Deputy Lipper has 11 minutes left.
Estimates 1980. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £3,638,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
—(An Taoiseach)
When concluding I was referring to the savage increase in rents imposed on corporation tenants. The most disturbing aspect of this adjustment is that it is directly aimed at the less well off. I am certain that the Minister will have to retract this increase because opposition to it is gathering momentum. If the Minister does not change his policy the people dwelling in local authority houses will remind his party at election time about this foul deed.
Another racket is going on in relation to SDA houses. Many young couples are on huge bridging loans and the Minister is allowing this terrible crime to continue despite a reminder from the Opposition. The building societies will not release loans to young couples until the local authority have taken responsibility for the roads and sanitary services in new estates. This takes a long time so people have to continue on bridging loans at exorbitant rates. People can remain on bridging loan for as long as 12 months and not a penny of their loan will have been paid. This terrible crime is the responsibility of the Government.
The Government will tell us that they made a £1,000 new house grant available. I concede that this was a very wise political move which helped return the Government to office in 1977. At that time a house cost from £9,000 to £11,000 but today the same house costs from £18,000 to £20,000. The price of houses today does not go up by hundreds of pounds but by thousands. My son purchased a house last October for £15,000 from a reputable builder but now the same house costs £18,000. Do the Government realise that, because of their inactivity in controlling the price of houses in 1977, in a short ten weeks houses went from £15,000 to £18,000. This is the reality. In the face of what the Government are doing how can people buy homes of their own? Is there any shame left in the Government? What has gone wrong? Do Fianna Fáil think that the electorate will continue to fall for gimmickry like the manifesto? They will know that when they go to the polls within two years.
The Limerick City Corporation are losing £10,000 a week in giving gas supplies to consumers. This is a public utility service and people are entitled to this type of energy. We need a financial injection from the Government to keep this essential service in operation. A request from the Limerick Corporation to the Minister for Energy to meet a deputation has fallen on deaf ears. The Minister is not interested. The Taoiseach has a Limerick member in his Cabinet and he is equally disinterested. Is it because of the divisions in the Cabinet? My constituents shall not be penalised because of internal divisions in the Government. We demand action now. The Limerick City Corporation will go bankrupt like the city of New York if the Minister does not move immediately to relieve this industry. The banks are on the doorsteps of the gas works to close it down. It can only be salvaged by a huge injection of capital in the short-term and in the long-term we must be included in the national grid. Gas is coming from Kinsale and is a national resource. It belongs to all the people.
I would remind the Government of their promises to the trade unions to maintain the labour force at its existing strength. I hope the Minister is not reneging on this issue. As well as being an essential service Limerick Gas Works give good employment. The cost of naphtha has risen by a few hundred per cent since we changed from solid fuel to oil in the making of this gas and this is the reason for our serious financial position in relation to Limerick Gas Works. I hope the Minister for Energy will give us what we feel we are entitled to, a financial injection in the short term and then include us in his plans for the national grid.
I wish to refer to what I consider to be a disgraceful and shameful decision taken in relation to sport by the Government. In my opinion they made a big faux pas in banning sportsmen and women from participating in the Olympic Games. The Taoiseach personally disappointed me. I always associated him with the sporting fraternity. Possibly I gave him more credit than I should. Any wisdom or foresight would have shown him that one Olympic gold medal winner would do more good in promoting the name of Ireland than all the ambassadors or embassies in our name could do in a lifetime. The chance of a gold medal in this year's Olympics was never better. No consideration was given to the trouble to which young sportsmen and women went and to the adverse effect this decision will have on the future of sport here. The Government capitulated to the whim of Uncle Sam. The big stick was wielded and a cowardly decision was made. A glorious opportunity was lost when we could have shown the world that we may be small in size but big in stature, that no matter what size our nation was we would not take dictation from anybody. The Irish helped to build the American nation, a fact of which we are very proud, but we make our own decisions as an independent nation and we should not foul up sport with politics. Personally I believe the stain of that unwise decision in the name of our people is on the hands of the Government. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs said earlier that he would prefer to see the seventies going into the history books that will be one piece of history that he will be terribly ashamed of when it is written.
The Deputy has exhausted his time. He is now intruding on the time of other speakers.
I am sorry. In that case I must conclude but it would be remiss of me not to say that since the elevation of some of the new Deputies to junior Ministries, in my experience in dealing with most of them I have found them most co-operative and helpful and I want to put that on record.
I have been listening to most of the debate and I should like to pay a compliment to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle whose job it was to protect Members of the House in circumstances where they were under vicious attack. The type of speech made in many cases, to quote somebody else, diminished the House. It was the type of attempt to assassinate character with which I have little sympathy:
The purest treasure mortal times afford
Is spotless reputation. That away, Men are but gilded loam and painted clay.
I pay tribute to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his efforts to keep the level of discussion in the House as high as possible in the circumstances.
There has been reference to the possibility of a solution to the serious problem that we have by reason of the country being partitioned. I do not intend to deal in any significant way with this problem although it impinges on me in my constituency and in my normal work as a politician. One thing that surprised me about the House was the reaction to suggestions as to a federal solution to the problem and the immediate illogical conclusion drawn when this was mentioned that in some way people who spoke of it as a possible solution were suggesting a two-nation theory. Members of the House interested in this problem could with benefit study the position in countries where a federal system has been operating in some form.
Recently, I was at a UNESCO meeting in Sophia and the representative of the Federal Government of Canada at that meeting was the Minister of Education for Nova Scotia, a man who gloried in a name which would not be strange in the purlieus of this House, Mr. Donoghue. But there was no problem about him acting as Minister of Education from Canada although in fact he was Minister of Education of the Province of Nova Scotia.
The relationship between the States of the United States and the Federal Government is also one which would repay careful study by people interested in our problem in Ireland. There are many well-defined rights of which the states are more than jealous, rights that would find very capable exponents in the Six Counties of North East Ireland, posts and positions which would be well filled by the very able people in public life and the very able people that would come into public life if we succeeded in getting some solution to our problem. The Federal Republic of Germany was represented at that meeting by Herr Franke who is the Minister of Education in Lower Saxony. Again, there was no difficulty in his representing the Federal Republic although in fact he was Minister for Education in one of the Länder and was chosen to represent his country.
I think some Member of the House referred to Switzerland in this context. I suggest that before we begin tying two states to anything making a dichotomy we could study with profit for ourselves the relationship between provinces and central government in Canada, states and Federal Government in the US Länder and Federal Government in Germany and the cantonal arrangement in Switzerland, that is if we want to make any positive contribution and be fruitful in what we say about this subject and if we do not want—to mix the metaphors a little—a patron saint of the dog in the manager.
To come to my own particular subject and interests I have listened to various references to education and education difficulties and I want to put on record some of the achievements of the Department of Education and of my own Ministry in this Adjournment Debate. We hear of the dire economic straits, we hear that as a result education is suffering heavily. I want to present the House with some unadorned facts and leave the House and the country to judge for themselves.
I want, first of all, to put on record that there has been an increase of over £100 million or 24.6 per cent in the provision in the Estimates for this year compared with the 1979 Estimates. That is extra money being provided and there cannot be any doubt about that. No amount of irrelevancy can cloud that fact. That fact is stubborn. It may be said that we should not be making comparisons but, for the record, I want to say that the gross Estimates of £510,513,000 —it cannot stop at that as the House knows—for education this year compares with an Estimate of £273,794,000 in 1976, the last full year of the Coalition term in office. This represents an increase in real terms—those are the two words that are emphasised most in debates on figures and statistics in the House—of 11.5 per cent. The capital provided in my three years as Minister totals £149 million compared with £91,580,000 in the last three years of the former Administration, an increase again in real terms of more than 20 per cent. I have listened to all the statements of doom in the course of the debate and I want to refer to the positive measures I mentioned at the outset. I recently announced a comprehensive range of reductions in the pupil—teacher ratios in national schools. Three hundred additional teachers will be employed this year for the purpose of reducing class size and providing remedial instruction in our schools. I am continuing this year also the provision introduced in 1979 of providing remedial teachers ex-quota in post primary schools. A further 100 teachers of remedial education will be placed in remedial educational positions this year.
I am pleased to have come to the aid recently of our secondary schools by taking over the payment of the pay-related social insurance and by meeting the full costs of substitute teachers, a substantial injection of funds to secondary schools of the order of £2.8 million has been made. In a time of financial restraint this is a significant contribution by the Government to secondary schools and is an effective answer to those who allege that there is discrimination against secondary schools. We have made a provision of £1.565 million for the continuance of the youth employment scheme and, as the House knows, £5 million has been made available from the tripartite fund for sport and recreational facilities. The record of any individual year will stand on its own feet. It is appropriate that I refer to what has been done because the greatly increased provision for education this year is a reflection inter alia of the significant expansion in educational services introduced in the last three years.
I want to summarise the major improvements that have taken place. At primary level the pupil—teacher ratio has been improved on four occasions since 1977. In all, since that time 1,700 additional teachers have been appointed bringing the total number of teachers from 17,300 to 19,000. Of this increase some 1,000 have been deployed to reduce class size and to provide for remedial education. As I have already mentioned, a further 300 will be appointed in the 1980-81 school year for the purpose of reducing class size and expanding the provision for remedial education. As far as remedial teachers are concerned the 197 already appointed since 1977 and the further recruitment this year will bring the total of remedial teachers to over 600. In addition, we are close to reaching the stage when the large national schools will have a remedial teacher specially appointed to provide remedial education for backward pupils.
I would like to remind the House also that we are trying to concentrate our attention on the 40:1 pupil—teacher ratio schools and it is about those that parliamentary Questions usually are put down. Nevertheless, it is true to say that in many schools we have pupil—teacher ratios of as low as 14:1 and some points higher in the range up to 20:1. Quite a significant number of our pupils are taught in that particular pupil—teacher ratio atmosphere.
The capitation grant which was not increased in 1976 or 1977 has been doubled for the primary schools from £6 to £12 for 1979/80. By any standard an increase of 100 per cent over three years is no mean achievement. The facts speak for themselves. Schemes for secretarial assistants and for the employment of caretakers in the larger primary schools were introduced. These schemes have given employment to some 500 people. Seventy nine child care assistants have been recruited for schools for the physically and mentally handicapped. These schemes I have mentioned are new schemes and they have a social extension, they have an educational one and they certainly have an employment one. They are schemes which should occur to people whose social conscience is refined, who are committed to educational finance and particularly to people who are anxious to provide opportunities for employment in the State.
At post-primary level the pupil— teacher ratio was reduced in secondary schools, in community and comprehensive schools and in vocational schools. As a result of these improvements over 800 additional teachers have been appointed in post-primary schools. The scheme for the provision of secretarial assistants was extended also to the larger secondary schools. At the same time, the non-teaching staff in vocational schools and in regional colleges was significantly increased. In all, over 500 non-teaching personnel were appointed.
The tuition grant in lieu of school fees in secondary schools was increased in two stages from £50 to £70 per pupil. In addition, a special grant of £2 per pupil was paid to secondary schools in December 1979 towards the increase in the cost of energy. This grant has been retained for the present year. I have already referred to the part resolution of the cash crisis of secondary schools and the significant improvement in the finances of the secondary schools by the Department assuming responsibility for the payment of the pay-related social insurance contributions and undertaking the payment of full salary for substitute teachers. In all this year this will cost £2.7 million.
The higher education grants were dramatically increased within the past two years. The maximum grant has been doubled in the period from £300 to £600. Perhaps more significantly and more importantly for somebody who wants to get there, the eligibility limit has been increased from £2,950 to £6,100. I am particularly pleased that last year a big break through and one with great potential for the future, was made in adult and recurrent education.
I have heard this speech before.
I refer to the scheme for the provision of adult education organisers. Last year 50 organisers were appointed by vocational education committees. I look forward to these officers playing a dynamic role in the extension and furtherance of adult education throughout the country. I have plans for the utilisation of these officers for a significant contribution to third level education.
Last year, too, a scheme was introduced for the employment of 100 youth development officers who will also play an active and dynamic role in the development of our young people. Measures taken in relation to the provision for youth employment deserve special mention. In 1978 a scheme employing 1,300 young people was implemented at a cost of £1 million. In 1979 a further £1.5 million was spent on additional projects employing more than 2,000 young people. This year, as I have stated already, a sum of £1.565 million is being provided.
I am pleased that many of the improvements made have resulted in the creation of a large number of teaching and non-teaching posts. This increase in posts will continue to confer advantage in the schools over a long number of years ahead. It must be remembered, however, that the cost of many of these improvements will also increase annually through the awards of increments on the scales of salary of those who have been recruited. There is a tendency for people when looking at one year in isolation to decry the provision made in that year. They conveniently overlook the fact that not only has provision to be made for the new services introduced but that provision has to be made for additional costs arising as the years go on. In this regard, it is relevant to refer back to the statistic I quoted earlier that compared to 1976, there has in this year's estimates been an increase of 11.5 per cent in real terms in the allocation for educational services.
I now want to look forward and to look at the possible scenario for the future. First, it is a truism, but one that does not lose any of its value by being repeated, that improvement in the level and quality of the educational system can only come from economic growth in our society. No Minister for Education can wave a magic wand and obtain all the financial resources he needs. Additional funding will be determined by the growth in our economy. We are all too painfully aware of the effects on our open economy of the world-wide depression, the huge increases in oil prices by the OPEC and other oil-producing countries, and the consequent need to transfer more and more of our resources abroad. These external factors are of such dimension and our economy is of such an open nature that growth in GNP presents us all with a formidable challenge. Anyone, even with the least imagination, can guess what a Minister for Education would be able to do with even half of the £800 million that must be transferred this year to the oil-producing countries in respect of that part of our energy that is derived from oil.
In education it places a responsibility on me as Minister to ensure that the tax-payer is getting the best possible value for the money expended on the various educational services. I can assure the House that my Department and I will see that that objective is achieved. In the context of scarce resources the concept of priority must prevail all the more. The House well knows the host of demands being made on me for this new service or that new service and for additional funding of existing services. There are few Members in the House who have not from time to time made representations to me in one matter or another. We must all be conscious of the fact that a choice has to be made between competing interests. Moreover, we must realise that in choosing to fund one kind of educational service we must not do so at the expense of another and perhaps equally desirable service. Because of many factors not least the continuing growth in the school-going population which will continue—albeit at a slower rate—to the end of the decade, the scope for massive improvements and innovations in the educational system is limited.
In these circumstances it is my responsibility to the Government and to the House to determine the order of priorities for State spending on education. Obviously, our first requirement must be to cater for the many thousands of additional pupils seeking places in our educational institutions. This year, for example, it is expected that an additional 14,000 students will need to be provided with school places, other ancillary services and with the most expensive input of all, that is, teachers to instruct them. This is a hidden factor which many people do not realise has got to be provided for each year in framing the Estimates. The Government and I have already decided that priority should be given to the first and second levels of the educational system. Primary education in general needs our support and we shall press ahead to do what we can in this sector. In particular the socially and economically deprived pupils merit all the support we can give them. There has to be a positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged. Education must be styled to the cultural background of disadvantaged children and to prepare them for whatever job opportunities are available. This will be a priority in educational policy in the next couple of years.
Our society must become a more caring society and be prepared to make sacrifices for the disadvantaged. I know that I can count on the professionalism, the dedication and the commitment of our teachers at all levels to do their part. For my part, I will continually strive to obtain the maximum resources to finance the work. But financial resources of themselves will not solve the problem—the love, the care, and the concern of all involved in education, whether in administration, in management or in teaching, will be required. I am satisfied that the goodwill is there. It merely requires to be harnessed and directed.
In the limited time available to me I want to turn to and concentrate on a fundamental issue facing educationists today. I refer to the need to provide that kind of education that meets the challenges of the technological age, to provide for the demands of our continually developing industrial society without harming our children and to enable our children to avail themselves of the job opportunities as the manufacturing sector of the economy in particular expands.
I accept that the basic objective of the educational process is the development of the individual—morally, mentally and physically. There is the added objective of preparing the pupil to take his place in society and in the work force.
This is something that I feel very strongly about. Both at national and at international level considerable research is needed in this domain. We should have experiments, research and study into the question of what is the best possible form of education for our young people up to, say, the age of 16. We do not believe that the objective of our system should be to educate for any particular advantage to any particular enterprise. What we should be doing is trying to find what is the best curriculum for our students, both male and female, a curriculum that will leave their minds most creative, most flexible and most adaptable. Because it seems to me that, as the remaining years of this century pass, we will have a position in which our people will need to acquire new skills.
What I am talking about is flexibility, creativity and adaptability of mind in respect of education which will leave people capable of changing either their jobs or their skills several times perhaps without losing the freshness which such an education should give them. The subject is a complex one and one to which there is not any ready-made solution. But it is a field in which research, study and tests should be undertaken. I am on record already on that particular matter when it was raised at an international gathering and when I gained considerable support from the Minister for Education in the Netherlands for the views I expressed.
I appeal to parents to encourage their children to have open minds in regard to job opportunities. It has been said in the past that we have not been brought up to think in terms of employment in manufacturing industry but it is realised generally that this situation will have to be remedied.
There are worthwhile career opportunities for our young people in industry and it would be a great pity if, through lack of guidance or through any kind of inbred prejudice, young people should confine their career objectives to any narrow sphere.
We have had considerable growth in industry, particularly in the electronics sector, in a brief period. The job opportunities in that sphere are great and it would be a great tragedy if we had the expertise which is available now in our educational system but did not have people with the will to undertake these jobs. Our education system has demonstrated to industrialists that it can respond to their needs. The seventies was a period of great expansion in technological education. It was the decade which saw the establishment of NIHE Limerick, the opening of nine new regional colleges and the setting up of the NCEA.
The establishment of these institutions was a deliberate diversification of the structure of higher education. This diversification will be continued in the eighties. NIHE Dublin, will be opened in October next. Work on the construction of the new building for the College of Commerce has been commenced. Planning for the second phase of NIHE Limerick is well advanced, as is the new School of Engineering at UCD. The extensions to the last three RTCs—Carlow, Athlone and Letterkenny; all the others have been extended already—will be completed this year.
Four new regional technical colleges have been recommended to cater for the Greater Dublin area and preliminary planning for them has begun. Arising from the recommendations of the Manpower Consultative Committee, the Government have made available in the current year a sum of £1.8 million for the setting up of conversion and other courses to meet the estimated manpower shortage in certain engineering and electronic areas. The authorities of the higher education institutions have responded efficiently and quickly and have set up the courses required.
The education system is geared to provide the education and training required. The jobs in these areas are there. What is needed now is to ensure that all available places on these courses, particularly in engineering and electronics, will be filled. The guidance counsellors have assured me that the interest in getting places in these institutions has been heightened.
In all this, of course, it may be that pupils and parents lack information concerning in particular the value of qualifications obtained in regional technical colleges. I would hope that the many career guidance counsellors in our post-primary, particularly the secondary, schools would ensure that the pupils in their schools will be given all the information necessary to acquaint them of the various courses available. I am glad to learn of a school-industry link scheme, now being carried out on a pilot basis, which aims to promote a greater understanding and awareness among young people of the career opportunities available to them in industry.
I would like also to see a greater participation by second-level students in technical subjects, particularly at senior cycle level, where they can be introduced to subjects such as senior engineering, building construction and mechanical drawing. I have had correspondence from people in the schools who are afraid that in many cases the very high standards in vocational schools are becoming more like their nearest secondary schools and that therefore many of the senior students are neglecting the areas which I have just mentioned. This is evidenced by fewer candidates for those subjects in the leaving certificate examination.
I should like to refer in passing to a reference made by Deputy Horgan this morning to the Tussing Report and its projections. Professor Dale Tussing did a very good job in his examination of the possible needs of our educational system in the next number of years, but I take issue with his right to campaign politically on some of his findings even if I have not a quarrel with his modus operandi. I challenge his pessimistic conclusions.
It is good to get an opportunity at the end of any Dáil session to have a look at what has been happening. One of the areas I have some responsibility for is urban affairs. When one examines the track record of the previous administration under Deputy Lynch and the new one, particularly in the last year, one will not find any concern whatsoever for any development in the urban renewal areas, in conservation, in the whole developments of the urban concept. When the inter-departmental committee on inner city development issued their comprehensive report we hoped that at last we would see tackled all the anomalies besetting our urban areas.
That was a very good report because it identified the problems, and set out solutions for them, none of which would have involved major costs. That report appears to have been shelved and there has not been a peep from the far side about it, possibly because it was the brainchild of Deputy O'Donoghue, and anything he had anything to do with must be cast aside like an old boot—the present administration cannot be tainted with it. That, of course, is a rather shortsighted and narrow attitude.
That committee made various recommendations involving youth: employment, education, vandalism, housing, job experience. One has only got to walk around our cities, particularly Dublin, to see the steel-shuttered shops at night, depriving people of the old pleasure of window-shopping. Not alone can people not window-shop any more but they cannot walk the city streets in safety. They cannot park their cars. I read today about a visitor's car being stolen on two occasions. Recently we read of three people being killed because a car had been stolen. We are experiencing a general breakdown of law and order. We see social deprivation in our inner city. Schools are overcrowded because of the socio-economic background.
The report to which I have been referring recommended that the teacher-pupil ratio should be not higher than 20. Waxing eloquent about education, the Minister for Education a few moments ago mentioned the teacher-pupil ratio, but he said that the parliamentary questions being put down referred only to schools in which there was a teacher-pupil ratio of 40. I am talking about the real needs in education. Nothing whatsoever appears to be happening in this area. For example, there is no question of youth officers being deployed in these areas, no proper formulation of a youth policy for people who need guidance and who have not got it in their homes.
The Minister spoke about a 24 per cent increase in moneys allocated to education in the 1979 budget. To people who are not benefiting from it that means very little. The people about whom I am speaking do not have a strong voice in society but need the support and help of society to lift themselves out of the abyss in which they find themselves. The blueprint is there but, alas, this Government are not interested in tackling any areas of social injustice. They seem concerned only with public relations exercises. For example they have blown hot and cold on farmer taxation. As soon as the heat comes on we see their total change of attitude and they run for cover. They were proposing to modify the school transport system. This generated further heat, with headlines in the press, when the Minister made a statement to the effect that he would not proceed with that plan. Those are some examples of areas in which this Government govern by reaction. They float something and when the heat is generated, they back-track. This constitutes a recipe for every pressure group in the country to pressurise the Government when anything unpopular is proposed. What do they do? They run in the face of this pressure. It is moral cowardice at its worst.
This Government were given a thumping majority. We may talk about strong government. They are strong numerically but certainly not in courage. Their only thought is how they can literally con the electorate again because that was precisely what they did in 1977 when their slogan was: if you have a problem we have the solution. Their slogan in 1980 is: if you have a problem we have got a commission. That is the new gimmick and puts matters on the long finger whether it be in connection with labour disputes, income tax, electoral boundaries or whatever. Is that what governments are elected to do—to pass on the buck, delegate responsibility, hedge, procrastinate? It is not. But it seems to me that this Government and Taoiseach are consumed with the thought of the next general election and how it can be won, how they can pull the necessary strings to win it, how they can do the popular thing so as to be seen to be nice people. We witness these dispicable acts day after day. I am quite serious about this, I do not think our people are buying this for one moment. They were fooled a few years ago and are now only awaiting their opportunity at the next general election to demonstrate their disgust by putting this Government in their place, and that is in opposition. It gives me no pleasure to come in here and be critical but their record is there for all to see.
In the area of housing, for which I have some responsibility, costs have risen by 24 per cent from May 1979 to May 1980. We hear quoted all sorts of grandiose figures. One can talk endlessly about percentages and gloss them over but the local authority housing programme will be dramatically cut back. For example, in Dublin Corporation, of which I am a member, they received approximately a 6 per cent increase on last year's allocations, this with a 24 per cent increase in housing costs in the past year. One does not have to be too bright to foresee the cut-back that must be effected as a result, and that is in regard to housing only.
This Government announced the £1,000 new houses grant to a fanfare of trumpets. Then, when a further oil crisis arose, they decided they would give heating grants for conversion purposes. That was a great idea. But, when they found that that was costing a fair amount of money, what did they do? They eliminated those grants altogether. God knows the grant for heating conversion purposes in the sum of £600 was not a great deal but at least it was something. Now it has been abolished. As soon as that grant was abolished I appealed to the Minister to allow some grant for homes with outdoor toilets and no bathrooms. That request was turned down flatly. God knows people today living in homes without bathrooms or with outdoor toilets could not be said to be living in the eighties as far as housing is concerned: far from it.
Again I requested the Minister if, in designated areas, he would consider allowing grants for the maintenance or preservation of older houses, when again the reply was "no". I predict that this will lead to dereliction. If people living in older houses are not given grants to maintain or repair them—and I was advocating a higher grant than the miserable £600—then we shall witness the dereliction of houses, again placing a further burden on capital for the building of more houses rather than conserving, developing and improving existing older houses. That is the only sensible course to take but the Government ran away from that suggestion; they threw it out the window. In stringent times I would accept that there would have to be cut-backs on grants not absolutely essential, grants for porches and so on.
Old parts of Dublin, Cork and Limerick contain houses where bathrooms are required and where the brickwork needs pointing. If this work is not done there will be major urban blight. The present Government have no programme for the development of the inner cities. When the Coalition Government took office in 1973 there was a commitment to inner city housing and the positive results can be seen. Since this Government came to power there have been soundings and white papers, but the clear indication has been that inner city housing is not a sound proposition economically. A city without people will die. People are now being driven out of inner city areas and the Government are presiding over a situation of doom.
The whole area of local authority is under serious threat. The allocation to local authorities this year has been increased by about 10 per cent over last year's allocation but there has been an increase in costs of between 20 and 24 per cent. This means that there must be serious cut-backs. It is difficult to walk around our cities without twisting or breaking an ankle in the potholes in rundown areas. We were once proud of our cities because they had character and history but now they are being run down.
There is the same attitude towards pollution. I asked a question some time ago about the emission of pollution from heavy vehicles and I was told that nothing could be done yet. It appears that the police are powerless and buses and heavy lorries can emit the pollution which is ruining the health of our children and damaging our buildings. In 1983 the EEC will bring in some regulation with which we must conform. If this regulation were not to come into force it is obvious that nothing would be done in regard to pollution. One must question why the Government have to wait for action by the EEC. Can they not bring in legislation to tackle this serious problem of pollution which can have such serious consequences for the health of the people residing in our cities and those who travel to them daily to their places of employment?
There is another area of silence. I refer to the High Court decision on the matter of tenancy and rent control of pre-1963 premises. The matter has now been referred to the Supreme Court and questions have been asked in the House. Will any action be taken to ensure that people are protected? The answer given is that the matter is sub judice. The courts of this land are making decisions which the Government should be making, and this is being used as an excuse by the Government. They must re-examine the whole question of rent control and consider how to alleviate hardship if these controls disappear. Many elderly people live in rented accommodation and we have a duty to protect them. The Government should have made a statement to the effect that if rent control is removed they will subvent the rents of people in this category. It is terrible that people in the autumn of their lives should have to live in terror waiting for a court decision. I represent an older part of Dublin and I am not exaggerating the fear which exists among elderly people there. I try to alleviate it as far as I can but the Government must clearly state that they are prepared to subvent their rents. The precedent has already been established because this is done in the local authority housing area where rent subsidies are paid. People who own their own houses are all right. They do not have to pay rates but they must maintain their houses. People in private rented accommodation must be protected. We are told that the matter is now sub judice.
We must be careful on this matter because it is on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Some of it is on appeal.
We have already ruled on this. The Deputy may deal with the rents issue but not with the court aspect.
I am making reference to a court decision.
The Deputy may not do so because the decision is on appeal. It is still before the court.
The decision will have relevance in certain cases. The whole question is not in abeyance pending a particular decision; it is in abeyance pending a decision for a number of people who were brought to court. Action can be and is being taken against people who have no protection. Can they say to a landlord that he may not put up the rent or terminate their tenancy because the matter is sub judice? Of course they cannot do so because the court did not say that. The cases which are on appeal are those cases which were heard by the court. The Government are hiding behind the excuse that this whole question is sub judice. They know this is not honest but they do not want to grasp the nettle. There may have been a ruling but I do not believe it will stand up.
We must leave it at that. Quite a part of the question is before the court. It is very difficult for the Chair to decide this matter but it would be wiser not to debate it.
I do not want to put the Chair into an awkward position but the point must be made.
The Deputy has made it.
It will be falling on deaf ears as usual but it is no harm to have it on record that the whole situation is not as they say it is.
These are some of the matters this Government are running away from. Their whole attitude towards the less well off in society and the surveys that have been done clearly indicate that any benefits—God knows there are few—that are conferred are conferred on those who have. People who have not—large families, low income groups and so on—are not getting anything. In local authority areas there has been a savage rent increase. I know of a case where a man lives in a dungeon of a room. It is in an old fire brigade station, more than 200 years old. His rent went up by £1.50, and that for one room with no toilet or other facilities and with flagged floors. Is that a sense of social justice? Have the Government any conception of the way people are living?
I ask the Minister to look at the whole rent situation. The way it was handled with NATO was very bad. They are a responsible body. An agreement was made with them by the previous Government in 1973 that they would negotiate rent increases and come to some reasonable agreement on them. Prior to the general election an agreement was made with them by Fianna Fáil. It was a document signed by a Minister saying that they would agree to carry on the same formula and agreement. Less than three years later they have thrown that agreement back in the face of NATO saying that they are not interested and they will tell NATO what they will do.
That is not the way to govern or bring about peace. If that is the kind of negotiations entered into by the Government no wonder we have industrial strife throughout the country. I ask the Minister for the Environment to reconsider the question of rent increases. Rent increases are necessary from time to time. They should be negotiated with NATO, who represent the vast majority of tenants. The Government chose to ignore that. They sent for NATO, talked down to them and told them that this is what they were doing. That is a recipe for disaster and disruption, which is something none of us wants to see. If that is the attitude of the Government towards responsible bodies, God help us. It is no wonder we have chaos not only in that area but in the industrial area also.
I heard only a small part of Deputy O'Brien's contribution. Judging by the content of that small part I was lucky to be late arriving in the House.
The Minister was lucky he was not earlier because I would have taken in his area, which is a disaster land.
It strikes me that in the half-an-hour the Deputy had he did not say much of consequence. For a short while before he finished he was saying on the one hand——
The Minister has been there for three years and has presided over strike after strike and done nothing.
Deputy O'Brien, please, you had your half-hour.
The Minister introduced it. If he wants this kind of thing I will only be too prepared to take him on. His track record as a Minister has been disgraceful.
There is no "taking on" in this House.
I am sorry but the Minister started it.
The Chair has to finish it. The Minister without interruption.
I better give him another half-hour. Perhaps he will improve.
The Minister brought these interruptions on, and if the Chair is not prepared to control the Minister I will take this on.
The Minister, please, without interruption.
I listened to a short part of Deputy O'Brien's contribution. It was helpless gloom and doom——
If the Minister reads the papers he will read all about that.
Mr. G. FitzGerald:
Even if the Deputy had another half-an-hour I doubt if he would improve his performance to any extent. In this debate there are many areas that have been and must be referred to. In our economy at present we are at a vital stage of our development. We have a young work force and we face the future with a young work force. This will continue to expand over the next few decades. We will have to provide them with worthwhile employment and a reasonable standard of living. They are a tremendous asset in our society and economy. This will be a difficult objective, with the future forescasts there are for the world economy, but it is one the Government are committed to. We are taking steps to use to the best possible advantage the asset that our young people represent.
On youth employment, I want to assure Deputies that the youth employment situation is more favourable than some commentators have suggested. Deputies will no doubt be aware of the developments in this area following on the 1975 recession. Our experience, which was similar to that of most western countries, was that youth unemployed increased much more rapidly than unemployment as a whole. In 1977 unemployment in the 15-24 age group, which stood at 42,000, accounted for 42 per cent of the total unemployment, while youth made up only 28 per cent of the labour force. Faced with this high level of youth unemployment, the Fianna Fáil Government recognised that the problem would not be, solved merely by an improvement in the economic situation and that employment schemes specifically for youth would have to be drawn up. New youth schemes were introduced and existing ones were expanded. Last year these schemes provided places for well over 11,000 participants compared with only about 2,000 in 1977. Expenditure on youth employment schemes amounted to £10.8 million in 1979. While we cannot say precisely what the present level of youth unemployment is, all the indications are that it has declined considerably from the 42,000 figure obtaining in 1977. The rapid expansion of youth employment schemes, the record increases in employment in the last few years, and the continuous declining trend in the live register in the period from June 1977 to December 1979 all point to that conclusion.
I have already indicated that because of unfavourable developments in the economic situation, internationally and domestically, the trend in unemployment has been increasing in the first five months of this year. However, all the major youth employment schemes are being continued and this will ensure that any increase in unemployment due to the present recession will not fall too heavily on our young workers and school leavers, as happened during the term of office of the last Government. The allocations for these schemes from all sources, which amount to almost £10 million, will allow them to operate at near to last year's level. It is now estimated that employment generally has increased by 17,000 in the year ending April 1980, despite unfavourable conditions pertaining internationally and domestically. More than 9,000 of this increase were within the manufacturing industry sector. The employment incentive scheme has held steady this year and that is an encouraging and good indicator.
I see the principle obstacle to an achievement of full employment at present as the high rate of job losses. If we could contain or, indeed, reduce these losses we would achieve faster progress towards our national objective of full employment. The Government have already several schemes in operation to help firms in difficulty. I believe that with the help of our social partners we can achieve more. I was pleased to learn of the welcome extended today by a neutral observer to my colleague's announcement last night in the House of aid in the form of working capital to industry. I have no doubt that will have the effect of saving many thousands of jobs that might otherwise have been threatened.
On industrial relations it has often been said that good industrial relations have little news value and that it is only strikes, or the threat of them, which are likely to make the headlines. Little publicity is given to the fact that most differences between workers and employers are resolved through the normal collective bargaining procedures in a calm, peaceful and sensible atmosphere. Estimates of days lost due to industrial disputes show a considerable improvement. I have already given figures for the first quarter of this year and, as I indicated to the House, it was the best quarter since records were first kept in the Department. The estimates for the first half of the year are now available to us and the figure is just over 200,000 days lost compared with 1,315,000 for the same period last year. That shows a substantial improvement, but we must not be complacent about those improvements. We cannot be complacent about good industrial relations. They must be worked at by both sides. Procedures must be used and they can be used much more effectively than the use of the strike weapon, which does not help anyone but is so often resorted to. In saying that I am not trying to convey that the cause is on one side or the other. Indeed, experience has shown that it can be on either one side or the other, or both. It is encouraging that there has been such a substantial improvement.
I hope the trend continues. We know only too well that industrial relations are an extremely complex issue in which emotions and attitudes rather than logic and reason sometimes take precedence. I must pay tribute to the patience, dedication and skill of the many managers and trade union representatives who devote so much of their time working hard to seek out solutions to the many difficult issues which are part and parcel of the industrial relations scene. Because of the commitment and dedication of those hard working people, whose work never becomes public, possible dispute situations are averted.
Wherever two sides to a particular dispute fail to come to an agreement through direct negotiations the industrial relations service of the Labour Court is readily available to assist parties to resolve disputes. I should like to repeat the encouragement I have often given to parties to use those services to the fullest possible extent. It is vital that, when direct negotiations fail to bring about a settlement, the parties involved should jointly avail of the industrial relations service as an impartial third party to assist in reaching a settlement. In the whole industrial relations scene one aspect is more important than any other, and that is the question of communications. Good communications can mean so much in the work place; and if communications are right between all groups concerned they can help tremendously to avoid conflict. In the discussion document I issued on worker participation a chapter was devoted to codes of practice for information flow and communications. I have always felt that that is an important aspect.
I have noted a number of criticisms of the Labour Court in recent weeks. The annual report, which was published earlier this afternoon, shows the very large increase in the value of work undertaken by the court. They held 622 hearings and issued 575 recommendations as compared with 545 recommendations in 1978 and 462 in 1977. Members of the conciliation service chaired over 1,300 negotiations in 1979, an alltime high number, and prevented many difficulties arising.
I should now like to refer to the national understanding. The current national understanding will finish for some workers next week and, as Deputies are aware, I am discussing a new understanding with the social partners. I will make every effort on the Government's behalf to reach a satisfactory solution to these talks because we believe that with the present economic situation we must have some order in the management of our national affairs. Agreement on moderate wage increases would enable further progress towards the maintenance and creation of employment. Our objective as a Government is full employment and that is extremely important from the point of view of the country. It is important that we make use of the asset of having a youthful work force. Moderate wage agreements will go a long way towards overcoming the considerable economic problems ahead of us. It would give us a sound base and the desired stability on which to chart our way through whatever storms may lie ahead.
I should now like to refer to my responsibility for Public Service and the pay cost which are a direct charge on the Exchequer. This year's budget provision of £1,487,000 for these costs represents an increase of more than 28 per cent on last year. The size of the increase in the bill for the public service and indeed the effect on the finances of the Exchequer are matters of very serious concern in the face of the economic difficulties with which we are faced. I am concerned at the number of claims which are being made for special pay increases in the public sector. All of these groups have received in full the general increases under the national pay agreements and almost all of them have received in addition special pay increases within the last year or so. When it is realised that such groups enjoy relatively sheltered employment it is not unreasonable of the tax-payers and the Government on their behalf to have a serious view of those claims. I would ask the staff concerned to bear in mind the over-riding need for restraint in pay demands and to temper their expectations.
When considering the question of pay policy in the public sector one must have regard to the features which distinguish it from the private sector. First, it employs about a quarter of the total work force of the country. Second, it is relatively free of the constraints of the market place in that some or all of its costs fall on the taxpayer. Third, it provides a bewildering range of services in locations all over the country. This gives rise to unique problems in the area of pay determination. There must be a general acceptance of a system of determining pay rises which will be fair to staff in the huge variety of public service jobs and will provide adequate incentive for performance and efficiency and which, at the same time, will be in line with the national policy and with what the economy can afford. To achieve and to operate such a system in a reasonable way requires an element of co-ordination by central Government. Otherwise specific groups could achieve levels of pay not as a result of fair comparisons but because of their superior bargaining position that companies in the competitive sector could not match and stay in business. The perceived inequity of such an outcome could only result in resentment and a sense of grievance leading to industrial unrest among their less well placed colleagues and to unemployment.
I have heard some speakers during the past few days commenting on the commitment of the National Coalition to various reforms, various areas of progress. The commitment might have been there on paper but certainly there was no real positive commitment of a financial or practical nature. We heard about it; we read more about it. But nothing positive or practical was achieved. A positive example of the way in which we are adapting our institutions is the setting up of an ombudsman service. The Bill for this passed through the House recently. It will give effect to the recommendations of the all-party committee and represents a most significant milestone in the development of the relationship between the public, the Oireachtas and the public service administration. The development of that relationship is extremely important in our modern circumstances.
I would like to mention also the importance of mobility in the higher levels of the civil service. My commitment there is complete. The need for greater mobility is accepted by all. I look forward to rapid progress being made inachieving this important objective. In this House last week the leader of an Opposition party made references to the necessity to impose a solution to this problem. I do not share that approach. As I said, my commitment is complete. But he knows as well as anybody that there is a need for discussion and consultation in getting agreement on a subject such as this and I look forward to meaningful negotiations, useful progress being made by all sides in achieving the necessary mobility to which I refer, not just for the sake of that mobility, but to develop the public administration along lines that will make that development more suitable, more adequate to the changing needs of our society.
There is one matter that I would like to refer to briefly. Yesterday morning I listened with some interest to part of the speech of the Leader of Fine Gael, Deputy FitzGerald. Not for the first time in this House he made certain innuendoes, implied certain things. It is very hard to know what he meant. As usual he was not saying anything concrete or positive that one could investigate, that one could understand. I say to Deputy FitzGerald that he should come out from his hiding place behind these innuendoes about interference in the public service in some areas. Let him come out from his hiding place. I challenge him to come in here to this house and to say specifically a name or bring to my attention any complaints he has and he can rest assured that I will have them investigated and will have action taken on them. But I do not believe he can do that. I believe he will come back again with innuendoes in an attempt to tarnish the reputation and the integrity of this Government. My integrity as a member of the Government is as valuable to me as is the integrity of any other Member of this House. I can and will defend that integrity. Deputy FitzGerald's game is the oldest and lowest game in politics. It is one that has been used for so long by so many simply because the people playing this game had no policies which could be exposed or explained.
If the Deputy has positive complaints or proof of any mismanagement or wrongdoing, I can assure him that they will have my full attention. If he produces the facts to back up his charges, they will be investigated and action taken on them. In the meantime, I remind him that while he is busy indulging in those attempts—which, as I said, are the lowest of all political forms of leadership—to tarnish the reputation and integrity of this Government, he should first look behind him, look over his shoulders at his own benches for examples of——
The Chair has already ruled that there be no allegations of any kind. I have allowed the Minister to deal with the allegations made about interference with the public service. We shall leave it at that.
I was just about to finish. These were not allegations, they were innuendoes. I was defending the public service area. I was going to say that he should look over his own shoulder. Perhaps that is really where he should be looking.
This would be a good opportunity to talk a little of my own experiences as some sort of a help to Deputies of all parties who wonder about the developments which have taken place in our democracy in my time and, of course, before my time. Recently, at the ceremony to commemorate W. T. Cosgrave, references were made to the remarkable achievements of that little man, in so far as he moved out from the dreadful civil war period into this House. It was his job, from very tenuous raw material, mostly of dreadful hatred and all the consequences of an internecine struggle, to build up a democratic society. With the help of the other parties, eventually a parliament was created and the Houses of the Oireachtas came into existence.
An attempt was made to retain a kind of democracy which is unique in western Europe, with wonderful freedoms. With all its faults—and we all know it has its faults—the 1937 Constitution provided many safeguards; there was the proposal that members should simply meet here and, as Deputies, decide on the election of a chairman, and little further instruction to parliament beyond that. Since that time, of course, great changes have taken place. We have had the evolution of parties and, with the evolution of the three main parties, I suggest a progressive erosion of liberties. There is no doubt that the democratic idea of free debate and discussion is a very challenging one and, to the fearful, a very threatening one. I should like to refer—and I think it would be in order on the Taoiseach's debate—to what are the progressive moves away from democracy which I, anyway, have noticed over the years.
On the election of the Taoiseach, I expressed my grave fears that there might be an even more noticeable erosion of those liberties under his leadership. I have seen the change from the situation where individual Deputies could move motions and where individual Deputies could move Bills. I believe that this is a very healthy position, from the point of view that one could not, as a small party, small group, or individual, expect to have ideas accepted or pass laws, although this did happen on occasians—my colleague, Deputy Jack McQuillan, did succeed in having one Bill passed in the House. This is now quite unthinkable, because of restrictions imposed on all parties by agreement within the parties on the rights of individual Deputies.
Recently, I was unable to have a subject of great seriousness and importance even debated in this House because of the limitations on the number of Deputies required in order to have a debate. That is something which the Deputies should consider from time to time and, as I said, wonder as to whether they are happy with this development. The limitations of the penalties imposed on Deputies, the appalling Pavlovian punishment and reward stimuli to which each Deputy is subjected by party whips and by the incentive of office at some later period in some later Government, have greatly restricted discussions and debate and driven discussion, debate and the democratic idea back into the party rooms or to the party caucuses. The place is a lesser place for that.
I am not native enough to believe that one can live in a state of anarchy, with no suggestion of any kind of overall control or agreement on ideas for legislation or laws. At the same time I have noticed in recent months the attenuation of freedom of debate and discussion, liberty to debate and discuss sometimes ideas which are not acceptable to most of the Deputies but which, at the same time, are ideas which are acceptable throughout the rest of the world. While I accept that in relation to motions and Bills, there is nothing very much that one can do except lament the passing of freedom. There was one procedure in this House which I valued above all others. All Deputies valued it greatly. It is the whole idea of parliamentary questions. As a Minister I recall my apprehension coming into the House for parliamentary questions because I never knew what would be asked; nobody does. Parliamentary questions are a remarkable process which no manager of a manufacturing industry has to go through weekly on the day-to-day workings of a company. It is a remarkable phenomenon. Every Department can be asked to account for themselves. They can be asked the number of Christmas cards sent out and about the amount of money to be spent on a multi-million pounds hydro-electric scheme. I have always greatly admired the fact that this phenomenon exists. It is one of the features of parliament which makes it more worthwhile to be there, this day to day control of the Executive by the ordinary people because we of course represent the ordinary people. We have the right of access to the doings of the people that we put into the Executive and people such as the Taoiseach, the leader and Prime Minister of the country.
Recently I attempted to ask questions on an issue of grave importance which I realise is of great sensitivity. I want to make my position clear. I was not seeking to make trouble. I was deeply shocked by what I had read which was a grave assault on the integrity of certain Members of this House.
The Chair at this hour of the evening does not want any hassle with any Deputy but the Chair gave a ruling yesterday morning which has been obeyed by every Deputy in the House. I sincerely hope that Deputy Browne is not going to breach it now.
The point I am making is that the process of parliament recognises the separate individual position of each Deputy and each of us must conduct ourselves according to our lights as to the proper behaviour of a Deputy representing the public. I take Deputy Cluskey's point that we have discussed it to some extent but I am very surprised that a limitation has been accepted by the leader of the Opposition and to a lesser extent by the leader of the Labour Party, in this debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate where it has been traditional to debate the various matters that come before us during the session. I take Deputy Cluskey's point that there should not be a re-trial once somebody has been tried and found innocent. I would be the last to believe that this was a desirable process or a permissible one. I submit that there is one very important complicated factor here. I am not concerned by what Magill says for my own reasons, but about what has been said about us in this House and about our behaviour in this House. This is something that we have a right to consider. Was this rightly attributed to this man? This man's reputation is at stake also.
The Chair is telling Deputy Browne not to proceed on those lines. This House is not a court of law and I sincerely hope that if even Deputy Browne is put into the dock in this House there will be somebody in the Chair to protect his rights the same as every other Member's rights in the House. I am asking Deputy Browne not to continue on those lines. The Deputy has half an hour to deal with a very full and wide debate. Every other Member of the House has obeyed the ruling of the Chair.
It is undeniable that this person was a civil servant——
The Chair is asking Deputy Browne not to proceed on those lines.
——and as a civil servant——
The Chair has asked Deputy Browne not to continue on those lines. The Chair must be obeyed on this. Every other Deputy has obeyed the Chair and it is up to the Deputy to do likewise.
——and as a civil servant——
I am asking Deputy Browne not to continue.
——was the Secretary of the Department of Justice——
Deputy Browne. If Deputy Browne wishes to continue to speak in this debate he may speak but the Chair has already ruled and will insist on its rule being obeyed.
——for ten years. He——
I am asking Deputy Browne——
——was in control of security——
Deputy Browne will please resume his seat if he is not prepared to obey the Chair. I am very serious about this.
——and accused the Taoiseach of both treason——
Deputy Browne will resume his seat.
——and perjury——
Deputy Browne wants me to name him.
——and attributed to another member of the Cabinet——
I will name Deputy Browne.
——responsibility for bringing——
Deputy Browne wants to be named and put out. I am naming Deputy Browne and I would ask the Minister to move his suspension from the House.
——ammunition and guns into this country for use by the IRA.