Deputy Flynn is in possession. He has 44 minutes left.
Financial Resolutions, 1979. - Financial Resolution No. 8: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Economic Planning and Development.)
The last time this motion was debated there was a lot of talk about Government strategy and what was intended by this budget. It might be forgotten by the Opposition that this budget is a continuation of proven Fianna Fáil strategy on behalf of the people. The first stage of this strategy took place in the 1977 Budget, when we had direct Government action to boost economic growth, increase employment and reduce inflation. That proved most effective, and the 1979 Budget, the second stage of that strategy, continued economic growth and social development.
It is recognised by all that we have had a dynamic economy since the return of a Fianna Fáil administration. Confidence has returned to our economy and the public sector. This fact is accepted by the Opposition parties, by no less a personage than the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy FitzGerald. In a recent television programme he was adamant that we had a dynamic economy and he used this fact in pursuance of his confederation policy. He accepted that Irish dynamism would be a good enticement for those in the North to join an all-Ireland confederation. The Labour Party did not want us to join anything, including the EEC and EMS. It is a good ploy not to agree with anything, because it gives one an opportunity to castigate efforts made subsequently. I concede that they have a habit of joining marches in pursuance of aims which might not be in the best interests of the State at this time.
Everybody accepted that 1978 targets were ambitious. No forecasts were made, but it was agreed by all, nationally and internationally, that our growth rate of 7 per cent last year not only was the highest in the EEC but was a remarkable performance by any national or international standards. Fianna Fáil strategy has been spelt out over the past two years by all economic Ministers and it covered the three points I mentioned earlier.
Whether the Opposition like it or not, the statistics are there to prove that in 1977 the inflation rate was 13.6 per cent and in 1978 it was 7.6 per cent. It was the Government's strategy to combat inflation successfully and it has to be agreed by all that they have had unique success. Comparisons may be odious but comparisons will have to be acceptable because things were different during the Coalition's term of office. Inflation was at an unprecedented level. It is wasting time to talk about inflation today when one considers the rampant inflation that existed under the Coalition.
Part of the Fianna Fáil strategy was a determined policy of price control. When the Coalition were in power there was a price increase every Friday. They had no idea of price control, but price control returned when Fianna Fáil took office in 1977. Coupled with that we had a responsible wage restraint which has always been part and parcel of Fianna Fáil's strategy. This is the formula for increased growth the Minister for Finance has been speaking about recently. This is the formula for growth that will give an increase in the level of employment, an improvement in living standards and better environmental employment conditions. Is that not the aim of any democratically elected Government? Who has been more successful in pursuing that type of policy than the single unified Fianna Fáil administration?
Job investment was, and still is, the primary aim of the current administration. This is a continuation of the Fianna Fáil strategy for continued economic growth. What is the best way of achieving that? We must aim at lower costs, greater productivity and better and more determined marketing at home and abroad. It is not suggested by Fianna Fáil that the Government are alone in this area of economic growth. Employers, employees and unions all have their role to play. We must consider the consequences of any arbitrary decisions taken by any one of these sections in pursuance of sectional interest that might not be in the best national interests. There is general agreement that the best way to combat unemployment is to create new jobs by implementing an active growth policy. This coupled with high investment and improved competitiveness must be the way, as enunciated by the Minister for Finance recently, of achieving a better employment situation.
We have had a remarkable success in this matter since 1977 when Fianna Fáil returned to office. Comparisons may be odious but it must be remembered that the Fianna Fáil strategy has paid off. The achievements in employment in 1978 were tremendous. Almost 30,000 new jobs were created leaving a net job creation of 17,000 when one takes away redundancies and other problems over which we had no control. The objective of the Fianna Fáil economic policy is to have a return to a high level of employment and the strategy has been to strengthen economic growth and give employment a new boost. The figures for employment were increased for the first time in decades last year. What kind of situation existed during the Coalition's term in office? The high rise in unemployment figures was the talk of the nation and of our international friends. The figure of 100,000 was often passed and we were nearing the 200,000 mark. Yet within two years more jobs were created under Fianna Fáil than were ever created in any two-year period since the foundation of the State and this at the time when unemployment in the Common Market countries rose.
Both sides of industry must play their part in promoting a lasting growth and bringing about lasting improvements in the employment situation. The EMS will have many advantages for us but it must be directed towards resolving problems we have in economic growth and employment. Special measures will have to be introduced to deal with youth employment. We must consider new methods and opportunities for training and retraining our workers to allow for greater flexibility and mobility. Certain industries cannot find trained personnel. This is unfortunate when we have a high unemployment situation. Measures are to be taken by this Government to ensure that training and retraining is made available through the Ministers for Labour and Industry, Commerce and Energy.
Let us consider the job creation programme of Fianna Fáil in 1978. In the public sector 12,529 jobs were created, chiefly in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and other State bodies. No Opposition Deputy can quibble with the fact that more personnel were needed in these outlets yet we had to wait until Fianna Fáil were returned to office before the question of improving the situation occurred to anybody. In the building construction industry there was an increase of 5,592 jobs. This figure would have been greater but for the strike situation which existed during 1978. When one considers that the building industry had an unprecedented year of growth in that year it is a guarantee of further growth in the industry. During the Coalition's time in Government the building programme virtually collapsed through lack of funding from State sources. This has never been the case during Fianna Fáil administrations.
Conscious of the need for youth employment, Fianna Fáil have taken particular interest in providing jobs for young people. Fianna Fáil brought in the environmental works during 1978, thus creating 3,800 new jobs. The AnCO community training programmes created 1,500 jobs. Some of these were of short duration but there was a commitment from Fianna Fáil that they would be repeated this year and, not only are they being repeated, but substantial sums of money are being made available by the Minister for Finance to continue and expand these programmes during 1979. Fianna Fáil recognise that youth employment will play an increasingly important role in Irish life.
The employment incentive scheme has been improved and expanded and it is now being made available for the construction and hotel industries. This has had a major impact on job creation within these industries and some 10,000 new jobs were supported in this way during 1978. This must be regarded, in the present climate, as remarkable and Fianna Fáil can be justly proud of their performance.
Fianna Fáil recognise the fact that these economic policies must be continued and strengthened in 1979. That is what the budget this year was all about. Too many smokescreens have been laid down concerning the 1979 budget. If one leaves aside one provision in it, it will be recognised that it was probably the greatest economic growth document ever produced. The budget has as its chief aim to continue the primary objectives and strategy of the Government, which is, a job for everyone who wants it. In furthering this policy it is important that there is continued expansion in industry. The agencies dealing with this have been supported by substantial increases in funds to enable them to carry out their expansion programmes.
There has been a continued inflow of new industry, and marketing agencies have been given increased funds to enable them to carry on their programmes. However, some of the activities perpetrated and supported here at home make their job a very difficult one. They have been wonderfully successful throughout the years and we confidently expect them to reach their targets as far as the enticement of new industries to Ireland is concerned.
We must continue to expand our agricultural industry. This expansion will be of paramount importance during 1979 and ensuing years. This can be achieved only by increased productivity. Many people had honestly felt that for far too long many thousands of acres had been left unproductive because of lack of finance to provide new schemes for the improvement of that land. That is being tackled in 1979 and will be continued in the following years.
We can get increased production on our land by paying more attention to the application of expertise. It is only right that there should be greater Government awareness of this. They are providing funds so that new programmes can be developed and that expertise will be available for the improvement of productivity of agricultural land. This improvement must be preserved rather than whittled away through schemes that would not have the desired effects on our non-productive acres.
In 1979, it is hoped to create some 5,000 new jobs in the public sector. I do not think anybody in the House would say anything against the need for continuous job creation in such Departments as Posts and Telegraphs, Finance—particularly in the Revenue section—and associated Departments. These jobs have to be paid for and it has been made abundantly clear that the cash is there for this purpose.
The capital programme for 1979 stands at £600 million, a massive increase of 27 per cent on last year. This can be expected to provide 4,500 new jobs in the building industry, and as everybody knows, when the building industry here is at peak production, everything else falls into place.
It is proposed to increase the strength of the Garda by 500, providing us with a force of more than 10,000. This is an appropriate area for job creation because the people paying for the service will then be able to have the best possible protection against those who set out to destroy the objectives of the Government.
There has been an increase of £4.28 million for environmental work, for new job creation. This will give a better chance to young people to get their first jobs and thus to gain the experience necessary to take up full employment in later job creation programmes. The allocation for infrastructure provision has been increased and I do not think anybody will disagree with the necessity to improve our road network or our general infrastructure in relation to industry and social amenities.
In the recent past there has been a spate of Opposition misrepresentation and scare headlines in order to divert people's minds from the efforts made by Fianna Fáil in the past two years. This is not in the public interest, but I do not think the public will be so gullible as to accept everything that is printed. In the past two years there has been a great reawakening of objectives in relation to our economy and the Government have been negotiating successfully both nationally and internationally. A campaign has been waged to increase the real standard of living of our people and Fianna Fáil are thus living up to the promises so firmly set out in the manifesto.
Those who have said that our pre-election manifesto is our bible should be reminded that it seems to be their bible because not an Opposition Deputy speaks without referring to that document. We are proud of the manifesto which was our commitment to the Irish people. Most of that commitment has been realised and the remaining items will be dealt with in the near future.
Let us now contemplate the achievements of Fianna Fáil since they came back to office. Our 1978 growth rate has been recognised internationally as a record. We have led the economic structure of the EEC. That year was the second in a row when we led those countries in growth rate, and our 1978 return was the envy of all OECD members. The growth rate in 1977 was 5½ per cent and that was increased further in 1978 both in terms of investment and exports. All these things mean that we will be able to increase employment and production still further.
It has been said that during Coalition days incomes rose by between 16 per cent and 17 per cent annually. That may be so, but we had an inflation rate in excess of that, so real earnings were debased. The opposite has been happening since because our inflation rate has been held at such a low level that for the first time in years we have been having an increase in real incomes. This, in turn, because of the increased spending power, creates the atmosphere for increased employment. The tax burden, as a result, will be spread over a wider area to the benefit of the less well off in the community. Conditions like that do not occur in time of recession.
During the four years of Coalition administration the belt could not be tightened any more. It is only since Fianna Fáil's return to office that living standards have improved. This can be borne out if we consider that the number of new car purchases registered in the last 12 months stood at over 105,000. It is only at times of improved living standards, when disposable income has been increased, that people are able to make these purchases. Deputy Desmond said in relation to traffic congestion that Dublin was choking itself to death and I agree that the consumer boom is adding to the problems in Dublin. This congestion has been brought about because more people are on the move. They are able to move only because of the increased living standards since 1977. There is definitely a need for a better communications system and a better roads system. The Government accept that, and one of our aims is to improve telecommunications and infrastructure. Huge sums were made available this year to implement our policies in this area.
When the Coalition were in government there was a decrease in the level of grants made available towards improved telecommunications and infrastructure generally. Any country councillor or local authority member will agree that during the Coalition term of office things were getting worse. There was an increase in inflation, but there was no corresponding increase in grants to the local authorities for increased costs of materials. Fianna Fáil have always agreed that a job creation programme is essential but during the Coalition term there was a reduction in the number of jobs created. The level of job creation was below the 1973 level and still the Coalition said that they had the best interests of the ordinary people at heart. How can they justify that? In this regard we had a very welcome improvement this year. The people are conscious of it and are grateful to the Minister for Finance and to the Government for making the funds available to get the country back on the rails and to improve infrastructure as far as rural Ireland is concerned.
May be the suggestion I made on the last occasion is not so far fetched after all. Decentralisation was taken up by Fianna Fáil many years ago and a start was made. There was some difficulty in relation to staffing at the time, but I would bring it home to the Government and to the Opposition that all the objections have been removed. The Department of State located in Castlebar is a shining example of successful decentralisation. There is no question now of people being unwilling or unavailable to travel west. People now recognise that a better standard of living is available in the west, that there is less pressure and so on. We have a long waiting list now of people anxious and willing to transfer to these offices. A good job would be done if most Departments of State were decentralised. We might very well consider locating the Department of the Taoiseach and the Dáil somewhere other than in Dublin. Imagine the boost it would give to the western economy if our capital was located in Athlone or in Shannon. It would relive the congestion in Dublin. If we carried out a proper decentralisation programme and removed the capital of Ireland to some other location it might have a happier effect on the people as a whole. This has been done elsewhere and it should have been done here when we got our independence, but it would be better late than never.
Another achievement of the Fianna Fáil administration already referred to in this debate, is the rate of growth of our fixed investment which rose by nearly 10 per cent in 1978. The building and construction sector were chiefly responsible for this growth. It can be stated unequivocally that since 1977 there has been a continued increase in this area, so that we now have a situation where we have the greatest number of building jobs ever and the greatest amount of investment in building and construction. It can also be honestly said that during the Coalition term of office there was a slowing down in that area. It is well known that the job lay-offs in the building industry at that time caused concern to every employer. Still people are talking about a lack of activity here.
More houses are being built since Fianna Fáil came back to office both by individuals and local authorities than was ever contemplated during the Coalition term. Greater financial assistance is being given in each budget to the private individual, to build his own home. I would like to see more emphasis on this. I accept that the local authorities must be involved in caring for those who have not the financial resources to cater for themselves, but greater assistance should be given to the private individual who is prepared to take out an SDA loan and spend the rest of his life paying it back. This loan should be increased to £12,000 or £13,000 and the income limit for eligibility to apply for this loan should be substantially increased, perhaps to £5,000 per annum. This is part of the Fianna Fáil policy. Since 1977 we have taken two steps and, conscious of the need to build up the housing stock, we have made huge sums of money available this year to local authorities to continue their building programme. During 1978 there was a substantial new capital inflow for house building and industrial buildings. One does not get an inflow of capital when the economy is depressed, one only gets it when there is confidence in the Government.
There have been increased farm incomes as well in 1978. There has been a great deal of new investment in farm buildings. Consider what agricultural income was during the days of the Coalition Government. I do not have to remind anybody who has even the remotest connection with agriculture about the situation which pertained in 1974 when calves were offered for sale at £1 each and nobody could be found to buy them. They were left to roam around in State forests because it was not worth while keeping them. Nobody could dispose of them. That kind of situation does not pertain today. There is an increase in farm income each year, successfully negotiated by the Minister for Agriculture.
There is still a low income problem in the western counties. The 12 disadvantaged counties in the west have a relatively low level of development with resulting low income limits. Many fac tors are responsible for this, some of them physical factors such as poor quality land, inadequate drainage and difficult terrain. These are all factors which have kept incomes low in the west. There are demographic characteristics peculiar to the west which affect age and marital status and do not apply in other parts of the country. There has always been insufficient capital for re-investment which has lead to continued low incomes for western farmers. There has always been an unwillingness on the part of small farmers in the west to invest large amounts of capital because they did not have the income to support the repayments.
There has been a persistent decline in the farming population in the west, especially on the under 30 acre farms. I will give a few statistics to bear that out. In Mayo, which I represent, 62.5 per cent of farmers have less than 30 acres; 25 per cent of them are in the 30 to 50 acre bracket; and 10 per cent of them are in the 50 to 100 acre bracket. An income gap has existed between average farm family incomes and average industrial earnings and it has always been in favour of the industrial worker. For that reason in 1966 the now famous farmers' dole was introduced. It remained substantially unaltered until the budgets of 1976 and 1977. Between 1966 and 1976 the number of claimants for this type of assistance increased from about 7,000 persons to 30,000 persons. The notional income figure per £1 valuation stayed the same. The maximum rates of assistance increased substantially during those years due to budgetary provisions.
We now come to 1976 and 1977 when the multipliers were increased and those with valuations over £20 were no longer entitled to the notional assessment and could get the farmers' dole on factual income assessments only. Very often the important role the dole plays in providing a minimum income for farmers in the western counties is not fully appreciated. Should the abolition of the scheme ever be contemplated it would lead to severe hardship, a decline in our population and a movement away from the land. With more stabilised prices, considerably more people could be accommodated on the land and we could increase the volume of production given the right incentives. It is Fianna Fáil's policy to keep our farming population on the land and to provide them with the necessary finance and the necessary investment to increase their productivity, thereby maintaining a bigger population on our western farms.
There has been a great deal of talk about removing the farmers' dole or changing it. Alternative systems could be used with some kind of built-in incentives. Perhaps we could consider a few of the alternatives which may be available. We could use that small assistance to farmers to pay the interest on capital for development purposes. This would have the desired effect of increasing productivity and doing away with the old habit of not being prepared to borrow for development purposes. Perhaps we could give that assistance by way of an annual lump sum. This would encourage investment. We could give development grants based on yearly assistance and tied to development programmes. This would also have the desired effect.
Unemployment assistance to small farmers was always intended to guarantee a minimum level of income. It should not be called unemployment assistance as many people in receipt of it are fully employed. I would suggest a two-tier system for farmers in the disadvantaged areas which could be applied to those who are available for employment and those who need small farmer's assistance to improve their income limits.
The Taoiseach recently said that we could have no growth without an energy policy. I accept that. The picture in the eighties will be one of increasing pressure on oil supplies with the likelihood of substantial increases in real prices. The EEC rely on imports for about 60 per cent of their primary energy and could find themselves under increasing pressure in the competition for the limited world supplies which will be available. During the nineties the supply of oil will peak and the supply of gas will not be far behind. If the world supply of energy will be diminishing before the end of the century, it is in our best interests to lessen our dependence on external supplies. The energy gap can only be closed by drastic conservation of fuel and the development of new sources of supply.
There is a need for rapid action in oil and gas exploration. More money will have to be provided in the hope that these resources may be found off the Porcupine Bank. There will have to be a positive approach to nuclear power. The price of delay is clear: power cuts, balance of payments difficulties and low growth in the industrial and commercial fields. The debate on safety and security and the disposal of waste can go on together with increased research into the production and use of hydrogen, solar and geo-thermal energy. Our energy gap has to be eliminated so that we can maintain and improve our living standards. It will be poor consolation to the people of the next generation if, through tardiness on our part in grasping the nettle there is a lack of growth and a lack of job opportunities.
The best way to save energy is to halt pollution and to make better use of existing sources. We will have to improve our standards of promoting thermal installations. Heating systems in existing buildings will have to be carefully judged and assessed. We must develop better driving habits, better urban passenger transport systems and, as the Minister said yesterday, more recycling of waste. The £1,500 million spent on waste every year in the EEC could be used to provide us with new sources of energy and new methods of conserving our existing sources.
In this debate no recognition was given to the increase across the board in social welfare benefits given by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare. A tremendous boost was given to the less well-off in our community. Our balance of payments is now better than it ever was and when one fully realises the great advances that have been made during the past two years it will be readily realised that the people have been well served by the Fianna Fáil Government. Fianna Fáil's plan is to get to grips with unemployment and inflation, to restore stability to our national finances and to increase growth by priming the economy so that the private sector can intensify its efforts and production capacity. These are the aims of the Fianna Fáil administration. These were the aims when our Taoiseach and his Ministers were negotiating our entry into the EMS. I believe that the policies being promoted by Fianna Fáil at this time are the policies that will best leave us with continued growth during the eighties and continue to serve the people to the best advantage.
This budget could be truly described as a sleight-of-hand budget—now you see it, now you do not see it. When the public heard about it they really thought there was something in it for them by way of tax reliefs and other reliefs. But when they sat down and did the sums they did not add up. Consequently we have on our hands a very annoyed PAYE sector. They were led to believe that there would be handsome benefits for them. They themselves felt that this was due and were looking forward to some much needed reliefs. But, alas, the budget came and one must doubt whether it was a budget or not, but I suppose we will give it its title. The budget came and went without any real relief for these people. They were conned into believing they were getting something in reliefs and they got very little. I will come back to that at a later stage.
We had several budgets. We had increases in the cost of social welfare stamps; we had an increase in health contributions. The killer of all these increases was introduced earlier this year—the removal of the food subsidies. That triggered off great resentment throughout the land and rightly so. People are at the pin of their collar to live on the false promises the Fianna Fáil Party made in the 1977 election. Fianna Fáil attacked the basic foods of the large family—bread, butter and milk. They said they were giving relief by way of children's allowances to offset this. But that was so much nonsense because children's allowances were due for review anyway. To attack the basic foods of the people was a major blunder on the part of the Government. Old age pensioners and less well-off families, particularly large families, spend most of their money on food whereas better-off people spend only a percentage of their income on food. That is why this was such a savage attack. It attacked the underprivileged in a way that has never been seen before in this State. I have no doubt that these people can look forward to more of the same next January. Indeed it has been promised that the remaining portion of the food subsidies will be removed thus putting the staple diet out of the reach of people with large families and out of the reach of old age pensioners.
Is this the social concern we hear being bleated from time to time on the far benches, their concern and all they are doing for the less well-off? The record is there and it is quite clear. They removed food subsidies which affected the poor and the larger families and the old. They removed food subsidies and at the same time abolished wealth tax giving some £10 million back to a small number of people. So much for equity there. The facts are there for everybody to see and it would not take any wise counsellor to see in what way the Government of the day thinks with regard to people who are less fortunate than others.
This leads me to the problems we have today. In relation to the sharp increases various spokesmen on the far side will say that these were due to factors beyond their control and other factors which will be non-recurring. That is so much waffle. One just cannot believe what one hears from the far side any more because when they do say something and it is reported and what is reported is not palatable to them they then stand up and say that they are being quoted out of context. They might be quoted out of context once but they are not going to be quoted out of context all the time. Newspaper reporters are people of integrity who compare notes to ensure that as far as possible what was said will be reported but when they do say something, whether it is in Brussels or somewhere in west Cork and it does not go down well with the public they say, "I am sorry. I did not really say that, I said something else". So it is very hard to accept what is coming from the Government side any more. It is becoming a little monotonous and, if I might say so, something of a joke.
We have heard so much about this great budget, that was to lift the economy, that the economy was in a state of boom. I see this morning that the boom ended last November. Despite what we thought, it did not go over to the Christmas period at all but ended last November. We are now in a grave period of stagnation with the cost of living rising dramatically and the Government unable to take any action to curb it but only to fuel it with their stupid decisions. As a result of this Government's mismanagement and their total ineptitude we have for the first time in the history of the State a feeling of hopelessness among the people. Their growing discontent is a result of the lack of leadership on the part of the Government whose attitude is to respond to problems only as they arise. That is not government. If a government are to function properly they must plan but the present holders of office have failed badly in this regard. The various green and white papers that they have produced have been no more than cosmetic exercises designed to hoodwink the people.
We are in the throes of industrial trouble but the Ministers responsible remain silent. They are prominent enough, though, when they attend at some function or other, be it an opening ceremony or the funeral of someone of note. On Sunday last our industrial problems were made known to the world because of the failure to produce sound for television networks for the coverage of a major sporting event.
We inherited the problems.
Deputy O'Brien may not speak about specific industrial disputes on the budget debate.
I am talking about the state of the nation in general.
That is in order but it is not in order to talk about specific industrial disputes.
I was merely making the point that the chaos in the industrial scene was highlighted to the world on Sunday last. That sort of situation is to be deplored and it is all the more regrettable when we are talking about the IDA going out to the rest of the world in an effort to boost Ireland as being a good place in which to invest money. We are deprived of telephone and postal services and of garbage-collection services.
I have reminded the Deputy that he may not discuss specific industrial disputes at this time. The debate is on the budget which deals with taxation and financial matters.
It deals with many matters, including the question of employment, a problem that this budget is not designed to help. Indeed, the budget is only fuelling the discontent that is in evidence all around us today and which manifested itself in no small way just more than a week ago not only in this city but in the various other towns. It is time that the Government took note of the situation. If they continue to ignore the problems, the people will reject this House. That would be very unfortunate, to say the least. Parliament should be protected. I am sure I speak for everybody here when I say we do not wish for a situation in which the people generally rather than the Government would make the decisions.
Can this budget be regarded as being a budget as we understand the meaning of that word? Generally when a budget is brought before the House there is discussion of it and some modification may be considered. In this instance, too, modifications were considered and at an assembly in Ballsbridge recently the Taoiseach stated clearly that these modifications would be acceptable. He said that he had consulted with the rural backbenchers and with other people and was convinced that it was correct to make these changes. That was on a Saturday evening but on the following Tuesday there was total capitulation by the Government on a budgetary issue. This is a very serious matter because if a government are to give effective leadership they must be prepared to abide by whatever decisions they make. If a government are seen to capitulate to sectional interests they are reneging on their responsibilities.
The various sectors in a community have the right to make a case for their members but the responsibility for decisions must rest with the Government. This Government have what is possibly the greatest majority that any government have enjoyed in this State since its foundation but when they were faced with a challenge from a sectional interest, they weakened. The Government seem to have lost their political will and direction though I doubt whether they ever had any direction. The result is the development of what could be a very serious situation. Until there is another general election the Government have the responsibility to do the job they were elected to do. Already the people are tired of them. That is why I say to the Government that as soon as possible they should give the people the opportunity of electing a government who will not run away from their responsibilities. This Government have been responsible for alienating various sections in the community. We can only hope the good sense of the people will prevail and that they will see the futility of a divided community.
In regard to social welfare increases, percentages are used to hide the facts. What does the old age pensioner know about 12 per cent? Percentages tend to lull the public into thinking they are getting more than they are. There has not been a commitment by the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Social Welfare to give further increases later in the year when the cost of living rises. Such a commitment was given by the Coalition. I am not happy with the social welfare reliefs this year. In government, we reduced the old age pension qualifying age to 66 and it should by now have been reduced to 65. This further reduction has not taken place and the Government have not given a commitment to this. Had we remained in government we would have fulfilled our commitment by now and it is remiss of the Government not to have reduced the qualifying age.
No great imagination was shown in regard to social welfare benefits. The Government lack the caring attitude which is necessary in this area.
There is nothing in the budget to help intending house purchasers. The maximum SDA loan is £9,000 and the income limit is £3,500. This limit is derisory and people earning £3,500 are very few and far between. There was a time when one could produce a certificate of income from an employer but now one must get a PAYE certificate of earnings, making sure that as few people as possible will obtain loans. Unless the loan is raised to £12,000 and the income limit to £5,500, then as a mechanism for the purchase of houses this system is ridiculous. From this negative and stupid attitude will flow a severe housing crisis, particularly in Dublin. People are putting their names on the corporation housing list who heretofore would have purchased their own houses but are now unable to do so because of building society stipulations and because they may be earning, say, £3,600, which is not a large income. Houses now cost £12,500 or £13,000 and the SDA loan is £9,000; there is a deficit of about £3,500 to be made up and very few people can accumulate that amount in a short time. The housing crisis is manifesting itself at present in Dublin and within two years it will have reached major proportions because of the fiscal policies of the Government who do not see that SDA loans must be raised substantially to meet the astronomical cost of houses. They have been very silent on this matter.
There should be a public inquiry into housing costs which so gravely affect the lives of many people. The Government seem content to let this crisis develop and then they will write policy documents on how to tackle it. The time to act is when the malady is apparent. I heard a Minister saying that the housing problem in Dublin was not acute any more. In fact, it is worse now than it has ever been. Because of the limitations on SDA loans and their inability to borrow elsewhere, people are going on the housing list. The housing allocation last year in Dublin was £28.5 million and this year we are to get £30 million. Taking inflation in the building industry into account, this means that there will be a drastic cutback in the building of local authority houses at a time when the ineptitude of the Government is forcing more and more people onto the housing list. It is time the Government considered this matter seriously. The Government only seem to take action when people react instead of acting to improve the lives of the people.
There is no commitment in the budget to the infrastructure. The previous speaker said that a large amount of money had been allocated for roadworks. In our local authority area we have not been informed that funds are being made available for improving the city of Dublin, which is choking to death. CIE have been pressing for a rapid rail system to serve new towns such as Tallaght, Clondalkin, and from Howth to Greystones. The provision of a rapid rail system would not upset property or land as the rail line is in existence. Instead of committing themselves, the Government have set up a committee to consider the problem. If some action is not taken soon in regard to our transport problem the centre of Dublin will die. Dublin has been ignored for years and has never been given grants to encourage industrialists. There is provision in the budget for £500,000 for the development of Dublin. That is a very small sum of money when we are talking in terms of £200 million for a rapid rail system. The Government have not committed themselves to the development of our capital city. The previous speaker said the capital city should be somewhere else, which is a novel idea after Dublin has been neglected for 50 years. I hope that is not the Government's solution to the problem.
The country is now at the crossroads. The Government should make decisions and see them through. Like the willing worker, the PAYE sector has been overburdened. All the increases given to this sector should have been linked to the index. Why should the PAYE sector pay more than their fair share of tax when other sectors refuse to contribute to society? We have been told that tax reforms are on their way and that this, that and the other will be done to improve the tax system. Of course this is merely a reaction instead of a carefully planned policy. If the Government were honest they would have solved this problem before now. When the Minister was abroad he said he would not respond to the demands of the PAYE sector. When he returned home he said he did not say that, but he is making daily pronouncements on the subject. To find common ground with the PAYE sector and the trade unions the Minister will have to make a bold gesture, otherwise we will have industrial anarchy and chaos.
Our Ministers continue to do nothing in the hope that our problems will disappear. Problems must be tackled as they arise and the only way to tackle them is by being honest. It is time the Government took their courage in their hands and were honest with wage earners. If they do not take action there will be more resentment. It is the responsibility of the Government to stem the tide of resentment by introducing fair taxation. The average person would be willing to pay tax under a fair system. Instead of making veiled promises the Minister should take action. As Minister for Finance, he has the power to introduce a new taxation policy. That is what he should be doing instead of making pious statements and trying to curb events which may take place on 1 May. This is not the way to curb these events. You curb them by being honest with the trade unions and people involved and giving them a firm commitment. To draw up a fair tax system would not be a Herculean task. It would be merely a question of adopting policies and implementing them. Therefore, I ask that we be serious about our problems here and tackle and solve them. Because of the serious conditions in our society today we should not put this on the long finger. If we respect the democratic institutions it is time we did something about them.
I referred earlier to the extensive industrial problems. You do not know whether you can get a bus or a cup of water. You do not know whether you can make a phone call, post a letter or switch on a light. This is a sad situation, and we have not seen the last of it. The local authorities' staffs apparently are thinking of coming out on strike next Monday and this could mean a shut down in our sewerage and water system and a whole area of services. What is this House doing about that? Absolutely nothing, living in cloud-cuckoo land as if everything in the garden is rosy and all we have is a disgruntled public who want too much and that is the end of it, we will not give it to them.
This Government have a head-in-the-sand attitude. They seem to have lost their nerve and their will, or maybe their false promises are catching up with them. The chickens are running home to roost and the Government can do nothing about it. Time has caught up with them. No doubt they were hoping that the EMS and funding here and there would fuel the pumps for them. This has not happened. Things do not work that way, as the Government have found out, and what are they doing? Absolutely nothing. There is no direction whatever. In this budget document there is very little that is going to fuel the economy and bring employment. There is nothing about worker co-operation or worker co-operatives in the job incentives area or about employment. A lot of jobs are created in the public services. I am not against creating jobs, but it does not need any great imagination to say that we created 10,000 jobs in the public service. That takes only a stroke of the pen, but it takes about four jobs in the industrial or service end to pay for one of these jobs. That is not solving problems; in the long term that is creating them.
If we are serious about employment we must look at the areas of industrial growth. We must look at the production element of the jobs created here to see that they have a real meaning and are creating wealth, not drawing it off. If we are to develop we must do this. I see no incentive to employers to encourage profit-sharing or worker participation. You will not get this by legislation. Participation must be by consensus, by agreement. The only way to get that is through the tax mechanism. By giving tax concessions in the field of industry you can create good relations and profit-sharing and you can develop a whole new structure that will eliminate many problems in the industrial field. A lot of our industrial disputes should be dealt with before they become serious.
There is no imagination in this budget document in relation to education. On the basis of inflation there is a cut-back in education this year, not an improvement as might be the impression gained from reading this document. Taking inflation into account, there is a cut-back in education, an area where it is important that moneys be spent. If we are ever going to develop our potential fully it will be through our educational structure. We still have a terrible problem of overcrowding in the classrooms in our cities. In parts of the cities where there is a decline in the population classrooms are empty. What is done about that? Instead of leaving the teachers there to deal with the problems of a socio-economic nature in education, they remove the teachers. Here again there is no sense of meeting the problem, and it is a grave problem. It is one of deprivation and of socio-economic background.
In one school I mentioned recently the parents of 56 per cent of the children were out of work. A lot of pupils have a reading age five years lower than they should have. That is a sad indictment on our educational system. When we realise that this budget is cutting back on education we can see that the Government are not serious about taking on these problems which have major social connotations. Low educational standards tend to bring about vandalism, discontent and a reaction against society. People who are products of such a system feel that they are victims of society, and it can be fairly said that they are. They are not getting any share of the wealth of our society. About 80 per cent of them live in overcrowded local authority flats. In school they are deprived. They leave school illiterate and not equipped for life.
What are we doing? We are perpetuating this evil because we have not the policy or the courage to do something about it. Why? These people really have not a voice. They do not know where to shout or to cry out. They must suffer indeed. This is why the Government is there, to ferret out these ills and to eradicate them. If a Government are serious and have a conscience they will do that. This Government have no social commitment, they have lost their conscience and they are not fit to govern. This budget document leaves a lot to be desired and it is not tackling the problems at all. I foresee that this time next year things will be a lot worse even than they are now. No doubt there will be all sorts of excuses put forward, but basically a Government are elected to do a job and they must carry the can. If they do not carry the can then they must bear the odium of the people. I believe the people today are in a hostile mood because of the way they are being treated. It is time the Government took the country seriously, themselves seriously, and either resigned or got on with the job. They must stop the clowning and hoodwinking that has been going on since they assumed office nearly two years ago.
I had not intended speaking on the budget. However, I am prompted to do so in view of the Government's claim to have conferred such benefits on all sections of the community. It is difficult to reconcile this claim of all the benefits that will accrue to all sections as a result of this budget with the complete unrest and dissatisfaction shown by all sections since its introduction. It is true to say that all sections, rural and urban, have never shown such unified unrest and dissatisfaction before. Were we to believe the Government and their story of the benefits accruing from the budget one would not have expected 250,000 people approximately to march in the PAYE protest in Dublin city, Cork and other centres in protest against the unfair actions of the Government but rather to acclaim the Government for the great work they had done. However, we know this march was dismissed lightly by the Minister for Finance from a safe distance in Brussels although he said, like many other Ministers, that he had been misquoted in the papers. That has become an everyday contention of present Ministers; regularly they contend that what they have said had been wrongfully interpreted on radio, television or in the Press. It must have been brought home to the Minister for Finance, by the response to that march in Dublin alone, that it was no irresponsible action by a section of workers. Rather was it a very serious effort by a harassed section of the community to draw the attention of the Government to the serious and unjust burden imposed on the PAYE section. Those workers were determined to show their dissatisfaction with the system by their action and their determination to use all means at their disposal to compel the Government to take cognisance of their plight. Indeed they were willing to do so at their own expense.
Up to that point while the Government may have been aware of unrest, they were not fully aware of the gravity of the situation and to say they were surprised at the extent of the march would be the under-statement of the year; we all know that Government Ministers were shocked to observe its extent. However if the Government claimed beforehand to have been unaware of the seriousness of the problem, they can no longer dismiss it lightly; neither can they dismiss the need for an urgent improvement in the position.
In this budget the Government eliminated the lowest band of tax applicable to people who found themselves in the position of having to pay although they could ill afford to do so. They reduced also the child allowance for tax purposes and no longer permit social welfare contributions to be deducted for tax purposes. This is in vivid contrast to the actions of the Coalition Government. Furthermore the Government have diminished other forms of taxation conferring monetary gains on the well-to-do section of the community, those least in need of them.
Because of the abolition of food subsidies the social welfare benefits conferred in the budget had long been eroded before they ever came into being. One must remember also that there are no increases in social welfare benefits being granted in October, something which had become a regular feature in recent years under the Coalition Government, which means again that social welfare recipients find themselves now in a worse plight than before the budget.
There is another problem seriously affecting the Dublin area to which Deputy O'Brien has already drawn attention but which cannot be too often emphasised. That is, the plight of house buyers in Dublin city. One would have expected that the Government would have seen fit in this budget to grant some relief to people who would endeavour to avail of SDA loans but rather they have completely ignored this section. It is easy to understand the very serious plight of people in this bracket when one considers that the maximum loan that can be obtained from a local authority is £9,000. The maximum loan under the SDA loan scheme is £9,000 and in order to qualify for that the income ceiling is £3,500. We have all read advertisements in the national newspapers offering new houses at prices between £14,000 and £20,000. Therefore, a person on an income of £3,500 or less considering purchasing a house at £14,000 can expect a loan of £9,000 but must find a deposit of at least £5,000. In addition, that person must be prepared to meet many other expenses. How can a person earning £3,500, or less, hope to raise £5,000 as a deposit for such a house?
With a view to getting together a deposit for a house many people work overtime but they are taxed on that and the amount earned is added to their income thereby debarring them from qualifying for an SDA loan. If the Government are serious about assisting people to buy their own homes they should devise a system that would help those who are saving for a deposit. Overtime earned by such people for two years prior to the time they submit an application for an SDA loan should not be added to their income so that they can qualify for the loan.
We have been told on many occassions that there is no immediate solution to the problem of those paying tax under the PAYE system but that is in sharp contrast to what happened when the Government announced their intention of introducing a 2 per cent levy on farmers. I agree that they levy was unjust and it was condemned as such by both sides of the House. In their folly the Government sought to introduce the levy but, after serious repercussions from the farming community and disagreement with Ministers and Government backbenchers, it was decided to meet representatives of the farming community to devise another form of taxation. That is in sharp contrast to what the Minister for Finance said about the PAYE system, that there was no short-term solution. The Government have denied that the farming community are being allowed dictate their own form of taxation but the community at large will decide that issue.
It is normal practice prior to a budget for the different sections of the community to meet the Minister for Finance and put their case for tax reliefs but I do not think it ever happened that immediately after a budget and before the introduction of a Finance Bill a Government agreed to meet a section of the community to devise an alternative method of taxation to that announced in the budget. The Government have recognised the unfairness of the 2 per cent levy and the PAYE system but they are only willing to remedy the problem facing one section of the community. Those involved in the PAYE system justly feel they are being victimised. It is questionable whether it is profitable for the Government to expect employers to act as tax gatherers under what has been acknowledged to be an unfair tax system.
I should like to warn the Government about the seriousness of the situation because those concerned with the PAYE system are more discontented than the Government realise. To date they have acted in a calm and disciplined manner but if the Government continue to disregard their complaints and fail to give them some relief we will be faced with a serious situation. Discontent has been simmering for years because wage earners saw so much of their earnings going in tax. How can the Government who, on assuming office saw fit to abolish the wealth tax and seriously reduce capital gains tax—a move which benefited the well-off section of the Community—and who acceded to the request of the farming community in relation to the 2 per cent levy, expect those concerned with the PAYE system to silently accept what has been held to be an unjust method of taxation?
Is it the case that the Government, accepting the unfairness of the PAYE system, can do nothing about it because they must pay for the lavish promises they made prior to the election? Is it a fact that because of the lavish promises they made in order to get into power the Government are caught in an awkward situation but are determined, by fair or foul means, to get the money to fulfil those promises? They are determined to compel the PAYE workers to contribute an unfair share. Every day there is some strike or some threatened strike. We do not know what section will come out on strike next. This is because of the financial position workers find themselves in as a result of the PAYE system. Many Deputies, now Ministers, were very vocal in Opposition when a strike took place, even if it was only for a few days, or even before the strike took place. They did not hesitate to let their voices be heard in the House at that time but they are now very silent about strikes which have dragged on for weeks and even months. They do not seem to consider what they may lead to and how the lack of communications by telephone or letter can affect industry.
The Chair has already ruled that we will not deal with specific disputes.
I am talking about the lack of communications.
We are getting into the field of one particular matter. The Deputy can continue speaking and deal with the budget but we will not deal with specific disputes.
Surely strikes and the unnecessary burden of taxation on the working-class is a matter that can be usefully discussed in a budget debate? I have not said any particular strike. If there is a falling off in communications and if orders cannot be sent to firms they can be lost. If they are once lost this may result in a permanent loss and have a serious effect on our economy. The Government at the Ard-Fheis modified the 2 per cent tax for farmers. Once they did this they cannot blame workers in industry all over the country if they bring pressure to bear on them to do something about the PAYE tax. They feel that this is the only way open to them to draw attention to their plight and gain something for them.
It is well known that the farmer Deputies on the Government side have forced the Government to have second thoughts on the taxation policy in relation to the farming community. I now ask city Deputies, particularly Dublin city Deputies, to let their voices be heard. I know they are very conscious of the problem of workers in this city. It is well known that approximately six of the Deputies in Dublin city constituencies hold their seats by 100 votes or less and they know the unrest among the PAYE section. Unless they let their voices be heard and see that some relief is given to those workers they could find themselves in a very serious position at the next election. I impress on the Minister the necessity to grant some immediate relief to PAYE workers. If it was possible to give relief in regard to a system objected to by one section of the community surely it is possible to do it in regard to others? I appeal to the Minister to think again before it is too late.
It must be unprecedented that the Minister for Finance will close this debate at a time when this year's budget is actually being negotiated. Nobody knows at the moment what is in it. It sounds to me like a comic opera that a budget debate is being closed at a time when the budget is being debated. We must be the laughingstock of Europe. We are now discussing one of the many budgets since the first day of this year. First we had a minibudget when the Government partially abolished food subsidies and got £22 million for the Exchequer. The price of milk, cheese, butter and flour was increased and put a great burden on the under-privileged section of the community. We then had the annual budget which increased the price of beer, stout and cigarettes. We then had a further budget increasing the price of petrol and coal. All those budgets have hit the most vulnerable section of the community. The social welfare recipients are the worst victims.
How can Government Deputies face the public on a price record after their remarks hurled across the House while they were in Opposition? They now have to tell the people that they were not sincere or that the opportunities they believed were there were not there and that the Coalition Government were not as bad as they said they were. The Coalition Government were in power when we were going through a world wide recession. We now have a favourable climate. The Taoiseach said on the Adjournment Debate on 28 June 1978:
1977 was a good year for the Irish economy. Our growth rate of over 5 per cent put us at the top of the EEC league. Industrial production showed a substantial rise, agricultural output increased, employment grew, exports remained buoyant and inflation dropped sharply.
That was only a year after the change of Government. Surely the Fianna Fáil Party cannot under any circumstances claim credit for what happened in that period?
The country is in a sorry mess. People who have love for their country cannot derive any joy from the present position of the economy. There was never more frustration or unrest. In their election manifesto Fianna Fáil stated:
Government policy must be directed towards discouraging increased costs and prices in all areas where it has control or influence.
Had the Government control or influence over the partial abolition of the food subsidies? Did they not directly increase taxation although their manifesto stated that it was their intention to keep down costs over which they had control or influence? The manifesto also stated that they would investigate middle-men's margins. Who was the middle-man in this case? It was the Exchequer, the Minister.
Was the abolition of food subsidies within the control and influence of the Government? Of course it was and the manifesto stated that it was their intention to keep down prices. When we were in government and prices were increased because of factors outside our control, Fianna Fáil jibed at us and called the then Minister for Industry and Commerce the "price king". As a Limerick man I suggest that the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, Deputy O'Malley, should be given that title. The former Minister, now Senator Keating, cannot compete with him in that area. The present Minister's record on prices has outmatched anything at a time when the political climate could be described as normal.
Why were the food subsidies abolished prior to the budget? Did the Government hope that the people would be naive, that they would forget about the subsidies and that they would consider the budget not too bad when it was introduced? Things could not have been worse because prior to the budget £22 million had been taken from the pockets of the people.
In their manifesto Fianna Fáil stated that they intended to:
maintain the living standards of social welfare recipients by regular adjustments of the level of payments at least in line with the cost of living.
Where is the adjustment? Where is the review? The benefits of the previous budget had been eroded and in October 1978 social welfare recipients were on the breadline. The percentage increases granted to these people has not compensated them for the increased cost of living. We are told that there is plenty of money available and that social welfare recipients are being looked after. They are the most neglected section and it is a sad day for the country that this vulnerable section have had to face such hardships.
The country is in a period of unrest. All sections are seeking more. This is necessary if they are to maintain a decent standard of living. There is another reason for the discontent. Eighteen months ago the manifesto gave the impression that everything was available for people who supported Fianna Fáil. The people were told then that the crisis at the time was of our own making, that it was not due to a world recession. They were told that all that was needed was a change of government. Now people are on the streets. They are there because of their great disappointment and I do not blame them. I was never anxious to support strikes and it is sad that the parades had to take place. As many speakers have said, workers are desperate because of the cost of living. It is not that easy to get people to leave their jobs and to parade on the streets but yet 150,000 responsible people, many of whom never took part in a strike or protest, walked in the streets. They did this because of their disappointment and disillusionment with the Government who promised them that everything would be easy. What other way could the people have made their protest when the Government handed back a lot of money to the millionaires. We were told that wealth tax was not needed, that it was a disincentive. Surely that money could have been used to cushion the working class against the cost of living, the people who are blistered by taxation.
When we were in office any bank robbery or incident in the street was met by hand clapping by the then Opposition. Continually they told us what we should do. What has happened in the past 18 months? It is a sad situation when a bank robbery is no longer a news item or regarded as important. Such robberies are occurring twice or three times daily and it is impossible to keep up with them. We are told that violence is occurring throughout the world, that it is a passing phase. If the former Minister for Justice, now Senator Cooney, had said that, what would the other side of the House have said? The position has grown much worse. At the moment nobody can tell me who is the Garda Commissioner.
I have given the Deputy a fair amount of latitude. The Department of Justice, violence and bank robberies have nothing to do with the budget nor has the Garda Commissioner. The Deputy, therefore, will not continue along those lines.
It is a terrible thing that I do not know who the Garda Commissioner is at present.
It does not matter who he is because it does not arise here.
That is a very sad state of affairs and I will not mention his name any more. Prior to the last election certain people in my constituency were promised that he would be dismissed.
I have asked Deputy O'Brien to get away from that matter.
When this Government were returned to power that promise was carried out but the law said otherwise——
I have asked the Deputy not to mention this matter. It does not arise on the budget and is sub judice at the moment.
I thought it was relevant.
It is not relevant and nobody knows that better than the Deputy.
At least that was not a false promise; it was kept. When the Coalition introduced farm taxation we got a very rough time at farm meetings throughout the country. Coming up to election time Fianna Fáil candidates went around the country whispering to farmers that farm taxation would be abolished if they were returned to power. They told groups of farmers that farm taxation was introduced because we were closely associated with a socialist party and had no choice. This Government have 84 seats, a majority of 20. Not alone did they retain farm taxation but they trebled it and then introduced the farm levy. They could not blame us for that, so whom did they blame?—the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. They promised the farming organisations that he would have to go. The Cabinet should make the decisions. The people in the country are being told that this man is responsible for their present position.
Anybody who is a member of a local authority must feel that he is in a straitjacket. Never in our history were our roads in such a bad way. In two weeks time an all-party deputation from my county council will come to meet the Minister to get extra money to do something about the potholes throughout County Limerick. The position was never worse. Never have our ratepayers refused to give an adequate rate to meet the services that are required. Now they do not even have that choice.
When the Minister for the Environment was speaking on the abolition of domestic rates, it was pointed out that the ceiling of 11 per cent at that time was brought about to protect the people who did not benefit from the abolition of domestic rates. What has happened? The farmers are subsidising the domestic rates. Limerick rates receipts today are proof that the partial abolition of the agricultural grant has come into line with what the Government are giving to cover the abolition of domestic rates. This means that the agricultural community are subsidising the domestic rates.
The £9,000 house loan is completely inadequate because the price of houses has gone out of control and nobody has done anything about it. When the Coalition were in power the loan was £4,500 and the price of a house was £7,000. The potential purchaser had to borrow £2,500. Every day Fianna Fáil Deputies asked what we were doing about it. Today the maximum loan is £9,000 plus £1,000 grant, a total of £10,000. Houses now cost £19,000 or £20,000, a difference of 100 per cent. Where do the would-be purchasers get this money? Never were the section of the community who are anxious to build their own houses so badly hit.
We hear about pay restraint. We are told to be good, not to strike, not to give any trouble and to do as we are told. Fianna Fáil have made a commitment and are not able to honour it. We are asked not to embarrass them because things may improve. But things are not improving. I am not so naive as to think that the Minister has unlimited resources, because that was never possible for any Government and nobody expected it. I believe there is an obligation on this Government to tell the people that 18 months ago they told lies and that they cannot honour their promises. They should ask the people to forgive them and to give them a chance to make a new start. That is the only course open to them.
I should like to refer to my pet subject, that is, decentralisation. We all know what is happening in the Land Commission and the Land Registry. People, particularly those building houses, are dependent on bridging loans. A man on a bridging loan of £6,000 pays £80 a month while he is waiting for a simple transfer from the Land Registry office. Each county should deal with its own Land Registry work. I fail to see why there should be a delay of one year, 18 months or two years. The same applies to the man who is passing his farm to his son or daughter. These people can wait years before the registration is in order. I appeal to all Ministers and to all parties to make this an important issue and to view it seriously. The same applies to the Land Commission. If a person applies for a subdivision to the Land Commission office in his county, that has to go to Dublin and is returned after four or five months to the people in the county office. Why is it not possible to have a district inspector who would sign the transfer? The system will be changed some time but why have so many people to suffer while they are waiting for this change?
The Government must be candid with the people. We are in a mess. The people should know what is happening and then there might be restraint. While we keep telling them we were right to give millions of pounds to millionaires it is not possible to tell them that we now have no money.
We are here to discuss the 1979 budget but this is rather difficult to do as we seem to have had a series of financial statements. We had a statement by Deputy Colley, Minister for Finance, early in February. Previous to that there was an announcement about the withdrawal of a certain proportion of food subsidies. There has been the announcement by Deputy Haughey, Minister for Social Welfare, about the withdrawal of farmers' dole to a great number of people in the west and a reduction in dole for a number of others. More recently there have been savage increases in rents of local authority houses which, in most cases, have exceeded the rates which were payable on the same houses a year or two ago. They completely negatived that concession which was given to local authority tenants. In many cases people living on social welfare cannot meet these huge increases and I have asked the health boards to pay supplementary welfare allowances to such families to enable them to overcome the increases.
In speaking of the insignificance of the budget, what has shocked us most of all is the fact that a decision which was announced in this House was withdrawn outside of the House. I refer to the 2 per cent levy which was placed on some farming commodities. This is an example of a great erosion of the authority of Dáil Éireann. Every elected representative must be annoyed and perturbed by this action. This is where decisions are made and when we find that this decision was reversed on two occasions, at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis and at a meeting with the farming organisations, we, as public representatives, have good cause to be alarmed. I hope this type of abdication of Government will stop. It is bound up with the unpleasant, and what should be unnecessary, action by the public in talking to the streets to express their displeasure with the way things are done. People should not have to resort to these methods. It is not in the interests of democracy to have mob rule. I hope that things will not take a turn for the worst in this regard. Let the decisions be made here by the elected representatives. Democracy is an institution which must be jealously guarded. At the moment it is being eroded.
There is probably a strong case for drastic reform of parliamentary procedure. Events seem to have outgrown the system we have been using for the last 56 or 57 years. If it needs to be reformed the sooner it is done the better. Events of recent weeks and months have shown that it is bad for any Government to have a large majority. The Government would surely have acted in a more definite manner if their majority was small. Whether it is a feeling that they cannot be removed from office and are completely secure that has led to this weakness it is hard to say, but it seems to have been a contributing factor. I cannot find the exact explanation.
I have heard the Taoiseach say on occasion when one of his Ministers was taken to task for failure in his Department that it was not the Minister's fault, that his Cabinet was ruling by collective responsibility. In my experience of club committees and so on the expression "collective responsibility" is an excuse for doing nothing or for avoiding a difficult situation. The Taoiseach is the man in charge and his Ministers have responsibility for their various Departments. That is where the buck stops. Collective responsibility should be forgotten about and they should be able to decide for themselves whether decisions are good or bad. Whether it is collective responsibility or mob movement in the streets, it all adds up to an erosion of our powers and an undermining of democracy in general.
I should like to refer to the situation which exists with regard to the distribution of State and EEC funds. I am not against an equitable distribution of the finances of this country or of those which we derive from the EEC Regional Fund or other sources. However, in recent years there has been an inequitable distribution of these moneys. From all appearances this unequal distribution will continue. The west was, for many years, the disadvantaged part of the country but when the EEC were drawing up their list of priorities the whole of Ireland was designated a disadvantaged area.
I represent a constituency in the south, just as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle represents a constituency in the south-east. I see a great imbalance in the amounts of money being provided for infrastructural improvements and other such matters in that region compared with the west. A time has come when we must cry halt in this respect. I say the south-east is not getting its fair share of the funds being distributed. My region is suffering considerably from bad roads and bridges. For instance, if the bridge at Waterford, which is on the point of collapse, were to fall down, industry in the entire south-eastern region would be brought to a standstill because the movement of goods there would come to an end. I appeal to the Minister of State now in the House to prevent such a possible catastrophe by providing the necessary funds.
Two weeks ago I asked a number of questions in reference to our foreign policy and what our stance will be at the reconvened Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva. The replies I received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs were not satisfactory because they did not allay my worst fear, that we are not fighting our corner at the most important conference, possibly, held in recent years, or ever.
The Deputy will appreciate it does not arise on the budget. I have been very lenient.
It has grave consequences for us because our Achilles heel in our international dealings is our lack of vital raw materials which may exist in abundance in the seabed around our coast. This has been brought home to us vividly by the imminent shortage of oil, the prospect of oil rationing. Our case for a substantial portion of the seabed off our coasts should be pushed with the conviction required.
In reply to a parliamentary question the other day regarding the ownership of Rockall, the Minister stated that he had been in consultation with an official in the British Home Office—apparently the question I had put down forced him to seek an interview with the official concerned. That is not good enough. We should be taking the initiative in these matters. We are in what I might call a cul-de-sac in regard to oil and gas supplies because we cannot demand or obviously expect as much oil or gas as we need. We are like beggars going to the Middle East. The sooner we become selfsufficient in this respect, the better. But are we doing everything possible to see that we will be enabled to exploit the seabed off our coasts to the fullest extent possible? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said that a third party is being brought in to help in the negotiations between ourselves and Britain on Rockall. We should be demanding a major portion of the seabed off the Continental Shelf and if we do not get it it will be a shocking indictment of our negotiators.
The US to my knowledge have been making a claim to the area lying between Ireland, the US, Canada, Greenland and Iceland and we seem to be content to settle for a relatively small area. In the interest of future mineral and oil exploration we need as large an area as it is possible for us to get. Landlocked countries have been coming in laying claim to the mid-Atlantic area to which we and the US would be entitled under previous agreements.
Still on the question of our oil supplies, we seem to be having negotiations with every other country in the world, like Poland and the Soviet Union, with whom we have large imbalances of trade in their favour, when according to the Minister we have little or no diplomatic relations with Iraq. It would seem obvious that when our oil supplies are threatened we should be making overtures to every oil-producing country in the world. It is not very intelligent not to have diplomatic relations with Iraq which supplies most of our oil. We should make as many overtures as possible. The West Germans, the French and the British are doing so.
All this would be much more appropriate to a debate on the Estimate for Foreign Affairs. It is not really relevant to the budget at this stage.
The oil shortage is critical at the moment and the Chair will agree that it will upset all budget calculations.
Yes, but most of the matters mentioned in the last ten or 15 minutes by the Deputy are matters for Foreign Affairs and could be raised relevantly on the Estimate for that Department.
We seem to have a great lack of business acumen here. We bring in foreign industries and neglect home-based industries. In the last six months or year there has been a closure of a number of industries based on native raw materials and the Government seem to have done little or nothing to protect them. We must be the good guys in the EEC. When industries in other countries are threatened because of EEC regulations they break the rules to suit themselves. The French did this ad nauseum in relation to the importation of cheap wine from Italy and in relation to the exportation of lambs from here to France; they just closed the market and made no excuses. When British industries were threatened in the last couple of years they introduced an employment subsidy scheme whereby the industry is subsidised by the Government paying £20 per week to the employees. We are too slow to act to protect our industries. If the EEC barks or threatens us with prosecution we immediately run for cover.
We should be tougher in our stand. Recently in The Irish Times a list of the infringements by member states of the EEC showed that of the nine members Ireland was the country which least offended with regard to infringing EEC regulations. We could be regarded as the best Europeans in the EEC but that is not much good to the workers who find themselves out of a job in an industry which should be secured by subsidies to a larger extent than generally permitted by the Government in the event of difficulties arising. For example, the tanning industry is under severe difficulty at present. Hundreds of jobs have been lost; one factory has been closed and the work force has been depleted in the two other factories. We produce more of the raw materials for this industry, cattle hides and sheep skins, than can be used in the existing tanning industry. We are in an exporting position in relation to the raw materials and still the tanning industry has run into severe financial difficulties. While this situation may arise it should not be allowed to develop into a critical situation where jobs are lost and factories close down.
In the White Paper published just before the budget we were told that there was tremendous scope for expansion in the wood processing sector. We were told that about 900 extra jobs could be provided almost immediately in that sector. When the White Paper was produced in January there were 700 jobs in four projects in that industry. In the last two months two of them have closed down. At the moment we are planting something like 20,000 acres of forestry a year. About 700,000 acres of the countryside are under trees at the moment. What for? We have not the facilities to use this timber. There is vast over-production in the State forests. Timber is literally rotting in the ground because we have been unable to provide the facilities to process it. What a reflection on our business acumen. We cannot use the materials we are producing. With our business acumen we seem to be incapable of harnessing these materials. We wish to see this situation redressed. Thousands of jobs could be found in industries such as timber processing, the chipboard industry and the leather industry. Instead of these closing down there should be expansion. The timber is rotting and the hides are being exported while hundreds of people are being thrown out of jobs. What other EEC country would tolerate that? If we have to break the rules of the EEC we should do so without making excuses to anybody. We are too honest. I would have expected this Government would have been strong enough with their 20 seat majority to see that this situation did not arise.
Last week it was announced in the papers that another native industry is in dire trouble. I am referring to the virtual closure of the three State boatyards at Killybegs, Dingle and Baltimore. This country, surrounded by water, should have a vast fishing fleet, the existing boatyards should be bulging at the seams with orders and there should be full employment. We got considerable protection as a result of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act introduced by the previous Government in 1977 which prohibited third countries from fishing within 200 miles of our shores. In recent times we got conservation measures which prohibited EEC fleets from fishing as well. One would have expected that with all that we had tremendous potential for expansion. One would have expected that the processing sector would be employing tens of thousands of people because of the improved circumstances. What has happened? In the only three State boatyards the work force is being reduced by two-thirds and only a skeleton staff is being kept on. We seem to be incapable of sustaining an industry which should not be just ticking over but should be expanding. It is a sad reflection on us that we cannot keep these industries going.
Debate adjourned.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.