Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 11

Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Revised Estimate)

As the Taoiseach is indisposed today he has asked me to read his speech on the Adjournment of Dáil Éireann and to report on the European Council held in Hanover on the 27 and 28 June 1988.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £5,592,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, including certain cultural and archival activities and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.

The Programme for National Recovery is on course. We are making steady and satisfactory progress. There is, however, substantial ground still to be recovered. Final success in this battle for recovery depends on our continuing to exercise discipline and responsibility for some time yet. We cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the main objective of giving our people a growing economy firmly based on sound finances. But there is no doubt that a return to growth and employment is coming clearly into view.

I would like everyone to understand the point we have reached and exactly where we now stand. Great progress has been made in overcoming our economic difficulties. Our financial problems have been brought under control but not resolved. We are still spending and borrowing too much in relation to what we produce and our capacity to pay. We must continue with the difficult and detailed work of controlling every aspect of Government and local authority spending until they are brought into line with the resources available.

The vital element in our present situation is confidence. The nation is recovering confidence in itself and its future. Throughout the economy confidence is returning; there is optimism, people everywhere are thinking of investing, undertaking new projects, or expanding existing ones. I want to say also that the Government are becoming increasingly confident that recovery is under way and will continue. One of the things that is helping to general this generate feeling of confidence is the endorsement of the Programme for National Recovery by the social partners. That provides a sound encouraging basis for all our economic effort.

Our approach to the problems of the nation is practical and realistic and never departs from our caring social philosophy. We face a unique situation, in terms of our financial position, our natural resources and our demographic structure, which has no obvious parellel in neighbouring countries, and we have to tackle it in our own way. We keep to certain basic principles of social solidarity, and deplore any attempts to create a divided society.

The Irish people understand perfectly well at this stage that there is no simple formula which will make all our economic problems vanish — no magic wand. It is false to suggest that massive income tax cuts, the feasibility and financing of which are entirely unexplained, are the key to recovery. I am frankly surprised after all the experiences of the last 15 years that anyone should be unrealistic enough to suggest that we award ourselves massive tax cuts before we have earned them, and that we can do in one year what it has taken others ten years to achieve.

The Programme for National Recovery represents a strategy to achieve balanced progress in relation to key objectives, the restoration of financial stability, full exploitation of development and employment opportunities and equity in both the tax system and the social services. Substantial progress has already been achieved. Restoring financial stability as a basis for satisfactory economic growth is the key objective, as we will not be able to increase employment, reduce taxation or improve living standards and social conditions without it.

We are over half way to stabilising the ratio of debt to national output. In 1985 and 1986 the State was borrowing in excess of £2 billion pounds a year, at a time when national output was growing by less than half that amount. That borrowing has now been reduced by a third to under £1,500 million. But that level of borrowing is not sustainable either. We cannot accept the situation as satisfactory until the borrowing level has been reduced to between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of GNP.

We might well, however, do better than that. Steady economic growth bringing a return to revenue buoyancy could allow a further desirable fall in the borrowing level and the gradual elimination of the current budget deficit, which remains a valid medium term objective. Other countries that had severe debt problems in the past have succeeded after a period of years in moving towards budget surplus. There is no inherent reason, if we manage our affairs properly, why Ireland should not be able to achieve the same.

The underlying purpose of stabilising the debt is to reduce progressively in real terms the amount of our resources now going to pay interest and repayments and release them for more productive and employment-generating purposes.

Considerable initial progress was made last year. The debt-GNP ratio did not rise significantly, and the foreign debt we believe, has probably been permanently stabilised vis-à-vis the level reached in 1986, barring major currency upheavals. However, we need to remind ourselves that the foreign debt at around 60 per cent of GNP is higher than in virtually any other developed country and needs to be substantially reduced. With the balance of payments now in surplus we must now examine the possibility of repaying part of our foreign debt by substituting domestic borrowing, provided that could be achieved without disrupting the domestic credit market.

If proof were needed of the growing confidence that international investors abroad have in Ireland, it can be found in investment by non-residents of hundreds of millions of pounds in domestic Government securities at the present time. When account is taken also of the top credit ratings that have been assigned to Ireland as a sovereign borrower abroad and the fine terms of our foreign borrowings that have been subsequently achieved, we can reasonably say that international confidence in Ireland's economic management has never been higher.

As far as 1988 is concerned, as the half-year Exchequer returns will show, the budget is fully on course to achieve its targets. For the second year running there is no slippage of any kind. Indeed, I am cautiously optimistic that it will be possible to make slightly faster progress in reducing Exchequer borrowing than could be anticipated at budget time, but this would not significantly reduce the continuing effort that will be required in 1989.

Deputies should be aware that the comprehensive public expenditure reviews first introduced last summer have radically altered the budget preparation process and in particular the scrutiny of public expenditure. Prior to the new procedures introduced last summer, the annual exercise of pruning the departmental Estimates was very much a matter of taking each Estimate in turn by itself and simply imposing an arbitrary reduction. Now, however, all spending programmes are fully considered, examined in detail and submitted to the test of whether they can be fully justified.

The fundamental and questioning reviews of departmental spending have shown that there is much greater scope for economies than might previously have been thought possible. Many of the economies implemented contribute to increased efficiency in the use of tax revenues and borrowed money. From every point of view, therefore, there is much to be said for retaining these procedures in the future, even after our immediate financial difficulties are overcome. The preparation of the Estimates in good time before the year commences contributes greatly to an orderly and much more sensible conduct of our financial affairs. Under previous procedures, the year was too often already under way before the Estimates were settled so that forward planning, in good time, of expenditure was greatly inhibited with the consequent result that budget expenditure targets were not met.

The suggestion that a major reduction in public expenditure would be too deflationary was completely debunked last year when we achieved the highest economic growth for a decade of up to 5 per cent. While it is too early to make firm predictions about 1988, I am reasonably confident that we will have positive economic growth this year as well, and that many of the forecasts have been unduly cautious. Already industrial production is up 19 per cent in the first quarter.

Significant reductions in taxation can accompany but should not precede improvements in the public finances, resulting in the main from reductions in expenditure. I would like to add that this is not just the position of the present Government. It was also the position of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Finance. In the 1984 Budget he stated: "However desirable it might be to reduce taxation, this cannot be done on a significant scale, if at all, until current expenditure is reduced and the current budget deficit eliminated".

Our success last year in achieving our financial targets with some margin to spare enabled us to introduce some measure of tax relief this year, and allowed us to fulfil in one year most of the commitments made for a three-year period in the Programme for National Recovery. Further improvement will create scope for further relief, the first objective being to complete the task of putting two thirds of taxpayers back onto the standard rate which has not been the case since 1982.

The introduction of self-assessment, the extension of PRSI, the taxation of farmers on the same basis as other self-employed, the more determined collection methods now being employed and the changes in corporation tax show full commitment on the part of this Government to their undertaking in the Programme for National Recovery for tax reform in the proper sense of the term. The improvements in tax equity introduced by this Government will also help to improve the morale of all taxpayers, when they see that, increasingly, all are obliged to pay their fair share. Significant additional tax has been collected this year, by means of the package of measures including a temporary tax incentive scheme designed to speed up the collection of arrears and the establishment of a special task force of officials specialising in the collection of tax arrears. We will continue our work steadily toward a fair system in which all pay their taxes on the basis of actual income and personal circumstances and, as far as possible, on a current year basis.

We are determined to create a situation in which we will actually be able to reduce tax levels. We are convinced that the taxpayers of this country will benefit infinitely more from a real reduction in the tax they pay on the basis of general economic and financial progress, than from mere manoeuvring of the figures within the restricted confines of the same heavy and unsustainable total burden. The attempt to effect major upheavals in the tax system which are not sustained by economic growth and which maintain the present proportionately excessive total tax burden can have disastrous economic consequences.

The fall in interest rates of up to 6½ per cent in the last 15 months is in the main due to the firm action taken by the Government in the financial area. It has considerably increased the room for manoeuvre of commercial borrowers, as well as greatly easing the position of householders with mortgages. Our remarkably low level of inflation can also to a significant degree be attributed to the Government's policies of not trying to reduce Exchequer borrowing by increasing taxation but by expenditure reductions which in turn have lowered interest rates. This satisfactory rate of inflation which at less than 2 per cent is half the British rate, our significant balance of payments surplus and a stable exchange rate for the Irish pound within the EMS all contribute to the establishment for the first time in years of a favourable climate for investment.

This has led to an upturn in industrial investment and in commercial construction. Any sort of significant growth in domestic consumption has been slow to develop but there are some initial signs emerging of a pick-up in consumption this year, especially in the returns of indirect taxes, and in the increase in car registrations of 14 per cent in the first quarter. The fall in unemployment over the last six months is another indication of increased economic activity.

Suggestions of a downturn in the international economy have proved unfounded, and it looks as if growth in our principal markets will be at least fully maintained in 1988. Irish exports have continued to expand strongly after growth of 14½ per cent in 1987, and have increased by 18 per cent in the first four months of this year. Export growth was reflected in very strong growth in manufacturing output of 19 per cent in the first three months of the year. The growing trade surplus which trebled from just under £500 million to well over £1,500 million in 1987 contributed to the first balance of payments surplus in 20 years, and is a key indicator of economic health as far as the international community is concerned. The appreciation of sterling in recent months has created exceptional opportunities for us in the British market, and for the first time we have reached a position of virtual trade balance in our trade with Britain.

Despite the success of our exports to date, we must intensify our efforts. All available ways of increasing exports are being explored and exploited, not just in traditional or wider EC markets but in countries much further afield, from the Soviet Union, to China and Japan and to Australia. The licensing of export trading houses, joint ventures by State companies, the Overseas Consultancy Group, and combined marketing by companies under the auspices of CTT are all being pursued with a new vigour and determination.

The advent of the completely free market in Europe is the most important development we face internationally. By 1992 the European Community will be a single market. This is now irreversible and we must in every sector seize the vast opportunities now opening up, with complete confidence in our ability to compete successfully in this new, competitive single market.

Two main opportunities are afforded by the single market. Studies have shown that the growth of trade between members of the Community leads on the one hand to the growth of larger firms with bigger market shares and, on the other, to product differentiation and specialisation. Our strategy must be to seek opportunities under both headings. In food, for example, we should be capable of building on our already successful marketing abroad to achieve a greater share of the single market by making the right choices in structural adaptation, technological change and coherent market-led production.

In product specialisation, we are already well advanced in such sectors as electronics and data-processing equipment, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Provided we keep abreast of technological change and market developments and continue to improve our cost environment we should be able to win an ever-increasing share of the single market.

There are other areas where our natural resources endow us with the ability to win new markets. We could become a main supplier of timber to the Community if we accelerate — as the Government intend by means of a new commercial approach to the industry — in both planting and processing. The expansion of aquaculture could give us a dominant position in that market, but we must end river and sea pollution which is a primary environmental objective of this Government.

On the other hand, we must recognise that our more traditional industries such as clothing, textiles, footwear and engineering will face more severe competition, but these industries also face more opportunities with the falling of trade barriers. The needs of these industries are clear — better management, higher productivity through technological change, better product design and specialisation and, above all, better marketing. The sectoral industrial strategies being developed under the Programme for National Recovery will concentrate on these issues and we hope to use the increased funding under the EC Structural Funds to assist in the adaptation and development required.

In international services, we have in recent years built up our expertise and knowledge in many sectors particularly in the financial and banking sector where we are now expanding rapidly outside Ireland. The single market cannot but provide us with extensive opportunities for further expansion and growth as we extend our highly sophisticated skills to a market of 320 million.

Progress towards the single market will, of course, present difficult decisions and problems as in the case of indirect tax harmonisation.

I have briefly outlined the opportunities and challenges the single market presents. We must recognise that the steady irreversible progress to a single market is one of the most remarkable developments in the history of a long divided Europe. It has grown slowly but tenaciously to building a Europe of peaceful co-operation and common economic and social purpose among the member states.

I would like to demolish any suggestion that the Government are remiss in taking all necessary measures to adapt to the emerging single market. Carefully considered, effective arrangements have been put in place which are succeeding very well in establishing and maintaining the necessary impetus.

As soon as we came into office, we recognised the crucial importance of managing our affairs and our negotiations in the EC in a coherent structured way and, accordingly, we appointed a wholetime Minister for Co-ordination of European Affairs so that there would be a clear focus at political level — as in most other member states — for the preparation and development of our EC policies.

Specifically to oversee and mastermind our preparations for the single market, there is a Committee of Ministers and Secretaries under my Chairmanship. This committee carefully prepares our negotiating position on all relevant issues and gives directions as to the measures to be taken to ensure rapid and full adaptation to the single market.

The Framework Regulation which contains the principles which will govern the allocation of the greatly-increased Structural Funds was of crucial importance and we have secured a commitment by the Commission to the doubling by 1992, as a general rule, of the Structural Funds going to the least prosperous regions in which Ireland by definition is included, provided the necessary programmes and plans are submitted.

An essential part of our preparation strategy is to have the closest possible level of co-operation and co-ordination of efforts between the Commission and our Committee of Ministers and Secretaries. Both the Government and the Commission agree that an arrangement that will ensure that we can proceed with the greatest possible amount of agreement on plans and projects would be very beneficial from both our points of view. It is essential that our respective decisions and actions be taken in a timely and strategic framework which advances the overall Community objective of cohesion and our national objectives of faster growth, greater employment and improved social conditions. Arrangements for this are in train.

We are already preparing our national development plan, which must be submitted to the Commission by the end of the year, to provide the framework for the individual programmes qualifying for the structural funds. This plan will also be broken down into sub-regional plans and this is underway.

We envisage a vigorous and active programme of measures to ensure that each sector will take the necessary steps to adapt to the new market conditions. Sectoral strategies which identify the specific problems and opportunities of each sector will be applied through regional programmes at sectoral and firm level involving Government Ministers, employers, employees and professional and vocational bodies.

On Monday next, 4 July, we shall be launching a campaign in Ireland to promote in general terms greater awareness of the programme to compete the single market by 31 December 1992. The launch will take the form of a conference in the National Conference Hall, Dublin, which I will be opening and which will be addressed by prominent international and national figures. Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas have been invited and I hope many will find it possible to attend. The conference is being co-sponsored by the Government and by the major national representative organisations associated with the Programme for National Recovery.

While a general awareness campaign is important, the real task is to ensure our adaptation to the new market conditions and opportunities by all concerned. Our campaign will not be primarily a general public relations type of exercise. It will be directly aimed at those immediately concerned, sector by sector, even firm by firm, through seminars, group meetings, lectures and demonstrations. The creation of the single market is about removing the obstacles to growth. Many of these are external consisting mainly of barriers to our penetration of markets in other member states. But we have our own obstacles to internal growth. As was recognised recently in a joint Government-ICTU statement, there is a frequent and regrettable tendency in this country as soon as development projects are proposed which could increase employment and national wealth, for some group or other to start up some form of opposition or protest without regard to our urgent need to provide economic development and employment. Of course, we must protect and preserve our amenities, our heritage and the environment, but we must keep a sense of proportion and always have regard to the fact that there are far too many unemployed and far too many emigrating and that it is only by economic progress that we can remedy that appalling situation.

Disappointment has been expressed that export growth has not so far been translated into increased employment in Ireland. This is disappointing but to some extent it was inevitable that initially industry would be taking up the slack in capacity left by a long period of recession. Nevertheless, sectoral reports do indicate that a significant number of new jobs are being created.

The fall in the unemployment figures over the last six months compared with the same months in 1987 so that they are now 10,000 below the corresponding figure in May 1987, is an encouraging development, especially in view of the reduction in the numbers employed in the public service. We must, however, to our disappointment acknowledge that emigration affects the overall number of unemployed on the live register as do other factors. But there is undoubtedly some real improvement in the figures. There is also some evidence that the number of people at work has begun to increase in some sectors of the economy, but it will be the autumn before the figures can be firmly established.

In the past 15 months there has been a strong revival in industrial investment, reflecting the better overall atmosphere. As the joint Government-ICTU statement on job creation of 18 May stated, the industrial promotion agencies are satisfied that a total of 4,000 new first time jobs were created in the first quarter of 1988, and that they are on target to create approximately 20,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry in the course of the year. This is the target set in the Programme for National Recovery. The joint Government-ICTU statement also made it clear that satisfactory progress is being made in achieving the other sectoral job targets of the programme. The streamlining of incentives so as to induce a more effective and economical use of State resources has been more than compensated for by more general improvements in the attractiveness of Ireland as a location for investment.

Significant progress has been made in reducing industrial costs. Irish electricity prices, as a result of price cuts to the industrial user, are now much more competitive, and are no longer significantly out of line with the European norm. There will be a reduction of 25 per cent to 30 per cent from 1 October in international telephone charges. Both the quality and cost of access transport has been improved. Reforms in court procedures should help to reduce insurance costs. Together with reductions in interest rates, wage moderation and low inflation, there have been major improvements in competitiveness.

The construction of the International Financial Services Centre on the Custom House Quay is now well underway. Five companies have already commenced trading, and 25 additional projects have been approved.

The construction industry has been going through a very difficult period for some years but there is now evidence of recovery in the private sector as the economy returns to a growth path based on sound public finances. Construction has commenced on the Custom House Dock centre and interest is growing in the inner city designated areas with projects like the Arthur's Quay-Patrick Street development in Limerick. The re-introduction of the section 23 initiative in this year's budget should also lead to an increase in activity in the rented apartment sector, and the decentralisation programme is well underway in ten provincial centres. The fall in interest rates will have a beneficial effect on all sectors, including the private house market.

It has long been recognised that our arterial roads system is a severe trading impediment to our economy in comparison with those of our competitors. It has been estimated that our economy suffers an annual cost penalty of £300 million by reason of our inadequate arterial road system. This Government will shortly establish a national roads authority to give a central administrative and technical impetus to creating a modern arterial road system capable of carrying efficiently not only our existing road traffic but the substantial growth that will occur as our economy expands into the future.

We are confident that, in general, we can sustain the level of expenditure necessary with the restructuring we are carrying out in the Exchequer finances, with the involvement of private funding in appropriate toll schemes and with the greatly-increased assistance which will be available from the European structural funds. Under the new arrangements, the total receipts from the funds will not only be doubled but the rate of assistance for projects, particularly infrastructural projects, will be increased. Already the Government have identified all the improvements needed and the function of the new national roads authority will be to implement our programme quickly and efficiently.

A number of State companies have had very successful results in the last year. I do not think that there has been sufficient public recognition of the major success achieved by Aer Rianta in winning the contract for the duty-free shop at Moscow Airport which opens up a wide range of possible further developments in the new climate of economic perestroika. Aer Lingus have also had excellent results and are expanding their fleet. Bord Telecom have just announced a profit for the first time. I have already referred to price cuts by the ESB and Telecom Éireann. The wisdom of the decision to retain the B & I line on stringent financial conditions was demonstrated both from a strategic point of view during the recent British seamen's strike, and in terms of improved performance. Legislation has been passed to set up a new commercial semi-State body to manage our forests. Sustained improvement in the financial performance of the semi-State sector, which should give an adequate return to the Exchequer, where possible, is essential. State companies are urged to use their resources of finance, management and technology to initiate new viable enterprises in conjunction, if necessary, with private interests.

In general Government policy and in the Programme for National Recovery there is a major emphasis on the tourist industry. We are looking to it for a major contribution to growth and employment. A further round of measures recommended by the specially constituted Tourism Task Force have been implemented in 1988. The number of overseas visitors and foreign earnings from tourism increased by 12 per cent in 1987. In the first four months of 1988 visitor numbers through the airports are up by a quarter. The air liberalisation package agreed in the EC Council last December which was strongly supported by Ireland, bilaterally agreed air fare reductions between here and Germany, and removal of the cost penalty of flying on to Ireland for visitors from Australia will all contribute to increased numbers. A number of outstanding successes by our sports stars will help to focus the attention of intending travellers on Ireland. In the joint Government/ICTU statement it was estimated that about 7,500 additional jobs equivalents had been created by the increase in tourism last year.

There is a growing preoccupation in Europe, especially in the countries bordering on the North Sea, about pollution. Our own stituation, while not as bad, cannot however give us any room for complacency. We are giving priority to dealing with the problem areas that we have, so that we can make a pollution-free environment a strong source of appeal to potential visitors and indeed for many other products, especially food.

Our farmers should have another good year in 1988. Last year the latest figures suggest that farm incomes rose by almost a third after the two bad years 1985 and 1986. The price negotiations in Brussels have been reasonably satisfactory in all the circumstances, and the decline in the beef cow herd has been reversed. The total number of sheep increased by over 11 per cent in 1987. The sharp fall in interest rates, together with high prices, has given farmers a new incentive to increase stock. A revised western package, pilot integrated programmes for rural areas and a new more effective TB eradication drive have been introduced.

We have placed a new concentration on food production and a major programme of modernising meat factories with State support is underway. Last year food exports increased by 30 per cent and there is an encouraging growth of new quality Irish products for both the home and export markets. The horticultural industry is also progressing with the new impetus given by An Bord Glas.

There is significant expansion and investment in the sea-fishing industry. Last year fish exports increased by over 30 per cent. The new Department of the Marine has begun to tackle many outstanding issues, such as legislative controls on marine pollution, the development of aquaculture and the upgrading of harbour facilities.

While there is much happening in many different sectors, I do not wish to suggest that our problems are by any means overcome. Sustained effort for expansion, of which we have only seen the beginning, is needed on a number of different fronts, if we are to achieve a decisive reduction in unemployment and emigration. But I have no doubt that improvements based on sound public finances in the different sectors will be mutually supportive in generating an accelerating momentum.

The Government brought about a major change in the formulation and administration of policy by inaugurating a system of participation in Government planning by the major economic and social interests in our community. The Programme for National Recovery was prepared in consultation with these interests and a central review committee, combining representatives of the Government and the social partners, continues to oversee and monitor the progress of the programme. This committee by their unique combination of interests united for the common purpose of improving economic and social conditions have already made important recommendations which the Government have been able to accept. The committee are in fact developing their own dynamic.

This method of working together between Government and social partners represents one of the surest guarantees for a small developing country of achieving its economic and social ambitions and as speedily as possible. Last year we had the smallest number of days lost through industrial disputes for 14 years.

We have also introduced the practice of bringing private expertise into the formulation of Government policy in selected areas. The International Financial Services Committee have done an outstanding job in formulating the proposals on which the international financial services centre is so successfully based. That committee continue to be involved actively in monitoring the progress of the centre and in providing their expertise to advance its marketing worldwide.

The tourism task force is another striking example of how a combination of public and private expertise succeeded in putting together a new package of measures to accelerate the growth of our tourist industry.

Similarly in trade and marketing we have been able to draw upon private sector marketing expertise to develop a national programme for marketing.

We think that our public administration in its size and structure must be kept continuously under review to make sure that we try new forms and methods to improve its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In little over a year we have made some profound changes and we will continue to search out new and better ways to enable our talented and committed public servants to have at their disposal a more efficient administrative machine through which they can achieve their objectives.

For this purpose we have initiated an efficiency audit in the public service under which a group containing expertise from inside and outside the public service will examine the working methods and practices of the public service to ensure that they are the most cost-effective and cost-efficient possible. Experience in other countries, notably in Australia and the United Kingdom, has shown that substantial savings are possible by such audits, without affecting the amount and quality of service provided. I believe it will also be possible, through the work of the group, to achieve improvements in the amount and quality of particular public services and of the morale of those providing them, at no extra cost in public expenditure terms.

In addition to our work in the economic area, the Government have put through a major programme of legislation. By this summer, the Oireachtas will have enacted 29 Bills since the beginning of 1988, making a total of 64 Bills enacted since we came into office in March 1987. The Bills include very important pieces of legislation; the Courts Bill which will have an impact on insurance costs; the Data Protection Bill, necessary both for the privacy of the citizen but also for financial services; the two radio and television Bills, which enable commercial radio and an independent television channel to be set up, ending a long period of decision-making paralysis; an electricity Bill that enables the ESB to operate subsidiaries and import coal on a wholesale basis through Moneypoint; Bills to extend worker participation to certain State companies; a Bill to create a commercial forestry company; a tobacco health protection Bill; and the Adoption Bill to extend the category of children who may be legally adopted.

As Deputies will be aware, there are, of course, a number of other important pieces of legislation still going through the Dáil such as the Child Care Bill and the Video Recordings Bill, and we anticipate continued activity in the legislative programme in the autumn session. The legislative programme could not have been achieved without the co-operation of the other parties and in particular the main Opposition party. I believe it reflects credit on both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Ar ndóigh, tá cúramaí orm freisin mar Aire na Gaeltachta agus beidh cur síos á dhéanamh ar Vóta Roinn na Gaeltachta ag an Aire Stáit sa Roinn sin, an Teachta Denis Gallagher.

Is cúis sásaimh don Rialtas gur éirigh le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta cur leis an líon daoine a bhí fostaithe i dtionscail faoina scáth anuraidh. Ag deireadh na bliana 1987 bhí beagnach cúig mhíle duine fostaithe go lánaimseartha i dtionscail sa Ghaeltacht a fuair cúnamh ó Ghaeltarra Éireann nó ón Údarás. Is méadú cúig go leith faoin gcéad é ar líon na ndaoine a bhí fostaithe sna tionscail sin ag deireadh na bliana 1986. Tuigim ón Udarás go meastar go gcruthófar timpeall sé céad post nua i rith na bliana 1988. Mar sin, tá an tÚdarás agus an Ghaeltacht ag déanamh a gcuid maidir le comhlíonadh na spriocanna fostaíochta a leagadh amach sa Chlár um Théarnamh Náisiúnta.

Léirigh an Rialtas a thacaíocht athuair don Ghaeilge nuair a socraíodh i mí na Samhna seo caite ar £4 milliún ó fháltais an chrannchuir náisiúnta a chur ar fáil do thograí speisialta Gaeilge. Táim cinnte go rachaidh an cúnamh speisialta atá curtha ar fáil go mór chun leas na Gaeilge. Cheana féin tá rian an chúnaimh sin le feiceáil in imeachtaí Ghlór na nGael agus Chumann na bhFiann.

Athbhunaíodh an Comhchoiste Oireachtais don Ghaeilge anuraidh agus is breá liom go bhfuil na comhaltaí ag saothrú go dian ó shin faoin gCathaoirleach, An Seanadóir Tomás Mac Gearailt.

Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go dtabharfadh Comhaltaí an Tí seo agus an tSeanaid dea-shampla i dtaobh na Gaeilge agus tá moltaí fiúntacha chuige sin sa dara tuarascáil ón gComhchoiste.

Tréaslaim a gcuid saothair arís le comhaltaí an Chomhchoiste agus guím rath ar an obair a bheidh idir lámha acu amach seo.

The Government have recently approved the establishment of a National Heritage Council. In broad terms, the council will have responsibility for archaeology, architecture, wildlife, landscape, heritage gardens and certain inland waterways. The council will formulate specific policy for the preservation and enhancement of this country's heritage. It will have power to act on its own initiative and through other Government agencies as appropriate. The council will be established initially on a non-statutory basis and will help to draft the legislation needed to establish it, at what I hope will be a relatively early date, as a statutory National Heritage Council.

The council will report to the Taoiseach and to facilitate this, the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works has been appointed also to my Department as Minister of State for Heritage Affairs. The Government have appointed Lord Killanin as chairman of the council and I am sure the House will recognise in the appointment of so distinguished a person and one with such experience of administration how seriously we regard the work of the new council. We will shortly announce the full membership of the council.

More active and more positive policy initiatives are now urgently needed if we are to pass on intact to future generations the physical heritage entrusted to us. I am confident that these new arrangements will result in a more positive, integrated approach to national heritage matters. The work of the council will complement the work of State agencies, concerned individuals, voluntary organisations and local authorities. I know that the creation of the council will be welcomed by all sides of the House.

I wish to avail of this opportunity to report on the European Council which I attended in Hanover on 27 and 28 June.

The Council dealt, essentially, with the internal market and its social dimension, economic and monetary questions and the protection of the environment. We also discussed political co-operation items.

During my visit to Hanover I had a very useful meeting with the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, on matters of mutual interest to Ireland and the Community. I would like to take the opportunity here to convey to him our congratulations on his reappointment as President of the Commission, which was agreed to unanimously, and our best wishes for his new term of office. I also met the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, at the end of the Council.

There was a definable sense of optimism and confidence among all the members of the Council. A momentum has developed in the affairs of the Community which is unique in my experience. As the first paragraph of the Presidency Conclusions, which I have arranged to lay before the House, indicates, the Council takes the view that the process of the completion of the internal market where goods, services, persons and capital can move freely in a market, without frontiers, has now reached the point where it is irreversible.

In 1986, the total domestic product of the European Community was, according to Commission sources, the equivalent of approximately 3.5 trillion dollars. In the same year the domestic product of the United States was approximately 4.2 trillion dollars and that of Japan just over 2 trillion dollars. The Community is among the largest economic entities in the world but within its boundaries there are serious obstacles to trade and business of a type from which its competitors do not suffer, which prevent Europe from reaching its full potential either as a market or as a source of technological innovation.

The cost of these obstacles — or alternatively the benefit of a complete internal market — is calculated at between 4.25 per cent and 6.5 per cent of the Community's gross national product. In other words, when we speak of the completion of the internal market, we are speaking of a benefit to its member states and to the people of Europe estimated to be the equivalent of between 175 and 255 billion ECUs or eight to 11 times the total gross national product of Ireland.

The obstacles cover such things as customs formalities, standards for products, exchange rates, the movement of citizens, professional qualifications and a multitude of regulations and limitations on individual freedom or on competition. The Commission proposals to cut through this regulatory tangle are contained in nearly 300 different drafts or directives. Of these, 101 are completed or agreed in principle. The rest remain to be considered.

The Hanover Council took note that by the end of 1988 the Commission will have submitted the bulk of its proposals with the objective of completing the market by 1992. The Council also noted with satisfaction that decisions have been taken in such strategic areas as the full liberalisation of capital movements, the mutual recognition of diplomas, the opening up of public contracts, insurance matters and road and air transport. They agreed that decisions should be taken as soon as possible in relation to public contracts, banks and other financial services, the approximation of standards and intellectual property.

At the Council, I raised the two aspects of the proposals for the completion of the market which are of particular concern to us. The first is the proposal for the harmonisation of taxes within the Community. As these are framed at present, there could, in relation to the indirect taxes alone, be a loss to the Irish Exchequer running into hundreds of millions. With the public finances in their present state this is not a situation we could contemplate with equanimity.

Next, there is a danger that the completion of the market could set in motion irresistible centripetal forces, concentrating people and wealth to an even greater extent than at present, in the central areas of the Community, to the detriment of the peripheral regions. The need for support of these regions is recognised in the Single European Act and I was involved with other members in ensuring that the Conclusions of the Council took note of the need for the successful implementation of the provisions of the Single European Act on cohesion.

The Council taking up the question of progressive realisation of economic and monetary union decided to establish a committee to propose concrete stages leading towards this union. The committee is to be chaired by Mr. Delors, President of the Commission, and to have as members the Governors of the Central Banks of the Community who will act on the committee in their personal capacities. The committee will also include Commission member Andriessen and three experts, Mr. Thygesen, Professor of Economics, Copenhagen, Mr. Lamfalussy, Director-General of the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, and Mr. Miguel Boyer, President of the Banco Exterior de Espana. The committee is to report to the Ministers for Finance and Economic Affairs, in time to enable the European Council, at its Madrid meeting in June 1989, to consider its results.

Against the background of the unacceptably high level of unemployment in the Community, the Council emphasised the importance of sustained economic growth of the internal market in increasing employment and living standards of all Community citizens. The Council also laid particular stress on the need for the improvement of working conditions and the standard of living of wage earners. Of importance to this country is the fact that improved access to vocational training mentioned in the Conclusions includes work experience programmes.

Indicative of the high degree of social concern expressed in Hanover, is the Conclusion relating to the protection of the environment. There is an invitation to the Commission and the Council to intensify efforts to improve the means to combat and prevent air and water pollution. The Hanover Council welcomed the Conclusions of the Toronto Summit — dealing also with the ozone layer and acid rain — and emphasised that environmental considerations must be integrated into all areas of economic policy-making.

The President, Chancellor Kohl, and other members expressed concern that technology developments in communications and especially in the audio-visual media are, increasingly, exerting pressures on regional languages, customs and cultures. I stressed the need to cultivate and encourage access to the richness and diversity of European culture. This intervention was followed by a particularly powerful and moving address by President Mitterrand who spoke eloquently on Europe's cultural needs and particularly the need to preserve all aspects of that culture as part of the cultural heritage of mankind. He singled out for special mention the Irish and Flemish languages.

On political co-operation items, the Council welcomed the new dynamic in East-West relations. I personally am more than glad to place on record here the conclusions recorded after the recent Reagan-Gorbachev Summit that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought — and the disavowal of the Superpowers of any intention to achieve military superiority. The inference from this conclusion is particularly important in the area of disarmament.

On the Middle East, the Council expressed the view that the status quo in the occupied territories cannot be sustained. It reaffirmed the support of the Twelve for an international peace conference and repeated its support for UNIFIL in appealing for the immediate release of the hostages in the Lebanon.

In expressing its concern for the Sharpeville Six, the Council urged that all possibilities should be availed of to prevent the death penalty from being carried out. In view of Nelson Mandela's impending 70th birthday, the Council called for his release and that of other political prisoners.

At the end of the Council, I had a serious and thorough meeting, which lasted slightly more than an hour, with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. We discussed a broad range of current issues in Anglo-Irish relations and reviewed the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We also noted that a great deal of useful work had been done at recent meetings of the Inter-governmental Conference.

We reaffirmed our total commitment to the agreement and our intention to continue to work closely together in accordance with its terms. We placed on record our full determination to defeat those who seek to advance political aims by violent means; and our intention to maintain, and further strengthen wherever possible, our wholehearted co-operation against terrorism, which has done and is doing so much damage and causing so much suffering to the people of these islands.

The success of the Hanover Council is a tribute to the energy and dedication of the German Presidency in the person of Chancellor Kohl, Foreign Minister Genscher and their officials who used every opportunity to engender a new spirit in the Community and give it a new impetus. The Council had the great advantage that it did not have before it controversial issues like quotas, prices, acreages and subsidies, which occupied so much time in previous Councils. The Council was thus able to devote time to discussing social, cultural and related matters like the environment. These discussions were interesting, valuable and stimulating and there was a surprising degree of unanimity in regard to them and on the kind of Europe we would all like to see emerging. I joined with every other participant in congratulating the German Presidency on the outstanding success of their work and the way in which they had carried through the onerous responsibilities at this and at every other Council during their period of office.

As we adjourn for the Summer recess, I am in a position to report to the House that progress is being made. The difficulties and challenges are being faced. Our programme is on course. But a lot of steady, unremitting work is still needed, until we can put our difficulties safely behind us. We must sustain what we are doing, not allow ourselves to be distracted from our goal. The result should be a wider and improved level of prosperity and security, and a wide range and an adequate level of opportunities at home for young people coming out of school and college in a few year's time. That is our objective for the nineties.

We have just heard the Minister for the Environment, a long shadow for the Taoiseach, claiming credit on behalf of the Government for getting the country's finances into order. The Government have been saying that they have got firm control of public spending, that they have reduced the current budget deficit and that they have significantly reduced the Exchequer borrowing requirement. It is true that we have seen improvements in all of those areas and that the trends are all in the right direction. These factors together with changes in prices, exchange rates and interest rates in the world around us have allowed interest rates and inflation here to continue on a downward path. We must all hope that those trends continue and not alone must we hope that but we must also ensure that our actions here reinforce that process rather than hinder it.

We should ask ourselves whether the Government are entitled to much credit for having brought about this situation and the answer, quite plainly, is no. This Government have been following a path which was clearly set out for them and from which this House would quite simply not allow them to deviate. Listening to the speech read by the Minister for the Environment, which sounded just as incongruous from the Minister for the Environment as it would from the Taoiseach, I was struck by a number of the claims made and the number of resounding statements made about economic policy. For example, the Minister for the Environment said:

The suggestion that a major reduction in public expenditure would be too deflationary was completely debunked last year when we achieved the highest economic growth for a decade of up to 5 per cent.

That is a statement which would take a good deal of analysis and which would lose much of its shine as the analysis is gone through but I wonder would we ever have heard the Minister for the Environment making a statement of that kind in the period between December 1982 and February 1987. I do not think so. Certainly all that I heard from the Minister for the Environment and the Taoiseach during that period would indicate that they could never come to make a statement like that. Indeed, during that period any reduction in expenditure or any measure to improve the efficiency of expenditure, which the Government are now taking credit for here, was regarded as another evil step, another turn of the screw and another dose of deflation which was to be resisted at all costs. Now it seems that sensible policies are at last getting some kind of a welcome on the part of the Government and being brought out in this House as being things that would indicate how well the Government are doing but, as I have said, they do not deserve credit for any of that because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the present Government did not find themselves as a minority Government they would not be taking the view of economic policy they are now taking.

There is a great deal which was well prepared for the Government when they took office. When they came into office in 1987, for example, the Exchequer borrowing requirement had been brought down from the 23 per cent of GNP which Fianna Fáil policies in 1982 threatened to bring about to 10 per cent, in other words three quarters of the adjustment down to the level of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, which the Minister has said is required, was already done at that stage. As I have said, it is very hard to believe that the Government were they free from the constraints which now surround them as a minority Government would follow the line they have taken during the past 15 months with any conviction or determination.

On the indications that are available up to now, tomorrow the Government will be claiming credit for doing even better than forecast on the financial side. Rumours, emanating from I do not know where, have it that revenue has exceeded expectation by about £100 million, or perhaps even more at this stage of the year and expenditure is said to be on target. I should like to warn the Government about the dangers of complacency on these issues. We are half-way through the year. Substantial changes could still come about and in spite of the very optimistic gloss put on the economic situation by the Minister, I am not at all convinced that we are going to see in the second half of the year any boom in the level of consumer expenditure or any continuing source of revenue buoyancy, one of the all-time favourite boltholes of Fianna Fáil Governments when they find themselves in difficulty. I would counsel the Government to approach all of that with a certain amount of caution.

In addition to that, it seems that a good deal of the improvement on the revenue side comes from once-off factors which will not bring about the same improvement in 1989. Much of the improvement on the revenue side, for example, can be traced back to measures which we took in Government in the budget and in the Finance Act, 1986, in relation to the process of tax collection. Indeed, whatever improvement on the expenditure side is being claimed as a result of actions going on to reduce the level of fraud in social welfare again can be traced back to actions which were initiated in 1986. I suppose, not to be too carping about it and to be generous about it, I would have to say that the Government at least deserve credit for having the good sense to follow on the tracks which were laid out for them there but I am not at all convinced that they deserve much credit for inventiveness or new thinking in their stewardship of economic policy up to now.

The signs are all there in the speech which the Minister has just read out that there is not any real preparedness on the Government's part to think creatively and constructively about economic policy. When we look at the real economy outside of the figures, we see how little credit the Government really deserve, with 250,000 people out of work we have the highest unemployment rate in the European Community, emigration continues and so far as we can see it is continuing at an accelerating pace.

Surely we would have been entitled to expect that a party who in Opposition said so much, so often and so loudly about lower levels of unemployment and lower levels of emigration would have applied themselves with some energy and imagination to tackling these problems. There is no evidence of this. On the contrary there has been absolute immobility and a total unwillingness to look at any of the creative and constructive ways in which these problems could be addressed within the framework of our current financial constraints.

The Government have not showed the slightest understanding of the need for tax reform. They have shown not the slightest understanding of the role which a well thought-out process of tax reform could play in increasing employment and expanding economic activity. Indeed, only today it has been reported that the Government — and it must be for the third or fourth time during the past 12 months — have decided against the idea of a property tax and delivered another rebuff to the unfortunate Minister who is sitting on the other side of the House. That is one potential component of a real tax reform package but so far the Government have failed to make any decisions on the adaptation of our tax system to favour employment and expansion.

The Minister in his speech showed just how bare the Fianna Fáil cupboard is and how little they understand about tax reform when he said:

It is false to suggest that massive income tax cuts, the feasibility and financing of which are entirely unexplained, are the key to recovery. I am frankly surprised after all the experiences of the last fifteen years that anyone should be unrealistic enough to suggest that we award ourselves massive tax cuts before we have earned them, and that we can do in one year what it has taken others ten years to achieve.

What he said is actually passing sensible but it has nothing to do with the tax reform that is now being proposed by my party, nor has it anything to do with proposals which have been made by the Labour Party nor, I understand, has it anything to do with proposals that might be about to be made by the Progressive Democrats, if they ever get around to publishing them. That is not what tax reform is about.

The Minister went on to say in his speech — and it was either he or a colleague of his who quoted me on "Questions and Answers" one night in this regard — that all the things he had set out "...was also the position of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Finance" and he went on to quote me:

In the 1984 Budget he stated: "However desirable it might be to reduce taxation, this cannot be done on a significant scale, if at all, until current expenditure is reduced and the current budget deficit eliminated."

That is a very well chosen quotation if one is talking about proposals to reduce overall taxation but, with the greatest possible respect to the original author of the quotation, it is totally irrelevant when we are talking about tax reform of the kind that my party are promoting and which other parties in the House seem to be looking at. What we are talking about is not a reduction in the overall burden of taxation but a sensible rearrangement of that burden so that that tax burden does not create unnecessary obstacles to employment and does not unnecessarily demotivate people from working. The Government have completely failed to understand that is what we are talking about and that is the kind of process that is going to lead in the short term to the kind of improvements in employment that we want to bring about.

Further on in his speech the Minister gave another view on taxation when he said:

We are determined to create a situation in which we will actually be able to reduce tax levels. We are convinced that the taxpayers of this country will benefit infinitely more from a real reduction in the tax they pay on the basis of general economic and financial progress, than from mere manoeuvring of the figures within the restricted confines of the same heavy and unsustainable total burden.

That shows an appalling inability to understand that there are choices in tax policy, ways in which we can collect the same total of tax revenue without the stultifying effect on employment that we see and without the demotivating effects of high marginal tax rates on the work of the ordinary individual and on the readiness of employers to hire more people to do their work. The Government will have to change their minds about this and start thinking creatively about changing the way we run our taxation system.

There is another aspect of tax reform I find very worrying. It is within the last few days only that the Taoiseach has shown any readiness to address the issue of indirect tax harmonisation within the EC, a process which, if properly carried through, could produce substantial benefits for this country in the medium term. Towards the end of the script there is what is, so far, the longest statement that the Taoiseach has made about this issue, one paragraph consisting of eight lines in which he says:

At the Council I raised the two aspects of the proposals for the completion of the market which are of particular concern to us. The first is the proposal for the harmonisation of taxes within the Community....

Mind you, the Taoiseach has not seen fit to tell us what happened as a result of his having raised this issue at the Council. Was there any debate on the issue? Was there any understanding of the issue? Was there any attempt on the part of the Taoiseach to draw the attention of the Council to the provisions of the Single European Act which quite deliberately make decisions on indirect tax harmonisation, decisions that require unanimity in the Council, so that member states — and we are not the only member state — that would experience difficulties in the short term with reducing levels of indirect taxes, could be assisted in the short term to cope with that problem and help themselves and the remainder of the Community to reap the benefits of tax harmonisation. It is a pity that the Taoiseach, in preparing this text, did not tell us a bit more about the reaction of the Heads of other Governments at the Council to his raising this problem.

Mind you, it is not the only area about which there is absolutely no information or follow-through in the Taoiseach's comments about what passed at the European Council. I shall revert to that topic in a moment because it is one about which I believe the Government have simply not got the message or are not even thinking about what it is possible to do even in the short term.

In other areas the Government have acted in ways which have militated directly against the welfare of a great many people in our community. They have adopted very much a stop/go approach to education and the whole issue of teacher numbers. That has caused unnecessary alarm, confusion and worry in primary and second level education. I find it alarming — not too strong a word to use — to discover that the principals of vocational schools all around the country are even today unable to plan for the running of their schools in the autumn.

We can see the same kind of stop/go approach in agriculture, where there is a particularly bad example of it. In 1987 this Government abolished a perfectly sensible and useful scheme we had introduced to assist young farmers to take over family farms, set themselves up in business, improve the style of farming and the age profile of our active farming population. The reintroduction of that scheme was announced in this year's budget. Now we find that the scheme means nothing at all because no funds have been allocated to this programme. We have now large numbers of young farmers all around the country who applied under the provisions of the scheme in 1986; were told it was abolished in 1987; were told in 1988 that the scheme is back in operation. Now they are told: yes, the scheme is in operation all right but you cannot get the grant because we did not allocate any money for it. In God's name is that any way to run any kind of policy?

This kind of stop/go approach shows an utter lack of planning of expenditure in spite of some very sophisticated and honeyed words here about the way the whole process of shaping the Estimates is being undertaken by this Government. I shall revert to that in a moment. We see no evidence of it in the actual running of public expenditure.

A "live horse and you will get grass" policy.

All of those difficulties result from the fact, as far as I can see, that this Government are still mesmerised by their conversion to financial responsibility. It seems the shock of that conversion is preventing them from thinking creatively, from seeking ways within the present financial constraints — about which there is no disagreement — to alter our tax, support and expenditure systems in various sectors so as to produce real and lasting extra employment.

Towards the beginning of the script we were treated to a description of comprehensive public expenditure reviews. It is being suggested here that a properly focused and directed effort to review public expenditure leads to better results, a proposition with which I would agree, but I do not believe a word of what is said here. We are not getting those results because we are not seeing, in the balance of public expenditure, the kind of deliberate tailoring of expenditure to bring about the results we want.

We see the same stop/go approach in relation to roads policy. I suppose the Minister was speaking with some particular knowledge of this when he dealt with the importance of recognising the fact that our arterial roads system is a severe trading impediment to our economy. Again, everything said here is actually very sensible but what have they been doing about it? The record of the Fianna Fáil Party is really remarkable in relation to roads policy. For example, a previous Fianna Fáil Government abandoned their own road policy put together in 1980. The present Fianna Fáil Government abandoned our roads policy in 1987 and 1988.

Now this Government, having abandoned one of their own roads policies and the one that was in place when they assumed office — having reduced expenditure on roads in 1987 and 1988 — are making a virtue of setting up a national roads authority. The Minister for the Environment, no less, is telling us how important it is that we direct our expenditure on roads. I would have to say that the Minister is welcome to the club; it is nice to note that he has come on board after all this time but it is criminal that he should have spent the best part of 18 months doing exactly the opposite of what is recommended in this speech. It is a shame that we have had to go through two budgets that have completely derouted roads policy before the Government would get to the point of taking and kind of a sensible decision in this matter.

(Interruptions.)

We come along then and look at the position of the semi-State companies. There is a long paragraph in the script dealing with the very successful results a number of semi-State companies have had in the last year. I am very glad to note that there has been a sustained improvement in the performance of semi-State companies. We are now seeing the benefit of reforms which we introduced in Government in the whole management structure of semi-State companies, in the financial targets they are given, reforms which we introduced which were opposed every step of the way by the Fianna Fáil Party at the time, opposed they said, as constituting interference with the way semi-State companies are run; opposed, they claimed, because they represented an attempt by the Government to run them directly whereas, in fact, what we were doing was to make it clear that, as long as semi-State companies adopted a more commercial approach to their tasks, they would have the freedom to respond to the market opportunities open to them. I am very glad to note that the measures we put in place are having the effect intended. I hope the Government have the wit to leave them alone and let them get on with the job in the way we set it up for them.

There is a certain lack of reality about what the Minister said about agriculture and fisheries. For example, the Minister had this to say in the course of his remarks:

There is significant expansion and investment in the sea-fishing industry.

I must ask where the Minister sees that.

That is not true.

For example, will it be found in Killybegs? No. Will it be found in Kilmore Quay?

Will it be found in Castletownbere?

Will it be found anywhere around our coasts?

Inishvickillane.

In fact the difficulty we have with our fishing industry at present is that it is gradually being strangled by a series of restrictions and regulations that take no account whatsoever of the fact that just off our shores there lie substantial stocks of non-quota fish which our fishing industry is now being prevented from exploiting by the operation of Community regulations. We have the Minister saying there is significant expansion in investment in the sea fishing industry. A good deal more thought should be given to the preparation of such texts as these, so that we do not see that kind of howler being perpetrated on this House.

He must have meant the illegal monofilament nets.

We also find some very rosy things being said about agriculture. In his comments on the European Council, the Taoiseach, speaking through the mellifluous voice of the Minister for the Environment——

Stentorian.

——attributed some of the success of the Hanover Council as follows:

The Council had the great advantage that it did not have before it controversial issues like quotas, prices, acreages and subsidies, which occupied so much time in previous Councils.

That would be grand if all those problems had been solved, but while the European Council was enjoying itself not having all these issues before it, what was happening? Agreements that everybody thought had been concluded in relation to agricultural prices were being reopened. The Council apparently thought that this was not a matter that it should concern itself with, whereas it should have been giving very clear directions as to how to resolve these problems.

From our point of view, I find it very sad to look at the spectacle of a country other than ours trying to get the whole monetary compensatory amount issue sorted out without any apparent backing from our Minister for Agriculture. Let me make this very clear and let it not be clouded over by any kind of smokescreen run either by the Commission or by other member states. If we are really serious about unifying the internal market in the Community, that must apply in agriculture as much as anywhere else. I would like to see, somewhere in the Government's activities, the simple proposal being made that the 1992 enterprise must apply to agriculture and that we want to see the end of all positive and negative MCAs by 1992, at the latest. There have been enough occasions in the past — the Minister for Finance will agree with me on that — when we have arrived at informal agreements or gentlemen's agreements that promised to take all these things out of the system in the space of two or three years. I want to see that being included in this Government's approach now to 1992.

That brings me to the awareness programme that the Government are going to launch. I am glad to see that there is a little more in what the Taoiseach has said, through the mouth of the Minister for the Environment, about this programme. However, I am far from being happy that the Government have really realised the full extent of what is required there. I am bound to say, without any disrespect to any of the people who will be in the National Concert Hall on 4 July to address that assembled gathering of 500 people, or any of those who will be there——

P.J. Mara.

——I say very plainly that high profile cosmetic events such as that are not going to help. Again, without the slightest disrespect to people who will be present there, what is going to happen? We will find that the managing directors of substantial companies will spend their day in the National Concert Hall listening to the various speakers and on the following morning will say to their secreatries "Send that down to the marketing department; send that down to the transport department". The people in the marketing and the transport departments will say: "More paperwork coming down from headquarters. I wish he would stay at home or in the office and not go to these conferences" and nothing will be done about it. What is required is the development of an appreciation at the level of every individual enterprise of how things will change in the marketplace between now and 1992. Each enterprise would thus have the opportunity, and indeed the information, to change itself in order to take advantage of the benefits and to gear itself to meet the extra competition we will meet.

There will be a great many changes. We will see a very substantial, radical simplification in the amount of documentation required to move goods. Exporters will find that they will have access to a wider range of cheaper transport services. Transport operators will find they have access to a wider market but that they will have to deal with more competition. Manufacturers will find, as that process goes through, that where their manufacturing products have to meet quality or safety standards of any kind there is only one set of standards that they will have to meet, one Community set of standards instead of a whole series of different national standards. Financial services will change very substantially. That market, too, should widen and the users of financial services will have access to a much greater variety of services.

There are many more changes. In some cases firms that are not now involved in exporting will find that exporting now becomes a real prospect for them as public markets are opened up in other countries. Companies that are limited to national markets by the segmentation of access to public purchases will find that markets in other countries will open up to which they can have access in a way that they do not now have. We will find a great deal of extra competition in our market. All those things must be examined in detail at the level of every individual firm. We will not prepare that process and carry it through successfully by having a committee of Ministers and Secretaries of Departments. No matter how hard they work, no matter how well motivated they are, or how expert at their jobs — I am not criticising them at all — they simply do not have access to the practical knowledge of all these effects on firms which is needed in order to ensure that we carry through the process successfully. I would urge the Government — and the Taoiseach has made something of a virtue of private sector involvement in his speech today in the tourism and in some other areas — to follow the logic of that through to this enterprise in relation to 1992. It is only in that way that real, practical experience and knowledge will be brought to bear on the process that we must go through between now and 1992.

I urge the Government to start thinking more positively, more constructively, about the process of indirect tax harmonisation in the country. The Taoiseach has made three references to this that I can remember in the past couple of months, two in the past few days. He made one very gloomy reference to it as was reported in the newspapers after the European Council; he made another statement on it here. He is still peddling the idea that the only way this process will come about is in one lump. He should now be taking a much more realistic view than that. He should be saying that the process will take place over a period of years and he should be beginning to plan here for the kind of result that we want to get out of it.

I do not know what kind of objectives will be set in relation to the levels of excise duties. It is a very complex area and there are wide variations between member states in relation to excise duties on tobacco, petrol and other relevant areas. There is obviously a great body of information on what the levels are in the other member states of the Community. We should be looking at the kind of targets that we would take to be realistic in a Community market that is properly unified. We know what the Commission's proposals are in relation to value added tax. They are proposing a low rate of from 4 to 9 per cent and a high rate of from 12 to 18 per cent. It has been estimated that a single rate of around 13 per cent would produce the same revenue as we get out of our system here.

I have not seen any estimation of the kind of revenue that would be produced by a system based on the two rates in the bands which the Commission has proposed but there is ample room in that system to produce the kind of overall revenue that we now get from VAT and which we will continue to need. However, the Government must form their own idea of reasonable targets at which we should aim and then put themselves in a position where they can talk to the other member states in a concrete way about how we will bring that about over a period. It will not be done by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance saying that it will cost £470 million in the first year and £300 million or so every year after that. That is cop-out politics and not the way to plan the future development of a tax system or how to plan our involvement in this major enterprise in the European Community.

I am glad that the Taoiseach has given us some credit in relation to the legislative programme during this session. I am very satisfied and happy that my party helped to bring to fruition a number of important Bills. The Status of Children Act is now law, the Adoption Act has been referred to the Supreme Court — a decision with which I thoroughly agree — and the Intoxicating Liquor Act is also law. All these measures were initiated by my party and we have brought about a major improvement in the legislation relating to radio and television compared with the original proposal which the Minister for Communications made. That has been extremely useful and I am happy that my party played a solid and constructive role in bringing legislation forward and having it examined in this House and the Seanad with the kind of changes that make it directly relevant to the concerns of our people.

I could comment on the Minister's statement about Údarás na Gaeltachta but my colleague, Deputy Kenny, will deal with that later on. I was appalled yesterday that the Minister of State at the Department of the Gaeltacht said that Údarás na Gaeltachta knew at the beginning of the year how much money they had to spend and that it was too bad if they had now run out of money. He suggested that they should have slowed down their operations as if Údarás na Gaeltachta — and the IDA — can press a switch and produce a new industry. It is unacceptable and no way to approach industrial development in the Gaeltacht areas.

There is no indication of the contents of the Taoiseach's discussion with Mrs. Thatcher on the last occasion but, as the Taoiseach said, the value of meetings like that is that they are confidential and not reported outside. However, I should like the Government to make a statement that they are not satisfied with the most extraordinary statement issued yesterday by the Police Authority in Northern Ireland concerning the Stalker-Sampson affair. My colleague, Deputy Barry, will deal with this in more detail later on. That statement seems to have been issued by a group of people who did not really want to get involved in the issues and handled it with the tips of their fingers or it is a signal that the Police Authority are not all that happy with what they found. Otherwise, why would a body of that kind go out of their way to say that a decision had been taken by a majority of one? The Government should indicate very clearly today that they will follow this matter up and if we are to believe the statement in the Taoiseach's speech that he and the Government are fully committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement — I hope that is the case — the mechanisms and the structures of that Agreement should be used properly to indicate very clearly that we continue to be very worried by the Stalker-Sampson affair.

It is reported that during the course of the European Council meeting, the new reappointed President of the Commission, Jacques Delors — I congratulate him on his reappointment — interviewed the Taoiseach at some length about the appointment of an Irish Commissioner. I have not spoken on that subject in public — deliberately — although I have spoken to many people in private and there is no doubt about my views. I strongly make the point to the Taoiseach that whoever the next Irish Commissioner will be, it is essential that that person be designated immediately. The process of allocating portfolios — the Minister need not smile — is already under way and anybody who has seen that process, even from the sidelines, will know that the earlier you get involved the greater the chances are that you will come out at the end of the process with a satisfactory result. I urge — even demand — that the Taoiseach should do the sensible thing and make the nomination immediately.

I should like the Minister for the Environment to convey my personal good wishes for a speedy recovery to physical health to the Taoiseach.

I am sorry to hear of the Taoiseach's illness and I hope that he will very quickly make a full recovery and be back at work at an early date.

The Adjournment debate provides a timely opportunity for the House to ask itself a number of fundamental questions about how it orders our business, discusses various issues of the day and deals with legislation and other issues which come before us. It is hardly surprising that so many members of the public and commentators question the relevance of this House and its procedures. The controversy in recent months over the rod licence dispute is a case in point. Throughout recent weeks and months, when public debate was raging on this issue between angling and tourist interests, the Government and various honest brokers who were trying to act in the general public interest, Dáil Deputies were virtually gagged by an arbitrary sub judice rule which applies when it suits the Government but is ignored in other cases when the Government so wish.

It does the standing of this House no good in the eyes of the public to find that matters of significant public interest can be widely discussed outside its confines while, inside, those whose function it is within our democracy to represent the people and to make law, find themselves shut off from so many issues of vital national concern. Nor are these observations confined to the rod licence problem alone or to such a specific area as the sub judice rule, it is becoming endemic throughout the parliamentary system. Yesterday we discovered that Deputies can no longer speak on a motion which proposes to prevent debate and the question is likely to arise, before too long, of whether this House is needed in respect of certain matters other than to read out an Order of Business of agreed motions and other measures.

Not long after its establishment in the early seventies the ESRI commissioned and published a detailed series of reports on public expenditure in the Republic. These reports identified key deficiencies in how we approached the task of managing public affairs especially as it related to public spending. It is interesting to note that as far back as 15 years ago one of the key deficiencies then identified, and equally self-evident now, was the failure of Dáil Éireann to approach the annual task in relation to departmental estimates in any kind of strategic or meaningful way. The estimates debates each year, as they have been in recent weeks, are packed into a very short period where at one level, literally millions of pounds per minute are nodded through with the consent of the House. There is no real examination of whether the expenditure is wise or is likely to provide value for money. Indeed, before it is debated most of the money is already spent. Most divisions against estimates are held because too little is being spent rather than too much. There is a crying need for a parliamentary reform. It should begin in this House with the establishment of a proper committee system where the Government can continue to govern but where a review of their decisions particularly in areas as vital as public expenditure, can be undertaken, and their proposals probed in detail and in an expert way at a committee table, and where lessons can be learned and applied so that the worst mistakes of the past can be avoided in the future.

All of the institutional conditions which allowed us to engage in run-away public spending for virtually two decades still exist. It is one of the great tragedies, as we now try to come to grips with the economic crisis that has crept up on us by increments over the years, that within our institutions we have not yet learned the most fundamental and basic lesson, that the Dáil has ultimate responsibility. Governments are allowed treat the Dáil as a mere rubber stamp when in constitutional theory it is supreme. In order to fulfil our function properly and in order to fulfil the mandate the people gave us, it is necessary that major reform takes place within the Dáil in terms of attitudes, procedures and perspectives.

It must appear a great farce to members of the public, as it does to many of us in this House, that we find ourselves in a position where Governments apparently feel entitled to constantly force measures through the Dáil on the basis of guillotine debates or even of no debate at all. Often the net result of this guillotine process is a totally inadequate consideration of serious and fundamental changes in the law which eventually end up in a public outcry such as that about the rod licence debate, where the House never had the opportunity to adequately consider the measure when it was raised. Still, we are in recess for over five months of the year, and even when we are sitting we normally sit for only three days each week. The irony and the paradox of this is that other debates are held in this House, such as that after the budget each year where days and weeks are wasted to no purpose.

There are many interesting parliamentary models from which we could learn. It might be useful to look at one other parliament in which we fully participate and where several former Members of this House now serve, and that is the European Parliament. The European Parliament operates on the basis of a powerful and substantial committee system. Members of the European Parliament in terms of plenary session in the parliament find themselves confined to extraordinarily short speaking times. The combination of the ability to make lengthy and reasoned contributions in committee, and the need for shorter and more incisive comments in plenary sessions is a model that we could look to. That will be blocked here however, as long as Government is allowed to take precedence over parliament. We have an ineffective division of powers here. Indeed, looking to the European Parliament for a model of greater parliamentary effectiveness in terms of procedure, is not the only thing that this House should look to Europe for.

The importance and relevance of the European Community has taken on a whole new emphasis for this country with the approach of the European internal market in 1992. It is a measure of the failure of this Government to inform and prepare the country for the changes which will take place in 1992, that that date has now become synonomous in the public mind with virtually nothing except the negative aspects of tax harmonisation. The harmonisation is an issue of great importance to this country. It would be foolish to ignore its seriousness or wish away the potential detrimental aspects of it. It is equally wrong to focus on nothing but these aspects and that is what the Government seem to be doing. One of the problems with which we are faced in the debate on 1992 is the lack of a detailed White Paper from the Government on the specific benefits and costs which the internal market will bring for this country. One result of this is that there are differing opinions about the likely costs which tax harmonisation will entail. The Government have put forward a figure of about £470 million. Even if the figure is as high as the Government claim, they have neglected to establish just how much of this would flow back to the Exchequer from taxes on higher consumer spending. They have also distanced this cost from the extra £300 million which the country will receive now from the increased structural funds, and they have ignored the fiscal benefits which an increasingly competitive economy would bring.

The spectacle of the Government talking about preparing the country for the internal market in 1992, when they are not even bothered to objectively specify the Exchequer results of this move is a complete and utter farce. If the Government do not know in detail the net implications for the public purse, how can they genuinely seek to give a lead to private and public industry and commerce in what is on the most trade dependent economies in Europe? The sad truth is that the Government have not yet worked out where they are going and have ignored the call which the Progressive Democrats have consistently made for a White Paper which not only covers this neglected area but which also extends into a detailed sector by sector analysis of the possibilities and the threats posed by the 1992 agenda. This is a most glaring failure, the unfortunate consequences of which will come home to roost in time.

What is needed is a sound and coherent approach to the issue. The approach by the Government is paradoxical. On the one hand the Government have tried to sell the internal market to industrialists and business people as a great challenge and a great opportunity. For themselves they have covered it in negative rhetoric about the losses to their finances and of how difficult it will make things for them. For business people they have emphasised the need to be prepared but for the politicians they have only dealt with it on a hastily prepared and badly serviced one day debate in this House.

The high profile public relations launch proposed for next Monday is not an adequate substitute for the rigorous analysis this party have called for and which is so obviously necessary. There still remains the unfortunate echo of the last and similar great bout of public relations activity some years ago, when leaders of industry and commerce, of farming and of trade unions were summoned to attend a press conference where a Government who were then reeling back from reality, sought to suggest that they were building on it.

Good public relations is a poor substitute for good analysis. The danger with the amount of attention which the Government are placing on the downside of the exercise is that it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we manage to convince ourselves that the internal market is about nothing but negatives, then inevitably that is all it will be for us. We will miss out on enormous opportunities. Given that Ireland's development needs are so much more pressing than many of the continental European members of the European Community, our urgency in tackling these issues should be all the greater. Yet, the evidence stubbornly shows that we are lagging well behind many of our partners.

Throughout the Community, company mergers aimed at broadening geographical spread, reducing inefficiencies and creating larger more competitive companies are well under way. This country must not be left behind in this area and the Government should be playing their part. Government agencies should be helping Irish companies to improve their positions through mergers, joint ventures or other arrangements with business partners both in this country and in Europe.

The benefits of privatisation should also be looked at in this light and in this context. Most State companies would surely benefit from being given the opportunity to raise private capital to finance their costly strategies over the coming years. I heartily welcome the views of Mr. Michael Smurfit in regard to the future of Telecom Éireann. He is right and everyone knows he is, whether or not they agree in public.

Having said that, I do not want to ignore the implications of tax harmonisation. The correct strategy is to back harmonisation with some key features. For example, I believe we have a strong case against the proposed reductions in VAT rates on items such as tobacco and alcohol on the basis of health arguments. The most sensitive aspect of this issue is the question of VAT on food. It is ridiculous to suggest that if VAT is imposed on food it need be anywhere near the rate of 14 per cent which has been mentioned. The harmonisation proposals suggest two bands of VAT. If it has to be introduced on food there would be no reason to impose it at a higher rate than 4 per cent. Social welfare recipients should be fully compensated. The measure does not have to be introduced all at once but could be done gradually over the next few years.

Indeed, gradual movement on several fronts should be part of our planned path towards 1992. None of us in this House is a stranger to the appalling trade distortions which have occurred throughout our Border counties as a result of tax differentials and exchange rate changes. Uniquely, Northern Ireland is the only part of the European Community with which we share a land border. For the sake of removing trade distortions and to encourage business and commercial life from Dundalk right across to Donegal, we owe it to our Border traders to dismantle the fiscal borders between North and South in terms of indirect taxation through progressively approximating our tax rates in the first instance with those prevailing in the United Kingdom and then follow by approximating towards the target European Community levels.

It is interesting to note in this context the decision of the Hanover Summit to set up a committee of experts to examine possible moves towards greater monetary integration in the Community. Since exchange rate fluctuations can be no less a factor than tax differentials in distorting trade, from an Irish point of view no effort should be spared in encouraging these tentative moves. It now seems most unlikely that Britain will join the European Monetary System in the foreseeable future as a result of the fairly implacable opposition to that notion of the British Prime Minister. I presume we will have to operate now in that knowledge. It may not be all that damaging from the point of view of the European Monetary System not to have within it a currency which is particularly volatile and the European currency which is most used by non-European countries and traders.

There is surely no richer symbol of forging unity of purpose, despite immense obstacles, than the European Communities. After the war Europe, after decades and even centuries of appalling carnage and strife, put all that behind it by dedicating itself to moving towards a United States of Europe. On this sadly divided island, where in the pursuit of an arid territorial claim there are, incredibly, some people mad enough and evil enough to plant bombs on a school bus, there is surely no more inspiring example than the enduring peace which the complex institutions of the European Communities have helped to forge.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement of three years ago, now due for review, represented the first step in a complex process of unlocking the decades and even centuries of the Unionists "no surrender, not an inch," mentality, that had frozen over so hard as to constitute what up to that time seemed like a permanent veto on any political process or any political movement. The winds of change, however tentative, are now blowing through the Unionist community of Northern Ireland. It is the duty and the responsibility of every politician in this House to seek to grasp those opportunities now presented, to extend the hand of friendship to those whose instinct would normally have been to reject such overtures.

We must also ask ourselves why are these changes happening. They are no accident. They have resulted from the fundamental shift in relations between this country and Britain which has stemmed from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The key contribution of this historic agreement has been its ability to create a dynamic climate for change. It is hardly surprising that the agreement deeply annoyed Unionists, particularly since they were not consulted about it. They were not consulted then because they would not have agreed to change but things have changed now.

They would change more if the Government here put a position paper to the Unionists rather than just vague verbal invitations over the airwaves. It must be confusing also for Unionists and, indeed for others, to see the ambivalence that is still, as recently as the last day or two, exhibited towards the IRA and its activities in some quarters in this part of the country. Yesterday's edition of The Cork Examiner reports a member of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil as holding a meeting with Mr. Gerry Adams who is well known as a spokesman for the Provisional IRA. I quote part of the report as follows:

Fianna Fáil councillor Michael Martin and Mr. Adams, in an exchange of views after the meeting, agreed that members of both Parties should meet together to consult on issues where they "share basic views".

On the IRA, Mr. Adams declared: "In the IRA there are no careerists."

I wish that things like that did not happen. I find it particularly difficult to understand that it could or should happen on the evening of the very day in which a bomb was placed in a school bus in County Tyrone by the Provisional IRA.

For many months now the Progressive Democrats have called on the Taoiseach to set a date for the work towards a full summit meeting with the British Prime Minister in order to prepare the way for the full review of the operation of the agreement scheduled to take place by next November. The agreement owed much in the first place to the interest and goodwill of the leaders of both Governments. It is vitally important that that goodwill and interest are preserved and strengthened and I believe a full summit meeting between the two leaders will play an important part in ensuring that. Apart from this, the absence of such a summit has diminished the prospect of grasping fully the opportunities which the review of the agreement presents. However, I must say to the Taoiseach and the Government that the very process which has led to signals of change must not be set to one side in advance of something more substantial being put in its place. The danger that a move such as this could take place exists because North and South on this island there are parties whose distaste for the agreement more than adequately rivals their historic antagonisms towards each other in the past.

I would like now to turn to the economy. As the party who spearheaded the political campaign for the need to cut our run-away public expenditure and tackle our debt crisis, the Progressive Democrats welcome the obvious progress which has been made on that front. In fact, we urge the Government to continue down this road which will ultimately lead to a sustainable standard of living of a nation as a whole. We welcome the Government's enormous change of mind in the last 18 months which has enabled the progress that has now commenced to take place. However, our economic problems are so complex and exist on so many fronts that even the zeal of a convert in tackling one set of problems on one front is an inadequate policy response in the light of our current circumstances. Looking back over the last 12 months we can acknowledge the will that has been shown to slow down the headlong rush towards economic disaster which the last Coalition Government seemed powerless to avert.

We have, however, to be critical of what appeared to be the lack of consideration and even the lack of cost effectiveness of some of the measures in cost cutting that have been put into effect. We have to beware of the inbuilt tendency towards resorting to the easy option in reducing expenditure which has been to concentrate on curtailing spending on the capital side. The coming months will be the real test. It is easy enough to recognise the need to achieve a broad percentage reduction in the level of current expenditure. The test of the Government's efficiency will be shown by the way they set about reducing the level of recurring annual expenditure without causing irreparable damage to the delicate fabric of the economy while at the same time helping to create an environment in which real economic growth can be achieved.

I emphasise the need for real economic growth because for too long we have fooled ourselves by accepting that official statistics for sensitive national indicators are relevant to the growth in the nation's economy. I regret to say that there are such significant distorting factors inherent in our balance of trade figures and our volume and value of production figures as to cause me great unease about relying on them to give a true picture of the condition of the economy. These statistics are particularly distorted by the policy of the transfer pricing of goods and services within the sectors owned and controlled by multinational concerns. On paper and according to our official statistics Cola essence is supposed to be more important in our economy than milk. This, of course, is obvious and arrant nonsense. Official statistics continue to show a theoretical growth in the economy while the levels of demand and employment continue to decrease.

This country needs a growth in the numbers at work who produce real goods at real costs and which are sold at real prices. Statistical growth does not necessarily produce real jobs. There is a real need to recognise the inherent danger to the fabric of the economy if by accepting statistical growth as a measure of the health of the economy we permit and justify actions which cause real disemployment. It is the cost of the overheads that has to be reduced so that a larger proportion of availalbe revenue is directed towards efficient and increasing amounts of work in progress with more and more people engaged in the boiler-house of production and marketing.

I would welcome policies that show recognition of the need to shift resources from administration into production and marketing. The cut that will be welcomed by all is the cut that eliminates waste. The elimination of waste and inefficiency in our State apparatus can go a significant way towards achieving the level of reduction of State expenditure necessary for restoring order to the area of public finances. The elimination of waste can free resources and reduce costs in the private sector, aiding competitiveness and contributing to growth.

Successive Governments in recent times have used fuel and vehicles as a medium for tax gathering. This has caused great distortion in the costs of every household and business in the country. The element of tax levied on private and commercial vehicles and on the fuel to run them is nothing short of a disgrace. It is hard to believe that the IR£ landed cost of petrol and oil at the refinery in Cork or at the port of arrival here in this country has gone down by nearly two thirds from the peak cost of 1981-82. Every time the price of petrol goes down the tax is increased pro rata. Distanced as we are from the major markets of Europe, how can our industries hope to be competitive when the trucks we use cost up to 50 per cent more than our competitors' and the cars our managers and salesmen use cost 50 per cent more than their competitors?

The real truth about our industrial performance, which reveals a much harsher set of realities, is the employment performance in Irish industry. Last year 14,000 new industrial jobs came onstream but at the same time 20,000 jobs were lost in industry alone, resulting in an overall decline of 6,000 at work in Irish industry last year. To this must be added the 7,000 net loss of jobs in the other sectors last year, resulting in a total of 13,000 fewer people at work than in the previous year.

The grim truth of statistics like this reveals the real picture about the Irish economy as ordinary men and women perceive it up and down this country. Talk by Government spokespersons of lower interest rates, lower inflation rates and booming exports cannot mask the truth that the Irish economy is one of the most stagnant in Europe. The inflow of people registering as unemployed for the first time was 30 per cent greater this year than five years ago. In plain English that says that people are finding it harder to get jobs now than then. Emigration, the single most potent measure of the failure of our economic management at home, is the key factor. With the declining number of people at work in Ireland, the apparent fall in unemployment can be explained only by people leaving in the hope of getting a job abroad rather than staying at home in despair. The emigration we see today is in many respects the most serious we have known this century. It is less painful than previously. People can and do come home fairly frequently, but in economic terms emigration is disastrous. The official figure of approximately 30,000 per year emigration is the net figure for emigration. Every year, even in the worst of times, between 10,000 and 20,000 people come back to Ireland on retirement or for other reasons. Therefore, the number leaving annually at the moment, which is the figure that really counts, is between 40,000 and 50,000. For a tiny country like this to suffer such an avoidable constant loss of population is tragic. For a fertile country and temperate climate we have an extraordinarily low density of population. Uniquely in the world, our population today is 60 per cent of what it was 150 years ago. We need numbers as never before. Our consumer demand is 10 per cent lower in real terms than it was at the beginning of this decade but we are forcing out the consumers.

The Progressive Democrats have consistently been worried about the alarming high level of long-term unemployment especially among those aged over 25. This problem is now so deep rooted and endemic that it requires an urgent refocusing of all State resources. There are well over 100,000 people whose enforced idleness through unemployment has now been suffered for a minimum of 12 months and more. When you allow that many of these people are married and have dependants, I estimate that more than 300,000 people are condemned to suffer intolerably low standards of living with consequent problems in terms of health and morale. As we have seen from the Combat Poverty Agency report this week, it is the children who, in circumstances like this, stand to lose the most. Their grinding material poverty is surpassed only by the poverty of opportunity which blights their young lives.

The Progressive Democrats will give every assistance and encouragement to the Government in any genuine and serious attempt they make to attack the problem of long term unemployment. The unemployment crisis which has bedevilled this country throughout the eighties has not been visited on us by some inevitable external fate. The responsibility for much of what has been done, and in this decade much of what has been undone, in terms of economic performance inescapably belongs in this House. What country in the world faced with rising unemployment in the early eighties would have, as we did, piled consistently more and more taxes on enterprise and on work? How could you expect to find more people at work in an economy whose sorry boast is to have brought surtax to the masses where the average worker pays on income marginal rates of tax in excess of 65 per cent? It is little wonder that demand has collapsed, that the economy is stagnant and that the climate for investment is so poor in an economy such as this.

To my mind, the matter is compounded by news which came out today in the form of one of these interminable leaks. In a country which has increased its total tax take from work in the last 20 years from 23 per cent to 46 per cent and reduced its tax take in the same period on capital, property and wealth from 16 per cent to 4 per cent, a decision has now been made that we should not have any form of property tax. Therefore those at work will have to continue to bear a totally disproportionate amount of the tax burden, with its necessary consequences for enterprise and the emigration that stems from it.

From the foundation of this party, I called for the radical reform of our taxation system with the aim of reducing income tax to a standard rate of 25 per cent, a top rate of 40 per cent, and eliminating employees' PRSI, which is just income tax anyway, irrespective of what they pay Mick Lally to say about it. Radical tax reform cannot be postponed not only for these reasons but also because of the massive black economy which current tax rates have spawned. It cannot wait because of the appalling social and economic damage being done to close on 250,000 unemployed and their families and the tens of thousands more who are emigrating in the hope of finding employment in other lands.

The simple fact is that you cannot create high levels of employment or a positive environment for investment in an economy where you cripple work and the work ethic through excessive taxation. It is the failure of the Government to grasp this nettle which represents their greatest failure in terms of policy and courage to date. For a Government who have proved so adept at stealing and wearing other parties' policy clothes, the tax reform suit is one they should urgently add to their policy wardrobe. We, in the Progressive Democrats, have a particular standing in calling on the Government to introduce a programme of radical tax reform. Uniquely in this House, we are the party whose mandate from the electorate extends into this area. From the foundation of the Progressive Democrats the need for radical tax reform as a means of tackling our unemployment crisis has been a fundamental tenet of our policy. Our credentials on this matter extend from our mandate, unlike so many other Johnny-come-latelys who have only recently converted to the tax reform course.

I want to turn to an area which is of particular concern to the Progressive Democrats, namely, the environment. During this session of the Dáil we introduced a Private Members' Bill seeking to tackle the long standing scandal of unfinished housing estates and aiming to prevent unscrupulous developers from making hugely inflated gains at the public expense. These reforms, which had been long overdue, were opposed by the Government with the usual promise that they had similar legislation in the course of preparation. We have not seen that legislation and I do not know when we will, but the Progressive Democrats will hold the Government to that promise and expect to see that legislation very soon.

It was extremely disturbing to read in recent days and weeks of continuous serious fish kills on our rivers reminiscent of last summer's appalling environmental calamity. There is no excuse for any repeat performance this year. Based on last year's unfortunate experience, the Government had been forewarned. Unfortunately, due to what is tantamount to Government neglect, this summer we are not yet forearmed. The existing Local Government (Water Pollution) Act was supposed to have been amended this session to incorporate major increases in the penalties for people convicted of causing pollution. This promised reform has not yet taken place. By the time the House resumes, if early indications are anything to go by, enormous damage to our waterways will yet again have taken place. Those responsible will yet again get away with little or no serious cost to themselves.

By no means are farmers the only people involved. We had the scandalous spectacle in the past week of Kildare County Council pumping raw sewage into the River Liffey at Leixlip, a few miles above Dublin. The extraordinary thing about our water pollution laws is that it is the local authorities who are supposed to enforce the laws when in some cases they are themselves the chief culprits and the greatest polluters.

The level of public concern and awareness to all aspects of the environment has improved immeasurably over the past decade. That concern is now being reflected by the leaders in agriculture and industry. The time has come for politicians to respond to that concern and awareness by sustaining and underpinning it with appropriate legislation and with action rather than with words.

We come now to the mid-term report of the Government, and in many ways this is the mid-term of this Government's term of office. My assessment, and the assessment of many objective commentators, is that slowly but surely history will record that we have a Government of missed opportunities, a Government given carte blanche from the Opposition parties to bring about major radical innovative changes in the structure of government, in the structure of taxation and industrial incentives, but they have not done so. We have massive emigration; one in every five of the labour force is out of work; we have low income and poverty affecting tens of thousands of families, yet, in this morning's contribution, read by the Minister for the Environment on behalf of the Taoiseach, there is no real facing up to the crisis — and there is a crisis.

I wish the Taoiseach a speedy recovery and a quick return to work. There is an enormous amount of work to be done and the problems which face the country will not be solved by the Minister for the Environment coming in here and saying that this Government are building on confidence. That has no impact on the reality of trying to bring this country out of crisis.

We have the prospect of 1992 integration which should be a huge spur to the introduction of radical policies. We have relative stability in the rate of inflation, which is at its lowest for many years. That stability should encourage the introduction of innovative policies. General interest rates are historically low and that, too, should stimulate major new Government programmes. This is not happening. We have the prospect of substantial increases in the Structural Funds of the EC which could be of very considerable benefit, yet we do not seem to be poised to avail of these resources, other than to absorb them into the general Exchequer funds.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in place but it has been eroded by the lack of confidence in the agreement on the part of the Government and the lack of determination to work the agreement day in, day out in the national interest, North and South, and to the betterment of Anglo-Irish relations. I will deal with that matter later in my speech.

Deputy O'Malley's analysis of the economic position was impressive and I agree with his anlaysis of the crisis which exists. Despite the changes which the Minister for Finance has brought about in terms of self-assessment, and the bringing of some self-employed people into the tax net, there have not been major changes in terms of revenue resources for the Exchequer. They amount to no more than a regularisation of an aspect of our taxation system, which is still very regressive, extremely narrow, very non-distributive and open to substantial evasion. We still have a very substantial cash black economy which is endemic and is running at the rate of at least 10 per cent of GNP. In the Border area it is certainly around 15 per cent of GNP. Recently I spoke to a person going on holidays who wanted to buy a Superser heater. The shopkeeper asked whether he would pay by cash or by cheque, saying that the price in the former case would be £85 but £110 in the latter. That is the kind of thing that goes on and it pinpoints the need to control the black economy. At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts the Central Statistics Office indicated that there were close on two million sheep in the country, but the Department of Agriculture were of the view that there were about 2.4 million sheep, on the basis of claims made. No wonder there is an 11 per cent increase in sheep numbers according to the speech we heard this morning. These are just some indications of the need for major change.

The burden of lowering the current budget deficit and servicing our foreign debt is still being placed on the backs of those of relatively low income who are dependent on essential social and public services. We see developing a two-tier health care system. A health worker told me in Cork last Friday that on an annual basis there are more patients going through the private Bon Secours hospital in Cork than through the Regional hospital. That is an indication of what is happening in just one city. There has been a total transformation to a two-tier system which has been created by the manner in which the Government have implemented cuts in public expenditure.

I do not share the Minister's belief that the vital element in our present situation is confidence. That is a meaningless phrase. He went on to say that there is optimism everywhere. I see no example of it. I was at Dublin Airport last Monday morning seeing off some relatives on the Dublin-Boston flight. I could not detect that optimism among the couple of hundred young people queuing up behind me on their way out of the country. There has been a restoration of the old Irish wake as people are leaving at the rate of about 35,000 a year.

I do not dispute the statement made by Deputy O'Malley that the labour force dropped last year by 14,000. The statements made repeatedly by Fianna Fáil spokespersons in relation to employment and the creation of jobs do not reflect the reality on the ground. In the first quarter of this year 7,400 redundancies were notified to the Department of Labour, which represents an annual rate of almost 30,000 redundancies. Last year the total number of redundancies notified was 24,000. Therefore, the projected figure for the end of 1988 will show an increase of 6,000 over 1987. The statement by Fianna Fáil in relation to employment makes no reference to the fact that 9,000 jobs in the public sector will be discarded during the remainder of this year. Three thousand have gone and 6,000 more are to go to the end of 1988. These figures are frightening.

I was totally unreceptive to the statement this morning by the Minister for the Environment when he spoke about the Public Capital Programme, the prospect of a road authority and further investment in general infrastructure. The reality is that £200 million was taken out of the Public Capital Programme this year, creating no fewer than 2,000 further redundancies in the community at large. There is no reference at all to this entirely regressive policy in the statement on behalf of the Taoiseach here this morning.

There must be an alternative to a policy that relies on the word "confidence", that tells PAYE workers they must wait until all the essential social welfare services have been dismantled to get a fair deal. The old attitude is that the Labour Party are a party who, somehow or another, are a purely defensive party, reacting against reductions in public expenditure. We are preoccupied particularly about free enterprise, not just public enterprise but private sector enterprise also, which we want to promote and see developing. We are in favour of increased industrial production on a fully competitive basis. We have been singularly successful in improving Irish marketing expertise, particularly in regard to food production. We are totally committed to the growth of that expertise within our community.

Our proposals, constructively put forward in recent weeks by the party Leader, Deputy Spring, bring forward the prospect of economic growth for the working people of this country, and we will work constructively in Dáil Éireann to bring this about. We have major reservations about the approach of Fianna Fáil in this regard. We consider the policy of public service redundancies to be ill-conceived and enormously costly in implementation; no less than £80 million is being spent this year which could have been more profitably spent within the framework of the Public Capital Programme. I would have hoped that the trade unions, rather than simply holding out their hands for lump sum payments, accelerated pensions and accelerated pay-offs, would have prevailed upon the Government to use the money more effectively, rather than opting for the soft option of voluntary redundancies at age 50 or 55. The implementation of public service policies at the moment is a matter of profound regret to me.

The Minister for the Environment spoke about the growth in private sector housing activity. This has not masked the unprecedented slump in the construction industry with tens of thousands of Irish construction workers working in the south of England because the Public Capital Programme in this country has been cut by £228 million, the single largest reduction in over 30 years. Ten thousand construction jobs were lost because of that reduction. It is a cynical exercise then for the Minister for the Environment to come in here and say he is going to have a national roads authority. There are no roads being built and none projected for 1988, and it looks as though that situation will continue into 1989. Some of the smaller developments, such as the Customs House Docks site, cannot produce more than a couple of hundred construction jobs. I would therefore strongly urge the Government that in the setting up of a national roads authority at least £80 million or £90 million from the capital programme should be allocated because unquestionably the roads here are a major impediment to industrial and economic development.

I want to question the media hype from the Government that they are going about their work in a very decisive and determined way. I do not accept that for one minute. We have had a succession of monumental U-turns in and outside the Government since they came into office 18 months ago. The Anglo-Irish Agreement will stand as the U-turn of all time. Fianna Fáil are going down in history and let us hope they do not take the Anglo-Irish Agreement down with them in the process. There was a U-turn on extradition, and we know the monumental myth that arose by virtue of the indecision and the serious conflicts within the Cabinet on the implementation of the extradition conditions. There have been a huge number of U-turns on the education front. I do not know how the education Vote stands at the moment. It is certainly out of kilter in many ways. The U-turn on the famous Circular 20/87, the U-turn on the redundancies in the various teaching sectors, the U-turn in the capital programme on education with the Minister deciding to put £3.2 million back into some education political capital project, and the U-turn in regard to the six year education cycle, taken together indicate that education policy here has suffered seriously as a result of that series of turns and twists in Dáil Éireann and in the course of various confrontations. It is appalling that hardly any parent, regional technical college or vocational education committee knows what the position will be from September onwards. There is hardly a part-time teacher in any regional technical college or VEC who has the slightest idea of what their employment prospects are for the term 1988-89. Quite frankly, the U-turns on the education side have been monumental.

Turning to deal with the budget, very substantial changes have been made despite the impression being given that the Government have a great capacity to manage the various departmental Votes. It was intended to cut £500,000 from the disabled drivers scheme but there was a complete change of policy and the Government rightly decided, which shows how the decision should never have been taken in the first instance, to reverse their position on that issue. The Government also changed their minds on a pension fund investment tax and decided to use an alternative method instead.

The Government decided to bring in a statutory sick pay scheme whereby employers would pay disability benefit for the first 13 weeks but then they decided to change their minds because the FUE would not wear it and the trade unions were unimpressed. The Government decided to introduce a charge on automated teller machine cards in the process bringing in £6 million but they also changed their minds on that issue. The Government decided to abolish the National Rehabilitation Board but then changed their minds. The Government wanted to get rid of the National Social Service Board and only reinstated that board following a major row in Dáil Éireann.

The Government decided to cut £11 million from the community drugs refund scheme and to abolish the long-term illness scheme but then they did a U-turn on those issues. The Government also changed their minds in regard to the proposal to impose a £10 charge on hospital services cards and in regard to the EC F-11 form. This Government are not as decisive or as clear-cut in their management of departmental Votes as they would like us to believe. Certainly they are not a Government who are creating employment or introducing fundamental tax reform.

Let me deal briefly with taxation before going on to deal with Northern Ireland. In particular I want to deal with the proposal which has been floated that child benefit, following the next budget, should be subject to income tax. I deplore the raising in public of such a prospect because I would point out to this House that it was the previous Government who abolished the £100 child allowance on the basis that the money which would be saved would be used to increase child benefit from £12 a month to £15 a month. It is deplorable and utterly regressive to suggest that the new level of child benefit should be subject to income tax. The child benefit scheme was brought in 1986 and there was no increase in payments in 1987 or in 1988. It was intended that an extra £3 million would have been devoted to this scheme in 1988 and to suggest now that there should be a clawback of between £15 million and £20 million, which would affect women most of all, is totally unacceptable.

I suspect that the Minister for Social Welfare in flying this kite is endeavouring to provoke the kind of reaction which I am giving now but one must point out that there would be tremendous opposition to any efforts made to tax child benefit in the budget of 1989 and the document produced by the Leader of the Labour Party strongly urged that there should be an increase in child benefit rates, up to £40 a month. We should also bring in tax credits, thus reforming our tax system in a fundamental way.

Let me conclude my comments on taxation by strongly pointing out that there has been no fundamental change in our taxation system in recent years other than the introduction of DIRT which was largely a Labour Party creation and which resulted in bringing in over £300 million in revenue to the Exchequer which was badly needed to run the country. The bringing of the farming community and self-employed into the PRSI net has not yielded any more than £3 million or £4 million in taxation to date and I doubt if the Government are making any serious efforts to bring in any moneys during the current tax year from either the farming community or the self-employed.

It appears that no efforts are going to be made to change the capital taxation system and that is to be deplored. It now appears that the health contribution ceiling and the PRSI are going to crawl upwards on an annual basis and no fundamental changes will be made to ensure that there will be an increase in yield for the Exchequer. It now appears that between £50 million and £60 million will be brought into the Exchequer as a result of the amnesty but this is a once-off exercise and it appears no further efforts are going to be made to tackle the black economy which I have already referred to.

Finally, it appears that no efforts have been made to bring about a complete change in the corporation profits tax system given the fact that over £1,400 million in profits and dividends are leaving the country each year and no efforts are being made to cope with this seepage from the country. These are fundamental issues which are not being addressed and I do not think the Government have any intention of addressing them in the months leading up to the next budget.

In relation to the property tax all the indications are that the Government have run away again from the prospect of bringing in a fundamental change on property taxation in the community. It appears that the Government have abandoned any prospect of introducing a property tax in 1988-89. It is for those reasons that I am extremely critical of a Government who have had tremendous open-ended support from some of the Opposition parties but who have failed completely to grasp the opportunity to bring about major and fundamental reforms in those areas.

I want to refer to Northern Ireland. I and my party have been very critical of the apparent heel-dragging on the part of the Government — not just by the Taoiseach but also by individual members of the Government and many Fianna Fáil back benchers — in respect of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I suppose one can in some ways understand that reluctance because of the original opportunistic hostility of the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party towards the agreement. Even though they were eventually hauled screaming on board in support of the agreement one can appreciate and understand that they never had any great enthusiasm for the agreement.

I am afraid that matters now stand at a far more serious level, not least because there devolves on the Government a fundamental responsibility in respect of the autumn review of the agreement. I want the Government to stand by the agreement in the autumn review, I do not want the agreement to be undermined in any way and I want the agreement to be worked by the Government right through the summer and during 1988-89. That means that the Government will have to ensure that the Maryfield secretariat is staffed at a competent, experienced and integrated level. That means also that ministerial meetings convened under the auspices of the Conference and of the agreement will have to be fully planned and fully prepared so that the Ministers concerned will be productive in their negotiations in the interests of the communities both North and South and in the interests of ensuring that the agreement is effectively maintained.

It is essential that the Government in their response to the agreement should endeavour, so to speak, to steady-up their relationships with the Unionists and the SDLP in Northern Ireland and that no mirages, false promises or false hopes will be held out with regard to the respective role of those parties. A great deal of work has to be done and a very grave security situation has to be coped with. Between now and the onset of winter 1988-89, we must recover the tonnes of explosives and high velocity weaponry which still exists covertly within the Republic and within a ten to 15 mile radius over the Border. That lethal arsenal is still there and even though some of it has been recovered it is imperative that it should all be recovered before further horror is unleashed on the people of Northern Ireland by the Provisional IRA during the coming winter.

I and my party — and we were the only party in Dáil Éireann to do so — opposed the meetings between the Leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, and the sub-commander of the army council of the IRA, Mr. Gerry Adams.

On a point of order, that is not true. We have opposed them consistently.

My apologies to the Deputy. I totally accept his bona fides in that, to the eternal credit of The Workers' Party. The Workers' Party and my party completely opposed those meetings. We have had the most productive of fraternal relationships, discussions and co-operation with John Hume at socialist group level, at European Parliament level and at Labour Party level down through the years but I thought at the time that the meetings were a singularly ill-advised development. I still hold that view and all I can see coming from those meetings is the prospect of giving the IRA——

I am sorry Deputy, we must stick rigidly to the time.

——a credibility which under no circumstances they are entitled to. They are an organisation who were wilting in many respects in the hail of the unanimous condemnation of them by this House arising from the murders at Enniskillen but the talks which were initiated shortly afterwards gave them a lifeline which this House should never have endorsed and which should be terminated. I hold those views very strongly and I am well aware that a substantial number of the Members in this House equally share those views, although their parties did not comment at that time.

I mbliana tá breis is £19 milliún á chur ar fáil do Roinn na Gaeltachta, d'Údarás na Gaeltachta agus do Bhord na Gaeilge lena chaitheamh ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht agus leis an nGaeilge. Anuas ar an £15,023,000 atá i Leabhar na Meastachán tá soláthar £4,370,000 á chur ar fáil ó fhoinsí eile mar seo a leanas: airleacan a íoctar díreach as an Státchiste leis an Údarás; £4.25 milliún atá i gceist i mbliana; agus iasachtaí as Ciste na nIasachtaí Áitiúla a cheadaíonn mo Roinnse do thithe sa Ghaeltacht; £120,000 atá i gceist i mbliana.

Is iad na príomhshuimeanna atá i Leabhar na Meastachán ná: £1,480,000 do dheontais tithíochta faoi Achtanna na dTithe (Gaeltacht); £1,260,000 do Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht: áirítear £940,000 den tsuim sin mar chaiteachas caipitil d'fhonn bunstruchtúr na Gaeltachta a fhorbairt; £1,625,000 do Scéimeanna Cultúrtha agus Sóisialacha ar a n-áirítear Scéim na bhFoghlaimeoirí Gaeilge, nuachtáin agus irisí Gaeilge; £2,273,000 do Chiste na Gaeilge as a dtugtar deontais do Bhord na Gaeilge, do Bhord na Leabhar Gaeilge agus d'eagrais dheonacha Gaeilge; agus £7,195,000 d'Údarás na Gaeltachta idir chaiteachas reatha agus chaiteachas caipitil ar dheontais: chomh maith leis an airleacan a luaigh mé, tugann sé sin iomlán an chúnaimh ón Stát don Údarás go £11,445,000.

Faoi dheireadh na bliana 1987 bhí 4,954 dhuine fostaithe go lánaimseartha i dtionscail sa Ghaeltacht a fuair cúnamh ó Ghaeltarra Éireann nó ón Údarás. Cruthaíodh 911 phost nua i rith na bliana sin ach cailleadh 652 phost i dtionscail éagsúla, rud a d'fhág go raibh glanmhéadú de 259 nduine i líon na ndaoine a bhí fostaithe ag deireadh 1987 i gcomparáid le deireadh na bliana roimhe sin.

Beidh £9.75 mhilliún ar fáil ón Stát don Údarás i 1988 le haghaidh chaiteachas caipitil i gcomparáid leis an tsuim £12.77 milliún a tugadh dó i 1987. Nuair a chuirtear san áireamh gur ceadaíodh os cionn £2 mhilliún go heisceachtúil mar dheontais i 1987 do thogra sonrach amháin, is laghdú de £0.9 milliún le fírinne atá ann. Ba bhreá liom féin, ar ndóigh, agus leis an Rialtas, dá bhféadfaí soláthar níos mó a chur ar fáil ach níorbh fhéidir é sin a dhéanamh de bharr ghéarchéim airgeadais an Stát-Chiste.

Suim £1.754 mhilliún a bheidh ar fáil don Údarás i 1988 le haghaidh caiteachas reatha, ar a n-áirítear tuarastail na foirne. Tiocfaidh £1.695 mhilliún den tsuim sin mar dheontas-i-gcabhair ó Vóta Roinn na Gaeltachta agus an fúilleach de £59,000 as an Vóta le haghaidh Méaduithe Pá agus Pinsean. Ar ndóigh, bíonn teacht isteach ag an Údarás ó fhoinsí eile chun cur leis an soláthar ón Stát. I ngeall ar ghéarchéim airgeadais an Stát-Chiste b'éigean don Údarás a chinntiú go gcaithfeadh siad cloí leis an tsuim atá curtha ar fáil do chaiteachas reatha don bhliain seo agus ní raibh dul as acu — cosúil le heagraíochtaí eile Stáit — ach céimeanna a ghlacadh chun an fhoireann a laghdú ar bhonn deonach. Beidh thart ar 20 comhalta den fhoireann ag glacadh leis an bpacáiste iomarcaíochta, rud a shábhálfaidh timpeall £176,000 ar phárolla an Údaráis i mbliain iomlán.

Tá an fheirmeoireacht éisc ar an tionscal úr-nua is mó a bhfuil fás agus forbairt ag teacht air sa Ghaeltacht le cúpla bliain anuas. Tá infheistíocht an Stáit sa tionscal seo sa Ghaeltacht thar a bheith rathúil agus táirgiúil dar le tuarascáil chuimsitheach a d'fhoilsigh an Institiúid um Thaighde Eacnamaíochta agus Sóisialta (ESRI) le déanaí. Thug an tuarascáil sin le fios gur bhain infheistíocht chaipitil de £11.8 milliún leis an tionscal fheirmeoireacht éisc sa Ghaeltacht i 1987. Den tsuim sin bhain £11.5 mhilliún le bradáin agus £300,000 le sliogéisc.

Léirigh an tuarascáil freisin: gurbh ionann an t-olltáirge náisúnta ón tionscal seo i 1987 agus £8.4 mhilliún agus, den mhéid sin, gur bhain £5.6 mhilliún leis an nGaeltacht féin; go bhfuil 149 nduine fostaithe go lánaimseartha agus 229 nduine go páirtaimseartha faoi láthair ar fheirmeacha éisc sa Ghaeltacht; agus go meastar go méadóidh an fhostaíocht go dtí thart ar 2,000 duine, idir daoine lánaimseartha agus daoine páirtaimseartha, faoin mbliain 1993 agus go n-ardóidh luach an táirgthe go dtí go maith os cionn £40 milliún faoin mbliain chéanna.

Tá tús curtha ag an Údarás le scéim fheirmeacha saitilíte bradáin trína dtabharfar tacaíocht do mhuintir na Gaeltachta féin dul i mbun gnó ar a bhfeirmeacha éisc féin mar fho-tháirgeoirí do na feirmeacha móra. Tá an-ghealladh sa scéim seo agus an-suim á léiriú inti. Go dtí deireadh 1987 bhí timpeall £7.2 mhilliún ceadaithe ag an Údarás i leith forbairt an tionscail nua seo agus de réir thuarascáil an ESRI is infheistíocht thairbheach, bhrabúsach don eacnamaíocht áitiúil agus náisiúnta í sin.

Tá páirt ghníomhach cheannródaíochta glactha ag an Údarás maidir le cur chun cinn thionscal shaothrú na mara sa tír seo agus tá aitheantas tugtha ag an Rialtas don ról a bheidh ag an eagraíocht i ndáil le clár forbartha an Rialtais i leith an tionscail sin a chur i gcrích sa Ghaeltacht. Is deimhin liom gur chun leas na Gaeltachta agus na tíre i gcoitinne a rachaidh obair fhorbartha an Údaráis san earnáil thionsclaíochta sin a bhaineann úsáid as acmhainní nádúrtha agus scileanna traidisiúnta mhuintir na Gaeltachta.

Cé gur cuireadh deireadh leis na deontais fheabhsúcháin tithíochta a bhí le fáil ón Roinn Comhshaoil ó 1 Márta 1987, lean mo Roinnse leis na deontais fheabhsúcháin tithíochta a bhí ar fáil faoi Achtanna na dTithe (Gaeltacht). De bharr na géarchéime airgeadais, áfach, agus cosúil lena lán scéimeanna eile Stáit, socraíodh ar ghearradh siar a dhéanamh ar na deontais sin le héifeacht ó 1 Lúnasa 1987. Is amhlaidh a cuireadh deireadh le deontais áirithe a bhí le fáil ach tá áthas orm a rá go bhfuil na gnáthdheontais fheabhsúcháin agus shláintíochta, mar aon le deontais do thithe nua, le fáil ó mo Roinnse i gcónaí. Suim £1,480,000 atá ar fáil i mbliana do dheontais tithíochta faoi Achtanna na dTithe (Gaeltacht) agus, sna cúinsí atá luaite agam, táim sásta gur leor an soláthar sin.

Tógadh 224 theach nua agus cuireadh oibreacha feabhsúcháin i gcrích ar 1,040 cás le cabhair dheontais ó mo Roinnse i 1987. Léiríonn na figiúirí sin go ndearnadh dul chun cinn fiúntach i ndáil le soláthar agus le feabhsú tithe sa Ghaeltacht anuraidh.

Aithníonn an Rialtas go mbíonn tionchar an-mhór ar fhorbairt na Gaeltachta ag na Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin atá á reachtáil ag mo Roinnse agus, in ainneoin na ndeacrachtaí móra airgeadais atá ag cur isteach orainn i láthair na huaire, tá áthas orm nach bhfuil ach laghdú £100,000 ar an soláthar do na scéimeanna sin atá á reachtáil ag Roinn na Gaeltachta i 1988 i gcomparáid leis an soláthar do na scéimeanna céanna i 1987. Ar ndóigh léiríonn Leabhar na Meastachán don bhliain seo agus don bhliain seo caite gur laghdú £580,000 atá déanta ach baineann £480,000 de sin le deontais i leith muirir iasachta a bhain le scéimeanna uisce agus séarachais agus a bhí iníoctha go dtí deireadh na bliana seo caite ag mo Roinnse. Tá socrú eile déanta ag an Rialtas faoi na hiasachtaí sin anois agus dá bhrí sin níl aon chuid de na muirir iasachta iníoctha ag mo Roinnse ó thús na bliana reatha.

Ceann de na scéimeanna feabhsúcháin is tábhachtaí is ea an scéim faoina dtugtar cúnamh do na comharchumainn Ghaeltachta a bhíonn ag plé le forbairt iomlán a gceantair fheidhme — forbairt eacnamaíoch agus shóisialach chomh maith le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge agus an chultúir dhúchais. Chomh maith le cúnamh caipitil i ndáil le tograí fiúntacha a bhíonn idir lámha acu, íoctar deontais shuntasacha leis na comharchumainn cháilithe mar chabhair dóibh chun costais riaracháin a íoc. Tá se inmhianaithe go mbeadh ar chumas gach comharchumann bainisteoir oilte, cumasach a fhostú agus, murach cúnamh na Roinne, is beag díobh a bheadh ábalta é sin a dhéanamh.

Sé Scéim na bhFoghlaimeoirí Ghaeilge ceann de na scéimeanna is fiúntaí atá ag mo Roinnse ó thaobh cur chun cinn na Gaeilge de. De bhrí go mbaineann sí le foghlaimeoirí a thagann go dtí an Ghaeltacht chun feabhas a chur ar a gcuid Gaeilge, tá i bhfad níos mó eolais faoi lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht ná mar atá faoi aon scéim eile atá á reachtáil ag mo Roinnse. Bhí áthas orm a fheiceáil anuraidh go raibh ardú ar líon na bhfoghlaimeoirí a chaith seal sa Ghaeltacht ag foghlaim na teanga. Íocadh deontais faoin scéim i leith thart ar 17,500 foghlaimeoir i 1987 agus ní raibh an figiúr chomh hard leis sin ó 1982 i leith. Táim dóchasach gur féidir freastal ar an éileamh a bheidh ar an scéim i mbliana le soláthar den mhéid céanna a cuireadh ar fáil di i Leabhar na Meastachán don bhliain 1987 agus tá áthas orm nach bhfuil laghdú déanta ar an soláthar áirithe seo.

Ní miste tagairt a dhéanamh don imní atá léirithe ag mná tí a chaithfidh socruithe áirithe maidir le cúrsaí cánach a dhéanamh ar nós formhór na n-iarratasóir a bheidh ag iarraidh deontais Stáit feasta. Tá sé ráite go soiléir ag an Aire Airgeadais nach dtitfidh dliteanas breise cánach ar dhuine ar bith de thoradh na n-athruithe atá déanta i ndáil le huimhreacha cánacha a sholáthar.

Tá áthas orm a rá nach laghdófar i mbliana an tsuim airgid £75,000 a cuireadh ar fáil chun scéim tábhachtach, Scéim Labhairt na Gaeilge, a reachtáil le cúpla bliain anuas. Tá bunáite na ndeontas faoin scéim i leith na scoilbhliana 1986-87 íoctha anois ag mo Roinnse agus tá áthas orm a rá nach bhfeictear faoi láthair don Roinn go bhfuil aon mhórchúlú ar líon na ndaltaí a thuillfidh an deontas.

Caithfear a admháil go bhfuil na figiúirí díolacháin don nuachtán Anois ina n-údar díomá dom fós. Tá an deontas in aghaidh an eagráin méadaithe agam ó Mheán Fómhair seo caite — méadú atá fial, i mo thuairim, nuair a chuirtear an ghéarchéim airgeadais san áireamh. Tá sé riachtanach, áfach, go gcuirfear le teacht isteach eile an nuachtáin trí dhíolaíocht a mhéadú go suntasach, rud a chabhródh le teacht isteach ó fhógraíocht freisin. Molaim, mar sin, go dtabharfadh gach duine ar spéis leis an Ghaeilge tacaíocht leanúnach do Anois trína cheannach gach seachtain.

Leanfar den chúnamh a chuirtear ar fáil do na tréimhseacháin Ghaeilge —Comhar, Feasta, An tUltach, Agus, An Sagart, An Ghael Óg, Tír na nÓg agus An Timire. Leanfar, chomh maith, leis an scéim atá á reachtáil ag mo Roinnse d'fhonn iriseoireacht áitiúil a spreagadh i gceantair Ghaeltachta ina labhartar an Ghaeilge go coitianta trí phobail áitiúla a spreagadh chun irisí a fhoilsiú ina mbeidh nuacht áitiúil, trácht ar chúrsaí reatha, filíocht nua-cheaptha, etc.

Maidir leis an Ghaeilge ar an teilifís, mar is eol don Teach bunaíodh Grúpa Oibre cúpla bliain ó shin chun staidéar a dhéanamh ar cheist na Gaeilge ar an teilifís. Bhí ionadaithe ar an ngrúpa sin ó mo Roinnse, ón Roinn Cumarsáide, ó Bhord na Gaeilge agus ó Radio Telefís Éireann. Tá an tuarascáil a fuarthas ón ngrúpa foilsithe le tamall anuas agus tá tátail na tuarascála á mbreithniú i bhfianaise tuairimí atá faighte ó pháirtithe leasmhara éagsúla. Faoi mar is eol don Teach, tá suim £500,000 á chur ar fáil as fáltais an chrannchuir náisiúnta ar mhaithe le cláracha teilifíse trí Ghaeilge agus tá súil agam nach fada go ndéanfar socruithe faoin mbealach is fearr chun an t-airgead sin a chaitheamh chun an tairbhe is fiúntaí don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht a fháil as.

Tá clú agus cáil bainte amach ag Raidió na Gaeltachta ó bunaíodh é breis agus sé bliana déag ó shin. Bhí an-áthas orm le déanaí gur thug an Rialtas aitheantas breise do Raidió na Gaeltachta nuair a cheadaigh an tAire Chumarsáide líon 1,092 d'uaireanta craolacháin breise don stáisiún. Mar thoradh ar an socrú nua seo, beidh Raidió na Gaeltachta ag craoladh as seo amach ó 8 a.m. go 8 p.m. ón Luan go dtí an Aoine agus ó 11 a.m. go 8 p.m. ar an Satharn agus ar an Domhnach. Faoi mar atá ráite agam go minic, tá obair shuntasach ar mhaithe leis an nGaeilge déanta ag Raidió na Gaeltachta ó bunaíodh é agus táim cinnte go mbeidh níos mó fós á dhéanamh ag an stáisiún ar son na teanga de bharr na n-uaireanta craolacháin breise atá ceadaithe anois.

Cuirtear cúnamh Stáit ar fáil as Ciste na Gaeilge do Bhord na Gaeilge, do Bhord na Leabhar Gaeilge agus do na heagrais dheonacha Ghaeilge — Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Gael-Linn, Conradh na Gaeilge, An tOireachtas, Cumann na bhFiann, An Comhlachas Náisiúnta Drámaíochta, agus do Thaibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair, An Gael-Acadamh agus Oidhreacht Thír Chonaill. Tá obair fhiúntach déanta ag Bord na Gaeilge ó bunaíodh é. D'éirigh go maith lena gcéad Phlean Gníomhaíochta don Ghaeilge agus tá an Dara Plean a chlúdóidh an tréimhse go 1991 á scrúdú agam faoi láthair. Nuair a cuireadh an bord ar bhonn reachtúil sa bhliain 1978, aithníodh nach ar an mbord amháin a bheifí ag brath chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn. Léiríodh go soiléir go raibh dualgas ar gach Roinn agus eagraíocht Stáit cabhrú leis an obair thábhachtach sin. Is dóigh liom go gcaithfear a adhmháil nach bufuil an tuiscint ar an ndualgas sin chomh forleathan agus ba mhaith linn. Ba cheart go dtuigfeadh gach duine atá ag obair laistigh den Státchóras ach go háirithe nach mór dóibh aitheantas a thabhairt don stádas atá tugtha don Ghaeilge i mBunreacht na tíre — Bunreacht a sheas go maith linn le breis agus caoga bliain.

Tá ról lárnach ag na heagrais dheonacha Ghaeilge i gcur chun cinn na Gaeilge sa phobal. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh comhordú ceart idir na hiarrachtaí a bhíonn ar siúl ag na heagrais sin chun an Ghaeilge a leathadh i measc an phobail. Is ar Chomhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge atá an fhreagracht sin agus, cé go bhfuil daoine ann a deireann nach mbíonn an comhordú sin le haireachtáil i gcónaí, táim sásta go bhfuil an chomhdháil ag déanamh gach díchill chun go mbeidh comhórdú éifeachtach i bhfeidhm.

Bhí sé luaite in óráid an Taoisigh maidir leis an gcrannchur náisiúnta gur cuireadh breis airgid ar fáil, £4 mhilliún atá i gceist, agus tá me cinnte go nglacfaidh gach duine leis gur ar mhaithe leis an Ghaeilge a bheas an t-airgead sin caite.

Is breá liom go bhfuil an Comhchoiste Oireachtais don Ghaeilge anghníomhach ó athbhunaíodh é agus ba mhaith liom fáiltiú roimh an dá thuarascáil ata leagtha faoi bhráid an Oireachtais ag an gcomhchoiste le roinnt míonna anuas. Bhí sé de phríbhléid agam féin bheith mar Chathaoirleach ar an gcéad chomhchoiste agus ba mhaith liom go dtabharfadh gach duine sa Teach seo aird ar na moltaí atá acu maidir leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn. Níl sé de am agam an ráiteas ar fad a léamh, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, ach tá mé cinnte go dtuigeann gach duine an tábhacht atá leis na Meastacháin seo agus go bhfuil an Rialtas ag déanamh a ndíchill le airgead a chur ar fail don Ghaeltacht.

Measaim dá n-iarrfá cead go bhfaighfeá é, ach glacaim leis go bhfuil tú sásta anois go bhfuil an chuid is mó den ráiteas tugtha agat. An bhfuil tú ag ceapadh go bhfuil dóthain tugtha agat? Táimid ag caitheamh ama anois. Tá an tAire Stáit sásta leis an méid ama a bhí aige, de réir dealraimh.

Is maith go bhfuil duine éigin sa Teach seo sásta leis an am atá aige, mar nílim sásta. Ní féidir liom ligean orm ach an oiread, mar sílim gur chóir níos mó ama a thabhairt do urlabhraí Pháirtí na nOibrithe ar ócáid mar seo.

The restriction on the time provided for the spokesperson for the Workers' Party in this debate does not speak well for the generosity of the other parties in this House. To allocate 40 minutes for the main spokespersons from the other parties on Opposition and 15 minutes to The Workers' Party is a petty, mean-minded approach. However, I am not going to waste my time complaining about that.

The focus is sharpening on the conflict of philosophical, political and economic ideas in this House and outside it between those who stand for the untrammelled primacy of the rights of capital and capitalists at any social price and those who believe in the sharing of wealth for the advancement of all, who believe that a socialist economy and a socialist outlook alone can provide the dignity and security which should be the birthright of everybody. It should be a fundamental human right. The importation of the repugnant creed of Thatcherism by this Fianna Fáil Government, the clasping of that creed to their bosom in advance by the Progressive Democrats before Fianna Fáil's coming to power and, indeed, the alliance that has developed between the conservative parties and the Government in defence of this heartless approach is an indication of the way in which this focus is coming about.

People are becoming tired at the shenanigans of the conservative parties, shouting their protestations of "fundamental differences", "different approaches" and "basic disagreements". It is like the sham fight at Scarva. The outcome never changes; the rich always ride away on the white charger and the rest are left for dead in the dirt. The total immersion of Fianna Fáil in Thatcherism is full of grim ironies. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, in referendum and election campaigns over the years has never been shy about climbing on a soapbox in Castlebar and sharing with us his fears about "alien ideologies" taking root in Ireland. Yet, he now talks quite freely and unashamedly about introducing Margaret Thatcher's poll tax, or Margaret Thatcher's privatisation, or Margaret Thatcher's dual society, the very rich and the very poor.

But how alien is Thatcherite monetarism to Fianna Fáil and the other parties of the right, both old and new? Could it be that the existing and well-established gombeenism in our society has bought a filofax and decided that it is time to go public? We must always bear in mind that this aggressive idelogy of social survivalism is primarily that, an ideology, a considered, thought-out strategy to maintain and strengthen the social dominance of the rich and the right. This new Toryism, now rampant, has lost some of the knee-jerk aspects of its antecedents. It is more conscious, more calculating, better at attempting to disguise what it is about in society. The perversion of language it employs is Orwellian. To anyone with a spark of decency, adopting a responsible attitude in economic matters would mean, at the very least, caring for and protecting people who are sick, the elderly, the disabled and the growing number of people who have been pushed out of society and live a half life on the fringes, homeless and hungry. That, to people with the most basic of human values, would represent a responsible attitude, an acceptance of collective responsibility in the community.

But to the conservative ideologues, a responsible attitude in the ordering of the economy means a policy of sterile cutbacks aimed at the weakest and least organised. For the sick who rely on what remains of the public health service, it means waiting in pain, in some cases until you die. If you do get treatment it is criminally inadequate. For the old, alone and helpless, there is now almost nowhere to go. Every agency set up by the State to care for those who simply cannot care for themselves has been financially subverted. Dismissed teachers and packed classrooms have subverted the future of our children — the brightest might get by, but what about the rest? This sounds like gutting the poor and the weak. It is perverse to equate responsibility with social butchery. It is perverse to describe the subversion of the future as some sort of prudence.

Superficially, some economic indicators give the impression that this is a booming economy, but the reality for hundreds of thousands of men, women and children is very different. Exports are at a record level, inflation and interest rates are down, but these have done nothing for the majority of people in this country. For years now we have been told that if wages were kept low, inflation would fall and that we would have a boom. We were told that if Government borrowing was cut to reduce interest rates, employment would boom.

The sacrifices made by workers in accepting lower wages and cuts in services have not brought any benefits to them. Certainly the Smurfits and the Goodmans of this world are doing well, but the situation for working people is very different. We still have unemployment of a quarter of a million, with unemployment levels of 70 per cent and more in some working class areas of Dublin and young people leaving the country at the rate of 600 per week, Haughey deportees.

The reality of life, 66 years after the foundation of the State, and 16 months into the life of this Fianna Fáil administration, is not the rosy picture depicted by Fianna Fáil, by the Minister for the Environment standing in for the Taoiseach and some media commentators, but the starkly different picture painted in the report of the Combat Poverty Agency, which was published earlier this week. This portrayed a dismal picture of our failure to reach anything approaching social equality. It spoke of an Ireland with a quarter of the population — more than three quarters of a million people — living in some degree of poverty. It particularly drew attention to the fact that children now make up a higher proportion of the poor than they did 15 years ago. According to the report, children account for more than half of the total number living in poverty, with one child in four dependent on welfare payments. The problem was essentially one of equity, the report said with, the top 20 per cent of families enjoying 43.8 per cent of gross income, while the bottom 20 per cent must make do with just 4.6 per cent.

This is the sort of poverty that the Commission on Social Welfare sought to address. It is almost three years since the commission reported and recommended a basic income for those on welfare of between £50 and £60 per week, in 1985 terms. The failure of both the Coalition and Fianna Fáil Governments to implement the main recommendations of the report is a measure of the low political priority attached to tackling poverty.

Is it any wonder that people are so cynical about the political system in Ireland when they see the Government and the four biggest parties in the Dáil, who have consistently failed to act to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, awarding themselves a salary increase of 15 per cent?

I know of people who have to exist on a weekly level of income, which is less than the weekly increase we have awarded ourselves. Can anyone seriously argue that the financial difficulties facing TDs are as great as the financial difficulties facing those on welfare? By implementating our own award, but not those of the Commission on Social Welfare, the inevitable impression created among the general public is of TDs defending their own interests with far greater vigilance and determination than they devote to protecting the poorest. Politics and the democratic system will suffer from this cynical abdication of leadership. I expected more from at least some of our colleagues on the Opposition benches.

The main pillar of this Government's economic strategy has been the so-called Programme for National Recovery, which was agreed by the social partners last year. More and more, however, it is being revealed as a sham. Workers and trade unionists are realising the programme is simply a device to win time for Fianna Fáil and that the Government's commitment to the promises contained in it are about as reliable as their election commitments to the old, the sick and the handicapped.

It is now more than nine months since the programme was approved by the Dáil. The Dáil should now debate and review what progress has been made in implementing its objectives and should give the Government notice that they must deliver or get out. What is evident, even from a cursory examination, is that employers, financial institutions, and the Fianna Fáil Party have benefited from the programme, but the benefits for workers and the unemployed, those on social welfare and young people forced to emigrate, are non-existent. Profits in the private sector, particularly the transnational and financial services sectors are now at an unprecedented high level. Job losses in both the public and private sectors are also at an unprecedented high level.

Possibly the single most important item in the programme is the commitment to create an extra 20,000 jobs in manufacturing each year. The specific quotation from the programme is as follows: "The objective of policy in manufacturing industry involves creating approximately 20,000 extra jobs on average per year over the next ten years." The fact is that these jobs are elusive as ever. The reality is that manufacturing employment is continuing to decline — 40,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the past five years — and will continue to decline as long as we adhere to a blind reliance on market forces to resolve our economic problems in the industrial sector.

Statements made by the Government that the job creation figures set by the programme have been met are simply untrue and disguise the disastrously inadequate level of job creation. The statement issued by the Government at the end of May was particularly misleading. First of all, while the programme specifically talks about extra manufacturing jobs — clearly meaning additional jobs over and above those already in existence — the Government have continued to refer to new jobs generally, irrespective of the number of job losses and irrespective of the sections in which new jobs are created. If 20,000 new jobs are created, but 20,000 existing jobs lost, it clearly does not meet the requirements of the programme. The Government claim that 4,000 new jobs were created in the first quarter of the year and on that basis assert that the job creation targets of the programme are being met. However, in the same first quarter of 1988 there was a total of 7,401 redundancies — more than 3,000 of them in the manufacturing sector — notified to the Department of Labour. This is a sort of three card trick approach to statistics.

Under every heading of the programme, there are blatant examples of a two-tier approach to a so called recovery. This was evident this week when those on reasonable salaries got more than the terms of the programme, while unfortunate workers on social employment schemes did not even get the terms of the programme. Their miserable rate of £70 per week was reduced to £60 per week.

The same two-tier approach is evident in the health services, where public services are butchered while private services are subsidised, grant-aided and expanded in the profitable growth industry of human misfortune. Cuts in housing construction, the destruction of local authority services with redundancies of 2,500 in the vital services area have all taken place in a period of eight months. The programme has also been used to disguise major cuts in social welfare, education and in most semi-State agencies and companies.

I want to deal with Northern Ireland in the minute or two left. The Workers' Party commitment to peace, unity and reason in Northern Ireland is ongoing and we have never expected it to be an easy road to follow as a party with membership in the North and in the Republic. The present moves of the Irish Government to try to force Unionists into a round of discussions based on a context wider than Northern Ireland is a mistake. If the Government believe they can force the Unionists, through fear, as a result of the meetings taking place between the SDLP and the Provos to deal with them on the basis that dealing with Mr. Haughey is better than dealing with the Provos, they are seriously misreading the situation and playing a very dangerous. game of brinkmanship with the lives of tens of thousands of men and women, Catholic and Protestant, North and South. I am convinced that the present talks between the SDLP and the Provos are part of an attempt to create a pan-Nationalist front and to frighten the Unionists even more than they are present.

I must now call another speaker.

I will just make the point that I strongly urge the SDLP to withdraw from their talks with the Provisionals and I urge all the parties in this House to do likewise. No progress can be made by sitting down with the Provisionals. They are not interested in democracy or in a settlement in Northern Ireland, which is the only realistic possibility for peace in Northern Ireland.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy is now in possession. He can commence his speech after Questions.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn