Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1980

Vol. 318 No. 11

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.)

Mr. Creed

I was dealing with the subject of the taxation of farmers. It is not possible to discuss the budget within the confined context of what is within the budget. A considerable amount depends on the action taken in the year prior to the introduction of the budget, and the decisions taken by the Government are also relevant in this discussion. I was querying to what extent the budget shows an improved picture of our country's economy in relation to the creation of extra employment, to industrial development and to the solving of the basic financial difficulties which still exist. In my opinion, nothing has been done to tackle these.

The Minister devoted a considerable amount of his time to the cost of energy and the £800 million bill confronting the country in relation to our oil imports. When the Minister talks about a discretionary tax on petrol, if we relate it to our present national transport system, it looks rather silly. If we are serious in our efforts to conserve energy we must, first of all, examine our transport system and encourage a considerable amount of our people to use a proper, reliable transport system in commuting from one area to another in relation to their employment, business or industry. We should have a transport system which we could induce people to use.

I do not want in any way to criticise our rail system, but our buses are nothing short of scandalous at present. I do not see anything in the budget or in the Minister's proposals to try to improve the situation. The vast majority of our buses are fit for the scrapyard. It is a regular feature to see buses broken down on the side of the road every other day and the majority of them are positively filthy. The Minister and the Department of Transport should examine that problem on a national basis and try to make the transport system a worthwhile one.

Regarding free school transport, almost every parent of children availing of it is regularly and constantly complaining to public representatives and there is a grievance. It plays hookey with the educational system if buses are often not in time, or break down. I am sure the first man who would admit that would be the Minister in charge, Deputy Tunney. In many cases a service is not provided at all.

Much play has been made on the contributions to social welfare benefits. These constitute a big increase, taken in the context of the budget. I was interested in Deputy McMahon's question to the Minister for Social Welfare as to whether the Government had any intention of reducing the age for a noncontributory pension down to 66 years. During the four years of the National Coalition Government the age was brought down from 70, where it had stood for half a century, to 66 years. It is urgent now that the Minister should consider putting on a par those who are not in a position to avail of a contributory pension, those who are self-employed and not in insurable employment. It is desirable that they should not have to wait another year for their benefits. When one considers the 25 per cent increase in old age pensions it is a disturbing feature of Government activity that during the summer recess a considerable amount of increases took place, but this Christmas recess must be a record in many instances—certainly, as far as price increases were concerned, it broke all records.

Even gas has been increased by almost 70 per cent within a year. This is a huge increase for quite a lot of our old age pensioners who depend on gas for heating and cooking, not to mention the free fuel, which is also a scandal. More money was provided for this and better concessions given in the early seventies than today. Then there are the increases in the price of bread and butter and the necessities of life, which hit the poorer sections. In a recess or an inflationary period, the most vulnerable—the poor—are the first to be hit.

I express disappointment with the budget on another point. I have been saying here, and said it two years ago, that it is bad for our economy that there is no incentive to save, particularly among our young people. It is so important that some time should be devoted in our national and primary schools to educating our young people on the urgency and necessity to save. It is true to say that we penalise people who save. In the Finance Act of 1967, the then Minister for Finance, who was the former Taoiseach, introduced a Bill which created for the Revenue Commissioners the right to investigate any deposit account in a bank or any investment in a financial institution. At that time, every £ over £70 interest on a deposit account was liable to income tax. One can imagine the situation where a PAYE worker saving for a house, a car or for any other reason has paid tax under the PAYE system, is thrifty and saves and is caught for the second time.

Many of our laws at present are going through interesting phases. Some are being tested in the Supreme Court and found to be repugnant to the Constitution. There are a number of laws which could be examined in relation to this particular problem. This is an area in which Government Ministers—and since 1967 there have been a number of Ministers—have not taken action. There must be an incentive to save and an incentive to work. Consider the case of someone getting married and building a house. The Minister made a big boast about the increase in the amount of the loan and the increase in the income ceiling to qualify for a loan, but there is still a large bridging gap between the amount of loan and the cost of a house. How can people save to build a house if they are penalised for doing so? This problem must be tackled immediately. The incentive to save as well as the incentive to work is very important, in my opinion, and consideration of it is long overdue. The ceiling in deposit account interest has stood at £70 for a long time.

The question of housing brought it to my mind that the Minister for the Environment in his speech mentioned the number of houses being provided. When he was asked a question about bridging loans he said he had no experience of difficulties now. I can assure the Minister that there are great difficulties in providing bridging loans. He made the point that he is not in charge of them and that they are the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I accept that. However, the Minister for the Environment should instruct local authorities that SDA loans should be paid in part far earlier than when the house is secured at 75 per cent. In reply to a parliamentary question the Minister said that it was a matter for local authorities and they have full powers to do it. The Minister should take action and give such a direction to the local authorities.

I said earlier that the budget was anti-rural and anti-farmer and that it sounded the death knell of the tourist industry. A number of people in recent years spent a lot of money providing modern and well-equipped guesthouses and hotels in rural areas. We did not have a good year last year and it appears that this year will be far worse. We must ensure that we are in a position to attract tourists who will spend money here which will have a spin-off for the whole economy. To a large extent we have a clean environment. We have protected it up to a point and a number of people from abroad buy houses here for their retirement. Costs are rising every other day and we must be careful not to price ourselves out of the market.

The Minister said that we must reduce borrowing and he is right. This situation did not occur overnight. It takes £545.6 million to service the national debt. If that money were available for services what an amount of services it could provide. The Government must give the lead and live within their means. It is their job to set the example when they are asking people to live within their means. The Government cannot borrow themselves into prosperity. We must realise that nobody owes us a living.

Nothing is free. When we talk about free education, free transport and so on somebody is paying for it. This must be realised. The Taoiseach in his television broadcast on the state of the nation came across as giving the people the true picture. Two or three weeks later a Bill was introduced to appoint extra Ministers of State. That appears as if it is a pay-off for services well given to the Taoiseach in the campaign to have him elected. These are the things which people fall foul of and are sceptical about.

This debate affords us an opportunity of discussing the State's finances and the direction in which we are going. The budget has not come to grips with the problems of inflation or unemployment and has not got our finances right. To conclude on the note on which the Fine Gael spokesman on finance opened his remarks, the Fianna Fáil Government have got it wrong again.

Mr. Morley

I realise it is impossible to find any new aspect of the budget that has not come under close scrutiny at this stage because so much has been said about it already and so much has appeared in the media. I should like to congratulate the Minister on introducing such a budget which was well received despite pessimistic forecasts made in the press in the days preceding it.

The budget found general acceptance and it is the kind of budget we need in the present economic circumstances. Its main objectives are aimed at establishing a more equitable income tax system and protecting our economy from the damage threatened by internal inflationary tendencies thereby mintaining the economic and social advances of the last few years. When international economic and trading circumstances become more favourable we will be able to make another big advance in growth and economic development and in creating greater prosperity for the people.

The most noteworthy and talked about aspect of the budget was the way in which the Minister met the demand and irrefutable need for reform of the income tax code. Not even the most convinced campaigner for change expected so much to be done particularly when all the predictions highlighted the financial difficulties involved in making any change and pointed out the constraints under which the Minister would have to operate. The Minister succeeded. Income splitting will benefit thousands of families. That and the tax concessions granted go much further than the recent Supreme Court decision demanded. This can be instanced by the fact that it will cost the Exchequer over £130 million in a year where a strict observance of the court decision would have cost a mere £20 million. It is futile in the face of these figures to seek to maintain that these concessions and changes were brought about solely under pressure of the courts decision.

Another guage of the spread or distribution of the benefits contained in the budgetary income tax proposals is the fact that, as a result of the changes in the rates of income tax and the taxable bands to which they will apply, 75,000 people who were in the lower income tax band are taken out of the tax bracket altogether and that the staggering total of 180,000 people will pay tax at the 35 per cent rate, who without the changes would have been paying at a higher level. These figures prove the significance and impact which the changes in the income tax code will have on the incomes and standard of living of those to whom they will apply.

In addition the old and disabled have received very welcome additional reliefs. It is only proper that this category of people be thought of and protected against the ravages of rising prices. All of these changes are proper and are needed to protect the incomes of all people, all wage earners, against the inflationary trend of recent years. They were necessary also in order to remove the disincentive to work and greater productivity which the old income tax code tended to foster.

In the last few years farmer taxation has proved to be a controversial and almost intractable problem. The Minister's proposals in this regard also are fair and equitable. No section of the community can expect to enjoy living with the benefits of the State if they are not prepared also to shoulder their fair share of the financial burden inherent in the provision of those same benefits for the whole community. Farmers and farmer organisations have always been foremost in proclaiming that they like every other sector were prepared to pay their fair share of income tax. The introduction of the £40 PLV threshold for tax liability, with marginal relief to £49 and income tax to be paid on the accounts system, is reasonable. These proposals, taken with the assurance that these rates will remain static for three years, with the Taoiseach's assurance given in this House last week that the resource tax was not envisaged as a permanent element of farmer taxation, should go a long way to reassuring farmers that the income tax code will treat them fairly and is not designed to extract from them any more than their fair share.

I welcome also the raising of the restriction to 30 per cent of net profit on the amount of capital allowances claimable for such farming activities as fencing, land reclamation and farm building. That, together with the three year guarantee of static rates of taxation, afford the farmer an opportunity of planning ahead for a reasonable period. While making these comments on farmer taxation I am conscious that not too many farmers in my constituency will be affected by the budgetary income tax proposals. Nevertheless, farmers, be they big or small, have a lot of common ground. I and the small farmers I represent realise the important place that farming plays and will continue to play in our economy. Nobody would like to see anything done which would in any way hinder progress or development. There is nothing in the budgetary proposals that will affect the development or future of farming, despite the gloomy predictions sometimes made by Opposition speakers. I, coming from a small farm background, realise that farming is a seven day a week job and that farmers are entitled to some concessions. Farming can be a very difficult enterprise to manage and profits can vary considerably from year to year. I accept that farmers constitute a very hard working section of our community. They cannot go on strike because, as has been said, one cannot invent a five-day or four-day cow, one cannot get one's livestock to go on strike. Therefore certain incentives and concessions must be made to the farmer community. Nevertheless the budgetary proposals and the assurances of the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance go a long way towards reassuring farmers that they will get a fair deal under this Government.

The people who await the budget annually with the greatest expectancy and hope are the social welfare recipients because these people have no other means of maintaining the value of their income. I am glad the Minister did not fail them this year. The increases granted of 20 per cent and 25 per cent are generous and should more than compensate them for any rise in prices in the coming year. It is only right that that should be so, that a caring Government and Minister, a Christian society, should show concern for that sector of the community who because of infirmity, old age, handicap or whatever cannot provide for themselves. It is only right that they be catered for to the full limit of the State's resources and be protected against the ravages of inflation. I am sure all of this group will welcome the increases provided for in the budget.

Here I should like to make a request to the Department and Minister involved in the administration of these benefits. In so doing I am conscious that other speakers on both sides of the House have already adverted to this aspect of social welfare payments. I often feel that much of the personal satisfaction that social welfare recipients would gain from increases granted in this and in previous budgets is blunted by the often unduly long delays involved in the processing of many new claims, especially those on appeal. The Minister should do something to streamline this process to make it easier for those who apply to come into benefit sooner without having to go through the tortuous, protracted procedures which apply at present. Oftentimes those procedures cause mental agony.

To meet the bill for improvements in benefits and the tax concessions some indirect taxation had, unfortunately, to be imposed. Those increases must be viewed against the background of the improvements in the budget. There was speculation prior to the budget that the increases would be a lot higher and those predictions were made without anticipating that tax concessions would be as far-reaching as they turned out to be. The increases in indirect taxation have been accepted as reasonable and necessary by the public. I have heard little groaning after the budget about the increase in the price of beer and tobacco. I am not saying that people like paying additional tax but on this occasion they regarded the increase in the budget as reasonable and justified. They appreciate very much that the revenue being raised will be put to good use. We must also take into consideration the discretionary aspect of this increased expenditure. People can control the amount of extra outlay they will be involved in participating in social occasions.

With regard to the extra taxation on oil products we must accept that there is a message there to the effect that oil will be a problem with us for many years. We depend on oil for 85 per cent of our energy needs. It costs us a lot and, therefore, we must conserve it. In establishing the Department of Energy and appointing the Tánaiste as Minister for Energy, the Taoiseach has emphasised the importance of the quest for oil and the economic utilisation of our sources of energy. If we discover oil off our shores I do not believe that product will be any cheaper. In the meantime we must make a greater effort to ensure that our native sources of energy are utilised and developed to the full. I was glad to see that additional money was allocated in the capital programme for the ESB and Bord na Móna. In addition to the involvement of Bord na Móna in the development of our bogs there are many small bogs that could be developed if farmers were encouraged to do so by grants. It is a pity to see bogs that were utilised in the past now deserted. The access roads to those bogs are overgrown. Until something is done about the drainage of those bogs and the access roads to them it will be difficult to encourage individuals or groups to develop them.

I welcome the increase provided for infrastructural development purposes. We have heard many complaints in this debate about roads. It is true to say that our road network leaves a lot to be desired and that applies to all counties. We should realise also that in the last two years there has been a 45 per cent increase in the amount of money devoted to the improvement and development of our road network. It is unfortunate that during that time the price of materials has escalated. The inclement weather last year did not help road conditions. While this problem is nationwide I should like to bring a problem concerning my county to the attention of the Minister. My county must be the only one where there is a significant mileage of public roads waiting to be tarred. People use those roads daily and one can imagine their condition in inclement weather. People should not be expected to tolerate such conditions. Our county councillors have always endeavoured to proceed as fast as possible with the work of the black topping of these roads. As this situation, so far as I know, is peculiar to County Mayo, perhaps the Minister could arrange that this year and next year additional grants would be made available in order to enable us to clear the backlog in respect of these roads and thereby eliminate the social injustice that is being perpetrated on the people of that county in this regard.

I am very happy to note that there is an increase of 22 per cent in the allocation to the IDA and I take this opportunity of congratulating that body on the success they have had in their efforts to attract industry to the country. Up to ten or 12 years ago industry was unknown in my county but now the dramatic results of the efforts of the IDA during the past decade are obvious in terms of the number of our people who are employed in manufacturing industry, an increase of the order of 250 per cent. The policy of building advance factories is very sound but in my county some of the smaller towns have been excluded from the present programme. I trust that when the next programme for advance factory building is being drafted those towns will be included.

It has been my opinion always that many of our smaller towns which have the necessary infrastructure could well accommodate more of the smaller type industry. During the past few years efforts have been made to direct some industry to the smaller towns and where there are efforts have been successful the towns concerned have been revitalised and have been given the necessary impetus to forge ahead and become more viable and productive. In the early days of the IDA the emphasis seemed to be on catering for the bigger industries and to locate these industries in the bigger centres of population but there is now the realisation that many of the smaller centres can equally cater for industry with the result that there is a reversal of the original policy much to the advantage of the smaller towns.

Educational and training are important aspects in this whole question of attracting industry to a town and in this context I should like to raise the matter of educational facilities in my constituency. There is a very popular demand growing in County Mayo for some form of third-level educational institute and I hope that the Minister will take note of the pleas made in this regard. Our county is the third largest in the country. It has a total of 37 second-level educational establishments and a total enrolment of more than 9,000 pupils. There are third-level educational institutions in places that are not as big as our county so we must have a very strong case for the establishment of such an institute. A report published recently indicates that by 1986 extra places will be required for about 30,000 students and this is all the more reason for us in County Mayo to be anxious that some of those places will be provided in our county.

The Minister has on his desk a request to establish an agricultural college at Ballinafad on premises recently vacated by an Order of priests. The application has been supported by the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture and those responsible for the project have made an irrefutable case for it. I hope the Minister will listen to them and give a favourable reply.

I was glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture yesterday refer to the £25 million in land bonds to be made available by way of capital to the land Commission. There is still great need in my constituency for further land acquisition to facilitate the restructuring of holdings and to provide land for development farmers in order to make their holdings viable, but I agree with the policy aimed at dividing land already in Land Commission possession before proceeding to acquire further land.

It is heartening to see an increase in the capital budget allocations for telecommunications and transport. Tourism is a very important industry in the west and the importance of good communications, whether by way of telephones or roads, needs to be stressed. I hope we will see a rapid extension of automatic exchanges to principal centres in the west.

On the question of transport I would draw the Minister's particular attention to CIE rail services to Mayo. There is need for improved rolling stock in that area and I hope that in the near future the Minister will provide us with modern carriages. I would point out that we are only looking for the type of coaches that are standard in other areas.

Still on the question of communications and tourism, I should like to refer briefly to a project mooted by some enterprising people in the west. Connacht is the only province without an airport. Its economy is heavily dependent on tourism. We are not seeking a large sophisticated structure. We are thinking on the lines of an airport capable of taking charter planes to be sited in such a way that it can be extended later, if necessary. I suggest that economic development of Connacht depends on such a facility and I hope that any proposals submitted in this respect will get an encouraging hearing from the Minister.

Once more I congratulate the Minister and the Government on producing a budget that has been so widely accepted because of its obvious gearing to the economic difficulties the country is experiencing. I hope it will enable us to take off when national and international economic conditions improve.

Mr. White

Times have changed under the new Fianna Fáil regime. The last speaker referred to a budget. I should like to talk about all the budgets since Christmas, because hardly a week has passed in which the price of something or other has not been increased. What we are discussing today is just one more budget. Leading up to this last budget people were conditioned to expect bad provisions. Since its introduction, Deputies on the other side have been engaged busily trying to make the public forget that as each day passes the price of something has been changed. Have Fianna Fáil Deputies forgotten, or do the public recall, that reconstruction grants and central heating grants have been taken away and that the prices of gas and electricity have been increased? We have been told that the cost of telephones and postage will be increased; there have been increases in the price of milk and at least 40 per cent of the items that people eat and wear have been increased in price. All this took place in the first couple of months of 1980. Now we have the taxation system geared to indirect taxes instead of direct taxes. Some people may welcome this because they have been told they will benefit financially. This is not so. If we take the motoring public alone, they will be paying £125 million extra and the concessions given to the PAYE workers will amount to only £131 million, which means that petrol users will contribute nearly all of the benefits to be enjoyed by the taxpayers. It was generally accepted that a change had to be made in the PAYE system. Probably the change made has not been big enough. Many of us would like to see the PAYE sector encouraged to work more and to pay less tax.

We are not talking about only one budget in this debate. Since the beginning of the year increases have been imposed practically every week and if it is not an increase in price, Fianna Fáil are blaming somebody else for the muddle they have got themselves into in the past three years. Like the previous speaker I come from one of the western counties and the budget was a drastic one so far as we were concerned. People in the west think they have been totally discriminated against by the Government. It appears the further one lives from Dublin the more one has to pay.

The motoring public have been hit very badly. The charges imposed in this area will affect particularly people from areas such as Galway Mayo, Kerry, Cork and Donegal. For example, in Donegal there is neither a railway service nor a proper bus service. We are relying on a skeleton type of public transport service. Thank goodness some private operations are starting now to give the public some kind of service. It is true that when Deputy Ryan was Minister for Finance the price of petrol was increased by 15p per gallon but the difference between that occasion and the savage increase inposed in this budget is that when the National Coalition increased the price it was done as a result of an increase occurring in the Middle East. Since the beginning of this year petrol has been increased on three occasions. First there was the increase of 10p which everybody forgot when they heard about the 20p increase and a few days after the budget there was a further 2p increase. We cannot blame the Arabs for this savage imposition. It was imposed by Fianna Fáil to pay for the promises they made in their manifesto. The position now is that a gallon of petrol is 30p dearer here than in Northern Ireland and the same difference applies in the case of diesel. To anybody's way of thinking this price difference is dreadful.

Perhaps we should cast our minds back to the Fianna Fáil manifesto when they told the people they would remove car tax. They did that and it is only right to give them credit. There was an average saving of £30 to car owners. However, it has not been spelled out that Fianna Fáil have increased the price of petrol between this budget and the previous increase by 32p per gallon. In an area like my constituency the average motorist travels about 400 miles per week. If one works out the miles travelled and multiplies them by the 32p increase one gets an answer of £4.20 per week that the motorist has to pay. Instead of paying £30 per year on tax the motorist will pay more than £220 per year for the increased cost of petrol alone. People are beginning to realise what has happened. They know that when they now spend £10 at the petrol pump their tank will only be three-quarters full. This savage increase will yield more than £125 million to the Exchequer and it has been imposed by the new Arab Fianna Fáil Government. Some people living in Border areas are going to Northern Ireland to purchase petrol and that is quite understandable.

In addition to the increase in the price of petrol, the Government have told us that the excise duty on new cars is being increased. In the past few weeks some of the main Fianna Fáil speakers have been talking about co-operation between Northern Ireland and the South. Let us talk about co-operation on the prices front. Are we encouraging people in the North to look across the Border when there is a 30p difference in the price of a gallon of petrol?

It is estimated that one in four of the population owns a car. Fianna Fáil have announced they will increase the excise duty from 35 per cent to 40 per cent. At present even in the case of the smallest cars—the Ford Escorts and Minis —there is a difference of £1,000 between prices here and in Britain and in Northern Ireland. The difference is £1,500 to £2,000 in the case of larger cars. This money is not going to the manufacturers. It is going into the coffers of the Exchequer to pay for the promises made by Fianna Fáil in their manifesto.

It worries me that we are fast becoming one of the most expensive countries in Europe. I was in London recently and it was obvious to me that this country is much more expensive. Grade for grade, hotels are cheaper in London as are food, clothes and items in the supermarkets. We must consider seriously where we are going with the spiralling inflation that has taken over the country. It must be a cause for concern that a country of our size with a population of three million people will have one of the highest inflation rates in Europe in 1980.

The price of petrol should not have been increased. There is uproar in every town and village with regard to the savage increase imposed by the Government. Petrol will cost everybody more, the transport companies, the tourists and industry. We must remember that in some parts of the country we have no railway or bus service. I hope that the Minister of State will take specific note of the position in which we find ourselves living in a cinderella county. For example, in Donegal we have no railway. We have four express buses leaving the capital and going to Donegal. The only other bus service we have, particularly in the north and north-east, is the Lough Swilly service. Rumour has it at present that the Lough Swilly company intend to pull out of County Donegal completely because, as I understand it, they are not getting any subsidy from the Government here. We have been talking about cross-Border co-operation and trying to get grants to help people survive in cross-Border areas. Here is a problem that will raise its head in the very near future when the bus company will have to pull out of east and north Donegal because of inadequate funds from the Government.

A colleague of mine, Deputy Conaghan, put down a specific question in the Dáil on 5 March 1980 and the answer given by the Minister for Transport was that there was an interim arrangement to ensure the continuity of road passenger services in the area served by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company. The question of future arrangements for these services was being examined and a decision would be taken as soon as possible. I suggest that the Minister enter into serious discussions with this bus company and see if the Government here could help them in some way. In the budget I note that CIE, even though getting £55 million in subsidy at present are, I understand, getting a rebate of 5p per gallon on diesel oil. That being so, I suggest that all bus companies, whether private or the same as the Lough Swilly company in Donegal, should get this rebate.

Private bus operators are working successfully because, I take it, CIE are not providing an adequate service in a particular area. If private operators do not get some help such as a subsidy some of them will go under. Such a service is much needed in areas like the north-west, Galway, Kerry and west Cork. At present the Government are not encouraging these operators but they are encouraging CIE to get a greater subsidy which will have to be paid by us, as taxpayers, eventually. There should be more forward thinking about the communication system in relation to buses. If CIE are not able to operate efficiently in some of these remote areas and if a private bus operator or the Lough Swilly company are willing to provide a service they should get a subsidy and should certainly get a rebate on the same scale as CIE.

Recently I visited a certain country abroad where the taxi owners were encouraged to do much of the work that CIE would be doing here. When they imported a car to do taxi work they had to pay no excise duty and in turn they were limited as regards the fares they could charge. One could travel anywhere in that city for the equivalent of 50p. I do not suggest that you could reduce the price here to 50p but one of the greatest costs taxi operators here are up against is the cost of their vehicles. I think what is wrong in Government at present is that we are carrying on in the same old dogged way instead of trying to think up new ideas and provide a more exciting kind of community. Perhaps the taxi operators here should be encouraged to work on cheaper fares and the only way that could be done would be to try to give them cheaper vehicles and also fuel rebates.

In the city I visited one could travel anywhere in a taxi, perhaps for a half hour, for 50p. We all learn something abroad. That was one of the things I learned on the last occasion. Perhaps the Minister for Transport here should seriously consider having a better type of transport service. Later, I shall deal with the roads and with congestion in Dublin. I think that the taxi service more than anything else should be encouraged even in places like west Mayo or west Galway. If there was a taxi available that would run perhaps 100 milles for £5 it would be well worth while. At present a visitor at Dublin Airport who wants a taxi to County Clare, for instance, would probably be quoted about £50. It happened to a friend of mine last summer. How could we expect tourists to come if they are to be lacerated with prices like that?

Our transport policy has been relaxed in the past couple of years as regards bus routes and private operators. It should be further relaxed. Where CIE are not giving an adequate service, if there is a private operator willing to do it, he should be encouraged. Perhaps a similar system could be introduced whereby we could legalise cheaper fares and encourage people to travel more cheaply by giving bus operators vehicles free of excise duty. Unless we do something like this I do not know what will happen. It is beginning to cost so much to live in the places about which I am speaking that we are encouraging people to come to cities and towns, and this is socially unjust in the long run.

There was not enough clamour when the railways were being cut back 20 years ago. Many lines were closed down because they were not paying and the right decision was not taken. We did not look to the future and the situation will worsen during coming years. These railway lines should have been kept and we should encourage more freight traffic on the railways. One of the greatest problems in this city is the traffic problem. The journey from Phoenix Park to here can take the best part of an hour. As people become more prosperous the number of cars will increase and some thought must be given to a highway or ring road for Dublin.

The budget has been savage for the motorist. He may gain a certain amount through PAYE changes but he will pay in the region of £220 extra in the price of petrol alone, not taking account of the increase in the price of cars and the increased registration fee. The motorist will realise that he is being hoodwinked.

I am very concerned about the fishing industry. I happened to meet a trawler-man last Saturday and he told me he has estimated that the diesel used in operating his fishing boat from the port of Killybegs will cost an extra £700 per week. Admittedly he has a fairly big boat and the average figure may be about £400 per week per fishing vessel. Fishermen will not be able to afford their boats during the next few years because of these massive cost increases. They will need a very large increase in the price of fish and will also need to catch greater quantities. Many of them are set for a very rough passage.

Provision is made in the budget for mushroom growers and tomato and hothouse owners to get a rebate in relation to fuel costs and a similar arrangement is made for CIE. This should apply also to fishermen. Many of them will not be able to exist without such a rebate.

How many people realise that our fishermen are competing against fishing vessels from other EEC countries? The French fleet receive a subsidy from their Government towards the cost of oil for their boats, yet here we have an industry in its infancy and the Minister for Finance has decided that fishermen can afford to pay an extra £400 or £500 per week. Most of our fishing ports are far from Dublin and when the fish are landed they must be loaded on to lorries for the long journey to Dublin. In the case of Killybegs the journey is 400 miles. The cost of diesel oil will put the livelihood of fishermen in jeopardy and they will have to ask the public to pay more for fish. The intervention price of fish is so low at present that they must be dumped back into the sea. On the one hand there are spiralling costs, particularly in relation to diesel oil, and on the other hand disastrously low prices for fish. The Minister must consider these problems before there are redundancies in this industry.

The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry told the House earlier today that about 250 fishermen are in arrears in payments on their boats. If something is not done urgently then in six months time there will be many more fishermen in arrears.

What about the indirect line being taken by the Government? Has anyone mentioned the BIM cutbacks in their offices? Does the Minister for Finance realise that the allocation for the production of literature designed to encourage people to eat more fish has been cut back from £30,000 to a meagre £10,000 for 1980? The cookery demonstrators who have been doing such a good job in showing people how best to cook fish are not being allowed to do as many cookery demonstrations as in the past and their jobs may be in jeopardy. This is because of the indirect budget whereby every Minister has been told he will have to cut corners because we are fast running out of money and we will not be able to borrow on favourable terms unless there is a cut-back. The Minister should tell BIM not to cut back in the area of demonstrations. I have already explained how hard it is for fishermen to make a living and mentioned the low price being paid for fish. It would be entirely wrong to cease efforts to encourage people to buy and eat more fish.

Debate adjourned.