I should like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on his speech in introducing this budget. It was a sober statement of the position and a frank indication to the people of the realities and the problems the country is facing. I am glad he spent such a large proportion of his speech detailing the tremendously high cost to the country of salaries in the public sector and the extent to which this was happening independent, so to speak, of options or initiatives by the Government and the degree to which this must be carried by taxation.
I am also glad that he soberly pointed out the cost of security to the State at the present time. He pointed out the level at which this cost is running in comparison with the cost in more normal times when security was a much lower priority than it is now. He rightly referred to the advantages that would have accrued to the country if this additional charge of about £22 million could have been spent in areas of housing, social welfare, social benefits or industrial projects. It was a salutary exposition of the nuts and bolts of security and its cost to the nation. During the summer I had the experience of visiting one or two countries in the Middle East and it was a bitter experience to see the extent to which security accounts for such proportions of the budgets of countries like that. I hope we can reach solutions in this country which will mean a progressive reduction in expenditure in this area.
It is extremely difficult for the Minister in a year such as this to chart a course for the country because of these factors of inflation and international economic crisis of which we are aware. We know from reading the international media that what is happening is that a hurricane is blowing around the world affecting the United States, Japan and Western Europe. This country in isolation has options but its options in these circumstances are very limited. Last night in attempting to prepare some notes for this speech I came across an old Chinese proverb to the effect that to prophesy is extremely difficult, especially with respect to the future. I suspect that is one of the problems the Minister has at this time.
I agree with the Minister's approach. I think it is very important that the Government have adopted this course. In view of the balance of payments deficit, oil and recession the Government, in a different mode, might have retrenched and put on a hair shirt. In our economic conditions that might have made sense, but in my judgment it would have been disastrous in broad terms for our people. I am glad that the Minister, re-echoing the views of the Government, has taken the view that priority should go to the maintenance of employment and the presentation of living standards. This is a very difficult task.
The deficit for 1974 was £300 million, 10 per cent of the GNP. The Minister suggests that this growing deficit should be reduced in a phased manner over several years. If this statement is to be realistic and to be followed by actions which will result in this deficit being reduced in a phased manner, certain actions are necessary. Alternatively, if the statement is made seriously by the Minister but is not taken seriously by the elements in our society which have an effect on matters such as incomes policy and agricultural production, then it is merely a platitude and will result in a repetition of such a phrase in later years. If it is to be taken seriously it is essential that there should be restraint in the areas I have mentioned.
Without question the Government, with the consent of the people, have options in this era of inflation. The major option we have as a country— I am stressing the country rather than the Government because the Government's options are sometimes limited if certain vested interest groups act in a certain manner—is to exercise restraint. The degree of income level, the degree of income increase is a critical question and in this year when we are talking about a national pay agreement, it calls for a reasonable approach.
Those who know anything about economics are aware that if we do not have a reasonable approach we will have an escalation of the present situation; we will have galloping inflation, Brazilian style, and this would be disastrous in the long view for us. There are other factors apart from incomes and wages restraint, factors such as production. In this regard I was glad to hear the Taoiseach speak so strongly on the question of sugar beet production. At this stage I should like to take the opportunity of complimenting the Leader of the Opposition for associating himself with the Taoiseach's sentiments. It seems to be unrealistic and unfair for a sectional interest to hold threats over the Government and to attempt to implement action which does not affect that which they are trying to achieve. For example, a private citizen might as well say that unless the cost of the pint goes down he will not pay his income tax. This is a totally unrelated and undesirable type of activity.
The Government are merely the overseers in this type of situation. Already trade unions are meeting to consider their interest in this matter of sugar beet, because they represent a great many people employed in the industry. Naturally, they are concerned with the prospects for continuity of employment for their members. Of course the unions can retaliate by putting pickets on the creameries. We could have disaster and this country could be brought to its knees in a few months through this kind of action, counter-action and retaliation.
The function of the Government is to oversee this entire issue, to protect the interests of the farmers, protect the interests of the workers in the sugar beet industry and to protect the consumers and the mass of people. If sugar is not produced here it will have to be imported at prices which are greater than the cost of producing it here. If we have to import sugar it will be at enormous cost to the nation and an addition to the balance of payments problem. It is my hope that reason will prevail.
I am glad that the Minister has provided an additional £500,000 for local improvement schemes. This was very necessary because these schemes are for the repair of roads and drainage works in rural districts, which are very important. They especially relate to roads which by accident or design are not declared as county roads with the result that no maintenance is provided. It is important to encourage such schemes from an employment point of view. Some Deputies have said that emigration does not exist any more but there are areas where is does exist and where there are high rates of unemployment. In schemes such as local improvement schemes there is a high labour content and the net cost to the Government of developing such schemes is not all that great. The withdrawal of funds from such schemes merely means that men during the weeks when they would otherwise be working would be drawing unemployment benefit at the substantial rate which now exists. This is a factor which must be taken into account.
One aspect of these schemes which we must face up to in this time of energy crisis is the development of bog roads. In Mayo the local improvement scheme is administered by giving priority to roads which affect the greatest number of houses. There are applications for, perhaps, eight times as many roads as there are funds available. The result is that while in theory these schemes may be used for building of a bog road, in practice it is not happening in our county. This is a matter which should be looked at because we have tracts of bogland undeveloped in most western areas, in much of the midlands and in the south. This is a most important source of energy and it is a natural resource.
There has been a reducing level of turf use in private houses in recent years with the purchasing of fuel oil for central heating, anthracite and coal, even in rural districts. We have a campaign for a reduction in the use of energy in progress. This is sensible, but it seems to me to be a fundamental of economics that if we have bogs in which people have the will to cut turf they should be used. However, if these people are not in a position to cut turf because adequate roads do not exist it should be top priority to do something about this. This is a matter to which the Government should address themselves to.
There is another factor about the cutting of turf to which I should like to refer. While Bord na Móna have major schemes for the development of big bogs and the employment of a considerable number of people, their machinery, generally speaking, is not the type which is suitable for lighter bogs or bogs on which a small number of private people cut turf.
However, the Irish Sugar Company have been carrying out research into machinery suitable for the cutting of turf on such bogs. The Tuam factory have a limited number of machines available and these proved very successful on private bogs, but the big problem is that the company are booked up about two years in advance. They have not a fraction of the number of machines that could usefully be employed by local people. This is in a priority area and we should try to get an immediate increase in the production of these machines and the disseminating of knowledge about them. If this is done, combined with the improvement of bog roads, we could have a speedy and substantial increase in the volume of turf cut with accruing benefits in the reduction of imports of fuel of different types. This is a relatively small matter when speaking in terms of the national budget, but it is important.
I welcome the amount in the budget for the cattle feed voucher scheme. Today, in late January, we are in a somewhat easier frame of mind when we look at the cattle situation than we were last October. It seemed at that time, with the depression in the cattle trade, with the terribly bad prices offering for store cattle and bearing in mind the possible crisis over the winter months because of fodder shortage that we could have been faced with a most critical situation. Happily, due to circumstances outside all of our control, largely those of weather—we have had an extremely mild winter so far —the result appears to be that the minimum of fodder has been used to date. Therefore, even at this late time, if we run into some bad weather it seems likely we can weather the storm. It seems also that the effect of the huge exports of forward cattle over the past few months is at last beginning to have its effect and demand appears to be stepping up for store cattle. Even if it is at an unsatisfactory price, at least there is demand.
I accept the reality of the beer and cigarettes taxation proposal of the Minister. I support fully the decision of the Government to increase taxation levels to bring in the additional £30 million or £35 million from this source. As the Minister pointed out, it is two years since there were increases in this area and there have been substantial social welfare benefits granted since then. I believe it is an area which is, to a degree, luxurious and which the country can withstand. Like others, I am horrified at the amount of money being spent on drink in this supposedly impoverished country, in this cult of the lounge bar to which various Ministers have addressed themselves. Relative to our income, there is a profligate type of spending in this area.
The Government will have to address themselves to the advertising taking place at present and to Government-controlled areas in relation to drink. Where advertising is concerned, we have taken action in regard to cigarettes. But we must give it consideration in the area of drink as well, despite the possible loss of revenue, because there are groups around the country, representative of young people—senior class pupils in boys' and girls' schools—who are very concerned about the emphasis on the glamorous side of drinking. I think we should listen to what they are saying. In this year, when restraint is necessary, we should if possible develop more respect among young people for savings, because one of the sadder aspects of life in this country in comparison with some others is that our young people are spending more than they should in the luxury areas. They plan on getting married, but very often get married without adequate savings in the sensible areas of housing, furnishings and so on.
The Minister stated that it is not his intention, because of the difficult times being experienced at present, to propose a further economic plan for the country. I have reservations about his viewpoint in this regard. Certainly, if we look at this year of 1975 and the hurricane that is blowing around us, he has a case. But given that, I wonder if it is very sensible to continue a policy of not engaging in long-term planning. I know that in the commercial sector the more enlightened companies, regardless of how successful or how difficult times are, are charting their future in management by objectives. Despite the immense difficulties of present times certain things are measurable as a result of the economic and fiscal policy of the State. It is desirable in the long term to attempt to plan and measure, thereby providing yardsticks with which the Government can measure their performance. Possibly the Minister, in his wisdom, is right in this year; but I would think that it is a practice which should not be carried forward indefinitely and that, looking into the future, there should be a resumption of planning as soon as possible.
There is reference in the Minister's speech to the growing labour force in the country. Reference to a growing labour force and unemployment raises a few questions about our educational policy and trends where employment is concerned. It is only recently we have seen opportunities arise for people of all backgrounds to engage in further education at secondary school level and university level if they have the aptitude and sufficient honours in their leaving certificate. Because of the very recent emergence of this policy there has been an undue emphasis on the desirability of education in areas such as the arts—B.A. and B.Comm. areas—and not sufficient emphasis on the necessity for and desirability of technological education. To a degree I think there has been a snob value attached to this type of thing and denigration in certain circles about the value of technological and technical training, with an inflated opinion of the value of education in the arts.
If this attitude continues to prevail among our people we shall reach a critical stage because, through our educational policy, we will have an increasing number of people educated into this mode. As a nation, bearing in mind the difficulties we are experiencing at present, we are simply not going to have the capacity to employ people graduating in those disciplines. We have seen already in the past week the extent to which we have a higher number of qualified teachers than there are jobs for them. This is merely an indicator of the future unless we get down to brass tacks and are more sensible in our attitudes to fundamentals in education.
The social welfare issue has been spoken about at length. The Minister has referred to it and, in broad terms, the Opposition have welcomed his commitment in this area. There has been a startling improvement in the commitment of the Government to social welfare over a very brief period. It is important to reiterate the extent of commitment. In 1972-73 the total commitment was £92 million. In 1975 the budget is for £177 million, which is over double the support in the social welfare area in a brief term of two years.
While we hear a lot of talk about inflation and commodities being dearer in the world generally, about the effects of inflation on society, and at times the suggestion that Government benefits are merely increasing at the rate of inflation or sometimes less than that, the factor I have pointed out is startling: it is a doubling of income in the social welfare area in a two-year period, which is far ahead of the rate of inflation in that same period. There is simply no comparison. What it boils down to is that the less well-off people in our community are substantially better off than they were. This, allied to better medical schemes and other schemes in this area, adds up to a commitment which redounds to the credit of the Government. It had been traditional or fashionable in certain circles to point the finger at our party—the major participant in Government—in this area and to revert to an incident in the twenties with regard to the old age pension.
The day is gone when that sort of charge can ever reasonably be made again because the two parties who comprise this Government are committed to a policy in a certain direction and, therefore, glib phrases will not be sufficient in this area. I agree with the policy but there are some points I wish to make in relation to social welfare and to certain consequences that stem from a policy in this sphere. Almost two years after the coming into office of this Government I am glad to be in a position to make these points. To have made them two years ago might have been regarded as being suspect. I would refer, for example, to the west where there is a high rate of unemployment and where there are many people in receipt of unemployment benefits and assistance.
People in other areas sometimes underestimate the capacity and the will to work that obtains among people in the west. Sometimes there is an attempt to suggest that our area is a dole-ridden one, that the people prefer to exist on the dole rather than work. This has not been our experience. Our people are among the best workers in the country as has been proved in cases where they were given reasonable opportunities to work and were offered reasonable wages. This has been the case in areas where there is manufacturing industry and also where there is good land as well as in areas where there are employment schemes. We need only look at the situation in Britain where much of the building industry is controlled by people from my part of the country to realise the capacity and the will of these people to work.
However, we are reaching the stage where the Government should give consideration to a more enlightened policy on work schemes. Because of the benefits now available in the social welfare area it costs almost as much to have a man idle as to pay him for a week's work. In a general sense politicians underestimate the capacity of the people to respond to enlightened schemes. I am not levelling this criticism either at this Government or at any of their predecessors. Public opinion in many of the lesser well-off parts of the country, instead of shunning work schemes, is ready to respond to an initiative which can result in work being provided. Most of those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance have no alternative. Their resorting to these benefits is not motivated by any sense of wanting to laze around. This is a corollary to what I said a few moments ago about the necessity for building up bog roads, for putting more of those turf machines which the Sugar Company have out on the bogs and for investment in drainage schemes. All of this work has a high labour content.
There are certain factors relating to the present unemployment levels which should be commented on. Deputy Creed referred to the fact that people are staying in the country nowadays, whereas in the fifties and at other times there was a high level of emigration and that, therefore, the unemployment register statistics were fictitious at such times. I agree with the Deputy to some extent because, while there are 100,000 unemployed now, most of these are staying in the country. Perhaps this is because of the substantially increased social welfare benefits as well as because of the new pay-related schemes of benefit for industrial workers.
In recent months I have been surprised that in those parts of the country in which there has been unemployment in industry there has not been an outcry nor the demand for representations to the degree that might have been expected. There are two sides to all of this. It is good in the sense that people who are unemployed or who are unemployed partly are much better off than they would have been in previous times. This improvement in social welfare benefits is very desirable in that it cushions the unemployed and their families but the other side of the story is that if we continue along these lines whereby social welfare benefits amount to, perhaps, only about £2 less than what a man would be paid for working a full week, it may not be the best policy in so far as the national interest is concerned. I say this because this type of policy can foster an attitude of mind for which in the long run the country must pay a very substantial price. To continue on these lines would leave us open to the danger of the introduction of a new philosophy whereby the State would cushion every individual, every family and every manufacturing company against difficulties and, consequently, the nation would be lulled into a false sense of security in this area. Ultimately it is taxation that must provide for these benefits. There would be the possibility, too, that management in the future would not be as cost-conscious as they might be otherwise. Also, it could lead to there not being the same will to work. That is why we must push strongly in a positive way.
Now that this Government have been in office for two years and that social welfare benefits have increased from £92 million in 1972-73 to a budget for 1975 of £177 million, it is time to say that what we want is employment and that most people in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance are misjudged by people in the eastern part of the country. The Government can devise schemes whereby people can be employed. It is in this area that the dignity of man lies.
The Central Bank report published a few days ago refers to unemployment in industry. It puts forward a point which I made during a speech on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce and which I think should be mentioned again. There is a tendency on the part of some of our most biased critics to blame the unemployment in industry on actions of this Government. It is important to recognise that part of the recession we are suffering is because of present world circumstances but in the area of industry, hidden in the unemployment statistics, are the job losses which six, eight or ten years ago, when free trade was on the way, were spelled out. It was warned then that with the successive reductions in tariffs there would be unemployment in some of the sensitive sections of industry. These were industries which had been aided by way of artificial protection by the Government for a long number of years.
With the development of free trade and the expansion of more modern industries, certain industries are in a sensitive position. Hidden in the present figures are factors which would have happened even if there had been a boom in the world economy. Given a boom at present, as high a proportion of unemployment would still continue here.
The Central Bank referred to it in the following terms:
There is no denying that unemployment in Ireland has become much more severe over a relatively short period of time. The current spate of redundancies and short-time working has been connected, in the main, with the older and previously more protected industries. Their products are thought, because of a high employment content and relatively high unit wage cost, to have been experiencing sharp foreign competition on, particularly, the domestic market at a time of a falling-off in consumer spending. This has resulted in a downturn in sales.
It is important to realise that these factors are working in unemployment and industry, regardless of circumstances.
I welcome the Minister's statement on industry. He said he intends to increase the capital allowances on industrial buildings from an initial 20 per cent to 50 per cent. He also proposes to renew the free depreciation of plant and machinery outside the designated areas. Originally this depreciation allowance was brought into the designated areas, which take in the west of Ireland, and is now extended to the rest of the country. The small industries programme was started in the designated areas also. The successful scheme was then extended to the rest of the country. The result of this has been, to a degree, an erosion of the supposed privileged position of the west.
The major concession which exists for manufacturing industries is not, as most people imagine, the cash grant. That is tangible. The major incentive has been the complete relief of taxation on export sales. Statistics from the IDA about job creation, job promotion, job recruitment, State investment and so forth, tend to emphasise the cash grant. We do not hear often enough about the complete relief from taxation on export sales which is available to manufacturing industries in this city of Dublin.
There is a weakness in the production of statistics of industrial employment in that we tend to talk of job approvals as a result of Government grant. We do not talk of the totality of employment in manufacturing industries. I am not sure if many people are aware of the fact that at this time one out of every two jobs in the manufacturing industry is in Dublin, despite all our talk about regional development and regional aspects.
The National Economic and Social Council recently published a report entitled Regional policy in Ireland: A Review. I was especially glad to see this report published by such an eminent council appointed by the Government and representing various interests—the Government, the CII, the IAOS, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Irish employers and the Irish Farmers Association. On page 52 they state:
There is no formal hierarchical structure for the co-ordination of local, regional and national development plans. What does exist is a collection of teams, committees, organisations, and semi-state bodies which have responsibility for particular aspects of regional development. There is considerable diversity in the membership, functions and responsibilities of these bodies.
They point out the extraordinary degree of overlapping which exist in this area and the necessity for more co-ordination and true regional policy. On page 64 they say:
Personal incomes in 1969 were highest in the East Region at around £520 per head and lowest in the Midlands, West, North West and Donegal Regions at around £320 .... There has been no reduction in the inequality of income per head between regions over the period 1960/69. The evidence indicates that there was a decrease in inequality between 1960 and 1965 while by 1969 the degree of inequality had returned to its 1960 level.
This is a sober statement. It shows that the disparity of income, production and employment levels are increasing rather than narrowing. This was pointed out in the OECD report on Ireland last year. It points out the necessity to treat the west in a different manner to the rest of the country. That the west is different was proved by the cattle crisis which is continuing to a degree but is not quite as bad as it had been and the area suffering from that most was the west. It was good to be in the EEC but the parts of the country which will benefit most from, say, the common agricultural policy, will be the east and south. It will not really affect the west which is disadvantaged and in need of development.
I am glad to see the EEC Regional Fund emerging. While it is at an unsatisfactory level now, I believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs was one of the influences who ensured that a fund emerged. This is very satisfactory. We have been talking of a fund of £35 million for Ireland over three years—£8½ million this year and proportionately more for the next three years. This is a very small sum which does not bear any relationship to the amount envisaged at the time of our entry to the EEC.
When we were advocating membership in the western areas we were aware that the advantages of the common agricultural policy, and the implementation of that policy, would free £30 to £40 million for this country to spend on social welfare. One of the principal reasons why we advocated membership was because we were told there was a regional policy and a philosophy within the Community of support for what were termed the less well off regions. We pointed out to the electorate that the west, by the various yardsticks used, was in that category to an even greater degree than the Mezzogiorno in Italy. This is one of the reasons for our disillusionment now.
Although the fund has emerged the Commission are presently deciding on the criteria. It is likely that all of Ireland will be in a position to benefit because the country is underdeveloped so far as the rest of Europe is concerned. It would be disastrous for the west if there was a policy of total dispersement throughout the Twenty-six Counties, if we are to have regard to the disparity which exists and if we are serious about limiting the growth of the east and improving the development of the west. This is the reality. It is essential, if there is to be any attempt made to redress the imbalance in view of circumstances where most other aids are going to other parts of the country, that a large proportion of this fund comes into the west to give us a chance to get things moving.
I should like to come back to the question of industry. Much has been said by some of our critics about the fact that there are insufficient incentives for industrial development and for business. I do not agree. There may be reasons for minor complaints, without question, but in broad terms if we look at the range of assistance that is provided by the Government, it is, on analysis, incomparably better than the range which is offered by most other countries in Europe or most countries in the world. An objective analysis spells this out. In addition, the fact that we are such a small country of three million people means that if a manufacturing company is in trouble there is pretty immediate access to the highest office in the land if there is a serious problem. This is the type of service that does not exist in larger countries of 50 million, 60 million and 100 million people. If you go through the range of incentives—major grants available as part of one's capital investment, total relief from taxation on export sales, training and retraining facilities from AnCO, credit facilities from the IDA over a long term guaranteed by the State, marketing facilities from Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, research facilities from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and, after all that, a rescue service from Fóir Teoranta if people are getting into trouble. There is an entire range of support and sympathy from the Government for industry and in a commercial situation if a company does not see a niche or an opportunity for itself with this vast range of support and still has a problem after all that, that company probably should not be in business in the first place.
We hear a lot of nonsense about antagonism on the part of the Government to business or industry. The facts are there to show that there is a range of incentives available which is better than in most other countries. The opportunities are without question there and it is up to commercial organisations and companies to avail of the facilities available. I note that the Minister in this regard speaks of an announcement that he is going to make soon about export credits, credit on preferential terms, which is a further continuation of the type of thing I was talking about.
Deputy Moore spoke about offshore oil and I accept that the top priority at present is for an announcement which the Minister stated would have been made before Christmas but which has yet to be made, about the policy of the Government regarding licences for offshore oil. However, it is important to say that this is in a major area in which there had to be an opportunity for work by consultants and by Government advisers and the Minister has been very reluctant to jump into it without considering very fully the implications involved in the announcement of such a policy on which development in the offshore area will be based for the next 20 years. I would accept that it is valid for critics outside this House to be critical of the Government, to a degree, for the delay in announcing the new scheme but I reject completely any criticism that comes from the Opposition in the offshore oil area and references to what is happening in Scotland and in Norway. Oil is coming ashore in Norway at present and beginning to come ashore in Scotland because of policy decisions made by British and Norwegian Governments eight and ten years ago and as a result of which commercial organisations took up options, engaged in research and development and then started getting into the mechanics of extracting the oil. The facts which are clearly before us are that the Fianna Fáil Government who were in power for so many years developed absolutely no policies and the fact that there is no oil coming ashore in Ireland at present is directly attributable to negligence on the part of the previous Government rather than the present Government.
The Minister has budgeted for a deficit of £160 million lessened by £34 million in tax with the pious hope that the objectives will run according to plan. It seems a reasonable solution. I do not suppose there is any definitive answer as to the extent to which a Government should budget for a deficit or a surplus. It was interesting that on the day after the budget our critics tended to go to both extremes. There were those who said we were not sufficiently inflationary and there were those who said we were not sufficiently deflationary. If our critics were equal on both sides of that fence, it is possible that our judgment might have been just about right. Certainly I welcome the expansionist nature of the budget. I am glad there has not been any aspect of retrenchment and I think it is a reasonable solution.
There is a paradox which is worth noting and probably comforting to the country in that our level of underdevelopment vis-á-vis other European countries, while unsatisfactory, is helping us in this crisis because our country, with an employment content in agriculture of 30 per cent in comparison with Britain with employment in agriculture at 2.7 per cent, the US at 4.3 per cent, Belgium 4 per cent and Holland 7 per cent, is in a much safer position in a time of world crisis or recession because if you have a country that is extremely highly geared towards industry, technology and services, cutbacks in employment have a proportionately greater effect than they have in a country such as ours. This will be of some help to us.
I am glad the Minister in his budget has arranged an additional budget for BIM. There has been some constructive criticism in this area and I am very glad that the matter has been rectified. It raises certain questions of Government organisation because we are a maritime country with the least emphasis on our maritime sector. We need to do more. Offshore oil, fishing, coastal development, marine works and recreation on the sea are all part of the thing of being a maritime nation and, for one, I am not very satisfied with Government organisation in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. Again I do not blame the Government because we are just recently in office and it is a fundamental question that will not be easily answered. I do not think in organisational terms it is a very good idea to have fisheries in the same Department as Agriculture for the very simple reason that the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for one of the key areas of activity in the country, an area which in 1975 has a budget of about £80 million. It means that the interests of the Minister must be continually to concern himself with agriculture and it would be a dereliction of responsibility if he were to do otherwise but there are other Government Departments with lesser areas of responsibility and more freedom of time. If there is to be a regrouping at some stage of Government Departments the question of fisheries should be considered because it would be more rational to align it with some sections of other Departments or directly with other Departments than to have it as it is at present.
Last year when we were discussing the European Communities Bill, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said he was not convinced that there was a sufficiently close degree of consultation between the civil service and vocational interests as there was in other countries. The Minister hit the nail on the head because there is a big problem about the EEC. When we joined the Community it was the cutting-off point for many who thought that once we were in other people would run things in future. It is a matter that requires continuing emphasis and consideration in changing circumstances. I have the impression that in bodies such as county councils they are not sufficiently aware of the benefits available from Brussels, are not aware of the schemes and are not sufficiently enlightened about specific details of FEOGA funds. I do not think such bodies should leave themselves entirely in the hands of the civil service, which is stretched in regard to the EEC in considering this matter. If we are to get fuller benefits and have greater understanding there must be more liaison directly between the EEC and areas in the south east, the south, the south west and the west.
Three months ago we had a visit in the west from Mr. Thomson, Commissioner for Regional Policy, and we had some enlightening discussions. One of the messages we got was that there was need for greater communication at local level, possibly with Government Departments, so that there would be better knowledge about the situation. Above all, what is needed is an independent approach so that all possibilities may be considered.
We appear to be missing the boat with regard to FEOGA. Under the FEOGA scheme of supports for works of an agricultural nature, in other countries—particularly Britain —roads which service farmhouses are being supported by this fund. This means that about 25 per cent of the cost of construction of the equivalent of our county roads or local improvement scheme roads are paid for out of the FEOGA fund. In Mayo we are much behind with our road programme and it will take us a minimum of 15 years, possibly 20 years, to tar all the county council roads, not to mention the problem of roads dealt with under the local improvements scheme. There should be an immediate investigation by the Minister of the FEOGA section to see if we can get money from that source for road works. If we can do that we will be able to speed up significantly the black topping of such roads without additional expense to the State.
I should like to end on a happy note despite the difficult times and the degree of depression that are evident. Immense benefit is accruing to this country in undefinable terms because of our presidency of the EEC during this time. It gladdens my heart and makes me proud to be an Irishman when I see the extraordinary influence and involvement on the world scene of the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture and Fisheries and Industry and Commerce. The democratically elected leaders of this small country of three million people for the first six months of 1975 have positions of the most extraordinary influence on world events—events of war and peace, of economies, of liaison between Europe, the East and the United States. It is one of the tremendous benefits—in undefinable terms—accruing to us because of our membership of the EEC. We should have regard to such matters as well as to considerations of a monetary nature. It will enhance our prestige as a nation, it will be of benefit to the tourist industry and it will add to the status and prestige of our nation. I wish our representatives well in this arduous time. I wish the Minister for Finance well in a very difficult year and I hope he will be safely back in harbour at the end of the year.
