Financial Resolutions, 1981: Financial Resolution No. 9: 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.

—(The Taoiseach).

Mr. Briscoe

I feel I should correct the impression given by the political correspondent of RTE, Mr. Donal Kelly, who quoted me on the radio this morning as having stated that anybody who criticised the budget was unpatriotic. That is not what I said. I have the verbatim report of what I said here. I shall tell in my own words what I said and then I shall read from the record. What I said was that every time the punt went down against sterling the concentration of attention on this by RTE in particular and the media in general covered the news in such a way that many people would get the impression that other currencies in the EEC had stayed where they were and had not also gone down against sterling. I said I considered this kind of action to be unpatriotic.

Let me quote from the actual record of the House. Speaking last night at about 6.50 p.m. I said:

We want a strong economy in Britain because 43 per cent of our exports go to that country and we want them to be in a position to buy our exports. There is no question about it, if we were still tied to sterling we would double the number of people on the employment register. That has been to our advantage. We are still approximately in the middle of European basket of currencies. We are still holding our own against other European currencies. What grieves me are the attacks of what I would call unpatriotic people in this House and in this country who all the time try to make other countries lose confidence in our ability to work our way through a recession...

That is what I said. It was in that context that I consider — I still do and I repeat it — that it is unpatriotic that every time the punt loses a point, whether .1, .2, .3 or .4 of a penny, whatever it is against sterling, it is always treated as if the Irish pound only and not all the other currencies of the EEC were affected. This is very important.

I feel particularly aggrieved because this is not the first time that I have been misquoted or quoted out of context by RTE. I hope that equal prominence will be given tomorrow to what I actually said. It is in the interest of every Member of the House and of democracy that what we say here should be said without fear or anxiety that it will be distorted. I have a responsibility to speak clearly. I even made a resolution this morning coming in that I would speak a little more slowly in order to make sure that what I said was taken down correctly. I feel that sometimes these reports are second hand or third hand. At that particular time, as Members here will know, there is only one person sitting up in the Press Gallery and he might get only half of what was said. It was important for democracy in this House that I got up and said what I said. On another occasion when I was misquoted by a certain newspaper the inaccurate quotations were hurled back at me by people later. One could write letters until doomsday trying to rectify the matter. We have a responsibility to speak clearly and slowly but the media also have a responsibility.

It has always been my philosophy that the very essence of democracy is the right of people to criticise government. I remember many years ago being persuaded by a former schoolteacher to say hello to another teacher with whom I had never got on. After about 20 years I met this man and his first words to me were: "You have a rotten Government". I replied to him that as long as we were in government we would protect his right to say that kind of thing and then I walked away from him.

When there is talk about the punt falling against sterling, account should also be taken of the position of our currency vis-á-vis the other currencies. Irish papers are sent to Irish people abroad and when they see again and again headlines stating that the punt has lost ground they think the country is going down the Swanee. All of us have a responsibility to keep confidence in this country.

I should like to refer to the way the budget was received. As I said last night, the media were more concerned with what was not in the budget rather than with what was in it. I have an example here of an inaccurate headline. I am quoting from the Irish Independent dated 30 January. It stated the following under the heading “The Budget Con Trick On Tax” by Colm Rapple and Donal Buckley.

The bulk of the income tax savings announced in the budget on Wednesday are to be taken back in increased social welfare contributions.

So it is a case of what Finance Minister Gene Fitzgerald giveth, Social Welfare Minister Michael Woods taketh away.

For many workers the increase in pay-related social insurance (PRSI) contributions will more than offset the tax benefits announced in the budget. The result will be an actual cut in take-home pay.

That was set out in banner headlines on the front page. On Tuesday, 3 February on the back page of the same paper there was a small report measuring approximately two-and-a-half inches which stated the following:

‘Minimum' rise in PR payments.

The "very substantial" social welfare increases in the budget have been achieved with only the minimum rise in the pay-related social insurance contributions, according to a statement issued yesterday by Health Minister, Mr. Woods.

The Minister said that for the person earning £100 a week it means an extra weekly payment of 25p while for the person on £140 a week it brings 35p a week more.

That was a denial of the original story. I think I have made my point in this case. Sometimes I worry that people may think I have become paranoid but then I realise that others are equally concerned about coverage of events.

The one good article I read on the budget was in The Irish Times dated 31 January. It was an article by John Healy in his “Sounding Off” column. I realise I am “sounding off” now but that is what democracy is about. He made some very pungent points. He stated the following:

I spent a month in America last autumn. I talked to school pals who are now middle aged, like myself.

They cannot understand how a small country like Ireland can afford to look after its people with health services, free transport and power for the old age pensioners and, above all, they cannot understand that the poverty line for free medical services covers people earning up to $14,000.

This amount will be increased this year as Deputies are aware. The report continued:

Of course we pay for it and we must go on paying for it. But our people do not live in dread of getting sick, of being bankrupted by a serious illness, of having their homes sold over their heads to pay hospital doctors and hospital bills.

Dull and provincial we may be, in the words of the departing American Press Attaché—but, we do have a caring society thanks to the Irish taxpayer.

And so long as we have the professional politicians competing in their concern for the old and disadvantaged, we have a healthy political society.

It shouldn't choke John Carroll, Dan MacAuley or Donie Cashman to say so.

That article was very good. There is no man better than John Healy for hammering us and I have been critical of him before. However, it is nice to be able to stand up and say I am delighted that in the maturity of his years he recognises what we are doing. As a political movement it is our primary concern to protect the less well off section. That is our religion. That may be pooh-poohed by some people but we are serious about it. There is nobody in this House more serious about the old, the sick and the unemployed than the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey. In his budgets when he was Minister for Finance and now as Taoiseach he has improved the well-being of our senior citizens and the less well off groups such as the unemployed, the widows and the disabled.

This was a most historic budget. We have broken through in a way that has not yet sunk in. I will give some examples of what we have done. For a widow with three dependent children whose income, including children's allowances, was £49.25 per week she will now receive £58.40 per week while the income of a couple in receipt of an old age contributory pension will rise from £40.50 per week to £50.20 per week. Social Welfare payments have reached a level of which we can be proud. The Opposition, the taxpayers and the media should take a certain amount of satisfaction that a high percentage of their tax will help a needy category.

When the increases were announced and when we heard the immediate reaction I had a moment of sadness when I wondered whether we wanted to pay lip service only to helping the less well off. Now the Government have done something really worth while but it was fairly coolly received. Perhaps it was due to the fact that people were not totally aware of all the facts and the full implications of what we have done in the budget. Everyone outside Fianna Fáil had been under the impression that because of the world situation social welfare increases would be restricted this year. Instead the Government have repeated last year's percentage increase in social welfare payments and have exceeded the increase that was granted in respect of children's allowances. It is no harm to repeat that the two successive increases of 25 per cent in long-term payments since April 1980 are equivalent to 56 per cent over that period.

The extremely welcome special double week Christmas bonus should not be forgotten. I am satisfied that this will be repeated this year. In the case of children's allowances, the increase over two years is 71 per cent for the first child and 63 per cent for the second child and subsequent children, which is no small increase. For the disabled, the removal of 25 per cent VAT on wheelchairs, hearing aids and so forth will have profound implications in this Year of the Disabled. Even before this year began, we were ahead of many countries as far as helping the disabled was concerned, having given a rebate on excise duty on petrol for use in motorised transport for the disabled.

The disabled person's maintenance allowance increase of 25 per cent is also very sizeable. This scheme has been extended to give £10 to the wife or husband and £4 per child per week on top of their other allowances, be it children's allowances or otherwise. The mobility allowance which lets disabled people travel to various places by paying for transport increased from £150 to £200 per annum. The fact that this has been extended to people living in institutions such as the Cheshire Homes, one example which springs to mind, is again something for which this Government will long be remembered. This is something in which the whole community should take pride. We are doing the right thing. We are putting our money where our mouths are. The domiciliary care allowance has been increased by £10, from £35 to £45 a month, which will be more than welcome, coupled with the increases which these people will get. Pocket money, which is spending money for patients in these institutions, has been increased from £2 to £4 a week. The extension of the free telephone rental to people on a disabled maintenance allowance is again a major advance.

What about the free fuel scheme? In August last we increased this from £1.50 to £2 and at that stage brought 27,000 more into the scheme by making it a national one. This allowance has been increased to £3 which is equivalent, moneywise, to £90 per annum for those entitled to the free fuel scheme. This will cost about £3½ million in a full year, a substantial sum of money, but well worth while. Two classes of people we must protect are the less well off section and the disabled as they are the people who cannot look after themselves. These people must be protected from cold as much as from hunger. Bottled gas now retails at about £4.92 a canister, so the £3 weekly fuel voucher will help to pay for that. These people are also getting the other increases announced in the budget. A cwt of turf costs £2, so the £3 will go a long way towards the cost of two bags. My overall impression from reading the various reactions of certain political commentators to the budget is that many do not seem to understand the needs of social welfare recipients. The impact that these increases have had and will have has gone unnoticed by them. The only exception which I can pick out is John Healy, whom I have already quoted. Many political correspondents are much happier writing about imaginary scenarios and political manoeuverings within political parties and wrong guessings on election dates.

Mr. Creed

The Deputy missed the right one.

Mr. Briscoe

They can change their minds as often as they like. All I can say is that if politicians were to change their minds as frequently as do certain political correspondents they would not be let forget it — they would be hounded. I am not talking down to them when I say that a person is entitled to a little freedom. Of course the press will always have the last word but I suggest that they do a little research to find out what will be the impact of this budget on the social welfare classes. The press will then be satisfied about the warmth of the reception of this budget.

Today, in addition to the increases they have been given in their pensions, our old people have free travel, free electricity, free television, fuel vouchers which they can change into money. That is a formidable list and I do not think we have to apologise to anybody for our performance.

Of course people are not happy about the increased duty on petrol, for a number of reasons, particularly facing the prospect of a new increase in price to be imposed by the oil producing nations, back-dated to 1 January. However, I travel roughly 300 miles in an average week through my constituency and because of the kind of car I drive, nine horse power, the increased duty on petrol has worked out at about £1 a week extra on my travelling expenses. Of course everybody does not travel in a car with as good a mileage rate as mine but the average motorist travels much less than 300 miles a week. Therefore, the increase will not be as great as it was first thought it would be. As I have said, people do not like increases of this kind but the relief given in income tax, certainly in my case, will more than cover the extra money people will have to pay for petrol.

The Fine Gael Leader when speaking on the budget got away with blue murder and I am amazed that some of his friends in the media did not accuse him of trying to con the House. He said the true budget outturn would be £651 million in a full year whereas the Minister's figure was £515 million. Deputy FitzGerald, when referring to that figure, said it is not the full picture. It is the picture for the full calendar year of 1981. All budgets are based on calendar years, but Deputy FitzGerald was bringing next year's calculations into this year. That should not have been done. If he had submitted his figures to a firm of independent auditors they would have thrown them back at him. It was an example of political chicanery but he was allowed to get away with it. If he had been talking as leader of a Government about deficits in a full year he would have made it clear he was talking about a calendar year, which is what all budgets are about.

I will refer briefly to other items in the budget. One is the policy of the Government to direct finance into capital development, into the creation of jobs. The difference between this Government and the Coalition is that this Government always borrowed money for capital purposes. Up to the time the Coalition came to office a Fianna Fáil Government had never borrowed money for current expenditure. The Coalition initiated the policy of borrowing to pay social welfare benefits, throwing money down the drain without producing a single job.

When they are bankrolling us, the bankers of Europe and the world appreciate that the things being said about this being a spendthrift Government are said by the Opposition for party political reasons. This is one of the soundest countries in Europe from the point of view of investment. This recession has continued for longer than any other that we have known but we will come out of it, and when we do the money we have been borrowing to invest in new industries, particularly in the electronics field, will mean that we will be doing very well, that we will have a thriving economy, that we will be ready to take full advantage of the upward trend when it comes. Many other countries will have to build up their industrial arms again. We have been doing that and we will be able to take advantage immediately of improved world markets.

The Government are committed to bringing the telephone system up to date. Everybody agrees the telephone service has become a nightmare, particularly for business people trying to operate modern equipment in a modern world. Restrictions have been placed on the Post Office which have stopped the operation of up-to-date machinery. This has been holding back the Post Office. We are getting over this because people realise that our future lies in an up-to-date telephone exchange system equipped with proper switchboards. I understand that in RTE there is a switchboard which cost a lot of money but which is not being used because of the drawing of some sort of demarcation lines — there is some peculiar situation there. I do not know if it is operating even yet or whether that kind of money is being uselessly tied up. There is no use spending money on modern equipment if we cannot use it.

It is agreed that we must do something about our roads, particularly in Dublin where the situation is absolutely diabolical. If the new eastern by-pass is not started very soon traffic will literally come to a standstill and growth and employment will stop. People who now have children attending school will have to leave the city and county areas when their children are seeking jobs. The condition of our roads is a real blight. I am as concerned as anybody else about the way of life of the small communities which would be disrupted by new roads but we cannot take each little interest group in isolation from the rest, just as we cannot consider Dublin in isolation from the rest of the country. These small interest groups who are holding up development are the very people who will be complaining in a few years' time that there are not enough jobs for their children. Our infrastructure must be developed. Money is available and rapid progress must be made. I welcome the setting up by the Minister of the transportation authority because we have now a situation in many areas, particularly in Dublin, where local authorities are not making decisions. Councillors who aspire to become Members of this House at the next election feel that by not upsetting their local community they will get more votes. One official told me that bad decisions were better than no decisions but the latter situation now prevails.

The increases in income tax allowances announced in the budget are to be welcomed because there is a saving for almost everybody. The Government have done very well when one considers the cost last year of trying to regularise finances in order to do more than keep in line with the Supreme Court decision regarding the taxation of married couples.

Frequently we compare our social welfare benefits with those available in Britain. When we consider the extras we give, such as free television licence, free transport and free electricity, our benefits are worth more to the way of life of old people than those obtaining in Britain. The increases in social welfare benefits are all the more striking when one remembers increases of £1 or less to which we were used in the past. The increases in this budget are equivalent to ten such budget increases. Here we see the retirement pension going up from £24.50 to £30.65, an increase of £6.15. The rate for a person having an adult dependant goes up from £42.80 to £53.55, an increase of £10.75. The window's contributory pension goes up by £5.65. These are staggering increases.

I was distressed by the lukewarm welcome given by the Opposition instead of an acknowledgment that these increases are deserved and worthwhile and that this is a policy they hope would continue. The more left they went the more angry they were. On the one hand they were saying that this is certainly not an election budget and that we are not doing anything to curry favour with the people; on the other hand they wanted matters to be the other way around.

I could not understand the contribution made by Deputy Browne. He surprised me most of all because this is the man who stands up and tries to give the impression not only to the House but to the whole country that he is very socially minded and is always in favour of social justice. The man seemed to lose his balance when the budget was announced.

There is another aspect of the budget which the Opposition may want to play down. I refer to the increases being granted to smallholders, including those on notional assessment. Deputy Creed who is sitting opposite must have some of these people in his constituency. This is a very important matter for these people who are struggling to eke out an existence on very small holdings. They will not forget the generosity of the Government in recognising their plight. The farming community generally could have given some sort of welcome to these concessions but there was a tendency among them to dismiss the budget concessions. As our friend John Healy said, if the Government were to take back these concessions we would quickly hear the outcry calling on the Government not to do so. Farming throughout Europe has been going through a very tough time and farming, like industries, has its recessions as well. The more prosperous a country becomes the greater is the impact of a recession. A recession always passes by a poor country. Countries like Ireland which have prospered feel the effects of a recession more and more.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has five minutes left.

Mr. Briscoe

For the sake of the country I am glad that Fianna Fáil have been in office since 1977. If we had had a Coalition Government we might have had a revolution or something because the Opposition have opposed everything that we have done in relation to job creation. Last night Deputy Tully said that we could do nothing for the farmers in the EEC and that we were only bluffing. If they went out with that mentality to argue a case for the farmers in Brussels, God help the farmers.

We can look back proudly over the last four years and see that more jobs have been created in that time than at any other time in history. We provided 80,000 new jobs. I wonder how many of those people had lost jobs under the Coalition Government. I have always boasted that I am a constituency man. I move among the people and I have had no bad vibes about the way the Government have conducted themselves in spite of the daily headlines saying that various things are wrong. People know that prices are increasing—that has happened everywhere—but our standard of living, in spite of the recession, is better.

We talked about a 1 per cent increase in growth last year in line with other countries in the EEC. This is fantastic for a country dependent on imports and on foreign trade for experts. We have the best record for job creation in the EEC, so things cannot be all that wrong. When all this is pointed out the people will make their judgment and I believe that in the next election they will judge in favour of what we are doing. Our performance has been truly excellent. Our future is safe in the hands of Fianna Fáil and as long as we do not get another Coalition Government to undermine the vital areas of growth. The building industry is always one of the first to suffer under the Coalition. As long as the building industry is thriving it can be taken that the rest of the country is doing well. I was delighted to see that the builders confederation welcomed the steps taken by the Government in putting more money into the development of that industry.

We know that there are tough times ahead in many sectors and that there are problems in schools and in education generally. However the grants have been increased time and again whereas there was no growth at all during the Coalition period. One of their first actions was to reduce the number of remedial teachers. This might be forgotten, but it happened. Education has progressed far more in the last few years than at any stage under the Coalition.

Mr. Creed

I am disappointed at the way in which the budget debate has gone in the last few days. It is not relevant to point to the shortcomings in some decisions made by a prior Government because it does not relate to to-day's position. When Deputy Briscoe speaks about dishonesty in the Opposition I am amazed and I am also amazed at his comments in relation to the media. I will not make an issue of that but his contribution indicates quite clearly that there has been a critical reception of this budget. I have contributed to almost every budget debate since I came to this House and I have never before seen more despondency or more criticism of a budget. Deputy Briscoe was not speaking the truth when he talked about the warm reception the people had for the budget. He should not say the Opposition are dishonest in criticising it. The fact that the Deputy was so concerned and narked about the criticisms means that he knows well that it was a bad budget that will have serious repercussions for the economy and for the people.

In case people might get the impression that there is nothing good in the budget I honestly welcome the increases given to old age pensioners, to social welfare recipients and to the disabled in this International Year of the Disabled. It is at least a recognition of the plight of these people. During the debate both Deputy Briscoe and the Minister for the Environment glowed about the contributions made to those people. However, since this Government took office we have had a budget a week. The cost of living is constantly rising. This should be taken into account when talking about concessions to the aged and social welfare recipients. The increases given to them do not offset the increase in the cost of living since the budget last year when they had their last increase. Every other day the cost of the necessities of life rises. The price of coal—something which is an essential, especially for old people—is prohibitive and I understand that the ESB are seeking to apply a further increase because of the cost of oil. Looking at the performance of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce the new price will be granted and there will be no problem.

I will deal with some Departments and the amount of money provided to run them for the year. I will make a few general comments on the budget and I have some criticism of the performance of the Ministers in this Government.

The Minister for the Environment spoke here yesterday evening and I have a few things to say about his contribution. The Minister of State in the House at the moment is much more conversant with the problems of local authorities and the problems of the Department than the Minister who is actually in charge of the Department, Deputy R. Burke, to judge from his contribution yesterday evening. I do not know if the Minister was ever a member of a local authority or of Dublin Corporation but he almost travelled every boreen in the country when he spoke here from a script read out at a very fast pace. If one has a script one must have put some thought into it. I do not want to follow the Minister up every boreen. I want to quote one statement he made. He said:

The Opposition are bereft of any ideas when they say that the allocation to local authorities is inadequate.

I have never seen such gross exaggeration in any speech or such blatant untruth as I heard from the Minister for the Environment last night.

The Minister mentioned roads, bridges, ring roads and by-passes, which I want to deal with. I take it that it is the allocation of money to local authorities he was referring to. The local authorities cannot exist with the contributions which they are receiving from the Department of the Environment. One of the reasons there was a change of Government in 1977 and Fianna Fáil got in with such a majority was because they said they would take away road tax and rates. When they did that the money which local authorities depended on to carry out the day-to-day work of their councils was taken away from them.

I am a member of the biggest local authority in the country. Would the Minister please check his files and find out the number of times Cork County Council appealed to him and his predecessor for extra funds and appealed to both of them to receive deputations to point out the seriousness of the situation? Cork County Council are coming to a halt. When the Minister says the funds are not inadequate and that the money available to local authorities is not inadequate is he aware that in 1978 Cork County Council took a decision, which was supported by the Minister's party in the council, as a result of the advice given by the county engineer, the county manager and senior officials in the county that we would drop any road improvements until we got a further allocation and that the resources available to the council would be applied to road maintenance only?

This was a rather serious decision to take and it was not taken without contact with the Department, appeals for extra funds and appeals to the then Minister to receive a deputation. Then we have the Minister for the Environment coming in here and in a prepared speech accusing the Opposition of dishonesty by saying that the allocation to local authorities is inadequate when he knows that what the Opposition say is the truth. We took the same decision in 1979. We are doing a very poor job in maintenance because of the amount of money available to us.

I heard Deputy Tully and others talking about pot holes. I am sure the Minister of State must be aware of the condition of our roads. In 1978, 1979 and 1980 Cork County Council adopted a policy, as I stated, which was supported by all the Fianna Fáil members on that council. Now we have the Minister coming into the House and saying that the funds were adequate. He is accusing the Opposition of being dishonest. He does not know what is going on in local authorities when he makes that statement. When we have a crisis situation it is accepted by those in power, by members of the Government.

Would somebody call the Minister for the Environment aside and tell him what the position is because apparently he has not read his files or does not know what the position is in Cork County Council. I do not know what the position is in Offaly County Council or in any other local authority. I was perturbed at a Minister with a prepared script making that statement in the House. There is an old saying that you can fool some people all the time, all the people some of the time but you will not fool all the people all the time. The Minister for the Environment will not fool all the people all the time when he is talking about the amount of money coming to local authorities from his Department. I accept that every local authority worthy of their name will look for more money from the Department of the Environment than they will get. Every local authority will demand more money than it is possible to give them. It is important, however, that the Minister realises the seriousness of the situation.

The Minister said that he was having such matters as ring roads, the erection of bridges and by-passes examined. That looks like an election gimmick. A former Member of this House, who has gone to his reward, used to say, when people spoke about money for bridges, that there was another election in that. I believe the Minister is adopting the same policy. We will be talking about those things, as we have been talking about the Mallow road, for almost 20 years. That type of thing infuriates local authority officials and the general public. There are Ministers who should be aware of the true position but are not.

I am not in a position to contradict the statement the Minister made about the number of houses built over the past year. He said it was a record. One would get the impression that the housing problem was almost near a solution. I do not believe it will ever be solved. We will always have a housing problem. Any person who should be so conversant with the housing problem in this city and still makes that statement does not know what he is talking about. There are hundreds of families squatting in this city. Surely the Minister must be aware that the housing problem is not near a solution. I am not talking about outside the city. It is almost as serious in other areas.

I want to reply to some of the cases the Minister made. He spoke about private housing and the incentives given to people who want to build their own houses. In Cork County Council there is a slowing down in relation to SDA loans. I can give the Minister the names of people who wanted to buy houses in September and October in Cork city. Some of them are entitled to be housed by the local authority under the Housing Acts. They cannot get approval for their loans because the money is not available and, therefore, they lose their prospect of purchasing a house. It is a very serious situation when two people are contemplating building a house and they are told they cannot get a loan because the money is not available. Then the Minister comes in here and boasts about the housing record.

The Minister mentioned water and sewerage schemes. His speech was more like an Estimate speech than a budget speech. He said he was delighted with the progress being made in relation to sewerage schemes and group water schemes. The cost of group water schemes has increased rapidly. Contributions are made initially by the group and then they find that the work is not being carried out and that costs are going up. Most of the schemes I am aware of have fallen through because of increased costs.

I am quoting Cork County Council because I am a member of it and I know what happens. There are three committees of that council. Last year we had an application from the manager, to which we agreed, to increase the water charge from £8 to £16. At the estimates meeting this year we had an application for an increase from £16 to £24 and a sizeable increase in the meter charges. This would bring in £270,000 this year. This is a secret-way of collecting money which the Minister should be providing to the local authorities. He took away their only source of revenue by the removal of rates and car tax. The Minister's party refused the manager's request at the estimates meeting to bring in this extra £270,000. That type of secret collection of taxation is creeping into the local authorities. Officials were informed in a circular from the Department that they should examine ways and means of collecting revenue. I take it this is a response to that circular.

Another form of secret collection of taxation is the development charges imposed on people who are looking for planning permission, or for connection to a water supply scheme or a sewerage system. This taxation is replacing the revenue accruing to the local authorities prior to 1977. In Cork County Council the Minister's party have become aware of this and they will not have it.

The Minister spoke about the building industry and its wonderful contribution to job creation. In normal circumstances that would be quite true. The Minister should be aware that there are many redundancies in the building industry at present. I was glad to hear that the Minister is determined to tackle the problem of pollution. It is about time that this serious problem was tackled. In Cork county there is indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste and it is about time the Minister got to work on this very serious matter.

As I said at the outset, I welcome the concessions given in the budget to the poorer sections of the community, even though they do not compensate them for the increase in the cost of living. Before the budget provisions were announced last Wednesday, we were talking about deficits to the tune of about £250 million carried forward into this year's budget. I believe — and I am sure the Minister is convinced of this — that revenue collection under the budget will fall very far short of the target set by the Minister for Finance. Any Deputy who talks to his constituents will be aware that the point of diminishing returns has been reached in the price of drink. People will not consume the same amount of drink as they were consuming prior to the increase in price. Because of the increased price some people will not drink at all, or will drink very little.

I have no objection to social drinking. I heard the Minister for Health talking about excessive drinking. He almost gave that as a reason for the increase in price. An increase in the price of drink will not inhibit an excessive drinker, but it will cause more suffering and agony to his dependants. The point I want to make is that the target set by the Minister for Finance for revenue collection from the increase in the price of drink will not be reached.

The Minister increased the price of a gallon of petrol by 15p. Since the 1977 election we have been saying that our present difficulties can be traced back to the 1977 election manifesto. Expectations were raised to unlimited heights. The Government insisted that the causes of our difficulties were the world recession, the price of energy, the increase in the price of oil. It was suggested that the Arabs were almost entirely responsible. If we accept the Fianna Fáil argument that these are the major factors in our serious recession, there must be some Arabs in the Government because last year they increased the price of petrol by 20p and this year they increased it by 15p plus VAT, making 35p a gallon in two budgets, almost in one year. The increase in the price of oil and petrol will have very serious repercussions.

Before this debate is concluded I would ask the Minister to examine the possibility of giving a generous concession to workers who have to use their cars to travel to and from work. I am sure the Minister for Finance appreciates the point I am making. Before the constituencies were changed he was in the constituency which I represent. The Minister for Finance has only one voice in the Government and very often the Dublin based members if the Government dominate the Government.

I am sure the Minister is aware that regularly people have to drive 20 or 25 miles to and from work five days or perhaps six days of the week. The Minister knows well the people I am referring to. For them a car is not a luxury but a necessity. If some kind of tax concession, such as that allowed to farmers and business people, was given to people on the unemployment register who sought work 20 miles away from their home it would be an incentive to them to do so. In my constituency jobs are not available in the villages and towns and people must travel.

The Government and various agencies discriminate against rural Ireland. I say that from my experience in public life. In the Cork harbour area the IDA have 1,200 acres of land for industrial development. Recently there was an application by the IDA to contravene the county development plan so that they could buy land in an area which was not zoned for industrial development. As a result of a vote of the council and after many meetings the IDA were granted that permission. At the meeting of the council the IDA made the argument that the land was in the north city. They already had land in the south city but they said there were 5,000 people unemployed in the north city and it would be very difficult for them to travel to Little Island or the lower harbour area, which is five or six miles away. However, it is not difficult for people in Rockchapel and in rural parts of the county to travel to the lower harbour area for work. I appeal to the Government and the IDA to attract small industry to the villages and towns of rural Ireland rather than to create an immense social problem by attracting young people away from rural villages into cities.

The Minister for the Environment spoke yesterday about ring roads and traffic problems. We are adding to those problems by concentrating all the development in cities. There are many rural villages and towns with a good work force and with good resources. Extra concessions should be granted to small industries to keep a community together in a village or town. I know the Government are doing something about decentralisation but they are dragging their feet. Why should the headquarters of Bord na Móna, the ACC and so on be located in Dublin? Why should people who have got their leaving certificate in Belmullet or elsewhere have to travel to Dublin to join the Civil Service? There should be a more vigorous drive towards decentralisation.

The Government saw fit to impose further constraints on people by increasing the price of petrol. A car is necessary for people living in rural areas who have to travel many miles to work. In cities there is a reasonable public transport system but in rural Ireland there is a totally unreliable system. People must use their car or give up their job and add to the numbers on the unemployment register. This is a matter that should be examined. People would use public transport if it were efficient. Some members of my family have to go to Cork to work but they cannot depend on public transport. Conditions have militated against rural Ireland and we should now, because of the additional constraints imposed on workers by the increased price of petrol, examine the possibility of bringing jobs nearer to the people.

The position of agriculture is very serious and one cannot divorce the state of the industry from the unemployment problem. The budget did nothing for the unemployed nor did it do anything to create extra jobs. If we want to tackle the problem of job creation the most economic way to do so, and the surest way, is through agriculture. Derating agricultural land was a concession. Deputy Briscoe spoke about the generous concessions given to farmers and said they did not appreciate what was done for them. I do not expect him to be aware of farmers' problems. Is he aware that since 1978 farmers incomes have fallen by almost 50 per cent? What was given to farmers was very meagre and will not restore confidence in the industry which is so necessary. I am not concerned with the farmer who bought land at £3,000 an acre or the big farmer who bought extra machinery. I am concerned with the average family farmer who, as a result of advice, expanded his enterprise over the last two years. Money was handed out by the banks and the ACC as if it were going out of fashion. We encouraged such farmers to expand and the country owes them a debt. We owe nothing to the rancher who sits on a valuable resource. We should grant every form of assistance to the farmers whom we encouraged to borrow money and expand their enterprise. Now that person finds himself with his back to the wall. The inputs into this enterprise increased astronomically but the output only increased marginally.

If one looks at the auctioneering columns in the daily papers one will see that there are many farms for sale. They are not put up for sale by people retiring or the representative of so-and-so but by those who are in difficulty and are forced by financial institutions in many cases to sell what is a valuable asset to the State in job creation. We should ensure that the family farm is a progressive unit as it can make a vital contribution to the economy.

The policy introduced by Fine Gael was a first step towards recognising this problem. One of the weaknesses of this Government is that a tax is introduced today and it is gone tomorrow. Farmers do not know what is on and what is off. The resource tax is abolished for the time being but it is not abolished for good. The resource tax of last year must be paid even though some people who will be paying it are in serious financial difficulties. Then there has been the repeal of the bovine disease levy which should never have been imposed, the abolition of rates on agricultural land which has been partly implemented. There was also the introduction of a capital allowance against income tax liability in respect of breeding stock. That is a very important concession because unfortunately we are selling or eating our seed potatoes, as somebody described it. We are selling our basic stock.

The Taoiseach spoke about our balance of payments and maintained that the position was improving immensely. The only reason it is improving is that we are selling off our cattle, they are leaving the country daily by the boatload and jobs are being lost as a result. Neither are we importing agricultural machinery which would be bought by our farmers had they the money, thus creating a general spin-off and more jobs. The prime industry in our economy is agriculture. If we are to make any progress we must restore confidence in that industry which can be done only by allowing some margin of profit. This must be tackled, first of all, by the Government and the Minister acknowledging that a problem exists and discussing it with the appropriate people. I know the Taoiseach has had discussions with the farmers, but from the Minister's public statements one would think that no such problem obtained.

There is also an interest subsidy for certain farmers and the reduction of stamp duty on the transfer of agricultural property to young farmers. This concession is aimed directly at the type of farmer about whom I am speaking, who has a family farm, who is encouraged to expand and who has responded to the advice and guidance of the Department and of the county committees of agriculture. It is this category of farmer who is in serious trouble. The fact that tractor sale are down almost 60 per cent serves only to highlight this problem. Farm machinery sales are down 50 per cent, farm building materials down 60 per cent, compound feedstuffs are down 15 per cent cattle feeds down 22 per cent and fertiliser sales down 12 per cent as at July 1980, with little improvement being shown since then. That is a clear indication of what I am talking about, of the spin-off on our economy to other sections of the community which would benefit if proper attention was given to our main industry and its contribution to the economy as a whole.

I want to mention briefly the Government's policy in regard to the "Buy Irish" Campaign. Here patriots are needed today because we have the goods to offer but, unfortunately, this campaign has not been successful. The Government, semi-State bodies and local authorities should give the lead because it is leadership that is necessary particularly as it applies in this respect. We boast that we have advantages in agriculture by way of climatic conditions and so on within the EEC. Yet one can find Northern Ireland eggs and Dutch chickens being delivered daily to our hospitals and institutions. We have not tackled the problem of ensuring that our farmers are in a competitive position. Of course here inflation is the major problem rendering our farmers less competitive. I know that our poultry association and others have made representations to the appropriate Ministers but that little progress has been made. Indeed not sufficient attention is given to these matters.

There is then the road tax on cars. Certainly this was one of the promises in the Fianna Fáil manifesto that attracted most of our young voters at the last general election. There is here a sort of double-think — the first year the tax was £5, the second year £10 and of course it is then the easiest thing in the world to double that and bring in the revenue. The increase in road tax announced in this budget could be described as fraudulent, being imposed under another name, that of a "registration fee". This is wrong of a Government who gave a commitment that, under no circumstances, would this car tax be re-introduced. We know perfectly well that the budget provisions this year will not yield the amount demanded, Indeed we may very well, in a supplementary budget later in the year, have another hike-up in this area because it constitutes an easy way of collecting revenue.

The Minister mentioned in his budget speech the additional £35 million to be reaped from our telecommunications system. The details have not yet been spelled out. I hope the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is serious in his drive to improve our telecommunications system. I know he will be spending a lot of money but I sincerely hope such expenditure will bring about a vast improvement in our telecommunications system. Our telephone system is very bad and certainly in rural areas has militated against industrial development and the attraction of new industry. That is one aspect I should like to see being tackled. It appears we shall have a very expensive telephone system. The Minister talks about collecting £35 million from telephones.

Finally I should like to deal with the Department in respect of which I am spokesman, that of Defence. I am sorry to say that the Estimate for that Department in the Public Capital Programme, when account is taken of inflation and increased wages, shows a net decrease of £4,928,000 this year. When appropriations in aid, which have been increased by £2,348,000, are taken into account one is talking about a decrease of almost £6 million. I understand that the appropriations in aid will be met by rents on housing which the Defence people are obliged to pay. This is something about which I have been speaking to a number of people in the Defence Forces. I visited a number of barracks around the country. I should like to acknowledge publicly here my appreciation of the courtesy shown me by the Minister, and his predecessor, in allowing me to visit these places, and almost giving me a free hand in examining and seeing for myself what are the problems involved. I have advocated the setting up of a commission of inquiry to examine working conditions, pay and accommodation of our Army, Navy and Air Corps. I know the Minister will not agree to such a proposal. There was a similar commission of inquiry, the Conroy Commission, which examined Garda pay and conditions as a result of which concessions were awarded. I believe the only other force in this State comparable with the Army and Defence Forces is the Garda Síochána. I am not maintaining for a moment that the Garda are not entitled to the concessions they have been given but I am very concerned that the demands being made by our Army and Defence Forces appear to be falling on deaf ears.

I want to deal briefly with the question of Defence Forces accommodation. I know I cannot go into detail. Here one is talking about houses, married quarters in particular. I do not want to mention any area in particular. One important consideration here is the age of the housing. I might compare the situation of the Defence Forces with that of the Garda Síochána in this respect. Sixty-nine per cent of Army housing was built prior to 1920, housing inherited from an alien power. Garda housing pre-1920 amounts to 10 per cent. In the period 1920 to 1960 the percentage of Army houses built was 13 per cent while for the Garda Síochána the corresponding percentage was 29 per cent. Between 1960 and 1980 the percentage of Army houses built was 18 per cent while that for the Garda Síochána represented 61 per cent.

I believe the Army are showing their resentment by the fact that, since 1977, 8,000 people who joined have left for one reason or another. I know there are recruits being taken on but ultimately this means that we shall be left with more inexperienced Defence Forces. Like many people I have to ask myself is it because the Defence Forces have not got a representative body and are not unionised. Is that the reason the Government have turned a deaf ear to them? The pay and conditions do not compare favourably with those of the Garda Síochána or even messenger boys in different areas or civilian jobs which are similar. This is a very serious matter. On 17 December 1980, I asked the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Moore, a question in relation to accommodation, pay and conditions and he replied, and I quote from the Official Report, column 1507, volume 325, No. 8:

The pay and conditions of service of all Defence Forces personnel are kept under constant review by my Department and I am satisfied that, within the resources available, the present situation in this regard is generally satisfactory.

The accommodation provided for members of the Permanent Defence Force is generally of a satisfactory standard.

I understand that there are 223 people awaiting Army accommodation. At all times we have a very dedicated and very reliable Defence Force here. That is something which the Government and the Minister and the general public should be fully aware of. The Defence Forces deserve a better deal than they are getting. In recent times they cleaned our streets when they were dirty during the corporation strike; they drove us to work during the bus strike and filled our car with petrol when the tanker drivers were on strike. They even died for this country to uphold the name of the Irish nation. I would ask the Minister to set up a commission of inquiry to make sure they get a fair deal. People from the Defence Forces contact me and ring me up or write anonymous letters because they cannot give their names for obvious reasons. They spell out what I have been saying here.

I know Ministers have visited the different installations and military barracks throughout the country and they must be aware of the accommodation problems and the difficulties involved. One can argue that it is being kept under review and that some amount of work is being carried out and some improvements are being made. But it is going on too slowly. When a Minister comes in here and answers a question by saying that everything is satisfactory then he is not facing up to the facts and he is not facing the seriousness of the situation which is highlighted beyond any shadow of doubt by the number of people who leave the Army each year through dissatisfaction. They do not engage in any form of protest but they protest by leaving the Army. One only has to look at the number of people in the Defence Forces who under an Act of Parliament buy themselves out because they are not satisfied with conditions; and this is happening at a time when there is rampant unemployment here, when according to the Minister 122,220 people are unemployed. Of course it is far in excess of that because every time one reads the paper one reads of factories closing, of threatened redundancies, of people on short time and so on. We are only about 57 per cent of our establishment strength.

In the programme which the Minister introduced there is a reduction of £4,414,000 for the repair of vessels. Is that an honest presentation at a time when the Government have underpaid by 2 per cent, when the national pay agreement is 15 per cent. The two vessels to be built in Verolme dockyard are to cost £15 million and they are already six months late. Is the Minister serious in saying that this work will be carried out when there has been a reduction of almost £4.5 million in the amount of money being made available.

That leads me to the point on which I opened. This budget will not realise its target. I do not know what is cooking. Is it that the Government intend to go as far as they can, keep their heads down, dissolve the Dáil and declare an election before the necessity for a supplementary budget arises? That is what they appear to be doing because they have not provided the amount necessary to run the Departments of this State.

I know the Minister for Education is here and he will talk about his own portfolio. But we have not provided for school transport.

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson)

That is not so.

Mr. Creed

The Minister will have a chance to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Creed has five minutes and he had better not go into the Estimates on Education because he is spokesman for Defence.

Mr. Creed

I will abide by the ruling at all times. The Minister for the Environment was here and he travelled almost every boreen in this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We give latitude to Ministers and spokesmen to deal with their own particular area.

Mr. Creed

I am not in dispute with the Chair. I will abide by the rulings of this House. I hope I have got across the point as far as this budget is concerned.

Finally, in regard to naval stores, will the commitment by the Minister to complete these two vessels in 1983 be abandoned since the amount of money available has been reduced by almost £4.5 million and the work has not started yet? Will the Government avoid fulfilling this commitment? What is the position?

I spoke earlier about accommodation and about the capital programme. The amount provided in the capital programme for married quarters is £.5 million. This is enough for 25 houses. That is not tackling the problem when there are 220 families on the Army housing list. In 1979 the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy, visited barracks here in Dublin — and this highlights the point I am making and gives a clear illustration of what I am talking about—and he said he was horrified at the accommodation he found in some of them. At the press conference later he said he would bulldoze the lot. It is only fair to ask what has been done since. Does Deputy Molloy still remain horrified? Has he conveyed that view to the Minister? If he has, what commitment or action has been taken? In my opinion, very little.

When I raised the question of increased allowances with the Minister for Defence I made comparisons between the allowances given to Gardaí and the members of the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces are called out regularly to aid the civil authorities. Daily they accompany gardaí in the execution of their duty, in the conveyance of prisoners and on prison duty. The Government should compare the allowances given for similar work to gardaí and they will see that a gross injustice is being done to the members of the Defence Forces. The Minister promised to examine the possibility of improving those allowances. His predecessor made the same commitment. In all there are 15 different allowances within the Defence Forces, including one for UN duty, but provision has not been made in the budget to meet the demand for an increase in them. It is my view that the Government are playing for time, that the budget is not a realistic one and does not provide what is necessary to run the country or the various Departments. It is possible that the Government will play until such time as the improvements are granted to social welfare recipients and then hold a general election. The sooner that election is held the better because a change of government is necessary. The Government have not the courage to tackle the problems that confront the nation.

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson)

The last speaker dealt briefly with the farming scene and seemed to indicate that farmers did not appreciate what the Government did for them in the budget, As the House is aware, the farming concessions will cost the Exchequer £5 million in 1981. Deputy Creed stated that he had representations from farmers in his constituency with regard to the lack of concessions and the lack of care for farmers but that was not the experience of all Members and, in particular, it was not my experience in my county. I realise that farmers have had a difficult time and that, as Deputy Creed said, those who were more adventurous had severe experiences in 1980. I should like to tell the House why I find that farmers in my county were pleased with the budget and the economic programme of the Government.

I made a comparison between the size of the holdings in Tipperary South Riding and those in my county. There is a significant difference between the type of farming that takes place in my native county and in an area such as Tipperary South Riding. For example, there are 50 farmers in my county with a valuation of £100 plus while in Tipperary South Riding the number is 545. There are 36 with a valuation of between £80 and £100 in my county and 337 in south Tipperary. A total of 15 farmers in County Cavan have a valuation of between £75 and £80 and 113 in south Tipperary. There are 25 farmers in County Cavan with a valuation between £70 and £75 and the figure for south Tipperary is 123. The number of farmers with a valuation of between £60 and £70 in County Cavan is 79 while in south Tipperary the figure is 328. In County Cavan 71 farmers have a valuation between £55 and £60 while in south Tipperary there are 209 farmers with that valuation. In my county 93 farmers have a valuation between £50 and £55 and the figure for south Tipperary is 253. That amounts to almost 2,000 for south Tipperary and 369 for County Cavan. Significantly, there are 16,400 farmers in County Cavan with holdings of under £20 valuation and 6,312 in south Tipperary. Therefore, we must be careful making general statements when we talk about farming globally. The Government have shown considerable care in their policy with regard to farming. We must take into account what we mean by farming because it means different things in different areas. I am aware that the farming mode in the eastern and central part of Deputy Creed's constituency corresponds to that of Tipperary and, admittedly, as one moves towards the Kerry border the farms gets smaller.

The most suitable adjective to describe the budget is "caring". The House has already had detailed explanation of the allowances made in the social sphere in the budget and is aware that an extra £11 million has been allocated in that area. An old age pensioner with a dependant under 66 will receive from 1 April — here is no postponement of the date of the award — £50.20 and the rate for a non-contributory pensioner will be £40 a week. I submit that "caring" is a suitable adjective for the Government's attitude to social welfare recipients. Due tribute has been paid to the Government for that not merely by speakers from this side, as one might expect, but also by speakers from the Opposition benches. The £60 million relief for those paying income tax is more than had been agreed in the discussions leading to the national understanding.

It is a caring and prudent budget. I should like to mention later the position of education in the budget. It has been my contention that education is the most important social service we have. The total budget for education for 1981 is £686 million, of which £79.1 million is for capital works. I am amazed at some of the attempts by Opposition speakers to denigrate the Government's commitment to education, as evidenced in the amount of money provided in the budget. By any standards, when one looks at that global figure, one must be impressed by the Government's commitment to the development of education, both on the current and the capital side. I had an adjournment debate when Deputy Bruton came in all hot and bothered, all flustered, as is his wont, about the school transport system.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Feb 1981

Financial Resolutions, 1981: Financial Resolution No. 9: General (Resumed).

An Leas Ceann Comhairle

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1981