Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Dec 1986

Vol. 370 No. 16

Adjournment of Dáil: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Tánaiste on 18 December 1986:
That the Dáil on its rising on 19th December, 1986, do adjourn for the Christmas recess until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th January, 1987.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
"After ‘1987' to add ‘and requests the Taoiseach in the meantime to advise the President to dissolve the Dáil'.".
—(Deputy S. Brennan).

The Minister for Social Welfare has half an hour.

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak this morning to trace out the very real and worthwhile progress that the Government have made in the social welfare area since we came into office and my plans for the future.

Social Welfare is not just a State welfare system — it is a commitment by the whole community to people who are in need of income and other support during their lives. Everyone in the community should understand the extent both of poverty and real need and of the response required from everybody to deal with it in the common good. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just some of the areas where significant progress and new initiatives have resulted, so that the House will be aware of the achievements of this Government in the social welfare area.

The record of this Government since taking office is commendable and, indeed, remarkable when account is taken of the state of the public finances which was inherited from the previous Fianna Fáil Government. This is something that most people are aware of at this stage so I do not propose to go over that ground again. Suffice it to say that this severely limited the scope for improvements that we all realise are necessary. Two other basic considerations must also be taken into account in any discussion of the social welfare area. The first is the enormous size now of the existing social welfare budget. The second is that the demographic and economic pressures, which have driven that budget up dramatically over the past five years, will remain with us for the foreseeable future. The total number of people and their dependants receiving social welfare payments of one kind or another each week is now over 1.3 million, or 37 per cent of the total population of the country.

With these financial considerations in mind we established our priorities. One of these, as stated in our Programme for Government, was to maintain the real level of social welfare payments. In fact, we have gone further than this. Levels of payment have been increased in real terms, which, I think, must be acknowledged, even by our most ardent critics, as a significant achievement. After all, social welfare increases from June 1983 to date represent an increase of 30 per cent for those receiving short term payments, 33 per cent for those receiving long term payments and an even higher 40 per cent for the long term unemployed.

The increase in the CPI for the same period was of the order of 22 per cent. Specially disadvantaged groups, such as the long term unemployed, have been given repeated higher than normal increases in social welfare rates. While I am on the subject of increases in the consumer price index I would like to refer to the very significant success this Government have had through their determined and concerted efforts in overcoming the great evil of inflation which has been at the root of this country's uncompetitiveness and resultant job losses. This Government have succeeded in their period in office in reducing inflation from a figure of over 23 per cent which we inherited to a projected level of 3 per cent in 1987. This of itself has been a major achievement.

Despite the recession the Government have made substantial reforms in social welfare, with the overall aim of making services more effective and of making the most of the resources available for income support. In 1986, taking account of the new rates of benefits, total expenditure on social welfare will amount to approximately £2.5 billion, of which the Exchequer will provide £1.55 billion. Expenditure on social welfare is the largest single block of all Government expenditure and is now running at almost 27 per cent of total gross current expenditure. It should be recalled that social welfare expenditure ten years ago was about 10 per cent of GNP but in 1986 it will approach 15 per cent.

Of course, I would not for one moment suggest that the present levels of payment are adequate. I am well aware of the main recommendations of the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare which said that the level of payments should be increased. Who would not like to be in a position to do this? What I am saying is that given the current economic climate significant achievements have been made, achievements which another Government opting for a more draconian approach would not have made in the same circumstances.

Another decision which went against the tide of current economic wisdom was to pay a Christmas bonus this year. Despite the financial burden, the Government made available £18 million to meet the cost of a Christmas bonus. This is no inconsiderable sum. This bonus benefited an estimated 503,000 recipients and their 330,000 dependants. It included for the second year in succession the long term unemployed who are among the most hard-pressed members of our community. Of course, I would have liked to have given a greater bonus in the same way that I would like to increase social welfare payments generally, but the facts are that the money is simply not there, and these are facts that people have to be prepared to face up to. It was the lack of such realism on the part of the last Government and their inability to face hard facts which put this country on its financial tightrope. As any household knows, you cannot live beyond your means indefinitely, because finally the bubble bursts.

I have referred to the high numbers of people who are now depending on the social welfare system. One of the main planks of the Government's strategy is to try to reduce dependence on the social welfare system by encouraging and facilitating in every way possible the creation or retention of jobs where there is scope for such jobs.

The three new measures in the area of employment incentives which I announced on Wednesday are further evidence of the Government's resolve to create the right climate to encourage employment and to reduce dependence on social welfare.

The new PRSI exemption scheme will allow employers who take on additional employees between 17 December 1986 and 31 January 1987 an exemption from their portion of the PRSI for those extra workers for the 1987-88 tax year. Deputies will know that a PRSI exemption scheme is already in operation this year. This has proved to be very successful; 3,200 extra employees were taken on between 23 October 1985 and 5 April 1986 and some 2,000 employers are benefiting from the exemption in the current year in respect of those employees. Some preliminary analysis of survey results on the original scheme has shown that it was particularly attractive to small employers, 76 per cent of whom had 20 or fewer employees. These employers were mostly in the manufacturing industries where 36 per cent of employees were taken on.

Other sectors which benefited most were the building and construction sector and the personal services sector. We all know that small employers in these sectors are amongst the most hard-pressed of the business community and face very real problems in deciding to take on extra employees. I am hopeful that the new exemption scheme will be a welcome boost to their confidence and give them the stimulus needed to expand their workforce.

The part time job allowance was one of three new initiatives for the long term unemployed which I introduced on a pilot basis last July. The other programmes are the Jobsearch programme and the educational opportunities scheme. The part time job allowance scheme is an attempt to make it more attractive for persons who have been unemployed for more than one year to take up part time work by allowing them much greater flexibility in retaining a basic income maintenance payment than is possible under the unemployment payments system. Under the part time allowance scheme an unemployed person who can secure regular part time work of up to 24 hours a week may take up that job and receive a basic flat rate allowance of £25 a week if he or she is single or £40 if he or she is married. Earnings from the employment do not affect payment of the allowance. The introduction of this scheme was a recognition of the fact that part time work has become a significant feature in our society and that for many it may hold out the only realistic opportunity to re-enter the labour force in the short term.

The scheme is at present operating for a six month period in Letterkenny, Limerick, Tallaght and the catchment areas of Gardiner Street and Cork employment exchanges. As with the other pilot programmes it is currently being professionally evaluated. So far the results have been very encouraging. After a slow start there are now 38 participants in the scheme. I think that the success of the scheme can already be judged from the fact that the majority of participants in the scheme are receiving less by way of the allowance than they were receiving in unemployment payments. This, I believe, shows that people can help themselves if our systems are more flexible and this is something that I have always been very conscious of.

I am satisfied that the scheme opens up the possibilities of part time working by removing barriers and is of very real benefit to the participants. I also think that the results are sufficiently encouraging to warrant its extension to a number of other areas and I am confident that as knowledge of the scheme grows it will prove attractive to a greater number of people. I have arranged for the scheme to be extended to the following 12 further locations: Arklow, Athlone, Bray, Carlow, Dún Laoghaire, Drogheda, Galway, Kilkenny, Navan, Sligo, Tralee and Waterford. This will bring the total number of locations to 17 and I consider that this will be a reasonable nation-wide spread and quite a significant achievement in such a short period.

I have also been looking at the family income supplement scheme which, as Deputies know, was introduced in 1984 as a measure of additional income support for people on low earnings with family responsibilities. The scheme applies to families whose income from employment is no higher or only marginally higher than what they would receive in social welfare benefit if the breadwinner was unemployed. The primary objective of the scheme is to maintain the incentive to work for workers bringing up families on low wages and the criteria for determining eligibility for the FIS are based on the weekly rates of benefit for such families.

In order to be eligible for the scheme, the breadwinner had to have a full time job, that is, be working for at least 30 hours a week. Experience has shown that a number of families were not eligible because the breadwinner was working for fewer than 30 hours a week and earnings and family circumstances were such that the family were in need of additional income. Following consideration of this matter I considered that there was no justification for the continued exclusion of such families from the scope of the scheme. Accordingly, I was happy to announce on Wednesday last that the Government had approved a reduction in the number of hours of work to 24. At present, under the existing scheme, there are about 5,000 families receiving the FIS at an average weekly payment of over £10 a week. It is estimated that up to 1,500 extra families will now be eligible for a family income supplement.

I turn now to the subject of equality in social welfare. The implementation of the EC Directive on Equal Treatment is an area that received a great deal of attention recently. It is an area with which I have been particularly concerned. It is important and, indeed, essential, that when we look at the whole question of the equal treatment legislation the whole picture is examined. Each person is naturally concerned only with the effect on him or herself, and judges any changes in personal terms. Governments must look at things in an overall context and must try to pursue equitable approaches subject to financial considerations.

There has been a general tendency to lose sight of the fact that women, for a long number of years, have been blatantly discriminated against in the social welfare system, and, despite all the adverse criticism and controversy that has arisen, I am proud that this Government grasped the nettle and that I, personally, have been able to see to it that this discrimination is ended once and for all.

The most obvious area of discrimination was the fact that married women got a lower rate of certain benefits and for a shorter duration than other claimants. Up to 46,000 people were treated as second class citizens in this way up to May this year. They were treated in a totally different way from married men, single men and single women. This was because of our old long out of date idea that all married women were dependent on their husbands irrespective of their economic circumstances. Because of that, they got less money from the social welfare system if they were unemployed or sick and they got those smaller amounts of money for a shorter time than anyone else.

Another area of discrimination was that married women were effectively debarred from applying for unemployment assistance. This was again based on the outmoded concept of dependency. This whole approach of the social welfare system was to treat married women as dependants even where this was manifestly not the case. We had the ludicrous situation where, so long as a married woman was living with her husband, he was entitled to increases of social welfare payments for her, even though she might have substantial earnings of her own or might herself be getting a social welfare payment.

It was obvious that the whole system had to be changed as the entire approach was indefensible in a modern world and was bitterly resented by many people who were not lucky enough to have two sources of income coming into the house. In time people will, I have no doubt, realise that the new approach is the only rational and justifiable one. It is interesting to note that prior to the introduction of legislation on equal pay a number of years ago all sorts of arguments were being put forward in defence of that most unfair system. Basically, we cannot defend the indefensible, and I believe it is better to tackle the problem sooner rather than later.

The equal treatment Directive was implemented in two phases, and I feel sight has been lost of the improvements introduced in the first phase where the reduced rates of benefit paid to married women were replaced by the standard rates which were higher and the duration of entitlement to unemployment benefit for married women was increased to the normal rate. About 46,000 married women benefited from these changes. For example, married women on disability benefit or unemployment benefit got an extra £5 per week. The second phase which I introduced last month brought in the new dependency conditions and extended entitlement to unemployment assistance to married women.

The changes which have now been implemented have introduced a rational approach to the question of dependency in our system. It has been a major change, and this has been at a cost to some people. I am not happy that this is the case but it was inevitable. We recognised from the outset that losses would arise for some families and this is why enabling powers were built into the legislation to permit alleviating measures to be made. Those alleviating measures have now been introduced and they will considerably ease the application of the equality legislation for these families.

I am very glad that we have succeeded in having the equality legislation implemented and that we have, not without some difficulty and despite the serious Exchequer financial position, put in place a system of cushioning payments which will make the loss of income to over 20,000 married men less burdensome than if there had been full and immediate implementation of the directive.

Another significant development in the social welfare area has been the establishment of the Combat Poverty Agency. The Government are committed to drawing up an anti-poverty plan within the context of a national economic and social plan which concentrates on a just distribution of wealth, income and power. Towards this end the Combat Poverty Agency were launched in September last.

Combating poverty involves practically all aspects of public policy in one way or another. Despite all the advances which we have made in recent decades and the enormous amounts of money being spent in areas like social welfare, housing, education, training and job creation, poverty still persists. It is essential for those of us in positions of responsibility to ensure that the elimination of poverty becomes and remains a priority issue and one which will not be ignored. The new agency are to seek and identify radical and innovative ways in which to tackle this problem at its roots.

Furthermore, up to now there has been no institutional mechanism specifically charged with the task of advising on and developing an anti-poverty policy. The agency now fill this gap. The primary input of the agency is through my Department but they will also be establishing and maintaining contact with other Government Departments, statutory or other bodies and voluntary agencies.

The agency have not been slow in getting to grips with their task. Last week I was able to announce the allocation of £515,000 from the Combat Poverty Agency to 55 voluntary organisations. The organisations represented the broad spectrum of work related to poverty and the projects for which grants are to be used include employment projects, youth activities, transport, renovations and so on. It was fortunate that we were able to respond so quickly to the agency's proposals in the special circumstances of this year and I look forward to developing with the agency a well planned and structured approach to this important aspect of their work.

This year has been a very important year for State support of voluntary activity. I already allocated £750,000 to voluntary organisations under my Department's grant scheme and this, coupled with the allocation of over £500,000 from the Combat Poverty Agency brings State support for voluntary organisations to its highest level ever. This, to my mind, is a major achievement and one which I am particularly proud of. At this point I would like to pay my own, and I am sure, the House's tribute to all those voluntary groups who, without seeking personal glory, work quietly and unassumingly on behalf of poor people. Since being appointed Minister for Social Welfare last February it has been my privilege to come in close contact with many of these groups. They have my sincerest admiration.

We also attach considerable importance to developing effective programmes in this field at European Community level. A four-year programme of specific Community action to combat poverty was adopted by the Council of Ministers in December 1984 and nine Irish projects have been included in the programme which are financed jointly by the EC and by the Government. The Board of the Combat Poverty Agency have now assumed responsibility for overseeing the implementation of those projects. Funding of the projects, which will cost £270,000 in 1986, is additional to the funds made available to the Combat Poverty Agency and the grants to voluntary bodies.

One of the most important developments in 1986 was the publication of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The report, together with its three background papers, comprises the first ever comprehensive review of the social welfare system. The task the commission had was extremely difficult because of the sheer complexity of the system and because of its interaction with other areas of public policy. The approach adopted by the commission was to examine the system fully, recognising the system we had and taking all viewpoints into consideration by making recommendations for rational change.

The commission were aware that any review had to be based on a realistic appreciation of the complex environment within which the system operates. They concluded that the reform and development of social welfare must be achieved against a background of economic constraints. Therefore, they advocated an evolutionary approach, and they envisage that their recommendations — in view of the additional expenditure involved — would be implemented over a period of time.

The commission's report represents a significant development and has made a valuable contribution to public debate in this area. I am convinced that the debate, which is already under way, will help and is already helping to create the climate in which the provision of services for those in need is seen to be a priority and in which the merit of the fundamental changes which have been put forward by the commission can be assessed in a realistic way.

Following publication of the report, I sought the views of the various agencies and groups nationwide who have an involvement, directly or indirectly, in the whole social welfare area. We had a deadline which was not met by some of the groups and submissions are still coming in. We are studying these, and the views put forward are being taken into account in formulating proposals for the future. I was slightly surprised at some of the statements which were made recently about my response to the commission's report and the work we are doing on combating fraud and abuse. One suggestion was made, with some publicity, that we were paying £1 million on fraud consultancy. I have no idea where that figure came from. I explained to the House the other day that the cost so far is in the region of £50,000. It is important to make that clear.

The commission did not opt for a radically different social welfare system but the implementation of their recommendations would entail some fundamental changes in the present system. I am working with the Department on ways to respond to the commission and improve the quality of service made available to clients and on the action we can take to further develop our computer system which would improve the service to the general public. I envisage an approach which will direct our resources towards providing a more fair, equitable, speedy, caring and cost-effective service to social welfare recipients. There is no question of this report gathering dust on the shelves.

More promises.

It will form the basis of a programme of action to reform a system that is of such central importance to so many people. We have done considerable work in the area of fraud and abuse. When talking on this topic it is important to emphasise the importance of keeping the issue in perspective. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who genuinely need the social welfare services and have statutory entitlement to those services.

You cut them back.

I must keep a balance between providing those families with a speedy, accessible service and ensuring that the service is not easily open to fraudulent claims.

You reduced their income.

We took a number of initiatives in order to reduce the incidence of fraud and abuse in the system and ensure that taxpayers' money is spent in the right way. One has to deal with a reluctant public if they feel someone is ripping them off. Any Minister who administers such a massive budget and who fails to devote energy and attention to making sure that as far as is reasonable and equitable taxpayers' money is being spent in the way intended would not be doing his or her job.

Over the past four years I have presided over the two Departments that spend most taxpayers' money — Education and Social Welfare. Unfortunately they are areas which take the centre of the political stage only when measures to control abuses in spending are taken. Yet they are crucial policy areas affecting nearly every family in the State. This Government have a proud record in education, of fundamental and far-reaching reform and development, and in social welfare they have had the courage to undertake a massive review of the system while, at the same time, giving a real boost over the four years to social welfare recipients.

The people will give their verdict on that statement.

I have had to take stick in this House and outside——

The Minister will get a lot more.

——for attempts to regulate spending and get the best value from both Departments. I know what it is like trying to act in the face of long-established bureaucracy and political opposition. I make no apology for having taken the steps I did and I look forward to continuing my work in the Department of Social Welfare as it is one of the most politically and socially controversial areas as far as any modification in spending is concerned. I also look forward to our budgetary provisions being debated in this House and outside and on election platforms if necessary. The sooner we all admit that jobs, interest rates, tax levels and public expenditure are inextricably bound up with each other, the sooner we will begin to solve our problems. We have to ease interest rates, help increase employment and lower tax levels. There are no more political three-card tricks to be played.

The Government played them all.

There are no more left.

Politicians on all sides of the House and commentators outside know that the Government are right to state the stark choices and are right to signal their determination to get Ireland back on a steady course. It is above all for the sake of the young in education and the needy in social welfare that we must have the courage to tackle the problems. If this country does not get a grip on itself now, the squeeze will not be long in coming. That squeeze will be felt first, and worst, by those who depend on Government spending in areas of social concern.

I am not surprised at the calls from the benches opposite because it is useless to expect responsibility from Fianna Fáil who have turned their back on all calls for realism and honesty.

Look at the record in social welfare. It will make interesting reading for you.

When I hear of glossy books being published with pompous names such as Spirit of the Nation I cringe not only at the arrogance of it but more seriously because it is Fianna Fáil's backward looking, regressive mentality which is paraded as embodying the spirit of the nation.

That is a disgraceful remark.

A crying woman.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

God help Ireland if that is the case.

Sit back and listen now.

Read the report on social welfare.

The Minister betrayed the people depending on social welfare. She is the worst Minister for Social Welfare.

I am having considerable difficulty in understanding what the Progressive Democrats stand for because there are so many comflicting messages. Perhaps they might sort themselves out in the more tranquil Christmas period.

Typical Fine Gael slag and dirt. If you invite it you will get plenty of it.

The Government will, when the House adjourns today, continue their work of framing Estimates and a budget which will deal fairly and honestly with the problems. Is it too much to ask of other parties and individuals in the Dáil that they would, in the national interest, agree that the work must be done——

It will be done by Fianna Fáil.

——and set themselves the task of facing up to rather than turning away from the challenge that the country is asking us all to meet? I live in hope.

Every Deputy in this House and every political observer knows that this 24th Dáil has run its course; that its useful life is over; that it can no longer serve any national purpose. To further prolong the life of this Dáil is not in the best interests of our parliamentary democracy. This Dáil is a fragmented and ineffective Parliament. It presents an unseemly, unattractive scarred face to the nation. It should be brought to an end. National dignity demands it.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The economy and the finances have been deteriorating steadily particularly over the last two years and the immediate prospect is of things continuing to get worse. The country needs a change of direction and control. The continuing instability and uncertainty is doing deadly damage, especially to the financial situation. The present deep economic crisis cannot be handled by a divided, discredited and dispirited administration.

The situation with regard to unemployment, emigration, taxation and the public finances, the collapse of key sectors of the economy show that this Coalition Government have failed on virtually every front. Four years of this Coalition of Fine Gael and Labour have left the economy devastated and the people demoralised. The longer the Government cling ineffectively to power, the worse the situation becomes.

With this Government, forecasts, projections, targets no longer have any meaning or validity. It is a constant process of twisting and turning, bargaining and compromising. Public moneys have been used shamelessly to buy time and secure support. Staying in office for as long as possible is all that matters.

The last four years have seen the high hopes that emerged in the sixties dashed. Up until the early eighties there was every indication that this country had at last turned a historical corner. Emigration had ended and for ten years there was a welcome flow of Irish people back into the country. There were 20 years of tremendous activity, investment and modernisation in every sphere. That dynamic was substained until the end of 1982, despite the severe and damaging jolt to confidence inflicted by the first FitzGerald Coalition. In 1983 this Coalition started its high taxation, deflationary regime with the most regressive budget of all time.

The official forecasts for the economy in 1986 have been far too optimistic and remained optimistic long after it became clear that they were not going to be realised. In fact, on this side of the House we have proved to be better economic forecasters than either the Department of Finance or the Central Bank. How could the Central Bank, in the statement at the opening of their Summer Bulletin, claim that “prospects for the Irish economy in 1986 remain buoyant”, given the facts known at that time? We parliamentarians are entitled to better advice than that from such an authoritative institution.

The ESRI confess to have been taken by surprise by the sheer scale of emigration, the failure of interest rates to fall and the fall in the value of exports. Perhaps they should have read the Dáil debates and listened to what we were saying. There has been a fair amount of criticism of politicians from these quarters and perhaps a little humility on their part now would not be inappropriate.

The Taoiseach in an address to the IMI on 13 May 1986 claimed: "We are moving into a period of rapid growth which will be led by domestic consumption and by exports ... the growth rate of consumption in the latter part of the year will be even faster". He even worried that "it may be difficult to reattune to relatively rapid growth" and that "we may now be in danger of under-estimating the upward movement, for whatever period it goes on — and I think it is extremely secure through 1987 ... Consumption will rise dramatically". To cap it all he went on to say "The one thing we are determined to do is to adhere to our budgetary discipline". It is now obvious to everyone that the Taoiseach got it totally wrong, that he totally misread the situation and that he misled the public about the Government's intentions. Indeed, every single year of the last three years he has got it wrong. In 1984 he claimed we were the healthiest economy in Europe. In 1985 he claimed employment was about to rise. In 1986 he predicted a consumer boom.

The Minister for Finance claimed the budget would have a positive impact on economic growth which was then projected slightly less than 3 per cent. Instead of slightly less than 3 per cent growth in GNP, the ESRI are now predicting ¾ of 1 per cent and private forecasters, such as DKM, are now actually predicting a massive fall in GNP of over 2 per cent in 1986. The budget had no positive impact on economic growth. The Minister promised to reduce the current budget deficit this year to 7.4 per cent of GNP. The likely outturn is at last 8.8 per cent of GNP and it could possibly be as high as 9 per cent if GNP is as low as we think it is likely to be. In spite of all this. Deputy Bruton still has the audacity to come into this House and bluster about fiscal rectitude and attack Fianna Fáil with completely unfounded and unsustainable allegations. Of course, he must attack somebody because he cannot attempt to defend his own appalling performance.

Why should anyone attach credibility to this Coalition's budgetary parameters for next year, 1987, when we see their abject failure to keep to the very generous limits they allowed themselves for 1986? For two years now, despite crushing levels of taxation, the Government have run a record of current budget deficits of between 8.5 per cent and 9 per cent of GNP. The national debt has escalated to £23.3 billion or 144 per cent of GNP, practically twice what it was when the Coalition took office.

The foreign debt at the end of this year will be over £10 billion, again almost double of what it was at the end of 1982. One of the stated principal aims of the Government was to stabilise the national debt as a percentage of GNP at about 133 per cent. That target has been completely overshot. One of the reasons for this is a substantial overrun on Government expenditure. The current budget target which already exceeded the Building on Reality projection by £122 million is likely to be exceeded by a further £50 million, making a total expenditure overrun of around £170 million this year. That is on top of an already generous budget deficit. Let me remind Deputy Bruton that when Fianna Fáil were last in office both current and capital expenditure were kept within target without any overrun whatever.

The Government are directly responsible for the high rates of interest we have to endure at present. It is their failure to meet their budget targets, particularly the size of the current deficit and the political instability they have brought about, that are keeping rates so high. Rates are marginally higher, even in nominal terms, in December 1986 than they were in December 1982, even though inflation is less than a quarter of what it was then. The Taoiseach asserted in May: "Interest rates are also falling. Last time it took four months for interest rates to come down after the realignment, and it is taking a little longer than we thought this time also, but they are coming down and that again is creating a different environment altogether." That was another inaccurate forecast.

Foreign investment in Irish industry has been reduced to an insignificant level since 1982. The fall-off in investment has led, as it was bound to, to a drop in exports, so that export growth is no longer a sustaining force in the economy. Exports have dropped by over 5 per cent in value in the last year, while imports have dropped even further by 10 per cent. These figures reflect the catastrophic falling off in economic activity that has taken place. The biggest fall has been in the imports of intermediate goods and capital goods, a bad omen for future trends in industrial production. Value is not the same as volume, but most analysts agree that exports have now stopped growing. Exports, of course are the key to economic growth and to be in a situation of no growth in exports is the worst possible scenario for this country.

If we turn to the construction industry, the Coalition years have been an unmitigated disaster for that sector, with continuous sharp decline in employment. Employment in firms with over five employees is well under half the mid-1981 level. Housing output is down to below 23,000. With increased emigration and, lately, a fall in population the housing demand no longer exists.

Continuous cuts in the volume of the Public Capital Programme, even on roads so that it is now only two-thirds of its 1982 level, and falling, have also aggravated the problems of the construction industry. Cement sales are down 7½ per cent in the first nine months of 1986 compared with the previous year. Who remembers that silly boast by the Taoiseach at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis in 1984 that he would get the JCBs moving again?

The private services sector, which the Minister for Finance decided should be the main area for employment creation, have not been able to perform in the generally adverse economic conditions that have prevailed. The growth which took place in this sector up to 1984 was reversed and actually fell by 4,000 in the year up to April 1985, the latest date for which we have firm figures.

But there is really no need for me to dwell on the Government's failures. They are fully apparent to everyone. Everything this Coalition touch turns sour.

Building on Reality stated Government policies would prevent taxation from rising as a percentage of GNP. This year that will be breached. Nothing significant has been done to alleviate this crushing burden of taxation on the family with an average income, or on the goods they have to buy. Housing, footwear, clothing, basic food items since the reduction in food subsidies, electricity, domestic fuel, insurance, motor taxation, public transport, educational costs have all risen in cost by more than the rate of inflation. Social welfare increases, despite ridiculous claims to the contrary, have not kept place with inflation since the Coalition came to office. Since the last increase given by Fianna Fáil in 1982 the value of social welfare payments measured against the rate of inflation has fallen by 5 per cent in real terms in the case of short term benefits and 2½ per cent in the case of the long term benefits. Cuts in food subsidies, increased VAT on domestic fuel, have disproportionately hit the poorer sections of our community.

The reduction of income for 20,000 families this month and the cutting of the Christmas bonus have not been equalled in brutality since Fine Gael reduced the old age pension by a shilling in the twenties. The treatment of social welfare by this Coalition shows that, whatever else matters to them, people on low incomes and their problems do not rank very high in their scale of priorities.

Nineteen hundred and eighty-six will long be remembered as the year in which Fine Gael went back to their right wing roots. In the Government's handling of social welfare we saw the veneer of social concern, which that party had tacked on to itself in recent times, discarded. With the acquiescence of Labour the poorest and weakest section of the community had their already inadequate incomes further reduced.

Because it is clear that the Coalition propose to continue blatantly to distort the history of the public finances over the last decade I would like to remind the Dáil of the facts; of what actually happened and not what the handlers say happened. First of all let me point out that in the last 14 years, Coalition Governments have been in office for ten of those years.

I have on many occasions set out the Coalition record on borrowing. Today we have a total national debt of £23 billion and a foreign debt of £10 billion. Two-thirds of both these amounts have been incurred by Coalition Governments. I defy the Minister, Deputy Bruton, or any other Minister to deny that simple fact.

In the last four years under this Coalition the national debt and the foreign debt have almost doubled. When this Coalition came into office in 1982, the total national debt for 60 years was £12 billion. In four years they increased it to £23 billion.

The current budget deficit in 1986 will be at its highest level, between 8.7 per cent and 9 per cent of GNP, for the second year running. Taxation has increased from 32½ per cent of GNP in 1982 to 37½ per cent in 1986. Real interest rates are at an all time high, being four times the rate of inflation. Both unemployment and emigration are at record levels and our population is now falling.

The mishandling of major situations by this Government has in one form or another saddled the people with losses or liabilities of many millions of pounds. The final cost of liquidating Irish Shipping is likely to come to about £170 million. Taxpayers paid £124 million for Dublin Gas now in receivership. The take-over of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland is likely to cost the financial institutions and their clients anywhere from £200 million to £400 million. All told, the liabilities and losses made by this Government reach into billions. Financial setbacks can occur under any Government, but no Government in modern times have presided over so many liquidations, bankruptcies, collapsed deals and such huge losses to the Exchequer. We are determined that this Coalition cannot and will not be allowed blame anyone else for their four years of disastrous mismanagement of the public finances.

A high level of personal taxation has greatly reduced the incomes of families in every class in society. Poverty and deprivation are no longer confined to any one section. Individuals and families right through the community find it impossible to make ends meet. Our farmers face a bleak future of production quotas and falling real prices. Our industry and service sectors face a position of stagnant or falling demand. High interest rates discourage all investment. How removed from reality were the Government and the commentators who in this situation could predict a consumer boom in 1986. The policies at present being pursued do not even pretend to address, still less correct these problems.

My sympathy goes especially to families with teenagers or with young adults who are unemployed and see no prospect but emigration. In their case, particularly, unemployment has a heartbreak dimension.

The official number of registered unemployed does not, on its own, reveal the full extent of the economic and social disasters that have taken place. When we add the number, probably about 100,000, who have emigrated and another 30,000 to 40,000 in training schemes, it is clear that about 400,000 people have been taken out of the productive process. If those 400,000 persons were at work and contributing to the national output of goods and services they would, at a modest estimate, be adding at least £4 billion to GNP.

The seasonal rise last month, November, was the highest for four years and if present policies continue the future outlook is very grim. The latest ESRI quarterly predicts a fall in the numbers at work of some 17,000 in 1986 even though Building on Reality projected a net growth in employment in 1987 of 33,000. The industrial policy announced in 1984 by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, which predicted the creation of between 3,000 and 6,000 net new jobs per annum in manufacturing industry has been a total failure. The increase in net employment of 12,000-14,000 in manufacturing industry by 1987 projected in Building on Reality is totally off target. The latest ESRI quarterly predicts on the contrary, that by next year there will be a fall of 27,000 on the 1984 level. We can all recall many speeches by the Taoiseach over the last four years when he claimed that the fall in employment was about to be reversed. It is only on the basis of an assumption that net emigration will continue to run at a high level that the ESRI are able to keep their predicted rise in the unemployment figures down to a modest level.

In 1985-86, for the first time in 25 years, Ireland's population actually fell, with emigration exceeding the natural increase. This reversal of a trend of increase for over a quarter of a century threatens a return to the spectre of a falling population, with all that that entails. The Government's failure to provide employment prospects for young people is the principal reason. The Department of Labour survey published at the beginning of this week showed that two out of five school leavers, not going on to further education, had failed to find jobs. It is hardly necessary to point out the grievous loss that results to the productive sector when large numbers of our bright young graduates emigrate and do not return.

Essentially, this Coalition Government have given up, if they ever really tried. They have stood aside from the economy in accordance with the best monetarist doctrine and watched the economy collapse. In many cases they actually precipitated closure such as the liquidation of Irish Shipping.

The nature and shape of the budget for 1987 is the most important economic issue facing the nation, but the Taoiseach and the Ministers of this Government are playing barefaced party politics with this key issue. Budgetary prospects for next year are intimidating. It would be very difficult for any Government to frame a budget which will meet the requirements of the public finances and the economy. The political situation which this Government are creating will add very greatly to the problem of the budget. Putting back the general election will inevitably postpone the adoption of a budget and create its own problems. It will have adverse repercussions on revenue receipts for 1987, a year in which there will be very little scope for any such laxities.

The manoeuvrings of the two Coalition parties over the budget are quite scandalous. They are, in fact, playing a party political game with the public finances at a time when the public finances are already in a critical situation.

It is now a matter of public knowledge that whether this Coalition will bring in a budget will be decided, not on the basis of the needs of the economy or the public finances, but on the basis of what the Coalition parties believe to be in their best electoral interest. Incredible though it may seem, we have actually arrived at a situation where the budget is being treated like a card in a political poker game.

On a number of occasions during the past year it was made obvious that everything in this Government's parliamentary programme was subservient to the Coalition's need to avoid a general election. But this playacting over the budget is going too far. The public finances are in an appalling state; uncertainty about the future is causing serious disruption and instability in the money markets and keeping interest rates much higher than they should be. The preparation of the budget should take precedence over everything else.

Public attention is currently focused on the level of Government expenditure. There is a serious public debate taking place on the crucial issue of whether Government expenditure should be reduced and, if so, in what areas. To give any sort of reality or substance to this debate, it should be based on the published Book of Estimates for 1987. But there is no Book of Estimates. The Government cannot or will not publish the Estimates for 1987. This is reducing the whole budgetary process to a farce. It is grossly irresponsible for a Government to carry on in this way.

Will Deputy Bruton explain how he justifies this behaviour to the Dáil? Does he recall the great flourish he made about organising the financial business of the nation better and all the pious platitudes he went on with, when he published that parliamentary museum piece A Better Way to Plan the Nation's Finances?

The new agricultural package agreed by the Minister for Agriculture will have a major detrimental effect on the Irish economy. The compensation arrangements offered to individual dairy farmers which have been set by mainland European standards, are attractive for those farmers who wish to avail of them in the short term but in national terms the real outcome will be a devastating blow to the milk industry and the whole economy.

This reduction in the period of intervention for butter and milk powder has, at one stroke, removed the system which has underpinned the milk industry since 1957. In so far as the dairying industry is concerned, it knocks the heart out of the CAP and in effect means that there is no longer any guaranteed milk price.

The reduction of 9 per cent in milk output will cost this country a reduction of £300 million in exports. It will reduce the milk pool by 110 million gallons. It will eliminate about 2,500 jobs in the milk processing industry. It is calculated that this reduction of 9 per cent in output will directly reduce dairy product exports by £150 million. As it will take 140,000 cows out of milk production, the knock-on effect will be a corresponding reduction of £150 million in beef exports. This is additional to the 10 per cent reduction in the value of our beef exports. We calculate that the ultimate effect of these arrangements for milk and beef will be to reduce the value of Ireland's agricultural exports by at least one-sixth. This is a major setback to the Irish economy. To send messages of congratulations on such a development is a joke in very bad taste.

It is not being alarmist to suggest that the entire structure of the Common Agricultural Policy as a basis of support for Irish farming is under major threat. One major plank of the structure has just been removed. It is clear that agricultural surpluses in the Community are to be eliminated. It will require determined and skilful negotiation on our part to ensure that the achievement of a balance between production and consumption in the Community is not achieved at the expense of the domestic producers, but that imports must also be curtailed.

The Community is supposed to be committed to reducing regional disparities. We heard a lot of pious platitudes about cohesion here in the Dáil when the Government were bulldozing the Single European Act through the Oireachtas, the principal policy instrument for this being the Common Agricultural Policy, but the CAP is now being reorganised so as to freeze production patterns as between member states. This allows this country no possibility of catching up. It is deluding ourselves if we do not see these decisions resulting in thousands of Irish farmers being forced out of production and large tracts of land becoming semi-derelict.

The present Minister has presided over the liquidation of most of the benefits that EC entry had brought to Ireland. The problem all along was that this Government have never been forceful or difficult or awkward about our case and have allowed themselves to be constantly out-manoeuvred and intimidated by more single-minded partners. I accept the Minister tried to salvage what he could, but the overall effect on the Irish economy represents a serious setback and to indulge in the charade of sending messages of congratulations is pathetic politics.

One of the major neglects by this Government is that they have not used our membership of the EMS to secure credit for farmers at reasonable rates of interest. High interest rates are a major impediment to economic development generally, but particularly in agriculture. Irish farmers have had to endure the detrimental effects of poor negotiating performances on their behalf in Brussels; severe reductions in domestic Government support for agriculture; high interest rates and two seasons of unprecedentedly severe weather. As a result, farm incomes fell by 12 per cent in 1985 and will probably fall by about 15 per cent in 1986. There is no sign of any major Government review of agriculture in the light of these dramatic developments or any intention to take action or to work out a new plan of survival for Irish farmers. What are we doing about the £2 billion now available in the Community budget as a result of this new package? Between April 1983 and April 1985 the numbers engaged in agriculture in Ireland fell by 20,000, from 189,000 to 169,000. This was after a relatively good year in 1984. Such a drop would be serious enough in times of progress in the rest of the economy, but at this time to have tens of thousands of farmers forced out of farming and on to the dole queues is disastrous.

Many people have been disturbed about the development of our foreign policy under this Coalition and the present Taoiseach. There has been a major change in outlook and emphasis. We have moved perceptibly from an independent, principled stance in international affairs, to one of unqualified acceptance of the British-American policy line. This change has been brought about cleverly and gradually over a period. It can be seen most clearly in Ireland's attitude on a number of important international issues, such as South Africa, Nicaragua and the bombing of Tripoli. The end result is that some of the stances which had earned us respect internationally are being fudged and blurred and we now implement a foreign policy which differs radically from that which was, by and large, followed by all previous Governments, Fianna Fáil and Coalition, since the war. We now clearly accommodate, and adapt to the western alliance priorities. From time to time, this leads us into peculiar stances and finds us taking strange courses of action.

It is significant that the last two pieces of legislation to go through this Dáil were the Single European Act and the Extradition Bill. Family legislation and other items of importance to our own people are discarded in favour of rushing these two Bills through. Were we under orders? I think it is alarming that the Dáil was pressured in this way in order, either to enhance the standing of the Taoiseach with his foreign friends or to meet commitments entered into. One way or another, it was not the interests of the Irish people that were paramount.

At the insistence of the Coalition, we have spent the last days of this session discussing a piece of legislation, the main purpose of which is to facilitate the handing over of Irish citizens to be tried for alleged offences either in Britain or Northern Ireland. This is another example of the confused order of priorities of this Coalition Government. What we should be talking about is the economy; about the collapse of the Irish economy, the appalling levels of unemployment and emigration, the continuing rise in Government borrowing, the crucifying burden of personal taxation. What the overwhelming majority of the Irish people would wish their Government to be doing at present would be putting forward proposals for economic recovery; proposals for the creation of employment. The Government have lost their sense of proportion. Of course we should play our part as good citizens of the international community of nations in combating the modern menace of international terrorism. If the countries which are members of the Council of Europe are prepared to co-operate on a new regime of extraditing those guilty of terrorism, Ireland must play her part.

But extradition and handing over the citizens of one country to a foreign system of justice is a complex and sensitive matter. It is something that should have been processed through the Oireachtas in the normal way over a reasonable period of time, giving ample opportunity for full debate and discussion and providing all interested and concerned groups with plenty of time to make submissions. We have had instead this highpressured debate crammed into a few days. Oireachtas Éireann has been compelled to jettison important and useful legislation and has been compelled to put to one side the urgent economic and social problems confronting the country in order to rush through this doubtful legislation which is causing widespread unease and dissatisfaction. It has been given this absurd priority over far more important issues which deeply affect the welfare of the Irish people.

The people of this country should understand that Dáil Éireann did not have the opportunity to fully debate and examine this legislation or change or amend it for their better protection. There are 14 sections in the Bill but the Dáil had only got as far as the first section when the debate was brought to an end. There has been an unfortunate history of legal upsets in regard to extradition in this country. I want to put the Government on notice that they must accept full responsibility for any consequences which may arise from their handling of this legislation. For their own political and perhaps, even personal reasons, this legislation which deals with something as fundamental as the liberty of the citizen has been bulldozed through Parliament on the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle. The blame for any mistakes made as a result of these unworthy parliamentary tactics will rest firmly on the shoulders of this Coalition.

The next Government will have to undertake an urgent review of the manner in which the law is operating in different areas. Recently, a number of court judgements have given rise to difficulties and to understandable astonishment among the public. The present situation in regard to the Derrynaflan chalice, for instance, is most unsatisfactory and has given rise to a general concern about the protection of our archaeological heritage as a whole. The award of compensation of almost £2½ million to persons wishing to develop a site in Dún Laoghaire and the striking out of a large number of summonses for motor offences are cases in point. To the general public the law often seems to disregard commonsense and the realities of life. Very often taxpayers and ratepayers have large arbitrary burdens placed upon them.

It would seem that there is either continuing inefficiency and carelessness in some areas of the administration or alternatively the courts have become excessively legalistic in interpretation. Whatever else they may do, these instances underline the need there is for a continuing programme of law reform by the Oireachtas in order to keep up with changing conditions and circumstances of our time.

I believe the people would wish the next Government to take a much clearer and more determined line internationally on the nuclear menace represented by both civil nuclear power and nuclear armaments. We have at last got agreement about the closure of Sellafield. Despite well documented evidence of bad management and an appalling catalogue of almost 300 accidents and growing international concern and criticism about the operation of Sellafield, the Government here refused to face the reality that this installation is fundamentally unsafe and a threat to health and life on both sides of the Irish Sea.

The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, has finally been converted and has recognised that the call Fianna Fáil made for the closure of Sellafield has been right all along. Now that the Government has officially acknowledged the danger of the nuclear menace at Sellafield, we must all combine to ensure that this monstrosity is closed down as soon as possible. We should also replace the Nuclear Energy Board with a radiological protection institute which would have the statutory duty of taking all possible measures to protect our population against the menace of radiation and nuclear fall-out, monitor developments, publish full and reliable statistics and speak out straight-forwardly and independently when this is called for.

Mentioning the Tánaiste directs my attention to something he said in his speech yesterday morning which must be answered. I quote from what he said when referring to Fianna Fáil:

I know that these decent men are only puppets and that behind them are the property speculators, the oil barons, and the gaming machine operators whose creed is the quick buck and whose coinage is the quality of life of the ordinary person.

That represents the most blatant rubbish I ever heard in this House. I am deeply disappointed that the Tánaiste of this Government should indulge in that sort of thing. First of all, nobody knows better than the Tánaiste that the oil barons have the closest possible association with the Fine Gael Party. These facts were published in our newspapers. Secondly, when it came to the gaming machine operators, their friends were in Fine Gael. It was a Fine Gael Minister who tried to put through legislation to protect them and it was Fianna Fáil who stopped that from happening last year. The Tánaiste, if he wants to criticise Fianna Fáil, should try to find some valid grounds for doing so and should not resort to these untrue and tatty accusations.

This nation is compelled once again to do battle with two traditional foes. Unemployment and emigration have now reached a level that is undermining the viability of Irish society. The challenge must be faced. There is hardly a family in the land left untouched. Once again, Irish men and women, boys and girls, are going out to all parts of the world anxiously seeking out a new opportunity in life. In many cases, the whole family has gone. It is this flood of emigration that really reflects the failure of the last four years. Do this Government know, for instance, that there are many thousands of young Irish people making out as illegal emigrants in the United States, who cannot come home to be with their families this Christmas? Do they know? Do they care?

Irish political leadership today must recognise a new dimension of responsibility, a duty to represent all the people — those who have been forced to emigrate, as well as those who have stayed at home. Our political message is clear — there is a better way of running our affairs; there is an alternative to negative Coalition. There is work to be done which this Coalition are incapable of doing. The last four ghastly years have taken their toll, but 1987 lies ahead and offers the chance of a new beginning.

Fianna Fáil are ready to go before the people; united and disciplined; the only party capable of handling the deep crisis of morale that confronts the Irish people today. The scale of problems we face does not deter us because we are confident that we can revive the national spirit and generate a great resurgence of confidence that will make recovery possible.

The next Government must go for growth. This is fundamental. It is only through growth that we can battle our way out of the present crisis. We have the resources, human and material, but they must be marshalled and organised. Fianna Fáil Governments have done this before with dramatic success. It can and must be done again.

Our national pride is involved in halting the humiliation of the emigration of young people and providing the opportunities for them to work at home. Employment should be a central Government priority, but it has not been during the last four years. We must generate the belief that as a nation we can make it, that we have the capacity to resolve our problems without calling in the IMF or anyone else.

We have identified many areas where growth and development and investment are immediately possible. We have proposed the establishment of a Department of the Marine — Roinn na Mara — which will be given national responsibility for the full exploitation and development of our marine resources. Let us make the best of the advantages there are in being an island nation. Boat-building and ship repair can be quickly revived. The liquidation of Irish Shipping was not just a severe blow to national pride and self-confidence, but was a major strategic mistake. There are many ways in which we can re-establish our merchant shipping fleet without any recourse to scarce Exchequer resources. At present the outlook for sea fishing and fish processing is good. There is enormous scope for the development of fish-farming and aquaculture and for the harvesting of non-quota species by a modernised, re-equipped shipping fleet.

We have also proposed the transformation of the Department of Agriculture into a Department of Agriculture and Food. It will have the new role of giving a major impetus to food processing and developing the scope that exists for new quality foods. The application of biotechnology and scientific research to the agricultural industry can provide a range of new marketable products. There must be full recognition of the fact that the primary purpose of agriculture is to produce food. Agriculture must be replanned to supply the needs of a food processing industry. That has now become all important in view of the quantitative restrictions which the Government have agreed to impose on our two main areas of output, beef and milk.

We have proposed the establishment of a new board to promote and develop the horticultural industry. We have shown that a major reduction in the import of food and vegetables can be achieved very quickly and viable employment provided in the industry.

We have a considerable mineral wealth in and around this country. A major exploration and development programme for onshore minerals with appropriate incentives must be implemented. We must make better use of our natural gas resources — in fact we could hardly make worse — and ensure that by development of the market the incentive is provided to discover more oil and gas.

I have drawn attention on many occasions to the possibilities for the development here of a major financial services sector. In this country we have many advantages which would enable us to expand and develop such a service industry and provide excellent, highquality employment.

For this purpose we must streamline the financial regulatory environment. Instead of being negative and restrictive, the primary focus of the regulatory regime we impose must be to create the framework for the development of an international modern financial services sector here.

A financial services industry depends more on a comprehensive sophisticated communications system than anything else. We should develop a communications centre which would allow the development of Irish-based international trading, clearing systems and back-up systems for the major financial institutions. We have all the basic resources. What is required is a strategy to mobilise and organise them into a very lucrative national enterprise.

We also have all the resources necessary to achieve a major expansion in high technology, science-based industries. Fianna Fáil would give a whole new emphasis to the application of science and technology to the economy, give it an important role in economic development and appoint a special Minister who would have responsibility for the development and application of this important resource.

Tourism development is going to be of major importance to our economy in the future. Nearly all Governments around the world now take measures to promote and support the tourist industry, and treat it as relevant to decisions on the environment, transport and the preservation of heritage. Irish tourism had a great period of expansion during the sixties. We must re-establish it as a major source of employment, earnings and growth. We must facilitate access to the country and develop activities and amenities. Tourism is an international growth industry and we must ensure that we secure a worthwhile part of that growth.

There is an urgent need for an entirely new approach to our forests. They must be organised and development on commercial lines. One option readily available is to combine forestry with the operations of Bord na Móna, especially as there are many similarities between these two areas. It is evident, too, given changes in the Common Agricultural Policy that there will be greater scope for forestry development, not just by the State but by private individuals.

I have already been convinced that in every area of this country there are resources and ideas for development. If local authorities had a greater degree of autonomy it would release local enthusiasm and initiative by freeing them from the dead hand of over-centralisation. An active policy of regional development and decentralisation would also give a great impetus to the development of local resources, human and material. Regional policy should ensure that economic and social progress are shared equally throughout the country. We do not want to allow the creation of economic wastelands or major areas of social deprivation.

The greatest problem, however, facing the incoming Government will be to undo the damage done to the people's morale and confidence. This nation, however, has shown great spirit and determination on many occasions in the past. There have been periods of tremendous national unity and purpose in the past when difficulties as great in their own way as those we now face have been overcome.

What we must do now is revive the spirit of this nation. For this, the first requirement is a stable united Government who have the political capacity to govern effectively. The election of such a Government by a clear-cut decision of the people will, I am certain, have an immediate impact in lifting morale and confidence.

I believe the public would view with horror another post-election situation which would see parties haggling, bargaining and compromising in an effort to put together some new form of Coalition. The people do not want another Coalition in any shape or form. They have seen that it dissipates political energy in divisive infighting and political manoeuvring. We have had three Coalitions and none of them has worked well. This last one has been the worst of all. The economic problems today are of such a deep-seated nature and extent that they can only be overcome if the right policies are firmly and consistently followed over a reasonably long period of time and only a single party, united Government can do that.

The second requirement is that the Government should encourage a sense of pride in our country and what it has been able to achieve in the past. We can be very proud of the contribution our people have made in every continent to the cause of liberty and human welfare and progress. There must be an end to this apologising for being what we are and trying to conform to the standards and attitudes of others. We must be prepared to take an independent stand, when necessary, on world issues. Let us not be afraid to defend our vital interests and make others aware of them. The world takes any nation at its face value.

We must rebuild a sense of national unity and solidarity. This Coalition have allowed themselves to govern in a very partisan manner, listening in the main only to those they know and associate with. Whole regions, classes and sections of our national community have been left outside, cut off from influence and a say in the broad process of Government.

It was a fatal mistake by this Coalition to reject the concept of an understanding between the social partners and the Government, based on a consensus on the broad objectives of economic and social planning. This was clearly a deliberate policy on their part. Both trade unions and employers were effectively kept at arm's length. This has brought divisiveness and confrontation. Employers, trade unions, farmers, vocational organisations and representative bodies should all be fully involved in economic and social planning if we are to succeed. As far as possible, there must be created a shared sense of purpose based on a broad consensus. In this connection I welcome the recent NESC report. A reasonably long term strategic approach to the economy can be agreed in consultation with the social partners. This kind of close relationship with the social partners is a feature of a number of those small European nations which have managed to come through this recession relatively unscathed. It will require leadership and responsibility on the part of both trade unions and employers and I believe they are not only ready for it but are anxious to bring it about.

What we have here at present is a Government under siege, a Government paralysed by forces they are unable to confront. Their inability to govern derives mainly from their failure to secure the loyalty and support of their own backbenchers. In behaving the way they are, however, those backbenchers are doing nothing more than trying to save their seats and fend off public anger. They are trying to sidestep the odium and ignominy of Government policies.

The deep-seated problems which confront our economy demand brave and decisive action. Time and again we have seen this disoriented administration blackmailed by a succession of individuals. Policies have been enunciated and Bills promulgated by Ministers only to have them diluted and rewritten to the point where they become meaningless.

As one Fine Gael and Labour backbencher after another seeks to distance himself or herself from this failed, intensely disliked Coalition administration, the Government are reduced to an exercise in fire fighting.

That is no way to run a country at the best of times. It is catastrophic in a country which confronts an economic crisis of unparalleled severity as we do at present.

There is an almost universal demand among the general public for a change of Government; for an end to this nightmare of business failures, close-downs, mass unemployment, emigration, reduction in social welfare and cut-backs in health and other vital services.

The people of this country want a Government who will put their interests ahead of all other political and personal preferences. They want a Government who will devote themselves totally to their economic welfare and not chase after some sort of international approval which is bought at their, the people's, expense.

A national programme of economic recovery is a vital necessity. It is only through economic growth that we can secure a solution to the deep-seated economic and social problems which confront us at present. Our approach to economic planning will be practical, realistic and based on what is feasible.

Fianna Fáil believe that this nation has the human and the material resources which are needed for a major programme of economic recovery and we have experience in formulating and implementing successful policies for growth.

We are also convinced that an essential ingredient for economic recovery is a revival of the spirit and the self-confidence of the nation in order to get economic activity started up again. Only coherent sustained political leadership by a united Government can bring this about.

Every major newspaper in this country has called for an election. Can the Taoiseach be so insensitive, so immune to what the whole country is saying? Is just being in office more important than what parliamentary tradition calls for; what the economic and the public finances urgently require; what the people want?

This sorry Coalition chapter should now be closed and the Irish people given the opportunity to make a new start in 1987.

There is the general view around this House that the Taoiseach is not sure whether he is coming or going. In that case would he not for Heaven's sake do the right thing and go — now?

I should like to inform the House of the outcome of the recent Council of Agriculture Ministers' discussion in Brussels, held over the past two weeks and which dealt with beef and milk in particular. Those discussions undoubtedly constituted one of the longest and most difficult debates in the history of the Community, involving some 90 hours of tough and complex negotiations on two highly important products.

There were a number of major considerations in the background. In particular, the Community's intervention stocks of butter had reached alarming levels, and were continuing to rise steadily. Beef intervention stocks too were being replaced almost as fast as they could be sold. The persistence and size of stocks were having an adverse influence on world market prices. The financial burden for the Community was becoming intolerable. Those were factors which could have endangered the whole future of the Common Agricultural Policy if action had not been taken, and taken fast. The longer these problems were ignored the worse they got.

If the Council had not acted decisively at this stage, the Commission would have had to take measures under its own powers — indeed it clearly indicated its intention to do so — and those measures would have had an extremely unfavourable impact on this country. So it was neither in the interest of the CAP nor in our national interest for us to block Council decisions on these matters, provided adequate account was taken of Ireland's special needs. We did take measures of that nature. I let it be known at a very early stage in our discussions on the set of milk proposals that if butter intervention for Ireland was not continued I would veto that particular issue. The very threat of vetoing that proposal was sufficient for us to get a commitment that our intervention for butter would continue. A number of other countries wanted the same concession but did not succeed in getting it.

Eventually on the beef proposal, which I did not think was beneficial to us — which I thought could have been quite damaging in fact — I did veto the proposal. I think there is some confusion about that, with some people saying we threatened to veto but did not actually veto. We actually did veto. I quoted "a vital national interest". The Commission's proposal was withdrawn and was substituted by a new proposal which I found to be sufficiently satisfactory, not entirely to our liking but sufficiently modified to enable us to agree to it. That exercise of the veto involved our getting a premium for all male cattle in the country and, in 1987, should mean an additional £22 million for this country. Therefore there was an invocation of the veto.

The original Commission's proposals definitely did not make sufficient allowance for our needs. For instance, a 15 per cent cut in beef intervention prices was proposed and a free hand was proposed for the Commission in suspending butter intervention, both of which were totally unacceptable to us. Neither did I judge the early compromise proposals adequate for this country and I acted accordingly in the Council. But, bearing in mind the consequences for the Common Agricultural Policy of a failure of the Council, the final outcome was satisfactory and the package the best that could be obtained. Indeed, I succeeded in having a number of changes made which represented a considerable gain to Ireland over the Commission's original proposals and, in some cases, over the position obtaining. I shall be giving details of these shortly.

I should also like to mention another background factor — the current round of GATT negotiations which is now getting under way. Agriculture is involved in these negotiations. It is important that anti-surplus action taken by the Community internally should be matched by the major third country suppliers so that all would contribute equitably to an improvement in the world market for dairy products in particular. I am glad to say that the recent decisions in Brussels include an undertaking by the Council that the Community will ensure it gets full credit in GATT for its actions on milk surpluses.

There has been a lot of loose talk about stopping imports into the Community from third countries, that it is quite a simple matter to do so. Many of the imports into the Community from third countries and which are causing problems are bound up in GATT arrangements. As we all know, GATT is the international forum for making trade arrangements and those arrangements are extremely legally binding. They cannot be terminated on a unilateral basis, it must be a bilateral arrangement between the countries involved, whether that be the EC bloc and an individual country or another group of countries. It is simplistic and untrue to say that we could stop those imports merely by a wave of the hand. That is not the case. It is also true that these GATT arrangements were drawn up mainly in the early and mid-sixties prior to our entry into the Community. They cannot be easily dismantled.

I hope that the talks which commenced in Uruguay about two to three months ago will lead to a reduction in these imports, particularly of cereal substitutes into the Community, because that is what these talks are all about. I think they are due to continue for three to four years: at least that is the time span that has been mentioned. But I hope that some of the agreements made in the early sixties are terminated, even at a cost to the Community. I believe that if they are terminated considerable compensation will have to be paid, but certainly it would be an advantage if they were terminated or if their impact was reduced.

Everyone is conscious that, as well as restraining the build-up of surpluses, the Community must act to dispose of the stocks already there. Their disposal with all possible speed is essential to restore world market balance and strengthen world prices which, as I have indicated, have been weakened by the very fact that such large stocks are held in the Community. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the Council were able to note with approval the Commission's disposal programme with special reference to butter but with indications of further disposal action for beef also. The programme is to apply in 1987-88 and aims at bringing down butter intervention stocks, in particular, to normal levels by the end of that period.

The Commission put forward a paper earlier this week, or maybe late last week — one begins to lose track of time, but it was within the past week or ten days — which would result in the spending of a considerable amount of money to get rid of the bulk of the butter at present in intervention. There are 1.3 million tonnes of butter in intervention stores at the moment, and the Commission are proposing that one million tonnes of this butter be disposed of over the next three years. The cost of that disposal is estimated at 3.2 billion ECUs or approximately IR£2.5 billion. The methods of disposal are quite varied. One is that we proceed with aggressive marketing on Third World markets to sell off a good deal of it. Secondly, quite a quantity of it would be converted into animal feed and also quite a deal of it would be distributed to social welfare recipients throughout the Community. A rather ingenious proposal, which I gather has been made to operate commercially in New Zealand in the recent past, is to convert butter into motor fuel or fuel oils. Another conversion would be into butter oil which then could be used to compete against vegetable oils and fats which have been displacing considerable amounts of butter output within the Community. We would be extremely interested in seeing a policy like that carried out because the sooner those stocks are got rid of the better for the Irish dairy industry. Unless the stocks are got rid of we will be under severe pressure from the Commission to have prices reduced or to have support mechanisms dismantled, and by support mechanisms I mean intervention.

I will now set out briefly what was put forward by the Commission in their original price proposals and outline what was agreed in the milk and beef sectors. The Commission's milk proposals were made against the background of a serious imbalance in the market, unacceptably high Community stock levels and the critical budgetary situation. They included the arbitrary suspension of intervention for butter and skim milk powders, milk production cuts of 9.5 per cent, the removal of the right to operate a quota system at the level of co-operative or dairy, that is Formula B, and the continuation of the off-setting of surpluses and deficits between co-operatives.

My intention in the negotiations was to protect our overall interests and to seek to negotiate an improved package. This could not be achieved simply by preventing the Council reaching agreement. Irish producers are only too well aware of the powers the Commission has to make changes in intervention arrangements resulting in substantial reductions in milk and beef prices. This year alone milk prices have been reduced by about 6p per gallon through delays in intervention payments. That reduction was not noticed by most people because we had two green currency devaluations this year, one in April and one in September, and together they constituted a green currency devaluation of 9 per cent, which gave us an approximate increase in the price of a gallon of milk of 8p. Therefore, the reduction by the Community of the price of milk by 6p went unnoticed by most people. These measures could depress prices further by extending the delay periods for payment for products going into intervention. There is no limit to the delays which they could bring about. They could increase the present limit to a year, or possibly to two years, and we could have a price reduction in the order of 10p, 15p or 20p a gallon with no legal recourse at all to take action against the Commission. It has that power of delaying payments. Therefore it was important that we get a settlement. Had the Council not reached agreement this week I have no doubt that the Commission would have set about introducing measures which could have and would have resulted in further reductions in milk prices. I feel that I have achieved a much improved package and it would seem that that assessment is accepted generally.

A major consideration for me in so far as the dairying sector was concerned was to protect the intervention system for butter. Milk prices in this country would collapse without the support of butter intervention. This year we are producing 150,000 tonnes of butter. We are putting or have put 85,000 tonnes of that 150,000 tonnes of butter into intervention. More than half our total production has gone into intervention. Therefore, one can imagine the catastrophe it would be for the dairy industry if the Commission had succeeded in getting the power to stop Irish butter from going into intervention.

The Commission was seeking to obtain absolute control to reduce or eliminate intervention as it saw fit. The decision by the Council was that criteria would be agreed before the end of February to allow for the replacement of intervention at certain times by alternative measures which would safeguard the stability of the market. When agreement was reached on these criteria Ireland, as a result of the recognition by the Council of our unique dependence on the dairy sector, has a much stronger claim to intervention than any other member state. It is extremely important that we got that condition.

At the request of the Council the Commission has agreed, with regard to the importance of intervention purchasing of butter to this country, market stability and return to producers in Ireland, to take full account of this in any decisions to be taken. Furthermore, the Commission have agreed to remove the extra delays on take-over for intervention as soon as the general criteria referred to are put into effect. This will be worth roughly between 5p and 6p per gallon to Irish milk producers. In other words, the reduction of the delay payments should mean that milk producers in this country will get an increase in the price of milk of between 5p and 6p per gallon.

In so far as the quota system is concerned, let me say that I have never concealed my view that any solution to restore the balance in the market should centre on the level of quotas, which was the method designed to restore balance in the first instance. The alternatives of severe price reductions or allowing the serious imbalance to drift without taking remedial action, would have had much more damaging effects on our milk industry. From the outset it was made clear by the other member states that no exemptions from quota reductions would be tolerated. That theme was running through these talks since negotiations commenced. Other member states claimed that they had suffered too much because of our exemption in the original super-levy deal in 1984. I emphasised strongly and continuously the special position of the milk sector in Ireland but it became quite clear as the discussion progressed that to have blocked Council agreement would not have been in Irish interests. They could have lengthened the delay period for payment on products going into intervention, or they could have withdrawn the facility to use intravention for butter, because a majority of members of the Council were willing to give them those powers.

I succeeded in obtaining substantial gains and securing a number of important objectives in relation to the quota cuts. While quotas will be reduced by 8.5 per cent overall, the reductions will be generously compensated and we will also retain the relative quota advantage of over 20 per cent more than other member states that we negotiated in 1984. Of the 8.5 per cent reduction, 3 per cent will come from the voluntary cessation scheme for which applications are being invited at present but the premium payable to producers who are prepared to surrender their quotas has been increased from 15.3 pence per gallon to 23 pence a gallon for each of the seven years. This income will apply to existing as well as new applications. Up to this week the cessation scheme had not been fully subscribed, but only to the extent of 68 per cent. As a result of the compensation going up from 15p to 23p a gallon each year for seven years, I expect that the cessation scheme will be vastly over-subscribed within a short time. That indicates how people welcome the considerable increase in the compensation.

As a result of the increase, the scheme is almost certain to be over-subscribed and in that event no compulsory cuts in quotas will be necessary. The new premium is attractive. For instance, a farmer who wishes to give up milk production and has a quota of 20,000 gallons, which is roughly the average for this country, will receive a payment of £4,600 each year or a total of £32,200 over the full seven-year period. If a farmer had a quota of 40,000 gallons, he would get £64,000 and if he had a quota of 100,000 gallons he would receive a payment of £161,000. Deputy Noonan might think about that.

(Limerick West): That is not good for the industry, Minister.

It sounds like a good idea for some people.

(Limerick West): Close up and walk out.

The Deputy might think about it. The remaining 5.5 per cent cut is to be obtained by way of temporary linear suspensions in the quotas of all producers. I accepted the concept of temporary suspensions because the experience here has been that producers who might otherwise volunteer to join a cessation scheme are put off by the fact that they have to give up milk production on a permanent basis. The first 4 per cent of the temporary cut in quotas will take effect on 1 April next and the further 1.5 per cent reduction in 1988. The compensation of 38 pence per gallon to be paid for these cuts for each of the following two years is very generous and should more than compensate farmers for not being able to produce a small portion of their quotas in the two-year period. The further 1.5 per cent to be taken temporarily from quotas on 1 April 1988 will similarly receive compensation. These levels of compensation are all the more attractive bearing in mind that some member states wanted linear cuts in quotas with no compensation at all. The super-levy system runs out at the end of 1988-89 and these temporary suspensions, together with all other aspects of the regime, will fall to be considered at that time.

Some people will say that we did not get the temporary cessation, that the Germans or the French got it, but the fact is that we demanded it, and it is primarily there because of our insistence. It is only temporary and it will be reviewed at the end of two years, at which time people will be allowed to take back their 4 per cent, or some portion of it, or continue to be compensated.

Another important aspect of the milk agreement for me was that we managed to retain the operation of the quota system at co-op or dairy level. Its removal would have created grave distortions in the system and prevented any proper structural development. I also succeeded in retaining the provision allowing surpluses on some co-op areas to be offset against deficits from other co-ops in the country. The effect of this arrangement has been to reduce our national super-levy bill substantially for the first two years of the operation of the system. Had these two measures gone through as proposed by the Commission, the total quota cut in Ireland would effectively have been 12 per cent rather than the 9.5 per cent seen by the Commission as the cut needed over the Community as a whole and at least 6 per cent of that cut would not have been compensated for at all.

If the Commission's proposal for quotas on a firm basis had gone through, our milk production would quickly have been reduced by 5 per cent and we would not have got a penny compensation. We were primarily responsible for stopping that proposal from going through. In essence, it would have meant that if one farmer over-produced milk and another farmer under-produced it, the farmer who under-produced could not compensate the one who over-produced and so the under-production would be lost. We would have lost 5 per cent of our milk production if that proposal had gone through, without compensation. If we were not allowed to transfer milk co-ops we would have lost about another ½ per cent to 1 per cent. Overall we could have lost 6 per cent.

We also obtained a commitment that in any voluntary cessation schemes we can ensure that the reductions in quotas will be as evenly divided as possible between all the co-ops and dairies in the country. This will avoid disproportionate losses of quotas from some areas which might otherwise have occurred. This is particularly important, as I said here during Question Time yesterday, for co-operatives in Connacht and Ulster. In the cessation scheme to date a disproportionate number of applications have come from those areas and it could mean that while we are having a cut nationally of 2 per cent in milk production, there might have been a cut as high as 7 per cent or 8 per cent in those areas where the co-operatives are smaller and the age factor among the producers is such that many people are voluntarily getting out of milk production. What I am aiming to do is to spread the 2 per cent evenly right around the country so that no co-op will have to suffer a greater cut than 2 per cent. That should be possible with the increased compensation which should mean that we will have an avalanche of applications for the scheme.

Further satisfactory developments in the milk package from our point of view were the acceptance of the Commission's plans to run down butter stocks — a vital issue for us — and an increase in the level of subsidy from 29p to 66p in the butter scheme which applies to all recipients of social assistance payments in Ireland. Other member states do not as yet apply the scheme.

The choice for me, therefore, was to participate in a process which would ensure the continuation of an effective support mechanism allowing us to trade normally on commercial markets and ensure stability for the future of the milk industry or to refuse to participate and have more draconian measures imposed on us. If agreement had not been achieved there is no doubt but that, as already stated, the Commission would have further extended payment periods for intervention and further reduced milk prices here. In these circumstances it is satisfactory that a much improved package on milk has been achieved while, at the same time, decisions have been made which will result in a much better market balance for the future. Two things are important, a sound and thriving market and high prices for farmers. Farmers incomes will not suffer but could actually be enhanced because of the high level of compensation and because of the restoration of the normal delay for payments which will mean in April a price increase of something like 6p a gallon on milk.

I should now like to turn to beef. Deputies will know that the beef sector in the EC has been going through a particularly difficult period. This was due to many factors including post super-levy slaughterings of dairy cows, high stocks in private storage, imports from third countries, the recession, competition from other meats such as poultry, reduced purchasing power of the oil states and, to some extent, changing consumer preferences. The end result of all this has been a combination of depressed market prices, low producer incomes and huge intervention stocks. Indeed these stocks were at one stage nearly a million tonnes. Even the present level of about 600,000 tonnes is not acceptable. The beef is bought at high prices stored at enormous cost and eventually sold at very low prices. In fact the German Minister continuously says he is fed up with the cost of intervention, that all it is doing is making millionaires out of people with cold stores and feeding the Russians for nothing. Basically, he is right to an extent but of course intervention supports the market and it is invaluable to us. We have got to have it retained and we will have it retained.

While the intervention system is effective and essential from our point of view we have to recognise that the cost was excessive and some action had to be taken. It was against this background that the EC Commission made their original proposals. They suggested that intervention should apply only in so-called crisis situations. In addition, we were to lose a valuable calf premium scheme and our entitlement to the UK variable premium scheme. These proposals were not acceptable to us and I vigorously opposed them at the Council of Ministers.

What we achieved earlier this week was a considerable improvement on the original proposals. Let me say quickly that all these premia were to be done away with. The suckler cow premium which was worth £12 million to us was to be eliminated. Not only is it not going to be eliminated but we have received an increase and it is now going to be worth £50 million to us in 1987. The calf premium has also been retained and this is worth £12 million to us. We also benefit from the variable premium which is operated by the UK but all the beef which goes from this country to the UK qualifies for the variable premium which is worth between £10 million and £12 million to us each year. That was also supposed to go. All those three which were supposed to go and which are worth approximately £40 million to this country have been retained.

In addition, by vetoing the beef proposal I got a concession that there would be an entitlement of £14.72 per head in respect of all male cattle. That concession is worth about £22 million. Overall, what we are going to receive from the four premia is £60 million in 1987. The Commission's original proposal would have meant that intervention would practically cease. That has been averted. The outcome of the negotiations is that we have retained access to intervention, have retained all the premia at existing or higher rates and now have an additional premium of about £15 on the first 50 adult male cattle on each holding. Conducted as they were on the basis of very severe proposals and against the background of a very difficult financial situation we have come out of the beef negotiations better than any other member state.

Deputy Flynn. The Deputy has 30 minutes.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider that. I would like to think I would get the generosity of the Chair for 30 minutes but I think it has been agreed that I have 15 minutes.

After your own Whips, you may have less.

You could not do yourself justice in 15 minutes.

A Cheann Comhairle, if you interrupt me to tell me that I have less than what you stated I will not hold you to the 30 minutes. The expansion of our export markets is the biggest challenge facing all sectors of Irish industry. Notwithstanding all the rhetoric in the Government's White Paper on Industrial Policy and in Building on Reality the Government have failed miserably to meet the challenge. They have flinched from the challenge and the two documents are monuments to their ineptitude and lack of coherence and resolution.

Under the present Government indigenous industry has experienced a series of adverse circumstances unprecedented in the history of the State. It has been crippled by high interest rates and ineffective exchange rate policy management. It has not enjoyed the sort of conditions at home which are necessary for expansion into the lucrative export markets abroad. Fianna Fáil in Government will be stressing export led economic development which will lead to the creation of jobs.

It might appear from an unofficial note I have got from your Whip that you may not be resuming at 2 p.m. In other words, you could be finished at 1 p.m. but you can sort that out between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.

I think it has been sorted out; 15 minutes is what I have. Two out of every three jobs in manufacturing depend on our success in exporting to the international markets. We export over half of our total industrial output. Exports are the life blood of the economy.

This Government have damaged our exporting capacity by their failure to contain interest rates and by their refusal to pass on the full benefit of falling energy prices to industry by way of lower electricity prices. High interest rates are depressing investment, which is vital if we are to sustain growth in export led industry. We will not get the level of investment required if interest rates do not come down. Government ineptitude on the trade front is underlined by their utter failure to create a climate conducive to enterprise, innovation, and investment.

The inherent unreality of their approach is seen from their dogged insistence throughout this year that an impending consumer spending boom would boost economic growth. This consumer boom failed to materialise. Yet, the Government obstinately clung to this myth in their economic statements in the past year.

It is clear that this Government, so preoccupied with internal wrangling, are incapable of taking a proper perspective on our export potential. They have virtually ignored the necessity to penetrate new markets such as that of Japan. Irish firms should be actively encouraged to respond positively to Japan's efforts to open up access to the Japanese market to foreign companies. While Irish exports to Japan are doing well in highly-skilled areas, such as chemicals, semi-precious stones, optical equipment and quality knitwear, trade has remained at around the £150 million mark during the past three years. There must be a much more concerted effort to further penetrate this lucrative market.

Such an export drive would contribute to closing our trade gap with the Japanese. While our trade with them has remained worth about £150 million, imports from Japan jumped in value from £244 million in 1983 to £299 million in 1984 and £334 million in 1985. Irish exporters must capitalise on the fact that Japanese importers have proved receptive to high quality Irish goods. This Government have failed to stress the potential of the Japanese market which has 120 million people and is the world's leading economy.

Perhaps, the Government's greatest disservice to the development of trade and commence is their abject failure to even attempt to stem the exodus of the 50,000 young people who have fled the country over the last two years. Instead of exporting products, this Government export people and money. These include a high percentage of graduates in the advanced high technology field who have now emigrated to help develop the economies of our competitors. With better management on the part of the Government, these highly skilled young people could have been retained at home to help build up the native technological sector, in particular to help the small firms sector in their application of new technology developments.

While one must fully acknowledge the IDA's efforts to encourage technology transfer and joint ventures, between manufacturing concerns here and abroad, it is clear that much more must be done in this area. Indigenous firms must be encouraged to boost both their research-development capacity and their marketing capacity. In many cases Irish firms are without the financial resources necessary to embark on research and development programmes. It is clear that at official level, there must be a much more concerted effort to facilitate such firms in their efforts to gain access to the new and emerging technologies. I am disappointed that the Government have not done more to encourage licensing arrangements and technology transfer to boost the technological capacity of our industry. It is through concentrating on development export-oriented industrial firms that we will overcome our unemployment and fiscal problems.

The trading figures for the first 10 months of 1986 underline the difficult trading conditions under which Irish companies are operating. The value of exports has declined by 6 per cent and the value of imports by 10 per cent during the first 10 months of 1986 compared with the corresponding period in 1985.

It is particularly worrying to note that in October, the main decline occurred in the machinery and transport equipment category in which office machines and computer exports fell by £61 million. The decline in imports in October is also disturbing given the fact that Irish exports rely to a certain extent on imports for raw materials. In October imports were down £61.3 million on the corresponding period in 1985.

Only by developing the marketing strategy and exporting capacity of our firms, will we advance towards the goal of fully exploiting the advantages of the EC markets.

For the past four years, we have watched the Government pay lip service to the tourist industry. They have shunted ministerial responsibility for the industry between Departments, ensuring that policy-making for the industry remains institutionally rudderless. Overall, they have failed in relation to tourism. They have failed to act in the knowledge that we have unique and excellent potential as a tourist centre.

They have failed to take the creative steps which are necessary to realise the potential of Irish tourism in terms of jobs and foreign exchange earnings. The Government have clung to the outmoded assumption that tourism can continue to be treated by Government in the same haphazard fashion as heretofore. This is not true. Tourism is a growth industry, which according to the OECD is second only to banking in its contribution to the value of international trade. Government and policy makers will have to take cognisance the fact that international tourism is no longer a secondary activity but one that is vitally important to employment and the balance of payments. Yet this Government, ignoring the fact that tourism is our third most important industry have refused over the past four years to focus on the developmental needs of the industry. They have ignored all the warning signs — our declining share of world tourism and US tourism expenditure in Europe and our failure to increase our share of the lucrative continental markets. They have watched these trends and refused to take corrective action.

One of the most serious failures of the Government in relation to tourism lies in their refusal to take action to stem the deterioration in the environment. This is an insidious process which has resulted in a steady and gradual erosion of the environment on which tourism depends. We are by laziness and apathy, killing the goose that lays the golden egg as far as tourist revenue returns are concerned. Despite all the well-intentioned rhetoric in the White Paper on Tourism on the need to protect the environment its fragile nature continues to be eroded. The Government have flinched from using all the powers at their disposal to arrest the process of deterioration in the physical environment which has been evident for the past decade and a half. Litter, graffiti, indiscriminate dumping and water pollution are all capable of control if we enforce the law. The Government's refusal to do this is leading to a serious situation with disastrous implications for the future of the industry.

It is up to the Government to overcome national carelessness in relation to the environment by carefully and strictly ensuring that the regulations on the Statute Books are implemented. The Government have failed to capitalise on the increasing public awareness of environmental importance and initiate a rethink of our physical planning regulations. This apathy on the part of the Coalition is also reflected in their failure to take action to increase the co-ordination of activities in relation to tourism.

It was proposed in the White Paper on Tourism that to achieve the full cooperation of all Departments in tourist affairs the Government would establish an interdepartmental policy co-ordination committee chaired by a senior civil servant. Almost one and a half years later this committee, if it was ever activated by the Government, has failed to come up with solutions for the integration of activities at Government level in relation to tourism. There has been no concerted attempt by the Government to review Bord Fáilte's strategy on marketing yet the need for such a review is glaringly obvious from the decline in tourism earnings and visitor numbers in the last four years. In revenue terms the American market this year will be down by £40 million from 1985 due to a drop of 20 per cent in the number of US visitors. Overall, total overseas tourism revenue in 1986 will be down by 6 per cent on the 1985 figure. The Government have failed to make up ground lost on the UK and European markets. This year saw a small decline in numbers coming from west Germany, a market with tremendous potential which would reward a more concerted marketing drive.

The Government have ignored the need to gear the efforts of Irish tourism to capture an increased share of the lucrative continental market. All the strengths of tourism are God given and all the weaknesses are man made. The Government have consistently denied the necessary resources to Bord Fáilte to enable them to meet their targets as laid down in the White Paper on Tourism. The spend on every job by the Coalition averages £2,000 in the industrial sector and £2,150 the agricultural sector but £850 is all they can muster as far as tourism is concerned. Out of the total spend on all these industries only 3 per cent is given to the tourism sector. They have failed to recognise how labour intensive the tourist industry is and the great potential for job creation that exists in the industry.

We are satisfied that a new political standing will have to be given to the industry. It can no longer be shunted about from one dependency to another. It is appended to whatever Department is willing to take it. It has no clout and, consequently, it is not able to meet the targets set down for it. Our share of international tourism has collapsed over the last number of years. The level of our competitiveness has been eroded by severe Government taxation measures. There is no profitability and the Minister for Finance who introduced the White Paper recognised that at the time. One would have thought he would have taken his knowledge from his tourism brief with him to the Department of Finance and enabled the industry to get the profitability levels necessary to regenerate growth and investment in the industry.

Did we not reduce VAT levels?

Certainly and I welcomed that at the time.

That is the most important thing of all.

Unfortunately the taxation element as far as other items such as drink and petrol are concerned has escalated. The possible reductions that were available as a result of reduced international costs have not been passed on. They would have helped to make the tourist industry viable.

The Coalition hold all the records as far as the statistics of shame are concerned: unemployment, emigration, the national debt and foreign borrowing. The response of everyone in the street is simply that Coalitions do not work. That is what the Coalition Ministers and back-benchers are saying in the corridors of this House today.

Will the Deputy please move the Adjournment?

I should like to finish by saying that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, last evening on RTE said that the only opinion poll he had faith in was in the general election opinion poll. We agree with him and invite him to test the record of his Government in that poll. We are satisfied that the general election campaign has started with this Adjournment debate.

The election will be about the future as well as the past.

The disgraced handlers who had been jettisoned in the past couple of years are back and recommissioned. They conned the Irish people once, but the failure rate on every front — economic, social, electoral — and the recognition of the anger that is outside have not been taken on board by the Government. When the Minister is prepared to live up to the commitment he gave last night as to his faith in a general election poll, then he and the Government will get their answer.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share