Deputy McCartan is in possession and I should like to advise the Deputy that he has 27 minutes left of the time allotted to him.
Financial Resolutions, 1988. - Financial Resolution No. 4: 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.)
Before the adjournment of the debate I had sought to give instances of cases where clearly it can be shown that this vaunted claim of the Minister for Social Welfare that he was clearing out many thousands of people from the social welfare scheme was not a real achievement in itself. I tried to illustrate the fact that what he was doing was harassing and hounding people who were otherwise entitled to benefit. I talked about the married woman who is currently attending hospital for serious back injury and receiving physiotheraphy but who, for some reason or other, has been found by the Department to be fit for work. There was another instance of the housewife with seven years' work experience who had been deemed unavailable for work but, within seven days of that decision being made by the Department, she was in a new job busily working as she had always intended.
There is also the series of incidents in the Howth area, within my constituency, where in one week alone upwards of 15 people were told that they were not available for work, all men of working age, all of whose surnames, remarkably, began with the letter M, picked out of the scheme at random but by design and told that they were not available for work and consequently were not entitled to benefit on the current week. Among them was a 21 year old who, from the age of 15 years, has been signing on religiously with Manpower in the hope that something will be done to help him find work.
How is this decision arrived at? It appears that the Department of Social Welfare have been told by the Minister that if people living on the north side of the city do not cross the Liffey and knock on doors of factories on the south side of the city — which are full and do not have work for them anyway — and get signed there these meaningless pieces of paper saying that there is no work available, if they do not spread their net of inquiry wide enough, they are not seriously looking for work. People who live in the Howth area want to work in the Howth area, and it is their entitlement to do so. People who live on the north side of the city want to work on the north side of the city. We have an atrocious transport system with high, and rising, CIE fares. To expect people who are unemployed, receiving the minimum level of payments and who are living below the poverty line or close to it, to spend every penny they get bussing around this city to meet some arbitrary decision of the Minister that unless they travel about and beyond their immediate catchment area they are not seriously seeking work is too much. These people are looking for work. They are victims of a Minister who wants to present to the public an image of doing a good job in regard to social welfare. Everyone of those people deemed not available for work is immediately transferred onto this great list of people who are supposed to be defrauding the social welfare system — not entitled is equated with defrauding. While these people try to scramble back, through the appeals system, to some degree of normality and rationality, the moneys they would have been paid are deemed as savings by the Exchequer.
It is interesting that the Minister makes no reference to what the Department of Health must pay out to people who come to the assistance officer in the interim to look for help until reason can be brought to bear on their individual cases. No effort has been made to work out the number of people who leave the social welfare scheme as a result of natural wastage, as a result of death, emigration, finding employment and otherwise. In referring to the 35,000 people placed through Jobsearch, the Minister makes no acknowledgement that the National Manpower Service managed to place upwards of 25,000 people in jobs.
So the achievements of this great scheme are minimal compared to the hardship and harassment being visited on people who, through no fault of their own, are compelled to look to the State for a basic modicum of income.
It is a pity that the Minister has not realised what he is doing with this Jobsearch scheme and has not made some effort to address the wrongs of it. There is no justification for what people are put through doing needless, pointless courses of training for jobs that do not exist.
In a debate of this kind the other major issue that The Workers' Party would underline is that the only way we will put right the figures in the national economy is by creating jobs. The Government say the only serious way we can address our national debt is by creating the right climate to get the many thousands of unemployed people back to work. It is the only way we can get this country back to a meaningful level of existence.
Jobs must be created and this will not be done by the Government creating the right climate for private investment to come in and put money into the economy to create jobs and build factories. It has never happened in the history of this State that the private sector has shown the kind of commitment necessary to ensure anything approaching the generation of wealth necessary to create jobs or full employment here, despite all the incentives, all the protection barriers, all the schemes of Government. Private investment has never seriously created the programme of jobs necessary to meet our national needs. There is absolutely no reason to believe that things will be any different in the future.
Have the Government any indication, good, bad or indifferent, from the private sector that they have done so much for in the last number of decades by giving them every conceivable grant, aid and support that they like what the Government are doing in regard to the hand-outs, the let-off from tax and PRSI in the budget, and that they will now call in the huge resources invested abroad in banks and elsewhere and put it into putting this country back to work? Has there been any indication of that? Surely it is time that private sector business and the captains of industry and banking let us know if they have a plan or any intention of responding to the over-generous packages handed out in this budget and in the last years? Have the multi-national oil companies told us that they will now open up exploration of our natural resources by reason of the complete and utter sell-out by Government in 1987? Have we heard from private interests that we are now to get a viable shipping industry operating out of our ports, or are we to be left in the hands of international shipping interests to supply our imports and take our exports away from us at their whim? The answer to that is no. There is no indication from the private sector that they are beginning to enjoy the climate the Government are creating.
I feel safe in predicting that at the end of this year we will be in the same situation, with the Government still talking about the books getting into shape and the climate getting better. But at the same time there is not one sign of one of those cowboys on the horizon coming to the aid of the beleagured working classes in this country. We will still have as many people, if not more, unemployed on the dole or seeking the emigration boat and not one serious effort being made to create jobs. The only way jobs can be created is by exploiting basic natural resources using State investment. I make no apology for saying that. If such investment involves borrowing abroad further we would say, do it. There is no harm in extending borrowing provided the money is used productively to create jobs. We are not afraid of this great national debt the Government talk about because, as it stands, of the £22 billion, upwards of £12 billion is domestically owed. Our foreign borrowings amount to about £9 billion. There is room for expansion in our borrowing provided we spend the money on serious job creation. One further job created is one more person creating wealth, one more person contributing tax to the revenue of the State and one person fewer who has to be paid social welfare. It is only in this way that the Government will ever tackle the balancing of the books and get the climate right. It is time to call a halt to the talk that by giving more handouts to private industry, to private sector investment, they are going to show the commitment that they have never shown and can never be expected to show in terms of commitment to this State.
We talk about national resources, about land and its under-utilisation, about the need to industrialise our agriculture and to create jobs in rural areas for people who want to stay there and do not want to be forced into the urban areas or abroad on the emigration boat. The scale of the investment necessary in land, in the housing construction area, in fishing and mariculture and in our natural resources, such as oil and other base metal investment areas, is so great that the private industry sector is not in a position to accumulate the capital necessary to do the work and to take the scale of risks necessary in that type of investment. There will be risks involved and nobody should be afraid of that. We should develop agricultural industry and stop the myth that we are a food-producing nation. We are a nation that has to import £80 million to £100 million worth of foodstuffs a year that we could so easily provide ourselves. It galls me to see handouts and grants being given to the farming community who produce very little in return to the national economy and very little food which is required by our people in towns and cities.
As a maritime nation it is unbelievable to think how undeveloped our fishing industry is. In regard to the tourism industry, the notion that the private sector can ever succeed in realising the potential of our tourist industry is fallacious. We make no apology for saying that private companies do not have the capacity, the will, the resources or the courage to tackle seriously the creation of employment in this country. Unless the Government use their wealth and borrowing and exploit the fundamental resources we have, we will never get beyond the level of debate at which we are today.
Another aspect of the budget to which I would like to refer is the maintenance of the bank levy, the raising of revenue from the huge profits of our major banks. I am a Deputy who believes the money raised should be greater but at least I welcome the fact that the measure is still there and has not been abolished, as was seriously considered by Government in the run-up to the budget. I am particularly sore about one of the major banks at present. All banks probably rank equal but in relation to one in particular, Allied Irish Banks, I have a special word to say in the context of this budget and the Minister's reintroduction and maintenance of the levy. Allied Irish Banks have made a decision to close one of their branches, in my constituency in Edenmore, on the basis of rationalisation. They say they have too many branches making too much money in the north-east area. The decision to close the Edenmore branch is particularly regrettable because it is the only branch in that shopping area. They have enjoyed a 20-year monopoly and now, in a year when they have made unprecedented profits — they made over £100 million in the previous year — they intend closing their doors and, I believe, sounding the death knell of the viable shopping community that exists in Edenmore Estate.
Yesterday I thanked the Minister for Finance, in his absence, for having received me briefly in his office and for having taken a petition from me on behalf of the people of Edenmore. I hope he can, through the status of his office as Minister for Finance, bring pressure to bear on the bank to reverse this very serious decision so that the doors of the Edenmore branch of Allied Irish Banks will remain open to the people beyond 9 April, the final day of reckoning.
I wish also to refer to the decision in the budget regarding the transfer from the Department of Finance of responsibility for rebate of import and excise duties on cars converted for use by the disabled. This is a matter that has been raised by the Irish Wheelchair Association and by other organisations whose members benefit greatly from the rebate, given in return for the cost of having motor cars specially adapted for their use. I accept what the Minister says that there is a great reason for transferring this responsibility to the Department of Health but one thing must be said: these motor vehicles are not just items of luxury for people such as the disabled or the people in need of this special facility; they are essential to them. It is crucial that this transfer of responsibility does not represent any decrease in the level of subsidy from Government to the disabled. Given the recent history of the Department and the swingeing cutbacks that have been imposed by the Minister for Health throughout the service at all levels, and often without any serious regard for the repercussions for those down the line who have suffered as a result of the cutbacks, we would be extremely concerned that the previous level of consideration and concern given to individual cases and to the whole concept might not carry through if the Department of Health were dealing with the scheme. On behalf of the persons concerned, I will take a special interest in this matter and will seek to ensure that there will be no diminution in the service to these people. I understand the Minister for Health had a meeting recently with the representatives of the Irish Wheelchair Association. I hope he will take on board the very many concrete and constructive recommendations they made to him to improve the scheme so that it will in no way be diminished or undermined.
I wish to refer to the incredible campaign announced by the Irish Farmers' Association last week in answer to the Government's proposal for the first time to address in some part the non-payment of tax by that sector of the community to central Government. They have said in their campaign that they intend to make clear their demand for tax equity in the system. I am amazed to think that a sector of the community who pay so little to national resources for the development of services that they so ably benefit from, could seriously discuss the achievement of tax equity as a rallying call for their members in opposition to what Government propose and intend. What the farming association were doing was calling to heel the majority of Members of this House who relied on the rural vote for their seat in this and the other Chamber, reminding them that they are their political masters, warning them that, unless they gave the campaign unequivocal support, they would bring their political pressure to bear on them. Their demand for tax equity is cynical in the extreme. What is being proposed by the Government is a very modest proposition and goes nowhere along the road towards achieving tax equity. I hope it will be a proposal implemented with the same full vigour and enthusiasm this Government have shown when pursuing the PAYE sector for their PAYE and PRSI contributions.
This budget has received much praise from the community as a whole but primarily from the business community. I contend its provisions have not yet been reckoned with or fully realised. When its provisions come to bite on the incomes and living standards of working people it will be seen clearly for what it is, another in a long series of budgets that has done little or nothing for working people and which will not contribute in any way to the creation of one extra job in our economy.
There is a general satisfaction on the part of the majority of Members of this House at the general thrust of the budget and its provisions. Also recent opinion polls have shown a favourable reaction on the part of the general public, reaction that was unique in its approval.
Probably all of us would like to have seen other areas benefiting from those budgetary provisions; we all have our own views and beliefs in that respect but the general thrust of the budget was in keeping with the performance of the Government over the past 12 months, which was to rectify our ailing economy, reinstating some degree of reality in that respect.
The two subjects mentioned most in any discussion on the budget or economy are interest rates and inflation. Though only less than a year in office, the Government have created an air of confidence generally. There is now an appreciation of the measures being taken to get our massive borrowings under control. This is especially significant when one remembers that for many years industrialists, businessmen and farmers were fearful of expanding their activities because of the prevailing high interest rates, with inflation at one time running at a rate above 20 per cent. The rate of inflation now is the lowest for 20 years which, with reducing interest rates, should encourage people to expand their activities again. It is to be hoped that interest rates will fall further at an accelerated pace.
The Programme for National Recovery constitutes an important innovation which is to be welcomed. It is to be hoped that its implementation will put a stop for all time to the annual confrontation and bargaining in that it constitutes an advance programme for the industrial and economic sector.
The previous speaker was critical of the Jobsearch programme. This has been a successful scheme. Therefore it is difficult to justify such criticism in that it proved sufficiently successful to attract for interview 141,000 people. The Minister has claimed that, within a short time of its operations, it realised in excess of 4,000 jobs. The Minister stated recently also that there had been an additional saving of £22 million to the Exchequer on account of reduced numbers of people registering for the dole. The most important benefit of that scheme was that it brought together the training and employment agencies of the State and the Department of Social Welfare in order to ascertain, for the first time ever, what could be done for the unemployed and job creation. I believe it affords great potential for a continuance of an examination of proposals for the benefit of people on long-term unemployment assistance, in an effort to re-employ them.
I was invited to attend one session in regard to the Jobsearch scheme in my area in order to discuss various projects with the people concerned. At that time there was the proposed closure of a meat plant which they wanted to discuss. They also wanted to discuss a number of programmes on which the Government had embarked in regard to afforestation and fruit and vegetable growing. Rather than resent my presence, they seemed to be in a mood for discussion, hopeful that something would emerge from the provisions of that scheme by way of jobs, so that people would no longer be forced to remain on the dole queues.
Another budgetary provision in the social welfare area is the imposition of PRSI contributions on the self-employed. This provision was introduced in the Six Counties in the early forties at which time conditions in regard to contributions and entitlements were similar to those now prevailing here, for example, being compulsory on farmers above a certain valuation. If one were to discuss the matter with self-employed farmers and others subjected to the provisions of that scheme in those earlier years one would find that they were satisfied with the system, especially its benefits, when they came to retire.
The Minister for Social Welfare is to be congratulated on the 11 per cent increase granted to the long-term unemployed. Many of those people have been unemployed through no fault of theirs but rather on account of the general economic position, or other factors, when they seemed to be facing a lifetime of unemployment. It must be a traumatic experience for anybody to be unemployed for many years.
There was general disappointment among politicians in my region that the Minister had not seen fit to grant some assistance to traders in immediate Border regions which, despite the measures he introduced last year, still leaves these traders with serious problems. Indeed following on the announcement of that 1987 budgetary measure there were many people doubtful of its outcome. Certainly the proviso that one had to remain outside this State for 48 hours put a stop to all coach tour parties, all organised groups, travelling to the North to buy goods. However, towns near the Border, within this nine miles-plus corridor, still experience a problem because people still find it worthwhile and are legally entitled to bring goods across the Border. It has the effect, especially in the Cavan-Monaghan area — from Belturbet to Clones and on to Castleblayney — that all of the major towns in Monaghan and a number in Cavan located within that nine miles-plus radius continue to experience trading difficulties.
If a close examination of the region was carried out, without much extra cost the schemes which are already in operation could do a lot for that area. I mentioned this yesterday to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment because he introduced the urban renewal scheme to revitalise town centres and reactivate the industrial economy in areas with large populations. Similar schemes properly introduced would be of great benefit in smaller areas.
The Coalition Government started the decline in 1983 when they imposed an exorbitant increase in petrol prices. A study carried out by the Social and Economic Committee of the EC in 1982 found that that region was in need of revitalisation. They said that in their view this was a severely disadvantaged area. In future, planners and the Government agencies will have to look at these black spots and make special provision for them. Special recognition should be given to these black spots under the international fund and the second programme for the Border counties.
I welcome the re-introduction of the installation aid for young farmers. The Minister for Finance realised the importance of this scheme when he re-introduced it. To be eligible a person must have the necessary ACOT training, be under 35, have been practicising farming as their main occupation and have obtained full title to the farm. In my view, farming has the capacity to provide many jobs in future, provided young farmers have the proper qualifications and initiative and that there is a proper economic climate for production.
Milk production has been curtailed over the last few years and all the indications are that there will be a serious drop in the cattle herd. Despite the measures introduced to increase cattle numbers they are lower now than when we entered the EC. At that time there were approximately 6 million cattle, but those numbers have since fallen. The processing side of the industry must have the most up to date plant and equipment to meet the stringent hygiene standards demanded by those countries which import our products.
There is another area to which I would like to refer, and that is pig processing. This has been the subject of discussion over the last few months. In 1986 there were one million pigs in Ireland but that figure has dropped drastically. Monaghan, Cavan and north Cork are the three most intensive pig producing areas in the country. In July last year one plant was closed in my area because of rationalisation and amalgamation, and the other plant, which employed more than 100 people, closed because of trading difficulties. Now, seven months later, pig producers are transporting their pigs 30 or 40 miles every week to slaughtering plants. The plants which closed killed only for the export market. If they had cornered some of the home market they might still be in business. I appeal to the Minister and the IDA to make every effort to ensure that there is a pig slaughtering facility in this area.
There are proposals to establish slaughtering facilities in non-traditional pig producing areas. The areas of north Monaghan and Cavan are traditionally pig producing with the potential to increase production. In many cases there is the processing capacity but a shortage of pigs, but in this area we have the pigs and the plants are closing. This has created a very serious problem. The only hope for the future is that slaughtering facilities will be provided in traditional production areas which have the potential for future development.
As regards cattle production, this is an area where we can provided extra jobs and boost the economy. Irrespective of what is said about beef mountains, the cattle population in the EC has substantially dropped from 81,800,000 in 1984 to 76,740,000 this year. As regards our cattle numbers, in 1986-87 there was a drop of 72,000 and from 1985-86 there was a drop of 480,000, despite a projection in 1973 when we joined the EC that our cattle numbers would increase to 9 million by 1990, levelling out to 10 million a few years later.
The recent CBF report mentioned these figures but gave some very good news, that is, that the meat plants had increased their share of exports of beef on the hook from 82 per cent to 86 per cent; that processed and boneless beef exports increased from 55 per cent to 64 per cent; that Ireland's main export market, Britain, accounts for over one-third of our total exports; that vacuum-pack market sales rose by 42 per cent in volume to 20,000 tonnes and that continental EC destinations accounted for 20 per cent of total Irish beef exports. There is an urgent need for a more professional approach to beef production through the formation of producer groups and they should have sufficient clout to negotiate on behalf of the producers. The ridiculous situation which has operated over the last number of years in regard to prices going up and down should not be allowed to continue. There should be a more organised and professional system which will be beneficial to the producers.
During the course of this debate Deputies referred to our road structures. While we are delighted at the recent allocation of funds for national, primary and secondary roads, we are faced with a very serious situation at county council level where the roads are deteriorating to an alarming degree. Funding from the Exchequer has been substantially reduced over the last number of years in real terms and during that time there was a corresponding increase in demand for services within the local authorities who had to provide pollution officers, dog wardens and water control officers. The 12 western counties received extra funds through the FEOGA aided regional water schemes. There is a particular problem in road maintenance in County Monaghan due to the hilly terrain. The area is also fairly heavily industrialised and heavy transport is required to carry poultry, pigs and mushrooms. The county council do not have the money to carry out repairs to roads but money will have to be provided from some source, perhaps by way of a loan, before there is a further serious deterioration which would eventually mean that massive sums of money will be needed to repair the damage.
The social employment scheme and Jobsearch have been very successful. The social employment scheme could be extended and used to very good advantage, not alone by local authorities but by groups of people co-operating in afforestation or other programmes.
In County Monaghan there is a 24,000 square feet advance factory which was built ten years ago. It is on the outskirts of Monaghan town and has never been occupied. There is also a unit of three factories similarily unoccupied. At the time of currency changes in the EMS, I was approached by a number of manufacturers across the Border who were looking for accommodation to set up businesses. I suggested to the IDA that they should divide up the large factory but I was told that, because of the way it was constructed and the services provided, it would not be feasible to do so. They wanted it to operate as a single unit but this has not happened and is not likely to happen. I discussed this matter with a contractor who said it could be converted very easily to facilitate decentralisation, about which so much has been said. Various Departments should look into this matter.
The Minister mentioned tourism, an area which has great potential. Over the last 12 months the Minister for Tourism — a colleague from my own constituency — has been very successful in this regard. There is a Border fund of practically £8 million, the sum of £4 million mentioned in the budget and an international fund from which a substantial amount of money will be provided for the development of tourism. This could include water sports and an equestrian centre which would be beneficial to the area. Parts of the region have been very successful in promoting and developing water sports and coarse fishing. There are lakes in abundance and the requirement now is for accommodation, guest or farmhouse.
The existing equestrian centre has done very well and there is a terrific demand for their services. One man has 40 horses and seems to be fully booked for most of the year. Previous Border funds provided a number of very useful developments such as Killykeen Park in Cavan and Lake Muckno in Monaghan. However, the lake has not been fully developed but I hope it will be completed soon. We have continually lagged behind other countries in the development of our craft industries. This area is a great attraction to tourists and provides much needed employment. The IDA and Shannon Development made a breakthrough a number of years ago with the result that a number of jobs were provided in that region. However, the IDA did not seem to show the same enthusiasm in the Border region although over the last number of years at the annual crafts and trade fair at the RDS I was very impressed at the fine range of goods on display. This could be developed to great advantage.
Allocations have been made from the international fund to tourism and, while it is independently administered, they do not have any technical or professional staff which would reduce administrative costs. On the other side of the scale they are totally dependent on Government Departments for guidance. They are the same Government Departments which guided the funding for the first fund and they did not do it on an even-handed basis. During the discussion on the international fund I made the point that I hoped it would be distributed evenly irrespective of the regions, not by population, but by need. I hope that that will be the criteria they will use now that they are in a position to dispense this fund.
Another point which has been raised by others is the question of afforestration. It is another area for job creation. It is another area for the development of our economy. It has the added advantage that it is the one product of which we know there would be no surplus of production in the EC in the foreseeable future. It is estimated that there will be a serious shortfall of 32 per cent for world supply by the year 2000 and that it will accelerate to be a serious problem in the following years. In Britain there is a ready market because the United Kingdom imports 90 per cent of their wood requirements. At present and to the end of the century they can supply only one-tenth of their needs. We should utilise our advantages because we have soil, climate and annual growth far in excess of most other EC countries. It is claimed that spruce and pine, which are the two softwoods most commonly grown, have a growth rate of 15 cubic metres per hectare as against 11 cubic metres in the United Kingdom and two to five cubic metres in the rest of Europe. The home grown supply is 25 per cent of the demand for construction softwoods of which we import about £50 million worth a year. Our total wood product imports are about £400 million to £500 million.
A scheme which was introduced under the programme for western development in 1981 did not get off the ground but over the last few years there has been a reasonably good take-up in most of the counties. There is no doubt that the take-up will increase. From 1981 to 1987 the take-up was about 5,600 hectares. It has the capacity to provide jobs. The IDA did a survey in the eighties on the needs of the sawmilling and processing capacity. They claimed that there was a surplus capacity but many of us find that it may not be in the proper regions. In Cavan, Monaghan and part of Louth there is no processing capacity. Much of the wood is moved across the Border for processing and then brought back as log timber for sale and various other timber products.
It is most important that we develop our natural resources. There is no doubt that if we had them properly developed we could provide many of the jobs which are needed at present. The Government have laid the foundation for economic revival. If we get the proper support, assistance and help from the people and from the private sector when the three-year programme is over, we should be in a much safer position in this country.
This is a bland budget which proposes nothing radical, new or positive in relation to the major problems facing this country. We all recognise the main problem which is the national debt. All parties agree that that is a major problem and are prepared to do anything that would reduce it. That is no longer an issue for debate.
However, the major issues are that there are 250,000 unemployed people in this country and the taxation system. On reading the Minister's speech, as he presented the budget to the House, I had hoped that there would be some radical proposals to tackle the major problem of unemployment. I was very disappointed to find that not once in his entire speech did the Minister for Finance refer to unemployment. Everybody in this House recognises the serious social problems accruing from unemployment. Unemployment has a very serious, social and psychological effect on the population and yet the Minister for Finance did not see fit to address that problem once in his speech on the budget. Neither did he refer to the serious problem of emigration. Unemployment and emigration are intermingled. The problems that emerge from emigration are even more serious because some of the most talented and well educated people are leaving. The result is that there is a major brain drain which this country very badly needs given that it has so many serious problems. The brains of this country should be applied to the problems of this country. Unfortunately, the brains are leaving, which puts the future of this country at even greater risk.
Mention was made in the course of the Budget Statement of urban renewal and expansion of urban renewal programmes in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and other areas. I welcome that proposal and indeed it was initiated by our Government three years ago. I wonder if this Government have ever considered the necessity for rural renewal? Does this Government recognise the serious problems arising in rural areas now? Does this Government recognise that the young population in rural communities are being decimated and that it is only a matter of time until there will be very few people living in rural areas and particularly in rural disadvantaged areas? Could this Government not have put forward a programme for rural renewal in view of the decimation of the population in rural areas. The recently published census proved that that is the case. Since that census was taken the numbers have been more seriously depleted by emigration in recent times.
Could this Government not have put forward a programme that would encourage rural people to remain living in rural areas and travel some distance to work by introducing some type of travel allowance or tax allowance on travel? This is a matter to which this Government should address themselves. In rural areas many people are travelling to and from work but there is a tendency for them to gravitate to the towns or cities because they cannot afford the travel costs involved. That is one aspect that should be considered with a view to retaining the population in the rural areas.
In the disadvantaged areas this Government took a decision to reduce the off-farm income from £6,800 down to £5,400 in order to qualify for headage payments. This is a retrograde step, that works against the rural community and against retaining people in the rural areas. I urge the Government to reconsider that decision and to increase the off farm income limit once more.
A lot of good work has been done since the previous Government introduced home improvement and reconstruction grants but there are still many houses in rural communities which need improvement. The Government should consider an extension of these grants with the rural communities in mind.
The Minister for Education's Circular 20/87 will have a detrimental effect on rural communities if implemented, particularly on two and three teacher schools. If the Government were to consider a rural renewal programme this is a matter which should be taken into account. The normal parameters which would apply to schools in larger areas should not necessarily apply to rural areas because of the geographical structure of the community. There is a real need for the Government to consider putting together a rural renewal programme and I hope that whatever Government are in power will see fit to include this in the next budget.
There is more and more a gravitational pull to the cities and larger towns and all of us in this House recognise many of the social problems which are developing as a result. Many people from rural areas are not able to adapt to city life nor are they able to mentally adjust to that type of change. Many major social problems have arisen as a result which have put a great strain on our social welfare and health resources. There is a need for us to consider a programme which would retain more people in rural areas. I accept that that goes against the European trend where there have been reductions in the rural population. We do not have to imitate all of what happens either in Europe or in England. For too long all we have done is imitate models which have proved to be anything but good. We have never learned from the mistakes which other countries have made.
The Minister in his speech referred to tourism and said that it was widely acknowledged that the full realisation of Ireland's tourism potential requires new initiatives, especially in the marketing area. Taking into account the recommendations of the tourism forum the Government have decided to introduce another package of special measures for tourism in 1988 and to allocate £4 million for this purpose. With due respect to the Government and their performance in regard to tourism it would be wrong if I did not say that there is a major publicity campaign going on in regard to tourism. There has been a lot of talk and bandying about of figures but many of those who are involved on the ground are not too cheerful and have strong reservations about the strong publicity campaign the Government are carrying on at present. Even the Taoiseach is being photographed at promotions but what has been the result of these promotions? How many jobs have been created as a result of these? How much additional finance has been brought into the national coffers as a result? I am very anxious to know the answers.
When the extra £4 million was announced it was never indicated that there had already been a £7 million reduction outlined in the Estimates. In effect, therefore, there has been a reduction of £3 million on the allocation for last year. It would be far better if the Taoiseach and the Minister for Tourism implemented the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report rather than set up more task forces, committees and review bodies. One of the features of the term of office of this Government has been the setting up of task forces, committees and review bodies. There is an awful lot of talk but very little evidence of anything concrete happening on the ground. Here, I am talking about the creation of more jobs and greater incentives to create jobs. There is not much evidence of that in this budget. I do believe there is great potential within the tourist industry but I am not satisfied with the approach being adopted by the Government. In fact they are riding on the horse created by the previous Minister particularly in regard to the reductions in air fares which are attracting many of our emigrants to make visits home but which are not attracting as many tourists as one would have hoped for. Therefore, far more constructive work has to be done on the ground.
In regard to education, at this stage one would wonder whether we have any educational policy. Has the Minister any overall view of what education should be setting out to achieve? We have to recognise that there are many problems and that our educational system should be striving to solve these problems. While we are members of the European Community we are very ill equipped to be part of that Community. When people travel to the Continent they find out just how ill equipped they are. Our European conterparts are fluent in at least three languages while we in most cases are only fluent in one language, English. The Minister should immediately introduce a programme of foreign languages in primary schools and should make it compulsory that at least one foreign language is taught in all primary schools. That is essential if we are to play our full part in the European Community in the future. From what I have heard from the Minister for Education both in the House today and on previous occasions there seems to be no serious thought in that direction. I urge the Minister to treat this as a matter of urgency. First and foremost many of our industrialists would be in a much more advantageous position when going abroad to conduct business if they were fluent in foreign languages. Secondly, job opportunities exist in Europe. As can be seen from the demographic charts there is a more aging population in Europe than in Ireland. There are possibilities for our young well educated people to obtain jobs in Europe.
Debate adjourned.