Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 4 Jul 1975

Vol. 283 No. 4

Financial Resolutions, 1975. - Financial Resolution No. 3: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Resolution:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(Minister for Finance.)

Mr. Dowling

VAT has been removed from foodstuffs but there are other essentials. We heard during the debate that the Minister for Finance was not aware of the actual percentage of VAT charged on some of the essentials of life, including clothing and household commodities. VAT has been removed from clothing. That produces the extraordinary situation that VAT has been removed from mink coats but has not been removed from essential household goods. The kitchen is a very important place. The Minister will be one who will benefit from the removal of VAT on a fur coat. This mink coat Government now have the advantage of being able to buy mink coats without VAT whereas the housewife will have to pay VAT on essential household commodities. On some surgical applicances for the disabled VAT is payable. There must be a realistic examination of the operation of VAT. Luxuries should be taxed. A mink coat is a luxury. I could not afford to purchase a mink coat but there are people who can afford it and who will benefit while the purchaser of ordinary necessaries are disadvantaged.

There must be a restoration of confidence but this is not the way to get it. We must ensure that investors have confidence in the Government and in this House, that industrialists have confidence, that every member of the community who has a vital part to play in this difficult situation has confidence. As Deputy Briscoe said, there is no confidence in the Government. The people have not confidence because there has not been the necessary upwards surge to take us out of the mess we are in.

There should be an examination by the Government of the things that affect the family—the job, the home, foodstuffs and other essentials. Take the job situation first. There are approximately 150,000 unemployed. Figures given by the Central Statistics Office vary between 102,000 and 103,000 but do not take account of the number of school leavers now seeking employment and who are unable to get it. The school leavers do not draw social welfare benefit and therefore do not appear on the live register and are not recorded as unemployed. That applies also in the case of the professional people who have lost employment, architects and others. The live register is not a true reflection of the unemployment position.

In a recent EEC publication figures were given by the Government last March which showed a shortfall in the unemployment situation of about 6 per cent or 7 per cent as against the actual figure, not taking into account school leavers, skilled personnel, outworkers and other persons who are unemployed or who have no job— whichever term one likes to use and a variety of terms can be used. There is a vast volume of people unemployed and the Government do not seem to realise the seriousness of the situation. They do not seem to know the number unemployed.

One cannot correct a situation unless one fully understands the problem. I would hope that the Government will re-examine the unemployment figures. I hope there will be some system devised whereby they can assess the current position and the future position for the young people now attending who have no future whatsoever.

Where are they to go when their education is completed? They have no hope of jobs in the Civil Service, in the local authorities, in the banks, or in the other institutions that in the past have given good employment to school leavers. What confidence can school leavers or others who have pursued educational courses have in a Government that have cast them upon the scrap heap?

This is quite apart from the vast numbers of persons who are on the unemployment register. Over the last six months there has been no reduction in the unemployment figures. Of course, the Government give one set of figures to the EEC and another set to Deputies from the Central Statistics Office. I hope there will be some co-ordination between the two Government services that supply erroneous figures either to Deputies or to the EEC. It is a very serious matter that Members of this House should be misled or that members of the European Parliament or other people outside the country who are trying to make an assessment from the point of view of the allocation of aid of one type or another or in relation to what one can rightly borrow should be misled in regard to the figures presented.

The facilities for employment abroad are not there now as they were in the past. People are not emigrating in the same numbers now because of the lack of opportunities. Therefore we have this pile-up at home and no plan whatsoever to meet this serious situation. Take the building industry, which gives the impetus to employment in many spheres. There are the bricklayers and carpenters producing the homes. There are the carpentry shops and the woodwork centres that produce the doors, windows and other fittings. There are the carpet manufacturers, the manufacturers of furniture and fabrics for the home. These are all affected by the running down of the building industry. Yet the Minister for Local Government has on numerous occasions informed the House that the building industry was flourishing, that more houses were being built than ever before. I would like the Minister to tell us where the houses are, because we cannot find them.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister has already informed the House where the houses are.

Mr. Dowling

We know there has been a pile-up of all the components necessary for the development of housing. If the builders' suppliers are not supplying builders with the necessary materials to build houses, if they are not supplying cement, timber, and so on, how is the Minister getting the houses built, without timber and the other necessary commodities, and without tradesmen, because there are many of them on the labour exchange?

Although the Minister has told us there are more houses and more employment than ever before, why was it necessary for the Minister in the budget to inject another £10,500,000 into the building industry in order to stimulate it? Perhaps the Minister for Local Government is operating outside the Cabinet and that there is not collective responsibility, because that would appear to be the only explanation for the Minister misleading the House in relation to the building industry.

This additional £10,500,000 will not produce any more homes because we now have the serious situation since the budget that the worker who wants to purchase a modest home has to provide himself with a deposit of approximately £3,000, while the Government have failed to make additional money available by way of SDA loans and supplementary grants. What they have done is piled an additional burden on those who are prepared to purchase their own homes. They have reduced the period of the loan from 35 to 30 years, thereby increasing the repayments, and increased the percentage the person has to pay on the loan that will be available from the local authority. The net result is that the person who wants to have a stake in the community by purchasing his home will have to pay an additional £1 a week. This action on the part of the Government will not stimulate the production of homes, because people will be unable to afford the additional £1 a week, apart from the increase they will have to pay in income tax and other taxes that have been imposed.

Maybe this is an effort to ensure that workers will be unable to purchase their homes and will have to live in local authority houses and be the responsibility of the local authority. Does the Minister feel, as indeed other Ministers have felt, that the more people who own their homes, the greater will be the problem that arises for the Labour Party? This is the view that has been expressed not alone in this country but in Britain. As people become home-owners the Labour Party, who were handing out stops to them in the past, lose their support. In this an effort to ensure that responsible workers in this city will not be able to purchase their own homes and will have to rely on local authorities in the future, because I believe this is what the bulk of the people will have to do in the future if they want a house? They will not be able to afford the £3,000 deposit. Neither will they be able to meet the repayments with this extra £1 per week, £52 per year, imposed on them. These are a responsible section of the community and the Government should really be giving them assistance by increasing the loan to a more realistic figure. The present figure of £4,500 is unrealistic in everyone's view except that of the Government. Surely it is not expected that these people could save £3,000. Such a sum is quite beyond their capacity.

This is a vicious increase. The man who wants to own his own home would need to be in the millionaire class. It is only the latter who can afford to borrow from the banks. I wonder how many have accounts in credit or are the greater percentage in the red? Loans from banks are out of the reach of the ordinary worker. But it is the ordinary worker who will be the scapegoat if the budget goes wrong. All the responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the ordinary worker for correcting the economic situation in the proposed revision of the national wage agreement. Not only are the workers being asked to make a sacrifice in relation to pay but they are also being deprived of the opportunity of owning their own homes. Surely every assistance should be given to people anxious to own their own homes instead of having them rely on the local authorities to provide them with houses.

It is about time the Government fully assessed the value of the £ and then decided they would six months hence increase the loans and made a statement to that effect. If that were done it would be a stimulus to the building industry. There could be forward planning. The builders want some guarantee for the future.

The Minister for Local Government tells us there are plenty of houses. The builders providers tell us no one is purchasing building materials. There is an injection of £10 million into the industry. Apparently the Minister for Finance knows the builders providers have their yards full because no one is buying building materials. Obviously the Minister for Local Government is not aware of this. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who is with us this afternoon, will bring pressure to bear so that the loans will be increased to a realistic figure. He is sympathetic to the workers. The loans should be increased to £6,000 to keep step with inflation.

I hope the supplementary grants will be increased. This should have been done long ago but even at this late stage an increase would help those anxious to purchase their own homes. There is need, too, for an upward adjustment in income levels. This is long overdue. A person earning £30, £40, £50 or £60 a week will have little left to buy the necessities after meeting the repayments on his home.

Today we learn of enormous increases in the cost of hospitalisation. We heard a great deal at one stage about free medical services for all and improved social services. The performance has not lived up to the promises. I hope we will not have a repeat performance of what happened in the last Coalition Government. I hope we will not again have the finance companies selling up to the highest bidder the homes the workers were trying to get together for themselves. The situation is serious, so serious it verges on disaster. It is time the Government woke up. The people want homes not hopes. The Minister says houses are springing up like mushrooms, but nobody can find them. Perhaps the Minister would give us a list of these housing estates so that we can go and look for them.

The Government made an effort to stimulate employment by making available grants of £12 or £6 as the case may be. Is this an indication of what employers should pay to workers? At a time of a serious unemployment crisis the Government should initiate a public works programme so that people can be put into employment. We heard that the Government were initiating such a programme but we have not seen it yet. I have been in some of the military barracks recently and the accommodation there is deplorable. If these barracks are not renovated now they will have to be renovated in the future at much greater cost. This work would put people into gainful employment. Space could be made available in the Army barracks for recruits. They are short of space at the moment, not because there is an over abundance of people on service but because the barracks have been allowed to run down over the years.

If the Government are really concerned they should set in motion the vast amount of public works which will have to be carried out in the future. This would provide employment for people. This would stimulate other industries because purchasing power would be increased. This is a challenge to the Government. I mention the military barracks because I was there recently. Numerous jobs have been outstanding in the Ordnance Survey Office and in the Office of Public Works for years. The more people there are in employment the more tax the Government get and the greater the return to the Exchequer. A positive effort must be made to stimulate employment.

Jobs in the pipeline are useless. We want to reduce the length of the dole queues and put people back to work. If the Government are not prepared to do this they should get out and let somebody into office who will do it. A previous Coalition Government deserted the nation in the middle of the night and left over 100,000 people unemployed. Are we heading for the same situation? To my mind we are. We have seen the non-positive approach of the Government to this budget. We have seen them shirking their responsibilities. They would not bring in a measure which might be unpopular but which might be in the national interest.

The public will have to respond in a positive way if the economy is to be put on a sound footing. Irish men and women were never found wanting when called upon to ensure the survival of the nation. If they were called upon today to make great sacrifices they would make them. Great sacrifices were made before by Irish men and women. If the Government make a courageous approach to the Irish people they will get the support of all responsible Irish men and women.

Mr. Kelly

Does that include Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Dowling

The Government do not want to take any decision that may be unpopular. They are just ambling along from one week to another without disclosing the full facts to the people. We hear talk about building a new House of Parliament. Such a scheme would provide work for a large number of people. People who are serving this nation honourably in arms have to sleep in badly heated, badly ventilated, badly painted and badly maintained accommodation. The Government should show positive leadership in providing work for the unemployed. Do they want to maintain this rate of unemployment? Do they feel that further unemployment is a solution to inflation? Some economists believe that. Is that their policy? Apparently it is their policy to have 102.000 or 103.000 unemployed. They know that industry will be unable to avail of the subsidies for quite some time.

Recently I pointed out that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said, with regard to one small item in his Department—the printing of labels—that that job is carried out by an overseas firm and the labels are imported here when I am sure our own printers could undertake such a job. This is a Government Department, but what does the Minister tell us—that somebody did this previously. Blame-placing is no solution to our problems. We must be realistic, examine our problems and see how they can be corrected. The fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has some of his Department's labels printed in Britain, comes along and tells us it was done by somebody in the past is no solution.

The Government should take a realistic look at the situation to see what can be produced here, to ensure that wherever possible Irish goods are utilised by Government services. Recently I asked a question of the Minister for Defence in relation to the importation of low loaders which could have been produced here and provide employment for our people. I would hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach would urge on his colleagues in Government that, in future whatever may be the commodity involved it is Irish-manufactured. At least Government Departments and local authorities here should be made nail their flag to the mast by ensuring that whatever is purchased is of Irish manufacture.

Irish goods and workers are every bit as good and effective as their foreign counterparts. They are sought and have achieved distinction in many countries. But, at home they are regarded as not good enough to undertake some small jobs in Government Departments. There is the possibility of plenty of employment here if the Government would set their minds to it. There might be established some committee which would undertake an assessment of the jobs to be done, of the cost factor, how many people would be taken off the dole queues, how many people placed in gainful employment, how much more the Government could do to stimulate the work force, how much more they could do to ensure that every item obtained or utilised by a Government Department is of Irish manufacture.

Mr. Kelly

I agree with Deputy Dowling but I was here last week when he asked the Minister for Defence that question about the low loaders. The Minister for Defence quite plainly said that the particular item the Army needed was not made in this country.

Mr. Dowling

If the Minister wanted a particular type of low loader manufactured here, I am quite sure we have the technical capacity to do so. I am positive we have the necessary manpower to design it to the particular requirements of the Defence Forces, not merely pick it off an assembly line somewhere else and say: "We will take that" just because that happens to meet the situation at present.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy said all that last week and he was given a very full reply by the Minister for Defence.

Mr. Dowling

If we are concerned about stimulating the work force of this country then we must take into consideration the capacity of our workers to do the job. I am quite certain the Parliamentary Secretary will not deny that we have the technical know-how here, because we do make low loaders of a type——

Mr. Kelly

But not the type the Army need now.

Mr. Dowling

It is not sufficient to say that something went out to tender and that somebody's tender was a little better than the next. We have the manpower, the technical know-how, and designers here who can produce any item the Department of Defence, or indeed any other Department, would require. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Minister gave me an adequate answer last week. He did not give me an adequate answer. The answer he gave——

Mr. Kelly

He succeeded in silencing the Deputy and that is a difficult job.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dowling without interruption.

Mr. Dowling

Certainly he did not silence me and it is not the last he will have heard about it. On that occasion the Minister displayed the type of approach that he and other Ministers have displayed in relation to the manufacture of Irish equipment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I interrupt to inform the Deputy that he has one-and-a-half minutes left.

Mr. Dowling

Then, I shall have to wait until the next budget to get all of this in.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy's speech is the same as that on last year's budget and the one before.

Mr. Dowling

This is the third edition; I amend it each time. I am positive that if the Parliamentary Secretary was here during the course of the discussion he would have heard a completely new speech.

Mr. Kelly

I do not think so; it is as though I dreamt it all before.

Mr. Dowling

It may be difficult to listen to but it is factual, correct and shows how irresponsible are the people on the other side of the House. In the minute-and-a-half I shall probably not have time to deal with ESB bills, recent advertisements in the newspapers, the 14-point plan about which we heard so much in the past, inflation, the £841 million we have to borrow, the £80 million interest our people have to pay on borrowed money, plans for the future, PAYE, income tax, bus and train fares and all the other aspects with which I should like to have time to deal. They are quite different from those with which I dealt in the past.

I am only sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been here to hear all of my contribution. But when I get a copy of the report I will send him my copy, which he can read and compare with any other speech I have made, to see if it compares favourably or contains repetition.

I want to indicate once again how irresponsible the Government have been, their lack of plans and action. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to various Ministers some of the things I have said in the hope that it will stimulate and, at least, give a ray of hope to those thousands of our people now in dole queues.

Mr. Tunney

There are four minutes remaining in which, obviously, I shall not be able to make my budget speech. I hope to put one point on record indicating the fearful position in which we find ourselves at present under the Government that claims to govern.

Occasionally we can blind the eye of what might be described as the ordinary reader when we speak in technical and perhaps academic economic terms. Oft-times, he does not see the real position. If I say to him—and this is the point I want conveyed to the public at large—that, in the present age of the five-day week, the manner in which the Government of today are budgeting and carrying out the affairs of this country—in respect of the present year we are losing £1 million per day, £1 million per day deficit—it might shock the reader or listener into realising the terrible plight in which we find ourselves.

One million pounds is a considerable amount of money. If we want to visualise the amount involved and that which £1 million represents, we might ponder and think that since 1 A.D. until the present, one million days have not yet passed. Perhaps this is something which will convey to us, better than merely reading the digit 1 and the letter "m" beside it, the extent of it—as yet, one million days have not passed since the time of Our Lord. But this Government have budgeted in a fashion that they are short £1 million per day in running the affairs of the country.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For the information of the House, the House will sit next week, on Tuesday from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.; Wednesday from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. Thursday from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. and, on Friday, from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 8th July, 1975.