White Paper “Programme for National Development 1978-1981”: Motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is agreed that, apart from the party leaders on the Opposition side, the speeches will be confined to 45 minutes.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the targets for economic and social development and the supporting policies set out in the Government's White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-1981".

The White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-1981" is the third general planning document published since my Government took office in July 1977. Each of those documents—the White Paper published in January 1978, the Green Paper published in June 1978 and the White Paper now being debated—is grounded on the basic approach to national reconstruction set out in our pre-election manifesto and each is a step in the progressive elaboration of that policy. The Government's primary objective has been and continues to be the creation of sufficient employment to provide work for all who seek it; all other aspects of policy have been fashioned, within the constraints which sound economic and financial management require, to support that primary objective.

The strategy for 1978 set out to create new jobs by raising the growth rate in national output to 7 per cent, reducing the rate of inflation at end-year to 7 per cent and, with the aid of a temporary increase in borrowing to finance tax cuts whose aim was to restore worker and business confidence, underpin demand, and stimulate investment.

The success of that strategy is now evident. Over 30,000 new jobs were created in 1978—a truly remarkable achievement. Its impact on unemployment was blunted by the disturbingly high level of redundancies so that the net increase in employment for 1978 was 17,000. Nevertheless this increase is an outstanding achievement. It is the largest increase in any year on record, and considerably higher than the previous best.

The year 1978 was satisfactory in respects other than employment. Our rate of economic growth, at about 7 per cent, was more than twice the EEC average of just over 2 per cent. A most encouraging aspect of developments in 1978 was the increase in investment which was particularly buoyant and rose about 15 per cent in real terms with private investment rising at the exceptionally high rate of about 19 per cent. These increases reflect the dramatic response in investment confidence to the overall Government strategy and in particular to the fiscal measures implemented in the February Budget. The investment increase not only contributed significantly to the growth rate in 1978 but also towards providing the basis for rapid growth in the period to 1981.

The policy approach set out in the White Paper to tackle our employment needs can be summarised very succinctly. It is our view that any successful sustained increase in employment must be based on rapid growth in output. To achieve this rapid growth in output it is in turn necessary to expand our exports and also to continue the dramatic increase in investment which has taken place in the past eighteen months. Increased exports are a vital element in the drive for higher output in employment because as a small nation we cannot expect to be self-sufficient in meeting needs in the modern world. We should look rather to strengthening our trading links with not only our Community partners in the EEC but also with the trading nations in all continents.

The rapid growth in investment is the second key to success both because the fruits of fresh investment will be visible in making our goods more competitive, more attractive in the market places of the world and also because it is fresh investment which will raise productivity. It is higher productivity in turn which forms the only basis for genuine sustained improvements in living standards. Industry and agriculture are the sectors which must spearhead this drive for increased exports. Therefore, it is clearly vital to the success of our policies that the growth of investment in these two sectors should be sustained and indeed accelerated over coming years.

In addition to these requirements within agriculture and industry itself there are other areas within the sphere of Government control or influence which can contribute to their success. One obvious example is in the whole area of our infrastructure. Roads and telephones are the two clear examples of areas where additional investment programmes financed by the State can help to achieve our overall success by improving contacts with customers, and access to markets.

But the Government alone cannot solve the whole of the employment problem which we face. Others must make their contribution to this drive for more employment and better living standards. Two key areas which have become of growing importance during the past year are the area of income increases and the management of industrial relations. Sensible policies for income developments are vital because excessive or inappropriate developments in this sphere could undermine the whole thrust of our efforts by making Irish products uncompetitive. Unsatisfactory industrial relations for their part could produce the same effect because frequent and prolonged disruptions in the availability of Irish goods would soon cause customers to turn to other sources of supply.

If we got agreement on these components of our policy then we would be in a position to make faster strides than ever before in our history. But even these rapid improvements in output, living standards and employment would not be enough to produce full employment quickly. Relying on conventional policies, it could take perhaps ten to fifteen years or even longer before we would arrive at the goal of work for all who seek it. We as a Government are not willing to wait that long. The fruits of earlier successful development in the 1960s and early 1970s are visible everywhere about us. We have a generation of young people who rightly expect to find work in their own country. We want them to have that opportunity and for that reason we have set ourselves the ambitious goal of full employment within five years.

The first steps in this programme will be taken this year. We will establish a new hire agency which can organise new forms of employment creation. We will also expand some of the programmes for employment of young people which proved so successful in 1978 and in addition there will be further development of training programmes designed to equip our people with the skills and techniques necessary for success in the world of the 1980s.

All of these programmes must be dealt with in a framework of financial responsibility. Public expenditure in its widest definition now absorbs more than 50 per cent of Gross National Product. This year we will be seeking to reduce that proportion so as to free more resources for development. Indeed, we believe that the present high level of public expenditure may, in fact, be inhibiting investment and change, and that often the individual or firm left alone is the best judge of his or its own advantage. The nation can benefit from a new freedom from interference or excessive intervention by the State.

We will be seeking to achieve more balance in public expenditure generally by reducing the level of borrowing from just under 13 per cent of gross national product in 1978, to approximately 10½ per cent in 1979. We are doing this not from any theoretical or abstract motive but because the maintenance of the high level of borrowing of recent years is, in the end, totally counter-productive. Borrowing must be repaid. Some loans finance services which yield a return which can be used to service debt: but in recent years too small a proportion of our borrowing has been spent in this way.

An example will illustrate what I mean. In 1973 debt service after taking these receipts into account absorbed just over 15 per cent of taxation. In 1978, the corresponding proportion was over 20 per cent. In other words, before the Government could decide on employment or welfare schemes or levels of pay or any other issue, they had to set aside from taxation one pound in every five simply to repay the cost of past borrowing.

We are concerned not only with the total public expenditure and the way in which it is financed. We are concerned also with the balance as between its constituents. The public service estimates will show what I mean. They provide for an increase of just over 6 per cent in current expenditure, and an increase of more than 22 per cent in capital expenditure, representing investment in new industry, roads and telecommunications systems, in agriculture, in housing and hospital projects, and in educational buildings and equipment. I am not saying that the final shape of current and capital expenditures, as they will emerge next week, will be precisely of these magnitudes; but as a step in the direction of the White Paper targets, they will underline again the determination of the Government to provide in this country, by progressive policies and massive investment, a framework for development.

This shift in emphasis between current and capital expenditure is part of the reason why we decided to do away with a proportion of the food subsidies. If we really want to create full employment in our country we cannot always take the soft option. We cannot continue policies whose purpose has long since vanished. The essense of progress is change. It is best represented by the ability to adapt. The subsidies were introduced originally when inflation was running at an annual rate of more than 20 per cent. They now distort choice and absorb money which is needed to create jobs. Their reduction will add between .7 and .8 of 1 per cent to the consumer price index: and—let me emphasise—those on low incomes and welfare will be adequately compensated.

Finally, on this issue, and within the framework of the aims set out in the White Paper, it will be the Government's intention to work towards greater equity in the taxation system. Government expenditure must contribute to economic and social advance. It would obviously be totally contrary to logic and equity if the revenues from which that expenditure is financed were in themselves sources of real grievance or injustice— or, in their general effect, inimical to growth. It is part of the Government's purpose that, over time, retrograde or regressive features should, as far as practicable, be eliminated from the system.

We believe that our other targets can be achieved by prudent and sensible management of our affairs which will channel funds to the areas of greatest need and greatest effectiveness. This, in outline, is the basic approach set out in the White Paper. The overall targets may be summarised as calling for increases of 25,000 a year on average in the numbers at work, for a reduction in the rate of inflation to 5 per cent at the end of this year, to increases in national output of 6 per cent a year over the three-year period and to a gradual reduction in the Government's borrowing requirement to a level of 8 per cent of GNP by 1981.

Irish agriculture has benefited considerably from our membership of the EEC. During the past two years, the advances made have been little short of spectacular so that even the ambitious target, set out in the January 1978 White Paper, of a 25 per cent increase in gross agriculture output over the four years to 1980 now seems likely to be exceeded.

The wider market opportunities and better prices will continue to provide a considerable stimulus to output in the years ahead. The programme for the development of agriculture set out in the White Paper is designed to strengthen that stimulus so that the longer-term growth rate of Irish agriculture can be accelerated.

The development programme rests on a number of key elements. First, the productivity of our land must be improved. This the Government aim to achieve by the acceleration of the drainage programme and by a new land policy which will encourage the best use of land, and direct it into the hands of farmers who need it and who can put it to good use.

Second, the expertise of our farmers must be brought to the highest possible level. The reorganisation of the advisory service under An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, and the transfer to that body of responsibility for the coordination of farmer training and education, have been designed specifically to attain that objective.

Third, a climate favourable to the further expansion of agriculture must be maintained. In this respect, Irish farmers can be assured that the Government will continue to protect and further their interests in the continuous EEC negotiations on all aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy. Ever closer adaptation to Irish conditions of the various EEC incentive schemes for structural change will continue to be pursued. Farmers' taxation must move towards a more equitable distribution of the tax burden throughout the community but the Government are also determined to use taxation as a positive instrument for the development of the agricultural sector.

The rapid development of agriculture is crucial to the attainment of the overall targets in the White Paper, not only because the agricultural sector accounts for 18 per cent of national production and 35 per cent of exports, but because the quantity and quality of agricultural output determines the growth of our food processing industries. These industries, based on the use of our own raw materials, are of particular benefit to the national economy and are expected to make a substantial contribution to the employment goals set for the industrial sector. The Government intend, through the use of financial aids and other development measures, to expand the food processing industry and in particular dairy and beef processing for which the IDA have specifically drawn up a development programme.

The strong growth in the output and productivity of manufacturing industry in 1978 point up the contribution which this sector can make in future years. The prospect of improving the environment for international trade and investment, on which our industrial expansion relies heavily, was one of the factors which led the Government initially to support, and ultimately to decide to join, the European Monetary System. The Government, since their election, have taken steps to encourage the rapid expansion of investment in industry which is so vital for job creation. The Government have also overhauled the existing range of incentives and other measures for the encouragement of industrialisation. One result of these reforms has been the new tax incentive scheme, which will operate from 1981, whereby company tax for manufacturing industry will be reduced to 10 per cent on profits derived from both home and export sales.

In addition to these general measures to encourage investment and development in industry there are many other ways in which the Government are seeking to enhance the contribution of industry to our future progress. State companies have been invited to bring forward proposals for expansion or new ventures and the Industrial Development Consortium are examining a number of possible projects which would entail State involvement in one way or another. These projects must be commercially viable and must also be such that they do not serve to inhibit other developments which would have taken place anyway.

The Government also wish to encourage a wider degree of interest and involvement in industrial development. In this context the scope for co-operative ventures and for more direct participation by workers themselves are all matters on which much work has been done, and where fresh initiatives should be possible.

The ambitious targets for industrial growth and employment are based both on an enhanced contribution from existing industry as well as an increased influx of new investment from abroad. New projects approved in 1978 had an employment potential of more than 30,000, a substantial increase on the figure of more than 24,000 recorded for 1977. The IDA anticipate that this record rate of new investment can be sustained and a revised plan with an average annual target of 30,000 new job approvals is being prepared by the authority.

In addition to general policies for industrial development, action will also be taken to speed the growth of individual industries. In the case of the film industry, for example, legislation will be introduced shortly to improve financing arrangements for film production and to provide for other measures designed to facilitate the development of this industry. Other areas in which development programmes are being formulated include: timber, where there is a need to cater for the increased volume of timber which will come from our forests in the 1980s, and mariculture, where the scientific progress of recent years holds out great promise for the commercial development of fish-farming.

Tourism is another industry of major importance to the economy and tourist numbers exceeded two millions for the first time in 1978. To accelerate the growth of the tourist industry, the Government will increase expenditure on promotion of tourism during the next two years. The expansion envisaged provides a sound basis for investment to meet tourist needs and will make a substantial contribution to the overall targets of the White Paper. Other measures to underpin the expansion of tourism are also being explored.

The Government's expanding infrastructural programme and higher levels of public capital expenditure generally will provide substantial support for the targets for the building industry. That industry, which attained a massive 11 per cent growth in output and provided 5,000 additional jobs in 1978, is expected to generate an annual average of 2,000 new jobs over the three years to 1981. In addition to the stimulus from public capital spending, the industry will also benefit from the growth of the agricultural, manufacturing and services sectors leading to further investment in building and construction by the private sector.

The Government have a clear duty to ensure that incomes develop in a manner compatible with overall economic policy and, in particular, with the overriding objective of achieving full employment within five years. The Government aim is to develop a comprehensive incomes policy. Given sufficient support and understanding, policy in this area could extend to the manner in which those in receipt of social welfare benefits would share the fruits of community progress.

But excessive income and cost increases are not the only threat to our development prospects. Disruptions to supply can also exert a fatal influence, both through the excess costs to which they give rise or through the unreliability of supplies which causes customers to look elsewhere. We have had an unnecessary number of interruptions and disputes. In many cases the damage caused by these disruptions was totally disproportionate to the real or imagined injustice or grievance. The progress to be made in coming months and years must extend therefore to agreement on the procedures to be followed in dealing with industrial relations issues, so that justice can apply to all.

Ambitious and dynamic as are the plans of the Government to create the conditions for employment, by conventional methods, they would not in themselves be sufficient to cope with the full magnitude of the difficulties that face us. In addition to unemployment deriving from the changes that are taking place in industry and agriculture, we must face also the problems arising from our demographic structure. The proportion of people under 25 years of age in our population now is among the highest in Europe and the flow of new entrants into the labour force is correspondingly strong.

The Government are confident that the scope for co-operation between the industrial partners in schemes to employ and train the young has by no means been fully tapped. For this reason, and because conventional methods of employment creation will not suffice, the Government have decided to continue and expand the range of employment experience and training schemes as a first phase of the residual employment programme.

The policies outlined in the White Paper for the various sectors are expected to support a net increase in employment of the order of 18,500 a year on average over the three-year period. Consequently, 6,500 extra jobs a year over and above the 18,500 are required if the overall target of a reduction of 75,000 in the numbers out of work is to be achieved.

The White Paper outlines the shape which the residual employment programme will take. Primary emphasis will be placed on direct job creation by the Government through an extension of community services and training opportunities. Developments with regard to worksharing and the proposed introduction of measures to encourage the expansion of residence-related employment should also make significant contributions.

The Government's commitment to the orderly planning of our future progress is central to their entire approach. Proper planning for the future gives direction and coherence to Government intentions as well as to the measures for carrying out those intentions. The resultant clarity and sense of purpose generate an environment conducive to expansion.

A plan, must, however, do much more than provide direction and confidence; it must call forth the best in our people by generating enthusiasm for its goals. The Government have sought to fire this interest and enthusiasm by choosing targets which are highly ambitious, though realistic. This approach was fundamental to the Government's pre-election manifesto and to the planning documents which have been published since the election. The wisdom of this approach has been proven not only by the people's response at election time but in the liveliness of the debate which has been generated at every level in the community.

In a democracy no plan, however well intentioned, can succeed without support. Consensus might be easier to achieve by settling for less ambitious goals which would call for less change in existing attitudes and behaviour. The Government have not taken this easy way out. Instead we have sought to identify and confront the key economic and social problems facing our people and to spell out the action needed to solve them. We must now seek to win understanding and support for such an agreed plan of action.

The more general process of consultation has been in examining the options put forward in the Green Paper. The Government have been gratified by both the quality and extent of the response, and the decisions set out in the White Paper have taken full account of the many views expressed. It is the Government's intention that consultation should be a continuing feature of the planning process as it evolves in the future, and we will explore ways of improving this procedure.

The needs of the immediate future will not, however, await these longer-run developments. For that reason I have suggested that the first-steps might be taken by reaching understanding, with trade unions, employers and other interested groups on the actions to be taken this year in the fields of employment, taxation, incomes, social welfare and industrial relations, so that no time may be lost in propelling our economy forward to that faster process which we all desire.

Over the last year or so we have made progress which many thought impossible. We have reduced inflation to just over a third of what it was a few years ago. We have for the second year running attained the highest rate of economic growth in the European Community. We have increased employment by the highest number ever recorded and investment is also being sustained at record levels. Industry has achieved increases in output which are far above the levels achieved in Europe and our agriculture has rarely and, indeed, hardly ever been so prosperous. Our exports are increasing annually by phenomenal proportions.

We need this dynamism. As the country with the lowest level of income per head in the European Community we must grow fast. Both our success and our needs impose constraints. We can ignore these constraints and suffer— more than ever now that we are moving into a monetary and economic system which will impose its own discipline—or we can build on the foundations we are creating and achieve, with foresight and balance, the aims which the community regards as imperative. I mean the attainment of full employment and a society that is equitable and in which risk and effort are accorded their full reward. The White Paper is the Government's recipe for that progress.

Mr. Kelly

This White Paper of course has to be judged not simply on what is in it but against the background of the national debates we have been having over the last 20 years or so about whether planning has a place in our way of doing things or not and what place it should have. I remember in the last Government's time when we were presiding over universal inflation and over an unexampled recession, unexampled in the lifetime of many of us at any rate, we were being urged from the Opposition benches then to get on with planning. I distinctly remember the present Ceann Comhairle when he was spokesman for Industry and Commerce standing over here and I seem to hear still his distinctive tone as he urged us to draw up what he called a blueprint for economic progress. It was to be expected that when the Government changed last July 12 months the era of economic planning would recommence and that Deputy Richie Ryan's answer—namely that it was pointless to issue detailed plans at a time when we could scarcely predict the price of any commodity a month ahead while international conditions were so unsettled— would no longer be heard and that now we would get Deputy Brennan's blueprint and the detailed planning for which the Soldiers of Destiny had been crying out during their years in the wilderness here.

It would be reasonable, in trying to judge their performance, to suppose they had some kind of model in their minds. It scarcely would have been the Third Programme for Economic Expansion, which collapsed, or the second one. It might well have been the First Programme, the celebrated programme, devised by a celebrated public servant, originally spotted and promoted by Gerard Sweetman, which was published in 1958 under the title A Programme for Economic Expansion.

Of course, the world has become a good deal more sophisticated since 1958, particularly in the planning sphere. It would not have been surprising, if one were to compare the 1958 document with the document issued two weeks ago, to have found that the 1958 document was a little bit primitive, a little bit simple perhaps, compared with the 1979 one. Nobody would have been too much inclined to blame Dr. Whitaker if, with the hindsight of 20 years, his document turned out, on reexamination, to be a little bit naïve, a little bit tentative, a little bit primitive, compared with what the new Department of Economic Planning and Development were able to turn out. Amazingly, exactly the reverse is the case. I am not referring to some of the more superficial points of contrast—for example, the fact that Dr. Whitaker's programme was written in English and not in that base, lunchtime, seminar lingo in which, apparently, all so-called thinking has to be communicated nowadays, but which obscures the fact that there is no thinking there, or the minimum.

Not only was it written in English, not only was it half the length of the turgid document which the House is now considering, but it was packed with concrete decisions. There were several characteristics which differentiated it—and I hope the House will allow me to list them—very strikingly from what is in front of us now. First, it contained no self-congratulation. That White Paper appeared at the end of the year in November. There was no slapping of one's own back in it. There were no oleaginous references in it to the strategy which had been adopted and which was paying off in results. It was a modest, straightforward document. Secondly, it was not obsessed with the idea of jobs at any price, even if they were only paper jobs, even if to hold such a job would be more demoralising than not to have one at all, even if they were jobs created by a reckless recruitment into the public service already overloaded in the opinion of many people.

Thirdly, there was only one single reference in the 1958 document to the need for wage restraint, a need which was there then, just as it is now. The Government of those days did not find it necessary to harp on it to the exclusion of almost any other consideration, and to harangue and berate the people because of the fact that they wanted the same horizon in their lives as the people at the top of the barrel.

It emphasised the importance of saving, a topic not once mentioned in Professor O'Donoghue's paper. It recognised that consumer spending should not be allowed to create an external payments deficit, a topic only brushed on in the White Paper before us. On the other hand, it was absolutely full of concrete decisions, as I said. I apologise to the House but I will cite very quickly about a dozen of them which leapt to my eye as I read through it. These were concrete decisions which were capable of being—here is a Merrion Street word—monitored by the Opposition and by anybody else who was interested enough to look and see how these decisions would turn out. They were not simply the kind of generality with which this document in front of us today is bulging about how the Government will evaluate this and press ahead vigorously with that.

We were told what they would do. They did not succeed in doing it all, but they did a lot of it. They were going to decontrol rents so as to conserve capital by inducing private investment in the provision of flats and houses. That was done. They were going to pay a Government phosphate subsidy of £1¾ million for five years to improve the quality of grassland, which was urgently needed. They were going to provide State assistance for butter marketing. That was done. They were going to provide State assistance for pig progeny testing and for modernising bacon factories. They were going to establish Córas Tráchtála. That goes back to that White Paper and has paid off handsomely.

They were going to expand the credit facilities of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That was done. They were going to provide more funds for the Industrial Credit Company. That was done. They were going to provide for lower deposits and deferred loan charge payments on fishing boat acquisitions. They were going to get An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to build fish processing plants. That was done too. They were going to give grants for fish pond cultivation. They were going to set up a nitrogenous fertiliser factory at Shannonbridge. They were going to extend the steel works at Haulbowline. These were things you could get your teeth into and see whether or not they were being done. They appeared to make some sense.

They were going to provide more funds for the IIRS. They were going to provide more funds for the Irish Shipping fleet renewal plan. They were going to give tax exemptions for the Shannon Free Airport zone industry. They were going to provide—I admit a pathetic little sum nowadays but we can see the pay off from Deputy Harte's objections previously—another £1/2 million annually for telephones. That was big money in 1958. They were going to provide £1 million for the improvement of major tourist resorts. Henceforth there was to be external borrowing for productive purposes only.

Every one of these items which implied State expenditure was costed at the end of that programme and the cost was printed in two tables on two separate pages at the end. It does not matter that some of these plans may have come to nothing. Those plans were made and pursued and many of them were fulfilled and brought to fruition. I take it that, when Deputy Brennan called for a blueprint as he did in Opposition, like all his colleagues, he was calling for a programme with identifiable decisions, hard decisions, innovatory decisions which could be watched, not just from the opposite benches but by the people.

The contrast with what is before us today is depressing. This White Paper, apart from continuous, repetitive self-congratulatory talk about the Government strategies—one would swear the Taoiseach was a kind of political Rommel and Professor O'Donoghue was a kind of Guderian thundering across the plains of economic disequilibrium——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should refer to the Minister as Minister.

Mr. Kelly

Hardly anything is said in this document about curbing consumer spending, but there are at least nine passages I counted in which there is bleating—I can only call it that—about wage moderation. I would take that better from a Government who had campaigned to be elected on a platform which told the people they would have suffering and hardship as well as goodies and sweets. Maybe that is too high a standard to expect from the legion of the rearguard. I will not take bleating about wage moderation from them at this stage.

In this document there are nine passages in which demands and cries for wage moderation are contained. There are almost no decisions of any kind in this paper except decisions on fiscal restrictions. I will read to the House my list of the decisions which this document contains. Before I do that, let me make it clear to the House that this was supposed to be a paper with decisions in it. When the previous White Paper was published about a year ago, they said that it was to be seen as the first in a continuing series of green (discussion) and white (decision) papers. That corresponded to my own understanding of what a White Paper was about.

The Green Paper issued in June also said that the White Paper which is now before us would review progress on the Government's programme and set out the further action to be taken. Where is the further action? What further action? Tell me as an Opposition spokesman how I can watch that action and judge whether it is being taken. What can I get my teeth into? Will it not be possible for anybody on the opposite benches to say in a year's time that there is an on-going revaluation of this and that and broadly speaking their strategy is being effective? That will be possible no matter what happens, even if 200,000 people are unemployed. There is nothing in this document which will enable me to contradict them flatly.

Only ten minutes ago the Taoiseach described this pitiful document as spelling out the actions which will be taken. I will spell out the ones I was able to find. There is a decision not to charge the commercial farmers for an advisory service, and a decision to exact a contribution for disease eradication and for dairy inspection. Another one of a sort of fiscal kind is the one which is set out at the greatest length in six separate subparagraphs and which boils down to what I have described previously as a decision to snoop out the dole fiddlers. An army of inspectors will be recruited to snoop out the dole fiddlers and to make sure nobody is getting disability allowance to which they are not entitled and to make sure nobody is claiming unemployment benefit to which they are not entitled. That is a firm decision. Should that not have been a decision anyway? Should it not be a permanent feature of any decent Government that they do not allow themselves to be fiddled so far as that can be prevented? Do not tell me it qualifies as an item deserving of much respect in a White Paper—that we are to snoop out the dole fiddlers.

There is a decision, not a new one because we heard it six months ago from the Tánaiste, to create a Hire Agency under the National Manpower Service and there is a decision, also not new, to reduce the statutory limit of working hours. I do not know how that will go down with the postmen who struck for a fortnight because they were deprived of 3½ hours overtime. Listen to this for a decision. The Government have come to the conclusion that third level institutions should be moving towards a situation in which tuition is paid for out of fees. Are they going to require the third level institutions to charge the economic cost of the courses they are providing or are they not? What do they intend in this regard? If they have no opinion about it, why clutter up the White Paper with this sort of rubbish? Does it mean anything?

The best of the lot is a decision to decentralise 2,000 civil servants. A decision to decentralise 500 civil servants was taken 12 years' ago. I am not sure if the 500 are yet in situ. It convulsed the civil service because many civil servants lived their childhood and adolescence hoping to get away from the very part of the country to which they are now being sent back. The first concrete decision which is mentioned in the White Paper in regard to what section will be sent back is a good one: the motor registration department is going to County Clare. I think the Minister for the Environment is still in charge of that function. I think it a bit much that the only decision in regard to decentralisation which we can be told in a White Paper is that a Minister has scooped a section for his own constituency. If there are any other concrete decisions which I would be able to check, watch or monitor, I should like to know what they are.

Professor O'Donoghue

There are many more.

Mr. Kelly

They are not very apparent. Even more worrying is that the White Paper contains no hint that anyone in Government is worrying about our large-scale and long-term problems. There are some sentences and paragraphs in the White Paper which take my personal biscuit for pomposity and banality. We are given lenghty sentences about the importance of pollution control and the environment, sentences which might have been original and interesting if they had been given in one of the Reith Lectures about the year 1960 but which are no longer news to anybody. We were told by the Taoiseach today about the large proportion of our population which is very young. That is not news to us either. What we would like to know is what the Government propose to do in order to control the tendencies which are showing up in that young population, galloping towards white collar employment, galloping towards professional employment. What leadership or steering is being given to ensure that the expectations which will be generated in that young population will match the opportunities that are likely to be offered? I would regard that as a large-scale problem to which many others might well take second place but there is not a word about it in the White Paper.

There is nothing in it about the increasing demand for third level education. There is nothing in it about the general question of the role of capital and the role of labour and the rights of both of them. Nobody knows what their rights are. The capitalists who have committed no sin or wrong—they have only done what their parents taught them to do, that is, to work hard and save—do not feel that they have to apologise for what they have got. At the other end of the scale there is a man who is being told to settle for 4 per cent which may give him a 1 per cent or 2 per cent real increase in the year. A man of 30 years of age who is told to settle for a 1 per cent or 2 per cent real increase in his living standards will only be 60 per cent better off in 30 years' time when he is on the threshold of retirement, even if he gets a 1 per cent or 2 per cent real improvement every year. What kind of a horizon is that for a human being? What kind of reaction do the Government expect from a work force which will never make a capital gain, let alone achieve real wealth, when it finds that there are no guidelines for capital?

I am not a Marxist and I do not suppose that many people would consider me to be a socialist but I can see that there is a severe weakness in western society because no one faces up to these problems. We should be trying to achieve some kind of social confidence and social solidarity. Less than ten days ago the Taoiseach made a speech in which he called for a five-year national consensus about the very thing I am talking about but there is not a word about it in the Minister's paper. If the Government are serious about it why cannot they present a co-ordinated strategy in regard to this central and vital problem which is going to be important to the future of our children and grandchildren?

There is only a perfunctory reference to the problems of urban society. The problems of urban society, particularly in Dublin, are very serious. Unless they are attended to urgently they are going to achieve dimensions which will threaten the fruits of any economic programme, no matter how successful, and lay our economy and society in ruins.

It is possible to have a lot of confidence in the figures put forward by the Minister. Although I have a great deal of regard for the Minister as a human being I stop short of idolatry of his capacity as an economist. I am not referring to the fact that financial institutions like the Central Bank disagree not merely with his projections about growth in the year ahead but disagree with his assessment of growth in the year just past. I must confess I should like to be told how it can happen that the Department of Economic Planning and Development fix on one figure as the 1978 growth figure whereas the Central Bank fix on another. I should like to know what the criteria are which these two financial brains are applying and why a telephone call would not clear the matter up between two arms of the State. It is not a university lecturer or some ivory tower theoritician who disagrees.

Professor O'Donoghue

The Central Bank regard themselves as being autonomous and independent.

Mr. Kelly

Their salaries are paid by the State and the Minister has some responsibility to keep in step with them. I cannot imagine what will be felt by distinguished strangers who come to the gallery on gala occasions when they have to telex Ankara and Rome in the evening that a discrepancy of 1.2 per cent is showing between the Minister's calculations of the 1978 growth and the Central Bank's calculations of the 1978 growth. That would not happen anywhere else in Europe.

I have reasons for suspecting the Minister's expertise in matters of this kind. The Minister is somebody who made a mistake of 60,000 in computing unemployment when he was relying on his own sources of information. I have pursued this matter on several occasions in the House. On 1 June 1978 I again pursued the matter with the Minister. I quote from column 427, volume 307, of the Official Report:

Mr. Kelly: Could I ask the Minister who was it who first raised the scare about how the real unemployment figure was about 50,000 higher than the live register?

Professor O'Donoghue: I did and I am standing over it.

Mr. Kelly: The Minister's party and he is blaming us now for making the same point and viewing the situation, as we will be doing, in the next election.

Professor O'Donoghue: That is the point I made. We knew unemployment last summer was about 160,000. ...

I should like to hear the Minister explaining whether he still stands by that estimate in view of the fact that the EEC labour force survey which was being taken in the very month in which his computation was being made—April-May 1977—calculated the workless in those months at a shade over 100,000, 100,000 and a few hundred, less than 101,000. When I find that the Minister has put his feet in the plate, so to speak, on such a spectacular scale, such a majestic scale that he could be 60,000 wrong out of 160,000 in computing the unemployment figure in this small country, I say perhaps this is the thirteenth stroke of the clock, the stroke which invites doubt not only about his own authenticity but about that of the other twelve also. Perhaps this is what the Minister opposite is capable of at any hour of day or night.

It is true in regard to these figures that this is not a hard and fast plan, and could scarcely be representative of such, which will not be changed for five years because the Minister—I do not know who thought up the phrase—has repeatedly said, as have others with him, that what the Government are aiming at is what they call a rolling plan. It rolls on and I suppose it is tinkered with from time to time as may seem necessary. That is very convenient. It makes it very difficult to monitor for people on the other side of the House or outside it, and it gives the Minister a chance to jump from figure to figure like an antelope from crag to crag. It invites me to invent an appropriate proverb on the matter— a rolling plan bothers no prof. It may not bother him but it will bother us unless we can see the firm decisions about which so much boasting took place beforehand, unless we can see them in a form which will admit of them being tracked, watched and checked. If a plan is put forward in any other form it does not deserve the name in any sense which would entitle it to bear comparison with the economic programme of Dr. Whitaker of 1958 or any other economic programme that was published.

Some individual aspects of the White Paper urgently invite comment. First, there is the question of wage increases about which the paper talks a great deal. When you read something like this with about 120 pages you wonder if your spirit will hold up until you get through and the eye is inclined to travel a little too easily over the early or middle paragraphs. I had to go back and look again. I got a double take when I saw this statement which comes very early in the Paper, paragraph 2 or section— whatever the silly thing is called that the Minister's Department have thought up. Why can they not number paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 up to the end of the book and not have this 2.3 and 3.4. What is the reason for that? Can we not have ordinary numbers such as we learned at school?

Professor O'Donoghue

You want to know what chapter you are reading?

Mr. Kelly

If it were decimalisation and if there were exactly ten subparagraphs in each paragraph this business would have some sense but since there are not ten in every case there is no excuse for not using ordinary numbers. In paragraph 2.3 the White Paper says that a continuance of recent pay increase trends "would severely damage employment and output prospects". It then goes on to say that the projections—I am quoting it—set out in later paragraphs are prepared on the assumption that these trends can be satisfactorily reversed. It is hard to know what to say about planning strategists who prepare their plans on an assumption that all recent experience will suddenly turn inside out, that instead of what recent experience would lead us to expect we shall get the reverse. I must ask the Minister straight if that is the assumption on which the entire plan is built—and it is, because he says so—of what value is it when in the very week in which he and his colleague, the Tánaiste, have been talking about wage increases of the German level, about 4 per cent, the country is ringing with huge, clamorous wage demands for many multiples of that amount? The craft unions want 25 per cent; the post office workers want 35 per cent; the Garda want 40 per cent and the upper civil servants and the nurses want 50 per cent. Who will be persuaded that the Minister and the Tánaiste are not living on the moon when they talk about getting and holding 4 per cent increases against a background like that?

Professor O'Donoghue

Is the Deputy saying that massive increases are inevitable?

Mr. Kelly

We shall all suffer if there are inflationary wage rounds but I cannot feel sorry for a Minister and a Government who have brought those voracious demands on themselves by their reckless electioneering, their own enthronement of the easy buck as the third national aspiration and by their shameless pandering to wealth.

Messrs. Dudgeon and Company, stockbrokers, said last week, as reported in The Irish Times of 21 January in their annual report, and advice to the people who do business with them I suppose, that the phasing out of food subsidies does not create a happy climate for voluntary agreement on moderate pay rises over the next 18 months. They can certainly say that again. I admit this is a straw in the wind, like the dove flying back to the ark with the olive branch in its beak, but it may be that the message is getting through at last to the stockbroker belt. I hope so. When Messrs. Dudgeon and Company say this again, as I invite them to, let them also take up an attitude to the following proposition: the food subsidies are being phased out in order to plug a revenue gap of approximately the same dimensions as the gap left by the abolition of the wealth tax. I know it is not as simple as that, that you do not speak of taking away one thing to pay for another, that a budgetary operation is across the board; but when two sums are approximately equivalent one very often must—I heard of it being done myself in Government—say: either we have this or that; we cannot afford both because, if we do, all sorts of consequential effects will follow.

I should like to ask Dudgeon and Company—I mention them only because they have shown their own head on this point—to say which they prefer of the following two packages, wealth tax plus food subsidies or no wealth tax and no food subsidies, the point being that the result for the revenue would be roughly the same. I think they will live to recognise that the National Coalition had the right answer.

On industrial relations I notice something funny. Obviously, even the Merrion Street people nod from time to time. The Homers of Merrion Street nodded here because I find that while the White Paper omitted to say one solitary word about the Government's plans if any for improving the industrial relations climate—it scarcely mentioned the phrase industrial relations—it has a paragraph on incomes policy but although the Taoiseach broadly followed the plan of the White Paper in his speech today—his paragraph headings correspond in sequence roughly to the plan of the White Paper—that plan has curiously become expanded in his speech today into "incomes policy and industrial relations". It is late in the day that they suddenly thought of saying something about industrial relations. A child knows that disorderly industrial relations are the main obstacle to our welfare and the main threat to whatever prosperity we have already achieved. I invite the Minister when he speaks to say why there is no paragraph, scarcely a sentence in the White Paper dealing with this absolutely central matter. He can tax or remit tax until he is black in the face, but if he has industrial trouble on his hands the country will go downhill. He knows that. Why then does the White Paper, which is 120 pages long, say nothing about this problem, nothing about a strategy for achieving the kind of social confidence which will make it possible to work for orderly industrial relations of the kind that the National Coalition strove to get and largely succeed in getting, with exceptions?

Industrial development certainly features in the White Paper which has a section about it. We read that the Industrial Development Consortium—I must hold up the House to give them a gem; I want it to hear what they say about the Industrial Development Consortium. I quote from paragraph 4.28:

Under the impetus and direction of the Industrial Development Consortium the IDA ... will participate in a new scheme....

The Industrial Development Consortium have impetus. Would it surprise you to know, Sir, that the Industrial Development Consortium did not meet between July of last year and when I asked a question about it at the end of November? For all I know they have not met since. There was a gap of over four months in the operations of that Industrial Development Consortium. Is that impetus? They have not got an office, staff, a budget, an executive or premises of any kind. They are not even on the telephone, a matter to which I had to draw attention last month.

Mr. Cluskey

They have a paragraph.

Mr. Kelly

Yes, they have a paragraph.

Professor O'Donoghue

They exist.

Mr. Kelly

But there is not one word about industrial relations or about the Taoiseach's idea of a five-year truce or a five-year consensus to try to restore peace to this important area. That neglect of the single most important problem which will be identified as such by every schoolboy, is completely in keeping with the performance over the last 18 months of the Minister for Labour. You, Sir, quiet gentleman that you are, will remember that he was the noisiest, most bullying, most strident and most unreasonable Deputy in the House. I saw him trampling on your predecessor day in and day out. If he had shown that kind of behaviour to the present Ceann Comhairle he would have been suspended not once but many times in the course of the twentieth Dáil. He had all the answers and he did not even want to wait until order permitted to be allowed to give them. It is very easy to talk to him now.

This Minister for Labour is at one with the rest of the Government in not knowing what to do about his job. It might be thought that he is heavily dug in trying to reform industrial relations, get them right again and give us some industrial peace. He may be doing something about that, but I will tell the House something interesting about him. This month, on 8 January, he opened in the Silver Springs Hotel in Cork a seminar on the prospect of pollution control via recycling. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Minister for Labour. He has no business opening a conference of that kind and wasting a day's work when he should be at his desk. It may be said that he was standing in for his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, whose job the thing would be. Would it surprise you to know, Sir, that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment also attended the same seminar and put out a script, as indeed did the Minister for Labour?

It must have been quite a seminar to attract two office-holders on a single day. But I have not finished. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance was also there and he put out a script too. That was a disgraceful operation. If these seminars must have an official clap on the back, it can be done by one Minister. There is no call for three to be there, and least of all the Minister for Labour. The junior Ministers may find the going quiet and may be able to get away to junketings like that occasionally. When an office-holder from the Department of the Environment is present and at a time when the country is in ruins through the disorder which informs industrial relations, the Minister for Labour has no business being at a function like that. It is mere cheek that, not satisfied with going to it, he must get some wretched official in his Department to write a speech for him and put it out to the Government Information Services. I presume that on the previous Friday three officials in three seperate Departments were battering their brains out to try to think of something sensible to put in the mouths of these three office-holders to pat a seminar on the back. I do not know how many other officials had to be consulted so that some scripts could be put together.

That is no way to run a country. It was venal for Deputy Wyse and Deputy John O'Leary to be present; no doubt in the case of Deputy O'Leary, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, it could be said that it was his job to be there. With the presence of the other two, the idea that a Minister for Labour, would be there as though he had not enough work of his own to do, is fantastic. I am giving the worst example that I have seen in recent weeks, but if the House wants to be held up by such a thing I could multiply that example of Ministers being where they have no business to be and doing what they have no business to be doing and not attending to their job. It does not surprise me to find that industrial relations do not figure in this White Paper although it is the single most serious problem that we have.

In the field of industrial development this consortium, we understand, are giving consideration to developing the food processing industry and the timber processing industry. Those two industrial branches, together with the hide processing industry, are peculiarly appropriate to Ireland. They are using the natural resources of the country. I admit that they are not trendy natural resources, not the kind that seminars may be held about, such as a smelter. They are natural resources nonetheless. They are more reliable than the other ones. They will not be exhausted in the way that a zinc mine will. Those three industrial branches are in bleak trouble at the moment, as the Minister opposite knows. Two of them are in trouble because of imports from non-EEC countries which are making their products non-competitive, and the other is in trouble because of the operation of the MCA system. There is not one word about those difficulties in the White Paper. It is primitive—I used that word a while ago in a different connection— and uncivilised to be chasing all over the world to get people to come in and make insoles or fly-swatters when our own industries, which we understand and for which we have a natural resource which will never dry up, are being let go to the wall. Another Deputy who lives in a constituency which has representatives of all three of these industries will be speaking later and I will leave it to him to go into detail as he has seen it on the ground.

It is fantastic that a White Paper with a section on industrial development could tell us blindly that this ghost consortium are considering the development of industries which are almost on the way out without once referring to their difficulties or saying what the Government propose to do to eliminate those difficulties. I doubt if the British or French Governments would have been so slow, so torpid in defending existing jobs. They would not have been running around the world looking for new ones from exotic sources. They would have attended to the ones that were there, and they might have broken the rules in doing so. We know that the British and the French are not slow to break rules; we have suffered from two sets of broken rules. How are we so behindhand in contriving a device to protect jobs in our own traditional industries? Deputy Bermingham tried to raise something cognate with this topic today and we saw the stone-age response he got from the Minister for Finance.

The last individual topic I want to mention is the question of energy. For some reason communicators would call it a hot topic. It is one which easily catches the headlines for some reason, and I am amazed that this has not been noticed by the media. I may have missed it, but I have not noticed any pointing up by the media in regard to a most amazing volte face in this White Paper. I quote from paragraph 4.51:

... serious examination is being given to the feasibility of, and need for, a nuclear energy station.

That is a very tepid little statement compared with the pugnacious certainties of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy which we have been listening to for the last year-and-a-half.

Writing on the Green Paper in his journal last July/August he said:

My fear is that the articulation of ambitious targets may be confused with their achievement. To insist that these targets can be met, provided external trading conditions remain favourable, real incomes are restrained, industrial relations improved and attitudes, motivations and aspirations radically changed, may well be to fall into the trap of misspecifying the problem. The real problem relates to the establishment of these very preconditions.

That could not be better put. I salute him for putting in a nutshell something I have struggled sometimes through two or three pages of a script to say. The real problem before this Government, before the Government I worked for—any Government—is to establish the preconditions which the Minister opposite has taken for granted. He is assuming them established for the purpose of his projections. The real task is to establish them. Some of them are outside a government's control. It is true that external trading conditions, of course, are not at a government's command. But what is at a government's command is establishing a climate of social confidence, of social solidarity, so that industrial relations, wage claims and all this area of country which has us by the ears, will settle down and become a normal part of existence, in which reasonable people can live reasonably, in which we can debate quietly how the country's wealth is to be distributed, how it is to be used in such a way that it is not gobbled up or grabbed by one section and that another section have no option, if they are to keep up with the race, but to look for 40 per cent and 50 per cent rises. That is what a government should be aiming to do. But of course the Minister's party, true I may say to their nature, have galloped as far as they can in the opposite direction. They have played down to the people's cupidity. They have done two things, either one of which might be all right, but to do the two simultaneously is disaster. They have played down to people's cupidity, encouraged people's cupidity, held out to them the idea that prosperity is only around the corner once they get rid of the Coalition; that the Irish people had a kind of divine claim to be exempt from the effects of the world recession, that the world recession itself scarcely existed except for an excuse for Fine Gael and Labour malice and incompetence. They persuaded the people in that way; they played up to and inflamed their cupidity and their expectations. That would be all right provided they did not do the second thing, which is the disaster; this is what leads to the short-circuit politically. They then played up to the wealthy and hit the rest in the teeth. One cannot do these things simultaneously without building up a lot of trouble for oneself. That is the trouble the Government are in and that we are all in along with them.

I would have expected that a serious economic programme, aiming to be taken seriously, aiming to inspire people and excite them, would have addressed itself to the underlying problems in that area. To the extent that this White Paper has not done so—whatever other merits it might have, and there do not seem to be many—I think of it as a very serious failure. I would hope that the Government, if that is the best they can do, will spare us any more White Papers. Certainly I will never again press them to produce one.

Mr. Cluskey

We have been afforded an opportunity of discussing the Government's White Paper entitled "Programme for National Development 1978-1981." The Government's target of attaining full employment over four years must be welcomed by every member of our community. The aspiration of full employment here is one we all have, particularly those of us who have been members of the Labour Party over the years, who have sought and endeavoured to urge on the Government certain policies which could lead to the realisation of that aspiration. But there is no doubt in my mind that the policies proposed and those pursued by this Government over the past 18 or 19 months cannot possibly lead to the attainment of full employment here. In fact they are based on the same policies the Government pursued in the 1960s right into the early 1970s, when this country, almost alone in Europe, had a structural unemployment problem of approximately 7 per cent, when other European countries were enjoying virtually full employment. The over-reliance of Fianna Fáil on the private sector for job creation left us—in that international economic climate, which would lend itself to the possibility and indeed attainment of full employment in other European countries—with an unemployment problem of approximately 7 per cent.

The same policy is being adopted in the White Paper, the Green Paper and in every pronouncement by Government spokesmen from the Taoiseach down. There has been the same downgrading of the potential of the public sector and an over-reliance on the private sector. This has been to such an extent that leading spokesmen of the private sector have said publicly to the Government: "Do not try and get us to carry the can for the failure of your policies. Our job is not job creation; within Irish economic and commercial life our job is the making of profit." The Labour Party believe that full employment can be achieved but it will not be done by the policies pursued by the Government.

During the years Fianna Fáil have had two national aims. Now we have a third aim, namely, full employment for our people. I am afraid it will meet the same fate as the two other national aims that Fianna Fáil had and possibly still have, namely, the reunification of the country—and we know how much progress has been made on that—and the restoration of the Irish language. Fianna Fáil's approach to both of those aims had a most serious defect which is included in their approach to the third national aim, that is, not taking into consideration the fact that there are individuals and groups involved in the attainment of the aims and that their policies with regard to the two other aims and the third aim of full employment have alienated many people.

In a democratic society if one is to get the necessary discipline—and discipline and restraint are necessary—it can be done only by getting the voluntary commitment of the various sections in the community and their full participation in the programme set out for the most desirable goal, that of full employment. One of the key factors and one of the underpinning elements in the Government's approach is wage restraint. The Taoiseach and his Ministers have concentrated on wage restraint as the key factor in the attainment of full employment and the economic development that is necessary.

In the Taoiseach's speech, in the White Paper, and particularly by the Minister present, there has been much trumpeting about the attainment of growth in the region of 6½ per cent. The Government have failed to grasp the fact that economic growth is not an end in itself. Economic growth is a good and desirable thing but in isolation it means nothing. Economic growth for the sake of economic growth is of no benefit to the vast majority of the Irish people. Undoubtedly it is of benefit to some people who have a "get rich quick" mentality and who are prepared, irrespective of the national interest, to take advantage of any situation or possibility that will give them personal gain. Economic growth in itself is not something that will excite any member of this party or any sensible Irish man or woman.

During the years we have tried to get across to Fianna Fáil the simple fact that if you are trying to get the necessary commitment from the various sections in our society it is necessary to have economic and social development side by side. Irish working people are not prepared to accept the repeated dictum of the Government that we must have economic development before we can have proper and adequate social development, that those who have sufficient must get more before those who have not sufficient are properly catered for within our society. The Labour Party consider that it is possible through proper economic and social planning to mobilise all the resources and all sections of the community towards the very desirable goal of full employment for our people.

In the White Paper there are various proposals based on a number of assumptions but before the ink was dry the assumptions on which the whole programme was based were being seriously questioned by impartial economists and impartial national and international bodies. Those groups questioned the validity of some of the claims being made and some of the predictions with regard to growth, inflation and so on on which the whole plan was based and without which the goal could not possibly hope to be attained. I make no apology for repeating previous speeches because the truth cannot be repeated too often especially when it apparently has not yet penetrated the minds of the Minister and the Government.

Voluntary wage restraint can only be achieved in a democracy by agreement unless the Government attempt to bring about wage restraint by legislation. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development ruled out the possibility of legislation for wage restraint in a recent television or radio programme. I was glad to hear that because I would not agree with such an approach. The Minister was wise to say that that type of legislation was not workable. The Minister gave the impression that, even if this was desired by the Government, legislation in that area had been ruled out not because the Government would have been reluctant to bring it in in principle but because it would not work. Legislation being ruled out the Government must try to create a climate where workers particularly organised workers are prepared to go along with voluntary wage restraint. They can only be expected to go along with that if they see at the end of a period of one, two or five years a definite advantage to their future and to their children's future.

Since June 1977 how has this Government gone about winning that kind of confidence and creating a climate in which voluntary wage restraint can be obtained? One of the first acts of this Government was to abolish wealth tax. The amount of money involved in the operation of wealth tax was not great and taken in the context of the national budget it was insignificant, but abolishing wealth tax was a very clear indication to the workers as to where the Government's priorities lay. That was followed by a number of other actions which directly affected the living standards of social welfare recipients and the lower and middle income groups. The people affected by wealth tax were in the main people who withdrew their money when the country was facing an economic crisis so as to ensure that they would not suffer financially. I recall that the attitude of this small but influential number of people was condoned by leading members of the Fianna Fáil Party who now hold ministerial offices. However I note that over the weekend the Taoiseach in a speech referred to them and there seemed to be a slight change of attitude. The Taoiseach seemed to hold a different view in relation to their flight from their responsibilities towards their country in a time of crisis, and he seemed to question their willingness to participate voluntarily in the programme of job creation and full employment. The Taoiseach questioned not their ability but their willingness to take any risk so far as their capital was concerned with a view to creating jobs.

The Taoiseach and the Minister spoke about the number of jobs that had been created since they came to office and stated that this was a major achievement but that, it had been somewhat nullified by the exceptional number of redundancies which took place during the same period. The Government are mainly relying on private enterprise to attain full employment. Under the rules of private enterprise a situation could arise where in a reasonably viable company employing 500 which makes a fair profit, a bright young man could come to the board of directors or to the managing director and put forward a proposition that if the company took certain action or introduced a particular type of operation, they could let go 100 of the 500 workers. One can make redundant 25 per cent of one's workforce and enhance one's profits considerably by doing so. Under the rules of private enterprise is it not legitimate for that managing director or that board of directors to say "Yes, that is a good proposal and it will be implemented"? Under the rules of private enterprise their business is to make a profit and if they can see a way of enhancing their profit they are entitled to do so.

The Government have been told by private enterprise that they are in the business of making a profit and not in the business of job creation. The Government were told that more than 12 months ago by leading spokesmen for the private sector and one would have thought that the Government would have assessed that situation and realised that if there was a possibility of creating jobs and attaining full employment they would have to use to the maximum the potential of the State sector. That has not been done. The Government have almost totally rejected that approach. When Labour Party spokesmen refer to the State sector and the establishment of a national development corporation Fianna Fáil backbenchers interrupt and dismiss those suggestions as being ideological nonsense coming from a crowd of socialists who are not to be taken seriously. That approach has been successful, to a certain extent, up to recently but there is a growing realisation among Irish people that if we are to attain full employment we can only do so if we are in control of our own employment destiny to a greater extent.

Can the Minister tell the House the percentage of Irish industry which is owned or controlled by non-nationals? To what extent is Irish industry controlled or owned by people who live outside the State? I believe that percentage is fairly high and is increasing at a fairly considerable rate. We should be legitimately concerned about that. I do not want to be misunderstood in making that statement. I am not suggesting that we do not need foreign investment; I am not suggesting that we do not need in the growth of Irish industry the participation of outside interests but we can, if we have not already done so, reach a situation where all or the major part of our industrial sector is either owned or controlled by interests outside Ireland. I believe that it is possible for the State to directly create productive jobs on their own through the operation of a national development corporation or, where appropriate, in conjunction with private enterprise. Apparently, that appoach, if not dismissed, has been side-stepped by the Government. It gets scant reference in the White Paper. Indeed, we have as a smokescreen for the Government's lack of interest in that approach, reference to what the Government described as a "consortium". The question of the consortium was dealt with very fully by Deputy Kelly, who gave detailed information of how active that consortium have been. He told us that the consortium do not have an office, a staff or a programme and that for a period of four months they had not met. How can one take such a consortium seriously?

The White Paper is based on a number of other assumptions. A growth rate of 6½ per cent is predicted for this year, but the only prediction of that size has come from the Government. It is impossible to find any source that agrees with Fianna Fáil's assessment for the present year. The ESRI predicted that the growth rate for 1979 will be approximately 3¼ per cent, while the OECD predicted that it would be approximately 4 per cent. In an unprecedented statement containing contradictions of the attainment of the Government's growth rate last year the Central Bank this morning stated that the factual growth rate last year was 5.8 per cent and that, in their opinion—one must agree that it is a well-informed opinion—it would be even lower this year. A number of assumptions are made in the White Paper which if not attained will mean that the programme for national development will be a failure.

Does anybody expect that we will have a wage settlement, whether by national pay agreement or arrived at through free collective bargaining, in the region of 4 to 6 per cent? Does anybody seriously believe that that will be the outcome of negotiations whether they are held at national or plant level? That is one prediction which I believe will not be realised. Does anyone seriously expect that we will have an inflation rate of 5 per cent this year? Does the Minister still maintain that as being a proper assessment of what our inflation rate will be? If all these assumptions are already crumbling when we are only in the process of discussing the publication of the White Paper, what hope is there, under the policies and assumptions that make up this White Paper, for us and more particularly the ordinary people, attaining full employment under the policies being pursued by this Government?

Even when it was an extremely unpopular thing to mention, the Labour Party always advocated the necessity of proper economic and social planning. In the early fifties I remember the late Jim Larkin, junior, advocating publicly and privately that the only possible salvation for our economic and social ills was the drawing up and the implementation of a plan that would command the support of the various sections of the community. We have made some progress in so far as we have now arrived at a situation where Fianna Fáil accept that planning is necessary. Unfortunately they have not learned that not only is planning necessary but it is also necessary to realise that there has to be an approach to the various sections of the community which will get their commitment to the attainment of that plan. Over the last 18 months this Government have undoubtedly created one of the worst possible climates in which one could hope to achieve that type of commitment, particularly from lower paid workers, for the attainment of this very desirable goal.

I do not see the year ahead as being one that will give any comfort to the Fianna Fáil Government nor will it give comfort to any other section of the people. By their policies Fianna Fáil have ensured that 1979 will be remembered not for the launching of a plan for the attainment of full employment but as a year in which the sectional interests they have fuelled will give full vent to their feelings, and all sections of the community will be the losers as a result.

I believe there is a possibility of retrieving that situation and that possibility will present itself in this House this day week. There are two proposals which could be put forward in the budget that could salvage the situation, but I do not have much confidence that the necessary wisdom resides individually or collectively in the Cabinet to take advantage of that last chance and to come here in next week's budget with proposals that could possibly marshall, if not all, at least the majority of our people behind the kind of commitment and sacrifice that are undoubtedly necessary for the attainment of full employment. I believe that if proposals which are shown to be just are put to the people and if the sacrifices to be made are seen to be fair and equitable, the people are capable of making that commitment. In my view the policies pursued by this Government have caused very serious sectional divisions within our national community and I have very little confidence that this day week they will take the last chance to salvage the situation.

However, we will know this day week. We will see what they propose as an input into the programme for national development and the achievement of full employment and we will be able to comment on the third national aim of Fianna Fáil. I sincerely hope—although I doubt it—that it will have much more success that the other two national aims of that party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Briscoe. The Deputy and all other Deputies will have not more than 45 minutes.

Mr. Briscoe

I would like to refer to a matter that has not been referred to so far in this debate, except by the Taoiseach in his opening speech, that is, the Government's decision to set up the temporary hire agency. There is a danger that this could be missed in this debate and I want to focus attention on it and what it hopes to achieve. This is something which is extremely important from a psychological point of view.

As everyone knows, when a person loses his employment and has a certain amount of difficulty in finding a new job, he gradually loses confidence in himself and after a prolonged period of unemployment he loses the will to work in another job. I would like to quote the relevant section of the White Paper at page 94, paragraph 7.10:

Reference was made in the Green Paper to the possible establishment of a hire agency for temporary employment, at least on a trial basis. The Government have decided that an agency should be set up under the supervision of the NMS. The necessary enabling legislation will be introduced at an early date. The agency's purpose will be to seek out and develop to the full opportunities for the placement of persons who are available for temporary work. The agency will deal with all levels of temporary employment and it is intended that it should speedily and effectively supply the manpower needs of those who have temporary jobs available. It will act as employer of those whom it engages for work while assignments are in progress and it will be responsible for tax and social security deductions together with the other administrative responsibilities placed on employers in relation to workers.

This is a big step forward. It speaks very well for the recognition by the Government of the tremendous need to have a stop-gap where people lose their employment. We know that there are some industries which are unable to stand up to competition from foreign countries. We are endeavouring to help Third World countries to increase their prosperity and we recognise that a certain number of our industries may suffer in the process. The textile industry has been affected by exports from Third World countries and a certain amount of employment has been lost in that industry over the last few years. It is important that the people who work in textiles, the furniture industry or other similar industries, who are skilled with their hands, should be employed by companies who are looking for people in the short term.

A person who is out of work for six months or longer loses the will to work. I came into this House in 1965 and since then I have been advocating that the Department of Labour should consider setting up a list of people who have been unemployed for six months or longer so that they can be seen as a separate part of the unemployment register. This would help in assessing the difficulties in placing some of the people on the unemployment register in jobs.

Deputy Kelly suggested that the Government had proposed that there should be only a 4 per cent rise in wage levels under a national wage agreement this year. The Government did not say that. They said that no rises should be more than 4 per cent above the increase in the standard of living last year. I do not know what they had in mind when they said that. This may mean that it should not go more than 4 per cent above 8 per cent or that it may be 4 per cent on the growth rate. Many Members of this House and the media also have said that a member of the Government said that there could only be a 4 per cent rise in wage levels. I am sure when the Minister for Economic Planning and Development is replying to this debate he will deal with that point.

We have come to a very important crossroads in the history of this country. I believe that we are the best Britain-watchers in the world. We have seen that there is a complete breakdown there in human relations at all levels. I hope that will have a salutary effect on the people here. I do not believe any of us want that to happen. I am an optimist and I believe that we will have a national wage agreement. I believe the trade unions want it. The Government and the employers certainly want it. We have been frequently told that the rewards from exercising a reasonable amount of self-discipline can be very great. When some people hear the phrase "exercising a reasonable amount of self-discipline" they believe that it means that we will have to put hair shirts on, but that is not the case. The Government have pledged that the standard of living of our people will not be reduced. I can speculate as well as the next man. It is a good speculation to state that the rise in the amount received by social welfare recipients will be over and above any inflation which has occurred in the last year. Successive Ministers for Finance have always introduced into their budgets an element which gives the least-well-off the highest increases. I believe that the standard of living of everybody will increase in the next year.

I believe that the trade union movement are well aware that we have a tremendous opportunity this year and that we can come to a reasonable national wage agreement which will improve the standard of living, however modestly, of everybody. I believe that we can find ourselves for the third year running at the top of the league in Europe. The reduction in unemployment is not an accident. Neither Deputy Kelly nor Deputy Cluskey had one word of admiration for the Government in achieving the targets they set out to achieve. We created more jobs in the past year than in any time since the State was founded but there has been no acknowledgment of that by the Opposition.

We can be very proud of our achievement last year and we can be very proud of the responsible behaviour of the trade union movement last year. The concern of the trade union movement is as great as that of the Government with regard to unofficial strikes. I believe the Government will do everything they can to facilitate the trade union movement and will even bring in legislation to give them greater powers if they feel they should have them. I believe the Taoiseach said that he would like to see the trade unions becoming involved in investment in industries here as they do in Germany and in other countries. The trade unions not only have a vested interest in their workers but they have a vested interest in seeing that workers are kept at work.

Deputy Cluskey referred to the Central Bank's opinion about our performance and policy as being fairly well informed. He forgets that it was the Central Bank who lambasted the Coalition when they were in Government only a few years ago for their lack of policies. They had to revise upwards last year's estimate of the growth rate. I state that for the record. The only people who did not have to revise upwards their estimate of the growth rate target were the Government. Everyone else did. The ESRI also had to revise upwards their estimates.

Why the Minister for Economic Planning and Development is always accused of having a bad hit and miss, as it were, in regard to figures I cannot understand because the record shows that he has been more accurate than anybody else, and that speaks for itself. It is always grand when one can turn to the record and say that this is what we said at the beginning of the year and that we are saying something different at the end of the year. The only revision which was made was on the growth rate for agriculture over the next four years; it has been increased from 25 per cent to 26 per cent in this year's White Paper. That kind of correction is fine on the basis of our progress.

Deputy Kelly was mocking this Government when he referred to the Ceann Comhairle drawing attention when he was in Opposition, to our lack of a plan. He quoted the former Minister for Finance, Deputy R. Ryan, as stating that one could not plan in a time of high inflation and world recession and so on. Yet he did not quote the Taoiseach of that day, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, as publicly stating that 50 per cent of the inflation in that period was home produced. The greatest achiever of inflation was the Government itself. There are many examples which I could quote. The best example I suppose would be the price of petrol. The Coalition increased the price of petrol from 12 pence a gallon to 35 pence a gallon. They did not introduce supplementary budgets for that. Nor did they introduce a supplementary budget when they increased the price of postage stamps and the price of television licences by a huge amount.

Deputy Garret FitzGerald today questioned the Taoiseach about the removal of the subsidy on butter while not making any mention of the fact that the considerable increase in the voucher for social welfare recipients more than outpaces the increase in the price of butter due to the removal of the subsidy. Before Christmas the Minister for Economic Planning and Development stated quite clearly in the House that it is not the policy of this Government to keep food subsidies as a feature of the economy and that the food subsidies would be phased out over a period of time because the wealthy also benefited from food subsidies. It is the intention of the Government to phase out food subsidies in order to allow the lesser well off sections of the community—those people in receipt of social welfare—to benefit from the removal of the subsidies. I am quite certain that any money that has been removed from the subsidies will go to improved social welfare allowances.

Mr. Horgan

In real terms?

Mr. Briscoe

Indeed in real terms. If Deputy Horgan would like to look through the records he would see what the increases in real terms were during the Coalition's time in office as against what appeared to be massive increases. I think from 1972 to 1976 are the four years in question.

Mr. Horgan

I am talking about next year.

Mr. Briscoe

I am quite happy that the real terms will be over and above. When Deputy Michael O'Leary was asked on a radio programme if he saw food subsidies remaining a permanent feature of our economy he did not even answer the question. He went right around it. The interviewer did not even pursue him on it; he let him away with it. But he did not say there and then "No, we do not see food subsidies as a permanent feature". No Government in its right mind would in times of rising employment and reducing inflation. It was Fianna Fáil in opposition who harried the Government of that day to introduce food subsidies because of the huge unemployment which mainly the Government had created through inefficient policies and through the high rate of inflation. We have stated quite clearly that it is only in times of high inflation and high unemployment that one introduces food subsidies. If high unemployment and high inflation were to follow at the same level as they did in 1975 and 1976 this Government would be left with no alternative but to reintroduce food subsidies. But we do not need food subsidies when the going is good. Everybody who is fair minded must agree that all of our standards of living increased quite considerably last year. With the 8 per cent increase we got, plus the removal of the rates on our homes, plus the abolition of car tax the previous August there was real money in our pockets. These were sums of money which were not tax-deductible and were therefore real increases. The Government stated then quite clearly that we could not expect to receive increases at the same level this year.

I believe that the Government, in setting out to achieve full employment as its priority, recognises the dignity of the human being. Deputy Kelly says it would be better for some people to be unemployed than to be working in jobs in which they were miserable. I do not agree at all. I think that a man who is unemployed loses self respect. He may not admit to it, but he does. There is nothing more soul destroying for anyone than to be unemployed and, after the period I spoke about of six months or a year, he tends to become more immune to that feeling simply because he buries it within himself. Most people want to work and it is our job to provide employment for them. As a good Government it is our job to set the guidelines by which they can find employment near their homes.

I am sure that will not go unnoticed. The factory is on the north side of Dublin in Deputy Haughey's area and is making reproduction furniture which it exports to Japan.

Mr. Horgan

I was referring to another kind of "reproduction".

Mr. Briscoe

It also exports to America and Britain. The manufacturer has so many orders that it will take years to meet them all. He trains his operatives and they are learning skills. In due course they will probably branch out in business for themselves, because this is a branch of the market which is wide open for exploitation and development. We have a wonderful workforce, people who are adaptable and who can produce the goods. We can hold our own with any nation for expertise. The electronics field is one where we have enpertise and where we are very much engaged in the export market.

There is one very important aspect to all our future industrial development, that is, we must get into the highly technical type of industry, the one that calls for a high degree of technology. We have the people. We have the markets freely available to us and it is during this transitional period that there is the greatest potential for growth in industry. The IDA are well aware of this and have revised their job creation programme upwards. Page 49, paragraph 4.11, of the White Paper states:

In support of the Government's manufacturing employment targets the IDA will soon publish a revised industrial plan covering the period 1978-1982. The central feature of the plan for the four years 1979-1982 will be a substantially increased target to approve projects with a long-term potential of 120,000—an average of 30,000 a year. The new target represents an increase of 50 per cent on that achieved over the period 1973-1976.

That is why Deputy John Kelly was so angry when he referred to this White Paper and compared it to previous ones and when he referred specificially to the third programme, because this deals with a period which is possibly painful to him and to his colleagues to recall—that between 1973 and 1976. The paragraph continues:

The translation of these job approvals into job creation will go a long way towards the achievement of the overall target increase of 10,000 jobs a year in the manufacturing sector, if, as is expected, the past rate of conversion between job approvals and job creations continues.

As part of our job creation programme, and in anticipation of more investment coming into the country, paragraph 4.12 states:

To support this intensified industrial development effort the IDA will continue its major programme of advance factory construction. The extended programme is designed to more than double the volume of space previously made available by the IDA for industry. Over half a million square feet of space will be provided for small native enterprises. The first two phases of the programme, involving the construction of almost 900,000 square feet of factory space, will provide 38 advance factories and 4 clusters at locations throughout the country.

This in itself is generating employment. We have these advance factories and an optimistic outlook based on experience.

Perhaps it is unfair to Deputy Kelly, but I felt his whole contribution was completely negative. He did not have one good thing to say. He reminded me of Grumpy in the Seven Dwarfs. I have never seen him make a speech in this House when he is in a good humour. In my interpretation of what he said he implied that we had no plan and there were no hard facts in the White Paper we are putting forward. We have put forward many plans including those under the disease eradication section which is referred to in the White Paper. I wonder whether the Opposition have really studied the White Paper at all. Page 41 states:

The total investment by the State in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis will have reached approximately £125 million by the end of 1978. It has been evident for some time that the results achieved have not been commensurate with this expenditure. It is also the case that failure to eradicate these diseases within a reasonable time could threaten the country's substantial export trade in cattle, meat and dairy produce.

The Government are going to take hard action on this problem of disease eradication, because it is a very important plank in our policy that the agricultural sector will be one of the most vital and biggest growth areas in our economy over the next four years. This is necessary in order to create jobs. The White Paper also deals with the dairy processing industry and the huge amounts of money which must be spent in this area to process more food here rather than exporting it to other countries for processing. This is a positive statement of policy.

We are anxious to try to stop fiddling on the dole, which everyone knows goes on but which it is not always politically popular to state. But Deputy Kelly suggests that this is ridiculous and that any good Government should not have to state this. It should be the natural order of things that there should not be any fiddling on the dole. If Deputy Kelly had been the Minister for Social Welfare in the Coalition Government he might have had a different attitude to this. When I investigated this matter it attracted considerable attention. I discovered that only two inspectors were employed in the city of Dublin to inquire into dole abuse. They work between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I do not think people want to deprive anyone of his or her entitlement to unemployment assistance, but they want to see the wholesale abuse of the dole stopped. I have no doubt that has been going on for quite some time and that it has grown to huge proportions.

As a result of the huge increase in employment, many of those people are now taken off the dole queues. In the coming years many more will be taken off those queues. At the next general election when we have to answer to the electorate, we will be judged on our performance, as we have been in the past. One of the ways in which the electorate judge a Government is whether or not they are still working. If they have lost their jobs they will not forgive the Government. I have said on numerous occasions that Governments are not elected; they are rejected. If we do not perform, we will be rejected by the people. Very often Governments are elected by default, and not because they deserve to be. It does not happen by accident.

Mr. Horgan

Like this one.

Mr. Briscoe

With 84 seats, there must have been a certain element of default. The Opposition should hang their heads in shame. Apparently they still do not realise what happened and they are not prepared to revise their outlook on future policies. They just come in here and criticise what we are doing. We have solid achievements to stand on. We are quite capable of getting on with the trade unions and coming to agreement with them. I do not say this with tongue in cheek. The people at the head of our trade union movement, in the main, are first-class people, dedicated to the well-being of members of their unions. They recognise their responsibility. Even if the Labour Party are affiliated to them, they realise that their first responsibility is not to the Labour Party but to the members of their unions. Our relations with them are as good as and better than the relations of the Labour Party with them. I hope we will hear some positive contributions to this debate. If there is anything in this White Paper with which the Opposition disagree, let them stand up and say so.

Mr. Deasy

One of the cornerstones of the Government's victory in the general election was their promise to create jobs. Right through the Fianna Fáil manifesto there is ranting and raving about the number of new jobs which will be created. I want to deal with one aspect of that job creation programme which has not been realised, that is, the creation of employment through the utilisation of our own natural resources. I noticed in the White Paper and in the Taoiseach's statement today a much more muted approach to what we were told would solve so many of our unemployment problems. I refer in particular to the promise of the provision of a tremendous number of new jobs in the food processing industries.

On pages 11 and 16 of the manifesto there is reference to job creation in agriculture and fisheries. The manifesto states at page 16:

The volume of farm output must be raised and everything we produce must be processed and packaged through to the consumption stage. Every by-product must be fully exploited.

That seems to be an extremely noble sentiment but I venture to say we have fallen short of that idea. Overall in the food processing sector and the associated industries, instead of creating jobs we have barely progressed at all and, in some instances, we have gone backwards. On page 12 of the manifesto dealing with industry and commerce it is stated:

A revolution must take place in the management of industrial expansion if the essential employment targets are to be achieved. The main thrust of the new strategy will be to develop industries based on our natural resources ...

I have not seen any marked increase in job creation through the development of our natural resources. In fact, I have seen a decrease in employment in that sector. In the White Paper the reference to such job creation is more muted. On page 37 it says that a special effort is called for to raise the level of processing intensity in the agriculture-based industries if employment is to be maximised. Fine words, but a less enthusiastic approach to job creation from our own resources.

There is no reference in the White Paper to the creation of jobs through the processing of fish. Great play was made with that in the manifesto. Fianna Fáil seem to have toned down considerably their original intention. In my part of the country, instead of job creativity, we have had a series of job losses. Industries based on our natural resources are folding up and are being allowed to fold up by the Government. These are the very industries which should be given the greatest financial support in times of difficulty.

On page 52 of the White Paper it is stated:

Job losses in recent years have been so serious that they have offset to a large extent the extra jobs in manufacturing industry which could otherwise have been expected from the establishment of new projects and the expansion of existing enterprises. These job losses have been concentrated in the older established industries particularly in Dublin and in the south and the east of the country.

Those words are quite true and I cannot contradict them. I should like to hear what concrete efforts are being made to create jobs in the sector to which I have referred, the agricultural sector. Agriculture is our main industry. We derive a tremendous part of our income from that source. Unfortunately, we do not develop the associated agricultural industries to create the employment which is so necessary for our young people. We have fallen down very badly in that sphere.

The Government promised a revolution to rectify that state of affairs but we have had no such revolution. We have had no great improvement. There is a natural improvement because of improved methods in farming, and high productivity which leads to the production of more beef, the export of more meat, and the production of more milk. The greatest expansion has been in the milk sector. Our production of milk products is increasing and will continue to increase as farming methods improve and as the quality of the land is improved through fertilisation. In this regard the Government have not introduced any new strategy, as promised in the White Paper.

I should like to refer to some industries which have not expanded. One such industry is the tannery industry which uses the by-products of agriculture. We have four tannery factories—one in Gorey, one in Portlaw, one in Carrick-on-Suir and one in Dungarvan—which employ 1,400 people. Those 1,400 jobs have been in jeopardy for some time. Redundancy notices were served on 370 people employed in Gorey, Dungarvan and Portlaw. Instead of exporting large quantities of hides we should try to develop the tannery industry, which has a high labour content. It is an unhappy coincidence that the Gorey factory is closing today with a loss of 200 jobs. Redundancy notices have been served on 135 workers in Dungarvan and these notices are due to expire on 2 March 1979, and 30 to 40 redundancy notices have been issued to workers in Portlaw. Those jobs will be lost for all time unless the Government or one of their agencies inject finance into the tannery industry. How can an industry that uses natural resources go to the wall? There must be a considerable amount of ineptitude——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not refer to individual cases.

Mr. Deasy

Page 52 of the White Paper refers to job losses. The blame must be shared by the Government agencies involved, the managements of the companies involved and the EEC. EEC policy allows exports from Third World countries and this creates unfair competition. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy must have knowledge of what is going wrong.

Our membership of the EEC is productive in that we get more out of it than we put into it. Certain aspects of the EEC are unsavoury and not in our best interests. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that certain conditions are changed. As we do not produce as many consumer goods as the Germans, the Belgians or the British, we have not a great interest in bartering with Third World countries for cheap raw materials or cheap manufactured goods. The 1,400 jobs in the tannery industry are at risk because cheap finished leather is flooding the Community. It is impossible for our industries to compete with South American industries which pay much less for raw materials. That kind of unfair competition must be stopped. Until it is stopped the Government should help industries which are at present in financial difficulties. The manufacturers of finished leather goods in the Third World have stockpiled their goods throughout Europe. The Government should put more pressure on the EEC to try to stop this unfair competition. We have not a great industrial tradition and our industries have not as much management and sales experience as industries in other Western European countries. As a result, our industrial structure is weak and is open to disruption by unfair competition from abroad. The flooding of our markets with cheap products from abroad can only be described as unfair competition. Ireland is not the only sufferer in this regard. Tanneries in Britain and France have also closed but the redundancies created by these closures are insignificant in comparison with ours.

The timber industry, which is referred to in the White Paper, is related to agriculture. The White Paper makes great play of great promises in regard to the expansion of employment in the timber industry. On page 43 we are told that timber output from Irish forests will double by the early 1980s. Further down on the same page we read that it is envisaged that up to 900 additional workers could be employed in timber processing by 1985 with a further 900 in logging, a total of 1,800 extra jobs. That would be an excellent achievement if that target were achieved. I should like to see it achieved. I raise the matter specifically now in the hope that it will be reached and even surpassed because the potential is there. The output from our forests over the next 20 years will be colossal according to figures obtained here in reply to Dáil questions in recent months. There is a tremendous future for this industry.

Unfortunately the industries needed to utilise the tremendous output of timber on to the market are not there and, as far as I can see, are not being provided. Why is this so? The White Paper speaks of 1,800 extra jobs. Up to December 1978 there were fewer than 700 people employed in the timber processing sector and fewer than 600 employed in logging, the felling and extraction of timber from the forests. The White Paper envisages an increase of 900 in the processing sector and 900 in the logging sector. But what is happening? Last month one of the four—and there are only four— timber processing plants closed down with a loss of 175 jobs. We come down from under 700 to 500 people employed in the timber processing industry. This week there were fears that another timber processing industry employing 180 people would close down. Actually, a board meeting was called yesterday to pass a resolution to put the company into liquidation: so, half the total number employed in the processing industry in jeopardy.

At Question Time Deputy Bermingham asked some very pertinent questions. Money seems to have been pumped into a particular processing industry without proper examination of the viability of that industry or of the way in which it was being run. I do not say that the money should not have been provided but I say that it should not have been provided until the running of the industry had been studied and if necessary until the management and expertise had been put in to accompany it. Shortly after the money being put in, Deputy Bermingham told us, the industry collapsed and the Government withdrew all financial support with a loss of about £500,000. The whole episode is not at all consistent with the White Paper statement painting a very rosy picture for the future of that industry. Actually, the contrary is the case. The existing industry is very shaky.

I was on a deputation from Waterford last September to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and we met the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, who gave us a categorical assurance then that the timber processing industry in Waterford would not close down and, to quote the statement issued afterwards by the deputation, in view of the assured long-term future of the timber industry in Ireland and of its importance to the growing state forest output we were given a clear and firm undertaking that the firm in question would continue in production. It seems that last Tuesday the company which was about to go into liquidation contacted the Minister who expressed dismay that the company was in such financial difficulties and on the point of closing.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing the White Paper, "Programme for National Development". I have been waiting for the Deputy to relate the discussion of specific cases to that.

Mr. Deasy

I am referring to page 43 of the White Paper which deals entirely with the prospects for employment in the timber processing industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will be happy if the Deputy shows it to be relevant.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister expressed dismay that rather than having expansion in the timber processing industry jobs were being lost, and half the jobs which existed in that sector last month are now in jeopardy. Actually, 175 in Athy have gone and 180 are in a state of flux. The Minister has made a promise that he will come back next week and salvage the industry as it exists at present. I hope he can do so.

Overall, industries depending on our national resources are in a fairly sad state. The promise in the manifesto that these would be one of the main sources of employment in future seems anything but correct. Is it not sad that in the recent lorry drivers' strike in Britain shops and supermarkets here were in danger of running out of supplies of a wide variety of food products? The majority of those products, which are in the processed form in tins or packages, are produced in this country; but the bulk of our agricultural produce—it does not relate solely to cattle—is exported in an unprocessed form. A great deal of what we buy in processed form was originally exported and re-imported at many times the original price. We should all like to see that trend reversed and the processed goods we eat produced here. We would like to see processed food products exported in large quantities from this country. A more obvious source of employment it is difficult to imagine, but the promise we received two years ago was obviously a false one as there are no signs of it having been implemented.

Fish processing is referred to in the manifesto and we are told that our fish are going to be processed rather than exported in the raw state. There is no reference whatsoever to this in the White Paper and none to-day in the Taoiseach's statement. We are certainly lacking in such processing facilities and virtually all the fish we eat is imported. We export vast quantities of fish in the unprocessed state and we obviously reimport it in a processed form. This is not at all to be recommended and I wish we could get around to doing something to rectify the situation. As far as I know there is only one plant in this country for canning fish. If you go into a supermarket or shop you will see the shelves lined with cans of various types of fish, most of which can be caught within a few miles of our country. I understand that our only canning plant is in Dungloe in County Donegal and that because of the inconsistent source of supply this opens for only a couple of months in the year. That is a sad reflection on our business acumen and our declared intention to create large numbers of jobs in the processing sector. What is needed is a source of supply which will meet the demands of such a processing plant. This is another area in which our fishing fleet needs to be enlarged and expanded. We need to build much bigger boats to fish at greater distances off our coasts and to stay out in all weathers, thereby ensuring a continuous supply to the processing plants. The problem at the moment is lack of continuity and until such time as we have that continuity it will be difficult to see the type of processing industry which we have been promised in the manifesto ever coming about. This promise should be maintained. Other countries have spent many years fishing off our coasts and taking the very type of fish to which I refer. In days gone by it was herring. In recent times it has been mackerel and now latterly there is a newly discovered species called blue whiting which occurs in enormous quantities off our west and north-west coasts. But who are the people who availed of these vast quantities of fish? The Dutch took our herring; the Russians initially and the British primarily took our mackerel and now I read in the fishing journals that the Danes are scooping up the blue whiting which is occurring in abundant quantities and they are processing it in great quantity. It is about time that we woke up to the possibilities in this field. Fish processing gives very little employment in this country, and surely several thousands of jobs, even tens of thousands of jobs, would be created if it were properly developed.

I am going to finish up with a few comments on the lack of creativity of employment in the food processing industry and in the related industries in agriculture. It is about time that we stopped being the good boys of Europe, the obedient servants within the EEC, who obey every law, who play it by the book. It is about time we put our national interest up there in front with our mutual concern for the welfare of the Community. We are good Europeans, probably too good at times. We are allowing the importation of goods from Third countries to affect our competitiveness and hence our employment here at home. If it affects the British national cause, or the French national cause, or the Italian national cause for that matter, they are very quick to put up barriers or to bring in financial awards, grants, or assistance of some kind when it suits to maintain jobs. We have seen this in Britain over the last two years where they have brought in a £20 employment subsidy. This is not in compliance with EEC regulations. A number of industries in this country could keep going if they had the advantage of such a subsidy.

Similarly, for many years the French kept us out of their lamb market when their own farmers' sales were endangered. Also they prohibited imports from Italy of enormous quantities of wine because it was in competition with their own product. We are too inclined to play the game by the rules all the time. We should be a little tougher in our negotiations and a little hardened in our attitudes. We should not be so ready to comply with every directive which comes out from the EEC. Last year I saw a table published in The Irish Times which listed the number of times each member country had broken the trading regulations within the EEC. Ireland was at the very bottom of the table, the country which had least fallen out of line and which had obeyed the regulations and rules. That is a very honourable position to be in, to be the least offending of all the nine. But if it means that we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, be it in the tanning, timber processing or any other industry, due to dumping by Third countries or unfair competition from other countries within the EEC we should dig our heels in and be quite a bit more nationalistic and let them know that we are not going to be treated as small boys.

I had meant to speak on another aspect of the White Paper but I have dwelt on the creation, the non-creation and the loss of jobs in a sector where we were supposed to increase on numbers tremendously, and that is those industries which depend on our natural resources. I will leave it at that and I hope that we come to the stage where we can support these industries and stop unfair competition from other countries.

Mr. Leyden

I am delighted to be afforded an opportunity to debate the White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-81". It is a most courageous document and I should like to compliment the Departments involved in its preparation. In particular I should like to compliment the Minister for Economic Planning and Development who has brought a very fresh approach to government. I can see his close involvement in the preparation of this document. It is forward-looking and aims at objectives which I feel—and certainly the Government feel—are achievable.

Indeed I would regard it as a radical document. Even were the Coalition parties involved in government, particularly the Labour Party. I do not think they would have framed a document I would regard as radical as is this one. As a member of this great national movement, Fianna Fáil, I find it is tremendous to observe this approach to national planning and development. We could be very complacent in Government. We could accept the present situation and go along without any particular aims or objectives. But that is not the approach of this administration. Since assuming office one-and-a-half years ago this Government have shown courage in dealing with the many social issues neglected over the four-and-a-half year period of mismanagement by the Coalition.

On assuming office in 1977 we came in with the magnificent manifesto, a document setting before our people certain aims and objectives. I am dealing now with the White Paper. But this White Paper is an extension of the manifesto we put before the people in 1977 and on which we were returned to government. The people responded in a very positive manner and their support for us brought 84 Government Deputies to this side of the House. With that overall majority we were in a position to tackle the social issues affecting this country. The White Paper now presented is an extension of that election campaign. As the Taoiseach said here this afternoon, it sets before our people achievable, courageous aims on which the Government will concentrate in coming years. When we go before the electorate again I know they will respond in the same fashion, ensuring that our aims and objectives will be achieved. I feel certain they will be achieved only under a Fianna Fáil Government. Certainly we have the leadership, the ministerial talent and progressive policies of which the people are well aware.

The White Paper sets out very clearly where this country is going in the years ahead. For example, we have set for ourselves an objective—the elimination of unemployment, which is a very brave policy, but our people are in need of such an objective and are prepared to work for its achievement. Nobody wants to see a recurrence of the situation that obtained some years ago, in the period 1973-77, in which there was massive unemployment in this country with no effort whatsoever being made to eliminate it, a situation in which there was gross Government mismanagement of the economy. It put very many young people on to the unemployment queues, placed no objective before them in which they could see any end to the plight of this nation. Such people were ready and willing to support a government prepared to grasp that nettle. This Government have grasped that nettle in the past one-and-a-half years during which they achieved so much in the way of new jobs for these people.

Coming from a rural constituency I know the contribution of the Government to that constituency in the past year-and-a-half. It is very encouraging to notice so many schemes reaching fruition, schemes which would not have been financed had the Coalition been returned to office. As a councillor in Roscommon since 1974 I know we were fighting continually for certain schemes and programmes to be implemented. Continually we were coming up against a stone wall in relation to Government expenditure. The previous Government were not prepared to support the infrastructural demands of a rural constituency. Only since this Government were returned to power have we in Roscommon County Council been afforded an opportunity of seeing the very many schemes held up for perhaps ten to 15 years being implemented. Work has commenced now on many schemes in this area, the details of which I will not go into here. However, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the work of the many Government Departments, for their realisation of the total neglect of a rural constituency such as mine, for the fact that they so readily approved many major sewerage and water schemes and indeed road works neglected by the previous administration. Now accessibility of Government Ministers to the electorate, to councillors and TDs is much greater. I have noticed that whenever schemes were brought to their attention they were willing to grant the necessary approval.

This stage of our programme for national development is tremendously exciting and positive. It is only proper that we should have such a programme of work laid out for us. I have many interests as a Deputy. One in particular has to do with the needs of the elderly and of social welfare recipients. It is vital that this Government continue to devote special attention to the needs of the elderly, disabled, widows and orphans. It is only proper that they should share fully in our economic development, that we ensure that they be given priority in relation to any allocation of funds. I hope there will be major improvements in the social welfare code announced in next week's budget, ensuring that these people, particularly the elderly, be given adequate weekly payments. Certainly this Government are committed to helping the elderly, widows and orphans and social welfare recipients. With the demands of various budgetary policies I know it may be somewhat difficult to grant the increases we would like to see on this side of the House to these people. They should be given total priority; they are a weak section of our community; they have no trade unions to back them up, no lobby group to support them fully. They rely on the Government to help them and I know this will be done. Their level of payments should be pegged to the real cost of living. I know it will be the objective of the Government to give them all the necessary payments to help and to sustain them.

Since coming to office Fianna Fáil have extended unemployment payment to single girls and widows. This was a tremendous improvement. Prior to the action by Fianna Fáil single girls living at home, possibly looking after elderly parents, had to reply on hand-outs from their brothers, sisters or other members of their families in England or elsewhere. It was not a satisfactory situation. Even though it meant we were increasing the number of unemployed, in the last budget the Government were prepared to grasp that nettle and to give unemployment assistance to such people. Many single women who had looked after their parents were trying to survive with very low valuations. They did not have any experience of outside work because they undertook the charitable and Christian responsibility of looking after elderly parents. It was up to the Government to ensure that they were given recognition for this work during the years and I am delighted that Fianna Fáil on coming back to office granted unemployment assistance to these people.

On previous occasions I told the Minister for Social Welfare that this category of unemployed should not have to report to a Garda station to sign the necessary form to show they are unemployed and available for work. I do not think that this is the correct procedure. The Garda Siochána have enough to do to fight crime and they should not be given the responsibility of supervising the signing of such forms. I am asking the Minister for Economic Planning and Development who is present to do something about this matter. I suggest that the sub-post office be used for this purpose. There are 2,100 such offices throughout the country and I think they are adequately equipped to deal with this task. Not only unemployed girls and widows but all people on unemployment assistance should not have to sign the necessary forms in the Garda station. They should be able to sign in a suitable Government office and I think the sub-post office would be the best place. Sub-postmasters are highly reputable and they will carry out their duty fairly. The payments are made through the offices and it is only right that they should see the whole thing through. In addition, it would help to support the offices, it would create a certain amount of employment and it would also allow the Garda Síochána to do their first duty, namely, to fight crime.

The payments were a tremendous innovation and were a blow for women's rights. I am amazed that the Labour Party allowed a situation where unemployed single women were not given the same assistance as unemployed men—although I am not amazed that Fine Gael allowed that situation to continue. It was a crime to deprive women of this assistance. It is surprising that the junior partners in the National Coalition Government did not make it a point in their programme. They relied on Fianna Fáil to bring in that social welfare service, in addition to many other services. Fianna Fáil introduced so many improvements in the social welfare code that they are known throughout the world as the socialist party in Ireland. We are more than left of centre. We are always prepared to introduce policies to suit the people and we look always for policies that will help social welfare recipients.

When the present Minister for Social Welfare was Minister for Finance and when the Ceann Comhairle was Minister for Social Welfare they brought in the free electricity scheme. It was a tremendous innovation and it is now way ahead of assistance in many of the developed countries. We struck a blow for social welfare recipients when Fianna Fáil introduced that scheme some years ago. I know what a help that scheme has been in rural constituencies. It has been of great assistance to the elderly and it has now been extended to the disabled. That scheme and also the provision of the free television licence are indications of the social conscience of Fianna Fáil. The Government are always trying to implement schemes to improve the lot of the less well off section.

The free fuel scheme during the winter months has been a tremendous help. In my constituency of Roscommon-Leitrim it has been administered fairly well but we always seek to improve it. There should be further examination of the scheme to see what improvements can be effected. Elderly and disabled people need heat to sustain them. It is as important as food. These people need a warm house to keep them in good health. It is important that we consider how we might improve the scheme and also look into the possibility of utilising our natural fuel resource, our bogs. I know that turf is being supplied at the moment but it is not supplied to enough people. There are many people who should be availing of help in this area.

I am very anxious to see improvements in the social welfare area. In a recent radio programme the Taoiseach spoke about the need to give extra money to the elderly and to social welfare recipients to compensate them for the reduction in the food subsidies which were given across the board. This help should be geared to those who really deserve it—not to millionaires and those who can afford to pay the full economic value of food. It should be geared towards people in the lower income group, to wage earners if necessary and they should also be helped by way of income tax concessions. That would be the most satisfactory way of giving benefits. I think this is the general thinking and trend of the Government and I am sure it will become clear in the budget next week.

A very important aspect of the programme for national development is the decentralisation of Government offices, which is the confirmed policy of the Government. This policy will benefit my constituency where towns like Roscommon, Carrick-on-Shannon, Boyle, Castlerea and Elphin could do with a Government office. All these towns would benefit from decentralisation. I am an advocate of the policy of decentralisation. It is ludicrous to have semi-State bodies such as Bord na Móna, whose raw materials are to be found in the west and in the midlands, based in Dublin. This body should have its headquarters situated where the turf is. Bord na Móna should let their luxurious offices in Dublin and move to the west. They are making a major contribution to the west already, but they should be encouraged to set up offices in the west and give excellent executive office employment in the areas from which they are getting their wealth. The ESB are another semi-State body which should have their main office in rural Ireland. I realise that some senior personnel in these bodies are inclined to regard Dublin as the centre of Ireland, and some even regard Dublin as being Ireland, but as a rural Deputy I take all of Ireland into account and I feel it is important to the development of the whole of Ireland to decentralise Government offices. The "Programme for National Development 1978-1981" says, on page 66, that:

The arrangements to be made as regards the departmental sections to be transferred are at present being examined. Furthermore, the Government have decided that all new Government sector services will be located outside of Dublin unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. In pursuance of this the new Vehicle Registration Unit of the Department of the Environment will be located at Shannon, County Clare.

That statement of policy is a move in the right direction. Decentralisation has contributed greatly to the development of Athlone and of Castlebar, where the Department of Education and the Land Commission are now situated. I commend the Government on their policy and I would ask the Minister to ensure a speeding up of decentralisation.

The creation of jobs is vitally important, and it is good to see that the IDA have been asked to involve themselves with the semi-State bodies to create new State supported enterprises. I am anxious to see the setting up of a briquette factory in Ballyforan in County Roscommon close to the Derryfadda group of bogs—16,000 acres of bog development which is now coming into production. It is only right that this bogland should be used to create jobs in that generally deprived area. This area has been deprived because of the extent of the bog in the area, but now that bogs are becoming viable I hope the Government will make a decision in favour of the erection of a briquette factory in Ballyforan. According to the annual report of Bord na Móna, which has just been issued, there have been great profits and there is a growing demand for briquettes. The establishment of this factory would create about 250 jobs in a rural area. The services are there and the basic raw materials are there. To reassure the people who are concerned about turf being shipped to other parts of the country to fuel power houses, turf is not the most economical fuel for power houses. It is more economical to manufacture peat briquettes. Such a policy would create more jobs than the erection of a power station. I would ask the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy to give a favourable decision on this for these reasons. This is an obvious area where semi-State bodies could create jobs.

The Government can give clear policy directives to semi-State bodies in the creation of more jobs. We are fortunate to have semi-State bodies managed in the way that Bord na Móna is being managed and in the way the ESB is being managed, although we have had some complaints about the ESB recently. Generally speaking, private enterprise could not have taken on the responsibility of supplying power. Other semi-State bodies such as Aer Lingus are doing tremendous work and they are developing and expanding their activities and creating new employment. As a rural Deputy I want that employment to be created in rural Ireland which has been drained over the years. The drain of people has now been stopped. Certainly in the last year and a half a tremendous effort was made to stop the drain of people from the west. It is refreshing to see this change of emphasis and policy decisions in favour of rural areas. This change of policy is evidenced in the Government's statement that they are anxious to see any further Government offices built outside of Dublin. That is a good decision. All the facilities and services are in the west. In Roscommon, for instance, we could sustain a population of possibly four, five or ten times what we have at the moment. We have primary, secondary and vocational schools and recreational facilities. We are so fortunate in Roscommon that we have more recreational facilities per head of the population than any other town in Ireland or in Western Europe. That has been achieved through the efforts of the people. Nowhere else has a town with 3,500 or 4,000 people got swimming pools, handball alleys, gymnasiums, sporting and recreational facilities, racecourses, and a golf course. We would welcome the decentralisation of a Government office to any part of that constituency and we can guarantee those transferred many recreational facilities. Such a decision by the Government would be a tremendous boost to that constituency. I am not opting for any part of the constituency because the establishing of such an office would assist the entire area.

Generally speaking, in the past girls tended to seek clerical employment or employment of a professional nature. There was not much love for industrial jobs but that situation is changing. I am aware that the jobs offered by a concern which will open a factory in Roscommon shortly are very attractive because of their technical nature. Those jobs are attracting girls who some years ago would have sought employment as typists. There are many girls who would like to work in the civil service and decentralisation would give them that opportunity in their own area. I am also aware of many girls who are anxious to return to rural areas to work in the Government offices there. Very few girls from rural areas are keen to settle in Dublin.

The National Manpower Service provides a tremendous service and I was very pleased that the Minister for Labour decided to open an office of that branch of his Department in Roscommon. The demand is so great on that service that it must be expanded. I should like to compliment the officers of that service on their standard of work and the advice they give to the public. Such offices are a great improvement on the unemployment offices. It is always a pleasure to work with the officials of the National Manpower Service; they are very courteous and efficient. It is important that this service be expanded and more offices provided in rural areas because it is this service which our people demand.

I should like now to deal with housing which is dealt with in the White Paper. As an architect I worked on the professional side of the building industry for some years and I had my own office in 1971. The worst period I can recall was from 1973 to 1977. In 1976 the Minister for Finance at the time, Deputy Richie Ryan, cut off the funds for grants with the result that it was practically impossible for anybody to obtain a grant to build a house. I am aware of the hardship that created. It was not until Fianna Fáil introduced the £1,000 grant for first time house-buyers that the building industry picked up. I am aware of the major improvement that brought about. I am also aware of how much it is appreciated by the people.

Those people also make me aware of how grateful they are that Fianna Fáil increased the loan limit on two occasions since taking office. However, the maximum loan, £9,000, should be reviewed. I suggest that the figure be increased to £11,000 and the income limit raised to £4,500. It is appropriate that we should encourage people to avail of those funds and grants to build their own homes. The building industry has been the backbone of the country for many years and when there is a slow down in that industry the economy is affected. I have read that in the fifties during the period of office of a previous Coalition the building industry was also hit. It appears that that industry regards Coalitions as an indication of a slow down. The building trade were looking forward to a return of Fianna Fáil to office. There is no unemployment in that industry now and it is very hard in most areas to obtain the services of a contractor because of the amount of work to be done. The amount of building being carried on is spectacular. We must also bear in mind that the Government are carrying on a big building programme in relation to schools, offices, welfare homes and so on.

During the period 1973 to 1977 many professional offices closed down in Dublin and there was a major cutback in staff in other offices because those professional people could not see any future in the industry. Many of those who emigrated then have returned. I should like to compliment the Government on their achievements in that industry. Loans and grants provided by the Coalition were totally inadequate but since we were returned to office that industry has expanded enormously and the number of houses built has increased dramatically. The quality has also improved. In the council building programme, speaking as a councillor from Roscommon, I can say adequate funds are available. County councils have a very important role to play by building houses for people who cannot afford to build their own homes. Rural housing programmes should be continued.

The scheme of low rise mortgages which was introduced some time ago is a great boost for people who got approval for a rural cottage or council house. Under this scheme, through a subsidised loan scheme, they are in a position to build their own houses. The Minister should have a further look at this scheme which could be given more finance and could be less restrictive. At the moment a person must be on the council housing list for 12 months and approved for a cottage before he can avail of the low rise mortgage scheme. Many less well off people could avail of this scheme if it was less restrictive and was broadened.

Repayment of an average loan of £9,000 is £20 to £22 per week. This may not be a real burden to a two incomes family but to a family with one low income it is a real burden, especially in a family with growing children. The Government should consider an expansion of this scheme to bring in more lower paid people.

This is a spectacular document which I and the people readily welcome. It is refreshing to see a Government prepared to put before the people policies which are difficult to achieve but which are achievable. I appeal to everyone to work towards the achievement of this programme which will remove the blight of unemployment. Everyone can play an important role in the realisation of this scheme and this dream. It is a realistic scheme which we cannot allow to be frustrated by bad trade union management, strikes and so on. I am sure next week's budget will help us realise many of the objectives in the programme.

I would like to compliment the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, the Minister for Finance and all the people involved in the preparation of this magnificent document.

Dr. O'Connell

If nothing more can be said of Deputy Leyden, it is to his credit that he has a social conscience. In most of his speech he concerned himself with the disadvantaged in our society. That is a very admirable trait.

I found this a most interesting document. What it achieved in 1978 was commendable—a net increase in jobs of 17 per cent, a 7 per cent growth rate, a 15 per cent real increase in investment and inflation down to 7 per cent. That is a good picture of what happened in 1978 and I would be the last person to deny the Government their sense of achievement. For 1979, 1980 and 1981 there is a target. I accept that we must have targets because the country needs to get on the track and have a vision of what we want to achieve.

To achieve this plan the Government offered an incentive to farmers, to manufacturers—a 10 per cent tax on profit is a very good incentive—and to investors. But what do they offer to the ordinary worker, the lower and middle income group, the PAYE worker? There is not one scintilla of information in this document about incentives to the workers. I do not want to condemn the plan nor do I want to adopt a negative attitude towards it because I believe in being positive, but the PAYE group are being badly discriminated against, I might even say they are being exploited at the moment, and they are participants in this programme for national development. They are one set of partners in this agreement and it offers them nothing. They are the people who are bearing the full burden of our taxation system.

For every £1 collected by the Government in income tax, the PAYE worker pays 85p, the farmer 2p and the self-employed 13p. If that is not an injustice I do not know what is. I think the intolerable burden being placed on PAYE workers is the greatest injustice in our society today. We are not offering them any incentive to join in the campaign to put the country on its feet again. As I said, we are offering incentives to manufacturers, farmers and the self-employed but not the PAYE workers.

Since we joined the EEC in 1973 we got the enormous sum of £950 million. That is a lot of money. Out of that sum the farmers got £880 million, over 90 per cent and they paid the miserable sum of £17.4 million tax out of that amount. If that is not an injustice I do not know what is. The PAYE worker is the person who is bearing the yoke for the rest of the country. He is propping up the rest of the country. This injustice is going on at the moment and we are not doing anything about it.

I am all for the common agricultural policy, the policy that will bring extra benefits into the country. I am not against that but I am asking for a redistribution of the £950 million so that the rest of the country can benefit. What have we done for the PAYE taxpayers? I have been accused of "farmer bashing". That is a ludicrous statement. All I am saying is that that £880 million should be taxed properly so that the PAYE worker pays less tax and the farmer pays more. The farmers can say, and rightly so, that two-thirds of our farmers have an average income of £3,000 per year but the upper one-third got seven-tenths of that £880 million. That is 88 times £7 million, which works out at approximately £600 million which went to one-third of the farmers. There is something wrong with a society which tolerates an injustice like that. We can have the most marvellous economic programme but it is an unjust society which gives the wealth of the country to a small sector of the community and the PAYE workers have to bear the burden and the underprivileged and the disadvantaged are sharing the crumbs. I would even vote against my party if the Government brought in a policy to redistribute that money and said to this small sector: "We do not mind you getting the money but we will tax you properly". Unfortunately that is not in this document.

I commend the plan but it is inadequate because it does not take care of the vital requirements of the population at large. It can be argued that the £880 million which is going to the farmers is being redistributed in the spin-off industries like food processing. However, I have been told that there are fewer people working in that industry today than there were in 1973 before we joined the EEC. The extra money from the EEC has not increased employment in the spin-off industries which we were told would come.

I commend the document for the target it has set for employment. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development for his imaginative ideas. I was very pleased with the announcement about the redundancy payments. Under the previous scheme a man had to remain unemployed to get his redundancy payments. This was a discouragement to people to work. When the Minister comes out with a good idea he should be given credit for it.

We have a very big problem with regard to young people who are unemployed. The target is great but have we got the means to ensure that young people are employed? The curriculum in the schools must be changed. There must be a work-orientated curriculum in the secondary schools. The curriculum there at the moment is not geared towards employment. I had a complaint from a particular secondary school who were not receiving grants for particular manual subjects which would help young people to get employment. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development should inject money into this area to make our young people work-orientated. As an added incentive to employers the Minister should consider having the State bear the full burden of the insurance stamp for young people up to 21 years of age so that the employer and the employee would not pay anything. Even though the young people did not pay anything towards the cost of the insurance stamp they should be able to receive disability benefit and unemployment benefit. When I first proposed this idea many employers I spoke to were in favour of it.

Phased retirement should be considered by the Minister. Sudden retirement is disastrous. A man or woman nearing retirement age could be put on a four-day week and the young boy or girl could be brought in on a one-day week. After some time the older person could be put on a three-day week and the young person on a two-day week. The older people would be able to teach their skills to the young people. This would have the advantage of bringing people gradually into employment and introducing phased retirement for older people. The young people would have the benefit of the skills of the older people. This would have a tremendous psychological effect and would prepare people for final retirement. I suggested this to the Coalition Government without result.

The community employment schemes to get young people employed are too rigid. There should be greater flexibility and there should be greater publicity about them. More money should be pumped into them. The young people would be brought into the tax net and we would discourage vandalism because there is nothing worse than idle minds. It is worth spending a lot of money on those schemes to get young people off the streets.

We need to spend a lot more money on AnCO. It should be restructured. The skills which AnCO are giving to young people are not sufficient for industry. A six weeks course for any young boy or girl is insufficient to meet their needs for industry.

We hear a lot of talk about bringing industries into the country but we should not bring in capital intensive industry. We should discriminate in favour of labour intensive industries. There is no use bringing in a multi-national industry which will only employ a small number of people at a phenomenal cost to the State because that will not help the employment situation. We should give priority to native industries. We could achieve a great name abroad for special native industries. The multi-nationals coming in here are a serious risk to us. They receive tax-free holidays here but are subject to world recession and are likely to disappear over night. That is the great risk. Our industrial infrastructure is built on these and it is a great danger; it is a positive danger we have here that we are depending too much on these multi-nationals. Any plan must make sure that it does not have inherent risks. Denmark is achieving enormous progress with its native industries. We could compare our Waterford glass industry with this. It is world famous and its exports are enormous. This is the kind of thing we need, industries which are indigenous to this country.

I do not want to knock everything but a lady came to me who had tremendous skill in making dolls here. She went to the IDA for the small industries grant and was refused. I brought it to the Minister's attention and he very kindly tried everything he could, but she was rejected over and over again by the IDA's small industries section. I examined the work that was done by her and it compared more than favourably with the best from abroad. Secondly, goods from abroad were on display in the shops in Dublin, in Brown Thomas and so on. This lady could produce better than these, but she was not given any aid. When I got on to the IDA the reply was so ludicrous it was an insult to my intelligence. They said that they were looking at the situation. I asked them in what way they were looking at the situation, what were they doing. They said they were looking at the situation; that was the answer. I asked if they had a pair of binoculars in front of them and what were they doing. I could not get a positive response from them. That has gone on for almost a year now. The amount this lady needed was a negligible sum that would have encouraged a small industry here. She could have employed 25 people. It is a small number maybe, but it would have got 25 people working and created a small industry here, but she was rejected by the IDA. They asked her questions and made it more and more difficult for her to provide the answers. I did not think we should give up so I suggested we contact an accountant to give projections as to the number of dolls she would sell. The IDA make life very difficult but foreigners can come in here and put down anything and get grants and subsidies; they get every assistance.

I would ask the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, who is the best person to look at these things because he has a greater vision of what is needed and what can be done, to ensure that there is greater flexibility in this. The people who are trying to create small industries are not trying to "con" the IDA. The amounts they are seeking are negligible by international standards. Remember, it was not many years ago that we gave £1 million to a French engineer who decided to build planes here. It was such a ludicrous proposal. I do not know why anyone in his sane senses could have thought we could build planes. The prototype was so antiquated that the Wright brothers would have rejected it. Yet we invested £1 million of the public's money in this and of course, as we now know, he was a fly by night; he skedaddled overnight and left us an empty shell and the money was gone. Yet we are not prepared to invest in our own people with their own ideas. That should be looked at if we are going to look seriously at the question of creating employment.

The other question on employment is very important. We must seriously look at this question of a 35 hour week. The 35 hour week is going to come and we have to look at it and we must encourage our partners in the EEC and Brussels to foster the idea with a view to creating more employment here. It can be done. It would not decrease our competitiveness if we got approval for it at EEC level because all our partners in the EEC would then go for a 35-hour week and we could create a lot more employment here. Anything I am suggesting is something that could help to create more employment in the country.

There is also the question of overtime. This, I realise, is a very sensitive area with workers. Their argument is that they do not get a decent living wage and they have to work overtime to meet their needs. That is understandable. But the EEC Social Affairs Committee said that they would help and make finance available in the immediate term to help overcome this question of overtime. I wonder what our Ministers are doing in Brussels to ensure that we get the necessary assistance with a view to phasing out overtime and making more money available and making more jobs available. This is one positive way in which we could create more jobs.

I would like to make one last point on the question of employment. We should not accept industries from abroad irrespective of the environmental hazards they create. We should not accept dirty industries just because they create employment. We have to set standards and if we can only attract those we should reject them. If it is only those industries that have been rejected by every other country that are coming here we should not accept them and we should not create hazards in our environment as is happening at the moment with so many industries. We should not castigate these environmentalists who try to ensure that the environment is safe for us all. We should not condemn them and regard them as cranks because they are trying to ensure that the environment is not polluted. We should ensure that our standards are as good as those of other countries. That is important.

The one big objection I have to the Government's programme is the decision to abolish food subsidies. It is known that the lower income groups are the worst affected by the removal of the subsidies. What better way to ensure greater distribution of the £880 million that came from EEC benefits than to subsidies the ever-increasing cost of foods. I think it is a wrong policy to remove the subsidies because we are now creating greater poverty in our society. I will recount an instance of a person who is disabled and living alone in a room for which he pays £4 a week in rent. He gets £11.70. He was just telling me about the way the price of things went up. He went into Woolworth's cafe for a cup of tea and he only had 11p and they would not give him a cup of tea. It is an indication of how much poverty there is in our society. Taking away the food subsidies is not helping. Could I have an assurance from the Minister that the £22 million saved by the removal of the food subsidies will be passed over to the lower income groups? If the Minister agrees to that I would by all means agree to the abolition of the subsidies. In such circumstances I would be all for the phasing out or the abolition of the subsidies. The Minister for Finance said today that the rich benefit from the subsidies as well. They do, but not to the same extent, because the proportion of the money spent on food is not anything like that spent by the poorer sections. The poor are being badly hit by the removal of the subsidies. It is a major blow to them and a drop in their standard of living.

The economic targets in the budget are commendable and I like to see this target. I like to see a plan, but what have we got in this document about a social target? There it is lacking, unbalanced.

If there is an economic target there must also be a social objective. On pages 22 and 23 there is reference to social policy but there are no proposals for sharing with the aged and the handicapped the product of our economic growth. The White Paper refers only to the suggestion that there will be investigations in this respect.

Last year we had a 7 per cent growth rate. That meant that a lot of extra money came into the country, but not a penny of it went to the old aged, the handicapped, the disabled. We were told they got an increase in line with the cost of living, and we have been patting ourselves on the backs for that. All the aged and the handicapped got were the crumbs from the table. That is a terrible indictment of those responsible.

Why do we not link social welfare increases statutorily to the cost of living so that no political party could take credit for increases in welfare benefits? These benefits should be linked permanently to the cost of living. As well, the social welfare beneficiaries should get a proportion of GNP, in other words, a fair share of the wealth of the country. I am asking for a statutory linking of social welfare payments with the cost of living and that benefits be reviewed every six months in accordance with that link.

We all know there are parasites who abuse our social welfare system, but we should not associate them with genuine cases of hardship. Here I should like to quote from the recent pastoral letter of the Irish bishops:

If we are to assure basic human rights to everyone we will have to quite deliberately begin to discriminate in favour of the poor. A real transfer of money and of opportunity must be made by the better-off sections of society to the poorer groups, if the latter are to be raised to minimum standards of human dignity and if we are to lay claim to being a just and Christian society.

We cannot genuinely claim to be a Christian society. Most of our old age pensioners are definitely below the poverty line and this year we have not done anything to ease their hardship.

The White Paper is admirable in its economic targets but it barely touches on social targets. It does not lay down proposals for a national pension plan for the old at the end of their lives. Nearly 400,000 people in that category have to live on their old age pension money and are therefore doomed to live below the poverty line. As I have said, side by side with an economic plan we must have a social programme. Our aim should be to have eliminated poverty by the end of the White Paper programme, 1981. That can be done only by laying down a basic minimum income related to the cost of living for every Irish household. Incomes should not be permitted to fall below that minimum base.

I have not been saying that the old and the handicapped have been ignored. I do not want to be negative in this regard, but we have had a 7 per cent growth rate and we have done very little to allow the disadvantaged in our society to share in that growth. For instance, we did not do anything for the people depending on free fuel in Dublin this winter, one of the severest we have had. Those people had dockets for 11 weeks free fuel but they could not get it. There was not an emergency relief plan to get the fuel to them. Medical people do not like to refer to hypothermia, but the fact is that many old people this year died from the cold because fuel was not delivered to them. We had a relief operation in regard to others, but our old people died from the cold when easily we could have brought out Army trucks to get the fuel to them.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, I February 1979.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 31 Jan 1979

White Paper “Programme for National Development 1978-1981”: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Jan 1979