A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, would you briefly outline the speaking arrangements?
Private Members' Business. - Unemployment and Emigration: Motion.
The Minister of State is about to read them out.
By agreement, and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members will be called in Private Members' time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. Opposition speaker; 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., Opposition speaker; 7.40 p.m. to 8 p.m. Government speaker; 8 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. Government speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Opposition speaker.
"Opposition speaker" means a Fianna Fáil speaker.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would be grateful if you would take notice of my interest to make at least a brief contribution to this debate over the next two days.
The arrangements read out by the Minister of State deal only with this evening.
I am interpreting the word "Opposition" to be more broadly based than what the Opposition Chief Whip has indicated.
The Deputy has voted with them as often as he has voted with us.
It has been clarified by Deputy Brady that an "Opposition speaker" in the motion means a Fianna Fáil speaker. As I told the Deputy, these arrangements only cover this evening.
I would be quite happy to get in tomorrow evening. I will be pressing that tomorrow evening.
We will see when tomorrow comes. Are these arrangements agreed?
Agreed.
In view of the shortage of time available to us in this debate I regret the couple of minutes I have lost.
Speak more quickly now.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's failure to arrest the continuing rise in unemployment and emigration and calls for urgent action by the Government to deal with the present crisis.
I reject the amendment which has been submitted asking the Dáil to support Government policies to promote the growth of employment. I do not know what these policies are: maybe they will be outlined for me. I also condemn the suggestion in the amendment that the reason for our unemployment has got to do with the European Community. I hope in my short contribution to put lie to that indication. The latest unemployment figures, revealing a total of 232,691 people on the live register, underline yet again the complete and utter failure of the Coalition on the jobs crisis and the threadbare content of the Government's economic policies. The Government are hopelessly adrift. They have lost all sense of direction in relation to the conduct of economic policy. The result is an appalling and frightening number of people without jobs.
It is well-nigh incredible to hear the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance in recent statements talking vaguely about setting the economy to rights. What have they been doing for the past four years? They have presided over a massive hike in interest rates and mortgage rates, attributable to their short-sighted approach to investment policy, most glaringly evident in the introduction of the now notorious DIRT tax. From their disastrous approach to economic policy has flowed huge increases in emigration and unemployment, as well as the flight of Irish capital abroad.
Unemployment has increased by 70,000 since 1982, while in the period 1984-86, 51,000 people have emigrated. This relentlessly upward spiral in the jobless has completely overturned the central plank of this Governments' strategy coming into Government.
At its inception the Joint Programme for Government, referring to the 170,000 people who were jobless in November 1982, pointed out the need for "firm and decisive action" and set the Coalition Government the task of "halting and reversing the growth of unemployment". This central aim of the Coalition was restated in Building on Reality in October 1984 when the jobless level stood at 212,300. Building on Reality said the numbers out of work would peak at 220,000 at the end of 1984 and would fall to 210,000 by April 1987. It must be obvious that this expected drop to 210,000 in four months' time is not going to be achieved. The other targets set did not happen. Instead, we saw the unemployment figures climb to 228,000 in April 1985, to 240,400 in January 1986 and 232,691 in October 1986. Let us keep in mind the 51,000 who have emigrated in the last two years.
The latest figures available represent an increase of 7,100 in the seasonally adjusted figures over the past year. Between November 1982 and October 1986, unemployment rose by 70,000 or by 40 per cent under the present Government. This is directly due to Government economic policies which have led to a slump in investment and a drastic slowdown in the overall level of activity in the economy. Irish capital flees freely from the country to create jobs abroad.
The result has been tens of thousands of redundancies at home in the lifetime of the present Government: 29,915 in 1983; 31,290 in 1984 and 22,390 in 1985. In the same period of time there were 1,151 closures, 1,738 liquidations and 413 receiverships. Therefore, in the years 1983-85 the Government presided over some 83,595 redundancies and in the first six months of this year there have been 384 liquidations and 58 receiverships.
Ireland's unemployment in the lifetime of the Coalition has risen faster than in the other EC countries. Between 1982 and 1985, unemployment rose by 44 per cent compared to 3 per cent in Belgium, 23 per cent in Germany, 18 per cent in France, 12 per cent in Holland and 14 per cent in the UK. In Ireland, 18 per cent of the workforce is unemployed compared to an EC average of between 11 per cent and 12 per cent. At present 72,423 of those out of work are under 25 years, compared to 50,400 in November 1982.
The projection in Building on Reality that employment would grow by 33,000 between 1984 and 1987 foundered — between April 1984 and April 1985 some 30,000 jobs were lost. This, if we are to include special schemes leaves the Coalition 63,000 jobs short of target. The policies of the Government have totally paralysed the construction sector. Some 50,000 people are out of work in the building industry.
The unemployment figures, appallingly high as they are, fail to take account of the impact of emigration: 20,000 people emigrated between April 1984 and 1985; 31,000 people emigrated between April 1985 and 1986; and the trend is continuing unabated. This exodus is the achievement of the present Administration. This and the tragedy of 250,000 people out of work is the monument to the barren economic achievements of the past four years.
Some 50 per cent of highly qualified graduates in the high technology sector who graduated this summer have already emigrated, according to a report in a Sunday newpaper of 9 November 1986 which put the cost of training this year's crop of graduates in hardware skills at about £7 million. This represents an enormous loss of highly skilled manpower which should be harnessed to help build the indigenous advanced technical sector at home.
High taxation and the fact that investment in industry has fallen to under 3 per cent annually over the past four years must be adjudged a huge factor in the failure to create the kind of advanced projects which would entice such graduates to stay at home, and which would contribute to the formation of the high tech sector in Ireland. Instead of encouraging investment in this sector the Coalition have presided over the flight of the best and brightest to help to develop the economies of our competitors.
It is clear that young people are woefully ill-equipped to deal with emigration. It is utterly disgraceful that the Government have failed to give any indication of devising a thoughtful approach to take account of emigration. Last March a conference on emigration organised by the Youth Emigration Action Group, and the London-based Action Group for Irish Youth, noted that the Government's preoccupation with training schemes instead of creating jobs was forcing young Irish people to emigrate. A resolute approach to boosting real economic growth is the long-term answer to emigration. Faced with this massive human tragedy of joblessness and emigration, the Government have assumed a hollow blustering position.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce over the past six months has stubbornly repeated his belief in a consumer spending boom which will, he says, improve the situation. This is a myth and the boom has failed to materialise. Consumer demand actually declined in the first six months of the year.
The Minister for Finance in late spring was forecasting an increase in employment of 1 per cent this year but the latest bulletin from the Central Bank estimates the numbers at work will decline in 1986 by about 1 per cent indicating that the Minister's target is out by 2 per cent. This partiality for fictitious economic forecasting is not shared solely by the Minister for Finance. The Taoiseach has lost all credibility on the issue of unemployment, consistently claiming over the past three years that the unemployment trend has improved, despite the disappearance of 70,000 jobs in that period.
On 11 March 1985, and on 3 July this year, as well as on a number of other occasions, the Taoiseach claimed in the House that economic activity and employment were improving. That was not true and it is still not true. The Taoiseach has constantly misrepresented the facts on jobs, revealing the barren and deceitful nature of the Government's approach to the problem.
The Government have done nothing positive to create a climate of confidence conducive to investment where we can begin to tackle unemployment by developing our considerable potential in areas such as food processing, forestry, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and so on. As I have just said, there would appear to be no investment strategy designed to exploit here at home our highly educated young people in pursuit of developing Irish enterprise.
The Government sadly lack the resolution and the gumption to deal with a situation where one in five of the workforce is without a job. This is clearly the view of the thousands of people who have emigrated over the past three years. The Coalition's pledge to create employment by fostering a climate of enterprise through appropriate tax and incentive policies is meaningless.
With the huge growth in the numbers out of work we have had an increase in the number of marginal groups in society with a corresponding increase in poverty, deprivation and inequality unprecedented in the history of the State. Some urban housing estates have unemployment levels of 50 to 60 per cent. Instead of resolute leadership and a profound examination of the causes of the most pressing problem of our time, we are being treated to a pathetic display of lip service to the unemployed. Statistics are being manipulated in a vain and cynical attempt to hide the true seriousness of the problem and the Government's gross ineptitude in dealing with it. The cost of joblessness bears heavily on every sector in our society. A tragic amount of financial and psychological damage has been imposed on those involved and their families. It is terrifying to note that more people are now registered unemployed than work in the manufacturing sector.
The Government's failure to move beyond the parameters of conventional thinking ignores the successful examples of other small nations with limited physical resources such as Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland which have successfully pursued highly productive economic strategies with relatively low unemployment rates. The Cabinet have failed to devise such a strategy and because of this the Cabinet Task Force on employment was doomed to failure from the outset. Since its inception three years ago it has signally failed to bring an innovative and integrated approach to the problems of joblessness. In this context the establishment at the beginning of March of a new ministerial task force to spearhead job creation was a meaningless measure. Government intervention has increased to the employer the cost of taking on staff. For the employee the rewards for work have been cut by high taxation. The cost to the employer per worker in recent years has risen by 26 per cent in real terms while his take home pay fell by 6 per cent. We will not increase jobs until we begin to remove the obstacles which make it unattractive for employers to take on workers and which act as a disincentive to work.
On the record I have outlined the Government should resign and allow Fianna Fáil to take up the challenge which we will pursue confidently with all the success we achieved in the past.
Táimid faoi láthair i dtréimhse cinniúna maidir le óige na tíre. Tá líon na hóige anois ar phointe níos airde mar chéad chodán de iomlán an daonra ná mar bhí sé in am ar bith i stair na tíre. Ach in ainneoin sin tá díomá agus easpa dóchais i measc na hóige mar nach bhfuil fostaíocht le fáil acu. Tá méadú fíochmhar ar imirce, ar choirpeachas, ar fhoréigean agus ar mhí-úsáid druganna. Seo toradh an díomhaointis agus an éadóchaís atá fómharaithe ag polasaí an Rialtais. Má táimid le dóchas a spreagadh iontu caithfimíd ar dtús athrú a dhéanamh ar an Rialtas agus ar na polasaíthe náireacha atá á gcur i bhfeidhm acu le blianta beaga anuas.
I support the motion. This is the most important motion in the conduct of our business in this House because it addresses fundamentally and straightforwardly the greatest crisis and the greatest problem the country finds itself with. I assure the House that the constituency of Dublin north-east which I represent can be described as an unemployment black spot, or at least 60 per cent of it. I was very interested in the statistics used by Deputy Lyons. He referred to housing estates around the country which in some cases have an unemployment rate of 60 per cent. There are estates in my constituency, particularly throughout the Coolock area, with unemployment as high as 65 per cent. Fathers and their children, male and female, all older than school-going age, are idle, without prospects, without hope, totally demoralised.
The clear message the Government should get this evening in the face of this enormous crisis, because of their inept handling and total failure to confront it, is that people in our urban and rural communities are frustrated, annoyed, disappointed and sick. If the great social consequences of this problem are to be addressed this Government must step down because they have lost the will to govern, the ability to show leadership. The obvious solution is that they give way to an alternative Government who will deal with these problems.
Deputy Lyons referred to many statements issued by the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Finance and Industry and Commerce in the past 12 months. I often wonder if the Taoiseach and his Ministers are in touch with what is happening on the ground or if they know how people feel, how people are speaking. I am in touch and it is obvious from what Deputy Lyons has said that he is. Our people are fed up, depressed, and they no longer have confidence in the ability of the Government to provide their basic right to aspire to jobs. When we ponder the frightening consequences of our unemployment rate and its corollary of emigration, particularly high youth emigration, one of the most abiding memories we have is of the bleak years of the fifties when the emigrant boats were leaving our shores with increasing frequency. People were forced to leave in those days for varied reasons, not at all dissimilar to the reasons that are forcing thousands of our young people, and some not so young, to try to seek a living abroad today.
It is not just a coincidence that both these periods have been dominated by Coalition Governments. Then, like now, it was the misfortune of this country to have a Government completely bankrupt of ideas to stimulate an economy crying out for investment. Then we had a Government incapable of opening factories. Now we have one whose Ministers are tripping over each other to close them down.
I believe it was D. H. Lawrence who said, "The only real tragedy is loss of heart". It is unpardonable of any Government who, having lost faith in themselves, proceed to destroy the hopes, the dreams and legitimate aspirations of our young people. A Government who do not understand the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
In the past four years, this country has sadly witnessed unemployment climbing to almost a quarter of a million and, let us not be confused, this graph is still rising. Penal taxation is stifling incentive and enterprise, is forcing many into the black economy and making emigration the only option for thousands of others.
Just as the Coalitions of the fifties saw emigration as the solution to the unemployment problem, the present Government see nothing amoral in foisting our young jobless thousands onto the same foreign shores, in many cases young people who are ill equipped, unprepared and who are said to be cast as vulnerable fodder for the ruthless commercial interests they inevitably will encounter abroad.
Every Irish citizen is entitled to claim the right to work in his own homeland and every Irish Government are charged with the responsibility of managing the resources of the country towards that end. This Government's inept handling of our affairs has rendered this fundamental objective totally unattainable at present. It represents a crime against Irish youth.
So bleak and depressing was the situation towards the end of the fifties that the major objective of the incoming Fianna Fáil Government was to banish once and for all this spectre of emigration. I am proud to say that by the end of the sixties, emigration which had almost drained the life blood of this island for well over a century had become an irrelevancy in Irish politics.
The then Lemass Government's belief in themselves and the ability of the Irish people forced a policy of industrialisation across the country and raised the hopes of the Irish people to meet with confidence the immense challenge of the second half of the 20th century.
If we look at the statistics, and note the great lack of statistics up to very recently in relation to the rate of emigration, we will find a number of curious pronouncements in this House. Speaking at a conference on youth emigration on Thursday 3 April last, the Minister for Labour acknowledged total emigration to be 25,000 per year. Even if we accept these figures as accurately reflecting the magnitude of the problem, which we do not for one moment, the very fact of his acknowledgement alone is a dreadful indictment of the way in which this country is being managed. The Taoiseach, in response to Dáil Questions from Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Frank Fahey on 19 February 1985, refused to accept that there had been any alarming increase in emigration. Yet a Minister in his own Cabinet could quote figures showing an increase in youth emigration of 150 per cent for 1984. How can these statements be squared?
If the Taoiseach is so smug as to take consolation in what he described recently — and it has become a popular phrase of his — as a reduction in the rate of increase in unemployment, he should be reminded that his smugness will be at the expense of those 25,000 to 27,000 of our young people, apart from those who are not so young, who will be forced — and I mean forced — out of Ireland again this year in search of a job. Many of them have already been pushed out.
Just as the solution to emigration proved totally beyond the capabilities of previous Coalition Governments, so too it has baffled the present administration. Young people are now left without hope or opportunities and in increasing uncertainty due to the manner in which the country is being run. We in Fianna Fáil have never believed in the politics of despair. It is a most terrible indictment of any Government that their attitude should promote despair and lack of confidence. We have consistently asserted the potential of our highly educated young people, who are a flexible workforce, not only to come to terms with the micro chip revolution but to harness its power and influence its direction. Surely what is required of any Government worth its salt is to chart a course for the national economy towards achieving that objective. That must be the fundamental principle on which a Government should operate.
Everybody accepts that the industrial base is changing right across the world. Everyone accepts that the challenge is to face up to change, to take it on and deal with it in the marketplace, whether at home or abroad. However, along with that change have come new market situations. One of the things we have failed to do — and I shall be referring to it later in terms of the manner in which we have handled our fisheries policy — is to go out into that international market and secure a proper share of it. Our performance and record in recent years in that respect have been disgraceful.
This Government cannot claim any positive credit for achievements in the area of social or economic development during their tenure. On the contrary, their achievements have been startlingly negative and have been impactful in the areas of increased unemployment, massively increased emigration and crucifying taxation. The figures speak for themselves: they have been given so clearly and so accurately by Deputy Lyons. We have 250,000 unemployed out of a population of 3½ million and surely this must put us at the top of the most despicable league in the developed world. Indeed, it has already been said that we have the highest rate of increasing unemployment of all the EC countries.
For those who like to philosophise, it must be remembered that employment is basically a means of distributing wealth. It is the most effective way that any country has to share out to all its people, or as many as possible, its package or cake of wealth. It is the mechanism that provides for distribution of the national cake among our people. To deprive a person of the opportunity to participate in the process is to foist an unacceptable inequity on him or her, particularly on so many who have skills to contribute and have a contribution to make.
Employment increases the value of national resources. Conversely, unemployment diminishes those resources. It is nothing short of scandalous that people's skills are unharnessed, in many instances left to decay and indeed expire when the opportunity exists to increase our national resources through the development of our infrastructures, housing and facilities, food processing, fishing, tourism and many other areas all of which would enhance our attractiveness for investment in development.
In the last six years, nobody would dispute that our unemployment level has grown to catastrophical proportions. The depression that pervades our people as a result of that manifests itself in increased levels of crime, breakdown of family life, increased drug abuse and general apathy in terms of public spirit and ordinary unspectacular patriotism. The more resourceful people in many instances are emigrating as a result and, regrettably, the economic climate from which they are departing does not infuse them with any enthusiasm to return.
The Government obviously see emigration as one of the safety valves that release the pressure from the more vociferous of the unemployed. The only hope, if one could extravagantly call it hope, that is offered by the Government is more of the same hopeless round of work experience, social employment schemes and social guarantee. Increasingly recently we have heard of funds for these schemes drying up and of extremely small quotas being allowed to centres around the city and the country for participation in these schemes. Even if we take it that there was a continuance of these schemes at the level at which they have operated over the last couple of years, they all at the end of the day guarantee nothing whatsoever in terms of sustainable employment, or indeed in terms of creating an economic base for future employment. I should like to reflect here on the many things that I have heard from young people throughout the north eastern side of Dublin over the last couple of years in relation to these courses.
Deputy Fitzgerald has five minutes.
While many of these young people welcomed the opportunity to participate in these courses, to acquire skills which they hoped and believed would enable them to be in a more competitive position to get a job — and perhaps to a great extent it is true that it did put them in a more competitive position to get a job — nevertheless, what diminished their confidence, demoralised them and made them more cynical was that they were being trained, in most cases, to no avail. There was nothing for them to compete for at the end of the line. That is a raising of the level of expectation in our young people, only to have their hopes dashed as soon as they leave a course. It is regrettable that to finance all this cosmetic employment — and it can only be referred to be as such — the taxation burden is increased further on those who are fortunate enough to be employed.
Taxation levels are punitive. The worker has his purchasing power diminished to a hand and mouth existence. As a result, the home market has suffered to an extent that endangers further the viability of many of our industries both in manufacturing and service. The taxes raised through VAT and excise make us uncompetitive, even for our own people who go North in their thousands to buy goods and petrol. As has been said in this House before, a shopping trip to Northern Ireland is now self-financing on the savings that can be made on one tankful of petrol bought up there.
The Government with their monetarist policies that are pursued with unrelenting vigour are creating a cycle of diminishing returns from taxes, whereas it has been pointed out again and again that certain tax cuts can be self-financing. If, for instance, the price of petrol were brought more into line with the price prevailing in Northern Ireland, people would find it less attractive to go up to the North to do their shopping. This, in turn, would reduce considerably the amount that is spent on shopping in the North and would obviously be beneficial, not only to the Exchequer here but to our traders on this side of the Border and also in terms of the people employed here in terms of giving them greater job security.
Anybody who is immersed in the PAYE system, will be all too painfully aware of the difference between gross and take home pay. Over the past three years, we have reached the ludicrous situation where a worker here can find himself on the top tax band with an income of just over £10,000. Despite oil prices falling to the floor since last Christmas we are still in the position here of having the dearest petrol in the EC. There is no way in which any economy can continue to sustain such a ridiculously high level of taxation. The burden being carried by the Irish people, both with direct and indirect tax, is having a devastating and demoralising effect on our country. It is frightening away huge investment from abroad and killing the incentive to work at home.
The Deputy is now discussing solely taxation. He will have to relate his remarks——
I am referring to it in the context of employment, because we are talking about unemployment, about the ability of and incentives of people to invest in employment creation. The level of taxation here is creating a distinct disincentive to people to invest in jobs, to be innovative and enterprising. That is the point that I am making here. The situation that pertains has created a distinct lack of confidence in the ability of this country to offer meaningful employment creation for those few who are fortunate enough to have a few bob to put into the country.
Hear, hear.
It is putting a terrible damper on this investment potential and if one takes the other side of the coin: if you save now, the Government hit you with DIRT; if you invest now they hammer you with tax.
Another frightening consequence of this whole scene is that impoverished families are being pushed more deeply into the poverty trap. The stories are legion of people going to the health board centres around this city — people who are working, trying to earn a living and are fortunate enough to be able to hold on to a job but simply not able to make ends meet. Almost a thousand businesses went to the wall last year and we now have a new group in our society, the poor middle class.
One of the most frightening developments of all arising out of that scene is the rampant black economy. Instead of employment contributing to the Exchequer, contributing to the recycling of wealth, as all official employment is doing as fully as possible, we have what some people refer to as the gaping black hole, a cancer in our society. While nobody in this House can condone the rapid development of the black economy, everybody must concede and understand that because of the lack of incentive and the high level of taxation more and more people are being forced into providing services through the black economy and more and more consumers are being forced to seek services from that quarter.
Despite all the gimmicks that are being poured out in terms of grants to the building industry and other sectors — in themselves all grants are welcome to the recipients and do promote a bit of enterprise — the unacceptably high level of taxation has hammered the building industry. Deputy Lyons referred to the fact that well over 50,000 skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers from this industry are redundant with no prospect of jobs in the near future. Another area which concerns us greatly is that of science and technology.
The Deputy's time has expired. I must call the Minister.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann supports the Government's policies to promote the growth of employment and intensify the fight against unemployment and recognises that an effective response to the persistence of large-scale unemployment throughout the European Community requires stronger action and closer co-operation on the part of all Member States."
There is no doubt that the problem of unemployment represents the greatest single challenge facing us today. In terms of both its social and economic cost it represents a burden which we cannot continue to bear and which we must use every means at our disposal to alleviate.
This Government are committed to contributing in every possible and rational way to a solution to this problem. I say "contributing to as solution" because at the end of the day, the Government's task is to create the right environment for job creation; to bring about a situation where individuals and businesses up and down the country have the confidence to embark on new business ventures or expand existing activities. The creation of the right environment of business development is not a simple process nor is it amenable to instant solutions. In recent years recessionary forces and the slowdown in the international economy have contributed to our difficulties.
However, there is much which we can do for ourselves and indeed this Government have shown in recent years how a determined and concerted effort has succeeded in overcoming the great evil of inflation which was at the root of our growing uncompetitiveness and resultant job losses. We have succeeded in our period in office in reducing inflation from a figure of 23.3 per cent which we inherited to a projected level of 3 per cent in 1987. This of itself has been a major achievement and one which puts us in a position to compete on the international market with no little hope of success.
But the conquering of inflation alone is not enough. For some years now there has been a growing realisation that Irish industry has been lagging behind its overseas competitors in many respects, such as management weaknesses; lack of attention to research and development; the low equity bases of many companies; failure to diversify export beyond the UK market; the inability of most existing Irish products, with a few notable exceptions, to achieve a dominant position in international markets and the lack of commercial and educational links between foreign industry and Irish firms and between industry and educational institutions. All of these deficiencies were contributing to our failure to produce the level of growth and employment which was so desperately needed.
The process of addressing all these areas in a co-ordinated manner was initiated by the Government in their White Paper on Industrial Policy which was published in 1984 and has since been followed by the introduction of a wide range of specific measures aimed at addressing each of these shortcomings. I am confident that the process begun by the measures set out in the White Paper is beginning to have the desired effect and with the advent of the measures contained in the Industrial Development Act, 1986, I am satisfied that we have now put in place a package of measures which will allow business ideas which have lain dormant to be brought to fruition. Indeed, evidence is now emerging that such is the case.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): I am interested in the raising of voices opposite. I heard Deputy Fitzgerald making a typical Fianna Fáil speech. They want more expenditure in every direction: more houses, more schools, more schemes, more social welfare and less tax. The only people who ever succeeded in doing that in the past were Fianna Fáil between 1977 and 1981 when they gave all the extras, taxed nobody and borrowed the difference. Ever since we have been paying back the borrowing.
The Minister does not believe what he is reading.
(Limerick East): If the Deputy will sit down quietly and politely I will tell him the story.
This speech is a beauty for public consumption. Let the Minister give it to the unemployed.
It is a fairy tale.
(Limerick East): We have had Fianna Fáil fairytales and we have been suffering since. It is about time they woke up from dreamland and started telling the people how it is. They have not a solution to any of the problems of the country. They are marvellous at elucidating the problems but they have not a solution between the whole lot of them.
We know you do not believe what you are reading.
Allow the Minister to speak, please.
Typical cynicism.
(Limerick East): May I continue without interruption or will I depart from my speech to tell a few more home truths?
It is worth noting that in 1985, at a time when world trade was in a sluggish state, we secured on output growth of 2.7 per cent while our exports grew by a very creditable 7 per cent. In addition, over the same period 12,000 jobs were created in grant-aided industry and in the small business sector in particular 700 firms were assisted, of which 400 were new enterprises. In 1986, industry output is expected to grow by 2 per cent and exports are expected to grow by 5 per cent for the year as a whole. The year end target for new jobs in projects assisted by the IDA and SFADCo is expected to reach 13,000. This development will be encouraged by the continuing fall in inflation and reduction in oil prices.
In this connection, it is encouraging to note that the OECD, in a recent commentary on economic prospects, projected a significant improvement in the short-term outlook for both inflation and real growth in the OECD area arising from the fall in oil prices and reductions in international interest rates.
While the OECD's positive view is encouraging, much remains to be achieved. I am confident that we have now set the parameters within which business can begin to prosper. It is worth remembering also that many of the initiatives which have been taken have just recently come into effect following enactment of the Industrial Development Act which I referred to earlier.
Among these initiatives are the introduction of research and development grants and technology acquisition grants which will enable Irish companies to be at the forefront of technological development. At present there are over 80 Irish companies committed to taking part in the IDA's technology transfer programme and 40 more are expected to join before the end of 1986.
The Government are pregnant with expectations.
(Limerick East): I include these points for the Deputy's information since he obviously was not aware of them, even though the Bill went through some time ago.
There is more unemployment.
(Limerick East): Yes. That is what Fianna Fáil caused and if they go back again it will be even higher.
The purpose of the programme is to link suitable indigenous and overseas firms with a view to developing new product or process possibilities for European markets.
A new scheme of employment grants has been recently introduced. This scheme allows promoters of small industry projects to avail of employment grants as an alternative to grants towards the cost of machinery and buildings. The new employment grants will encourage further the development of small industry and will make the State grant system more employment oriented. It will be of particular benefit to industries such as clothing and engineering where there is excellent second-hand equipment available. Both the technology acquisition grant scheme and the employment grants scheme have just recently been introduced, following receipt of EC Commission approval, but I am confident that these measures will make a very positive contribution to industrial development in the future. Indeed, indications to date are that the schemes in question have attracted a lot of interest from industrialists.
Many other schemes have now been put in place to address the weaknesses in Irish industry which I referred to earlier.
The company development programme involves the IDA, the IIRS and Córas Tráchtála working closely with selected companies to help them identify and implement strategic development initiatives. The programme is designed primarily to encourage indigenous companies to develop to a point where they are capable of developing their own research and development programmes and achieving a strong international marketing position. Already many of the strategic initiatives identified by companies under the programme are being implemented. The operating target for 1986 is that 50 companies will be covered under the company development programme.
The national linkage programme commenced in July 1985. Its objective is to optimise the amount of raw materials, components and services sourced locally by manufacturing industry. In particular, it aims to develop business between the multinational companies which have established in Ireland and Irish-based companies which could act as suppliers to them. The NLP started in the electronics and consumer products sectors. By the end of 1985, 45 electronics multinationals were in the programme. The target for 1986 is to place £40 million worth of business contracts with Irish suppliers.
The regionalisation of the IDA's small industries programme was completed during 1985. A service to promoters is now available from the IDA offices in all the regions with the exception of the midwest and Gaeltacht areas, where this service is provided by Shannon Development and Údarás na Gaeltachta respectively. The administration of the programme, including decision-making on grant applications, now rests with the regional small industry boards supported, in the case of the IDA, by 130 IDA staff at regional level.
New schemes and programmes to build marketing strengths within firms have been introduced by Córas Tráchtála over the past two years funded by an increase of over 40 per cent in CTT's grant-in-aid since 1984. These include a marketing manager grant scheme, marketing training programmes and a marketing graduates in industry schemes. The major marketing initiative has been the market entry and development scheme, the purpose of which is to help firms to enter new markets or undertake major developments of existing markets where substantial investment in marketing activity is required. The scheme helps to offset costs such as advertising, promotion, travel expenses and overseas warehousing. Seven firms benefited under the scheme in 1985.
As part of a review of overall training grants policy, I have extended training grants to assist in management training and development. This will provide support for companies — in particular small indigenous companies — which appraise their management skills and structures and seek to upgrade them by way of special advisory help or in-house support. Grant assistance will be paid by the IDA following approval by a joint IDA-AnCO committee and will be financed through a general tightening up of the scope and costs supported under the training grants programme.
Now we come to the real crunch of this speech. The next page will be a beauty.
(Limerick East): Would Deputy Lyons like to read it?
Would the Minister please continue?
(Limerick East): I feel sorry for the Deputies opposite. It would be much better if they were in their offices doing constituency work because, on the basis of Fianna Fáil policy, they are not going to get votes. They will have to rely on individual constituency work.
(Interruptions.)
I do my own homework.
(Limerick East): I think they are going to be in trouble.
Confetti work.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Liam Fitzgerald, we are not in a kindergarten.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister please continue?
(Limerick East): A crucial element of the Government's strategy for tackling the problem of unemployment has been the development of a climate more conducive to investment in industries and to the stimulation of enterprise. As I have said already, Governments do not of themselves create employment nor should they be expected to do so. That is the mistake Fianna Fáil made between 1977 and 1981 when they stuffed the public service with everybody and we have been paying for it ever since. It cannot be done. Governments can create direct jobs but the taxpayer must pay for them. However, they have a duty to create the right environment, to put in place the proper mechanisms to enable industry to prosper and so respond to the challenge of unemployment.
This Government have been unstinting in their efforts in this regard. Since taking office we have reformed many of those provisions of the tax code which discouraged productive investment. In so doing we have honoured our commitment given in the White Paper on Industrial Policy to encourage the attraction of a much greater level of risk capital into industry.
Most economic commentators will agree with my contention that the twin evils facing native industry are an over-reliance on bank borrowings and State grants resulting from the inability of industrialists to attract equity style investment and the unwillingness on the part of some business men to trade part ownership of their business in return for third party investment and outside expertise.
My view on the under capitalisation of Irish industry is not a controversial one and is merely a statement of the factual position in which industry finds itself. Indeed, I have support from a number of auspicious quarters. The National Economic and Social Council produced a report a little while ago on the Role of the Financial System in Financing the Traded Sectors. The report shows that between 1972 and 1982 bank borrowings by manufacturing industry increased in real terms by 6 per cent per annum while production volumes increased by only 3.5 per cent. The report also demonstrated that equity capital relative to total assets is much lower in Ireland than it is in the USA, Japan or the UK.
The problem has also been recognised and acknowledged by Members of this House, through the report of an Oireachtas joint committee on manufacturing industry. This report pointed to the undercapitalisation of small industry in this country and added that because of low profitability and the lack of any further equity investment this situation continues during the life of the company. The report states quite clearly that finance is without doubt one of the major problem areas for small companies. The Oireachtas joint committee's recommendations for bringing about a reversal of these trends included the encouragement of additional venture capital investment through the banks, other financial institutions and through private investors. I am pleased to say that I view the committee's report as being entirely supportive of Government policy in this area.
The White Paper on Industrial Policy outlined the Government's commitment towards the encouragement of a greater level of risk capital in industry. The first step in the Government's strategy came in the 1984 Finance Act with the introduction of the business expansion scheme which allows individual investors in industry to write off up to a maximum of £25,000 per annum against their taxable income. The introduction of this scheme is an acknowledgement by the Government of the risk associated with investment in manufacturing industries. It has already begun to have a significant impact in terms of strengthening capital structure of industry and is proving to be a major source of capital for aspiring entrepreneurs. To date investments of £7.5 million have taken place under the scheme in 65 companies. A further 86 companies are in negotiation with the Revenue Commissioners regarding investments of over £9 million. The size of investments made to date ranges from over £1 million to slightly more than £1,000 in companies ranging from film-making to fish farming.
The success of the business expansion scheme cannot be measured, however, solely in terms of statistics such as these. The scheme has had a very important catalytic effect in terms of focusing attention on the benefits of equity style investment, thus putting this style of corporate financing into vogue.
The impact of the scheme in this way is impossible to measure but it combines with the other initiatives taken by Government which are designed to increase the flow of funding to industry. For instance, we have reduced the rate of capital gains tax on long term investments so improving the risk-reward ratio for investors. We have also introduced a significant relief from income tax on dividends paid by manufacturing companies so as to increase the attractiveness of industrial investment as a savings medium and not to concentrate entirely on the lure of capital gain. We have also introduced a scheme similar to the business expansion scheme which is designed to encourage investment in research and development activities. Indeed, may I remind Deputies that if they wish to know in more detail about the working of the business expansion scheme, they should contact officials of my Department who will be only too pleased to send them a copy of the explanatory booklet which we launched recently on the subject?
I am also pleased to say that as a result of Government prompting and its willingness to respond to the need for change, the Stock Exchange is again threatening to become a force in industrial financing terms. For almost a decade the exchange had witnessed a steady decline in the number of companies listed on it. This trend has now been reversed and there have been a number of new listings on the exchange in the past 18 months. The exchange have also responded to the Government initiative by launching the new smaller companies market as a mechanism whereby young companies, including those at a start-up situation, can raise capital. The response to the launch of this market has, I admit, been disappointing. But I have always maintained that we must put the right mechanisms in place first and, given the proper encouragement, I hope the private sector will respond positively. An important cornerstone in the Government's strategy is the National Development Corporation. This body is now known by the acronym NADCORP. NADCORP was established on 11 June last and it has already approved investments totalling almost £2.5 million. The corporation has the primary objective of assisting in the creation of a maximum amount of viable employment in the State. It will do this through the injection of equity style capital into all sectors of industry. Its primary function, however, will be in areas of high technology, natural resources and tourism. It is filling a much needed gap in what we call the venture capital market because the majority of existing venture capital companies operating in the private sector are inclined to target their investments at better established enterprises who can demonstrate an impressive track record.
The National Development Corporation, on the other hand, will not be hidebound by any of these limitations. Although it will be required to act at all times in a commercial market, it will be a major source of capital for young and expanding companies. The corporation has been much maligned by parties on the opposite side of the House. But I am confident that with the right resources and the proper opportunities which this Government intend to afford it, NADCORP will become a vibrant investment and employment-creating organisation.
I have outlined the wide range of measures which this Government have implemented at national level to combat the unemployment level. However, as members of the European Community, our future prosperity is very much related to developments in the Community as a whole. From Ireland's point of view membership of the Community offers us access to a market of 320 million people. We must grasp this opportunity with both hands. Indeed, there is growing evidence that Irish companies are beginning to seek out opportunities on the European mainland. In 1981, 40 per cent of our exports went to the United Kingdom with 30 per cent going to the rest of the EC. By 1985, this situation had altered to a position where only 33 per cent of our exports are going to the UK while exports to the rest of the EC had grown to 34 per cent. This move was obviously in the right direction.
In the case of small business in particular, the EC has just recently brought forward an action plan aimed at improving the business environment and the supply of financial and technological services particularly suited to the needs of small business. This plan, which was welcomed by all member states, identifies a series of proposed measures which are aimed at improving the environment of small firms on an EC basis. In endorsing this plan, the Community is giving recognition to the important role played by small business in job creation and is setting about creating an environment in which small business can flourish. It is interesting indeed to note that very many of the measures now being proposed at EC level have already been adopted here under our Industrial Policy White Paper.
I have outlined in the time available to me the details of the schemes which are set down by this Government to create the environment for small business. I make one appeal to the Opposition — to please endorse the NDC. I ask them not to leave a cloud hanging over it. It is making a major contribution and if the Opposition decided to remove the suggestion to abolish it if they return to office then it could make even more progress. I remind them, with all respect, that they also threatened to abolish the IDA when it was first founded and they live to regret it.
Níl éinne sásta leis an méid dífhostaíochta atá á fhulaingt againn faoi láthair ach creidim, ag cuidiú leis an leasú seo thar ceann an Rialtais, nár mhiste liom an rud seo go léir a chur i gcomhthéacs.
In supporting the Government amendment I think that it is worth while reviewing the response of the Department of Labour and its manpower agencies to the unemployment crisis and I will deal with that specifically. The manpower bodies, soon to be merged in a single body, have demonstrated a capacity to respond imaginatively with special employment and training measures. Whereas initially the contribution of the Labour Party's influence in Government was evident in the range of youth employment schemes, shifting demographic trends and the serious problem of long term unemployment among adult workers has resulted in pioneering community-based initiatives under the social employment scheme and the development of new training programmes such as the Building on Experience Programme to assist the long term unemployed. Some of these schemes have been looked at very favourably by the OECD and they are examining them with a view to taking some of them on board, to apply within the rest of the OECD countries.
There has been a persistent tendency in contributions from the Opposition benches in past debates on manpower issues to denigrate the contribution made by training to improve the job prospects of the individual. Special employment and training schemes are not intended to act as a replacement for permanent employment. The aim of these measures is to assist as many people as possible in their efforts to return to the workforce. Many programmes are also aimed at the less advantaged, such as the long term unemployed who have particular difficulties in obtaining regular permanent employment. Participants of schemes are actively encouraged and given every opportunity to pursue permanent employment opportunities.
The social employment scheme has, since its introduction in the first half of 1985, made a marked contribution to growth in employment for the over 25 age group. By the middle of this year the ambitious target of 10,000 participants had been exceeded due to the extraordinary level of demand for the scheme. In my own region groups of organisations and individuals want to take part in schemes but have to wait until we get back to our original target level. The scheme offers the long term unemployed a fresh start on work projects which have tapped community-wide support. About a third of the projects now in operation are sponsored by voluntary services, recreational activity, tourism and heritage concerns. The remaining 70 per cent of projects are sponsored by public sector bodies. These include local authorities, schools and health boards. The quality and range of the projects is impressive and the scheme is credited in many communities with counteracting many of the adverse effects of unemployment. Expenditure on this scheme in 1985 amounted to £7.25 million and the budget made available for this year's operation is in excess of £42 million.
It is no harm to point out that every one of us has seen the manner in which this scheme has changed the environment in our own areas. It has done tremendous work and it bears out the very valid argument of many people who, down through the years, have said that the best possible way that money can be given to the unemployed is that they earn it by doing other valuable community work. I wish that there was infinitely more money available for those schemes. I have seen schools in my own area which were brought up to a magnificent level of appearance and which have won environmental awards. Equally, all we need to do is to go to Limerick city to see the transformation that has taken place there and the work that has been done by the Limerick Civic Trust with the very generous contribution from the Government of £100,000. I thank the Minister, Deputy Noonan for his influence in securing that. It helped to transform our city as a prime example of the urban renewal that can take place with public money.
At the outset there were many who doubted the willingness of participants to enter the scheme and who questioned the kind of social solidarity which has prompted voluntary organisations to take part. They said it could not be done. In this House there are others who now turn their backs on this achievement. They reject the idea of socially useful work and advocate the dismantling of the scheme. They would turn over 10,000 men and women away from their only avenue back to a regular job.
The enterprise allowance scheme represents another radical initiative which has already enabled over 15,300 unemployed people to build on their own skills and talents in creating fulltime work for themselves. The scheme provides the essential financial back-up needed at the most crucial stage for any small business — its first year of operation. It guarantees equity for the unemployed in access to opportunities to launch new business ventures and thus complements the mainstream job creation instruments of industrial policy.
The scheme was introduced by this Government in 1983. In the following year expenditure was £5.8 million increasing to £12.1 million in 1985. Due to the continuing heavy demand for the scheme this year the initial allocation of £11.1 million has had to be increased to £11.6 million. The scheme is being continuously monitored by the National Manpower Service and changes are being made in its administration to speed up decisions at local level, to improve project selection and to make it more cost-effective. There are currently 4,600 persons participating under the scheme.
The community enterprise programme launched in 1983 is another example of the strategic utilisation of resources in the interests of harnessing community effort for job creation. State attention was not directly focused upon the promotion of community enterprise up until then. Three hundred local employment groups are currently receiving assistance from the various State agencies co-operating in this programme, under the aegis of the Youth Employment Agency. There has been a sixfold increase in the number of groups assisted since 1983. This kind of State initiative provides locally-based organisations with the resources to involve the unemployed in efforts to find alternative means of creating sustainable employment in their local areas through worker co-operatives and community-based business ventures. The programme will be incorporated in the restructuring of manpower services to apply to all age groups as the main instrument for local employment initiatives.
Expenditure on the employment incentive scheme in the first nine months of 1986 has amounted to over £4 million and recruitments have been notified for 7,500 persons. About 79 per cent of recruitments under the scheme are young people and the remaining 21 per cent are over 25 years of age. Approximately 50 per cent of the over 25s are long term unemployed. The standard premium payable to employers was doubled for this category so as to provide a greater incentive to employers to assist the long term unemployed in making a return to work.
Recruitment under the scheme in general averages about 57 per cent male and 43 per cent female. The main areas of employment are services and manufacturing with 64 per cent and 21 per cent of recruitment respectively. Recruitment in construction totals 9 per cent; hotel and catering total 3 per cent and others, including agriculture and horticulture, total 3 per cent.
In the context of the Government's announcement last October of a series of measures to combat unemployment, the scheme was extended to increase to four the number of jobs which an employer may have assisted under the scheme. This, together with the special facility to qualify for PRSI exemption, has led to a substantial increase in the take up under the scheme.
Nobody would seek to defend high levels of unemployment. Obviously that would be foolish. This is merely to put the Government measures in context. I quote from OECD Employment Outlook of September 1986, page 5:
The OECD economy is in its fourth year of recovery but unemployment in the OECD area as a whole is unlikely to show much change next year from its present high level of 31 million.
Forty-five per cent of that 31 million have been out of work for over one year, and the OECD predict a growth in employment in Ireland next year of 1¼ per cent as compared with ¾ per cent for Europe as a whole.
Finally, Ireland in their opinion, will be one of the few countries to experience a decline in unemployment next year. I say that merely to point out that there is no easy solution to this problem no matter who is in power. I am setting that in the context of the international scene. That is not to justify the present high level of unemployment.
One of the difficulties with Private Members' Time motions is that people come in from one side or the other and quote what scriptwriters provide for them. I suppose any scriptwriters who are in full-time employment with research officers can go through all the data and put forward scripts that appear to answer some questions. We have had two Government scripts written either by the national handlers or civil servants who in just doing as they are asked provide what is really old balderdash which people outside will study, read and examine, and then they will say that Dáil Éireann is really irrelevant. Tonight we have one of the better examples. I have the pleasure to speak to some of my colleagues who have come to listen to this debate tonight. We know the number of members in the Fianna Fáil benches compared with those not on the Coalition benches. They have sent in only a Minister and a backbencher with a Minister's script. That is all the interest the Government seem to have in a major problem which this country faces. We have over 230,000 people unemployed. Thousands more in petty jobs are extremely concerned about their future, and Government aid and assistance and the proper climate for investment are being sought.
The Fianna Fáil Deputies here tonight went through the Minister's speech carefully and listened carefully to the other speech. Only far on in the Minister's speech do we see the policy statement which is put in in a different type, probably an afterthought, that Governments of themselves do not create employment nor should they be expected to do so. That is bad enough and you could argue its rights or wrongs. However, they have a duty to create the right environment and to put in place proper mechanisms to enable industry to prosper and so respond to the challenge of unemployment.
Can anybody come into this House and seriously say that? The Minister has an awful habit of smirking — when he is on television he almost breaks his heart laughing — and that was evident when he was reading his speech. It is sad that, in the national Parliament, Dáil Éireann, the Minister for Industry and Commerce — he is faced with a difficult job as we acknowledge; we agree with Deputy Prendergast on that, although we do not agree we have the same difficulties as everybody else — comes in here and throws out this utter nonsense. I am not going to quote the figures. Deputy Lyons and Deputy Fitzgerald have laid out the facts and figures of how bad the position is, but is it not really sad that the Minister would have such arrogance? He has a great deal of arrogance but I did not think he had as much as he displayed here tonight. He does not believe a word of what he said. He did not even read it with conviction. What would happen if it was circulated in the areas Deputy Lyons and Deputy Fitzgerald were talking about and to which Deputy Prendergast must answer? That Deputy does not like having to do that because it is a difficult job for any Labour person, not to mention a person who has given good and valuable service to the trade union movement. In those areas 60,000 people are unemployed and in areas such as Wexford, as my colleague Deputy Browne said, 11,000 people are unemployed. Yet the Minister gave a speech like that about the Government creating an environment and climate for investment about the new drive they have and all these new fancy names about this programme and that programme.
I was out this morning with two multinational companies in the Swords area. I will not name them here because they are commercial companies, but the Minister and the IDA would hold them up as model companies. They explained about research and development, computer investment and so on. The fact is we will not get research and development or the kind of projects we want. Take any major component names, and you will find that they are being turned over in five years. What is being developed today on the planning boards is totally obsolete in about seven years and you only get about five years turnaround. Unless you get the entire operation of research and development in the country there is no good in having any of it. All the major companies in this country are using either Japanese or American bases for research and development.
The Minister said we have introduced a scheme similar to the business expansion scheme which is designed to encourage investment in Ireland in the area of activity. We are not doing it in the right way. We are getting tiny bits of research and development. Companies will tell you the IDA are battling with some of these major firms trying to get anywhere with very little Government support. Our party leader said last week that the IDA were an excellent organisation and still are in many respects but they must be reviewed because everything outlives itself. Deputy Prendergast talked about Manpower, AnCO, CERT, the YEA, about Manpower linked with the Department of Labour, the VECs, departmental environmental work schemes and all the rest. They have all outlived themselves. Deputy Prendergast will acknowledge that what he expressed was from a Fianna Fáil discussion paper of 1983 put forward by me in 1984 and agreed here in 1985 by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and now he has taken a decision. We welcome what he has said because it is Fianna Fáil policy and anything that follows our policy, although taken up by the Coalition, is welcome.
In this important debate we must state the hardships, difficulties, frustrations and anxiety of thousands of people, almost 20 per cent nationally, 40 per cent in many towns and 60 per cent in urban areas. What is the Minister for Industry and Commerce doing for them? What hope, what ideas, what investment opportunity does he offer? What way is he trying to change the risk capital for manufacturing industry? The hard fact is that a speculator can get very easily in the banks of the Isle of Man or Geneva, the same money in Government gilts, semi-State gilts or national gilts outside the country as he can get for risk capital in industry here. As long as that obtains we will have black holes and all the deals being done outside the role of the Central Bank. Investment is flowing out of the country one way or the other. We are almost in a position in which the Central Bank has lost control. A month ago with the change of position, money was vanishing because there were no incentives. Unless there is a proper investment policy we will get nowhere.
There was universal agreement in 1984 when Building on Reality came out that there was not one single line indicating a policy, and there has been nothing since by this Government on investment. So what is the Minister talking about here when he says it looks as if this is going to increase? On the Adjournment debate before Christmas and again before the summer recess, the Taoiseach said it looked as if there would be a big consumer rise in the second half of the year. When we came to the second half of the year the Taoiseach said it would happen in the fourth quarter. Now there are no quarters left so it will be next year. The Government are now admitting by their amendment that they have no policy. Their amendment is that Dáil Éireann supports the Government's policies to promote the growth of employment and intensify the fight against unemployment, and recognises that an effective response to the persistence of large-scale unemployment throughout the EC requires stronger action and close co-operation on the part of member states. What does that mean? Between 1982 and 1985 unemployment here rose by 44 per cent compared to 3 per cent in Belgium, 23 per cent in Germany, 18 per cent in France, 12 per cent in Holland and 14 per cent in the UK. What have any of those got in common with Ireland where 70,000 jobs have been lost in the life of this Government?
I admire Deputy Prendergast for coming in here and saying that the Government have managed to create some short-term unsustainable jobs to keep the people who did not emigrate from going off their heads altogether; it was better than doing nothing, but that is about all. The Government put forward a policy that they would halt and reverse unemployment, but the only thing they did was to create jobs in the community, cleaning up graveyards and churches.
The trade unions did not allow it in Dublin city and county but they did in other parts of the country. I agree that valuable work was done but that is surely not an industrial policy. Cleaning up graveyards and chopping down ivy and branches from trees is not an industrial policy. We have not heard one tonight in this House from the Minister and I am sure we will not hear one afterwards either.
What is the Minister's policy on trying to build up our fisheries industry, our forestry industry or our whole food production industry to try to halt imports in the food sector or any other sector? What is his policy on import substitution? What is the policy on the large amount of raw materials we have to bring in here for manufacturing? What is the policy on small industries? What is the policy on trying to change the system where the IDA, even though it has been slightly amended, give grants to industry to invest in machinery and in high technology with taxpayers' money resulting in the displacement of more workers? Have the Government ever thought about linking grants to labour, or basing them on the number of people employed? Is it not ludicrous that we have almost no manufacturing industry? There were more people employed in manufacturing in Dublin in 1926 than there are in 1986, although we have higher education, higher technology, higher numbers in the universities, RTCs, NIHEs and technical colleges. In spite of all the work being done by them fewer people are employed.
Other countries say that with high technology jobs are lost automatically. It is not automatic. An example is one corporation which is floating around this city at the moment and looking at the scene, the Mars Corporation, one of the biggest corporations in the world. Every time they bring in modern technology they diversify and increase the workforce in some other area. That can and has been done in a few companies here but only in a very few. Why can it not be done? Have the Government researched it? Have they a policy on it? Have they spoken to people like Mars? We had hoped to get the answer to all these questions from this debate, as had the unemployed. The people out there living on assistance who have been affected by the changes in social welfare hoped for answers from this debate. The drastic cuts in social welfare must horrify people in the Labour Party, though they had to come in here and prop up the Government on that issue. It was bad enough to come in here with no employment, industrial or investment policy, but to come in here and cut down the income of the poorest in our society, those on disability and invalidity pensions, because of some equality Act without making special provisions for them is appalling, pathetic and sad.
We on this side of the House have a policy on technology. We believe we have a good policy on the food processing industry, on forestry and fisheries. We believe we have an industrial policy for small industries to make life easier for small business people, to make it easier for them to operate, to try to simplify the tax system for them, to try to help them and to give them advice. At present a small businessman could set up in his back garden and the first thing he gets is not an order or a telephone call from CTT, AnCO or Córas Trachtála or any other organisation to find out how he is doing, but a visit from a tax inspector or a planning officer and a VAT form in through the door. Is that how we will solve our unemployment problem? I am afraid not.
I hope the other side of the House will come in here tomorrow night and tell us the truth, explain to the nation that their policies over the past four years have totally failed. We have a population of 3.4 million and a working population of 1.2 million. Over 300,000 are in effect unemployed because the unemployment figure does not cover those people who are means-tested out of it because their parents' income is over a certain limit. The figure is over 300,000 and that does not take into account the emigration figure. What type of policy do the Coalition Government have for them? We would be prepared to forget that the Government have been a drastic failure if they would tell us where we go from here. What are the Department and the IDA doing at this stage? What ideas have the Government got for the future? What ideas have Córas Tráchtála got?
The Minister listed tonight a number of points on which he said Irish industry has failed. He attacked them. He said that for some years now there has been a growing realisation that Irish industry has been lagging behind its overseas competitors in many respects, such as management weaknesses, lack of attention to research and development, the low equity basis of many companies, the failure to diversify exports beyond the UK market, the inability of most existing Irish products with a few notable exceptions to achieve a dominant position. Then he forgets about them. What is his advice to those companies? What is being done to help the country to have a proper marketing base? What assistance is being given to the NIHEs? What Government Minister has responsibility for technology? I do not think there is any. If most Irish firms have failed to diversify, what are the Government doing about that? Have they been explaining it to them and asking why they are refusing to do it? Is he attacking the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about the industrial relations? He seems to be, although I believe the record is different. One company in the high technology area to whom we spoke today have been 20 years in Dublin and have 500 workers. They have lost only 200 man-days in those 20 years. That compares very favourably with any overseas company.
Would Fianna Fáil explain where they are getting £1,000 million for the shopping list?
(Interruptions.)
It is a bit late in the day for the Minister——
Fianna Fáil would be very glad to explain and identify exactly how we will reverse the unemployment trend.
The Minister's constituency has the highest unemployment rate.
What about the £1,000 million shopping list? Be honest with the taxpayers.
Before the Minister came into the House we were talking about unemployment in Wexford since Deputy A. Doyle became Minister, and there are now 11,000 people unemployed in Wexford town. What is the Minister doing about that?
(Interruptions.)
Explain where the money is coming from for the shopping list.
Debate adjourned.