Deputy Noel Browne was in possession with 35 minutes left. I do not see him present.
Financial Resolutions, 1980. - Financial Resolution No. 19: 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 Finance).
I have listened to every budget presented in this House since 1969. But the build up to this budget was immense. Never before have I seen more advice tendered to any Government and never have I seen so many inspired forecasts. It was generally agreed that the difficulties facing us were great and a hair shirt budget was assured. Political correspondents, who appear to be possessed of a greater insight into our economic situation than ordinary mortals, advised us that a belt-tightening operation comparable only to the cinching of a saddle of a Grand National favourite was in store for us all. But the situation was also aggravated before the budget was presented by a decision of the Supreme Court to tax allowances for married women and the inevitable increases in oil imports which now cost the State more than we spend on all our health estimates. We have debts that take more to service than the amount realised by PAYE taxpayers.
That then was the climate in which our new Minister for Finance. Deputy O'Kennedy, prepared and presented his first budget. The Minister spent two hours here explaining his budget and I am confident that the people of Ireland believe that he did an excellent job. The silence of the thinking members of the Opposition spoke volumes to me on that day. The muted criticism of the media and the guarded praise of some others is a good barometer as to the effectiveness, popularity and realism of the budget. It is a budget that faces up to the challenges of the day. It attacks the problems and provides acceptable answers and lays the foundation for the future destinies of the country.
Who created the problems?
We inherited some of them but, fortunately, they are no longer problems now. Possibly Deputy L'Estrange's silence on that occasion contributed to the problems.
Hardly.
The Fine Gael follow-up to the budget on that day was very interesting. The former shadow Minister, Deputy O'Higgins, whose reply was always very pat, referred to it as a phoney budget. He had other favourite phrases that he would use on such an occasion. I remember, as a new Member of the House, his instant and eloquent response on budget day. Perhaps as I became more discerning I did not feel the same but I would give him credit for a ready flow of criticism; perhaps it was not constructive but at least it was vehement and carried a degree of conviction. The present leader of Fine Gael always made a very learned and lengthy contribution on financial matters but this year the present shadow Minister for Finance, Mr. P. Barry, rose to say that he felt it was very unfair of the Dáil to expect him to reply to such a budget immediately. I understood him to say that he would like to sleep on it and that he would like to give us the benefit of his profound thinking on the following day. Perhaps the old-fashioned Fine Gaelers followed the hoary maxim that one should never allow the sun to go down on one's anger and gave vent to their feelings straight away. But in Deputy Barry's case he felt he should listen to the budget with dismay and say his say the following day.
It would appear that the big criticism of the budget was in relation to the imposition of 20p tax on a gallon of petrol and the tax on other oils. Deputy Barry declared that tourism was endangered because of this measure. But the 20p increase in the gallon of petrol does not add 1p a mile to the normal tourist costs here. I have done a little bit of research on this with car hire people and they tell me that 80 miles a day is the average mileage clocked up by a visitor to this country. Can anybody seriously think that 80p a day extra will endanger our tourist industry? When Deputy Barry had the responsibility for tourism I remember him advising us here in this House that we should not attract too many people to the country lest it dilute the quality of life here. My thinking, expressed at that time, was that when numbers became a problem it would be time enough to worry about whether it would dilute the quality of life or not.
Deputy Enright, speaking on the budget on budget evening, referred to the enormity of the increase in the price of petrol. I feel it necessary to repeat some facts here that were given by the Taoiseach to the House regarding the increase and the comparison with the 15p per gallon imposed by Deputy Richie Ryan in 1974. The 15p per gallon in 1974 would correspond to a 27p increase in 1980. The 20p increase a gallon imposed recently now means that the tax element in the price of every gallon of petrol is 50 per cent whereas the increase of 15p in 1974 made the tax element 58 per cent. So from a statistical point of view the honour of being the greatest arab of them all still remains with Deputy Ryan.
Finally, before I finish dealing with tourism, let me refute the charges made by several speakers that 1979 was a disastrous year for tourism. This is not so. In 1979 tourism brought in approximately £400 million from all sources. In real terms this may have been a slight reduction on the previous year. I can think of two matters that would have seriously affected the industry, the bad weather last year and the dastardly murder of Lord Mountbatten and others. To have overcome these two setbacks and to break even cannot be termed a disaster. I believe that Board Fáilte and others involved in tourism deserve our highest commendation.
It is only fair to mention that irresponsible statements in this House by Deputies who decry our country, our tourism, the cost of living, the transport system and our way of life are no help to Bord Fáilte in their efforts to attract visitors to our shores. References were made here to Ireland as a "banana republic". I can understand that outsiders looking at a Government with 84 seats after the last election could be excused for thinking that voters had not much of a choice and they might not appreciate that we live in a Republic where a Government are democratically elected. We have enjoyed a system that has given us the most stable government in Europe in the past 50 years with possibly three exceptions.
References were made by the Opposition in this debate to the plight of people travelling to work. This must surely have been said with their tongue in their cheek. During the term of office of the National Coalition—and the agony was prolonged to the bitter end for four-and-a-half years—the people wanted work but at the time of the final curtain on the National Coalition Government 116,000 people had no work. Who worried about them and helped them on that occasion? Fianna Fáil did. We gave that our first priority on resuming office. It was our aim to get the country moving, to put people to work and to provide jobs for young people in order to give them a sense of purpose and restore their confidence. We succeeded in that priority. In two years we reduced the number of unemployed by more than 30,000 and, at the same time, absorbed the young people coming onto the employment market. That was done at a time when more than six million people were unemployed throughout Europe. We can be proud of what we did.
Having coped with that problem and having dealt with their first priority. Fianna Fáil felt they had two major problems facing them in the 1980 budget. The first was to spread the tax burden as equitably as possible and our second task was to ensure that the under-privileged in the community, the long-term social welfare recipients, widows, old age pensioners and others were adequately cushioned against inflation. Our aim was to help them to the limit of our resources.
It can be said that the greatest changes were made with regard to taxation of married couples. I commend the Minister on that brave, bold stroke which represents a new approach to income taxation. The women of Ireland who stay at home full-time and look after their families will be forever grateful to the Minister. Now every married couple, whether they depend on one income or have both parents working, have a double personal allowance. This was the nicest news in all the budget "goodies" and it makes the heading in the Irish Independent of 31 January look very foolish now. The business editor is quoted in bold print as follows: “Tax snub for stay-at-home wives.” If his forecasts in the business section are so far out I am sure punters like myself are very happy he is not the racing tipster. The new tax bands must bring relief to many hard-pressed PAYE taxpayers.
The Minister really excelled himself in his treatment of social welfare recipients. I have spoken to widows, old age pensioners, to mothers who look forward to children's allowance day and to handicapped people and I know they are very pleased with the increases granted in this area. The hurlers on the ditch, happy in the knowledge that they do not have to deliver the goods, said a 20 per cent increase was necessary. Pensioners old enough to remember a decrease from 11s. to 10s. wondered what the budget might bring for them. It brought them an increase of 25 per cent although everyone thought such a figure was impossible. The old couple who will get an increase of £8.55p in their contributory pension are grateful to the Minister. I know that some people will want to dam pen their spirits by telling them about the pending increases in the cost of living but the social welfare recipients know that the increases granted by the Minister has put them well ahead of the CPI.
The short-term social welfare recipients with an increase of 20 per cent are doing very well also. With regard to this category, although many people are inclined to criticise those who get unemployment or sickness benefit they should realise that the vast majority would work if they could. They need our help and encouragement in their genuine need. However, there is a minority of parasites who draw social welfare benefit illegally while they have other sources of income. I hope they will be pursued relentlessly and brought to justice. I am confident that the measures taken by the previous Minister and the present Minister will help in this regard. Such people are a millstone around the neck of the social welfare system and they do not deserve any sympathy. Abuses of the system will have to be eliminated.
I am sure that mothers who were gullible enough to believe the newspapers expected that children's allowances would get the chop. What did Fianna Fáil do? We increased the allowance substantially. An extra £9 million has been allocated for 1980 and £18 million for 1981. That is the result. I am confident that the most needy will realise that the party who gave such social welfare benefits and allowances are the party with the true social conscience. The people realise that talk is cheap when a party are in opposition. They know that Fianna Fáil are the people who came up with the goods.
Nobody knows better than Fianna Fáil what agriculture means to Ireland. We campaigned forcefully for our entry to the EEC in the knowledge that farming would benefit greatly and we have been proved correct. Since the foundation of the State Fianna Fáil have proved to be the true champions of the agricultural sector and since our entry into the EEC the Fianna Fáil arm in the European Parliament—the European Progressive Democrats—have fought the case for the best farm deal for Ireland. Our new Minister continues to fight that case in his work against the super levy and I am confident he will be successful. It is nice to see the whole country united in their opposition to the levy, with all sectors putting the good of the country first.
The Minister for Finance has decided to pursue a system of tax on farm profits. That is the only equitable system of taxation and I believe farmers are prepared to pay tax on their profits and on their accounts. If a farmer does not make a profit he will not pay tax but if he makes a large profit he will pay a large amount of tax. If this system is carried to its logical conclusion it should remove any cause for a rift between sections of the community and help all of us to work together for a better Ireland.
The removal of the notional system, the leniency extended to farmers entering the tax system for the first time, the simplified system of determining tax, the promise of assistance to those in need of help in completing their forms and above all the fact that the thresholds for tax will not be reduced for three years must remove the fear of the unknown from the minds of the farmers and help them to plan ahead. I know there will be growls about the resource tax which will apply to all farmers with a rateable valuation of £70—the charge will be £3.50 per acre—but most people realise that such a tax is necessary. The £7 million it will bring into the coffers will not be an intolerable burden. I am sure the Minister will be better able to review the situation when the whole tax package for farmers has been working for three years and when it can be seen to be equitable and effective.
At this time throughout the country county councils are dealing with their estimates and they are striking a rate. I spent 12 years as a member of Kildare County Council and I saw the two sides of the coin. I remember when we decided our rate and did the amount of work we were prepared to finance. The percentage increase was never more than 8 or 9 per cent. Great pruning was done on the estimates before they were accepted. That was to illustrate the interest of the members of the council on behalf of the ratepayers. Then Fianna Fáil removed rates on private dwellings and, in the main, local authority expenditure is now financed from central funds. Immediately the attitude of many local authority members changed. A 10 per cent increase, a 13 per cent increase or even in actual terms possibly a 16 per cent increase was no longer acceptable. Demands were made in some cases for an increase of 30 per cent. Those who settled for bacon and cabbage when they had to foot the bill themselves now want caviare, it would appear, when others pick up the tariff. A little realism is called for.
I read in the estimates for Kildare County Council for 1980 a statement by the county manager, which I quote:
At the outset I must stress that it has been a very difficult task, an almost impossible one, for me to prepare these estimates in line with the guidelines issued by the Minister.
I read on to discover that the estimates showed an increase of 13 per cent on last year's money. I can hardly be blamed for thinking that the name "county manager", if it means anything, should mean that the primary duty of that official is to manage and that to admit an inability to perform that primary task is very sad indeed. I repeat what I have already stated at county council level, that the amount of money that you have to spend at county council level is very important. More important still is the manner in which that money is spent. First, we should examine how we spend our allowance and ask ourselves if we get full value for every punt allowed to us and if the supervision is such that we make the very best possible use of the resources, financial and material, available to us. If, when we have done that, at the end of the year we can say truly that we could not have done better with the resources available, then we might have a case for looking for more. At least we should first try the remedy that I suggest.
Many people in Kildare have been critical of house repairs. The following facts should be very revealing. In 1970-71 the total budget for house repairs in the country was £5,500. In 1975-76 the budget was £14,000. Deputy Bermingham will remember that period because his colleague, Deputy Tully, was in charge of the purse strings on that occasion. In 1978-79 the budget was £68,000 and this year the allocation is £90,000. These figures that I have quoted will cast doubts on the purity of the motives of those who will not agree to strike a rate but who, for the cosmetics of politics, like to muddy the waters a little by referring these rates back to the Minister.
References have been made to the capital programme and the cutbacks of which we are accused. We have allocated £1,154 million for our capital programme, which is an increase of 15 per cent on the 1979 figure.
I would like now to make reference to my own Department and to some matters for which I have responsibility and let the House know the situation with regard to these matters. First, let me deal with forestry. The State afforestation programme is being continued in a planned, progressive way and adequate funds have been provided this year to achieve this. The planting programme which we have continues and the current year's planting programme is very well advanced with a total area of 17,000 acres to be planted this year. This acreage is conditioned by two factors. One is the difficulty of acquiring land for forestry. We have also the uneven distribution pattern of the existing reserves of plantable land. As far as the last matter is concerned, 60 per cent of the available reserve of land for planting now lies in five counties and prudent planning must limit the area to be planted in any one location to ensure stability of employment, an acceptable regime of management and ultimately a continuing supply of wood for the timber industry.
Difficulties are still being encountered in land acquisition, first of all because of the great increase in land prices and secondly by a reluctance among landowners to sell. This is causing a problem in relation to the reserve of land available for planting in future years. Because of the carry-over from 1979 of the balance of the grant-in-aid for land acquisition, a sum of £1.7 million, the funds available for land acquisition this year amount to £2.6 million and are the highest ever. By way of comparison, expenditure for the past three years was as follows: in 1977, £441,000 was spent: in 1978, £776,000; and in 1979, £.5 million provisional. Every effort will be made to use available funds to secure an increasing supply of land for our afforestation programme. Recently I visited a forest and I asked a very experienced forester there what message he would like to give to a recruit like myself to take away with me. He said: "I would like that you would make people see that there should be no conflict between the agricultural and forestry sectors. They should complement each other, and it is only a question of the proper usage of land." It would be nice if that message could be conveyed to all and they would accept it.
I would like to deal briefly with wildlife conservation. I am glad to say that the funds provided for this year under the heading of land acquisition include funds for the acquisition of land for wildlife conservation purposes. I stress the importance of co-operation between the public and private sectors in wildlife conservation. Anything that Deputies can do to foster this co-operation would be very welcome. I must acknowledge the contribution made by the media, the press, radio and television, in treating this subject and creating greater public awareness of the need to conserve wildlife in natural habitats. I would like to express appreciation for the co-operation and assistance which my Department have received from other State agencies such as the Office of Public Works, local authorities. Bord na Móna and the Garda Síochána in connection with various aspects of wildlife conservation and the programme we have. I am confident that the recent appointment of 20 wildlife rangers and the prospective appointment of a further 30 will help considerably in enforcing the Wildlife Act and also in public education in matters of conservation. I assure the House of continued dedication by my Department to the conservation of our national heritage.
With regard to forest development, it must be realised that as more forests reach maturity there is a greater need for better roads for harvesting purposes. This situation also gives rise to an improvement in our mechanical fleet, especially the road making plant and the harvesting equipment. With this in mind the overall provision for roads and machinery this year amounts to £4.8 million compared to £3.5 million last year. That represents an increase of 37 per cent.
The EEC draft measures for the improvement of agricultural structures in the less favoured areas in the west include some proposals to assist forestry in these areas. The package is still under consideration and it is too early to know the outcome of the forestry element of the proposals in terms of either private or state afforestation but we are hopeful.
In relation to private planting, recently the grants were revised and substantially increased. The new grant level fixed is £125 per acre and that compares with £90 per acre up to this. The period over which such grants are paid has been reduced from 10 to 8 years. The additional grants provided for planting broad leaf species and for poplar planting have also been increased. As well as that, my Department will continue tinue to give expert advice free of charge. I hope that the revised scheme will prove attractive and will bring about a better response to private planting than has been the case in the past. The full impact of these new proposals will not become apparent until the next planting season gets under way, and we have made financial provision in this year's estimates to cover any costs that may arise with regard to private planting.
In relation to timber sales, changes in management techniques at our State forests particularly in relation to the rotation length will enable my Department to increase the supply of saw log timber over the next five years by 50 per cent. This means that in the saw log field, the expansion of our existing mills and some new saw milling capacity can be brought forward by a number of years. The IDA in consultation with my Department have developed a policy for the grant-aiding of such expansions and new industries.
Our joint aim is to upgrade home grown timber so that it will take its legitimate place on the market and replace some of the imported construction timber at present used. About 80 per cent of our construction needs are provided for by imported timber and we hope to correct that imbalance. There has been no shortage of proposals for the utilisation of this additional saw log material and they far exceed the supply available. Regrettably, we have problems in relation to how we would utilise our pulp wood, but the IDA in co-operation with the Department are making an allout effort to interest potential processors in setting up their mills here and there have been a number of inquiries. It is planned to achieve an income from timber sales this year in excess of £6 million. I mentioned the position in relation to the marketing of wood from our State forests and the position in regard to saw log is of course the end product of the operation, and that is very satisfactory. The present problems in relation to the role of pulp wood will be overcome.
We live in a world of dwindling natural resources but wood is fortunately a renewable and very versatile resource. Its uses, apart for construction, furnishing and packaging include the provision of energy and chemicals. All available forecasts indicate that there will be a world shortage of wood. This is particularly true in the case of the EEC where wood represents an import bill second only to oil. We need to be self-sufficient in wood and if we could ensure a surplus for export, the beneficial effects of it would be very obvious.
There have always been cyclical upsets in the wood market and the present one dervies from the oil crisis. There is no doubt that it will be rectified and there is no need for panic because of the temporary problems in the pulp wood sector. I have no doubt as to the overall national benefits of the afforestation programme and the Government propose to keep faith with the industry and press forward with the full development of our resources.
Investment in forestry is an act of faith in the future. When one invests money in a project with a 35 to 50-year cycle one must be patient and must be prepared to wait. Those who invested in our State forests were sturdy pioneers with long-term views. They were never swayed by the obstacles which appeared and disappeared in their time and their foresight is of great benefit to us today. We have our short-term difficulties but they will be overcome. We must work on our programme, acquiring and planting land, thinning, felling and start again and show our confidence in the future of our forests. Níl deireadh na coillte ar lár agus ní bheidh coiche.
(Cur isteach.)
In relation to fisheries, since the Government took office in 1977 there has been a very steady progress in the development and expansion of our fishing industry, and the value of sea fish landings, excluding salmon, increased from £18.7 million in 1977 to £24.6 million in 1979. During the same period the value of salmon landings increased from £4.6 million to £5.2 million and the value of exports of fish and fishery products increased from £27.4 million in 1977 to over £31 million in 1978. The figures available for portion of 1979 indicate that the return for that year will be substantially in excess of the previous one. Direct employment in the fishing industry expanded from 8,179 in 1977 to 8,620 in 1978, the latest year for which figures are available.
Since 1977, State investment in the development of our fisheries has increased substantially. In 1977 total expenditure amounted to £7.4 million; this increased to £9.7 million in 1978 and to £11.3 million in 1979. The Exchequer allocation to fisheries in 1980 amounts to £16.7 million—this in a year when areas of State investment have to prove themselves more than ever before. While the total allocation for the 1980 Public Capital Programme shows an increase of 15.3 per cent on the outturn for 1979, the capital allocation for fisheries has been increased by 84 per cent this year.
This is a clear indication of the Government's confidence in the future of our fishing industry. This confidence is reinforced by the fishermen, who in the final analysis constitute the most reliable barometer of the prospects ahead. At the moment there are fishing vessels in course of construction, each costing more than £2 millions, for five of our most successful and enterprising skippers.
In relation to grants for fishing boats and mariculture, the capital provision for 1980 to enable Bord Iascaigh Mhara to provide grants for fishing vessels and for suitable mariculture projects amounts to £5 million which represents an increase of 66? per cent on the 1979 outturn. Apart from the five large trawlers to which I have already referred, grants will also be provided for medium-size and small vessels joining the fleet. These additions will, it is expected, expand our landings, thereby contributing to the growth of our fish processing factories, and should bring about increased employment in the fleet and ashore.
These grants, up to 30 per cent of the capital cost, for mariculture projects should provide the necessary incentive for the development of this very expanding sector of our fishing industry. The development, must, however, be on a planned and co-ordinated basis covering capital grants, research, disease control, training and marketing. The National Board for Science and Technology, in consultation with my Department, are finalising a mariculture development programme designed to ensure orderly development of fish farming. My Department's research programme and fish pathology unit is being expanded to cater for the needs of sea and inland fish farming. Promoters of fish farming projects can be assured of the full co-operation of the Department and of BIM in formulating proposals. I would advise promoters to avail themselves fully of the expertise that is available because of the many technical and marketing difficulties that can arise.
I listened to a discussion today with regard to harbours and I should like to tell the House that an allocation of £3 million has been made in the capital budget for 1980 in respect of fishery harbour works. This compares with an outturn of £1.6 million last year. The provision of £3 million is earmarked mainly for the major works that are in progress at Howth since August 1979, the provision of an auction hall and other works at Killybegs, and works at Rossaveal, Castletownbere, Caherciveen, Greencastle and a number of less important landing places. These works are designed to improve the efficiency and profitability of our fishery operations.
I believe that the need for fishery research is now greater than ever. We have increased considerably in recent years the strength of the scientific staff and a new fisheries research centre has been provided. We have stepped up considerably our research into the Celtic Sea herring stocks and as a result of these investigations we will have much greater knowledge about the state of these stocks than heretofore. While the results of the recent investigations are still being assessed, the signs are encouraging and I am hopeful that an early reopening of this fishery may be possible at least on a limited scale. Our research programme has, however, been severely handicapped by the absence of a suitable research vessel. Steps have now been taken to remedy this situation. We are in the process of finalising negotiations for the construction of a new fisheries research vessel to be built in Ireland to a Norwegian design at a cost of approximately £3 million. Here again the necessary finances have been provided because the Government recognise the importance of fisheries research.
As the House is aware, the EEC has so far failed to reach agreement on a revised common fisheries policy. However, considerable progress has been made in recent months, including agreement on a total allowable catch system for 1980, and I am hopeful of a final package being agreed by the end of the year. The Government's position in regard to a final agreement is well known: we will be seeking to get the best possible deal for Irish fishermen. Despite the lack of agreement on overall policy we have in the past two years succeeded in getting confirmation of the acceptance by the Community of our special position as a developing country in the fishery context. This was reflected in the FEOGA grant schemes in 1978 and 1979 for fishing boats and mariculture under which Ireland got special treatment. This was reflected also in the approval of a grant of £30 million for the expansion of our fishery protection service. This EEC assistance, coupled with national expenditure, has contributed considerably to the development of our fishing industry.
Much has been said and written recently about the question of fish prices and I should like to state that the EEC withdrawal system has also helped the industry in Ireland by providing a floor price for all marketable fish landed. Financial compensation from the EEC for fish withdrawn from market in 1979 reached the not insignificant figure of £280,000. In addition export subsidies, particularly on frozen mackerel, have enabled our exporters to compete on third country markets and pay an economic price for fish which would not otherwise have been disposed of for human consumption. I am aware of the concern in the industry about the fall in the level of demand and prices for fish which are said to be due to increased imports from third countries. This is a problem which must be solved at Community level and the matter has already been raised with the Community institutions involved. I will continue to press for an early and satisfactory solution to this problem.
In the marketing processing sector 30 projects incorporating either new fish processing plants or extensions to existing ones were completed or approved for grants since July 1977 up to December of last year. This has involved an outlay of more than £5 million and included State grant assistance totalling almost £2 million and FEOGA grants totalling more than £300,000.
I should like to refer now to our inland fisheries. In this regard the most significant event for many years is the Fisheries Bill, 1979 which is now in its final stages of enactment and is expected to be enacted very soon. This Bill, for which my predecessor deserves all the credit for its preparation and passage through this House—I publicly acknowledged his contribution when I had occasion to deal with the Bill shortly after my appointment—has as its objective the more effective development, protection and strengthening of the existing administrative structure to meet the demands of today. This will be done by replacing the existing 17 boards of conservators who are responsible for the day-to-day work of conservation and protection of inland fisheries and the Inland Fisheries Trust, who conduct large scale development work on brown trout, coarse fish and sea angling, by a Central Fisheries Board and seven regional fisheries boards. The functions of the new central board and regional boards are set out in detail in the Bill and emphasise the importance of developing and exploiting nationally our country's salmon, coarse fish, eel and sea angling resources. I expect that this imaginative new legislation will release a fresh dynamism into every aspect of our inland fisheries and so meet the urgent need of our times to ensure that those fishery resources are developed and utilised fully for the economic and personal welfare our our people.
For my part, as the Minister responsible for fisheries, I shall keep under close review the progress of the new arrangements and, in accordance with the new Act, I shall direct matters as I see fit. The moneys necessary to finance the new central board and regional boards will be derived from the usual revenue sources of salmon fishing licence duties and fishery rates—as well as from new registration fees to be paid by brown trout and coarse fish anglers and sea anglers and a levy on salmon sales. In addition, I have provided in my Department's financial estimates for 1980 the sum of more than £1 million in the Salmon Conservancy Fund to meet initial costs of launching the new central board and regional boards—including for the first time the appointment of a full-time chief officer of each board—and to subvent as necessary the income of the boards in carrying out their statutory functions. This compares with £1.043 million which was allocated to the Salmon Conservancy Fund in 1979 to cover a 15-month period as against the 12 months of 1980 now provided for.
I have also provided more than £1 million by way of grant-in-aid to the Inland Fisheries Trust. The trust will be dissolved as a separate entity in its own right when the new Fisheries Act comes into being and will be absorbed into the new inland fishery administrative structure. Hopefully, the good work will continue under the new regime. The trust's grant-in-aid for 1980 will be utilised to supplement the grant to the Salmon Conservancy Fund.
I must add also that the opportunity was taken in the Bill to tighten existing fisheries conservation legislation by suitable amendments in the light of the knowledge and experience gained during many years and, in particular, the penalties for fishery offences are increased significantly, including the forfeiture of a salmon fishing licence in certain circumstances.
The serious decline in the salmon stocks in our coastal and inland waters in recent years continues to be a matter of major concern in my Department. With a view to improving matters additional stringent conservation measures were introduced in 1979 which reduced the length of the salmon fishing season, increased the weekly close time from two days to three days, limited the maximum size of boat which may engage in commercial salmon fishing and standardised the depth of drift net throughout the country. The purpose of these measures is to ensure the escapement of increased numbers of salmon up river to the spawning beds. Having reviewed the 1979 salmon fishing season, during which, I am glad to say, we had a much improved escapement of spawning salmon to the nursery streams, I intend to continue to operate those salmon conservation measures in 1980, subject only to altering the three-day weekly close time so as to allow fishing on Monday instead of on Friday. This was requested by the fishermen because of the difficulty being experienced in respect of marketing fish caught on Fridays.
As to the protection of our valuable salmon fisheries, I am arranging again this year, with the agreement of the Minister for Defence, for the Naval Service to assist the boards in protecting our salmon fisheries at sea. In this connection also I am very pleased to say that my Department have provided three additional modern patrol boats for the Cork, Limerick and Galway boards of conservators and that the provision of a fourth new patrol boat for the Kerry board is under active consideration.
While I am hopeful that these salmon fishery protection measures will help substantially to combat illegal salmon fishing, I would take this opportunity to urge in the strongest terms our salmon fishermen to co-operate fully with my Department and with the boards in protecting our precious stocks of salmon by complying with the fishery laws, which are designed to ensure the continuation of our great heritage of salmon fishing which has existed for thousands of years but which is now in real danger of extinction due to the greed of some fishermen.
I am pleased to announce that the construction of the extension to the salmon hatchery at Cong, County Mayo, is progressing satisfactorily. The purpose of this extension is to permit the rearing of young salmon to the smolt stage—about two years old—before liberating them into suitable waters. The release of such more mature young salmon for restocking purposes will enhance greatly their prospects of survival to adult stage. This hatchery extension will cost about £125,000, which is provided for in the Salmon Conservancy Fund, and it is hoped that it will be in operation in time for the next salmon hatching season about October next. As well, the salmon hatchery at Virginia, County Cavan, which was opened by my predecessor in 1978, is now in full operation. A further worthwhile development in salmon fishery research is the acquisition by my Department at a cost of just £12,000 of a new type of magnetic fish tagging machine which enables the tagging of very small fish. The machine was first used to tag the entire 1979 produce of salmon in the Virginia hatchery prior to their release.
I must emphasise, however, that artificial salmon propagation of this nature can only supplement to a very limited extent the natural propagation of the species. That can only take place by our fishermen allowing sufficient numbers of salmon to escape and so reach the natural spawning beds which we are so fortunate to possess.
Two years ago the Government approved the purchase of the famous Galway Fishery by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry for a sum of £200,000. We are very pleased with the results of the past two years and are confident of continued success. The commercial operation of the fishery has resulted in a surplus of almost £100,000 during the two years. In addition, the Department are carrying out valuable scientific studies at the fishery and conservation measures introduced have resulted in larger numbers of salmon appearing in the upper reaches of the Corrib for spawning purposes. This should be of major benefit to the whole Corrib system.
Arrangements have been made for the transfer of the Burrishoole Fishery at Newport, County Mayo by Messrs. Guinness Limited to the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland Incorporated. My Department have agreed to make a substantial increased contribution to the trust by meeting half the cost of the more intensive research programme which will make a valuable contribution to the conservation and development of our salmon stocks. The cost of the programme will be in the region of £80,000 per annum.
I think the House will agree that these plans and activities indicate the Government's high priority for our sea and inland fisheries and I pledge myself to making every effort to ensure the wellbeing and prosperity of our fishing industry.
Ba mhaith liom mo buíochas a ghabháil don Aire Airgeadais as ucht an méid a rinne sé chun cabhrú leis an Ghaeilge. Tá súil agam go ndéanfar deaobair leis an £100,000 a thug sé chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn.
Níor dhein sé dearmad ach an oiread ar an iománaíocht. Ni amháin go mbeidh muintir Thiobraid Árainn agus lucht Mumhan buíoch dó ach beidh buachaillí ar fud na tíre, fiú amháin i gCill Dara agus i Loch Garmain, buíoch dó freisin.
Bhí mé ag féachaint ar Theachta amháin ar an dtaobh thall ar an gCéadaoin seo caite nuair a d'fhógair an tAire cad a bhí in aigne aige don teanga agus don iomaníocht, agus tá mé cinnte go raibh brón air gur deineadh a leithéid. Ach deirim leis an Aire, "ná bac leis sin". Guím rath Dé ar an obair.
(Cavan-Monaghan): When the Coalition left office in July 1977, the economy was sound and was growing. The growth rate had reached 5 per cent, more than double what it is this year, a situation that put us at the top of the EEC league. Investment in 1977 was described as dynamic. In 1976 our exports had exceeded the £2 billion mark and they were growing. In 1977 they increased by a further 35 per cent. This brought them to an unprecedented high level.
In the second quarter of 1977 employment in industry was 6,500 greater than was the case one year earlier. Industry generally was doing very well. In the first quarter of 1977 output was 8 per cent greater than had been the case in the previous year. The economy was described then as being flourishing, as having the sort of foundation on which we could build assuming that we managed our affairs properly.
That brief synopsis is not based on figures that I have produced. It does not represent my view of the performance of the economy in 1976 and in the first half of 1977. Rather, that description of the economy is taken from a speech made in this House by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, on 14 December 1977 and as reported at columns 1361-2 of the Official Report for that day. I could put that column and a half on the record but as it is already on record it would suffice for me to refer to the then Taoiseach's speech and to describe it as an assertion that the economy was sound and presented a foundation on which we could build.
Five months after the change of Government, after the then Taoiseach had an opportunity of examining the records of borrowing and so on the performance of the economy was an open book to him and to everybody else. His summary was that this was the sort of foundation on which we could build if we managed our affairs properly.
That is a testimony to the manner in which the National Coalition brought the country through the 1974-75 recession, a recession brought about largely by an oil crisis. The difference between that old crisis and the recent oil crisis is that the former was new, unexpected, had not occurred before, had come like a bolt from the blue and no notice of its coming had been served. The National Coalition dealt with it and at the end of that recession the then Taoiseach, Deputy J. Lynch, said the economy was a sound foundation on which to build. The recent oil crisis should have been expected. Only two or three years had passed since the first crisis ended. The international situation in the oil producing countries should have been apparent to the present Government, but they ignored it and gambled.
The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry told us this budget was heralded with unprecedented speculation as to the type of budget it would be. It was predicted to be a hairshirt budget. It was not the political or economic commentators in the media who described the economy as being in a critical condition. The Taoiseach went on the media and said that as a nation we were borrowing far too much; as a nation we were spending recklessly beyond our capacity; as a nation we were letting our balance of payments run amok. He was perfectly correct when he said our balance of payments was at an intolerably unacceptable level, that our borrowing was massively too high and that our budget deficit could no longer be tolerated.
For the year 1979 our adverse balance of trade was £800 million or thereabouts. In other words, as a nation we were spending about £800 million more than we were earning. We were borrowing massively beyond our means. We budgeted for a borrowing of 10.5 per cent of our GNP in 1979 and we borrowed almost 14 per cent. In that year we budgeted for a current deficit of something like £250 million but we ran a deficit of £223 million more than we budgeted.
Let me ask a question. What happened to the economy between July 1977, when Deputy J. Lynch painted such a glowing and acceptable picture, and the shambles in which we found it at the end of 1979? The answer is that the Fianna Fáil Government borrowed massively, and they are still borrowing massively, for the wrong purposes. They borrowed to pay for the votes they purchased in the 1977 General Election. It is wise to borrow for productive purposes. One borrows money to buy land and, if good use is made of that land, it is a wise investment. If a herd is stricken with disease and has to be replaced, a person must borrow for that purpose. If an insured house is burned, a man borrows to get another house and works harder to repay it. A wise man does not borrow money with which to go to Cheltenham races or to take a holiday at the other end of the earth or to purchase expensive clothes for his wife. That is what Fianna Fáil have done. The man who borrows money to take him to Cheltenham is not any more recklessly extravagant than Fianna Fáil who borrowed money to relieve taxes and to pay current expenses. That is why we now find ourselves in the financial mess described by the former Taoiseach speaking in this House on the economic situation on 14 December 1977. He said:
This is the sort of foundation on which we can build if we manage our affairs properly.
The then Taoiseach was aided and abetted by the present Taoiseach and by the Minister for Finance who were members of his Cabinet at that time. He was aided and abetted by ten members of the present Cabinet, and they proceeded to run the country foolishly in an extravagant manner instead of properly as the former Taoiseach had advised. The result is that our annual national borrowing stands at 14 per cent of GNP, that our balance of trade is £800 million in the red and that our budget deficit for 1979 was £233 million more than what was estimated in last year's budget.
That is a sorry tale for the country. Now we have a budget which some people have described as inevitable, meaning that its taxation provisions were inevitable. If they were inevitable it is because of the foolish management of the economy between July 1977 and the end of last year, and the people are now asked to pay for that.
What will this budget do for the country? It is common case that the first thing it will do will be to increase the cost of living by 5 per cent. The leader of Fine Gael has said it will increase the cost of living by 6 per cent. Last year Deputy Fitzgerald was correct in his analysis of the 1979 Budget when he said that inflation could not be kept at 9 per cent, that it would be 15 per cent. He said that borrowing could not be kept at 10.5 per cent, and I imagine he will be right this year when he said this budget will increase the cost of living by 6 per cent. It is common case that the budget will put up inflation to 20 per cent and the probability is that inflation will rise to 22 per cent. If it does, we will be at the head of the European league, not as we were in 1976 and 1977 for economic growth but for our inflation growth. The only doubt about our place in the league is whether we will be beaten by or be below our neighbours in the UK. That is what this budget will do.
It is necessary to get down our balance of payments and one way to do it is to curb imports. We are not complete masters of our own house in this respect, because if we are to develop as an industrial nation and attain full employment we must import raw materials and other things. Another way in which we can cut down our adverse balance of payments is by becoming competitive as an industrial manufacturing nation and to be able to export as keen competitors in the markets available to us.
However, this budget will make us less competitive. It will drive up wages. In the taxation side of the budget there are taxes on petrol, alcohol and cigarettes, all designed to drive up wages. If wages are driven up our production costs will increase and the result will be that we will be less competitive on world markets.
One would have thought, at a time when oil prices are being increased anyway because of things beyond our control, that we would try to keep the prices stable, but here we add 20p on the gallon. This will add to our production costs and it will percolate through the economy. In this island our railway system is minimal. Indeed there are entire areas without a railway system at all. We therefore must depend on oil to convey our imported raw materials from the ports to the places of manufacture and our manufactured goods to our own markets and to the ports for export. We must depend on oil to drive the manufacturing machine. Yet we are imposing a tax on that oil. We have seen the direct result of that within days of the budget, with the cost of town gas being driven up nearly 9 per cent. If that is an example of what is to come it is evident that the effects of the tax on petrol and oil will be nothing short of absolute disaster.
The pretence that this tax on oil will in some way correct our balance of payments is absolute nonsense, what I might describe as double-barrel nonsense, when we see that the Minister estimates a revenue from the tax imposed on oil of £113 million. When we were dealing here with the resolution imposing that tax I asked the Taoiseach what was the figure the Revenue Commissioners had estimated for the saving on the import of oil that this tax would bring about. It took some little pressure to get a figure from the Taoiseach, although he had a figure in his hand, but eventually he said about 2 per cent. My interpretation of that is that the figure the Taoiseach has been given is somewhere between 1 per cent and 2 per cent, rounded off by him to 2 per cent.
It is quite obvious that the tax on oil will do nothing to reduce the amount of oil imported. It is equally certain and clear that the tax on petrol will put up wages. Surely civil servants, local government officials, Members of this House or anybody else entitled to travelling expenses will not get by with the same rate of travelling expenses they enjoyed last week before the budget. Of course, they will not. Of course, there will be demands for increased travelling expenses, for increased wages to cover the additional costs involved travelling to and from places of employment. It is now common knowledge in this country that many people are opting to live several miles from their place of work because sites for houses are cheaper some miles from built-up areas. In this respect the differential in the price of a site for a house could be as much as £3,000. Therefore, people are opting to live in rural Ireland, and that is a good thing. But this budget will make it much more expensive on those people to get to work and they will have to be compensated accordingly by increased wages. That is nothing more or less than commonsense.
I have spoken about the transportation of raw materials and manufactured goods. In my constituency, the large one of Monaghan-Cavan, there is not one mile of railway line. Everything has to be hauled and conveyed by oil power. Then we are told that this is a discretionary tax. I shall deal with that in greater detail later. On top of that there is the added cost of driving the machinery that manufactures the goods. I wonder do our people realise that this budget proposes to drive up further the cost of electricity, because the tax of 5 per cent on oil will have to be paid by the ESB and they are obliged to pay their way by the statute under which they operate. Of course, the massive increase from 20 per cent to 36 per cent sought by them, and sanctioned within the last few weeks, will now be augmented by a further increase. I can only describe the tax on petrol and on the oil that drives lorries and machinery as crazy. I can forsee Deputies running in here to say to me that the former Minister for Finance imposed a tax on petrol.
Yes, and car tax.
(Cavan-Monaghan): He did. We will come to the car tax later. He did tax petrol but at least that tax was imposed on petrol in the pre-Manifesto days——a document Deputy Leyden described as “historic” and he is on the record of this House as so saying. It was a cynical performance to tell our young people in 1977 that the cost of motoring would be reduced, that they would not have to pay tax on a motor car when, approximately two-and-a-half years later, to replace that tax of between £30 million and £40 million collected on petrol, there is imposed a tax of £113 million on petrol and oil and we have also the reintroduction of motor taxation. That is what they have done. They commenced at £5 per car up to 16 h.p., which has now gone up to £10 per car up to 16 h.p. It is difficult to break down the £113 million extra tax between motor cars, lorries and machinery, but there is no doubt that cars up to 16 h.p. are now paying much more in petrol tax than they were in motor taxation. On top of that there is a tax of £10 a year, which constitutes a substantial portion of the former motor taxation. This is absolutely crazy.
I have already dealt in some measure with the tax on alcohol and cigarettes. I want to place on record again that in my opinion these three taxes—the tax on private motorists, on alcohol and on cigarettes—will generate a demand for wages which cannot be resisted. It is foolish in the extreme to describe these taxes as discretionary. It could be said that tax on alcohol and cigarettes is discretionary if as a nation we were people with iron wills but we are not. Experience shows that and the Revenue Commissioners know that the falling off in the consumption of these items will not be substantial as it has not been in the past. It is foolish to call in any shape or form a tax on motor cars in a country where the motor car is now as much an everyday necessity as the bicycle was 20 years ago a discretionary tax. Virtually the only means of travel is the motor car. The railway in Dublin, from Harcourt Street to Bray, has been pulled up and in Monaghan and Cavan there is no railway left.
We have a bus service run by CIE: buses which are obsolete, timetables which are entirely unacceptable and prices which are excessive. Petrol to propel the motor car as a means of travel is an absolute necessity. In relation to the tax on cars and to the manifesto we have a very young population and 50 per cent of them at the next election will be under 25 years of age.
Are Fine Gael bringing out a manifesto the next time?
(Cavan-Monaghan): It will be a dirty word and it is one thing I would not advise anyone to call their list of election promises. It will stink to high heaven and I would advise the Deputy to rechristen it.
The issuing of 50,000 jobs does not stink.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We are dealing with a young population and we should not turn them into cynics or encourage them to regard all politicians as untrustworthy people whose word cannot be taken, or to regard the profession of politics as a doubtful business and to run down democracy. That is what people who fight a general election campaign on the basis that they will make motoring cheaper and take the tax off motor cars are doing. Before they had settled down in office they came along and increased enormously the cost of petrol and put up the cost of motoring over what it was. This is not something that they can get away with by saying that they did not know about it because that historical document, the manifesto, was introduced. It seemed an attractive proposal at first sight to remove tax from motor cars. When it was announced everybody said, “Ah, they will put a tax on petrol”. Of course, Fianna Fáil were not having any of that. They were in the election business then. They sent the then Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, into print to give a solemn assurance that petrol would not be taxed. The print was hardly dry on the papers that carried the warning that petrol would be taxed when Deputy Lynch was sent out by the present Taoiseach, Deputy O'Donoghue and the rest of the Cabinet to give a solemn assurance to the people that it would not. How can young people treat politicians seriously or with any respect if they act as Fianna Fáil have in regard to the promises they gave in regard to reducing the cost of motor tax and in regard to the promise Deputy Lynch was sent out to give that petrol would not be taxed? That is the difference between Deputy Richie Ryan's performance and that of the present Minister for Finance. If Deputy Leyden proposes to deal with it I invite him to do so in that context.
This budget will destroy confidence in the economy and will frighten the industrial and agricultural sectors into not investing money. This kind of stop-go economy which Fianna Fáil are so fond of is bad for the country. The agricultural sector were given assurances publicly by Fianna Fáil that the notional system of taxation would be retained but privately and in the door to door canvass they were assured that all they had to do was elect a Fianna Fáil Government and farmers would disappear overnight just like the Garda Commissioner whom they promised to get rid of, too. That was the assurance they gave. They are now back in power and have brought thousands more farmers into the income tax net. The threshold is reduced from £75 valuation to £40 valuation. The notional system has been abolished.
The agricultural grant has been reduced. In 1978 the agricultural grant was reduced to £75 and in 1979 it was reduced to £60, the Government saving £7 million in 1978 and an additional £2 million in 1979. This year, bang it goes down to £40. A man who paid approximately £200 rates on a £40 valuation in 1979 will be paying approximately £500 in 1980. He will be told by the Fianna Fáil Deputies that he can deduct that from his income tax. He can, if he is liable for income tax; but there will be many people in that bracket who, because they have large families, or because their accounts so show, will not be liable for income tax. That taxpayer will pay the additional rate and cannot avoid it. We were told by the Fianna Fáil Party that rates were an inequitable form of taxation which did not have regard to the capacity of the individual to pay. We were also told by the Fianna Fáil Ministers who now hold office in this House, when they abolished house rates that there was no question of those rates being shifted to any other section of the rate-paying public. That promise was made several times during the election campaign: that there was no question of shifting the burden of rates it removed from private houses to any other section of the community. We find that the farming community, in addition to income tax, are now being asked to pay the full burden of rates on valuation, right down to £40 valuation. In that way the Government are recouping a considerable amount of the rates which they removed from private houses.
How can any section of the community, or any electorate, have respect for politicians who behave like that? It is bad for the country and very bad for the form of democracy which we operate here, which, unless it is destroyed by a despicable performance like this, is, as yet, by far the best form of government that can be found. It is being asked to stand up to many assaults like this. And that is not the end of it, as far as the form of taxation is concerned which does not have regard to the earning capacity of the individual. As far as agriculture is concerned, a resource tax has been introduced and that is another type of rates. It is a rate of £3.50p on every £1 valuation, if the total valuation is £70. What, in the name of goodness, is that but another form of rates? There is no way of preventing that £3.50p becoming £7 next year. Perhaps there is a promise made that that will stand for three years. What good is a promise from this Fianna Fáil Party? We had their promises about a tax on petrol. We had their promises about tax on motor cars; we had their promises about not transferring rates.
This budget is delivering a serious blow to democracy, is dealing a serious blow to politicians. I like to think that politics is an honourable profession in which honourable people engage. So much have I thought that, that I gave up a profession in which I practised for 25 years, to become a fulltime politician. It is a sorry thing to see politicians being branded in this way and a party behaving in such a way as to bring discredit and ridicule on professional politicians and to hold them up as people who cannot be trusted, as people who go back on their word, as people who make promises to get into Government and immediately they get in will renege on these promises. That is why I advise Deputy Leyden to be wary and careful about the manifesto. He will have to call it something else.
This budget will seriously damage another very important arm of our industry, the tourist industry. We are not blessed with assured good weather.
Or a good Opposition.
Or a good Government.
We are having a balance of power.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We shall not go into that. We shall leave that alone. We are not blessed in this country with very good weather. A good summer is the exception rather than the rule.
We have suffered in the last ten years from the troubles which erupted in Northern Ireland and which have spilled over into here. We have to carry the top weight of people insulting our best customers in the tourist business by burning down their embassy and murdering their most respected citizens. We have to carry the burden of graffiti on walls or dering out of this country the very people we are spending millions to encourage in—a crazy performance. In addition, this budget is going to put us at a disadvantage by increasing substantially the price of petrol. The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry said somebody told him the other day that tourists used only about 80 gallons of petrol when they are here on their holidays. Does not everybody know the way one is affected by the price of petrol? He or she is told that petrol is very dear in such a country. That registers. It has a psychological effect. That is another reason for not going to that country.
We have also increased substantially the price of drink. Already the price of drink here, compared with the UK, was very high. I can speak from firsthand knowledge of that in so far as last year was concerned. We are putting tax on the price of drink, the price of smokes and the price of petrol, to discourage our biggest market. 1969 was our best tourist year. Numbers went gradually down until 1972. Then, from 1973 on numbers gradually improved, year by year. Last year, it suffered another blow. As the Director General of Bord Fáilte has told us, our biggest blow was the decision by the British travel agents to change the venue for their annual conference from here to Mexico, or somewhere else. Yet, we, as a nation are discouraging these people from coming here and in that way kicking our economy. That is being foolish in the extreme.
This budget gives about 20 per cent increase for the social welfare classes, and thank God for that. They badly need it. From my experience as a politician speaking to social welfare recipients day in day out, I am satisfied that the increase in social welfare demonstrates the research done by the Department of Social Welfare and shows the extent to which social welfare classes in the last couple of years have fallen behind and the trouble they had in making ends meet. It also indicates the effect that the budget will have on the cost of living. About next October a discussion on the social welfare provisions of this budget would be more appropriate than now, because I believe that the bitter complaints I heard from old people depending on social welfare in past months about how hard it was to live will be re-echoed before the end of 1980.
The other selling points that the Fianna Fáil Party are using to sell this budget are the income tax provisions, particularly the provision made for women who are working and married couples where the wife is not working. It is better to be realistic about this. The Government are simply making a virtue of necessity in so far as these provisions are concerned. Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are now entitled to be assessed as two single people and for that they may thank not the Government but the Constitution, because the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court says that they are entitled as of constitutional right to be assessed as two single people.
The present Taoiseach and his Minister for Finance went on to say: "But we extended that to the case where the wife was not working". I say, and repeat without fear of contradiction, that any law student would know that what follows in the case of the working wife would follow in the case of the wife who has an income and is not working. There is no way in which a differentiation can be obtained. That decision of the Supreme Court will have very far-reaching effects on the rights of husband and wife. It is probably unconstitutional to take the income of a wife into account when deciding whether her husband is entitled to a loan from the county council. I believe that only the means of the man applying for the loan can be taken into account. I believe that when that issue is tested in some other court a decision will be handed down accordingly. Reaction to the Murphy case is only in its infancy. The Government were wise to extend the concession to all husbands and wives because it was obvious that if they did not they would be dragged into court and compelled to do it.
I want to conclude by saying that the economy was handed over in 1977 in a sound, healthy and going condition and Deputy Jack Lynch, the former Taoiseach is on record as having said that.
Where was the Deputy in the last couple of years?
(Cavan-Monaghan): If Deputy Leyden wants to verify that I refer him to columns 1361 and 1362 of the Official Report of 14 December 1977. He can read what Deputy Lynch had to say, the man who, with the manifesto, got Fianna Fáil elected in 1977. The performance of Fianna Fáil in Government for the past two-and-a-half years has reduced our economy to a shambles compelling the Government to bring in this budget. The result of it will be to increase the cost of living, to increase inflation, make us less competitive and worsen our balance of payments.
First I should like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on the budget. There has been wide recognition by all reasonable people of the value and quality of its provisions. It is obvious that it had been carefully studied and worked out by the Government under the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey. It was formulated by the Cabinet over a very long period. The input into it from all sections is obviously advantageous to the country as a whole.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, a former Government Minister, criticised the budget but made no contribution regarding its provisions. I agree with him to some extent when he says that the public could be cynical; they could be cynical about Deputies like Deputy Fitzpatrick who, when a Minister in the Coalition Government, was party to the introduction of a major petrol price increase in 1976. In that year's budget, introduced by Deputy R. Ryan, the petrol price was increased by approximately 15 per cent. This Government, after nearly three years in office, have introduced a similar provision in the present budget. From 1977 until 1980 we did not increase the tax on petrol.
This year, because of a shortage of supplies and the need for conservation, it was decided to increase the tax because of all the factors, particularly the external ones, which call the future of our supplies into question. The Government decided to apply this tax so as to ensure that people will cut back on their demands, which in many cases are unnecessarily heavy, for petrol, diesel and gas. That is a reasonable proposal. Indeed, all reasonable people have generally welcomed the budget provisions and have accepted the need for this tax. They accept the need to raise funds of this magnitude to help pay for the major social benefits and to bring in PAYE improvements which are all necessary and for which funds must be obtained in a way that will also give a national benefit because the less oil used the more benefit to the country. This will certainly discourage much unnecessary driving.
The improvement in PAYE will certainly compensate most couples for the increase in the price of petrol and liquid gas. The lack of contribution by the Opposition over the last few days was interesting. Their spokesman on Finance, Deputy P. Barry, who spoke on radio and television, could only pick out of the budget the question of some potholes which he came across in some part of the country. He must be travelling on different roads from what I am at the moment. It was a very small contribution from the Opposition spokesman. I would call him the Opposition spokesman for potholes because he seems to have got a lot of mileage out of them in the last few weeks.
It is becoming quite evident that supplies of fuel throughout the world are very limited. The political situation in the Middle East will certainly affect the availability of oil in the next few years. It is vital that we adjust to changing times, when we will have less fuel in the years ahead. Our only hope is to discover oil. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Energy said at the Fianna Fáil ArdFheis that, if it is there, we will get it. Fianna Fáil will certainly ensure that, if there is oil off the west coast, nothing will stop us getting it. That is a commitment the Government have given and will honour. Fianna Fáil will spare nothing in money and in technology to ensure that oil is brought ashore as quickly as possible. It will be a major boost to the nation if we can bring oil in at a reasonable price to supply our needs. It will give untold wealth to every section of the community.
The Government gave many things in this budget. This could be multiplied many times over if we had the finance available from native oil. Our whole pattern of life would be changed if we could provide our own oil. The Government, in the national interest, must ensure that demands for this very scarce commodity are curbed at the moment. People must get smaller cars. If they cannot afford to pay the increased price in petrol they must cut down on their demands. People must minimise the many unnecessary spins they take at times. I believe the public are now conscious of the future shortage of fuel and are making the necessary adjustments in their living habits.
It is important also to consider the question of nuclear energy. I believe that the decision, which will have to be taken inevitably, of whether or not to go nuclear is the major question of the eighties. I welcome the decision by the Government, announced at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in 1979 and reiterated at the same venue in 1980, that there will be a public inquiry into all aspects of going nuclear and that an open mind will be kept by the Minister for Energy and by the Government in relation to this very important issue. I have an open mind in regard to this matter and I will be following the developments of this public inquiry. It will acquaint the public of the dangers involved and the opportunities of going nuclear. We will all have to give very careful thought to this matter, whatever the decision eventually is.
The Fianna Fáil Party have an open mind in regard to this matter. We have not given a clear decision in relation to it. We are awaiting the outcome of the public inquiry and the views of all the experts in relation to it. The Government will give every consideration to the matter because it is a very serious issue. It could affect the lives of our people for many generations to come. There is no going back once that decision is made. If the decision is made to go nuclear we will have to live with it.
Young people throughout the country should take an interest in this matter. They should educate themselves in relation to nuclear energy. Our educational system would be doing a good service for young people if they educated them in regard to energy conservation and nuclear energy. I hope the Minister for Energy will consider a scheme for educating our young people in this matter. They should be fully educated in relation to nuclear energy so that they are fully acquainted with all its aspects.
There are many people who advocate a referendum in relation to going nuclear. It is ultimately a decision for the Government whether or not such a course of action is taken. If such action is taken it is vital that our young people are familiar with all the facets of this major issue. Young people should be fully educated in regard to energy saving in their homes. They should be able to bring to the attention of their parents the many ways in which energy can be saved. Our young people should be able to participate in a national conservation scheme. We certainly need to give this matter very grave consideration in the national interest. We have been responsible for major losses of energy in the past. Many individuals have abused supplies and have not made proper provision for conservation in buildings. It is important that proper insulation is provided in our homes. We are very fortunate that our building stock is good. When we were building we built good houses. The local authorities are ahead of private builders in relation to the insulation in their new homes. It will have to be a priority in the years ahead.
The increase in the price of oil was practically inevitable. We have studied the international scene. It is dangerous at the moment and could affect all our lives. In this regard a very good scheme has been initiated by the ESB, with the help of the Bank of Ireland and An Foras Talúntais, in relation to the development of horticultural centres attached to the Lanesborough power station. The Minister, Deputy Hussey, who is present today is aware of this scheme. Ten acres of glass are being developed and the heat is supplied by Lanesborough power station at a very reasonable price. These units are being let in one-acre plots to individual horticulturalists who are providing very good employment and saving energy. This project, which is in the initial stages at the moment with two acres fully developed and ready for the first crop of tomatoes this year, should be studied by all Departments concerned. I would advocate the extension of this scheme to the other power stations here. It would be a major saving. It would reduce dependency on oil for growing fruit and tomatoes in our horticultural centres. The necessary heat for those horticultural centres creates a big draw on the oil supplies.
This pilot scheme, which I have examined myself, is a most impressive undertaking. I would like to compliment the Minister, Deputy Hussey, who is involved on the side of the Department of Agriculture, and the Minister for Energy, who is involved on the other side and got the co-operation of the ESB and all the other State agencies involved. I wish this project every success. It is something that should be followed at all the other power stations, particularly those fuelled by native fuel, whether peat or, as in Arigna, coal. The whole process consists of the draining off of heat at a certain point in the power station and providing very cheap heat for growing tomatoes and fruit in these areas. This is a clear indication of the commitment of the Government to initiating energy saving projects and I welcome it.
In relation to oil and the supply and distribution of oil, it is interesting to note the lack of debate on the part of the Opposition on the decision by one major oil company to limit the supply of petrol from 14 April. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, who has requested the Restrictive Practices Commission to re-open their public inquiry into the sale of petrol.
Is there any hope that he would reduce the price?
This inquiry, which will be taking evidence in March, will be a very important contribution to this debate.
It will probably push the price of petrol up again.
The Minister, at my instigation, decided to re-open this inquiry. I hope to give evidence before this inquiry in relation to the restrictive practices of one of the major oil companies.
That will be a big day.
I hope to give evidence in relation to the phasing out of supplies to the smaller rural stations. It is a most retrograde decision by this company which will be followed by every other company unless the necessary action is taken. It shows the concern and commitment of the Government that they have taken immediate action in relation to such restrictive practices. It is encouraging to see this type of action. I would like to encourage all small retailers to give evidence before this inquiry if necessary, because it is important to be fully acquainted with the disadvantages and results of this proposal by this major oil company which will affect the livelihood of many small retailers here. This company threatens the withdrawal of supplies from people with a capacity smaller than 1,100 gallons or 5,000 litres, from the 14 April next unless the Department and the Restrictive Practices Commission can impose regulations to limit their powers. It will affect many families in western areas. The scarcity of fuel will also create hardship for many families who will have to travel long distances to obtain supplies.
I raised this matter with the Government and they took positive action. Both the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism and the Minister for Energy took a very keen interest in this matter. I feel confident that there will be a satisfactory outcome to the public inquiry and that these companies will be curbed in their attempt to withdraw supplies from rural areas. As one who lives in a rural area many miles from a large town, I know the hardship this will impose on rural Ireland. It is up to us in Government to raise these matters, because we would certainly be waiting a while before the Opposition would even concern themselves with such mundane details. We should always be alert to the situation where the multi-nationals can impose such regulations and such conditions on the distribution of supplies. This does not apply only to the small independent retailers of petrol; it also affects small grocers, because the multi-nationals are obtaining a strong hold on the retail grocery outlets here.
It is a serious situation about which I know the Government are extremely concerned. I feel confident that they will take the appropriate action to ensure that these companies are curbed in their unsocial behaviour. It is unsocial because we need the small grocer, the small retailer, the small publican, to make life in rural Ireland more tolerable and more acceptable. Without these very important facilities, plus the local post office and the local school and church, rural Ireland would be lost. I stand and work for the smaller outlets and will support every move made by the Government to ensure that these outlets are retained. Somebody has to shout "Stop". Somebody has to curb the excesses of the multi-nationals, who have very little human feeling for the people who are affected by their decisions taken in London, New York, Bonn and so on. We must ensure that these decisions are made in the best interests of our people. I have no doubt that the Government will ensure that these decisions are made.
I welcome the proposal by an Irish company to set up a new company to distribute oil and petrol throughout the country. I wish them every success because there is a need for competition in this field. There is a cartel at the moment among the major oil companies and they are all working hand in hand to ensure profitability for themselves without any concern for the needs of the public. When they put forward proposals for price increases one of the items they gave as justification was the cost of distribution. If there were fewer outlets I have no doubt that there would be no decrease in the price of oil and petrol to the consumer. This is one important issue which I, as a Fianna Fáil backbencher, highlighted. I got the full support of the Government who reacted quickly to such unacceptable practices. That is an example of the position of small outlets. Supplies must be available throughout the country in the interests of our tourist trade and in the general interest.
The Opposition in this House are ineffective. They are not concerned about the needs of the people. They are more concerned with trying to score petty political points but they cannot do that either. We can know them by their actions. We know what they did when in government. We know what they did in the budget of 1976——
(Interruptions.)
My colleague and I worked very hard for our constituency because no party worked for it other than Fianna Fáil. That is why we work as a team for Roscommon-Leitrim. The constituency is fortunate to have two Government Deputies. From 1973 to 1977 our constituency was neglected by the National Coalition. We had a Parliamentary Secretary and a Deputy in the constituency but they contributed nothing in relation to industrial development or to infrastructure.
Tell us about the hospital.
Fortunately in 1977 the people responded in a positive way when they elected two Fianna Fáil Deputies. Deputy Begley was a Parliamentary Secretary in 1976 and Deputy Deasy was a Senator. Of course, Deputy L'Estrange was silent in Europe. He said little in 1976 when the budget imposed an increase of 15p in the price of petrol. He can check all of these facts in the records. There was an increase of 5p on a glass of spirits——
We have here what Fianna Fáil said at the time.
Beer was increased by 5p and cigarettes were increased by 3p.
That is a long way from 10p. Let the Deputy tell us about the manifesto.
The Deputy was silent in 1976 but now he is criticising the Government for imposing a smaller percentage increase. The National Coalition Government increased car tax in 1976. We abolished car tax in 1977 and we did not reimpose it even though Fine Gael wanted us to do so.
What about the 20p on petrol? That is a tax.
It is an optional tax but that was not the case with car tax. That charge had to be paid whether the car was used——
I ask Deputies to allow the Member in possession to continue without interruption.
The Opposition Deputies have not been curbed in the past few minutes.
The Whip is causing all the trouble. He should be keeping the peace.
In 1976 Fine Gael Deputies welcomed all the increases but they find them unacceptable in 1980. Deputy Fitzpatrick said that the people would have a cynical view of politicians. I can well believe that would be the case if they listened to what the Opposition Deputies have been saying. The National Coalition imposed a car tax of £50 or £60 and that had to be paid irrespective of whether a person used a car. Now a person pays tax when he drives the car.
The trouble is that cars cannot be driven now because the roads are so bad.
It is not the policy of the Government to impose unacceptable taxes either by way of rates or car tax. Basically, the Opposition have little to complain about in the budget. They are harping on minor items. They cannot criticise the social welfare increases or the benefits to PAYE taxpayers.
What about the increase in the price of bottled gas?
They are disappointed the Government have responded so positively. The increases imposed were necessary. If the cost of petrol had not risen now we would not have had the 25 per cent social welfare increases. Perhaps the Opposition would like that? During their period in office the increases granted by them were in the 10 per cent range——
We reduced the qualifying age for old age pensions.
In 1976 the inflation rate was 20 per cent—the Richie Ryan formula for disaster. Social welfare increases were 10 per cent but now Fianna Fáil have granted increases of 25 per cent while the inflation rate is from 12 per cent to 15 per cent.
What will it be in a few months' time?
The Opposition are trying to ignore the facts. I come from a rural constituency and last weekend many people told me how delighted they were with the budget. Now it is up to people to decide how to spend their money. The decision-making is being left to the people and that is what government should be all about.
The only thing people can afford to drink now is fresh water.
I have asked Deputies to allow the speaker in possession to continue without interruption.
What is the philosophy of the Government? Where do they stand?
That is a good question and it is time it was asked. The Government reduced the road subsidy and abolished wealth tax.
Our Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, speaking at the 1976 Ard-Fheis said, "We are neither prisoners of the left nor servants of the right. We are the pragmatists of the centre". That is where we stand. We are more socialist than the Labour Party; we are the party of the workers, the party of the people. There is no doubt that the Labour Party face elimination at the next general election. They got 113 votes in Roscommon in the last general election and the way things are going at the moment they will get about ten votes at the next election. I welcome the Labour Party supporters who voted for Fianna Fáil in the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency. They are playing a positive role in the development of our policy. Fine Gael supporters also have joined Fianna Fáil, the pragmatic party. This budget has been introduced by a pragmatic and realistic party. The Taoiseach pointed out where we stood when he spoke at the Ard-Fheis in 1976. That was why we got 84 seats in 1977.
It was Deputy Lynch who got the 84 seats but the party kicked him in the teeth. That was the thanks he got.
The former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, led us to victory. We had a manifesto that got a response from the public. That is why it is difficult for the Opposition to survive in such a climate. They are finding it extremely hard in the constituency. Reports have come down of the general secretary of the Fine Gael Party criticising them for their bad showing in County Roscommon in the local elections of 1979, reprimanding them for their infighting——
What about the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach?
——and their mongrel "foxism". A friend of mine, a Deputy down there, is looking over her shoulder at councillors all over the place who are trying to undermine her. That is the type of organisation they have and because of their policies they are fighting among themselves because they know well that they will be lucky to have one seat after the next general election. It is going to be a three out of three situation in Roscommon and many other constituencies. That has annoyed the Coalition and the Opposition very much. It is obvious that the Coalition have broken up. There are three Opposition leaders. There is Garret FitzGerald who is not in favour of a wealth tax——
Deputy FitzGerald.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald, one leader of Fine Gael. He is not in favour of reintroducing any form of wealth tax. There is Deputy Professor John Kelly who is in favour of some sort of wealth tax. There is Deputy Richie Ryan, now MEP, who is in favour of a wealth tax. They are the three leaders of Fine Gael. Where do the rural Deputies stand? They are not sure. They are prisoners of either the left or the right. What they are for depends on which house they go into.
(Interruptions.)
That is the situation in relation to taxation. There is Deputy Frank Cluskey, alleged leader of the Labour Party, who has been undermined at every turn by the other alleged leader, Deputy Michael O'Leary. That party have two leaders. They will not coalesce next time with Fine Gael unless a wealth tax is introduced. The people could have no confidence in such a collection of broken-down politicians. We have a responsibility then to be the Government of the people, responding to the left and the right but being pragmatic and bringing forward policies which appeal to and are in the best interests of the people. Included in this budget is a policy for the people which is in their best interests. It is a brilliantly prepared document which illustrates where we are going for the next 12 months.
Where were the Government for the last two years?
There is no question about the support we are generating as a result of this budget. That is why the Opposition are unable to pick positive points in the budget which they can criticise.
Potholes.
That is one point, but it is not included in the budget statement. I did not see one word about potholes in that budget statement.
Deputies
There are too many.
It only points to where Deputy Peter Barry could say on television that potholes were geting worse. I was down in Cork during the by-election. They have very good roads down in Cork.
I would say that the Deputy left in a hurry.
(Interruptions.)
We have provided funds in the constituencies and counties for road development over the years. We have given a tremendous input for infrastructure. Never before in the history of the State has so much in funds been provided for infrastructure in this country. We were starved in Roscommon during the time of Coalition Government, between 1973 and 1977.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech. Nobody will interrupt him.
The only place that got money then was Deputy Tully's constituency of Meath. There is no question about it. Roscommon and other rural constituencies had hardly even a Minister during the Coalition period. I believe there was a Parliamentary Secretary in Ballinamore, County Leitrim. Apart from that we had no Government representatives in the west of Ireland. Where were they in the Coalition period?
Is the Deputy making a case for one tomorrow?
We have one already.
Is the Deputy hoping for another?
We are anxious to see as many representatives in the Government from the west of Ireland as they can generate. We have quality representatives from the west such as our Minister here, Deputy Hussey, who has represented North/East Galway extremely well.
Deputies
He is a decent man.
Are the Opposition implying that they had not decent men down in the west of Ireland in the Fine Gael Party whom they could make Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries?
No, but the Deputy's party sacked some decent Ministers recently.
I advise Deputies not to talk too much about Ministers and former Ministers because there were some "kookies" in the last Government. Some people in that Government were not capable of being on a county council, never mind in a Government.
(Interruptions.)
I do not want to mention names, but they were ineffective and inefficient.
Deputy Leyden might concentrate a bit more on the financial resolution.
Some of the Government were damaged in the head, one in the eyesight and they were dumb today.
When the Opposition talk about the question of representation from the west of Ireland it is no harm to remind them now and then how badly we were represented during the Coalition period. It has been evident from the participation of our Ministers from the west of Ireland that there has been a concentration of funds for that area since 1977. I welcome the input of funds for infrastructure in the west and I congratulate our Ministers and Ministers of State who have contributed at Cabinet and other levels to ensure that we have proper representation to which we are entitled, and which we demand. We will ensure that we will have it in future under the next Government. It is evident from the trends and the support which we are getting at the moment——
What about the European elections when the Government expected nine seats and got five? What about the Cork by-election?
I do not like to tell too much bad news in one day. We do not want to become complacent in any way but there are provisions in the budget which could lead one to complacency they are so good. It is not an election budget but it is certainly a very good budget.
(Interruptions.)
If the Opposition had brought in such a budget in 1977 we would not have 84 seats here today. They were not able to bring in such a good budget. They had three or four extremely bad budgets because one minute they were giving something and the next minute they were taking it back. They were not sure where they stood.
Here today and gone tomorrow.
That is a very good explanation of where they were at that stage. Some people have talked about certain changes in relation to the grants system in the last few months. Naturally, I have been in touch very closely with the situation as I was involved in the building business before I was elected to this Dáil. I would like to make a point in relation to the termination of the house improvement grants scheme which arose recently. In 1979 the Government invested £213 million of which £24.5 million was for house improvements and new house grants payable by the Department of the Environment. Grants for essential repairs have not been terminated but it does not mean that the overall investment is being curtailed. In place of discontinued grants the maximum local authority house improvents secured loan has been increased from £2,500 to £4,000 and the maximum unsecured loan from £600 to £1,000. The qualifying limit has been increased from £4,000 to £5,000. The £1,000 grant, which is a tremendous boost to our young people, will be continued and developed. The Government's commitment to pay grants is being fully honoured. In relation to the house improvement grant, people were given a fortnight's notice within which to submit applications and within that fortnight about 44,000 applications were received, equalling about nine months' applications in normal circumstances. People who had entered into a contract to extend their houses were given an opportunity to apply for the grant.
The Minister made the speech informing people of the situation in County Clare where he thought no one would see it.
The period of grace given compared favourably with the action of the Coalition Government who changed the grants scheme overnight in December 1976. In 1977 approximately 52,500 applications for house improvement grants were received. In the fortnight between 21 January and 1 February 1980 44,500 applications were received. Any reasonable person will agree that the Government have handled this issue with understanding and compassion. People most in need of grants—the poor, the old and the handicapped—will still be eligible for them; people who have entered into commitments have not been disqualified; the people who are not well off will be eligible for better loans. The only people affected by this are those who can afford to pay for the work to be done. The situation here compares favourably with the situation which occurred in 1976, when Deputies Tully and R. Ryan decided to phase out the grants.
I initiated a scheme in Roscommon County Council whereby loans will be paid in three instalments. Under the Coalition Government a house had to be roofed before one would get the meagre loan of £4,500. That loan has been increased substantially to £12,000. I would appeal to all local authorities to follow Roscommon County Council by issuing loans in three stages. This scheme has been approved by the Minister for the Environment. On completion of the foundations £4,000, approximately, is handed over to the applicant. This saves him from having to avail of bridging finance and could mean a saving of about £800 on the building of a house. The councillors in the Opposition benches would be doing a great day's work if they supported Fianna Fáil proposals in local authorities to bring in the phased payment of loans.
Tell the Taoiseach that one.
The situation where young people had to rely to a great extent on bridging finance at excessive rates from the banks was unacceptable and some improvement had to be implemented where they could receive the phased payments of loans. I am proud to have initiated that scheme in Roscommon.
The Government should do something about house prices.
This is a tremendous improvement on the situation that prevailed up to now. We have also made county council loans available to people with an income up to £5,500 per annum. During the Coalition Government it was practically impossible to get a loan of £4,500, as one would have to have an income of £2,500.
(Interruptions.)
This Government have made more funds available to local authorities to pay loans and grants than ever before.
The Government had to, with inflation.
There is a genuine commitment by the Government to provide quality local authority housing and to provide loans to enable people to build their own homes. This is a very sound philosophy, financed by central funds. The Government intend to continue this policy, which is bringing tremendous development in rural areas. We are fully supporting the programme of building by local authorities, because it is our policy to provide homes at subsidised rates for people who cannot afford to build their own and to help people to build their homes where possible. This policy of providing local authority houses is also assisting in the creation of jobs. The building industry has always been a good employer and under our policy it is very hard to get skilled workers at the moment because of the amount of work being undertaken.
Deputy Tully built 25,000 houses a year and Fianna Fáil built 16,000 houses last year.
The figures were certainly cooked under the Coalition Government. The Coalition manipulated the figures to suit themselves.
(Interruptions.)
We noted the lack of housing during the Coalition period and there was an obvious lack of finance in relation to roads in Roscommon-Leitrim. We in the constituency heard Deputy Tully talking about his 25,000 houses. No one really counted them.
Is the Deputy accusing the civil service of cooking the figures?
Order.
I would never accuse the civil service.
That is who the Deputy is accusing.
I certainly accuse the Coalition of cooking the figures to suit themselves. They were expert at that. The people saw through the ineffective policy of the politicians who were trying to save their seats, their cars and their ministerial offices. During the Coalition period we had no effective leadership in the Custom House or in O'Connell Bridge House. We now have three Ministers looking after that vitally important section. We have the necessary backup service to ensure that grants will be paid efficiently and effectively. I congratulate Deputy Fahey and very much appreciate the assistance he has given to rural areas in relation to the rural group schemes and water schemes. These schemes are giving great assistance to rural areas. A new impetus has been given to that section by the appointment of two Ministers of State whereas during the Coalition period there was no effective leadership in the Custom House. I regret I have to say that. They were more concerned about hypothetical figures and cosmetic exercises than realities; they were living in cloud-cuckoo land and not interested in facts. When in Opposition Fianna Fáil exposed the facts in this House and in doing so ensured that they would return to Government.
It cost £300 million.
There was no support for the building industry during the term of office of the National Coalition. It is a fact that when a Coalition Government are in office the building industry slumps and when Fianna Fáil are in power it thrives. Many people in 1977 were praying that Fianna Fáil would be returned to office to revitalise that industry. During the term of the National Coalition we went on deputations, almost daily, to various Ministers but after shaking our hands they told us that they did not have the funds to carry out the work we were interested in. When Fianna Fáil returned to power in 1977 funds were provided for roads, sewerage, drainage and water schemes. The Government revitalised the local improvements schemes.
The Deputy should give us the figures.
The Deputy should tell us about Roscommon County Hospital.
An example of how effective Fianna Fáil were on returning to power was the decision to reintroduce the local improvements schemes which were phased out under the National Coalition.
Those schemes were cut by £1 million this year.
When Deputy Begley was in power he did not spend one shilling in my area renovating national monuments.
I would have renovated the Deputy had I been asked.
I understand it was impossible to meet the Deputy when he was in office.
The Deputy was not in Fianna Fáil at that time.
The PAYE provisions have been welcomed and people realise that they constitute major improvements. However, it is more important that a government cater for the elderly, the widows and social welfare recipients. Those people have benefited in real terms under the budget for the first time in the history of the State. Those people got what they deserved and it is our intention to ensure that social welfare recipients are given priority treatment because they are the weakest section of our society. They cannot call on the trade unions or the farming lobby to work for them, they rely on Fianna Fáil to give them improvements in their benefit. Those people have not forgotten that some years ago a Coalition Government took one shilling from the old age pensioners. I do not intend raking up embarrassing facts but Fine Gael were responsible for taking one shilling from old age pensioners. The people from Roscommon and the west will never forget that betrayal by Fine Gael. Those people rely on Fianna Fáil representatives. They are aware that they never had better representatives than the Fianna Fáil Members who work efficiently and effectively for them. They know that we will not sit back and let things happen. The National Coalition did not give any real increase to social welfare recipients.
We gave an increase of 118 per cent over a period of three years.
There was no point in giving a 10 per cent increase in social welfare payments when inflation was running at 15 per cent. That amounted to a reduction of 5 per cent. It is important that our people should be made aware of the type of skulduggery that the Opposition are engaged in.
There was a lot of skulduggery a few months ago on the Government side.
The opposition to the budget mounted by Fine Gael and Labour has been ineffective. The people are well aware of the benefits they gained in it. They can now decide how to spend their money. The Government have introduced a new taxation system for farmers, reduced the limit to £40 and other practical proposals. We are aware that those with a valuation less than £30 do not earn a taxable income. We eliminated social welfare recipients and those in receipt of Old IRA pensions from the tax net. We have also introduced improvements for the widows of Old IRA veterans, people who sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the country. We eliminated a tax which was initiated by Deputy Richie Ryan who took one shilling from them.
That is a new one.
Like his predecessors, Deputy Richie Ryan was always anxious to take money from social welfare recipients, in accordance with Fine Gael philosophy.
Who abolished food subsidies?
We support the less well-off sections of our community while Fine Gael support the big shots and tax dodgers. We are anxious to introduce equity into our taxation system.
The Deputy must conclude, he has used all the time allotted to him.
Is it not possible, due to the obstruction by Opposition Deputies during my contribution, to give me some extra time?
The Deputy wants injury time.
It is unprecedented for a Government backbencher to suffer such heckling from the Opposition.
The Deputy should be flattered.
If this performance continues for the rest of the debate on the budget the debate will take on a new dimension. The Chair has been ineffective in trying to control the constant stream of interruptions. The Deputy must conclude.
I wish the Minister for Finance every success. The input into the budget by the Government is efficient and effective and the people will respond to it. The Opposition should admit that they do not have any case against the budget and that it is the best one ever introduced.
The Deputy has a good sense of humour or rumour, I do not know which having listened to him this evening.
I will confine my remarks to the budget and dismiss the latter part of the previous speaker's contribution as a reminder of what we used hear in the forties outside church gates. In considering the budget we must investigate its background which was one of inflation going mad, a 5p increase in the price of a loaf of bread, a 5 per cent increase in the price of milk and increases in the price of coal and gas. It might be worth while outlining the increases that were imposed in the weeks preceding the budget and during which time inflation soared. This kind of situation affects many areas. In addition to people having to cut back on their standard of living, employment is affected, and it is in this context and having regard to this background that we should examine the budget.
Another very serious matter that I have not heard referred to so far during this debate is the credit squeeze that has been in existence during the past six months and which has had a greater adverse effect than has had any measure announced in this House. That credit squeeze has "screwed" people, poor people particularly, who were anxious to undertake certain work—for instance, young married couples trying to build their own houses—because, despite what has been said about bridging finance, this facility is absolutely necessary for people wishing to build their own homes. The credit squeeze has been felt right through the community.
This restriction on credit, in addition to affecting seriously our economy, has had a serious effect on the daily lives of our people. Small businesses have had to close with the resulting unemployment and the stress caused by such closures. Those people who are managing to stay in business are in most cases only barely surviving in this atmosphere of credit restriction. I have been talking with many people to whom council loans are available for the building of houses but who have not been able to go ahead with the work because of their failure to be accommodated with the bridging finance that is necessary. It may be said without fear of contradiction that for the past three months there has been a budget every week.
Every day.
In addition to the background situation that I have outlined, the budget will have a serious effect on employment and will result in inflation becoming completely out of hand. A very serious aspect is the increased cost of fuel. The increases in this area are reflected in transport costs and in the cost of everything we buy. In other words, such increases have a serious effect on prices.
Fianna Fáil seem very anxious to propagate the notion that we have a new Government, but that is not so. We have 11 of the same Ministers as we had when Deputy Lynch was Taoiseach, though he had promised us a major reshuffle at about the end of last year when our term of office of the European Presidency would be ending. What we have had is a minor reshuffle.
The setting up of the Department of Economic Planning and Development was a good exercise on the part of the previous Taoiseach. That move was an indication of some concern in the area of planning and development; but the new Taoiseach, in his wisdom, saw fit to abolish the Department. I regard that action on his part as a retrograde step, because failure to give priority to this aspect of our economy is to prevent the sort of progress that is necessary. I had much criticism to offer regarding the manner in which that Department was administered by the relevant Minister, but that is another matter. One would have expected at least some hint in the budget of an expansionist policy, but we were to be disappointed because there was not any such reference in the Minister's statement.
We are being told that the budgetary measures are designed to allow us to come to grips with the situation that had developed, but that situation developed under the leadership of Fianna Fáil. There is not anything in the budget that would seem to assist in the continuation even of those schemes of employment already in existence or of the planning that had been in progress. In other words, the Government have reneged on the promises they made to the people in 1977. This budget is a total reversal of the policies they put forward then.
The former Minister for Economic Planning and Development told us that the employment problem would be resolved in full within two or three years but what we are hearing now is that the Government are to produce 30,000 jobs. That is a big climb down from the original promise. That Department was not run as it should have been run and did not produce the results expected. The theory of planning and development, which was at least acknowledged at that time, has been scrubbed and we are back to square one. This budget as an economic policy document does not give any idea of the direction the new Taoiseach intends to take. He appears to have been very reluctant to give us any idea of the direction his Government intend taking. The primary objective of this Government seems to be to distance themselves as far as they can from what they promised the people in 1977. They have scrubbed the Department of Economic Planning and Development. They wiped out the whole concept of economic planning and development and downgraded it. Fianna Fáil always believe in downgrading planning of any kind.
I mentioned prices. I have a document before me published by Fianna Fáil and circulated in my constituency during the last election campaign. It says: "Voters of Kildare Constituency, These are the Issues". In it Fianna Fáil say that high investment in services and road maintenance is needed in Kildare to restart development. At one time we had the reputation for having the best roads in the country but now Kildare is held up to ridicule on the Mike Murphy morning show because of all the potholes in our county. This is a direct result of the lack of funds being provided by the Government for road maintenance.
The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, my constituency colleague, today criticised me and the Kildare county manager. He said it was the manager's job to manage with a 10 per cent increase. He quoted from his report to the council at the estimates meeting which said he found it very difficult to bring in estimates within the limits imposed by the Minister. The Minister said that was an indication the manager could not do his job. I do not object to the Minister criticising me for supporting the postponement of the adoption of the estimates but it is wrong to criticise the manager because he found it very difficult to bring in an estimate within the limits imposed by the Minister for the Environment.
Over the last few months, the work of the council has been slowing down because of the guildines set by the Minister last year. There have been very large increases in the price of road making materials since last year—tar roughly 30 per cent; incomes, salaries and wages 23 per cent and machinery 25 per cent. Against that background the council are told to do a better job on our roads with a 10 per cent increase.
To set a 10 per cent limit right across the board is the lazy man's way of doing things. We must ask ourselves, 10 per cent of what? Three years ago income from rates in certain areas was very high but in areas where it was very low, a 10 per cent increase is not very much. In one county a 10 per cent increase in rates would mean £2 in the £; in Kildare it would be around 75p or 80p. By setting a limit of 10 per cent the Minister is not taking into account the actual effect that will have on the ground.
Much has been said about the great schemes started and put into effect by Fianna Fáil. I am more interested in local authority housing than in any other type, because I believe local authorities are providing houses for people who cannot provide for themselves. While I am concerned about all counties, I am more concerned about Kildare because I know the scene there better than anywhere else.
The demand for housing in Kildare has increased enormously during the past ten years, and in the days of the National Coalition Government the county council there built an average of 250 houses annually—in one year the number reached 300. Last year, under Fianna Fáil, they were able to complete only 142 houses—a big drop—because they did not have the money to build more. No matter how figures are twisted, that is a fact. Kildare County Council are building fewer than half the number of houses they were able to build three years ago. At that time the Department asked the officials in Kildare for an estimate of their housing needs in a five-year period and the figure given was 250 per year, and it was said by medical and other officers of Kildare County Council that even that number would not meet demands.
There have been insinuations by Fianna Fáil in my constituency and throughout the country that there has not been a fair return for the money allocated for roads. We know in the county council that the engineering section have been doing a good job but the restriction to a 10 per cent increase in the allocation and the lack of grants have meant that road maintenance in County Kildare has had to suffer gravely. Road deterioration has become worse in the past two years under Fianna Fáil. I defy anybody to contradict that. It is obvious to all who use our roads. We have been told that we are getting increased grants, but Fianna Fáil introduced a Bill which for the first time made county councils liable for VAT of 10 per cent across the board on all materials purchased by councils. That, and rising inflation, more than accounted for any increases in allocations.
In County Kildare we had plans for a dual carriageway across the Curragh. Then a second Department told us we could not do it because the site was on military property and the work would interfere with military buildings. Agreement was reached between Kildare County Council and the military authorities and the whole matter is now with the two Ministers concerned, but God knows when the work will be started.
The former Minister for Fisheries and Forestry said that the county manager in Kildare did not show much management ability because he had said he found it hard to do with an increased allocation of 10 per cent. The manager would have been more honest if he had said it was impossible for him to do it without running down the council services. The manager said there would have to be cut-backs in council services but he added he hoped he would not have to lay off workers. However, a rule was brought in to retire workers early and not to replace them. Despite all the talk about grants, we know in County Kildare that we will be getting less money by way of grants this year, and of course this must affect employment. The present Minister has tried to put it across to the people that councils are getting plenty of money but that they are not managing properly at a time when we are faced with the prospect of cutting out essential services. Some years ago in Kildare County Council we decided to do some of the Department's work by providing four or five telephone kiosks annually in remote rural areas where communication was very difficult and a genuine need existed. We had to cut that out. We had hoped to provide a number of additional public lights every year. That has had to go.
All this stringency arises from the abolition of rates. I admit that rates were an unjust form of taxation because they did not take into consideration ability to pay, but a Government cannot take away something and not replace it. The abolition of rates was a vote-catching exercise, as was the abolition of motor taxation. The latter supplied most of the money in the Road Fund. I drive home every night and it would pay me to pay £200 a year tax if it contributed to proper road maintenance. I have to spend hundreds of pounds on car repairs because of the condition of the roads. I do not advocate bringing back car tax.
Debate adjourned.