John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the Government responded to the statement of Monday, 6 September 1993, from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin on the unemployment crisis.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Crisis.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of times the task force for employment established under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress has met; and the progress that has been made on any of the recommendations of this task force.
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the interests of all citizens of the State will be reflected in discussions on a possible agreement to follow the Programme for Economic and Social Progress; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to have meetings with the social partners to discuss the prospects for negotiating a new Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Question:5 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the expiry of the current Programme for Economic and Social Progress agreement at the end of this year, he will give the attitude of the Government in relation to the possible negotiations of a further pact with the social partners, in view of the necessity to control public expenditure and to make the Irish economy more efficient; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the Government's response to the Conference of Major Religious Superiors' publication, New Frontiers for Full Citizenship.
The Government proposes to commence discussions with the social partners on a new national programme later this month. As a preliminary step the Government has agreed to meet ICTU tomorrow, 13 October, at its request to discuss the issues of "the removal of the 1 per cent Income Levy and the full reversal of the social welfare cuts within an agreed timespan as well as the full implementation of the current Programme."
The Government's position is that the key objectives of a new national programme should be increasing and maintaining employment, reducing unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment, and eliminating the social exclusion and marginalisation caused by long-term unemployment and poverty. It believes all issues arising should be dealt with as contributing, or not, to those objectives.
The Government shares the concern about unemployment expressed by Archbishop Connell during his address on the occasion of the public launch of Crosscare, the Catholic Social Service Conference, on 6 September 1993. The Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997 stated that: “long term unemployment must be tackled as the first priority, not only of Government, but of the social partners and the entire community.” The programme also recognised that: “the costs of long term unemployment go far beyond the financial burdens, and include a major element of social isolation and family stress.”
The Government has placed primary emphasis on jobs and employment in the National Development Plan submitted to the European Commission in support of Ireland's case for EC Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period up to 1999. A key feature of the plan will be a specially focused local development programme targeted at areas where unemployment is most acute and where significant social exclusion exists. The programme will build on the experiences of the pilot projects in the area-based response to long-term unemployment, established under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of the Catholic Social Service Conference and of the other voluntary organisations who do so much to address the needs of communities particularly affected by long-term unemployment. The contribution of these organisations to the area-based initiative and the local development programme is essential if we are to successfully tackle the problems created by unemployment.
I understand that the National Economic and Social Council will shortly finalise its recommendations on the strategy to be pursued in economic and social policy over the next few years. As in the case of previous reports from the council prior to the negotiation of the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the council's forthcoming report will provide a framework in which discussions between the Government and the social partners on a new programme will be conducted.
The recently established National Economic and Social Forum provides an opportunity for representatives of groups traditionally outside the consultative process, including women's groups, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, people with a disability, the elderly, youth and environmental interests, to put forward views in relation to a new programme. I understand the forum has, as a key part of its intended work programme, a critical view of existing schemes for the unemployed including an assessment of non-market work opportunities. I will be happy to ask that the forum considers the Conference of Major Religious Superiors' proposal in this context. The Programme for a Partnership Government stated specifically that the social partners and the Government will take account, in their deliberations and in negotiating future programmes, of the views expressed and positions agreed upon by the forum.
In relation to the Task Force on Employment, I replied in some detail on 3 June 1992 to a parliamentary question from Deputy De Rossa. At that stage, the task force had met on 33 occasions since its establishment in June 1991 and submitted 15 reports to Government. The task force met on seven occasions between June and October 1992, submitted a further report on the provision of childcare facilities and reviewed progress in relation to the implementation of its earlier reports. At the beginning of this year, the Central Review Committee agreed that the task force had completed the tasks which it had been established to undertake. I am circulating a note on progress in implementing the recommendations of the task force for inclusion in the Official Report.
Note on Progress Achieved in Implementing the Recommendations of the Task Force.
First Report on the Production of Components and Products for Multinational Companies
The Taoiseach's Awards for Business Linkages were initiated last year to encourage linkages between small sub-supplier companies and larger companies in both the private and public sectors at home and abroad. The awards are part of the on-going development of the National Linkage Programme. Just last week I launched the second year's awards.
Good progress is being made in the area of building linkages between Irish industry and the electronics sector. In the construction sector, the IDA continues to promote the use of Irish-sourced products in all industrial projects.
Second Report on Extra Third Level Places in Education
A total of 5,193 places have been created under the undergraduate expansion programme. The University of Limerick and Thomond College were amalgamated in July 1991 — this provided an extra 600 places in the university. Arising from the purchase of Carysfort College by UCD, 800 undergraduate places became available on the Belfield campus. Carysfort will have a capacity of 1,700 when fully operational. Institutional linkages agreed between Mary Immaculate College and the University of Limerick has made an extra 600 places available. Institutional linkages agreed between St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra and Dublin City University should yield an extra 600 places. Tallaght Regional Technical College commenced operating in September 1992 and will have a capacity of 1,200 when fully operational. The Foundation Building recently opened at the University of Limerick will in due course provide a further 1,000 places. This is being funded for the greater part by the private sector.
Certain courses in private noncommercial institutions have been approved for the purposes of the higher education grants scheme and these include: (i) a degree in Accounting and Human Resource Management at the National College of Industrial Relations; (ii) a Bachelor of Religious Science degree at the Mater Dei Institute of Education; and (iii) a Baccalaureate in Theology and Arts from the Pontifical University at St. Patrick's, Maynooth.
A number of private commercial institutions have recently been accepted as designated institutions. These include: (i) Accounting and Business College, (ii) LSB International, (iii) Institute of Education, (iv) Griffith College and (v) Newman College. Applications for validation of courses in these institutions are being considered by the NCEA.
Third Report on New In-Company Job Training Scheme
Participation on the Job Training Scheme at end-September 1993 was 1,434. The employment subsidy scheme has assisted employers recruit 8,500 people who had been on the live register.
Fourth Report on Stamp Duty on New Houses
The 1993 Finance Act gave effect to the budget proposal to base the stamp duty charge for all new houses over 125 square metres on the site value only but subject to a minimum site value of one quarter of the total house value.
Fifth Report on Planning Procedures
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, requires An Bord Pleanála to determine most appeals and other matters which come before it for decision within a period of four months. The number of appeals at end August was 495, an all-time low.
Sixth Report on Special Trading Houses Scheme
The then Minister for Industry and Commerce accepted the recommendations of a review by his Department of the operation of the scheme in December 1992.
Seventh Report on the European Orientation Programme
By end-July 1993, funding was provided by the IDA and ABT to support 178 placements under the programme.
Eighth Report on Revenue Statistics on Employment
Work is ongoing in the development by the Revenue Commissioners of a computerised system to allow for quarterly reports of the numbers of individuals in employment.
Ninth Report on Urban Renewal
The foundation-laying deadline of end-May 1993 was extended to end-November 1993 and the deadline for the completion of work on developments in the designated areas was extended to 31 July 1994.
Tenth Report on Roads Construction
The Roads Act, 1993, became law on 26 June 1993 and it is planned to assign responsibility for national roads to the statutory National Roads Authority from 1 January 1994.
Eleventh Report on Labour Force Statistics
Changes in coverage anticipated in reply to parliamentary question of 3 June 1992 in effect.
Twelfth Report on Investment and Reorganisation of the Ports
An investment programme in ports is to be included under the National Development Plan 1994 to 1999. The implementation of the investment programme will be accompanied by major changes in the management structures of ports with the establishment of commercial semi-State companies. Legislation to provide for the restructuring of the ports is being prepared at present. It is planned to circulate the Bill before Christmas.
Thirteenth Report on Telecommunications Tariffs
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications on 18 May 1993, approved a package of telephone tariffs which had the aim of applying cost-based tariffs to all telephone traffic. This has resulted in the cessation of cross subsidisation of one type of call for another.
Fourteenth Report on Direct Marketing
A working Group on Direct Mail has just completed its work. A competitive package of postal rates for high-volume bulk mail has been put in place. Telemarketing has been the subject of discussions between the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Telecom Éireann and the IDA. The rebalancing of tariffs should enable the sector to develop further.
Fifteenth Report on the Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme.
The VTOS was expanded by 1,000 places in 1992 and a further 900 places from September 1993, bringing the total to 2,960. The eligibility requirements for participation in the scheme have been revised to include lone parents and others. Special consideration was given to the 12 Area Partnerships in the allocation of additional places.
Sixteenth Report on the Provision of Childcare Facilities.
The Government has agreed to implement the Child Care Act over a three-year period and has made available an additional £5 million for investment in the child care services.
Other measures developed by Task Force.
The measures developed by the task force, aimed at helping to get long-term unemployed persons back to work in the 12 Area Partnerships, which I announced on 30 April 1992, are now in operation. One of these measures — the Area Allowance (Enterprise) proved so successful that it has been extended to a second year at a rate of 75 per cent of the applicants underlying unemployment assistance entitlement. At the end-September 1993, there were some 4,000 participating in the new community employment development programme.
I will be calling the Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. Deputy John Bruton.
Is the Taoiseach aware that 287,000 people do not have work and that 98,000 people emigrated during the period of the last plan? What level would unemployment need to reach for the Taoiseach to conclude that his policies were not working?
I have set out in detail the steps the Government is taking in relation to this problem. The National Development Plan published by the Government contains details of the largest ever investment programme in this country, historically or otherwise. This plan covers the period up to 1999 and sets out job targets. There are many aspects to unemployment and, as was stated clearly at the launch of the plan yesterday, this is one part of Government strategy; other parts of Government strategy include budgetary measures and possible opportunities which can be identified and which will create even a single job. We have included local development initiatives in the plan in an effort to get enterprise going on the ground and we are constantly working with the social partners on recommendations made by the task forces to which I referred in my reply. I would welcome any constructive suggestions from Deputy Bruton, members of his party or members of other parties on ways of tackling our unemployment problem. Deputy Bruton knows as well as I do that unemployment is due to a combination of factors, not merely the increase in our labour force numbers arising from our demographic position. Unemployment is a very serious problem throughout Europe and the western world. That is why I hope much time will be devoted at the December Summit to producing a concerted programme and policy on ways of tackling unemployment on a European-wide basis.
Deputy Bruton, I am sure, will be the first to admit that the solution to unemployment does not lie solely in our hands, that we are at the mercy of what happens internationally, because we are such an open economy. However, he and the House can be assured that every possible action in relation to the relief of unemployment will be taken.
Is the Taoiseach telling the House that there is a no figure above which unemployment might go which he would regard as an indication his programme had failed?
The House — and I am sure the general public — would appreciate if Deputy Bruton addressed his energies, of which he has many, to making suggestions towards the solution of unemployment——
Answer the question.
——rather then trying to play politics with a problem.
More waffle, Taoiseach.
Given that the Taoiseach has no idea as to what would be an unacceptable level of unemployment and, presumably, is willing therefore to accept any level of unemployment, does he agree with the Archbishop that the present level of unemployment is subversive?
I would not use that word. The Deputy may take it from somebody else if he cares to use it but it is not a word that I have used to describe unemployment. I have described unemployment as a human tragedy and indeed any level of unemployment is unacceptable. The Government is taking every possible initiative it can regarding the solution of the problem and I hope Deputy Bruton might address that particular issue.
Given that the current Programme for Economic and Social Progress has failed to cope with the rising unemployment level, will the Taoiseach indicate what agreement, if any, there is among the social partners regarding the steps that can be taken to deal with this problem as distinct from agreeing that it is a problem and a crisis which must be dealt with? What are the specifics on the agreement as to the steps that may be taken to deal with unemployment?
Launching the National Development Plan yesterday I said quite clearly that the central objective of that plan was tackling the problem of unemployment and creating employment. I also said, and I repeat here today, that the central objective of the talks with the social partners should be directed at relieving unemployment in whatever ways possible and ensuring that the maximum number of jobs can be created. In this regard I indicated quite clearly — and I am sure everybody agrees — that competitiveness has a major role in creating and maintaining jobs in the economy and that every 1 per cent sustained improvement in wage cost competitiveness can produce 4,000 net jobs. Therefore, the discussions that will take place can make their own contribution in relation to the objectives I have set for the talks and for the national plan.
Does the Taoiseach believe, therefore, that if people work for nothing the unemployment problem will be solved because the net effect of arguing that the only aspect of competition is wage rates——
No, I did not say that.
——is a low wage economy?
I never said one or the other. Deputy De Rossa knows quite well that nobody in his House subscribes to the idea of people working for nothing, it is naive of the Deputy to suggest such a thing. Furthermore, I am not in favour of creating a low wage economy, for many reasons, social and commercial. When we sit down to discuss paying ourselves we should consider what we have to compete with in the international market place because we must sell abroad 70 per cent of what we produce at home. Quite clearly, what stood to us in the most recent recession, which we are not out of yet, was the element of competitiveness that had entered the Irish economy because of the Programme for National Recovery and the earlier years of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. We have lost a certain edge in that regard but if that competitiveness did not exist I can assure the Deputy we would be talking about completely different numbers because it enabled Irish exporters to not alone hold their market share abroad but to increase it in a decreasing market. Of course there are many other factors to competitiveness, the quality of the goods, consistency of supply and delivering on time. A range of areas keeps one in business with one's customers but wage cost competitiveness cannot be ignored.
In respect of Question No. 6, the authors of this booklet would want me to point out that they are the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, not the Catholic Social Services Council. It appears that the Taoiseach has the same approach as his predecessor who said he had an abhorrence of any organisation with "major" in its title.
Or "superiors".
What is the Taoiseach's response to the proposal in this publication that up to 100,000 people could be more usefully, socially and productively, involved in employment by shifting that amount of the social welfare budget to pay them at the equivalent rate of what they would earn on the dole with the facility to earn whatever they could in addition on a voluntary basis while retaining their other ancillary social welfare benefits such as fuel vouchers, medical card, differential rent assessment and so on?
I have already said that can be referred to the Economic and Social Forum for evaluation at that level. I met representatives, Fr. Healy and the Reverend Sister, who presented those proposals to me, we said they would be examined and evaluated and whatever contribution they can make taken on board. I would point out that much work in this regard had been carried out by a committee of the previous Dáil on unemployment and identification of capacity in various areas of the public service had been carried out by that committee. We will continue to evaluate those proposals and whatever contribution that can be made will be taken on board.
Will the Taoiseach agree, from his experience as a businessman prior to entering politics, that if one attacks something one is likely to have less of it produced? If so, will he also agree that it does not make much sense in a country short of jobs to have a situation where it costs an employer £2.33 in tax to give an employee £1 a week take-home pay?
The Deputy knows and has heard me say on a number of occasions that there is a tax wedge at the bottom which, as Minister for Finance, I began the process of reducing. It must be reduced and we have already committed ourselves to whatever action we can take in relation to removing the tax wedge and taking as many people as possible out of the lower end of the tax net.
It is a funny way to reduce it by increasing it this year.
A 1 per cent levy.
Deputy Dukes does not bother to put down questions. He prefers to come in here and interrupt others who have taken the time to do so.
The Taoiseach increased it this year.
If Deputy Dukes puts down a question we would be delighted to answer it.
I am encouraging the Taoiseach to answer the question.
There is much talk from time to time about the cost of PRSI and social contributions but I see no evidence to suggest that this is a problem. On the contrary there is evidence from the pilot schemes implemented by this and a previous Government that where we allowed employers to be free of PRSI contributions for a two year period to employ people a very small contribution was made. If we accept the argument that our PRSI social contributions are high and uncompetitive and a barrier to employing people, we should have seen a better result. We did not see a better result and I believe in testing an idea and not operating on theory. I prefer to operate the practice and that is what the practice has shown.
In relation to the question of taxation, of course we are committed to reducing taxation as resources become available. People must make up their minds whether they want lower taxation levels and increased services, or full maintenance of services. That question must be answered by everybody, including the Deputy.
In addition to the extensive list of items to be discussed with the social partners, will the Taoiseach agree to consider also the plight of those who find themselves facing voluntary redundancy in their early fifties, who continue to encounter the problem of educating their children, and also the plight of senior citizens, not merely with regard to old age pensions and so on but the provision of proper facilities for their care and attention in their later years? That is a group, in the fifties, sixties and seventies, not represented by any of the social partners. I know their interests are represented by the Government. Will the Taoiseach agree to place a specific item on the agenda for the men and women who, having served this country well, find themselves, through no fault of theirs, in voluntary redundancy circumstances in their declining years, without proper representation?
Is this an Adjournment debate?
I agree with Deputy Burke that all interests and groups should have an input to the consideration that will take place. I have no doubt that they will. The Economic and Social Forum has a wide representation of interests and will be making an input to Government in relation to interests and groups which will include the types of people to whom Deputy Burke has referred. Unquestionably their interests should be taken into consideration. Anybody who is unlucky or unfortunate enough to have to accept voluntary or compulsory redundancy will know quite well that it constitutes a tragedy for them and their family. The Government will help by making support systems available to them in an endeavour to ensure a new role in life for them. These and the older sections of the community will be taken care of, not merely by the Government and trade unions in some instances but also in the wider representation that is part of the Economic and Social Forum.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the social partners do not include the unemployed? Furthermore, would he agree that the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, in terms of unemployment could not be considered either a programme for national recovery or a programme for economic and social progress, given that the figure of those unemployed has now reached almost 300,000? Would he consider allowing a direct voice for the unemployed at any Mark II Programme for Economic and Social Progress, if indeed a Mark II Programme for Economic and Social Progress in its current form is desirable?
The direct voice of the unemployed to which Deputy Gay Mitchell referred is represented on the Economic and Social Forum. I do not think the Congress of Trade Unions would accept the Deputy's view that they do not represent the unemployed, in that they have their offices and networks throughout the country and make their contribution in that regard also. Of course, I should say the unemployed are always represented by the Government in any circumstances.
In regard to the Taoiseach's dismissal of the idea of cutting the level of PRSI, how can he argue that cutting that level would not be effective when he argued yesterday that a 1 per cent cut in wages would produce 4,000 jobs? Surely a 1 per cent cut in PRSI would produce 4,000 jobs. Does he not recognise the distinction between representation at the Economic and Social Forum — which does not involve itself in any negotiation of either pay or non-pay — and participation in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress where the deal is cut and those unemployed are left out when the real decisions about the deal are made?
I would reject totally, as would everybody else involved in those negotiations, that the unemployed do not form part of the discussions that take place.
The Taoiseach would find it hard to convince the unemployed of that.
In relation to PRSI, I have said on a number of occasions, and repeat, that the overall level of PRSI contributions on the part of employers has been advanced time and time again as their excuse for not employing people. That is what I label it, an excuse, because once we have tested the argument advanced — and we have tested not just once but twice — we see the results in their response. Clearly, it is not the problem it is made out to be. I should say that we are examining the possibility of a tiered system that can cater for certain areas of very tight margins in an industrial environment, such as that in the clothing or footwear industry — those are the areas we will examine from the point of view of competitiveness. When I talk about the cost of PRSI I should say I am talking in general terms. Nonetheless there are specifics for which we will endeavour to cater.
A Cheann Comhairle, I protest at the way these questions were amalgamated.
The Chair has no control over that, Deputy, none whatsoever.
It is an absolute travesty.
I put it to the Taoiseach that his constant repetition of the myth that a wage cut would produce jobs is highlighted by his reply in that, on the basis of his arithmetic, an 80 per cent cut in wages would abolish the live register; that is a simple arithmetical projection. What the Taoiseach is doing is endeavouring to mislead the people, preparing the ground for wage freezes and cuts. Will he state in this House that that does not constitute the way forward for job creation? Furthermore, will he indicate whether he intends to agree to the abolition of the 1 per cent levy on PAYE income and, to use the current jargon, say whether he will rebalance the income tax burden on PAYE workers, thereby ensuring that other sectors of the community, such as the self-employed and farmers, pay their fair share of tax, which might result in a greater degree of equity within our society?
Again Deputy De Rossa endeavours to misinterpret what I say in this House. Wage competitiveness is different from a wage cut or a wage freeze. In simple terms I might pose the proposition that if all competitors in the marketplace paid a 10 per cent wage increase, then we could pay 8 per cent and remain competitive in the matter of wages——
A 1 per cent wage increase——
Would the Deputy please listen to my answers? It would appear he does not want to listen but would prefer to get the wrong message that somebody wants to cut wages while somebody else wants an increase. It is not like that.
Deputy De Rossa asked the question, he should be good enough to listen to the reply.
I refer the Deputy to the economic model operated by the ESRI. Indeed, if he wants to dispute that, perhaps he would take it up with the ESRI who use an economic model to produce these results. I stress that it was the ESRI who produced the results, not me or anybody else in Government. If the Deputy does not want to accept them, I cannot help him.
Does the Taoiseach believe everything he reads?
We have devoted almost half an hour to these six questions. I want to bring this topic to finality and proceed with other questions.
Would the Taoiseach agree that Tuesday, 12 October 1993 is the day when he finally forgot all he ever learned when in private business, when he came into this House to argue that the level of PRSI paid by employers was irrelevant to the number of employment places an employer would create? Would he agree that he has finally taken that fatal flight of fancy away from reality, and is now seen as somebody who has no knowledge of the practical world of employment in this country at present?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Deputy John Bruton continues to fool himself into the belief that he heard something, or wants to interpret something, he did not hear. I have had experience and have forgotten none of it — I will argue against employers whenever their arguments are not valid. What I have said is that we have put that argument to the test——
No, the Government has not.
A temporary one.
There is nothing temporary about two years; which is a fair period within which to employ people. Deputy John Bruton knows as well as I do that employers do not employ people just because it may cost £1 or £2 less to employ them this week or last week. The Deputy knows as well as I do, but is not prepared to admit it, that one employs people to produce goods or services one can sell at home or abroad. That is why one employs people, not because the PRSI contribution may be 1 per cent less or more. Indeed, if one had not a market for either, one would not produce them even if one could do so at no expense. We have put that argument to the test over a two year period. I can tell the House it has not produced very good results.
Why did the ambulance plant move from Longford to Liverpool? Was it because the cost of employment was too high here?
That is a separate matter. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I have to put the record straight, the ambulance plant did not move from Longford to Liverpool. The ambulance plant closed in Longford and did not reopen in Liverpool.
(Interruptions.)
The interruptions should cease.
I think we have got a new insight — it may be a small matter — into the Government's approach to unemployment and I want the Taoiseach to confirm it. In reply to my question he correctly reminded us that an Oireachtas committee, chaired by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, dealt with this question which is the subject of the proposal from the CMRS. In reply to my question and to the intervention from Deputy Burke about the destruction of Aer Lingus at Dublin Airport he said that both these matters can now be referred to the NESF.
Ceist, le do thoil, a Theachta.
Is the Taoiseach telling this House that the purpose of the NESF is to act as an evaluation committee for the Government on proposals such as that put forward by the CMRS and on the wasteland created in Deputy Burke's constituency as a result of the destruction of Aer Lingus? If that is what the Taoiseach is telling the House it will be news to the NESF, a meeting of which I left this morning.
Will Deputy Rabbitte please listen to the answers? The NESF is a much wider forum in which the voice of various groups can be heard. I was asked about unemployed people, they are directly represented on that forum and have an input to that discussion.
What about Government policy?
The Government will still govern — nobody else will govern — and will take into account in the formulation of our policies the views expressed by the various forums on which these people are represented.
I am calling Deputy Yates for a final question.
As we are nearing the end of the lifetime of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, will the Taoiseach acknowledge that it was in fact a programme for higher taxation, that in each year of the lifetime of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress total tax revenue rose by about double the level of economic growth and that the real burden of taxation as a percentage of GNP or GDP has risen? Can he give the House a commitment that in any future Programme for Economic and Social Progress that burden will not rise any further?
The Deputy knows as well as I do that attempts were made and will continue to be made within the context of what is possible to relieve the burden of taxation which is excessively high, but we have to be realistic. I hope in his approach to his portfolio Deputy Yates will also be realistic by not calling for tax reductions and at the same time calling for not alone maintenance of existing services but an increase in services. If the Deputy is making those demands will he please tell us from where he expects the money to come? As far as this Government is concerned borrowing and taxation are too high and we do not intend to raise either of them.
We might look to public sector pay.
We have set out exactly the parameters of our fiscal and economic policies.
Will tax revenue be increased?
I must bring in Deputy Martin Cullen whose former leader had tabled Question No. 5.
As the Taoiseach referred at length to the pilot scheme as it related to PRSI, will he indicate the take-up by the particular industrial sectors? Is it true that in the manufacturing sector, the core creator of jobs, the scheme has not been tested? The real thrust of this question is to get to the manufacturing sector where jobs are being lost but there has been no real test of his theory in that area.
I am sure the Deputy will agree that is a separate question seeking specific information. However, I will be glad to respond to him when I get the opportunity.
The Taoiseach is caught.
I am not caught. It is a specific question. If the Deputy wants specific information——
Somebody is asking the Taoiseach what he really means and he is not too sure.
It is a specific question. Deputy Dukes is not the adjudicator.
Let us come to Question No. 7.
There are a couple of hundred thousand adjudicators out there watching and listening. They know that everything the Taoiseach has said today is drivel.
In relation to the other aspect——
We have not had one one single answer to any question.
A Ceann Comhairle, would it be possible for Deputy Dukes either to take over your job or desist from interrupting.
We have not had a single answer to any question.
Certain aspects of the manufacturing sector are being looked at in relation to cost competitiveness and how it can be alleviated with a view to trying to help them in their very difficult trading situation.
In other words he does not know.
Question No. 7 please.