Deputy Bell is in possession and he has 37 minutes left.
Financial Resolutions, 1983. - Financial Resolution No. 14: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance.)
On Thursday last I was in the process of conveying to the House the major problems which exist in the Border area and in particular in County Louth in relation to the substantial price differential which exists between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I referred particularly to the growing industry of smuggling on the Border which is the only developing industry that we seem to have around County Louth at the moment. This has been highlighted substantially since last week when substantial quantities of spirits were apprehended in various areas on the Border.
One could accept that throughout the history of the State this has been a practice and many jokes have been made about it, but it is no longer a joke as far as the publicans, hoteliers and people in commerce along the Border are concerned. This in effect is depriving the Exchequer of millions of pounds. Not alone that, the taxes and excise duties being paid on those spirits and smuggled goods are going to the UK Exchequer. I made the point that we cannot blame the people of Northern Ireland nor to some degree can we blame the smugglers because the incentive is so high that it is very difficult for even honest people to resist the temptation. Some of my colleagues will know that in the constituency of Louth the incentive is so great that it pays people to go to Northern Ireland to do their shopping. The only good thing is that at least our brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland will gain some benefit from this. However, the people who carry on the smuggling business are depriving the Exchequer and the business is being carried out largely at the expense of the taxpayer who in the end will have to pay for the situation here.
Even if the whole Irish Army were placed on the Border it would not have any serious effect in relation to this situation. Even the customs and excise people cannot possibly be fully effective, as you, a Cheann Comhairle, coming from the area can testify to fully, and it would not be possible to police this situation. Therefore, one must come to the conclusion that the reason for this is not a military one, a customs and excise one, or a police one because all three would be virtually powerless to do anything about it. The price differential has been caused by the level of taxation which exists today in the Republic as against that in the UK. It should also be mentioned that this would be added to to a substantial degree by the very high level of inflation here in the Republic as against the level of inflation in the UK which is heading towards only 25 per cent of our figure. Unless this situation is redressed those of us who live and do our business in County Louth and other Border areas will be faced not alone with an escalating unemployment problem but also with the problem created by the abnormal price differential which now exists.
I had the pleasure of serving on the North Eastern Regional Development Organisation when you, A Cheann Comhairle, were chairman. The organisation represents the counties of Louth, Monaghan and Cavan and we had many discussions about the building industry in those areas which has been seriously affected by the price differential which exists between the Republic and the North. The problem has been fuelled by the fact that there is large scale fraud in the building industry in Border areas and it is spreading south to Dublin as well. Our builders can no longer compete with builders from Northern Ireland because a large proportion of the people employed are signing for the dole in the North and working in the South and not paying tax, PRSI or PAYE, on either side of the Border. Many of these people are subcontractors. Those of us involved in local authorities in these areas will know that more and more local authority contracts are going to builders who are resident outside the Republic. The reason is unfair competition. The Labour Party nationally and in County Louth welcome people who wish to work in County Louth or Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal, but we welcome them provided that at all times they pay their fair share of PAYE and PRSI and provided that builders who secure local authority contracts do so on a fair basis. There is adequate evidence that this is not always the case.
During the week ended 18 February this year Drogheda Independent published details of a major case where a large proportion of people employed on a local authority site were signing for the dole in Northern Ireland. This was ascertained in conjunction with the authorities in Northern Ireland. The Cabinet must take a serious look at this matter. We are coping with a problem which is approaching disaster proportions because of the price differential which is affecting hotels, shops and pubs and because of the inability of the building industry to compete. I am sure our neighbours in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal are experiencing similar problems. At a time when people are signing for the dole in Northern Ireland and paying no taxes in the South, 600 building workers are signing on at the Labour Exchange in Drogheda and about 800 are signing in Dundalk. Everything in the garden was reasonably rosy when people were in receipt of full PRSI because the level of income was somewhat in keeping with their previous level. This is no longer the case because 85 per cent of men and women who were receiving unemployment benefit are now receiving employment assistance and their level of income has dropped substantially. This is a double blow to those who are trying to make a living in small businesses such as shops, pubs, restaurants and essential services. I am not sure what the future will hold in Border counties as income levels drop and jobs are stolen by unfair competition.
I made a strong plea last Tuesday which I now repeat. It is absolutely essential that the Minister for Industry and Energy, with the full support of the Cabinet and, I would hope, the support of the Opposition, approve the extension of the natural gas pipeline through County Louth and into the Border areas. I make this plea as a member of a Party in Government because it is crucial that we have some redress for the damage which has been done to employment in these areas. I understand the pipeline could be extended quite simply from Swords. Cost would not be a major factor when taking into consideration the benefit which would accrue to industries such as Cement Limited, Premier Periclase Limited, McDonnells, Becton and Dickinson, Carrolls of Dundalk, Harp Lager and the breweries, all major users of energy.
In some heavy industries in County Louth the cost of energy has now become a very important factor in overall production costs. If any further increases in energy costs take place we could have a further serious loss of employment. Heavy industry in County Louth is paying more for its energy than the same type of industry in any other country in Europe. This is a crazy situation when we have natural gas on our doorstep and alternative sources of energy. I ask the Minister to give us some support in County Louth and in the Border areas, get that gas pipe line flowing through County Louth and up into Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal to give us some hope for the future. If that is not done it will simply mean that heavy industry likely to set up here will not do so in an area where natural gas is not available. Obviously they will go for the cheaper form of energy and natural gas is a cheaper form of energy.
I suggest to the Minister for the Environment that the idea of accepting the lowest tender, which is an antiquated system and a very unfair system in many ways, for local authority house building projects and civil engineering projects should be reviewed urgently. The county managers should be allowed more flexibility. This would enable them to give contracts, where there were reasonable and fair quotations, to local builders in the various towns around the country to create jobs within local communities. Far too many of the jobs in local authorities are going outside the areas. While we are transporting people in from north, south and everywhere else local craftsmen are left sitting around watching the jobs being taken from under their noses. Many of the people who come in on the lowest tender basis are fly-by-night builders who leave unfinished housing estates, badly finished houses and massive problems behind them and then fold up overnight. This has happened in many cases in the Border areas over the last few years.
I may sound a bit parochial but I came here to represent the people of my constituency of Louth who are very angry with many aspects of the budget and of the possible damage to employment. I pointed out on the last day that there are many aspects of the budget hidden in the massive publicity that followed it and many of the harsh measures taken in it. We failed to get the message across that 40 per cent of what ordinary consumers buy is completely exempt from VAT. I am particularly pleased about that aspect of it because we are talking about VAT on food, clothing and footwear. We are also talking about the massive subsidies on food. I am not advocating that those subsidies should be removed. The subsidies are on essential items of food, clothing and footwear which represent a very large proportion of the income of the poorer sections of the community.
There has been very little mention of the fact that the £5 fee for hospital visits was abolished. This was a great source of complaint by people in my constituency, I am pleased that this charge was abolished. I appeal to the Minister for Health to have an urgent look at many other items which are still not available to old people on medical cards. Quite a number of items are essential to old people and when you consider they now have to pay for those items out of the very small old age pension or widows' pension you realise this will create great hardship for them.
I was very pleased that the Minister for Education had another look at the education cutbacks, some of which were necessary. In future, before we make changes, we should have the maximum consultation with all the parties concerned and think out carefully what we propose to revise or cut back. I know the Government had a problem in relation to that subject because they were thrown in at the deep end. I am not for one moment understimating the power of civil servants at senior level and their influence on senior Ministers and also that many Ministers are restricted for a variety of reasons which they cannot very easily tell backbenchers in advance. Nevertheless, we should be very careful before making any further major cutbacks. I say this, with respect to my colleagues in Government, because I believe people have reached the level where they would find it very difficult to take any more. I suggest to my colleagues in the Cabinet that they must give some consideration to price stabilisation over the next few years. Taxes such as PAYE, excise duty and VAT will have to be held at least at the levels now in operation. I am convinced that we cannot take much more. I am satisfied that many of the measures taken were necessary. I am also satisfied that there are alternatives which could have been considered in relation to many of the decisions taken in the budget.
The basic objective of the budget is to reduce the current budget deficit to £897 million or 6.8 per cent of GNP compared with last year's total of 8.4 per cent of GNP. The Exchequer borrowing requirement, therefore, is reduced to £1,722 million or 13 per cent of GNP. The corresponding figure last year was 16.5 per cent of GNP so it would appear that at least on paper the policy in this regard is going in the right direction. The public sector borrowing requirement is forecast at £2,445 million or 18.5 per cent of GNP. Last year the percentage figure in this regard was 21.5. Inflation in the current year is expected to average 12.5 per cent. That includes the approximate 4 per cent increase effect of budgetary policy. Therefore, the balance-of-payments deficit should decrease to £766 million or 5.8 per cent of GNP. The indications are, therefore, that the budget targets will be achieved. This is a welcome start in correcting the imbalances in public finances but the anticipated increase in inflation could be larger than the 3.5 per cent for many of the reasons that I have given. This is a cause for concern. The increase will come about largely as a result of the level of indirect taxation, the overall burden of which could cause additional troubles in an already depressed economy, making it difficult for us to achieve our targets.
This morning we have heard of a further imposition of charges. I have always wondered whether we should not be thinking of the public service in different terms. For instance, I question the necessity for the Department of the Public Service. I question why it was established and what is its purpose. Perhaps this Department in terms of manpower and expertise could be utilised more effectively in some of the less efficient areas of the public service. I doubt if the raison d'etre of that Department justifies the cost of running it. I have always regarded this Department as merely another layer of bureaucracy of the Department of Finance. Undoubtedly, the deployment in other areas of the skilled personnel of the Department of the Public Service would result in increased efficiency and reduced costs. This suggestion may not prove popular in all quarters but I should not be surprised if many of my colleagues would agree with me privately.
The longer I continue to talk about the budget the more mad I become because I keep returning to the employment situation. I wish to make a few points in relation to Government policy generally in the area of employment. For many years the textile, clothing and footwear industries enjoyed a £5 employment subsidy but unfortunately that has been withdrawn. In addition, many other cost factors have put these high labour-intensive industries into extreme difficulty and they are industries that employ in equal proportions boys and girls, men and women. The 5 per cent subsidy was a lifesaver. It helped to give these industries the incentive to continue rather than to close or, as many other companies have done, become import organisations, not only importing but competing directly against the colleagues with whom they had worked and in many respects competing unfairly. This has resulted from the situation in which the incentive to close has become greater in many cases than the incentive to remain in operation.
I submit to the Minister that it would be much better to subsidise a worker even to the tune of £50 per week or more and have him working 40 hours a week rather than to pay him as much or even more for being idle or to sit around like a corner boy and to lose his self respect. That is what is happening to men particularly, but to women also, in my county. One need only go to the employment exchanges in Drogheda or Dundalk to see the numbers of men and women queueing along the road, four and five deep to sign on for money that could be used to put them to work. We find local authorities laying off up to 20 men in many cases and not replacing those who retire or who leave for any other reason. The result of this is that the level of employment in local authorities is gradually being reduced while at the same time we pay people to remain idle.
It hardly needs mathematical genius either within the public service or within the Government to think of a way of transferring the money paid in social welfare into productive work projects. Some county councils put workers on a three-day week. This means that they sign on for three days for unemployment benefit. In other words, we are taking money out of local authorities and putting it into the Department of Social Welfare. There is no justification for that sort of thinking. It is crazy but it is an indication of the level to which the administration of this country has sunk. It is an indication of the type of leadership that we have been getting from successive Governments.
It is not my intention to offend anyone but as a trade union official I have been very much aware of the situation for some years past. Matters are becoming progressively worse so that I am unable to resist the temptation to say that the country has lacked real leadership on the economic front and that we have lacked real policies in relation to putting our people back to work. We are reaching the stage when there will be more people unemployed than there are working. That is a dreadful thought. It is reminiscent of what happened in Germany before the rise of Hitler and of what is happening in all of the other depressed countries where there is civil war and war among nations. A high level of unemployment gives rise to all sorts of social unrest. Unless our people are put back to work that is the sort of situation that we will be faced with. The Members of this House as well as the senior officials in whichever Department are involved in the area of employment will have to carry the can for whatever unrest there may be. Of course, as an elected representative of the Dáil I will be included among those who will have to share that responsibility.
I am appealing to the House to forget about party differences. Let us forget who should be leader of what. Let us concentrate on making use of our expertise, on forgetting about disputes and stupid party-political sniping. Let us talk intelligently about getting our people back to work. I hope that at the end of this Dáil, be it short or long, I can be thankful that there are five more people working then than when I came into this House. I am sorry to end on a pessimistic note. I do not see anything in this budget. I did not see anything in the last budget, or the budget before that. I do not see any policies of Government designed to getting our young people back to work, with the exception of the environmental schemes where young people do nothing for eight weeks, most not being properly supervised, which is throwing money down the drain. Surely it would be better to subsidies those at work and retain their jobs? We could then put the money which we are paying out in social benefits to productive work in getting our people in off the streets.
I listened with interest to Deputy Bell and noted how he finished his contribution. The main problem facing the economy and politicians from every side of the House is getting the people back to work. It is against that background that I must view this budget and it is against that background that I will be analysing the budget. I must agree with a number of comments made by Deputy Bell. He sees nothing in the budget to help employment, neither do I. I see a disincentive to employment, but I will go into that in more detail later.
Deputy Bell called for the extension of the natural gas pipeline from Dublin to Belfast, and here I would agree wholeheartedly with him. Last May I visited Stormont Castle and had extensive discussions with Minister Adam Butler. We agreed terms in principle for the extention of the natural gas pipeline and the sale of a certain quantity of natural gas to Northern Ireland. We announced that agreement on the evening concerned. At that stage all that remained to be done was to refer the matter back to our respective Governments for approval. Our Government approved the contract last August, but to my knowledge to this day we have not had confirmation of approval from the other side. The Minister must take up the matter urgently. All the terms were agreed and there was no reason why the contract was not completed.
I fully appreciate Deputy Bell's comments on what this extension would do for the area he represents and, indeed, for the many industries which may not survive if natural gas is not extended to that area. I can think of a few that natural gas would certainly make more competitive—in the area of cement, Roadstone. If Premier Periclase of Drogheda do not get natural gas and some financial relief, they may not even last the year. Their costs are 90 per cent energy-related and they will not survive without cheaper energy. I made a submission to the Minister for Industry and Energy and the then Minister for Finance to consider the aspects a particular industries such as Premier Periclase in this year's budget, but unfortunately, we were not in Government long enough to see this through. With this Cabinet, it fell on deaf ears, and worse — they increased the tax on hydrocarbons, which puts greater pressure on industries heavily dependent on energy, which accounts for a high proportion of their overall costs. I can see more industries getting into trouble as the year goes on. I ask the Minister for Industry and Energy to put pressure on the British Government and the Northern Ireland authorities as quickly as possible to have this contract completed. Natural gas could be brought to that area in a short period of time. In Dublin, the outer ring in the natural gas development is being planned and, when completed the extension to Dundalk and Drogheda and on to Belfast could be taken from that outer ring. This is a worthwhile project which would provide more jobs, safeguard jobs in this area and help our balance of payments.
To come back to the analysis of the budget, if, as Deputy Bell hopes, the inflation rate this year comes to about 12.8 per cent, including a 4 per cent increase from indirect taxation, I will be very grateful. However, I cannot really accept that that is possible. Inflation once again will be fuelled by more than 4 per cent when we experience the knock-on effects of all the indirect taxes in the budget — the massive increases in the price of oil, petrol and diesel. These will probably add nearer to 5 per cent, and I hope it will stop there. If inflation were to be around 12.8 per cent, that would be a bonus in disguise.
The budget has been described as many things — a bookkeeper's budget, a disastrous, harsh budget. It certainly is a budget which has drawn more adverse comment from every section of society than any budget I can recall in recent times. I would describe it in a different way, by calling it a technocrat's budget. It is an arithmetrical exercise of technocrats. In the present Taoiseach we have a first class technocrat — I would not fault him in that arena — and in the present Minister for Finance we have a first class technocrat, whom I would not fault in that area also. In the Department of Finance, from the little knowledge I have of them, there are first class technocrats also. This budget has a combination of all the technocratic expertise, but there it stops. To every sector of society examining it, it is quite clear that this is true. However, it takes a little more than technocrats to run a country, or to run a business. There is not very much difference between running a country's economy and running a business. Many of the same principles apply. If you leave a business to technocrats to run, you will not be long in business. The Coalition Government are running into the same problems as they experienced when they were in Government last time and they relied on technocrats during that Dáil, too. That is why the ill-fated budget of January 1982 fell. This budget is not going to fall, because there is enough support on the far side between the two parties to see that that does not happen. It is not running so close to the wind as the last budget. It will see its way through, against the wishes of the vast majority in our society.
I do not come in here to make cheap criticism. Anybody could do that. A different approach was available and I will make a few suggestions, although I am not saying that I have all the answers. When I look at the occupants of the benches on the far side and on the combination of the Cabinet, I see only one businessman and he is placed in the Department of Foreign Affairs. He is a good man at his job, who knows his business; but I wonder what input he had into that budget. On the Labour Party side, I wonder what input they had into the budget. They must not have realised the implications of the decisions taken, otherwise they might have had different things to say.
Has there been a strategy behind this budget? A budget is supposed, not alone to reflect the problems of the economy of the day, but to chart a course forward for the 12 months ahead. I fail to find any strategy behind this budget. There may well be a political strategy behind the budget but I can see none behind it, good, bad or indifferent. Any budget introduced here, year in year out, that failed to take account of the major problems of the economy of the time in my view failed in its first priority, that is to have an economic strategy. This budget has failed dismally — and that is not politically speaking, every commentator sees it — failed to take any account whatsoever of the unemployment problem, 187,000 unemployed today, rushing headlong towards 200,000 and it will go to 250,000. Does anybody stop to think at what point there will not be enough people working to sustain the number of people on the unemployment list? I do not know where is the breaking point — I do not see any of the technocrats here to answer that question — but I know that they have it worked out; somewhere along the line and perhaps not that far away either, perhaps somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000. If one looks at the figures for those people working in the manufacturing sector today, something like 217,000, one sees clearly that we are not far away from that point — on the unemployment figures — when we would have a one-for-one situation.
That is where Deputy Bell was right when he pointed to the serious factors ahead for politicians, politics and democracy here if we arrive at the stage when we do not have enough people working to sustain the existing social services, to sustain the people on the unemployment list. What happens then? This House may well become irrelevant. That is why I say that while it is laudable to set out with a budget with no economic strategy that I can see apart from the reduction of foreign borrowing — that is a laudable exercise and one to which I subscribe totally — to do so and not get the right balance into a budget at this very critical time in a very fragile economy in my view is treading with danger.
An initial glance at the figures would pose questions in my mind. I know that it is very easy to stand on an Opposition bench, lacerate budgets and so on but this is a view that I expressed last year and the year before on the budgets, that for the expenditure of £6½ billion, and that is roughly what it is, to come in with a sheet of paper like this, with that amount of information, is not good enough. There is a short analysis also. Anybody running a business with a turnover of £6½ billion would not accept that sort of bookkeeping. That is what the public representatives in this House accept year after year. There is no backup information to allow us know what are the various charges, how they are made up, what are the background figures. We have no way of checking, we have to take them for granted. As Deputy Bell rightly said, on paper they look all right. Of course they do, they look all right every year on paper. I remember that last year they looked all right on paper but, when we came to the end of the year, they did not look right.
Last year when Deputy J. Bruton was introducing his budget I said that Deputies needed more information than that given so that we could check the figures in advance, so that we could have some idea of whether or not the figures would work out. All we are doing now is accepting figures placed before us. We accepted the figures last year in the budget. Half way through that year expenditure was running wild and we took action to put it in order. Indeed for the first time in many years the expenditure side of the budget worked out and we thought we were sailing along happily. We felt that if we kept the expenditure side right everything else would be right but it did not work out that way because revenue dropped seriously. Yet three-quarter way through the year nobody was saying that revenue would be down a couple of hundred million pounds. We found out at the last minute that revenue was down.
Maybe the figures this year will work out, I hope they do for the sake of everybody concerned, but I have very grave doubts that they will. I shall be asking a few questions about them in a moment having examined them closely. But, from an overall look at the budget, any serious-minded business person endeavouring to look at the state of this country and how it should be run, would be bound to ask some questions. I might mention a few figures, for example, service of the public debt costs 26 per cent of the total current expenditure. Social services, such as social welfare, education and health cost 40.5 per cent. Two-thirds of our current expenditure goes on those two items alone. Now we come to the economic services, on which we are spending 9.3 per cent of our total current expenditure. That includes 4.2 per cent for agriculture, 2.5 per cent for industry and energy, 2.1 per cent for tourism and transport and 0.5 per cent for forestry and fisheries. If the balance is not way out of line in relation to where we are going, by examining those few small figures, then I do not know what anybody should think. The smallest amount of money is being spent in the areas in which we need to be spending money, areas in which we must get productive investment going, where we need to get the bottlenecks removed from infrastructure, in those areas that can earn the keep, so to speak, of our social services. Therefore, is it any wonder that we are getting out of line and balance and will continue to do so.
There is no point in fooling ourselves because we are going to get seriously out of balance. The overheads of running this country, the overheads of keeping our services going, have gone way out of line in relation to what we can afford and the sooner we realise that the better. We shall have to realise it and do something about it. It is fine to look across the water and say, "Yes, there was a social welfare state built up in the United Kingdom"; yes, there was, but it took North Sea oil to provide the revenue for it, but without that North Sea oil today, I wonder where that economy would be. I fully subscribe to the provision of the best social services we can afford in this country but there is no point in fooling ourselves in thinking we can expand those services without having the productive sector to finance them. The productive elements of our economy are getting browned off with load after load being placed on their shoulders — it is take, take all the time and they are getting fed up with it. The sooner we realise that the people who earn our bread and butter are those on the productive side of our economy the better.
We must realise also that we cannot keep hammering them over the head with a sledge hammer. There is no fairy godmother to come in and look after our economy for us. We must earn our living and our keep. The sooner we respect the people who do that for us the better. They are getting fed up with the way they are being treated by successive bureaucracies here. They are being loaded with taxation, more bureaucratic documentation being piled on top of them daily, new form after new form, new return after new return with no incentive. The sooner we get back on the road to running an incentive economy the better. We must have an incentive economy. It is part of the characteristic of every Irishman and woman — they are all entrepreneurs in their own right but without incentive they do not move. We must get incentive back into every element of our economy. We must get it back in the case of the worker because does he carry on when he sees himself paying too much tax, working overtime and having little for it? Does he carry on? No, he does not unless it is absolutely necessary. He needs incentive; his management need incentive. If there is no incentive for them then in turn they will go home at 5 o'clock in the evening, or perhaps an hour earlier and play golf, as do many managements today.
Is there any incentive to the public sector either? No, there is not. The system is so geared that it does not matter whether they break their backs working eight or ten hours a day or whether they take it easy for the same eight or ten hours because they get the same return at the end of the day. Therefore there is no incentive there either. It is the same thing you get at the end of the day — there is no incentive there either.
Until we get it into our heads that we have got to get a sense of reason into our economy we will not get anywhere. I am advocating incentives in the public sector because there are many sections there in which you will get a response to incentives. If somebody in a section is administering grants and handling them he can do it for 20 per cent cheaper if the incentive is there. I do not blame the civil service because under successive Governments a system was operated in the public service which did not contain incentives. It is purely a matter of accountability. It is not a question of value for money. The civil servants are there to do their jobs and they do them excellently in the system they are expected to work.
The time has come when we can no longer afford that system. It was imposed on us when we got our independence. We did not need such a cumbersome system for the operation of an economy involving three-and-a-half million people. That is one of the reasons we are finding it very hard to carry the heavy burden of servicing the public sector. The sooner we get back into the system the spirit in which effort and initiative will be recognised, the better. It is part of our character that we love incentives, whether it is the farmer, the worker or the manager. Basically we are entrepreneurs but that spirit will not be brought out if we try to kill initiatives and incentives, as successive Governments have done. If we continue along that road we will need a fairy godmother if we are to carry on the social services. We should be proud of our social services so long as we are able to keep them going.
I do not know where this budget will take us. It is without innovation or imagination. I expected such things from Deputy Dukes. instead of being christened, as he has been christened in recent weeks, "The Dukes of Hazard", I thought we would get from him imagination and innovation in the budget. We did not get it, but worse still, by his actions he has totally and absolutely depressed the economy. There is no question about it. We will not know until the end of the year the amount of damage that will be done to the economy. The Minister does not know and I do not know. I wonder when I look at VAT, £131.4 million; then when I look further down to Item No.4 and see £75 million, I am still wondering. He has put an imposition of £131.4 million and later taking off £75 million. When I turn to the other side I find an addition of £31 million for additional social welfare. The last figure shows that the Minister recognises that the imposition earlier in the budget will cause so much additional unemployment that it will cost £31 million more.
Let us do the total calculation. He puts on £131 million, he takes off £75 million and he adds on £31 million. We have £106 million taken off and an imposition of £131 million. For the sake of a net £26 million he intends totally and absolutely to depress the economy. He will totally depress demand in the economy. He has admitted in his figures that the revenue will not be forthcoming. Why put it on in the first place? He cannot think of a better way to get a net £26 million than by depressing the economy, creating unemployment, sticking up prices, destroying the confidence of anybody who will try to do anything. I cannot understand it.
If the Minister wants to know where he could have got that money I can tell him it is quite simple. It is an expenditure budget of £6.5 billion. The net figure of £26 million is only 0.4 per cent. Of course 0.4 per cent is hard got in certain areas. He could have left out the whole of the extra taxation if he could find a 2 per cent saving in expenditure. That represents a total of £135 million. Is a 2 per cent saving hard got? There are Departments who will tell you that it is, and there are Ministers who would object if they are told to take off 2 per cent. Running a country and running a business is not all that different. In depressed times if you are running a business at £6½ billion and if 2 per cent cannot be taken off overheads, you would be looking for different management. I do not accept that it is not possible.
I ran a Department for eight months, a difficult one with a heavy workload. Halfway through the year I was able to make adjustments in expenditure. The Estimate for the Department of Industry and Energy was prepared by me for 1983. It is here, with practically no change. That Estimate can be compared with the outturn for 1982. Not alone was there a saving but there was a reduction of 21 per cent in the Estimate for 1983. I am not being narrowminded about it but I cannot accept that there was not a better way and a better economic approach to the budget this year. I am not being political about it. The approach to this budget has been totally technocratic. There has not been any recognition or analysis of what the repercussions to this approach will be. There will be repercussions in every sector of the economy. We are beginning to find out already. We see bitter reactions from some sectors of the economy. In my memory it is the first time the Irish construction industry has had to take half page advertisements in the Irish newspapers to draw attention to the problems in the industry and to what the effects of the budget would be. The Minister's reaction to that ill became him. The parties on the other side sought power in the general election to run the economy. They were no sooner in Government than they started to lecture everybody. They lectured the construction industry. I heard the Taoiseach trying to lecture the economists. When he was in Opposition the economists agreed absolutely with him, but they have disagreed with him on this budget. He did not like it. Does he like to be the popular Taoiseach all the time? Is he not prepared to take criticism?
It was grossly unfair for the Minister for Finance to rebuke well-known and renowned economists in the ESRI for disagreeing with the figures in the budget. This was wrong because he did not give the full picture. He said those economists attended a meeting in the Department of Finance and checked the figures. He knows as well as I do that they checked the servicing of the debt, but they did not check the revenue projections. They checked half of what he said. There is no point in trying to mislead people. There is no point in smarting under criticism. The present Government sought power to govern the country. They had the Book of Estimates. They knew what the problems were. There is no point in trying to lecture everybody.
There was no provision in it for increased unemployment. Fianna Fáil said the deficit would be reduced to £750 million. The Deputy should tell us what they propose to do get it down to that. Tell us the other side of the coin.
I did not interrupt anybody who spoke. Now that the Minister has rasied the point, I will tell him something. I do not accept that the budget deficit the Government are going for is £896 million. The Minister for Finance said he was going for a deficit of £750 million. His knuckles were rapped by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste who said that had not yet been decided. The officials in the Department know as well as I know that he did not get the figure of £750 million off the top of his head. They know they are going for a deficit of £750 million. They allowed for over-runs. I have another question. I tried to pull these figures apart as best I could with the limited knowledge I have and I have great suspicions that there is provision for an increase in the public service debt to cover what I believe may well be forced on the Government in the next couple of months, that is, devaluation. If I am not a Dutchman, 7 per cent is locked into those figures and the budget deficit they started out for was £750 million and not the figure we are talking about today.
That is why I complain about the inadequate supply of material to Members of this House to enable them to make a decent analysis. I have done one already for the Minister. I have shown him that there was no need for this imposition and that there was a different way of getting it. If the Minister shakes his head and does not understand what I am saying, that is fine. There are people over there who should understand what I am saying. They will know at the end of the year the damage done to the economy.
I worked in the Department of Industry and Energy and I know what the problems of unemployment are, and I know what the problems of industry are. I know at what rate jobs are being lost. Ministers and the Taoiseach should come out of their hibernation. We often heard the Taoiseach blowing a fanfare of trumpets, but we did not hear very much from him in the past couple of months. We have not heard very much from Ministers either. What is happening? Why are so many jobs being lost? Because nobody over there wants to put in the time and the effort to ensure that the little factories stay in business.
In the past four weeks 13 small industrialists came to me with their problems because there was no response from that side of the House. I can name these industrialists. They came to me in desperation looking for help. The system was not responding because Ministers go home at 5 o'clock and little do they care whether people wind up on the unemployment list or whether small businessmen go out of business. Last Monday night a person came to me from 150 miles from where I live. He provides 21 jobs in a small factory in a small town. He is going out of business because he cannot get £15,000 for working capital and his order book is full for 12 months.
Is the Minister trying to tell me they are doing their business as the Government? Of course these are difficult times, but they cannot tell me they are doing their business as the Government properly if a woman and her son have to come to me at 11.30 at night to try to get help for her little industry because the system has not responded. That is what the Government are there for, and that is the job they are in. The Government should get to the core of these problems and solve them, instead of going home at 5 o'clock or 5.30 p.m. in a black Mercedes car. That is not the way to solve the problems, and the Minister knows it.
That does not happen, as the Deputy knows.
I knew the problems and I was prepared to work and do something about them. From what I hear from small industries around the country, I know what the Government are doing. If they keep going like that, we will have 200,000 unemployed in a very short time and then we will arive at the figure of 250,000 unemployed. Again the Labour Party will wrestle with their conscience. When the Labour Party wrestle with their conscience, the Labour Party always win. We hear the slogan from Fine Gael that they always put the country first. This time Fine Gael put Fine Gael first. The country will see that.
We heard the pious platitudes from the Taoiseach that no Minister of State would have a Mercedes car, or a black car, or whatever colour. Two-and-half-months later, is there any Minister of State who has not got a ministerial car? I am not saying I agree with the Taoiseach. I would not expect the Minister to operate without a ministerial car having regard to where he lives. It was utter nonsense to talk about that. It was unrealistic. These are the pious platitudes they tried to put across to the public. If I were offered the Minister's job today and I was asked to do without a ministerial car, I would not take the job, and I do not think the Minister would either. I have many people working for me with less responsibility than a Minister or a Minister of State and they have company cars.
Fine Gael adopt the cheap approach of trying to be the goodie to everybody. They cannot be all things to all men. They try to convince the public that the Taoiseach is the greatest, that he has a halo over his head, that he is the sole custodian of political honesty and rectitude when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Why talk about taking cars from junior Ministers when he did not do it? It is now ten weeks later and there is not a word about it. They talked about Government for the people, and open and honest Government. They said they were people who would not bend under pressure.
They were not a week in power — and this is the kernel of their problem — before they bent under pressure and paid £1 million of taxpayers' money to miners in Avoca, a private company remember. Why? Because the Minister for Labour, Deputy Kavanagh, gave an undertaking during the general election, the Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, gave an undertaking during the general election, and the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, gave an undertaking that in Government they would pay. That is where their problems started. Within one week they had bent. They threw away the qualities which were supposed to be inherent in this man, this Cabinet and Fine Gael. They threw them out the window. They bought their way in with £1 million.
I know there were pickets outside my office for three weeks. I know what I told them and I believe I was genuinely telling them what was right: that the Government could not afford to establish a precedent like that of paying out £1 million of taxpayers' money.
What about Talbot? Tell us about that.
Now that the Minister has mentioned it, I will. How much did Talbot cost the Irish taxpayer? The Minister does not know. The amount was £378,000 nett. Avoca cost two-and-a-half times that amount but you were the people in Government who renewed the money for the Talbot workers in 1982. The Minister's Government provided £475,000 in the Estimates. If they believed in their convictions and in what they said they would have taken action to rectify the situation, but they had not the courage or the backbone to do so. The Taoiseach of the day loves to be popular. He likes to be the "nice guy" with everyone. What does he do in Government? He provides £475,000 for Talbot. He transferred the responsibility to the Department of which I became Minister subsequently——
Tell the House the reason.
It is like what is happening in the Cabinet at the moment. I know there are long meetings, that there will be another meeting tomorrow when they will try to change what they decided yesterday. I know of the problems and tensions that exist, but if the heat is too much in that little kitchen in Government Building let them get out of it. You asked to get into power — now you can take the rap——
The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair and the Minister should allow the Deputy to proceed without interruption.
I hope he waits for his time to answer these points. His Government transferred responsibility for the Talbot workers to my Department. A month after I took up office there I said I did not consider the arrangement in question to be of an indefinite nature, that I would work to resolve it, and this I did. The Coalition Government had not the moral courage to take any action. They came to this House and said that deal would cost £30 million, that it was sacrosanct, that it was legally binding and that nothing could be done about it. They did that for a political purpose. They were not concerned with saving the money for the taxpayers and they were not prepared to tackle the problem. The Minister can take back to his colleagues the information that of the jobs that were available and were ready to be taken up in the public service very few have been given. However, that is the business of the parties opposite because they are in Government. However, it is costing the State more money in PRSI and social benefits than if they were in the jobs they had accepted.
I am glad the Deputy realises that.
The point is: do the Government realise it? If so, they should do something about putting the people concerned to work because it is costing much more at the moment. It is typical action of the Coalition. I should love to hear the justification for paying £1 million to the workers in Avoca. What happened when they got that money? The Clondalkin workers came along. Some members of the Government did not want to buy the Clondalkin factory and others did want to buy it. It is well known that the Minister for Industry and Energy did not want to buy it and it is equally well known that as budget time approached the cracks began to appear. Why did it take an all-night session in a city establishment for officials to wrap up the purchase of the Clondalkin factory? It was because the Labour Party would not support the budget the next day if the factory was not purchased. These are facts and let the Government deny them if they can. That is the kind of Government we have. Then they wonder why the people are criticising their actions. To carry through a tough budget it is necessary to get the confidence of the people. The people see what is going on, they are not fools. It is true that while you can fool some of the people some of the time you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The Government should remember that. We will be here to watch every step——
Yes, you will be over there on the other side. That is the difference.
Only until the first opportunity comes along. While we are here we will keep a good eye on all of you and we will see every move you make. We will watch what you do and expose all your actions.
Again, I ask the Deputy to address his remarks through the Chair.
Half of the things promised in the election campaign have disappeared. Which gospel are you using? Is it "Jobs for the 80s" by Fine Gael, or is it the document put forward by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's party?
Please, Deputy, address your remarks through the Chair.
What about The Way Forward?
I will stand over that. We had a National Development Corporation which was supposed to be the answer with regard to jobs. Yesterday in this House I asked the Minister responsible when he would set up the corporation and he said he would have to get legislation through the House with regard to the framework of the corporation. If the Government are serious about tackling the problem of unemployment they could put the corporation to work next week. However, I know they are not serious about the matter. Fine Gael do not believe in the project; it is merely a sop to the Labour Party. Fine Gael know, as well as I know, there are no projects it could undertake at the moment. There is no point in talking about fancy names, committees, a task force or a national planning board. All those layers of bureaucracy will not take one person off the dole or create one job, and the Government know this quite well. There is no point in uttering pious platitudes. What is needed is action on the ground, but the Government have not the guts, the courage or the necessary co-ordination of effort.
Unemployment and inflation will get worse. After the election Deputy Keating said that Fine Gael in Government would have the answers to the unemployment problem. Have they, and when are we going to see them? The Government took on the job and it is up to them to do it. They have not even started on the task and it is my belief they do not know where to start. One of the problems arose before they came into office. The Labour Party did not want Deputy Bruton as Minister for Finance because they knew they could not put many things over on him that they might be able to put over on a technocrat who might not have a commonsense approach. That is where the problems started.
There is no economic strategy in this budget. However, it has a political strategy: hit everyone hard the first year, try to hit them again the second year and hope to stay in business long enough for things to improve before they are forced to go to the country. The budget will create more unemployment and will increase inflation. Since this Government came to power there has been an increase of 30p in the price of a gallon of petrol and diesel has increased by 21p per gallon. When I was a Minister not so long ago I remember when the price of petrol increased by 4.8p per gallon — 2p more than was anticipated at the time. This was in relation to the Whitegate refinery. All hell broke loose; the whole world nearly collapsed. The people were furious but now this Government have increased petrol prices by 30p per gallon.
You got your sums wrong with regard to Whitegate.
You can check the record. I knew you would take that little bait when it was thrown out.
Will the Deputy please address his remarks through the Chair, not directly to the Minister.
The Minister is provoking me.
The Chair would like the business of the House to proceed. The Minister of State may reply in due course but I ask him to remain silent while the Deputy is in possession.
I should like to know if this Government believe in Whitegate. Some of them appear to, but others do not believe in it. I stand over any decision I made. Unlike some people on the other benches, I do not want an each-way bet. When Whitegate opened I said it would be operating on the dearest oil for the first quarter up to 31 December 1982. We were under contract to Saudi Arabia, who have the most expensive oil. Government-to-Government contracts are not broken too easily, but that contract expired on 31 December 1982. I said that this year Whitegate would be seen in its true light. What has happened? We were only six weeks into the new year when the INPC announced that because of the new purchasing situation they could reduce the price of petrol by 15p, not the 2.8p the Government are talking about. However, the reaction of the Government was that they would take the 15p, that they would build up a "slush fund" and that they would not pass it on to the consumer. These were the people who shouted from high heaven about the imposition of an extra 2.8p but three months later, when the situation arose that 15p could be given back to the consumer, they did not want to know.
It is similar to the hysteria which they created during the election that old people were dying because they could not afford to pay the charge of £5 for a hospital bed and because certain drugs were removed from the list. There will be problems in any scheme which is brought in but if the vested interests which created that hysteria wanted to adopt a Christian and humane attitude nobody would suffer. What happened to the people? Did they die? We did not hear anything about that. I do not think the Government returned the 900 items to the medical list. It is difficult to analyse the standards of politicians and the way things are represented or misrepresented.
The Government, who get tight around the neck when they are criticised, have to take the rap now. They are the Government and they have to govern. It is the last chance they will get for a long time. We know what they did to small farmers. They are bringing them into the tax net. Small farmers will now have to fill in forms and so on. What will be the result? Do we introduce taxation systems to collect revenue or to annoy people? Time and again we have brought in tax systems which collect nothing but cost a fortune to administer. At the end of the day they are thrown out. The taxation of small farmers is one such system.
The Minister knows that agriculture needs all the help it can get but what did the Government do for it? They suspended the farm modernisation scheme and increased inflation. The Coalition Government will hold the record for inflation. When they last went out of office it was 23 per cent. Mr. Richie Ryan held the record during the mid-seventies and if you are in for long enough yourselves——
The Opposition have held some records themselves.
Yours is the best record but it is not one that people like. That is the one you will fall on and it will be good to watch. I will not bother to criticise you on jobs——
The Deputy should address his remarks to the Chair and not across the floor of the House.
This is what happens when I am interrupted. I am sorry, but we are all human.
The Deputy is not speaking to a greenhorn. He should address his remarks to the Chair and he knows that.
You were not a bad man yourself when you were in Opposition.
The Deputy has seven minutes left.
Is that all? If I started talking about U-turns and backdowns it would annoy him again and we would only have more interruptions.
Not interruptions but directions.
I thought it was Frank Kelly who was over there.
We do not want any interruptions from the backbenches.
That is the man who was left out in North-East Donegal. They got no State car. You were lucky because they are going to take them back from them.
That is not on the budget.
Saving money is relevant to the budget. The Taoiseach said he would save £1.6 million on the cars of Ministers of State. He did not and we still have them. Deputy Harte is only too delighted that he did not get one——
I do not apologise for Frank Kelly.
To sum up——
Constructively.
I am constructive when I am left alone but when I am interrupted I can be destructive. When I am interrupted I give as good as I get. This budget is the wrong one for our economy. It will do nothing for employment or inflation. It is the wrong economic strategy. I am aware that we are in a world recession and I know there are problems which have to be solved. I know there are problems which the Government cannot solve, no matter which Government are in power, but they must cut their cloth according to their measure. It is the duty of the Government to get the right balance and to chart the proper course for the economy. This budget does not do that. It is the wrong balance and will totally depress the economy and consumer demand. It will play havoc with the construction industry in which at the end of the year one in every two people will be out of a job.
There is no incentive for employment. Incentives in relation to work experience in the service industry and the hotel industry have been taken away. The VAT increases will play havoc with the tourist industry. When one pays a bill in a hotel today one pays 40 per cent before paying anything on the bill.
In the budget £9.1 million is being spent on the Stationery Office on paper and pens. There is no employment incentive scheme on which £9.1 million is being spent. We have a Youth Employment Agency but the money is being spent in the wrong direction. It should be put at the disposal of young people in industry, regional colleges and universities who have brains and ideas but have not the wherewithal to get a small business going. The funds would be better spent than they are at present. To date the money has been spent on small environmental schemes such as pulling nettles in a graveyard and cleaning out shores which have become blocked. That is not the way to spend hard-earned taxpayers' money. We are not getting value for money.
I expected some innovation from the Taoiseach who projected the image that he had all the answers and new ideas. I expected it from the Minister for Finance. Perhaps we will see it next year if they last long enough to bring in a budget. If they do it will be the last one they will ever bring in. The pressures in the economy which will build up through unemployment and inflation——
That is what the Deputy hopes for. He prays for street politics to pull down democracy. That is the Deputy's dream.
If the Government of the day do not seem to get it right and by their actions create unemployment then we are all responsible and at the end of the day democracy will be hit. There is no equity in the budget. Where is there equity when Fine Gael and Labour put 5 per cent VAT on a poor old lady's bag of turf, on her parcel of briquettes, on her cylinder of gas——
(Interruptions.)
They introduced a tax on old age pensioners who have to buy turf——
All to pay for Fianna Fáil's mismanagement.
There is the social justice coming from a once proud Labour Party. I know you sold them a dummy in the budget. I hope they find out before the year is over——
(Interruptions.)
Their only answer to unemployment in the honest words of Deputy Kelly who said that young people must take the emigrant ship. Those were the sentiments expressed by Mr. Alexis FitzGerald, Senior, in 1954 when he said that if people were going to stay here in large numbers and upset the nice and easy life of the Irish people, then they should take the emigrant ship. In 1983 the philosophy and thinking in Fine Gael has not changed. You have the same answer as you had in 1954: send them all out on the emigrant ship. This time the young people will not go.
Who created it? You and your Government. About 600 factories closed down this year and 400 last year. We were not responsible for them.
You took the best one out of Navan.
Who was to blame? The dead hand of Fianna Fáil and their borrowing.
Deputy L'Estrange, please. You came in three minutes ago and have caused maximum confusion in that time.
That must be a record.
To have to sit here and listen to a lecture on moral and financial rectitude from Deputy Reynolds or from anybody on the other side of the House is more than any human being should be expected to take and I would not take it from him. Now Deputy Reynolds is walking out and will not listen to my reply.
Tell me about all the money you wasted.
(Interruptions.)
Are you going to have an inquiry into——
Deputy Reynolds has given us a lecture, biased and subjective, just one side of the story. He knows that and now he is running away from his responsibility and will not listen to the truth. We are trying to pay the enormous debts run up by Deputy Reynolds and his cohorts in Government, and it started as far back as 1977. That is when the rot set in. He was part of it and he condoned, agreed with and implemented it in Government——
It started in 1971.
The Deputy mentioned the youth agency. Why did Fianna Fáil not change it during the last eight months they were in Government? Deputy Reynolds should not come into this House and lecture this Government on what we should do in ten weeks. Fianna Fáil have been in power for three-quarters of the time since the foundation of this State and, in 1983, we find ourselves in this mess because of the attitude adopted by Deputy Reynolds and his cohorts.
Take your courage in your hands and go to the country. Do not blame everybody else.
Ba maith liom ar dtús cúpla focal a ráth faoin cháinaisnéis maidir le Roinn na Gaeltachta. Faoi mar is eol dúinn uile tá fadhbanna troma airgeadais againn i láthair na huaire, fadhbanna a dhéanfaidh dochar mór dúinn uile mura dtabharfar go díocasach faoina réiteach anois. Tá a fhios ag gach duine freisin nach i mbliana ná anuraidh a thosaigh cúrsaí airgeadais na tíre leo ag dul le fán. Le fírinne cuireadh síolta na cáinaisnéise seo deich mbliana siar nuair a méadaíodh chomh mór sin ar phraghsanna íle. Rinneadh iarrachtaí i lár na seachtóidí, ach go háirithe, chun réiteach a fháil ar na fadhbanna sin ach, faraor, éiríodh astu agus chuathas i muinín iasachtaí airgid leis an gcaighdeán maireachtála a bhí againn a choimeád ag an leibhéal ag a raibh sé agus go deimhin, b'é páirtí Fhianna Fáil an páirtí atá freagrach as sin. Chuir na méaduithe ollmhóra i bpraghas íle sa tréimhse 1979-80 go mór lenár ndeacrachtaí ach arís níor glacadh ar deis chun cúrsaí a chur ina gceart. Tuilleadh iasachtaí fós chun éalú ón ngátar a bhí ag brú orainn an leigheas a tharraingeamar chugainn féin. Ach bíonn ús agus ús trom le híoc ar iasachtaí agus ní féidir uair na ciniúna a chur siar go deo. Ní raibh de rogha ag an Rialtas seo i mbliana ach an tír a ligint le fán a thuilleadh nó dúshlán na faidhbe a thabhairt agus iarracht mhacánta a dhéanamh lena réiteach. Is iarracht mhacánta atá sa cháinaisnéis seo chun cúrsaí airgeadais na tíre a chur ar chosán a réitithe.
Is í an phríomhaidhm atá leis an gcáinaisnéis seo ná bonn buan a chur faoi eacnamaíocht na tíre agus na toscaí a sholáthar a chuirfidh poist nua ar fáil de réir mar a fheadhsóidh cúrsaí, go háirithe do na daoine óga. Cuimhnímis freisin d'ainneoin a dhéine atá an cháinaisnéis go mbeidh orainn fós corradh le £1,700 milliún a fháil ar iasacht i mbliana. Cé gur lú de £200 milliún é sin ná méid na n-iasachtaí sa bhliain 1982 is suim ollmhór fós é agus is ualach an-trom é don todhchaí. Is léir nach sárófar fadhbanna na tíre seo mura dtuigfidh an pobal i gcoitinne géarchéim na faidhbe agus mura mebeidh siad sásta comhoibriú leis an Rialtas leis na fadhbanna seo a réiteach.
Bhí dhá rogha ann dá bhrí sin: caiteachas an Rialtais a laghdú nó cánacha a mhéadú. Dá gclóifí le méadú cánacha amháin ní fada go sroichfí leibhéal cánach a bheadh as alt ar fad. Ní raibh dul as dá bhrí sin ach tarraingt ar an dá rogha agus tá de thoradh leis sin ar ndóigh go mb'éigean an t-airgead atá ar fáil do na Ranna éagsúla a laghdú go mór.
D'ainneoin na bhfadhbanna sin bhí áthas orm gur éirigh liom thart ar £19.5 milliún a fháil ón Rialtas i mbliana lena chaitheamh ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht agus leis an nGaeilge. Den £19.5 milliún sin tá suas le dhá-thrian de á chur ar fáil d'Údarás na Gaeltachta. Cinnte tá laghdú san airgead a bheidh le caitheamh ag an Roinn agus ag an Údarás i mbliana i gcomparáid leis an méid a caitheadh anuraidh ach ní beag an tsuim airgid é £19.5 milliún ag féachaint do ghéarchéim airgeadais an Stát-Chiste. Cé go gcaithfear a adhmháil go mbeidh airgead gann i mbliana, táim sásta go mbeifear in ann dul chun cinn maith a dhéanamh leis an soláthar atá curtha ar fáil ach úsáid choigilteach, stuama a bhaint as.
Beidh suas le £13 milliún le fáil ag Údarás na Gaeltachta i mbliana. Leis an teacht isteach a bhíonn ag an údarás féin ó fhoinsí éagsúla, i.e., ó chíosanna agus ó Chiste Sóisialta na hEorpa, beidh breis agus £1 milliún in aghaidh na míosa ar fáil ag an eagraíocht le caitheamh ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht. Ní beag an méid airgid é sin táim ag súil go mbeidh ar chumas an Údaráis dul chun cinn maith a dhéanamh leis. Bhéinn ag súil leis ach go háirithe go ndéanfaí gach dícheall chun acmhainní nádúrtha na Gaeltachta e.g., iascaireacht, foraoiseacht, móin, feamainn, turasóireacht etc. a fhorbairt oiread is féidir. Sna laethanta seo tá sé níos tábhachtaí ná riamh luach a fháil ar an airgead a chaitear.
Is é sin a bhí i gceist agam anuraidh nuair a mhínigh mé sa Dáil go raibh sé beartaithe breathnú isteach i gcúrsaí an Údaráis chun a fháil amach cén chaoi a d'fhéadfadh an Rialtas cabhrú leis an eagraíocht sin ina gcuid oibre.
Faoi mar is eol don Teach bíonn constaicí móra le sárú ag an Údarás d'fhonn tionscnaimh fhiúntacha a mhealladh chun na Gaeltachta. Is é atá i gceist agam go príomha ná an iargúltacht ó mhargaí deacrachtaí cumarsáide le custaiméirí agus le soláthraitheóirí, agus easpa áiseanna ó thaobh an bhunstruchtúir de. Anuas air sin níl aon mhaolú mórán tag-tha ar an gcúlú eacnamaíochta domhanda. D'ainneoin sin, d'éirigh leis an Údarás cur leis an bhfostaíocht lánaimsire sna tionscail faoina scáth, i.e., ó thart ar 4,000 duine ag deireadh 1981 go dtí breis is 4,100 duine ag deireadh 1982. Is dul chun cinn maith é sin sna cúinsí agus tréaslaím leis an Údarás dá bharr.
Tá feidhmeanna eile ag an Údarás seachas poist a chruthú do mhuintir na Gaeltachta: tá dualgas reachtúil orthu i leith na Gaeilge mar shampla. Chuige sin, bíonn iarrachtaí leanúnacha ar siúl chun úsáid na Gaeilge a leathnú sna tionscail a fhaigheann cúnamh ón Údarás, oiltear cainteoirí dúchais Ghaeilge do phoist mar bhainisteóirí i dtionscnaimh Ghaeltacha agus tugtar cúnamh agus tacaíocht d'ógchlubanna agus do naíonraí sa Ghaeltacht agus, ar ndóigh, reachtáiltear an Comórtas Forbartha Pobail. Tá brú ar an nGaeilge ó gach aon taobh na laethanta seo agus fáiltím roimh na hiarrachtaí seo a bhfuil sé mar aidhm acu an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú agus a leathadh mar ghnáthmheán cumarsáide sa Ghaeltacht.
Bhí mé ag súil go mbeadh plean cuimsitheach don Ghaeltacht ar fáil ón Údarás. Tuigim go bhfuil siad ag obair ar phlean agus go mbeidh sé agam sar i bhfad. Leis an ngéarchéim airgeadais atá ann níor mhaith liom go sílfeadh aon duine go bhféadfaí plean mór costasach a chur i bhfeidhm láithreach ach dá mbeadh plean ciallmhar ar fáil d'fhéadfaí díriú ar na gnéithe is tábhachtaí agus iad a chur i gcrích de réir a chéile.
Tá obair thábhachtach ar siúl ag mo Roinnse chun leas cultúrtha, sóisialach agus eacnamaíoch na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn tríd an gcabhair a thugtar ar mhaithe le cúrsaí tithíochta, scéimeanna feabhsúcháin, agus na scéimeanna cultúrtha agus sóisialacha a reachtáiltear d'fhonn muintir na Gaeltachta a ghríosadh chun an Ghaeilge a choimeád beo bríomhar mar theanga theaghlaigh agus mar theanga phobail ina gceantair.
Ceapadh na scéimeanna feabhsúcháin chun feabhas a chur ar shaoráidí éagsúla ar fud na Gaeltachta. I measc na saoráidí a gcuirtear cabhair ar fáil dóibh tá bóithre áise agus bóithre portaigh, scéimeanna uisce agus séarachais, muiroibreacha, hallaí agus coláistí Gaeilge, áiseanna chaitheamh aimsire, cabhair do chomharchumainn etc. Faraor tá an ciste a bhíodh ar fáil do bhóithre laghdaithe go mór i mbliana i gcaoi nach mbeifear in ann ach freastal ar bhóithre a bhí ceadaithe ach nach raibh críochnaithe anuraidh. Is trua gur mar sin áta ach b'éigean laghduithe a dhéanamh i ngeall ar an drochstaid airgeadais.
Ó tharla go bhfuil an soláthar do chúrsaí tithíochta laghdaithe go dtí £1 milliún i mbliana ní bheidh dul as ach deontais áirithe a chur ar fionraí. Ní chuirfear ar fionraí, áfach, ach na deontais is lú a chuirfidh as do mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Is é an deontas don dara teach agus an deontas do sheallaí saoire atá i gceist agam. Féachfar chuige, áfach, go leanfar de na deontais eile i gcaoi go mbeidh ar chumas mhuintir na Gaeltachta tithe compórdacha a bheith acu.
Tá £1,383,000 á chur ar fáil i mbliana do na scéimeanna cultúrtha agus sóisialacha a bhíonn á reachtáil ag Roinn na Gaeltachta.
Is é an ceann is tábhachtaí agus is costasaí de na scéimeanna seo ná scéim na bhfoghlaimeoirí Gaeilge faoina n-íocann mo Roinnse deontais díreach le mná tí cáilithe sa Ghaeltacht a mbíonn foghlaimeoirí aitheanta ar iostas acu. Bhí ar mo chumas anuraidh an deontas sin a mhéadú go dtí £2.25 in aghaidh an lae do gach dalta ach le cúrsaí airgeadais mar atá bhí orm cloí leis an socrú a bhí déanta sular ceapadh mé i.e., nach bhféadfaí méadú a thabhairt i mbliana. Ar ndóigh, níl sa deontas sin ach cuid den teacht isteach a bhíonn ag dukl do na mná tí i leith na bhfoghlaimeoirí; bíonn an chuid eile le fáil ó lucht na gcoláistruí gaeilge a fhaigheann táillí cuí ó na tuismitheoirí. Is mian liomsa go mbeidh luach saothair maith ag na mná tí a chuireann cóiríocht mhaith ar fáil do na daltaí agus is gnó do na coláistí táillí cuí a ghearradh ar na tuismitheoirí.
Caitear cuid mhaith airgid freisin ar an dá nuachtán sheachtainiúla Inniu agus Amárach. Níl éileamh mór ar cheachtar díobh sin agus níl ar mo chumas, agus cúrsaí airgeadais mar atá, an cúnamh a bheadh ag teastáil ón dá nuachtán a chur ar fáil dóibh.
Faoi láthair is ionann an deontas Stáit agus 55-60 faoin gcéad de theacht isteach iomlán Amárach agus tá an céatadán níos airde fós i gcás Inniu. Beidh mé i gcomhairle go luath leis an dá nuachtán chun an scéal ar fad a phlé leo agus caithfear cinneadh a dhéanamh, gan mhoill, ar céard is fearr a dhéanamh leis an bhfadhb seo a réiteach.
Chun leas cheantar Ghaeltachta a chur chun cinn is deacair córas níos fearr a cheapadh ná comharchumann áitiúil ach é a bheith ag feidhmiú go héifeachtúil. Cothaíonn comharchumann féinmhuinín sa phobal agus tugann sé deis do na daoine comhoibriú le chéile ar mhaithe lena gceantar féin — gan a bheith ag brath ar dhaoine ón taobh amuigh nach mbeadh an tuiscint chéanna do na deacrachtaí acu. Ba chóir go mbeadh tionchar an-mhór ag comharchumann i bhforbairt iomlán a cheantair feidhme — forbairt eacnamaíoch agus sóisialach chomh maith le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge agus an chultúir dhúchais.
Is i ngeall ar na dualgais bhreise sin a shocraigh mé anuraidh go gcuirfí dóthain airgid ar fáil lena chinntiú go méadófaí go suntasach na deontais reachtála a íoctar leis na comharchumainn sin a bhfuil plean fiúntach leagtha amach agus á chur i bhfeidhm go dúthrachtach acu chun a gcuid gníomhaíochtaí a chur ar bhonn sásúil gnó agus an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ina gceantair. Tá socraithe agam go mbeidh dóthain airgid ar fáil arís i mbliana chun na deontais sin a choimeád ar an leibheál céanna.
Ag an am céanna caithfidh comhar-chumainn—agus dreamanna nach iad —a aithint go bhfuil teorainn leis an gcúnamh is féidir leis an Stát a thabhairt dóibh: is iad féin a bhíonn i mbun oibre ar an láthair agus is orthu atá an cúram féachaint chuige go mbeidh eagar ceart ar na gníomhaíochtaí a bhíonn idir lámha acu.
Tá Bord na Gaeilge ag feidhmiú ón mbliain 1975 ar aghaidh agus tá cúram trom leagtha air. Baineann an cúram sin, ar ndóigh, le mórchuspóir tábhachtach náisiúnta atá chomh fairsing agus chomh hiltaobhach le saol an phobail. Ní foláir don Bhord comhghuaillíocht fheidhmiúil a bhaint amach on gcóras Stáit uile ar a n-áirítear Ranna Rialtais, eagrais Státtionscanta agus ó iliomad dreamanna eile ar ndóigh: ina measc siúd tá muintir na Gaeltachta féin, na heagrais Ghaeilge, eaglaisí, comhlachtaí gnó, ceard-chumainn, eagrais fheirmeoireachta, institiúidí oideachais, lucht siamsaíochta agus drámaíochta, foilsitheoirí, nuachtóirí, iriseoirí, agus soláthróirí seirbhísí den uile chineá. Go gairid is féidir a rá go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar an mBord freastal chomh fada agus is féidir ar an bpobal uile.
Faoi mar is eol don Teach seo tá plean gníomhaíochta ceithre bliana, a d'ullmhaigh Bord na Gaeilge, á scrúdú i mo Roinnse faoi láthair i gcomhairle leis na Ranna Stáit eile. Tá dóchas agam go mbeidh an plean sin á chur i láthair an phobail gan mhoill. Is fíor a rá gur i gcomhar le hinstitiúidí uile na tíre a athshlánófar an teanga agus tá súil agam go mbeidh comhoibriú fial le fáil nuair a bheidh plean Bhord na Gaeilge á chur i bhfeidhm.
Tá áit ar leith ag na heagrais Ghaeilge ar ndóigh, san obair atá ar siúl ag an mbord agus tá sé fíor-riachtanach go mbeadh comhoibriú iomlán eatarthu. Beidh an plean ag iarraidh cur leis na hiarrachtaí uile atá ar siúl cheana féin ar mhaithe leis an nGaeilge ar fud na tíre agus iad a chomhordú i dtreo go bhféadfar tarraingt in aon mhóriarracht amháin ar mhaithe le cur chun cinn na teanga. Tá dóchas agam go mbeidh toradh fiúntach ar a n-iarrachtaí.
Tá an-áthas ormgur thoiligh an Rialtas soláthar £1,900,000 a chur ar fáil i mbliana i Vóta mo Roinn-se mar chabhair chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ar fud na tíre. Sin méadú 5.8 faoin gcéad ar sholáthar na bliana anuraidh. Ioctar cabhair as Chiste na Gaeilge le Bord na Gaeilge agus le heagrais áirithe Ghaeilge. Is iad na heagrais atá i gceist ná Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge, Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Gael-Linn, Conradh na Gaeilge, an tOireachtas, an Comhlachas Náisiúnta Drámaíochta, Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair, Cumann na bhFiann agus an Gael-Acadamh.
Tá súil agam go mbeidh na heagrais sin ag treisiú a gcuid iarrachtaí ar mhaithe leis an teanga nuair a fhoilseofar plean Bhord na Gaeilge go luath amach anseo. Cé go bhfuil obair mhaith déanta acu, measaim go bhféadfaí dul chun cinn níos fiúntaí fós a dhéanamh dá mbeidís uile ag obair níos fearr i gcomhar le chéile ar mhaithe leis an nGaeilge. Is mithid teacht ar shlite chun an chomhoirnú sin a chinntiú. Dá bhféadfaí é sin a dhéanamh, chuirfí leis an iarracht an Ghaeilge a chur ar bhonn ceart agus bheadh i bhfad níos mó rath ar a gcuid oibre.
Turning to fisheries, I should like to point out that approximately £20 million has been provided in the Fisheries Estimate for the current year. That is a significant sum in any circumstances and particularly in the present financial situation in which we find ourselves. I have been quoted recently in a newspaper report as saying that the Exchequer did not have any money for fishermen but, as I pointed out, approximately £20 million is already available for the development of the fishing industry this year. My reported statement was in response to a request for a direct operating subsidy for fishermen, which is a completely different matter. By and large State aid to the fishing industry—both sea and inland —over the years has been generous in relation to the availability of resources and the size of the industry and the situation in the current year is similar. Naturally, I would like to be in a position to provide increased funds for the industry but unfortunately this is not possible.
The EEC recently reached agreement on a Common Fisheries Policy after several years of negotiation. When I became Minister for Fisheries the negotiations were at an advanced stage and it was too late to obtain any worthwhile concessions for our fishing industry. Having said that, however, I must say that despite its shortcomings the agreement was the best available to us. Everybody had to make concessions to enable an agreement to be reached.
Reaching an agreement at this point was essential because of the expiry of the derogation in relation to access contained in the Treaty of Accession. It was also important to relieve the industry of the uncertainty which has prevailed for several years. There is now an opportunity to plan for the years ahead with a clear understanding of the opportunities available and the problems to be faced. I do not accept that a larger injection of State funds is necessary to enable the fishing industry to develop. Considerable progress can be made by placing greater emphasis on marketing, improved efficiency and greater co-operation within the industry itself. It is also important that the available resources are used to the best advantage.
I do not propose to talk at length about the Common Fisheries Policy — it would not be appropriate in a budget debate. However, there is one aspect of the agreement to which I feel I should refer in some detail because of various comments which have been made in the media. I refer to quotas and in particular to the percentage of the total available fish allocated to Ireland.
A lot of play has been made of the "fact" that despite having 25 per cent of the total area of water under the fishing jurisdiction of EEC member states, Ireland is being allocated quotas of only around 4 per cent of the total fish available in the Community under the newly-agreed Common Fisheries Policy. This kind of statement is very misleading however, and does not take account of a number of pertinent factors. Firstly it makes no allowance for the fact that the bulk of the fish in the Community "pond" occurs in areas such as the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Skageraak-Kattegat where we have not habitually fished and because of the distances involved are never likely to fish nor for the fact that some of the stocks regarded as Community stocks are off Greenland and North America. Secondly, it takes no account of the huge differences in stock levels as between the waters adjacent to Ireland and, for example, the North Sea where the fish-bearing capacity of the sea is very much greater. Thirdly, it takes no account of the fact that in some areas such as the Irish Sea a large part of the present Irish catch is taken in waters outside our jurisdiction.
Taking into account only those stocks subject to quota and which are located partly or wholly in Irish waters it has been estimated that the Irish proportionate share of these stocks, based on the total Irish sea area as a proportion of the total sea area inhabited by each stock, comes to 103,817 tonnes expressed in standardised cod equivalent whereas the Irish quotas on those same stocks comprise a total of 89,151 tonnes or 86 per cent. The total Community stocks of the species in question, that is the main commercial species, cod, haddock, saithe, whiting, plaice, sole, hake, mackerel and herring, comprises 1,708,922 tonnes of cod equivalent so that it can readily be seen that the 103,817 tonnes of those stocks attributable to the Irish 200 mile zone comprises 5 per cent of the total. This demonstrates that the Irish quota allocations are much more in line with an entitlement on the basis of our total sea area and the fish stocks contained therein than the use of a figure of 25 per cent of total EEC sea area would suggest.
As I said earlier, the agreement on a Common Fisheries Policy will help to bring stability to our sea fishing industry. It will, I hope, also bring investment, especially in secondary processing. That is an area that offers the best prospect of increased employment and an increased return to the national economy. Promoters of properly planned and developed secondary fish processing projects can rest assured of the support of my Department, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the IDA or Údarás na Gaeltachta, as appropriate, for such projects.
It is also my intention to put greater emphasis on market research and market development in the future. It is unfortunate that rising fuel prices, over which we have no control, and falling fish prices, which have arisen mainly because of EEC marketing policy in the past, have borne heavily on the fishing industry. With the introduction of the new EEC marketing policy and through the efforts of BIM in association with the trade I am confident that substantial increases can be achieved in fish prices in the not too distant future.
I must also refer to the recent increase in interest rates announced by BIM. This increase was unavoidable in the light of the level of the Grant-in-Aid to BIM contained in the Estimates prepared by the previous Government and accepted by the present Government. It must be pointed out, however, that the present facilities for boat purchase and modernisation still compare more favourably with those available in other EEC countries. The new interest rates themselves—11 per cent loans from BIM and a rate of 2½ per cent below the bank rate in the case of guaranteed bank loans— are more favourable than those available to most, if not all, other sectors.
There is a great need to protect and develop our valuable inland fisheries. The Government are very conscious of the value and potential of these fisheries from an anemity and tourist viewpoint. I am examining existing conservation policy in this area and I am also examining ways and means of improving our inland fisheries protection service which involves the regional fisheries boards, the Naval Service and the Garda Sióchána.
Recent newspaper reports suggest that BIM are unreasonably attempting to resume fishing boats from fishermen who are in arrears with their repayments. I have said on a number of occasions, and I repeat now, that I am satisfied that BIM's approach to this problem is that when a fisherman is making genuine efforts to meet his financial commitments he will be treated by the board with sympathy and understanding. However, I would like to make it quite clear that there can be no blanket concessions on arrears. Each case much be dealt with on its merits.
Finally on the question of fisheries, I would like to refer to the prospects for mariculture development. Some progress has been made but there is a need for greater urgency in this area. Grants are available from both BIM and the EEC for this purpose and EEC aid is now guaranteed for at least a three year period. Promoters wishing to develop in this field will be given full support by way of advice and guidance in addition to financial aid by my Department and the State agencies involved.
In relation to forestry, the percentage of afforested land in Ireland is about 5 per cent, which is low compared with other EEC countries. Other countries with a higher rate of afforestation include Belgium, 20 per cent; Denmark, 11 per cent; France, 27 per cent; and Luxembourg, 32 per cent. Of the area afforested in Ireland nearly 86 per cent is owned by the State which is the reverse of the situation in other EEC countries where private forestry is predominant. As well as continuing the State afforestation programme, expansion of private forestry is being actively encouraged. The total area of land held by the Forest and Wildlife Service amounts to some 378,000 hectares of which 304,000 hectares is under forest. While the policy objective continues to be a planting programme of 10,000 hectares per year, the current land reserve position is such that at present and for a few years ahead an annual planting programme of 7,500 hectares, including private forestry and reafforestation, is seen as the most realistic practical proposition. However, efforts are continuing to build up a land reserve for the Forest and Wildlife Service through the acquisition process with a view to achieving an annual programme of 10,000 hectares as quickly as possible.
Difficulties in regard to the acquisition of land for forestry purposes in recent years have resulted in a very low reserve of plantable land at present. However there is an imbalance in the distribtion of the area available and this in turn inevitably causes problems in relation to such aspects as advance planning of the planting programme, maintaining employment and so on. There are now indications that the climate for land acquisition for afforestation has changed substantially for the better and the objective will be to increase the land reserve as quickly as possible through acquisition of new properties. To this end, notwithstanding current financial restraints, a generous allocation of funds will be made available by the Government from the Exchequer for the current year 1983.
While progress to date in State afforestation has on the whole been satisfactory, the contribution made by the private sector to the national afforestation programme has been somewhat disappointing. There are, of course, historical reasons for the failure of the private sector to expand the area of private forestry, but there have been some encouraging signs that attitudes are beginning to change and that with the State aids available substantial progress will be made in private forestry in the years to come. The private forestry sector can be assured of every support in its operations from the Forest and Wildlife Service by way of grants and a free advisory service. Apart from the ordinary planting grant scheme, every effort will be made to generate wider interest and participation in the forestry element of the western package. This scheme was introduced to encourage any expansion of forestry on lands marginal for agriculture but suitable for forestry in Counties Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Monaghan, Longford, Cavan, Clare, Roscommon, Kerry and parts of Limerick and Cork. Grants of up to 85 per cent of the cost are available, subject to a maximum of £800 per hectare. In addition to the grants, a free advisory service is available for all participants. Progress of the scheme to date has been slow, but 112 schemes covering some 500 hectares have qualified for grants exceeding £240,000. Grants of £125 per acre, together with a free technical advisory service, will continue to be available for private planting not qualifying under the western package scheme.
The capital investment by the State, especially over the last three or four decades, in the expansion of the national forest estate has created a natural resource of considerable potential. The benefits of this are already emerging and from now on the forest harvest will provide major opportunities not only for national and regional economic development but also for the substitution of imported wood and wood products by native-grown timber. The State afforestation programme makes an extensive impact on regional development in the more remote areas and direct employment is provided for about 2,700 men in areas where alternative employment might otherwise be hard to find. When the families of forest workers are taken into account it can be said that between 10,000 and 12,000 people depend for their welfare on the State afforestation programme. In addition to those directly employed in afforestation a further 1,750 people are engaged in private sector saw-milling and related activities. As the forests mature and the supply of sawlog timber increases we can look forward to a substantial increase in the number employed in this sector. About 300 people are engaged in pulpwood processing of forest fillings and small sawlog, and this figure will continue to increase by up to a further 450 people when the medium density fibreboard plant now being constructed at Clonmel comes into operation in the near future.
The employment potential of forest industry as based on the produce of Irish forests is quite considerable. Timber output from State forests will double over the present decade and redouble during the nineties to reach 3 million cubic metres by the year 2000. Two-thirds of the output will be accounted for by sawlog, which is, of course, the most valuable component of forest produce in terms of revenue generation and employment creation.
A comprehensive plan in regard to the processing of the ever-increasing supply of timber from the State forest is already being implemented. This plan, entitled Developing the Timber Industry in the 1980s, was formulated by the IDA and the Forest and Wildlife Service following an intensive survey designed to ensure that the maximum benefits are obtained from future supplies of timber. The objective is to achieve import substitution to the value of £40 million a year as the national supply of sawlog coming on stream permits.
To achieve the maximum benefit from import substitution, steps are being taken to up-grade the quality and presentation of Irish timber to ensure that it compares favourably with imported products. The research services of the Forest Products Division of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards are co-operating with the Forest and Wildlife Service in the promotion of a better image for home grown timber and the establishment of standards for native sawnwood usage. The physical properties and drying characteristics of Irish timber are also being investigated and it is hoped to develop an inexpensive stress grader to encourage mechanical grading of home grown sawnwood.
The size of the potential market for the substitution of imported timber by home grown timber is very large. An analysis of imported timber in 1981 shows that, excluding furniture, well over £240 million of the imported wood and wood products could be replaced by species of trees that are being grown successfully in Ireland.
As I said already, sawlog is the main and most valuable form of wood produced in our forests. From it sawn softwood is produced by the many sawmills throughout the country. Much of this is similar to sawn softwood imported in very large quantities, and at not inconsiderable cost to the balance of payments, from Scandinavia, Russia and Canada. The total annual consumption in recent years was roughly 500,000 m³ valued at approximately £50 million. The amount of Irish timber sold to the same market amounted to only little more than 100,000 m³ or only 20 per cent of total consumption with an equivalent value of £10 million. At the same time nearly one-third of the timber produced by the Forest Service remained unsold because of market bias in favour of imported timber. I am quite satisfied that much of this bias is not well founded. A sizeable proportion of sawnwood produced in Irish sawmills compares favourably in quality and price with imported timber.
I have no doubt that timber is an area which offers increasing scope for import substitution. It is my intention to explore, in consultation with other Ministers concerned, what can be done to overcome many of the barriers and prejudices which undoubtedly exist at present. I should stress, however, that there is a limit to what can be achieved at official level. At best this can succeed only in easing regulatory restrictions or encouraging and exhorting greater use of Irish timber. In the final analysis success in this field depends on the response from specifiers, buyers and users of timber. We are living in exceptional times and I would appeal to all concerned to take exceptional measures to do everything they can to secure a larger market share for Irish timber with a view to safeguarding the long-term interests of the entire timber industry.
While the main objective of the State forestry programme is the growing of sawlog timber, the Forest and Wildlife Service is keeping in touch with developments in the field of biomass or renewable energy resources derived from conventional forestry or the growing of specialised forest energy crops, such as poplars or alders. However, developments in this sphere are largely experimental and it is still too early to draw firm conclusions from them.
The functions of State forestry have been expanded in recent years beyond the mere production of timber. The aims of the Forest and Wildlife Service now include, in addition to timber production, the provision of amenity and recreational facilities.
There are now nine forest parks throughout the country. In addition, over 400 forest areas have been developed as part of an "open forest" policy designed to encourage the use of public amenities and recreation in State forests. Amenities provided include car parks, picnic areas, viewing points and signposted walks. More than 1.5 million visitors, many from abroad, now avail themselves of the forest amenities in all parts of the country.
The provision of a complex of wooden holiday chalets is under way at Killykeen Forest Park, County Cavan. The development, which will use native timber throughout, is being funded by the European Regional Development Fund. When completed it is expected that it will prove to be a major attraction in the region to visiting anglers wishing to use Lough Oughter and also to family holidaymakers anxious to relax in a pleasant environment of woodland and lake. This holiday chalet project reflects a further extension of the Department's objective to develop recreation for the public in State forests.
The work of the Forest and Wildlife Service in the field of nature conservation is continuing satisfactorily, given the present restrictive financial climate.
Research into wildlife habitats and species is one of the major elements of the programme of work in the area. I hope to have research initiated on a number of what may be termed "problem" species — for example, seals and mink—and studies will continue on species for which the FWS have a special responsibility, such as the Greenland white-fronted goose and red deer.
The Forest and Wildlife Service have identified a number of sites of different types of ecosystems around the country, particularly peatland areas, which are worthy of nature reserve status. However, most of these sites are privately owned and progress on affording them statutory protection will be slow in view of the high cost of acquiring them or of entering into management agreements with the owners.
Nevertheless I am pleased to say that 12 nature reserves have been established to date. These are mainly woodland reserves on State forest property and the number of such reserves will likely be increased during the year.
Public demand for information on native wildlife is met by distributing educational material and in the coming year this material will be expanded to deal with the increased awareness of, and interest in, the subject.
The Wildlife Ranger Corps, who continue to enforce the protective provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1976, also play a significant role in fostering an enlightened approach to conservation by their efforts at local level.
It goes without saying that wildlife conservation has wide international implications. The Forest and Wildlife Service have continued to participate in various international initiatives in the field of nature conservation, both at EEC level and as a wider front, and every effort is being made to comply with the various directives, regulations and conventions which have emerged in recent years and which are aimed at safeguarding different wildlife aspects relating to species or habitat.
Tá go leor cainte déanta sna nuachtáin agus ar bhealaí eile faoin isliú céime atá in ainm a bheith tugtha ag an Rialtas don Ghaeltacht agus don Ghaeilge toisc cúram na Roinne Iascaigh agus Foraoiseachta a bheith ormsa chomh maith le cúram Roinn na Gaeltachta. Ba mhaith liom go dtuigfí go soiléir nach bhfuil mórán brí leis an gcineál sin cainte. Is é cuspóir an Rialtais leas na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn agus tá rún daingean agamsa féachaint chuige go ndéanfar gach is féidir chun an aidhm sin a bhaint amach.
Tá tagairt déanta cheana agam don tábhacht a bhaineann le forbairt acmhainní nádúrtha sa Ghaeltacht. Ar na hacmhainní sin tá iascach agus cuid mhór talamh atá feiliúnach le haghaidh foraoiseachta. Luíonn sé le reasún gur mhaith an rud forbairt na n-acmhainní seo a bheith faoin Aire amháin. Sin a rinneadh nuair a ceapadh mise, agus leis an Aire Stáit ag an Roinn Iascaigh agus Foraoseachta, Deputy D'Arcy, féadfar a bheith cinnte go ndéanfar an fhorbairt sin a chur chun cinn.
Would the Minister indicate whether investigations are being carried out into recent reports of illegal deer shooting? I am sure he has seen the reports.
I have seen them and they are being checked out.
Has the Minister anything further to say?
I would not worry about the report.
Were they carried out by the Minister's Department?
I would not worry about the report if I were the Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
The South Leinster Gun Club.
Mr. Cowen
I suppose it is fashionable in any debate on the budget for the Government side to praise it and for the Opposition side to criticise it. The House goes through the motions on all occasions and tradition is upheld. Unfortunately, there is a lot of repetition from both sides of the House particularly when one side are supporting and the other side are opposing it. There is some good in all budgets and some improvements are made. It is recognised that this budget is one of the harshest any Government have brought before the House. I am afraid the improvements will be nil.
I would like to put forward some of my thoughts on the budget and, hopefully, give some constructive criticism of the budget we are dealing with. In his introduction to the budget on 9 February last the Minister for Finance emphasised the obvious, that we are in the grip of a severe recession. We are fully conscious of that and also that the world is going through a severe economic recession. The Minister then said:
The natural reaction to this situation would be to prepare a budget which would give a fiscal stimulus to the economy.
Later in the same paragraph he said:
The Government have concluded that this course is not open to us.
This natural reaction should not have been so easily dismissed.
The Taoiseach and the Government are far too concerned with fiscal rectitude. We all know that the economy is depressed but if one treats the economy only as a matter of money, figures and statistics, then tight fiscal control is one extreme option or, at the other end, there is the option of the gambler to borrow more and double up. These are the two options if one is only treating figures, statistics and economic numbers but an economy is much more than that. Our economy is our land, property and, above all, our people.
The immediate aim, because of this, of any economic plan or any budget is to provide meaningful employment. Work is the obvious immediate need for the vast majority of our under-25 population. This is so true that it rings out like a cliché but it is a fact. The main priority of any bookkeeping exercise, any fiscal policy of any budget, must be to get meaningful productive employment for the growing number of unemployed. The main priority of the Government should have been to ensure that the thousands of young people who, unfortunately, are unemployed obtain employment as soon as possible. There should have been some initiative in the budget to ensure that all the people who are unemployed could see some future for them.
When young people leave school and do not find any job opportunities available to them they are left in dire straits. If those people after leaving secondary school or vocational school at the age of 17 years or 18 years see no future for them I wonder what those people will think after being left two or three years without a job? I would like to emphasise that studies on the unemployed in Britain by sociologists have startlingly pointed out that after three years the people who have never worked become unemployable. Those potential workers are weakened as people and will never fully develop as people. They will never be in a position to fulfill their God-given right to contribute by their talents to society. Those people then become broken people in care. It does not matter how hard up our economy is, how much we owe abroad, our bookkeepers and bankers have a duty to provide secure employment for those at work and, more importantly, to provide work for those who have not yet worked. If our unemployed and our unemployable grow by 17,000 people per year there will be no repayment of any loan, national or international. We will not even have a stagnant economy. I cannot see anything but a stangnant economy for the next 12 months because of the budget proposals of 9 February. Our economy and our potential will be dead.
The Government have got to get the EEC member states to face this and they have got to get the money bags of the internationals to accept this. It is clear to me from many phrases and sentences in the budget speech that the Government have not clearly realised the urgency of job creation for the people. The main thrust of the Government policy reflected in the budget is not towards making the unemployed employable. It is an exercise in bookkeeping and a stubborn effort at fiscal rectitude. The attitude of the Minister is revealed in many passages of his budget speech especially where he blames the impact of the recession. In one place he implies that the recession is the biggest factor causing unemployment unmatched since the early thirties. We must face our problems and try to solve them ourselves.
We differ from nearly all other countries in having the fastest growing work force in Europe. It is even more imperative for us to concentrate immediately on making employment available. Naturally we are experiencing our slice of the international recession but the answers to our problems do not lie only in severe fiscal rectitude measures, in more stringent taxation or in shunning entirely the notion of borrowing. This Government could have adopted a balanced approach in this budget. At the outset of his statement the Minister admitted that he was not giving a fiscal stimulus to the economy. Does this attitude not involve the risk of the budget having the opposite effect from what it should be designed for—to indicate that we have the will to make the necessary adjustments and to live within our means in order to tackle imediately what is our greatest national problem, the problem of employment?
My analysis of Government policy as revealed in ministerial pronouncements and particularly in this budget is that the Coalition regard book balancing as an entity in itself and regard job creation and employment as distinct entities, too. The Government then proceed to tackle the book-keeping exercises in the hope that when this has been done the problem of job creation might be tackled. In other words, the Government are thinking in terms of employment being created from thin air. They regard unemployment as a necessary feature of our present economic situation and are of the opinion that a solution can only come about as a result of a bookbalancing exercise. There is no immediacy about their efforts to tackle the unemployment problem at a time when almost 200,000 people, most of them young people, are out of work. Fiscal rectitude and book balancing do not constitute a healthy economy especially when we are faced with the possibility of having up to 100,000 young people unemployed in about three years time. I am talking of people who will never have been able to obtain employment and those who may become unemployed.
In many ways this budget is an indication that the Coalition are putting us on the road to slow but sure economic suicide. Unemployment in itself kills the will to work instead of bringing forth young people as commercial leaders. Unemployment breeds selfish marketeers and gombeenmen. If the Government and the economic leaders were to make it clear that they would not tolerate unemployment at today's level, that they wished to cut down immediately on the numbers out of work and that they would start working from now on towards the creation of employment, they would be doing a good day's work. I do not like to speak of full employment because irrespective of what changes may occur in our economy, we are not likely ever to have a full employment situation. But there is the possibility of having most of our work force in employment. Each year, well educated young people are leaving school in large numbers but we are not able to offer them any hope of work. In these circumstances it is all the more disappointing that the budget contains no framework for initiative in the employment area.
In introducing the budget the Minister referred to domestic confidence but how can our young work force have any confidence concerning the future in the face of the type of budget that the Coalition have produced and when our employment level is at its highest ever? The only type of economic policy that is good is one that makes the economy work and this means that Ireland today needs a Government who will not tolerate unemployment and who will budget primarily to put people back to work.
There is reference in the Minister's statement, too, to the loss of foreign confidence. In order for outsiders to have confidence in us we must first have confidence in ourselves. If the people are given the right type of encouragement they will have confidence in our ability to solve our own economic problems and this in turn will engender foreign confidence on the part of investors looking towards Ireland. Then, if the recession begins to ease within a few years prospective foreign investors will be more impressed by genuine practical efforts on our part to deal with unemployment than with any success we might have at balancing our books.
The Minister referred, too, to excessive borrowing and said that this encouraged excessive pay claims. If those thousands of people who are unemployed could see evidence that the Government were tackling the unemployment problem seriously, there might be a common understanding on the need to abandon excessive pay claims. The major factors in excessive pay claims are the out-of-date and inadequate labour relations laws and regulations, inadequate management and too many trade unions.
There is reference in the budget to certain positive figures relating to 1982 during the term of office of Fianna Fáil. These include the easing of inflation, falling interest rates, a worthwhile increase in industrial exports and the recovery in agricultural output but then the Minister went on to indicate that these improvements will be weakened in the year ahead. This budget will ensure that that will be the case. It contains no initiative regarding the agricultural sector. Instead, the Minister knocks that sector but that is a matter that I shall deal with later in my speech. Instead of ensuring an improvement on any upturn effected by the previous administration, the Coalition are negativing these advances by their pursuit of such a conservative, financial penny pinching policy. Where there were unmistakable signs of hope under Fianna Fáil there is now financial fear and imprudent pruning. This means that initiative will die. I am convinced that as a result of this budget there will be no initiative left in any sector of the economy.
A Government's policy must be judged on those aspects of services in respect of which pruning is carried out, that is, if any such pruning is deemed to be necessary. In the "Principal Features of the Budget" we read that expenditure reductions in education will be £10.21 million. There should be no reduction in expenditure on education because of our exceptional proportion of young people. If we cannot increase investment in education during a recession we should not contemplate reducing what is an investment in our future. In a recession education takes on even more importance. We must continue to educate people to benefit from employment following the recession, then we must educate the many young people for the eventuality of delayed opportunities of employment and then again, with many thousands awaiting employment, which is their right, there is a danger of a spreading dejection which runs with idleness. Idleness, in most cases, leads to lawlessness. If you pennypinch and save on education, you must allot more and more to law enforcement.
The Government would be wise to consider the implications concerning unemployment. In the city of Dublin and in the larger towns throughout the country, there is lawlessness of a type never witnessed before. The main and basic reason for most of that lawlessness, which is coming from our younger generation, is that they see no hope and no job opportunities for themselves even over a period of years. What else is there for them to do? I am not saying that there is not anything else for them to do, there is plenty, but is it not wide open to them to become involved in unlawful activities? We wonder why lawlessness is on the increase. We should not wonder, we should know that it is because of our serious unemployment problem.
If we pennypinch on our educational system, is this not a false economy? Must we not give thorough consideration to the implications before implementing the cutbacks included in this budget? In 12 months or two years time, more pupils will be leaving school at an earlier age. With regard to vocational schools, I have evidence that those in the lower income group are not in a position to pay for school transport. I know of one case, a man on social welfare disability benefit, who has been genuinely sick for the last two years, drawing £98 per week, with seven children, two attending the national school and three attending the vocational school and all dependent on school transport. How can he be requested to make a payment towards school transport? It is ridiculous. The Minister for Education in a statement yesterday promised to do something about it, but unfortunately the correction which she has made will not help the man about whom I am speaking. He will not be in a position to make a payment of any kind to help his children to attend school. His three children attending vocational school will no longer attend because they are four miles from the school and he cannot make any payment.
Previous Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education have resisted the attempts of the Department of Finance to cut spending on education, and rightly so. The present Minister has yielded to her Minister for Finance in Cabinet and the children of the less well-off are punished in the matter of school transport, particularly in rural areas and, more particularly, with regard to vocational schools. Vocational schools are the places where our manpower is trained with a view to job growth. This shows the Government's resignation to massive unemployment. They think counting figures is more important than young people's education and preparation for work. Irrespective of cover-up phrases used by the Minister for Education for Cabinet financial policies, most people see through the brutal beginning of the end of career guidance in schools.
The budget and the policies of the Coalition Government will mean that in a few years there will be two career guidance teachers in vocational schools in the whole of Connacht. Offaly, more fortunately, will have three and the other county in my constituency, Laois, will also have three. The same thin spread is there throughout the land. Is this good enough? Career guidance and counselling are concerned with the education of the whole person. Are not rural areas again going to be more and more deprived? Is this prudent pruning—to cut educational costs to the extent being done in this budget? Where is the economic wisdom in any cut in education, particularly cuts affecting vocational schools where our younger generation can get proper training for skilled employment after leaving school?
Regarding the cuts in remedial teaching, thousands of young people can be brought to the full fruition of talent only through remedial teaching. The dire consequences of these cuts should wipe the self-satisfied smirk from the face of any bookkeeper performing a book-balancing act.
Another dangerous development is apparent from this budget. The Minister mentions special features and the first of his seemingly proud features is that youth employment and related services in the Department of Education have been transferred to the Minister for Labour who, with his Minister of State, is now responsible for matters affecting youth. I do not share the enthusiasm of the Minister for Finance for this move. I am sure that the Minister for Labour is happy at the fattening of his portfolio. Apparently the Minister for Education has acquiesced. But what of educators, what of our professional school-teaching staff? The whole area of education should be the jealous preserve of those who are solely professional educators. The captains of industry, those who command the boardroom or who marshal the shop floor, must be kept out of the professional educators field. The Departments of Labour, Industry and Finance, of necessity, have only a utilitarian interest in education. Hence their philosophy of education, if they have a philosophy, must of necessity be utilitarian. This feature of the budget of which the Minister and Government are so proud is a calamity.
Cannot the Minister for Education and her Departmental officials see what is being accomplished in this budget? For instance, career guidance and counselling are being effectively choked-off. Thus the schools active task of preparation of pupils for the world of work will be taken from the educators. More funds, perhaps some of what is being saved by axing careers teachers, are now available to the Department of Labour, thus giving industry and labour direct influence on education. Industry and labour will have one interest only: to get cogs for the machines of industry. Educators will be ousted from their profession of preparing people for industry, of preparing young people for the transition from the world of school life to that of work. I say to all who are not professional educators: stay out of our schools, stay out of our educational system — I must emphasise that — hands off our educational system.
We are all proud of the fact that we have what I would describe as the best teachers in Western Europe and we are proud of them. If there is to be a tendency for any of those professional teachers to lose out as a result of this budget—I am concerned with a transfer of work training from the Department of Education to that of Labour—in effect that means that teachers in our vocational schools will be out of a job. God knows, many of them, qualified people, have been walking the streets seeking jobs for many years. Indeed, we on all sides of the House are to blame for that; I am not pinpointing or blaming any particular Government for it. That is the case and applies across the board in so far as third-level education is concerned. We have many highly-qualified people unable to obtain employment in their own country.
This budget reveals to me that the Fine Gael/Labour Government are self-hypnotised by the desire for financial stringency. I am sure they are sincere in their obsession with putting what they would call order on the State's finances, but they are simple-minded in their strategy. Alas, for our economy, for our commercial life, for the person in the street and in the fields, they are simplistic-minded. More is needed than financial stringency. Somewhere, somehow, in a harsh budget, there must be seen to be immediate improvements; all improvements cannot be in the middle or long term. There must be immediate injections to bring about instant buoyancy in some areas. From the point of view of the economy and, socially, from the point of view of our young work force and population, this immediate stimulus must be in job creation and in education for jobs. It is here the Minister for Finance's financial plan is so negative, so depressing. Savings are effected by increased taxes, inflation and labour costs. This kills initiative, rules out increased production, consigns competitiveness to the scrap heap.
The Minister for Finance said also in the course of his budget speech that the extra taxation imposed in the budget makes it imperative that progress be made in improving taxation equity and that the Government will later produce a fairer system. How do the specific taxation measures of this budget indicate that the Government will produce a fairer system? From listening to constituents of mine of all ages and income brackets I feel the real outcome of this budget will be that more people will be squeezed for more and more, with the Government putting back into the economy less and less. During the general election campaign in November last I met many low-income constituents who told me that over the years under a Fianna Fáil Government they always had more spending power, more money in their pockets than when a Coalition Government were budgeting. I see the truth of this plainly from this latest budget.
The Minister referred also to public expenditure in the course of his budget speech when he said it was imperative for the Government to reduce total public expenditure below the level decided by the Fianna Fáil Government in their plan, The Way Forward. We are told also that legislation is to be introduced under which local authorities will raise about £65 million extra revenue themselves by way of increased existing charges and new local charges. That is very vague, to say the least. I have been a member of Offaly County Council since 1966. Anybody in this House who has been a member of a local authority over the years knows their functioning. Anybody who has been a member of a local authority down the years is fully conscious of the fact that, following the abolition of rates some years ago, local authorities were left in an awkward financial situation. Naturally those moneys had to be raised in some other way. An awful lot of the income for the services of local authorities came from the Exchequer. We find now that the policy of the present Government is to refer back to those local authorities, that it is for them to raise extra revenue.
Being a member of a local authority and knowing the implications of this budget, I am well aware that the people in my county are not in a position to meet any further charges, even to maintain the existing services. The people of the country at large will not be able to meet extra charges. I do not know how any local authority will be able to raise this type of money because following this budget there will be much less money in the pockets of the people and naturally there will not be any money available for extra local authority charges.
The vague figure of £65 million represents a sizeable sum. I do not know offhand how many local authorities there are, but this sum will be a sizeable impost on each of them. The Minister for the Environment is in the House and I hope he will tell us how the local authorities will be able to meet this amount. I doubt if they will be. As I have said, it is a very vague statement to say that local authority will be able to raise the sum of £65 million in extra charges.
We have been promised more corporations and agencies. Do we not have enough of them? In another part of the budget statement the Minister spoke of eliminating schemes and programmes. Are the Coalition not contradicting themselves? The monetarist policy of Fine Gael can be detected throughout this budget. A reduction of £43 million is budgeted for in the capital restructuring of commercial semi-State bodies but I presume the Labour Party will seek more and more nationalisation.
Referring back to the programme for more corporations and agencies, I note the budget provides for steering committees in each Department to examine the feasibility of eliminating schemes and programmes. Here we are to have a new set of committees and schemes to eliminate other schemes and committees. This will only add to bureaucracy because these new committees of civil servants will find it very hard to be objective. By their nature, civil servants, as a rule, do not cut civil servants. Coalition Ministers would do well to study the underlying truth of the TV programme "Yes Minister", or to renew their acquaintance with Parkinson's Law. Their economic policies and financial strategy are aimed at emphasising reductions in expenditure.
Fianna Fáil's The Way Forward is positive because its emphasis for the public sector is to urge an increase in efficiency and production as against the stand the Coalition have taken on this subject. Although speakers from the Government side have tried to portray a budget which emphasises curbs on public expenditure the overall thrust of the budget is towards increased taxation. If it can be proved that the use of State funds by Departments, State agencies and commercial State bodies has not yielded expected adequate performance what will happen? Will the Fine Gael wing of the Coalition want private enterprise to take over, or will Labour continue in their efforts to nationalise even more?
Everyone agrees that the taxation system needs overhauling. This Government are not approaching this matter urgently. All they do is to promise. More than a year ago we had many speeches by Fine Gael and Labour Deputies prior to the formation of the last Coalition Government, promising tax reform. Now that we again have a Coalition Government we do not see anything about tax reform in the budget—again we have only more promises. By putting off what is urgent and necessary, now more than ever before, the Government are lessening the chance of tax reform ever being achieved effectively. The taxpayer needs to see this problem tackled now. It would be a much needed psychological boost to those excessively and unfairly burdened with tax, and further burdened in this budget.
The increases in taxation in this budget are bound to deepen national despondency and in hundreds of thousands of workers to kill the one thing that is necessary for economic recovery, that is, initiative. There will be no initiative left following this budget in any section of the Irish people. The more work one takes on, the more one should benefit, but that will not be so for countless workers in 1983 or for years to come if the Government are Fine Gael-dominated and remain in power.
This budget is designed to impose further taxation on incomes. It is my guess that if there are further Fine Gael-Labour budgets a similar sentence will be imposed on the workers. To achieve equity there is a vital, urgent need for tax reform but that will never come under a Coalition Government. Throughout the years the Coalition parties have talked much about tax reform, and taxpayers thought that in this budget that reform would be introduced. All they got were more promises. Rather than instilling confidence in the people, the best that can be expected from the budget is to hold the line, which means that we will remain stagnant. In economics we cannot remain static — we either grow and go forward or decline and go backwards. Fianna Fáil produced The Way Forward but this Coalition have given us only the way backwards by putting employment creation in a secondary place. Balancing the books is their main concern, an obsession with the Minister and the Government. The Coalition are ensuring that we cannot go forward. The State will expand expenditure on unemployment. In his budget speech the Minister said:
I am therefore adding £31 million to finance the additional costs of potentially higher unemployment, bringing total expenditure to £1,802 million.
The Minister saw fit in this budget to add a further £31 million to finance the additional cost of potentially higher unemployment. Those words prove that the Government have taken no initiative to deal with unemployment. They just accept that the numbers will be higher and higher. Ministers have stated openly what the unemployment figures will be in mid-June, October and November. I read them in the papers. Is that the type of Government the people need, at a time when every effort should be made to ensure that the serious and deplorable unemployment figure is reduced?
Fianna Fáil published The Way Forward and put it before the Dáil. It went before the electorate in November of last year. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of people did not accept The Way Forward. In that document we had a four-year economic plan to ensure that something would be done about unemployment. This Government have introduced a budget with no plan for this year, never mind a four-year plan. Their only forecast is that the unemployment figures will increase. Having looked at The Way Forward, and having seen the budget introduced by this Coalition Government, if the people got a chance to cast their votes now I feel very confident about where their votes would go. Under a Fianna Fáil Government with a four-year forward looking economic plan, and doing something about the desperate and deplorable unemployment figure, there would be some hope and some future particularly for the younger generation. A very large percentage of the population is under 25 years of age. That plan must be contrasted with this harshest of harsh budgets with no economic plan to solve our problems.
Initiative and practical patriotism are not encouraged or even envisaged in this budget. I should like to draw attention to progressive agencies like the Irish Sports Council and campaigns like the "Buy Irish" campaign. Not enough emphasis has been laid on the potential of a large expansion in the home market. An instance of the kind of initiative I have in mind is that of a Dublin secondary school teacher, Denis Craven who, on his own, is starting a youth crusade among our 860,000 pupils. He seeks to turn them into "Buy Irish" ambassadors.
These young people will be motivated by the fact that it £1,500 million worth of our imports were replaced by goods produced and manufactured at home approximately 60,000 new jobs would be created directly, plus many more, perhaps, in spin-off employment. This movement, if encouraged, could alter public awareness radically. This kind of initiative should be followed up by the Government and all Government Departments, and particularly the Department of Education and the Department of Finance.
There is something wrong with the economy of a country which fails to utilise its natural resources to produce goods for export, especially when it comes to the question of food and particularly vegetables, for which there will always be a foreign market. There is something radically wrong with the economy of a country which has to import food for the production of which it has all the God-given natural resources. That we do not export enough and have to import so much is nothing short of a scandal. If I had time I would deal with this problem at length. Perhaps on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture I will have an opportunity to do so.
There has to be a way to eliminate this scandal. The 1983 budget should be specific in initiating such an elimination process. I come from a rural constituency. I was a junior Minister in the Department of Agriculture for eight or nine months. This budget ensures that there is no initiative left within the farming community. I have not time to go into this matter in detail. Our agricultural sector is the strong arm of the economy. Initiatives need to be taken to solve the problems in agriculture and unemployment. In this budget there are cutbacks in all directions for the farming sector.
There are many deficiencies in this budget and they all spring from a mistaken budgetary strategy which is to put the cart before the horse, to be obsessive about bookkeeping, and remiss about the immediacy of the grave problem of rampant growth in the numbers out or work, and worse, the numbers not yet started in employment. This budget leads the way backwards. It certainly is not the way forward.
I wish first of all to refer to some general features of the budget, before going on to deal with matters relating to the Department of the Environment. There is no doubt that this has been a tough budget, involving adjustment and sacrifice right across the community. Solutions offered by the Opposition for the critical state of the national finances, or on the other hand the lack of any corrective action would, however, be far worse, more long lasting and damaging.
The Labour Party are not responsible for the state of the economy or the growth in foreign debt which we as a nation must pay for. We are, however, responsible for facing up as a partner in Government to minimising the damaging consequences of Fianna Fáil policies.
The economic crisis still persists throughout the western world. Ireland as a trading economy suffers severely from this recession. However, our room for action in the short term is severely restricted as a result of the reckless policies of both the old and recent Fianna Fáil Governments since 1977.
No solutions would be easy, given our balance of payments deficit and the level of our foreign debt reflected in the £500 million which we had to pay abroad in interest last year. In 1982, total debt service accounted for 36 per cent of total tax revenue. If the rate of increase of foreign borrowing in recent years were to be maintained, eventually either funds would not be available from lenders, the interest payments impossible to service, or solutions would be imposed by outside banks or agencies which would have a totally devastating effect on growth and living standards. That is the legacy of five years of Fianna Fáil mismanagement of our country.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is it in order for the Opposition benches to be completely deserted?
The Chair can do nothing about it unless the Tánaiste requests a quorum.
It speaks for itself. Now, it is evident that a heavy burden will fall on consumers and PAYE taxpayers this year. However, some progress is being made in widening the scope of other taxes aimed at those who can afford to pay, in strengthening measures against tax evaders and penalising offenders. We must remember that, by contrast with the major scandal of tax evasion and the unremitting efforts of the rich in conceiving tax avoidance schemes, abuses of the social welfare system are minor in the extreme.
I am aware of the vital necessity to obtain a greater share of revenue from capital taxation. The abolition of the wealth tax in 1978 by Fianna Fáil, the abolition of rates and the earlier removal of estate duties were not replaced by comparable schemes for capital taxation. For the future, it is essential for any serious approach to tax equity that practical, workable schemes for increasing the yield from capital taxation be devised and implemented. This will involve the setting in place of the required administrative structures for effective implementation. Protests from vested interests will not be a barrier to the pursuit of equity in our taxation structure.
I have already referred to limitations imposed on action in the budget this year brought about by past policies and the need to contain the rate of growth in borrowing. These realities provide the framework for pay negotiations this year, set harsh limits on the public expenditure options, make increased taxation inevitable and limit what can be done in the public capital programme. The Fianna Fáil Party have been relentlessly advocating a planned deficit of £750 million. Given their continued rejection in office of capital taxation, this could only mean heavier taxation on consumers and PAYE taxpayers, accompanied by more expenditure cuts.
Many difficult choices faced the Government in the limited time available for framing the budget. It is important to note, however, some of the options rejected. Food items, clothing, footwear, school books, ESB bills are entirely exempt from value added tax. The new high rates on many items should be seen in the light of the fact that a significant proportion of what ordinary consumers buy is completely exempt from VAT. In addition, subsidies on bread, milk and butter which are costly to maintain but which are particularly important for low-income households will be continued.
The Government have, of course, made increased allocations for expenditure in key areas, for example, for local authorities, and provisions for social welfare increases in June which, while they are less than we would have wished, are significant given the overall constraints of the budget. In addition, a family income supplement scheme to benefit workers on low incomes will be instituted, the Combat Poverty Agency reactivated, special provisions made for housing the elderly and an additional £3 million provided for official development aid.
Unemployment remains the central issue in the lives of many of our citizens. On account of the consequences of reckless past policies, the main emphasis in this budget has been to stop the drain of resources — resources vitally necessary for the creation of productive, sustainable jobs.
A special task force of Ministers has been established to tackle the problems of growth and employment and a national planning board will be instituted. These will be aided by sectoral committees in each area of economic activity which will bring together Government, workers, management and farming interests in a joint employment planning exercise aimed to maximise output and employment. The National Development Corporation will be funded adequately to fulfil their role as a major vehicle for job creation in Ireland through direct State investment in profitable commercial projects. We have to get the structures, the sense of direction and the legislation right in order to establish the corporation properly and provide for the effective performance of existing State commercial firms.
Funding will not be a problem, when suitable new projects are identified and the appropriate operating framework established.
Funding will not be a problem, when suitable new projects are identified and the appropriate operating framework established.
I now turn to issues relating to my own Department. I will deal, first of all, with local finance. Since taking office, I have been conscious of the difficulties which local authorities have been experiencing in trying to maintain employment and keep their day-to-day services functioning. The income which local authorities derive from rates and rates-related grants such as the domestic rates relief grant and the agricultural grant, is what dictates their capacity to provide the normal day-to-day services which the community expect from their local authorities. It is essential that this income be kept at a reasonable level. These services include the operation of water and sewerage systems, the fire service, public lighting, refuse collection, maintenance of local authority houses and repair and maintenance of county roads. These services are vital to the life and well-being of the local communities.
The picture I found when I assumed office did not inspire confidence for the future of those local services and employment. The previous administration had identified a shortfall of £97 million between what local authorities were expected to spend in 1983 and their revenue resources. They ignored £20 million of this shortfall altogether and put a further £19 million on the long finger to be considered in the context of the budget.
I regarded this situation as most unsatisfactory and potentially disastrous for the whole structure of local finances. In particular, the previous administration failed to come up with specific proposals to bridge £39 million of the overall shortfall of £97 million. I am particularly pleased that despite the severe constraints under which we were working, we were able in this budget to show a positive resolve to tackle the real problems which local authorities are experiencing in maintaining their services and employment. In particular, I draw attention to the substantial increase in the provisions for payments to local authorities in lieu of domestic and agricultural rates.
The total amount which will be paid to local authorities in 1983 by way of the rates support grants will be £277.5 million, which represents an increase of £31.5 million over what had been provided in the Estimates prepared by the previous Government and an increase of over £50 million, or over 22 per cent, on the amount paid in 1982. I should say that this additional £31.5 million will be disbursed in a manner which confers the maximum discretion on local authorities. The grants will be made available as a general support for their day-to-day services, to be spent as local authorities see fit, in accordance with their own spending programmes and priorities.
Apart from money provided through the rates relief grants, local authorities collect revenue from such sources as rates on industrial and commercial property, charges for services provided, development levies and fees. It is our aim to create the conditions where local authorities will be able to raise an additional sum totalling about £65 million in 1983 from these sources..
I should emphasise that this £65 million is a target set by the Government so as to determine the limits of the Exchequer contribution to local services. It is not my intention to impose blanket charges on local authorities. The circumstances, financial and otherwise, of each local authority vary significantly throughout the country. My approach, therefore, will be to allow local authorities the maximum discretion and flexibility to determine their own spending and revenue patterns and to restore some of the freedom they have lost in recent years in this regard. This will mean varying charges and rates of charges in different local authority areas, depending on the local circumstances. However, to give Deputies an indication of the Government's thinking in the matter, I propose to spell out how the Government saw the £65 million being raised.
In the first place, local authorities continue to levy rates on commercial and industrial ratepayers and increases in those rates would normally be expected to arise. It was estimated that rate increases would yield about £13 million in 1983. However, in line with my policy of conferring maximum discretion on local authorities, I propose to depart from the practice of recent years by not issuing directives to local authorities regarding the level of these rates.
Secondly, local authorities have sources of income other than rates which were estimated to have netted them about £166 million in 1982. These sources of income include charges for services, rents of houses, house loan repayments, superannuation contributions, and so on. It was estimated that local authorities might be expected to increase these sources by about £43 million in 1983. Some increases are automatic. For example, repayments of new house loans advanced should increase in line with loans issued. Similar automatic increases will apply in relation to house sales, and superannuation contributions. However the target of £43 million will require some new charges. An example is water supplied for domestic purposes in urban areas. The position at present is that local authorities in rural areas commonly charge for the supply of water to householders but there are no charges for domestic water in urban areas.
It is my intention to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency to confer a wide general discretionary power on local authorities to charge for services where they lack the power at present. This would enable those local authorities who wish to do so, to extend the range of charges they make, including a charge for domestic water in urban areas. I should mention that the previous Government in their publication last October, The Way Forward, and elsewhere, had indicated their intention to charge the cost of services directly to developers and to the users of those services in the form of charges.
I am also conscious of the need to have a greater proportion of the cost of development borne by those involved directly in development. I have recently made regulations under the 1982 Planning Act providing for a scale of fees to be charged for processing planning applications which is expected to yield £5.5 million this year. I also propose to examine the question of enabling the planning authorities to increase the yield from development levies fixed by them when granting permission for development. It is estimated that development levies would yield an additional £4 million to local authorities in 1983.
The package we have put together will have a significant effect on the budgets of local authorities. It will be a matter for the local authorities themselves to work out the detailed arrangements in the light of their own financial circumstances. Deputies will, no doubt, agree that at the present very difficult time these measures represent a positive and effective contribution to local services and employment. It will, nevertheless, be essential for local authorities to monitor and control expenditure carefully, and to attain the maximum efficiency possible in their operations.
I want to turn now to the building industry which will be a priority concern of mine in the years ahead. The building industry is of central importance to the economy, first, because of the size of its output and the employment it gives and, secondly, because of its central role in providing the necessary physical infrastructure for economic and social development. Unfortunately, the general trend in the industry over the past few years has been downward with falling output and reduced employment. There are a number of reasons for this state of affairs. The worldwide recession has been a major cause, but this has been compounded by the erosion of confidence, resulting from the economic difficulties facing the country.
Debate adjourned.