Yesterday evening, shortly before the adjournment of the Seanad, I referred to the section in the White Paper dealing with telecommunications in general and to it being an inadequate paragraph, having regard to the great seriousness of the problem. At the simplest level, in terms of explaining what this is all about, I was not referring to the strike or to the great hardship caused to this country and to our development as a result of the appalling strike that took place but rather to the telecommunications situation that existed before that strike and apparently since that strike. To give a tiny example which illustrates the point, last night while attempting to telephone Mayo, I was on the line to the long-distance operator on four or five different occasions, each time without any reply. I was told at that stage by a friend of mine that there is a number of a supervisor in the telephone directory which one should ring. I rang two or three times and it was engaged every time. Finally, after 30 or 40 minutes, I got a long-distance operator. When he tried to get my number in Westport, he informed me that he could not get through. I asked if he could make a connection through Ballina or Castlebar and he then informed me that all lines were out west of Enfield in a line to Donegal and running west towards somewhere like Galway. It seems that this is a most appalling and critical situation.
In an internal sense, we can live with this system because we know ourselves, we know our own people, but when we are so dependent on the development of exports and of our tourist industry for the future welfare of our people and the development of our economy, for the creation of jobs, the phenomenon which I described is completely and utterly unacceptable and intolerable. Heaven knows, if you have somebody considering the prospects of establishing a manufacturing plant here in many cases the decisions in regard to the location of a factory are often made on subjective grounds rather than on objective grounds. The first impressions of the people who come to pave the way are extremely important. If people coming to Ireland from another country had the experience which I had last night and if it was a question of a fifty-fifty choice between plant being established here and going to Britain or somewhere in western Europe, the experience which I described could well be the deciding factor in this country not getting the investment.
I suggest to the Minister that, looking to the future and looking to development, if there are critical elements in our economy which must be put right, this matter has to be given priority. Even if we let other areas suffer as a result, other areas where the Exchequer is concerned, where funding is concerned, where other infrastructure is concerned, even at the risk of borrowing outside the country, this problem must get priority and must be put right.
When we were in Government and the Minister was Dr. Cruise-O'Brien, there was a massive commitment in terms of capital investment. I am trying to say this in the most apolitical sense. There was a substantial increase in the commitment of the Government to the telecommunications section. Apparently, there is a great deal more work to be done. In the most apolitical sense it seems that successive Governments will need to pull out all stops in this area.
In so far as the organisation of the service is concerned, it seems that much is left to be desired. In certain areas where dynamism and flair are required, it may be necessary to build the structure around the format of a semi-State body rather than of a Government Department. If this was the raison d'être in so many other critical areas it seems logical to follow the same line of thinking for this critical service, which is essentially a business and commercial venture. The country would be much better served if telecommunications was either part of a semi-State body or a combination of a semi-State body with elements of the system handled by private enterprise. It is extremely important and it cannot be sufficiently emphasised.
In the briefest terms, page 47 of the White Paper refers to telephones and the development of the service and the fact that so many exchanges are going to go automatic. Our experience at present is that the greatest difficulty is with the automatic exchanges rather than with the old-fashioned manual ones. In this area it is absolutely critical that something is done.
Looking at the White Paper in global terms, the debate in the Seanad has been a mixture of economic wisdom and politics. It seems inevitable that the debate, to a considerable extent, has been political. Without apology, one has to speak politically about this White Paper because its fundamental weakness is that it followed too closely the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. The manifesto was produced as a political document, the basis for the new Government's economic planning. Presumably if a White Paper is presented and developed with the help of the Department then the basis for it must be the manifesto. Unfortunately, I believe many aspects of the manifesto were not in the ultimate national interest. If they are going to be translated into a White Paper and we are expected to objectively justify a certain line of country, we are going to run into problems.
Speaking politically, we have to take exception to much of the tone of the White Paper because it smacks of a type of fairy tale, hinting that through certain years in our development nothing happened and hinting that in a particular month or year or on a particular day all things began to happen for our betterment. We get this in the introduction in section 1 of the White Paper which reads:
During the last few years, the Irish economy has tended to lose momentum. Employment has fallen substantially; living standards for many have stood still or declined; the private sector has cut back in investment; inflation rates have been higher than in any previous post-war period, wage levels have increased....
We go on to read about the pre-election manifesto and that inflation was substantially above the EEC average without objectively pointing out that we are in the sterling area and that being in the sterling area results in a certain spill-over effect from Britain, which I am sure Deputy O'Donoghue will acknowledge, which is, to an extent, outside the control of any Irish Government. This means that attempting to compare our inflation rate with the average rate for the EEC is a bit invalid without pointing out the British factor.
For these reasons it is no harm to point out that before June of last year the country was in an extremely good shape and to refute what the Tánaiste had to say in the Dáil some months ago when he suggested that he inherited the public finances in extremely bad shape.
I am not one who normally likes to look back or to look at the record, but in the context of a debate which is assuming a political turn and in which suggestions are abroad that the country was badly run up to June of last year, it is necessary to put certain matters into perspective. To start with, during that term in Government we ran into the world recession based on the oil factor, which had the most incredible effect on world economies. Sometimes there is an attempt to suggest that it was a phenomenon that was unique to us. It had the most incredible effect. Despite the appalling affect it had on the western world, this country was kept on an even keel through all of that period with substantial progress in critical areas. There are one or two figures to show the extent of the recovery from that crisis and to show the extent of good government in terms of borrowing which, at one point, had been at a height of £679 million and was reduced up to this time last year to about £500 million. It was reduced from a proportion of GNP of 16.9 in 1975 to 11.5 in 1976. Industrial exports increased from 1975 to 1976 from £820 million to £1,167 million, which is an increase of 42 per cent. In the year to February 1977, as against the year to February 1976, total exports increased by 33 per cent. In December of 1976 it was an increase of 77 per cent on the previous year and in volume an increase of 40 per cent. Exports in total, February 1976 against February 1977, were £178 million as against £118 million, an increase of 60 per cent. Through the period of which I speak, Ireland was one of only two of the OECD countries which had an industrial output increase on the 1974 peak before the crisis.
It seems that these figures of a staggering level of development do not begin to equate with the remarks of some Government spokesmen when they suggest that they inherited this country in a bad shape in June of last year and attempt to tell us that the country was on its knees and that it has now got off the ground. The facts are, in simple terms, during an extremely difficult period in Government, massive increases in agricultural exports, industrial exports, massive increases in manufacturing investment showing an inherent confidence in us by outside interests. At times when we are in the welter of political debate, it is interesting to note that through that period, during which there was strong criticism of the Government's capital programme, there was terrific confidence in investment terms by interests from the United States, Europe and from Japan, which is in total contrast with the unwelcome attempt to portray a different position.
We do not want to look back but are forced to do so in a political debate which does less than justice to the shape of this country when it was inherited by the present Government. We have no alternative other than to make these comments.
Last year we were one of only three EEC countries in which there was a drop in unemployment. In all, the country was in good shape, particularly in circumstances which were unique where security was concerned. The massive security issues raised shortly after we went into Government meant a huge increase in funds for defence and security. For example, the Department of Defence requirement rose from an estimate of £14½ million in 1970 to about £70 million, which was an increase of £60 million in 1976. Against this background and all of these problems there was good government. For that reason we have to reject the political notes and the suggestions to which I referred.
In so far as the details are concerned, we hope that there will be the level of development which the Government want to achieve. They will have the full support of this side of the House for practical measures to achieve this development. We are not going to get into a debate on the philosophy of development or the sector through which we are going to achieve it. We are not going to talk about private enterprise, or the exclusion of it or of public enterprise. We have the blessing of a mixed economy and the approach to development has been pragmatic. It is an area where pragmatism is necessary and where pragmatism should continue to be the rule of the day. Where private enterprise is prepared to take up the options and to do in economic terms the job that needs to be done with the resources that we have, then it is the function of private enterprise to do so.
We have a tremendous range of incentives for development in terms of borrowing facilities, budgetary policy, industrial policy in terms of capital grants. Where private enterprise is not taking up the options in areas where it seems the national interest is being neglected, I for one am all for the State getting involved to get the push on. A pragmatic approach is necessary. Any commonsense approach to development to create the jobs that we need will have my full support.
Whilst we like to be optimistic and whilst it is good to be bullish—one has to be inherently optimistic if one wants to make progress—the White Paper may run into problems in that its optimism may not be realised. It has not spelt out sufficiently well the conditions which will be necessary to achieve the objectives. In some areas where it attempts to forecast, it is on extremely thin ground. For example when we talk about rates of inflation we are at present fortunate in that the rate of inflation is at a relatively satisfactory level in comparison with past years. Again in this area, if we speak politically—there were substantial reductions around the middle of last year—I find it a little difficult to accept and I do not know what the basis is on which the Minister has worked, to talk about inflation projections, for example, to the end of 1979 of a level of 5 per cent, to the end of 1980 of a level of 5 per cent. I hope to God he is right. I would love to see an inflation rate of 5 per cent, or 3 per cent or 2 per cent but my experience suggests to me that he may well be wrong.
I say that for a number of different reasons. To start with, an island such as ours, with an open economy, is so dependent on other countries. The factor of our inter-dependence is so overwhelming today that many of the factors which will determine our inflation rate will not be internal; they are going to be external. In so far as we can influence them, good luck to the Minister. I hope that policy works as far as we can influence the figures. But there are these external factors, external factors to do with imports, external factors to do with EEC policy, external factors, which I pointed out before, having to do with the fact that we are in the sterling area which, on balance, is the right policy at least for the time being. But even though it may be the right policy there is this drag effect again outside over which no Government of this Country will have control. Should conditions turn sour in Britain, or should the inflation rate start increasing again—and indeed, in recent weeks there are suggestions that inflation is increasing already and could increase over the next few months—then the spill-over effect here will be substantial. This has to be said.
Additionally, there is another factor of inflation which is supposedly internal, over which, in theory, we may have control but over which in effect we have no control. I am talking about agricultural policy under the common agricultural policy of the EEC. As a country with a huge proportion of its workforce and people engaged in farming and agriculture, naturally any policy of food support, subsidisation, at the highest possible level within the EEC is good for this country and must be supported by successive Governments. Having said that, where we get major benefits in price reviews in the EEC annually, the effect of that is a substantial increase for the farming community, which we support completely. One of the net effects of this increase is that whilst it is certainly to the benefit of the farming community and to the overall benefit of this country—because of the huge proportion of farmers—it is an inflationary pressure, in that in urban areas the effects of food prices are going to be felt. Therefore, it could be termed a part of internal inflation but in effect it is an outside pressure through EEC policy which, of course, we support. I quibble with being optimistic to the extent of suggesting 5 per cent inflation rate in 1979 and 1980. I am a Jekyll and Hyde on this issue. I hope the Minister is right, I hope the Government is right but frankly I cannot see a realistic basis for this assumption.
In the area of financing and balance of payments deficits I remember a period through the oil crisis and the economic crisis that rent Western Europe and the developed world. I remember successive debates in the Dáil at that time, when the Government borrowed substantially outside this country for obvious very good reasons. We were berated by the then Opposition for our profligate spending and borrowing and about the evils of foreign borrowing. It seems a little bit odd that when we are now on a relatively even keel again, when the crisis is over—and one adopts certain measures in crisis situations entirely different from those which would be applied in normal times, we are finding that, in terms of finance, if there is to be consistency amongst spokesmen of the present Government we are simply running wild; we are talking about a current deficit balance of payments in 1977 of £200 million, 4 per cent of GNP rising to over £500 million in 1980, 6¼ per cent of GNP, to which Senator Whitaker referred in his speech on the economy addressing himself to this paper. Additionally, we are talking of a borrowing requirement of over £800 million; current deficit double the £200 million of 1977. We had more recently an admission by the Taoiseach of the risks of borrowing, the necessity to control the balance of payments. There is apparently now a change in attitude which frankly I welcome because change if it is good is desirable despite past policy. There is apparently now an admission that spending must be contained. Certainly we are all for spending in the productive sectors of this economy, in the prime productive centres of agriculture, industry, tourism, resource development, mining, in all of these areas. But when we get into areas other than the productive ones if we are going to push ourselves to fuel our economy by borrowing outside this country and within the country for non-productive purposes we are going the wrong way about running this country.
I support Senator Whitaker in his views about unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and what is popularly known in this country as the dole. I will try to be non-political in airing my views about this, which I aired successive times in the Dáil when I was a Member of it when my party was involved in government. It seems to me criminal that with such a large number of people unemployed in the country, and having regard to the backwardness of this country in infrastructural development—in roads, in sewerage schemes, in minor drainage relief schemes, in roads of different categories, in bog development, the necessity of building roads into bogs—that against a background such as that, with such a retarded level of development, especially in many parts of rural Ireland, that we have this incredible phenomenon of huge numbers of people nominally on an unemployed list drawing State benefits every week and living in the centre of country where work can be done but is not being done, where the energy and the manpower is there to do it. I have not seen a Government in this country yet tackle this issue head-on. It may be for political reasons; it may be fear, a natural fear that politically it would be unpopular and that it might lead to a great deal of loss of favour politically. I do not accept this for one minute. My views are very simple on this. Certainly we have a country with a high level of unemployment. Social assistance is necessary of course in an enlightened state. I support very fully the payments to these people who do not have work. But they are maligned to far too great an extent, in the sense that the people who have not examined this issue think that people such as these are simply lazy people who have no interest in working. I know from my own experience living where I live in Mayo, active on the western seaboard and generally in the west, that nothing could be further from the truth. It has been our experience, and the experience of many others involved in the west, that if there is the least opportunity of a decent job, with a decent return, with a reasonably human wage people will work and will work extremely well. We have the anomaly that from areas of Mayo people, in some cases, might not work very hard when they are there because their land might be limited to ten acres or 15 acres and there is not the incentive to do anything, but many of these people when they go to Peterborough in England to work at the beet, or when they go down to Cork to work at the beet, or when they go to Scotland, or to the buildings in England, will work as well as anybody in this world. They are being most unfairly criticised in many cases.
A large measure of the blame for what is happening must be put at the feet of the Government. Lest the Minister might think I am being narrow I am not talking about the present Government; I am talking about successive Governments and successive administrations in this country. If there is this fear, from a political or a voting point of view that nothing can be done and if this is the reason, it is not good enough. But it seems to me that we can only begin to malign these people and we can only begin to speak critically of them if government, in the broadest sense has developed work schemes, enlightened work schemes, under which the bogs will be drained, the roads will be opened up, the smaller roads will be repaired, under which simple little piers and certain amenities are built under a system where what is paid out in vast sums by the State at present is merely supplemented by perhaps 50 per cent or 100 per cent to get an enormous return in benefit for the capital expended.
Of course, in so far as the spirit of man is concerned, there is going to be a most remarkable achievement because, instead of the appalling factor of dole—where there is a married man with five or six children living in poor circumstances, drawing his money every week; the shame of many proud people going back to their children because they do not have work and because they cannot draw money for a decent day's work is the most appalling thing—the lifting of the spirit of people would be a major effect of this. I would urge the Minister, in the strongest possible terms—and if he can persuade his colleagues I would be the first to give him the credit for doing so—that it is an area crying out for justice and leadership. The blame does not lie with these people in crying out for government. It seems to me that, in the present circumstances—with the relative crisis we have here with the unemployment register, the school-leavers and all that goes with them—this is an area where there is immense scope which will catch our people's enthusiasm in the broader sense, if implemented. I would direct the Minister to look at this more closely.
Again if I could speak regionally, we note that this plan is also the basis officially to meet the country's obligations under the EEC Regulation 724/75 establishing a European Regional Development Fund. This is the formal statement on which Ireland will be paid. One of the objections I have to the plan—and it might be argued that it is not the function of the plan to speak along the lines I would like to see it speaking—is entirely national; there is not any attempt to speak seriously about regional issues or policy. If this White Paper is the basis for this country's regional policy, as seen by the EEC, it is a non-entity because there is not the beginning of a regional policy contained withing the document, and I find that unsatisfactory.
Many years ago when the report on full employment was issued about which there was a great deal of debate in the country at the time, is so far as the west was concerned, one of the great weaknesses in that report was the fact that it spoke in a total macro-sense. There was no attempt made to look at regional issues or to suggest where jobs were going to be created, where they were going to be lost; where unemployment was going to be high or where it was going to be minimal. In that sense it did not allow for the mobility of people or whether or not people in Mayo or Sligo would have to emigrate to Cork or to Dublin for work, or indeed outside this country. It spoke entirely globally without any attempt to look at the regional issues. The result was that we had this academic debate on full employment, looking at an issue entirely nationally, when we had festering sores within the country, particularly west of the Shannon, in three or four counties, with the most appalling and frightening levels of emigration throughout this period when we spoke nationally without attempting to quantify the regions. We need to do more. I do not know whether the Green Paper will refer to such regional issues but certainly if this White Paper is the basis of a regional policy it is a non-issue.
The Department of the Public Service, when we were in government, was working on the Government's decision, in principle, to establish a western development board, a decision which has been rescinded by the present Government. But, in addition to looking at and teasing out the issues concerned with the development of this board and the necessary negotiations between all the Departments of this State, it was concerned also with the decision of the Government to look at the sub-national regional needs of the entire country, namely, regional policy at a fundamental level, looking at the country in its entirety rather than simply looking at the west and south-east issues, south-west the midlands, the north-west, west and Dublin. We will have to develop certain autonomous centres within the regions of this country if there is to be a true regional policy because what purports to be a regional policy at present and for a number of years has been a misnomer. We have had a situation in which many semi-State bodies are involved regionally but not in the truest regional sense. What we have is merely a number of Government Departments and semi-State bodies, with headquarters in the city and with branch offices in various towns or cities throughout the country. They have each gone their own way with what they define as their regional policy and they have each designated their regions. The single most difficult issue is the fact that there is an overlapping of their boundaries. Where Bord Fáilte goes into one region linking two or three counties, the IDA goes somewhere else, regional education goes somewhere else, technological education, tourist regions, there is this appalling overlapping. The result of it is that to the man living in Roscommon, or living in West Cork, he does not have this identity with the region because in some cases his house might be in about five different regions of different bodies and different organisations. I am convinced that the policy we had adopted, if implemented—under which four or five counties in the instance we were speaking of, and we were speaking of Connacht and Donegal, that the linking of these together and the insisting that all semi-State bodies involved in this region harmonise their boundaries, to start with, giving these major semi-State bodies representation on the boards to be established linking it all together for political effect and for the cutting out of red tape by making it responsible to a Minister—would have been an excellent development.
I would like to refer to the second section that was being looked at in the Department of the Public Service. This was looking not just at the western development board issue but at what was termed the sub-national regional needs of the country. To the best of my knowledge the western development board idea has been scrapped but the other one has not been. I attempted to get information from the Department a couple of months ago. I was told it was being considered but that no decision had been made whether to continue this investigation into sub-national regional needs or whether to scrap it. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on Government views in this regional area. Frankly, I am not concerned with labels or names whether the name of the body to be established in my part of the country is the western development board—call it what you will—if the present Government wants a different name if we can work fundamentally towards the development of an autonomous structure under which much of the power and the decision-making concerning the regions, subject to suitable guidelines, and responsible to a Government Minister, particularly necessary, so that the Government of the day is at least in full control of the position, that, to me, is the simplest and best model. Starting west of the Shannon is very sensible because, if one looks at this country in the broadest of terms, whilst we have had major developments in recent years, whilst we have had substantial increases in the level of agricultural income in so many other ways, the west is still that part of this country which is way behind in its level of development and in its per capita income.
Additionally, when we joined the EEC, regional policy was seen to be the instrument by which the west could be helped to the greatest extent possible. Regional policy has not been at all what had been expected; it is but a fraction of what had been expected in this area for so many factors, of which we are aware. When we talk to EEC people about regional policy and of our dissatisfaction they say to us: yes, regional policy may not be funded all that well but at least the common agricultural policy is really an instrument of regional policy. But the weakness in common agricultural policy, being an instrument of regional policy, is that the spread is not going into the right places. I am all for the common agricultural policy and for the major extent of subsidisation of our farmers of any size, type or description. I am all for massive support in the milk areas but the facts of life are that if one looks at one's common agricultural policy, at where the funds coming from the EEC are going one finds they are going, to a very large extent, into the Golden Vale, into the south-east, into the wealthiest farmlands in the country for reasons that have to do with productivity, farm size, traditions and many other factors. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am completely in favour of such subsidisation and of the subsidies going into the areas where the extensive farming is done. At the same time I want to say that suggestions that the common agricultural policy is an instrument of regional policy is unacceptable.
Looking at Connacht again, at counties such as Donegal, parts of Cavan and Longford, the proportion of common agricultural policy funding going into these places is minimal compared to the rest of the country. The regional policy commitment has been unsatisfactory. I merely want to point out that despite the better developments in the west in recent years, despite the increase in agricultural income, despite the fact that many international companies of repute, looking objectively at this country, consider the west the best place for this development at present, despite all these factors, we started from an extremely low base and there are still many critical problems and vast infrastructural hold-ups. In County Mayo there are still vast numbers of miles of untarred roads. Therefore, the west does need special treatment.
Looking at a regional policy or the development of regional units around this country, it seems to me that the first model which should be developed is the west. If you start there, you can then begin to model the rest of the country when you look at the administrative procedures, how they have worked or have not worked. That is important.
I should like to compliment the Taoiseach on his recent visit to the United States. It relates to the economy and to this topic for so many different reasons. Historically, one of the flaws in national development has been that we did not utilise our links in the United States to a fraction of the extent to which we might have done to our betterment. We have had this incredible phenomenon of a country of 3,000,000 people which has the most immense influence in the United States of America, an influence that runs through the political structures, business community, that runs through the sentiment and the myths of all people. We have this most unusual position in which people of all hues, colours, religions and races like to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day. It seems to me that we have not capitalised on it sufficiently. Indeed, in the early stages of industrial development here it was neglected to the most appalling extent. When governments here were claiming credit for the work they were doing the marketing job was not being done. During the vast pouring of US funds into industrial investment in Europe in the fifties we had this incredible situation in which the Irish Government, through the Irish Industrial Development Authority, had one office only originally in the entire United States. This was during an era when a magnificent job was being done by the British consuls throughout the American Continent and which resulted in major developments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and on the mainland of Britain, at a time when we did not get our share of it. It is a fact of life. However, I think the Taoiseach is very aware of the American dimension. Obviously he has got the ear of people like "Tip" O'Neill, Kennedy and others. It seems to me, from reading the reports, that he did an excellent job in the interests of this country when he was there last week. It is particularly important that he continues to press US Government authorities in so far as fiscal policy in the United States taxation policy is concerned where American company profits are concerned. Having regard to the huge level of investment in this country, in fact, the unhealthy huge proportion of investment coming in from the United States any dramatic changes in American taxation policy could have similarly dramatic effects, in a downward sense, on the level of American investment here.
We are with the Taoiseach completely of course, in so far as the Northern issue is concerned. It is very significant that through the work of people like John Hume in particular, and others politically, including the Leader of my own party, that there is today—principally through the influencing of the major Irish-American political figures and their briefing in a proper sense on the issue—a much greater acceptance within the United States, a much greater awareness of the consensus there is politically within this country on the Northern Ireland issue. This is most welcome and needs to continue to be stressed.
I note the White Paper's remarks on borrowing and the fact that borrowing will have to be reduced 10.5 per cent of GNP in 1979 and 8 per cent in 1980. I support the necessity for the reduction in borrowing but against a background of inflated hopes and inflated spending it will be rather difficult.
Reverting to the EEC and the question of negotiations with Greece, Portugal and Spain, which is relevant to this economy because of the possible dangers to the country, I welcome the apparent attitude within the Department of Foreign Affairs that we need to be very wary where the admission of Greece, Portugal and Spain is concerned. In a political sense, in terms of European unity and in the sense that the weak democracies in these countries can be supported through involvement in the EEC, I fully support their entry. But the major concern of this country has to be that we are, of the Nine, the least-developed at present, among some of the wealthiest countries in the world and the introduction of Greece, Portugal and Spain—with the level of underdevelopment in their economies, with the agricultural nature of many of their economies and their lack of infrastructural development—will put immense pressures on the sources of funds through which we have been relatively successful, through the social area, through the common agricultural policy and regional policy. We have been dissatisfied with regional policy until now. Unless there is going to be a major commitment by the Germans, French and English in areas such as this there are considerable risks to this country in so far as their entry is concerned. I support the Government in looking at this very closely to see that our interests are protected.
I also support the Government in their attempt to get people to buy Irish because the fuelling of our economy at present and the dangers that this will lead to colossal increases in imports is very disturbing. Despite the attempts made by this and the last Government to get people to buy Irish goods the campaign is not working to the extent that it should be working. There is a lack of the right spirit in certain trading quarters where, in some circumstances, it is very difficult even to buy Irish goods if you try to do so. In some cases, at store level, not enough practical patriotism is being shown. I know instances of people going into shops in certain areas of activity where frankly it is difficult to get Irish-made goods. This should not be the case. Better practical patriotism in this area should be expected if there is any spirit in this country. It is easy to blame the general public. But, in the first instance, if they cannot even be shown what is made in this country, even in comparison with foreign goods, they can hardly be expected to buy them. It is appalling that, in so many circumstances, the choice in so many stores is limited to foreign goods without Irish goods being shown even in parallel with these others. It is quite unacceptable.
Finally, when all is said and done, whether it be this Government, the last or any government, unless we develop national traits of discipline, hard work and a little bit more frugality we are not going to succeed. If we look at the Japanese miracle we find that it is not really a miracle. What happened in Japan in recent years has been that while we have been pursuing a type of leisure society they have not budged since World War II, and they are still working in Japan today, in many cases, six days a week or, at the very least, five-and-a-half days a week, and they are being modest in their demands. Unless there is that type of acceptance of that situation in this country we are going to face continuing difficulties.
With the vast numbers who will leave our schools this summer and who will have to face a critical situation, while the Government may speak about job creation the unemployment list is not being reduced to the extent to which it might have been expected. At 1 July last year the live register stood at 109,000. At the moment it is about 104,000, 5,000 less a year later, which is not living up to the promises of the Government. But in addition to that we are on the brink of vast numbers of young people leaving school, and of the obvious danger of disillusionment and sadness that it will bring. The Government may need to think a bit further in terms of employing people by introducing even some type of military service—"military service" might be too strong a word to use, perhaps some type of adventure service.
To keep up the spirit of our young people in particular and to stop disillusionment setting in, some radical measures in that area would be welcome. They would certainly have my support.
