Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Feb 1981

Vol. 327 No. 3

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law, relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(The Taoiseach).

Mr. Coughlan

There can be no doubt that Donegal has not been favoured over the years. At last however positive interest is being taken in the region. In recent years this has been reflected in the increased allocation of funds by central Government to the county. Donegal is not asking for luxuries but basic essentials. If the Government allocate the necessary money to provide these basic essentials, and I am convinced that this Government will, then the enterprising and hard working people of County Donegal will do the rest. There should be no let up in the recognition by the Government of the special position of Donegal. Investment in the county has and will lead to a revolutionary change for the better in the standard of living and in the general quality of life within the area. It will also lead to the degree of economic and social development which the area both needs and deserves. Donegal is entering a new era, one of a growing population, but still has to deal with its legacy of old problems.

As one with a special interest in education I am glad to see that the Government have taken cognisance of this vital factor, as can be seen from the investment plan and its provision for such an unprecedented building programme for schools and colleges.

I will deal in detail with one aspect of education in which I have a little experience as a national teacher and that is the question of the Irish language, its teaching and its development both in the Gaeltacht and in the Galltacht, particularly since a fairly large area of my constituency is in the Gaeltacht. There are accusations and counter-accusations being hurled about in respect of those who are deemed to be anti-and pro-Irish. I have no interest in such arguments but I feel that the Government can in the actual teaching of the language contribute considerably towards its development.

Maidir le teagasc na Gaeilge agus ábhair eile caithfear bheith i gcónaí ag iarraidh feabhas a chur ar chóras oideachais ar bith, triail a bhaint as modhanna úr teagaisc, le fáil amach cé chomh héifeachtach is atá siad, cuid acu a chaitheamh ar leataobh muna mbíonn an toradh ceart orthu, agus bheith sásta pilleadh ar chuid de na sean-mhodhanna, nó gnéithe díobh, má's gá agus leanúint ar aghaidh leis an taighde idir theoiriciúil agus fheidhmeach.

Bíonn géarghá le athbhreithniú leanúnach. Tá a léithéid sin de athbhreithniú geallta sa Pháipear Bán faoi Fhorbairt Oideachais a foilsíodh le gairid. Is é mo ghuí go bhfeicfear toradh an athbhreithnithe sin á thriail ar bhonn rialta ar an léibhéal praicticiúil i scoileanna áirithe go luath, sa dóigh is go bhféadar a b'fhiúntas a mheas go tuisceanach agus go réadúil.

Tá cuid mhór a thiocfadh a rá faoi ár gcóras oideachais ag gach léibhéal ach ar an ábhar gur múinteoir bunscoile mé agus go bhfuil cuid dem' Dháil-cheantar sa Ghaeltacht déanfaidh mé iarracht m'aird a dhíriú, an iarraidh seo, ar ár gcóras bunscolaíochta agus ar fhadhbanna a bhaineas leis an Ghaeilge go ginearálta agus leis an Ghaeltacht go speisialta. Sa bhliain 1971 cuireadh tús le teagase an churaclaim nua i mbunscoileanna an stáit seo. Réabhlóid ó thaobh dhearcaidh a bhí sa churaclam seo agus níl dabht ar bith ann ach go bhfuil buanna súntasacha ag baint leis an mhodh teagaisc úr seo. San am chéanna caithfimid a bheith faichilleach. Luaitear sa pháipéar bán go dtáinig feabhas, de réir tuairimí múinteoirí áirithe, sa Bhéarla idir léamh agus labhairt, i léamh na Gaeilge agus i ngnéithe den mhatamaitic. Ach is dóigh le go leor nach mar sin atá an scéal i gcás gnéithe áirithe den chúrsa a bhfuil eolas cruinn de dhith ar an té a bheadh ag plé leo, nithe mar chomhaireamh agus litriú, agus tá eagla orm go mbaineann sé seo leis an modh cineál scaipthe ina múintear, uaireannta, an stair agus an tíreolas. Tuairim an-mhearbhallach atá ag daltaí faoi na hábhair seo.

Rinneadh teagase fónta ina lán scoileanna faoin sean-chóras nuair nach raibh tosca i gcónaí ró-fhabharach. Ach sáraíonn duthracht an mhúinteora mhaith deacrachtaí go leor. Le feabhas a chur ar gach gné den teagase ba cheart dúinn athrú leis an am fiú da mbeadh orainn breathnú siar corr-uair. Tá an méid sin, ar a laghad, dlite againn d'ár bpáisti.

I dtaca leis an Ghaeilge de níl an toradh ar mhúineadh na Gaeilge i mbunscoileanna ná i meánscoileanna na tíre chomh sásúil agus a ba chóir. Fiú amháin daltaí a mbíonn ceithre bliana déag caite acu ag foghlaim na Gaeilge agus onóracha san ardtheistiméireacht acu ní mó ná go dtig leo comhrá simplí a dhéanamh sa teanga. Ar an ábhar sin tá rud iontach cearr leis na modhanna teagaisc nó leis an spreagadh a fhaigheann na daltaí.

Cuireadh fáilte roimh modh an bhuntúis. Mar a deirtear sa pháipéar bán:

Is í príomh-aidhm na bunscoile maidir le teagaisc na Gaeilge ná labhairt na teanga a mhúineadh don pháiste sa dóigh go mbeidh ar a chumas, ar fhágáil na bunscoile dó, an Ghaeilge a chleachtadh mar mhéan chumarsáide ar ábhair ina gcuireann sé féin suim.

Ceapadh go gcuideodh an buntús chun an aidhm seo a bhaint amach. Ach mar a admhaítear sa pháipéar bán fosta d'fhéadfaí caighdeán níos fearr sa Ghaeilge a shroisint i gcuid mhaith de na bunscoileanna. Luaitear sa pháipeár-bán mar chúis le seo. "easpa suime sa Ghaeilge i saol an pháiste taobh amuigh den scoil agus easpa úsáide a bheith á baint as an nGaeilge mar mhéan teagaisc agus mar theanga chaidrimh sa scoil féin". Deirtear fosta "nár mhiste cur le cumas roinnt mhaith oidí i labhairt na Gaeilge agus a ngreim ar na módhanna teagaisc a neartú". Ach sa bhuntús féin bíonn an chontúirt ann, má chailleann dalta nó muna dtuigeann sé i gceart cuid de chéim sa teagasc, go mbeidh sé caillte ar fad. Nuair a bhíonn an dara teanga á teagasc go neaspléach ar fad den teanga bhaile bíonn deacrachtaí le sárú ag an mhúinteoir. Sa chás seo sa bhuntús bíonn áiseanna teagaisc ar fáil a chuidíos leis an mhúinteoir, ach bíonn claonadh ann go ro-mhinic druil leadránach mheicniúil a dhéanamh den cheacht bhuntúis agus ní bhaineann an dalta tairbhe as mar ba chóir.

Is í an teilifís an meán cumarsáide is tábhachtaí i saol an lae inniu i dtaca le páistí de. Is mór an trua é, agus is easpa an-mhór é gan cláracha Gaeilge bheith ar fáil go rialta do na haoisghrúpaí óga. Chuirfeadh a léithéid go mór le hiarrachtaí na scoileanna ach na cláracha a bheith tarraingtheach, inspéise, idir chláracha cruthaitheacha agus cláracha eolais.

Ábhar mór dóchais sa Ghalltacht is ea an líon scoileanna lán-Ghaelachta atá á mbunú agus na naí-scoileanna atá ag teacht chun tosaigh go háirid. Ba chóir freastal níos fearr a dhéanamh ar na scoileanna seo ó thaobh éagsúlachta, níos mó téacsleabhar agus áiseanna teagaisc a chur ar fáil dóibh. I ngach scoil ba chóir go mbeadh léarscáil i nGaeilge d'Eirinn agus den Eoraip nó den domhan ar teaspáint agus cruinnéog i nGaeilge den domhan a bheith ar fáil. Bhi a leitheidi ann tráth. Tá géarghá leo arís. Ba chóir a iarraidh ar dhreamanna mar Bhord Fáilte, a chuireas cáirteanna úsáideacha eolais agus learscáil daite i mBéarla ar fáil, a leitheidí a fhoilsiú i nGaeilge fosta. Ba mhaith an rud na leaganacha Gaeilge de cháirteanna nó de léarscáileanna a bheith le feiceáil ag na daltaí i scoileanna Galltachta nach múintear aon ábhar nó cuid de ábhar trí Ghaeilge iontu go fóill. Thiocfadh leis an mhúinteoir áiteanna in Éirinn nó thar lear a luaitear sa cheacht Gaeilge a theaspáint dóibh ar an leagan Gaeilge den léarscáil nó ar an leagan Gaeilge den chruinneog. Rudaí beaga a dheineas difir mhór.

I gcás oiliúint mhúinteoirí ba mhaith an ní é go ndéanfaí beart de réir mholtaí an Pháipéir Bháin agus féachaint chuige go ndéanfar "cuid mhaith den chúrsa gairmiúil trí mhéan na Gaeilge 'sna coláistí oideachais" agus ar ndóigh bheadh gá len i bhfad níos mó cúrsaí inséirbhíse a bhunú a bheadh dírithe ar theagasc na Gaeilge agus ar theagasc trí Ghaeilge.

Is ceist ar leith é múineadh na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht agus áit na Gaeilge i saol páistí na Gaeltachta. Sa Ghalltacht ceann de na deacrachtaí atá ag an mhúinteóir ná iarracht a dhéanamh ar thimpeallacht Ghaeilge a chruthú—is annamh a chluineann na páistí Gaeilge sa bhaile, ar an raidió, nó ar an teilifís. Sa Ghaeltacht cluineann na páistí an Ghaeilge thart timpeall orthu sa bhaile ach de ghnáth cluineann siad Béarla sa bhaile chomh maith, bíonn Béarla ag brú isteach orthu ó gach taobh, ar an raidió, ar an teilifís, ar fhógraí, agus ar nuachtáin. Bíonn siad dá theangach ón tús, thiocfadh leat a rá, d'ainneoin an Ghaelige a bheith acu ó dhúchas. D'fhéadfaí a rá go bhfuil páistí den chinéal sin ann fiú taobh amuigh den Ghaeltacht, agus a mbíonn cuid acu ag freastal ar scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha. Ach arís in áiteanna atá in ainm bheith sa Ghaeltacht agus in áiteanna atá san bhFíor-Ghaeltacht go fóill tá sruth an Bhéarla ag cur brú ar an Ghaeilge de shíor. Ba chóir go ndéanfaí athscrúdú go han-luath "ar na siollabais sa Ghaeilge féin agus sa Bhéarla freisin, mar a mhúintear i scoileanna na Gaeltachta iad. Tá sé seo fíor-thábhachtach mar tárlaionn sé go mbíonn tuismitheoirí buartha go minic faoi chaighdéan an Bhéarla a bhéas ag a gclann agus tosnaíonn siad ag labhairt Béarla leo sa bhaile. An toradh a bhéas air seo ná an Ghaeltacht a thionntodh ina Ghalltacht taobh istigh de ghlún amháin, tarlaíonn sé i scoileanna eile go dtiontaítear ar an Bhéarla siocair grúpa beag páistí bheith tagtha chun scoile nach mbíonn Gaeilge acu.

Ní fadhbanna do-réitithe iad seo. Thiocfadh beart a dhéanamh de réir sampla Chonamara agus naiscoileanna a bhunú le dóthan Ghaeilge a thabhairt do pháistí gan Ghaeilge. Tá sé ar siúl in áiteanna mar An Spidéal, An Cnoc, An Cheathrú Rua agus tá toradh air. Tá léarú dóchais eile ann, mar tá deá-thoil an phobail i gcoitinne taobh thiar de mhúineadh na Gaeilge sna scoileanna. Ó thaobh an oideachais de más fiú an Ghaeilge a theagasc is fiú í a theagasc go héifeachtach. Ba cheart don Stát bheith chomh gníomhach agus is féidir ag comhoibriú agus ag tabhairt tacaíochta do na dreamanna sa Ghaeltacht atá ag iarraidh feabhas a chur ar an scéal.

Daoine a cheaptar do phostanna sa Ghaeltacht tá dualgas orthu a ndícheall a dhéanamh leis an Ghaeilge a úsáid agus a chleachtadh. Níl sé ceart, ná cóir ná ionraic go mbeadh airgead breise á thabhairt do dhuine ar bith, is cuma cé hé, nó cé hí, de thairbhe go bhfuil post aige nó aici san Ghaeltacht muna bhfuil Gaeilge á úsáid acu. Mar atá an scéal i láthair na huaire níl gach rud in ord ná in eagar. Is breá an ceacht é an deá-shampla. Dá ndéanfai sin le fonn agus dúthracht ní beadh imní orainn feasta faoi shlánú na teanga, sna scoileanna ar chor ar bith, ach ní leor iarracht na scoileanna amháin.

This budget and the Government's investment plan provide a sound and secure basis for further economic and social progress this year and in the years immediately following. When the people at the next election are asked for their verdict on the performance of this Government over the whole range of economic activity, I have no doubt but that they will confirm the verdict so clearly and so strongly given recently in Donegal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy and congratulations on your first speech.

Mr. Kavanagh

I compliment the Deputy for his intervention in the debate. He is to be congratulated for the job he did. It is always difficult to make one's first contribution to any debate. I listened with great interest while I was waiting to make my contribution. When the Deputy came to the end of his speech I unfortunately would have to disagree with his conclusion. This is to be expected from Members of the Opposition. Nobody in the House must have listened to more debate on this budget than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who has shown great patience and fortitude listening to the various remarks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is the sixtieth speaker since the budget was introduced.

Mr. Moore

It shows what a great budget it is.

Mr. Kavanagh

Coming in at this late stage I doubt if I can say anything new about the budget. It was introduced on 28 January and we are now at the end of February and those of us who have waited until now to make our contribution have had ample time to get the reaction of constituents and assess the budget with the full knowledge of what has been said about it both inside and outside the House. We should go back to the speech made by the Taoiseach in the House on 29 January, the day after the Minister for Finance introduced the budget. It is wise to remind ourselves of the objectives of this budget. In his opening remarks the Taoiseach said:

We must maintain economic growth and development in order to bring the national economy through this current deep recession as safely as possible. This requires a major increase in productive investment levels.

Everybody wants the Government to achieve that target because this is the great task facing the Government. He went on:

We must positively protect the living standards of the underprivileged and less well-off in the difficult economic circumstances of today. This requires specific budgetary action in the health and social welfare fields.

Again we agree with that, but this budget will fail to achieve that second priority as can be seen from what is happening. He said:

We must improve the structure of the public finances and provide a solid foundation for the greatly increased level of economic activity needed in the years immediately ahead. This requires, in particular, a phased reduction in the real level of the current budget deficit.

These are the strategic aims which this budget will attain

I agree with the first and second priorities although I have reservations about the latter, but the third priority falls far short of reality. I cannot accept that what is being done in this budget could achieve that objective. The results of this budget will have the opposite effect to what the Taoiseach said were objectives of the budget and what the Minister for Finance set out to achieve in this budget.

The current deficit is estimated at £515 million. This is the largest deficit ever and all this money must be borrowed. We must bear in mind what the Taoiseach said about putting public finances on a sound footing, but one of the aims of this budget seems to be to create the largest deficit ever. The Estimates in 1979 and 1980 were spectacularly wrong, last year by as much as £200 million. Because those last two Fianna Fáil budgets were so spectacularly wrong, it would not be unreasonable to argue that this budget too could be wrong. The current deficit estimated at £515 million could be very much higher. With inflation running between 15 per cent and 18 per cent, these Estimates show an overall increase of 14½ per cent over last year — £3,370 million for the coming year as against £2,944 million in 1980. If we were only to maintain the status quo those Estimates would fall £100 million short, not taking into account special payments which may occur throughout the year or any problems that may occur in the agricultural or any other sector.

In addition to the £80 million being allowed in the budget for pay increases in the public sector, at least another £100 million will have to be allowed in the coming year for an all-round increase of 20 per cent in salaries and wages. Last year public sector pay rose by an enormous 35 per cent. Everybody knows there will not be a nil increase this year, and I suggest the increase will be of the order of 20 per cent and if that is the case another £100 million will be required. At best it is fair to say that the estimates in this budget are £200 million too low and at the end of the year the deficit will very likely exceed £700 million.

I am not an economist although I studied economics for a few years at UCD but I know enough from reading the figures and statements made by economists since the budget to suggest that the figures I am suggesting today are closer to the mark than those put forward by the Minister for Finance. To put it bluntly, the estimates for the supply services have been deliberately underestimated by £200 million. The people in the Department of Finance must know what is likely to happen in this country over the next few years but we must ask ourselves why the Government brought in a budget which deliberately underestimated expenditure by at least £200 million on the current expenditure side.

On the capital budget side the same problem is likely to occur. The budget allows for a very generous increase of 39 per cent in capital expenditure — up from £1,309 million to £1,820 million. However there is a catch: £670 million will have to be borrowed. The Taoiseach said they wanted to put public finances on a solid foundation, but now we know that £670 million will have to be borrowed. As a consequence total Exchequer borrowing for 1981 will be £515 million on current deficit and £781 million on capital budget, making £1,296 million. I do not believe that even these figures are fair because borrowing requirements on capital budget has been reduced by £200 million which is supposed to come from the private sector.

There is not any indication of which section of the private sector will provide £200 million this year. Once again commentators have said since the budget that they cannot see how the private sector will provide this money. When the Government include a figure as large as £200 million and do not say specifically where the money is to come from, it is reasonable to question it and to say that at the end of the day this money also will have to be borrowed, externally or otherwise.

The borrowing requirements we have been told about is nearly £1,300 million and I suggest that it will be £200 million more for the supply services, the money supposed to come from the private sector. All this adds up to total borrowing for Exchequer finances, capital and current, of £1,700 million. It shows that our Exchequer finances are in chaos. In 1971 we will be borrowing 17 per cent of our gross national product as against 14½ per cent last year. That is twice the level of borrowing in Britain, and anyone who has access to multi-channel television can see the furore that is swirling around Mrs. Thatcher's head because of the state of the British economy.

We are heading for national bankruptcy because this country cannot sustain borrowing of 17 per cent of GNP. Last year we could see where the money came from and the Minister of State in the House now produced figures. The resource tax on farmers, which was expected to yield £6 million, brought in £500,000; receipts from the private sector were 26 per cent less than estimated; receipts from the PAYE sector showed an increase of 30 per cent on the estimate.

We are having tax marches because of what has been happening in the past two years. We are having farmers' marches because of what has been happening in agriculture. More and more the tax burden is being spread in a most uneven fashion, the PAYE sector bearing the main burden. The farmers, who traditionally were thought to have been enjoying incomes which were not taxed, can now prove that their incomes have declined sharply in the past two years.

At the same time the Government are borrowing at a rate never before thought possible. The PAYE sector are asked to pay more. More and more people are becoming unemployed and the farming community are becoming more and more seriously threatened in their business. Of course it is reasonable to ask Members of the Opposition: "What would you do; how would you get out of this problem?" It is not an easy problem for any Government, and the simple answer is: "We would not have got into this position".

If this Government were to try even to balance their books on current account, which are in a mess which the Government made, they would have to double VAT rates, or increase all excise duties by half, or increase income tax rates by half. It could not be done. If they tried to do it by reducing services, which in real terms they have done, in order to balance current deficit the Government would have to abandon all social welfare payments, or the whole of the education expenditure, or five-sixths of the health services.

To try to think of a solution requires some hard-nosed consideration, but the Government are simply taking the easy way out, saying they must look to the private sector and then borrow abroad. It is terrifying how Government finances have deteriorated since the return of Fianna Fáil in 1977.

The increase in budget deficit figures since the depression in which the last Government found themselves is interesting. When that Government were going through the depth of the depression in 1975-76 and the increase in the price index had gone above 20 per cent, very few of the then Opposition spokesmen gave credit to that Government for the difficult external problems, with, for instance, the price of oil quadrupling. Even in their worst year the budget deficit in 1976 ran at £201 million. In 1977 the deficit was at the same level. Then Fianna Fáil came into power and the budget deficit in 1978 went up to £397 million; in 1979 it was £522 million; in 1980 it was £547 million, and the deficit this year is £515 million. How can those figures be accepted by anyone who considers what is happening in the country and the increases in the pipeline? Borrowings from external sources between 1979 and 1981 have reached a total of more than £1,500 million and the money has been borrowed simply to meet current budget deficits.

The Taoiseach claimed the Government were putting matters on a sound basis but all must agree that the policy in the past three or four years has been a policy of madness. Interest payment on the public debt has jumped from £268 million in 1976 to an estimated £881 milliea in 1981. However, that figure of £881 million set out in the budget Estimates must be questioned. Only yesterday the Minister of State was asked by Deputy Browne to state the overall cost to the Exchequer in 1981 of servicing the public debt and the reply of the Minister was "The figure requested by the Deputy is estimated at £984 million". In his reply the Minister should explain the discrepancy between £881 million and £984 million. There may be an explanation but it was not given in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Calleary

That is an incorrect figure.

Mr. Kavanagh

I am glad to hear that. I was amazed when I saw the figure of £984 million.

Mr. Calleary

That was not the reply given yesterday. I will give the information to the Deputy.

Mr. Kavanagh

I went to the Questions Office today for the reply and that is what I was given. I am glad that the Minister has corrected that point. It is as well to put on the record that annual interest payment on the public debt has jumped from £268 million in 1976 to an estimated £881 million for 1981. This means that 77p out of every £1 of income tax collected has to go to pay interest payments. When we come to the situation where we need income tax to pay interest we must realise that it is not a sound foundation for the State finances.

Some time ago we were chided in the papers for reminding the Government of their promises at the time of the general election. Nevertheless, promises were made, the same Government are in power but they have not kept the promises. In the Fianna Fáil manifesto there was a commitment to restore stability to Government finances and that commitment was repeated by the Taoiseach on 29 January. When the Government came to power the deficit was running at around £200 million but now it is up to £515 million. I have argued that the amount is nearer £700 million. It can be said that the State finances were never in worse shape.

The budget imposed additional taxation of £164 million. Tobacco and alcohol, the old reliables, will yield another £72 million, petrol and oil price increases £50 million. Post Office charges £35 million, car tax £6 million and television charges £1 million. This additional taxation is being imposed on items associated with everyday living. The increases imposed on oil and petrol were very severe. There is talk of an increase of 8p or 9p on petrol and presumably there will be a further increase after the hoped-for settlement of the strike. Three or four years ago the public were encouraged to buy cars but now many people are finding it difficult to keep a vehicle on the road. Many people have settled in my constituency of Wicklow in the past few years and they are obliged to travel to work in the city or to the NET factory at Arklow. The increase in respect of petrol has hit them severely. For car owners generally the increases that have been imposed in the past few years are becoming unbearable. I spoke recently to a man whose business is felling trees. It cost him £4 per day for petrol and oil for a chain saw. The Government must realise that this increase has had an adverse effect on the livelihood of many people.

The total effect of the increases is estimated to add 3 per cent to the consumer price index. Because of Government action the inflation rate has been increased by 3 per cent although I must say that many believe it will be even higher. However, let us assume that 3 per cent is the correct figure. Reducing inflation must be the highest priority where we have an inflation rate of 18 per cent but the Government's action has made it impossible to do this in the coming year to any significant degree.

There were many concessions given in the budget. Personal income tax concessions, £60 million; farmer taxation, £6 million, business tax, £3 million; and disabled persons concession, £1 million — a total of £70 million. The difference between the increases in taxation and the benefits of the budget is £94 million. The social welfare expenditure in the budget showed an increase for social welfare recipients of £111 million, a most generous increase. Nobody can deny that the Government have shown concern for social welfare recipients. If they had not given that increase those people would have suffered great difficulties. It required every penny of that increase to meet the increases in prices which have occurred during last year and to carry on with the expected increases that will undoubtedly follow as a result of the budget and the increases which are in the pipeline.

Would the Minister of State please see that social welfare recipients get their money on time? Would he see that the length of time taken to process the applications from social welfare claimants is reduced? I am sure every Deputy agrees with me that it would be very beneficial to all those who go to the "clinics" which Deputies hold if the Deputies could at least ring the Department of Social Welfare and get a reply about the different problems which are brought about to them. Yesterday one Deputy rang the Department of Social Welfare 34 times from this House without being able to contact anybody. I hope some of the extra money given to the Department of Social Welfare will go towards improving the telephone service there. I know that a large increase has been given for the telephone service generally and I hope that some of it will be used to not only improve the telephone service but put people in the different offices to answer the telephones.

Additional expenditure for the public service amounts to £18 million, additional expenditure in agriculture amounts to £30 million and there is an extra £1 million for disabled persons. This brings the total expenditure to £222 million. I do not believe social welfare recipients feel that they will become millionaires as a result of the money they got in the budget.

The spokesmen for the farming community often react too quickly before they can possibly hear what all their members have to say, but they are all very aggrieved at what has been given in the budget. They have been promised a package from the EEC, but so far the only news from the recent Council meeting is that additional taxation will be levied on the beef farmers. This will possibly cost the Government an extra £1 million. Although I am a member of the European Parliament I have no knowledge of the package which is being discussed. When the Northern Ireland package was being discussed it took almost two years to get it through. I hope there are ways of shortcutting discussion on this package because it will have to come to the various councils of the European Community and be discussed at Parliament level after being discussed at Commission and Council level. There will have to be agreement at all levels before this package can be given to our farmers.

I assure the House that all 15 Irish members eagerly await the result of those negotiations and we will do everything we possibly can in the European Parliament to speed it through the agricultural committee and the meeting of the plenary session. Since I became a member of the European Parliament all Irish members have done everything possible to see that the maximum benefits for Ireland are processed as quickly as possible. We assure the Minister for Agriculture that not only do we agree with him that our farmers badly need this package but that at European Parliament level we will give all the backing we can to see that it is put through as quickly as possible.

The Health Estimate has received an increase of only £7 million compared with the 1980 figure, which is only a 2 per cent rise. The amount given in 1980 was £391 million and this year's figure is £398 million. This is a very poor increase to give at a time when the inflation rate is running at around 18 per cent. The general medical services are getting only an increase of £4 million from £50 million last year and the voluntary hospitals are getting an increase of £5 million, which is a very low increase. Do any Deputies who are members of health boards or advisory boards and who know the problems of the health boards believe that those figures will meet their needs? It simply means that, if they are kept within the limits of this Estimate, services will have to be cut drastically in every health board area. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the operation of the health boards. There have been cutbacks in various areas over the last two years and we now see that there will have to be very real cutbacks in the coming year. We certainly do not want to see the general medical services interfered with. We do not want our hospitals to be further strained but how can they continue on their present budgets to give the same level of service.

Over the last few months the media have highlighted the dreadful state of our geriatric hospitals. These people need a great deal of compassionate attention in hospital but they have been forgotten. Looking at this year's Estimate it is obvious that they have been forgotten again. There is nothing in the budget to allow for a real improvement in the state of those hospitals. The State grants to all local authority bodies have been increased by only 9 per cent which is half the projected inflation rate.

I am a member of two local authorities and in Wicklow we have had to raise money just to keep our building programme going. If we had not gone to the bank for an overdraft we could not have continued to build council houses and yet we have not been given the go ahead to spend money on council houses this year. There were also severe cutbacks in water and sewerage schemes last year. Judging by the estimate for this year we cannot hope for any improvement now. Last year my local authority managed to maintain their permanent employment staff. This year it looks as if people will have to be let go. This Estimate will produce financial constraints on the operations of local authorities in the coming year.

The Department of Justice are no better off. The estimate for criminal legal aid is down from £810,000 to £770,000 although our newspapers are filled with stories of cases in courts which will require additional funds from legal aid. The Government have cut back by £40,000 the grant in that area. I cannot understand why the Government are reducing expenditure here when the inflation rate is already further reducing the amount available. The legal aid board have had a worthwhile increase from £500,000 to £950,000 but the grant of £27,000 to the free legal aid centre in Coolock has gone.

Recently Garda pay was said to have shown a substantial increase of £35 a week yet the figures show an increase of from £118 million to £132.5 million for that part of the Estimate. How can we put real faith in the Estimates when a promise of £35 a week extra is being made but there is not enough money in the Estimate to cover it? Either the Garda will not get their increase or the Estimate is wrong. Presumably the £80 million which has been put aside for contingencies will be used for that. However, that £80 million will be very much needed on the capital budget side.

There are very large areas which cannot be covered by this Estimate. The capital programme will need a £200 million borrowing from the private sector and we have not been told where that money will come from. I am worried that we will have to go abroad again to get this money. The £80 million is to meet various contingencies but it will not meet the requirement which will fall on the Government if they are to pay the outstanding loan interest required by NET to meet the difficult situation they are in. We met the Minister, the Minister of State and the manager of NET and we have been told repeatedly that NET require £90 million by the end of March if the company are to be saved. If the £90 million is not forthcoming by the end of March the figure will escalate. This company employ 1,100 workers in my constituency. They propose to reduce the number by 389 but even having reduced it they will require the £90 million. Just before Christmas one of the subsidiaries of the company. Arklow Gypsum, closed with a loss of 138 jobs. Even with NET shedding a possible 500 jobs they must have the cash injection to remain viable. There is nothing in the 1981 budget about where that money will come from.

I hope the Minister of State will be in a position before the completion of the budget debate to say where the money will come from. This is a vital industry. It is our largest chemical industry and it cannot be replaced. It is giving knowledge and skills which can be used if and when we find oil off our coast. It would be madness for the Government not to support NET fully. There is only £80 million in this budget for contingency plans and it goes nowhere near meeting the many shortfalls under various headings. I hope it will be earmarked to keep NET going. I cannot find a basis of fact for many of the figures in this budget although I have made a close study of the figures in the Book of Estimates and that is my main complaint against the Taoiseach's introduction to the budget.

I have listed the inaccuracies in the capital budget. Undoubtedly increases in the capital budget will be necessary but where will that money come from? Certainly the Minister has not said in his speech nor indeed has it been shown in the documents the Minister has placed before us. There is strong reason for believing — and I have endeavoured to prove this — that the books have been cooked in relation to this budget. Indeed, the Estimates for expenditure will lead to a reduction in expenditure in real terms, certainly if the inflation rate goes beyond 13 or 14 per cent. Local authorities and health boards have been hit particularly badly by this budget. Tax increases have added at least 3 per cent to the inflation rate. The tax concessions granted are way below what the trade union movement and workers had demanded as being fair and equitable for their needs.

In the area of agriculture the Estimate has fallen very short of the needs to meet the real problems farmers are encountering at present. Even though there are these shortcomings at the end of the day money will have to be borrowed at not only a very high interest rate on foreign markets but we are also caught in the trap of a depreciating pound. This means that we find we must repay such borrowings in sterling, dollars, deutschemarks, or whatever and that the value of our púnt depreciates against them. The amount of money which will have to be borrowed to finance the current and capital budgets was given in the Minister's budget speech as being at least £1,300 million. Certainly, if one relates the work intended to be done and the advances hoped to be made in the coming year, as were set out in the Taoiseach's speech to this House on 29 January last, to that figure, it simply is not possible; it cannot happen. If what is outlined in the budget is to be achieved there will have to be a borrowing requirement of at least £1,700 million and not £1,300 million. We must ask: can we sustain that level of borrowing? I very much doubt it.

The basic problem is that this last budget was not an honest one, it was not based on honest figures and such will be seen to be the case as the year progresses. All we can do is wait and hope that there will be an election earlier rather than later because some time soon somebody must take over this country and run it properly. Otherwise it will become ungovernable because our finances will have got into such a state that we will not be able to use the old Fianna Fáil cliché: "clean up the mess". I noted the previous speaker's prediction that there would be an early general election. As one Member of the Labour Party I am prepared to go forward and meet the Government on the terms of this budget and to argue it around the country. That would be the fairest way. Let us see whether or not the public are satisfied with the way this Government have been running the country. I believe they will certainly get their answer if the electorate are afforded that opportunity in the next few months.

Mr. C. Murphy

I welcome the opportunity of speaking even at this late stage of the budget debate. If I heard the Chair correctly earlier, I think he said the previous speaker was the sixtieth contributor to the debate, which would make me the sixty-first. Perhaps the old adage that the first shall be last and the last shall be first might come in useful somewhere along the way.

We are all deeply conscious of the fact that during the seventies we saw an average annual population increase of 48,750 and that the rate of increase was particularly high in the age group 15 to 29. Clearly, then, one of the main strategies of this budget must be to safeguard existing jobs and create new ones. Simultaneously we must take into consideration the general agreement in this House that the level of borrowing by the State is much too high. Yet to turn around and say that that borrowing must be truncated would have an obvious detrimental effect on employment. Rather this borrowing must be reduced in a positive, planned manner. The total resources of the State must be utilised and directed towards investment of a productive nature. We must have further expansion in industry, in particular within manufacturing industry, because it generates valuable employment in itself. It is indeed welcome news to learn that IDA projects over the past few months will result in between 15,000 and 16,000 new manufacturing jobs this year and that in the £60 million IDA factories' programme some 2,200 construction jobs will be brought on stream. One must consider also the spin-off in retailing, communications and transport employment which will accrue from these manufacturing jobs and also the investment in the factories' programme.

It is essential that only vital and urgently needed plant be imported. The emphasis must be placed on supplies and equipment from indigenous sources. There must be a renewed emphasis placed on domestic contracts. Greater opportunity must be provided for small, labour-intensive firms because I believe these form the key to the national spread of industrial jobs. These firms have tremendous flexibility and can react quickly to situations. Hence it is very satisfactory to read the proposals for amalgamation and partnerships between the State and private enterprise as outlined in the 1981 investment plan.

I have dealt briefly with industrial jobs and will return to that matter later in my contribution. But it is vital on this point to further strengthen our base. We must have an infrastructure geared to handle the era of more rapid economic progress which must come shortly. It is vital to have adequate infrastructure. Our road and telecommunication networks must be increased and improved because clearly if we have improvements in these two fields the competitiveness of Irish goods in both our home and export markets will be sharpened considerably. Poor and faulty telecommunications has been responsible for contracts, many of them won in the teeth of tough competition, being lost again. Transportation delays also push up costs and often make delivery dates unattainable and this results in the loss of repeat business orders. The investment plan of £1,732.6 million is a huge amount of money to inject into infrastructure, but it is very necessary.

I am particularly pleased to see the amount of money it is proposed to put into telecommunications. This investment, at £220 million, must result in a very large number of new telephone connections. I am optimistic, after the achievements of the past year, that the target of 80,000 new telephone connections will be met. The programme allows for an updating and conversion of 60 telephone exchanges and it is urgent that we have these exchanges converted to automatic working.

I note also in the plan that £90 million to be spent on internal and access transport. I am very pleased that, of this £90 million, £49 million is being provided for CIE and that of this £28.8 million will go towards financing the electrification of the Howth-Bray line. This line caters for a massive number of passengers. It is vital that a vast suburban train service be available for over 60,000 passengers who will daily avail of this service. I am pleased to know that, in spite of projections from speakers on the far side of the House, that there would be delays in completing the electrification, it is being boosted and speeded up and I note that it is the genuine wish of all representatives that this will come on stream on the projected date. The present stock, both rail and bus, leaves a lot to be desired and certainly the £80.5 million being made available for bus building is welcome.

Let me digress slightly for a moment. It is with a considerable amount of concern that I have learned that the fleet of buses which will be the mainstay of road passenger transport for the next 20 or 30 years may not be equipped to cater for the disabled. I know from correspondence I have had with the Minister that he is looking into the matter. I feel, especially in this year which is designated the Year of the Disabled, that we should seek the necessary provisions to enable bus doors to be at the same level as footpaths in order to cater for the disabled, or to have some other system to allow for the transport of wheelchair patients. These must be accommodated. The worry about the Year of the Disabled is that we would have a once-off situation and then have little to show for it. There is an opportunity here now to have something achieved. I sincerely hope that the Minister's pressure on the firm will result in the people in wheelchairs, the handicapped and the disabled, being accommodated.

While £80.5 million for bus building is welcome. I mentioned just two local issues when I spoke in terms of bus and rail. I know from constituents their worries and their concerns over the quality of service and also the type of service that is being offered. I know also from the work force in CIE the difficulties they have because the rolling stock is so old and in such a bad state of repair. Certainly there will be a challenge to the people on the CIE fleets to rise to the occasion when ultra-modern stock is put at their disposal. I have every confidence that they will so do. It is fitting, too, to congratulate the Department of Posts and Telegraphs at every working level in reaching their telephone installation target during the previous year.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 March 1981.