Deputy Woods is in possession and has eight minutes left.
Estimates 1983. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £4,047,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1983 for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
— (The Taoiseach.)
In view of the absence of Deputy Woods I assume the eight minutes will be given to this side of the House.
The Chair will proceed according to Standing Orders.
May I take the opportunity of assuming Deputy Woods' eight minutes? As the Ceann Comhairle said I am a most orderly Deputy and I just seek fair play for this side of the House. There is no Government speaker offering and I am offering.
We do not want to assume Deputy Woods.
The House is breaking down. I am offering to speak.
I am calling the Minister for Health and Social Welfare.
The elder lemon comes to take the floor.
I should like to make a few general comments about social welfare and outline briefly some important considerations for the future in this area. By their nature, social welfare services have a major impact on the social and economic life of the country.
On a point of order is a prepared script to be distributed or will this be an off-the-cuff contribution?
If it is the wish of Members of the House that the Chair enforce that rule strictly——
I am only inquiring if the Minister has a script and if we should wait for it to be distributed or if he has notes.
I have a few copies of a personal script.
Fair enough. The practice has been that the last few Government speakers had prepared scripts.
Is it usual for a Minister making a speech on an Adjournment Debate to have an adviser available to him?
The Chair has no control over these things. If it is the wish of the House that Standing Orders be strictly enforced in regard to notes, scripts, etc. the Chair will take note of that and enforce them. Up to now a reasonable attitude in regard to notes, etc. has been adopted.
That reasonableness is much appreciated. There was a practice in this debate that each Government Minister had a script. The Minister has made the position clear that he does not have one.
It is equally the custom that somebody is present from the Department of Finance.
This is a confined debate and the Minister only has half an hour.
By their nature, social welfare services have a major impact on the economic and social life of the country. This impact arises from the number of people who rely on these services. It might not be appreciated by Deputies that every year there are about 1¼ million new claims received in the Department. In any one week there are about three-quarters of a million people and their dependents depanding on social welfare as their main source of income. I stress the impact that this level of social welfare expenditure has on the economy. Expenditure this year will amount to £1,870 million or the equivalent of 14 per cent of GNP. That represents £540 for every man, woman and child in the country. I suggest that this level of expenditure gives a limited degree of financial independence to people depending on basic community support.
It must be remembered, when people speak about social welfare, that this expenditure represents a major element of the demand for goods and services in the economy especially basic items such as food, clothing, accommodation and fuel. The community as a whole benefit from social welfare through the increased wellbeing and participation of its less well-off members and through the bonus given to the community of the extra spending power of persons in receipt of moneys from social welfare. Much of the criticism which is made of expenditure on social welfare could be countered by these arguments. Admittedly, the recession and inflation mean less income and greater expenditure for social welfare. In a recession, yields from general taxation and social insurance contributions decline, due to a decrease in the aggregate earnings level as a result of increased unemployment. Likewise, on the payments side a recession gives rise to increased expenditure for unemployment benefits as well as extra expenditure related to unemployment such as retraining and youth employment programmes and, furthermore, increases in social insurance contributions needed for balancing receipts and expenditure. These create other problems by reducing the disposable income of the working population and by pushing up the cost to employers of taking on employees. Therefore, a recession and inflation have a double-barrelled effect on our system of social security. Certainly, inflation has the effect of increasing expenditure because those dependent on social welfare must be given additional payments.
I want to suggest vehemently to the House that those who depend on social welfare—the sick, the unemployed, the widowed and the elderly—are particularly vulnerable to changes in economic conditions. We must appreciate that, unlike the rest of the community, such persons do not have the flexibility available to those who have comparatively better paid employment in order to meet their own day-to-day commitments. It is a great irony that at a time like this, when the need for income maintanance services is at its greatest, the community's ability to make an adequate response is limited because of the critical position of the public finances.
I want to comment on the fact that in 1983 the single largest element of social welfare expenditure was the major cost of unemployment. Unemployment, as we know, represents the most important social issue facing this country, both at the present and in its future impact on the organisations of society and on work itself. In 1980, the expenditure on unemployment payments amounted to £170 million. At that time there were some 106,000 persons out of work. In 1983 this expenditure will amount to £473 million to meet the needs of 193,000 people without jobs. This expenditure represents some 25 per cent of all social welfare provisions. It represents about half the amount to be borrowed to meet the overall current budget deficit this year.
These expenditure details, needless to remark, cannot reflect the intangible cost of the human indignity and suffering involved in being without a job. I would agree that the latest live register figure of 189,384 and the trend underlying it give little prospect this year of the burden being lifted from the community. With the provision for this support as a priority — my personal priority — I will certainly endeavour to use the limited financial resources at my disposal in the most effective way possible.
I would like briefly to affirm again that the new rates of payment provided under the Social Welfare Bill which came into effect at the end of June have all now been paid and are being paid. They represent an increase of 12 per cent on the weekly rate of long-term payments and 10 per cent on the weekly rate of short-term social insurance, occupational injuries and social assistance payments. It is important to compare the level of benefits now being paid in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with those in the Republic. For example, the standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefit in the UK is now £25 for a single person and £40.45p for a married couple. These payments at current exchange rates are equivalent to IR£31.32p and IR£50.67p. The corresponding Irish payments are now £34.80p and £57.35p. Therefore, in relative terms, our payments for unemployment and sickness benefit are at present better than those in the UK. In the UK, also pay-related benefit with short-term benefit was withdrawn in June 1982. Another difference is that the duration of unemployment benefit in this country is 15 months as against 12 months in the UK.
I want to refer to the collection of PRSI contributions because the House will not now be meeting until mid-October and it is important that during the summer period the collection of these contributions be in no way diminished. For example, last year my Department reported over 3,000 employers to the Revenue Commissioners for failure to pay contributions totalling about £4.5 million. I am concerned to see effective combined action by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare in this area so that cases of withholding contributions are speedily detected and that this form of abuse, the burden of which in the final analysis falls on other contributors to the system and on the taxpayers generally, is eliminated.
Regarding the administration of the social welfare system, the overall cost of administration of social insurance and assistance services in 1983 will be approximately £75 million, which represents just 4 per cent of total expenditure. The efficient management of the social welfare services is of primary importance. In this context, computerisation will have an increasingly important role. Provision has again been made in this year's Estimates for the resources necessary to continue the computerisation of the systems in the Department and I see this as a very important aspect of the Department's efforts to make the systems more effective and more responsive to individual needs.
Computerisation was introduced initially to deal with records and payments in relation to pay-related benefits and has been extended to handle all records arising under the PRSI system and all disability benefit payments. Based on the experience to date, there is clearly considerable potential for the use of computerisation in the payment of other social welfare benefits. In this connection, the introduction of computerisation into employment exchanges on a phased basis is planned. Preliminary work has also commenced on the computerisation of the children's allowances and the pensions area. The overall computer development programme will make a major contribution to the more effective and more efficient day-to-day administration of the Department, including better retrieval and communication of information in individual cases.
Regarding disability benefit and the related schemes, these, as Deputies know, are highly centralised and can give rise to quite difficult problems. Although most claims are now dealt with quickly, nevertheless problems can arise from time to time in individual cases. It can be difficult for the claimant to communicate quickly with the Department of Social Welfare. The fact that all documents and claim forms must come to the headquarters of the Department in Store Street, and that all cheques must issue from Store Street, makes every claim subject to the vagaries of the postal system at least twice and usually more often. I can readily understand the frustration of a number of claimants. In the past six or eight months I have done my utmost to ensure that the system operates as efficiently as possible.
A fully localised disability benefit payments system would require considerable resources in terms of staff and machinery. It would have to await the computerisation of the Department's local offices, a process which has started but which will take some years to implement. In the meantime, it is my Department's intention to develop a computerised inquiry system which will allow information on claims to be obtained by the public at local offices throughout the country. As an initial step, visual display terminals have been installed in two major public offices in Dublin and in three information offices outside Dublin, namely, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. There will be access to information for inquiry purposes on disability, maternity and occupational injury benefit claims in these offices.
My Department's plans are to expand this visual display terminals system gradually to all our information offices as resources permit. As other schemes become computerised, they will be linked to this inquiry service, and eventually up to date information on most claims will be available instantaneously at local level. In the long run, it is envisaged that this system will be further developed to permit of a decentralisation of the actual administration of the schemes where circumstances show this to be both desirable and feasible.
I can assure Deputies that, despite the fact that the House is going into summer recess, a great deal of work remains to be done during the summer months. I will be continuing with my efforts to initiate a national income-related pension scheme, to provide a social insurance scheme for the self-employed, to ensure that the anti-poverty plan is properly formulated and implemented, and to eliminate the remaining areas of discrimination between men and women in social security matters.
I should like to refer to the Commission on Social Welfare. Deputies will agree that the regular improvement of existing services and the monitoring and appraisal of the services are important aspects of my Department's development programme. The Commission on Social Welfare envisaged in the Programme for Government are now being established to review the social welfare system and ensure that it meets its objectives effectively. This will be the first time since the Department of Social Welfare was established in 1947 that a commission will examine and report to the Government on the whole system of social welfare. In particular, they will report on the effectiveness of the system as it has developed over the years.
The commission will consist of persons of outstanding expertise in the social policy area. I am confident that they will make a decisive contribution. Recently I received Government approval for the formal establishment of the commission and for their terms of reference. The membership will be announced within the next week or two. The commission are being established for a period of two years. They will not be a commission of long duration. They will present their final report within a two-year period.
Understandably these days, people may feel that the Government are shrugging their responsibilities on to a commission for three or four years and then their term of office is up and, apart from establishing a commission, it may be felt that nothing else was done. That is far from being the case in respect of the commission now being established. They will have a two-year remit. They will present interim reports, but their final report must be presented not later than two years from the formal date of establishment. I am confident that they will make a major contribution to the development of our system of social security.
On the question of equality of treatment, as Deputies are aware the EEC Directive of 19 December 1980 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security requires that all discrimination in the areas covered by the Directive must be removed by the end of 1984. The relevant areas of discrimination in the social welfare code which relate to limited entitlement of married women to various benefits must be removed before that date. It is envisaged that the necessary reforms will be provided for in 1984, and detailed proposals on the matter will be submitted for Government approval in due course.
On the question of a national income-related pension scheme, the Government's programme provides that steps will be taken to initiate such a scheme during the lifetime of the Government. At present the White Paper proposals are being costed by an actuary. I imagine it will not take more than a few months at the most to get the final costings from the actuary who has been allocated to this work by the Department. As soon as I have the costings available, with the bulk of the work now done in the White Paper apart from the updating of the costings, I will be putting proposals to the Government for approval with a view to publishing the White Paper later this year.
The extension of social insurance to the self-employed will be included in the context of the pension plan. As Deputies are aware, the self-employed, including farmers, represent some 25 per cent of the work force. It is of critical importance that our contributory social insurance system should be extended to the self-employed. This would make for a more equitable distribution of the cost of social security than is the position under our present arrangements. It would mean that a far greater part of the cost of income maintenance for the self-employed would be borne specifically by that group.
As Deputies are aware, at present under the non-contributory social assistance scheme the general body of taxpayers, particularly people who are already contributing to the cost of their own social insurance, bear a substantial proportion of the total cost. Therefore, in the interests of social equity I will be pressing ahead with this fundamental reform as a matter of urgency in the months ahead. During the summer I hope to do a lot of work on this and that as soon as the White Paper has been published it will be the subject of a major debate here, because I am sure Deputies share the view that very often the real tragedies in our community are the people who have worked all their lives as self-employed people or farmers and who at the end of their days have no record of social insurance, no prospect of weekly maintenance payments and as a result drift into absolute poverty. It can be quite appalling for many self-employed people who have not thought ahead, and these days one must think ahead about social insurance for 20 or 30 years. When we are young we all tend to regard our life span as being everlasting and we fail to take basic steps to save or to insure ourselves to cover the cost of pensions and of illness later in life. Therefore, I am determined to press ahead with the publication of the White Paper for a national income-related pensions scheme.
Regarding the anti-poverty measures of the Government, as Deputies are aware, £1.8 million has been provided in the revised Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare pending the establishment of an anti-poverty agency. I intend to ask the Commission on Social Welfare, as one of their first priorities, for their recommendations on the structure of the proposed combat poverty organisation. In the meantime the Government have agreed that £500,000 of the £1.8 million will be used in the current year towards the work of suitable voluntary bodies in the social services area, preferably for once-off projects. I have received submissions from the health boards as to how the money should be allocated. I have consulted them and it is agreed that the money will be allocated in the next few weeks, in addition to the grant already decided by the health boards for such bodies this year.
As most of the money will be going to once-off capital projects by voluntary bodies. I hope that during the summer the money will be expended and I have no doubt that the allocations will be welcomed by the organisations concerned. I am determined that there will be a major input into our social services by voluntary bodies.
As Deputies will be aware, the recession has lasted considerably longer than had been anticipated and the cost of meeting social welfare expenditure has been far greater than was expected. The House will appereciate the enormour burden on the Department and I want to conclude by paying particular tribute to the 3,600 persons throughout the country in the various exchanges and in disability work who are under enormous pressure in wholly inadequate accommodation. They have given their best to the unemployed and the sick and the old. These public officials are often subjected to a great deal of pressure and they deserve our commendation.
By agreement between the Whips our next speakers have agreed to share the time between them.
Deputies Fitzsimons and O'Hanlon are splitting their half hour. I take it that that agreement extends for the remainder of the debate when two members of a party wish to split the time.
It was refreshing to listen to the Minister, Deputy Desmond, concluding his contribution on a note of hope. He expressed hope that much will be done in the next few months. That has been different from the speeches we have been hearing from the Government side during the debate and in recent weeks. Many of the Government speeches have been characterised by hopelessness when the country needs hope. I have been reading some of the morning papers and they mystified me. I am wondering if I am living in the same country as the Taoiseach. The newspapers quote the Taoiseach's speech yesterday as follows:
If the Government had not tackled their financial problems promptly and decisively our society could have been shaken to its foundations.
In another page we had the heading "We have stabilised the country" and "The rot has been stopped". My God, what was the Taoiseach talking about? This Government were elected without a policy, with no coherent social strategy. Again they are a Government with two parties who have totally different policies. They are grinding the country to a halt.
The Taoiseach spoke about stabilisation. He must be living in cloud-cuckoo land. Stabilising means firmness and balance. The situation in the country belies this talk about stabilising the economy. Unemployment is at the 200,000 level. Business is in the doldrums. Industry is becoming more hopeless every day. We have farmers being evicted from their farms. The current budget deficit is heading for the £1,000 million mark which will overshoot the target by £75 million, as admitted by the book-keepers in the office of the Minister for Finance last week. In addition to that £75 million the pay proposals rejected by the civil service unions would have added another £32 million. It is now assumed that it will take £50 million to settle that civil service union pay claim. When one adds £50 million to the £75 million one sees immediately that the target will be overshot by £125 million. The result is that the country is now threatened with a summer mini-budget to maintain the Exchequer borrowings at the level set in the February budget. Probably there will be a summer mini-budget or there will have to be massive cutbacks in different Government Departments in order to retrieve the £125 million.
There appears to be deep conflict within the Cabinet, between Fine Gael and Labour Ministers, as to how this should be done. There was open dispute last week over the statements of the Minister for Finance, and those of the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for Health, differences between the Minister for Finance and Ministers of the Labour Party in the media. One wonders what a Cabinet meeting is like these days. Certainly the type of speech we had yesterday for the Taoiseach — and the massive public relations job done on it in this morning's papers — belies what is happening at present.
This year we passed 20 Bills—I would not have known this but I checked up on it — in this House. In fact the 21st was passed last night. I am talking now about the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) (Amendment) Bill, 1983, the most sensible one to go through the House because none of the others that I can remember gave any encouragement, incentive or hope to our people. Our people are in a demoralised state of mind. To exacerbate all of that, the budget crucified the people, further diminishing any incentive to employers or employees. The budget should have been geared at stimulating the economy, not a book-keeping exercise designed merely to yield revenue. But rather than to that it stymied any revenue that might have come into the country. The Revenue Commissioners were given powers to investigate accounts in banks, building societies, any few pounds people might have. It is difficult to quantify how many millions of pounds poured out of the country since the last budget because people's private accounts were being investigated, people no longer being trusted, industrialists being hounded and at a time when they badly needed breathing space.
The problems confronting us are considerable but are not insoluble. They can be solved by a thorough examination of the overall situation, analysing it, bringing forward positive, constructive policies such as those we enunciated in The Way Forward which we had published last year before the general election. This Government were elected without a policy; there is no doubt about that. We were willing to tackle the problems confronting us in a decisive way had we been given the opportunity. But the whole of this most recent budget strategy will exacerbate these problems. Already this year unemployment has risen by 25 per cent. Heaven knows by what percentage it will have risen by this time next year. There are at present approximately 200,000 people unemployed. If the true figure were known, probably there are more than that.
The whole strategy of the budget was such as to crucify the whole of the construction industry. We must endeavour to get that industry off the ground because from that industry the whole economy can take off, unemployment can be arrested and jobs created. That industry is probably the greatest sufferer of the present recession and it must be remembered that 10 per cent of our working population are directly or indirectly involved in that industry and so affected. At present the level of unemployment in this city is 26 per cent compared with 13 per cent in the country generally. There is no hope of any improvement in this area unless positive action is taken to direct resources into that industry. No sector of the economy can make a greater contribution to the reduction of unemployment based on increased investment. Already cement sales are down 18 per cent on last year, there being no positive incentive to any builder to build either houses or flats. There is no incentive to any builder, large or small, to borrow money from the financial institutions in order to build such houses and flats. In addition, the section 23 relief for the building of flats is to be abolished from March next, and flats have become very much a part of the urban scene. What will happen is that there will be no two-bedroomed flats built in this city or any other town from March next. That section constituted a simple tax relief for builders. But the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners, in order to have a revenue yield, deleted that section. Certainly it will not yield any revenue; rather will it create further unemployment.
It must be remembered also that when the construction industry is affected it hits the many other ancillary industries. My home town, Navan, furnishes the nation in furniture and carpets. In my lifetime I have never seen the town experience a more difficult time. The reason simply is that houses and flats are not being built, furniture and carpets are not being bought, with all of the ancillary services connected with the building of a house affected also. There are industries in that town for the first time ever on a three-day week. At present I see men and women in the unemployment queues who never had to join them before. They find it demoralising and undignified. They want work but it is not there for them. This is why I was so intensely annoyed at the budget because it created disincentives.
Earlier this morning I tried to raise the situation of Tara Bula. When Deputy Reynolds was Minister for Industry and Energy he tried to bring them together and negotiations were at an advanced stage before we went out of office. I was Minister of State in that Department before we were defeated and we were extremely anxious that the merger should take place. I have always thought it very foolish and uneconomic to have two companies mining in one area, both using the most sophisticated and expensive equipment.
In 1975 the Coalition Government gave Bula Mines £9,500,000 of the taxpayers' money: that would now be in the order of £23 million. Today that land is pushing up daisies. I ask what are the Government and the Minister for Industry and Energy doing to bring the two companies together? There is work to be done in the area and jobs could be available if the Government would take some action. This morning I asked the Taoiseach, in the absence of the Minister for Industry and Energy, if he would give us some indication of the progress of the negotiations so that we could give some hope to the people of Navan and to the country.
The Adjournment debate gives us an opportunity to look back on the seven months in office of this Government. I am afraid one cannot be too optimistic about what has happened in that time and what will happen in the future. The only thing of significance said by the Minister this morning was that of the £1.8 million allocated for anti-poverty it appears only £500,000 will be spent in the current year. We were led to believe that the £1.8 million that was transferred from the National Community Development Agency would be used in the anti-poverty campaign but it appears from what we heard this morning that only £500,000 will be used in the current year. I do not understand why the Minister did not allow the agency to operate this year. Legislation was introduced by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Woods, last year and it was passed. The agency should have been given an opportunity to function, particularly as the Government did not replace the organisation.
The major problem facing the country is unemployment. It is tragic when people want to work and are not able to find it. The socio-economic consequences of allowing unemployment to escalate must be of concern to all of us but unfortunately the Government do not see it as a priority. I should like to quote from a speech by the Taoiseach in this House on 11 May 1983, as reported at column 841 of the Official Report. He said:
No Irish Government, whoever they might be, can at this time take such action on an adequate scale because the public finances are in such disorder that the maintenance of public solvency requires action diametrically opposed to that which the employment situation demands.
That is an indication of the Government's attitude to unemployment. They are more concerned with financial rectitude than with providing employment. That is a matter of serious concern not only to those who do not have work but also to parents and to young people leaving school. What will they think when they read of the Taoiseach making a statement like that? They must feel they have not a great future under this Government.
In the health services the Government have called for a 2 per cent reduction in the number of staff employed, that is a further 600 persons on the dole. I do not know why the Government did not ask the health boards to do the best they could with the money allocated. I have no doubt the boards would have been able to save the jobs without increasing their allocation.
The administration of social welfare schemes for those on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance must be a matter of concern to the Minister involved. The administration of unemployment assistance leaves much to be desired. I agree with what the Minister said, that the public servants who work in the Department and throughout the country do their job well but the Minister has not given them the necessary resources. They have not the premises or the personnel to deal with the numbers claiming unemployment assistance.
In the past seven months we have spoken in this House about the need to improve the processing of claims for unemployment assistance. It is ludicrous that a claim goes to a branch manager, from there to an employment exchange that may be 60 miles away and is then sent back to a social welfare officer in the same building as the branch manager. That officer will give the claim form to his supervisor which is returned to the parent exchange 60 miles away and finally it is sent to Townsend Street, Dublin, where the decision is made on whether the person is entitled to assistance and the amount. Surely in this day that decision could be made in the parent exchange?
The Minister spoke this morning about the value of computerisation and he said terminal ends have been installed in three cities throughout the country. I see no reason why terminal ends cannot be extended to every exchange. That should be done immediately. However, it is important to realise that the computer will not solve the problem: what is necessary is the personal approach. Decisions should be made at local level. Certainly the matter can be referred to Townsend Street so that the Department can monitor standards to ensure there is uniformity but a person who is depending on social welfare assistance should not have to wait 14 or 16 weeks before a decision is made on his application. Apart from the problems created for the individual concerned, the socio-economic implications are very serious. The frustration that causes, especially for young people, must be a matter of concern to us all. We have the largest unemployment percentage — 15 per cent — in the EEC. That is an indictment of the Government. There are 189,000 people unemployed and that is a figure with which it is hard to argue. Having regard to what the Taoiseach said, it is understandable that the figure is at that level and that it will rise. The Government do not seem to be able to take the necessary action to deal with the situation. While the Fianna Fáil policy document, The Way Forward, needs to be updated to take account of events since, nevertheless our main aim was to halt and reverse the trend in unemployment and also to protect the living standards of those who depend on social welfare.
Before the election the Government promised that social welfare payments would keep abreast of inflation. That has not happened. They gave a 10 per cent and a 12 per cent increase to social welfare recipients over a period of nine months, in effect 9 per cent and 7½ per cent with inflation at 11 per cent. The Minister said nothing this morning about the family income supplement which we were promised. We were told that £5 million would be spread over 20,000 families. That amount, without allowing for administrative costs, would give each family £4.89 per week. Last year families were paid a double week in September in respect of their school going children. This will not be paid next September despite the fact that many families will have to pay for school transport which they did not have to do in the past. There was no increase in childrens' allowance and no family income supplement.
The Minister said he had got the terms of reference for the Commission on Social Welfare in the last week or so and that he would be setting up that commission in the near future. The commission should not be used to give the Minister and the Government an opportunity to renege on their promises. The Minister promised he would ask the commission to study the anti-poverty campaign. He is spending only half a million this year instead of the £1.8 million which was promised. The House should have had an opportunity to debate the terms of reference so that when the commission are set up we will get good value from them.
The Government must be indicted for their U-turn on the question of drugs in the GMS. Last November the Government fell because of the removal of certain drugs from the general medical services prescribing list. The Taoiseach asked on 3 November 1982 by what possible standards of equity could any Government stand over that? The Government promised in their policy document that there would be a review of the recent removal of over-the-counter items from the medical cards and refunds scheme with a view to restoring to GMS patients, without delay, those items which are medically necessary. In fairness, they did review the situation but then they removed another 274 items from the prescribing list. They have not made any worth-while contribution in the last six months and people who are dependent on drugs and who voted for them because they believed that they would restore drugs to the GMS have evidence of the U-turn which they did. The Minister did not mention the free fuel scheme, the Children's Bill which was promised, the task force on the misuse of drugs or other areas in social welfare and health.
The Minister, on behalf of the Government, wrote to the North Eastern Health Board saying that if the hospital in Cavan was to be completed, on which £3 million has been spend to date, they would have to close and sell the county hospital in Monaghan. This shows a total insensitivity to the needs of the people in that area and it was wrong of him to send that letter.
The Border counties are suffering from a disadvantage which they had not suffered from since the foundation of the State — there is no input from a Cabinet Minister from the Border counties. In previous Governments there was always a Cabinet Minister representing those counties and it was very important. One example of it is that as a result of the Government's taxation policy on petrol the value of petrol sold in County Monaghan in December last year amounted to £64,000. In May of this year that amount was down to £19,000. That is an indication of the effect of the Government's policy just in one area. I am not talking about excise duties or the cost of spirits North and South of the Border. The Government have forced people who live in that area to cross the Border to buy their petrol and we cannot estimate the loss of revenue to this State. It is estimated to be in the region of £150 million. The Government have never shown any sensitivity with regard to the northern and western counties.
It is no harm to review the performance of what I believe is a very good and effective Government after their first six months or so in office. I must also refer to the performance of the Opposition. A good Opposition will automatically lead to an active and good Government. Unless we have a high standard of constructive, critical and analytical opposition, it is more difficult for the Government to perform effectively.
I appeal to the Opposition to be as constructive as possible and not to allow hysteria or pure politics to take over. The Government have made a reasonably good attempt to face up to and resolve the difficulties which they face. The unemployment problem, which existed when we came to office, remains and has seemed to continue along the same lines. However, I contend that before we break for the Summer Recess this time next year the foundation will have been laid which will ensure that there will at least be light at the end of the tunnel and that the young people who have been on the job market for the last three or four years will have some reason to look to the future with confidence.
The Minister for Agriculture has been very successful in procuring an agreement in Brussels which was most beneficial to our farmers and to the economy generally. In my constituency we have had some difficulties in the meat processing trade. I would like the Minister to continue pursuing his UK counterpart with a view to the removal of the variable beef premium. While I accept that this may involve difficulties in that area it would be a positive approach towards removing the anomaly which militates very seriously against our producers.
In the economic field my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has to face up to the very serious task of improving our economic difficulties. He is doing so with great courage. I believe, if our problems had been faced up to in that fashion during the last three years, it would not be necessary to introduce some of the stringent measures which had to be introduced this year. It now appears obvious that the policies the Government are pursuing are leading towards stablisation of the situation and are arresting the downward trend which seemed to be evident. The Government require the support not only of this House but of the country in order to tackle the very difficult task which was left to them when the came into office.
It is very easy for the Opposition to say that the Government have not done this and they should do this, that and the other, but it is a different story saying that to the public. The public have a lot to contribute to the country. Opposition Members should have the courage to face the public and tell them that the policies being followed by the Government will lead to better times for everybody and that they can do a lot to help themselves rather than always looking to the Government to do things for them.
I had the privilge of listening to the Minister for Health speaking this morning. In times of economic difficulties health and social welfare are two areas which are of concern to everybody. I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues for trying in some way to ensure that the old, infirm and those on low incomes have at least some insurance against the economic difficulties of the present time and will be able to preserve some semblance of dignity in the difficult situation we are in. One thing which in the short-term, may not seem to be all that important, but, in the long term is very important, is the change in the social welfare code which had been made. One of the things which militated against people on social welfare having the incentive to work was the anomaly which existed whereby it was often stated by many people in my constituency and in the constituencies of all Members in the House that it was more profitable for people to be unemployed than to work. That anomaly has now been removed and this will be beneficial to the entire community.
Health has always been a concern of mine. We have had marches in relation to taxes and various other matters over the years. How much concerns has been expressed by those people about the conditions in some of our mental institutions? If the general public visited some of the mental institutions, which were built 200 and even 300 years ago, they would see that the conditions there are scarcely better than they were in those days. I an not talking about mental institutions in one particular area but about mental institutions in this city and in many other areas throughout the country. There are people incarcerated in many of those institutions for years. They have a health problem but they are not in the right environment to rehabilitate them.
I visited some of those institutions as a member of a health board in recent times. Some of the people in high security areas in those institutions have no proper means of recreation. Their recreational area is enclosed by a high wall with barbed wire and broken bottles on top. This is scarcely suitable for conditions in the 20th century. It is very easy for the general public to forget those people. They are the sons and daughters of some fathers and mothers and at some stage in their lives, when their parents were not able to look after them, they were committed to those institutions. A large number of people in those institutions have no hope for the future.
I hope, within the term of office of the Government, that we will see the demolition of all or part of some of those institutions and new buildings erected. I would like to ask the Government, if possible, not to engage in a piecemeal type of operation in relation to those institutions, like the policy which has gone on for far too long. I hope some financial injection can be given so that the entire accommodation available for mental patients is replaced. I feel very strongly about this matter. I belive it is important that this problem is tackled as soon as possible. We hear a lot of talk about conditions in countries far away from us and there are a lot of campaigns in that area, but very few people seem to want to lead compaigns to help the people in our mental institutions. We seem to have forgotten those people. It would be to the credit of any Government who would have the courage and the financial commitment to bring about the necessary changes in this area.
Another area I want to speak about is the care of the aged. One has only to visit some of our geriatric institutions and ponder carefully on the position some of those patients find themselves in. We have two types of care for geriatric patients: care at home which is the most desirable method, and institutional care which is in two tiers, one in private hospitals and the other provided by the health authorities and the health boards. We have a number of private institutions catering for that category of patients and some of these institutions are not of a high standard. I was glad to hear the Minister of State at the Department of Health say recently that a register is to be compiled in order to ensure that a reasonably high standard will prevail in these institutions and that persons committed to geriatric welfare homes can at least expect a reasonably high standard of care. A number of private institutions of that nature provide a far higher standard of care than those people get from the health board institutions. We must take cognisance of that, considering the amount of taxpayers' money put into the provision of those services through the health boards.
In north County Kildare it is almost impossible for a geriatric patient needing hospitalisation to get that hospitalisation within the health board administrative area except by travelling almost 50 miles to Athy. Attention has been drawn to the shortage of accommodation for geriatrics and it is time that this problem was resolved.
In many psychiatric institutions elderly people whose only crime and problem is that they are elderly are compelled to stay in those institutions because there is nowhere else for them to go. It is sad that elderly persons, having worked all their lives for the nation and thus helped the economy, find themselves at the end of their days committed to an institution with other patients with whom they have little or nothing in common except that there is no place for either category to go. The general public should be more familiar than they are with this situation and more concerned about how those patients are treated. Each and every one of us, whether we like it or not, is growing older and in time may well be in need of this type of care.
Environmental matters recently have met a certain amount of criticism from the general public because this Government had the courage to introduce charges for various services. It is far better for any government to tell people that funds are insufficient to provide for services but that the public can have the service if they make a contribution to it than to con the people into believing that a high standard of service with ever-increasing costs can be maintained without any contribution or sacrifice on their part. It does not work that way.
In my short time in public life the most notable innovation in the housing area has been the introduction by a Coalition Government and the gradual development of the Housing Finance Agency. I would like to see that scheme developed further. At present the maximum loan available from the agency is 90 per cent of the value of the house which the applicant is buying. Many young people have difficulty in finding the balance which may amount to £3,000 or £4,000. They may be on the housing list and the only alternative is that the State house them. We should help them by increasing the maximum loan available to perhaps 95 per cent or 98 per cent as applied under the old low rise mortgage.
The Government have provided increased finance for housing those who have no means of housing themselves other than through the State. In Kildare, as in some other constituencies where there are military installations, a person who has served for a number of years in the Army and has lived with his wife and family in married quarters, on retiring may find it difficult, in fact almost impossible, to be rehoused by the local authority. At the same time he fails to qualify for his pension or other remuneration while he remains in Army property. Such people are called Army over-holders. This issue has arisen on numerous occasions. The Department of Defence should be prepared to take a stand and offer some kind of assistance to such people to take them from the no man's land of being unable to house themselves or be housed by the local authority. Either a special allocation could be made to the local authority in which the Army bases are located so that the local authority can house these people, or the Department of Defence could give preferential treatment by way of making some means available to the people concerned to enable them to house themselves, in other words to buy their own houses. I know that some consideration has been given to this but whatever has been done in that area is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and the problem remains.
The Government have met with a certain amount of criticism regarding investment in the infrastructure, particularly in relation to the building industry. In their short time in office this Government have done a great deal by way of provision of infrastructure, in many cases in areas that apparently have been neglected for a number of years. Again I refer to my constituency where a major sewerage and water scheme was approved by the Minister in the last six months. We had been seeking this scheme for a long time. Numerous representations were made to and deputations met by previous incumbents of the office and only now has this been approved. Before any upsurge in the building industry can come about the infrastructure must be provided. The Government are making a reasonable attempt to do this and they have had some success in grappling with the problem.
To summarise, I dwelt at some length with the subject of care for the aged and the mentally ill in the various institutions. I remember as a child reading about a former Member of this House, Dr. Noel Browne, who was Minister for Health when tuberculosis was a grave problem. A great deal was done by him to eradicate that disease and perhaps we do not always appreciate the tremendous work he did, for which he has never really been given credit. Although a very young man at the time, he had a dream and we should now have another dream. It would be a good legacy to the next generation if we were able to change the system that applies in the various institutions for the mentally ill, the psychiatrically disturbed and the elderly, giving them the kind of conditions we should expect in the twentieth century.
One would have to be affected, if not moved, by the plea made by Deputy Durkan because there is an obligation on those of us who are in public life to provide the conditions which are the right of the disadvantaged. While obviously I must concentrate on the economy, there can be no scope for enlightened social programmes of the type which Deputy Durkan advocates unless the basis is sound and we can generate the activity, wealth, employment and confidence which will enable those who can to look after those who can not. If I concentrate on those who can, I hope it will not be seen as a lack of care for those who can not. It is the fundamental duty of Government to protect those in need.
I turn now to the economy and the Taoiseach's report to the nation, particularly the presentation of one or two extracts from his speech to the public at large. He claimed that the economy had stabilised and this was meant to convey to the people of the nation, who share the concern expressed about the lack of morale and the sense of hoplessness, that there is now stability which previously was nowhere on the horizon. If we have stability it is the stability of the bottom of the pit. That kind of stability does not provide the basis on which we can rescue the economy from suffocation and give hope to young people that they can make their contribution.
The Government set themselves certain targets in the budget and these targets formed the basis of their economic policy and were designed to achieve the corrections they claimed were required in fiscal policy. The targets were repeatedly set forward by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and various spokesmen. They were, firstly, to reduce the budget deficit; secondly, to reduce the level of foreign borrowing; and thirdly, to reduce the rate of inflation in order to improve our competitiveness. While such targets are laudable, in failing to achieve them the Government have very seriously undermined the capacity of the economy to lift itself.
The budget deficit is already £110 million over target and the Minister for Finance seems to be reluctant to recognise that an important element is public sector pay, in relation to which Government policy has fallen apart. Foreign borrowing will at best be at the same level as last year at over £1,100 million. The rate of inflation for the year as a whole will be 11 per cent, very much higher than that of our competitors or customers at a time when all external influences are exerting a downward pressure. All of our competitors are experiencing the control of inflationary elements in their economies and the differential between our rate of inflation and that of our partners is broadening rather than narrowing.
The Taoiseach had some interesting things to say about inflation and the balance of payments when he addressed the House on 14 December last. He stated:
I also recognise that there has been an improvement in regard to inflation, although I fear to a large degree that reflects the depths of the recession in which the country finds itself. Certainly, the improvement in the balance of payments reflects particularly the depth of that recession.
I agree with that statement and if it was true then it is even more true now.
We have an open economy in which over 100 per cent of our GNP is taken up in external trade. Most other countries find it hard to imagine that. In Japan, which we look upon as being the great trader, 22 per cent of GNP relates to external trade. The figure in our case is 110 per cent. Our industries are mostly engaged in the reprocessing of imports and a decline in imports is a clear indication of recession. Even the fiscal targets of the budget have been missed. When the arrows passed the target they struck with great force at targets at which they were never aimed. The price paid has been enormous. Let us look at it. The economy has deflated by 5 per cent of GNP. All experts recognise that. The level of investment has dropped by 10 per cent. We are now down to the same depressing low level of investment as a percentage of GNP which we experienced in the twenties. We have only experienced it once before in recent years and that was in the seventies. The figure people understand best is that in relation to unemployment. This is the price we are paying for policies which have gone astray.
Unemployment has risen to over 192,000, of which 60,000 people are under the age of 25. The Taoiseach said yesterday that it was the role of the Government to analyse and comment, but his role now is not just to comment. The Minister for Labour said that unemployment will reach 218,000 by the end of the year. That is an awful admission to hear from any member of the Government, although it must be said it has a certain element of objective honesty about it.
Why is this happening? The major elements for the failure of the budgetary strategy were contained in the budget itself. We were warned about this from day one. The Government did not need economists, experts, planning committees — of which we have a plethora at present — or anybody else. They only had to inquire from the people — the licensed trade, the hotel industry, the electrical trade and so on — about what was happening in their trade and they would have heard about how excise duties were depressing trade in the Border regions. This has happened to such an extent that the Minister will get less for more instead of more for less. We said this long before the budget and also during the budget debate. The only thing which has increased as a consequence of those indirect tax increases which has not added anything to the revenue, is the level of inflation.
The underlying rate of inflation is 4 per cent. It is really 9 per cent and the differential is accounted for by indirect tax increases and devaluation. Here is a graph of a typical trader from a Northern region. It is from the beginning of December this year. Sales dropped from £60,000 to £5,000 at the end of March. They picked up a little due to devaluation and they are now levelling out again. That is the story of northern traders and many others. It is also the story of the loss to the revenue of £20 million from that region.
The impact it had on unemployment I will leave to the record. I have mentioned the impact on inflation. It is quite clear that the lack of public sector pay policy or pay policy in any direction has contributed dangerously to the overrun in the budget. The Minister took on one group—an insurance company with a base in England. Since then in the private sector, in the co-ops and elsewhere the norm has been that the Minister does not intervene. Public sector pay is affected by what happens elsewhere. The Government said 5 per cent, that became 6 per cent and then 8 per cent. Yesterday the Taoiseach said it is more than they would have wished. That contributed to the overrun of the budget deficit. The cutback in the capital programme also contributed because the cost of unemployment has soared as a consequence of budgetary strategy. I was appalled when I heard the Minister for Social Welfare say that 14 per cent of GNP is going on social welfare payments. If that is not something to indicate to the Government, of which that Minister is a member, that it is time to do something to change, then nothing is. It is clear that the Government's strategy has done nothing but aggravate the situation.
Another factor is devaluation. Sometimes this can arise because of market forces but we are told that this was a deliberate policy decision by the Government. We argued against it at the time and events have proved our arguments correct. The interest payments in relation to the public debt would be an extra £17 million, according to the Minister. He left out the principal repayments in that calculation which would be £12 million, bringing it to £29 million. He also ignored the cost of repayments for State-sponsored bodies which at that time would have been £10 million. Those calculations were based on exchange rates at that time. Our currency was devalued to adjust our parity with sterling. We realigned within the EMS and when we did so we jumped to the top of the band. The Germans went to the bottom and there was a 2½ per cent differential between us. Today Ireland is 1.005 per cent above the band and the Deutschemark is - 68 per cent. The differential is now nearer 1½ per cent. That will continue. As regards repayments in Deutschemarks, at the end of the year we will pay a lot more than what the Minister said. Our currency has been dropping to 1.2265 against the dollar, which is much lower than it was at that time. Repayments in our currency will be much higher than the figures I have given. We said at the time they would be closer to £50 million and unfortunately we will be proved right on that.
The Government are talking about curtailing public sector borrowing but they and the rest of the world know that to shift that from the Exchequer direct to semi-State bodies is only a book-keeping entry. That does not impress any bankers abroad. They look at the total public Government borrowing requirements and the change is of no consequence. This does nothing to alleviate the existing problems in this area. The cost can be seen in the capital programme also.
I have been talking so far about fiscal parameters. Let us get down to the actual cost. The building industry has been decimated because of the Government's decision on the capital programme. Thirty thousand jobs have been lost and the provisions of the Finance Bill have not helped, either. This industry is a primary one in the economy, because all the inputs into it are national inputs. Cement sales are 15 per cent down, employment 22 per cent down. All the trends indicate that the building industry will not recover in any way from the depression. Is it surprising that some of our major building construction companies are investing abroad? Just to maintain their viability, they invest abroad from the Bahamas to Saudi Arabia. Surely we cannot afford to lose the capacity of that industry to the extent that we force them, even to maintain viability—and some have gone to the wall anyway—to invest abroad for the profitability which they will get there to compensate for their losses here.
The second major element is the Finance Bill. It is anti-incentive in every possible direction and anti-work in terms of the level of direct taxation imposed. The level of disposable income also is down by 3 per cent and of personal taxation as a percentage of total taxation up now to just under 40 per cent. In two years it has jumped from about 31½ per cent to 39½ per cent of total taxation— which in itself is growing at an enormous rate. The level of investment is down to what it was in the mid-seventies.
If we are to have adjustments, and the Government say that we are, I hope that some of the ominous hints will not point to adjustments in the wrong direction. I have some suggestions which may seem unusual for the Opposition to make as to where we should make those adjustments — firstly, not on the capital programme, please. Nobody would scream tomorrow about the capital programme, but already one can see how that would undermine the whole basis of the economy. We have enough unemployment and deflation and the level of investment is already low enough. There was a hint in the Taoiseach's speech yesterday that when they go to Barrettstown, because of the unpopularity of some of their decisions they may now look towards the capital programme.
The Deputy's time will be up at 12.42 p.m.
Secondly, this Government had no policies coming into office. My party have a policy in The Way Forward which was put before the people. Instead of a policy, we are getting delegated government through a plethora of committees, agencies, boards, to do now what the Government should have had in their plan when they came in. We are told that some of the various committees, all of which were mentioned at great length yesterday by the Taoiseach, will be reporting next year. That is not government. One cannot delegate the business of government to committees. One can delegate the development of the economy to the people and create a climate for them. We have already some very informed groups like NESC and so forth and why must we pile on so much more? Are the Government incapable because of internal differences of coming to clear decisions on what is staring them starkly in the face?
The Taoiseach made an interesting reference yesterday to the fact that we can pull out of this crisis of national moral just as we did in the sixties out of the depression of the fifties. It was disarmingly honest of the Taoiseach to say this. He likes to distance himself from the Coalition of the fifties. He was then a commentator, but he is now leader of the country. The reason we pulled out of the depression of the fifties and became the miracle of the sixties that attracted journalists from all over the world was because we had a sense of direction and a clear policy with which the people identified. This was not just a question of abstract concepts coming out of various committees but a simple, direct incentive to the people. It was a judicious mixture of the public and private sector. We are now in danger of throttling the economy just when the indications are that the world economy is picking up. The US economy is now showing signs of a growth rate of 5½ per cent. The UK growth rate is showing signs of being 2½ per cent. Are we going to let these pass us by? Are we determined to stay engaged in this destructive analysis between these parties to accommodate national development corporations and other bodies of that sort which really of not mean anything in terms of development?
The role of government is not just that of an analyst or of an accountant, although an accountant must have a role in every firm, as he must also in government. That is part, but only part, of the role of the Minister for Finance. His real role is to be an active member of the board of directors who must have a sense of purpose and know the direction in which we are going and how we are going to exploit our resources. One area in which one could control public expenditure is to scrap the National Development Corporation. That would be a saving of £7 million tomorrow. Look to the agencies of the Department of Labour and we have mentioned these so often. That would give £120 million and what is the present situation? The Youth Employment Agency, which when introduced previously by the Coalition were meant to stimulate youth employment, are now going to be asked to co-ordinate. Can we afford an increase from £45 million to £120 million for these agencies? There is a big contribution to the Minister's budget deficit.
No reference was made by the Taoiseach to our own resources. The Fisheries Estimate was cut back. There was no reference to forestry and on peat development they are going the other way, as far as I can see. They are closing down what might have been a very securely-based industry, say, in the west of Ireland such as Ballyforan. Above all else, nothing on agriculture — such a major component of our economy. I recognise that so much is done in Brussels but let us not overlook the fact that prices fixed in Brussels are not going to solve the problems of our economy. We must have a programme for research and development and for marketing — we are very weak in that sector — and for training, which is if not non-existent, close enough to it, through all our levels of education.
If one thing is missing here, it is a venture capital bank for small industries, a climate in which they will invest and be encouraged to do so, especially by way of cushioning of the heavy investment costs, particularly of the first year but of the first two years also. Significantly, there is a precedent. Almost all the new jobs created in the US over the last decade were created by small industry, scarcely any by the first thousand major industries there. These small industries would, by Irish definition, be big ones. Some of these have come over here, such as Apple and Digital. We must create the same climate. There was no point in wasting public expenditure on the IDA or SFADCo. We can provide all the advance factory bays we like for these, but what is happening now? They are lying idle because the spirit of incentive is not there for the entrepreneur, the venture capital facility is not there and investment costs are too high. We must guarantee that what we spend on these agencies will not be wastefully spent but will be usefully spent by people when they are ready to occupy them. The climate of investment is such that no one wants to take the risk.
The Government should be very careful before pointing to productivity improvement as being evidence of a pick-up. When we have closures and redundancies we see the graph of the productivity increase. The weak concerns go to the wall and the best ones are left, and we get a national productivity increase. We can do without that kind of productivity increase. We must relaunch the capital programme. We must use the resources available from the European Social Fund, which is a growing resource, not on administrative growth but to train trainers in research development and accountancy procedures especially in middle management.
I am sorry that I did not manage to curtail my speech. On education I will say no more than that if we are to cut back on the very basis which would bring us through, if we are to cut back on pupil-teacher ratios and languages when we need to get out into the market place, that is an extraordinary indication of the Government's priorities.
What we need most of all are cohesion and confidence. I know it is not deliberate, but I am afraid the Government, in their strategy on the Finance Bill and in their statements about tax outstanding, have created division, dissent and envy. They have reacted by imposing penalties. They should please take note that the Irish people will succeed, as they did in the sixties, when they are a motivated and cohesive group, and not when they are divided and envious of each other.
As the House is aware, for the first time there is a full-time Cabinet Minister for the Public Service and I have that honour. One of the main purposes in that appointment is to implement the Government's commitment to public service reform. I have already outlined on a number of occasions the direction which I would intend taking in the achievement of this objective. This morning I wish to announce Government decisions which give practical effect to some of those proposals.
Last Week, when dealing with the Estimate for my Department, I expressed to the House the hope that the appointment of an ombudsman could be made during the lifetime of this Dáil. I am happy to be in a position to announce today that arrangements are being made for the appointment of the ombudsman from 3 January next, the first working day of 1984.
Quite a lot of work has to be done before our first ombudsman takes up his appointment. Before anything can be done, the Ombudsman Act, 1980, must be brought into operation and the Government have made an order bringing the Act into operation with effect from yesterday. The way is now clear for the appointment of the ombudsman who, as Deputies will be aware, shall be appointed by the President upon resolution passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann.
Although the All-Party Informal Committee on Administrative Justice had recommended that the appointment should require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas, it was discovered later that this contravenes Article 15.11.1 of the Constitution. However, an undertaking was given during the passage of the Bill that the Government would reach agreement with the Opposition before a resolution suggesting a name would be put before the House. I will, therefore, consult with the Leader of the Opposition before bringing any such resolution before the House.
Advance planning will proceed while the selection procedure is going on. The questions of the staffing of the office, of accommodation and of procedures will all have to be dealt with and provision for the expenses of the office for 1984 will be made in the Estimates for 1984. On January 3 next, the ombudsman will be in office ready to deal with complaints about administrative actions.
I can, I think, claim that a significant advance has been made in the practice of public administration in Ireland. At last definitive steps have been taken to provide the citizen with a means of redress which has become a hallmark of the more developed democracies. By his availability to the citizen, coupled with his direct reporting relationship to the Oireachtas, the ombudsman will provide a direct link between the people and the Legislature. Not only will he provide a means for the remedy of grievances about administrait tive actions but he will also help us as legislators to become more aware of the effects of the legislation which we enact.
I hope one of the practical effects of the appointment of the ombudsman will be that individual members of the general public, who feel aggrieved because of the administrative action of any of the organisations which fall under his remit, will realise that they can go to this independent person and, to some extent, that will relieve some of the pressures on Members of the Oireachtas in dealing with inquiries into matters of administrative inefficiency, or whatever. If the appointment of the ombudsman has the effect of giving Members of the Oireachtas more time to devote to the Oireachtas, that will be very useful.
I have mentioned before my intentions as regards greater delegation. The more power and responsibility are delegated in the more routine business of Government, the more procedures can be made more efficient. There is always the danger of abuses in matters of public interest, however, and I would hope that the new institution which we are now initiating will facilitate desirable change by providing a necessary safeguard.
Complaints and grievances cannot be dealt with until the ombudsman is actually appointed. Because no financial provision was made in the Estimates for 1983, we must wait until 1984 but the appointment of the ombudsman is one of a series of reforms which I will be introducing during the lifetime of the Government. In the meantime, as from today we will be setting about the practical mechanics of the establishment of the office accommodation and the numbers and appointment of staff, and the other matters which will be necessary to ensure that the ombudsman will be fully effective from his first working day which will be 3 January next. It is estimated that the six months or so remaining to us will provide a very appropriate lead-in time to allow the ombudsman to be fully effective from the first day of his operations in 1984.
The Ombudsman Act is based on recommendations made in 1977 by an informal All-Party Oireachtas Committee on which I had the honour to serve. Its central purpose is to provide for the appointment of an ombudsman who would be empowered to investigate administrative actions falling within the categories set out in section 4 (2) (b) of the Act, which appear to have adversely affected an individual or organisation.
The actions coming within the scope of section 4 (2) (b) are those which are, or may have been:
(i) taken without proper authority;
(ii) taken on irrelevant grounds;
(iii) the result of negligence or carelessness;
(iv) based on erroneous or incomplete information;
(v) improperly discriminatory;
(vi) based on undesirable administrative practice; or
(vii) otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration.
The organisations whose activities are subject to investigation by the ombudsman are listed in Part I of the First Schedule of the Act. These include all Government Departments, together with offices either comprised in or associated with them in which civil servants are employed.
Part II of the First Schedule and the Second Schedule lists bodies which are not subject to the ombudsman's scrutiny. Some matters which are excluded from the ombudsman's remit are specified in section 5 (1) of the Act, the main ones being:
(i) matters in regard to which legal proceedings have been initiated, or in regard to which there is a statutory right of appeal to a Court or to an independent appeals body;
(ii) recruitment and personnel matters;
(iii) security, military and intergovernmental activities;
(iv) prisons and aliens administration and the exercise of clemency by the Minister for Justice;
(v) actions which took place prior to the commencement of the Act.
The ombudsman may start an investigation either on his own initiative, for example, as a result of a newspaper report, or on foot of a complaint and is entitled to call witnesses and to examine official files. The Act allows him to establish his own procedures for the conduct of investigations. The Act also outlines the main stages which the ombudsman is required to follow in investigating a complaint. These are:
(i) conduct a preliminary examination to establish that the matter complained of falls within his remit, that there are grounds for undertaking an investigation and that the complaint is properly made;
(ii) notify the organisation complained against of his intention to investigate and afford them, and any member of their staff concerned in the action, an opportunity to comment on the action and on any allegations made against them;
(iii) notify the same parties of the results of his investigation;
(iv) when his investigation indicates that a complaint was justified, recommend remedial action and request a reaction to that recommendation;
(v) when the response to the recommendation is unsatisfactory, to make a report on the case in his annual report or in a special report.
At each stage in the investigation where the ombudsman makes a finding or criticism adverse to an organisation or person, he must allow that organisation or person to consider such finding or criticism and make representations to him about it.
The Act provides that the ombudsman shall make an annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the performance of his functions. He may, from time to time, make such other reports to the Houses of the Oireachtas as he thinks fit.
When speaking last week on my Department's Estimate I referred to the need for more staff exchanges, particularly between the public and the private sectors. Exchanges of this sort give the staff concerned fresh and challenging work experiences, encourage the generation of new ideas and — what is so important at the present time — make for greater communication, co-operation and understanding between organisations.
In view of these benefits I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have just approved a recommendation from me that, as a minimum, 56 officers at management level in the various departments be exchanged for an equivalent number of staff in other organisations by 31 December 1983 and annually thereafter. The figure of 56 is made up of a quota from one to four officers for each Department, depending on its strength.
The exchanges will be temporary, lasting about a year or two, and the organisations with which they would take place would be other Departments, agencies like State-sponsored bodies or the private sector and I hope that there will be full co-operation from all concerned in this interesting and valuable exercise.
A formal scheme for job swops has existed since 1979 but, to date, the response from Departments has been extremely disappointing. In fact only 23 exchanges have taken place in the wider public sector, and a further four between the civil service and private industry. For the reason the Government have now agreed to my suggestion that a levy be placed on all Departments requiring them to meet their allotted quota. It might be thought that a figure of 56 is, indeed, a modest one. It represents, however, merely a baseline figure and it is my intention to see this figure expanded upon as rapidly as possible.
The initial staff involved will be from the general service grades of assistant principal, administrative officer and higher executive officer, of which there is a total of some 2,356 officers serving at present.
It is my earnest belief that this innovation is a tremendously exciting challenge for these important management grades in the service. The opportunity to gain outside experience should be welcomed and grasped by any officer with the desire and ability to become a senior manager.
I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the private sector and to the local authorities, health boards and state agencies, to respond more positively to this challenge also and to co-operate in the job swop programme.
In my inquiries I have detected a reluctance on the part of some Departments and State agencies to become involved, sometimes on the basis that a Department feel that if people from agencies under their aegis come in on an exchange basis they will in some way or other discover more about the working of the Department than the Department would like. Equally, in relation to some of the agencies, they feel that persons being exchanged from the sponsoring Department, if they are to spend some time in the administration of the working of the agency, will perhaps discover how the agency go about their business and therefore will weaken the negotiating position vis-à-vis the sponsoring Department.
Nothing could be further from the truth because it behoves all Departments and State agencies and local and health authorities to realise the enormous potential that there is in the concept of job exchange for officers to gain wide experience in administration. There is an equally important challenge for civil service officers to gain experience as to how the private sector conducts business.
I have spoken to some of the organisations representing industry in the private sector and have detected a willingness on their part to become much more actively involved in co-operation in an exchange programme such as this. In the case of the small number of officers who so far have been involved in job exchange programmes, it has been patently to their benefit and, I venture to suggest, has had the opposite effect to being a hinderance to their opportunities.
I hope that in the selection and encouragrement of officers to become involved, the brightest and most career promising officers will be selected for participation in this exchange programme. There is equal opportunity for those in the private sector to gain a stimulating insight into the operations of the very large organisation, which is the public service. It can only redound to the credit of private sector managers who gain that experience in the course of their careers. I take this opportunity to urge on all concerned very active co-operation in this programme of exchange. I am certain that once the initial levy scheme goes into operation the enormous benefits will be apparent to all and that it will be possible for us in a few years to have a much larger series of exchange programmes in operation.
I have been greatly encouraged by the keen interest which is being shown all round in the measures which I am pursuing in furtherance of the commitment of the present Government to genuine reforms in the public service. In particular, I am grateful to those of my parliamentary colleagues who took the trouble to write to me conveying various suggestions and comments.
These and ideas and thoughts from other sources are receiving my careful consideration. The most important of these sources is, of course, the Public Service Advisory Council, the statutory body set up in 1973 to advise the Minister for the Public Service on the organisation of the public service and on matters relating to or affecting personnel in the public service. The council have a statutory obligation to report annually to the Minister on these matters. I have studied carefully the reports which the council have made since they were established and I shall take their views and recommendations fully into account in my plans for public service reforms. I would like to put on the record of this House my keen appreciation of the valuable work of the council members, past and present, for their unstinted voluntary service in the national interest.
Deputies, particularly those who have had personal experience of pay negotiations in the past, will appreciate why it would be inappropriate for me, at this stage, to do more than outline the details of the draft proposals for a new public service pay agreement. I will merely repeat what I have already said publicly, namely, that I believe them to be realistic.
Briefly, the proposals provide for a 15 month agreement, with a first phase payment of 4.75 per cent for five months, and a second phase of 3.25 per cent for four months. Payment of these phases would be preceded by a pay pause of six months.
The previous agreement, as revised, had left a number of issues in regard to special increases over for further discussion and negotiation — the date from which payment of the remaining 60 per cent of special increases could be paid, the date from which retrospection could be paid in certain cases and the treatment of cases where processing of a claim was allowed but where, under the revised agreement, no date of payment could be fixed. These draft proposals provide for the resolution of all these issues. Under the proposals the 60 per cent balances would be paid, in general, in two instalments from dates not earlier than 1 December 1984 and 1 September 1985. The retrospection in question would be paid in January 1986.
The arrangement in regard to those cases for which a date of payment could not be fixed under the revised public service pay agreements is now that such claims may continue to be processed but no payment will take place in respect of any such claim from a date earlier than three years from the date of first payment of a previous special increased for the grade, group or category concerned.
In the case of certain categories of low paid workers — mainly general operatives in the local authority and health services areas — it is proposed that the full amount, rather than 40 per cent of one special increase may be paid from 1 October 1983.
The additional cost to the Exchequer pay bill will be about £40 million in 1983.
The Minister should tell the Minister for Finance; he insists it is much less than £40 million.
The Deputy should refrain from interrupting. This debate so far has been marked by its lack of interruptions.
But this is a very important question——
That is all the more reason there should not be an interruption.
I will deal with the attitude of Deputy O'Kennedy and that of his Leader later. The further additional cost in 1984 will be £177 million approximately, of which £42 million represents a commitments incurred under the previous agreement.
I expect that, following consideration by the Public Services Committee, the draft proposals will be put to the individual unions concerned for decision. The outcome is unlikely to be known until September 1983.
When I embarked on these negotiations nearly three months ago the outlook for the economy was extremely grave. I cannot say that it has improved in the meantime. This then was the background against which the negotiations took place. At one and the same time I was faced with demands for pay increases which were way beyond what the Exchequer could bear and with fulminations from certain quarters which suggested that the public service should fore-go any pay increase. I am sure that all Deputies will readily understand that to follow either course would have been a recipe for disaster.
My aim has been to achieve a realistic balance between the imperative need on the one hand to contain the growth of Exchequer expenditure and the need to meet, on the other, as far as possible, the reasonable aspirations of public service employees.
It was only after a long, hard grind of negotiation, in which both sides pressed their views with sustained vigour, that the present proposals were arrived at. I think that they will be recognised, by people generally, as being realistic and, in the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, reasonable.
In this regard I feel that I really must comment on the reported remarks of the Leader of the Opposition whilst speaking in the House on the debate yesterday. Deputy Haughey claimed ‘that there had been a humiliating Government climb-down on public pay'. He is quoted in The Irish Times today as saying that there was the false posturing and manoeuvring on public service pay. That appears to be in sharp contrast with the statement attributed to Deputy O'Kennedy, the Opposition spokesman on Finance, who is reported in the Evening Press of Monday, July 4 1983 as stating that the 8 per cent offer was about as much as the public sector could expect.
I note the change in the Minister's text —"appears to be in sharp contrast", whereas in my copy of the Minister's text he says: "is in sharp contrast". I am not going to be misrepresented.
There will be no interruptions.
But it is in sharp contrast with the statement attributed to Deputy O'Kennedy in last Monday's Evening Press.
That is not the full story and the Minister knows it. He will hear more later.
A statement attributed to Deputy O'Kennedy in the sixth edition of the Evening Press of Monday, July 4 1983 in an article entitled “Final deal on public pay due today” in which it was reported that Deputy O'Kennedy said the 8 per cent offer was about as much as the public sector could expect.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is so important, it is not the full picture at all.
Deputy O'Kennedy will have to observe the rules of order.
I want to say that that is not correct. The Minister knows what I said in the House before.
The Minister has seven minutes left and he should be allowed to continue.
I will go on to deal with that too, but I want to say that I was heartened by the remarks of Deputy O'Kennedy and other Opposition speakers during the debate on my Estimate on Friday last when they expressed support for the negotiations being reopened——
That is incorrect. They expressed support for Ministers' decisions hitherto——
Please, if Deputy O'Kennedy cannot restrain himself——
——and for the achievement of a public service pay agreement. The Opposition really will have to get their act together, whether on this or on other issues. The question can and must fairly be asked as to which of the remarks of Deputy Haughey or Deputy O'Kennedy represent official Opposition attitude on the matter of a public service pay agreement.
The Minister knows better than to manufacture that kind of argument because it is not the case.
The question must also be asked whether they are in support of the draft agreement negotiated by me and, I thought, as indicated by Deputy O'Kennedy in——
I never said that.
——the Evening Press of Monday last.
Deputy O'Kennedy spoke for a full half hour without one interruption.
If the Minister comes in and misrepresents me, I have to take issue with him.
The Deputy will have to take it within order.
The simple matter is that, within the space of less than a week, there have been two different attitudes displayed by leading members of the Fianna Fáil Party on this matter. However, this is not the first important item on which there has been different policy pronouncements on important policy matters by Fianna Fáil, depending on which audience or which constituency they were appealing to. I am merely endeavouring now to find out and have the record set straight in the House on whether the Opposition are in support of the draft public service pay agreement, as negotiated by me, or not. They would appear to be the on the basis of remarks made by members of the Opposition in the debate last Friday and from Deputy O'Kennedy's remarks as quoted in last Monday's Evening Press. They would appear not to be, if one is to assume that the Leader of the Opposition represents the views of his party collectively.
The Minister should read what we say in the House.
I want to know whether we should interpret Deputy Haughey's remarks as a rejection of the approach apparently adopted by Deputy O'Kennedy and as reported in Monday's Evening Press? If so perhaps the Opposition would indicate to us just at what level they consider the public service pay increase to be appropriate.
I shall conclude my remarks on that topic merely by asking the House to reflect on how long it is now since a Fianna Fáil Administration negotiated an agreement at the level of the present proposals.
I should like to back up what Deputy O'Kennedy said in reply to the Minister and to say that I accept that there is no divergence of opinion between Deputy O'Kennedy and the Leader of our party. I should like the Minister to explain how he has a figure of £40 million down in his speech when the Minister for Finance, as recently as last evening on RTE, indicated that it was £35 million and rejected out of hand that it would cost £40 million. It is far more important that Government Ministers be on the same wavelength than their Opposition spokesmen. The Minister for the Public Service has a case to answer there.
I am not going to be side-tracked; I have 15 minutes only and I want to make a few points very quickly in my own area of interest. I should like to ask why the Minister for Transport has not brought before the House the legislation to statutorily set up the Dublin Transport Authority. Before I left office, a good while before I left office——
I take it Deputy Wilson is using only half his time?
Yes.
He has until 1.22 p.m.
1.25 p.m. The Chair's watch is mad.
Neither the Chair nor his watch is mad.
I had had Government approval for the draft heads of the Bill to set up the Dublin transport authority. I have not heard a word about it since. Everybody agrees that it is a necessary authority. The task force has been operating in Dublin city for some time and has done wonderful work. They have made marvellous strides particularly with regard to the bus priority schemes but they are now reaching the end of their usefulness. They have no statutory teeth and the legislation for the Dublin transport authority should be brought before the House. I charge the Minister for Transport with neglect in that area. During this week we wasted valuable time discussing a planning Bill but I would point out that the setting up of a Dublin transport authority is a matter of urgency. The parliamentary draftsman must have sent back the Bill to the Minister by now. He should take action on this matter as quickly as possible to ensure that it is the first item on the legislative list for the next session.
We made good progress in government in providing capital for the Bombardier buses and we provided money also for the bus priority schemes. When Deputy Faulkner was Minister for Transport we decided on the electrification of a suburban railway and we provided money for the building of mainline carriages. However, the Minister has indicated that there will be very little by way of end result this year in Inchicore. Whatever happens during the recess, I expect the Minister for Transport to have the Bill setting up the Dublin transport authority before the House in October. It is the most urgent item in the transport area.
During the week we have had a recurrence of an old problem, namely, the question of tour operators. I want to correct a report in the Irish Independent yesterday that the present Minister for Transport brought a Bill dealing with this matter through this House. In 1982 the Bill dealing with tourist operators and travel agents was put through this House by me. On 13 December last I was asked if I would agree to postpone the operation of the Act from 1 April — the date I had fixed — to 1 November. I told senior officials in the Department I would not agree to that but that is what has happened. The reason I was so anxious about the matter was that there were cowboys operating in this area. I knew that it was a case of once a cowboy, always a cowboy, and that some innocent citizens who had saved their hard-earned cash for a holiday would be caught. This week it almost happened again.
I hope the Minister will be alert to this problem during the summer which is not an easy time. Last summer we had some anxious weeks and senior officials of the Department had to return from their holidays and stand by to see us through some very difficult times. Unfortunate people on holidays were kept in the lobbies of hotels or they were thrown on the street in the Malaga area. I got someone from the Irish Embassy in Madrid to go to Malaga but even he could not get satisfaction because he could not meet anyone who would accept responsibility for what was happening.
It was a serious error not to bring the regulations into operation on 1 April 1983. They will not come into operation until 1 November and there is a danger that there will be more of this skullduggery during the summer. I know the ITAA have adopted a very responsible attitude on this matter. They have established their own fund which is desirable. However, the citizen who sees advertised a low-priced holiday and who pays for it very often has not sufficient information to ensure that the agent is covered by the ITAA scheme.
The liberalisation of road freight is an area to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister. The two liberalisation measures that this House has passed were very important. The report on transport advocated the liberalisation of road haulage. I see that the Confederation of Irish Industry in reviewing a road freight survey which was published by the Central Statistics Office are pushing for further liberalisation. Some citizens are caught here. Many young men are anxious to get involved in the road haulage business and at the moment they have to pay £6,000 to £8,000 for a licence. They consult Members of this House as to whether it would be wise to do so because when the liberalisation measures come in the licences will have no value on the market. Members of this House are not in a position to advise them because they do not know when the legislation will be introduced.
I wish to comment on something that is relevant to my constituency: I refer to the antics of the Minister for Health with regard to the construction of Cavan hospital. I told the Minister that I regard this as a test of my commitment to my area and to my constituency and that, if necessary, I will travel the constituency and take the question to the people. I will meet them at church gates, at marts and at the markets to ensure that the Minister honours the commitment given by successive Minister of Health in different administrations since 1934. The people know there was a commitment written into the Public Capital Programme. I tell the Minister for Health there is no way he will get away with antics he is using with regard to the construction of Cavan hospital. From the health point of view, which is the important one, and from an economic and social point of view it is essential that the commitment be honoured by the Minister and the Government. It is a matter of £21 million over a number of years but it has been a Government decision.
This Government deserve the most servere criticism from non-metropolitan Ireland for their scrapping of the decentralisation programme. We had advanced that programme to the stage where sites had been acquired and where consultants had been appointed. We had intended to infuse life into many small towns.
Our spokesman on agriculture, Deputy Noonan, will talk at greater length on that subject but I must refer to what I call the immoral and obscene act of the Government on 10 February 1983 when, without warning, they scrapped the farm modernisation scheme. In my constituency many small farmers were caught. Their capital was small but following the advice of instructors and advisers in their area they had committed themselves to heavy expenditure. I see the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture in the House. He is a man from a rural area and I know he is involved with small farmers. As a matter of honour he should see to it that the people who have expended what is to them a great deal of money should not be mulcted when the scheme is revived in the last autumn.
I was sickened yesterday by the Minister for Education whose only contribution has been to decide on cuts in transport and to introduce high fees for technological colleges and adult education. I am not disregarding the necessity of getting value for money but there is no better social service than education and the Minister is doing a grave disservice to the county.
We had planned an engineering school in UCD which was going to be one of the best in western Europe. Government spokesmen on all sides have stated that the future lies in engineering and technology; yet the engineering school has been scrapped. I should like to talk about the dental hospital also but I have not got time.
The Border region was debated in a Private Members' Motion. From the point of view of income, population and unemployment that areas needs special treatment. The effects of this year's budget have put a severe strain on commerce in the area. It is time that the Government made a commitment to a development corporation such as SFADCo for the Border region so that we will have a showcase argument for the ending of partition.
(Limerick West): I am glad to have even this brief time to speak on the Adjournment Debate, with special reference to agriculture. The hardship fund, which compensates farmers whose herds must be liquidated, is now short of money. I urge that this fund should be replenished immediately. It was sad to see in a morning newspaper a deep black heading to the effect that there were to be more cuts in farm spending. I hope this is not an indication of what is to come in so far as agriculture is concerned. If there are any further cuts in the already severe restrictions on agricultural development, I warn that there will be serious reprecusions, not only for cultural development, I warn that there will be serious reprecusions, not only for the agricultural community but for the whole economy. This side of the House will not tolerate any more cuts in that area.
The Government must ensure that inflation remains in single figures and that the high interest rates which are affecting farming development will be reduced as soon as possible because it was always the system that intest rates would remain at the same level as inflation but not they are almost double and this is further hindering agricultural development.
I urge the Government and the Minister for Agriculture to support the recent proposals of the EEC that the Council of Ministers should increase the funds available for financing European common policies. I have in mind proposals to raise the existing ceiling of the 1 per cent VAT in the composition of the Community's own resources. Community expenditure could shortly reach a point where revenue from VAT would require a greater percentage than the existing limit. If increased revenue is not forthcoming, some policies will have to be curtailed. Any curtailment of the Common Agricultural Policy would be especially damaging, not alone to agriculture but to the economy. These proposals will require a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers and I hope the Minister for Agriculture will take every initiative to help secure a unanimous vote in favour of this at Council level. The proposals will need a three-fifths majority in the European Parliament and I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture will make every effort to secure a favourable outcome there also.
Leadership is vitally required. However, at present there is a lack of leadership and this is very apparent in the Department of Agriculture where there are no guidelines. We had the same old waffle from the Minister yesterday but he did not offer any way forward for the development of agriculture. Where will it end? There is nobody in government who stands out or inspires the people and the result of this vacuum is that our old values are beginning to slip. Who can blame the people? When they elect a Government they are entitled to get leadership and inspiration, unity of purpose and resolve, a clear vision of the country's goals and ambitions and how to attain them. It is a tragedy that we have a Taoiseach who is afraid to lead. The values we are losing under this Government will be quickly and strongly restored by Fianna Fáil when we return to office in the not too distant future. We will give a sense of purpose to the people as we always did in the past.
It is important to realise our farmers' ambitions and the full potential and benefits of agricultural which would accrue if there was if full production on the land. Loss of purpose and disunity is a feature of the Government but we will ensure good leadership and a positive approach to our needs and problems.
Cattle and beef production is our most important agricultural enterprise. It is also probably the least developed and most undercapitalised. Traditionally, it has been run on an extensive, rather than an intensive, scale with fluctuating and generally low profits. It is also characterised by different stages of production. Calf rearing, summr stores, grazing and beef production are distinct and not integrated on any one farm. A major difficulty has often resulted from the fact that too often good profit from one sector had been at the expense of another. The recent trend to encourage calf beef production is sensible and should lead to greater stability in the trade. The foresight of the previous Fianna Fáil Government in the introduction of the calf subsidy scheme was a step in the right direction towards this end.
It is important to realise the crucial role of the cattle industry in our economy. In 1982 cattle output was valued at £655 million. It is quite feasible to increase these exports by 20 per cent in volume alone within a relatively short period of time. This would result in increased earnings of over £130 million because of the relatively low level of imports in agricultural production compared with industry. This would be equivalent to over £400 million of industrial exports. Such increased output is well within our capability and has a guaranteed market. We only want guidelines and a commitment from the Government.
The main problem facing the cattle and beef industry at the moment is to increase our cattle herds. We will give this first priority in our programme for agricultural development on returning to government. Apart from providing extra employment such expansion would have enormous benefits for the whole community and the effect on the balance of payments would be dramatic. Like many other industries the means and the technology to secure this expansions are readily available. A drive to get this increase in numbers must be pursued vigoriously. It must be recognised that farmers need to plan well ahead before embarking on, or expanding, such an enterprise.
Cow numbers, which are very responsive to the prevailing economic climate, have fallen by nearly 50 per cent over the past seven years and the decline is still continuing. It is incumbent on the Government to provide guaranteed support for at least five years in the form of grants and interest subsidies and to ensure that low interest rates will prevail. No area is more deserving of some form of subsidy and nowhere else will the return to the economy be greater.
Farmers must also have a tax structure which is stable and positively encourages them to breed and retain more cattle. Incentives will have to be incorporated into the present tax system which would make such expansion attractive. We are looking at this and we are looking at a proper taxation system. I feel, also, that the provision of long to medium term capital at subsidised rates is very important.
The downgrading of agriculture by the Government has destroyed any prospects of economic recovery. The Government's mismanagement of the economy and their blatant neglect of our most productive industry has undermined the confidence of farmers and prolonged the dreaded farm recession. Agriculture is Ireland's most important industry, contributing 50 per cent of our total net exports and employing directly and indirectly half of our population.
I would like to speak briefly about the land policy of the Government. They announced recently certain land policies of major significance, some of which will have very adverse social consequences. They have decided to suspend the compulsory purchasing powers of the Land Commission. This is fact, irrespective of denials by the Minister and the Minister of State, because it is not being utilised by the Land Commission at the moment. The way is now open for wealthy individuals, Irish or foreign, to build up a large accumulation of land without any hindrance. There does not appear to be any legal or other bar now to the accumulation of thousands of acres of land into single ownership. This is a dangerous precedent and I now call on the Government to introduce, as as matter of urgency, land legislation, incorporating the safeguards contained in the Fianna Fáil 1980 White Paper on land policies and, furthermore, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the land leasing system will not be used to establish a new class of landlords in the country.
In order to emphasise the point I am making I want to bring the attention of the House to a heading in this week's Farmers Journal where a leading journalist in that paper, who has association with members of the Government stated: “Come back landlords, all is forgiven”. This is surely Fine Gael policy and is something this party will not tolerate. The Minister for Agriculture, without any debate in the Dáil, is intent on reversing, not just modifying, the revolution to land tenure during the last century. He is doing this at the behest of wealthy people, with large properties as well as land owning interests.
Where are the Labour Party?
(Limerick West): This article was published in the Farmers' Journal and the man who writes owns broad acres in County Meath. The article states as follows:
Now in calmer times it becomes apparent that we went too far in eliminating landlords.
Typical Fine Gael policy. He goes on to state:
In those bad old days a good farmer could always get a farm. Landlords would compete for a man with a good reputation and would be glad to give him plenty of land. Thus, there was a high degree of natural selection and poor performers tended to be weeded out.
This is another way of saying that people who could not pay their rent were evicted. There can be no doubt that the Minister for Agriculture, whether he is aware of it or not, is in the process of reversing a major and distinctive social resolution of a democratic nature and also the means of asserting equality of all men in a system in which wealth and social justice will prevail. I warn him that once his new, uncontrolled system gets under way it will create very dangerous social tensions without the Land Commission being in a position any more to act as a safety valve. The Minister's excuse that our proposed controls were based on the rateable valuation system is not tenable. Equivalent controls can be devised based on acreage, region and soil quality.
I am bound to say, following the remarks which Deputy Noonan has just made, that I am very disappointed that a man with his background and with his history in working with young farmers in the country should now choose so blatantly to ignore all the pressure that has come from young farmers who want to get involved in farming and that he should take an opportunity like this to indulge in what can only be described as the most vile of cheap scare tactics.
It is in the Farmers' Journal.
(Limerick West): I quoted from the Farmers' Journal.
I am afraid that is an abdication of an Opposition's duty to examine the issues before them and put them before the people in a proper way.
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy has an objection to proposals now being discussed not only by the Minister——
(Interruptions.)
Could we have an orderly debate? The Minister is starting his contribution and he should be permitted to speak. Everybody has an opportunity to speak in the House. The Minister has a point to make and he should be allowed make it.
If the Deputy wishes to get involved in that debate he should do so on the basis of an analysis of proposals now being talked about not only among political parties but among the farming organisations. He owes it to his reputation among those organisations to do it in a rational way and not in the cheap way he has chosen to follow here today.
I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to set out the facts of our present economic situation and to correct the slanted view of the position which certain Members of this House have being portraying. As a nation, we face an enormous task if we want to realise the social and economic objectives shared by the vast majority of our people. What we do today, what we do this year, will have profound effects on our economy and on our social structure in five years' time. It will affect all of us, including those of us who are not yet seeking employment. We need a strong national consensus on the course we must take in this critical period. To get that consensus, we must first have a clear, objective assessment of our strengths and weaknesses, of our difficulties and opportunities.
Two factors above all dominate our economic situation. One is the international environment and the other is the legacy of debt and disarray in the public finances which we inherited. Over the last few years the world economy has passed through its longest and deepest recession in the post-war period. Growth has slumped, international trade has contracted and unemployment has risen to post-war records in almost every country. I accept that, given the openness of our economy, we were unable to insulate ourselves from the adverse effects of these global developments but the sad thing is that we made little effort of a constructive kind to protect ourselves. This is evident by the easy approach to spending that marked our attitudes and the refusal to accept that living standards could not continue to rise uninterruptedly in the face of the reality which world recession represents. If we had acted wisely over that period I am convinced that the problems we face to-day would not be nearly as great as they are.
The "live now, pay later" policies followed for most of the last five years have saddled the economy with a daunting burden of debt, particularly of foreign debt. In this period the day-to-day expenditure of Government exceeded revenue by an average of 7 per cent of national output per annum. Added to that was the 8 per cent of national output a year which had to be borrowed to finance capital expenditure. The result was a rapid upsurge in debt, the interest payments on which now represent a massive drag on efforts to advance the development of the economy. Between 1978 and 1982, national debt more than doubled — from £5.2 billion to £12.8 billion, with interest payments increasing from £442 million to £1,323 million.
Foreign debt has shown an even more dramatic growth. The Government's portion of this debt multiplied fivefold over those five years — from £1,064 million at the end of 1978 to £5,300 million at the end of 1982. Last year alone interest payments on Government foreign debt amounted to £516 million, more than twice the amount spent on developing roads and sanitary services in 1982. This money represented valuable resources which had to be remitted abroad and which, thus, were lost to the economy. We must also remember that a substantial proportion of this consisted of interest payments incurred not to finance productive investment, but to finance the excess of current public consumption over our willingness or capacity to pay for it. Eaten bread may soon be forgotten, but the payment can long outlast the satisfaction.
Another pernicious result of past failure to confront the imbalance in public finances is that it made the problem more difficult to solve. As happens in many walks of life, the longer action to solve a problem is deferred, the more intractable that problem becomes. There is wisdom in the old adage that "a stitch in time saves nine". It is unfortunate that it did not guide behaviour in the critical years spanning the end of the last decade and the beginning of this one.
We, as a Government, refuse to sacrifice the longer-term interests of the economy and of our people on the altar of short-term expediency. We accept that we cannot go on as before, building up an ever-mounting load of debt, particularly foreign debt, which would preempt a growing proportion of our future resources and thus increasingly restrict, and ultimately destroy, our capacity to develop the economy. We are not prepared to perpetuate a policy which shoves today's problems on to the shoulders of future taxpayers, and at the same time deprives those taxpayers and future Governments of their capacity to respond, in the light of their needs, to developments at world level and at national level.
That was a major reason why, immediately on assuming office in the middle of 1981, we took decisive action on the public finances which were then careering out of control. But there was another, equally compelling reason: that was our correct anticipation of the switch in attitudes of foreign lenders to sovereign borrowers. Events have vindicated our assessment as the debt crises of counties such as Mexico, Brazil and Poland testify adequately.
I have pointed out on many occasions that we in Ireland have a particularly difficult task ahead of us. We have the youngest and the fastest-growing population in Europe. We have an even greater need for policies and behaviour which will expand employment than any of our neighbours or fellow-members of the European Communities. The development of those policies requires a major change in attitudes here, among politicians, on the part of workers and management, and in the community as a whole. That is why we must rapidly develop the consensus to which I referred earlier on.
Changing one's priorities is always a difficult thing to do, but many people in this country have come to believe that the time to re-order our priorities is now. We can be sure of one thing: we have suffered seriously from the recession, and its effects will still be with us for some time. We are not yet out of the wood, not by a long shot. But surely we owe it to ourselves and to our children to ensure that the process of adjustment which we are forced to make — and which cannot be avoided by inaction or by pretending that the problem will go away — is carried out in a manner which will contribute in a constructive way to developing our capacity to profit from the emerging improvement in world economic activity.
For the reasons I have outlined, we had to make substantial progress in reducing Government borrowing. It had to be real progress, not the illusory type to which people had become accustomed and which each year turned out in reality to be retrogression. The country's credibility suffered severely over the period between 1979 and 1982 from the repeated failure to achieve budgetary targets. We resolved to tighten economic management and to restore the Government's fiscal credibility despite the unpopularity of the action necessary to accomplish that.
The brunt of the adjustment to our finances this year fell on the taxation side. This was unavoidable because the limited time available to the Government before this year's budget did not afford us the opportunity of carrying out in the necessary depth the reviews of Government expenditure which we need. It is perfectly understandable that there is widespread concern about the burden of our tax rates. Even so, the unhappy fact is that even our present rates do not provide adequate revenue to meet the present level of current expenditure.
The Government are committed to curbing tax evasion so as to ensure that everybody pays his fair share of taxation. Evasion is a problem that exists in all countries to varying degrees. Under this year's Finance Act, wide-ranging measures are to be implemented here which should have a significant impact in containing the abuse. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I do not expect results in terms of increased revenue to be such as to make appreciable impact on the general level of tax rates.
The plain fact of the matter is that if we are to bring order back into the public finances and, at the same time, if we are to avoid further increases in taxation, we shall have to do so by controlling public expenditure which for some years past has grown far too fast relative to resources. Despite the time pressures on us before the recent budget, we secured significant reductions in certain expenditure programmes and also managed to slow down the seemingly inexorable growth in overall spending. Our objectives for the future are to build on what has already been achieved and to ensure that Government expenditures as a whole are cost-effective and more closely related to the capacity of the economy to finance them.
In this connection I would like to refer briefly to a word that we hear frequently from the lips of the Opposition in this House, those who criticise what they call pejoratively "book-keeping". It is a very sad reflection on people who should know better that they would use that word in a pejorative sense, that they would think that in using that word they are criticising a Government. I do not know if many Members of the Opposition are involved in running a business, but one thing is very clear. Anybody involved in running a business needs and uses his books not as an end in themselves but to show him how the various components of his business are going. If he finds that the trend shows an emerging deficit he will immediately act to correct it. No sensible or sane shareholder would criticise any managing director or general manager who acted in that way. Why should we apply a different standard to the finances of Ireland Limited which we in this House are charged with running in a reasonable way which will not create excessive burdens?
The use of the term "book-keeping" or "obsession with the books" as a criticism represents nothing more than a very facile use of another kind of scare which the Opposition find convenient. Of course, they can do it without any great difficulty because, although they do not boast about it, they could justifiably point to the fact that they paid no attention at all to the book-keeping and the result has been the difficulty we are in now. Had a bit more attention been paid to what the books showed during that period, particularly from 1977 to 1981, I doubt we would have the problems we now have and it might be open to doubt whether we would be sitting on our respective sides of this House.
The Exchequer statement for the first six months of this year, which was published last week, showed that the current budget deficit incurred in that period was £675 million. While this is rather high, being 75 per cent of the full-year target of £897 million set in the budget, it must be remembered that revenue receipts are concentrated more heavily in the second half of the year. I might add that at this time last year, the current deficit in the first half of the year amounted to 102 per cent of the target set out in the March 1982 budget.
There are some disturbing signs and it appears likely that there will be an overrun on the current budget deficit this year of the order of £75 million, before provision is made for the cost of a new public service pay agreement. This is a relatively small amount in the context of overall revenue and expenditure and arises from fairly minor divergencies in a number of different areas in both expenditure and revenue. Unfortunately, all of the divergences are in the same direction. Though the figures could change as the year progresses, this could go in either direction and the Government could not simply ignore the strong likelihood of an overrun at this stage in the hope that something might turn up later in the year to change the picture.
The Government will be conducting an early review of the position, based on a full analysis of the end-June figures and the latest forecasts. We are strongly committed to avoiding any major overrun on the budget targets and will take whatever steps seem necessary in the light of this review, to ensure that the budget objectives are achieved.
In referring to the budget, I would like to make one or two comments on the criticisms levelled at it. Some Members of this House have charged that the target of almost £900 million which we set for the current budget deficit was too relaxed. In their view, it should have been the £750 million which they had regarded as the proper target. Yet, in virtually the same breath, they castigate the measures required to achieve the softer target of nearly £900 million as draconian, ruthless monetarism and all the other cliched ‘isms' which are refuges for those who refuse to acknowledge the inconsistency of their positions.
That such inconsistency undermines their credibility is no concern of mine. What is of concern, though, is that it sows seeds of doubt in the public mind about the need for the corrective measures which all objective economic commentators regard as essential. Such critics of the budget are thus doing the community no service by this kind of posturing.
Those same critics in this House claimed some weeks ago, during the debate on this year's Finance Bill, that they detected trends on the revenue side which indicated that the current deficit would turn out lower than the figure I fixed last February. I did not believe them at the time and my view has been vindicated and their forecasts shown up to be no more than opportunistic debating points, cobbled together on the basis of an uncritical acceptance of incomplete evidence.
The hollowness of this position was further underlined in recent days by the claim that the end-June Exchequer return figures indicate that budgetary strategy has collapsed this year. I wonder what term Deputy O'Kennedy would have used this time last year had he been free to speak. He made no comment then or since about last year's budget deficit outturn as compared with the target. Perhaps it was because the language he would have needed to describe it was even more extravagant than his ability to cobble up these kinds of statements.
It is unfortunate that, for the reasons I have outlined, we have been obliged to pursue corrective policies at a time of world recession and, thus, unavoidably to add to the adverse impact of external developments on the domestic economy. It is, therefore, a considerable relief to us to see that the deflationary pressures exerted by the external enviornment are at last easing and that there are growing indications of recovery in the world economy.
The evidence is most clearcut in the US where, after a slow start, economic growth is now gaining pace, reaching an estimated annual rate of 6½ per cent. Of course, such a rate of expansion is hardly sustainable but it is a very encouraging indicator of the strength of the underlying forces of recovery. Growth in the US will benefit other countries and will, in particular, encourage the revival in activity already taking place in the UK and Germany. Livelier activity in such countries will, in turn, benefit others; in our case, the better growth prospects of our European trading partners can be turned to our advantage if we are competitive enough.
It is significant that the economies which are now moving out of recession are those which have been most successful in reducing inflation. There is an obvious lesson for us and for other countries in this.
Welcome though the clear signs of renewed activity are, we must nevertheless recognise that many of the problems which aggravated the recent recession still remain to be remedied. Real interest rates remain high; the exchange rates of the major currencies are still volatile — indeed, the appreciation of the dollar in recent months has for many countries including Ireland, virtually wiped out the benefits of the fall in oil prices which occurred earlier this year. The forces of protectionism are still strong and the debt problems of less-developed countries have not been resolved. In addition, fiscal policy in a number of key economies where room for manoeuvre exists remains restrictive.
Because of the threats which these factors pose to sustained world recovery, we have at international meetings consistently argued the need for a concerted international strategy to tackle the obstacles to recovery in a co-ordinated way. It is regrettable that the major economies have not fully endorsed the need for an integrated strategy of this nature, particularly in relation to the degree of reflation which it entails for some of them. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some satisfaction that they have acknowledged the need to deal with the other factors inhibiting recovery. This is reflected particularly in the communique issued after the meeting of the OECD Ministerial Council of May last and in the declaration of the world leaders who attended the Summit meeting in Williamsburg. The commitment to ensuring recovery is confirmed also in the Conclusions of the Presidency of the recent meeting of the European Council about which the Taoiseach has already informed this House.
We must be clear on one thing, though. That is that we will not gather the fruits of world recovery unless we work for them. As I have already said, this will require concerted community support for the Government's efforts to effect the adjustments to the economy and to the public finances which are essential to improve the capacity and potential of our economy. In this respect it is heartening to note that the economy is responding to our adjustment policies and is displaying renewed signs of its ability to profit from an improvement in the international environment.
The inherent responsiveness of the economy is most dramatically illustrated in the rapidly improving trend in our external payments. The external deficit, which reached a peace-time record of 14 per cent of national output in 1981 and which would have been higher still but for the corrective measures brought in by the Coalition Government in July 1981, was reduced to 8 per cent of national output in 1982. This year we confidently expect it to be cut further to about 3 per cent.
There are good grounds for my confidence, notably the fact that in the first five months of this year the deficit on merchandise trade was £433 million, a fall of some £375 million on the deficit in the corresponding period of 1982. A particularly welcome feature was the continuing impressive growth in the volume of industrial exports. It is also encouraging to see the contribution being made by agricultural exports following their sharp decline last year.
The trend which exists gives the lie to many of the Cassandra statements being made by the Opposition, who would have us believe that nobody is interested in producing anything anymore. The record of our industrial exports in the first five months of this year makes it very clear that there are people throughout the economy who will have no truck with that kind of nonsense and which are still prepared to get on with the business of producing and exporting. It is also encouraging to see the contribution that agricultural exports made following their sharp decline last year.
Our success in bringing the balance of payments deficit down so rapidly to a tolerable level must be consolidated in coming years. In this way we shall underpin the international credit-worthiness of the economy and the confidence of foreign investors in it.
On the inflation front too we have made substantial progress. Despite the impact of the higher indirect taxation which the Government found necessary to impose in the budget, the increase in the consumer price index in the 12 months to mid-May last was only 9¼ per cent. This is the first time since November 1978 that the inflation rate has been in single figures. Discounting the impact of budgetary tax changes, the underlying rate of inflation is now well into single figures.
The trend in manufacturing output is also reassuring. There was evidence of a slight upturn in production in the final quarter of 1982 and this accelerated sharply in the first quarter of this year when an advance of 5 per cent was recorded. On a seasonally-adjusted basis, manufacturing production in the first quarter was at its highest level ever.
It has to be noted, however, that this gain in output was achieved on a narrow front, principally in newer industries. The performance of traditional industries remained disappointing. The aim of producers in these industries must be to emulate the achievements of the growth sectors and I hope management and workers will bend their efforts to this end.
Another encouraging development is the reduction of up to 1¼ percentage points in the lending rates of the associated banks which was made from the close of business last Friday. The Government welcome this fall, which has brought the interest rates charged on loans back to, or in some cases below, the levels which obtained immediately prior to the increase which occurred in mid-March of this year, occasioned by an up-coming currency adjustment.
It is against the background of these developments that we must attack the problem of unemployment. Unemployment here has more than doubled during the last three-and-a-half years or so to the point where more than one in seven in the labour force is out of work. There is little consolation in the knowledge that over the same period traditionally stronger economies such as Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have all experienced even sharper deteriorations in the numbers out of work than we have. Joblessness is not simply an Irish phenomenon, but I am convinced that our problem in this regard would not be as serious as it is today if measures to arrest the deterioration in the economy had been taken in the critical years 1979 and 1980.
There are some positive features in the latest unemployment figures. The end-June live register figures showed a significant deceleration in the underlying rate of increase during the first half of this year as compared with the second half of 1982. They also disclosed, for the fourth successive month, a decrease in the numbers on short-time working. The renewed growth in manufacturing output, if sustained, should in time be reflected in employment levels. The time-lag may be long but, at the very least, we can take some solace from the fact that there are now prospects of a reversal of the continuing fall in manufacturing employment experienced over the last three years.
It is a regrettable fact, nevertheless, that the overall unemployment trend is still upward. If we are to halt and reverse this trend and provide the much needed jobs for our young population, it is imperative that the market sector improve its competitive edge on both domestic and external markets.
Over the medium-term the primary aim of Government policy is to achieve adequate and sustained economic growth in order to create viable jobs and reduce unemployment. Such economic growth is also a prerequisite for ensuring adequate living standards for the population as a whole. The maintenance of many of the public services to which we have become accustomed will depend on the generation of sufficient resources to pay for these services.
Realistically, given the constraints on public finance, the policy must be to foster growth through significant expansion of exports. This will be no easy task despite the prospective upswing in the world economy. Competition in export markets will remain intense particularly since no forecast suggests that the recovery will lead to the high growth rates of the sixties and the early seventies. Only those countries which are geared to keep a competitive edge can hope to increase their export market share.
The Government can help to create a climate conducive to economic growth not only through the range of their policies but also through promoting proper structures for the advancement of effective economic policy. In relation to policies, the Government's planned correction of the budgetary imbalance, which is now under way, is designed to ensure that less of the resources needed to improve sustainable employment prospects over the medium-term are diverted to servicing foreign debt. In this way flexibility will be restored to policy and the resilience and adaptability of the economy — and, therefore, its ability to create employment — will be enhanced.
Suitable planning structures are also essential to ensure that the full resources of the economy are deployed to optimum advantage. To this end, the Government has set up the Cabinet Task Force and the National Planning Board. The Cabinet Task Force is focussing its immediate attention on measures to promote employment. The Taoiseach has already set out the role of the National Planning Board. In addition, the existing system of sectoral committees for different areas of economic activity, already operating under the Sectoral Development Committee, is being extended.
It would be remiss of me not to make the point that the involvement of the productive sector is essential if we are to have the kind of national consensus I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. All the bodies which have been set up have a role to play in that process.
Nobody should have any illusion about the effort now required of us as a community. Within the last few years, three decades of rapid and virtually uninterrupted growth have come to an end for Western countries. We are now entering a new economic era. It is by no means clear what changes will mark it or what its characteristic features will be. But the elements of further progress, of rising standards and of a better society are not wanting. They exist in ever-improving educational standards and capacity, in scientific and technological discovery and in man's perennial capacity to generate new wants. There is no reason why the countries of the world should not grasp and exploit those elements and win from them further decades of improvement in the welfare of their populations.
The extent to which we will contribute to and benefit from this future progress will depend primarily on our will, determination and capacity to participate in it. Our starting point must be acceptance of several facts; firstly, that we have economic difficulties to overcome; secondly, that there are no easy solutions to them; and, thirdly, that we must consciously re-order our priorities, giving a lower place, as a nation, to current income and genuinely productive job-creating investment.
It is the only way we will meet the needs being strongly expressed by our young people who want to know that they will have a role in developing the economy and contributing to society in the future.
We must be conscious that what we do will have a profound effect on our economy and society in five years time. By our unwillingness to take action or sort out the imbalance in the public finances we must make sure that we do not place an extra intolerable burden on those young people who will be looking for jobs in years to come and who will want to see that their Government have the capacity and resources to meet the problems which face them. We must consciously decide that we must act in a way which will bring such a situation about and not tie the hands of young people before they have a chance to become actively involved in our society.
On a point of order, at 11 o'clock I indicated to the Ceann Comhairle my intention to speak and he listed me after Deputy O'Kennedy. Since then four speakers have contributed and I am still waiting to speak.
I do not know if that arrangement was made, but I am calling Deputy Faulkner.
The gravest problem facing the country today is unemployment. The total failure of the Coalition Government to attempt to grapple with it is their greatest failure. They have not only failed to grapple with the problem of unemployment, but through their fiscal policies have created an atmosphere of despair and hopelessness which inhibits any attempt to rectify the situation.
Coming as I do from one of the most highly industrialised constituencies, I am naturally extremely perturbed at this. Industrial development on which we must depend for increased and permanent employment — whether in the industrial sector itself or in the services sector — is strangled by misplaced taxation. The need for reinvestment in industry is obvious, but the amount of money available for such investment in private industry after taxation is in most cases minimal, with the result that many of our smaller industries are closing down and some of our larger industries are in a parlous position.
We in the Fianna Fáil Party recognised the problems arising from the world recession and the difficulties arising therefrom for industry. Our policy in Government had been geared towards keeping industry, at the very least, ticking over, so that when the recession began to fade out we would be in a position to profit from the recovery of the world economy.
The industrial policy of this Government more closely resembles that of the Thatcher Government in Britain. There, industries which are unable to withstand the tough assaults of a world recession are allowed to collapse without any effort of worthwhile consequence being made to assist them. While this type of tough policy might be endured in a highly developed country such as Britain — and even there it was a most disheartening and at times catastrophic experience for the workers — it is totally unacceptable here and in complete contradiction to our needs.
How the Labour Party who buttress the Coalition can support this policy is beyond comprehension. The number unemployed is rising rapidly in my constituency, especially in Drogheda and Ardee. Fianna Fáil succeeded over a considerable period, despite the problems of recession which we had to face in Government in holding down the unemployment figures in Drogheda but in recent times they have been climbing rapidly. They now stand at a much higher level than last year. The increased number of unemployed in Drogheda which was published lately in the local newspapers make sad reading, when we compare that item of news with the banner headlines of hope after the November election of 1982. This underlines once more that it is the determined, capable and single-minded Government which has the welfare of the people at heart that matters if we are to make progress in Drogheda or anywhere else and not in the particular part of the constituency in which the TD lives.
The unemployment problem in Ardee is truly frightening. The number registered at the Ardee exchange is almost 1,000. When one considers that the total population of Ardee itself is about 3,000, while those living in the exchange rural area would amount to some thousands more, we can see that the unemployed in the area make up a very high percentage of the total population, not of the working population. This is a horrific situation which calls for immediate action by the Government. In a reply which I received yesterday from the Minister in relation to industrial development in Ardee, I can say that the situation so far as this Government are concerned is far from hopeful. I am now calling on the Government to change their financial policy relative to industrial development and to do so quickly. If it is not possible in the short space of time which I believe is left to the Government to make the necessary changes, to investigate and study the state of industry here, factory by factory, at least it should be possible to study the position quickly of groups of factories involved in the same type of manufacture to see what effect the heavy burden of taxation is having on their costing and how they are being affected vis-à-vis their competitors and to make the necessary adjustments so as to create the conditions in which such industry can compete at least on equal terms with their competitors. If we fail to do this, as surely as night follows day these industries will fold up, with a further increase in the number of unemployed.
In a recent Government statement it was pointed out that the social welfare payments would be higher by £25 million than expected because of the increased number of unemployed. The Government say that they will conduct an early review of the position and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the budget deficit is achieved. I must assume that what they mean is to increase taxation, direct or indirect, and to cut public expenditure. Surely the main emphasis of such a review should be to identify where the taxation measures are impinging to such an extent on specific industries as to make them uncompetitive and in danger of closure and then to adjust these taxes in such a way as to ensure the continued operation of the industry. Taking into account the £25 million extra expenditure referred to in the Government statement because of increased unemployment, it would appear much more logical and sensible to use this money to strengthen industry in time and so avoid closure, rather than continue with the present policy and have to make money available to pay unemployment benefit which should never have been necessary in the first place if the people concerned were made secure in their employment.
I now wish to repeat what I said on a number of occasions in this House in respect of the building and construction industry. This industry is one major industry which can stimulate employment much more quickly than any other is capable of doing. If sufficient money is made available to this industry numerous jobs are immediately created, not only for building workers and cement factory workers but also for workers in many industries which supply household goods and furnishings. Workers in furniture factories, in factories producing house furnishings, producing household electrical goods, in a whole wide range of shops and supply services would be assured of their jobs.
Let me remind the House that when Fianna Fáil published their election programme, The Way Forward before the general election in November, they published a document wherein the grave problems and difficulties of the country were outlined. They clearly identified these problems and proposed remedies. The remedies proposed were tough. No effort was made to minimise either the problems or the remedies. Nobody could say this published programme was tailored to mislead the electorate. The remedies proposed were there for all to see in all their starkness.
I say this to underline the careful consideration given to the programme and to the remedies and so to prove Fianna Fáil's bona fides in respect of their proposals in relation to the building and construction industry. In preparing their programme Fianna Fáil recognised the need for balance and so they stated the amount of money they proposed to spend on the Public Capital Programme if re-elected to Government. This was an equally well thought out programme and regarded by Fianna Fáil as not only justifiable but necessary if we were to endeavour to control the unemployment situation.
The Coalition Government came to office and immediately reduced the Public Capital Programme by £220 million. It is worth remembering that, even in the hotch-potch Coalition programme prepared by Fine Gael and Labour after the last election, £100 million from the contingency fund was promised to the building and construction industry for infrastructural work. The Coalition Government reneged on this promise also, a promise made not before but after the general election. The very fact that the promise was made after the election is proof positive that they recognised the vital need for this injection of capital and yet afterwards they back-tracked on that promise for book-keeping reasons.
The effects of the drastic cutbacks in the Public Capital Programme had immediate implications for employment in my constituency. A considerable number of workers were declared redundant in Irish Cement at Platin, something which one would have regarded as an impossibility a short time previously, and which was certainly in direct contradiction to the promises of security of employment made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, the then Labour candidate, on their much advertised visit to the cement factory at Platin before the election. The trust put by many workers in Cement Limited in the Labour Party at that election was misplaced.
It is interesting to note that the general attitude of workers in the building industry in Drogheda now, as it used to be in the past, is that building industry workers can always depend on Fianna Fáil because Fianna Fáil have always ensured that the condition of the industry under Fianna Fáil Governments remained buoyant. I have no doubt that they will express their feelings at the next election, whether it is a general election or a local election. I am now demanding of this Government that they make sufficient money available to safeguard the jobs of the building workers and the other workers in allied industries, and also to ensure that we have the infrastructures ready which will be necessary when the recession ends to give us an opportunity to take advantage of any upsurge in the world economy.
The frightening situation in which the building and construction industry find themselves is clearly underlined by the fact that there was a downturn of 17 per cent in sales of cement for May of this year as compared with May of last year. It is expected that there will be a downturn in sales of cement of 18 per cent for the first six months of this year as compared with the first six months of last year. The construction industry believe that cement sales will fall by 20 per cent in the month of July as compared with July of last year. Unemployment in the building industry is accelerating. In April and May 1983 the number of those employed in the industry fell by 21 per cent compared with similar months last year.
In the issue of the Drogheda Independent of 1 July there is a headline: “Major AnCO Scheme on way. 500 apprentices will benefit”. I would be only too pleased if this were a fact. Regrettably it is not a fact. The meeting referred to was held in Drogheda for the purpose of outlining the new AnCO link community based training programme presently in operation in west Cork and Wicklow. The scheme is planned to go into operation later this year in County Meath. It has nothing to do with apprentice training. The purpose of the scheme is to contact every unemployed person in County Meath and offer them a four weeks' training course in their own locality, rather than bringing them to the AnCO training centre, with a subsequent follow up and an effort to obtain employment for them.
Despite the limited scope of this scheme, in present circumstances, it is a good scheme. I urge the Minister for Labour — and I am glad to see him here in the House — to make it available in Drogheda and in County Louth generally. I want to emphasise, however, that the introduction of this scheme into County Louth, that is a four weeks' training scheme, is no substitute for good, stable jobs in Drogheda and County Louth. A far greater effort must be made by the Government to stem the rising tide of unemployment we are experiencing in County Louth. In times of recession and high unemployment, it is unfair to give false hope to people who are unemployed, or whose children are unemployed. To describe the County Meath scheme as being a great capture for my constituency, and just what was needed to lift the sagging spirits of the townspeople and give hope to youth is, to say the least of it, extraordinary.
I want to mention the Port of Drogheda which is of vital importance to the economy of the town and its hinterland. It is also important to the economy of the nation as a whole. I am convinced there is a need to develop the smaller ports. For many and obvious reasons it is wrong to concentrate practically all our shipping trade in Dublin Port. Alternative facilities must be available on the east coast to cope with the traffic which Dublin Port is unable to deal with, for whatever reason, as well as to cater for the traffic in their own areas.
I am particularly anxious to press on the Government the need to make money available for the reconstruction of Welshman's Quay and Ballast in the Port of Drogheda. A state grant should be made available immediately as a matter of urgency. Money should also be made available for some of the work which has already been carried out and for which the commissioners are not able to provide from their own resources.
I saw a statement in the Drogheda Independent of July 1 made very recently at a meeting of the Drogheda Labour Party in which is was suggested that successive Governments have promised much but delivered little in relation to financial support for the development of the port. If that statement relates to the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Governments only, then it is correct. If it refers to all Governments, memories are very short. When I was Minister for Transport a few short years ago, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Government I granted £1 million for the development of the Port of Drogheda, which was no small financial contribution. Money was money at that time. Two quays were reconstructed. Those employed at the port are well aware of this. If the Drogheda Labour Party would like to forget it, it will give me great pleasure to continue to remind them of it.
Only a few short weeks ago I introduced my Estimate and despite what I detected then and now detect as a general perception on the Opposition benches to the contrary, the number of man-days lost in the first six months of this year shows a considerable improvement on last year's figures. To date about 150,000 man-days have been lost through industrial stoppages compared with a figure of 250,000 man-days lost in the corresponding period last year. This improvement is particularly heartening because the period in question is one which marked the beginning of major wage negotiations between trades unions and employers.
There has also been a substantial reduction in both the number of official strikes to date this year when contrasted with the same period in 1983—22 as against 39—as well as in the number of man-days lost through unofficial action — 14,000 as against 48,000. This improved record in a particularly sensitive period is significant and should further improve as the year progresses and wage patterns are comprehensively established throughout all sectors of the economy.
The improvements in our industrial relations record to which I have referred have not come about by chance. They reflect a growing recognition on the part of employers and workers alike that, in many areas of vocational activity, there are very finite limits on the extent to which wages and salaries can be increased having regard to the global economic climate in which we must now operate and compete for exports. While the developed economies of the West show some signs of improvement, it would be fool-hardy to make deductions which would imply long-term and sustained economic growth. There is a general consensus that the type of industrial expansion which the United States and most European countries experienced in the post-war period will not be repeated in the foreseeable future. The gaps in growth and the recessionary movements of recent years have brought about a situation where the buoyancy of confidence and consequential industrial expansion of the past have been severely curtailed.
There is a much more tentative approach towards industrial investment world-wide, and the consequences in terms of the slow expansion of world markets are reflected in sluggish growth and continuing high unemployment levels. In this country the conditions prevailing in the global economy are exacerbated by a high level of foreign debt, the openness of our trading situation and the age distribution of our population. A growing understanding and acceptance of these features has generally introduced a higher degree of realism into the process of wage determination. This has been helped by a greater preparedness on the part of employers to take their workers much more fully into their confidence and this is, of course, a trend which I welcome.
Improvements in our industrial relations performance so far this year have also been greatly assisted by the way in which our dispute settling machinery has operated. Here I want to compliment the work of the Labour Court and its conciliation service. The personnel working there frequently display a level of commitment and dedication to their job which deserve the recognition and thanks of the whole community. In this context I want to refer to recent criticisms of particular settlements which have emanated from the Labour Court. While not wishing to indulge in assessments of the merits or demerits of any individual recommendations, I was particularly struck by the tenor of some of those criticisms. They contained an implication that the Labour Court was some sort of satellite bureaucratic structure which handed down decrees without reference to prevailing conditions in the real world. That should not be the case. Every determination of the Labour Court is arrived at with the active participation of court members who are nominated by representative bodies of both employers and trades unions.
In such a structure it is clear that the viewpoints of the constituencies of court members have a forum for free expression when recommendations are being formulated on any particular industrial dispute. It is, therefore, important to realise that the dispute settling machinery of the Labour Court is a representative one and should accommodate the valid viewpoints of both sides of industry. This is not to say that there are not imperfections which can and will be remedied by agreement but it is to request that criticism of the procedures as they currently exist should be informed and objective.
I have initiated discussions with both the employers and trades unions to see how best we can achieve improvements in the support structures provided to facilitate good industrial relations. I have no illusions on the difficulties which may lie ahead in achieving agreement to major departures from the current setup. I equally have no illusions that it is possible to ordain good industrial relations by enacting legislation. If this were the case every country in the Western world would long since have legislated away the problems which confrontations in the employment situation can give rise to. Nonetheless, I am confident that the discussions with both sides will facilitate beneficial advancements and I am heartened by the initial reactions of both the representatives of employers and workers to my initiative.
The central task of any Minister for Labour is to secure continuing improvements in the industrial relations climate. This is a key area on which our progress towards the attainment of economic and social goals will heavily depend. I have frequently in the past stated that my policy towards industrial dispites is one which does not involve personal intervention.
It is not any part of the role of a Minister for Labour to tell employers and workers how much should be paid for a particular job. These are matters for both sides to agree on and, failing that, to avail of the industrial dispute settling facilities. I will limit my involvement in strike situations to encouraging parties to disputes to use agreed procedures and structures for their settlement and to ensuring that those procedures and structures are adequate to do the job.
The approach which I have outlined has been criticised on a number of occasions recently by the Opposition. This forum here has been used to call for my personal intervention in the Dublin Docks dispute, the Dublin Gas Company dispute, the dispute at Asahi in Killala, the dispute in the Western Health Board, the dispute at Ranks (Ireland) Limited and others.
I have rejected that type of goading from the Opposition because I know that personal ministerial intervention most frequently has had the effect only of heightening expectations and prolonging disputes. Past experiences of such intervention have conclusively proved that point and it is salutary now to recall that all those disputes which I have instanced were settled with the assistance of the skilled personnel whose job it is to discharge that role.
My policy does not in any way incorporate an abdication of responsibility but rather embodies a philosophy which is in the very best interests of securing an improved industrial relations climate, the most expeditious resolution of disputes with minimum damage to the national economy and the securing and protection of the best interests of all the people. I am very happy that my approach in this respect has been successful and has allowed those agencies whose task it is to find consensus and agreement to demonstrate their facility for very effectively doing just that.
For my own part I want to say that a policy not to intervene directly does not entail any disinterest in the disputes which occur. I am kept fully up to date on all developments by the officials of the Industrial Relations Unit of my Department which incorporates a section having the sole task of daily monitoring dispute situations and reporting to me on potential trouble spots.
My judgments on the approaches appropriate to each individual dispute are based on a full and thorough assessment which bring to light all the facts and influences. Where appropriate I have proposed independent mediation to resolve difficulties and I also commissioned expert independent examinations to assist in the resolution of industrial conflict. That kind of assistance from me has been of benefit in the recent past and I think is a more solid foundation from which to work than opting for high profile personal involvement.
At the Irish Congress of Trades Unions Annual Conference in Galway this week some very influential trades union leaders seriously raised the question of again returning to national agreements instead of localised bargaining and pointed to the beneficial consequences of such arrangements for many of their members, particularly the lower paid. They also adverted to the advantages of national arrangements in facilitating agreement on other than wage issues alone. I have taken note of those comments and can see the validity of some of the concerns expressed at the less immediately apparent consequences of current strategies.
I believe that in a situation, which we are hopefully approaching, where the primary economic indicators are showing improvement, a longer term and more comprehensive structure for determining wages and other issues may be more appropriate. I welcome the opening of the debate on the relative merits of both approaches and look forward to its continuance and satisfactory conclusion during the currency of this wage round.
Deputy Haughey, in his contribution to this debate, has criticised a recent statement of mine as being defeatest and demoralising. He was referring to my assessment of the present unemployment situation. I said, and I quote, "that it is too early to make a definitive statement as to the potential for a real improvement in the underlying rates for the rest of this year".
I think I was being realistic when I said this. I would remind Deputy Haughey that in his last period of realism when he thought, rightly, that realism was the mood of the country, his Government issued a planning document called The Way Forward. That paper envisaged, even with the massive wage restraint proposed by Fianna Fáil, that unemployment would continue to grow during 1983 and 1984. Perhaps Deputy Haughey has yet again abandoned realism and opted for the trite as opposed to the truth. Facts are facts and cannot be varnished over by rhetoric or posturing and the people will not thank the Opposition leader for his failure to face reality.
I am puzzled as well by Deputy Fitzgerald's discovery of the unregistered unemployed. They were there in similar numbers during his own period of office; he wishes now to suggest that they were not. My own impression, in fact, is that changes in social welfare law since the mid-seventies have reduced the numbers of people who, when unemployed, have no entitlement to social welfare benefits or assistance. These changes were introduced by my colleague, Deputy Frank Cluskey. I accept that they were extended by the current Opposition when they were in power. The Opposition should accept credit for their actions rather than try to ignore the effect of those actions. The reduction of unemployment is too serious a business, too important a question in every community in this country, to be made the subject of a game in which the abuse of statistics is the only rule.
The unregistered unemployed includes persons undertaking AnCO training courses. At present there are approximately 7,000 young people alone undergoing such training. The figure for unregistered unemployed also includes those undertaking work experience programmes administered by the National Manpower Service of my Department. Programmes such as these have been expanded very substantially in recent times. Over the last two years the numbers undergoing vocational training, work experience programmes and related programmes will have increased from about 19,000 to an estimated 45,000 in the current year. The expansion of these schemes has been consciously undertaken so that a much larger proportion of the unregistered young unemployed are now being given skills which will enhance their chances of securing longer term employment. Despite the very difficult economic situation which now prevails a high placement or retention rate in jobs for young people is still being achieved. There have been criticisms which suggest that the application of resources to youth schemes represented no guarantee of employment on completion of courses.
I can readily see the concerns of those who advance such arguments. Equally I am convinced, from my personal experience, that the experience gained by a large number of young people when undertaking these programmes does enhance their employability and has less tangible consequences in terms of assisting their perspective on employment and their approach to securing jobs. It would be a far less worthy approach simply not to devote scarce financial resources towards assisting those without work and those who have lost their jobs.
The Youth Employment Agency was established primarily to ensure that the programmes which operate for young people were properly and effectively directed. Its task is to co-ordinate the work of all agencies involved in catering for the problem of youth unemployment and to set common standards and criteria so as to avoid duplication and overlapping. The agency has to date made considerable strides in that direction. I am pleased with the whole-hearted co-operation which it is receiving from the major programme sponsors such as AnCO, the National Manpower Service, CERT, the vocational education committees and many other bodies whose task it is to contribute to the resolution of the very difficult problems of unemployment we now have. It is only through a common, concerted approach which incorporates the goodwill and active assistance of such agencies that we can achieve what are common objectives which seek to and overcome the anguish and very practical problems which unemployment has brought to so many of our people in recent years. As Minister for Labour, I am totally committed towards ensuring that the schemes financed by the taxpayer will continually be reviewed and improved in the best interests of those they aim to assist.
We must remember that unemployment is not one simple phenomenon all characteristics of which reside in one official statistic. Even in the current difficult situation many people are finding jobs and leaving the live register each week. Short periods of unemployment are particularly common among young people. It is for this reason that we should all be cautious about approaching statistics and interpreting them as a constant factor. That type of superficial approach has its dangers. I would be particularly concerned that school-leavers or their parents should take a message which suggests that long-term unemployment is the inevitable lot of our youth. It is not, and this Government have adopted a range of approaches which aim to ensure that in the shortest possible time job opportunities will be increasingly available to those without work.
I am aware that there are certain categories of unemployed people who face particular difficulties either by reason of experiences in the educational system or because of other considerations which have placed severe disadvantages on them when seeking jobs. In taking account of these considerations the Government, through the Youth Employment Agency and other bodies, have been working to concentrate available resources on particular groups and specifically those who have been out of work for long periods. That approach is already producing results, though admittedly of a localised nature. State agencies established to serve these needs require the assistance and commitment of local communities and, where this has been forthcoming, the response of these agencies has been expeditious and beneficial. I would very strongly urge local communities to take a more active interest in the employment plight of their less fortunate members and to assess, through local knowledge and expertise, approaches which will fully address the problems. Where they do so I can assure them the full and active support of this Government and their agencies.
On unemployment, more than on any other issue, there is a need for a constructive Opposition. The situation facing us is daunting. The Government do not have a monopoly on possible approaches to our problems. Our recent history bears this out. We must examine every means towards the redistribution of wealth in Ireland. Ensuring a high level of employment is the biggest single measure needed.
Constructive Opposition must include some continuity with the approaches taken, when the Opposition were last in power. The record shows that my party have shown such consistency, on whatever side of the House. I would commend a less carping approach, one more consistent with reality, to the present Opposition.
The issue of unemployment, quite rightly, has been noted by many, if not all, of the speakers on this debate so far as the single most important problem confronting the country. Clearly there is a similarity of approach to the problem both within the Coalition Government at present and the main Opposition party, the Fianna Fáil Party, when they were in Government previously.
One matter I want to take up in this debate in relation to unemployment has to do with the views expressed by the Taoiseach yesterday when he indicated that a more radical approach was needed, although in his script there is a question mark after the heading "more radical approach needed". But, in talking about a more radical approach, he said:
But, given the scale of this problem, we cannot assume that even with a major change in attitudes to pay levels in the years immediately ahead, unemployment can be reduced to anything like an acceptable level.
That is a clear indication from the Taoiseach that he sees one of the major elements in the solution to unemployment the question of wage levels. In other parts of his speech he referred to competitiveness. I agree that competitiveness constitutes a very important part of tackling the problem of unemployment. But to go on to say that this is the key element, that wage levels in competitiveness is the key element in the struggle towards full employment, or against unemployment, is not borne out by the facts. There is no evidence whatsoever that low wages in any part of Irish industry have resulted in any additional jobs in any industry in this State. Indeed, there is no indication that low wage levels in any other country, particularly the Third World countries, have resulted in any huge development of industry in those countries.
In a previous debate on this question of unemployment in this House I referred to a study carried out by a group of socialist economists who indicated that a study undertaken by West German management consultants — discussing the question of competitiveness — had placed wage levels, on a scale of 1 to 10, at level 9 and that there were other elements far more important in competitiveness than wage levels.
There has been a lot of talk in this House about marketing. We are told that there is a gap in Irish marketing. It appears to me that outside this House, among the management strata of Irish industry, marketing is not recognised at all as a science. One gets the impression that when they talk of marketing what they are actually talking about is selling. They appear to think that if they send out a few salesmen they are marketing. What Irish industry should be doing is establishing where there is a need for products, establishing what the consumer wants and aiming to fulfil that need, not just in Ireland but aboard. We have a clear example where Irish industry has failed to provide even for the needs of our own small population. There are headlines in our papers practically every week talking about the huge import bills for food, in a country with a large agricultural population and which has hundreds of thousands of acres of productive land lying idle. This is happening in a country where if the primary produce cannot be sold on the open market it is dumped or fed to pigs. There has been no attempt other than through the Irish Sugar Company to process and to market properly the produce of our land.
It is equally unhelpful for Ministers to come here and say the unemployment problem can be dealt with in any significant way by community effort, in terms of identifying small community needs. There is no likelihood whatever that small co-operatives that identify needs for window-cleaners, hairdressers or any other services in small communities, will make any significant impression on the unemployment problem. This country is completely underdeveloped in terms of its resources. If the Government are to attempt to solve the unemployment problem they must ensure that our natural resources, the land, the sea and the minerals and the produce of the land, are utilised to the maximum. Any financial resources available to the State should be used to develop those resources in a planned way, using State companies.
It has been shown during the years that private enterprise has failed to develop the resources and to provide the jobs. One of the Ministers who spoke this morning referred to the growth in industrial exports this year. He said that that growth was in the area of new technology and that the traditional industries had not made any significant contribution to exports. Without exports this country virtually dies. By speaking about traditional industries the Minister was referring to industries that, unfortunately, are owned and run by native entrepreneurs but, apart from a few exceptions, they have failed to take the risks which we are told entrepreneurs are supposed or are expected to take. This is the reason that we give them incentives by way of taxes and provide facilities and services. Most of our industrial exports are generated by companies that have been brought in from abroad and that are locating, identifying and supplying the needs of the world market.
When the Taoiseach spoke about radical solutions he mentioned eliminating overtime, job-splitting — presumably the new term for job-sharing — and the need for people to think twice when looking for a wage increase. He said one man's wage increase could mean a job loss for another man. That is not a policy for any Government worth its name. I have pointed out already there is significant evidence to show that wage increases are not the most significant element in the deterioration of competitiveness in this or any other country. Obviously it has an effect but it is not the most significant effect.
The Taoiseach spoke about job-sharing and the elimination of overtime. I have never met any man or woman who willingly takes on overtime. Those who do overtime on a constant basis do so because it is necessary for them if they are to survive. When one considers that out of every £4 earned in overtime £3 is taken by way of PAYE tax, one will appreciate that the necessity to earn that extra £1 must be great. These people have to work unsocial hours which deprive them of contact with their families. Certainly wherever possible we must eliminate overtime but what the Taoiseach is talking about is eliminating overtime and keeping wage levels as they are. In other words, he is hoping to ensure that eliminating overtime will prevent any increase in the standard of living of workers.
The Taoiseach also spoke about a shorter working week without any increase in the hourly rate. Again, this is a deliberate cutback in the standard of living of workers. When he talks about job-sharing presumably he does it on the basis that a person who works three days will be paid for three days and the other person will be paid for two or three days. That is not a solution to the problem of unemployment. It may take a few people off the street but it will not increase the gross national product of this State by £1 and it will not achieve any worthwhile increase in employment. It may reduce by a few perecentage points the unemployment figure but it will not increase the wealth of the country or help in the development of the resources of the country.
I was concerned at the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs a few nights ago particularly in relation to his definition of Irish neutrality. His concept of Irish neutrality is virtually the same as that of Fianna Fáil in recent years. They define it in terms of military neutrality but that is a very narrow concept for this country to pursue. It may have been possible for Ireland to have adopted that narrow view 40 years ago before the development of nuclear weapons. It may have been good enough when the State was founded, as the Minister said in his speech, but it is not good enough now. The Minister defined neutrality as——
It is now 3 o'clock. Is it not normal for the last Opposition speaker to start his contribution an hour before the debate closes?
The only provision that has been made this morning is that the Minister will reply at 3.30 p.m.
What about the main Opposition party in this House? Are we not being allowed our last half an hour? Is this a departure from procedure?
The time allocated to the Opposition is being used by Deputy De Rossa.
I have asked a question and I want an answer.
Acting Chairman
The only order that was made this morning was that the Minister would reply at 3.30. I do not know what provision was made for the Opposition generally.
There was an agreement between the Whips yesterday that the last Opposition speaker would wind up at 3 o'clock and that a Government speaker would commence at 3.30 p.m. Can anyone tell me when it was ever different?
Acting Chairman
I am not aware of any arrangement made between the Whips.
It has been the tradition in this House, since the foundation of the State, and in other parliamentary democracies, that the debate ranges back and forth between the Government and the Opposition sides. I have been waiting here for three-and-a-half hours, I have listened to three Ministers——
Acting Chairman
Many Deputies had to wait for three-and-a-half hours and if we do not continue with the debate nobody will have an opportunity to speak. I call on Deputy De Rossa to continue.
On a point of order, while you are in that Chair you are expected to adjudicate on what is regarded as fair practice. In your opinion, is it fair that a party consisting of two people had 100 per cent representation?
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order and Standing Orders provide for it. Is it fair to give 100 per cent representation to one party and deny the major party in the House fair representation in the matter of debate? The responsibility lies with you.
Acting Chairman
I must allow Deputy De Rossa to continue but I think the major Opposition Party should have some of the last half hour at least.
Deputy Tunney is at least consistent, he made the same point the other day. However, at one stage in this debate there was no speaker here from the major Opposition Party. I am not making narrow political points but it is surely a matter for the Opposition parties to decide which of them will speak.
Was it not brought to your notice by the Whips that the Opposition would be coming in to wind up at 3 o'clock and that there would be a Government speaker at 3.30 p.m.? I have no desire to take time from Deputy Prendergast——
Acting Chairman
I was not made so aware.
Can you quote any precedent where the chief Opposition party speaker was not given time to wind up before the Government on an adjournment debate?
That is not a point of order.
I am entitled to ask if there is a precedent for the ruling made by the Chair.
The Opposition slipped up.
Acting Chairman
I am asking Deputy De Rossa to continue with his speech.
If Deputy De Rossa wishes, he may speak until 3.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman
It is my belief that he can speak for 30 minutes.
Belief has no place in Standing Orders. Is it a decision of your advisers that Deputy De Rossa is concluding for the Opposition?
Acting Chairman
Deputy De Rossa started his speech at 2.46 p.m. and he has 30 minutes.
Do I get any time for interruptions?
Acting Chairman
You do not get any injury time.
I would not attempt to speak for Fianna Fáil because there are so many differences of opinion. I am dealing with an area in which Fianna Fáil have abandoned the policy of neutrality pursued by them down through the years. The position on neutrality which the Government spokesman for Foreign Affairs enunciated here the other night is the same as that enunciated by the Fianna Fáil Party on St. Patrick's Day in America last year.
The Minister said his definition of Irish neutrality is the field of national security, that is the physical safety of our people in time of war. That is nonsense in terms of this country in Europe when the Warsaw Pact and NATO are arming and confronting each other and when NATO are discussing the acceptance of American Pershing and Cruise missiles on European soil which will destabilise the equilibrium which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was talking about the other night and which he claimed was so important in ensuring that there would be no nuclear war. For Ireland to adopt a position that we are neutral in times of war, that we are not engaged in a military alliance because we want to protect ourselves in time of war is not good enough and is too narrow a concept for our country at this time. Our neutral position must be used as an honest broker to stand between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO and to use every means and device to ensure that they do not destabilise the present equilibrium but that they disarm and remove the threat of nuclear war from the world.
I should like to refer to our policy in relation to Central America, especially Nicaragua and EI Salvador. I accept the very positive position which the Minister has taken with regard to Central America. He has given numerous assurances that the Government support the right of the people there to decide their own fate without the interference of outside powers. He also referred to those who are supplying weapons, particularly the United States, who are supplying them to the governments of EI Salvador, Hondures and Guatemala and leading a very strong campaign for the destabilisation of Nicaragua.
The American Vice-President paid a visit here some days ago and the Taoiseach quite rightly told him of our abhorrence of the American Government's activities in Central America. Vice-President Bush, in a public interview which was reported in The Irish Times, repeated much of the black propaganda in relation to Nicaragua which has been denied and proved wrong by independent sources. He cited, for instance, as one of the reasons for interfering in Nicaragua, the fact, as he alleges, that the Pope was insulted in Nicaragua. It is an extraordinary attitude for the United States of America to take, that it is a justification for them, to assist the other groups they are assisting in Honduras and so forth, to invade Nicaragua and to destabilise the popular revolutionary Government there.
He also went on to imply that there was religious persecution there and that there was also persecution of the Meskito Indians there. Those are charges which have been repeatedly denied by independent observers, not only by lay people but by religious people. People involved in the Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua have denied completely that this is the case. I refer to the speech I made in this House on 26 April in which I quoted lay missionaries of the Maryknoll Sisters Group who denied that there was religious persecution and denied that there was persecution of the Meskito Indians I quoted a Catholic Archbishop in Nicaragua, who they said was under house arrest, and he denied that. He also denied that there was religious persecution in Nicaragua.
I wanted to make those points in relation to Nicaragua because I feel there is a very dangerous situation in Central America, and Nicaragua is a key element in that situation. Attempts are being made to destabilise a revolutionary Government, who have overthrown a dictatorship who were supported for 20 years by the United States and who had denied all forms of civil rights in Nicaragua. For the US now, in defence of their own interests, to turn around and to try to restore a regime similar to the Somoza regime, is unacceptable to most Irish people and I know it is unacceptable to the Irish Government. I press them to make it clear to the US on every possible occasion and at every forum open to us that we do not support them in those moves and to urge them to withdraw.
In relation to EI Salvador there has been a very clear escalation of the assassinations and kidnappings in that country since the beginning of May. We are told that an estimated 200 prisoners were released there some months ago and 18 of those political prisoners have now been assassinated. The rest of them are on the run. I appeal to the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come to some arrangement to see that those of the 300 who are anxious for asylum outside of EI Salvador are facilitated.
I appeal to the Minister to get into discussions with Mexico, France and Canada, who I know are making attempts to accommodate some of those people. I hope the Irish Government will also make available political asylum to some of those people.
I would like to stress that, while the Irish Government have accepted that a negotiated settlement has to take place between the opposing sides in EI Salvador, they have stopped short of recognising the opposition in EI Salvador, the FDR/FMLN. It would be a significant impetus towards negotiations if the Irish Government were to give such recognition to the opposition there and to continue on the very positive policies they have already embarked upon in relation to that area.
Deputy Reynolds.
I must protest.
Acting Chairman
I am calling on Deputy Reynolds to conclude for the Opposition.
On a point of order, there is no Standing Order which requires you to call on an Opposition speaker before the final speaker. The Order of Business was agreed by the Opposition this morning and the last speaker was named as the Tánaiste. The Opposition have just concluded. Surely the precedents of the House show that it goes to this side.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
It is for the Chair to decide on the order of speakers and I am calling on Deputy Reynolds to conclude for the Opposition.
I have to protest at this.
Will the Deputy sit down?
Will Deputy Fitzgerald not be rude? I am not in the habit of interrupting him when he speaks. Will the Deputy have manners? The position is that I have been waiting here for four hours.
Acting Chairman
I am very sorry the Deputy is waiting here for four hours but there is nothing I can do about that. I am calling on Deputy Reynolds.
On a point of order, the position is that the Standing Orders provide that the debate ranges from the Government side to the Opposition side. It is a matter for the people on the Opposition benches to decide what proportion of the time allocated to their party will be taken up.
Acting Chairman
I do not want a speech at this time. I am not asking the Deputy to speak, I am asking Deputy Reynolds.
On which Standing Order are you ruling?
Acting Chairman
Protests concerning the Chair's choice of speakers constitutes a disorderly attack on the Chair and will not be tolerated. Will the Deputy please sit down? Deputy Reynolds, please.
I want to draw your attention to the fact that I am not attacking anybody. I am merely standing on order. I want to point out that at one stage during one of the most important contributions by the Minister for Labour on the labour situation we had nobody from the major political party here. All those benches were empty.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is being disorderly.
I am waiting here for four hours.
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy please sit down and allow the debate to continue?
May I ask a question? What made you decide?
(Interruptions.)
I was with you a few minutes ago and you showed me a list and on your list Deputy Prendergast was next.
Acting Chairman
That is not my list.
You are telling a lie. I saw the list in front of you.
Acting Chairman
I did not write that list.
Will the Chair ask Deputy McLoughlin to withdraw the allegation of a lie against you?
(Interruptions.)
I ask that the Ceann Comhairle be sent for. The Deputy said that the Chair told a lie.
You showed me the list and Deputy Prendergast's name was next to speak.
Acting Chairman
The list was here when I came into the Chamber but that is not my list.
On a point of order, the Deputy will have to withdraw that remark or you, under Standing Orders, have to get the Ceann Comhairle to come back to the House. He must withdraw that remark.
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy please withdraw that remark?
When I went up to the Ceann Comhairle——
Will the Deputy withdraw that remark?
I will clarify the matter. When I went up to the Chair she showed me a list and Deputy Prendergast's name was next on it. If the same list is there now she is telling me a lie if she says Deputy Prendergast's name is not next.
Acting Chairman
I said that it was not my list.
Will you read out the list in front of you?
Acting Chairman
It is not my list. I did not write it. It was just here.
Would the Deputy please withdraw the remark against the Chair?
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy please resume his seat and allow the debate to continue? The Deputy must withdraw the remark.
I withdraw it but I know there is a list there with Deputy Prendergast's name on it.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Certainly, and if there is time I will call on Deputy Prendergast.
Why is this breach of parliamentary procedure now being instituted? Is it not a time honoured tradition in a parliamentary democracy that the debate goes back from the Government side to the Opposition side.
Acting Chairman
It is a matter for the Chair whom to call.
In fairness to Deputy Tunney, for whom I have the deepest respect, he has been perfectly consistent here and I agree with him.
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy please sit down?
Will the Chair ask the Deputy to resume his seat?
Acting Chairman
It is my opinion that the proper and right thing to do now is to call on Deputy Reynolds because the Minister will be coming in at 3.30 p.m. to conclude for the Government.
I wish respectfully to place my protest on your ruling on this, which is manifestly a breach of parliamentary procedure.
(Interruptions.)
I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle be asked to rule on this.
On a point of order, normally on the Adjournment Debate the final Government speaker would be called at 3.30 p.m. and the final member of the Opposition would be called at 3 p.m. We agreed not to write that into the Order. The Deputy is totally out of order and against the practice of the House and also against Standing Orders and he should be told so.
I am not going to be left-hooked here by Deputy Ahern or anybody else.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Prendergast and whoever else is standing please resume your seats.
Fianna Fáil are the main Opposition party——
Acting Chairman
Deputy Prendergast, please resume your seat.
This waste of 15 minutes indicates an organised effort to ensure that I would not get the opportunity of saying what I want to say about this problem.
That is not true.
The Minister for Labour on one of the most serious problems affecting this economy had little to say. He sat down to allow Deputy De Rossa to contribute and then he made sure that all here kicked up a row for 15 minutes to prevent me from saying anything. Let the Minister give me 15 minutes of his time and I will give ten minutes to Deputy Prendergast if you want to put aside the Orders of the House. I have never come in here to be disruptive.
The Deputy should address himself to the problem.
Part of the whole game of the Government is that they have endeavoured to make sure that every means at their disposal, whether within the rules or outside the rules, was used to make sure that the Opposition did not get their say. The Taoiseach was going to provide answers to all the problems of the country, and where he has been for the last six or seven months? For the first part of it we know how many own goals he scored and then his managers and handlers sent him off to Spain for three weeks' holidays and when they brought him back they kept him out of the public eye. Remember he is the leader of this country, the Taoiseach. They put him away so that he would not make any more mistakes in public. When he comes into this House the same managers and handdlers cannot protect him as they can protect him outside, but what did they do? They took out an insurance policy against accidents because we know how prone he is to accidents. A list of questions is down to the same Taoiseach and time after time they are ruled out for me and every Deputy in this House. He does not want to be seen. He is abdicating his responsibility and his duty. He is not leading this country. Now before the summer recess his party are trying another mechanism to deprive me of the opportunity of saying what I want to say.
What I want to say can be summed up in a few short sentences. This Government are engaged in the politices of planned and programmed deceit and dishonesty and they stand indicted by the words of their own Taoiseach as reported in the record of this House. I refer the House to the Official Report of 14 December 1982, Volume 339, column 49. Yesterday the Taoiseach early in his speech referred to a disastrous financial position which was out of control and getting worse by the day and had to be halted. One of the daily papers headed that "Avert Doomsday or Else". I will quote the Taoiseach's words on 14 December as reported in the volume I have just referred to. The Taoiseach at the time recognised that the Estimates had been prepared. For the first time in history he recognised the good job done by Fianna Fáil. I quote:
I recognise the fact that in preparing those Estimates the Fianna Fáil Government faced up to their responsibilities...
Further on he said:
I recognise that the public sector pay settlement is a useful contribution also. In addition, the work of controlling expenditure has been helpful. All of this gives us a certain advantage in starting to tackle problems...
He went on to say:
It would be ungenerous and dishonest of me not to recognise that fact.
In his statement yesterday he did not recognise that fact. Neither did his Minister for Finance or his other Ministers when they came in here. The facts are that we reduced public expenditure last year for the first time in years. Expenditure in the budget as set out on 9 March finished not on line but below line. The previous Coalition budget was £55 million out and the other day they said they would be £7 million out. They got their figures wrong. What are they going to do about the problems of this country? Are they going to delegate their responsibilities to committees of whom they have produced a list? They are not talking about any Government responsibility for the problems of the country at the moment.
What happened to the national planning board? The three wise men went away and deliberated for months and came back and got the figures wrong. They were sent abroad on holidays or somewhere by the managers. The Taoiseach in this House in reply to a question put down by Deputy S. Brennan said that they would bring out their interim plan by next September. Then he said in a deceitful way that it would be some time early in 1984. So much for the national planning board.
What about the task force of Ministers on employment? Did they ever meet? If not, is it because Deputy Bruton, Minister for Industry and Energy, who is very keen on that task force, is not in the country to take part? He had two trips to America, one to England, one to Europe and one to the Far East, and what did we get out of them all? We heard 120 jobs announced out of America, 40 out of Japan — that would not pay for the air fare. This is the attitude of what we are to recognise as a responsible Government tackling the tasks and problems of this country, and if any problem is greater than that of unemployment I do not know what it is.
The Taoiseach last December was reported in the volume I have referred to as saying at column 50:
The Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that our major problem is unemployment.
Did he say the same in his speech yesterday? No, there are other problems. There is the problem of foreign borrowing. We will take the Government on the basis of facts in relation to foreign borrowing. In their budget on 9 February last they said that foreign borrowing would be £800 million. They were going to increase the foreign debt by that amount. What did they do? They brought in devaluation which increased the foreign debt to £1,100 million, the same amount as last year. That was another trick-of-the-loop, another three-card trick, another deceitful way of trying to get the public to believe that they are reducing foreign borrowing when in effect they are not.
There is a new approach now. Irish Steel are looking for money. The Government will not borrow it and give it to them. They tell Irish Steel to borrow it themselves. They tell CIE that they will not do the borrowing, that CIE must do it themselves. That will not appear in the Government's books but it will appear somewhere.
While foreign borrowing may tend on the graph to show a slight reduction, over all the public foreign total indebtedness involved in the Government and the semi-State bodies is going through the roof. Their budget strategy is flat on its face today. The one strategy they had was trying to get down foreign indebtedness but they are putting it up and they have nothing to show for it. They have handed over the responsibility of trying to create jobs, the greatest single problem facing this economy, to the national planning board, to the task force of Ministers, to the Youth Employment Agency — about whom the Minister decided to say very little, and the Taoiseach said he is not satisfied with them. I can tell him that neither we nor the young people out on the streets are satisfied with them. Today's figure is 210,000 people unemployed. The Government can have another committee, another agency, but until we get down the foreign debt they will not do anything more about it.
Is that the approach of a responsible Government who told the country that they would tell them the truth? They stand indicted on the record of this House of last December and the Taoiseach's speech yesterday. Anybody checking the record will find that the one flatly contradicts the other. He said yesterday that they have stabilised a runaway economy, whereas it is on the record of 14 December that we had stabilised it before they came in. He said that they have started to control our indebtedness. On the figures and facts I have put over, where are they starting to control it? They are creating an improved environment for industrial development, the greatest sick joke this House has ever heard because this Government brought in a budget that destroyed the environment for investment and any sense of enterprise. The captains of industry say they will not take any more punishment and there are places in Surrey where a person can take home much more money. What is wrong with Surrey?
I am calling on the Tánaiste to conclude.
We wasted 20 minutes arguing the toss. The Tánaiste is a decent man and he does not mind my having five minutes. There are many questions I wanted to ask and I have not had the chance. All sorts of allegations were made by the Minister for Finance that we paid no attention to book-keeping. I challenge the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance to look at the outturn for 1982——
Order, please.
Let the Deputy choose his weapons and name the place.
Take the Taoiseach out of hibernation. What Ireland Limited needs is a good managing director. Even Fine Gael supporters are saying that they have a bad managing director and Labour supporters are saying that they have sold out the country. The Taoiseach changed any decision he made, such as the decision on school transport. He has done so many U-turns that his head must be reeling.
Deputy Reynolds, please resume your seat. You are being most disorderly.
There is not a single Labour Member who will admit that they sold out the country in Limerick. They have not delivered on one promise. If you have a bad managing director you must sack him and give us a good managing director who will lead the country out of its problems.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Please resume your seat.
Let him answer the questions I put. The Taoiseach has already contradicted himself three times. He is a deceitful man trying to con the public with a three-card trick. Let him pack it up before he is found out. The Government parties will be thrown out of office because the young people are looking to people elsewhere to do the job. For evil to succeed it is enough that good men do nothing.
(Interruptions.)
Debate adjourned.