Before Question Time I was remarking that it is an easy matter for people to march by way of protest but as Members of this House we have the responsibility of putting forward constructive suggestions regarding the bringing about of a more equitable form of taxation. In this regard I was suggesting that, perhaps, members of the various professions are not contributing their fair share of income tax. In these circumstances we must consider ways of ensuring that this situation is rectified and to this extent I was suggesting a system whereby people availing of the services of these professional people would obtain receipts and that these receipts in turn could be used for purposes of the assessment of income tax by the Revenue Commissioners. In this way we would be devising a system that would benefit the taxpayers generally. I am aware that a system on those lines operates elsewhere.
Regarding the march arranged for Tuesday next we might ask what it is hoped to achieve by this form of protest. Inevitably the people who are hurt most in situations of strike or confrontations are the ordinary citizens. People in Government, in charge of trade unions or of farming organisations must think of the man and woman, the boy and girl and how it affects their lives.
While second and third level education, in principle, are free for all, many parents find it increasingly difficult to keep their children at school. It is a strain on the family income and we must give them some financial help if our young people are to be educated. Parents should be allowed to claim a tax concession on expenditure in this area. In many cases parents with children in university have to pay the cost of keeping their children in flats, digs and so on. I ask the Minister to give urgent attention to introducing tax concessions in this area.
I want to draw attention to another shortcoming in the taxation regulations, one that has been aired many times in the past and is now more relevant than ever. Thousands of workers are obliged to use their own transport to and from work because our public transport service is not as good as the public transport systems in other countries. In Navan the direct rail service was closed down in the early fifties, and now thousands of commuters who would normally use the railway line are obliged to drive to and from Dublin and elsewhere. Because of the heavy traffic between Navan and Dublin I want to ask the Minister for Transport and Tourism to instruct CIE to introduce daily rail services between Navan and Drogheda to link up with the service to Dublin. If it were introduced it would not only mean fewer motorists on the road; it would mean less traffic congestion in Dublin and a cutback in petrol consumption. There are many other towns within commuting distance of Dublin where traffic could be diverted to the railways if a satisfactory service were provided.
One immediately thinks of the brilliant undergound transport system in London. Most commuters use that system and do not have to use their own cars to travel to work. This is relevant especially in view of the Private Member's Motion taken yesterday on the traffic in Dublin city and CIE's rapid rail plan which has received favourable comment and which it is intended to implement one day. Until such transport is available, the Minister for Finance of the day should look at the feasibility of giving tax concession to the people who must use private transport to get to and from their jobs.
I now want to draw attention to the problems many industries are experiencing in getting their employees to work overtime. Many workers are not keen to do overtime because of the high rate of taxation deducted from their wage packets. The present system of taxation tends to kill incentive and reduce productivity. The Minister should alleviate the taxation burden on these people to make overtime more attractive.
I will now venture into an area which is of interest to my constituency, that is, the furnishing industry. The Irish Goods Council have recognised that furniture and carpets are manufactures in which the Irish producers are under great pressure from imports. Most of the major promotions of Irish products by the council have included these two categories. One hundred and seventeen furniture manufacturers and nine carpet manufacturers are participating in the council's Guaranteed Irish scheme. It is the function of the council to convince Irish people that it is in their interests to support Irish industry and that the urgency is greatest where competition from imports is heaviest. This is not to say that the only way to improve the position of Irish industry is to persuade the Irish people to buy Irish. Irish manufacturers must improve their positions and sharpen their competitiveness by engaging more and more in exports.
The position in the domestic furniture market is that it has increased by 150 per cent in value terms in recent years. In 1978, it stood at £51 million, but the bulk of the increase came from imports. While Irish exports have also increased substantially, the need exists to stimulate the industry in order to improve its potential in the home and export markets. In order to exploit the sizeable market opportunities arising at home and abroad, it is essential to concentrate on improved design and marketing and to pay particular attention to the specialised demands of the consumer where necessary.
