Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Feb 1979

Vol. 311 No. 2

White Paper “Programme for National Development 1978-1981”: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approves the targets for economic and social development and the supporting policies set out in the Government's White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-1981".

—(The Taoiseach).

Dr. O'Connell

As I said last night, the programme for national development could be commendable if it incorporated a concomitant social programme for the years 1978 to 1981 but unfortunately before any programme is capable of having the full co-operation of all the people it must embody a sense of justice. I cannot find any basis in this programme for social justice. The PAYE workers whose co-operation is needed for the implementation of this programme are being callously disregarded. Up to now they have been carrying the full burden of the taxation structure. Out of every £ collected in income tax, 85p comes from PAYE workers whereas a miserable 2p in every £ is collected from the farmers. Since we joined the EEC a total of £950 million by way of grants and subsidies has accrued to agriculture and the farmers have received more than 90 per cent, or £880 million of that amount, but all they have paid in tax is £17.4 million. This is further evidence of our unjust society. The Government must realise that in order for any programme for national development to work, there must be a sense of equity and justice throughout the community.

Last year there was a growth rate in our economy of 7 per cent but no advantage whatever accrued to the deprived members of our society. All they got were the miserable crumbs—an increase that was barely in line with the cost of living. Regardless of all the talk there may be about the growth in our economy, there remain 600,000 people who are living below the poverty line. In such circumstances how can we claim to have made remarkable progress?

The White Paper contains vague statements about social development but there is no indication of a commitment to eliminate poverty by 1981. There are references, though, to investigations but such investigations could have taken place years ago. During this winter the aged have suffered badly. We were not even able to supply them with the free fuel to which they are entitled. There should have been a massive relief campaign to help in this regard.

This year is the year of the child. There are 1.1 million children in this country but have we done anything to bring our social services in the area of child care up to the level obtaining among other member states? There have not been any increases in children's allowance so that all we are doing is paying lip service to the needs of our people when we talk about a 7 per cent increase in economic growth.

I have no wish to be accused of farmer bashing. I am in favour of the common agricultural policy but the fault lies with our taxation structure because we are not ensuring that the burden of taxation is spread equitably.

If we are to talk about progress we must talk also of the state of our industrial relations. The situation in this regard is at a very low ebb. We rank next to Britain as the worst in Europe in this area. The situation can be compared with a cancerous growth eating away at our whole society. Strikes are an everyday affair. This situation is causing a great deal of hardship. There is something radically wrong in a system that does not provide for the carrying out of investigations in time rather than waiting until the eleventh hour. The Labour Court, as it structured, is not capable of tackling the problem of industrial relations. I am wondering whether it is badly staffed or whether it is a matter of the system being archaic. As Minister for Labour in the last Government, Deputy O'Leary advocated the introduction of an early warning system. That was an admirable suggestion. It envisaged the inclusion of such a committee of top trade union officials but my understanding of the situation is that there were disagreements regarding the composition of the committee and that the experts would not be allowed to be members of it. In addition the salaries offered to the officials who were to be appointed were so low that we would only have been able to attract people of mediocre calibre. It is incumbent on the Government to ascertain, first, how we can restructure the Labour Court so that it can deal adequately with disputes and, secondly, there is the question of the inadequate staffing of the Labour Court. The Labour Court is not properly or adequately staffed and as a result there is a backlog of cases coming before it. When I broached the subject to a trade union official of the transport union and mentioned a 60-day cooling off period he said: "Yes, if the Labour Court were operating properly and could deal with our cases in time", but a 60-day cooling off period could become a six months cooling off period because of the time lag in cases being investigated by the Labour Court. It is incumbent on the Government to look urgently at the question of how the Labour Court tackles and copes with these problems.

Management must bear a great portion of the blame for the present state of industrial unrest. The post office strike was a glaring example of management being absolutely pig-headed in dealing with a problem that concerned 12 hours' overtime which was eventually conceded. Tremendous overtime was involved in taking care of the backlog of work. There was no question of that man being taken to task for bringing about a strike that was not the workers' fault.

Dr. Woods

I welcome the White Paper and the Taoiseach's speech on it yesterday. It is important at the outset to recognise that this is a step in the historical development of planning. We have seen planning over the years since the first programme for economic development in 1959 and with this present plan we see the latest attempt at planning economic and social development. There have been many criticisms in the past of planning, its success or failure, merits or demerits. I am totally in favour of planning as a concept. The Taoiseach made it quite clear that the broad plans which were set out by Fianna Fáil in the election manifesto have been adhered to in subsequent policy decisions possibly in a more detailed and accurate way than we have ever done in the past. This is possibly because we made very definite positive commitments and, in Government, we set out to achieve them. The Taoiseach indicated that the plans which were set out were ambitious ones. They were. I prefer ambitious targets where we set something a little bit ahead of ourselves but which are realistic.

We know that a plan must provide a sense of direction and must give to those participating confidence in the planners, in the system, in the State in total. It must also give continuity especially in relation to investment and, in so far as the employee is concerned, in relation to the terms and conditions of his employment. This plan will give us a sense of direction. It certainly can give us confidence because to date in so far as we have gone we have broadly achieved the targets we have set. We know that was the first phase of the plan and we are now entering the more difficult second phase. The implementation of the plan and the detailed follow-through is one of the areas where, in the past and particularly during the sixties, we fell down on. From the Taoiseach's speech yesterday it is evident that the Government are determined to pursue these plans in every detail and I trust that this will be the spirit and the attitude in implementing the plans.

We have set very high jobs targets in this White Paper. We cannot succeed in our plans unless we achieve the support of all sectors of the community. I am interested in the development of a hire service which will be dealing with temporary hire situations. This is one of the first steps to be taken in the programme. In conjunction with the training programmes which have been vastly expanded in recent years I see the hire agency as having an extremely important function. To date I have not seen spelled out how the hire agency will function. I see one of its functions as providing employment rather than disillusionment for the people. The concept here is good and right but the detailed application will be vital. In this concept of work we will have to examine in great detail the possibilities and potential bearing in mind the various interests that exist and the necessity to avoid conflict in any new services which are introduced. I see the hire service as turning our problems into our opportunities. It is not too difficult to see that the hire service could provide employment opportunities of a temporary character on community work of various kinds. We have often spoken about the need for improvements at community level. We have only to go out and see the great sprawling communities which have developed in recent years around our cities to realise the amount of work which can be done to add to the quality of life in these communities. Perhaps by improving the standard of these services in a temporary way we would learn where we could be doing something more permanent.

There must be considerable scope for expanding operations in the forestry sector and also for the hire service to provide temporary assistance. The whole environmental area is one which would demand a great deal of effort and attention and perhaps through this service we would be able to provide people for environmental work. If we stretch our imagination a little further we can also see that in relation to the various social services we have a tremendous need in terms of home helps, nursing and assistance for geriatrics. I am sure that on teasing out the various areas of deficiency in our community we could find a great deal of work which could be done through the hire service. Its concept is right and good. A great deal remains to be seen as regards the implementation of this new service. More than anything, if it provides for the school leaver and the unemployed person a guaranteed form of temporary, useful and valuable employment in conjunction with the training services, it could be a blessing. There are many facets and areas of our activities which are underdeveloped and which, to date, we have not had the foresight or commitment as a society to develop. Through such a service we would have the opportunity to tackle some of these even in a temporary way. From the experience we gain, we can then see what the longer term developments might be.

Looking at our great asset, our young people, and thinking in terms of this hire service and the way in which it might be developed, I can see tremendous possibilities. We should give scope and opportunities to our young people who have a reasonable amount of experience from such a service. We should put a nucleus of young people—six, eight, ten or 12 of them—to work on particular projects and give them special support. This would mean defining the projects and supporting them financially. I see this as a blessing in disguise and we should be doing a great deal more of it. We have an enormous untapped asset, but we do not know how to use it fully at this stage. I am not saying that in any critical sense. It is a world-wide problem. The age of greatest contribution and innovation in a technical sense is approximately between 20 and 35 years, which puts me beyond it. As a society we are not sufficiently cognisant of that as a reality.

It is very easy for the media and for ourselves to become totally involved in the major economic and other problems, and the obvious major steps ahead. The developments in the next decade may well be innovations which we do not see at this stage but which are going ahead under the surface. If we could broaden the base, we could have more outward-going, industrious and enterprising developments within our society. We have to tackle very seriously our whole approach to enterprise, not just as enormous State corporations or consortia which are very important. We must examine the details of our approach to enterprise as individuals. Whether we like it or not, our young people are the most enterprising and most creative people in our society. They need the guidance, the maturity and the sophistication of their elders, but let us be clear that the future is theirs, and never before were they trained so well to take on the task which confronts them.

I am particularly interested in the new hire agency. It offers many possibilities. I hope it will be tackled imaginatively and will receive the support of all those in the various sectors of our society, unions, management, State and semi-State bodies, because it is a clear-cut attempt to deal with the residual facets of our problems. I welcome it very much. I dwelt on it for some time because it is a very important development. I hope that, in discussions on it over the next few weeks or months, other Deputies will give their views and make their suggestions and proposals, and not just criticise and make little of suggestions just because they are in Opposition. I hope they will add to them and enlarge them in the interests of all unemployed people, and the countless thousands of young people who are looking for jobs and will be looking for jobs in future years. I am glad this proposal has been carried through into the White Paper. I know it was in the Green Paper. I look forward to the development of this concept in association with the Manpower and AnCO services.

I note in the White Paper the continuation of the Government's policy in relation to public expenditure and the proportion of gross national product being reduced to approximately 10½ per cent in 1979. This is not surprising because it was a commitment in the Government's initial plans. I also note the commitment to reduce the cost of the service of the public debt which has and will have in the future a great influence in freeing resources for more productive use.

The question of incomes and industrial relations is one of the major topical questions of our time, not only here but particularly in the neighbouring country across the water. I do not suggest that the various interested groups within our society should not press their claims and their views as they see fit. Of course they must press their claims to maintain balance and to keep their parties. I appeal to all sectors involved to consider the common sense of the proposals put by the Government and to look at the whole problem of a two-speed Europe. This is a very real problem and has been so particularly in the past five years. With our membership of the European Monetary System we can bring this under much greater control if we desire to do so.

The Minister has been making references to events and developments on the Continent and suggesting to the unions that they might examine the possibilities there and come back with their own proposals and suggestions in relation to developments on the Continent. I very much welcome that approach. I have believed in it for a long time. When I was a young post-graduate I became very committed to this view. At a very early age I could see the differences and I could see what was happening. Currently many of our young people can see these differences and we are not giving them sufficient credit for what they can see.

I welcome the emphasis on looking at our colleagues in Europe. If we look at them, we must accept one fact, that is, that they are successful. They are vigorous in their approach to work. They do not necessarily work longer hours, but they do a day's work. There is nothing exceptional about their standards, nothing we cannot match, but they have a commitment to work and, in their commitment, they turn out the goods within their hours of work. It is very important for us all, whether we are in Dáil Éireann or working at the factory bench, that while we are at work we achieve a good level of productivity. If we can do that, we can join or come close to the higher speed developments in growth and incomes which exist on the Continent. Logically this is the way we would all like to go. I hope everyone will bear this in mind in the forthcoming discussions and negotiations on pay.

A significant development last year was the stabilisation of the £. At this stage we have the choice of continuing to stabilise our currency in international terms or of weakening it by losing sight of the economics of our situation. It is important to bear that in mind from the point of view of the employee. I know it is not of relevance to those on low incomes. What is important to them is that the £ retains its purchasing power. It is important that people on higher incomes recognise that aspect in any demands which they may make. As far as the lower income group is concerned, we should bear in mind the criterion of take-home pay. In regard to the developments in the White Paper and in the forthcoming budget, I trust that both the Minister for Finance and the Government bear in mind the value in real terms of the take-home pay of the lower income group. This criterion must be constantly kept in mind because it is critical for those whose incomes are in the middle and lower brackets.

There is general agreement that take-home pay should be adequate. It should meet requirements like the cost of transport, which is an expensive element for the lower income group. We must leave the worker with a reasonable wage. Now that we have come to the age of equality in so many areas, we must make allowances for families by giving them better allowances to counteract the movement towards equality in incomes between single and married people. This can be done in a variety of ways. Nobody would be too upset if luxuries were taxed more. We have the option of putting more tax on non-essentials like drink and cigarettes. As far as basics are concerned, we must concentrate on real take-home pay, bearing in mind the size of the family.

In relation to children's allowances, I have previously suggested that the period between the ages of 12 and 18 is a critical one in terms of consumption. During that period children use basic things such as clothes and food at a higher rate than adults. I have experience of this in my home and in many other homes. I should like to see improved allowances in that area which would be of assistance to families with children who are continuing their education beyond second level. The whole question of pay and incomes is important. One of the main requirements for people with incomes in excess of £5,000 per year is that we maintain the value of the £ and increase net productivity. When we are doing well we are reluctant to admit it. The Government are striving to maintain stability. It is vital for people in the middle and higher income groups that the programmes of the Government succeed. In relation to the lower income group, it is important to bear in mind the criterion of take-home pay.

I hope that all elements in our society will unite to fight the evils of unemployment, greed and envy. The Government are dealing with unemployment in an effective manner. It is up to us through our various interest groups to deal with the evils of greed and envy. If we were faced with war we would all unite to fight. The real problem that faces us now is whether we are prepared to unite in peace to fight unemployment and social disability. We should make sensible plans to improve our lot.

I have already referred to the provision of secretarial assistance for Oireachtas Members at local level as a means of improving the quality of the service which can be given to the public. This job would come within the province of the hire agency in so far as it could be defined as temporary—perhaps hopefully recurring.

I was particularly interested in the emphasis in the White Paper on industry. I appreciate that industry and agriculture are to receive the backing and assistance necessary for their enterprise and investment within the country. I welcome this policy and approach, which I think is the right one. I trust the response will continue to come from the industrial and agricultural sectors. Nevertheless, the State-sponsored sector will continue to have a major part to play. In the Taoiseach's speech he recognises this. He has said that it is a definite commitment of the Government to expand the food processing industry, in particular the dairy and beef industry. The IDA have drawn up their special development programme for that sector. Again, this is in line with the general policies put forward earlier.

I note that the State companies have been invited to put forward proposals for expansion or new ventures to the Industrial Development Consortium. We need to clarify our minds on the matter of State involvement in the development of industry and in meeting the targets we are proposing. I welcome the body which is to examine a certain number of the semi-State bodies and make recommendations and I look forward to its early report. It is essential at this stage to review the role and function of the semi-State sector and clarify our minds as to the task we see for that sector. The Government have clearly put an emphasis on the development of private industry and I welcome that decision. In the case of the semi-State sector we must decide whether these bodies are political instruments or development agencies. Within the semi-State bodies there can easily be confusion as to the extent to which they are either one or the other. In the case of a body like the IDA their brief is very clear and there is no such problem but if we examine them in detail we find that in many of the other bodies—and I know this from my own experience in dealing with these bodies—there can easily be confusion between the political aspect of their work and the straightforward, developmental one. I believe there is no cosy in-between situation. You can end up playing politics too much in decision-making and even having to play politics too much in decision-making because of the kind of responses that are expected even from this House and because of the questions asked in this House. One can fall between these two things and end up trying to meet political criteria rather than risk taking in the developmental sense. I should certainly like to see this matter cleared.

I believe that semi-State bodies have a very considerable role as developmental agencies. If they are to fulfil that role we should review the system of the employment and remuneration of the chief personnel and managers of these industries. We cannot say on one hand that we want people to undertake a semi-political, semi-cosy job and on the other hand that we want other people to take on a risk-taking entrepreneurial task without identifying the differences that exist in these situations. Perhaps we should be looking at the feasibility of a contract system for top management in semi-State bodies which have the character of a developmental agency. I say this because I believe that to make a real input in that sort of agency one can continue for perhaps five years and, if exceptional, one might do it for ten years but one must seriously question the desirability of retaining people permanently in such positions if we want them to act as innovators and developmental agencies. Unless our system of payment and remuneration and reward relates to that concept and strategy it is unlikely to succeed and difficulties arise in that the people in these jobs can be viewed from various angles by various people without a clear idea as to their specific function.

This would not mean that a top civil servant could not go in and undertake a task like that for five years or ten years and then revert to a more directly civil service type of function but during the period while an individual was undertaking the stress, strain and risk that go with a developmental agency he should be rewarded and compensated accordingly. If we do not recognise this we shall lose a great deal of the potential which exists. I should like to see this difference in the semi-State bodies analysed and examined from that point of view and arrangements made so that what I envisage can and will happen and so that a person will be able to stand up and say: "I undertook this task for a five-year period", and have a suitable contract covering the time while he is undertaking that particularly onerous and risky task which can quite often, if you are to take the risks and be really developmental, involve errors and mistakes and even odium from time to time. Unless we get people who will risk that for the sake of the country, take the risks and not have to look over a political shoulder then we are not bringing the dynamism necessary into our planning and development that I believe is possible and we shall not reach the potential we should be able to achieve.

The young people have a great deal to offer in the development of this plan and I hope they will be built into it as the plan progresses. Here we must be more imaginative in the use of our qualified personnel now that we have given them the kind of education which is far above what existed ten, 15 or 20 years ago. With the vast numbers completing second-level education and increasing numbers at third level, we must recognise the effect of this on our economy and our development. I am very glad that the Taoiseach at every opportunity emphasises the value of the asset which we have in our young people. Here I come back to the detailed follow-through of the broad plans which are laid out in the White Paper, and the detail brings us down to how exactly we are going to give these people the kind of opportunities for which they are equipped. We have gone part of the way in that with the new enterprise development programme whereby capital will be provided if one has the ideas and the enterprise ideal. I recognise from my reading of what has been happening in that programme that very solid, secure and mature people who have a very good background in business and industry are the kind of people coming forward. That is excellent, and that is the first phase or first line in that development. I would like to see us being more risk-taking and getting more of the young people into business and industry at an early stage. Our regional technical colleges, national institutions for higher education and universities have a very serious responsibility here to give the young people an orientation towards industry and agriculture and away from purely service-type vocations.

You can set the framework and give the backing, but somebody has to come in and do the undertaking. Someone has to put his back into it. There are no stronger backs or better minds for that than those of young people who have received a good basic education. I would like to see more detailed teasing out of how these people might be involved. I was involved once in an experiment with seven graduates who got down to a very mundane industrial type of project with which they would not have been familiar previously. Arising from the experience they got in that, they went on and became involved in different areas and set up operations of their own. They got an insight into the starting of something from the grass roots, so to speak. We should try to find a means of getting young people with education off the ground in that sense.

I welcome also what is a novelty in this White Paper, the emphasis on the co-operatives in the industrial areas. Here we have the same sort of problem facing us in that we are at a stage of innovation, and again the Government in the White Paper are providing the sense of direction and leadership and are making a commitment. The follow-through in detail will require a good deal of risk-taking and attempts which perhaps will not be successful. I would like to see this co-operative venture pressed very far. I have been involved in such myself and I realise that the amount of work—unseen work—in this area is phenomenal, and no one will give recognition or identity to it until the job is completed and running smoothly. Therefore, there is a long lead-in time, so to speak, to that sort of operation. I am delighted that the Government are putting it down as one of their primary means of achieving the targets. I hope they will take into consideration here the young graduates of our universities and third-level institutes.

In conclusion, I welcome very much the White Paper and the Taoiseach's speech of yesterday. They are giving us a sense of direction and are providing us with confidence and leadership. It is our task and the task of all the interest groups and pressure groups to take it up from there and develop the minutiae and detail which will make it into a successful programme for all our people.

Mr. Keating

John F. Kennedy once said that aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed. In a sense this sums up present Government policy and thinking with regard to the major social and economic challenges of the day. Although many of these are very obvious and more remain to be defined or analysed clearly, the essential and fundamental failure of the Government's White Paper, and indeed the whole trinity of such papers that we have had subsequent to the manifesto, is evident. These documents indicate the unwillingness or inability by the Government to govern. It is a fundamental concept of government that a government elected with a substantial mandate should get on with the job. The policy of option-presenting which is much favoured by the present Government is not central to the role of government, and certainly not in the case of a government who came into office with a clear plan and a clear mandate. These papers in some cases have taken almost two years to produce. A government who spend time in presenting options must realise that in the prevailing economic and political climate of western Europe results cannot be achieved quickly, and in some cases it is necessary to achieve results quickly. Therefore, those who indulge in presenting options, despite having given the impression that they have the answers to many questions—answers which did not need to ask people for reaction to options—must understand that that period of option assessment is a period of inertia. There is a crying need at present for sense of government leadership. One gets the impression that there are very few Ministers who enjoy making decisions or the job of government, which surely must be the most exciting and fascinating social challenge. That is regrettable, because these papers that we have are interesting academic exercises, but little more. They provide fodder for debates such as this which, in the cosmic order of things, is not going to change much anyway. Surely in the collective wisdom of the Government and reading between the lines of these various documents that have been published, there is a clear understanding by the Government of some of the actions that need to be taken; yet nothing is happening. That is a missed opportunity and we will pay the price of that later on. The papers themselves are very woolly in many respects.

The White Paper under discussion contains very many references to policies being considered, being evaluated, under consideration, or being actively pursued. If things are not being examined serious examination is being given to their feasibility. Review groups are set up to examine and report on the feasibility of doing something, an interdepartmental committee established to make recommendations, a commission established which has been asked to give priority to the consideration of yet another matter. The Government in another area are actually considering steps. Yet again, there are proposals for the establishment of a framework for progress in course of preparation. That is sad. Here are a government who have to give voice to an expression as an excuse for getting on with the job of governing—a phrase such as "proposals for the establishment of a framework for progress are in course of preparation". Indeed, the most junior sub-editor on the most junior provincial paper would certainly draw a blue line through that one. The sad thing is that it is not just a sub-editorial exercise. This is supposed to be the job of government and it is not being done. All the clauses, qualifications, review bodies and processes of consideration going on are an indication either of inability or of the lack of will to govern. If either of those is present this country is in trouble. I believe there is a merit in making decisions. I believe the people want decisions made. I believe further that the people would be willing, even now and again, to accept in the aggregate that decisions would be right but that there would be some wrong decisions, rather than have none. If government means anything it is about running a country, not throwing options to the winds, listening closely to the response and then timorously taking very short steps to achieve very long-term targets.

The White Paper itself covers certain aspects in respect of which it would have been possible, without major political, social or economic implications, to take steps which could have indicated clearly the Government's basic willingness or backbone to get on with the job. For example, in paragraph 2.14 there is one such example of the very scant treatment that the library of literature emanating from this Government has devoted to social policy. The reference is to what is euphemistically called the need for the greatest degree of simplicity consistent with proper management and control of the services and that the rights and dignity of the individual are protected. This paragraph would appear to give the impression of concern by the Government that the rights and dignity of the individual should be protected. I am sure we all concur in that. The one obvious gesture that could be made in that direction which could be perhaps effective in some respects is the immediate appointment of an ombudsman, but that is not said because that would be a decision. In paragraph 2.15, under the same general heading, we read:

Whether directly involved or not, the Government will welcome and facilitate the contribution that local organisations make to the creation of a better life for all members of the community and, where appropriate, will do all it can to encourage the development of community-based organisations.

If one could honestly believe that that meant anything, one would welcome that high-minded and noble reference. But, of course, it does not mean anything. All the evidence and indications since this Government came to power are that devolution of power to local bodies, local authorities or community-based organisations is contracting instead of expanding. Therefore, this tissue of superfluous verbiage is regrettable. It is regrettable because it does a disservice to the language it uses which, when used in future by people who mean it, will perhaps become discredited. It is even more fundamentally regrettable because it is an excuse for not governing.

A Programme for National Development, which this book calls itself, should have at its core a sense of vision, a long-term understanding of the kind of Ireland towards which this country wishes to move. That is not recognised nor is it mentioned anywhere. Instead of that we have an understandable but limited concern with short-term targets, the underlying values and norms of which are assumed and never questioned. The major social challenges are not alone not tackled but, in some cases, not even recognised. There is no question whatever about the basic distribution of wealth in this country, no basic thinking or fundamental approaches to the whole question of environment. The major challenge of urban development and its frightening implications unless it is tackled in a meaningful manner remains unattended in this paper.

The lack of this basic social philosophy means that a paper such as this is not as worthy or valuable as it could be. Surely if one talks about achieving economic targets one must have some idea of the kind of society and the kind of country one wishes to achieve, or is it assumed that it is understood that there is already a national consensus, that the material, acquisitive wants of people, as opposed perhaps to the more long-term and nobler needs, are to hold the centre of the stage? Is it expected that only the passing whim or current political fad is to find a response in government thinking? In other words, we are not getting a fundamentalist approach here.

The Government impaled themselves on rash promises prior to the election of delivering in a number of areas, particularly in relation to employment. The clear impression is being given that whatever the cost those promises will be delivered. We should look not merely at the number of jobs; this is not merely a quantitative problem it is a qualitative problem. All of our people could be employed tomorrow but the jobs could be meaningless; they could be conjured up overnight. I do not want that kind of society. I do not want a society in which the primary preoccupation is to get people off the live register regardless of what one does with them. I do not believe our people want that. We have already from the reports of psychiatrists, doctors and others interested in that field a clear indication that job satisfaction is a very important matter. We do not read a word about job satisfaction in the "Programme for National Development"; it is a numbers game. Eventually, if that is to be pursued to its logical conclusion, people will be put into roles and jobs for which they are not suited but which is the antithesis of what are their lifestyles, cultural outlooks and beliefs. At the same time any government that tries to achieve job targets, to bring people into employment, must be supported and must get the help and encouragement of every responsible individual on this island. I would ask the Government, in their future thinking, to look more deeply at the kind of Ireland towards which this type of thinking points. It is simplistic in its approach. The targets it sets are economic, exclusively economic in some cases. They do not impinge on the social area; they do not take into account the quality of the future life of this country in the event of these targets being achieved.

For example, there is the question of wealth, the 6 per cent growth rate talked about. There is also the question of increasing the wealth of the country, implying thereby—to use the now famous phrase—that "all ships would rise on the same tide". That is something at which we should look very closely because it does not bear close economic or social scrutiny. Even in the 19th century the economist, Marshall, was meditating on why increased production did not mean more wealth and leisure for ordinary people, to say nothing of Marx who visualised a society in which the machines worked and man was liberated. Why does not increased production lead to more wealth? Though staggering a little from time to time growth rates of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent per annum have been usual in what we like to call the West—actually it is Japan that has a growth rate of the order of 10 per cent average annually. In other words, Western countries ought to be between a twentieth and a tenth wealthier every year if production is not being wasted, or if there are not other problems. Those countries, therefore, ought to be at least twice as rich in 20 years. In fact their output has been doubled in less than that, in about 15 years, and the doubling times have been getting shorter.

One could put it another way: you and I ought to be twice as rich every 15 years. Our colleges or the other institutions in which we work ought to be not getting twice as much money but twice as wealthy in real terms. Some calculations suggest that even with present trends our society ought to be producing 32 times as much in 70 years. Yet we are told that we are a declining economy. Why? Because we are wasting our production, because the simplistic assumption that more money equals more wealth, or that even increased production equals more wealth for all the people, is simply not true. France is an interesting example, because they were slow in coming to industrial production. Between 1910 and 1939 France's industrial production rose by 5 per cent only but between 1948 and 1965 its industrial production rose by 220 per cent. In other words, in those 17 years, Frenchmen ought to have been visibly 220 per cent richer, and I am talking about the man in the street.

Undoubtedly the wealth of the élite has increased in real terms. I should like to ask, rhetorically perhaps, whether it is a questionable assumption that the kind of pell-mell race after increased production and alleged increased wealth is the kind of goal we should be pursuing in view of the clear evidence available that increased wealth and increased production, unless it is accompanied by major courageous government action, does not necessarily mean that all people will benefit. If it did we would not have the extremes in society that we have. The elimination of those extremes should be at the heart of any programme for national development but they are not. There is no concern for eliminating them. In the paper there is not basic concern about social justice and that is a major fault. It is extremely regrettable.

Similarly, the ownership of property comes into the same category. Professor Sidney Pollard in a book entitled "The Wealth of Britain" said:

While few would deny that incomes are more fairly distributed in the 1960s than before 1914, it is by no means certain that any relative gains have been made by the poorer section of the people since the 1920s or 1930s. Indeed, one detailed study appeared to show that there was "little increase in the amount of vertical distribution between 1937 and 1959", and since then the movement has certainly been the other way. If full employment, the action of powerful trade unions and the political struggles of the century have been unable to effect a share-out of incomes since 1920, the main reason lies in the power of one factor working the other way, the uneven distribution of property ... Most of the redistribution has been within the classes, from those in work to those temporarily or permanently out of employment.

Peter Wilsher, the Economic Editor of The Sunday Times is on record also as saying:

In a modern, developed economy, like those of Britain and the United States, which is rich in capital and advanced technology, the concentrated ownership of private property acts as a major force, pushing the system towards even greater inequality. And as labour-saving techniques, which used to be summed up in the useful but rather out-of-fashion word "automation", takes stronger hold, so the balance between employment incomes and property incomes...will move sharply back towards the owners of real wealth.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy is quoting from some booklet? If so, he should give the title of it to the House in order to keep the record straight.

Mr. Keating

Anyone who is interested can read the quotations in a book entitled "Who needs money?" by Herbert Lomas. Our traditional acceptance of the economic goals to be sought are in need of review and rethinking. They do not mean that everybody will prosper and profit from their achievement.

The same is true in regard to the naïve belief that is prevalent at the moment in regard to the laissez faire approach to job creation. Despite the fact that the Government express extreme concern about job creation, and successive governments have made available substantial amounts to multinational companies, the return is small for the price. It is a high price to pay £120 million in capital grants in five years for 3,000-4,000 jobs, many of which are at the lower level and are semi-skilled. Perhaps we might consider again how we might use that amount of money. We should try much harder to put into native entrepreneurial hands much of the effort and attention we give to people who, because they are foreigners, seem to get preferential treatment. It is clear from studies by people such as Dermot McAleese, Noel Whelan and Brendan Walsh that the traditional approach to setting up substantial economic incentives to multinationals should be looked at again because I do not think it is paying the dividend it should pay. Perhaps the price is too high; perhaps the money could be utilised in another way.

The major issues with which I am concerned such as the elimination of poverty, the question of educational standards in parts of our city, giving people a second chance in alternative modes of education and the general war on poverty and pain that I would like to see waged, all of these issues are not in the White Paper in the way they should be. This is not to say that the Government are a body of unthinking men—I do not believe that—but I think they are trapped by outdated economics that have not been properly reassessed in the light of modern needs and the need for a redefinition of what is productive in society. Frequently I have been surprised by the tenacity with which senior politicians and economists hold to their definition of the word "productive". Being a good nurse, a good teacher or a good child care worker is as productive as being a producer of washing machines. The truth is that our economics are based on a policy of waste. The tragedy is that it is only the Government who can reverse that trend and who can rethink it fundamentally. We should not be naïve about this. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the private individual who is attracted by the inducements offered to come here to set up business or the domestic entrepreneur who wants to do well financially will have as his primary motive the welfare of our people. That is not a criticism of him, it is a fact of life. These people are in business to make a profit. It is the job of a government to ensure the welfare of the people and the mere presenting of vast sums of money to people in the hope that everything will be all right is not adequate. There must be a greater commitment by government to direct intervention in the major areas of job creation and social injustice. I do not care if it is called a national development corporation or any other fancy name. The basic commitment must be there. The policy of laissez faire, of sitting back and hoping that it will all work out, is failing and will continue to fail. That commitment is not in the White Paper. As long as it does not figure in Government thinking this country will continue to go downhill.

It is a strange society that has the kind of values it holds. On any street corner on any day of the week one can see young and not so young people with collection boxes. Invariably they ask money for good causes; for nursing homes, for old people's homes, to combat mental and physical handicap and so on. I have yet to see anyone collecting for an army tank, to buy a cabin cruiser or any other element of luxurious waste that people are more and more wont to call a necessity.

There is a basic misthinking in our society and naturally enough it will be reflected in the prevailing political and economic thinking enshrined in the "Programme for National Development 1978-1981" which is being debated. We must have a fundamental rethink on the way our society is shaping, about the influences to which it is subjected and the cultural assaults that have to be faced. What are the kind of goals we should be considering? Obviously the Government must concern themselves with the day-to-day issues of running a country but I would respectfully suggest that they should also concern themselves with the long-term good of the nation. In the short-term, political aims and aspirations must take their place in a democracy, but they should not hold the stage. At present they seem to do so with the result that we do not have a government but a form of crisis management, a day-to-day reaction to trends and events. We have what I would call a Minister for sunken ships and broken telephones. We have a sad situation where the whole communications network has been allowed to degenerate. I can see no improvement in the situation and the Minister for Labour could be called an industrial referee whose whistle has no pea. Would it make any difference if these men were not in office? When one begins to question whether these Ministers are necessary there is something wrong, not perhaps with the individuals but with the way we have been doing things. During the last number of weeks of industrial strife and chaos what role has the concept of the office of the Minister for Labour served? It was of scant service.

The general negative approach of the White Paper is clear. There is talk about taxation and the need for restraint, all the things which are apparently fairly popular with governments in the middle of their terms of office but which are not so popular with prospective governments prior to their ascendency to office. That negative tone permeates the paper and it is regrettable. Missed opportunities are exemplified in paragraph 2.20 of the White Paper where the the three aspects of the public service do not include the whole exciting prospect of drawing up, for the whole of the public service, a social and economic long-term target towards which the public service workers could aspire. I am mindful of the problems that the people in the public service have, of drifting aimlessly because nobody has set them a target and nobody evaluates their work. The paper does not even hint at the possibility of such a programme to bring about a better society, which would be an exciting undertaking for the Minister and the Government. Instead of that, there are three alleged important aspects of the role of the public service which are little more than lip service and are the kind of things that are being done already if the public service is being run properly. The paper contains nothing about why job satisfaction is not as high as it should be in the public service, or as to whether the public service is doing all it could do with the right kind of leadership in relation to attaining the right kind of goals. Paragraphs 5.52 of the White Paper in relation to the Department of the Environment has the same nebulous approach.

One of the major omissions in the paper is the absence of a regional approach to problems. The difficulty is that we have a traditional Government who accept the traditional approach of parallel Departments of Government as still appropriate. The time has now come with regard to the urbanisation of certain areas, Dublin being at the top of the list, when we should look again at the concept that Government Departments as traditionally operated are appropriate to the present complexity of social and economic problems. The truth will eventually be forced upon us that we will have to devise a system of regional devolved government particularly for the larger communities giving them unilateral power devolved by a courageous government to deal with matters of local, social and economic concern. Existing Departments are not just unable to cope, they are not geared to cope. They are oriented in a way which makes it impossible to cope.

If one looked at the greater Dublin region as an example of most of the problems in urban areas, one would see that there are varying needs along a number of obvious social and economic fronts which are beginning to threaten the economic and social life of the city. Most people will appreciate that there are major challenges in the Dublin area. Either we are not able to do anything about them or we are just not doing anything. Part of the reason is because the traditional pattern of government, the Departments of Health, Justice, Education and Labour are dealing with problems as if the problems of Dublin were no different from problems of other areas. That approach needs to be overhauled urgently. The projection of population in Dublin for example is an indication that there is a major crisis which is not being tackled. The figures show that the growth in population in the Dublin region from 1966 to 1971 was 57,200 people, compared with 37,100 for the rest of the country. While the Dublin population in 1971 constituted almost 30 per cent of the population of the rest of the State, the Dublin increase in the period 1966 to 1971 constituted 60 per cent of the total increase. The population projection for 1991 on this basis for the Dublin area would be 1,150,000, an increase of 298,000 in 20 years. It is important to bear in mind that these figures do not take migration into Dublin into account. We are talking about a substantial increase in the number of people in the Dublin area alone, for which, I suggest, adequate preparation and infrastructural development is not being sought. If we are to create jobs for this vast number of people we would need a land bank of industrial lands. There are some thousands of acres in the Dublin area most of which are in the county area, outside the city. That means if we are to continue with what I assume to be the generally accepted good idea of maintaining a living city we will have enormous transport and commuter problems. If, as is more likely, we force people out of the city to live in the country, we will have a dead city which is what is happening at the moment.

According to a study area investigated by Dublin Corporation for the purpose of a draft development plan, one third of the industries now located in the county were relocated from previous locations in the city. Almost 90 per cent of these were from inner city areas. Ninety per cent of one-third of the total of new industries setting up in the county had left the city because of the various and complex hostilities which an industrialist at any level in the city, as well as residents, have to contend with.

If we are to talk about urban development, we are faced with a tradition in recent times of job evacuation from the city. In the labour force projections from 1971 to 1991 one can see that the 1991 projected population for Dublin, based on natural increases, is 1,150,000, an increase of almost 300,000 over 1971. The labour force, that is the portion of the population available for gainful occupation, is estimated to increase over the same period by 130,000. It will be noted that the main labour force is estimated to grow, over the 1971 to 1991 period, by 95,000 to 314,000 and the female labour force by 35,000 to 146,000. The average yearly increase in the labour force for the ten years to 1971 was 4,100. For the following ten years, that is to 1981, the average increase is estimated to be about 5,400 for each year while the yearly increase for the ten years to 1991 is projected as 7,500. That is based only on the natural increase in the Dublin population and it does not take into account the very real factor of immigration into the city.

In Dublin, with one small exception, the number of people in employment has continued to decline consistently. That is one of the most obvious social and economic landmarks on the horizon, there has been a constant drop in employment in the Dublin area. Admittedly, the IDA recently came to see the lack of wisdom in their previous approach which tended to favour areas outside Dublin city. For some mystical reason, the Dublin city area was expected to look after itself but that has changed. However, the efforts of the IDA may be too little and too late because the number in employment in Dublin is still dropping. I suggest that part of the reason is that there is not sufficient confidence in the private or public sector, or among those living in the city, that the city is being governed adequately. It is not being governed adequately because the structure of government is wrong for it. It needs to be changed. That regional approach, the ability of a Government to define the complexity of problems in a specific area and to respond structurally to those, is not referred to in the White Paper. The many and varied studies available to us show clearly that if we are to get a revitalisation of Dublin city or employment increased, and our people to obtain a satisfactory standard of education, we will not be able to do so by saying, for example, that the pupil-teacher ratio in Athlone or Foxrock should be the same as it is in the inner city parts of Dublin. The same applies to other areas of government. A different approach is necessary.

I wonder how the demand with regard to education will be met because it is not being met by the traditional pattern of government we have or by the Department of Education. The demand for primary school places is likely to increase by 33,000 pupils to a total of 169,000 over the 20 years to 1991. This is likely to necessitate additional accommodation in the range of 42 to 52 sixteen-unit schools or equivalent. The amount of land required will depend to some extent on the number of units per school but is likely to be of the order of 200 acres. The increase in demand for post-primary education is estimated at 25,000 pupils bringing the post-primary population to 89,000 pupils in 1991. The number of new community schools is estimated at 25 and the related land requirement at 390 acres. However, the local authority for Dublin city, the body responsible for the management and planning of our city, does not have a land bank for schools or responsibility in that area. Yet, there is this enormous educational demand which will be realised within the next 12 years and which cannot be tackled unless we change the structure we now have.

The implications of other aspects of social and economic activities for the planning of our city are also clear. For example, consumer expenditure on convenience goods will increase enormously. I could quote figures at length in relation to this matter but I do not have time to do so. The various elements of social and economic activity are not being responded to by a properly structured body capable of dealing with these matters. The projected labour force of 1991 has been estimated at 460,000, an increase of 130,000 over the 20 years. To sum up that great need to create jobs in Dublin city alone and to be able to respond in a structural way to the huge problem I should like to quote some figures which I found interesting. Based on the 1961 to 1971 trends the projected number of jobs available in 1991 in Dublin is 392,000. The projected labour force, on the basis already outlined, is 460,000. Assuming the traditional definition of full employment which, mysteriously to me, is 4 per cent unemployment, this would mean a total of 442,000 seeking employment or a shortfall in jobs of some 50,000. If, on the other hand, the growth in employment was based on the slower rate of the 1966-1971 period—I suggest that the evidence is there to indicate that that is the base on which the future trend in Dublin will be dictated—then the 1991 shortfall for Dublin would be 75,000 jobs. It should be remembered that that is for the existing population based on natural increase and not on the rate of immigration. If one adds the immigration to Dublin from other areas, including areas outside the State, and offset emigration from Dublin to other parts one will find that there will be an estimated need of another 64,000 jobs on top of the figure I referred to. Before 1991 there will be in excess of 139,000 jobs needed if we are to maintain the 4 per cent unemployment. No further comment is necessary. By that standard Dublin must be seen as a crisis area. It is a crisis area because the structure of government is wrong for it and because the Government do not believe or refer to the need for a regional approach to such problems. That regional approach is not a new concept. It is valid in the EEC and Irish context. The Gaeltacht authority and SFADCo have at heart a regional approach which identifies and specifies certain problems in an area and responds to them in a structural way but, it appears, anything is good enough for Dublin. I deplore that view and I ask the Government to reconsider it.

The mismanagement of the city is reflected in many ways, particularly in the housing figures available to us. The White Paper sadly outlines the continuing decline in the building of local authority houses. It is reflected further in the mismanagement of what I call the public estate, the hundreds of acres of derelict sites. Vacant premises at present occupy about 7 per cent of total gross floor space. In other words, nearly 300 acres is occupied by vacant premises. We should be able to tackle the problems of dereliction and vacant premises and if there is a problem of utilising them rapidly and turning them into viable units we should have a structure of government which can do that. Unfortunately, this is not the case at present.

I regret I have not more time to deal with the housing situation because the number of new houses required in Dublin from 1971 to 1991 is of the order of 111,000. That figure is based on existing standards of deprivation and not on filling the whole need. I hope a change is brought about in this area. Finally, I should like to refer to a fine study on Youth Employment in North Central Dublin which deals with the various aspects of the need for a regional approach to government in Dublin. It is sad to read the statistics of tragedy in it. That report tells us that male unemployment in some areas can be as much as 20 per cent and tells us of the lack of hygiene facilities, the basic deficiency of baths and so on. That report points out that 80 per cent of households consist of four rooms or less. With regard to education it states that as much as 84 per cent of the young people leave school without even the most basic educational qualification. That study, prepared by Brenda Murphy and Terri Morrissey, points out that 52 per cent of the respondents in the survey who had left school were employed while 48 per cent were unemployed. One of the most marked features of this whole pattern of inner city deprivation and joblessness was the degree of exploitation of these young people. It stated that the low wages of all respondents was most marked. Believe it or not, a mere 3.4 per cent of employed and unemployed either were or had been taking home over £30 per week, and 96.6 per cent of the people were taking home less than £30 per week—this survey was carried out last year—and no unemployed female had taken home more than £20 a week.

There is a great deal in that study which could help the Government and the Minister. Unfortunately it does not find a response at the moment in the White Paper. I would ask the Government, therefore, to undertake a review of the structure of government particularly with regard to the need for a regional approach to Dublin. The sheer demographic social implications of the enormous and growing problem in Dublin need a specific response and that response can only be brought about if the Government have the courage to say that Dublin, and maybe other areas in due course, needs a form of regional government with adequately devolved powers to get on and do the job and not to continue to live in the inertia which exists at the moment and which is only a recipe for growing disintegration in transport, jobs, housing and all other areas. I appeal to the Minister to consider that and in due course to give a sympathetic response to it.

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

I want to deal with some of the areas of activity which impinge on my responsibilities. I would like to say a few words about manufacturing industry, to look at how it has done in the past year and see what the prospects are for the coming year. It achieved vigorous and impressive progress in 1978. There was an intensification of the strong recovery of industrial output which had begun the previous year and in 1978 it was 10 per cent higher than in 1977. Our manufactured exports increased their share of world trade in an international economic environment which continues to be uncertain.

Employment in the manufacturing sector in the final quarter of 1978 was on present estimates 7,000 higher than a year earlier. This represents the industry's best performance since the boom year of 1973 when there was an increase of 7,300, the highest ever. This increase in manufacturing employment last year was a major contributor to the overall reduction in unemployment. The growth in output in exports and in employment was accompanied by a substantial increase in industrial investment. In 1978 the Industrial Development Authority approved for grant assistance investment projects which have the potential to provide over 30,000 new jobs in full production. This surpassed by more than 3,000 what was the highest ever job approvals target in the authority's history. This record performance by the IDA is all the more commendable because it was achieved in the face of razor-sharp competition from both industrialised and developing countries for mobile industrial investment.

When one sees the competition that we were subjected to both from within and without the EEC it is worth reflecting at this point that there are close on 20 states associated with the Community who have access to the Community, as we have, for their manufactured output but who are not subject to the rules of the Community. Some of these states are not underdeveloped in any sense of the word; they are far more advanced than we are and include countries like Finland, Norway, Switzerland and various others. The fact that they have the same rights in the Community so far as the sale of their manufacturing output is concerned as we have and they have none of the obligations, is a matter that might be borne in mind by the Community, and in particular by the Commission.

Within the Community one wonders if the lack of an adequate co-ordination policy in regard to state aids is wise from the Community's point of view when it is borne in mind that small and comparatively underdeveloped countries, in the industrial sense, like Ireland, have to compete with large very well developed countries, in the industrial sense, who have had an industrial tradition for centuries where we have only started to build one in the last couple of decades. An example of this is the attitude of the Commission in the past 12 months in approving of aids to the establishment of mobile international industry in Britain, and in particular in Scotland.

The House will recall that our average grant payment to a new industry up to last year, when the figures were last worked out, was about £3,500 per job. Nonetheless, the Commission in their wisdom found themselves able to approve of the British Government making a payment of many millions of pounds to a non-Community industry to establish itself in Scotland last year, and the rate of grant paid by the British, apart from other facilities they gave in ancillary ways, was £106,000 per job. It is difficult for me and for most of us in this country to reconcile the avowed intention of the Community, and particularly the Commission, to raise the standard of living and industrial investment in the peripheral and less developed regions of the Community when some parts of it are given the blessing of the Commission to make payments of that kind.

The main beneficiaries from this aura of competition which has grown up between Community countries are non-Community multi-nationals. It is disturbing, and should be disturbing, for all Europeans in the Community that the Commission seem to condone a situation in which relatively impoverished Community states bid against one another in an auction and the benefits go outside this continent.

Mr. Quinn

Absolutely.

Mr. O'Malley

I would hope that it might be possible for those who are concerned with these matters in the Community to consider again the consequences of not controlling that sort of situation. The encouraging rise in labour productivity in 1978 demonstrates the strength and potential for further rapid advance by the manufacturing sector of industry. The present continuing high level of investment will give further impetus to exports, output and productivity growth this year. The annual target of 10,000 net actual jobs in manufacturing over the three-year period, 1979 to 1981, inclusive, although ambitious, is a challenge which in my view industry, both private and public, is capable of achieving. However, not alone will we fail to reach this target and thereby deprive our young population of the opportunity to work but we will also add to the number of unemployed if we continue to pay ourselves income increases which have not been earned by higher productivity and if those in employment, particularly those in the sheltered sector, choose by means of industrial action to disrupt the production of goods and services in furtherance of sectional interests.

Deputy Kelly in the debate yesterday described references by members of the Government to the necessity for not paying ourselves income increases, which have not been earned by higher productivity, as bleating. I ask Deputy Kelly, or anybody else for that matter, who has been critical of what members of the Government have said in this regard in recent weeks if they believe we are right. Surely anybody who has a modicum of common sense and intelligence must know that in this or any other country we cannot afford to meet some of the claims which have been made in recent times and that if on paper they were to be met they would be met literally with paper and not with money in the real sense.

I mentioned in particular that many of those demands were coming from what I described as people in the sheltered sectors. The majority of those people are in public employment. It is interesting to note the result of a survey carried out recently in Trinity College into industrial relations here last year. The survey showed that no less than 80 per cent of the working days which were lost last year in our worst strikes were in the State sector. Today's Irish Press states that the TCD study makes the point that public service workers seem to be less concerned at the prospects of job loss through strike action. It says that there were 509,418 man-days lost during 1978, which is 15 per cent more than in the previous year, but 34 per cent less than the worst year which was 1976.

I will be speaking later about some of our public manufacturing enterprises. One is perhaps more cautious than one might otherwise have been in relation to the public sector and job creation in manufacturing industry in the public sector in particular when one considers that report and when one sees, for example, what happened to several such firms last year. Deputy Desmond last year drew attention to the often unfair way in which public enterprises were treated on the basis that they were a bottomless well and that the taxpayer would always bail them out.

There also seems in recent times to be another incentive almost for taking industrial action, which often scarcely seems justified, against public undertakings. That incentive is brought out by this Trinity College study when it draws attention to the fact that no matter how damaging a strike is, how prolonged or what losses it creates to the public enterprise concerned, that enterprise will not go out of business and the strikers can strike away with impunity, whether they are justified or not, because their jobs will always be there at the end of the day. That situation does not arise in private manufacturing industry where firms often may simply have to disappear. It is possible for me to give examples of certain public manufacturing enterprises whose financial situation is now such that if they were in the private sector they would no longer be in business.

Our participation in the proposed EMS will impose disciplines on and present opportunities for expansion by Irish industry. If industry is to be equal to this challenge it must ensure that it maintains and enhances its competitiveness by all possible means. It must also ensure that it directs its efforts towards the diversification of its exports outside the UK market. If those two conditions are met the achievement of the manufacturing job targets postulated in the White Paper will then be largely determined by the efforts of the IDA in negotiating new jobs in industry on a scale which has not previously been attained.

The IDA intend to publish shortly an industrial plan covering the period 1978 to 1982. The central objective of the plan will be the maintenance over the next four years of the extraordinarily high level of job approvals which were secured in 1978. This will necessitate the targets of the IDA being restated upwards. In support of this relentless industrial drive the financial resources being made available by the Government to the IDA this year have been very considerably increased. The capital resources have been increased from £78 million to £109 million and the administrative expenses have been increased from £7 million to £8,500,000. A large part of the huge budget of the IDA this year will be expended on the provision of advance factories under the largest construction programme which has ever been undertaken by them.

Reference was made in the White Paper to the first two phases of this programme which will provide 38 factories and four clusters at locations in all parts of the country, including a great many in Dublin, I may add for the benefit of Deputy Keating. Last week I announced details of a third phase comprising a further 26 factories and three clusters. Those three phases together will result in the provision of over 1.3 million square feet of factory space. The programme, therefore, is true testimony of the Government's commitment to assist the IDA in meeting the higher job creation and job approval targets. Factories are being and will be built in the areas of greatest employment need in the nine planning regions—we have no intention of concentrating on any one to the detriment of any others—and that is an integral part of the Government's policy of regional industrialisation.

A particularly gratifying feature of the performance of the IDA in 1978 was the outturn under the small industries programme. The year 1978 was an outstanding one for the programme with the record total of 400 projects approved for grant assistance and a potential for over 5,000 jobs in full production. The Shannon Free Airport Development Company performed exceptionally well in their new and challenging role for the promotion of small, indigenous industry in the mid-west. The target of 500 job approvals which was set for them was handsomely exceeded.

Equally encouraging is the response to the new enterprise development programme which is designed to encourage Irish people with the necessary ability and experience to start their own manufacturing businesses with IDA support. Twenty-two projects with employment potential in excess of 900 were approved under this scheme in 1978. Small firms are an integral part in any country's industrial structure and their importance is coming to be more and more recognised. In the Irish context a small firm makes a vital contribution to the life of smaller towns and villages which would not be able to support large scale industry. The small industries programme will remain an important part of the IDA's activities. Indeed, many of the new advance factories will be designed specifically for the smaller firm.

The Government programme for the promotion and stimulation of industrial investment compares favourably with that available anywhere in the world. The new tax incentive to replace exports sales relief from 1 January 1981 will provide a powerful stimulant to investment and job creation from both home and overseas sources. It will act as a further spur to firms to hasten the pace of the replacement and modernisation programmes which are an equally vital part of our industrial development strategy.

The development of the potential of the State-sponsored sector is mentioned in the White Paper and I referred to it briefly earlier. It was indicated in the White Paper that the Industrial Development Consortium has addressed itself to the question. The consortium has been actively canvassing State-sponsored bodies for development proposals and a number of ideas are under consideration. We have been stressing the importance of the State-sponsored bodies directing their considerable technical and administrative resources to consider diversification, expansion or joint venture possibilities in order to identify soundly-based employment-creating projects. We have also indicated that the procurement of the necessary capital finance should not and would not be an obstacle to bringing such projects to fruition.

The potential of the State-sponsored sector may be gauged in the context of the new projects currently being undertaken by Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta and Irish Steel Holdings Limited. NET are nearing completion of their ammonia/urea plant at Marino Point in Cork Harbour where there will be permanent employment of 400 men and Irish Steel Holdings have now finally embarked on their development programme at Haulbowline, County Cork which will enable them to maintain the existing work force of 700 for the decades ahead. It is worth noting at this point what the cost of these two projects is likely to be. The latest estimate I have is that the NET project will now cost not less than £115 million. This exceeds by an enormous margin the original estimate. I have discussed with the board the reasons for this enormous excess both in terms of money and in terms of time. The board have given me detailed explanations as to why this has happened; they have my sympathy in the difficulties which they faced. Perhaps one of the root causes of the difficulty is that NET is owned by the Irish taxpayer and is therefore fair game for all and sundry to have a go at.

I mentioned earlier that experience with some State manufacturing enterprises of recent times gave one cause to be worried or anxious. This is an example of why one has good reason for being worried or anxious. The Irish Steel Holdings development programme which took about a year to get through the Commission but which happily we have now steered through and which has now started is going to be very expensive. It is going to cost the Irish taxpayer over £40 million and is not going to create one job. I certainly offer my very best wishes to the board of Irish Steel in the difficult period that they have ahead of them while the construction of this new plant is going on. I will watch with great interest how it goes because one would feel that it would be a major tragedy for public manufacturing enterprise here if the Irish Steel project were to run into some of the difficulties which its neighbour, the NET project, a couple of miles away, encountered over the past few years.

There are various other State companies in the manufacturing and allied sectors whose plans for expansion are under examination, whom we have encouraged to expand and diversify but it is necessary—and the Government are satisfied of this in their own mind—that these companies and these plans and these new ideas would not be subjected to the rather unfair pressures that some State companies and organisations have been subjected to in recent times.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has pressed the Government quite strongly to maximise the State's involvement in manufacturing industry. None of us in the Government has any ideological or other objections to doing that but we feel that we have a duty to the taxpayer to whom we are responsible in the last resort to act prudently and not to expose the public purse to the kind of dangers it has been exposed to in recent times.

I want to move on to deal with the other main aspect of my Department and that is the question of trade and commerce. As good news bears repetition I now intend to deal in somewhat more detail than I have previously with our export performance in 1978. The good news is that in 1978—and the final figures were published yesterday—for the second year in succession Ireland's export performance surpassed both in value and in volume the growth rate of our partners in the European Economic Community. To achieve in 1978 a new record figure of £2.96 billion, an increase of almost 18 per cent on the figures for 1977, is laudable but to do so in the uncertain trading environment of last year is remarkable and all those who contributed to that achievement deserve our congratulations on an excellent job.

But it is not the past achievements of Irish exporters and of CTT which I wish to emphasise today but the importance of exports in translating into reality our aspirations in regard to prosperity and employment. As the White Paper points out, the maintenance of a high level of growth in exports is one of the key conditions for the achievement of our objectives and that requires effort in terms of planning, time and money by all concerned. This year the CTT target is a figure of £3.5 billion, an increase of 18 per cent on last year's figure. The interest not only of the economy but of the community as a whole and our social aspirations depend to a large degree on our reaching that target.

For their part, the Government will make available to Córas Tráchtála the sum of £5.7 million, that is an increase of more than 10 per cent on the amount of last year's grant-in-aid, an increase of about 30 per cent since 1977, and the largest amount made available in any one year to that body since their establishment. The Government recognise the value of CTT's contribution in the past and will offer all the encouragement and support within their power to Córas Tráchtála in the future so that industry may receive the fullest possible measure of service from them.

The British economy, which has experienced a minor boom based mainly on consumer spending, manifests all the symptoms of uncertainty and is expected to be less buoyant next year. At the Bonn economic summit last July, the seven major industrialised countries agreed to embark on a concerted action policy of simultaneous economic expansion. Results are likely, however, to be gradual and though recent expansionary measures taken by the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan may be expected to have an effect in 1979, it is unlikely that expansion in the major western economies will be sufficient to offset the predicted slow down of economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in the OECD area as a whole is forecast to register 3 per cent this year as compared with 3.6 per cent in 1978. All of this adds up to a need for increased effort on our part.

CTT will expand and intensify their promotional activities. Offices newly opened in Madrid and Zurich bring to a record figure of 21 the number of their offices abroad and increases significantly the geographical spread of those offices in Europe. The main thrust of CTT's efforts will be directed towards our partners in the European Economic Community and the remainder of the Continent.

The level of CTT's incentive grants has been raised. They are prepared to make available to manufacturers from their vast expertise a fund of information and advice. They offer manufacturers the opportunity to take part in their group promotional activities in a manner which would be outside the capacity of an individual firm. They pave the way for firms to enter new markets and ease the difficulties caused by language and cultural barriers. They initiate studies and explore the potential of areas previously outside Ireland's trading experience.

The resources of CTT are, as always, at the disposal of firms, but I cannot emphasise too strongly the need for investment by individual firms, both of time and money. CTT seek to identify factors which hinder or facilitate the expansion of our export trade. One factor which has already emerged as a major impediment to expansion is the lack of appreciation by many Irish firms of the role of marketing. Many manufacturers are still primarily production-oriented to the neglect of the marketing dimension; they see themselves as makers of products rather than as sellers. Selling is the final stage of a long process, but it is the end to which the whole process is directed and it should determine the plans and activities of the enterprise.

Irish manufacturers are second to none in their ability to produce goods of competitive quality, but the long period of protectionism has left its mark: firms were assured of a home market and their horizons were limited to producing for that market. Free trade has meant that marketing has assumed a new importance, not only for the export market but also for the home market.

Manufacturers must pay more attention to their wholesale and retail trades, they must keep in continuous touch with consumer tastes and preferences and they must watch closely the ever-changing structure of demand. Continental and other foreign markets need to be researched and studied and kept under constant review. This necessitates the employment of expertise and the expenditure of money; not only a change of attitude but a financial commitment is required of manufacturers. The maintenance of a highly qualified marketing staff abroad is expensive but essential.

As I have said, the resources of CTT are always at the disposal of firms, but the varying circumstances of individual firms and of sectors of industry make it impossible to provide guidelines of general application. Every Irish manufacturer must analyse objectively the market for the goods which he produces and the competition he must face. This must be done in sufficient depth to enable him to forecast the marketability of his products and to enable him to adopt a strategy designed to achieve the full potential of his enterprise.

The challenge to industry is great. I have no desire to minimise the difficulties or to deny the magnitude of the efforts being asked from all involved, but the impossible is not being asked. Irish industry showed last year that it was capable of competing with and surpassing the best of Europe. This year a greater input of effort and money is asked for. However, the rewards are such that the effort is unquestionably worthwhile—more employment, a greater prosperity which can be shared and the knowledge that a significant contribution has been made to the well-being and security of the whole community.

It is possible in general terms to divide Irish exports into three broad categories. One category comprises our agricultural exports, which are very substantial. The second, again very substantial, are the exports from major international IDA-assisted firms who came here relatively recently, who are very strong in marketing and who often have their export markets lined up before they get into production here. The third, who need the assistance of CTT only to a limited extent, the one on whom CTT have to expend most of their energies, effort and money, is the part of Irish industry which is traditional, very often indigenous, very often composed of people who have survived native protectionism and who never have had a proper marketing organisation outside the country and who, except in recent times, have never thought in terms of export at all and who look on Britain and Northern Ireland simply as extensions of the home market for which a different approach is not needed.

They are firms who need help but they are also the firms who have to remember that we are living today in an era of free trade, falling barriers of all kinds, that our country has a population of 3¼ million people. They must realise that if they are to expand and to prosper, if they are to expand employment or maintain existing employment, they must think in terms of marketing abroad and that in practice, because of recent developments in regard to EMS and so on, they would be very well advised to think in terms of markets outside Britain also. I regret to say that many of them have been slow in these terms. CTT are pressing them as much as they can, but there is a limit to what any promotional organisation can do if the will is not there on the part of individual firms to avail of the considerable opportunities that exist today.

Before I conclude I should like to say something on the question of energy, which is the third main section in my Department. One almost hesitates to use the word since it gives rise to so much passion nowadays——

Mr. Quinn

It is hard to have passion without energy.

Mr. Burton

Perhaps you could have passion without performance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that is an interlude.

Mr. O'Malley

I was about to make a further contribution, but on reflection——

Mr. Quinn

We will be satisfied with a public inquiry.

Mr. O'Malley

On the general energy situation it is important to remember that we are dependent on imports for approximately 80 per cent of our energy requirements and that even a minor political upheaval in one or other of the oil producing countries could quickly upset the balance of supply and demand throughout the world. If that balance is disturbed Ireland is one of the most vulnerable countries. Because of our abnormally heavy dependence on imported oil we would be the most severely affected by any disruption of supply. Therefore, we must emphasise as much as possible the necessity even at a time like this when there is not an apparent scarcity, to exercise maximum economy in the use of all types of fuel. Because of our membership of the European Communities and of the oil-sharing system drawn up by the International Energy Agency it is hoped that the hardships that would arise from a temporary shortage of oil products would be alleviated to some extent but it would be unrealistic to think that even those arrangements would offer us any kind of guarantee in a position of world shortage. It would be unrealistic also to think that even a minor oil shortage would not have serious repercussions for our economy unless we are all prepared to reduce our demands on energy in the home, in the factory, in transport and in all sectors of the economy. There are very definite limits below which that demand cannot go unless industry and jobs are to be put in jeopardy.

Developments in Iran in recent weeks could have serious implications for oil supplies throughout the industrialised world, including Ireland, in the coming months. This situation is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of our economy to political events in the Middle East. The uncertainty surrounding the oil supply situation should make us all realise the importance of reducing our dependence on imported oil and of diversifying our sources of energy supplies. It is impossible to talk about Iran with any confidence as to what might happen. Even today there is obviously a major development. No one can know yet what the reaction to that development will be but irrespective of what may happen it is almost certain that Iran which up to last month was the second largest oil exporter in the world, will reduce her oil exports considerably in the future. The previous administration in Iran pushed with great vigour for the maximum output and the maximum export of oil products. That has been the situation for a number of years, and in particular since the oil crisis at the end of 1973. The principal reason for that was that the then Government in Iran had in mind extremely ambitious expenditure especially in the defence sector. But a changed administration would be most unlikely to follow that policy. Only yesterday, I understand, the British Ministry for Defence were informed that an order for more than £1 billion sterling worth of British defence equipment was being cancelled by the present Government in Iran on the grounds that they did not see the need for such a vast amount of sophisticated armoury. Whatever may happen in Iran we may take it that the output and particularly the exports of oil products from there will be reduced very substantially. This consideration must have a major bearing on the oil supply-and-demand situation in the current year. Already the OPEC nations have imposed for the year by way of three instalments the rather heavy increase of 14½ per cent in the price of crude oil. That will be followed by the less significant non-OPEC countries. It is difficult to know what further effect the Iranian situation will have but we can be sure that it will not have the effect of reducing the price increase. It is likely that the shortages that will occur as a result of the situation in Iran will lead to further price increases. It is in that context that we should think very seriously both in the short term and in the medium term about the prospect facing us in terms of our sources of energy. We must look realistically at non-oil sources of energy for this country for the next 15 to 20 years.

Mr. Quinn

I agree.

Mr. O'Malley

We must face the fact that there are only two non-oil sources of energy available to us which can provide energy on a certain basis and in the sort of quantities that we are likely to require. Those two alternative sources are coal and nuclear energy. The European Commission have calculated, and I think that the International Energy Agency have agreed broadly with them on this, that assuming good progress is made in the research now being undertaken under the auspices of the Community and of the agency into alternative or renewable sources of energy, it could be hoped that 5 per cent of Europe's energy requirements would be met from those sources by the year 2000. Therefore, we cannot hope to generate more than 5 per cent of our needs from those sources by the year 2000. Indeed, we may lag somewhat behind the European average because the most promising area perhaps so far as Europe generally is concerned is the area of solar energy and we are not very strong in that regard.

It is vital, therefore, that emotion, political motives and the various other extremes that seem to enter this debate be forgotten about and that realism be faced. The situation is rather stark and must be faced realistically. The fact is that we have two alternative sources of energy on which we can rely to keep this country running between now and the year 2000. Already we have made a major decision in regard to one of those alternatives. In County Clare there is being built a coal station that will be the biggest station of any kind in the country. But are we to substitute dependence on imported oil for dependence on imported coal? While coal has certain advantages it has many great disadvantages. So far as security of supply is concerned it has some advantages but these are only relatively limited. Coal has enormous disadvantages in regard to environment and other aspects. We are faced with that kind of choice and we should make our decisions on the basis of what is needed by the country and not for some kind of ephemeral emotional reasons that seem to dominate thinking nowadays rather than sheer facts. We had a terrible tragedy in Bantry four weeks ago in connection with the unloading of oil from a tanker. Fifty people died in an instant. One could argue, but I have not heard it argued, that oil is therefore dangerous and should not be used in this country. As far as I am aware, 50 people never died in an accident connected with a coal-powered station or a nuclear power station although there are 250 of them operating in the world today.

Mr. Quinn

I was pleased to be in the House when the Minister was making his contribution. I will refer to three points before I proceed to the area I want to focus on. Two of them run logically together. It was interesting to hear the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy make an additional ideological attack on the public sector on the basis of job losses. Perhaps on another day or another occasion one could pursue it. I have not seen the study to which he refers, but the statistic which he quoted was that the 80 per cent of working days lost was attributable to State companies. This could be as much a factor of the degree of employment within those companies as anything else. He made two comments in his speech, that if we were to respond to the challenge the rewards were high—I am speaking from memory—and among them were, first of all, more employment and, secondly, greater prosperity which could be shared.

That is the sort of conditional statement that is uppermost in the minds of this party and of the trade union movement generally if there are rewards to be gained and if greater prosperity is to be achieved. As far as we are concerned, there is no "can" about it; it is going to be shared, because to talk in terms of a reward for some section of the community with an income limit, wage restraint and moderation for the vast majority of people may be economic progress but it is not social development. The Minister also made an interesting observation which, undoubtedly, was a slip of the tongue but presumably represents conventional thinking within the party of reality as distinct from the theological position of any particular faction. We are now at the stage where the third great aim of Fianna Fáil is to provide full employment just as the first and second aims were the unification of the country and the restoration of the Irish language. Significantly, the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy seems to be informed to the extent that he believes the population of this country is three and a half million. He was no doubt referring to the population of this State. That is an internal ideological matter that we may wish to refer to at another stage.

I wish to devote my attention in this debate to the way in which White Papers have been used as instruments of Government policy making and to look at the area of transport, specifically the question of public transport, and to show that, while the Opposition have undoubtedly been successful in attempting to inform the Government of the realities implicit in transportation policy, and particularly in the question of public transport, we are further away from critical and fundamentally important decisions than we were in June 1977 when this Government took office. It is unfortunate that the Minister responsible is not here. Perhaps it is that Deputy Faulkner, since June 1977, is never anywhere, whether it is in regard to action on the unfortunate tragedy the Minister just referred to or on the question of telephones, postal services, public broadcasting or, indeed, on the question of transport.

One can only assume that the reason Deputy Faulkner was appointed Minister was because of his capacity to remain politically invisible since June 1977. It is hard to conceive of any other politician occupying with such continued and professional incompetence that combination of portfolios for so long and still remain more or less politically unscathed. Maybe this is a testimony to the inactivity of the Opposition. I am prepared to accept that. Part of the reason no doubt is that Deputy Faulkner is an extremely pleasant, soft spoken individual with whom it is impossible to get personally angry or annoyed unless you happen to be a commuter sitting in a bus or somebody working in CIE trying to get a decision from the Department of Tourism and Transport. The very debacle of the formation of that half-baked Department, when they gave away tourism and then pulled it back, is indicative of the chaos implicit in the running of the Government's activities.

Government is about more than simply creating jobs or pretending to create them. People have to travel to and from work. What did Fianna Fáil say, in Opposition, in their manifesto with regard to transport? Page 35 of the sacred scripture, their manifesto, which has been referred to by Deputy Pádraig Flynn as the most important document ever produced in this country, states:

Fianna Fáil will establish a transport authority to investigate and report on the measures necessary to achieve the most efficient and economic transport system for goods and passengers having regard to the need to maintain a flexible competitive transport system—thereby ensuring the facilities necessary for industrial development through the country as a whole.

If that is what four years of think-tank produces in terms of policy development, then we can hardly be surprised at what was produced six months later when Fianna Fáil had the benefit of the Department of Tourism and Transport as it officially was. The very title indicates the priorities within that Department.

The White Paper of January 1978 was published by the Department of Economic Planning and Development on behalf of the Government. In fairness to Deputy O'Donoghue he has never professed to have any knowledge of transportation, and that is quite obvious from this document. From my knowledge of the way this document was prepared, at some stage initially submissions were taken from the various Government Departments. Page 45, paragraph 5.12 of that document, states:

The Government intend to pursue policies which will enable public transport to meet the needs of economic social development.

That is the first statement and one could hardly argue with it. They jump from that to the following sentence:

There has been a serious increase in recent years in the losses incurred by Córas Iompair Éireann.

They go on to say how much they are going to attempt to monitor the role of CIE with the intention of reducing its losses. That was all we had for public transport. I will not bore the House with further quotations. That was the focus, a generalised non-statement about public transport and an immediate focusing in on the losses of CIE.

A number of Deputies on this side of the House tried to point out the total poverty of that kind of policy approach. Some of the things we said appeared to take root in the barren soil on the far side of the House. I and a number of other Deputies asked questions about the electrification programme submitted by CIE, the role of CIE, and the transportation authority promised in the manifesto. In June 1978 the Government's paper, Mark II, Development for Full Employment, was a little more explicit about public transport and the major area of public transport in the Dublin region.

I will quote the relevant part because it comes back to energy for which the Minister of State has some responsibility. On page 55 in relation to the application by CIE of moneys for the electrification of the suburban rail system in Dublin it is stated:

The rail commuter services also have an attractive record for their safety, efficiency in the use of energy and relatively minor contribution to atmospheric pollution. Indeed, the Dublin Transportation Study and the McKinsey Report on CIE recognised the valuable role which the suburban system plays, and foresaw it playing an expanded role in coping with traffic growth. CIE have proposed the electrification of the Dublin suburban railway line from Howth to Bray at an estimated cost of £41 million (at 1978 prices), and this could constitute the first stage of a comprehensive Rapid Rail Transit System envisaged by CIE for the greater Dublin area. The total cost of such a system is estimated at about £220 million....

This document goes a little further. With the same logic which permeates the entire Government benches, having recognised that CIE had done some work and that some study had been done on transportation, and although the think tank had done nothing for four years—only after pressure from this side of the House did the Government realise that a vast volume of work had been done both by CIE and the DTS—they made the following observations:

The Dublin commuter rail service is, however, already operating at an annual loss in excess of £3 million (at 1978 prices),——

——more of the same anti-CIE attitude——

——and CIE have advised that a heavy additional investment in replacing rolling-stock and the signalling system will be required in the next few years. In this situation the options arising are to electrify as recommended by CIE, to maintain the service as it is, or to change standards in various ways.

The last time we had a debate on this document I asked somebody on the Government side to differentiate between those three options, to clarify the actual intention and to give some indication of what might conceivably be meant by the last option spelled out as "to change standards in various ways".

Have the Department of Economic Planning and Development some special school for gobbledy-gook writers who come up with these weird phrases, the benefit of which is that you can take more or less what meaning you like out of them? I referred that statement to a number of people for their interpretation. I would be quite happy to hear anybody on the Government side of the House, or any of the advisers available to them, stating what options are available to the Government in that area. At last they recognise in this document that they have to do something and that there are marginal benefits attached to it, something of which they were not aware before. Having recognised that, they focus on the losses and say they have three options. I am open to correction, but it appears to me that there are only two options: to electrify or to maintain the services as they are.

If we are to take the second one literally, I would advise the Minister for Economic Planning and Development to stand in the stations in his constituency in the morning and say: "One of the options we are considering seriously for the suburban rail system is to maintain the services as they are." If he was not run down in the rush, or thrown over the sea wall at any point from Dún Laoghaire inwards, he would be very fortunate. How can anybody seriously suggest that there is an option to maintain the services as they are? I fail to understand the logic of that. Any commuter on the Dún Laoghaire route, of which presumably the Minister for Economic Planning and Development has some experience and knowledge, can tell you that the services are declining rapidly at the moment, and have declined seriously over the past couple of years. Presumably, therefore, that is not an option and, in fairness to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, he is not that stupid.

There is one option open to the Government, unless the Minister of State can explain to me "to change standards in various ways", and that is, to electrify. There is a possible extension to that which is to opt for diesel rather than electricity. We can come to that later on in the context of what the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy told the House with regard to the position of diesel supply from Iran and other places.

I want to move now to the White Paper before the House. Let us see if there has been any movement, or if anything has sunk in on the other side of the House. On reading the White Paper my first reaction was that I was pleased to see that some of the discussion articulated in this House by this party and some members of the Fine Gael Party has been recognised to the extent that it has now been incorporated in the text. We are not getting any decisions. Lest anyone thinks I intend to use flowery phrases about White Paper, Mark III, that is not on. At least the argument we have been putting forward has been recognised and has gained the status of being incorporated in some form in the White Paper.

Presumably the Minister for Economic Planning and Development visited some of the stations, and presumably the feed-back from the various Deputies began to filter back into the ranks in the 84 seats, because on page 72 at paragraph 5.19 we are told that urban transport is now a priority area. When I read that I felt like sending a bouquet of roses to the relevant person. After 18 months of total chaos, of mounting congestion, of an energy crisis which the Minister has argued time and time again is so critical that we have no time for a public inquiry into the proposal for Carnsore Point—and transportation in the Dublin region is a major factor in terms of energy and has great potential for energy conservation—this Government of all the talents, with 84 seats and enormous administrative experience, suddenly discover in the phrase in the White Paper that urban transport is now a priority area. Let us be thankful for small mercies.

Having recognised that, without giving credit to the people who forced the argument down their throats, let us see what is proposed in an area now given the status of being a priority. Paragraph 5.19 reads:

Urban transport is now a priority area, as increasing congestion is causing serious delays in the movement of passengers and goods and consequent increases in costs and frustration. There is no easy solution to the vicious circle of growing traffic congestion leading to deterioration in bus services, which in turn leads to increased utilisation of private cars, still greater congestion of traffic, fewer people using buses, loss of revenue to public transport and increased Exchequer subsidy. Improved public transport services can, however, lead to a substantial alleviation of these problems and the Government, accordingly, see public transport as having a developing role in urban areas.

At last the direction is moving along a path on which there would be agreement on both sides of the House, but it is 18 months too late, 18 months after the car tax gimmick. What do they propose to do? In paragraph 5.22 there is an old phrase from the second White Paper: "...the Government propose to maintain the Dublin commuter rail services, whose existence substantially reduces the flow of road vehicles, both buses and cars, that would otherwise be entering and leaving the city during the rush hours." What does "maintain" actually mean in February 1979? Does it mean that they want to maintain them as they were this morning or does it mean maintaining them as indicated in June last year? If so, would either of the two Fianna Fáil Deputies like to take their place in the queue for any of the suburban rail services and say that one of the proposals of the Government is to maintain the service as it is? Would Deputy Ahern like to assure people who travel in from the part of the city that he knows well that that is a serious Government policy? I think I know the answer.

To take a more benign interpretation of the word "maintain", if the intention of the Government is to provide money for new rolling stock, to provide capital sums for the upgrading and maintenance of the suburban rail system and the provision of new diesel locomotives, in other words, maintaining the existing type of rail service without opting for the electrification of the system, we have yet to see evidence of it. Evidence is certainly not available in the public estimates which were published this morning. In fact, the capital expenditure figure for CIE goes from £11.7 million last year to an even £15 million this year and that is only for miscellaneous maintenance. One can only deduct that no capital provision of the scale required has been made this year to maintain the services. Therefore, all the Government are saying is that they are not going to do anything at present for the suburban rail system. If that is a fair interpretation, the White Paper is deliberately misleading the public. It is my solemn responsibility to point out what I consider to be a deliberate Government deception.

One could argue that in every section on transport the drafting of the three White Papers points to the difficulties in terms of costs subsidy attendant on the role of CIE and the difficulties of providing for those services, and then immediately turns in glowing terms to the capacity of the road network to solve many of our transport problems. This contrast between the two modes of transport is constant and glaring in terms of the gap between the perception of the role of public transport in overall economic terms and the role of an improved road system. Yet, the argument for the road system is weak. While we have more miles per population than any other OECD country, the national primary roads system counts for 3 per cent of our total road system and carries up to 25 per cent of the national traffic load. Much of the capital road programme that the Government referred to is not going to create the necessary improvements and is concentrated in areas where there is major traffic congestion brought about by commuters. Every transportation expert in the world concedes that the journey to work is the most predictable trip that an urban population is likely to make and is more readily catered for by a system of urban public transport.

On a statistical note, two eminent Fianna Fáil names—Andrews and Lemass—have been associated over the years with the decimation of the rail services.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to make charges against people outside the House.

Mr. Quinn

There was no insult intended. The public perception of CIE is that railways belong to the 19th century. The only time anyone thinks of them is when they are being closed. It may come as a surprise to learn that there are more railways being built at present than at any time since the beginning of the century. Major rail systems are being built in five continents. They are being built on terms relative to economic criteria as perceived by those concerned. More undergrounds are being built at present than at any time in the past and more cities are seriously considering building them.

Before I move on to the overall macro benefits of energy and transportation, I should like to refer to the invisible Minister for Tourism and Transport. Presumably the Department of Tourism and Transport had some input into these White Papers. If one bases one's analysis on the collective impact of the three White Papers and assumes that the initial one in January 1978 summarises the Department's perception of public transport, we find that there is no recognition of the positive role of public transport and an immediate focus on CIE's yearly losses. From January 1978 to this year the research facilities and the staffing resources of the Department of Economic Planning and Development have been augmented and it is not an unfair assumption that there are people in that Department who have looked at the question of public transport with a less jaundiced eye than the weary principal officer in Tourism and Transport whose major problem is the amount of subsidy which CIE require from year to year.

In so far as the Government, as represented here, have recognised the validity of the case relative to the role of public transport, that recognition has come from within the Department of Economic Planning and Development and has not been reflected in any new thinking in the Department of Tourism and Transport. Back at the ranch, so to speak, in the Department one year after it had come under the sure hands of the present Minister—one would have thought he had enough to do with Posts and Telegraphs—it was announced on 19 September 1978—one year and three months actually—that the Government were setting up the Transport Consultative Committee to give effect to its manifesto commitments.

The manifesto commitment was to a transportation authority, albeit an authority whose simple function it would be to investigate and report on necessary transportation measures. Nevertheless, it was to be an authority, which if the English language means anything on that side of the House, would have some kind of role to play and some sort of responsibility. It is now being downgraded after 15 months to the status of a commission. The members of the commission were listed and the terms of reference were published. Without wishing to name any member of that commission it is clear that their common denominator is that they know nothing about transport—they know a good deal about other things—with the exception of one member who happens to have a role in one of the transport institutes. The apparent qualification for membership is that you can either look at transport with an ignorant eye or a fresh eye. Either way, the requirement is that basically you do not know anything about the details and specifics of transportation.

That may be the norm in the Department of Transport and Tourism and they may have felt that it was preferable to have people at the same level of development as themselves rather than people who might know something about transport, but it does not augur well for the country at large or for the achievement of any of the aspirations contained in the White Paper which at last, after 18 months, recognises that urban transport is now a priority area. We have nobody on this commission who knows any details about urban transportation: they are all extremely busy, committed people representing different parts of the country, serviced by an official from the Department. Anybody who seriously thinks they will come up with anything of consequence within the next two years is completely naive and knows nothing about the operation of our governmental system.

This document is clearly a stall, a complete and total stall postponing a decision. There is an application from CIE for a miserable £41 million, miserable in view of the £1,000 million public investment programme announced this morning; miserable in terms of the money that this Government are capable of throwing apparently like confetti into certain sectors of the economy in the hope that some of it might stick and that we might get jobs; miserable in view of the £500,000 apparently thrown into a company in Athy which was put into receivership within a couple of months; miserable in terms of the number of people, the one million passengers carried daily by CIE; miserable by reference to the number of Irish passengers carried by Aer Lingus which apparently can get money from the Exchequer every time they turn on the tap. Miserable by any criterion of overall Government spending is the refusal of the Government to recognise this application for money. They have not the guts to say that they do not really care about public transport or to say that they are a right wing party which really believes that personal mobility depends on owning a tax free car and driving anywhere you like. The Government hide behind this kind of nonsense—and it is nonsense—the Transportation Consultative Commission.

One could become really angry at the state of total indecision on the Government side of the House in areas other than those in which the Government has enshrined itself by giving them overall priority. Even taking the Government's own criterion of every project being evaluated in terms of job creation have they ever assessed the job creation potential of electrifying suburban rails? Have they looked at the detailed figures submitted by CIE? Have they looked at the capacity for integrating our third level education system, our AnCO training programme and our unskilled workers with the whole concept of building an underground system and restoring the Inchicore works which is now being kidnapped and which it is proposed to take to Shannon where there is no coach building tradition. Coach building is a tradition that goes back years in this city. Having done some sort of half-baked deal—which did not work—with a private enterprise organisation from another country it is now proposed to transport this industry, lock, stock and barrel west of the Shannon and leave stranded a work force which has generations of experience in coach building. Even within the Government's criterion of evaluating a project in terms of job creation, not even that aspect of the proposal apparently has been looked at seriously. If it had been, it would be in this White Paper and there is no reference in the White Paper to the job potential of actually building a public transport system in the Dublin region.

In the eyes of Fianna Fáil public transport may have a very minor role to play, the assumption being that as the standard of living improves the car ownership level will increase and therefore the need for public transport will reduce more and more in terms of personal mobility. That is a totally false assumption. Government Ministers frequently point to the age structure of the population and prior to the last election were constantly bleating about youth unemployment and the problems of youth but if one takes youth as being people under 18, none of them is really entitled to drive on the roads. Add to that the number of people who, due to some disability or another, may not drive. Surveys have shown that at different times in their lives up to 20 per cent of the population can expect to be physically disabled for a period from causes ranging from extremely heavy pregnancies to arthritis, broken arms and so on. During such periods it would not be safe to drive. We have the highest dependency ratio in western Europe, not all of it due to old age, but a certain component of it by definition of their age will be unable to drive. I have not yet talked about the people who simply cannot afford to drive or who are terrified by driving. On a demographic analysis alone, suspending any kind of economic assessment, by the end of this century at least 40 per cent of this population will depend on public transport for personal mobility.

In the 18 months during which this country has had the misfortune of Fianna Fáil being back in office, our public transportation system has been reduced in effectiveness, undermined in morale, and has been told publicly time and time again in these documents that we are now debating that, while it may have an important role to play, it is a question of, "Not yet shall you get the money, not yet will a decision be made, not yet can we consider your application for funds". If freedom and democracy mean anything, if personal liberty, to which all of us are undoubtedly committed, has any definition at all, surely personal mobility has a major role and is a major fundamental component of any degree of personal liberation. Yet the transportation system here has been so starved that up to 40 per cent of the population are going to be seriously immobilised by the policies now being pursued by this Government over a period of time.

Another concept dear to western democracy and dear to the republican parties, so called, is equality. Is there no room in the thinking of Fianna Fáil for the concept of equality of access to such mobility? Do we all have to own a car before we can be treated as having rights with regard to the question of mobility? If you do not own a car you are out of the picture altogether. That is implicit in the kind of thinking in the three White Papers. Somebody will try to say that Irish politics are not really ideological, that they are fought on old civil war wounds and that they bear no relation to normal politics in western Europe. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so long as you are dividing a cake of financial resources within a community your politics are ideological. You may try to conceal it, but resources are divided and distributed on ideological bases subject to all sorts of political influences. But it is quite clear that the kind of allocation of resources that this section of the European Progressive Democrats have made with regard to personal mobility in the Republic of Ireland is the sort of allocation that will make M. Chirac extremely proud. They have done a good day's work for the right-wing Gaullism in Europe in the publication of this White Paper in which they simply suspend yet again any decision about public transport in this country. On a radio programme featured on the Saturday after the publication of this White Paper the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy FitzGerald, sought through it looking for decisions that have been made and came up with very few. If one were to do the reverse exercise and count the number of non-decisions or postponements, the figure would be very high.

I have made my political points. An even greater tragedy is that the Government cannot claim that they are a minority Government. They cannot even claim that they have got ideological differences of two parties. They cannot even claim that some of their members are constantly sick. They can claim nothing except the 84 seats. There is no decision. What are the back-benchers doing in Fianna Fáil? Is it some private club run by 15 Ministers locked in combat around the Cabinet table with one Minister apparently telling all the others what they can and cannot have, and the rest of the back-benchers getting permission to come in on debates and speaking, undoubtedly, at the private parliamentary party meetings? What good are their 84 seats if they cannot make decisions? If anyone tells me that in any areas outside those related to political priority and importance within the real Cabinet hierarchy there are decisions embodied in the question of public transport that are essential to the future development of this country, then I am afraid we are speaking totally different languages. I believe I have about two or three minutes before I finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

About three minutes.

Mr. Quinn

I will conclude by picking up the thread that the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy laid down towards the end of his speech, and that was the question of energy. He identified correctly the fact that technology affords this country two options with regard to secure energy supplies in 1979. They are coal and nuclear fuel. What he did not point out is that while the environmental hazards of coal are very real in terms of air pollution, they are at least known and they can be neutered. There is no way to neuter radiation in the sense of disposing safely for all time of radioactive waste. Either way, if you burn coal or if you burn nuclear fuel—and let us suspend the argument as to the benefit of either—you are producing electricity and you are reducing our dependence upon oil and on the vagaries of the Ayatollahs of this world. The energy benefits in terms of the electrification of the suburban rail system surely must be apparent. There is a bonus there somewhere that could be calculated.

The Minister talked at the outset about the non-performance of the public sector in terms of industrial relations. I would hope, if he did not have the opportunity of seeing the programme on the commuter race from south suburban Dublin into the city, that he will get a copy of it. There is material here for a horror picture with people coming to work in the morning in varying degrees of anger and frustration which undoubtedly are going to colour their attitude to the work situation, particularly a work situation which has been starved of every degree of radical industrial democracy. The way in which we are forcing more and more of our people to travel to work is not only inefficient in terms of energy consumption and wasteful in terms of congestion, but it is damaging to the health of the individuals involved and is seriously reducing their capacity as human beings.

Mr. R. Burke

Is the Deputy suggesting road-building in Sandymount?

Mr. Quinn

I am not suggesting anything of the sort.

Mr. R. Burke

It sounds as if the Deputy is suggesting that the road in Sandymount should go ahead immediately.

Mr. Quinn

On the contrary, I am trying to say that there is plenty of room in my constituency for not one suburban rail station but at least half a dozen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now on overtime.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister of State is able to travel directly from Swords and Baldoyle. He can visit me at any time and he will do it in comfort.

Mr. R. Burke

With a good road system?

Mr. Quinn

With regard to the brief which he has with regard to energy conservation he will be thumbing his nose at the vagaries of the Iranian oil crisis. If he could travel to Dublin south-east on an efficient electrical railway system he would be extremely welcome and I would roll out the red carpet for him. Regrettably, that is not going to be.

Mr. B. Ahern

Before Deputy Quinn leaves, I want to say that it is strange that with all his complaints about transport and Dublin Corporation, of which he was a member, and all this debate about the roads, most of the letters which I have been receiving recently from action groups seem to be from his area. They do not particularly want a change.

Mr. Quinn

I suggest that the Deputy looks at the file on transport in Dublin Corporation and the agitation about the transport service.

Mr. B. Ahern

It seems as if they do not want a change. If we electrify everything what do we do with the roads? Do we close up those we already have?

Like any planning document, the White Paper should be welcomed. A document referred to here frequently was the Green Paper, a discussion document which is now embodied in the White Paper. There is not much point in quoting from the Green Paper. It has gone and has been replaced.

Any document giving a sense of direction and purpose is to be welcomed. Before I became a Member of this House it was very difficult to ascertain what was or was not Government policy. One could not lay one's hands on a document outlining Government policy to ascertain to what plan the Government were working. That can be said of all Governments in the past, that there was not sufficient planning undertaken. Perhaps in years gone by it was not as essential, that things did not change as quickly, when we were not members of the EEC and were not subjected to the same restrictions as obtain now.

This is the third document issued by this Government since coming into office. There was the White Paper in January 1978, the Green Paper in July of the same year and now this second White Paper, all following on the policies put to the electorate in June 1977. When the manifesto proposals were outlined certain people said they were old hat, that they would never work, that it would take between ten and 20 years to implement them and we would probably hear no more about them. These are logical and realistic proposals of the present Government. Six months ago the Green Paper was presented affording everybody an opportunity to voice his opinions on it. Perhaps Deputy Quinn did not read the Green Paper at that stage, that that is why he is now reading it and is confusing it with the two White Papers, because he referred continuously to three White Papers.

The whole principle behind the present White Paper is the reconstruction of our economy as it was taken over by this Government in 1977. I spoke last year in the budget debate and on a number of other occasions about what has been achieved since then. National reconstruction was absolutely necessary and something had to be done, in gigantic proportions, to what a Government would normally have to do. The whole philosophy behind the manifesto, the Green Paper and the two White Papers was to create employment within the constraints of good economic and financial policies. The primary aim was to attain full employment within some projected date as quickly as possible. In the second half of 1977 improvements were made but it took a full financial year to ascertain exactly what could be done under a good Government. At the end of 1978 inflation stood at, I think, 7.9 per cent. Our growth rate was double what the EEC had predicted and the highest in the OECD at 7 per cent. That was secured within the planned, budgeted figure of 30 per cent of GNP. Something had to be done by way of giving tax cuts, by way of giving workers more encouragement in compensation for the way they had been treated in the previous four years by the Coalition, to give entrepreneurs and industry a boost, allowing them increase their productivity and output. One cannot expect a person to work 70 or 80 hours a week and then find himself taxed out of existence. That just does not work.

While it is always said that we on this side of the House seem to have a grá for the entrepreneurs and industrialists, those people who were unemployed in the period 1973 to 1977 and who are now working will tell one quite frankly that that is because money has been put into investment in industry, in helping the drive to increase exports, encouraging the Buy Irish campaign and all the other worth-while projects that have created more jobs. That is how it operates. It is no good saying, as somebody did here this morning, that teachers and nurses are in non-productive jobs; that if the country were full of civil servants, teachers and nurses, how would they be paid if the country had no exports? This is a small country and that is a ridiculous argument to advance—that if we do not increase our exports every year we cannot service the national debt or find the finance needed for the various day-to-day Government expenditures. The number of jobs created in 1978, 30,000, was the highest in any year on record. Unfortunately, it is fair to say also that redundancies at 13,000 were higher than one would have wished, making the overall figure of those employed 17,000 but which was still much higher than anything that would have been envisaged in this country two years ago.

The primary objective of this Government during the past 18 months clearly has been employment. As the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy said here this morning, last year the percentage increase in output was 15 per cent in real terms, which constituted a tremendous response from industry, illustrating that there was some point in their endeavouring to increase productivity and chase export markets. Industrialists woke up to this realisation. I have always said that if money is put into industry there must be a maximum return in so far as the creation of jobs is concerned. A lot of investment in industry may go on the purchase of machinery leading, in turn, to redundancies. I am not sufficiently familiar with manufacturing industry to say whether or not that can be arrested. For instance, it would be interesting to know what proportion of the 13,000 redundancies last year was due to money injected into industry but used for the purpose of purchasing machinery or equipment leading to those same redundancies. Certainly I know of one or two examples of that happening. Money is being advanced to industrialists. I say: let them buy machinery but let them also create jobs somewhere else in their industries. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose.

There is also the Buy Irish campaign. At times it seems to be successful, when there is a lot of talk about it and then, at other times, it seems to diminish. We are all aware that tremendous results have been achieved through this campaign. An argument that can be advanced always is that people can go into a shop or supermarket and because some foreign-made article is one penny or two pence cheaper they will buy it, thinking they are saving themselves a penny or twopence, whereas if one were to add a percentage on to a corresponding Irish-made article representing what it would save the country in dole or social welfare moneys, probably one would find that the difference between the two articles would amount to five pence or six pence. I cannot understand why such a figure cannot be calculated and, if it has been calculated, why it is not stressed more. Certainly I do not know what is that figure so I doubt if the ordinary consumer can be aware of it. I know this exercise is carried out in other countries.

It was said here yesterday that if we are to increase employment and output we must concentrate on the areas capable of having employment generated speedily. Those are industry and agriculture. Just as industry does so does agriculture play a vital part in our economy; 18 per cent of the national output is on agriculture and it constitutes 35 per cent of our exports. Then there are the other industries hived off agriculture, such as the food processing industry. We are aware from the Taoiseach's statement yesterday that the IDA have an expansionary programme for that industry which is something in which I have always believed. Every other country seems to avail of this opportunity: If one has the natural resources one should work hard and put as much money into them as possible, reaping the best results.

In the agricultural sector we have the necessary raw materials and we should have the best food processing plants in the world. I cannot understand why we import vegetables. Perhaps it is a seasonal problem but surely that could be overcome. In Dublin shops and supermarkets there is a high proportion of non-Irish agricultural products and this is nonsensical. We spend considerable amounts of money processing articles and goods for which we do not have the raw materials. In the car assembly business it is cheaper to bring in cars that are totally assembled rather than to assemble them here. I am very glad that the IDA are giving consideration to the agricultural industry and that financial aid will be given to the food processing industry.

The White Paper refers to the long-term prospects for agriculture. The Government are seeking to ensure the future of young people on the land. With regard to the question of taxation of farmers, many people in the country think that everyone in Dublin is trying to take all their money from them. It is obvious that the farmers must contribute their fair share in taxation. That is all anybody is asking. Everyone knows the argument of the PAYE section. Not alone are they paying to keep their own services going and to keep going what they consider the daily requirements of the Government but they also have to contribute to farming expenses because not even that amount is generated from farming taxation. Surely the money for these services should not come from the PAYE sector. The expenses and the grants for agriculture should be paid for by that sector. There is the argument that agriculture is one of our biggest areas of investment and exports but this applies also to many industries. My own profession before I became a Member of this House, that of accountancy, is doing a booming business throughout the country. I know of many accountants who have set up their own businesses in the past four or five years as a result of their increased workload for the farming section. I realise that farmers have to pay a considerable amount for equipment but there must be guidelines as there are in the PAYE code. A person cannot spend all his money on investment and then say he has no profit. In every budget we are told that the Government will get so much from agriculture but this never happens. I was glad to hear the Taoiseach say yesterday that the Government will be looking for a more equitable distribution of taxation and that the farmers will pay. A large sum of what they pay will go back into agriculture and it will relieve the burden on the PAYE sector.

On the industrial front the Government have taken steps to encourage the rapid expansion of investment which is vital in order to create jobs. Some of the projects that the Government have in mind such as the film industry, the timber boom that is expected in the 1980s, fish farming and tourism are all in areas in which there will be quick employment returns. However, there does not seem to be much progress in some of the smaller industries that are in the hands of semi-State organisations. It is good to note that the Industrial Development Consortium are giving consideration to this point. I presume that the telephone and telecommunications sector and perhaps parts of the public transport system are areas that will be considered to see if they could be more efficiently run on a profit-making basis. The telephone service in England makes a very considerable profit every year but here we seem to go the other way. It was said here this morning that in some of these areas of protected employment there are more strikes, arguments and general discontent. I am not saying what side is right or wrong. Recent statistics show that in the near future 50 per cent of our population will be under 30 years. We will need to create thousands of productive jobs and we will need to export a very considerable amount of our products. We will have to move quickly in improving the efficiency of our industries. We wasted time in recent years but that must be made up now.

It appears nowadays that people are asking for increases of 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent. It is obvious that such increases cannot be granted. They are not realistic. A few years ago we got increases of 20 per cent or 25 per cent. In 1974 because there was a carry-over of the national wage agreement and because of other reasons people got huge increases but inflation eroded any benefit and people did not have any more money. More people were on the dole and industries closed. That is the wrong way to run an economy. It is much better to get an increase of 6 per cent or 7 per cent. The main aim must be to provide employment. The result of one person getting an increase of 40 per cent is that others are put out of work. The Government cannot allow that situation. Whatever percentage increase is granted, it must be linked with the output from industry, with what the country can afford and with how it will affect unemployment. It is hoped that the large unions and the workforce will come to a compromise with the Government.

A number of years ago a national wage agreement would be negotiated at, say, 7 per cent; but if the cost of living increased beyond that during the year the wage agreement would be reviewed. That seemed a fair method. People cannot be expected to accept a wage agreement without hope of revision if the cost of living increases more than expected. If the Government projections do not work out there should be a review of the wages irrespective of a national wage agreement. Trade unionists would agree with that policy. Another way to safeguard the standard of living is by tax cuts, which last year proved workable. Any way that would put more money into the pocket of the worker is what counts in the end, and tax cuts were an excellent idea. Next week we will find out what will happen there. Hopefully, all these things will lead to better industrial relations throughout 1979.

In relation to the Government's aim to try to abolish unemployment within five years, it is welcome that a Government agency has been set up. Hopefully, this agency will be unlike the Manpower agency which does not appear to be a worth-while organisation. They seem to have provided employment for relatively few people. People approaching Manpower are sent for interview to a certain company and it often turns out that Manpower has sent about 25 applicants for the job that morning and that it has already been filled. An employment agency should try to create jobs or should know in advance where jobs will occur; they should not chase the small ads. in the paper. Such an agency should try to employ the 20,000 or 30,000 people on the unemployment register through some type of co-ordinated plan. If they cannot be employed in existing industry or in the public service, some type of project should be developed whereby people can work and be paid a few pounds more than they receive on the dole while they are seeking the type of employment they want. By adopting such a system we could possibly export some products competitively because of low labour costs, and we could provide productive employment. By paying people perhaps 25 per cent more than they at present get on the dole we could have a clawback from exports because of cheap labour. I have seen places where when people were out of work a small industry was set up on a community basis giving people a small amount of money in addition to what they were getting by way of assistance from the State and it seems to work quite well.

A number of youth projects implemented last year proved very successful. Rural Deputies said that it took so long for a lot of these to get off the ground that they were not very useful, but I am sure that any teething problems which the various local authorities might have had in 1978 have been worked out and once they get their allocation this year they should be able to get things working quickly.

The capital programme was mentioned in the White Paper and the Government intend to spend large sums on infrastructure. If we are to have productive industry we must have a good transport and telephone system. In all these areas we lack adequate standards. I do not agree with Deputy Quinn's criticism of successive Governments. The money was needed to develop the agricultural industry and was injected into that area. There is an increased allocation in the capital programme for transport. People were crying wolf here a few minutes ago about a cutback on housing, but on the capital programme the estimate for housing for 1979 is £165 million whereas £136 million was allocated last year. I do not see how there is a cutback there in relation to the housing programme. The increase in the output from the building industry last year was in the region of 11 per cent. The building and construction industry is a very big employer, so to put money into it is productive in a number of ways.

In relation to local authority housing, a large number of people wish to own their own houses but because of their circumstances are unable to save up a deposit. It is recognised and accepted that the local authority must house social welfare recipients and other such people. It would be a good idea if they built houses at a rent of, say, £15 a week for people who wish to buy their own houses who cannot save a deposit or get a loan of £10,000 from a bank or a building society because they are considered a bad risk. These people can save in the region of £15 or £20 a week but, by the time they have a few thousand pounds saved, the cost of the house has gone up out of all proportion. The Department of the Environment should consider implementing a scheme to build houses and rent them to these people so that they would own them in the end. Such a scheme would bring more money into the Exchequer, more houses could be built and it would give people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to own their own homes, or who would not be able to get on the local authority housing list because they would not have enough points, a chance to own their own homes. Such people would be glad to purchase their own house but the difference between the amount of the loan and the cost of the house is too great. The scheme suggested is worth consideration to see if the State or local authorities should build houses and then rent them at commercial rents.

It is good to see the amount of money allocated to health under the capital programme. Health is not a productive industry but we must care for our sick people. In this regard I should like to state that many of our institutions were built by religious orders in the 1850s and little money has been invested in their modernisation since. I understand that as a result of the amount of money allocated for maintenance and major development schemes many of those hospitals have been greatly improved. The problem cannot be solved in a year or two and the allocation of a few million pounds will do little. It has often occurred to me that patients recuperating in such institutions would be better off at home. It is pleasing to know that major hospital development will take place in Dublin over the next few years. A major hospital is planned at Beaumont, the Mater Hospital is to be developed and so also will St. James's Hospital. It is also hoped to erect a hospital at Tallaght.

I hope that people will soon realise that they can do a lot to improve their own health. In this regard it is incredible that so little money is allocated for the prevention of illness. The amount of money allocated for sport is very little. I accept that the figure was increased last year but an effort should be made to provide well equipped parks and other sporting facilities in all areas. Junior football clubs in North Dublin have to pay phenomenal rents to private individuals for the use of football pitches.

For some years the country has been under severe pressure with an increase in the number of redundancies and inflation soaring annually and the Government had to make quick decisions to prevent the unemployment position getting worse. The White Paper represents the fourth step by the Government to cope with this problem. We have been told by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy of the massive increase in exports last year and we are aware that inflation has been cut to 8 per cent. We are also aware that the Government are making a determined effort to cut our foreign borrowing. It is a big drawback to have to pay £1 in every £5 taken in taxation to service the national debt. That is a terrible indictment of how our country was run in the last few years. That situation must be rectified and if we are asked to make sacrifices to do so we must be willing to make them because we cannot continue on leaving the matter to be solved by a future generation. If 1979 proves to be as good as 1978 was the country will have a lot to thank Fianna Fáil for. The regretting years were 1973 to 1977 and if people are not anxious to get everything they were deprived of during those years inside 12 months we will make progress.

Mr. Quinn

Wealth Tax was abolished in one year and that was pretty quick.

Mr. B. Ahern

Hopefully, within five years we will achieve the primary aim of the White Paper, the total abolition of unemployment.

Mr. Bruton

One must ask if the White Paper lives up to the major challenge facing our economy, a challenge which is spelled out clearly in a paper issued by the National Economic and Social Council. That paper stated that by 1986 employment outside agriculture, if present trends continue, might be between 80,000 and 100,000 higher than in 1976, in other words, one-third of the increase required to absorb the extra people coming on to the employment market. One must ask if the measures in the White Paper are such that they will change trends which are underlying our economy to treble the amount of employment between now and 1986. That is what must be done if we are to provide jobs for all our people seeking them by 1986.

I do not think the White Paper measures up to that challenge. In the course of my contribution I propose to deal with the question of agriculture. We should realise the potential agriculture has for creating employment. For instance, if dairy output continues at its present rate of increase, which has been high of late, an extra 3,000 jobs will be created in dairy processing by 1986. If, on the other hand, there is a high growth in dairy output the extra employment in dairy processing is estimated by the NESC to be as high as 13,759. The NESC estimate that more than 10,000 extra jobs could be created if a high growth in dairy output takes place rather than a continuance of the present trend of growth which is not high enough. The same applies to cattle production. An additional 2,000 jobs could be created in the meat processing industry.

Debate adjourned.