Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Feb 1984

Vol. 347 No. 9

Financial Resolutions, 1984. - Financial Resolution No. 11: 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.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): The budget has been described as a non-event not alone by this side of the House but in some sections of the media. Listening to the contributions from the Government benches, one would imagine that there has been a big reduction in unemployment, but the January figures indicate that unemployment has increased by 7,000. The Minister for the Environment told us about a major achievement last year, with a substantial reduction in inflation, a massive improvement in the balance of payments and a significant increase in industrial output. He said that there has been a slowing down in the growth in unemployment. Of course he was not aware at that time of the increase in the figure. He told us that the budget strategy will ensure a continuation of this. One does not know whether he means a growth in unemployment or an upturn in employment. He said the budget would create a climate for job creation.

The building trade has never been so bad. Thousands of men have been laid off since the Government took office and the remainder are on a three-day week or a week on and a week off. People who have worked all their lives in the building trade say it has never been in such a depressed state.

There does not seem to be any plan in the budget to encourage people to be set up in business. Some Government Departments should take responsibility to improve the food industry. Fewer food items bearing the Irish brand can be seen in shops here today than those processed in Britain and continental countries. I do not think the Government have seen the need to develop small industries because they have done nothing in this respect in the past year. They say it is impossible to attract foreign industry at a time when we should be encouraging new industries, and our own people particularly. It is unfortunate that if our people set up businesses they will be crippled with taxation and the high rate of VAT. They will simply become tax collectors.

Since the Government took office the Revenue Commissioners have been behaving like vultures. They are snooping into people's businesses. The same can be said about social welfare inspectors who are moving into businesses, particularly in regard to the small farmers. Their actions could be described as an infringement of privacy. Senator Higgins of Fine Gael recently expressed his concern about this in a statement to the media. I would remind him that this has been happening since the present Government took office.

We on this side of the House did not object to the introduction of the youth levy because we thought the Government were sincere, that the levy would be used to increase youth employment. However, £11½ million from the fund has been transferred to balance the Government's books, all of it deducted from the pay packets of those who work, and contributed by employers, for the sole purpose of creating youth employment. The Taoiseach said on one occasion that the creation of jobs was a priority of the Government but he also said that their priority was to reduce our debt, and that unemployment would have to wait.

Many people are concerned about crime and vandalism, particularly in our cities. The high incidence of crime and unemployment are interlinked. Young people who are unemployed become depressed. Since the Government took office they see no hope for the future. The Government put an embargo on recruitment in the public service and as a result vacancies are not being filled. Even recruitment to the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána has been stopped. I hope this will not give rise to a situation we had under a former Coalition Government of one-man squad cars. At that time there were many squad cars and motor cycles parked outside Garda stations with nobody to use them. When Fianna Fáil came back to office they changed all that. They had a massive Garda recruitment campaign. There was an increase in the number of gardaí on the street and squad cars were manned by two gardaí.

I was born in the west and I am very disappointed that the Government did not allocate the required £3½ million to complete Knock Airport. Many people, particularly business people, looked forward to the opening of this airport. One of our biggest meat exporters is located in the west. He was particularly disappointed at the Government's decision. Monsignor Horan has done great work since he was appointed to Knock. He turned Knock into an international shrine and he was responsible for bringing the Pope to this country. The Government have shown no appreciation for all the work he has done. He uplifted the west. If the airport was completed thousands of people would come and it would be a great boost for tourism. People who wished to see Knock would have been able to travel directly to it. It seems as if the Government are not concerned about the people in the west.

As regards social welfare payments, when a husband deserts a wife and she can prove that she does not know where he is she is entitled to deserted wife's benefit. That is not the case where a wife's deserts a husband. In this case the husband is penalised since he is taxed as a single man. In my constituency there is a case where a wife deserted a husband and left him with seven young children. He is responsible for rearing and educating the children. He is taxed as a single man. I hope the Minister will look into this matter because it is a serious problem. In the past we heard a lot about discrimination against women but this is a case of discrimination against a man simply because he is a man. I hope the Minister will do something about this.

Our industrial and business outlets are unable to compete with those in Northern Ireland, England and other European countries. Deputy McGahon, in a statement to the press recently, expressed his concern about the number of coaches going through his constituency on their way to the North. I share his concern. According to reports, people from the South spend £2½ million per week in the North. The Deputy should have thought about that before walking into the Government lobbies and voting for this budget, which will increase the number of people travelling to the North. The 8 per cent VAT on clothing will ensure that more people will travel to the North. The increase in the number of clothing industries which were forced to close here in the last year is quite evident. This number will increase now that people will have to pay 8 per cent VAT on clothes.

We hear great talk from the Government side about the increase in social welfare payments. The 7 per cent increase becomes effective from 1 July while increases in income tax are effective overnight. It has been suggested by Government speakers that there is only limited scope in the present economic climate for tax concessions. The cutbacks in social welfare and in medical cards is a regular occurrence. I recall the outburst by the Minister for Health when the then Minister, Deputy Woods, announced a reduction in the number of items available on the medical card. He made this reduction because he was aware of abuses. The present Minister described his action as outrageous. He said it was a war against the poor and the working class and that when his party came to power they would restore medical cards to old people.

The decision by the Eastern Health Board to transfer one of the dentists who operates in Ballymun is of great concern to the local people. This matter was raised during the week. I know the Deputy who raised it was ruled out of order. I hope I am in order in bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister now. As a result of this decision there is only one dentist to look after the whole area of Ballymun which has a population equivalent to that of three counties.

Although there are two dentists there, there is a long waiting list for treatment and the decision of the Minister and of the Eastern Health Board will increase out of all proportion the number of people on the waiting list. I am appealing to the Minister to have this matter examined with a view to the permanent appointment of a replacement dentist to serve the people of Ballymun. People who have inquired from the Eastern Health Board about the situation have been informed that because of Government cutbacks only one dentist will be available for the Ballymun area but that there will be another dentist operating on an on-off basis. That is not an acceptable situation.

While Fianna Fáil were in power and while Deputy Woods was Minister for Health every person reaching the age of 65 had automatic entitlement to a medical card and the same situation applied to students, but now, despite the high costs involved for parents in sending their children to second and third level education, medical cards are to be withdrawn from students. It is true that the facility was not used extensively by young people but the explanation from the Government side is rather strange. Some people opposite have said that parents who can afford to send their children to second or third level education must be rich and, consequently, in a position to pay for medical services for their children. That is a peculiar explanation from a Government who are supposed to be a caring Government and who promised to look after the less well off. Apart from the loss of the medical card facility, most students now have to pay the full cost of school transport. One must compare this situation with the record of Fianna Fáil in the field of education. Fianna Fáil in Government introduced free education. Since the coming into office of this Government there has been an increase, too, in the fees in respect of the leaving certificate examination.

It is obvious from the budget speech that the Government have no financial or economic targets. We must all be seriously concerned with what happened on the Stock Exchange last week. That financial crisis was an indication of a serious lack of confidence in the Government. It is for the Minister to ascertain the areas in which there are tax loopholes but he must decide where lie the best interests of the Exchequer. At all times the Irish money market must be strengthened and developed and be seen as a basis of trust and confidence.

The Minister for Finance tells us repeatedly that our level of foreign borrowing is too high and that the Government are trying to reduce the budget deficit at the rate at which they are committed to reducing it. Continually, they blame Fianna Fáil for the whole problem in relation to borrowing and several members of the Government have stated that our party in Government were responsible for creating the high deficits. Because of these accusations I was pleased that our leader, Deputy Haughey, was able to come here and give facts and figures to clarify the situation. He was able to tell us, for instance, that between 1974 and 1976 the debt rose by between 80 and 90 per cent. These were years in which another Coalition were in power. They were years during which budget debts and borrowing soared.

The high rates of VAT and excise duties are a matter of great concern especially in the business and industrial world. Such a situation provides no encouragement to employers to give employment. The television and radio business is collapsing. Many outlets in that trade are being forced to close as a result of the high VAT rates and high excise duty. On a recent television programme we heard that the excise duty on a television set here is £120 and that in addition VAT at 23 per cent must be charged on the total. This puts the price of an ordinary television set up to double the price at which it can be purchased in the North.

A similar situation prevails in the motor trade. The number of people involved in that trade has reduced drastically in the past year. In Great Britain and in Northern Ireland there are two rates of VAT whereas there are at least four in this country. Our high rates of VAT are destroying any incentive there might be for people to stay in business. The increase in the price of petrol will mean an increase also in the cost of living generally. Many of my constituents tell me they find since the budget that foodstuffs are increasing daily. Obviously, the increased cost of delivering goods consequent on the increased petrol prices is in turn being passed on to the customer.

The number of closures in the business world has had a big impact on employment. The Minister should have had regard to this and should have to some extent reduced the VAT rates and the excise duty. He should now review the situation. When Fianna Fáil were in Government they set up a warning system that was designed to give an indication of firms who were experiencing difficulty. I do not know whether that system is being operated. In the past year or so some long-established firms have gone to the wall. In Cork alone the situation has been very bad with the closure of Fords and of Dunlops. There has been the closure also of the Scarriff chipboard factory, of Clondalkin Paper Mills and of Ranks Flour Mills. Exceptional efforts should have been made by the Government to prevent these industries from closing. We now have a situation in which all our paper, chipboard and flour requirements are imported. I am reliably informed that the reason Ranks decided to close here was that they could import flour £20 per tonne cheaper and they were not prepared to remain open. The proprietors and management of industry have a duty to employees and to the community to make every effort to keep industry going. The Government share that responsibility.

When Fine Gael and Labour came into Government unemployment was around 170,000 and in their joint programme they promised to deal with the problem. In a statement issued at that time the Taoiseach said unemployment was the first priority for the Government. We have heard about the task force to deal with unemployment but we wonder what it is doing. Since this Government took office the unemployment figure has increased by 45,000.

The Government are concerned only with a bookkeeping exercise and this was obvious in the case of £11,500,000 that was supposed to create jobs for young people. Instead, it was transferred to the Government to help them to balance the books. The Coalition parties must be aware of their unpopularity with the public even though the recent poll might have indicated to them that they were making progress. I have no confidence in these polls. The real indicator was the result of the Dublin Central by-election. This was an area in which the Labour Party held a seat for many years but in that election they were in fifth place behind the Communist Party. That must be a matter of grave concern to the Labour Party members in Government. It was an indication of what the people thought of the Labour Party and of their performance in Government. I have no doubt that the result of that by-election was the real reason for the postponement of the local elections.

The general opinion is that this budget was an non-event. It reminded me of a magician who comes out on stage empty-handed, after a few minutes on stage he produces various items such as coloured handkerchiefs, pigeons and rabbits but at the end of the show all these things disappear and the magician walks away empty-handed, the same as when he came on stage. That is the way I would describe this budget.

Minister for Education (Mrs. Hussey)

I wish to respond to some of the points made by Deputy Barrett. Quite rightly he mentioned the concern that there might be discrimination against anyone in the social welfare system on grounds of sex and I share that concern. I would point out that the Government have indicated clearly — and the Minister for Finance also indicated this in this debate — their intention to implement the EEC directive on the equalisation of social welfare. This will be enacted by way of legislation before the end of the year, thus complying in full with the EEC directive. The Deputy was quite right to say unintentional areas of discrimination that arise as a result of a provision to deal with one problem should be ironed out. He said that there were cuts in medical cards for the old and for the young. I must remind the Deputy that in the budget speech it was announced that far from cuts in medical cards for the elderly a special allowance is being introduced for them. In the income guidelines for medical cards there is a special allowance of £5 for a single person aged 66 years and over and £8 if the person is over 80 years. For a married couple there is a special allowance in the income guidelines of £10 for those aged 66 years and over and £16 for those aged over 80 years.

Deputy Barrett mentioned the case of people whose children heretofore travelled free on school transport. Those charges were designed by Fianna Fáil but without the special hardship provisions on which I insisted. Deputy Barrett is once more engaging in the Fianna Fáil tradition of turning their back on their own Estimates. With regard to examination fees which were referred to by the Deputy, when Fianna Fáil increased the examination fees they did so without any hardship fund which I introduced this year for the first time.

The Deputy referred to the £11,500,000 transferred to the educational system from the Youth Employment Agency. It is important to point out that this sum went into the area of pre-employment courses in the vocational system. These courses are directly related to the work of the Youth Employment Agency and are most necessary if young people are to have a chance of finding work. That is a very good use for those funds.

I believe that the 1984 budget will make an important contribution to regulating our financial affairs and at the same time allowing for the gradual but steady improvement in our economic fortunes. It has been described — by the Minister for Finance himself — as a "neutral" budget. It represents a finely tuned balance between the many demands to be met, many of which are in perpetual potential conflict with one another.

Of course, there will be criticisms — no budget can avoid that. We are all familiar enough with the many calls on Government for a special hearing, motivated — not necessarily improperly — by the particular interests of the group in question. Some would have us spend more; others less. Some would have us tax more or in another way; others cry for an easing of the tax burden. Amidst the myriad demands the Government must walk the tightrope and exercise a considered judgment about which policies to pursue.

It is, of course, widely recognised that the scope for manoeuvre in financial decision-making is greatly constrained — principally because of our massive debt problems which others have wished upon us. We are all only too conscious of the calls to cut public spending — and that is an option to be grappled with if we are to achieve the room to allow for tax reform. Yet no one should underestimate the difficulties which trying to cut public spending pose — and I do not mean political difficulties or the problem of facing unpopular decisions.

Having sat at the Cabinet table with my colleagues and looked very closely at all areas of spending I know only too well where the money is going and I also know how much that money is needed and the extent to which the services provided are depended upon by so many people. I am particularly conscious, for instance, of how much this is the case in my own area of special responsibility — education. It is all very well to talk of having to cut back, as many Fianna Fáil Deputies said, on large spending Departments such as Education but one cannot send children away saying that we cannot afford to educate them until times are better. I have heard the calls for less overall spending often enough but I do not hear people prepared to identify which educational services we can afford to do without. As a people, we rightly value our educational system. Although I am convinced that everyone wants the best service possible, I also know that everyone will agree that we must have the most efficient system possible, and that means planning our priorities carefully.

The budget itself is the final piece of the jigsaw which reveals the overall financial intentions of the Government. The specific proposals announced by the Minister for Finance on budget day must be judged in association with provisions in the Book of Estimates and the Public Capital Programme. This is where I believe the careful balance can be seen at work for 1984. We have moved in the direction of making some crucial and necessary reforms, yet have planned spending in such a way as to protect essential services and basic living standards — and above all to protect employment. In many cases, particularly education once again, cost-cutting would lead to a loss of jobs and thus this option has not been taken. At the same time spending must be curtailed within the obvious limits imposed by what the country can afford, that is, by what the taxpayer has the will, or should be asked, to pay for.

It is fitting at this time to look at how the education system is faring. Let me assure all as we enter 1984 that the education system is alive and well and receiving a generous share of the nation's financial cake. Twenty years ago public funding on education amounted to £25.4 million representing 14.8 per cent of total public expenditure. This year we will be spending a nett £924 million on education, or 16.5 per cent of total Government expenditure. This is well above average on any international comparison. That we have reached this level of funding of education is a tribute to successive Governments who saw a well educated people as potentially our greatest national asset.

By way of further comparison, I was struck recently by some statistics from the 1966 population census. At that time some 60 per cent of the adult population had only primary education, and only 73,000 in all had any third level qualification. Current figures for direct comparison are not available but the progress made since then may be gauged from the level of attainment of those leaving the education system in 1982. Of the 62,000 who left school in that year, 5,500 had no qualification, 16,600 had reached group or intermediate certificate and a high 64 per cent or 39,900 leavers, had reached leaving certificate. Thirty eight per cent of those completing leaving certificate last year have proceeded to third level programmes. This is a quite remarkable level of transfer to third level education. Ten years ago it was about 26 per cent but at that time the number completing the leaving certificate was only half the current numbers. As a result, we now have over 11,000 students annually leaving the education system with a third level qualification. These increased student outputs at second and third level have been part of a quite dramatic increase in enrolments—student numbers in second level schools increased from 143,000 in 1966 to 325,000 in 1983 and from 20,700 to 47,000 in third level institutions. Of particular importance is that the development of the third level sector has focused attention on ensuring our capacity to meet the economy's demand for technicians and technologists. It may be of interest to know that about 70 per cent of all students in third level aided institutions, other than colleges of education, now follow science or engineering or commercial programmes.

The figures I have given above will illustrate that we are now at a point where the education system is quantitatively well-developed. Further quantitative development is likely to be at a much more modest pace, generally in line with population growth. Overall we may expect enrolment growth of about 5 per cent over the next five years, though with the possibility of much higher growth in percentage terms at the third level. I should say that we cannot predict with any certainty the degree to which the present high transfer rates to third level will continue — for example, whether they will be affected by improved job prospects for leaving certificants in the future. However, let me make one thing quite clear. The Government intend to make third level education available to as many young people as possible and in doing this will give special emphasis to science and technology. They are already giving ample evidence of this commitment.

Construction of the second phase of the development of the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick is well advanced and when completed will double the capacity of the institute. The further development of the NIHE in Dublin has also been approved to provide an additional 400 places. A succeeding phase of development will add a further 1,000 places.

As the House will be aware, a £7 million development for Tralee Regional Technical College has recently been approved. Planning of extensions to the Dublin Colleges of Technology in Kevin Street and Bolton Street is now well advanced while planning of a new College of Marketing and Design is underway. These developments will meet inadequacies in existing accommodation but will also provide an extra 1,200 places. Arrangements are now being finalised for the acquisition of a site for the regional technical college in Blanchardstown. Sites have been acquired already in Tallaght and Dún Laoghaire and planning of the colleges for these three locations will commence this year. The three colleges would provide between them 3,000 new places. A review of accommodation needs at existing regional technical colleges is underway.

I have already assured the authorities of Cork Regional Technical College that planning of an extension will commence as soon as the present constructive dialogue with them indicates the additional accommodation needed. All of these projects have as their major aim the provision of additional places. There will be other projects approved according as the financial capacity to meet them is determined in the context of the overall Public Capital Programme. What this Government will not do is to embark on projects or promise projects with a total disregard for the financial consequences.

As part of a Government effort to determine where we are going in all sectors, a full costing of all proposed third level projects was undertaken, both for designated institutions under the HEA and non-designated institutions. We came up with a startling £240 million as the amount required for these projects by 1990. In view of this it would be irresponsible to proceed on the basis that funds would be available for all of these projects in the short-term, no matter how desirable they may be individually. At least now we have a picture which will enable us with the HEA to establish priorities, with special emphasis on the provision of new places, when the level of possible funding is known later this year.

I would like to turn now to another aspect of educational provision, and, I venture to say, a much more important element at this stage, that of the quality of our education service. Here my expectations are high in view of two important recent events — the establishment of the Curriculum and Examinations Board and the publication of the Government's Action Programme for Education.

I consider the Government are fortunate to have as chairman of the Curriculum and Examinations Board the talented and energetic Dr. Walsh of the NIHE, Limerick, and to have persuaded a wide range of expertise in education among the members who have already set about their task in an exemplary manner which inspired me with confidence in the future of their work. In regard to the Action Programme for Education, the input by educational bodies was extraordinary and dedicated. I would like to express my gratitude for their help. Both of these developments are interrelated.

The Programme for Action has identified areas requiring particular attention which will come within the remit of the new board. I am confident that the board will address these matters speedily and effectively. I should say here in the context of the Programme for Action that we are stressing planning and action as a continuum. Within an overall strategy we will be taking action in priority areas, advised as appropriate by the Curriculum and Examinations Board. What are these priority areas? They are detailed in the Programme for Action and I would urge all concerned with education to study the programme carefully. Let me try to summarise my priority concerns.

Caring for the disadvantaged must have first call on our attention and our resources. By disadvantaged within the education sector I mean, first, those who are mentally and physically handicapped. The action programme details positive action which will be taken to assist the mentally handicapped in developing their full educational potential. An important factor which has emerged from recent studies is that the tailoring of curricula to individual needs but, more importantly, the availability of highly qualified specialist teachers can help even those who are severely mentally handicapped. Needless to say, the ongoing and proposed action to provide a more effective educational service for the mentally handicapped has my full support. We have the benefit of a recent Departmental report on the education of physically handicapped children and a number of the measures recommended have already been implemented. The question of implementing other specific measures will be kept under review. On a more general basis, the question of suitable access for the physically handicapped has been made an absolute requirement in the planning of all new schools.

Secondly, there are those who are educationally disadvantaged. This is a problem which has many faces and one on which our information base is not as good as it should be if we are to take informed decision. In general such children would be classified as in need of special remedial attention whether at the primary or post-primary level. The possible reasons are diverse: it may be because the child has a low ability level, but, alternatively, it may be because of poor motivation or attendance due to personal apathy arising perhaps from emotional problems, or adverse peer-group influence or, more commonly, unfavourable home backgrounds. It may be because the child has a physical handicap (dyslexia, or short-sightedness or minor hearing impairment etc.) though this factor because of general awareness is likely to be a declining problem. Failure of a child to achieve basic literacy and numeracy skills at primary level may cause that child to drop out at the post-primary level or to become a truant or to be turned off even if still remaining at school. Indeed the question of the degree to which the education process itself may turn-off some children who never achieve their full educational potential must be faced.

I referred above to the 5,500 children who left school in 1982 without any qualification. I would consider that we had failed if we did not address the needs of children such as these more effectively within the period of the Programme for Action. The factors I have mentioned above are illustrative only of the diversity of cause which may lie at the root of educational disadvantage. Many worth-while steps have been taken to address the problem and I applaud all such efforts.

What we are talking about now is a wider orchestration and more concerted action to address the problem at all levels. I shall explain briefly what I mean. A better link between school and home is paramount. This consideration extends far beyond that of educational disadvantage. Parents are the primary educators and must be afforded an effective voice in the education of their children. The proposed establishment of a National Parents Council and the wider involvement of parents in boards of management will be important steps. I will be consulting with the parents council in due course as to further appropriate steps.

Action in this area may not go far enough, however, in identifying special home problems. I am aware that some other countries have brought social workers within the education system to forge a link between the school and in particular the problem home. We shall be looking at what our resources may allow us to do in that area. The second consideration is to improve our assessment techniques so that we may identify potential problems at the earliest possible time. This question is being addressed in my Department who are also identifying more precisely the various target groups.

The third consideration is the degree to which the education process itself may help to alleviate educational disadvantage. I have already asked the Curriculum and Examinations Board to report urgently in this area. What they will be examining will be alternative forms of curricula and teaching programmes. The Humanities programme of the Curriculum Unit under the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee is a very useful example of such a programme. Combined with this they will be examining alternative forms of assessment, including the use of project work, and will devise a new unified assessment system to replace the group and intermediate certificates. I am quite excited at the prospects these developments will open up not only for the disadvantaged but in enhancing motivation and indeed sense of achievement generally.

There is another form of disadvantage to be considered, that arising from discrimination in any form. The Hannon report on sex differentation has clarified just how widespread the problem is. I am personally committed to tackling this problem and the immediate measures proposed are set out in the Programme for Action. Other measures are under study in my Department. The most basic consideration, however, is an attitudinal one and we must all combine to redress sex stereotying inside and outside the school.

There is also the question of social discrimination. We all welcome the recent publication of Drs. Greaney and Kellaghan's study on educational opportunities in the context of the different socio-economic groups. The study makes a valuable contribution to the literature and assists in providing a better perspective on the problem. But a problem does exist to the extent in particular that there is quite a low level of participation by the lower socio-economic groups in third-level education. As the Programme for Action notes, the problem is not unique to Ireland and has not proved easily amenable to change. It is one, nevertheless, which must receive special attention during the period of the Programme for Action.

Finally on the subject of disadvantaged, if I may extend its scope somewhat, I should like to talk briefly about those who terminate their education at the end of the compulsory cycle or who proceed beyond that to leaving certificate programmes which are not geared to their needs. Again I shall be looking forward to the advice of the Curriculum and Examinations Board on: (i) the most appropriate form of education for those terminating formal schooling at the end of the compulsory cycle; and (ii) alternatives to the traditional leaving certificate programmes whether in the form of pre-employment courses of varying duration or any other form. What I am referring to here is establishing a better interface between schools and the world of work. Indeed, I do not see this as a one-way movement. I shall be strongly urging that business and schools should establish a two-way dialogue to their mutual benefit and that these links should be further extended and strengthened in higher education.

I have talked at some length about the question of the disadvantaged. In listing the problem areas I would wish to repeat my opening statement. The education system is alive and well and we can be justly proud of our achievements. I have detailed the problems of the disadvantaged in the Programme for Action which states as follows:

Priority in the use of available resources will be accorded to a programme to assist disadvantaged pupils. The funds will be used to finance additional teaching posts, the development of curricular initiatives, special improvement and equipment grants, special in-service courses, special grants towards the cost of school books and requisites and the development of home school links.

It will have been clear from what I have said, however, that much of the action required is not one of resources but of better orientation of programmes and teaching.

From the wide variety of other questions addressed in the Programme for Action I should like to make specific reference to two. I have mentioned the need for closer home-school links and a better link between the school and the world of work. The third element in this scenario is the role of the school in preparing students to take their place in society. I believe I cannot overstress this aspect of education. The school cannot perform this role effectively on its own and it reinforces the need for a partnership in education, school authorities, teachers, parents, business, and, let me add, students.

The fostering of our linguistic and cultural heritage, which as the Programme for Action points out should be at the core of our education system, would form a major strand in preparing students for life. In the curriculum context preparation of students for life will need to be supported by a programme of social and political education. I have asked the Curriculum and Examinations Board to prepare such a programme. I should add that I am also seeking a programme in health education and it could well be asked how time can be found for such subjects in an already congested curriculum. I believe it suggests that we should be looking afresh at our curricula, to define them in terms of objectives in which subjects could be comprehended within broader bands at the intermediate level: for example social studies to include history, geography and social and political education, a new creative arts programme to include woodwork, metal work, arts and crafts, home economics and health education etc. Specialisation would not then commence until after compulsory education.

I offer these comments in a tentative way as one possible approach; The Curriculum and Examinations Board will be reporting to me in due course as to what provision is appropriate and how it can be provided. I shall in addition be urging school authorities to foster the concept of preparation for life in all aspects of school activities. This would take in the involvement of students to the maximum extent in managing school activities and in a better process of consultation whether through a student council or whatever mechanism of consultation may be found to be appropriate.

The other question is that of delegation of authority. I am anxious to see as much responsibility and authority as possible delegated to the local level as part of an overall effort to achieve a full partnership between all the interests involved in education. Greater freedom will be given progressively to schools in the development of alternative curricula and programmes. Greater freedom will also be given in the expenditure of allocated funds subject to overall norms and guidelines. The development of these norms and guidelines is a subject to which the Department will be addressing themselves over the next twelve months. In this context also I shall in due course be announcing the appointment of a team of consultants to carry out a study of costs in third-level institutions as an aid in allocating resources and their more effective use.

Inevitably I must return to the somewhat painful subject of limitations on resources. We simply cannot expect a significantly greater share of total resources to be devoted to education. This means that we must husband our resources more effectively if we are to achieve our targets in the priority areas we have identified.

There are very compelling reasons for re-examining the use of our educational resources. At the post-primary level, if we are to achieve equality of educational opportunity for all, if we are to make adequate curricular provision particularly in the context of emerging new needs at the post-compulsory stage, then we must look at the total resources collectively in each school catchment area so as to cater for the needs of all children equally and equitably. We have a rich diversity in our school provision but we must ensure that this does not result in discrimination against some.

At the third-level the Programme for Action has identified a wide variety of areas where scope exists for more effective use of resources and these will form the basis for a series of consultations and analysis in the near future. The cost studies I have referred to earlier will be part of the input required to ensure that well-informed decisions are taken. I should add that it is in everyone's interest if we can find a more cost efficient base for each of our third-level programmes. It must surely enable us to provide a better educational service within acceptable limits of resources. It must also reduce the financial burden to be shared between the community generally and our third-level students. This is particularly important as we appear to be reaching a stage where students must bear an increasing share of the escalating cost of third level programmes.

In conclusion let me confirm what the Government are already demonstrating by their actions. They will provide the resources to meet the growth in enrolments in primary and post-primary schools and to replace unsatisfactory buildings on a phased basis. Similarly the Government are committed to necessary third level development, on the basis of priorities which will be determined on an ongoing basis. Within this context the path we will follow has been charted in the Programme for Action.

I should stress that this is not only my Programme for Action. It is the Government's programme. Despite major constraints, despite major funding problems, the Government have through the budgetary provisions maintained the high level of funding for education to ensure that the programme will be implemented progressively. They have already taken positive steps by allocating additional resources of £7.0 million to launch the programme this year. This additional allocation was agreed in the course of the discussions on the Estimates for my Department, supplemented by the additional funds provided within the budget. These funds provide £4.4 million for primary schools to speed up the replacement of unsatisfactory buildings and by way of increased capitation grants, £1.5 million to secondary schools in the form of higher grants in lieu of school fees, £0.5 million for micro-computers for second-level schools an extra £0.3 million for sport and an additional £165,000 for inservice training of teachers. Funding in priority areas will continue to be provided.

I would like to repeat, however, what I have said earlier. Much of what the programme seeks to achieve does not require additional resources. We have identified as a result of an extensive series of discussions, with all interested parties the aspects of our education system which need to be addressed in a new and more concentrated way. We are also looking for a better use of resources so that we can provide the best possible educational service for our nation's children.

Discussions will continue on an ongoing basis. Some fundamental issues must be resolved concerning particularly the age of entry to school, the age of transfer to second-level education and the duration of the junior and senior cycle in second-level education.

As I explained when announcing the Programme for Action, position papers will be prepared for general discussions as an essential element in our decision-making. I look forward to these discussions as part of a constructive dialogue with all those concerned so that we can make that Programme for Action a reality.

The programme has been welcomed as a serious attempt to set out priorities in education. In some respects it follows up and develops ideas raised in the White Paper, published by the then Government in 1980. Unlike the White Paper, however, it is action orientated. Instead of being largely a statement of how things are, our programme proposes definite action on a range of fundamental and important issues. I am of course well aware that boards and committees are only a beginning and not an end, and the same applies to action plans. Therefore a rigorous monitoring of progress in each area is being undertaken in my Department.

All this progress and initiative must be seen in the context of the budgetary constraints which apply to all Departments. The children and the young people will not thank us for our plans and improvements in education, if they emerge into an economy which is not soundly based and in which enterprise and business do not flourish. Like all my colleagues, I join in the intricate balancing act between essential public expenditure and the need to control the economy. We certainly do not expect thanks for it, at least not until history looks back at this Government — but certain signs and indicators have established in our first year in office that we are serious about the job, and that our grasp of the real needs of the country is appreciated by business and by financial institutions, and those with the potential to give employment. I was sorry to hear Deputy O'Kennedy, spokesperson on Finance for the main Opposition party, describe as cant the intention to make business competitive. That is a measure of desperation by a very weak Opposition.

In discussing the fundamental approach to the economy which the Government are taking it is necessary to point to some comments of independent commentators — Fianna Fáil dislike this — of a particularly distinguished kind on what has brought the country to its present position. Dr. T. K. Whitaker published a book recently entitled Interests in which there is an essay entitled “Financial Turning Point”. In language which is extraordinary for a person who is usually mildly spoken he described the three Fianna Fáil budgets brought before the House by Deputies O'Kennedy, Fitzgerald and MacSharry, when respectively Ministers for Finance, as “the disastrous course of events that nearly ruined the economy”. He also described the 1977 election manifesto of Fianna Fáil as “full of irrational optimism which was such as to undermine credibility”. Those objective comments — there were many more in that essay — indicate the scale of the problems we inherited. They pinpoint the trends we had to struggle to reverse so as to restore economic stability once more.

This is no abstract theory. A strong economy is the only way to create jobs and I suspect that the outcry from Opposition benches is because they feel the pain of knowing that the Government are restoring a strong economy. A strong economy should be the real interest of the Opposition party but every day in the House, and in every reaction piece in the newspapers, and on the media, I hear Opposition spokespersons saying that each and every budget or Estimates provision designed to strengthen our economy should be rejected and resisted. Earlier today Deputy Barrett appealed to the Government to pour millions of pounds into Knock Airport. We have heard pleas to restore all the education economies although Fianna Fáil had them in their programme. Fianna Fáil want to give all students free medicine, irrespective of parents' means; to take all VAT off clothes: to reduce VAT on everything else; to remove excise duties on drink; to reduce everybody's tax burden; to build millions more houses and open hospitals everywhere. The list of catch-all demands grows and grows and the dizzy expenditure which is a sort of addiction within Fianna Fáil would grow and grow if they ever got control of our economy again.

Behind all this is the one real and enduring truth: the damage started by Fianna Fáil in the 1977 election manifesto and compounded hugely by the 1980-81 spending spree by the Fianna Fáil Government led by Deputy Haughey from December 1979 which is the greatest single barrier to job creation for our young people. Who threw away their chance of major tax cuts and incentives for employment? Who set out to increase artificially the numbers in the public service? Who cynically endorsed the boom and bloom confidence trick while basing that "boom" on a double, external borrowing requirement until the Department of Finance finally got so alarmed that a sharp and sudden brake of the most damaging kind was applied — too late? Young people who look to this House to ensure their future must feel very bitter when told of the cynical manipulation of the economy for political gain that went on in those years.

It is my view that all the scandals and grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented happenings under that Government fall into the halfpenny place when compared to the systematic and reckless dismantling of a recovering economy which had been established before 1977. This Government took up in 1983 where it had left off in January 1982 and have maintained with a cool head their programme of steady and sure progress throughout the last year. We will go on with the job, undeterred by those obsessed by self-interest, to restore the economic viability of our country and to ensure a worthwhile future for all our people.

Mr. Leyden

The Minister for Education in the course of her contribution did not refer to the unemployment crisis in the country. Indeed, the Minister has contributed to this by dismantling the career guidance system in our secondary schools. The Minister has done a great disservice to the future of our young people by that action. The opportunities of those young people have been damaged by her decision to reduce the facility of career guidance in schools. To put forward the type of waffle that she has done is an embarrassment to the Department of Education. The Minister produced a stereotyped Department speech at a stage when our unemployment figures have increased dramatically.

The Minister must be aware that 215,600 people are unemployed and that 67,633 of the registered unemployed are under 25 years of age. By June next a further 17,000 to 18,000 young people will be available for employment but they have little hope of securing a job. The budget has been described by commentators and politicians as a non-event and a disaster. Those descriptions are true. It was a major disappointment that the Minister for Finance introduced a budget bereft of imagination, planning or hope for the many people who looked to the House for some plan to bring the country out of the unemployment crisis. Our people listened with great expectation to the live broadcast of the Minister for Finance from the House but they were disappointed because the Minister only increased taxation, revenue on petrol and diesel oil and put VAT on some clothes. He did not mention the unemployment crisis. He ignored our greatest problem.

The unemployed expected the Minister to fulfil commitments made by the Taoiseach when he took office on 14 December 1982. At that stage 170,000 people were unemployed and 50,000 of those registered were under 25 years of age. In the course of their Programme for Government the Coalition partners said they would take firm and decisive action to tackle the unemployment crisis. In the last 14 months the crisis has increased to an intolerable and unbearable level. It is no harm to repeat that the unemployment figure is a massive 215,600 and that the figure increased by 7,500 in January alone. If this trend continues — it is obvious the Government are not putting forward plans to tackle the crisis — by the end of 1984 we will have at least 300,000 unemployed.

The number of unemployed now exceeds the number employed in manufacturing industry. We have in the region of 196,400 employed in manufacturing industry: in December 1979 that figure was 211,000. At the moment the number of unemployed exceeds even the December 1983 figure by a considerable amount and it is increasing every day. Yet the Government are standing idly by and the Minister for Education, now in the House, when she sits at the Cabinet table must have a sense of shame because of the difficulties the country is in and to which she has contributed. There are 45,700 people more on the dole now than when the Government took office. The Minister for Education is responsible for caring for the future of our young people who will be leaving school next June and seeking work. But the jobs are not being created despite the golden opportunity the Government had in the budget to bring forward imaginative job creation proposals.

It is a tragedy that every week we are having 816 extra people unemployed; every day we have 117 people more on the dole. They are depressing, sad figures, an indictment of Government policies. Imagine, in every 24 hours that pass 117 more people will be unemployed, tomorrow, every day this month. The same trend will continue and has been continuing since 14 December 1982.

Of our young people under 25 years, 67,633 have never had a job, have never had an opportunity to work. If present Government policies continue they will never have an opportunity to go to work. If the Government are not prepared to take action those young people will be forced to mobilise, unionise among themselves, take decisive action, and I am afraid this will arise in 1984. Responsibility for it, for the 45,700 extra unemployed since 1982, rests squarely with the Taoiseach and his Cabinet.

We have a national emergency and the Government should declare a state of emergency in relation to unemployment. It is the greatest emergency the country has been faced with in its history. We have a young increasing population. It is a great asset to have such a highly educated, articulate work force, but we are not mobilising that great asset to build up the country and consequently we have a major crisis. The Government, given the responsibility on 14 December 1982, instead of tackling that crisis have contributed to its worsening by this budget.

I believe the only possible solution and hope for the unemployed is an early change of Government. Fianna Fáil have the personnel and the policies to tackle the cause of the crisis. In the interim, I suggest respectfully that the Government first of all should declare a national emergency on unemployment and should delegate top priority to a solution. Second, the Government should appoint a Minister for Employment who would be given the exclusive task of mobilising all possible resources for job creation. The Government have not got such a potential Minister. The setting up of such a Ministry could be arranged by the amalgamation of the Departments of Public Service and Labour. However, there is not in the Cabinet one person capable of becoming Minister for Employment, one person who has the imagination, the policies and the determination to head such a Ministry.

Therefore, I suggest that the Government should look outside this House for such a candidate. They should look to the Seanad for a Minister without portfolio, a person who would not have constituency considerations, who would be given the responsibility to monitor the situation and to provide the policies for job creation and job preservation. A person without constituency work to intrude would be in a better position than Deputies. We know that the majority of Government Deputies and Ministers are more concerned with their constituency commitments than with ministerial responsibilities. They are concentrating on constituency work and neglecting their more important considerations — they are available at every crossroads in their constituencies instead of looking after the responsibilities given to them in December 1982.

Therefore, I suggest we look outside the House for a person with qualities of leadership to tackle this crisis. In addition we should set up a joint committee, composed of Members of both Houses, exclusively to consider the job crisis. Such a committee should have Members from all parties and, in consultation with the Government's task force, should be answerable to and work with a Minister for Employment, such a Minister using the committee as an advisory group, as a sort of mini-cabinet to look into the employment crisis. They would also have available to them outside membership, adequate research and other facilities to enable them to plan for short-term and long-term jobs. One possibility in the short term which would have long-term repercussions would be a reduction in the retirement age. I was disappointed that the Minister for Finance did not reduce the retirement age from 65 years. He could have reduced it over a period of four or five years so that in 1988 it would be 60 years. That would give people time to adjust to the new retirement age. Deputies, Senators, Ministers or the Taoiseach should not be excluded from early retirement. The law should be the same for all. Early retirement would create much needed job opportunities. There are 1,668 civil servants who are over 60 years of age. That information was given in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 24 January 1984 at column 540 of the Official Report. That alone would create in the region of 1,668 jobs.

If we were committed to early retirement we would create much needed employment. People who are 60 years of age are at the maximum of their pay scale. They could be replaced by young people who would be starting at the minimum of the scale. The saving between the pension and pay would easily compensate for the employment of young people. The Government had an opportunity to make provision for this proposal in the budget. It has been talked about for some time. Civil servants, members of local authorities, State boards, and semi-State organisations would welcome this proposal. In 1984 it could be reduced to 64 years and by 1988 it would be 60 years. There could be also voluntary retirement under that age where it was required. This would create a number of jobs.

The structure of local development teams could be utilised to assist in the preparation of plans for job creation. In every county we could have sub-committees of the Dáil comprising all the Deputies in that constituency and Oireachtas members who would take part in local development team work. They would have responsibility for monitoring the unemployment position in each county and putting forward constructive policies to create the necessary jobs. The suggestion has been made — I fully agree with it — that we should use the employment fund for job creation. For every 1,000 people unemployed we have an expenditure of £2.5 million. The fund could be used to create jobs even if people were working only a two or three day week.

The dole should be changed so that anyone signing on would be entitled to a job. A job is an essential ingredient for a worth-while future. The Government should use the funds necessary to create jobs. In every local authority we could create in the region of 1,000 jobs quite easily by transferring funds from social welfare to local authorities. Local authorities are starved of funds. The whole infrastructure is breaking down. During a recession we should concentrate on improving the infrastructure — sewerage, water schemes, roads, drainage and so on. We would have a return in the long term for investment of this kind. This recession will end and we will have demands on our labour force. It will not happen in the short term or while this Government are in office but given a change of Government, imagination and planning, things will happen.

We have a responsibility to look at the crisis as it is and utilise all the State's resources to tackle the problem. The Minister for Education has contributed to this debate. She did not refer to one area of development in education. Fianna Fáil provided computers in 313 second level schools in 1981 at a cost of £895,766. In another 194 schools further enhancements were effected to enable them to provide computers. These computers should be fully utilised and linked to a master computer to provide career guidance. A master computer should be located in the Department of Education which would provide up-to-date information on job opportunities. Unfortunately these computers are not used to the fullest extent. The Minister should look at this whole area and see if they could be better utilised to provide a better service.

The school year could be extended by introducing an extra year after the intermediate certificate. A transition year has been introduced in many schools and has proved a great success. It has geared young people towards a realisation of job possibilities. Students get tremendous experience by participating in short-term work experience programmes. The Minister should come forward with proposals to extend the school year.

As regards natural resources, the Government should give top priority now to creating jobs in this area. In relation to forestry, we could set up a new semi-State organisation. We recently set up two new semi-State organisations to manage the postal and telecommunication services. There is total mismanagement of forestry at present. It is evident from the Government's handling of the situation that developed in Clare that the Scarriff Chipboard factory should be retained on a semi-State basis similar to Bord na Móna and the ESB and that linked to that should be a development organisation which would utilise our present resources in forestry and which would plan for future development. There remains a considerable amount of land that could be used for the production of timber. I hope the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy D'Arcy, will give serious consideration to this proposal. It is a proposal that has been put forward from various sources in the past few years. A former Minister, Mr. Seán MacBride, on a recent television programme made a very good contribution to the present debate. He has contributed many articles concerning this area of development.

Another area in which we could create much-needed employment is the area of import substitution. During my time as Minister of State in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs I reactivated a programme which was initiated by Deputy Reynolds and which related to import substitution. We had begun a series of exhibitions, some of which had taken place in Cavan, Roscommon and Dublin. These exhibitions were designed to indicate precise possibilities for the creation of jobs in the area of import substitution. It is necessary that there be a comprehensive catalogue giving details of everything that is imported and that there be market exhibitions on the lines of the ones I have been talking about though not perhaps as elaborate but at which modern technology in the form of slides and so on could be used to point to the possibilities for employment in this area. This is a task that the IDA could undertake. It would involve their travelling throughout the country, organising meetings in order to get the message across. It is a national scandal that we import so many items that could be produced at home and which in many cases would involve small industries which could be IDA-assisted. This was an area to which we gave priority when I was in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We had assistance then from the IDA and from other State agencies. I suggest that the Government reactivate that area of development and take it a step further by talking to people who are in a position to provide the necessary technology for the production of goods that can be produced here but which are being imported.

There is gross neglect by the Government, too, in the area of horticulture. It is unacceptable that we are importing potatoes to the value of up to £80 million per year. Surely we have the ability and the resources to produce sufficient potatoes for the home market but no effort is being made by the Department of Agriculture in this matter. There is a budgetary provision of £100,000 for the potato marketing board but that sum is totally inadequate. It would not be sufficient to provide office accommodation or staff for the board. Such a paltry sum is an indication of the Government's lack of commitment in this area. They should give this matter the priority it deserves.

In relation to further development of our food industry we are providing jobs throughout Europe by our exports of carcases which should be processed further here. The position is that there is no incentive in terms of the creation of jobs in the food industry. We need a special agency to deal with this industry, an agency that would formulate policies. It is an area that has exciting possibilities and hugh potential in terms of job creation. The cost of maintaining an unemployed person is in the region of £2,500 to £3,000. Would it not be better if that money were used to create jobs for those people by way of developing our natural resources?

There is a lack of co-ordination in respect of Manpower, AnCO and youth employment schemes. The 1 per cent employment levy has been mishandled by the Youth Employment Agency. It has not resulted in the creation of worth-while jobs. Indeed, it has not resulted in the creation of jobs at all. The fund has been used by the Government to finance other schemes which are not related directly to youth employment. The whole question of the Youth Employment Agency should be reviewed because new ideas are needed in that regard.

Fianna Fáil have produced an imaginative new alternative to the budget proposed by the Government. Our plans have been published in Irish Business. We have indicated clearly our stand in relation to the type of budget we would bring forward. We have indicated the need for more imaginative planning in the area of providing much-needed employment. Because of the increase of 45,700 since 1982 in the number of unemployed, the increase in benefits has been £114 million.

Apart from the hardship being created by the level of unemployment, there is hardship, too, resulting from the situation of unemployment benefits. It may not be noticed by the Government that when the dependants of those who are in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefit reach 18 they are regarded no longer as dependants though the majority of them may still be attending second or third-level education. The age limit in this respect should be increased to 20. There is a case, too, for extending the age in respect of children's allowances so as to ensure that payments continue to be made in respect of young people who are continuing at second or third-level education.

Another area which is causing major hardship for the unemployed is that of repayments of local authority and building society loans. There is need for a reassessment of the repayments in respect of those who are unemployed with a view to having a situation in which there would be a freeze on repayments for the duration of the period of unemployment. I would envisage this freeze applying across the board — to local authorities, to building societies and to the new Housing Finance Agency. The choice facing many people today is one of either providing food for their families or of repaying their housing loans. Naturally, the loan repayments must take second place to the needs of the family. The time has come for the Department of the Environment to review the repayments system in so far as local authorities are concerned. Many county councils are owed millions of £s by people who are not in a position to meet their loan repayment commitments. The Department should review the system of repayments to take account of today's crisis situation.

Before being returned to office, the people opposite told us repeatedly that the level of the national debt was unacceptable. I accept that fully but they said also that financial rectitude was their priority and that the reduction of the national debt was their first priority. The public were impressed but they should be made aware now that between the end of 1982 and the end of 1983 the national debt increased by £2.9 billion. The devaluation of the punt on 21 March 1983 cost us an extra £810 million in terms of our national debt. Surely that money could have been used for the creation of jobs. The policy pursued by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, in the devaluation of our £ at that time was the most damaging decision ever taken by any Minister for Finance. The idea of financial rectitude has gone out the window. This Government are no longer committed to carrying out the necessary measures in relation to our national debt.

In my constituency and in the adjoining constituency of east Galway we are awaiting a Government decision in relation to the provision of funds for a briquette factory at Derryfadda, Ballyforan, County Roscommon. In the Public Capital Programme for 1984 there is a provisional allocation of £15.4 million for the briquette factory at Ballyforan subject to a review. That review has been going on since we left office in December 1982. At this stage the Government should make a firm decision in favour of the erection of a briquette factory at Derryfadda. The factory would employ 110 people when in production. During construction it would employ initially 75 people and that would be expected to increase to 180. The factory would utilise the natural resources of the Derryfadda bogs where Bord na Móna have acquired 10,000 acres for the development of peat. Unless the factory is erected, the production of peat in the area will be in jeopardy and jobs in Derryfadda will be at risk.

Here is an area where the Government have direct responsibility for job creation but they have delayed for more than 12 months before making a decision. I am confident they will decide to continue with the project because any other decision would be criminally negligent on the part of the Government. Fianna Fáil provided the capital and the necessary expertise to allow the project to go ahead. Three Fianna Fáil Ministers — Deputy O'Malley, the late Deputy Colley and Deputy Reynolds — approved and supported the project. It was expected to go into production in January 1985 but this has been delayed by at least 14 months. Unless the Government go ahead with the matter in the very near future the project will be delayed until 1986 or early 1987 and jobs will not be provided for a further period.

I appeal to the Government and to the Minister for Energy, Deputy Spring, to proceed with the project. We have the natural resources in the area. We have harvested the milled peat, the project is ready to proceed, the funds are there and Bord na Móna are enthusiastic about it. They have provided the necessary funds to allow the project to go ahead. The Minister and the Government are responsible for an increased cost of the project in the region of £2.5 million, money that could have been used to provide more jobs in the region. The whole area of Ballyforan is depending on the Bord na Móna project. It is one area in which we can create much needed jobs. It is a place that has been deprived of employment since the foundation of the State. We in Roscommon have provided the necessary infrastructure for the development of housing and water and sewerage facilities in the adjoining village of Ballyforan to accommodate the increase in the work force in Derryfadda. We are looking forward to an early decision by the Government. We look forward to the expenditure of £15.4 million in 1984 to allow for recommencement of the project that was started in 1982 by Fianna Fáil. A sum of £5 million has been spent on site preparation and development and this money will be wasted if the project does not go ahead.

In the past week or ten days a factory in Castlerea announced its closure with the loss of 35 jobs. The firm of Fenner Stone Limited have stated that 35 people will be removed from the payroll at the end of February 1984 but the Government have not taken any action to alleviate the crisis in the Castlerea area. Some months ago there was a loss of 16 jobs when IDE Fashions closed. I am asking the Government and the Minister involved, Deputy Bruton, to take the necessary action to provide jobs in County Roscommon, and particularly in an area where job losses have occurred over the past few months.

The IDA are responding to representations but they have difficulty in convincing the company concerned in the latest closure to retain employment in the Castlerea area. They should look for an alternative company to take over the running and management of the factory concerned and ensure that the 35 workers will be kept in employment after the end of February 1984. This is a major blow to my constituency. Jobs were created in the area under the Fianna Fáil administration and we gave priority to job creation. The country is losing jobs at the rate of 117 per day.

The Government should ensure that there is an early warning system in operation. The IDA should be aware of difficulties that may present themselves at a later date. They should react urgently to problems in industry and should be able to alleviate any difficulties that may arise in the future. Unfortunately the early warning system previously in operation seems to have been dismantled by the present Minister, Deputy Bruton. The IDA have changed considerably since this Government came into power. In the midlands region of the IDA a regional officer was responsible for all industries in that division but the programme of this Government has meant that decisions have to be taken in Dublin. The decentralisation we were planning has been terminated by the Government. This has resulted in a lack of communication between factories that may have difficulties and the IDA. The local IDA officers were in a position to monitor developments in their own regions. Now they have no responsibility whatever for existing industries and, unfortunately, all decisions have been transferred to Dublin. This has resulted in the difficulties experienced at present in my constituency.

There is no mention of job creation in the budget. We have had a public relations exercise in regard to closure of an area of tax avoidance in the bond system. Unfortunately that system existed. I can see the point in terminating it but under pressure from the Stock Exchange the Government have agreed to further tax concessions in the issue of £200 million tranches in the Stock Exchange in the past seven days. The public relations exercise has worked very effectively and the Government public relations officers have given the impression that in some way the Minister for Finance has plugged a tax avoidance hole. There was not one mention in the Budget Statement of the extra funds which will come from this exercise. This has been a public relations sham. Unfortunately, no statement was issued by the Minister and I believe he should come clean at this stage and say what was agreed with the Stock Exchange officers when they discussed bond washing. I understand the Minister made a special tax deal with the Stock Exchange which has not been reported to any great extent but which attracted the necessary funds for the £200 million issue. In my view the Minister has made a major error in this area because the advantages from the removal of the bond washing provision have been far outweighed by the fact that overseas investment has been reduced.

A large amount of money is invested in our Stock Exchange by successful Irish emigrants who are not liable to pay Irish income tax and who receive their dividends without deduction of this tax. This is a very attractive area for investment and it is an advantage for our Government to be able to raise funds directly from the Irish public. This is a cheaper way to raise loans than by borrowing internationally. In my view the Minister has damaged confidence in the Stock Exchange and has gained nothing in return. As I said, the public relations exercise has been extremely successful in conveying the impression that the Minister has closed a tax loophole which will benefit the taxpayer generally, but this is not a true situation. Eventually the taxpayer will have to pay more because of a reduction of investment from abroad.

National loans have been used by successive Governments as the principal method of obtaining finance from the domestic investor. This type of investment should be given special consideration because this money is the result of hard work. I know of many emigrants in America and Britain who invested a considerable amount of money in our Stock Exchange so that it would be available to the Government to create employment. I believe further stock issues should be made specifically for job creation. If extra bonds were issued at special rates they would attract a large number of Irish investors.

The Minister has made an effort to plug another tax loophole. Section 84 of the Act allows the banks to give special concessions to people leasing equipment and machinery in return for the bank obtaining tax concessions. The leader of the Confederation of Irish Industry warned that the removal of this section would cost industry millions of pounds. The Government changed their minds and it appears that the Minister made an error because he has now extended the facility until the end of February 1984. He should review this area because this money for the purchase of machinery and equipment would help to create jobs. Unless we give them an incentive like this, many people will have second thoughts before they invest in machinery. This was a most attractive feature of previous budgets. When the Minister introduces the Finance Bill I hope he will review Government policy in this area because this facility has been availed of by businessmen to provide much needed employment.

On budget night we opposed the 8 per cent VAT on clothes. Over the last few years many thousands of jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry. In a submission to the Dáil the Apparel Industries Federation said they were concerned about possible job losses as a result of the imposition of VAT. They said their members give employment to more than 17,000 people in the clothing and footwear sections. They said there had been 8,000 job losses in the industry over the last few years and that the imposition of the 8 per cent VAT on clothes would create further job losses.

In my constituency we are fortunate enough to have a very successful clothing industry in Roscommon and Athlone. We had a successful clothing industry in Castlerea. The managing director of Chickwear, former Senator Peggy Farrell, has provided much needed employment in the area and has been named the Businesswoman of the Year 1983. She has made a major contribution to job creation in the region, but the imposition of VAT will impose a particular burden on her firm and every other firm engaged in the manufacturing industry.

The operation of this VAT will create special difficulties for the retail trade. On budget night we went into this question in great detail and the Taoiseach was unable to give any help or encouragement in identifying a ten year old as opposed to an 11 year old. In the Finance Act the Minister should review the imposition of this 8 per cent VAT on clothes which will come into effect on 1 May 1984 because in its wake we will see further job losses in that industry. The Apparel Industries Federation have given the Government a clear warning.

In our period in office we gave a £5 a week subsidy for each person employed in the clothing manufacturing industry. This industry is, and has been, threatened by Third World imports. This industry has a very large work force and has to carry the costs of PRSI and so on. In relation to the PRSI system a sliding scale should operate — the more people you employ the less the employers' contribution should be. This is a tax on employment. Let there be no doubt about that. The more people you employ the more the employers' PRSI contribution should be. PRSI and PAYE together represent a major burden on those in employment and are a disincentive to work. Consideration should be given to allowing concessions to the PRSI contributor similar to concessions given by car insurers. A "no claims bonus" for PRSI contributors would be an incentive towards a reduction in the number of claims.

The increase in PRSI in recent years has been a major burden on employment. Where numbers employed in a particular firm have been increased, the employer's contribution should be decreased on a sliding scale. I would favour the complete removal of the employers' contribution because of the disincentive to further employment. The whole matter should be seriously investigated.

The Government should introduce a pension scheme for everyone. This was proposed some years ago in a White Paper but has not been put into effect. The majority of the self-employed would welcome the extension of the PRSI system to those who wished to avail of it. I would suggest a scheme which initially would not be compulsory. Many people would welcome the opportunity to contribute to a national pension scheme. The present system of old age pensions is totally unacceptable. Those who have funds are deprived of pensions and this is inequitable. A national pension scheme based on earnings should ensure an automatic pension at the age of 65 or 60. This would reduce the burden of PRSI on those now contributing and there would also be a reduction in the level of surveillance by the Department of Social Welfare.

This budget is a major disappointment in the light of the crisis now facing us. The Minister has let people down by his lack of imagination. It is a compromise budget which is being sold to the public as progressive. I ask the Minister to reconsider in the Finance Bill many of the budget provisions and to bring forward new policies. The only solution for the Irish people is a change of Government and I hope the Taoiseach will respond and call an election as quickly as possible.

Mr. Durkan

The last speaker made a reasonably constructive speech, with the exception of his call for the resignation of the Government and the replacement of same by the party opposite who, Deputy Leyden believes, have the personnel and the policies to resolve the country's problems. It has been suggested by the same Deputy that 177,000 people were unemployed when this Government took office. The natural progression of the argument he put forward would be that if his party were back in office there would be another 177,000 people added to the number already employed within four to five years. I know that nobody would take the Deputy too seriously. If they did so it would be a terrible catastrophy for the people who have to bear the burden of the decisions taken over a number of years which culminated in the disgraceful state into which our economy was allowed to drift.

This has been called a neutral budget and that is the kind of budget which is necessary this year. So-called independent commentators have indicated that there will be a reasonable growth in the economy this year, as in the economies of Europe and the United States. The obvious progression is that we should not do anything more to increase taxation or to change strategy dramatically. That is the line followed in the budget. If the upturn in the economy materialises, as promised by independent commentators who are usually much wiser after the event, then the budget is couched in such a way as to take advantage of it. Only time will tell and I do not pretend to be in any way prophetic. We will have to wait and see.

This budget looked after the poorer sections of the community. It did not give them the increases many would have liked but at the same time it recognised their plight and gave them sufficient increases to tide them over to better times. The calls from Members opposite have been for far greater increases in all areas and at practically every level. At the same time they call for a reduction in taxation and an improvement in the standard and scope of services. The Irish public are fairly well-educated and astute and the Opposition are doing themselves no great service by making such contradictory statements. The sooner they recognise that the better.

I agree that there is an employment crisis. Some of us have made various suggestions as to how we might go about resolving the problem. It is without doubt the greatest single problem facing us, no matter which party are in Government. There are three spheres in which the problem can be tackled. The private sector depend for processed goods or services on the market and the market can only bear what it is capable of withstanding at any time. Much has been said about the need for the provision of more services which would resolve our employment problem. Services are related to what the productive sector can bear and one cannot go on indefinitely increasing the scope and extent of services without relating it in some way to what is being produced. If everybody went over to providing services and nobody was in production obviously we could not succeed.

Given the existing incentives, the work of the IDA and the work of the other State agencies involved in job creation, I believe there is further scope for the private sector to forge ahead and provide very vital jobs at this time. At the same time they would provide for their own management and investors a very realistic source of revenue and an improvement in our balance of payments. I believe the public sector has gone as far as it can go by way of employment creation in the old sense. Every time you increase the number employed in the public service you have to make provision for paying them and for their pensions and bonuses at the end of the day. There are only two or three sources from which this money can be found. It can be found through taxation or borrowing. For a number of years we have been borrowing for those reasons and obviously that particular area is not a realistic one to pursue any longer.

Quite a number of Deputies on both sides of the House have suggested over the last few years that there must be something wrong, in a country where there is so much work which needs to be done and at the same time there are so many people unemployed. A classical example is that various local authorities throughout the country every year have a certain sum of money set aside after great heart searching for amenity purposes; they hand out a few pounds to various voluntary bodies who may embark on landscaping projects, improvement of public buildings or some similar works. It looks like a contradiction in terms when you see people embarking on such jobs in their spare time, late on a summer's evening or during holiday periods and you could have anything up to 200 people unemployed in the same town or village. Surely somewhere along the line we should ask ourselves are we not duplicating services and should we not find other ways to alleviate this problem? I believe that in the emergency employment situation we have there is need to create a third tier besides the recognised public and private sector, along the lines suggested by Deputy Leyden whereby the Departments of Social Welfare, Education and Labour with the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO could pool their resources and make grants available to local authorities who could employ people to do the kind of jobs I have suggested.

When I mentioned this at a public meeting in my constituency some time ago I was castigated. It was suggested that I was putting forward a theory that would be totally objectionable to young unemployed people whose expectations were far higher than becoming involved in mundane tasks such as landscaping, the restoration of open spaces, the restoration of public buildings and work like that. I do not believe that is true. In jobs like that there is need for a fair degree of expertise. There is need to employ draughtsmen, architects, technicians and colour consultants. There is a whole field of professions which could be employed on a temporary basis and massive inroads could be made into the number unemployed. This would particularly refer to young people under 25 years who have not yet had a chance to work and who do not know what it is like to go home at night and feel they were engaged in gainful and productive employment, that they were doing something for themselves and for the country. It is most important to be able to fire the imagination of those people. If we do not do that they will have so much time on their hands that they will lose confidence in the system being capable of doing anything for them by leadership and chartering a course for them which they could follow.

I believe this is one area where fairly dramatic inroads can be made into the number of people unemployed. I know of many cases of people on social welfare assistance who were on unemployment benefit for one or two years before that. Those people have families and they would be glad to do something along the lines I have suggested. As well as the works I have mentioned there is also restoration work to be done on our canals. There is obviously need for the provision of recreational amenities for the vast number of young people we have. I am thinking particularly of the Royal Canal which is near where I live. It is ridiculous, when we have so many people unemployed that we cannot get sufficient impetus to make a major impact on the amount of work which needs to be done along our inland waterways. I am not talking about the use of mechanical diggers but about the annual work which needs to be done. This requires a great labour input.

People can say that type of work is non-productive. It may look non-productive but we are spending large sums of money on social welfare payments and incentives. I believe the time has come when we should ask ourselves if we can afford that kind of policy any longer and whether the people I am talking about would like an opportunity to find out what it is like to work a full day and come home feeling they have done something good for the country.

Deputy Leyden spoke about the failure of the career guidance system. I do not know if it has failed but when you find so many highly qualified young people coming to clinics held by the various public representatives every year we would do those people a far greater service if during the period they are in receipt of career guidance they are told that there is a good possibility that at the end of the day there will not be jobs for them. Those people could take a decision then and pursue different careers. Our educational system will have to address itself to that. We all pay lip service to the great investment that our young highly educated people are but we seem to have given those young people the impression that nothing is too good for them. We have put them on a far higher pedestal than any of their forebears have had the pleasure of being on.

We are not doing youth any great service by doing that. We should tell them that the people on whom they will have to depend most for their future are themselves, that they have a great opportunity if they depend on their own intelligence and entrepreneurial skills instead of sitting back waiting for the State to provide something that is not there. Many speakers on the opposite side of the House say that the Government should do this, should invest more money, should do many things, but one thing the Government are not responsible for is providing jobs. The Government are responsible for creating the kind of atmosphere in which jobs and employment will flourish, but the Government are not responsible for producing the jobs. It can encourage, it can give the incentives, but if it gets into the arena where it must provide the jobs also then our system will be in danger of breaking down and we will become totally dependent on the State. That is not desirable. In a crisis in employment we can and should depend on our own skills and on the private sector who should be reminded also that in times gone by fairly substantial profits were made in that sector and now when times are hard we should expect those people to reinvest their money and show their confidence in the State and by doing so alleviate some of the problems that we have. I could go on for quite a long time in relation to the problems we have and could blame the people on the opposite side of the House for them, but I do not think that will serve any useful purpose from the point of view of inspiring young people, or middle-aged people for that matter, today. We must stand up and be counted. We can put forward our various theories as to how to tackle our problems and at the end of the day the people will decide who is right or wrong.

I mentioned the local authorities as a way of absorbing some of the people who are unemployed. I mention that for the reason that Deputy Leyden mentioned it, that the problem over the last five years has been that each year at estimates time in every local authority there just is not sufficient money to employ people, or to buy materials for carrying out the usual work in which local authorities are involved, and we come back again and again to the shortage of funds. This also applies to all Government Departments. If we have in excess of 200,000 people unemployed surely we must accept that by way of social welfare, Youth Employment Agency incentives or whatever we are spending money on that vast group of people who are unemployed.

I see no reason why some of those funds cannot be transferred to those local authorities. I ask the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment this year, in the very near future, to give some consideration to that theory. Many people may say that it will not work, but at least we deserve a chance of seeing whether it will work. While it may not be the answer to all our problems, it is an attempt to do something about them. With all due respect to the people opposite who claim now that we on this side are not doing anything about it, I do not think they did very much either.

Another area is agriculture. Incidentally, I welcome the reintroduction of the farm modernisation scheme in the sense that it is a constructive contribution to agriculture and a recognition by the Government that agriculture has a major role to play in the job that the Government are faced with. Again it comes back to employment this time in the food processing sector. A few facts come to light on a booklet entitled Consumer Foods: Ideas for Development published by the IDA and dated January 1984. It outlines a number of ares where perhaps we could provide a number of jobs. Reference has been made to this already, but I will quote from that booklet regarding food processing and the possibilities of import substitution:

Irish vegetable acreage has declined from 10,200 tonnes in 1975 to 3,000 tonnes at present. The market is being increasingly supplied by imports. Imported tonnages of carrots, turnips, brassicas and potatoes have grown at an annual average rate of 700-800 per cent.

That must be fairly frightening to the people here who are charged with the business of guiding the national ship through the storm. It continues:

Some of these imports could be reduced if proper grading, packing and marketing operations were established here.

The only thing I can say to that is that is has been obvious to all of us over the last few years and that that very important business of marketing a product has been neglected for quite a long time. You can produce as much as you like but unless you market what you produce properly nobody will buy it. If you do not market it attractively or packet it attractively again the consumer will be taken in and will go for those goods that are attractively packed and presented. That document continues:

The market in Ireland for potato produced goods such as waffles, croquettes and hash browns is valued at IR£0.75 million. The U.K. market has grown from virtually zero to £30 million in the last three years.

This is an indication that there is a market there for such goods if we are prepared to invest in that area and provide the goods that are required in that market.

I can recall numerous meetings that I have attended in my constituency where people have said, "Ah yes, but Irish industrialists do not get the incentives that the multinationals get. It is a different story really. The multinationals have all the advantages to do so". This is ridiculous. The IDA give very considerable assistance to all industries and have a special section dealing with small industries. Sufficient attention has not been focused on that area and not sufficient people are showing interest. The next question we must ask is why are they not showing interest? Is it because we have become totally dependent on the system and each and every one of us is waiting for somebody else to make the first move? Surely it is time that we all recognised that we have our destiny in our own hands and if we really want to make a go of it we can do so. The agencies that assist us are there. We have only to go and ask.

I do not represent a maritime county but I would like to refer to a few figures from that document.

At present, only around 12 per cent of the Irish fish catch of 200,000 tonnes is processed to a secondary stage.

That is amazing. The report continues:

The fish processing industry could make a very valuable addition to the economy if this was increased significantly. The raw materials for secondary processing such as food ingredients and packaging could mainly be sourced in Ireland.

In the case of some species, the value of a ton of fish could be trebled through additional processing.

Obviously, we are exporting the raw material and having it processed abroad to be returned here. There is great scope for job creation in that area and it has not been exploited to the full extent. I am not making that suggestion as a criticism of the Government but I am putting it forward as one attempt at a resolution of a serious problem. The report continues:

If 35 per cent of the catch was processed to a secondary stage then the output of the Irish fish processing industry in Ireland could increase by IR£45 million to IR£94 million per annum.

That is the answer to those who ask if there is a market for these products. The market exists in that area but we are not exploiting it. We should do our utmost to ensure that we focus attention on those areas and bring this to the attention of investors. We must do everything possible to ensure that those people take up the slack that has occurred in our economy in general.

Dealing with agricultural produce the report, under the heading "Fresh Vegetables and Fruit" states:

The growth of imports of fresh vegetables and fruit has been of particular concern in recent years. Imports totalled about IR£80 million in 1982. Of this IR£27 million were fresh vegetables, up from just over IR£10 million in 1980.

Those figures are startling. Obviously the trend is to import produce that we have grown at home for many years. Up to a few years ago there was no competition on that market but because of imports from other EEC countries we are having great difficulty. Our consumers are falling into the trap of supporting imports to the detriment of home produce. That is a scandal and is something we must face up to. We must set about rectifying the position. I had occasion to buy a pair of shoes recently and I had to call to at least six shops before I found a pair of Irish made shoes. I am sure that the average Irish consumer going on the same trail would not bother going to the second shop. The shopper should not be expected to. If we are serious about getting support for home produce then our home industries must wake up to the fact that they must have their goods on display in the market place. Irish goods must be of a standard that is at least comparable to that of their competitors from other countries. It is highly unlikely that those competitors will display their worst products in our shop windows. Obviously, they will compete with us with their most highly finished product.

A lot has been said about the 8 per cent VAT on clothing. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of that because I am sure the difficulties can be resolved, but in regard to clothing if any Member assumes he or she will find Irish made clothing in many shops in the city they are wrong. We must wake up to this because in practically all areas of manufacturing we have to face serious and highly organised competition. We must compete with them. There is little use in saying that we are not able to complete because we do not have the same sophisticated techniques or cheap labour force that other countries have. We have expertise in those areas but we are not using it properly.

There is room for improvement in regard to home industries, particularly in the production of quality woollen goods. That market can be exploited further and it is possible to create quite a number of jobs in that area.

Another area that should be considered is the construction industry. I accept that the construction industry is under some pressure and, in fairness to the Government, it must be said that the budget does not militate against it. It has been suggested by representatives of the industry that there is no incentive in the budget but if the Government descend into the area of subsidising that will not resolve the problems of the industry. It will create a situation similar to that which existed in 1977 after an artifical injection was given to the business. As soon as that assistance was withdrawn the industry went into decline again. When I met representatives of the industry recently I asked about their failure to use all Irish products in their constructions. I was informed that they could buy cheaper and better products from abroad. It was pointed out to me that if they did not buy from abroad their finished product would not be acceptable to the consumer, the person buying the house. That is sad. Surely in the area of timber production we should be able to perfect our products. We should be able to give a little more attention to that at a time of high unemployment. It should not be said that we are not able to compete with a foreign product.

Another matter that has a bearing on the construction industry is planning and development. A lot more could be done for the construction industry if we had proper regional planning instead of development taking place where services exist. It has been held that it is economic to develop areas that are near proper water and sewerage facilities. That is wrong because we would do a lot more for the country if we spread our development. We should have proper regional planning to allow for phased development over an entire region. If we continue with the present type of development for another 20 or 30 years the best land in the country will be covered with concrete and we will be heading in a westerly, southerly and northerly direction. At the end of the day we will have one vast urban sprawl and at the same time we will have created more problems for the agricultural and horticultural industries. If we do not discard such short-sighted policies we will end up with all of our best land under concrete and the less fertile areas left to meet our agricultural requirements.

I spoke earlier of the need for those who had made profits in Ireland to show they have confidence in the nation and are willing to put their money back into the system and at the same time provide much needed jobs. Bond-washing was referred to. I fully appreciate that people in high risk businesses would feel that if they follow that avenue they will be taxed and will therefore react, but in the past they obviously made profits and therefore they should have the courage of their convictions and continue to invest so that these kinds of scares will not be created in this difficult time.

A number of Deputies have spoken of our responsibility to young people. I wish to refer to that subject simply by saying that we should all be very wary of saying to young people anything that might be misconstrued as a guarantee that we have a panacea for their problems and the general problems of the country. None of us has the ultimate answer. If we are honest and say that, we will get a far better response from young people than if we try to fob them off with remarks aimed at getting publicity but which will be of no benefit to our people. We must appeal to them to co-operate with our efforts for the provision of the jobs they require.

Deputy Leyden suggested a joint committee on unemployment. The time has gone for talk of such committees. We require dramatic action, and nobody on any side would suggest that we have not a serious problem. Recognising and accepting that is the first step towards a solution: the most important part of treating an ailment is first to diagnose it and then accept the steps that must be taken towards its cure. Deputy Leyden also spoke of the retirement age, particularly in the public service. That is a worth-while, constructive proposal but I do not know if it will produce extra jobs. I have heard a figure of £200 million mentioned for the payment of lump sums and I submit that any such proposals are advisable only if we can find money to fund them.

Deputy Power and I come from the Kildare constituency where considerable unemployment has been caused in the past couple of years. Some of our problems have been resolved, but some have not been. We have a population of 107,000 and it behoves us to try to retain the jobs we have and try to encourage further investment. In that regard we must get the IDA to do their utmost.

Recently we have had a problem in relation to the power stations, with possible closures if the ESB strategy report is to be pursued. I appeal to all Ministers responsible to do everything in their power to ensure that the lives of the power stations will not be shortened. In Allenwood, for instance, there are 150 jobs directly given in the station and approximately 450 outside working for Bord na Móna to provide the raw material for the station. Therefore, it would be a major tragedy if anything were done to close these stations prematurely. I use the word "prematurely" advisedly because it is accepted that in 10 or 15 years these power stations will have reached the end of their viable lives and that afterwards alternatives will have to be found. There is no sense in waiting until these alternatives can be provided. We should have been thinking of this for a long time. There are thousands of acres of cutaway bogs which should be utilised for horticultural production or for beet and grass production. We cannot allow that valuable resource to be wasted.

Roadmaking is another source of employment as well as satisfying the need for a proper road network. I accept that the cost of upkeep and running costs will be high but in areas like Kildare, geographically close to Dublin's large population, emphasis should be placed on the provision of a proper road network, a basic part of our infrastructure. Improving and making roads in these areas will also provide much needed work in the service area and would speed up the transport of goods to and from the country, as well as alleviating the intolerable traffic bottlenecks which have been building up in the past ten years. I compliment especially those responsible for the Naas by-pass which is certainly a road for the eighties. I appeal to the Ministers for Finance and the Environment to ensure that that impetus will not be lost.

I said earlier, and was criticised for it, that the concept of the dole is all wrong. The whole concept of giving money to people for doing nothing is wrong. We must examine that matter. Many areas of the country are disadvantaged and I accept that these have to be subsidised. The people in these areas need to supplement their income. Whether it means a minimal increase in production, keeping another cow or growing another head of cabbage, they should have to do something for the money they receive. Why can we not devise a system which would reward effort rather than the soul destroying system we have at present? People are totally dependent on the State and their children and their children's children will have that attitude. It is time the whole system was changed. I am not saying that funds should be stopped because I accept that people need to have their incomes supplemented.

The private sector could do a lot by way of providing major road networks, bridges and so on. The Minister for the Environment might consult with the various interests involved. I understand some interest groups have already indicated their willingness to embark on such a road programme. There is need for major road improvements particularly in the Leinster area where there is a great concentration of traffic. The private sector should be encouraged to do what they claim they can do.

Another area which it has been suggested should be developed is forestry. The Minister of State in that Department has some very constructive proposals. It is odd that in a country which is ideally suited both geographically and climatically that we lag so far behind our competitors in the production of timber. We can grow trees faster than our competitors and it is odd that we have not acted imaginatively or been able to capitalise on this vast resource. I do not understand it. I am sure other Members are worried that we have not developed this industry sufficiently. I hope the proposals which are to be brought forward on the development of the forests are sufficiently imaginative to attract investors so that we will have a worthwhile national asset.

The withdrawal of medical cards from those in the 16 to 25 age bracket who are dependent on their parents' income has received wide publicity. The Government did not take that decision lightly. We have heard a lot of scaremongering. We heard about the hardship that decision would create. However, the various health boards have authority to investigate any case where hardship has occurred or is likely to occur and they have authority to issue medical cards in these instances and have often done so. It could happen that where a family were marginally over the income guidelines the whole family would quality for medical cards. We should not overlook the fact that while the medical cards have been withdrawn out of necessity there is provision for hospital services for students and those in need.

Many people will put forward alternative theories. That is the job of Opposition, and rightly so. However, the Opposition should be realistic. They can put forward any idea they wish. They can call for greater expenditure but they do not have to find it. That is the difference between Government and Opposition. I appeal to people on all sides to pool their resources and be as constructive as possible. We must try to grasp the imagination of all those who feel hard pressed in the community and we must combine our efforts to try to solve our problems. I am sure that no one party has a monopoly of the ingenuity required to face up to these problems.

In these straitened times today's population would expect us to have the courage, at least within this House, to co-operate to the greatest extent possible in the interest of solving that problem. I say that because the opinion the general public have of public representatives and of the institutions of the State is not great. This may stem from one or two reasons. It may be because of something we have said or done or because of something we have failed to say or do but it may come from a failure on the part of the public generally to recognise the constraints within which Government and Opposition alike must work. The public must realise that there are limitations to what can be done and that in present circumstances there is no point in calling on the State to provide goods or services that will cost more money while at the same time bringing about a situation of lower levels of taxation. The two are not compatible.

If we are to overcome our major economic problems we must convince a great number of people that their expectations are too high. I am not suggesting that people should regard as acceptable the high level of unemployment but they must appreciate that they, too, have a responsibility in making efforts to resolve our problems. The concept of self-help is all important, but it is a concept that seems to have become outdated. People tend now to rely far too much on the system to resolve everything. There is a tendency to blame the Government for all our problems. An example of this situation manifested itself a couple of years ago at the time of heavy snowfalls. The Government of the day, who happened to be a Coalition Government, seemed to be blamed for the slowness with which the snow melted, for burst water pipes and so on. One wonders what the people would have done if they had found themselves living in some of the Scandinavian countries or in Alaska or North America.

Mr. Power

Or in Gander.

Mr. Durkan

We must become more resourceful than we have been of late and show a little more initiative. As a people we must assert ourselves. In this way we will be making a big effort to overcome some of our greatest problems. We must regenerate confidence in our own ability to overcome these problems.

There have been many references in recent times to the question of whether we were right to have joined the EEC. It is argued sometimes that if we had stayed outside the Community we would have avoided the harsh competition with which we must live and that we would not have lost so many jobs. That is true and it is true also that we became members basically to be able to avail of the benefits we were told would accrue to the agricultural industry. It appears now that many of those benefits will be eroded unless we exercise extreme care. I refer to the current discussions regarding the whole area of the CAP and the so-called milk super-levy and so on.

However, if we had not joined the EEC we would not have been able to avail of the several thousands of millions of pounds that have accrued to us in the past ten years because of our membership. Without those injections, our economy might be in a very much worse position. That is a factor that we should not forget.

Mr. Power

My first reaction on hearing the Minister's budget statement was one of sadness. I drew an analogy between the situation with which we were being presented and that of the emperor who was discovered to have no clothes. I regarded the budget as a reneging on principles. Last year I was inclined to believe that the Minister meant business and that he was intent on doing what he set out to do.

To all intents and purposes the 1983 budget could be regarded as a Fianna Fáil budget, a budget that was revamped somewhat by the Coalition and adopted practically in toto by them. In other words, there was a pooling of resources last year even if the measure did not prove to be all that effective. I have heard a backbencher from the Fine Gael Party say that no party have the monopoly when it comes to ingenuity. Perhaps the most appropriate collective noun for geniuses would be galaxy. In any case, I am glad to find that the people on the backbenches opposite have come to realise that their side of the House do not have a galaxy of geniuses.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Perhaps a shoal of geniuses would be an appropriate way to describe them.

Mr. Power

Or even a shower of geniuses. Last year much stress was put on the need to rid ourselves of current budget deficits. We were told the matter would have to be resolved in a short time, that that was the main target of the Government. Indeed, the whole issue resulted in an ideological row between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance as to whether the deficit should be eliminated within four years or within seven years. The gullible public were even prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to think they were serious in what they were saying, that that was their reason for being in Government.

It is obvious now that the over-riding principle in so far as this budget is concerned is for the Coalition to remain in power for the full term. Not only has the Minister done U-turns but he has done triple somersaults in respect of what he has laid down as the guidelines he intends following. Why is it that what was so important in regard to financial matters, to fiscal rectitude and so on, is now being discarded? I see every evidence of compromise in this budget. In saying that I realise from my own experience that even within single-party Government there will be tensions and strains as between different Ministers and different Departments, with each Minister trying to do the best he can and to that extent endeavouring to get the best deal possible for his Department, but in this case I cannot understand what has happened. The inter-departmental tensions are understandable but it is obvious now that the agonising that transpired between the different partners in Coalition resulted only in very long sessions in Barrettstown Castle and elsewhere and that the mountain produced a very meek mouse after all the agonising.

All this has proved that Coalitions do not work. People are inclined to forget that, although they learn the lesson after the election of each Coalition. This fourth Coalition, after one year are shown to be a distinct sham. Very often Coalitions are likened to a mule. They are stubborn but beyond that it might be dishonest to compare them with the mule, an animal which is regarded generally as being hard working. Perhaps the comparison with a jennet might be more appropriate since that animal arrives in this world as a result of the coming together of two almost incompatible elements. In the case of the Coalition we might regard Fine Gael as being the more dominant, taking the part of the horse. It would appear from this budget that the poor unfortunate Labour Party represent the ass that was left holding the baby. The only solace one can give to the plain people of Ireland is that Coalitions, like jennets, have not the capacity to reproduce themselves. Never before in the history of the State have there been two successive Coalition Governments.

Debate adjourned.