asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if the views recently expressed by him with regard to financial cut-back in a number of areas, including housing, are official Government policy.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Financial Cutbacks .
3.
: With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I intend taking Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together as I take it that Deputy Keating's question arises from the article referred to by Deputy Quinn.
The article in question dealt with a number of aspects of the Government's general economic strategy as it has already appeared, though in greater detail, in the pre-election manifesto, the White Paper on "National Development 1977-80" published in January of this year and the 1978 budget.
There is nothing in the main lines of the article that does not represent Government policy. Points of comment or of illustration, however, should be regarded as a contribution to discussion of the issues touched on.
: I appreciate the clarification by the Minister that the article basically is in line with Government policy in general——
: In general.
: With regard to the budgetary action taken by the Minister for Finance, will the Minister state if a specific area such as housing is still regarded as a "non-job creating area"?
: With respect to the Deputy, I do not see the point he is trying to make. The article does not suggest that whole areas are non-job creating.
: I appreciate that one cannot have a debate on this matter, but I wish to ask the Minister if he stands over what he stated in the article when he called for the possibility that there may be at least restraint in the non-job creating areas which are social welfare, health, housing and education? In what way are these areas regarded as non-job creating?
: I see the possible source of confusion.
: It is not on this side of the House.
: It is the article. As I am sure the Deputy knows, one would not want to take literally every word in every article. The article mentions social welfare, health, housing and education. Of course there are many components of expenditure in those areas that are directly job creating. I am not suggesting for one moment that they are not. In the budget this year and in action taken last summer, we set out to increase expenditure in those areas specifically to provide additional jobs. Of course there are components in such spending that can be job creating, and it was never my intention to suggest otherwise. If the Deputy reads the article I am sure he will agree that the general sense of it is that if one is setting out to provide additional funds for the overall expansion of employment and if one is also seeking to do that in the framework of reducing the overall borrowing requirement of the Exchequer, clearly there must be restraint on growth of public expenditure in other areas, namely, areas that do not themselves directly generate additional employment. The whole sentence read: "This means either more taxation or public expenditure cuts or at least restraint in the non-job creating areas". The only reference made with regard to social welfare is restraint—it does not say cuts.
: While the article may be of interest as part of an academic exchange between one economist and another, it gives rise to fears among people who are responsible in this House. At the outset the Minister indicated that the article represents Government policy, but does he not agree that it signals to the community generally that if the Government economic strategy of dependency on the private sector does not come off at least there will be the possibility of major restraint in these "non-job creating areas"?
: It was the Deputy who supplied the word "major".
: The Fianna Fáil manifesto relies on it very heavily.
: The manifesto, as in the article, spoke about either increases in taxation or cuts in public expenditure unspecified, or at least restraint in certain areas.
: In view of the comments and the nuances in the manifesto, in the White Paper and in the article under discussion as well as in Government policy to date, is the Minister willing to give a guarantee that there will be no diminution in the rate of investment in housing in real terms?
: That is a separate question.
: It arises out of the Minister's reply.
: It may relate to it but it does not arise out of it.
: I am not going to give a guarantee in the general terms suggested by the Deputy. He has used the expression "in real terms". We then get involved in the question of what period we use as the base by which this measure of real terms is to be applied.
: The past four years.
: Then we have to agree on starting and finishing dates for the past four years. I am not going to get involved in that kind of irrelevant and tedious arithmetical argument——
: It is not irrelevant.
: With respect, it is. There is another reason why one should never get into that kind of debate. There is a kind of Catch 22 in this. What the Deputy is saying is that a Government should not review policy from time to time, that if they do carry out such a review that implies the possibility of a change. Before any examination or review takes place if one is asked for a guarantee that one will do X or not do Y, logically how can anyone agree to such a proposition?
: Am I to interpret from what the Minister has said at great length and in a rather nebulous fashion that the commitment to increase housing which is clear to most of us——
: There is nothing in the question about housing.
: In that case may we anticipate a decline in the percentage of GNP or the percentage of finance?
: Certainly not. The Deputy may anticipate no such thing. I am not saying anything about the course of future decisions. The Deputy should wait. There is an appropriate time.
: Is the word "restraint" anywhere to be found in the election programme of the Minister's party issued last June or the phrase "increased taxation"?
: That is a separate question.
: Does Deputy Kelly think that we could reduce the borrowing requirement without having any restraint or any reference to taxation? Does the Deputy seriously put that proposition forward?
: Deputy Fitzpatrick is seeking to ask a Supplementary Question.
: Let us have a little bit of realism.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Might I ask the Minister if it is the Government's intention to cut back——
: Could the Minister for Finance not confine the obvious difficulties and restraints within the Cabinet to the Cabinet table.
: There are not difficulties.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no cut back in the building of local authority housing?
: That is repetition of the question asked by Deputy Keating.
: What does the Deputy mean by cut back? I have already said, in reply to Deputy Keating, that there are two reasons why I either should not give positive guarantees that will be done or give positive guarantees that something else will not be done——
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): I will clarify the position for the Minister. Is it not a fact that if local authority housing is cut back while the cost of private housing soars many thousands of people will be left without housing? Is that not the net result?
: That is not a fact. Since there appears to be this emphasis on housing may I make the point that it is the policy of this Government, as it has been in the past for many years with this party, to encourage home ownership to the maximum extent. That presupposes, to the extent that we are successful in that, as we have been in the past and will continue to be in the future, that the greater the number of people who own homes of their own the smaller will be the number who will need to rely on local authority housing. If we arrive at that situation will the Deputies opposite then say that we are not building enough local authority houses simply because there is no need to build them? I cannot rule out the possibility that it may not be necessary at some future date——
(Interruptions.)
: Question No. 4.
: Is the Minister aware that a number of local authority tenants aspire to owning their houses and under the schemes of tenant purchase end up doing so?
: That is not a question.
(Interruptions.)
: Question No. 4. The debate is over. I am asking the Minister to answer Question No. 4.