Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 May 1979

Vol. 314 No. 3

Vote 21: Office of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £5,233,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Economic Planning and Development.)

Mr. Taylor

I had been referring to the areas most in need of development. I was hoping that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would take particular note of tourist areas; it is vital to have an adequate road structure. I referred also to the necessity—and I hope he will impress this on the Minister for the Environment—to allocate an adequate sum of money from the £1,000 million which the Minister had indicated to the public will be available over the next number of years for road development.

I am bringing to the House the thoughts and expressions of local authorities in my County of Clare, the Clare County Council, the Kilrush Urban District Council and the Kilkee Town Commissioners as well as chambers of commerce who have all complained of the rapid deterioration of the main artery from Limerick to the Kilkee/Loop Head area, particularly from Ennis to Kilrush to Kilkee. The success of the people in the west in industry, tourism and agriculture depends on having a proper allocation of money. I would ask the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, in his plan, to see that there is an allocation of money for this road which has been described as dangerous at every meeting of Clare County Council over a long number of years.

In the area of tourism we have received a lot of setbacks as a result of lack of bookings because of the postal strike. There is a hopelessness there because industrialists who would site their industries there are now deprived of any line of communication. The Government cannot expect the people to tolerate a situation like this indefinitely. The National, Economic and Social Council refer to advance development of all regions. I claim that the areas of the west and the areas in west Clare have not shared in this development and to date the imbalance is noticeable. I am not talking politically. I am just bringing the facts to the attention of the Minister who knows the area well. He has engendered some hope in the people there who believe that he will bring fresh thinking to bear in relation to the areas I have referred to.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Taylor

I am trying to make the point that we must have a balanced development and to date we have not had that. Because of that imbalance tourism has suffered, industrial development has suffered. It is a fact that we have the first advance factory which was built in Kilrush and it is there unoccupied for a number of years. I do not know if the Minister's activity in the industrial area goes as far as influencing the siting of industry but I would ask him at this stage to look into the matter of seeing that an industrialist who has a sound financial standing will locate at this advance factory and that, generally speaking, there will be some revival of the industrial growth which we enjoyed there over the centuries. I would refer particularly to the timber industry. We have a rather important port there and there has traditionally been a native timber industry there as well as an imported timber industry. In this area the Minister should look into the reports which I had hoped he would have seen by now in relation to a properly balanced structure concerning the timber industry. Where there is employment given in the timber industry there should be some allocation of money to native timber industrialists who in fact put in their own money and who give steady employment. They should have some preference so far as getting contracts at a proper and reasonable price is concerned. This is vital in Clare where we have some major industries like Scarriff Chipboard and Kilrush Timber Products and others. If they are to continue in business such industries should get some preferential treatment where there are State sales of native timber.

I understand that so far as the Minister's Department is concerned we will be getting advice from the National Economic and Social Council in relation to income distribution and tax policy. The tax policy which is at present in operation does not encourage people to return to live in the west; neither does it encourage the people who live there to develop. I refer to the intensive dairying area where farmers will now pay a tax on milk over 5,000 gallons delivered to the local creameries; they will also pay a levy on cattle sold at their local mart. Often this tax is extracted from people who are already in debt to the banks and to the Agricultural Credit Corporation for the purchase of agricultural machinery and for the purchase of stock. This is a very unfair system. It is not a tax on an income, it is a tax on what could be a debt. I hope that this year will see the last of that system particularly where there has to be intensive capital development in dairying. This is quite general in Clare. There has been very significant growth in that area.

The Minister must understand that in areas which have been described as growth areas they have been given a fair share of consideration. Unfortunately, previous Governments shared willingly the views of consultants like Lichfield, Buchanan and others from whom we got reports. They would be quite good in highly intensive areas of population in England but would not be able to think clearly about a rural area. If they decided that a country could prosper by having particular growth areas throughout the country and that other areas would be deprived, they misled previous Governments who should not have accepted their advice. They referred to "preserving grand green belts for tourism". What a lovely thing it is to have grand green belts of lush pasture and have the inhabitants of small holdings going to England and elsewhere to make a living. I hope the Minister will bring fresh thinking into those areas and see that the people who want to live where their ancestors bought an acre of land will be given some assistance and that the towns and villages in those areas who depend on a thriving population will also be given a chance to survive in the eighties.

I want to refer particularly to tourism in the west. Guesthouse owners and hoteliers are facing a serious situation. Most of our tourists come here by the east coast, although we are lucky to have a major airport in my county. If there is to be a restriction on petrol what provision will be made in the near future to see that tourists are given an adequate supply to take them to the traditional tourists areas? In the west we cannot take bookings now but perhaps that situation will improve in the near future. What provision will be made to see that tourists can travel to any part of the country they want to go to? A lot depends on having an adequate supply of petrol available.

People in many areas of the country depend on private cars to get them to work. People in West Clare have to travel a fair distance to work in Shannon or Ennis. If there are not supplies of petrol to take those people to work does industry grind to a halt? It is important that thought be given to the provision of petrol. I do not think the Minister has been given a fair chance yet.

Mr. Bruton

The Deputy is very generous.

Mr. Taylor

He deserves it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy from Clare is having a good innings and the Chair is being quite lenient.

Mr. Taylor

I appreciate that. If there is to be a tourist development consideration should be given by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development to development in the major tourist areas. It is important when disputes arise on any particular matter that every effort is made to settle them before a prolonged strike ensues, when the nation suffers. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development could have very good ideas about the development of particular areas but if there are disputes this development cannot take place.

Many deprived areas in the country have suffered over the years. The balance should now be restored and those areas should be looked after. The Minister should keep a friendly eye on fishery development on the west coast and the provision of adequate landing facilities which is vital. At the moment there are regional development organisations who have not got sufficient finance to make decisions which will be of benefit to the areas they serve. I know they get contributions from county councils, and they highlight road structure, land acquisition and other things, but it is about time some decision was arrived at and they were given some proper functions, rather than have the present situation. County development teams will play a major role in future and the central development committee has always played a major role.

The Minister should establish a firm liaison between the county development towns and see that this is maintained regularly. When there are different promoting agents like the Industrial Development Authority and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in our region and county development teams it is difficult to know exactly what degree of harmony exists or what possible plans, united in co-operation, they have for a region; this should be defined. County development teams are able to pinpoint the necessary and vital development within any particular county. I would like to see their functions and their capacity to guide being utilised fully by the Minister's Department.

I hope the year ahead will bring for all of us a brighter future than seems possible at the moment and that the efforts made by the Minister and his officials will be noticeable. If we were to review the targets for 1979 it would not be so encouraging. However, there is always a brighter side and I hope that the Minister will share in a brighter future for all of us.

Mr. Bruton

In opening my contribution to this debate, which I must remind the House is on an Estimate for £5 million to be spent by the Office for which the Minister is responsible, I should like to express my general concern about the way in which this House has to deal with Estimates. It has to discuss a very detailed Estimate concerning about 12 different sub-heads—each of them worthy of a detailed discussion on its own—in a debate of a rambling character, where each Deputy makes one contribution of a maximum of one hour and there is no possibility of interrogating the Minister, or even making suggestions to him to which he could reply in a specific fashion. The only way in which points are replied to, if at all, is at the very end of the debate, when everybody has forgotten much of what has been said—this debate may well not be concluded for a number of weeks; this is a very bad way for the House to be doing its business of controlling public expenditure.

Given that the Minister has an over-all responsibility in the area of co-ordination of Government activities and procedures, he should have a look at the way this House is involved in the control of public expenditure. If he examines this question, he will find that the format of the procedure of voting Estimates is highly unsatisfactory. There are not even the facilities available to us when discussing the Estimate, of putting down amendments. We could, up to about 1976, have had the possibility of putting down an amendment to reduce the Vote in respect of a particular item. This power was not used. If it had been used it would have meant that we could have focussed in on a debate on an individual item of the Estimate and got the Minister to agree to a specific discussion on the role and function of the economic research.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Am I right in thinking that we referred that matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for their consideration? We debated it here.

Mr. Bruton

This is a point I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development because ultimately the decision will be taken by the Government and he is a man of some influence in the Government and I would like him to be aware of the thinking on this. This is relevant to the debate itself and I would draw his attention to the fact that this is a very bad way to be doing our business with regard to controlling public expenditure.

It is possible that there may be no reply to this debate. The Minister is responsible for the debate on the White Paper in this House and we have not yet had a reply from him to a debate which took place two months ago on this subject and there is no prospect, that I know of, that it will ever be replied to. It may be like the 1978 budget debate which was never replied to by the Minister responsible.

I very much welcome—and this is not necessarily a view shared by all the members of my party—the setting up of a Department of Economic Planning and Development. It is very important that there be a body, apart from the Department of Finance, responsible for looking at and co-ordinating the entire range of Government activities, in so far as they affect economic matters. Indeed, I would say there is probably a need for similar co-ordinating Departments in relation to other matters affecting Government activity which are not covered by the Minister, as they do not have a sufficient economic content. I found, in Government over four years, that the biggest obstacle to getting things done is bureaucracy but that bureaucracy which is an obstacle is not the bureaucracy within one's own Department. It is not difficult to get what one wants done by civil servants responsible to one's self or to the Minister. The big problem is when you have to send a circulating memorandum to Departments and you cannot get a reply from them. You have no control over the other civil servants because they are under other Ministers and there is nobody responsible for making sure that they reply.

The Taoiseach's Department is overburdened with other work, particularly if there are difficulties in Northern Ireland or matters like that. The Taoiseach has not the time to be checking up on whether a memo from the Department of Education to the Department of Health over two years ago has yet been replied to. There must be somebody to oversee this whole question of bringing discussions to the Government's attention to get decisions taken. In most cases, Governments can take decisions if the issue comes to them in a proper form but memoranda go from one Department to another and are never replied to and never come to the Minister for decision until far too late. It is very important that there should be a body like the Minister's Department looking at the over-all situation and intervening to get needed decisions on issues and not allowing them to be sucked into the morass that I have described.

In that sense I very much welcome the setting up of this Department. The particular activities of the Department in relation to the production of what are in-accurately described as planning documents is something I shall deal with later. I do not think that what the Department of Economic Planning and Development has produced so far can, in any sense, be described as a plan. It has been a setting forth of options or, to use the word now being used rather more fully in the present contribution by the Minister, the setting forth of "scenarios". Well, a scenario is not a plan and yet the Minister has told us, in his introductory document, that, in so far as the future is concerned, the emphasis would be, to a very great extent, on the production of scenarios for the economy.

Scenarios seem to be much more like what one might describe as literary essays in futurology; they are certainly not plans. If the Minister is going to water down even further the process of planning in the country's life by opting for scenarios and discussions he will become perhaps one of the best paid economic authors in the country. He has a guaranteed income but he should be doing his job as a Minister for planning the country rather than pursuing a scenario of ideas and producing stimulating notions to push around. That is not his job in Government.

Professor O'Donoghue

That is not what I said.

Mr. Bruton

It may be very useful but it is not the job of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. We have not had economic planning by this Government because there has not been a single document committed to the idea of economic planning which comes within the bawl of an ass of economic development in this country. The second programme pursued by another member of the Minister's party had specialised targets which were not achieved. The last Government had the courage to say what they felt poultry production should be five years hence, what they expected cattle production would be five years hence, what output of cloth was expected five years hence. For the people engaged in these sectors we had targets setting out what the Government expected was going to happen in their sector and they had something to work on in making their own investment plan. That has not happened with this Government. They have documents described as plans but they are merely setting forth suggestions about things that might happen and things the Government might do. This Government have never had a plan in any sense if by plan is meant making up your mind what you are going to do and doing it over a time. They have had fewer plans than any other Government in the history of our State.

A tax policy is an essential element of economic management in any country. The tax policy of the Minister for Finance for 1979 may have been appropriate in Victorian times. His present tax policy is not planning at all. As far as tax policy is concerned this Government have been the most erratic of any Government in my relatively brief knowledge of politics in this country. We had a white paper which produced one set of ideas as to the possible way in which the country, and particularly agriculture, might be taxed. Then we had the budget less than six weeks later with another set of proposals which were the firm, definite proposals of the Government in so far as one understood a budget to be a firm statement of the Government's taxation policy. Within two months of that the whole budget package had been overturned and we had a whole new set of proposals for farmer taxation and concessions to the PAYE sector. Indeed, a bit earlier in the year we were told that £39 million was going to be given away to the PAYE sector.

We have had erratic planning within the area of the Government's own competence. It is hard for a Government to tell an industrialist "You must plan what you are going to do over the years ahead. You must tell us, if you are going to get a grant from us, what you will be doing with your output five years from now." In the case of industry the Government and their agencies want industrialists to plan and to say what they will be doing five years from now. With the evidence before us so far the indications are that this Government do not know as far as their major responsibilities for taxation are concerned what they will be doing even five weeks from now. That is a very bad example of economic planning. It indicates the total lack of any attempt at economic planning by this Government. The Minister is not wholly responsible for this but he is responsible for economic planning and he primarily must answer for failure on the part of the Government to plan their activity in a proper fashion.

I have expressed concern in the past about the great emphasis being put, not only by this Government but also by others, on negotiations between what are described as the social partners in working out the economic policy of the Government. The budget was presented in January. Negotiations subsequently took place with the social partners outside this House and the budget was totally limited as a result of these discussions, negotiations or confrontations with the social partners. The social partners have a steady mandate for their own members, the employers' organisations, the unions and the farmers' organisations but they do not speak for the Irish people as a whole. The only body which does that is this House. If the budget presented to this House and approved by this House—that is the important thing—is going to be negotiated totally outside this House by those described as the social partners, that is a diminution of the authority of this House and it is handing over part of the sovereignty of this House to other bodies.

Large sections of the Irish community are not represented by the social partners and the Government in speaking to the social partners are not speaking to the representatives of large sections of the Irish community. I will give examples of people who are not represented. Housewives are not represented by the social partners. Young people who are not in employment are not represented by the social partners, neither are retired people, particularly retired people on fixed incomes who find their savings reduced in value as the result of inflationary policies pursued by the Government in negotiating with these social partners. The self-employed are not represented except for the farmers, and the farmers are not fully involved in these negotiations. I would not hesitate to say that a majority of our people are unrepresented by any of the social partners. The Government are trying to confine their negotiations in relation to their economic policy with the social partners inside and outside this House on policies different from those approved by this House.

One group who have lost out very badly in this because they had not muscle to be involved are people—retired people, in particular—whose income is derived from national loans. Consider a person who in 1950 had £2,500 and invested it then in the national loan. They will get back £2,500, the amount originally invested in 1950. Had the money been invested in a house in Ailesbury Road—which in 1950 could have been bought for £2,500—instead of getting back £2,500 from the national loan now the person could sell that house for £100,000. People who did what they were told to do and invested in the national loan to help the efforts of the Government of the day—and who are now being urged to do the same under the present Government—have lost out radically. Their money has depreciated very severely, whereas if they had invested in house property or something else they would have done far better. That is a direct result of the inflation policy pursued by successive Governments in this country and this arises in large measure from the type of negotiations I have been describing taking place outside this House with the so-called social partners who do not include people on fixed incomes living on interest from national loans which they patriotically bought to help the country with its work. They are not represented and they lose out as a result of the policy being pursued. We must take another look at this. We must reassert the sovereignty of this House in so far as economic management is concerned. It is this House's own fault if we do not have an adequate say in economic matters in this country because we have not reformed our procedure to enable us to have a proper say.

I have urged before—and I do not wish to come in conflict with the Chair again about mentioning something which is now with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges—that if we can reform our procedures, establish committees, get ourselves involved in a meaningful way in economic planning and have the information to do so, we, as this House, will be able to reassert our position. Ultimately I believe in the maxim that knowledge is power, and we in this House just do not have the knowledge of what is going on in the economy because so much of the things being decided are being decided behind closed doors between the Government and other people and the results of those discussions are not fully published. For instance I believe that in the case of the National Economic and Social Council, a body representing all of the interests in this economy practically without exception, there is no representative of these Houses. There is not a single Deputy or Senator appointed to that body representing these Houses. There happens to be one Senator Noel Mulcahy, but he was appointed for another reason. There is not a single person on that body representing this House. Yet this House is supposed to be the body that ultimately controls this country. Yet we have a body amassing tremendously valuable information, engaging in discussions on the whole range of economic policy; on which there is not a single Deputy or Senator. That body was set up by my Government. I will make a gift of the point to the Minister, if he wants to say "You were in office for four years; why did you not get Deputies on to that body". He has a point and I am afraid I have no answer for him. But the point still remains that Deputies who were elected by the people must be involved in this sort of economic management of the country if we are to make real progress in re-asserting democratic sovereignty, the voice of people speaking for the entire people in the economic management of the country.

I should like to express some concern and ask the Minister for some information about the EEC Regional Development Fund and generally about regional policy. I have heard some information to the effect that Ireland has not been using its entire allocation from the regional fund, that projects are slow in coming through and that money available for this country is not being spent in full here. I should like an assurance from the Minister that we are getting every penny we can from the regional fund, small and all as it is. I should like an assurance also that the regional fund is being genuinely used for new projects in this country and is not being used merely to prop-up existing Government programmes, namely, saving money for the Exchequer without itself providing any new impetus for development here. In fact it is my information that under this Government, and indeed under the last, the EEC Regional Fund has been used for no other purpose than to prop-up existing Government programmes and has not resulted in new initiatives at all in the area of economic policy over and above what probably would have happened anyway in a general sense.

I believe that the regional fund must be separately accounted for and managed. It is not sufficient to have a number of projects and then, when it comes to the end of the year with those projects already in being, to say: "Ah well, we will call this one a regional fund project; we will put a regional fund tag on it, saying that this one was funded by the regional fund"—a purely notional operation. I believe there must be a separate plan for all projects being aided by the EEC Regional Fund so that it would be seen to be the case that this is a separate programme over and above the ordinary programmes of the Government and that the regional fund is not being used merely to prop up existing Government finance but is being used for development in a real sense.

In the section of the Minister's speech dealing with the establishment of social policies the Minister says that there is work going on. He continues to say:

This work includes research on income distribution, including the redistributive effects of public expenditure and taxation policies, and the development of appropriate social indicators.

It is very fortunate that this work is going on and I welcome it. However, I should like an assurance from the Minister that this work will be carried out by the Central Statistics Office. I do not want to see statistics for this country, which are supposed to be perfectly unbiassed, being produced by the Minister's Department. We have an agency for collecting statistics, that is, the Central Statistics Office. It would be a very bad development if the Minister's Department were to get involved in the business of statistics collection.

Professor O'Donoghue

There is no question of our getting involved in the collection of statistics.

Mr. Bruton

All this will be done by the Central Statistics Office. But will it be published by the CSO or by the Minister's Department?

Professor O'Donoghue

The crucial thing is to know what information you want.

Mr. Bruton

It is important that the information be published by the Central Statistics Office, not by the Minister's Department, because any Minister in that Department will have a particular political line to sell. I will not say he will doctor these statistics but he could easily tend to present them in a particular way——

Professor O'Donoghue

I must say that I think that is a totally unwarranted and unfounded remark.

Mr. Bruton

Against the Minister himself?

Professor O'Donoghue

Just generally. Does the Deputy really know what he is saying?

Mr. Bruton

I do. We had the economic background to the budget produced before the——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We should not get into the field of making allegations against a Department, a Minister or a civil servant.

Professor O'Donoghue

It is not only my Department but every Department.

Mr. Bruton

I want to see statistics published by the Central Statistics Office and no one else. I do not want the Minister publishing statistics.

Professor O'Donoghue

Every other Government Department publishes statistics every year and they are all now suspect.

Mr. Bruton

I want the statistics published by the Central Statistics Office.

Professor O'Donoghue

I really suggest the Deputy should not take up the point.

Mr. Bruton

I really suggest the Minister should not take up my time.

As far as the county development teams are concerned, it is insufficient that at present they are concerned largely with industrial development. I believe there should be county agricultural development teams concerned with the development of agriculture. I see the role of county development teams as one of co-ordinating the activities of all State agencies in so far as they affect a particular county. There is a particular need for this in regard to agriculture, in that we have in each county, for instance, a county committee of agriculture operating, we have An Foras Talúntais concerned with research, the district veterinary offices concerned with veterinary matters, we have the farm development services concerned with giving out grants for farm buildings and probably there are a number of other bodies, such as, for example, the Agricultural Credit Corporation concerned with giving credit for agriculture.

There is no way in which the activities of all these bodies affecting agriculture, all ultimately having the same objectives, are being co-ordinated in any real sense so far as a particular county is concerned. I should like to see a situation in which a county agricultural development team was set up encompassing all of the bodies affecting agriculture in the county, and that that body would be given responsibility not merely for co-ordinating their activities but also for drawing up specific targets for output from agriculture in the county in question over a five year period. That would have two effects: firstly, it would ensure that the ACC were pursuing credit policies consistent with the policy on agricultural advice of the county committee of agriculture and the policy on farm building grants of the farm development services. Under the present regime they could be pursuing quite contradictory policies. We could have a situation in which the Department of Agriculture were trying to pursue policies in a given county to reduce the price of land in order that small farmers could buy it and, on the other hand, the Agricultural Credit Corporation were pursuing completely contradictory policies in giving loans to farmers to buy land, increasing the competition for land and its price.

I believe there should be co-ordination of activity at county level with targets drawn up for output at county level by somebody, and I believe the body in question should be the county development team. If they draw up targets and fail to achieve them, there will be an opportunity for asking why targets set for a particular county were not achieved. There would be somebody, namely the team in question and the bodies represented on it, on whom responsibility would rest for the failure to achieve those targets. That would constitute a very valuable approach to economic planning at county level. We must use the county as a unit of production because it is one with which people identify and where people can see returns for effort at county level where they may not necessarily see them at national or international level.

One of the biggest problems in the country at present is to be found in the area of manpower planning. This is the point I made in the course of my contribution on the White Paper and is one of the reasons I am unhappy that the Minister has not yet replied to that debate. Indeed, I do not know whether he would have replied to the point I shall make now, which I made on that occasion also, but I hope he does on this occasion. I believe we have big problems here in regard to manpower planning. To take an example, in the case of the skilled trades, although we have generally quite a high level of unemployment in the country, I elicited information from the Minister for Labour showing that there are at least 2,000 jobs vacant in this country because there are not people with the skills to fill them.

There are about 400 bricklayers, 300 industrial pipelayers and about 800 engineers of various kinds who cannot be found to fill jobs that are waiting to be filled. Not only are they jobs for which people would be getting remuneration but they are also an obstacle to the creation of other jobs. The result of pumping extra money into housing does not take the form of extra houses being built simply because in some cases bricklayers are not available to build them. The existence of skill shortages resulting directly from deficiencies in manpower planning means that jobs are unfilled and prevents the creation of other jobs.

There is also a problem in our educational system. Our schools are producing people with the leaving certificate who cannot get a job, not because the jobs are not there but because they have been getting money from the State to acquire qualifications for jobs that do not exist. That is a bad situation as far as State investment is concerned. I am not disputing anyone's right to take any courses or qualifications they like regardless of whether it results in their getting a job. If the State is investing money in post-intermediate education or in third level education, it must ensure that that money is going to create skills in our economy which match the jobs which exist in our economy. That is a central responsibility of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.

A number of Departments are involved. The Department of Education and the Department of Labour are involved. The universities, who guard their autonomy jealously, are involved. The Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy are involved because they are responsible for the creation of jobs and consequently the type of skill needs which will arise in our economy five years hence. The proper planning of manpower policy cannot be the responsibility of one Minister. It must be the responsibility of the entire Government. The Government must set up institutions to ensure that manpower planning takes place on a proper basis.

The Minister should adopt the model of the National Board for Science and Technology in the area of manpower planning. I do not wish to bore the House with a lengthy dissertation on how that board works, but it is responsible for co-ordinating science expenditure. It does not take away responsibility from individual Departments but ensures that all the science expenditures of individual Departments are centralised. The Government are presented with a comprehensive picture of the science expenditure every year so its budget can be allocated rationally on the basis of scientific needs as seen by the Government in the global sense. It prevents the Government from being buffetted hither and thither by interests in agricultural institutes as against the universities and so on.

The same should be done in the area of manpower planning which, with all due respect to science, is a more important area in the immediate sense. I am not deprecating science. If the Minister introduces this and gets credit for it, I do not mind. It would not cost him anything to introduce it and would provide a continuing institution for a review of this kind of activity long after the Minister has departed from his present portfolio to another responsibility. If the Minister does that he will be leaving behind him something far more valuable than the succession of papers which, no matter how one looks at them, are obsolete within a short time.

I strongly criticise the economic plans being produced by the Government in that they take very little, if any, account of energy shortages in the world. If we are to increase production by 10 per cent, say over two years, that automatically means we increase our energy consumption by about 7 per cent in the same two-year period. There is that ratio between employment creation and energy consumption. If we are investing in a form of economic development which is highly dependent on imported energy, we are building our economic prosperity in the form of a sand castle which could be easily washed away by a tide arising from a world energy crisis, in that those jobs so expensively created could not be sustained if that energy was not there. Running through the Minister's documents on economic planning is a total absence of any recognition of the fact that these plans are only possible if the energy is there to sustain them. Economic growth can only be sustained over a long period if energy is there to provide for that level of growth.

In his document on energy policy, the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy has pointed out, rightly and perhaps even conservatively, that our consumption of energy is expected to double by 1990 over our consumption in 1977. Where is that energy coming from? Will it be there in 1990? It is open to question whether it will. There are grave doubts about the safety of nuclear energy in the long term. These doubts are underlined by what has happened in Harrisburg. If we are building our entire economy on nuclear energy being available, we are building on a weak support. People who are queuing for petrol today do not need to be reminded that oil is in uncertain to run out in the long term. The more time goes on, the more expensive it is to extract.

The other alternative available, we are told, is coal. The Soviet Union control 60 per cent of the world's coal. We know that the part of the world we are living in is in ideological conflict with the Soviet Union. In the event of that conflict escalating there is no guarantee that the Soviet Union or its allies, like Poland who are now supplying—I do not have the actual figure—about 80 per cent of our coal, will be doing so in five years time. There is every evidence that the world situation is worsening. Why are the Russians establishing such a massive superiority in the area of tanks in Eastern Europe? They have a three to one superiority as far as tanks are concerned. They could be at the Rhine within a week. A tank is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Perhaps it is because the Russian military establishment want to spend money on that sort of thing and they are very influential with the old men who are in power in the Kremlin. If that is so, it is not something to be worried about. However, if it is what it appears to be—an indication of a slightly unfriendly disposition towards the people near whose borders they are stationing these tanks—it does not augur very well for the long term good relations between this part of the world and the part of the world on which we must depend for our coal. That is where the plant on the Shannon Estuary is ultimately going to get its coal from.

Is the Minister satisfied that the energy we need to sustain the optimistic plans he is making will be there in five years time? If the Minister is not, he must make alternative plans. I would point out to him that the energy is not really there in the long run if the Third World is to develop as we hope it does. We are consuming, for instance, about 150 times as much energy per head as the average person in Ethiopia is consuming. If, as a result of programmes being pursued in the world, the Ethiopian standard of living is to be increased to even half our standard of living, the Ethiopian will obviously be consuming 70 to 80 times more energy than he is consuming now. Therefore, there will be even more demands from other parts of the world in which energy is not being consumed to any significant degree now. To use the Minister's words, that indicates a gloomy long-run scenario for our long-term prosperity. It is important to realise that our economic prosperity depends not on technology but on energy. We are consuming about 150 times as much energy as we were consuming 100 years ago and it is because we have been able to increase our consumption of an energy that is already limited in supply that we have been so prosperous but if that energy is not available to us in from ten to 15 years time our standard of living will be reduced again, perhaps not to the level at which it was in the 19th century but to the level experienced in the thirties when, I understand, this part of the world was not a pleasant place in which to live.

Therefore, our economic planning must take account of energy needs. I question, and I go no further than to use the word "question", our reliance on heavy capital grants to industry as a means of fuelling economic growth. I say this because highly-capitalised industry, using automatic processes and low human inputs of energy is much more reliant on imported energy resources than is a labour-intensive industry. Yet, we are spending almost all our money in the area of industrial development in promoting energy-intensive and capital-intensive industry, a type of industry which, as I have indicated, may not be able to survive and which may become as irrelevant as the dinosaur in 15 years time if the present uncertain energy situation continues. Far from being more secure the jobs that will be created by this capital-intensive industry may well be less secure than jobs in labour-intensive industry such as the clothing and footwear industries which we are told will not survive in the long run. We are highly inefficient users of energy. The latest figures to which I have access——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is endeavouring to engage in a full-scale debate on energy, a subject that is much more appropriate to another Estimate and another Minister. I have given the Deputy the opportunity of making his point but he made that point about ten minutes ago.

Mr. Bruton

It is not my intention to engage in a full-scale debate on energy. I would merely point out that in economic planning the question of energy must be considered. The Government have ignored energy needs in the sense of their being the essential prerequisite for economic growth.

I should like to refer also to another concept that is much beloved of the Minister, that is, the concept of work sharing. I note that in the national understanding document there appears the statement that Government, industry and the ICTU will investigate immediately work sharing possibilities in so far as work sharing can be used as a job creating mechanism without affecting adversely our competitiveness. I should like the Minister to tell us how it is possible to have work sharing without affecting competitiveness adversely, either directly or indirectly. If there are to be more people working but doing the same amount of work and, presumably, being paid the same level of remuneration, competitiveness must be affected immediately. Therefore, the Minister should spell out clearly what he means by work sharing and tell us how he thinks it will happen and in what sectors he thinks it will take place.

Where the Japanese employ three people to do a job we employ five but if we introduce work sharing and employ seven people to do the same job and if our workers are demanding the same rate of remuneration as that paid to Japanese workers, it is inevitable that the cost of production here would be two and one third times the cost of production in Japan. The Minister has said that work sharing would come about in the context of agreement in Europe. Perhaps he will succeed in persuading our European colleagues to agree. Perhaps the Germans will agree to be inefficient like us so that we will be no more efficient than they. However, the Germans are not likely to continue being inefficient for very long if they find they are losing markets to the Japanese, whether in cars or in other market areas.

We have been talking about work sharing now for the past two years. It is referred to almost in every document published by the Government but if we are to continue talking about it it would be helpful to have a clear answer from the Minister, based on all the resources of economic theory available to him, as to how he proposes to achieve work sharing without our economic competitiveness being adversely affected and he should tell us also how many jobs he expects will be created in this way and where these jobs will be. If the Minister tells us that work sharing is not contemplated in those industries that are directly exporting, that are competing directly with others, but that it is contemplated in the service sector, for instance, that that would mean employing more civil servants and would not affect our international competitiveness, we will not accept such argument because if we inflate the size of our civil service we will have to inflate our tax burden and such inflation would be levelled ultimately on exports. The taxes would be paid by those engaged in exports. Therefore, in my opinion, though I should hope to be dissuaded on this, work sharing must affect competitiveness. Consequently, the reliance in the national understanding on the concept of work sharing is not valid.

The only way in which there can be work sharing in the long run is by the adoption of the Soviet model of government whereby there is job rationing and nobody is out of work but I know that this is not the sort of economy that either the Minister or anybody else in this House would be interested in having.

I shall conclude my remarks by referring at some length to the position of agriculture in our national economy. Farmers and agriculture generally have been receiving very unfair treatment from everybody, including the Government, in so far as their contribution to the national economy is concerned. But there are a number of points which should be made in order to put the scene into its proper prespective. The agricultural tax packet which was announced recently by the Government was not justified on the basis of incomes of individual farmers but it was justified on the basis that all incomes of all farmers, regardless of whether the farmers were in the tax net, were grossed up in order to achieve one global figure for agriculture. Then the Government said that they would take a share of the global figure for the entire sector, regardless of whether a large part of that figure was made up of the incomes of farmers who would not be in the tax net in any case. The absurdity of the argument could be demonstrated better——

Professor O'Donoghue

That happens to be untrue. I do not know from where the Deputy got this fanciful notion.

Mr. Bruton

The basis for the argument is that the Government must take a fixed share of the income of the agricultural sector.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is in order to mention farmer taxation in passing but we may not have a discussion on it on this Estimate. It is a matter for another Minister.

Professor O'Donoghue

Especially when the references are inaccurate.

Mr. Bruton

It is very important to point out so far as Government expenditure and agriculture are concerned, that in 1972, 15 per cent of Government expenditure was on agriculture. That has been reduced to a mere 5 per cent of total Government expenditure. There has been a significant reduction in the relative contribution of the Government to agriculture. Notwithstanding the very significant increases in incomes in farming which resulted from membership of the EEC, the average income per head in agriculture is still significantly below the average income per head in the rest of the economy. It has been estimated that up to 20,000 extra jobs in downstream and upstream agricultural based industries could be created as a result of expansion in agriculture. Any reduction in agricultural output, whether induced by external factors, or by taxation policies of the Government will not only hit farmers' incomes but the incomes of non-farming people. An example of this is the meat factories. We have a situation where about 500 lay-offs have taken place in a meat factory directly as a result of a reduction in the sale of cattle to a factory because of a variety of factors including the tax measures. There is no more eloquent indication of the interdependence of agriculture and the rest of the economy. All who criticise agriculture should bear this in mind.

I agree that farmers must pay a fair share of tax by way of income tax on the accounts system but I will not labour the point. The idea of having three or four taxes where we could have one tax is ridiculous and it is not fair. Farmers should be put in the same position as everybody else by being put on full income tax on accounts with whatever modifications are necessary so that farmers will be treated like everybody else. That would go a long way towards achieving equity in the tax code and towards achieving social harmony.

The present Minister and the present Government have adopted a pessimistic attitude in relation to the contribution of agriculture to the economy in that, whereas in 1977 a 9.4 per cent growth in agricultural output took place and yet in 1979-1980 the Minister projects in the White Paper a target of merely a 4 per cent growth per annum. That is less than half of what was achieved in 1977 in the agricultural sector. That scaling down of the Minister's hopes in relation to agriculture needs to be justified by the Minister in a way he never had an opportunity to justify it, because he did not reply so far to the debate on this White Paper.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Bruton

The Minister realises that this is a limited time debate and he should not interrupt.

Professor O'Donoghue

Last year our targets were criticised as being too ambitious.

Mr. Bruton

I hope I will get injury time for this interruption. The fact that the Minister needs to interrogate me to get information is making my case.

Professor O'Donoghue

Deputy Bruton is on a different line to that of other members of his party.

Mr. Bruton

That never worried me and it will not worry me now. I will say what I have to say whether it coincides with what anybody else says or not. I made the point earlier in the discussion that the heavy reliance on discussions with the social partners as a means of drawing up economic policy, meant that large sectors of the community were being unrepresented in those discussions and were losing out. An example of this can be seen in the position of children under the tax code. They are not represented and yet the tax allowances for children increased far less than the tax allowances for married people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy will not now discuss tax allowances for children.

Mr. Bruton

Children are not represented in the discussions with the social partners and have lost out. I hope the Minister will reply in full to the debate and will take account of the points I made and the points made by other speakers.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this wide-ranging debate. This Government came in on statements that they would create jobs and economic stability. The Minister is the author of these statements, so it is important that we can put our points to him. I agree with economic planning even though some people on this side of the House disagree with it. It is desirable and necessary to have positive policies to plan the future. However, we see both Green and White Papers from the far side of the House and little else. In the area of economic planning one would have thought that the first thing to do would be to unite people. We all have a stake in the country whether we are trade unionists, farmers, housewives, business or professional people and it is in our interests to work together. Economic planning and development must mean that we harness the good will of all the sections in a common purpose to develop the economy for the betterment of everybody, particularly the weaker sections who have not a strong voice. When one reflects and looks at what has happened in our society, one can say that we were never more disunited, fragmented, dis-organised and discontented. If this is a result of the magic formula of economic planning, then I believe economic planning has failed miserably. There is discontent, with one section accusing another section and one must lay the blame at the doorstep of the Government. The man from the town is against the countryman and only yesterday we saw two uniformed sections in combat on the streets of Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss that matter on this Estimate. There will be another Estimate and another time for discussing it.

Mr. F. O'Brien

When any Deputy has raised any contentious matter this afternoon apparently it has to do with another Minister and another Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That kind of allegation will not do so far as the Chair is concerned. If the Deputy is relevant he may raise any contentious matter he wishes. What the Deputy is dealing with now is not relevant to this Estimate and to this Minister. It is relevant to another Estimate and another Minister.

Mr. F. O'Brien

With respect, we have heard very little from Ministers who are supposed to be responsible for certain Departments. We have heard a lot from the present Minister; he must be given credit for putting his head on the block and saying what he has to say. We hear so little from the others that I often get the impression that the Minister present has to take the decisions and it is not unfair of me to say that. The present Minister has been basically responsible for the national understanding which is being discussed at the moment and what I am saying here is relevant to it. I do not want to see turmoil and disputes but if we are to get a national understanding we must understand the problems. In my view the Minister had conferred on himself the duty to take on this role. It is part of economic development. We cannot divorce the strife and the problems we have today from the Minister. I am not blaming him for them; I am merely stating the facts. The Chair has said that the matter is relevant to another Department but the present Minister has a part to play in all Departments. He is the person who ties all the bits together and gets them into some kind of shape for a policy. Therefore, I do not think I am out of order in referring to the problems we have today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair wants to tell the Deputy that he is in order when dealing with the national understanding. If he wants to go into the rights and wrongs of any dispute, strike or industrial unrest in any specific place, it does not arise on this Estimate. That is all the Chair is saying to the Deputy.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair but I am here to make a case and I cannot make a case in the dark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair reminds the Deputy that the matter he was entering into is probably sub judice so far as the Chair is concerned. That is one of the reasons the Chair told the Deputy he should deal with other matters when discussing the Estimates before the House.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I do not think it is sub judice because we are dealing with particular and isolated cases with regard to the courts. The problems are still there. If one goes down to Sheriff Street now——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already told the Deputy that he is not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of any dispute. If he wants to deal with the national understanding he is entitled to do so.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I did not attempt to discuss the rights or wrongs of any dispute. I raised them because they are matters that are causing grave concern. We will not get a national understanding by conflict, by burying our heads in the sand or by ignoring people who have legitimate claims. That is part of the national understanding. I want to see it work because it is in the best interests of all but we will not get a national understanding with the conditions prevailing today. I am not blaming the Minister for that but he is one of the authors of the national understanding and it comes within his ambit. I am entitled to make reference to the reasons why I believe some action should be taken if we want to get the national understanding off the ground.

It is important for the nation that the national understanding gets approval because if it does not it can spell further gloom for the country. We have seen nothing but gloom and problems in the past few months. If the national understanding is to be accepted by the majority in the country it must be discussed. The Minister present is anxious that the national understanding be accepted. He should use his good offices with his Cabinet colleagues to see what can be done to eliminate the strife and the problems that exist on the streets of Dublin today. I have no doubt that he will do that. If the Minister cannot influence the trade union movement to accept the national understanding he should try to get someone to direct that these matters be dealt with as a matter of urgency. If we can get a situation where reason prevails quickly within the organisations the national understanding will be accepted. The climate in the past few days will have a dramatic effect on the decision regarding the national understanding.

Debate adjourned.