our traffic and our roads. We will be in very serious trouble. I hope a transport authority will be set up very soon to investigate all the problems of our roads, railways and transport of every description. This is a very urgent matter for Dublin city and county.

When Deputies read the Green Paper perhaps they will be able to come up with solutions to the problems mentioned in it. If the incentive schemes are started they will help considerably. I was glad to see that they are being advertised on television. I mentioned on the budget debate that this would be a good thing because it would remind people in industry that these schemes existed and perhaps they would encourage them to create more employment particularly for young people.

In the coming year jobs will be created for young people. Dublin Corporation have set up an environmental improvement scheme and already employ 100 people and hope in the coming months to be able to employ an extra 350 young people. They were advertising these jobs through the National Manpower Service and were hoping to employ 350 men. I asked why they did not encourage some girls into these schemes? They are as capable as boys. When these schemes are being initiated girls and women should be given the opportunity to get involved. They are better at doing that kind of work than men. They are very good gardeners. If there is work to be done in the fields or the gardens around community centres women are as capable of doing it as men.

The next Dáil session will be very interesting because the Opposition will spend their time trying to punch holes in everything Fianna Fáil do and in every new and clear idea we put forward. In about three years' time, when they see our programme is doing well, that we are coping with unemployment and getting our people back to work, they will have a terrible time trying to vindicate themselves for opposing what we are trying to do now.

A small scheme was recently introduced by the Department of Education—a grant to primary and secondary schools for the appointment of clerical assistants. The grant made available to employ such an assistant came into operation on 1 April, but managers of schools who had had the foresight to employ clerical assistants in September last find that they are not eligible now for the grant because the purpose of the grant basically was the creation of employment. There are several hundred people involved in this matter and the position is that if they sack their clerical assistants at this stage and re-employ them in three months' time, they will be eligible for the grant. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the conditions of this grant in order to allow it to be paid to managers of schools who engaged clerical assistants at the beginning of the school year. There appears to be some discrimination against those school managers who considered that they should have clerical assistants but who did not wait long enough before employing them in order to be eligible for the grant.

It is difficult at this stage to consider ways and means of training more young people for trades. I should hope that the AnCO scheme would be increased considerably to allow for the setting up of more training centres and for the making available of more places for apprentices for specific trades. The present schemes are of a temporary nature and involve young people who may have a job for six or eight months but if the schemes were extended as I suggest the apprentices could serve their time to a trade in which they could look forward to finding a job on the completion of their course. We have been educating people for so-called white collar jobs while not training sufficient numbers for trades. This trend is changing, though, and many young people now realise that there is a better future for them by following a trade in terms of opportunity, money and so on. The problem is that there is difficulty in finding places for apprentices. Many of the trades are closed. It is difficult, for instances, for people to find places for training as carpenters or plumbers but in the years ahead we will need people skilled in those areas. Dublin Corporation are experiencing difficulty in recruiting blocklayers. There is a great shortage of people in that trade. It is very highly skilled work but not enough people are being trained for it. I trust that the extension of the AnCO training schemes as referred to in the Green Paper will mean a vast extension of these schemes so that many thousands of young people can be apprenticed to the various trades.

The other aspect of the Green Paper to which I should like to refer is the question of health matters. When the Coalition were in power Deputy Corish proposed a wonderful scheme that would allow for free hospitalisation for everyone but that scheme was never to be accomplished. In addition to the failure in that regard there were huge cutbacks in all areas of health during the second year in office of the Coalition. For instance, the allocation to the Eastern Health Board was reduced considerably. The community care programme was put in abeyance for a year. That represented a great loss to the elderly who needed to be looked after at home rather than having to go to hospital where the cost of maintaining them would be much greater than having them looked after in their homes. There were many other schemes, too, in the Eastern Health Board area that had to be cut back. This situation has changed in the past year and jobs have been created in every area of the health boards. More public health nurses are being trained and health directors have been appointed to each centre. There has been tremendous improvement generally. I shudder to think of what the situation would be if the Coalition had been returned to office, having regard to what the situation was during their four-and-a-half years in power. However, the electorate were not foolish and realised what had happened to the country during that time. I am sure it will be a long time before the people will think again of electing a coalition government.

Mr. Kenny

: I compliment Deputy Lemass on her address but I would remind her that although there is an alleged shortage of blocklayers in Dublin, this situation is not because of a lack of training facilities but is due to the nature of the employment and to the payment that these men must command for their work, having regard to the tax situation in relation to insurable employment.

During the past year or so the most talked about document must be the Fianna Fáil manifesto. Some people have referred to is as the Fianna Fáil bible. We all have our own views on the manifesto. It is not my intention to go into the details of that comprehensive document. Many of the promises made in it have not been put into practice and indeed cannot be put into practice.

In the area in which I have responsibility as spokesman, that is the area of youth affairs and sport, it can be said justifiably that in no uncertain terms Fianna Fáil attracted the youth to their ranks in large numbers last year. This resulted from a variety of factors, not the least of which were the attractive packages placed before the electorate. It can be attributed too, to the quality and the efficiency of the pre-election campaign embarked on by that party. However, as Aristotle said, people are easily deceived because they are quick to hope. The Government committed themselves to the allocation of £20 million in the area of youth and for the relief of unemployment among young people but by the time the budget was announced this promise had been reduced to about £5 million. There was no reference to the remaining £15 million. This is one example of the failure of the Government on a written commitment relating to at least half of our population. That is something that will not be forgotten.

Page 31 of the manifesto says in regard to youth and youth employment:

A national youth policy must be aimed at the total development of all our youth.

That is a fine statement. We have now had over 12 months of Fianna Fáil Government but no comprehensive youth policy for the youth organisations has as yet been produced. I had a motion down with regard to this and the Minister of State responsible, Deputy Tunney, discussed it in the House in Private Members' Time. Each speaker had his own views. The Minister of State wished to put across the notion that a youth policy existed. We gave him credit for certain actions he had taken during the year. The youth organisations agree that no comprehensive policy has been produced for them. That is a failure to implement the first line of the commitment in the manifesto with regard to young people.

A guarantee was also given that 5,000 jobs would be produced specifically for young people by a variety of projects to be proposed, approved and implemented through the setting up of an employment action team. Perhaps the words might have been chosen better because in reverse they spell trial and error. This is what has been happening in this area. I know that the Employment Action Team met along with the main body and the subsidiary bodies about 74 times since it was first set up and the expenses incurred to date are just over £9,000. Five proposals were produced from that action team—a community fitness programme, an environmental improvements scheme programme, a work experience programme, an apprentice recruitment by local authorities scheme and a community based survey in Ballyfermot, which could be extended to other similar areas.

We had parliamentary questions about the community fitness programme and we discussed the merits and demerits of having people jogging in Phoenix Park on fine summer mornings. We were led to believe, initially, that approximately 800 part-time jobs were provided through this scheme. The scheme has since gone to the Department of Health and apparently has disappeared from view for the moment. The Minister for Health stated yesterday that the country would see the construction of more hospitals inside the next few years than has hitherto been witnessed. This is a tremendous achievement if it comes about. My own home town is to benefit from such a scheme. If this is the case it does not speak much for the community fitness programme that will provide 800 part-time jobs, if the results are to be cardiac arrests and sending people to the hospitals that will be constructed by the Minister for Health and his Department during the next few years.

The environmental improvements scheme programme was to be introduced through the Department of the Environment. We have a tremendous potential in tourism, but there are many areas in every corner of the country which need to be cleaned up and could be improved. The environmental improvements scheme could benefit this to a great extent. Many of the jobs to be provided will be temporary and the people to be employed will be between the ages of 18 and 25 years. The number of hours, days and weeks to be worked on each project would vary according to the size and scope of that project. There was initially some trouble with the union of assistant county engineers. In some counties they refused to implement the scheme.

The danger is this. Take a young person of 18 years of age currently drawing unemployment assistance. That boy or girl may be on an unemployment assistance rate based on board and lodgings in the house of his or her parents. The average wage to be paid through the environmental improvements scheme would be something in the region of £50 and that would possibly last for six months. That is a realistic wage and is an enormous increase from a rate of £3, £4 or £5 that a young person draws in unemployment assistance. After a certain number of months or possibly weeks, depending on the length of the project, that person has to revert to the very low rate of unemployment assistance. That could be detrimental to the attitude of young people towards work and towards society in general.

The bulk of the 5,000 special jobs were to be provided through a work experience programme. This has not got under way, due to administrative difficulties, as we were informed by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. I understand that this is to start in July and as usual discussions are going on with the National Manpower Service. I can understand that there would be administrative difficulties in that area but after 12 months of Fianna Fáil rule experience should have taught the Government that the work experience programme should by now be implemented.

The apprentice recruitment scheme by local authorities has been a dismal failure to date. I understand that something in the region of five positions have been filled at a cost of £1,000. The Minister for Labour is very concerned about the issue and is making representations to the local authorities to increase their vigilance in this area. It is a worthy idea but it has not worked. Along with the other schemes it shows a comprehensive failure to implement the committed number of jobs for young people.

The next scheme to be implemented was a community based survey in Ballyfermot, an area which necessitates a survey because it has special problems of its own. This gave employment to 33 young people for approximately a month. A sum of £10,000 was allocated initially for that project and I understand that something in the region of £8,000 has been spent on it to date. The results of the survey have not yet been published. I am sure they will be very interesting and will provide many ideas to carry out similar surveys or possibly surveys of a different nature in other areas which necessitate such surveys.

The number of jobs the manifesto stated would be created have not been created. The amount of money committed by the Government in their pre-election manifesto has not been spent. I am not decrying the fact that several hundred jobs have being created, each of a temporary nature. But this is dangerous in itself.

This leads one to discuss the area of education. I do not propose to go into detail on that. The expansion through the AnCO scheme, which is to be welcomed, gives an indication of the validity of the calls to re-orientate the trend of education from an academic to a more vocational attitude. Something in the region of £22½ million from the Exchequer as well as the money from the EEC is to be spent on the AnCO scheme. There are to be 15,000 people trained on apprenticeship courses through this. This is very worth while, but I wonder how many of those young people at the end of the courses will find employment. There are 16,542 apprentices registered with AnCO at present. Everybody agrees on the worthiness of the AnCO operation. I as glad to see that the Minister has expanded it but I am very sceptical in regard to the number of permanent positions that will be filled as a result of the completion of training courses. The National Manpower Service is to be expanded. This is welcome, but temporary jobs of short duration are a danger in themselves.

The Government committed themselves in the manifesto to the operation of youth services through schools, youth clubs and organisations. I have not heard of progress in that field. They were also to encourage the involvement of parents in youth activities. There is a fundamental philosophy behind that, because if parents bring children into the world they must be responsible for looking after them in their early years. Any person who has taught in a school can tell you that the formation of character in a child's early years is of vital importance, and if there are difficulties in the home difficulties can be created for teachers who try to do their best in overcrowded classes with possibly inadequate facilities. Even though that is a small commitment it means a lot.

The Government set up a national sports council. The people on the sports council have given of their best, and they have a wealth of experience and knowledge that very few people have. They have been somewhat hamstrung by the terms of reference they have from the Minister. These could be broadened to a considerable extent, because the experience of these people is something that should be captured.

The number of people under 25 in the country, according to the 1975 EEC labour force survey was in the region of 46,000 and of those something like 20,000 were first-time job seekers. I understand that the statistics for the 1977 labour force survey will be published shortly, and these will probably show an increase in the number of unemployed young people and first-time job seekers.

The Green Paper in many areas is sophisticated theoretical nonsense, in other areas it contains proposals that could be implemented and in other areas it contains proposals that should be implemented. Very little concern has been shown with regard to the number of people who are likely to leave or have already left this country. I would like to remind the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, that her statement to a Fianna Fáil youth conference some time ago has left imprinted in the minds of many people the idea that the Government do not seem to care about the number of people who may have to emigrate or may have emigrated already. I can well understand the atmosphere in which the statement was made and the motivation behind it, but the Minister of State could have clarified the statement a little so that young people looking at the Government's performance could say: "This Government are not in favour of emigration". At first sight a person who might not read a long speech might get the impression from the statement of the Minister of State that the Government were promoting emigration.

Coming from a western area which has been ravaged and scourged by emigration since the time of the famine it is a matter of very deep concern to me to read that in the region of 13,000 people may have left the shores of this country last year. Some of our finest brains may have left and the activities they could have engaged in for the good of the country may have been lost to us. It is a sad state of affairs if the Government of the day, with an unprecedented majority, cannot say to the young people that each and every one of them will have an opportunity to seek employment of a permanent nature or if not of a permanent nature through a series of opportunities that could lead from one to another so that young people would have an interest in work and a desire to work.

It is well-known that half of the population is under 25 years, that we have a unique demographic structure and that unemployment among young people will continue on towards the end of the century. It is a problem that must be faced and cannot be solved as the Minister of State said by labour mobility. There will always be people who will tend to leave but our problems cannot be solved by mass emigration because the other EEC countries also have difficulties in this regard. What could be done to alleviate the problem is to define exactly what the problem is, to have a reasonable estimate of the number of people under 25 who are unemployed, to compile a register so that an agency that could possibly incorporate the National Manpower Service and the other employment seeking bodies could use this register to specifically outline the number of people unemployed either as first-time job seekers or as school leavers. All the existing temporary schemes should be co-ordinated and extended to provide a planned programme of employment to give young unemployed people training opportunities. A youth employment agency with the necessary finance and authority to implement the programme should also be established.

The OECD report of April 1977 states that the basic right of young people is to a foothold in the world of work. To give opportunities in this area, a register of unemployed young people and school leavers should be set up. The programme that I envisage would co-ordinate and extend existing temporary employment schemes, either through the National Manpower Service or through an agency established by the Minister for Labour. The people employed in the agency should have experience of youth work, trade unions, industry, agriculture, education and the Government Departments. It would be a start towards progress in alleviating unemployment amongst youth.

The Government have reneged on their promises to young people. The 5,000 jobs have not been created and the £20 million has not been allocated. There is growing frustration and disenchantment among youth organisations with the Government's inactivity in regard to the various schemes.

Deputy Lemass referred to housing. There is no doubt that the income limits under the previous administration were too low. The ceiling under the Coalition Government was £4,500 and it is now £7,500. The cost of a house is now between £14,000 and £16,000, which means that young couples who intend to buy houses must have an increased amount of money. The building societies are now unable or refusing to give loans to young people to build their own houses. This means that there will be an increase in the number of young people on local authority housing lists. A cutback in that area means a backlog of applications, with social consequences of a deep nature which are not comprehended at this time.

There is a reference in the Green Paper to smallholders' assistance, which has been criticised through the years. In County Mayo there are 24,635 landholders. Nearly 10,000 have holdings in excess of 15 acres and not more than 30 acres. With the potential of many of those holdings, it is a physical impossibility to have a proper standard of living without some kind of assistance. If the multiplier for the rateable valuation is to be raised to £110, many of these people will not receive benefits and that will inflict hardship on them. The trend in the Green Paper seems to be that if cuts are to take place they will affect the less well-off sections of our community. Of those 24,000 smallholders, only 130 are development farmers and 5,500 are classified as "others". The Minister for Agriculture should take his case to the European Commission to try to eliminate the category that prevents smallholders from receiving the higher rate of grant. If agriculture is to provide the main thrust of development, we will need the greatest potential from the largest area of land. If farmers with small holdings were to receive the higher rate of grant it would give them an incentive to work harder.

Deputy Lemass referred to the road works programme. More than 1,000 miles of road need to be tarred in Mayo. This is more than double the number of miles in any other county and does not take account of roads that are not the responsibility of the county councils. EEC Council Regulations 729/70 promote the provision of public facilities. They should cover the provision of finance for roads that are not the responsibility of county councils. The responsible Minister should take this matter up with the Commission to get whatever finance he can for that area.

The Green Paper followed the White Paper and I believe there will be another White Paper in a few months. The opinion of most people now is that things are not too bad. They pay no car tax, rates have been abolished, and there have been reliefs in income tax. If you borrow £830 million in one year and splash it around, everybody will have a good time for a short time. The indications inherent in the philosophies of the Green Paper are not understood by most people. My prediction is that this time next year, if we have a similar debate, the statements of the Government will not be as congratulatory as they are today.

Mr. Smith

: It is to the eternal credit of the Fianna Fáil Government that, having come into office just a year ago and inherited an economy which was reeling under the impact of Coalition mismanagement, they have been able to blot their pessimistic attitudes from the minds of the members of that Coalition Government. We no longer have Government Ministers telling us that they have as little control over our economic destiny as a cork has over its destiny in the ocean. I do not have to name the author of that statement, the prophet of doom, the economic wizard of the previous administration.

The fact that the Opposition have been so critical of Fianna Fáil fulfilling the promises in their manifesto in one sense shows a marked improvement on their previous thinking in that they now seem to recognise, through that criticism, that a Government can influence and control to a large extent the economic problems and difficulties facing the country if they are sufficiently determined and believe they have the capacity to do it and if they get the co-operation of the people in so doing. I welcome this change of heart in members of the Coalition who see the possibilities now. They recognise that much can be achieved and if, in their criticism, they selected individual areas where we have not succeeded as we would wish, I would be the first to admit that we would far prefer to see the unemployment figures down by much more than 10,000. It is our clear determination that as we continue in office everything we can do, whether by inducement and encouragement of the private sector or by encouraging restraint in wages or by innovations or in other ways to help existing industries and encourage others, and in building up the agricultural sector, will be done to ensure that those figures drop dramatically.

The statement in the Green Paper on full employment in five years is so important now because we want to eradicate for all time the notion that we must live with the appallingly high unemployment level we still have, and which was considerably worse a year ago. I think Deputy Kenny in his concluding remarks indicated that we will have this problem up to the end of the century. It is precisely to get rid of that kind of thinking that we have been so ambitious in setting our target. Hopefully, with the co-operation of the people and of all concerned, and with the determined effort by the Government we shall go on doing more to ensure that when we come to the Adjournment Debate next year we shall talk about unemployment figures significantly lower. That further drop in unemployment will mean that more of our young people particularly will have an opportunity to get work in their own country.

Also to our credit in the past year are the dramatic fall in unemployment figures, the 11,250 additional posts in the public service which, hopefully, will all be filled by the end of the year and almost half of which have been filled to date; the inflation rate that is down to 6.2 per cent; the confidence in the country; the areas in the manifesto relating to the abolition of rates and car tax; the increased tax-free allowances. Those decisions and the implementation of Fianna Fáil policy have helped the country back on the road to recovery and set it moving forward again. If we have blotted from the minds of our colleagues in Opposition the memory of the collapsing agricultural prices in 1974; if we do not now increase petrol by 15p and say to the Irish people that we do not need the money but are increasing the price for some extraordinary reason, one of the main reasons making it possible to have this situation is the concept of planning ahead, setting targets, being realistic about what is possible and bringing the people with you.

As we succeeded to the extent to which we have succeeded in the implementation of our manifesto to the electorate a year ago, in the White Paper and now in the Green Paper we are setting out plainly for the people the road we want to travel and along which we hope to bring the people in the years ahead. It is necessary to emphasise the need always for belief in our own capacity to tackle our problems and do everything possible to ensure success.

If we have to accept the fact that so many young people cannot get jobs in the next five or ten years and we are not able to do anything about it it does not matter very much on which side of the House we are, but it matters to the future hopes and prospects of the people many of whom grew up with educational opportunities which gave them hope of good employment in their own country. I accept what Deputy Kenny said, that temporary remedies are not the answer, but we have never said nor would we like to think they are the answer, but when you must deal with the kind of disastrous situation we found when we came into power it is obvious that certain intermediate steps must be taken some of which will be experimental and some aimed at trying to take the top off the problem, as it were, as you try to establish how the more fundamental problems can be solved in a permanent way.

Some members of the Coalition may feel that we have succeeded because the international monetary and economic situation has improved. Of course it has. Is it true that the Coalition come to power when there is a world economic crisis? Or is it true that when they come to power they are instrumental in bringing on one? The world economic situation has not improved to the extent forecast; therefore, it behoves our Government to take more measures, some admittedly of a temporary nature, to ensure that we are more successful. The information from Europe has been that in combating inflation and bringing down unemployment we have been more successful than many of our partners in the EEC, admittedly moving from a lower base.

I would ask the Minister for the Environment to ensure that there is no let-up in the provision of finance for the continuing development of housing. In the past ten or 12 years there has been a fair improvement in the number of houses provided each year and we must ensure that those figures are increased. The level of capital necessary seems to increase all the time.

With regard to the grant scheme of £1,000 for a new house, I would ask the Minister to ensure that it is well publicised, particularly in rural areas, that these grants are available to people living in rural areas where they replace their existing homes and where these houses are converted for agricultural use or demolished. Indications have been given to some people that the grants will not be available and I should like the Minister to ensure that this does not happen.

In relation to the scheme for house improvement grants, if a person applies for such a grant in an area where there are water and sewerage schemes he may obtain a full grant of £600 for the installation of new windows, doors, floors and works of a non-structural improvement nature. However, in an area where there is no water supply, a person might re-roof the house and carry out major reconstruction work and not qualify for the full £600 grant because there was not a domestic water supply. In every county there are many thousands of houses without a domestic water supply. I would ask the Minister to ensure that there is no discrimination against people who live in isolated areas and who do not benefit from the water and sewerage schemes that service many of the built-up areas.

It is vital for the development of the country that we continue to ensure that more and more money is put into the servicing of land around our towns and villages. A person has no prospect of providing a house for himself if he cannot buy a site at a reasonable cost. The astronomical prices presently being obtained are a great disincentive and create hardship for people who wish to build their own homes. The only effective way is to make sure that the pool of land available for building is serviced as quickly as possible so that more private sites will be available in towns and villages. In recent times there has been the encouraging development where people who live in local authority estates have been trying to build houses for themselves thus leaving the local authority houses available for other tenants. Such people need every help and incentive.

Earlier in the debate I listened to the remarks of the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, with particular reference to the allocation of money for roads. He said that more money was provided when he was in office than we are providing. To put the record right, the figures in respect of expenditure on roads are as follows: for 1975 the figure was £13,770,000; in 1976 it was £11,640,000 and in 1977 it was £18,830,000. A considerable proportion of that money was made up in the latter part of the year when Fianna Fáil were in office. In 1978 the figure was £22,710,000. It would take the most extraordinary mathematician to be able to sustain the argument that the figures were greater when our predecessors were in office.

Thanks to the Minister for the Environment and the Government, each county has a level of grants that is much higher than heretofore and schemes that were left in abeyance for years have started again. There is one other point which should be addressed to the empty Labour benches, namely, that men who retired from road work service in local authorities during the past four or five years almost invariably were not replaced. In my county 24 men retired in the three years from 1974 to the end of 1976, none of whom was replaced. Since we went back into office these men have been replaced and additional numbers have been employed. It is important, particularly in outlying rural areas, that we have the manpower capable of carrying out necessary road improvements in future years. Our roads have deteriorated and a lot of leeway has to be made up. More money will have to be provided to ensure that we have a network of roads not only to serve our own people but also to help the growth in industrial and commercial activity that will be necessary to sustain the economy in the years ahead.

There has been a fairly good improvement in the money provided for new schools, for improvement schemes for existing schools and for hospitals. These areas need the maximum capital possible if we are to provide in the schools the proper environment for our young people and better facilities in our hospitals for the sick. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Health and for Social Welfare. Some appointments had been sought in the county hospital in Nenagh for the past few years. Comhairle na nOspidéal have now agreed that these positions will be filled and the health board are setting about recruiting an anaesthetist, a county surgeon and a county physician. All this will enable the hospital, which is providing such an excellent medical and surgical service in that part of my constituency, to develop in the years ahead.

I refer to one other matter in relation to health but not directly connected with it. I ask the Minister for Health to sanction speedily the provision of a sheltered workshop for Roscrea. This scheme, which was submitted recently to the Department by the Western Health Board, envisages adults from St. Anne's Home for mentally retarded people in Roscrea obtaining work in this sheltered workshop. A very energetic committee have been set up under the auspices of the Friends of St. Annes who have gone to all the local industries and asked them for any type of employment they would envisage handicapped people being able to do. I would like to pay tribute here to that committee and the industries who so far have agreed to provide employment for those physically and mentally handicapped people. I urge the Minister to encourage in any way possible similar committees throughout the country and the nursing sisters, brothers and lay people who are doing such a marvellous job in coping with and catering for our mentally and physically handicapped. Nothing that he or any of us could do would repay adequately those very dedicated people for the services that they provide in such a worthy area.

I want to say a few words on the agricultural situation. Perhaps no Government who ever came to office here fully realised the potential for agricultural development in this country. I exhort our own Government to be more ambitious in their hopes and aspirations for the further development of that industry. Agricultural processing has presented some problems including loss of employment in recent times, particularly because of an anomaly in the monetary compensatory amounts which give an advantage to English processing factories vis-à-vis the Irish ones. It is a great tragedy that at the moment it is possible to export a live cow for canning in England, that that cow can be processed in a British factory and that the cooked beef so produced can be sold on the British and Irish markets at up to 18p per lb. cheaper than we can produce it here. I ask the Minister for Agriculture in tackling this problem in the EEC to be as diligent as he possibly can in getting the necessary changes made. In dealing with such problems on the European scene we are perhaps too European and not nationally minded enough. We have to show our mettle and our teeth when we come up against problems of that kind. If we are going to develop our agricultural resources and if the top nine inches of soil on 14 million acres of our land can be raised to its full potential in introducing cattle and cereals, surely it must follow logically that we want to be able to process to the greatest possible extent what we produce on that land in this country, thus providing much needed employment. Therefore the fact that it is possible to export some of our produce in the raw state to England where it can be processed or cooked for sale to their advantage over the Irish producers cannot be tolerated.

Finally, I would like to mention land prices and the inter-departmental committee on land structuring reform. Earlier in the debate I interrupted Deputy Bermingham to ask him what had been done in this matter during the term of the Coalition. He said that our Government have had a report before them for the past 12 months on this matter and have done nothing about it. I want to say for the record that the interim report was given to the Government only on 18 May last. The final report has yet to be produced. What the Deputy said at that time was inaccurate.

Mr. F. O'Brien

: We have had to live for a year with the present Government. A year ago they came in with what they call their manifesto. If you have a problem we will solve it. No matter what the problems were, whether you had invested your money in a dubious bank which went bankrupt or it was something to do with your mortgage, no matter what it was they had the instant solutions. They were parading this magnificent document around the country for a fair length of time. We were getting all sorts of promises as to what was and was not going to happen. All sorts of papers were coming out, and eventually this was hatched by their maestro. But what was he hatching? What they had given, or allegedly given, last year was to be taken back. Who are to blame for all this? The people. The people were spending too much. The people were not facing up to their responsibilities. They should share this and they should share that.

But what encouragement did the people get? They bought these promises in good faith, but these promises have not lasted very long. The chickens have come home to roost in a big way and we have now a totally discredited Government. From the way they marketed their manifesto one would say that the package that they sold did not live up to the guarantee. If we had some good consumer law I have no doubt that Fianna Fáil would have been brought before the courts of justice and made to answer for this gross dishonesty. They foisted on the people a Green Paper. They must think the people are as green as the paper. But the people are not green. The Taoiseach said this morning it was a novel paper. It certainly is novel. It is funny if one has a somewhat cynical sense of humour but for people who have to live it is not funny. Right through there is the implication about taking this, and taking that, and taking the other.

Mr. V. Brady

: The Deputy should read it.

Mr. F. O'Brien

: Deputy Brady comes from a centre city constituency. When we were in government we set about developing housing. It was not cheap, slipshod housing like the housing prior to 1973. Here in this Green Paper there is a critical review. I would hope that any finance spent on education, housing, or whatever, would come under critical review but "critical review" in this Green Paper means "cutback". Here again we have the double think. Henceforth in the English language "critical review" will mean a cutback in services. It is tragic to think that those who require the basic necessity of housing will now have to wait in intolerable living conditions because the present Government have absolutely no social commitment of any kind.

But it is not just housing. Every sphere of social activity is affected— social welfare, children's allowances, medical cards. You name it, it is there. This is where the Government aim to put the squeeze and, in that process, they are removing the wealth tax. They can tax children's allowances but not the wealthy. Mark you, there were not that many of them and they have an obligation to pay their fair share of taxation. The ones who kicked were the ones who were not paying and the only reason why they kicked was that they were afraid they might be caught in other forms of tax evasion. That was their fear.

So much for the commitment of the present Government. Consider their record on industrial relations. Since coming into office they have literally stood idly by in various industrial disputes. In the one in Limerick 1,200 to 1,500 jobs were lost. They were like Pontius Pilate, washing their hands and blaming everyone else; it was an inter-union dispute and they could not interfere. No initiatives were taken until it was too late. The jobs were gone. No effort whatsoever was made to save them.

We had a postal dispute and a telephone dispute. Business orders running into millions were lost. But the Government could not interfere. They could not be seen to be involved. They said they did not want to create precedents. But people were losing jobs and businesses were losing millions. Our prestige was sinking lower and lower. Our competitiveness was being eroded. Why? Because we had a Government afraid to take decisions and act on them. At some stage they said a committee would be set up to look into industrial relations. When a Government want to do nothing they set up a committee. That relieves them of their responsibility.

The problems are still there and until the Government come out with a proper policy on industrial relations we will have these problems. It is regrettable that in the last 12 months nothing has been done in this very vital area. If word gets about that we are not reliable, cannot be depended upon to produce the goods, have not got stable working conditions, industrialists will simply not come here. There is a golden opportunity now for developing a proper policy on indusstrial relations. It does not require legislation. It just requires the will to get employers, trade unions and workers together. Remember, they all have one thing in common—they all want to earn a living and they all want to see whatever jobs they are doing progressing in a meaningful way. But that can only be done if relations are ordered in a proper way.

What have the Government done about incentives towards setting up this type of industrial democracy? Nothing. Have there been any meaningful discussions? Not that I know of. Governments are elected to take the initiative in matters like this. They are the leaders of our community. They should bring together the various people concerned, not across a table but around a table. There is genuine goodwill on all sides. It must be tapped. It must be helped. It must be supported. It must be nurtured. One can only get that type of leadership from a Government that is concerned. This Green Paper shows very little concern. It talks about cutbacks in this, that and the other. It is a gentle reminder of what will happen. The Government will subtly try to throw the onus and the blame on others when they themselves have been totally irresponsible from the word "go". They did not have a policy. They had a document which was unreal and totally dishonest. It misled people and gave them great expectations. What do we get now? Here are our expectations— bad housing and roads.

In this city we should have, as well as reasonable roads a proper transport system, a rapid rail system, support for CIE. This Government have done away with the rapid rail system. Maybe they want to develop the roads as a bonus for their friends in the building confederation and this is a way of repaying them for past favours, but that will not solve the problems facing the people who have to get to work every day. There is no question that dismissing a rail system in a city as big as Dublin and a city which is expanding like Dublin—Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Tallaght and so on—was a wrong move. In many cases there are rail services near these satellite towns and the overall cost to get things moving would not be great. The Government eliminated the rapid rail system at one fell swoop; it is not to be considered. That is not good enough. It shows a total lack of any kind of development.

The Green Paper was devised by one gentleman. When Fianna Fáil were on this side of the House they were always sniping at the "intellectuals on the far side" as if they were something strange. Now they have their own intellectual and he is strange. He has produced this document. If we wanted to expand our film business we could make a comedy of this, possibly at the expense of the Irish people.

When one looks back one sees the promises and the hopes that people pinned on this Government, but in a short period of 12 months we have to come here and tell Fianna Fáil that their gimmickry fooled the Irish people once but will not fool them again. It is sad that a Government which historically had a social conscience and concern for the ordinary man in the street have now reneged on those people. That is obvious from the Green Paper.

Children's allowances give women a reasonable monthly income they can call their own and now the Government are talking about taxing them. Instead, they should be saying "what can we do to support the woman who stays at home to rear her children?" What thanks do these people, who are the bedrock of our society, get for doing this job? Nothing but a threat of tax on their allowances. The Government cannot be serious when they talk like this. We should be supplementing children's allowances by a direct contribution to the housewife. The tax allowances for a wife and children should be paid directly to the wife. That might solve many of our social problems, because many women go to work from economic necessity. As a result we have the cult of the latchkey children. It is sad when so many children come from school and have to let themselves into their homes and look after themselves. We have seen this sort of thing going on for quite some time now and it is costing us a great deal. Governments that cannot see this are Governments that lack concern.

One must critically examine what has happened over the last 12 months. It was a non-event. No doubt we will have Fianna Fáil coming up with the hair-shirt budgets, we will have to pull in our belts, share our jobs and so on. You—the people, will have to do it. We are not responsible, you are and you will have to put it right. The people will not and cannot accept this because they were led to expect great things from Fianna Fáil.

Workers signed a national wage agreement for 8 per cent because they had a responsibility to ensure that inflation was kept down and that prices were competitive. They must feel a little disillusioned now because they have been sold short. The Government should not be talking about removing food subsidies on butter and on the staple items of the ordinary person's diet, but that is what they are saying. Prices are rising rapidly and the Government are now going to cut back. Who will suffer most? The old age pensioners and the people with big families who spend a large part of their income on that type of food. Proportionately these are the people who will have to pay. That is not what we are about in this House. If we are honest we must examine the whole tax structure and the whole question of the redistribution of wealth and how this can be put into effect in order to improve the quality of life for all our people but particularly for those in the lower income group.

It has transpired that most of the proposals put before the people by Fianna Fáil in June last are meaningless. For instance, in my constituency where the percentage owning cars is small, the road tax changes made little difference. Also, many of my constituents live in local authority accommodation but the rates relief in their case was nullified a couple of weeks later. Because of the high proportion of large families in that constituency many people are not within the tax bracket and, therefore, do not benefit from the changes in the income tax code. There is nothing ahead but more hardship for people like these. Is this, then, the new philosophy of Fianna Fáil, the philosophy that the rich become richer while the poor become poorer? There is a cutting back on local authority housing. This means that people in need of housing will have to wait longer to be accommodated. There are to be cutbacks, too, in children's allowances and in the fields of health and education.

It gives me no pleasure to have to draw attention to these matters. Indeed, this is a sad occasion for us because we realise how the people were fooled by the false promises of this false Government who have the gall to try to sell this latest document to the people. There is no evidence of any sense of purpose or of trying to engender the right type of attitude and will. There is nothing in the Green Paper that will make the nation move again. We need a Government who are concerned, who are prepared to take action and initiative. That is why we must repudiate this document. We must be critical of the lack of legislation so far as the Government are concerned. All we have had so far are gimmicks. There is no leadership and worst of all, no sign of any improvement in the situation. The sooner the Government are removed the better so that the country can once again be led by a government who are concerned with the welfare of the people. Until such time as we are returned to power the country will continue in its present rocky-boat situation.

The first year of this Government has been a disaster and the future looks just as bleak.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Jun 1978