Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 1978

Vol. 303 No. 10

Financial Statement, 1978: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Financial Statement made by the Minister for Finance on 1 February 1978.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. V. Brady

Last Thursday I made some points on various aspects of the budget. It must be re-emphasised that the budget is in line with the election manifesto produced by Fianna Fáil prior to the general election, following a lot of in-depth work, planning and consideration as to the most appropriate way to get the country moving again.

There were many problems facing the incoming Government. We put our plans to the people and they were accepted overwhelmingly. It was generally agreed that the most serious problem facing the Government was unemployment; it was accepted by all the parties as our greatest problem. This time last year the official unemployment figure was in the region of 119,000. Since Fianna Fáil came to office this figure has been reduced and the job programme to create an additional 20,000 jobs before the end of the year is well on target.

This was the main issue before the electorate. The people were satisfied that we had produced the plans to do something constructive about employment and we received a very strong mandate to govern accordingly. As has been said by previous speakers, the budget is based exactly on the lines of the election manifesto. It must be conceded by our most ardent critics that the people have given the manifesto wide acceptance. The Government have delivered on their promises to date according to the manifesto. If they had not done so the people would have been justified in criticising and condemning them. Throughout the country there is a definite air of confidence in the Government. No matter where one goes one can feel it. Of course, there are many problems still to be solved but in the wake of the Government's performance during their seven months in office the country has the confidence that was so sadly lacking.

I have referred already to the improvements granted in social welfare benefits. There has been criticism that the increases granted were not large enough. One can understand and have sympathy with such complaints. No doubt all of us are aware of cases of hardship in our community. No Deputy would object to giving more to the really needy. The budget has set out to achieve a real increase and a better standard of living for all, particularly the social welfare recipients who are always vulnerable in a time of high inflation and rising prices. Price stability is one of the main objectives of the budget and already we have had some success in this regard. For the first time in many years the inflation rate has been cut to a single figure. It can be seen that the Government's plans are working, that the spiralling price increases experienced over the last few years have slowed down considerably to what might be termed a reasonable level, if one can accept that term so far as price increases are concerned. In those circumstances a 10 per cent increase to social welfare recipients means a real increase in money values.

The Opposition have been very critical of the Minister's plan for financing the budget. A borrowing requirement of 13 per cent of our GNP is exactly as envisaged in the manifesto. It appears to be forgotten or overlooked that the borrowing of a previous Government which did nothing for the economy or for employment ran at a rate of more than 16 per cent. Regarding the additional public service expenditure, it is much more acceptable and reasonable to pay people to do useful and necessary work rather than have an unproductive dole queue.

As the Minister has made clear, it is the aim of the Government to finance as much as possible of our borrowing requirements from domestic sources and to keep foreign borrowing to a minimum. Borrowing has been a very strong feature of Irish life during the years but the important point is that it should be put to constructive use. The Government are doing this. They have committed themselves to reducing drastically the deficit on current account and to refrain from public expenditure as much as possible. The Government are working to an economic plan, something that was absent during the previous administration.

The budget has been described as a rich man's budget, but this is nonsense. It has been framed to benefit the nation as a whole and primarily to secure work for the unemployed and for our young people. The budget was designed to assist those who through no fault of their own are disadvantaged. Above all, it will contribute towards maintaining real increases in take-home pay. The budget will ensure additional value for social welfare recipients by reducing further the rate of inflation.

It must be emphasised to the people generally the importance of buying Irish goods. During the years there have been many campaigns to buy Irish goods but I do not think any of them was very successful. This is an area where everyone can contribute in a worth-while and painless manner to help in job creation. We are all involved in this. If we go to the super-market or to clothing or footwear shops we must keep in mind that now is the time to support Irish industry by buying Irish goods. The Minister has said that a switch of a mere 3p in the £ in spending from foreign to home-produced goods would yield about 10,000 additional jobs over a three-year period.

The public must repeatedly be told of those facts. The media, television, radio and the newspapers, can play a big part here so that eventually this must arouse an awareness in the minds of people that should make the vast majority of shoppers very conscious of their real patriotism. Much has been said about the part of the public in the "Buy Irish" Campaign but what about the stores? On many occasions I have been told about well-known stores in this city where shoppers were unable to purchase Irish brand goods. The Government's efforts must be directed to the stores and buyers should be made fully aware of the Government's concern. The answer, ultimately, is in the hands of the shoppers but I do not think that a sufficient number of people at the moment are prepared to insist on getting Irish goods or, alternatively, to leave that particular store and search elsewhere where they can get Irish goods.

The budget has also put an onus on the banks to shake off their conservatism, particularly in their dealings with small business. I feel that support should be given to those with limited resources who have previously proved their ability to be successful and likely to expand. A business, no matter how small or large, will have to take certain risks in its everyday operations. Over the years, banks have been inclined to stand aside and examine applicants obtaining facilities on the basis of the assets they actually held. The time has now come for the banks to look to their social contributions to helping Irish people to help themselves. Other financial institutions also, such as the insurance companies, should do a lot more. Progress has been made by some of our leading companies in projects abroad as well as at home. Various projects which come to mind include additional finance for private enterprise, housing and local community projects.

The new Irish Life Centre is on the fringe of very impoverished areas in my constituency, such as Corporation Street, Seán McDermott Street and Killarney Street. If some Deputies do not know where those areas are situated I am sure they have read about incidents which occur in those areas or in the immediate areas very frequently. For years those areas have been run down. As we all know, there is a great social need and problem for many of the people living in those areas. The consequences affect everybody directly or indirectly.

Some of the inner city areas are in a shambles. This is a priority which needs much money. It is totally unbecoming for a capital city and it is time that somebody, at national or local level, put the wheels in motion to start some re-building and to do something about the situation.

It is well to emphasise the importance of the measures taken in the budget to encourage savings. We hope that more people will have higher incomes which should go back into buying Irish and saving in Ireland. I would have thought, for the small saver, that the amount of interest before tax is payable is long overdue for an upward adjustment. The budget also shows confidence in Irish industry and agriculture and is designed, above all, to show confidence in the worker.

The Minister calls for a response from all sectors of our economy. As I said previously, the Opposition parties are finding the going very tough. The budget is on the lines promised in our manifesto. It has been very well received. I was very disappointed, in checking through the speeches of those who criticised the budget, to find that Northern Ireland was dragged in the week before last. I would have thought that after their first great mistake in standing alongside Neave, Paisley and West in criticising the Taoiseach—Deputy Kelly later made a gallant effort to rescue the situation—the Fine Gael Party would have been much more careful and selective. This proves that the Opposition parties are really desperate now and prepared to sacrifice any principle. When in Government they conveniently overlooked the existence of the six Northern Counties.

The challenges over the next few years for the Government are tremendous. There will no doubt be problems and setbacks. During the first seven months in Government much has been achieved. The Government have responded positively in carrying out to the letter what they said would be done in the manifesto. It is important that confidence has been restored and it is now up to everybody to contribute in his or her own way, no matter how small, to the future of the nation. The Government have given every encouragement in the budget. The leadership is back and the Minister for Finance has been honest and forthright. He said that the budget is a "once off". The rest is now up to everybody, employers, trade unions, employees. The reins of responsibility must be firmly tightened.

Mr. Keating

The budget has, by now, been fairly well discussed with regard to the minutiae contained in it. I do not propose to go through it in any great detail. I just want to take a few points which strike me as not having been particularly well emphasised up to this and which I believe are important. I would like to take a much more fundamental view of the budget which I suppose was precipitated by the interaction of the Fianna Fáil election manifesto on the one hand and the recent White Paper on the other. It is largely, from my point of view, a budget of missed opportunities. If I could beg the cliché I could say that never really was so little done by so many—84—for so few people. It lacks the sense of radical vision so necessary at the moment. As the sick economies of the so-called developed world flounder about like islands of plenty in the midst of a sea of world poverty there are great challenges facing us at the moment.

Surely now was the time for grasping some of the problems, for looking at them and trying to find an answer? This opportunity was not taken. Why is it timely now to look at the basic needs of our society and to hope that a budget statement would encompass consideration of the new directions we should work towards and the new challenges which are before us? Surely there should be some time in the affairs of a nation when a major review should take place, not just of the way we balance our books, conduct our financial affairs or of the allocation of our capital programme but of the fundamental issues affecting the life of the nation? I believe that now is the time because we are at an economic cross-roads.

A new Government with an unprecedented mandate could have had the sense to say that it is time for a fundamental review of the way we have been doing things. That opportunity was not grasped. This budget should have been like all budgets, a major social statement. It was, instead, just another fiscal document. It should have embodied a solid social view but it does not. If one looks at the capital programme on which the budget was drawn up it can be seen that it is like all the capital programmes going back to the beginning of the seventies and probably before then. There are 20 main headings, always locked in the same pecking order, frozen there and subject to merely sporadic increases in investment to give the impression, I suppose, that the Government are doing something about the state of the nation. In fact, they are really a charter by which the Government have accepted the need in relation to the budget and are in a sense masters of the Government. The Government did not accept the possibility that there could be a totally new opportunity opening up by reviewing the pro-portionality under these various headings, by seeing in some, as opposed to others, that there is need for a totally new visionary grasp of the opportunities therein.

There are two examples which strike me immediately, and I have not gone to any great trouble in working on them, and those are fisheries and forestry. Most of us would agree that in both cases there is total under-development, that there is almost infinite opportunity for investment, job creation and exploitation, in the kindest sense of that word. What do we get? We get the same as we got in former years—£7.5 million in both cases in the capital programme, implying that somehow the 3.5 million acres derelict would not benefit from a major investment in terms of forestry, implying we are on a planned programme of developing our marine industry, which we all know is nonsense, because we are really barely holding our own. Again, opportunities are lost in these areas.

I am not essentially attacking the budget. It is a popular budget. It is popular because we are getting now what we will not pay for until some years hence, but the fact that it is a popular budget does not mean it is the right budget. Many speakers have made that point. Making a budget popular is not the same thing as producing a budget that is wise. The underdevelopment of land and sea resources is a major challenge that was not tackled in the budget. Neither were other challenges that could have been looked at by a Government which can confidently look forward to a five year mandate, secure in the knowledge that it is a Government with the backing of the majority of the people in a way which was clear and unprecedented. These challenges include the development of land and sea resources.

A whole new programme of commitments could have been opened up here which would lead to less waste and more real production of appreciating value, more real jobs in food processing and so on. It is important to stress real jobs as compared with the rather half-baked efforts at some of the piece type work we see increasingly in some areas of Government thinking. We have, as I said, 3.5 million derelict acres which, I understand, is the worst record in the EEC. Now, although I am a city Deputy, I have the opportunity of travelling all over the country and one sees in towns and villages the sad spectacle of young people, somehow hopeless, holding up street corners and pubs while, just a stone's throw from them, there is work, work that could be creative and valuable in a real sense, work that is useful. Instead of doing something about that we wait for someone to come in and build a shed and put our young people in there to toil away their days. We take them off the employment exchange and believe we have done our job. There is a very sad lack of vision in this. I am not blaming the Government for this. Our thinking down the years has been faulty in this regard.

Take our sea resources. We seek a 50-mile limit and yet the Government's vision of the industry is the old-fashioned one. The implication given by these figures is somehow the old-fashioned attitude to the exploitation of our marine industry. The fishermen can go out in the morning, come home to lunch on their bicycles and go back again in the afternoon to the sea. That is not the kind of approach we need particularly when talking about a 50-mile limit. In the context of a need for a radical new vision by the Government on our marine industry and the possibility therein of jobs, and the clear lack of hope in the budget in this regard, the events of last week when Commissioner Gundelach visited this island are important. It appears the natives did not quite come to heel. The fishermen who could ill afford the time from their arduous and dangerous labours were lectured and threatened. The insinuation apparently was that, if they did not come to heel, they might have, and I quote, "major marketing problems in getting rid of their catches".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may mention fisheries, or any other matter, in passing, but he may not go into detail. We cannot have a fisheries debate on the budget.

Mr. Keating

I assure the Chair it will be a brief comment. I want to make the point, in passing, that there is need for Government policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have had three fisheries debates and the Deputy is going away from the budget now in dealing with the events of last week.

Mr. Keating

If the Chair will bear with me for about 30 seconds, what I am trying to do is stress the need for a Government response and the need for a response is there because last week, when Commissioner Gundelach visited the island, he apparently lost his temper. I do not know what the image of the country is abroad, whether the EEC and the Mr. Gundelachs of this world have a different view of us, but I would like them to take careful note of the fact that we do not bow the knee or touch the forelock to anybody especially when it comes to preserving one of the last few resources the nation possesses. We are citizens of no mean country. We had many days of subservience to various powers over the centuries and this Government have an opportunity now to throw that image of Ireland as a poor nation grovelling in the dirt for its living aside. What happened last week? The fishermen were waiting like Lazarus at the gate. What did they get? They got a stern lecture and a threat. That is not what we expect from the EEC and we should not tolerate that. The Government have a responsibility to look again at the fisheries situation and invest a great deal more money and inspiration in it than the figures in the budget show they are willing to invest. Apart from being the height of discourtesy to this nation and to the hosts, that particular exercise was a form of arrogance and condescension we should not and will not accept. I am disappointed the Government did not respond by rejecting the attitude adopted. The marine industry is an industry to be protected. It is an industry in which the Government must invest. What indication of that have we got here? The sum is very meagre. A great opportunity is being missed.

Another challenge the budget could and should have taken up is the urban crisis and the need for a policy there to correct and eliminate the mistakes of the past. The evacuation of our city centres leaving behind the old, too poor, and too feeble to bring themselves and their belongings to the waste-lands created in the suburbs, the excesive office blocks in the inner city, the unbalanced urban development, the inadequate amenities—all these things are areas of opportunity for a Government with the interests of the people at heart, anxious to create for the people a properly balanced society. I do not see any semblance of consciousness of the need for social direction in the budget. In this capital city there is need for a special policy and a special authority. It is time this was looked at but there is no indication of anything like that in this budget. Where jobs are concerned, the response to the growing problem—it is worldwide and has clear lessons to be learned by the Government—is to borrow and hand out to private enterprise massive sums and, on a wing and a prayer, hope when day is done there will be new jobs. That is based on two false premises. The first is that the volume of traditionally productive work is infinite, which it is not, and the second is the belief that the entrepreneur is in fact a patriot in disguise. One of the fundamental problems we have been experiencing is the re-distribution of profit and the reinvestment of profit into the social infrastructure to create work. I do not see any reason to believe there will be any more of that than there has been heretofore.

What about the cultural challenge to which the budget has not risen? Where is the encouragement of Irish music, dancing, songs and poetry? What about a specific cultural programme being part of Government strategy? Is that too much to ask? The epitome was last Sunday when I went in the afternoon to visit the Municipal Art Gallery and found it closed on a day when it should be busy. That is a symptom of a basic paralysis and malaise. It shows a lack of vision and ability.

The Government are facing a very long term in office; it can be four and a half years if they wish. They have wonderful opportunities and do not have to be hidebound by the old ways and obsolete economies of the past. What about all the other peripheral areas in the cultural field? There is the question of a concert hall for our capital city. Musicians when they come here have to play in a boxing stadium. What is disseminated by the media, particularly television, is for the most part, a diet of American garbage. It is totally passive and on the most superficial level. Maybe politicians generally have a vested interest in ensuring that people are passive, unen-lightened and uneducated. I hope not. I would not like to think that this is so, but these points are very relevant to the budget.

It cannot be repeated too often that the budget is not fundamentally a fiscal document. It is a social statement and it reveals the way the Government think. There is at the moment a great barrenness about that thinking. Have the Government any thoughts on these issues I have mentioned? If they have I have not seen them, and I have read carefully the statements of the Taoiseach and of the Minister with regard to the budget. I have teased out the various proposals in respect of increases and so on, and all I find is the same again, a little more in some cases a little less in others. The pattern which was established before I can remember is still the same. In other words, we are foisting old solutions on problems that are totally new.

Another challenge is education, with the pattern of resources, access and positive encouragement to it. Is it not very sad that all our efforts seem to be bent towards discouraging people from getting into education? There is restriction on third level, a tightening of finance on second level, and a silent hope in many people's minds that fewer people rather than more will get down to the job of educating themselves. That is very sad. Thomas Davis said: "Educate that you may be free", and he was not merely talking about territorial freedom. That saying is still valid, but the level of investment in education in the budget shows that the level of thinking about education in the Government's mind is clearly deficient if the vision of an educated and fulfilled nation is to be realised.

What about the dimension of North-South relations? Where in the budget is there specific, concrete, financial realisation that if there is to be harmony on this island there has to be economic commitment in certain directions? I will say no more about that except that the old, ambivalent, ambiguous attitudes of the past are not adequate. The shadows that reach out to us from the graves of the people who gave their lives—in many cases wisely, in some cases perhaps unwisely—for what they thought was right have perhaps bound us too tightly to the old, rigid thinking. One of the major prices that this country is going to pay for progress will be in the economic sphere. We will have to consider the economic implications of a new alignment on this island, and that is not in the budget. That is particularly disturbing from a party who express themselves as strongly republican. I am a little unhappy to see the sinister—that is the wrong word but a fair one—gesture to the War of Independence veterans just to show the party's followers that the heart of the party is in the right place. When it really hurts, when it would mean levying new taxes, creating new institutions, providing new sources of funds for cultural and other exchanges, what do we get? Nothing.

What about the public sector? The Taoiseach spoke about the 55 per cent of GNP in 1977 which went into the public sector. It was said that this was being continued more or less in a praiseworthy fashion. The question about all budgetary moneys is: how and when is this money being spent? In other words, there is need for strong social goals in the Department of the Public Service.

I have never been employed in the public service, but I imagine it must be an area which a person enters full of optimism about the new job but very quickly becomes just another piece of the furniture because of the lack of a goal towards which to work. That is not in the budget. There is strong need for a review of the goals towards which each Department operate. This obviously would per-colate right down through the system These goals should be reviewed regularly, perhaps annually or every two or three years, to see to what extent this monolith of the public service is measuring up to what society and our Government expect of them.

If that is not there the only other way is the policy of drift, which is what is happening. People feel that there is not really need to do this to-day because nobody has said that tomorrow is not good enough. A whole new dynamic could be implanted in the public service if someone said "Let us sit down and work out piece by piece what each area of the public service is supposed to be doing. Let us review that after a year to see where it has fallen short, and let us implant these goals in it". The goals which would measure up to the realisation of the political policies of the Government are not there and therefore we have drift, and increasing and in some cases wasteful expenses in the public service.

Allied to that is the concept of zero budgeting. I ask the Government to consider this in so far as they will consider anything arising out of this debate. This concept is a very worthy one. It is a policy of reviewing occasionally all expenditure from the bottom up and not taking as a base last year's figures and adding on, perhaps, a little percentage for inflation, a little percentage for expansion, a little percentage for political gain and so on. The bases on which this budget has been estimated have never been seriously looked at. They have evolved and developed over time. Why are we estimating for 1978, for example, £22.71 million on roads? The reason is not necessarily that we need £22.71 million for roads, but that the Estimate last year was £26.23 million and the year before £25.93 million and therefore it is a reasonable figure. "Reasonable" means that people go home and sleep in their reasonable beds in the belief that everything is all right.

Maybe in order to help create the jobs we are talking about that figure needs to be doubled, or halved. No one is questioning that. The question being asked is how much more do we need over last year? The basic figure has not been asked, and the concept of zero budgeting would look after that. The same is true in other areas —for instance, hospitals and education. We accept the figure from the past and we add on a little bit. Yet, ironically, we preside over a nation that has in many cases primary schools that do not even have a toilet, and our young people are being educated in these surroundings. These questions are not asked because that would mean a major new dramatic investment in a certain area and the political will is not there to say to other areas "We may have to take something from you".

That is not the only option. Another option is to have the courage to say to the people—and this can be done particularly at the beginning of the Dáil term—"In order to eradicate the evil of having young people in our schools without basic hygiene facilities, we need to tax you to a degree more than you have been taxed". That courage does not seem to be there. It is not enshrined in the budget, and and that is very sad.

What about the need for a policy with regard to the poorer nations? Over 700 million people in the world are starving. Since I began to speak, hundreds of people have died of hunger. What is our response? Our response is to spend even less than the minimum requested by the United Nations, in a country which is almost unparalleled in terms of food consumption. We are very good on apartheid because it does not hurt. We can talk about that all night because words are cheap. The weak politicians will always take refuge in the easy cliches. We are very good as well on various out of the way places on various matters to do with human and civil rights where it is words that count. When it comes to putting our hands in our pockets and giving, even until it hurts slightly, we have a disgraceful record and no amount of political cowardice can excuse it.

As a nation who have experienced famine and hardship and are supposed to be Christian, we should have a particular desire to establish good relations with these countries, to help them on their way and—Deputy Kelly also stressed this—to create the basis of good relationships in the future with these developing nations. No, we stick to the easy ones where only words are needed. Like the next person, I am opposed to apartheid, but a little more is needed than expressions of condemnation of totalitarian regimes if we are to have a meaningful policy. I appreciate that asking people to put their hands in their pockets and pay more to other nations—although I have my own reservations about this —may not be a basis for popular and enthusiastic political success.

Surely the whole point of being in Government is what to do with that power once you have got it. It should not be the primary goal of the Government to retain a sufficiently high level of popularity in order to achieve re-election. The Government should do the job which needs to be done as well as possible and trust to the maturity of the Irish people to respond in due course. Our record in that regard, to say the least of it, is very weak.

We appear to have no policy with regard to doing business with and attracting investment from companies who are involved daily in the exploitation of people in some of these far-flung places. They are colonial powers in the most exploitive sense and yet, if they bring in two or three extra jobs, we welcome them despite the fact that we allegedly condemn in principle this type of operation. As I say, when it hurts it does not wash in this country.

These are some of the challenges which I as a relative newcomer to this august assembly, if I can call it that, see the need for taking up, but they are not taken up in the social document, the budget. What are the guiding principles of the budget? They are extraordinary. They are compounding the mistakes of the past by giving a little more, or a little less in some cases. Obviously the first need was to maintain the political popularity of the manifesto. This had to be done in a way which would be palatable to those of us who are paying the price for it. The answer, therefore, was to borrow massively. Many of the provisions in the budget are designed explicitly to meet the price of the manifesto. When the Minister said this was a once-off operation I had a feeling that I knew what he meant. He meant: "Now we have honoured them and we do not have to do it again."

The borrowing is designed basically to rely on private enterprise to create the jobs and the wealth alleged to be necessary in order to put our people to work. In recent weeks we have seen an increasing trend towards threatening private enterprise that, if they are not good boys and do not do what they are told, action of an unspecified nature will be taken. Presumably they are talking about taxation. Who are the private enterprise to whom this appeal is made? Who are the private enterprise to whom the Government have decided to hand over their responsibility for running the affairs of this State in the job creation sphere? Who are the private enterprise who will become the "fall guys" if and when the noble ideals of the manifesto and the budget are not met, as they will not be met because they are based on false promises? Are they the small entrepreneurs around the country metaphorically or otherwise with their shirt sleeves rolled up, working hard and keeping a number of other people in employment? I do not think so.

There is another interesting and extraordinary aspect of our society which would bear looking at by the Government and the Opposition. There is a tendency to see the executive mandarins who wheel and deal with people's lives as being the real basis for economic and social recovery. I believe a snowball in hell would have a better chance of fostering the kind of hopes we need than some of these people. Their basic inspiration and motivation is acquisitive self-accumulation and, therefore, it is a rather native philosophy that places the whole burden on them to create the social structures which are the prerogative and duty of the Government to create. Naturally enough, I am not excluding the large private entrepreneur from the realms of being somewhat patriotic, but it is very naive if we hope that somehow this sector, which has failed already and that is why we are in the mess we are in, will now find answers to even bigger problems.

It is time to reward the real producers, the real workers, the people who are involved in useful and productive employment, not the middle-men, the people who are engaged often in parasitic and peripheral areas of activity and who get a disproportionate degree of remuneration in many cases. These are the middle-men the Government are talking about when they talk about private enterprise, not the smaller person who is working hard and salving. What wealth will these wizards who are the focal point of the budget create? Wealth is dictated for the most part by the parameters of personal accumulation and acquisition. For these people in many cases, not in all cases, it is an end in itself, not a means to the end of creating jobs. If jobs are created accidentally well and good, and obviously the Government will be interested in taking the political credit for that and more power to them. I am suggesting, however, that the essential thrust of the budget in relying to the massive degree it does on a very select stratum of private enterprise is essentially cowardly and will fail socially. It is cowardly because it passes the ultimate responsibility from the democratically elected Government to people whose primary motivation is profit, very understandably. That profit is not synonymous with the welfare of our people. They are two separate things and to imply otherwise is naiveté or downright lies.

The illusion of wealth creation fostered by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in particular is an illusion. The national wealth exists already. It is latent in the country. It is not created. Our wealth is the joint possessions we have whether under foot, or in the sea, or in the air, or otherwise, which we can use for the creation of the right kind of climate for living and working in. Wealth is not money. It is not the illusory profit which is created and stowed away wherever the highest return is. Increasingly the IDA are finding out that the highest return is outside our shores. They learned that recently when they tried to get some hundreds of jobs in Cork, costing something of the order of £50 million, but our bid was not high enough.

As a small nation, with the trend against us in relation to being able to bid and compete on the international money market in the face of transglobal companies, many of them with GNPs many times the size of ours, we are going to find that our bid will fail more often. I say that with sadness. Therefore, why did the budget not look at the real wealth we have, the land, the sea, and the need for creating a massive food processing industry? I am not expecting the Government to change everything in 12 months but had they hinted in the documents I referred to of the need for this kind of development I would have been happier. It is simply the old policy of laissez faire which is not good enough any more. The longer this Dáil goes on the clearer that will become.

It is essentially and fundamentally due to our failure to see the breakdown of the old order. We are trapped in the web of obsolete economic thinking moving into a super-industrial civilisation that will be technological but not industrial. Industry, in the old sense, is on the way out but technology is in. Technology is capital-intensive and not labour-intensive. Therefore, any attempt by a government to create jobs that are merely designed to give people the therapy of feeling that they are involved in society through some type of work is essentially dishonest and diminishes them as human beings. It does so because it creates work, not because it is useful or socially necessary or good for the people but simply because it is a unit of work that gets them off the labour exchange. There-fore, a whole new definition of "employment" is needed.

It is also strange that this budget, produced by a self-acclaimed republican party, depends massively on foreign borrowing. We should know by now that economic subservience to outside interests in the ultimate lack of sovereignty, not the territorial one which could be conceiveably changed in a relatively short time, but the putting in "hock" of our future is throwing away our sovereignty. I find that an extraordinary philosophy for our Government who, according to themselves, possess a republican momentum.

We have also been told that this budget is a gamble. Were I not a Member of this House I would like to tell the Minister for Economic Planning and Development that I take a dim view of a government who told me eight or nine months ago that they could identify what was wrong with the country, had all the answers to our problems but in their first economic throw of the dice tell me that it is a gamble. The people have not given to anybody the right to gamble with their jobs or the future of their children. We should not be involved in gambling. Gambling is for people who have no other options and are certainly not entrusted with political responsibility. Gambling for people entrusted with political responsibility is irresponsible and not acceptable. I was shocked by the use of that word. No amount of subsequent dilution could conceal the essential idea that the Government were taking a gamble and a plunge and hoping to God it worked out.

This lack of vision is shown in the Taoiseach's concern to eradicate abuses in the social welfare system. That was emotionally underlined at the weekend jamboree, the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis—I am not saying that the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis is any more a jamboree than any of the rest of them. Perhaps there is reason for concern. I represent a constituency where I presume it will be alleged that substantial abuses of the system take place but I have scant evidence of that. I have been told there is some and I accept that. I have no hang-up about eradicating and agreeing to eradicate that type of abuse but I should like to ask the Government this question: If they are a nationally representative party seriously concerned about wastage of public funds why is it that there was no statement in the budget, or in the course of the Taoiseach's speech at the weekend, about the various other abuses at other levels or our social spectrum which are proportionately massive? From the Government's own admission the figure involved here is something like £2½ million but the Government know well that there are companies, and individuals, engaged in evasion of various kinds which would put that figure to shame. I am not saying that it is easy to get rid of it but it would have been right to accompany the ire about the need for eliminating abuse—an abuse practised by the poor in our community—with the express need to get rid of abuses at other levels. We did not hear any concern expressed about that.

I do not think we have to search too far for the reason why because, whether they like it or not, the Government —this is one of the aspects of the matter which worries me, above and beyond politics—have too closely aligned themselves with sectors who will, when the time comes—in some instances there is evidence that it has come already—exact their price for their investment in the first case. When I hear hysteria about abuses in the social welfare code from people who are, in many cases, involved in evasion of all kinds then I wonder. I wonder all the more when I hear it echoed by responsible Ministers of State who should be sensitive to areas of public concern. If a person abuses social welfare the possibility is that it is not because he is criminally inclined but just that some of these sums are already almost derisory in spite of the efforts of the previous administration and the efforts in the budget.

I should like to show how the increase of 10 per cent granted in the budget will have the nett effect of putting a whole category of people into a position of relative poverty when compared to the rest of the community. It is reasonable to assume that wages will increase in real terms in the coming year by 6 per cent to 8 per cent, perhaps more. An increase of 10 per cent over the 12 months, allowing for inflation, would probably result in no more than a real increase for the elderly, the poor and the under-privileged of something of the order of 3 or 4 per cent. The likelihood there-fore is that the aggregate increase granted to workers across the board will be twice the increase for social welfare recipients. Is that a just society? If the Government had not borrowed £821 million, if they had to exhaust every domestic source of revenue, if they had to increase tax burdens, I might understand it but when they borrowed so massively and paid out with such largesse various sums for various reasons to some people then it is sad that the poor, people who still get no more than a nett £10 or £20 per week to live on, will get an increase of no more than half of what workers will get this year. It should be remembered that a pair of shoes cost £20 and that the price of heating, cheese and many other products went up in recent months.

It is not even in line with inflation. Let nobody put it down my throat that this constitutes a real increase for people living in our cities, in environmentally bad areas, in damp housing without, in many cases, the finance with which to keep body and soul together. The truth is—and I say this as non-politically as I can—we have a vast reservoir of real poverty, particularly amongst the elderly, who are not the beneficiaries of the higher incomes or of the pension schemes now existing, who have no income except social welfare. In many cases they are illiterate, unable to ascertain their rights and live on assistance of various kinds doled out in a rather unstructured fashion. Such people do not find a concerned response in the budget. I can only hope that they will in future budgets. I should like to think that this party—as it tried to do over a number of years—will continue to show a genuine concern in these areas. I find it rather anomalous that social welfare recipients have their pensions taxed whilst one of the grave acts of the Government in the budget was to abolish a tax on excess wealth.

I would suggest to the Government —because with them rests the initiative for the way in which debates are handled in this House—that they examine new ways of handling such a debate as to make maximum use of it for the country. Perhaps I am too pessimistic but I do not think the debate we have been having will have the slightest effect on government thinking. I would not blame the Minister present if he were bored stiff; he says he is not and I accept that. But I can understand that it would be seen by the Government as a ritual exchange in which people put their views on record in a somewhat cursory exercise. It would be far better had we some kind of committee structure for teasing out various aspects of the budget rather than major speeches by some Members in the House. Certainly I would not be too enthusiastic about being involved too often in what might appear to be a charade, although I am sure it is not. I would ask the Minister present if he would sincerely accept my essential criticisms of the budget. They are primarily that there is no basic social vision enshrined in it. It does not rise to, or even identify, many of the social challenges facing us. It should because it is fundamentally a social document and not a fiscal one. My second criticism concerns social welfare recipients. Perhaps stressing it again might draw the Government's attention to them.

Mr. Flynn

One thing that intrigues me most listening in this Chamber to some speakers in this budget debate, and listening upstairs through the intercom system, is how the Coalition could have gone out of power at all. It amazes me how that could have happened last June because they have the answer to everything now. I can remember, before 1973, hearing from both Opposition Parties the cry: give us a chance, we will bring the just society into being; we will revolutionise our whole social structure. The electorate gave them that chance. What was the result? During that period there was rampant inflation here.

Mr. Keating

And in every other country.

Mr. Flynn

There was unemployment at the most unprecedented levels ever experienced in this State. There were disillusioned workers, uncontrolled arrogance on the part of Ministers of the Coalition, so much so that even some of their most ardent supporters were glad to see the back of them.

It was suggested to me also some years ago before I came into this House that Fianna Fáil were the natural rulers of this country and Fine Gael and Labour the natural Opposition. We have reverted to that state again. On this occasion Fianna Fáil are making a wonderful contribution in government and, as I shall demonstrate over the next few minutes, the Opposition have not been living up either to their promises whilst in Government or to their tradition of being a good Opposition.

I sat here while the Minister for Finance read that wonderful document. Members on the other side of the House listened with eager expectation of what would come next hoping and praying that something would evolve with which they could embarrass the Government. There was no question of doing anything in the national interest. Rather they were merely waiting and hoping that the Minister for Finance would make a slip or in some way go back on the promises given the electorate last year. However, that did not happen. At the conclusion of his contribution we had a reassured public and a disgraced Opposition. We have been given the same old thing in the past couple of weeks since we discussed this budget—the hypocritical sabre-rattling of the Opposition, the dutiful genuflecting to the age-old Minister bashing, all of no avail. I want to assure the House that the master document survives intact. The 1977 manifesto remains, as it was purported to be, the greatest single document ever offered this nation. I suppose somebody might suggest that it could be regarded as the Fianna Fáil Bible of 1977. But since I came in here, it appears that it is the Opposition's Bible in that every member has one tucked into his briefcase to be consulted further on every Bill introduced in this House.

Mr. Keating

That is responsible opposition.

Mr. Flynn

If Deputy Keating continues to interrupt me he will discover a side of me he might not suspect existed.

Mr. Keating

Is that in the manifesto?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I assure the Deputy——

Mr. Flynn

As some of them discovered on their tour of the west.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I can assure the Deputy I will not allow him. I was giving him some latitude because I know Deputy Flynn is well able to handle things of that sort.

Mr. Flynn

I love that kind of thing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flynn on the budget, please.

Mr. Flynn

If they but realised it, it is merely egging Flynn on to greater heights. The nation settled down after four years of traumatic indecision and the electorate's decision of June has been vindicated.

Let me take the House into some of the political courtrooms that exist in the west; they exist mostly in convivial atmospheres but never mind that. The truth is that this budget statement has been prosecuted and defended at great length by the sophisticated electorate of the west. The charge before the court was national sabotage. That is the charge that is laid at the feet of the Opposition on this occasion. I shall tell the House the findings of the political court. They have been found guilty, the penalty has been passed, that is, that they are doomed to the Opposition benches for all time.

Mr. Keating

Did the Deputy's party submit the 50-mile limit as evidence?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating, do not bring Deputy Flynn down on you, please.

Mr. Flynn

I have been listening for a long number of years to the barking of people much better at it than the two Opposition Deputies at present in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that Deputy Flynn should not invite interruption.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

We are talking about gamblers. I am not much of a gambling man but I have had an odd flutter. As far as I can see the people have placed their bets on the Fianna Fáil horse which has the stamina, ability and determination to overcome all obstacles. Deputy Keating mentioned that Fianna Fáil people grovelled at the doors of economists and financiers and other Governments.

Mr. Keating

I never said that.

Mr. Flynn

Fianna Fáil never grovelled to anybody. One of the prosecuting counsel in the political back room I referred to in the west made the point that it was well known during 1973 to 1977 that the Leader of the Government of the day took instructions every morning at 10 o'clock from a certain other nation across the water before business was instituted in this House. I would hate to think that that was the kind of thing the Irish people had to endure over a long period. The people in the west saw through it.

Mr. Keating

They will see through the Deputy's bull too.

Mr. Flynn

The statement of the Minister for Finance showed imagination and courage. The Minister has taken the initiative on behalf of the people in the package that was brought here on budget day. People realise what is the road to economic recovery and full employment and they realise that greed will hinder economic recovery. Greed can commit us to perpetual recession. The wage earners realising the efforts of a caring Fianna Fáil Government to provide the 11,000 jobs in the public service, to provide schemes for youth employment and to provide business incentives, wish to let the healing process of economic recovery get a fair chance. The executive committees negotiating on behalf of the workers must recognise the limitations of the national cake, and they must let the interests of the common good triumph over short-term advantage.

If wage claims are excessive this year, and if they continue to stifle our ability to compete, those who will suffer most will be the workers. Fianna Fáil won the support and trust of the majority of workers last year with their policies as outlined in the manifesto. Nobody could suggest that the same workers will now oppose the measures being undertaken to implement the proposals in the manifesto. Part of the deal in June, 1977 involved wage restraint in return for the stated improvements of tax concessions and price control. Our side of the bargain has been honoured and I believe the workers will not be found wanting this month or next month when they must fulfil their side of the bargain. In June the workers did not buy the traditional pig in the poke. Our pig was on display for a considerable time. We have brought home the bacon and the workers will have a fine meal of it. No matter what the workers are advised to do, they voted for a bargain in 1977 and they will fulfil their end of the bargain.

When I was upstairs last night my colleague Deputy Leyden spoke in relation to decentralisation. It pained me grieviously that I could not get here fast enough to speak. Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick misled the House and Deputy Leyden was not absolutely familiar with the facts about decentralisation as far as it related to Castlebar. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach told the House that Fianna Fáil had a Castlebar Deputy in the House. I am now here in person to answer Deputy Fitzpatrick and at the same time to educate my friend, Deputy Leyden, as to the true facts of the case mentioned last week. Decentralisation has been a policy of Fianna Fáil going back to the time of the late Deputy Eamon de Valera.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Flynn wishes to clear up something that may have been said in the House he is entitled to do that, but any discussion on decentralisation would be completely out of order on the budget. I think I ruled on that at some stage last week.

Mr. Flynn

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle did and I fully agree that it is not really relevant, but in the interests of accuracy, Castlebar benefited from the policy of decentralisation when certain sections of the Department of Lands came to Castlebar. The implementation of that policy, the contract documents attached to that policy and the staff negotiations attached to it, were negotiated by my friend ex-Deputy Mícheál O'Moráin who was a member of the Government that saw it through. The people of Castlebar know full well who to thank for the large building situated on Clarkesfield on the outskirts of Castlebar.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy leave it at this stage?

Mr. Flynn

A question was put down here in 1972 concerning the finance that might or might not be available towards the furthering of that policy and the construction of that building in Castlebar.

Mr. Keating

Had the Deputy a vested interest in that?

Mr. Flynn

It was said at that time in the House by a Fine Gael Deputy that the money had been estimated and had been allowed by the Fianna Fáil Government before they went out of office. If there was ever a travesty of justice where the Castlebar people are concerned it is that the plaque that was erected inside the main door of that office block in Castlebar has the name of Liam MacCoscair where it should read Minister Mícheál O'Moráin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Now we will get back to the budget.

Mr. Flynn

The enlightened approach in the budget in respect of taxation indicates a new awareness in the whole area of fiscal policy. During the past few years there has been an enormous increase in the amount of taxation accruing to the Exchequer and there have been changes in the importance of the various sources of taxation in terms of overall revenue. During the sixties more than 50 per cent of total revenue was derived from customs and excise with about 25 per cent being derived by way of income tax. There has been a dramatic change in recent years in the tax and in the sources of taxation. This year, for instance, customs and excise account for about 35 per cent of total revenue while income tax has increased to about 36 per cent. In addition, we now include VAT which replaces the turnover and wholesale taxes and which was responsible for about 20 per cent of the total tax revenue in 1976.

The impact of income tax has been increasing. Although allowances were increased during the term of office of the last Government, the real value of the allowances had been decreasing and an increasing number of people were finding themselves paying taxes at the higher rates, while there was no adjustment to make allowance for the increased cost of living. Consequently, the growth rate in respect of income tax has been faster than that of our GNP. However, the Minister for Finance realised that taxation on that scale could be regarded only as a penal tax and that there was no incentive for increased productivity if such increase would be the cause of transferring workers to the higher tax brackets. Who wishes to improve his work output when he knows that all that will be achieved is that the tax man will get a greater cut? Any taxation system that allows for the payment of income tax at rates in excess of 50 per cent of earned income leaves productive work less attractive and is a real disincentive to development.

The measures in the budget in respect of personal taxation are a clear indication that Fianna Fáil accept the need for such changes and are aware that the reduction in taxation will act as an incentive to greater output of productive work while at the same time giving more buying power to the wage earner in a situation in which there will be price controls. Were these considerations not the main thrust of our manifesto? Control in the area of prices means that it is not necessary for incomes to increase dramatically in order to allow for the maintenance of the buying power of the wage packet.

Sudden changes in the rates of direct taxes have acted also as disincentives to the productive capacity of the community. I am glad that the Minister was not tempted to use the age-old vehicle of indirect taxation by increasing the duty on alcohol, cigarettes or petrol. Any further major increase in these areas would result inevitably in unemployment at all levels of the industries from manufacture to distribution. As one of the witnesses called in the political courtroom where this budget statement was tried I had no doubt as to what the Minister was about when he did not increase the price of the pint, of the half-one or of the cigarettes. He was ensuring that the wage earner would have more buying power. When one considers the net increase as a result of the derating of domestic dwellings, the abolition of tax on all but the bigger cars and the reduction of £1 per week to the lower-paid workers in the cost of the social welfare stamp plus the 8 per cent increase that we hope will be agreed, the worker is being offered a real bonanza.

The worker recognises all this. The only opposition to the budget is that heard in this semi-elliptical Chamber. The man in the street is full of praise for the steps the Minister is taking. He knows that they constitute a revolution in financial and fiscal thinking.

I welcome particularly the removal of wealth tax. What possible use could there be, in a country where the lack of risk capital is so evident, for a tax on the limited resources available for investment? Was this lack of risk capital not the main reason for the failure of so many companies in recent years? In addition, the wealth tax was difficult to administer and produced a miserable return in revenue to the Exhequer. It deterred outsiders from investing here and it killed job opportunities. It was a tax that removed wealth from the very people on whom we are depending for investment in Irish business and, consequently, for the creation of employment for our youth.

The wealth tax put further demands on the State funds to take up the slack of risk capital thereby increasing the tax burden on the only source of revenue—the taxpayer—and forcing the Government into further borrowing. It has never been the policy of Fianna Fáil Governments to borrow in order to pay the lads. The purpose of borrowing so far as this party have been concerned has always been to create jobs and job opportunities. That, too, is what the borrowing is all about on this occasion. It is the essential difference between Fianna Fáil's borrowing and the borrowing engaged in by the Coalition. But the Coalition borrowing was a Labour-Fine Gael borrowing policy and not the other way around. However, that is something I shall be dealing with later.

The wealth tax must have been the worst piece of legislation to come before this House for a decade. Any tax that limits the availability of capital for investment in Irish business should be scrutinised carefully. Irish business has not been served well either by the capital gains tax or by the capital acquisitions tax. These taxes have resulted in risk capital being very scarce, so scarce that we could very well see the decline of some of our prosperous privately-owned Irish businesses. That would be a tragedy on a national scale. The emphasis now is on the other side of the coin. We want people in Irish business to have the courage to take their capital and use it in a risk way to provide the extra investment necessary to keep Irish industry and business alive and to provide job opportunities for the youth. That is what the programme is about which is outlined in the statement of the Minister for Finance.

More than anything else, this budget shows the deep concern of the Government for the unemployment situation of our young people. We are not ashamed or afraid to tackle that problem in 1978. This budget provides the finance for job creation premiums and new employment programmes in the public sector, together with new initiatives in the construction industry. I take it that new training schemes for school leavers will be undertaken and that more attention will be given to the qualitative aspects of this problem. Matching young job seekers to the type of jobs offered has become extremely difficult and, unnoticed, a contrast has emerged between, on the one hand, the development of our educational system and higher levels of education and, on the other hand, the relative stagnation of working conditions and responsibilities offered to young people. Positive steps need to be taken and will be taken by Fianna Fáil to adjust our training and educational systems to cope with the needs of modern society. We must improve working conditions to meet the needs of our youth and to increase the motivation of our workers. There has been a lack in this area for some years and new initiatives will be necessary. The Government will not be found wanting.

Another witness in the courtroom said to me: "I do not mind what you take from my wages or salary as long as there are jobs for my son and daughter." That is national patriotism of the highest order, unheralded and unheard except by the rest of the witnesses in the courtroom that day. I would ask the House to contrast that with the statement of the leader of the main Opposition party when addressing the House on this budget. That is the reason for the charge of national sabotage to which I referred earlier. Deputy FitzGerald did all in his power, and would appear to be doing so still, to get to the trade union members to sell out the package being offered to them. He could not see how they could accept the provisions offered in the budget. Is that national patriotism? The charge was well founded. He stands indicted for irresponsible opposition and surely the verdict was right— opposition forever.

The aim of the Government and of the budget is to put us in the position where we can offer our young people the possibility of work or the opportunity of undertaking training that will lead to gainful employment. Every effort should be made to get as much as possible from the EEC Social Fund and we should use the vocational training programmes as outlined by the Commission in the summer of 1977 to ensure an adequate, practical training for all our young unemployed.

There is clear evidence that the economy is recovering from the deep-seated recession which afflicted it over the past few years. This expansionary budget, with personal tax cuts, reductions in other taxes and increases in social welfare benefits, has acted as a strong stimulus and this, together with the confidence engendered by the Fianna Fáil economic proposals, has been a significant factor in the performance of the economy during the past six months. The rate of consumer spending and investment is at an all-time high and exports have reached an unprecedented level. This augurs well for a substantial growth rate this year. Even the conservative bank estimates indicate that the growth rate will be sustained and if the target of 7 per cent is reached it will be the highest since 1968. I do not have to tell the House who were in Government in 1968. The only trends during the past four years were those of rising inflation, rising prices and rising temperatures because the Fine Gael fellows were not getting the support from the country which they thought they had.

To achieve our aim there are certain necessary fundamentals. These are outlined in the budget, which must be allowed to run its natural course. The tax cuts, job creation measures and other reflationary proposals are vital to the well-being of our economy and no demands for personal gains or sectional aggrandisement will deflect the Government from the full implementation of the manifesto arrangements. Following the British Government decision to allow the £ to float freely, we must assume that it will remain reasonably stable in relation to other world currencies. This is an integral part of our statement and this will be necessary to enable the proposals to be implemented.

The question of pay restraint is currently in favour with the media and in this House. It was part of the deal offered in our manifesto that pay restraint would have to be exercised. Which is better: more money in one's pocket buying less and less because of increasing prices or more buying power from one's existing wage packet? The witnesses in the courtroom were unanimous in their decision that the latter would have to be the case. Prices have been stabilised. There will be a slower rate of increase in consumer prices in 1978 and the abolition of rates on dwelling-houses will reduce the CPI by about 1½ per cent. The upward valuation of sterling resulting in a slackening of increases in import prices together with the tighter price control measures of the Government will bring inflation down to a manageable level in 1978. Disposable income will be much increased because of the lowering of inflation and the significant tax cuts of this budget. This will further boost consumer spending and it is the first real improvement in our standard of living since 1973. If pay restraint on the part of the Irish nation can achieve that why is there talk about not giving a fair crack to the Government to get on with the job?

Something else that I suppose will have a great bearing on the success of the budget and the implementation of its proposals concerns the Northern Ireland situation. I am very disappointed about something that happened recently and I know that you, Sir, must also have felt it deeply. Because of the financial arrangements of the Minister for Finance our expert personnel in Bord Fáilte have been mounting a wonderful campaign in Britain, costing almost £1 million, to entice people from Britain to join us here during the summer holiday period as tourists. That was in stark contrast to what the leader of the Opposition said about the people of Northern Ireland last week when he said that they would be bloody idiots to join us here, are fools or whatever words he used. That kind of vulgarity is unbecoming to the leader of the main Opposition Party. We want them to join us—our hands are out to them—as tourists and as regards the people of the North, we want them to join us as one so that we can go forward in peace——

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot permit the Deputy to move into discussion of the Northern Ireland situation. That would be a dangerous precedent. He should keep to the budget.

Mr. Flynn

I accept that. However, it is hoped that there will be no escalation of the level of violence this year and that this very valuable programme which is being financed by the Minister for Finance to encourage tourists to come here will not be hindered by irresponsible, loose statements by one whom I always regarded as a very responsible politician. Deputy FitzGerald fell, as a politician, with that statement, in my eyes and I believe he also fell in the eyes of his own party supporters. Those in the political courtroom have led me to believe that it could be the cause of a change in the leadership of the main Opposition party. I would not know about that.

Manufacturing industry will play a major role in our revitalised economy. Our exports have been expanding strongly in recent times and the rate of increase—faster than the current increase in world trade—indicates an improvement in our competitiveness which can be maintained given fair play as regard wage increases this year. The Government are committed to providing support for export growth. This is reflected in the incentives they continue to provide for export-orientated industry. To attract overseas investment is much more difficult of late as many countries now have their own unemployment problems; they are all in the market place for foreign investment which they need for their own purposes. However, the IDA, refurbished and refinanced by the Government, have an expertise that is envied by many and it is confidently expected that at least part of the new job total to be created by this administration will come from overseas investment and overseas industry locating in Ireland.

Advance factory building was a wise policy provision and it is hoped that there will be increased activity in this sector during the year. The whole range of incentives from restructuring of existing industry, financial aid to entrepreneurs, right through to assistance for mergers and acquisitions must be the most comprehensive programme ever offered by any State similar to ours in modern times.

It is also important to note that the infrastructure necessary to maintain this impetus has been uppermost in the mind of the Government and so that we can get the whole matter in perspective let it be said now that for the first time since 1973 there is an increased allocation for the provision of the infrastructure necessary to develop this nation. I refer to water and sewerage schemes and amenity grants; everything from roads to the provision of extra facilities in towns and villages has been provided for in the budget which is the first expansionary budget in four years. Any local authority in the past four years found that instead of grants for all this type of work going up to cover the cost of inflation, on the contrary they were nose-diving. That trend has been reversed and we are aspiring to new heights as instanced by the huge investment in the provision of new water and sewerage schemes throughout the country.

This is the policy of a caring Government, with the promises made to the people in 1977 being honoured now in 1978. I am sorry for only one reason that next year our members will have to come together again and prepare a new manifesto. I want the Opposition to note carefully that when this new manifesto is written we shall not wait until the next general election to produce it. We will have it on display next year and they will all get copies so that they can go throughout Ireland quoting from it trying to embarrass the Government. What they are doing, of course, is showing the people that this is the greatest Government ever elected in the State.

When we consider the social services and the benefits given in the budget we must also think of the amount available from public resources. Then we must agree that the budget has been very generous. With stabilised prices, the increases given will have real meaning. A weekly payment of £28.50 to an old age pension couple will have real value, unlike the small increase given twice a year by the Coalition Government. In those days old age pensioners could count on a weekly budget: every Friday morning they could read of 200 items whose prices had been increased. This time old age pensioners and other social welfare recipients can honestly say they have been given real increases in buying power.

Fianna Fáil will never allow a situation to develop like that at the last election campaign when we had Deputy Liam Cosgrave going around asking pensioners if they had got their pensions. It was the laugh of the nation. They had drawn so far away from their people that their supporters did not want to be seen in their company during the campaign. Only a blind man would not have realised then that their game was up. Once again, Deputy Lynch and Fianna Fáil had to come to the rescue of the nation as his predecessors had to do on two previous occasions when the people had the sense to say: "Send for Fianna Fáil".

The Minister for Social Welfare is not in the House but I should like nevertheless to bring to his notice something that I think should be changed. I may be saying something that may be interpreted as being against my own side, but so be it. I was told early on: "Deputy Flynn, if there is an improvement that you think should be carried out, go into the House and say it. It will not be an embarrassment to the Government". My concern here is about the old age pension means test. I am not satisfied that the method of calculation of income is fair. I cannot understand why a capital sum cannot be reckoned in a fairer way, whether that capital be in a bank, a building society, a trust or in stocks. The simple interest on it should be calculated for the year in question. The present system is outmoded. Pensioners are allowed £25 and the reason for that goes back to a time before I was born and it was to cover funeral costs that might be incurred. In these days £25 bears no resemblance to such costs. A pensioner who might have £5,000 capital accumulated it throughout his life from hard work. I should like to see that system changed. I should also like to have the £6 allowance changed to £10 or more.

I also suggest that a small farmer's income should be assessed for tax in a different way. There should be some simple regulation in this respect which would be clear to everybody and we should eliminate the notional system. One State official could tot up an income attached to certain capital and another official could come along and reckon it at an entirely different amount.

Deputy Keating referred to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis as a jamboree. Let me put the record straight for him: it was the finest gathering of Fianna Fáil men and soldiers of destiny ever seen in this State. There was no back clapping there. On the contrary, all matters were openly discussed. In spite of what Deputy Keating thinks, the matters discussed there carry weight with the National Executive, the Parliamentary Party and the Government. All of the matters are discussed subsequently at meetings of the Parliamentary Party and the best ideas are implemented into legislation.

I was sorry that reference was made to a concession offered to the veterans of the War of Independence. Was Deputy Keating speaking on behalf of all his colleagues in that matter? I would have thought that was not part of his party's national policy. A great debt of gratitude is owed to the veterans of the War of Independence and Fianna Fáil will be glad and proud to make any little extra comforts available for them. Fianna Fáil will not follow the tradition of another section of the Opposition in the past four years where our modern history would have been removed from the history books and from the curricula of the national schools so that our young boys and girls would have grown up not knowing anything of our patriots and the people who fought and gave their best for this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is departing from the matter before the House.

Mr. Flynn

The offer has been made by Fianna Fáil. The formula for success is there to be grasped. Opportunity is at the door. The train has pulled into the station and those who wish may get on to it. The cross-roads of our economic development is at hand. The final verdict of the political courtroom that discussed this matter and gave their verdict on this budget will live in the minds of the people for a long time. The charge of national sabotage by the Opposition is upheld: their penalty is opposition for all time.

Mr. F. O'Brien

After listening to that speech I am not too sure whether to address the Chair as "a Cheann Comhairle" or as "Your Lordship". The reference to a courtroom came into the previous speech from time to time and I am a little lost as to where we are. The act was good and most of us enjoyed it. I am not sure whether it would be good for the Gaiety or the Abbey—there was a good mixture of both in the speech. I admired the brilliant act of the Deputy but I think we should get back to discuss the budget.

The budget was somewhat like the manifesto in that it contained many promises but very little action. There was talk in it of a radical approach to job creation—I emphasise the word "radical". There was mention of 10,000 extra jobs in the public service, a very radical approach. There was mention of 5,000 jobs in the building industry—there is nothing very radical about that—and they promised 5,000 jobs for young people. They have no policy with regard to that matter.

As everyone knows, when something is put on the long finger the procedure is to set up a committee who are told to work on that particular aspect. The Government are bereft of any idea on youth employment. They have no policy on that matter. Certainly the 10,000 jobs in the public service are jobs but one must ask if the public sector is not large enough? Can we continue to sustain such a wage bill for the public service? Perhaps we can, but we should ask ourselves would it not be wiser to invest that money in a positive growth industry that would pay off in the long term. What the Government propose is not a solution, it is merely a stop-gap. The cost is estimated at £50 million this year. This is something we could invest in a positive growth industry. I am disappointed that the budget did not spell out new ideas in job creation.

There is no doubt that our budget last year gave a positive upturn to the economy. The inflationary trend was on the downturn and the Government benefited from that. However, they do not appear to have taken any real advantage of that fact. Their philosophy is to borrow now and pay later in the hope that we can get out of our troubles by borrowing, that things will turn out all right. The Government have not thought out their policies. We examined their election propaganda—I cannot call it anything other than propaganda and gimmickry. It is becoming more and more like "The Little Red Book". It is taken out and waved about as the saviour of the nation. It is worth examining to see how it will save the nation. If it is the forerunner of future Irish politics it will damn the nation. Is this the price that has to be paid to get elected every time? If so, how can we instil in our people the will to work?

There was no demand for the removal of car tax but Fianna Fáil considered it was politically opportune to remove the tax, to buy the votes with the people's money. That is not the way to build a nation. It is not the way to instil in a nation the moral fibre to develop its own resources. The rates were an iniquitous tax. Our party are not without fault. I believe the first £20, £25 or £30 should have been taken off the rates. That would have been of benefit to most people. It was unwise to remove rates altogether. People with large houses who can well afford to pay are now free of paying that type of local taxation. I believe that this will eventually kill local government. If people have not got the power to regulate their affairs and spend their money as they wish, they become tools of central government, rubber stamps, and are told what they should and should not do. It would have been much better to put some threshold on the rates than remove them completely.

We were caught up in political gimmickry because in 1972 the White Paper issued by the Government said that rates could not be removed without a tremendous burden of taxation on people. In our 14-point plan in 1973 we said we would remove health and housing charges from the rates, alleviating in some way the burden on the people. Rates could be abolished overnight by the Government without thinking about it. They followed through that policy because they committed themselves to it.

Are we to have dutch auctions prior to every general election? What will be next? Is PAYE the next carrot to be held out to the people? I believe the people want leadership. I believe that buying votes with the people's money is not leadership. The previous speaker said that there were no increases on infrastructure since 1963. If he looks at the public capital programme for 1978 he will see quite clearly on pages 16 and 17 the increased expenditure.

The Coalition Government set a pattern for house building. There is no talk now of any house building programme except, as they said in the White Paper, that they propose, basically, to cut back on local authority housing without putting anything in its place. People will suffer greatly if there is a cutback in local authority housing. One has only to look at the Dublin Corporation housing list to see what I mean. Do the Government intend to cut back on centre city housing? The previous Government were very concerned about this when they came into power. They appointed a housing coordinator for Dublin, Dublin County and Dún Laoghaire Borough. He set about acquiring land for housing in the centre city area. We now hear that this type of housing is expensive and that the nation cannot afford it. I believe the nation must afford it.

Dublin has been allowed to degenerate over the years. When we talk about cost are we taking into account the infrastructure already there, the services, churches, community halls, libraries and all the other facilities already there? The only thing needed in those areas is housing. This, for some strange reason, does not seem to be the ideal thing to do. I believe we must continue with housing in the centre of the city, not alone on the local authority side but the private sector should also be brought in. There is a need for private housing in the city but because private developers cannot compete with office developers it is almost impossible for them to get in and make a reasonable profit.

The Government should look at the tax mechanism with a view to making it attractive for private developers to build houses. They should be given a tax free concession or a 50 per cent allowance on their capital to make it as attractive for them to build houses in the city as to build offices. Insurance companies and others, who engage in office development, can charge this money against their companies so that they are paying no tax on it. Housing is neglected because we are not looking to see what can be done to develop housing in the city.

I believe if we have not private house development in the city area it will not be done. I ask the Minister for Finance to look at this aspect of house development to see what can be done. I believe the Irish Building Federation will take this up and the private builder will come in and give Dublin a new face. This will give employment which we are all very concerned about.

The family was ignored in the budget. The Minister at the Ard-Fheis said that working women were well heeled. Perhaps they are but they are a very strong organisation and well able to look after themselves. I am more concerned about the housewife, the woman who remains at home and makes life tolerable. I believe when the housewife remains at home there is much more stability in that home. No incentive, unfortunately, is given to her to remain at home. We should examine the question of the marriage allowance for the housewife who remains at home. That woman should be given a special allowance. The first step in this regard was taken when the children's allowance was made payable directly to the housewife. The tax free allowance for the housewife and the children goes directly to the husband.

Is that right? Are we satisfied that is the kind of thing we want? I say "No". That increase should be paid directly to the housewife. That suggestion doubtless will create a great hue and cry about administration costs. That is always the excuse. Remember, we pay these people an allowance by way of children's allowance and so there is a direct payment made to them already. The mechanism is there. There should be no great administrative difficulty. What is there is a lack of will.

I have a few facts and figures which are worth quoting. A survey was carried out by the National Prices Commission and the results of that survey were published in May 1974 and those results show that only two out of every five women receive a formal household allowance from their husbands. The remainder have to rely on an ad hoc payment or even the uncertainty of receiving nothing. Wide variations existed. That is a shocking indictment. If this allowance were paid directly to the housewife we would be formalising for the first time a really meaningful income for the housewife in the home. What arguments can there be against this? Some men may object, but this is one way in which I believe we could stabilise the cost of living because, when the housewife gets money, it is generally spent on the home in one way or another. We should recognise now the role of the Irish housewife. For too long she has been in the wilderness, left there by some of the great exponents of women's rights. For some reason or other they ignore that sector. It surprises me.

I am disappointed that there is no increase in children's allowances. This is disturbing. There could have been an increase on a selective basis. The family is the bedrock of the State and the family has been completely ignored in this budget. That must be rectified. It illustrates the type of thinking that has gone into this budget.

There has been a good deal of talk about the 10 per cent across the board and it has been argued that this is better than getting it in two bits, one bit in April and another bit in October. Perhaps it is. The idea of two increases was an innovation. Every year during the time of the National Coalition there was some innovation in social welfare. What is new in this budget? Nothing. The whole area of social welfare should be looked at and some innovation introduced. There are many innovations. One could be introduced every year.

There is no social commitment on the far side of the House. Surely there could have been supplementary rent benefits for old age pensioners living in private accommodation. The old age pensioner in a local authority house is subsidised. Prior to the abolition of rates she enjoyed a waiver of rates. The old age pensioner living in private accommodation could be forced into one or two rooms at a rent of £5, £6, £7, £8 or £9 a week. She gets no consideration. This is something we should examine if we call ourselves a concerning people and the Government regard themselves as a concerning Government. Some innovation should be introduced every year.

It is very disappointing when one looks at the social content of the budget. We heard of all the great monetary benefits people were getting as a result of certain policies being implemented. "You would not really be getting 6 per cent, you would be possibly getting 15 per cent and perhaps more, and were you not doing very well, and were we not very good to make life such a Utopia for all of us?" It is good to think about that, because one could easily be taken in by it. The rates are off, car tax is off, there is the £1,000 grant; it is tremendous. The only worry is that we have to go to work at all.

In my constituency car ownership is rather low, so consequently a large number of my constituents would not benefit from this great bonanza of the car tax removal; far from it. It is removed now and they will pay in another way. So much for that. These people live in low-rated accommodation. Their rates would not be high, so where is the big bonanza for them in the abolition of rates? Again it is a reasonably good con trick. In my area many people with large families in a reasonably low income group do not come into the tax net, so what does the great tax incentive that we got do for them? These are the people who are going to be asked, as we all are, to accept 6 per cent on the basis of all the great promises of the hand-outs they are getting. They are getting nothing.

Let us not forget that a Government govern for all the people, not for any particular group, and their concern should be for the people who are least able to look after themselves. The low income groups with large families are getting no extra children's allowance to compensate for the large families, no extra tax allowance because they are not in the tax net, and no claw back for their car because they have not got a car. They get the rates remission today and two weeks afterwards the rent man tells them "Your rent has gone up". That is what happened.

Then we are unpatriotic, according to the last speaker, if we question the national wage agreement. National wage agreements are all right provided they are fair and reasonable, but is this type of gimmickry honest? If people put this case before this House is that being unpatriotic? I can say it is not. Let us look at it again and let us be honest with one another, because we have an obligation here to ensure that we treat people fairly, that we are honest and seen to be honest, and that we are not concerned with smoothing it over with nice, glossy talk, as was the Minister across the House when at the Ard-Fheis he spoke about £20 million to service the national debt and said that would be 5p or 6p on a packet of cigarettes, that you would not object to that and anybody who did had no right to belong to that party. That is insolence and arrogance. Of course they have a right. If, because of mismanagement, tax on cigarettes or other items goes up the people do not benefit from the great false promises that were made. Why should they not complain? Would that be branded also as being unpatriotic?

The Government party, as was noticeable at the Ard-Fheis, appear to be more Irish and more nationalistic-minded than anybody else, particularly anybody on this side of the House. The risen people, the soldiers of destiny, were out at Ballsbridge. That is dangerous and it stinks of nationalism of the worst type. We should be talking in this House about getting the three parties to find a common solution on our problem. We should not be playing politics or exploiting nationalism. We should be working as one and seen to be one, with unanimity and the same purpose, and not trying to suggest that: "I am a better Irishman because I am in another political party". That is a scandal and disturbs me very much. The sooner the people on the far side of the House forget about that kind of carry-on and get down to building an economy, the better. We have quite a task ahead of us, and no gimmicks are going to create jobs.

The sad feature is that there is no easy solution to our unemployment problem. Setting up little groups or committees does not solve it. Youth unemployment should be coupled with general unemployment because that is the only way we are going to draw up what is a new document. There is no policy, no in-depth study of any problem, just a lot of gimmicky promises. The Minister borrowed an enormous amount of money which must be repaid and in doing that he will be using a lot of money that could be put into job creation.

There is nothing in the budget that pleases me or gives me any comfort. The sad thing is that when a man over 40 years of age looks for a job nobody wants to know him because he is considered to be a bit old. The Government have a responsibility to bring positive policies in relation to that and other problems before the House. They have not produced a positive policy on job creation. Since Fianna Fáil took power many jobs have been lost. We all know about the Ferenka affair. When we highlighted the difficulties in that concern we were told by the Government that delicate negotiations were in progress and we should not hinder them. Nothing was done by the Government to solve that problem. It drifted on until it reached the stage where negotiations were useless. The Dutch threw in the towel and told the workers that the match was over. The Ministers responsible did little or nothing to solve that problem.

We all thought the Government would have learned a lesson from that dispute but today there is serious unrest in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. There is a dispute in the communications section of that Department, a vital link for our business community. As a result of that dispute jobs will be lost. Is that the Government's policy on job creation? In order to save jobs the Government should grasp the nettle of industrial relations. Unless they do we will drift into an abyss of unemployment. There is little point in talking about the future if positive steps are not taken to improve the situation that exists now. The problems I have mentioned can be solved now if the Government have the will to do so. It may not be protocol to do certain things and the Government may want to stand on their dignity when all around them is crumbling. That is a crazy mentality. The Government must look into this problem. The Minister for Finance devoted a lot of his budget speech to job creation, job development and so on and it sounded well, but when the Government are confronted with industrial disputes they must make an effort to solve them and stop pussy-footing. It appears that there is a deliberate attempt to break the union involved in this dispute.

The Minister told us what he intends to do in relation to the handicapped. I accept that something is being done, but I wonder why the allowances being paid in respect of handicapped children being kept at home was not increased. It has been £25 per month for some time. It was a first-class innovation but it should not be left at £25 per month. We must all remember that a mother has to endure a lot of hardship to rear such a child and that a lot of additional money is required. The fact that no increase was given in that allowance is another indication that there is no social commitment in the budget. The Minister should increase that allowance, even if it means introducing a supplementary budget. I accept that he may have overlooked the matter in preparing the budget. Minority groups like those caring for handicapped children are often ignored because they are not part of a vast pressure group but such allowances must be examined annually.

I welcome the announcement about the "Buy Irish" campaign and I hope it is supported. If we do not have confidence in our own products we can throw our hat at any hope of attracting foreign industrialists or investors. In this regard the Government should carry out a comprehensive programme in our schools. Such a campaign should be discussed regularly at civics classes. If that is done the children will encourage their parents to buy Irish goods. We must get through to the young people to ensure that the programme of encouraging our people to buy Irish goods is a success.

A number of ladies clubs are in vogue now run by committees who should be contacted and spoken to. They should be told the types of jobs that can be created if this happens and, if it does not happen, the possible job losses. This is a positive aspect. It will have goodwill, but people often forget. There has been a history of some products not being the best and that can lead people to think many Irish products are not the best. For one reason or another, some large supermarkets sell manufactured products which are not Irish but, if the customers demand Irish goods, their attitude will change. There is a reasonably big selling job to be done here. Greater emphasis should be placed on advertising. Television advertising is good, but word of mouth is better. In the long term, this will have a tremendous effect on our industry.

On the question of job creation I should like to see a new look taken at our natural resources. We do not seem to have a properly related policy. We should get moving on the development of a smelter as soon as possible with the possibility of spin-off industries. We should not waste time. If we are borrowing money, it should be borrowed for areas like that. We know the real potential. We should cut through the red tape. If we do, I have no doubt that in the eighties we will be a prosperous nation because we will have done the right thing.

Nothing in this budget gives me any great hope. It can be claimed that there is a 10 per cent increase in social welfare and that the price of drink and cigarettes did not go up. That is not what our economy is all about. Our economy is about creating and developing wealth, and improving our standard of living. Talking about wealth, I was amazed at the wealth tax being removed so quickly. I am not saying it was good or bad. It did not yield any great revenue but I do not think it had the effect of driving it away either. Its removal was a political gimmick, a sop to tell people: "We are taking off the wealth tax. You cannot be caught on that, but we will put a bit of tax on you in another way".

Perhaps it was premature legislation but I believe it will have to be re-enacted. It operates successfully in most European countries. It could have been left there. It was rather innocuous but it was there in the event of its being necessary.

I am rather disturbed that there is no great development in education. There is an increase in the student grant as promised, but there is no new idealism. There is no thought about restructuring primary education. If we are to develop as a viable economy we must restructure our educational system. Far too many people talk about second and third level education. You rarely hear people talking about first level education. Most people go from first level into second and third level, but the minority without a voice are left behind. Who cares? They have not got a voice and we are not really concerned about them. We must be concerned.

It is all very well to raise the school leaving age but what does it mean if we do not restructure the whole set up? If we raise the school-leaving age to 16 years, what does it really mean? It means pupils have to stay on until they are 16 years but that is not what education is about. It is a question of equipping them for life. National schools cater for pupils up to the age of 12 or 13 years. At that stage some children drift away and do not go on to second level education because of social environment or family circumstances. If the primary schools were structured to take them until they were 15 or 16 years, they could benefit greatly, but we have not thought that one out and that is sad.

I do not see any dramatic increase in money for that level. There is a commitment to lower the student-teacher ratio to 40: 1 and then to 32 : 1. It is a matter of urgency that this should be done in the city centre. If there are any impediments the red tape should be cut. It might cost a little, but it would be money well spent. Generally where there is a decline in student numbers it is in deprived areas where you want smaller classes so that you can reach the pupils and have a personal teaching relationship with them. That could be done if we lowered the ratio to 20 : 1. We should be generous about this.

If we looked at the grants paid to primary schools and the grants paid to second and third level schools we would be ashamed of ourselves. The grant in primary schools is not very much. This is sad. There is an imbalance here which should have been rectified in this budget. I said that pupil numbers fall in centre city areas. We should be concerned about these areas and ensure that the educational structure is right for the pupils. Perhaps the authorities read the White Paper and saw there is no great hope for inner city housing development— apparently the Government will turn their back on inner city development— but two secondary schools on the north side of this city are going to close and possibly a third. That is disgraceful and I would ask the Government to examine the situation. I believe it is because there is no future foreseen for these schools in the city centre. Obviously they have taken the message from the White Paper that moneys will not be expended on city centre development. These people have seen the light, knowing the history of the Fianna Fáil Party and their attitude towards city centre development and have thrown in the towel, which is regrettable. Some urgent action is needed in this respect because otherwise it will constitute another nail in the coffin of urban renewal, to which we pay lip service. Let us rather examine what can be done constructively. Private sector housing would cost the Government little or nothing. The public sector requires housing in the city centre. The infrastructure exists for the implementation of such housing requirements so that the overall cost would not be what it might appear at first sight because the costs of roads and other services are not taken into account. If we do not pay attention to urban renewal then all we are doing is building soulless towns, allowing the core to rot. When that happens it tends to degenerate society as a whole.

I repeat my plea to the Government to give a commitment to urban renewal and city development through the provision of housing and retention of schools. If they do so they will find they will not be spending as much money on law enforcement, on the building of jails or detention schools in Cavan or elsewhere for young offenders. That would constitute a positive approach.

Mr. Morley

Much has already been spoken and written about the budget. It is true to say that much of what has been said and written has been ignored. When one listens in the House here to a contribution one becomes acquainted with the language used and seeks to find the basis and reasoning behind that contribution. In that regard I was interested to hear Deputy F. O'Brien, at the beginning of his speech, questioning the need for 10,000 extra jobs in the service of the public proposed by the Government. At the conclusion of his contribution he urged that extra teaching personnel be made available as a matter of urgency in some of our schools. Education is one sphere of our national affairs in which extra personnel are badly needed. I am sure any teacher faced with an over-crowded classroom, or any parent of a pupil being educated in such a classroom would not question the need for extra teachers. In these times of increasing incidence of serious crime neither would the public question the need for extra gardaí any more than would people awaiting admission for hospital treatment question the desirability of providing more hospital staff.

I congratulate the Minister for Finance on introducing this courageous, imaginative budget which tackles, at the one go, so many of the ills besetting us at present. We find ourselves in a desperate situation. There is the need to provide more employment, thereby reducing the unemployment queues, offering some hope, in turn, to our school-leavers of obtaining a job at the end of their education. There have been few more disturbing developments in our history or with more sinister implications for the future than that of the increasing numbers of young people unable to obtain employment at the end of their education, having studied hard to pass examinations, having been sustained in their study by the legitimate expectation of finding a job suited to their talents and abilities. To watch this undesirable trend escalate would be unpardonable. Indeed it would constitute a crime on the part of any Government. It would be folly and wasteful of our manpower resources.

One of the main aims of the budget is to take corrective action in this sphere by generating more employment. It will be welcomed by all, particularly by the young people themselves and their parents who have suffered so much anxiety in the past three or four years watching their children seek employment in vain. This aim, together with the twin aim of reducing and controlling inflation, explain the whole fiscal approach of the Minister in his budget. There are those who disagree with it and who harshly criticise his proposals. But much of the criticism levelled springs from a desire to criticise rather than to be constructive or offer alternative proposals. Much of the criticism comes badly from spokesmen of the last Government who allowed the unemployment problem to grow to such alarming proportions without attempting corrective action or even planning to do so at some future date—and this despite the many hundreds of millions of pounds borrowed during their term of office.

In this regard it is important to distinguish between the money borrowed for productive purposes, as the Government now propose to do, and that borrowed for unproductive purposes, as was done extensively during the term of office of the last administration. Understandably there has been no great effort made by Opposition speakers to bring out this distinction but I am sure it is not lost in the public mind.

In June last the electorate showed their displeasure at the ineffectual manner in which the last administration conducted the nation's affairs. One of the aspects of Government administration they were displeased with was the unemployment situation. The proposals in the budget come to grips with this scourge. I heartily welcome them and hope they will be successful. The evils of unemployment are most evident in the cities because of the numbers out of jobs and the attendant social problems arising from unemployment. For this reason I expect many of the new jobs will be provided in the cities. But I plead that rural constituencies like mine, where there has always been unemployment, will not be forgotten.

Infrastructure has been provided in rural areas over the last number of years and efforts have been made by the IDA with increasing success to attract industry. Since the regionalisation of the IDA there is a yearning in constituencies like mine to attract new industry and to make it succeed. In the past emigration provided the outlet for many people who could not find employment. In later years, due to the success of our native industry, migration provided the outlet. While it is infinitely more satisfactory to have our people find work in Limerick rather than in Leeds, the hope remains that some day more job opportunities will be provided in the local towns which in many cases can cater for small or medium-sized industries. I hope that the claims and hopes of the rural communities will not be ignored in the pressing need to cater for present city requirements. I trust that the claims of provincial towns which can accommodate small or medium-sized industries will continue to be sympathetically considered and met as far as is humanly and economically possible. The employment incentives and increased grants in the capital programme of the budget are specially geared to stimulate increased employment and I have every confidence that they will do this.

The increases in the income tax allowances afford the wage and salary earner a welcome respite from the burden of taxation which was being continually added to budget after budget. It is something to be thankful for that this trend has been halted before the last backbreaking straw had been added. Besides the financial benefit that will accrue from the tax allowances there are benefits of a psychological nature to the individuals concerned in that this section of the community can now see that they are no longer looked upon by the State as a group to be plucked repeatedly of an undue share of the fruits of their labours whenever a new increase in revenue is required.

The budget translates into action what Fianna Fáil promised in their election manifesto. Listening to some Opposition speakers one would think that it was a crime, or at best some kind of despicable political act, to deliver what was promised rather than a performance to be commended. This is not surprising in view of our experience of the famous 14 point programme on which the Coalition were elected in 1973, most of which they promptly forgot when they assumed office. The electorate can rest assured that this is not the Fianna Fáil way of doing things. Our motto is and will continue to be, as quoted by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech "Beart de réir ár mbriathar".

Fianna Fáil promised the abolition of motor taxation and delivered on that promise. Rural constituencies greatly appreciate the fulfilment of that promise. Most of the electorate in rural constituencies have not the benefit of a public transport system and they depend increasingly on cars to get to the towns, shops, markets, church, doctors and so on. Added to that is an often inferior road system which takes more than its due share out of the vehicle with consequent high maintenance costs to the motorist. The relief offered in the abolition of motor taxation is significant and is appreciated.

The manifesto promised a £1,000 grant to people building or buying a house for the first time. This has been a great encouragement to young people starting in life with the problem of providing a home for themselves. It has also helped to give a much-needed lift to the building industry which was virtually in the doldrums when the present Government took office.

There is a section of the community with which I have much sympathy in relation to the £1,000 grant. They are the people who were caught by the income limit for any grant from 1 January 1976 until May 1977. Many young people embarked upon building a house during that time confident that they would get the old grant, but for some reason, sometimes because they went through an agent, an engineer or a building society rather than sending their applications direct, their applications arrived late and as a result those people have been deprived of any grant. It was a great blow. It is a burden to them even yet, because the loss of £500 or £600 is a significant loss to people who fully expected that they would qualify for the old grant but subsequently discovered that, due to the technicality of their being late with their applications, they did not qualify. I have the greatest sympathy for these people but unfortunately nothing can be done about their plight now.

The abolition of rates on domestic dwellings is much appreciated especially in a county like mine where the rate had been approaching a frightening figure and where, indeed, only a few years ago we were in the unenviable position of having the highest rate in the country. It is to the credit of Fianna Fáil that they have delivered so promptly on these promises. Our manifesto was in no way a gimmick as we have proved. It represented solid proposals and these were accepted by the electorate.

In relation to the creation of jobs, the budget proposals are proof that Fianna Fáil are determined to deliver on their promises in this area too. The young and those who have had the misfortune to lose their jobs can take heart that now they have a Government who not merely express concern for the plight of the unemployed but are seen to be doing something to alleviate the problem.

The 10 per cent increase in social welfare payments considered in the context of reducing and controlling inflation compares more than favourably with anything granted to social welfare recipients during the term of the last Government who boasted about their concern for this section of the community. But there is little use in giving a 20, a 25 or any other percentage increase to people in this category if prices are allowed to increase at an almost equally fast rate thereby gobbling up any increase in payments. Unfortunately, that was the situation while the Coalition were in office due to their failure to take positive action to control inflation and to bring it within reasonable bounds. I welcome particularly the increases being granted to old age pensioners and to all others who, because of age or infirmity, are no longer able to fend for themselves. A worth-while change, too, is the extension of unemployment assistance to women. It was very difficult to justify the discrimination that existed in this area. In these proposals Fianna Fáil are reaffirming their pledge to the weaker sections and are ensuring that they obtain their share in whatever prosperity prevails.

The budget lays the foundation and charts the course for future economic progress for the next few years but the achievement of that progress will require more than the budget proposes. It requires the co-operation and the work of every section of the community. In this context acceptance of the national wage agreement is vitally important and it is hoped earnestly that those who will determine the fate of that agreement will be motivated by wise and prudent counsel and will give the proposals a chance. No one section can accomplish the task of economic recovery. It will not be possible for the country to begin moving again without the help of all sections. Our future success requires the total dedication of all. Without this co-operation and dedication there is no point in relying for help on the EEC or any other outside body, regardless of how well meant this help might be. While aid from such sources as the EEC can be of great benefit it cannot be successful totally if there is squabbling within the country among various sectors and if there is only half-hearted application to the task of economic recovery.

I welcome, too, the "Buy Irish" campaign. I trust the campaign will be pursued with perserverance. The public need to be educated in regard to the implications of not buying Irish goods.

Debate adjourned.