Before the adjournment I made the point that the country is sitting on an economic time bomb. I said that the Tánaiste during the week-end pointed to an unemployment figure of 145,000 compared with today's figure of 129,000, meaning that the Tánaiste was suggesting an increase in unemployment of 16,000 between now and Christmas. I pointed to the statement by him that he did not believe we could create any more jobs, that the answer to our unemployment problem was in early retirement and work sharing.
I should like to continue by referring to another aspect of the Tánaiste's statement during a weekend interview. He singled out our young people and used the rather depressing words that we should think of our young people being out of work on a semi-permanent basis. I said before lunch that I did not intend to introduce party political rancour into the debate, but I find it depressing, uninspiring leadership from the Tánaiste who should be trying to lead our young people into worthwhile quality jobs. Is it any wonder that in recent weeks we have had renewed talk about emigration, of our young people not being able to find the jobs they want at home and having to go abroad? They are entitled to those jobs at home and Irish Governments have a responsibility to provide those jobs for them.
If the Tánaiste throws his hands in the air and says that our young people will have to become used to being unemployed on a semi-permanent basis, what are our young people to do but the same thing, to throw their hands in the air and say: "Michael O'Leary or the Government do not have the answer to our problem." That leads to increased frustration, to an increase in crime and other social problems, all the side effects of unemployment referred to in the House this morning. This is not good enough. Perhaps it is even dangerous.
I do not share the Tánaiste's pessimistic view. Given the right kind of leadership and commitment we can get back to growth levels of 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Throughout 1980-81 we managed to have slight positive growth. There is no reason why with the right kind of leadership we cannot get back to 3 to 4 per cent growth and that would provide needed jobs.
I do not share his pessimism either because a lot of the jobs which are being lost are in the traditional older industries and they are beginning to work their way through the system with the result that we are increasingly dependent on our newer and more successful industries — pharmaceutical, electronics, health care, the newer and brighter types of industries which we have been attracting and establishing for some years past. The losses in the older industries must now be getting to the stage where they are levelling out. There is still some scope in this country, despite the pessimism of our Tánaiste, to attract investment, particularly from abroad. This should be and can be done in a systematic, organised way. Even a small increase, a tiny increase, in investment in this country would have an enormous effect on the number of people employed in manufacturing jobs. For example, there are more people employed in Birmingham in manufacturing industry than there are in all of Ireland. That gives an idea of how small an increase in investment we need to have an immediate effect on the number of jobs created.
I reject the pessimistic, depressing, uninspiring approach of the Government to this whole question of providing jobs for our young people. It certainly is not designed to give them the hope, the encouragement, the determination, if the Government cannot provide them with jobs, at least to get on their own feet and go out and look for jobs and provide jobs for themselves by their own ingenuity. A lot of damage has been done in this particular case.
I want to deal with the Bill very briefly. I have a number of criticisms of the Bill. I do not question its sincerity. I want to say that to the Minister. I do not question an honest attempt to put young people to work. What I do question is its effectiveness and to a certain extent I have to say I feel it is a little bit of a fraud because, first of all, it is dishonest to suggest in this Bill that somehow there are new funds being made available, there is a magic £90 million being switched on which we did not have before which is now coming on-stream to allow us to provide jobs for our people. It is dishonest to say that. We should call it what it is. It is a tax, a straight-forward tax on people and obviously from this Bill it is a tax on people's income. So, let us call it what it is: it is an income tax to fund employment.
Considering that, we should look at some of the figures involved. I am open to correction on this when the Minister is replying, but in the Minister's speech he mentioned a figure of £40 million from his Department from the end of April to December next year and said that this would be the amount which would be allocated for this particular purpose. If you go through the various figures allocated at present under the same headings you come up with a figure somewhere between £25 million and £30 million. That is my figure. I am sure there will be other figures throughout the day. Overall, the impression to me is quite clear that what this fund is trying to do is to fund the existing operations, to fund the existing schemes. There would therefore seem to me to be no new funds brought to bear on the problem of youth unemployment. If there is, then it is certainly very marginal and only what could be expected by way of a normal increase under those various headings next year. I suggest that it is really an income tax to swell the Exchequer and perhaps we should be honest enough to call it that and to see it in that way.
I welcome this attempt to coordinate and to pull together the various agencies and the various efforts to provide youth employment but I am not happy with the implication, the insinuation, that somehow there are bright new funds suddenly being made available to provide jobs for young people. It seems to me to be more of a work-sharing exercise rather than creative. It is taking money from the public at large basically to try to share out what work we have available, which reflects the attitude of the Tánaiste in that particular interview also, that there is no new work; let us just be happy and content to share the work we have and to take it from there. I find that a very depressing attitude.
I would worry lest this £90 million should really become a super dole. I would worry lest it should become just another means of paying for social workers generally. What I would like to know is: are jobs going to be created in the social area, like the Tánaiste suggests, and how will that affect the embargo on the public service, if that is the case, or are real lasting productive jobs going to be created by this fund? Is it just another transfer from people within the system or is it a real attempt to provide lasting, productive work the effect of which will go on long after the money is spent? I would suggest that if it is just more funds being added to the great growth of the State machine, going to add to the size of our public service, if it is money heading in that area, I would prefer that it were not spent.
If it is to be effective the money spent under this heading will have to provide continuity in employment. I honestly cannot see any new money in the scheme, any new wealth being created as a result of the expenditure. It would appear to me to be just another sort of finger in the dike effort in terms of holding back the unemployment figures. It will have a short-term effect but no lasting real permanent jobs the effect of which will go on long after the money is spent. That has to be the real test of any expenditure of this sort. Otherwise, it is another super dole, a State hand-out and the great State system is already creaking and I do not believe it can take much more.
Looking at the figure of £90 million, the IDA suggest that it costs about £10,000 to provide an IDA job. If we do our sums on that we should be looking forward to 9,000 jobs. Otherwise that money could be given straight to the IDA and they could provide 9,000 jobs with that — 9,000 per annum. If that is the case, how can we reconcile that with the Tánaiste's view that there are not any new jobs, that we have to share what jobs we have and not be talking about new jobs or working towards new jobs? If we are going to spend £90 million, we should be getting 9,000 new jobs a year. I would suggest to the Government that they are not going to do that, that what will happen is that this money will be frittered away on revenue items and at the end of the periods in question we will have spent some more money but will not have created the solid productive permanent jobs we hope to create.
Another point worth mentioning is that I believe from Deputy Fitzgerald's breakdown this morning that some £10 million of that is coming directly out of people employed in Irish industry. Again, these figures are very much open to correction because they are very preliminary. If you are taking a figure like that out of Irish industry — £10 million or £20 million, or whatever the figure may be — to give it to an agency to provide jobs which may end up being service jobs, are you not in effect making it more likely that the industry that gives you the money will be in greater financial difficulty and therefore will not themselves be in a position to expand their own employment? If we are just taking money from Irish industry to give it to some new people to create some new jobs, were we not better in the first place to leave it to those industries and encourage them to provide the jobs? That is what we seem to be doing in this scheme. We have to look at it a bit more carefully.
Speaking of Irish industry, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I do not believe there are any solid figures on it but I believe that up to half the private companies in this country are in a loss-making situation. I saw a corresponding figure some time ago, published by the Confederation of British Industries, which suggested that a somewhat similar number of British industries were losing money. Considering that, perhaps it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Government to take a long, close look at some sort of rescue operation for small Irish industries.
Recently our farmers put together a very attractive package of interest rates. They came up with a figure of the order of 10 per cent. I do not begrudge it to them but many small businesses employing ten, 20, 40 or 50 people who are at present crippled by interest rates would dearly love the State to help them with a 10 per cent interest rate also. However, there are always difficulties in this area and there is no panacea for these ills. Irish industry cannot take much more by way of levies or taxation because their losses have not yet come to the surface. This will happen by way of redundancies and reduced employment opportunities, so we must be careful about putting extra burdens on business companies. We can do a lot more by way of joint ventures with foreign companies. I feel that Irish firms do not have the clout they should have in international markets, because by the time they get on to the world stage other firms in other parts of the world have moved up to a higher level of importance.
One of the ways to create jobs is to keep moving the capital budget and the amount of money we spend on our infrastructure. It is disappointing to see suggestions coming forward at the moment that our capital programme should be cut. If the capital programme is cut, it is cutting directly into jobs on the factory floor. We can ill afford to cut back on investment when we so badly need jobs. It is foolish to be talking on the one hand about providing £90 million to create jobs for young people when some other arm of Government will cut £90 million or perhaps more off the public capital programme or our productive spending. It is a contradiction to be taking jobs away and trying to recreate them by some form of agency whose future has not been debated as it should be.
We should examine where we are going. We need to examine our needs and resources. We will have to stop the double thinking that we can let things drift. We must put together an economic philosophy and an economic programme. We must have a fundamental re-assessment of the economy. Do we place our trust in the great State machine, as perhaps Deputy Michael Higgins would like, or do we place our trust in individuals, as the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Kelly, suggests? I see the role of the State as controlling the worst excesses of private industry, speculation and private enterprise. In the past these excesses have contributed to our level of poverty but I do not see the State as continuing to increase its involvement in running our enterprises. I prefer to see the State controlling the people who run our enterprises. We have to state unambiguously, as a philosophy, that there is a poverty line below which nobody should be allowed to fall, for whatever reason. There is a duty on us to provide housing, education and all the basic human needs which people require. We must be a humanitarian State with a keen sense of social justice.
Enterprise is at an all-time low. Our productive base urgently needs to be expanded. If we do not do that through enterprise, the great State machine will have greater weights to carry on its shoulders and will finally creak to a halt. There are approximately one million people in education, one-third of our population. Sister Stanislaus wrote a very fine book recently in which she said there were one million people, 700,000 on permanent social welfare benefits, the balance making up the total figure in receipt of social welfare. The public sector is getting larger by the day, despite efforts of Governments to try to control it.
Last week we agreed to pay £27 million to people in receipt of social welfare benefits. We had to borrow the money to do that. I do not begrudge it to them but we must be honest and try to ensure that there is a poverty line below which nobody falls. If we do not teach our young people to create enterprise, our economic growth will fall off and we will be looking to the various Departments of State to swell the coffers by taking on more and more people, but this will not provide us with the surpluses we need to maintain our social welfare system.
This genuinely worries me. Recently I spoke to about 200 commerce students in a university. At the end of my speech I asked them how many expected to employ people or how many would like to be lawyers and so on? About 5 per cent saw themselves as being directly in the employment of other people. They were the economics graduates of our universities. If young people in the future cannot create work for their fellow citizens it will again fall on the State to provide employment. I do not believe the State is in a position to continue to do that on the scale which is needed. We should somehow teach our young people the lesson of enterprise. If necessary we should ask the IDA to launch a business school and to highlight the attractiveness of a career in marketing and selling our products abroad. Whatever we do the key must be in this area, expanding our productive base and asking our young people to put their work into that area.
I would ask the Government to ensure that as much of this £90 million as possible will find its way to the type of philosophy I have been putting forward here today. If there are other philosophies which work, I would like to hear them but I have not heard them so far in this debate.
In this basic re-assessment of our economy we have to be honest enough to examine some institutions and schemes which we have always taken for granted and assumed served the needs of the people. In the sixties we fostered the semi-State companies and spoke about the tremendous contributions they made to our economy. I believe they have made substantial contributions but are they suitable for the eighties and nineties? Do we need enterprises which would involve the State with the private sector? Do we need to take our trade unions off the sidelines, in their role as watchdogs? Do we need to bring them into a more participative role, with the banks and institutions, in the running of Irish enterprises? Can we encourage the trade unions to share the risks and rewards of industry? Can we devise a taxation system which will care for the people in our society without at the same time putting a damper on dampening enterprise?
The political parties have the responsibility of making policy and we have to get the people to adopt a philosophy based on widening the productive base, looking after the disadvantaged and encouraging our young people to participate in the widening of this productive base quickly. The first thing we must do is to get the people to adopt a basic economic Irish philosophy of that nature.
From that policy I would see coming forward, sooner I hope rather than later, an economic and social plan. Some time ago we had a Government investment plan before this House in which we hoped to spend £1,700 million in the productive sector. I do not know what this Government's view of that plan is, or whether they intend to resurrect all or part of it, but one thing I am sure of is that this country desperately needs an investment plan within the confines of an economic philosophy with which we can all agree. We waste a lot of time and energy fighting the various conflicts in society. What we need in the eighties is a clear objective on which we can all agree. Then we can get down to work.
In the sixties we had a clear objective. We wanted industrialisation, we needed housing and we were dashing for growth. We knew exactly what we had to do, how to do it, and we did it. The amount of conflict in society was not very great. In the eighties we have high inflation, slow growth and various conflicts of interest from pressure groups which all blur the economic and social objectives. The first thing we have to do is to sort out the scandal of the huge numbers of our young people who are unemployed. They are not given any hope for the future by this Government. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question the other day the Minister said an economic plan would be available for discussion some time in the spring. I look forward to that. At that time perhaps we will be able to discuss the objectives of this country and how, together, we will solve some of these difficulties.
I do not mind a political debate, attacking the Government or blaming politicians for not doing this or that. That is all a useful and necessary part of politics but at the end of the day if, as politicians, we do not sort out the direction of our economy, the people will be quite right in saying "a plague on all your houses. You have not lived up to your responsibilities to provide work for the young people". As politicians that is our role in the immediate future. I am looking for an investment plan which will tell us in clear terms how we can employ our young people and where the money will come from.
I welcome this half-hearted effort to do this because it is better than nothing, but it is not tackling the root of the problem in a serious and determined way. I will be looking for an investment plan from this Government at an early date.