Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 1981

Vol. 326 No. 8

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.
—(Taoiseach.)

Before the budget debate was adjourned I was dealing with the crisis situation that has arisen in one of Ireland's basic and most important industries, the meat processing industry and all its ancillary operations in respect of tanning, leather, hides, pet foods, bonemeal and animal offal processing. This essential raw material is going abroad in ever-increasing volume and our native industry is crumbling all around us at present. All the evidence is there by reason of the incidence of closure, of redundancies, and of short-time working. Anyone who is in any doubt about the situation can look at the figures in respect of live cattle exports for 1980. I am about to quote from the Central Statistics Office and Annual Review and Market Outlook issued by the Irish Livestock and Meat Board in December 1980 which has just come to hand. In 1980 the total live cattle exports to Great Britain and Northern Ireland amounted to 195,000 and to other countries of the EEC last year 77,200 cattle. To Third Countries 202,800 cattle were exported last year, giving a grand total of 475,000, and in terms of total value £208 million.

When is this economic folly going to stop? We are throwing away one of Ireland's most cherished assets when we export cattle to such a large extent and leave our home industry shattered. The vested interests in this situation — and many of those are very close to the Government — must be faced up to, challenged and restrained. An immediate subsidy is required for all those affected in the meat processing industry and that subsidy should be applied immediately. We have reached a crisis situation, and I know this to be true because over the years and particularly in recent times it has affected many of my constituents in South Tipperary. We see the evidence of the lay-offs, closures and short-time working in respect of the meat processing plants in Clonmel, Cahir, Castleblake and other parts. We have witnessed the closure of meat processing plants which were the economic lifeblood of the respective communities in neighbouring towns. The situation is very serious. The 130,000 cattle that were exported to Libya last year represent an asset that we could do with in my area. If we had that kind of consignment of cattle I am satisfied that our local industries would be booming and we would be taking on additional men and women. It is a sorry spectacle and the time has come for this Government to face up to this reality, subsidise this industry and place restraint on the export of live cattle. The folly is obvious to all. The damage is there for all to see.

Apart from that, some 78,000 sheep were exported last year. When one considers the intrinsic worth of this raw material and the many thousands of jobs that could be maintained and created here, it is an absolute disgrace. The vested interests, however big they may be, however close to the level of power, have got to be challenged. This policy is anti-social and utterly unpatriotic. It is doing irreparable damage to our economy and it is time to cry "stop".

I recognise that the time allotted to me in this budget debate is now very limited. One of the most lamentable aspects of this budget was its failure to recognise the terrible plight of the homeless in this country. It is more difficult now than ever before to secure a home of one's own. Costs have spiralled, loans are inadequate, the £12,000 from local authorities difficult to secure. Bridging loans from the bank are also difficult to secure, even at extortionate rates of interest. A young couple embarking on the purchase of a house of their own place a financial millstone around their necks which exerts a stranglehold from which they will never extricate themselves. It is a crushing burden. We, as public representatives, know the result is mental anguish and domestic upset which are too prevalent today. No relief was provided, by way of additional grants, to the homeless. There was no reduction in interest charges and no regard whatsoever for the human misery involved in this vital area.

Our local authorities are starved of income. There was an inordinate delay in the provision of money for housing in 1980. It came to us extremely late in the year. In my county, the allocation of new money for housing came to us in October. It seriously set back our housing programme. It extended still further, perhaps by some years, the long purgatory of waiting for the many thousands of unemployed on our waiting lists. Our housing programme for 1980 has hardly got off the ground. No new house was built in my constituency this year, probably for the first time in its history.

It seems that the policy is to make money available to land and housing speculators, to enable them to provide what is called rented low cost flats. Having regard to the history of low cost housing under a previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy Robert Molloy, the term "low cost" sounds ominous. God help the flatdwellers. This policy of moving away from the local authority, which has always been recognised as the body with whom the responsibility lay to rehouse people, is a dangerous precedent. It will stultify still further the role of the local authority in the provision of houses.

It has been rumoured that new house grants may be increased this year and the likely announcement may well be made at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis which will be held at Ballsbridge this weekend. The grants may be increased from £1,000 to £2,000 or even £3,000. I sincerely hope that is true. I encourage the Minister to make this statement even though it should be made in the House. It is a discourtesy to announce it outside the House. Wherever and whenever it is made, it will be very welcome. I express the ardent hope that the increased grants will not be jacked up by an equivalent amount by the builders, their agents or the speculators involved, as transpired when the £1,000 new house grant was provided in 1977. Prices were automatically increased and the unfortunate home buyers found themselves in the same sad predicament. It should be made perfectly clear, therefore, if grants are going to be increased that they are designed solely for the new house owner, not for the builder or the speculator.

If the Minister embarks upon statements of this kind I hope he will decide at the Ard-Fheis to bring back important grants which were abolished by this Government within the past two years in respect of repairs, reconstruction, the provision of back boilers to obviate dependence on oil, water, sewerage, amenity grants and many others of such importance abolished by the Government. People were not told about these things before the last general election.

I had hoped to deal with many other matters — health, education, fisheries and income tax. The PAYE earners are, despite alleged endeavours by the Government, the most exploited class in the country. They still provide over 80 per cent of all tax collected in the State. It is clear that the private sector and the professional classes are getting away with absolute murder in respect of paying their fair share of tax. The system of PAYE, which was originally intended to be a rather painless extraction of moneys from the pockets of workers, has now become a gruesome, excruciating exercise for all of us. It is a system which must be changed because it is unfair, it is a disincentive to work or to save and it is one of the most demoralising aspects of our society.

I will find another opportunity to deal with the many other matters to which I have referred. This, for the time being is my comment on the alleged budget for 1980

The primary objective of this party since our return to Government has been to provide new productive jobs for our young workforce. We have steadily moved towards this objective in the last three budgets. We have followed an economic strategy designed to control inflation — in a world of high inflation — and to keep the economy in a healthy state, especially in the midst of the present world economic recession.

This budget follows the same pattern as others. It is also designed to bring order and balance to our public spending. We have moved to divert a major share of the available national income to the more productive sectors of our economy and to provide the infrastructure for our continued industrial expansion, roads, telephones and other services which are the life blood of industrial development.

Fianna Fáil policy has always been to create favourable conditions for the development of our industries, which were victimised during the Coalition years of the mid-seventies. When we returned to power our industrial sector was in the doldrums. We have restored confidence to industry and, with their endeavour, together we will come out of this present recession better placed to take advantage of the coming upturn in the world markets. This budget, because it is fair, strikes the right note for the great effort we expect and need from the community to enable us to succeed.

This party when in Government have always provided for the less well off in our community. They have always been a special priority with Fianna Fáil. This year is no exception, for even when public money is scarce they must be helped to cope with the increasing difficulties of day to day living. We have provided an extra £111 million to improve the rates of social welfare payments. All round increases of 25 per cent in long term and 20 per cent in short term benefits are a major improvement, and may I add, more than was given by the Coalition Government in their total four-and-a-half years in office.

For example, the basic old age contributory pension has increased from £14.60 in 1977 to £30.65 this year, unemployment benefit from £13 in 1977 to £24.55 this year, in each case approximately a 50 per cent increase. These show the commitment of this Government to our dependants and this budget has increased their real spending power. We will, as in the past, continue to give priority to these people.

One aspect of the budget I am particularly pleased about is the increase in benefits to the disabled, with a raise in tax allowances, the removal of VAT from medical aids and substantial improvement in the various allowances for them. These improvements are a help for the disabled to cope with the problems of everyday living not faced by the rest of us.

One aspect of the problems facing the disabled is the finding of suitable employment and indeed the theme of the International Year of Disabled Persons is "Full Participation and Equality". My Department are making a very significant contribution in the fields of employment and training. I have responsibility for the implementation of the Government decision that a 3 per cent quota of disabled persons should be employed in the public sector. We have already arranged for recruitment to the civil service to be opened up to disabled persons and special arrangements made to facilitate their appointment. I am satisfied that these arrangements will lead to a significant number of disabled persons being offered employment in the civil service this year. My department are also in regular contact with local authorities, health boards and State bodies to assist and advise them on how best they can implement the Government decision and proceed as quickly as possible towards the 3 per cent quota.

AnCO involvement in the training of disabled persons for open employment is increasing significantly. They are providing training for open employment, for those suitable, on an integrated basis with able-bodied. They trained 473 disabled persons during 1980 and hope to double that figure for 1981. AnCO are also proposing to provide training opportunities for the disabled by increasing use of the external training facilities at their disposal.

On the wider issue of employment, the co-ordination and supervision of manpower policy is an important aspect of my responsibilities and the Manpower Consultative Committee were set up to advise on the role of manpower policy in economic and social developments. In the past year the committee have looked at the important areas of attitudes to work in industry, youth employment, shortages of skilled manpower and work-sharing as a method of increasing employment.

Their report on the question of youth employment, including its conclusions and recommendations, was published recently. They considered young people should not be regarded as a separate element of the labour market and the provision of special schemes such as those introduced in the current recession should not indicate a separation of youth employment from the general labour market.

I am concerned, however, to protect our young people from the worst effects of the recession. They are a particularly vulnerable sector of our workforce. The consequences of high levels of youth unemployment, both in terms of demoralising effects on the individual starting out on a career and the implications for society in general of a large group of disillusioned young people, must not be forgotten.

The report came to certain conclusions. Among them are that insufficient information has been made available to young people on where the best job opportunities are and the occupations needed by industry. The results of work in this area such as the identification of skill shortages and occupational supply and demand forecasts should be published in a form that would be accessible to young people. Another recommendation suggests that young people who remain unemployed for, say, 12 months after leaving school should be regarded as a priority case for placement on an AnCO training course, work experience or special youth employment schemes if they had not previously participated in these programmes. I am examining these and the committee's other recommendations.

The Manpower Consultative Committee assessed the extent of shortages of highly qualified skilled and semi-skilled labour and have got the commitment of various organisations so that we can tackle the problem. A further recruitment campaign was undertaken in the UK last autumn and a register of applicants will be distributed to employers notifying shortages within a few weeks. At the request of the MCC education authorities expanded existing courses and developed new courses to increase output in the short supply occupations between 1980-1983. As a result the intake into graduate engineering courses increased by approximately one-third between 1979 and 1980. Employers are being encouraged to take on more fitter and toolmaker apprentices than their immediate needs. All these measures should go a long way towards removing the shortage of highly qualified and skilled manpower which was becoming a major constraint in industrial expansion.

The Manpower Consultative Committee are now looking at the question of attitudes to industrial employment in Ireland, with the aim of informing young people of career prospects in industry and eliminating, with the assistance of industry itself, any bias which may exist. The committee have already made a number of recommendations.

Another significant development recently is that three regional manpower committees were established on a pilot basis and three more will be set up shortly. The task of the regional committees is to advise on the implementation of labour market policy in their specific region. I see this as a move towards a more co-ordinated approach to manpower problems at a local level.

We are anxious to stem the number of job losses and to give more help to firms in difficulties. The National Manpower Service is operating an early warning system on job losses and firms with problems. Information on these firms received from the National Manpower placement staff and through the Redundancy and Protection of Employment Acts is forwarded to the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism for possible appropriate rescue action by the IDA or Fóir Teo.

In order to assist them to maintain their employment levels, an inter-agency group has been set up, comprising representatives of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Labour and Agriculture, The IDA., Fóir Teoranta, the Industrial Credit Company and CTT. Measures to assist firms where redundancies or closures are threatened are being co-ordinated by this group.

One does not have to look further for evidence of the success of the Government's job creation programme in the past few years than the estimates of the numbers employed in the various sectors of the economy in 1980 and revised estimates for the years 1975, 1977 and 1979 published recently by the Central Statistics Office. These estimates show that the total employment increased by almost 100,000 between 1975 and 1980. Nonagricultural employment increased by 23,000 per annum on average in the same period. The total labour force is shown to have increased by 96,000 or 8.4 per cent between 1975 and 1980, an average yearly increase of 19,000.

The IDA achieved record numbers of job approvals in the past three years — over 35,000 last year, 34,500 in 1979 and 30,200 in 1978. Many of these jobs will be coming on stream this year or in subsequent years. In all, as a result of IDA projects already approved, it is expected that 15,000 — 16,000 new manufacturing jobs will be provided this year. The IDA have also set themselves the target of achieving 30,000 job approvals this year. In addition, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company expect to provide 1,500 new jobs this year and approve projects with an employment potential of 3,000.

In the second National Understanding for Economic and Social Development the Government affirm their commitment to the earliest possible achievement of full employment. While the job creation results of existing Government investment and economic promotion policies are compatible with the early achievement of full employment, the domestic repercussions of the general world economic recession are currently off-setting these gains by causing exceptionally high job losses. I believe that the slowing of the unemployment rate in the past few months is an indication that the Government's commitments under the understanding are taking affect.

The Government Investment Plan for 1981 provides for a total investment in 1981 of over £1,700 million and will result in higher direct employment of about 10,000 mostly in building and contruction, with the inevitable spin-off employment in Irish firms supplying materials and services. It is a blueprint for the foundations on which we will continue to expand our industrial sector.

The effect of the recession is also evident in the number of vacancies notified to the National Manpower service last year. During 1980, a total of 41,652 vacancies were notified, a drop of 8,792 or 17 per cent on the number notified in 1979. However, a slightly higher proportion of vacancies was filled. Vacancies filled as a proportion of notifications, were 66 per cent for last year compared with 61 per cent for 1979.

It is essential for our economy that our industrial training be geared to the needs of the labour market so as to ensure a well-trained labour force and to avoid as far as possible any bottlenecks in either supply or demand. This calls for frequent reviews of the training provided and I am satisfied that the training agencies under the aegis of my Department — AnCO and CERT — are very conscious of this and keep their programmes under constant review.

The 1981 non-capital Exchequer grant to AnCO is fixed at £21 million. This represents an increase of 20 per cent over last year's allocation. When the grant from the European Social Fund is added to this, it means that AnCO will have about £7 million more at their disposal than for the 1980 programme. This increase will enable AnCO to increase by almost 10 per cent the numbers receiving training in 1981 over the 15,700 trained in 1980. AnCO will also concentrate more on high skilled training, so that the potential of Irish manpower can be used to the full in the new and developing field of high technology employments.

During the 1974 to 1977 period we had the disastrous situation of the intake of apprentices being cut back resulting in a severe shortage when the economy regained its bouyancy on our return to power. I am encouraged that this shortsighted action is not being repeated. Industry is now very aware of the need for training and how the future development of its individual firms depends on continuing to train its potential workforce.

The stock of apprentices reached 21,500 at the end of December 1980. This was an all-time high and AnCO are determined that every effort will be made to increase the intake of first year apprentices during 1981. The additional funds being provided this year will enable AnCO to continue providing special arrangements for apprentices who may find their apprenticeship temporarily disrupted by the economic situation due to closure or lay-offs.

This year's Exchequer capital grant to AnCO amounts to £9.5 million, that is, an increase of almost 50 per cent on last year's figure. This substantial increase will allow AnCO to proceed with their plans to build new training centres. The building of new centres will be started at Loughlinstown and Baldoyle during 1981 and new training centres at Cork and Finglas in Dublin and substantial extensions to existing centres at Tralee and Ballyfermot in Dublin will be completed in 1981. By the end of this year there will be almost 900 more training places compared with 1980. In addition to the employment which AnCO's capital development programme will generate in the services and construction industries, the additional training places provided will allow for greater annual trainee throughput. The selection of new training centre locations is heavily influenced by the identified needs for vocational training facilities, the employment outlets, both existing and planned, and the skilled needs of local industry.

The Community Youth Training Programme continued to be a success with over 2,000 young people benefiting. In all, 118 projects were completed making a lasting contribution to local communities and their environments.

Another improvement was in the number of women seeking training. Last year, 30 per cent of all AnCO trainees were women and 10 per cent of these completed courses in traditionally male skill areas. Forty-four per cent of those trainees on our management training programme are also women.

As Deputies are aware, CERT caters for the education, recruitment and training for the hotel, catering and tourism industry. The 1981 Exchequer grant to CERT amounts to £935,000, which is an increase of £105,000 over the 1980 allocation. When the ESF grant is added, it will mean that CERT has over £200,000 more at their disposal than they had in 1980.

CERT hope to train 5,000 persons during 1981 and, going on past performance, the vast majority of these will find worth while and satisfying employment on completion of their training. CERT will also continue to provide industry-based training to ensure that the industry provides an efficient, friendly and value-for-money service for the public, including the visitor from abroad.

An important aspect of the work of my Department relates to the drafting of new labour legislation and the improvement of existing legislation.

An area of considerable importance is the field of safety in industry. I feel a major contribution will be made to the improvement of safety standards in industry by the phasing into operation of the Safety in Industry Act, 1980. The Act updates the Factories Act, 1955, improving safety standards in general, that is, noise levels, training, protection of eyes, fire drill, machinery protection. Most sections will be brought into operation on 1 March 1981. The cornerstone of the Act is the establishment of safety committees under Part III, which will operate from 1 April 1981, ensuring the establishment of safety committees before the end of the year. In addition, Part III puts an onus on employers to set down in writing the arrangements which they have made in their premises to ensure the safety of their workers. I am arranging for a publicity campaign to bring the provisions of the Act to the attention of employers and workers and I would like to take this opportunity to ask both sides of industry to ensure that its operation is effective.

As Deputies will be aware, the search for oil is continuing off our coasts. Hydrocarbon exploration is becoming a permanent feature off our shores. Drilling for oil is a hazardous occupation and at present is not covered by legislation. To fill this gap a Bill has been drafted in respect of safety on offshore installations and it is my intention to introduce the Bill in the Dáil in the near future.

Another area which I feel needs to be updated is statutory limits on hours of work, which were set in the thirties and are now completely out of date given existing conditions in Irish industry. Discussions have been held with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the employer organisations with a view to amending the relevant legislation. It is my intention to introduce a Bill during the current Dáil session and I hope we can agree on an early enactment. The legislation will also limit overtime working. Studies have revealed that a reduction in overtime could result in increased employment. I am hoping that, with the co-operation of employers and workers, the legislation will result in the creation of additional jobs.

A further piece of protective legislation which I am preparing relates specifically to young persons. This legislation will amend the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977, to fulfil an undertaking given by my predecessor in the Dáil last July when an order to extend section 4(3) for a further year was debated.

With increased industrialisation, the range of dangerous substances being used in this country is increasing. The Dangerous Substances Act is a particularly wide-ranging Act, which provides for the protection not only of workers but of the public and property from the hazards of dangerous substances. Regulations under the Act control the handling, conveyance and storage of petroleum, and last September, regulations were made to control the conveyance of 25 other substances which are most commonly transported in this country. I intend to have this list extended, and a further set of regulations is currently being drafted to control the loading, unloading and storage of these substances.

Apart from the major legislative progress that has taken place during the past few years in relation to occupational safety and health, and which is still continuing, I believe that the establishment last year of a commission of enquiry on safety, health and welfare at work is one of the most important developments in this area since the Department was set up.

Deputies will recall that my predecessor announced his intentions in this respect during the debates on the then Safety in Industry Bill. The commission will examine both the statutory and voluntary arrangements for safeguarding the safety and health of people at work as well as the question of safeguards for the public from hazards, other than general environmental pollution, arising out of work activities and the transport of dangerous substances. Their investigations will extend to all areas of work, including those that do not at present come within the ambit of my Department's responsibility.

The commission have been requested to report back with their findings and recommendations by the end of 1982. I am confident that the commission's recommendations will help to outline the ways in which the well-being of our work-force, and ultimately that of the community as a whole, can best be protected in the decades to come.

It is also my intention to amend the Night Work (Bakeries) Act to allow the licensing of night-baking. As Deputies may be aware, employment in the bakery industry is being threatened, one of the main factors being that the bakeries are unable to operate efficiently as they cannot bake at night. One bakery was due to close down on 31 December last with a loss of almost 200 jobs. That closure was averted following discussions with the management and a guarantee that the legislation would be amended urgently. The Labour Court also recommended that the legislation be changed to allow baking at night, where employers and workers agree.

It is therefore my intention to put before the House shortly a Bill to amend the 1936 Night Work (Bakeries) Act to allow the licensing of baking at night. Licences will only be issued following consultations with representatives of employers and employees. It is my hope that the passing of this legislation will help to stabilise employment in the industry.

The Employment Equality section of my Department is responsible for administration of the equal pay and equal opportunity in employment legislation.

This legislation establishes the legal right of women to equal pay with men for like work, and for equal treatment with men in entry to employment, training, promotion and all conditions of employment.

All prohibitions on women at work, such as the prohibitions on women working in industrial work at night, are being looked at to see if the concern which originally inspired them still applies today. If it is necessary to protect women in special cases as, for example, from working in lead processing during pregnancy, such protection will remain, but if any such protection does not appear necessary and results in discrimination in employment, we will give consideration to removing it from the Statute Book.

The Employment Equality Agency set up under the equal opportunity in employment legislation of 1977 has the task of publicising the legislation and overseeing progress. They have monitored the cases being heard by the equality officers and the Labour Court and they encourage individuals to avail of the redress procedures set up under the Acts.

The agency keep a watchful eye on discriminatory advertisements and on any signs of discriminatory practices in employment. If they suspect a pattern of discrimination, they are empowered to hold formal investigations and to issue non-discriminatory notices.

The question of the extent to which career choices for women are affected by subject choices in schools seems basic to the question of removal of discrimination against women. The Employment Equality Agency, assisted by the Departments of Education and Labour and the EEC, have commissioned the Economic and Social Research Institute to carry out a research project on the subject. The project is well advanced. A sum of £172,000 has been made available in the 1981 budget for the Employment Equality Agency.

In the area of women's affairs, the Department give a grant to the Council for the Status of Women which is the umbrella group for more than 30 women's organisations. The council are consulted about any Government initiatives of special relevance to women.

Suitable premises have been secured by the council in Merrion Square with Government assistance. A sum of £30,000 has been made available in the 1981 budget for the Council for the Status of Women to help them to continue to promote the role of women in our society.

The Government have been conscious of the fact that schemes for paid maternity leave exist only in the public service and in some large firms. To remedy this situation and as a further measure to help to improve the position of women in our society, a statutory scheme of paid maternity leave for women in employment has been prepared which will operate from April 1981. I am glad to say that the relevant Bill is almost finalised and I expect to present it to the Dáil within the next week. This legislation will make it easier for women to continue to work after child birth should they so wish and therefore to enable them to compete on equal terms with men. In too many cases even now, women are in danger of losing their jobs when they take time off to have a baby. This is a situation which could not be allowed to continue.

As part of their industrial relations policy and to promote a more positive and co-operative industrial relations climate, the Government are encouraging the development and promotion of various forms of worker participation.

In January of this year I authorised the completion of the final stage in the implementation of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. The objective of this scheme is to facilitate greater employee involvement in a number of State companies by providing a legal framework whereby employee representatives may be elected as members of State boards. To date, elections have been concluded in six State companies and employees have been appointed to their boards. Plans have been made for the holding of an election in Aer Lingus, the last of the seven State companies covered by the Act.

The experience in these State bodies has been instructive; the appointment of worker directors has served as a catalyst to the development of new participative machinery at below-board level and has prompted new management and union approaches to the sharing of information. It is my hope that this favourable experience will ensure the adoption of appropriate initiatives based on the same commitment to structure and process on the part of both sides of industry generally. I am engaged in preparing amending legislation to extend the scope of the Worker Participation Act, in accordance with the Governments' commitment in the national understanding, providing for employee participation at board level in additional State bodies.

Forms of worker participation at below-board level are being encouraged by the Government through the work of the Irish Productivity Centre, a State-subsidised agency which operates under the joint control of the social partners. The centre offers a range of consultancy and advisory services to industry, including assistance with new forms of consultation, industrial relations and worker participation practices and mechanisms, A growing number of Irish firms are now availing themselves of this facility to review information sharing, methods of work organisation and increase the level and degree of employee involvement in decision making.

Deputies will be aware of the discussion paper "Worker Participation" which was published by my predecessor in March last year. The publication of this document has afforded both sides of industry the opportunity to put forward their considered views and opinions on the range of issues involved. I have been impressed by the response and have requested an evaluation of the range of submissions received to date. I should add that the scope for initiatives in participation at different levels of the enterprise will be the subject of further study by a representative committee which I propose to establish. This body I hope will review progress, highlight exemplary practice and direct our attention to the realistic options for our industrial relations system. The combined effect of these initiatives should make a significant and positive contribution to reducing the source of industrial strife and, in this way, to fostering a greater sense of cooperating and collaboration between both sides of industry.

Last year was a relatively good year for industrial relations. The number of days lost through industrial disputes showed a considerable drop over 1979 — a total of 404,000 as against 1,427,000. In fact the 1980 figure represents the best performance in terms of days lost since 1975. There are, however, serious deficiencies in our industrial relations system, in particular the incidence of unofficial strikes and inter-union disputes which are a threat to the peaceful resolution of legitimate conflicts of interest.

We must not be complacent, nor rest on our oars, now that we see an improvement in our industrial relations performance. We should strive to ensure that the improvement is not short-lived and that our commitment to a fair day's work for a fair day's pay is not lessened. There should be enough means at the disposal of unions and management to discuss and resolve grievances before they are allowed to fester. On the management side, that means first and foremost accessibility. It also requires a consistent personnel policy which has been determined and agreed upon by all those in management. I would not advocate a dictatorship of the personnel function, but I would urge all line managers to remember that a good working atmosphere means greater efficiency. In turn, a high rate of output can provide greater security and possibly financial benefits for the work force.

Where there is a serious grievance which is not capable of being solved by the employer and union concerned, the resources of the State dispute-settling machinery, paid for by the taxpayer, are available as a means of reaching compromise. The Labour Court has been expanded with the addition of a fourth division, and its operation has been made more efficient with the purchase of advanced technology word-processing equipment. All of this means that the waiting period between referring a dispute for investigation and the issue of a recommendation on it has been steadily reduced.

Turning to the question of unofficial strikes, the Government are clearly concerned about the situation, where a person or group of individuals acting quite without authority or support from their trade union and engaging in unofficial picketing enjoy precisely the same legal protections as those who mount a picket with a full mandate from their trade union. Deputies will be aware that consultations are currently going on with employer and trade union interests with a view to reaching consensus on a number of outline proposals for the reform of trade union law which I have suggested to them. When these consultations are concluded, I intend to put specific proposals to the Government for a decision on their implementation. Legislation on its own cannot, however, eliminate our industrial relations problems overnight. The primary responsibility for the resolution of disputes rests with employers and workers. The most the law can do is to even any imbalance which may exist in the legal protection afforded to either social partner, and it would be wrong to suggest that our problems can be solved with a stroke of a pen, or the bringing into effect of a particular piece of law.

I should also like to mention a subject which will have a vital influence on our industrial relations system in the longer term, and that is trade union education and training. I am well aware of the important contribution which an informed and highly trained trade unionist can make to rational negotiations. As an indication of the Government's commitment to trade union education, I have authorised the payment of £450,000 to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions towards the cost of their education, training and advisory services during 1981. This sum represents an increase of 50 per cent over last year's figure, and nearly 120 per cent over the 1979 amount. I am sure the House will agree that this is a generous increase and one that will bear fruit in the years to come in the form of a more articulate, responsible and efficient trade union movement.

This budget is for the people; we have set a clear course for the future. We are making significant steps towards equity and justice in our society. I believe we are heading into calmer times, but we must take advantage of the opportunities offered us. Together we must as a society improve our attitude to the work ethic by reducing absenteeism, improving our industrial relations, by giving more personal commitment to doing our jobs well and being less rigid in the face of technical change.

I will refer to Deputy O'Donoghue's speech this morning. Deputy O'Donoghue based his speech on the fact that he felt that speakers in the Opposition parties were hypocritical and insincere and that they felt that they had solutions to all our problems. We do not feel that we have the solutions to all our problems. We feel that government is needed and government we have not at present. That is why we would like a general election. We want the opportunity to get to the other side of the House.

The insincerity began in a blatant fashion in 1977. Deputy O'Donoghue was responsible in no small way for the infamous manifesto which promised to reduce inflation and to create full employment within five years. Where is the full employment and the reduction in inflation? Yesterday we had 125,100 people recorded as unemployed and last year we had an 18 per cent rate of inflation. That surely is not sincerity. The manifesto also raised the expectations of people, especially young people. When the manifesto was offered we felt that that was the end to all our problems. We now find that we were conned all the way. We were told that we would not have to pay car tax in future but the Government have reintroduced car tax in this year's budget in the form of a registration fee of £20. In the manifesto we were told that there would be a reconstruction grant of £600, a back-boiler grant of £600 and water and sewerage grants but all these grants have been abolished. The biggest failure was the promise of full employment within five years. Deputy Nolan knows full well that there are 40,000 people under 25 unemployed. That is a horrendous figure. What a start in life — a start on a dole queue. Is this what young people expected? Certainly not. They were told there would be jobs for them but where are they? Deputy Nolan said in his speech that unemployment must be treated as one problem and that youth employment is related to overall employment. I know that the Manpower Consultative Committee said that, but I would argue against that strongly. There is a contradiction in Deputy Nolan's statement.

For the Official Report will the Deputy use the term Minister.

We have daily rising unemployment. We treat youth unemployment with different solutions. In 1977 youth employment agencies were started off and they began very successfully. We also had the temporary youth employment scheme. These were separate solutions to the separate problem of youth employment. Young people found themselves in a catch-22 situation. They could not get a job because they had no experience and they could not get experience because they had no job. For that reason youth employment schemes were a good idea.

I do not wish to interrupt but the Consultative Manpower Committee recommend that we should take all the unemployed people together and say that where young people are employed we should have special schemes for them. The Deputy might have misinterpreted what I have said.

I interpreted it correctly. They are saying in effect that we should find a solution to unemployment. They go on to contradict themselves by saying that there are separate solutions for older people, for unemployment generally and for youth unemployment. Instead of cutting finances available for youth employment schemes as was done last year and this year, more finance should be made available. I call upon the Minister to bear in mind that the youth experience programme and the temporary employment grant scheme were very much worth while and that AnCO are doing good work which they cannot continue if they are under-financed. I appeal to the Minister to put more money into this organisation for the long-term good of young people.

In my constituency of North-East Cork the unemployment problem is marked. One has only to walk down the streets in any town to see people on the dole queues or fooling around with nothing to do. It is very demoralising for them. Many of these people are married with two and three children and the children are brought up with the notion when they see their parents at home all the time that there is no such thing as work and they question why anybody should work. Psychologically this is setting a very bad precedent for family life. We should guard against this degrading situation.

In the last year unemployment in my constituency has increased drastically. In Fermoy this week last year 387 people were unemployed and this week 700 people are unemployed. In Mallow this week last year 389 people were unemployed and this week 749 people are unemployed. In Midleton this week last year there were 322 people unemployed and this week there are 740 people unemployed. In Cobh this week last year 196 people were unemployed and this week there are 483 people unemployed. In Youghal this week last year 252 people were unemployed and this week 359 are unemployed. During this week last year in my constituency 1,546 people were unemployed but this week there are 3,031 people unemployed. Unemployment has doubled. This is a shameful situation and I do not see anything in this year's budget which will help to create employment. All I can see is that £17 million has been set aside for a jet for Aer Lingus but the jobs will be created in Seattle. This is not much good to the people in my constituency who have no job or no hope of a job because there are no job prospects in the area. There is no point in a Fermoy man looking for a job in Dublin or in Cork if he has set up family in Fermoy. It is up to us to provide jobs for people in their own areas. After all it is a basic human right.

The Minister described the investment plan as a blueprint of the plan for the future. If that is a blueprint of the plan for the future. I do not want to be around for the future. I am not a mathematician but I am not stupid. The first page of that document says that 100,000 jobs will be created here this year. One can read through the document and tot up 100,000 jobs but in the conclusion to the so called investment plan they state categorically that 10,000 jobs will be created this year. On the first page of the investment plan 100,000 jobs are promised and in the last page we are told that 10,000 jobs will be created. Who is fooling whom? I am very cynical about official Government publications. In my short time here I have found they do not make sense at all.

I am very sceptical about the Book of Estimates. Will the Department of Justice be run on less money this year with increased inflation and an increased cost of living? Will the Department of Foreign Affairs be run on less money? I do not see, with the cost of fuel increasing, how travel will be cheaper this year. The only solution which I can see to back up this budget, the investment plan, the Book of Estimates and the background to the budget with no plan whatsoever, is for a further budget this year or, as we had last year, thousands of pounds in Supplementary Estimates. We cannot see anywhere in the budget a cohesive and homogenous plan. There is no plan whatsoever in the budget. Perhaps there is a general election on the horizon but the people are suffering because of the prospect of a general election. The country's interest is being placed second and the general election is placed first. Surely this is not integrity and this is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to run the country and not to be concerned only with preserving power for power's sake. I feel the Government are more concerned about preserving power for power's sake.

The Minister for Agriculture is falling down on his job. The most basic thing needed in agriculture is the restoration of confidence, which is at a very low ebb. The Minister is not doing anything to restore confidence in agriculture. Deputy Bruton put a six point plan to the Government last December which would restore confidence to agriculture, but 66 Fianna Fáil T.D.'s said no to an inter-subsidy. An inter-subsidy is of vital importance. Farmers come to me regularly telling me they are not making a profit and they cannot pay back the bank at 18 per cent interest. I often have to ask them if they have an old tractor which they could sell to keep the bank manager from the door. I do not know how any Minister for Agriculture could allow a situation to develop where so many in-calf cows were sent to factories to be slaughtered during the past six months. The number of cows disposed of like this is very high.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Barry is in possession.

If the Minister of State comes to my constituency I can show him a farmer who disposed of his entire herd of 300 cows in this manner. They were sold at £300 to £350 per head. In any mart or any fair he could get £600 each for them. Financial circumstances six months ago forced him to sell the in-calf cows to the factory. Many of our hauliers are forced to go out of business because they have not got the money to pay for their equipment.

Up to this I could not understand, with all the telephones which are being installed every week, why nobody in my constituency was getting one but I came up with an answer last week. The new telephones, which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tells us are being installed, are being installed in the cities and new estates. When new houses are being built it is easy to install telephones. We now have people going around canvassing to know if people in those estates will have telephones. All the telephones are being installed in those places. People in rural areas like Midleton, Cobh, Youghal, Fermoy and Mitchelstown are on the waiting list for three and four years. They are not getting them and they cannot understand why when so many phones are being installed. There are many people in those areas who are in poor health and who are being deprived of telephones. Surely this is not a fair means of allocating telephones or distributing them. The lines are not good either. A constituent of mine rang me this morning and said he contacted me because he was unable to get on to the Department of Social Welfare. He said he got Baltinglass, then Wexford, then Meath and then he contacted me.

I welcome the increase of 25 per cent which has been given to social welfare recipients. The Department of Social Welfare are not answering their telephones. There are many people who cannot get their money. There are long delays in paying them what they are due. I came in to this House yesterday morning, and again this morning at 9.30 a.m.. I spent my time from then until 11 o' clock ringing 786444 but I failed to get a reply. It has been the same story for the last six weeks. It is all right for TD's who get their money every week and have sufficient to live on but many social welfare recipients who have six, seven or eight children have nothing to live on because the Department of Social Welfare are not sending their money out to them. Will the Minister of State in the House at the moment tell the Minister for Social Welfare that I cannot understand why, if there are so many lines into the Department of Social Welfare, I continuously fail to get on to the Department? If the Minister of State has five minutes to spare and he comes up to my office and tries to get on to the Department of Social Welfare he will understand how impossible it is to get on to them. One day last week Deputy Lipper came in at 9.30 a.m. to get on to the Department of Social Welfare but when I spoke to him at 1 o'clock that day he had not got on to them. There is something amiss. That matter should be rectified. They are trying to help people who cannot help themselves. As the Department of Social Welfare is being run at the moment, these people cannot help themselves because they are not getting the money. The long term solution — and it is badly needed — is to decentralise the Department, but we need an immediate solution to deal with urgent problems. I will try again when I go upstairs and I guarantee that it will take another half an hour. In the meantime there are people in Cork who have not got a bite to put in their mouths, and the Government have no sympathy for them.

While I welcome the increase in social welfare benefits, the Government should remember that many people suffer because of a lack of proper services. If they are genuinely concerned about social justice, they should take immediate steps to alleviate the plight of these people. Deputy Dr. Browne has put down questions in the Dáil about this before. County councillors and Deputies send speeches to the papers about this problem, but I have never seen anything done about it. This is about the tenth time I raised the matter in this House and I hope something will be done now.

I want to deal now with the licence fee imposed last year after the budget. The £100 licence fee for dance halls was very unfair. It includes community centres, and so on. It is all very well for proprietors of commercial ballrooms to have to pay a licence fee of £100. They can make sufficient profits to cover that fee. In no way can I understand why small community halls, which were built through the efforts of the local community, should be charged £100 to run three or four dances a year. I thought all Governments and all parties were in favour of fostering a community spirit. It is very important that such a community spirit should be fostered. This licence is doing a disservice to the community.

I should like to remind the Taoiseach that no drink is served in these community halls. They are ideal gathering places for young people and it is ludicrous to charge them a licence fee of £100.

I suppose the Fianna Fáil Party will go to Disneyland for the weekend. I am sure those who join the melee in the RDS will have a great weekend. There will be clapping, cheering, congratulations, innovations and celebrations. I should like to remind them of the realities behind the hullaballoo. Will they clap the Government with 125,000 unemployed? Will they clap the Government who allowed the cost of living to go up by 37 per cent in the past two years? Will they clap the Taoiseach and the Government who allowed farmers' incomes to drop by 50 per cent in the past two years? Will they clap the Government who do not seem to make any effort to provide housing for young people? Young people are experiencing a very serious housing problem. We speak about broken marriages and their solution, but we never ask what causes them. One of the major causes must be inadequate housing facilities. People have no chance to make a start in life because they cannot get a flat, not to speak of a house. Young married couples trying to get a house are the new poor. The Government should do something positive to alleviate that problem.

Last year the Government increased the county council loan from £9;000 to £12,000, and that was good in itself. The problem we were faced with in Cork County Council was that, by the time people got the loan, which took at least a year, it was no good to them because they had been repaying an 18 per cent bridging loan to the banks. Therefore, the benefits to be derived from the county council loan were wiped out compleely.

Fianna Fáil will enjoy the weekend. It will be cloud cuckooland. They will clap and shout. The Government who have failed in their aim to reduce inflation, to increase employment, to increase growth and to balance the public accounts have not got very much to celebrate.

This budget debate is now in its second full week. We have had the inevitable speeches from Deputies on the far side of the House. Most of those speeches, if not all, have been tempered with a great deal of dishonesty. I should like to compliment Deputy Barry, who opened her contribution by making the point that her party had no plans and no solutions to the country's problems. We have made that point from time to time.

I am glad at least one Member of the Fine Gael Party was prepared to stand up and make such an admission.

It is a fact that at present the world is going through a very serious economic recession. In many parts of the world it has been termed an economic storm. For the first time since the war big countries are having extreme difficulties with their economies. Unemployment has been rising at an unprecedented level in most western countries. Inflation has reached extremely high proportions in countries such as Germany, Italy, and the United States which was always the bulwark of western society. They have felt not only a breeze but a storm over the past few years.

Our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom, has over two million unemployed. Recently it was forecast by independent commentators that unemployment will increase to three million in the UK before the recession ends. The dominating influence affecting the world's economy has been the spectacular increases in the price of oil. The quadrupling of prices at the end of 1973 plunged the industrial countries of the west into a deep and prolonged recession. Since 1979 oil prices have risen by as much as 150 per cent.

Considering that background, which has sufficient factors to cripple and damage seriously strong economies and strong countries, countries with historical industrial traditions, I fail to understand the theoretical thinking of the many critics who try to lay responsibility for all our economic ills on the shoulders of the Government. The fall in the value of the punt has been presented through the media to the public in such a manner as to suggest that it is the biggest, the most serious and the greatest problem we have today. It has not been stated clearly that the world currency market has been in turmoil as a result of the increased strength of sterling. In recent times we have had experience of the American currency recovering to some extent. Our position within the EMS has been relatively good. Since we entered in December 1979 we have maintained our position as one of the strong currencies in the European context.

The budget has been criticised in much the same manner. One would expect such criticism from the Opposition benches but, irrespective of one's political leanings and thinking, there was a lot of good in the Minister's proposals through the responsible approach he took, bearing in mind the present economic climate. This climate has unfortunately been glossed over and has been hardly referred to. The Government's concern for the more vulnerable sections of the community, particularly social welfare recipients, the aged, the ill and unemployed, were skipped over and little reference was made to them in the reporting of the budget two weeks ago.

The increases in social welfare granted last year were very similar. They were real and worthwhile, not only to keep pace with the present rate of inflation but also to provide more in real terms for the less fortunate. It seems we still have in our midst dismal Jonahs who would begrudge that little extra for the less well off. On the evening of the budget we witnessed the sad scene of the Labour Party, who claim to hold the principles of Connolly and Larkin, march through the lobbies with Fine Gael to vote against the Government's proposals to obtain the required revenue to pay social welfare recipients. There is no excuse for that. Nobody condones that action. Putting a few extra pence on the pint or a gallon of petrol does not hurt anyone very much. I am fully aware from speaking to people that nobody will grudge the additional few pence necessary to provide extra social welfare benefits.

Before, the budget the media were competing with each other in their forecasts and most commentators were forecasting what they termed a soft election budget or one with lots of goodies to give away. There were others who went in the opposite direction and forecast an extremely harsh budget. They forecast increases in direct taxation as well as on the old reliables. Perhaps the fact that the Minister brought in a responsible budget to suit the economy rather than one to suit any other narrow purpose was a disappointment to some commentators. Hence, we have the non-constructive and unbalanced reporting and comments we have had ever since.

I am very pleased with the manner in which the Government have handled the country's affairs during the serious recession which is still with us. It is true that unemployment figures have risen. That is an unfortunate and unpalatable fact that nobody likes. However, the record number of new jobs created in 1980 has helped to cushion the effects of increasing unemployment to some extent. The creation of so many new jobs during 1980 was a great achievement. It was a tremendous feat for the Government agency concerned that they were so successful in attracting foreign industry here during a recession of real magnitude. Competition by developing countries to attract new industries is fierce and it is more difficult than ever to attract new, worthwhile investment that will give the required number of extra jobs to this or any other country. We can no longer offer the obvious advantages we could up to some years ago. Our labour costs are rising swiftly and the IDA must be able to convince prospective industrialists of a steady flow of labour of good quality and performance. Any investor intending to invest a lot of finance in any industry will seek industrial peace. In 1980 the number of work-days lost showed a big improvement over 1979. We hope this trend will continue and that all those concerned in industrial relations will realise that disputes resulting in job stoppages and strikes, whether official or unofficial, benefit no one, least of all the worker.

The Minister for Labour this afternoon pinpointed a number of factors in this respect. I was pleased to hear the proposals and plans which his Department have for 1981. The recession has hit every country very hard. No country escaped. All economies suffered. In some cases bigger economies have suffered more than smaller ones. The UK, for instance, despite the compensation of having North Sea oil, is in an extremely bad way. A recession in Britain in the old days was always bad for us. For different reasons today it is still bad for us because they are one of our biggest trade customers. The effects in the context of our European membership is lighter. Nevertheless, a buoyant and healthy Britain is good for us. They have always been excellent trading customers. They have a big population and many outlets and have a business understanding similar to ours. It has always been easier to trade with Britain. It is unfortunate that the recession has hit so hard over there and bitten so deeply that it has restricted the opportunity for our exporters.

If the British market was not in such a depressed condition we, with our currency advantages and benefits, could have enjoyed a tremendous increase in our export opportunities and this would have confirmed everything that was said when we entered the EMS. We have now an independent currency. Certainly it should be of tremendous value in so far as selling goods to the United Kingdom is concerned. The loss in the value of the punt against sterling receives constant publicity in the media. Unfortunately, in a situation in which sterling may be gaining daily, various announcements totally distort that picture. For example, anybody listening to the 1.30 news on RTE, listening to other news headlines and reading headlines in the press could be forgiven for thinking that the punt is a currency on the way out or about to disintegrate. It is indeed unfortunate that news should be given to the public in this distorted fashion. Little or no emphasis has ever been placed on the fact that it is not the value of the punt that is changing but that of sterling. In these difficult times it is to our credit that the punt has remained stable within the EMS and remains in the upper half of the European currency basket.

It has often been said that nobody criticises the Irish as severely as the Irish themselves which, unfortunately, has been proved true in many instances. Indeed this is borne out by the examples I have given of how we criticise ourselves unfairly and unjustifiably, which does not do our image abroad any good whatever. In a recession such as we are experiencing rather should everybody be putting their shoulders to the wheel, being more constructive in their approach to all aspects of life. For long enough we were tied to a foreign currency. Now that we are independent and doing reasonably well in present circumstances we should be propagating the good news that the punt has been holding so well in the European context and not be painting a picture of a sinking currency. The media can be and has been shown to be a very powerful influence particularly on our younger people. I would appeal to them to be somewhat more constructive and balanced in their reporting and not be pouring forth scare headlines day after day because the news is not as dismal as it is painted. I would hope that advice might be borne in mind in the future.

Earlier today the Minister for Labour spoke at some length on industrial disputes. I shall not dwell on the subject in any great detail except to say that I can never understand why the parties to a dispute cannot sit down and talk to each other. I can never understand why there appears to be some groups who seek always to emerge occupying a position of strength, using that strength against weaker sections whether they be in their industry or in the community at large because this brings about unnecessary suffering on their fellow citizens. Such confrontation helps nobody, least of all the nation. Collective bargaining should always be the objective of everybody, thus bringing about a greater degree of co-operation and understanding.

Indeed such would also reflect real patriotism and would seem to be working in the interests of the country at employee, employer and union levels. I should like to think that we would throw out many of our old, bad habits this year, that everybody would seek to do a little better and what is right for the country rather than for themselves only. There has been a lot of greed demonstrated in recent years. Of course there has also been a lot of justifiable complaint but there is no reason that such matters cannot be approached in a moderate, constructive way. But let us throw out the greed that has been prevalent and work as a unit. If we do so I have no doubt but that we will emerge from this depression in a way which will be beneficial to us all and particularly our younger citizens.

In so doing we would also attract the greater foreign industrial investment so necessary for the continued creation of jobs. In this respect the investment plan announced by the Minister will substantially increase the provision for industrial development in 1981. Foreign investment here has been extremely strong despite the recession. This has been so particularly in the growth industries such as electronics, chemicals and so on. Indeed in this respect we have made tremendous progress in the matter of job training. AnCO have made an excellent contribution here, one which has been of benefit to the many thousands of our young people coming on to the labour market. They have become qualified in a highly technical way making them eligible to work in these new industries, which has served also as an encouragement to the more sophisticated type of industrialist to come here.

I am glad the Government have set course to strengthen and improve the public investment relationship vis-à-vis the private sector. I do not see why private enterprise should not be deployed more in a role complementary to public development. For example, roads are a real case in point. Last year legislation was passed in regard to toll roads. At present in Dublin there are proposals for the building of a toll bridge across the Liffey, north to south. Such developments are absolutely necessary. Indeed one might very well ask: why should not private enterprise be not alone encouraged but pressed to assist in such national development? Such developments would, in the final analysis, benefit the whole community with a beneficial spin-off for commerce generally.

We have been criticised by Opposition parties on numerous occasions because of the condition of our roads. I cannot speak with any great knowledge about the condition of roads in rural areas. As far as I am concerned the biggest traffic problem is in Dublin. No major road development has taken place in recent years except the Talbot Bridge which was built across the Liffey about four years ago. The population in Dublin has increased to almost 900,000 and it is forecast that in 1991 it will have increased to 1.3 million people. It is also forecast that in 1991, with the present development in the city, there will be half a million vehicles on the road. The greatest obstacle to doing anything definite to develop road systems, to build motorways, has been the Opposition parties who are split because of local issues. If we are to provide the jobs which will be required in the future and if we are to meet the requirements of our young people in Dublin city and county we must develop our road systems urgently to cater for the new and developing industries and the increased industries that will be necessary.

Dublin port is developing at a fast rate and modernised methods have brought more and more juggernauts driving through our city streets creating greater traffic jams and bottlenecks. Energy has been lost and wasted, not to mention the stress on nerves resulting in coronary attacks and so on that such traffic brings in its wake. Dublin city and county must provide an additional 100,000 new jobs over the next ten years. This Government continue over the years to invest more and more in the IDA and the spin-off has been worth millions of pounds because of the record number of jobs that have been created since 1977. That will not be enough if, over the next ten years, we are to reach the target that will be necessary to provide sufficient employment for all our citizens.

Because of the serious traffic problems Dublin city cannot take such major industrial development. It is therefore urgent that all responsible at Government level, at City Council level, commercial interests and so on, come up with proper road development plans and proposals to meet the needs of a growing city. Recently the Fianna Fáil group in City Hall proposed a section 4 motion directing the City Manager to bring in major road proposals as a matter of urgency. This was passed and hopefully when these plans are produced later this year Fine Gael and Labour will act in a responsible way and support the plans which will be for the benefit of the city and of future employment and industrial development.

Such chaotic traffic conditions as we have at present also mean a serious and expensive waste of petrol. Energy conservation is being driven home strongly to everybody. The Tánaiste, in an effort to emphasise and make the public more aware of the necessity to conserve energy, has been on a nation-wide tour expounding this. We are now paying the best part of £1,000 million for our fuel and our economy is much too small to be able to afford the shocking, substantial waste of energy that seems to take place daily all over the country. Householders and industrialists and motorists can all save energy and use less energy if only some thought was given to it. The amount of energy that goes up in smoke, in exhaust fumes, polluting our city daily in traffic jams must be fantastically high. Any reasonable saving brought about by a free-flowing traffic system would almost be sufficent over a short period to meet the cost of major road development.

The willingness of Irish consumers to purchase Irish made products is a very major factor to enable companies to expand sales and employment. For many years now the various bodies set up to promote the sale and the purchase of Irish made goods have not been too successful. Now, however, the Irish Goods Council, through its more modern type campaign has met with some degree of success. The big problem, however, for the shopper is the difficulty in locating a store where he or she can purchase Irish made goods. I have had this experience myself in some of our leading stores and I have from time to time received complaints from consumers who wanted to buy Irish but had great difficulty in doing so due to the fact that some of our stores have been reluctant to stock Irish goods. I believe that a significant change in the purchasing patterns recently is leading much more to the purchase and the sale of Irish made goods. In the present economic climate manufacturers and retailers cannot, in the national interest, afford to ignore the growing consumer demand for and commitment to buy Irish goods. An additional 5p spent by shoppers in buying Irish would provide a further 16,000 jobs. This is very little additional expenditure to make such a complementary factor in employment and it is something that many people possibly do not think about.

The investment plan which I mentioned earlier provides for a total investment of over £1,700 million. This offers unprecedented opportunities to Irish manufacturers to increase sales of domestic goods. The plan has made it quite clear that success in this area will depend ultimately on the competitiveness of Irish goods and services. Therefore the importance of highlighting and maximising the Irish context of the different investment projects cannot be emphasised enough. There must be a positive approach by the private sector to taking the opportunities to utilise such advantages as are there daily in an ever growing domestic market. The investment plan will provide the necessary base for this. Very often we come across miscellaneous items and express surprise that a particular item we are looking at is not manufactured in Ireland but has been imported. Very often these are small things and the price is low but they would have a huge turnover and would create many more jobs. This is an area where much more can be done. It is an area where specialist qualities or specialist involvements might not be necessary.

I said earlier, I felt the budget proposals were realistic, that they were strategically tailored to suit the present economic climate and that they were specially designed to maintain economic growth and development. The budget made an honest effort to protect the living standards particularly of the underprivileged and the less well-off. The plight and difficulties of the weaker sections of our community have always received priority from a Fianna Fáil Government. Irrespective of what Labour or any so-called socialist-minded person may claim, this has been the case down the years and there are figures to prove it.

In this budget it cost £133 million to provide social welfare increases. Every fair-minded person will understand and accept that the Minister must provide for that type of expenditure from some source. It is true to say that the smoker, the drinker and the motorist have accepted these increases as inevitable and will continue to do so. There were some complaints recently from publicans about drop off in business but I do not know if these reports were made prior to or after the budget. Any Member of this House who goes into a lounge bar in this city any night of the week will see this complaint is not true. I was in a couple of suburban lounges recently and each place was packed. This was not at the weekend but on week nights. I cannot see the basis for such despondency.

It has been proved over the years that price increases make little difference because it must be remembered that incomes are increasing all the time, but well ahead of prices. There is very little resentment when the revenues from these increases are passed on to the less well off. I would go further and say that in 99.9 per cent of cases there is no resentment if they pay a little extra for drink, a smoke or whatever, knowing it means an increase for pensioners, the sick and the unemployed. I consider this has been a very good budget which faced up to our problems, which planned for the future and has given assistance and help where it was most needed.

The previous speaker did his best when speaking about this budget and tried to do a PRO job on the punt, but I could not agree with him. I believe this budget has failed badly. In household budgeting one must take into account the amount one is likely to spend, what one is likely to get in by way of income and revenue, figure out what one can afford to spend and then balance the account. This is a dishonest budget because it does not set out to do that. Independent economists stated that in all our newspapers. If the newspapers or the media tell the truth we should not be too concerned because that happened when we were in power. We did not like it but that is the job of independent economists.

Just before the Christmas recess we were presented with a package of £450 million worth of Supplementary Estimates. That is how good our budgeting is. We can be sure that this budget is exactly the same. The big problem — and we can trace this back to the manifesto — is that people are expecting the earth and they have to have it and it is all right as long as somebody is carrying the can. In other words, we all have a sense of justice but it is justice in the passive voice: let everyone else be just to us and let everybody else pay.

I am fearful for the economy. The previous speaker mentioned the Dublin pubs being full every night of the week. We have come to a situation of eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The nation has been demoralised by the Government's attitude. People see no future. They have lost confidence and this is very serious.

In my constituency we have industries closing down every day and people going on a three-day week. Of course these people are drawing unemployment benefit but how long can we keep on like this? Something should be done quickly. It was not correct for the previous speaker to say that this recession is happening across Europe. In 1980 the European farmers said that 5 per cent was more than adequate, but 5 per cent here did not even meet farmers' basic costs. In most European countries there was a 5 per cent and 6 per cent growth rate, bank interest rates were 7 per cent and 8 per cent and inflation was at 7 per cent and 8 per cent, but here we had inflation at 20 per cent, bank interest rates of 20 per cent and a zero growth rate. That is the difference.

There is no point in blaming the EEC. We have to straighten out our own household. Election year or no election year I thought the Government would have had the courage to do this, and they would have been admired for doing it because people are prepared for the truth. They have had enough lies. The Fianna Fáil manifesto tells us what they were going to do about price control. Comparative prices were to be published weekly by the media but the papers do not carry such information any more because it is not news. We have a budget every day. In fact, the day after the Minister introduced the budget there was an announcement of massive increase by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in postal and telephone charges.

The people are ready to hear the truth. It will have to be made known quickly that we as a nation cannot carry on borrowing indefinitely, that we must stop and decide to fight our way out of the difficulties. We will have to say to our people that we have landed in one hell of a mess with unprecedented borrowing. The time has come to stop and bring back confidence, the first stage in the fight to control inflation. Once inflation has been got under control everything else will follow. The big worry of industrialists contemplating setting up an industry here, apart from the industrial relations problems — the Government have not done anything about them — is that the country is running downhill quickly.

There was such a bad year in 1980 that those involved in the tourist industry made an appeal to the Government. The hotel industry employs 23,000 people on a full-time basis and 20,000 on a part-time basis. It brings in £170 million to the Exchequer, 50 per cent of which originates outside the country. The Government were asked to do something to help that industry in the coming year. Those involved in the industry put forward good suggestions which would not cost the earth. The suggestions include the removing of VAT from meals consumed in hotels, the removing of import duty from cars and coaches used in tourism, the introduction of a low cost fuel scheme for cars and coaches rented by tourists, the lowering of the insurance cost to car rental companies and the introduction of a scheme of low interest loans, similar to those available to the manufacturing industry, for those involved in the tourist trade.

Those suggestions have been ignored. The cost of licences for dance halls and community halls has been increased by 100 per cent. The ordinary guesthouse owner was not forgotten in the budget because he will have to pay £100 for the privilege of being able to serve a bottle of wine to his guests. The appeal of those in that section of the industry fell on deaf ears. They wanted the grant to Bord Fáilte substantially increased. In real terms that grant has been reduced. There is little point in talking about tourism if the board responsible for it is not adequately financed. I have also pointed out that, because of the many problems experienced by hotels in their efforts to develop and expand, a substantial portion of Bord Fáilte funds should be spent at home. Bord Fáilte are doing a wonderful job in promoting the country but I believe we would be better off spending more of our time and money developing the product at home. If our product is right, like any other good product, it will sell itself. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister did not mention those salient facts.

In 1980 we had a crazy situation in that the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism did not spend £700,000 of the amount allotted for the tourist industry. That amount was spent by some other section. That was bad form at a time when the industry was crying out for assistance in many areas. Many of those involved in it were up to their tonsils with bank problems. They were trying to expand and develop and to hold their prices. We have heard the pious approach of the Minister to those in the hotel industry to keep their prices in order, but how can they do so when they have VAT at the rate of 15 per cent slapped on to them, when the price of the bottle of beer and the packet of cigarettes is jacked up out of all proportion, when the cost of petrol is increased drastically and when the oil used to heat hotels is increased? How can they contain their costs when the Government are responsible for the inflationary spiral? Last year the number of visitors dropped by 95,000. We cannot afford that size of a drop in that industry.

As Opposition spokesman on tourism, I intend to point out at every opportunity the errors of the Government's ways in dealing with this industry. Recently Mr. Robin Berrington, the Cultural Affairs and Press Officer at the US Embassy in Dublin, wrote a few things about us. I do not agree with all he said but it is fair to say that he blew some fresh air into our isolated and provincial country, as he called it. He referred to our dreary landscapes, the areas that are fouled up with rubbish, the car skeletons and so on. In that regard he was correct. I accept that this is not a matter for the Government alone: it should be the concern of us all. Years ago, when people did not have the benefit of modern education, one rarely saw the type of messing up of public places that takes place today. One did not see grafitti on the walls or the deliberate wrecking of telephone kiosks. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs have my sympathy because they cannot keep the kiosks in order with the amount of vandalism that is taking place. Where can one park a car in Dublin city at night without it being damaged?

This is a problem all of us in this Parliament must tackle. However it is to be done, this country has to be cleaned up. Everybody — the teachers, the parents, the social workers and the Garda Síochána—must help to get people to toe the line to stop this fouling up of the countryside. If we adopted what operates in Europe we might solve a lot of the problem. For instance, anybody found dumping rubbish on our beautiful roadsides should have to pay substantial fines. On the Continent anybody throwing, say, a paper bag out of a window would be fined substantially. This is the only way out of it. The fines and penalties will have to be increased if we are serious about tourism and about advertising our beautiful countryside. Our countryside must live up to the descriptions and colour illustrations of our tourist literature. It will not do to have our roads and towns littered with refuse and dirt and to leave derelict motor cars around the place. That will have to stop.

I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Transport at Question Time yesterday show so little concern for the unfortunate victims of the Bray Travel collapse. As one commentator pointed out today, he was let off lightly on this one. However, I say to him now that he must introduce legislation immediately to cover that situation and he must do so retrospectively. If he cannot do it, the challenge is there for him to move over and let us do it. Bonding should be extended. We had a situation in the cattle business recently where small farmers sold their entire herds to men of straw and now these small farmers are penniless. Right across the board we should have a system where people who give goods or money on trust will be covered by a bond. Certainly, cattle traders and people like that should be registered for this purpose. It should apply to anybody dealing with public money.

Many speakers have referred to the farming situation and we have been criticised for not coming up with a positive solution. We are accused of condemning all the time. Quite rightly somebody can come along and ask "If you spend money on tourism, where are you going to get it?" It is like putting in fertiliser. It is one area where we can reap the benefits. It is an area where money has to be spent, if you are to get full value out of it, but you will have your reward. The same applies to agriculture. That fact is registering now.

In Limerick recently we had a public meeting of the farmers and the number of people who came out from Limerick city, many miles, to sympathise with the farming section was amazing. It is percolating slowly into the minds of city and urban people that the farmers are in even bigger trouble than they are admitting. It is serious. Every day of the week groups of them are coming along to meet members of the Government. I joined a few of these deputations, not in any critical sense but appealing to the various Ministers to do something quickly. We in Fine Gael put up some concrete proposals. The least mentioned of these I am inclined to put first, and that is that immediate help — and I mean immediate — be given to many young farmers who have found themselves in difficulties because they borrowed money to develop and expand their farms. The help must be immediate because, as we see in the weekend newspapers, when the sales start to come on, tomorrow may well be too late. These were not lackadaisical people. These were the very best, the cream of the farmers, the people who took the advice of their agricultural advisers, which was the best they could get at the time. They borrowed at 12.5 and 13 per cent interest. In one case I know of the increase in interest alone has added £5,000 to the farmer's repayments bill. That is something he did not budget for and he could not be expected to foresee that things would go so haywire in such a short time.

What the farmers are really looking for is a note of confidence from the Government. We wish the Minister well in his endeavours in Brussels, but it must look pretty bad for him going out there pleading for the special case when here at home nothing is being done for the most substantial farmers who have experienced so many problems. All they have is substantial rates and ever-increasing costs and it is this factor that makes life so uncertain and difficult for them.

The point has been made that they should produce more. I even tried that myself at one time. It is only compounding the problem because if you are not getting paid for what you produce, if you are not getting a profit on X tons, then, because your costs are going to increase, you are not going to produce more. You cannot make a profit on X plus anything now. For that reason the Minister will have to look very seriously at the prices being offered to farmers, otherwise we will have problems of production in the sugar industry, the dairy industry and the beef industry. Certainly these are areas where we should be talking about expansion. All over Europe people are buying as much food as ever. Our dairy products are selling well.

I fail to understand why the Government, during this difficult period for farmers, cannot help to tide them over. It will not be an on-going situation. We must be clear about it, the sort of help we are asking for now need not, necessarily, be repeated. It should be identified as temporary help but it should be immediate. It is one of the more frightening areas of the present crisis, that the Government seem to be caught in the rain without an umbrella. It used to be a feature of Irish life that we put something by for the rainy day. The rainy day has come in more senses than one. We find ourselves unable to come to the rescue of farmers. As a result, they are talking about taking to the streets. The farmers do not want to do this. It is not in their interest or the interest of society that this should happen. It is a serious matter if they are compelled to do this. They feel their livelihoods are at stake and they see no solution to their problems, except direct Government help, which they require now.

When one considers the foolish spending undertaken by the Government over the last three or four years, one wonders why the Taoiseach, who is supposed to be a financial wizard, could not see his way to put money where he will get returns, to the farming community, the sugar industry and into the food business. It is rather frightening. Last evening, Deputy Bermingham spelt out what happened in Carlow. The farmers there never dishonoured their contracts and the workers also played their part. In spite of all that, we are faced with a closure. Where is all this going to end? Have the Government lost heart completely with regard to industry? We have now come to accept the three-day week as normal. Farm machinery firms are on a three-day week. I do not have to tell Government Members and the Minister sitting opposite me how demoralising that is. They may be as well off financially but they are at home with very little to do. The discipline of work becomes more and more difficult for them.

Recently, I was speaking to someone about the purchase of a house from the local authority. I was pointing out how much it would cost. He seemed very hesitant and he asked what would happen if he was not able to meet his repayments. I told him he could revert to being a local authority tenant and asked him why he was worried as he was in a safe job. He said there was no such thing in East Cork at present as a safe job. That remark is the greatest indictment of the present Government which I have heard in my constituency. After three years, having found the economy in good heart — according to Senator Whitaker — we are in a situation where our borrowing has got out of hand and we are throwing good money after bad in the wrong direction. If the Government had any sense, they would be pouring money into those areas which would help us to get out of our difficulties and creating jobs in the private sector.

It is well known and accepted that agriculture is in its infancy with regard to processing. We have a long way to go and many jobs can be created in that industry. When you see those basic industries closing down, it is time for Opposition parties to tell the Government to get on with the job or to get out before it is too late, because the equipment in those factories will not last very long in mothballs. The skills of workers in Youghal Carpets will not last very long because these people will go abroad to find work. The skills that took a century to build up will be gone like the froth of the sea, which is happening at the moment in my constituency.

We find the reality of our problems in the Department of the Environment. Reference has been made by many speakers to housing. We are fast becoming a nation of mobile homes and caravans. Living in a mobile home no longer ensures you will get a house. Such people are told they have a good mobile home. The whole area of housing must be tackled immediately. There is an increasing demand for local authority housing because people have not the money to build their own houses. They have not the confidence or security of jobs to do it. Local authority housing will have to be handled completely differently. The Government should, forthwith, use every available acre of land in local authority ownership for system built houses. Rather than having to wait for the lengthy process of building the traditional house we should construct system built houses which can be completed in six weeks.

With regard to housing loans, we will probably get something now that there is an election in the air. We have hardly had a housing loan paid since before Christmas in Cork County Council. The County Manager told us he could not pay the loans because he had no money.

£27 million was paid out last year.

The Deputy without interruptions, please.

We will be told all about the millions that were spent. In every paper I read a Fianna Fáil Deputy is telling us about more millions that were spent. We cannot get away from the grim fact that we did not have the money to pay the loans that were cleared. We are now bringing in — this is something that we will hear more about — new clauses to make housing loans more difficult. We have such a thing as a certificate of reasonable value and a certificate of exemption from reasonable value. We have clients writing for a certificate of exemption only to be told that what they need is a certificate of reasonable value. When the builder goes for a certificate of reasonable value he is told that the customer should go for a certificate of exemption. This sort of crazy situation continues to exist and I can give ample evidence of it.

The reconstruction grants are gone but even the few miserable grants that are left are hedged around with new clauses. You must now improve the whole house. An unfortunate person who has scraped up every penny he has to build a back kitchen or a room for a child is told that he will have to put in all new windows. If he uses a product called "beauty board" in the hall he will have to take it down and plaster the wall. That is what he is told. He will not get his £600 grant unless he improves the whole house. That is out of the question; he has to forfeit his grant. It would be a better thing to say: "You will not get a grant".

I am very disappointed with the performance in the area of sewerage and sewage control. The UK was mentioned as doing badly but it is going a great deal better than we are. They had a major effluent problem. The Thames was so bad at one time that you could almost walk across it but they have made that river so clean at enormous expense that the salmon are now moving up the river again and there is life in it. What are we doing? In the case of Cork harbour we are making proposals to the Department of the Environment, with the blessing of the Minister to dump raw effluent into that most beautiful harbour. We are told that 5,000 tons per day of effluent from one town alone will not cause any deterioration in the quality of the water. Did anyone ever hear such rubbish? If we are serious about tourism and our people's welfare the environment is important and we should protect it; we have a duty to do so.

It is only fair to say that a previous Minister of the present Government produced a beautiful document called "Water is Life" which made some very good comments. That Minister was moved on and we now have a situation when this beautiful harbour — I am sure the same applies to Dublin and elsewhere — is being made an outdoor toilet. Everything it can take will be dumped into it. This is one of the finest harbours in the world and it is our hall-door as far as most Europeans are concerned. All during our summer they will sail up that harbour from various car ferries and in tourist boats from abroad and at low tide, what will they see? Effluent all over the place.

Many of those who live and work in those harbour areas cannot afford to go to Tenerife or such places, but they need some recreation in their area and are entitled to it. I appeal to the Government to follow the European trend and clean up our harbours and make the country beautiful. I have already made suggestions regarding graffiti, cars and rubbish dumps. Much of the refuse problem goes back to the Department of the Environment. We are told they had not sufficient money to collect refuse and had to cut back on collections. That being so, people had no option but to dump refuse somewhere on the road and that is happening.

We hear wonderful talk about toll bridges. Soon we will be constructing toll bridges over pot holes. Cork county engineering staff are doing a wonderful job in keeping these holes filled but it is an impossible task because what we need is major road works. Nobody is boasting about what is happening to the roads. The only roads being dealt with are those funded out of EEC money; every other road is completely neglected. As regards the hedgerows the buachallán and the thistles were almost meeting last summer. We made one run with the hedge cutter up and down where we would normally make three. It is pathetic to think that we as a local authority put up big notices in our windows warning that a farmer with noxious weeks will be prosecuted when we are the greatest propagators of noxious weeds ourselves. They blow all over the countryside as a result of the inability of local authorities, because of lack of funds, to do their job properly.

I do not like this business of water charges. Local authorities were supposed to get all the funds they needed from central funds but we are now trying to knock money out of the householders by jacking up water charges — rates by another name. Last week I asked the Minister to tell me what he is doing about the Blackwater. The Minister of State is now in the House and I appeal to him to do something for the victims in Mallow. I was told in the written reply in the Dáil that the Minister was considering the matter. How long more will he be considering it when you have shopkeepers, private owners and even farmers with stock losses who are thousands of pounds out of pocket? We were promised something from a disaster fund and we were told we would have to put something into the fund ourselves. Surely we should do that. This should apply not merely to flooding but to other disaster areas such as Cobh where we had a massive landslide. We should set up an insurance fund to deal with those disaster areas because they cannot be insured in the normal way. Some people in Mallow who had their own insurance found when they went to claim that they were not entitled to anything because it was supposed to be a disaster area. I appeal to the Minister, not in any venomous spirit, to do something no matter how little within the limits of the funds of the Department for these people.

I must come back to the matter of job losses because it is the thing that bugs me most. When I pass through my local town as the children come out of school, it terrifies me to see all these wonderful young, educated people who will be coming on the job market. We have nothing to offer them. I do not think that even the emigrant ship is there now because the job situation abroad is probably very tight also. What are we doing to get jobs for them? What are we doing to hold on to existing industries? We are continually allowing traditional industries to go by the board.

What are we doing about the fishing industry? We have had concrete suggestions from the Department of Fisheries. Once we have finalised our limits — whatever they are going to be — we must put it quite clearly that the fishermen from other EEC countries who fish our waters should land all their catch in our ports, to be processed here. It would be worth while for them, because they would not have all that travelling back and forth with their loads. However, we have no provision, at present, for processing all this fish. What are we doing about protecting the industries which are in trouble? Absolutely nothing.

The Minister for Energy came down to Cork recently and told us that if we were not careful NET would have to be closed down. Is he not a bright boy? This is an industry which is the basis of a completely new petro-chemical complex, an industry with a future, with many thousands of jobs. It would be a lot better for him to try to keep some of the other industries open than to be criticising Nítrigin Éireann. Whatever problems Nítrigin Éireann have experienced, they were not caused by the present staff. These problems are a matter for a committee of this House, whose findings will be published and I am sure whatever action is needed will be taken. People have left good jobs and changed houses, to make their livelihood in this new exciting industry which is currently producing 2,000 tonnes of fertiliser per day for the home and export markets. The jobs are important to us because we have not many similar jobs left.

I come to another major industry and when one is talking about an industry which employs 1,500 to 2,000 men, one is talking about an industry which, in times of recession, could have problems if care is not taken. I was the only Deputy, without permission from anyone, to back the Minister when he said that he would give £10 million to Irish Shipping to build a ship in Verolme Dockyard. In the Book of Estimates for the Department of Defence, there is nothing about the two promised naval vessels. Are these vessels to go by the board? This is where we come to the blatant dishonesty of the budget and can foresee another supplementary estimate being brought in when it suits the Minister and the Government.

In Dublin yesterday, the Irish Sugar Beet Growèrs' Association met the Minister to discuss their problems. I believe that they were well received, which is good, and that the Minister's remarks were constructive. This is an area involving comparatively small sums of money. The whole sugar company complex developed over the years and carried with it a growing infant food industry. Perhaps that was the wrong structure. The food industry perhaps should have been developed as a separate entity with the necessary financial help. The sugar company have now major financial problems which need not have occurred. This is an industry which can expand and develop. It has a farm machinery section which is second to none anywhere in Europe.

Some of the best machines for the cultivation, sowing, spraying and harvesting of sugar beet have come out of that section. The plant was designed by a couple of Irish men, not so young now, some of them. These people should be congratulated on the work they are doing. Their plant can be sold all over the world and they should be encouraged to continue producing them by being given the necessary funds. We are speaking here about a once-off type of investment. The sugar company will not be a constant drag on anybody but, because of high overdrafts and heavy bank interest commitments, unless they get this financial injection they will have to consider cutbacks and slowing down. This is an area of great importance in industry which is employing thousands of people involved with fertiliser, transport, the whole area of sugar beet pulp, compounds and so on, similar to Nítrigin Éireann.

We hear criticism of Irish farmers. They have not as many hundreds of gallons of milk per cow as the Dutch have. The only reason why the Dutch farmer can beat our farmer at the moment on yields per cow is that he is obtaining sugar beet pulp and other products from South America and California literally at give-away prices. If there were a change in that situation, the Dutch and the Belgians would not be able to supply their own country with milk, but we in this country would. It is vitally important that Irish farming, the Irish sugar beet industry and Nítrigin Éireann should be fostered. If anything happened in the Persian Gulf — and anything can happen there any day of the week — and there was a cutoff of fertiliser supply from abroad, what then would happen to our food supply? Where then would be our surpluses? We have a supply of fertiliser which would keep us going — not a balanced fertiliser by any means, but a fertiliser which would keep us going for quite a few years. For that reason alone, we should protect and guard that industry with our lives.

I have not been destructively critical in my comments, I have tried to be as constructive as possible. I appeal especially to the party opposite because their Manifesto has put us where we are now, millions of pounds in debt. We were promised strawberries in December, something which could not be delivered. We had a sample of these promises again in Donegal on a Sunday morning when we were presented this time with a technicolour manifesto, handed out at the chapel gates, again promising things which could not possibly be delivered. Indeed, I was told last week that they were not delivered. Let us be honest with the people. They are ready for an honest approach and will believe us if we tell them the truth. Let us not have a Dutch auction situation.

With regard to tourism, which is my direct responsibility as Opposition spokesman, I make a final appeal to the Government in the beginning of this year, before it is too late, to do everything possible to encourage tourists here this year. We are not asking the Minister for Finance to take the duty from the drink sold in hotel bars. We are only asking that he remove VAT from meals served in hotels. About £700,000 of hotel grant money was not taken up last year. I am suggesting that the Government give out these grants to hotels and not limit the kind of work that will qualify.

This budget has emphasised more than ever the absurd and growing contrast between the appearance presented by Government pronouncements and the reality of the state of the country. The Government's self-image has assumed a life of its own and is now operating independently of reality. Because of this, parliamentary politics has been made to seem like some irrelevant puppet show. This stratagem of distraction and deliberate confusion does not have to develop very much further to prevent democracy from effectively functioning at all.

We have reached a stage when the budget is no longer the final word on either Government income or spending. We are told consistently that more revenue will be collected and less money will need to be spent than will be the case. The budget is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a guide to the Government's handling of money. The Taoiseach is trying to wriggle out of his accountability to the nation by presenting it with incomplete and unreliable budgets.

The Taoiseach is regarded as an excellent public relations man, which is naturally an important part of a Taoiseach's job. In spite of this reputation, he has been unable to convince the Irish people that he cares either about their wellbeing or about social justice, and therefore he is unable to unify the country at a time of economic crisis.

What effort has been made in this budget to ensure that the cost of this recession is shared justly so that the strongest will bear the heaviest part of the burden? In fact we have only to look at the area of taxation to see what is really happening: every Fianna Fáil budget since 1977 has given the most concessions to the people with incomes of more than £10,000 at the expense of those with less. The Taoiseach may call for a national understanding and co-operation between all sections of society but this call carries no weight because he cannot convince the Irish people that he will ensure that justice will prevail and that people do not have to fight each other to protect their legitimate interests. This is what public relations ought to be about.

This Government claim to be a caring Government because of the 25 per cent social welfare increases, yet their desperate reliance on indirect taxes hits those with lower incomes the hardest, because items such as drink and cigarettes, fairly modest luxuries, form a larger proportion of lower incomes than higher ones. This is, of course, the same Government that abolished food subsidies and have been under-financing health, education and local government services. This is the reality behind Fianna Fáil's claim to be a caring Government.

The Taoiseach has presented the image of an expert economic manager, yet the Government have failed to make any determined attack on the country's appalling financial problems. Instead, they have tried to sweep them under the carpet by borrowing. In fact Government borrowing has increased almost 1,000 per cent since 1977. By doing this the Government have thrown enormous masses of dead weight on to the future economy of this country which may well bring it crumbling to the ground. The Government have been paralysed in the face of competing vested interests and have failed to show the courageous leadership necessary to rise above these interest groups. Instead the Government have fallen back on a cynical policy of drift. Perhaps this is hardly surprising from a Government whose ministerial quality is so poor.

There is not any joy for any of us when we speak in the tone we have been using about the state of the economy. It is a tragedy to watch the downward trend we have witnessed in the past four years. We were told in 1977 that we would all be better off if Fianna Fáil were elected. Now we find that the greatest threat to democracy is the lack of realisation by the electorate of the expectations they held four years ago. We all know of the unfavourable reactions throughout the country to this budget. From now on our people will view with the utmost suspicion any promises given by Fianna Fáil. Many people remember how they were conned in 1977.

The internal squabblings in Fianna Fáil have been doing damage to the economy. It has become particularly obvious in the past 12 months that there is a rift in the Government and that is very serious for the country at a time when the economy needs leadership. It is time for Fianna Fáil to take a rest for a while and try to get back into office later, because this is not a time to have a divided camp running the economy.

During our term in office there was much criticism from these benches by Fianna Fáil spokesmen about unemployment. The then spokesman for Labour asked the Government to do something about unemployment, particularly about school-leavers. He asked how any ecomomy could survive with 103,000 people unemployed. He said that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office all those problems would be solved. Fianna Fáil in Opposition never lost an opportunity to tell us that all our problems were caused because of a weak Government. We were told that the tail was wagging the dog and therefore there was lack of decision. Now we have 125,000 people unemployed. As Minister for Labour, Deputy Fitzgerald failed completely. With all due respect to the man, the Department of Finance will not be improved by his appointment.

Whenever a job vacancy arises in my county about 50 applications are received and there have been 1,000 applications for 40 vacancies for student nurses. What hope have these people? The budget has done nothing to improve their situation. the Government have behaved as if this recession were a simple change in climate which would pass away in the normal course.

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, was very vocal on the subject of unemployment and said that if the number of unemployed exceeded 100,000 his Government would resign. It is no satisfaction to the Irish people that Deputy Lynch retired from his position as Leader, but he stands guilty due to his lack of action during three years in office.

Many factories in my constituency of West Limerick are working a three-day week and are about to close down. We had a sad experience in this area with the Ferenka factory and the present Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism played a major part in the closure of that factory through their neglect of the situation. The IDA and SFADCo should be asked now to come to the aid of factories which are in difficulty. I recently asked an IDA official the cause of the present problems but he did not give the information I requested. The situation is now so urgent that a meeting of all interested parties should be held to discuss the problem, whether it is management, overstaffing or lack of exports. I appeal to the Government to ensure that the IDA and SFADCo make the necessary aid available.

Fianna Fáil gave many undertakings in their manifesto with regard to prices and undertook to keep them under control. It is now something of a joke that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce was called the Minister for Prices. The present Minister is always ready to approve price increases and should be ashamed of himself.

The cost of a telephone has now gone beyond the reach of the ordinary man and it costs 18p to post a letter. Where do the Government think the people are getting the money? Electricity charges have increased by almost 100 per cent, yet the Government are strangely silent on the subject of prices.

Twenty years ago a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of stout may have been considered a luxury, but that is not the case today. It should be remembered that today's luxuries are tomorrow's necessities. I remember seeing on television and in the press the former Taoiseach and Deputy Lemass touring supermarkets in Dublin and somebody said that they would have done justice to any stage play. The amount they spent then on groceries would buy very little today, yet I do not hear any protests. Perhaps the organisations representing consumers will have something to say on the matter. Fianna Fáil have failed completely to deal with prices. They have a majority of 19 in this House and could bring in any legislation they wish. Today they had the opportunity to let the people express their feelings about the budget and the Government, but they rejected this opportunity because they are afraid to face the public. The money which was available in Donegal is no longer available. It is possible that those who got grants in Donegal were refused them four or five years ago.

In 1977 the Minister of State, Deputy Moore, when speaking about house prices asked why the National Coalition did not increase the SDA loan, which then stood at £4,500. The price of local authority houses then was in the region of £7,000 and purchasers had to find £2,500. Today the loan amounts to £12,000, provided the purchaser is in a position to pay £128.50 per month and find another £12,000. During the period of office of the National Coalition and in the first year of Fianna Fáil it was normal for people purchasing houses to get a bridging loan, but that has disappeared. Public representatives are being asked daily by young people for advice on how to raise money to complete their houses. There is no answer. As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, they have lost interest with the result that such young people are in a bad financial position.

When Fianna Fáil got into office they introduced a £1,000 grant for new houses. That was attractive then because houses cost in the region of £13,000 or £14,000. However, many people did not get the message that the grant only applied to first-time occupiers of new houses. Such a grant is not much help to people buying houses now. I appeal to the Government, whether or not we are approaching a general election, to increase that grant to £4,000. I do not mind whether it is put forward as an election bribe or not. The Government should increase that grant and make it retrospective to help the unfortunate people who cannot finish their houses because of lack of money. Local authorities do not have money to help such people. Last night the Minister of State told us of the number of houses built last year, but not one house was started in my county in 1980. We had to wait more than two years to get approval for a scheme for Croom in County Limerick. Many of the applicants for those houses went to other counties or other parts of Limerick to get a home. All we had in that village were mobile homes and caravans. That is the situation in most rural towns today. I cannot understand why the Government, with a huge majority, have not done anything about that problem. I am led to believe that the 15 Ministers of State work exclusively on election and constituency work and that gives our people an idea of the priorities of the Government. They are concerned about the party and leave the economy in second place.

Prices have gone completely out of control. The Government did not do anything to control the price of building materials because some builders had to be allowed a certain amount of scope. Not alone are those building a house refused bridging finance but they have to face a huge bill from the ESB for services. It can cost from £300 to £1,000 to have the electricity installed and there is no subsidy towards that cost. The Government will go down on record because they have not done anything to help young couples build their own homes.

The election manifesto was attractive in so far as it proposed the abolition of car tax, but the registration fee, which was £10 last year, has been doubled this year. We are almost back to where we were before Fianna Fáil took office. As soon as Fianna Fáil were installed with a safe majority they penalised the motorists they led astray in 1977. I am sure that Fianna Fáil would be put on trial in any country. I am sure that there are not any three-card trick men anywhere in the world who would get away with what the Government have done since 1977.

It is true to say that the situation in the agricultural sector was never as bad. In the last budget the Minister gave a rates concession which made me laugh. When they got into power Fianna Fáil withdrew the agricultural grant with the result that rates on farms trebled. Now they are handing back a certain amount to the farmers and telling them that it amounts to a concession. It is the same as taking £20 from a man last year and giving him £5 this year as a present. I am sure millions of pounds are owed by farmers on rates because they cannot afford to pay them. Any county manager who is approached about this will say the same thing. The Government have not done anything for those people, who are in a bad financial position. In 1977 the farmers were told that, if they got rid of the socialists and returned Fianna Fáil they would not have to pay tax. The Government do not have any money. It must be accepted that we are bankrupt but our people are not being told. Our people should be told that from now on. We are bankrupt and the longer it goes on the worse it will get.

The Deputy did not tell us the Limerick joke.

We will have the Limerick joke some other time. The Deputy will move the Adjournment.

Deputy O'Malley, the Minister for Prices how are you.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share