Appropriation Act, 1983: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann notes the supply services and purposes to which sums have been appropriated in the Appropriation Act, 1983.

—(Professor Dooge).

Mr. Smith

Last night in a very brief introduction to what I had to say in relation to this Act, I was dealing with the question of the delay in producing audited accounts of the Departments and indeed the various local authorities, county councils and health boards around the country. This leaves people in the position that they are dealing with matters that took place some couple of years previously and, therefore, make it infinitely more difficult to evaluate and sometimes to eradicate wasteful expenditure.

All contributors to this debate have singled out public expenditure as an area for much closer scrutiny for the future and therefore we must have the opportunity to examine in detail matters which take place on a regular basis.

To think that we can deal with this problem on the basis of reports being presented to us some years after actions take place is very regrettable. That is why we have had, as was mentioned yesterday, expenditure on the leasing of office blocks where the occupants for whom these offices were originally intended did not take up occupation for as many as three years. It is economic suicide to try to stand over that kind of delay in the context of our difficult economic problems.

Reference was also made to the disease eradication programme and I have the Comprehensive Public Expenditure Programmes which the Minister produced last year. On page 71, dealing with the bovine TB eradication scheme, it states—

Animal incidence which stood at 17% in the 1950's was reduced to 0.2%, with herd incidence standing at 2.76% at the end of the last yearly round of testing. However, virtually no progress has been made in recent years. Accordingly, additional measures have been introduced this year and further measures are under consideration, with a view to achieving greater cost effectiveness and combating abuses and illegalities.

It is fairly clear from what has been said about this programme and what is known about it in recent times that it is, regrettably, a national scandal. For the farmers concerned, and particularly for the vast majority of those who have tried diligently to co-operate with this scheme since its inception, it is a major disappointment and has cost the farming community as well as the taxpayer very considerable amounts. It is, therefore, very regrettable that the Minister has chosen to cut back on the intensification of this eradication scheme. I am not asking him directly to spend more State money on the scheme. I have always accepted that farmers should contribute to it and they have done so in the past.

The necessity to impose levies for the eradication of this scheme is essential. However, we have the figures before us to indicate that since 1966 the lowering of the incidence of this disease has been infinitesimal and we are, therefore, faced with continuing the kind of half-hearted effort that has been part and parcel of that programme in recent times. The investment of that money at this time is actually a waste of very scarce national resources.

It is well known that this bug is far tougher to eradicate completely than the brucella. Fantastic progress has been made in terms of the eradication of brucellosis but unfortunately this final step in eradicating TB has been a major stumbling block. Various reasons have been given for this but we have not got down to researching the real problem as far as this eradication scheme is concerned. We will have herds this year that will not have any test at all. We have evidence regarding water supplies and different other matters where local veterinary personnel have indicated to the Department that they consider that these are adding to an already difficult problem and yet there is no intensification, no research, no scientifically based programmes to try once and for all to rid the country of this disease. We continue to deal with it in a piecemeal, half-hearted way. It is no wonder that it is becoming a matter of public debate and of concern and, indeed, embarrassment to many people who are directly involved in the implementation of the scheme. I share the worry of the veterinary profession, particularly as enunciated by one of their members representing the Department of Agriculture last evening, when he said he was disappointed that they did not have the resources available to them to combat this problem in the way that they should.

In this comprehensive public expenditure programme, I want to refer to the fact that 96 per cent of passenger traffic in this country is carried on our roads. Almost 90 per cent of freight traffic is carried on our roads and yet the investment in our roads is less than the estimate, or the grant to CIE. These percentages illustrate the magnitude of the problem before us. Córas Iompair Éireann have available to them a sum of money greater than the State is providing on our roads as they carry 4 per cent of passenger traffic and less than 10 per cent of freight.

In relation to receipts from road taxation generally, we spend a paltry 25 per cent of those receipts on road improvements compared with European countries, where the average expenditure is 56 per cent of road taxation, or America where almost 100 per cent of road taxation is spent. We have a very difficult problem ahead of us. I am not proposing that the State should involve itself in increasing direct expenditure on roads completely from its own resources. In recent years efforts have been made to try to pump in private finance and toll roads and bridges have been considered. To tackle this problem we will have to involve private finance and try to generate and make available more finance, because many of our roads are disintegrating. They are creating bottleneck problems for the development of commerce here and for our exports.

In the past two years, with the development of the Naas by-pass, we have shown what is possible in that regard but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Most people involved in commerce point to the additional burden of transport because of the bottleneck problems which involve accidents, damage to vehicles and costs of hospitalisation. A significant percentage of accidents are caused by bad road surfaces which are not capable of taking the axle weight of many vehicles. I would ask the Minister of State and the Government to ensure, before this network disintegrates before our eyes, that additional funds are made available. Some kind of tax incentive should be devised which would enable the Government to have available to them private finance for this purpose. It is fair to admit that in the current economic strictures we are not going to have available to us directly from State funds adequate finance for this purpose. Huge amounts of money will be necessary. When we note the statistics which indicate the percentage of traffic carried by our road network and then compare the amounts of money spent on the road network with the amount made available to CIE, it is quite clear that much more investment in that area is required.

The fundamental and underlying problems in our economy still remain despite optimistic reports in our newspapers. I hope more of these reports will be forthcoming, because the whole country needs an injection of confidence to grapple with its very serious problems. However, even with these partly optimistic reports, there are still over 208,000 people in our dole queues. There are five times that number under 14 years of age who will be coming on the employment market in the near future. Every 100 people working are expected to carry 200 others whether on social welfare benefits, young people still at school, people who are ill or in hospital. With the lowering base for taxable income, the increasing number in our dole queues, the growing population compared with our European partners and the fact that any improvement in world trade will, because of those reasons be slower to combat our problems, it is easy to understand why there is such an outcry against the levels of taxation both from employers and employees. An effort must be made to change our tax system in order that the load which is by any standards — European or world — very substantial is more fairly distributed. I am not going to bore the House with statistics. They are readily available to anybody who wants to read them. The percentage of people employed in the upper tax net is ten times greater than in most other developing countries. The Minister, undoubtedly, has to live within constraints because, as I have indicated already, for every 100 people employed there are 200 literally depending on them. That lowering base could on the Government's own estimate be even worse at the end of this year, because provision in these estimates caters for an increase of an additional 25,000 to 30,000 people coming on the dole queue this year. Whatever constraints are on the Minister we would all urge him to try to make a start. It may not be very significant in the context of our difficulties, but he should start on the road to making a radical change in our tax system which will allow people a greater disposable income, but, more importantly, to try to get a greater commitment from the employers and the workforce generally towards the greater development of our country.

There are those in society who have no chance of getting a job, who do not know what it is like to go to bed tired at night because they have been working, who cannot look forward to the following day and anything positive to do and who may be faced with looking at members of their families following down the same tunnel with no light at the end of it. That is the greatest problem facing us at the moment. It is far beyond politics. It may be as a result of some political failure, but now that it has happened there is no room for politicking between major parties. It is an area where the greatest national concerted effort should be put together in a dynamic effort to try to cope with this problem in a new way.

It is all right to have a target for full employment but it is false to indicate that we can have full employment in the near future. You can stretch your imagination as much as you like, let this economy improve on the basis of the Central Bank report, let national income increase by the percentage points that they indicate it will but they still say unemployment will continue to rise this year. Many of the old ways of approaching this problem are not going to be successful. We are not going to be able to find additional jobs in the public sector because the percentage of our national cake which has already been devoted to that sector is, by any standards, too great and has to be reduced. Therefore, we have to look to the manufacturing and the processing sectors in a new way. I have said here before, and other speakers have also said it here and in other places, that the food sector is not going to produce all the solutions, but for God's sake let us try to look at it and find some other way of increasing jobs other than on the primary processing on which we have concentrated all our efforts up to now.

We import £800 million worth of foodstuffs annually. It is reasonable to say that half of it could be substituted by home products. Many jobs are involved in £400 million worth of produce.

We have concentrated on the primary producing sector. The problems of seasonality of supplies, downstream processing and added value have been neglected. I am sorry to say that in our programme again this year no great emphasis is placed on, and no extra funds are being made available for the vital research and development that have to take place in order to develop new products and in added value to existing downstream processing for the future. We do not have the research and development or the investment that our cooperatives and our major food processing concerns in the country have. Research and development are only slightly over one-half per cent of their total output. We sometimes tend to ignore the value of the home market. Other countries — far distant from here — have sought to penetrate our market. They have seen it is worthwhile to come thousands of miles with their products into our home market.

As well as looking for exports — we export about 70 per cent of what we produce — we cannot neglect the possibilities which are undoubtedly on the home market for import substitution. It is claimed that 96 per cent of the product is produced locally. We have to import raw materials from other countries for most of our manufacturing. Currency fluctuations and other factors, over which we have no control, can increase the cost of raw material overnight. In the manufacturing area about 16 per cent of the raw material is produced in this country. On average we are importing more than three quarters of what we require for a big proportion of our manufacturing units, yet we still try to make that profitable and against a lot of odds manufacturing output increased this year.

Córas Tráchtála, the workers, the trade unions and everybody involved in this effort during this economic recession are to be congratulated. We have been able to do that in the existing climate. Yet as far as our natural resources are concerned, where our own basic raw materials are concerned, we can produce 96 per cent of what we require for most of these products which are being produced elsewhere and transported and sold here. We neglect to do the fundamental research and development which needs to be done if we are going to find many more jobs in that area. I am not saying that it is going to solve all of our problems, but it is the effort that we make in a variety of areas which will contribute to the fundamental, underlying and desperate need to grapple with our unemployment problem.

We can build more jails, we can increase our prison space, we can have more courts, we can send more trainees to Templemore, all of these help in their own way, but they are trying to cure a problem that is already there and they do not deal with the fundamental, underlying necessity that people have to use their energies in gainful employment. Until we try to deal with that problem, the expenditure on social welfare, and in many of these non-wealth producing areas, essential as they are, are not going to solve the problem.

Figures have been trotted out — 89,000 homes robbed last year and those figures are estimated by the Garda authorities to increase by 20 per cent this year. When canvassing in Dublin Central, people would not open the door to us after 8 o'clock in the evening. These are features of Irish society. I am a member of the Mid-Western Health Board. There are 500 children on our books in that area for non-accidental injury. There are symptoms all around us of a society and a social order that are breaking down. We have fabulous sums of money available to us — overnight if you like — to try to deal with drugs, security, prison space and courts. What have we available to us to try to motivate people to do more research into what we can do ourselves? We walk down supermarket aisles and we see on the shelves the simplest of products coming from far-Eastern countries and nearer places. Heaven knows, we have all said to ourselves that it should be possible to produce those at home, but we have not succeeded in doing it. It is about time that we made that change. I say this in all sincerity as a politician to this Government. We are faced with having to come forward with new ways of dealing with that problem. We cannot see a society grow sick because so many channels are open to people who do not have the normal expectation of employment available to them.

It is possible to notice a drift away from the political system as we know it. Many politicians are obviously worried by the attitude of the public generally to politics and indeed to politicians. Therefore, in our interest — but more importantly in the national interest — we have to be seen to be closer to these problems than we are. The crossfire and the "opportunity knocks" type of attitude which is sometimes taken up are all right in the heat of the battle, but many people looking for solutions are growing more apathetic when they see this kind of posturing which does nothing to get closer to the deep-rooted problems that affect our society today.

I would like to ask the Government to consider having a single Department to find out what is wrong with our system of food production. At farm level there is the seasonal problem to battle with and at co-operative level there are problems of development, research, consumer market orientated products and so on. We cannot afford to waste much more time trying to deal with that matter. If one looks at our food imports, one will notice that our imports of meat and meat preparations have doubled since 1977. That is just one example but there are many other statistics available which indicate that there is a growing opportunity for outside interests to penetrate our markets. We cannot rely on spasmodic "Buy Irish" campaigns which peter out after a few weeks but must get down to the real problem. We must be competitive; we must have new products; we cannot say the old ways will do; we must give the consumer what he wants. We are not going to be able to do that in all areas, but we should look at the areas where we have the capacity, find out what can be done and then come forward with new solutions.

In the public capital programme reference is made to the farm modernisation scheme. Just before Christmas we had a song and dance about the reintroduction of this scheme. No sooner was the scheme reintroduced than we had a statement from the bureaucrats in Brussels that they were abandoning certain sections of that scheme. This will invitably mean that about half of what our Government had proposed for this year cannot be implemented. I understand that about half of that was proposed was to be geared towards the dairy sector and that the 50 per cent proportion of those grants which was normally paid by the EEC would not be possible under the new régime in Brussels. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will be making up the difference or whether this section of the scheme, which has only been reintroduced, has been abandoned.

I ask for this information because the majority of farmers involved in the farm modernisation scheme are in the dairy sector. The majority of those who want to be involved in the scheme are the smaller to medium-sized farmers who could not afford to do this work earlier. I would like to know if the restriction on the scheme is going to be imposed on this band of farmers who have come late into the modernisation stream, who had not been using the technical and scientific services that are available from the Department of Agriculture through ACOT and An Foras Talúntais, but, who now find themselves in a position to carry out modern development, and who, inevitably, unless they are grant-aided will be unable to meet all the costs.

This scheme has been misinterpreted by the media and by people outside agriculture because no money is paid until schemes are properly designed and completed. Off-farm employment is created in many of the service areas, in particular the sand, gravel, cement, timber and hardware industries. We have seen Kellys of Portlaoise and a number of other companies in the steel area go to the wall. One of the reasons for this has been the abandoning of that scheme because many companies depended on farm development for their existence. Not only had this scheme the advantage in the preparation of in-winter facilities, particularly land improvement, for small and medium-sized farmers who have not developed their holdings up to now, but it also had employment potential which is so badly needed in many rural and outlying areas that have little or no other prospects of alternative employment. I ask the Minister to say whether the Government will be making up the difference, or what is the position arising from a decision which has been taken in Brussels with regard to one side of the scheme.

I would also like the Minister to ensure that during the negotiations this year both the AI subsidy, which has been of immense benefit to AI societies around the country, and the lime subsidy, are maintained. These schemes do not cost the Exchequer very much but their implementation has a major psychological effect. A couple of years ago, An Foras Talúntais indicated that in order to have the Ph in our soil at proper levels the normal expected usage of lime would be two million tonnes a year. We saw that figure drop as low as .7 million tonnes, which is a little over one-third of the normal requirement if we are to get land to full production. Two years after the implementation of this scheme in 1981, the annual output has increased to 1.8 tonnes, almost the normal requirement. All the people involved in the lime industry and in agri-business are satisfied that the stimulus the subsidy gave was an important factor. I do not have the exact cost — it is not more than £4 or £5 million — but the advantage in employment terms and in keeping our land at the proper fertility level is immense.

The same would apply with regard to the AI subsidies. If we want to improve the quality of our stock, have the proper progeny testing and increase our milk yields, the best progeny tested bulls must be available. The AI subsidy has been instrumental in halting the decline of AI and in stimulating the increased national growth of between 10 and 12 per cent. Again, I ask the Minister to ensure that the provision of these services is maintained this year.

I do not like to be too parochial, but I would like to make a plea for a young Nenagh committee dealing with children at risk, which was established last year, and is chaired by the local CEO. There is a population of 6,000 in that area and it is said that as many as 36 young people have had brushes with the law. They have come up with a scheme which arranged employment opportunities and training for these young people, together with other young people in the area who were at risk. Employers, having seen how this scheme operates for 12 months, would then be in a position to employ the young people. This is a very worthwhile scheme arranged through the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO. Unfortunately a letter received last week indicated to the committee that it may have to be abandoned. Since this is of particular concern to the Minister of State present, I would ask him to ensure that there is no fobbing off of this committee, because this is a very well organised and very worthwhile scheme, and at a time when there is available considerable funds for such a scheme, I would ask the Minister to ensure that sanction is granted quickly to this committee to proceed with that scheme.

Mr. Ferris

I would like to congratulate Senator Smith on his very reasoned contribution. The figures provided are so spectacular and so staggering that the ordinary man in the street finds it impossible to comprehend the totality of the cost of running the country. Yesterday the Minister for Finance, when speaking on this motion, talked about figures in the region of £10 billion. Nobody comprehends how it costs so much money for a country to survive. Looking at the appropriation accounts, local representatives find it very difficult to understand just how much it costs to run the country. Yesterday the Minister said he was gratified that by his efforts the Government had achieved some semblance of reality as to how they collected revenue, who was eligible to pay this money and how the Government spent it. Unlike previous administrations which had very large deficits, for the first time in many years this Government are almost on target and have brought inflation down to manageable proportions and we hope inflation will continue to fall. Economists, those involved in industry, agriculture, employment and job creation, complain about the inflation rate which makes it impossible for us to compete with other European nations, with America and so on, who are fortunate enough to have their inflation rates running at 50 per cent lower than ours.

It can be said that Britain have been successful because they have reduced their inflation rate to 4 per cent or 5 per cent, but at what cost? If one is interested only in balancing the books, one can run into endless problems, particularly in the employment area. We all have a responsibility to ensure that job creation is our first priority. I am not suggesting that it is the responsibility of a government to employ everybody because that would be socially unacceptable and economically indefensible. When formulating budget policy we have a responsibility to ensure that there is an incentive for people to create productive employment. In the past the State increased employment in the public service, but economists do not regard that as productive employment because it does not generate wealth, although it provides a service.

This morning the Central Bank issued a report which I found very heartening. They said the economy is picking up and that there will be an improvement in growth rate. Today we also had a tragedy in Cork where Fords are closing down. We are no longer able to compete on the international market. This raises the question of whether the lowering of our tariff barriers and the opening of our markets to all and sundry since our entry into the EEC has been to our advantage. On paper we appeared to be net beneficiaries because of our membership of the EEC, particularly in the area of agriculture, but the advantages we gained from our entry are negligible when we take into consideration the problems that have arisen for our traditional industries which have been subjected to outside competition for which they were not prepared. Fords of Cork are a typical example. It is a tragedy for that city, which suffered other losses, to be faced with a further 800 people out of work because factories in Belgium or Britain were more competitive. The decision to close appears to have been made at local level but the Minister will be in touch with the parent company and will try to ensure that Fords will not pull out of this country. During the period of our accession to Europe concessions were afforded to that industry. While one can balance the books and reduce inflation, if that is done at the expense of jobs, the social consequences should be looked at and with particular consideration being given to employment for young people.

I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Deputy G. Birmingham, here today. He had responsibility for youth employment and must have got a great deal of satisfaction from the schemes suggested by young people — with the help of local authorities, county development officers, AnCO and other agencies and the Department of Education — for creating jobs for small groups of young people and proving that they can produce commodities which are required in their localities. That is a very welcome step. In the past incentives were given only to the private sector to set up firms in many areas. Many of us agreed at the time that the Government could not create all employment, but it was always agreed that Government policy should stimulate employment. But the private sector did not meet the challenge. Because of tax incentives many private firms set up new businesses but within months they came back to the Government saying it was their job to make profits, and it was the Government's job to create employment. If that is the attitude of the private sector, I can see no future for the country. Everybody, including the private sector, has a responsibility to create productive employment, particularly in the manufacturing area.

Agriculture is very important because it can make a major contribution to the processing of industry and creating a great deal of employment, while exporting to the EEC. This is an area in which the Government could be involved. The industry as a whole does not seem to have been able to achieve this. That is why I would like to deal with the Agriculture and the Health and Environment Estimates.

For example, in Germany major incentives were given to the private sector to stimulate employment, approximately 10 billion Deutschemarks, and the people who benefited immediately invested in the money and speculative markets outside Germany. This in turn created further unemployment down the line. We have seen here that the price of oil shares can rocket one day and drop another. Many people appear to manipulate these markets, but no employment is created and vast profits are made by people who speculate in this type of enterprise instead of putting their money into industrial job creation which could produce goods to sell abroad.

We have much to learn from the Japanese because they have managed to achieve that philosophy. They have a pride in their work and in the products they produce. They have a specific department that identifies where the market is, what the market requires and they produce to meet that market. That is the kind of philosophy we must adopt, not just to produce for short-term political gain and then have the problem of repaying foreign borrowings. We should follow through to ensure that jobs are created.

When new firms were established many people were pleased for short-term political gain if they were set up in their constituencies, but many of these enterprises turned out to be white elephants. We all had to contribute to the maintenance of those white elephants as could be seen from the Estimates of previous administrations.

I am extremely concerned about agriculture because of the attitude that has been adopted by the European Community to the only policy they have managed to achieve — the Common Agricultural Policy. There is no doubt that the Common Agricultural Policy is in need of review and overhauling but the nations who appear to be net contributors to the Community are prepared to freeze the assets of the Common Agricultural Policy. This could have disastrous consequences for this country. We have the threat of the super-levy hanging over us. Our dairy industry is dormant because farmers do not know whether to progress or to sell their stock. It is no wonder they are having problems with the lending agencies. There is a lack of confidence in our milk production area because doubt is being created by the threat of this super-levy. The commissioner in charge of agriculture has made a decision to freeze payments due to this and other countries under this heading.

Agriculture is as important as all other sectors put together but because of this doubt people will not decide what their projects will be for the coming 12 months. People need a certain amount of confidence in agriculture. Businesses can go out of production overnight because farmers doubt they can repay their borrowings. This could create tremendous hardship for our economy if confidence in agriculture is not restored.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the attitude he has adopted in the discussions in Europe but I condemn the Community for not having reached some consensus of agreement in Athens because, as net beneficiaries — at least on paper — that weakens our case as a negotiating partner. To the other member states we always seem to have our hands out when it comes to agriculture, but this was the price of our entry into Europe. If the European Community are not prepared to pay the cost of political unity, the original concept in the formation of the Community will have been lost. The benefit of political unity to the Community has been immeasurable in terms of peace. If agriculture benefited that was a plus for us.

If a farmer read in the Estimates for Agriculture that £263,054,000 was required to run the Department of Agriculture in 1984 he would possibly have a seizure. He would ask immediately where that money is going and how it is being spent because he has not seen any of it, he still owes the bank some money, and so on. We should look at some of the headings in this Estimate. Salaries and wages in the Department of Agriculture for 1984 will amount to £52 million. It is impossible to quantify that but it includes all the administrative grades in Dublin, throughout the country in the DVO offices, and the scheme to which other Senators referred.

You can really understand the problem when you get down to a figure like £150,000 for the county committees of agriculture. That is a very important part of the operation of the ACOT programme at county level and the involvement of all various political representatives, nominated farming representatives and voluntary agencies within the county. That figure for the whole country, which is the same as the figure for last year, is minute. I contend it is insufficient to run properly a county committee of agriculture which has a specific statutory role under the ACOT Act to formulate a policy for the operation of the agricultural programme within each county. I would go so far as to say that figure also includes the responsibility of the county committees to keep in being the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture which is also a statutory agency of which I am vice-chairman at present.

Previously I was chairman and I know it is a co-ordinating body for all the county committees in Ireland. It is a vital voice in the Department of Agriculture. It has a liaison directly with ACOT and with the Minister for Agriculture. On that small allocation the county committees must survive and also subscribe a small amount of money to the general council. That is an impossible task. Some of the committees are unable to carry out their statutory functions. The Minister has a responsibility to look at this area and I made this case to him personally on a deputation.

Under subhead A.5. in the agricultural programme we see a figure of £360,000 for advertising and publicity, which is an increase of £10,000. I contend that the county committees are the greatest advertisement and publicity agencies for the Department of Agriculture, for the board of ACOT and for all the schemes initiated by the Department. They get local publicity for their meetings to discuss their schemes. Some of that money could be usefully reallocated to the county committees of agriculture. They would give a much better return in the area of advertising and publicity to the Department for the various schemes. That would be an extremely useful exercise in local democracy and also in achieving the desired results for any programme initiated at county level.

I am pleased to see an increase in the grant-in-aid for ACOT. ACOT, who were subjected to a lot of unfair criticisms throughout the country, are getting an additional allocation of some 6 per cent. Taking inflation into consideration that is less than the amount they would require to carry out the responsibilities given to them under the Act which set up the board of ACOT. The board have democratic representation and also a statutory role given to them by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am pleased that at last the Department have accepted the staff scheme which gives power to the staff to deliver a client-orientated service in agriculture in the various counties. I look forward to the correct results being achieved in the area of agricultural advice and education which is specifically the role of ACOT. With this new concept about the delivery of a service I hope they will be allowed to develop along the lines suggested. I commend their previous director, Dr. Walsh, and I commend especially their new director, Dr. Liam Downey, for the enthusiasm he has shown in the mammoth task he has taken upon himself to rejuvenate this most important sector of our economy, agriculture.

A four-year plan has been prepared for the development of agriculture. The Minister who has read through the four-year plan has commented favourably to me on its contents. It provides an opportunity for this tremendous industry of ours to get up off its knees and develop to the maximum possible degree. This will create employment, particularly family farm employment which is vital to the development of rural Ireland, and will give employment in the area of processing in this industry. Any incentive that can be given to the industry to add as much value to its products before disposing of them to the EEC — which now apparently is a doubtful market — must be given instead of exporting many products which could have this added value for us. The board of ACOT and all those involved in agriculture will meet that challenge. The county committees can also play a useful role in this and I hope their importance will be recognised by the Department of Agriculture and by the Minister. Before the Christmas recess I spoke about the eradication scheme. If we spend £12½ million this year on bovine tuberculosis eradication we have a bounden obligation to ensure that it is spent in the best possible way. We must come to grips with this major problem. As I said before Christmas, identifying the disease is not enough. We must identify the cause of it. The farmers who are now contributing quite a bit to the programme and the veterinary profession who have the technological and professional responsibility, have a specific and very responsible role to play.

The farmers are the guiding lights in this matter. If they see any malpractice, either by their colleagues or by the veterinary profession, or any lack of responsibility on the part of the Department in this area, they must report it. The farmer who in the long term has paid much into the scheme and has got relatively little out of it by way of compensation will want to know how this money is being spent. As legislators we must ensure that the expenditure of this money is justified by the results. You can get results if you find the source of this infection whether it is by cross-infection, lateral spread, or lack of hygiene at any level of the management of farm animals. The increase of 186 per cent in the payment of compensation under the hardship fund is an indication of the Department's concern about the hardship created by the scheme for the owners of diseased animals. The farmer must be ready to face up to the challenge of having disease in his herd eradicated but he must be compensated to enable him to remain in business while the disease remains in his herd.

For the Department of the Environment we have an Estimate of £248,926,000. Most of us would agree that how the Department is funded is an area that needs a total and complete overhaul. The financing of the local authorities is the specific responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and it is a major challenge to his expertise and ingenuity to come up with a scheme whereby local authorities can be self-financing. They deliver a most important service to the community, a service people were prepared to pay for in the past whether through the old rating system or through rates on houses. Now only business premises are contributing to this source of funding, which leaves a tremendous charge on the Department of the Environment.

The Acting Chairman is a member of a local authority and I do not have to remind him that an increase of 1 per cent in local authority grants in lieu of rates on agricultural land is not sufficient to run the service at anything like the level we have been hoping for. Unless proposals are forthcoming fairly quickly in this area, local authorities will lose the confidence of the people who have traditionally voted for them, who have always looked to the local authorities for the provision of important services, whether they be roads, sanitary services, or housing grants. Unless the Department can match that by a total reorganisation we will have lost touch with local democracy and it will be in danger if we are totally dependent on the State for all the money we need.

The State has responsibility to provide houses for people. I am glad that in this Estimate there is an increase of 24 per cent in the local authority housing subsidy. It is almost impossible to relate that increase in subsidy to the increase announced in the recent differential rents scheme. We should look at the cost of our houses. I am glad the standard of house building has improved beyond all recognition. In most counties the houses being built by the local authority are comparable to, and even at times surpass the standard of houses provided by speculative builders, or private builders, or even private individuals. There is no doubt that we have made a major advance in the quality of housing provided, but it is worrying that there still seems to be such a tremendous deficit in the subsidy for local authority houses in spite of the very high rents being paid by the tenants.

I am glad to see that there are substantial increases in the headings for water supply and sewerage, public water supply, water and sewerage grants to local authorities. I am disappointed that there is a reduction in the grant for local improvement schemes. This is a tremendously useful scheme, implemented by local authorities, employing young people and paying them the correct rate and doing tremendous work within the local authority areas at amenity level and for minor road improvements, all to the overall benefit of the county.

The first benefit that comes to mind is the tourist industry. People are employed to tidy up areas and make them pleasant for visitors to come to and spend money. There is a spin-off. It is not employing people for the sake of employing them. I do not accept that the money we spent under that scheme was misspent. I saw evidence in my county of the benefits which accrued from the local improvements scheme.

I hope that when the reorganisation of the local authorities and their financing is finalised, county councils will have power returned to them to be self-financing. Whether it is called a taxing system or a rating system is immaterial, so long as the local representative has the responsibility to generate money from property, or from land, or from dwellings, or whatever it is that needs to be serviced by local authorities. Until we grasp that nettle, we will never get out of the dilemma of this type of budgeting in the Department, which will leave local authorities in a deficit situation in 1984 which service charges will not make up.

I do not share the disquiet expressed about charges. People in rural areas were always subjected to water charges and charges for other services. It is only since they were extended to cities, urban areas and the corporation areas which had all these services free since the abolition of domestic rates, that we have heard all the squealing about these charges. If one section of the community has to pay for some services, all sections should pay for those services. I do not accept that the funding expected from the charges can make up the deficit. I am not in favour of increasing charges to make up that deficit, because we are penalising people without recognition of what use they make of the services provided. Unless the service can be measured, it is very difficult to have a fair system of charging.

I should like to deal now with health. I am a member of a health board. Over a number of years I have been confronted by Ministers for Health with a request to review our spending estimates. This year is no exception. We have been asked in the south-east to try to effect a saving of something like £3½ million. The Minister suggested in a letter to us that we should try to ensure that that saving was made in the non pay area. I have a proposal before my own board that there should be no job losses arising from this economy. There are areas where you can effect economies, particularly in a Department like the Department of Health with an astronomical budget. It is now in the £1,100 million bracket. When I started on the health board the estimate was £8 million. Ten years later it was £80 million. I do not know whether the level of health service provided is any better. I know facilities within hospitals have improved. Staffing levels within hospitals, particularly in my own area at consultancy level, have improved. A hospital in my own county has a full complement of consultant surgeons for the first time in the history of the health services. We have two consultant surgeons, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon recently approved, a consultant radiologist, a consultant anaesthetist, and all the people involved in the delivery of the health service where it matters.

Economies can be effected in the non-pay areas. I am talking about energy saving and rationalisation of transport for people. Done correctly this can achieve economies. In some health board areas staffing levels are extraordinarily high. In my region — and this is why I have a proposal down for no staff losses — we have not been filling vacancies that were not essential. We have been responsible over the past number of years at the request of the previous Minister and this Minister. We will continue to be responsible. There should be no further job losses in my health board area because the levels of staff in the south-east region compare very favourably with the levels of staff in any other health board area. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien, has been involved with the Department of Health. If he looks at the levels of staffing in the Eastern Health Board region or any other region he will find they are much higher than ours. In the psychiatric services they could be as much as 100 per cent higher than they are in my area. We all have to effect economies but it is unfair and unjust that one health board region with very low staffing levels should be asked to cut back when their staffing levels are lower than they are in other health board areas.

We must have a standardisation of the rates of nurses per patient in geriatric hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, acute hospitals, maternity hospitals and so on. There must be an accepted norm in agreement with the nursing organisations. The patient-nurse ratio and the ratio of consultancy services to the population must be similar in each area. Otherwise health boards at regional level will feel they are being asked to make major cutbacks while others are not. In the south-eastern region, where we hope to achieve some of the economies requested by the Minister, I will be asking the board to accept my proposal that we should have no job losses arising from them. That immediately puts the responsibility on the administrative element of the health boards, the CEO and his programme managers, to look at the other areas where economies can be effected, such as the areas of energy and routine maintenance.

Nobody wants to interfere with the fabric of any hospital, but much work is done just for the sake of spending money under particular headings. I will try to ensure that the delivery of the health service at patient level will not be interfered with in any way. Statements to the contrary for political reasons are unwise, because we have a responsibility to ensure that there is no doubt in people's minds that, if they are admitted to hospital in an emergency situation, or are in need of hospital services, the health boards are in a position to act. Of course they are, and that is our statutory responsibility. The usual demands made on the health services have to be looked at, but where people are in need of hospital services they must be available. I am satisfied from the budget estimate in the south-eastern region that that service will be available, totally, seven days a week, if required.

I join with the Minister in expressing the opinion that many people are admitted to hospitals at weekends when the hospitals are not in a position to do anything for them. They are being prepared for surgery the following week. Much of that kind of thing can be eliminated. There is no need for it. I do not know who got the idea to do it, and whether the responsibility lies with the people in the GMS section of the health board, the local referring doctor, or whoever. The staff should be available during the week when essential matters are being dealt with. To have people admitted two or three days before they are required creates demands on the services that are not necessary and could, in fact, reduce the number of services that could be available when really needed.

As I said at the outset, the figures are so staggering that it is very difficult to comprehend them. If we are to produce this kind of money — in the region of £10 billion — we have a responsibility to ensure that there is tax equity and that the tax base is broadened to make as many people as possible contribute to this pool. It is a pool, and not a bottomless one. It is doing a useful job and we have to try to ensure that it is done correctly and effectively with the kind of money available to us. The sources of this money, the PAYE and PRSI sectors, feel they contribute more than their fair share and, if that is true — the facts seem to indicate that it is true — then all other sectors the self-employed, farmers, industrialists, bankers, or whoever, must accept that they will have to pay their fair share, based on their ability to do so, of course. As a socialist I would say nobody should be expected to pay if he is unable to pay, but every sector must be prepared to be assessed on their ability to pay. There must be an agreement by all sectors to contribute.

The balance can come from foreign borrowing only. Too much of that was done in the past for projects I felt were not justifiable. If we borrow in the future we must ensure that the money is used for productive purposes, and for the benefit of the country as a whole. I hope the Government will continue to ensure that a reasonable estimate is struck each year, that the budget will be seen by the public as ensuring that people pay their fair share across the board. At the end of the day the Government will be judged on how they dealt with tax equity, the creation of employment, and incentives for employment. The job done by the Government will be subject to the decision of the electorate at some future date.

Mrs. Honan

Yesterday when the Minister for Finance was speaking in this House I listened to him and I was not quite sure whether we were in the same country because he was telling us that things were going quite well and would get better. Perhaps his bookkeeping is paying off in his own mind, but I would like him and his Government to know the effects all the cuts across the board are having on this small nation of ours. It is not his responsibility alone; it is the Government's responsibility. The Minister said that the Government are now firmly in control but I say "at what price?" The Minister and his Government seem to be patting themselves on the back because they are on target for their budget of next week. I wonder what pressures were put on them and whether the Minister has finally decided on his budget. While telling us how well he and his Government have done during the past 12 months, it would be wrong if he forgot that one in every six persons at the moment is out of a job.

I wonder whether any of our suggestions here today are even taken seriously because, with all due respect to the junior Minister who was here earlier and for whom I have a good regard, he was here on his own, a junior Minister responsible for youth without even an official flanking him, and we still have not seen the Minister who is in charge of the Appropriation Act. I suppose he may read our contributions if the Official Report comes out before the budget next week. I wonder if we Senators are taken seriously by the present Minister for Finance. Some of us have attended in spite of illness or inconvenience due to certain members of our families being ill. I wonder if anything we have to say is really taken seriously.

I was glad to hear that Senator Ferris now understands that it costs money to run a country. When we were in power he was forever telling us that we could run the country nearly without money or telling us the amount of money that we were overspending in running it. Now the boot is on the other foot and Senator Ferris has to toe the line to keep the Coalition in Government and he is well in there and intends to stay there. He is not quite sure yet how much Deputy Dukes has overspent but he will find out next week. It will not make any difference, they will stay there anyway. He also said that there were no white elephants in South Tipperary or North Tipperary. I am delighted about that, because they are two constituencies very close to my heart. I would like to tell Senator Ferris we have not any white elephants in Clare either.

Mr. A. O'Brien

What about Scarriff?

Mrs. Honan

Minister O'Toole is going to re-open that. We should even at this late stage be prepared to review critically the methods of all Governments because of the state of the country today. We must consider the provision of finance to deal with crime, unemployment, as well as the mistakes of State agencies and the levies on workers. All the tax burdens seem to fall on one section of the community. I would ask the Minister to examine the effectiveness of all these taxes and levies and whether this money is being well spent for today and the future.

The figure of 208,000 unemployed has been mentioned. All politicians in this House and in all political parties know we are never going to have full employment. We must be honest and admit that it is a myth that we are going to have full employment and a job for every person. It is our responsibility collectively to see that we get as many jobs as we can for the people who are unemployed.

Let us take a look at Norway, a small nation like ourselves. They have done very well in encouraging their own native entrepreneurs to get factories going. As I have said again and again, such people cannot pull up their roots and get going if things get tough. They have to stick in there. I have very strong feelings on this. It was an early mistake of past Governments to encourage foreigners all the time to get the large grants in industry. We did not encourage enough of our young Irish entrepreneurs. In fact we adopted an extraordinary attitude in this field — the foreigner seemed to be always better than the Irishman. As the years have gone on the Irish industrialist who has stuck in there and made it has proved to be a very good employer.

Regarding the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO, I would like to ask the Minister the exact amount of money the 1 per cent levy is bringing in. I would like to ask the Minister how much of that 1 per cent levy which we and all other workers give to the Youth Employment Agency is now being transferred to AnCO. There are two direct questions and I want answers.

We have had cuts in the field of health, and Senator Ferris, because of his long years serving in the field of health, is well aware of the sections where there is spending that can be rectified. The emphasis is being put on nurses and the personnel in hospitals. I know that the CEOs and the programme managers should take a closer look at the administrative side of health. In years gone by when the late President Childers brought in regionalisation I never agreed with it. I still think it is wrong. It has been proved to be wrong. I hope that no Minister for the Environment will be daft enough to regionalise local authorities. That was on the mat at one stage too until pressure was put on the Minister of the time. I think he was one of our own. He saw the light before he did it. Regionalisation of health administration has not worked and it is costing a bomb. It is removed from the ordinary person on the ground, whether you are a member of a local health committee as I am or a member of a senior health board. There are problems, and we do not seem to be listened to. There is no use anyone talking about cuts and the effect. If three nurses leave a hospital they will be replaced by one nurse. Two doctors, whether they be consultants or otherwise, will be replaced by only one.

Changes do take place amongst top men in the medical profession; they move when it suits them. It may not suit the place they are leaving because they may not be replaced. There is a dreadful situation regarding clinics providing a dental service. They will not get their complement of staff because of these cuts. They have had to compete with private practice which brings in tremendously more money for dentists than health boards can offer. The cuts mean that we will not have a proper dental service.

The Minister present has experience in the field of health. He has been in the hospital situation and has seen staff. I would ask him to take the Minister for Finance out for a spin some day to some of the hospitals which have beds in the corridors. The Minister, where hospitals, health and dental care are concerned, is with the birds. He is a new type politician coming into the rough field of politics with all the academic and economic answers. That does not work when dealing with human beings.

I am worried about the reaction of people losing heart. It is not really our style to throw in the sponge and give up but we come across these problems every day. Senators from country constituencies know that it is a little different outside Dublin. There is an attitude in the country which is worrying all of us. It may be what is affecting our image of politicians. It is difficult to meet people in the street and expect them to be on top of the world when nobody in the household has a job.

Tax evasion has cost over £200 million in the past year. The penalties for such evasion have not been enforced vigorously. No tax evaders have been prosecuted. I ask the Minister why. Why have the Government failed to index tax allowances with inflation? Their failure to do so is leading to increases in the real rate of tax on workers. I again ask why.

Regarding new local charges, I ask that powers not be given again to county managers but to local councillors. If he has not finally decided, I would tell the Minister to make sure not to hold local elections, although if they were held it would be great for us. We would then have an extra Senator elected on every panel in the next Seanad election. We would have the extra councillors to get one extra on each panel. It is fair judgment that the elections are not to be held. If the Government had to make the decision again to put on the charges, they might never put them on. These charges cut right in at the bone. At the moment to sit on a council all you have to do is listen because the Fine Gael and Labour members are belting it out between them. The local charges have not been sorted out. There are some housing estates in Ennis where no councillor would be brave enough to knock on the doors looking for votes in the local elections in March.

I refer to Senator O'Leary's magnificent contribution yesterday — I am sure it is on the front pages of all the newspapers today, it should be if it is not. From sitting in the Chair, it was my opinion that that was the speech that was going to be published. He asked the Minister if the money given to SFADCo was being properly spent. I can tell him that the money in SFADCo is being well spent. Government money in SFADCo is being spent a lot better than Government money in Cork.

Regarding tax on Irish industry, I understand if the worker is to get an increase of £1 it will cost the employer £3. Because of high taxation on salaries of senior people in the supervisory section in industry, we are losing people to the North of Ireland.

I spoke before the Christmas recess on a Bill allocating money to CTT. I understand that because I used a few phrases that were not my ordinary phraseology, they were nearly asking who wrote the speech for me. Nobody ever had to write a speech for me. I said I was concerned whether CTT were getting the money that they should get to train the proper people to send them out into a very highly sophisticated world of marketing. The Minister misunderstood me and thought I was speaking about the IDA. I was not speaking about the IDA. I am still asking whether CTT are getting the amount of finance which we think they are getting for aggressive marketing. There are three parties involved here. There is CTT, there is the industrialist himself — who also has to spend time out selling — and there is the very good worker on the factory floor who produces the goods. I am still asking if CTT are getting the money that we in this Chamber think they are getting for that aggressive marketing abroad.

It is sad that there is a lack of confidence right across the board at the moment. Perhaps if we all work together we will instil confidence back into the people. It is not easy. Unemployment benefit or dole — a word I do not like — is costing this nation a large amount of money every week. The Minister for Finance comes across well on television. He says all the right things and he is completely in control of his Department. I did think we would have some new thinking in the Department of Finance, so that rather than having this colossal amount of dole money being paid out weekly we could take some of these people off the unemployment queue and give them some work. We have agency after agency and board after board. The Youth Employment Agency and the other State agencies have not worked out as well as we had hoped. AnCO still seem to be the bosses.

I refer now to the cost of crime. I ask why the Conroy or Ryan Reports were never implemented in any way. I understand that the Government decided to do away with the Garda Task Force. I understand also that if they do disband it there will be £11 million left. Have they decided where that is to go? I do not think the Task Force should be done away with at this time. But of course we had an example of this in the Youth Employment Agency. Money was taken from the workers for the Youth Employment Agency and then transferred. We have it here again. I understand that there is £11 million left. There are so many task forces since this Government came into office that I am confused. They have done away with the task force in the Department of Justice. Where did the £11 million go? Has it been spent?

I do not know what figure has been given for the Department of Justice. I wonder if it was in order to save money that recruits from Templemore were in Leitrim instead of fully trained guards or fully trained Special Branch men with years of experience. It was revealing to me — and I am sure to a lot of my colleagues — that there were young recruits from Templemore in a combat situation in Ballinamore in recent weeks. If that was put to the people of this country I do not think anybody would approve of it. I firmly believe — and I have said it to former Ministers for Justice — that the training, as it stands, in Templemore is not long enough, nor is it comprehensive enough for what they are dealing with when they come out onto the beat in the Ireland of today.

This morning the Central Bank told us that things were improving and were going to get better. It was a repetition of what the Minister said yesterday. That is cold comfort to the 208,000 unemployed. The Central Bank — with their big cars and their big houses — talk about things improving, yet there is not one more job for the ordinary person down the country.

I cannot and will not accept the harshness of this Government. There are cuts everywhere in the social and the human fields. There is no use telling us about what we spent or the mistakes we made in Government because, with all due respect to the Government, they have still spent more than was planned. We will not know until next Wednesday — and perhaps not even then — how much more has been spent. The misery which has been created is not fully seen yet. We have factories closing down. We have more cuts in health. Medical cards are being taken from students. The Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, is taking the buses from them in Clare and people do not know which road the school buses are taking at the moment. When we got all the whizz kids into this Government I thought we were going to have new thinking. If there is a cut to be made now, what is done? The bus from Kilmaley to the Christian Brothers school in Ennis is stopped. Medical cards are taken from people who have a child in Dublin receiving third level education. Then when that person at home has not got a medical card you presume he has plenty of money and can look after his children's health. That is not the case at all with many people who are sending their children to third level education. They are not wealthy people. There was a day when it was only the wealthy people of this country who could become academics. Thank God it did not happen in my day that I did not get the chance. May the Lord deliver me from ever being one of them or thinking as some of them think.

I will conclude my remarks on this Appropriation Act motion by urging the Minister — before it is too late — not to put any more tax on the people who are already overtaxed. I am delighted — even if it is only for a short while — that those opposite have got a taste of Government. It takes money to run a country. They were so critical of the mistakes they claimed we were making when we were in Government. If we go to the country in the morning then the Government will answer to the people. It does take money to run the country. Fianna Fáil were not too bad at all and the ballot box would prove that. The people of this nation will decide that we will be on that side of the House and that the present Government Senators will be over here.

Mr. Howard

I welcome the opportunity of making a short contribution on the Appropriation Act. I should like to refer to the speech of the Minister for Finance in introducing the debate and in which there were probably two dimensions. First, the impression came across that there was a certain measure of satisfaction that his budget targets for 1983 had been almost achieved. He laid considerable emphasis on the fact that a Government of this State were once again in control of public expenditure. There was perhaps another dimension in his speech: in reviewing the prospects, as he did quite briefly for 1984, he conveyed a certain measure of encouragement. He emphasised that progress for 1984 was possible provided that we built sensibly and effectively on the achievements and success that have been obtained to date.

He spoke of other significant improvements and developments that had taken place in the economy in the course of the past year. He referred to the improvement in the balance of payments, to a very welcome and substantial reduction in the rate of inflation and to the decline in interest rates. These, with other factors, are indications that we have reached the bottom of the recession and that the policies pursued by the Government for the past year have been successful. They are beginning to show the course back to reasonable success and achievement in the future.

When all these factors are taken together they are in a sense remarkable achievements, especially when one has regard to the appalling state of both the economy and of public finances when this Government came into office a little over a year ago. During the past 12 months one of the things with which the Government have had to contend is — as somebody quite recently described it — a vicious triangle of borrowing, taxation and expenditure. The Minister said it was vital that we would maintain momentum and continue the progress we have had in industrial production. Indeed, there has been a substantial improvement in production in the manufacturing industry. We have also had a somewhat lesser improvement, but nonetheless an improvement, in agricultural output. The Minister said it was necessary for us to maintain and develop that capacity and to take advantage of that situation in the light of the improvements that we see taking place in world trade. I would summarise what he said to us as being a reflection on the commendable progress which he and his Government have made during 1983 and the projection of a measure of cautious confidence in relation to what we can expect in 1984.

I should like to refer to some of the contributions from the other side of the House. As far as speaking on Appropriation Bills is concerned, perhaps I have spoken more often from the other side of the House on these measures and I know the safety and luxury that a person can enjoy, if he or she wants to avail of it, from that side of the House and the temptation that exists to be negative in your approach to the issue. There is freedom there not to be positive. I am sure Senator O'Toole will not disagree with me.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I will in a minute.

Mr. Howard

It is easy to find fault and criticise when one knows that you or your party have no responsibility for finding the answers to the problems that may beset the nation.

During the discussion last night, and again this morning, some people on the opposite side of the House fell victims to that temptation. I respect and admire the positive and objective contributions which also came from the other side of the House from those who recognised that this Government faced formidable problems with courage and achieved an acceptable measure of success during the course of the past year. There were a few observations made that I now want to deal with very briefly.

Senator Lanigan dealt with the Minister's reference to the fact that there was a volume increase in manufacturing industrial output of about 5 per cent in 1983. He said that was nothing at all when one compares it to the 6, 7 or 7½ per cent that we had between 1977 and 1979. Surprisingly enough, while he had the figures and was prepared to present them to the House for 1977 to 1979, he shied away from giving us the figures in the years since then, especially in relation to 1980, 1981 and 1982. Let us acknowledge that Senator Lanigan's party were in Government in those years. He went on to say that while we had a volume increase in industrial output of 5 per cent in 1983, it did not bring with it any improvement in the unemployment situation. He went on to say that a 7 per cent volume increase in 1977 was responsible for a 3 per cent increase in employment.

I disagree with that analysis of what gave rise to an increase in employment in 1977. I would go so far as to say that in no way was that 3 per cent increase in employment at that time related to the 7 per cent in manufacturing industry which he spoke about. That improvement in employment was achieved as a result of the massive pumping into the economy of money borrowed from the Germans, the Japanese the Swiss and the Americans. It was borrowed recklessly and pumped into the economy, resulting in the creation of artificial jobs that could not be sustained.

We witnessed in these years the swelling of an already over-manned public service. The money was borrowed and it was spent. If I sound a little political on this point I have no apologies to make because I want to put the record straight. The massive sums of money that were borrowed in that year are at the root of the problem that we face this year, that we faced last year and that we will face for a number of years ahead. That money was borrowed and spent, not for the purpose of improving or building a better economy, but for the purpose of buying short-term political popularity.

In 1983 and, indeed, in 1984, the repayment of that money is falling on our people and Government. The Government have no choice but to provide for these repayments and they must continue to provide for these repayments for many years to come. These repayments represent a substantial drain on the financial resources of the State and on the finance available to the Government. It is draining away from the State money that could otherwise be used, for example, to develop our economy, to create jobs and to deal with other pressing problems. The unemployed, the old, the young and the sick are being deprived of services they expect to have in normal circumstances, because of the strain that the repayment of these vast sums borrowed in those years is creating for the economy and for the public finances of the State.

I recognise that there is a duty on the Opposition in any democracy to oppose the Government of the day, to criticise and so forth, but if their contribution is totally and continuously negative, as it has been throughout most of 1983, it is a sterile and futile exercise. It can also breed rejection and cynicism in politics and in politicians, which is dangerous for democracy.

I am glad that at least some people on the Opposition side have had the courage to admit and to recognise that there have been solid achievements by this Government in the past 12 months. They recognise that unpopular decisions were made and courageously faced and that we are now beginning to see an improvement in the economy and our public finances. The Government set formidable targets 12 months ago. Many of these have been achieved or progress has been made towards achieving them.

I referred to what the Minister said in the course of his speech regarding the prospects for 1984 and to the measure of cautious confidence that — and all the indications are that the worst is over — perhaps with the right effort we can now start on the long haul back to progress. The Minister — and Senator Honan did not deny it — is supported by economic experts — maybe some people would prefer to use the term economic forecasters — including the banks, and in several other projections that we have seen recently and all indicated that recovery is on the way and that it is following on the trail of industrial recovery that we have seen in the leading industrial nations during 1983, particularly the latter half.

Senator Smith dealt with this point this morning and I emphasise that it is important that we all play our part in creating the right climate so that development can take place and the greatest possible potential attained. There is much to be done and it is important that we regard as a top priority the removal of anything that acts as a disincentive to work or to the creation of employment. I should like to say to management, as well as to all other levels down to shop floor level in industry, that we must face up to situations that act as disincentives to industry and deal effectively with them.

We have to examine industrial costs because too often, particularly in recent times, we have seen industrialists emphasise the handicaps that industry here has to contend with as distinct from other countries in terms of the high cost of energy. In that regard, I should like to compliment the Government for having set up an inquiry into electricity costs during the past few months. Industrialists have also drawn attention to the high cost of telecommunication services, transport costs and to taxation in its various forms, including PRSI and PAYE where the work force is concerned. In this regard — I say this in all sincerity — there is an urgent need to look at the situation where as a result of the tax regimes that we have followed in the past number of years, many firms consider it better business to substitute a machine for a worker. Unfortunately, this is true right throughout the industrial scene, even down to very small firms. The view is that by replacing a worker by a machine, once the capital cost of installing the machine is paid, you do not have the recurring weekly payments which you have in relation to employees. This is to the detriment of the creation of jobs and the Government and all concerned should look at this very seriously.

Throughout 1983 industry has shown that it has the capacity to expand and to respond to an improvement in the overall market situation. It was also a reasonable year for agriculture and this is one of our most important industries. Output was up, certainly not on the same scale as in manufacturing industry, but up nonetheless and of course the drop in inflation was of benefit to the agricultural industry also. Milk increased in volume by roughly 7 per cent and in price by roughly 8½ per cent and its value at the farm gate was roughly £850 million. Cattle were up by roughly 7 per cent, with a farm gate value of roughly £800 million.

Part of that improvement, particularly in the price aspect, was as a result of the very successful negotiation which the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, carried out on behalf of this country in the Brussels price negotiations of 1983. He very effectively represented the interests of our farmers and he returned with an increase which was a few percentage points better than had been anticipated. I have confidence that the same Minister can represent the interests of the farming community effectively in the negotiations dealing with the crucial issues at present in the agriculture field — super-levy, price reviews and the crisis in the CAP. It is an acknowledgement of his commitment and the success that he has in that field that it is now apparent that many of our partners in the EEC, while having a hang-up about conceding very much on the super-levy, nonetheless have publicly acknowledged the fact that Ireland has special problems in regard to that proposal.

At a demonstration some weeks ago in Thurles, in connection with the super-levy, a platform, composed mainly of farm leaders also included a national trade union leader who is a former Member of this House. I regard that as a very important development because it is a recognition of how the interests of both urban and rural Ireland are intertwined. It is possibly also a recognition of the capacity of agriculture, with the right incentives, the right climate and the right opportunities, to create employment both at input level in the service field and at output level where processing is concerned.

Senator Smith laid emphasis on that point this morning. Somehow or other we have never successfully managed to harness the full potential in agriculture. It has a capacity to respond to the right incentives, the right opportunities and to the possibilities of creating jobs at both ends of agricultural production. When agriculture is thriving you succeed in maintaining young people on the land who would otherwise be flocking on to an overcrowded labour market. I regard the presence of John Carroll at Thurles as a very significant development, a recognition that with a combined acceptance by urban and rural interests of the value of agriculture to our economy, a lot could be achieved which has not been achieved in that sphere.

There is one aspect of agriculture in relation to 1983 on which I want to comment. It is the situation that has arisen in relation to farm borrowings and to the repayment difficulties with which quite a number of farmers are now contending. In the good years, in the mid-seventies, progressive people in agriculture were advised, and they responded to that advice, to develop their holdings, to expand their production and to borrow to achieve these ends. That advice was given to them from every authoritative source then. Not alone did they accept it, they also accepted the invitations of the financial institutions to lend money to them. The people who did that and who did it freely were the more progressive or the more enterprising people in the farming community. They borrowed heavily and developed their holdings at a high cost. Then things began to go wrong. Inflation caught up, the progress in prices of agricultural produce slowed down and at the end of the day a number of these people found themselves in serious trouble.

The Minister for Finance, during his time as Minister for Agriculture, set out to resolve this difficulty. Interest subsidies and other solutions were proposed. However, this matter has not been satisfactorily resolved. I am not suggesting that the people who borrowed should be relieved of their total obligations in the circumstances but there is also an obligation on the financial institutions to recognise the havoc that they can create by pursuing to the very limit the recovery of this money. There is also an obligation at Government level to try to have the matter resolved because I fear that if it goes wrong — and the indications are there that it may well go wrong — we will have destroyed for at least another generation that type of enterprise and progressive attitude that was so prevalent in agriculture six or eight years ago.

In 1983 there was also progress on a number of other fronts. I welcome the re-organisation of the public service. It is interesting to note that the numbers employed in the public service have been reduced by approximately 4,000 during the past 12 months. The public service has swollen at an alarming rate. My colleagues also referred to the fact that efficiency and performance within the public service by no means kept pace with the growth in numbers that we have witnessed over the past few years. The public service had become a very expensive outlet and it is a real burden on the taxpayers. I welcome the decision made recently by the Government, and announced by the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, that the top positions in the public service will now be filled by having regard to merit and performance rather than seniority, as has been the position up to now.

There have been many other successes by the Government in the course of the year and it is important to recall them. The manner in which the PMPA situation was handled so effectively solely for the benefit of those who were PMPA policy holders was an example of an effective and determined performance on the part of the Government. We have had the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill, a long-awaited and overdue measure. I compliment the Minister for Justice for introducing it. There are many other aspects of his performance and functions and duties as Minister for Justice over the past year that deserve compliments as well.

I suppose I may be permitted to look forward to the coming year. I do it particularly with reference to one aspect of our economy, perhaps the third or fourth greatest industry that we have here and that is tourism. I sincerely hope that tourism will be given a high priority in the Government's thinking for 1984. We had excellent weather during the past year and that may well be the base on which we can start to rebuild what was once a very thriving industry. I hope that the recovery will come but I think we have to work towards it. Tourism is vital to our economy in many ways. The extra money that comes from outside is an assistance to our balance of payments. In addition, many jobs are created as a result of tourism and tourist activity in the country, some of a permanent nature but very many of a part-time nature which are also very useful during the tourist season.

We have very few advantages as a holiday location in comparison with the Mediterranean or other places. However, we have a pleasant countryside. We have uncrowded roads. We have friendly people and we are recognised throughout the world for that. We have, on the other hand, the uncertain weather. For many years we had one great additional factor, one great selling point, that as a country we were very good value for a holiday. It did not happen last year or the year before, but if had happened over a number of years that different Governments have chipped away that great advantage that we enjoyed as being good value for a holiday. The result is that we have become one of the most expensive locations in Europe now.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 18 Jan 1984

Appropriation Act, 1983: Motion (Resumed).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jan 1984