Ba maith liom traoslú leis an Aire Airgeadais mar gheall ar an airgead atá curtha i leathtaobh aige le cúnamh speisialta a thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus chun camáin a chur ar fáil don aos óg.
Is gné iontach tábhachtach dár Ghaeilge. Thiocfadh a rá, le gurb í an gné is tábhachtaí dár gcultúr í. Le breis agus dhá mhíle bliain ba í an Ghaeilge gnáth theanga mhuintir na tíre seo. Is teanga í atá i bhfad níos seanda ná an Béarla.
Tá sé cinnte, mar sin, go ndeachaigh an Ghaeilge go mór i bhfeidhm ar mhuintir na hÉireann ar feadh na céadta bliain agus gur chuidigh sé go mór le caractéir ár ndaoine a mhúnlú. Ar an adbhar sin tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go slánófar an teanga agus go mbeidh sí arís á labhairt go foirleathan ar fud na hÉireann.
Tá sé soiléir gur gnóithe práinneach atá sa ghnóithe seo, agus tá sé soiléir fosta, má chailltear an teanga Ghaeilge gur cailliúint thubaisteach a bheidh ann don náisiún agus gurb é an glún seo a bheidh freagarthach as.
Tá sé éascaí go leor a bheith corraithe faoi ghnéithe eile den náisiúnachas ach tá sé cóir a bheith cinne go socrófar na gnéithe sin sna bhlianta atá romhainn, ach ar an taobh eile dhe, mar dúirt mé cheana féin, mura n-éiríonn leis an ghlún seo an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú, caillfear go deo í agus ní mhaithfidh na glúin a thiocfaidh in ár ndiaidh dúinn é.
Tá báidh an phobail leis an Ghaeilge agus tá sé ráite ag an Aire Airgeadais gur mian leis an Rialtas iad a spreagadh chun beart dearfa dá réir a dhéanamh. Tá sé i gceist aige cúrsaí tarraingteach ar theilfis agus ar radió a chur ar fáil agus tá mé cinnte go gcuideoidh sé seo leis an phobal suim ar leith a chur sa Ghaeilge.
Tá an Ghaeilge anois, a bheag nó a mhór, ag furmhór mór muintir na tíre, idir aos óg agus daoine meán aosta comh maith, ach níl sí a labhairt chomh minic agus ar cheart dí a bheith. Is minic a smaoinigh mé ar an cheist seo ag iarraidh a dhéanamh amach cad chuige a bhfuil an scéal amhlaidh, cad chuige nach bhfuil níos mó Gaeilge le clos sa Teach seo, sa bhaile nó ar na sráideanna. Tá cuma air gur leisce intinne nó "mental laziness" is cúis leis. Caithfidh an duine gur mian leis Gaeilge a fhoghluim nó a labhairt stró a chur air féin, go mór mhór nuair a chuireann muid an comhluadar ina bhfuilimid beo ann san áireamh, chun sin a dhéanamh. Tá gach rud ag brath ar an duine aonair. Caithfidh sé a intinn a dhéanamh suas agus beart a dhéanamh dá réir. Dá mbeadh ceist na Gaeilge chomh sochorraithe ó thaobh furmhór ár ndaoine agus atá gnéithe eile den náisiúnachas bheadh leí.
Maidir le RTE agus an Ghaeilge de, tá an tUdarás atá ansin anois go mór i bhfábhar go bhfaighfidh an teanga a ceart ar an teilifis agus ar an radió, agus gnéithe eile dar gcultúr fosta, bíodh siad i nGaeilge, i mBéarla nó dhá theangach. Caithfear cuir leis an fhreastal atáthar á dhéanamh orthu siúd a bhfuil an Ghaeilge ar a dtoil acu mar atá á dhéanamh le cláracha cosúil le "Féach", "Súil Thart" agus "Aisling Ghael". Ach caithfear gan dearmad a dhéanamh ar an mhór scaifte a bhfuil measarach Ghaeilge acu agus cláracha éadrom agus tuilleadh cláracha dhá-theangach a thabhairt dóibh. Tuigim go bhfuil iarraidh mhór ar cheachtanna Ghaeilge agus tuigim gur fána choinne sin atá an céad míle punt le caitheadh. Molaim seo go mór ach tá súil agam nach gcuirfear na ceachtanna seo san áireamh mar chuid den 20 faoin gcéad de chláracha bhaile-déanta a bhéas le fáil i nGaeilge, mar adúirt Cathaoirleach an Údaráis sular fógraíodh an deontas seo san cháin fhaisnéis.
Caithfear daoine breise a mhealladh chun amharc ar chláracha Ghaeilge. Mar shampla, dá mbeadh duaiseanna ag baint le cláracha Ghaeilge bheadh méadú faoi dhó ar an lucht féachana. Is breá le daoine coimhlint.
Tá cluiche againn san iománaíocht nach bhfuil a sárú ar domhan a thairbhe scíl agus ealaíon agus ní bheadh sé deas déanta nó ceart déanta againn ligeann de ard chostas na gcamán cur isteach ar imirt an chluiche ársa seo. Tá súil agam nach ndéanfar dearmad ar na contaetha sa tír seo atá lag ó thaobh iománaíochta dhe, ach atá ag iarraidh an cluiche a fhorbairt nuair atá an t-airgead seo á chaitheamh.
The budget proposals in general are intended to provide the revenue for the many and varied services provided for the community by the State. The service for which I am responsible, Defence, has become in recent years one of the most important provided by the State. It is for that reason that the level of expenditure on the Defence Forces has continued to rise. It is also an indication of the Government's determination to strengthen the capability of the Defence Forces to meet their obligations. Stability and security are essential prerequisites to social and economic developments.
This year the Estimate for Defence shows an increase on the amount allocated in 1979 and while the cost of improved pay and allowances for the troops accounts for a considerable portion of this increase, there is also a substantial amount available for the planned programme of improvements in equipment, accommodation and facilities generally. One of the new premises to be constructed this year is the new billet for the Women's Service Corps.
The Government are especially mindful of the important national service rendered by members of the Defence Forces and every effort has been made to ensure that conditions generally are such as to provide adequate compensation for the troops. Rates of pay and allowances are, of course, a very important factor both in attracting recruits of appropriate calibre and retraining in service those soldiers whose initial term of enlistment has expired. As a result of improvements in pay and allowances and conditions generally I am glad to say that recruiting figures for the first two months of this year show substantial gains and it is confidently expected that this upward trend will continue.
Recruitment and retention in the service should also be enhanced by the easement of PAYE taxation bands announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget. This means that for all ranks the take-home pay after tax deductions will show a significant improvement in the coming months. This should give an added incentive to soldiers contemplating re-enlistment and a significant fillip to recruitment figures.
Public reaction to the budget has been very favourable. In my own constituency, and in many other parts of the country, I found that while some complaints were expressed about individual facets the consensus was that the budget is a good one. The Minister for Finance asked the public to look upon the budget as a whole and they are doing so. The public appreciate that the underlying principles on which the budget is based are sound and they recognise it as a budget which ensures the future wellbeing of the country in the social and economic fields.
A number of changes are included in the budget which are of considerable significance to many of those for whom my Department have special responsibility. Veterans of the War of Independence played a vital role in the foundation of the State and it is only fitting, despite the present difficult budgetary situation, that an effort should be made not only to maintain their financial position but also to introduce some new concessions for them and for their dependants. The budget proposals for the abolition of income tax on military service pensions, the creation of a new category of allowances in favour of widows of special allowance holders and the extension of the free electricity and free television licence concession to widows of veterans generally represent substantial innovations in the general provisions for veterans of the War of Independence and their widows. These developments are of real value to the survivors of a generation which played a key role in the foundation and emergence of the State and I have no doubt that the House will join me in welcoming their introduction.
The annual budget has come to have a direct and significant impact on the Army Pension Vote administered by my Department, which includes provision for the payment of some 20,000 pensioners and allowance holders. The Vote contains provision for pensions and allowances for retired members of the Defence Forces and their widows and dependants. It also contains provision for pensions and allowances for veterans of the War of Independence and widows of military service pensioners. In addition there is provision for the various schemes of concessions granted to veterans. These include free travel within the State for veterans and their spouses or the widows of veterans. Also included are the free electricity allowance, free television licence and telephone rental and funeral grants.
The 20,000 pensions and allowances involved are comprised mainly as follows: 3,000 military service pensions in respect of active service in the War of Independence; 6,000 special allowances to persons who had membership of certain prescribed organisations, Óglaigh na hÉireann, Cumann na mBan, Fianna Éireann and so on who are now unable to support themselves because of old age or infirmity; 5,000 pensions under the Defence Forces pensions schemes for retired members of the Defence Forces and widows of members of the Defence Forces; 500 allowances to dependants of soldiers and members of prescribed organisations killed or disabled in action; 750 wounded and disability pensions payable to soldiers and members of prescribed organisations in respect of wounds and injuries; and 4,250 allowances payable to widows of military service pensioners.
As I have said, the abolition of income tax on military service pensions is a concession which recognises in a special way the position of military service pensioners. The possession of such a pension implies active service during the War of Independence and, therefore, it is not in any way invidious to extend this concession to that category of pensioners.
I am glad also that it has been found possible to do something further by way of assistance to the widows of veterans. In particular the payment of the proposed flat rate allowance to the widow of a veteran who dies while in receipt of a special allowance will do a great deal to mitigate the hardship that arises when the special allowance ceases in such circumstances. Widows of military service pensioners are in receipt already of an annual allowance which is related to the amount of the pension of the deceased military service pensioner. This is subject to a minimum annual figure. The arrangement was introduced in 1971 and I am glad that the Minister for Finance has found it possible to provide for the widows of special allowance holders. The new allowance is at the rate of £185 per annum and will be payable with effect from 1 July of this year. This very welcome development will require amending legislation and I would hope to take the necessary steps in that regard without delay.
A military service pensioner, as the holder of the Service (1917-1921) Medal with Bar, satisfies the fundamental condition—that of being a veteran—for the award of the special allowance. Nowadays, however, in the majority of cases what is required essentially is that the applicant be the holder of a duly awarded Service (1917-1921) Medal without Bar but this gives rise to problems. With the passage of time it is becoming progressively more difficult to obtain acceptable verification for the award of medals. The Department try to be as flexible as possible in dealing with these cases but in fairness to those who are entitled to the medal it is only right that before an award is made, as a minimum, the balance of available evidence should be in favour of the applicant. Cases will arise where, because of the absence of acceptable corroborative evidence, applicants who at another time might have qualified will fail in their application for a medal. We have in effect reached the stage at which anyone who intends to apply for a medal should do so without delay.
As I have mentioned already there are some 4,000 veterans who are availing of the free electricity allowance and the free television licence. Under the present arrangements when a veteran dies the concession ceases and in many cases this can constitute a distinct hardship. Therefore, I welcome the concession in the budget whereby, from 1 July next, the concession will be applicable also to veterans' widows.
A major objective in this year's budget was to create greater equity in the taxation system. There has been dissatisfaction among the PAYE sector at the level of taxation but it is accepted by them generally, I think, that the Government in the budget proposals responded very fairly to the workers demands in this regard. Added to this is the fact that the Government have decided to establish a commission on taxation with the object of providing an equitable tax system. I am glad to note that the ICTU have accepted the setting up of such a commission and have said that they will co-operate with the commission.
Down through the years, and particularly during periods of inflation, problems have arisen with the PAYE system but it might be useful to recall that this system was sought originally by the trade unions and was, at the time of its introduction, regarded as a major achievement. Prior to then workers received bills for income tax at the end of the financial year. I recall in my early days in the Dáil being approached by workers who had received bills for what might now be regarded as relatively small amounts of money, requesting me to intercede with the Revenue Comissioners to have the amounts reduced or to agree to have them made payable during a period. Indeed, I have known incidents where workers received such bills and, being unable to meet the demand, packed their bags and went to Britain, so great was the stress on them at that time. The PAYE system, by providing for the deduction of tax as income was earned, was a very considerable advance so far as the worker was concerned on the system which had obtained up to then. Consequently, as a system PAYE is far from being totally bad, but reform is necessary and that is a question with which the commission on taxation will concern themselves.
I have taken particular note of the efforts on the part of Deputy FitzGerald and other Opposition Deputies to denigrate the very worthwhile improvements vis-à-vis income tax in the budget. The procedure they adopt seems to be that they identify the amounts which individuals with a particular level of income will receive as a result of the changes made by the Minister for Finance and then measure them against increases in living costs which they speculate may arise. Obviously, they are not comparing like with like here. The saving to the taxpayer is clear and identifiable while the increases suggested in living costs are speculative. Some of these increases may result from budget policy but many would arise in any case. For example, a very considerable factor in the cost of living to which I have referred already is the increase in world oil prices. Regardless of whether changes were brought about in taxation rates, those increases in costs would have arisen anyway. Surely it must be accepted that the improvements in the lot of the person paying tax under the PAYE system helps him to meet costs increases resulting from, for example, the OPEC increase in the price of oil, an increase over which we do not have any control.
It is a basic simple fact that the Minister for Finance has raised the tax exemption limits, thereby relieving many low-income people from the burden of paying tax—in fact, the number is 75,000 people—and by widening the income bands most taxpayers will be paying at the lower rates. These are incontrovertible facts. They are understood and appreciated by those paying tax under the PAYE system and the prophets who predict doom in the far distant future will have an extremely difficult task in convincing these people otherwise.
There are other aspects of the tax system changes which have led to very favourable mention. A special feature is that of income splitting for married taxpayers. This represents a major improvement in the system and enhances the place of the family unit in the community. I might add that, far from being forced to bring in the changes in the budget in respect of income-splitting—as alleged by some Opposition speakers—the facts are that it has come about by a positive decision of the Government. Indeed it is true to say that, in the proposals in this budget in respect of income-splitting, we are very much in advance of quite a number of countries in western Europe. All in all the budget proposals in respect of PAYE improve the lot of the taxpayer whether married or single. The changes in personal income taxation announced in the budget will have the effect of increasing the take-home pay of all ranks in the permanent Defence Forces.
For example, taking account of the special PAYE allowance of £400 and the change in the tax bands, the tax bill of a single recruit whose current basic pay is £74.13 will be reduced by about £2.50 a week. In the case of a private, Three Star, with six years' service, who is married with three children and earns £95.66 a week, his post-budgetary income tax commitment will be reduced by about £3.50 a week, while the saving for a single, Three Star Private with equivalent service and earning £92.15 a week will amount to approximately £2.50 a week. As a further example, a married sergeant with one child and nine years' service earning £108.27 a week will save £4.25 a week. Of course the position of married personnel with children will be still further improved by the increases in the children's allowances announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget statement.
The major concern of all Fianna Fáil Governments down the years has been to improve the lot of the underprivileged. The present Government is no exception and it has been their particular concern in these difficult times to protect those who, for one reason or another, are unable to help themselves, whether because of old age, unemployment, illness or whatever. Prior to the introduction of the budget there were many and varied proposals and suggestions from a wide variety of individuals and groups as to what those dependent on social welfare payments might expect, or should be granted, in the forthcoming budget. We have read in the press and heard on the radio and television of the demands of those genuinely interested in the plight of those in need and, of course, of the demands of those who are perhaps more interested in political expediency. It is very important to note that every single claim or prognostication was at a much lower level of increase than that actually provided by the Government in the budget. That very surely underlines the Government's concern for the poorer sections of the community and their determination to see to it that such people are properly looked after. Let me repeat that the increases of 25 per cent in the long-term payments, on pensions and such like, and 20 per cent in short-term payments, such as disability and unemployment assistance, are very much greater than anybody had thought likely or indeed possible. Much as the Opposition may attempt to denigrate the Government's efforts in this field there is no question but that the public have expressed their support for and appreciation of what we have done, in no uncertain terms. I should add that the budget increases, together with the increases granted last October, mean that the rates will be higher by 31 per cent and 26 per cent respectively next April than they were a year earlier. The total cost of the increases proposed in the budget in social welfare benefits comes to £95 million in 1980 and represents a major re-distribution in favour of the less fortunate members of our community.
I know the House shares the concern of the Government for those genuinely in need and have no doubt that the dramatic measures taken on their behalf will be welcomed. So far as my Department are concerned the important point to remember is that, in assessing eligibility for the granting of special allowances for veterans, many social welfare and kindred benefits are ignored and others partially assessed only. Briefly the following are not taken into account: children's allowances under the Social Welfare Acts; maintenance in a hospital, sanitorium, county home or like institution; prescribed relative allowance; home help allowance and payments for light work done by patients. In addition a nominal amount only of the old age pension, whether contributory or non-contributory, is taken into account. The same applies to widows' pensions, retirement pensions and invalidity pensions.
I have referred already to the increases of 25 per cent in long-term benefits and 20 per cent in short-term benefits, such as unemployment and disability benefit. The cost of these and other improvements to the Exchequer, including the increases in children's allowances, represents the highest allocation ever made for social welfare services in any budget. For example a contributory old age pensioner will receive an additional £4.90 a week from April next, giving him or her a pension of £24.50 a week. A married couple on old age pension will get an increase of £8.55 a week, bringing their pension to £42.80 a week. There are also increases in the supplements payable to pensioners living alone or those over 80 years of age.
In the case of widows who are receiving contributory pensions, the personal rate of pension is increased from £18 per week to £22.50, an increase of £4.50. The rate for dependent children is raised from £6 a week for each child to £7.50. Therefore, a widow with three dependent children will receive a pension of £45 a week from April next, or £9 a week more than she receives at present. The disabled maintenance allowance has been increased by £4.05 to £20.25 a week.
Of course children's allowances are an important source of income for families and go directly to the mother. I am glad that these will be increased again from July by £1 a month for the first child and £1.50 for each subsequent child. This will mean an increase of about 29 per cent in children's allowances, bringing the monthly cheque to £4.50 for one child, £11.50 for two children; £18.50 for three, £25.50 for four and £32.50 for five children.
Taken together the increases in social welfare benefits represent the highest ever allocation made to social welfare services, with a massive transfer of funds to those in greatest need. The Government are pledged to protecting the needy in these difficult economic times and have honoured that commitment significantly.
Because I had charge of tourism during the past two-and-a-half years I should like to make a few comments on statements made by Opposition speakers in regard to this area. They, including Deputy Hegarty who has just spoken, made great play of increases in a variety of taxes and charged that these increases would affect our tourism industry adversely. I do not accept that tourism, one of our vital industries, will be affected adversely by these increases.
In the first place, the increase in oil prices by the oil producing countries will have an effect on prices of oil-based products everywhere, and inevitably the prices of these products will be increased in other countries as well as here. Indeed the general economy of every country in the world is being affected by the enormous increases imposed by the OPEC people. As well, the price of petrol has been higher in many of the countries competing with us for tourists. Even after the increases in the budget here the price of petrol in some of the countries competing with us is higher than here. One cannot very well use our prices for comparison purposes with the prices last summer in competing countries. Rather the comparison must be with prices as they are today, or as they will be when those countries have introduced their own budgets.
What particularly prompted me to refer to tourism is that Deputy Barry, in his speech immediately after the budget and in his budget statement on television, referred to 1979 as a disastrous year for Irish tourism. He said that because of budget changes this year the situation will be much worse. A few moments ago Deputy Hegarty alleged that last year was a bad one for Irish tourism. I should like to point out again, as I have done on many occasions towards the close of last year, that far from being a bad year for tourism this country last year, 1979, earned the highest income in the history of the State from tourism. More than £400 million was earned and of that money more than £300 million came from tourists from outside the State. That was a remarkable achievement when one takes into account the postal strike and the petrol shortage at the height of the tourist season. It is a great credit to all concerned.
Though it is true that in real terms the income was fractionally below that of 1978, one must not forget that 1978 was a record year for tourism, when tourist income outstripped in real terms the tourist income in 1969, which had been the highest ever up to then. Despite all the problems and difficulties faced by this country in 1979, including world wide downturn in economic conditions, tourism continued to develop here and the number of visitors from Europe was much higher than in any previous year. The Government were concerned last year to protect this great industry. The extra money made available to Bord Fáilte for publicity purposes, the guaranteed fuel voucher scheme and my personal involvement with tourism promotion in Europe in 1979 infused a spirit of confidence in the industry which resulted in an income of £403.5 million as compared with £376.5 million the previous year, which has been a record year.
If the parties opposite have to rely on this well propagated Opposition hoary untruth about Irish tourism in 1979—an untruth which they continue assiduously to propagate—to bolster up a case against this budget then they are attempting to build a case against the budget on a very poor foundation indeed.
Considering the importance of the industry, it would be unpatriotic deliberately to publicise a drastic fall in the numbers coming here on holiday, if that were true. Words fail me to describe what I think of those who propagate such matters when they know them to be untrue, knowing as they must the damage they can cause to what is a vital industry. We do not exist in a vacuum. Many other countries are vying with us for tourists. If foreigners believed that last year had been a disastrous year for Irish tourism, then they would have good reason to decide not to come here this year. Visitors to Ireland can be assured of a welcome here and of a very pleasant holiday. Bord Fáilte do not have a gloomy outlook. Invariably they face up to problems and overcome them.
What surprises me is that the two parties which formed the Coalition and which had such poor tourism results should have the gall to mention tourism at all.
Listening to Opposition speakers in the course of this debate it was obvious that they found considerable difficulty in finding anything of consequence which, with any credibility, they could be really critical of in the budget. They searched around, clearly without success, in an effort to find some subject which would help them cloud the real issues, and having failed in every other area they raised for the umpteenth time the matter of the Fianna Fáil election manifesto and attempted to blame it for our economic problems, as if oil price increases had never been heard of, or worldwide economic problems did not exist.
Let us look at the facts. The promises made by us in the manifesto were put into effect, very much to the advantage of the people of this country individually and also to the general advantage of the economy as a whole. I am not referring solely to the removal of rates from private houses or tax from cars, much as these benefited the individual, but also to the much more important areas of the provision of jobs, increased production, reduction of inflation, higher investment, particularly evident in the first two years of office of this Government and before the exceptional increase in oil prices took place, which disturbed not just the economy of this country but the economies of all the countries in the world, be they big or small, even the economy of such a powerful country as the United States.
I will deal with the provision of jobs later because it is one aspect of the economy in which the Government are particularly interested.
The fact is that gross domestic product in 1977 and 1978 grew by nearly 7 per cent, which was the highest rate achieved in the EEC and OECD countries. Investment was high and kept increasing rapidly as compared with a fall in investment during most of the Coalition period of office. Inflation was brought down to manageable levels. Later the enormous increase in oil prices created the major problem.
However, it was in the field of job creation that we had our most notable success. National figures are available to show how the number of unemployed has been reduced and new jobs created. Indeed recent figures published show a significant fall in the number on the live register this year as compared with last year so I do not need to deal with the matter at that level.
I will, however, briefly refer to the situation as we found it at local level in south and mid-Louth in 1977 when we took office because this reflects the national situation. There were 1,919 registered unemployed persons in the Drogheda employment exchange in July 1977, the month in which we took office. In July 1979, two years later, the number of registered unemployed in the Drogheda employment exchange was 1,090. The number of unemployed had been practically halved in two short years. This was a tremendous achievement never before witnessed in that area, an achievement which nobody would have been willing to prophesy in July 1977, but which had resulted from the carefully planned policy of this Government and carried through effectively despite the very obvious problems facing us.
As the Taoiseach stated recently, the concern of the Government will continue to be to ensure that our people who may be unfortunate enough to be unemployed will have jobs made available to them and the young people of the country will be sure of employment when they leave school. It is true to say that there are now many employment areas where there are unfilled job vacancies.
For mid-Louth the Coalition period in office was nothing short of a disaster. When they left office the two major industries in that area, AET in Dunleer and Castleguard Textiles in Ardee, were on the verge of collapse and eventually closed their doors. One would have to live in that area, which has a great rural, industrial reputation to appreciate the gloom and despair which permeated the whole area—workers unemployed, many of them for the first time in their lives, and large numbers of young people with no prospects of employment in their own area. In a relatively densely populated rural area this was a frightening situation. As I said, one would have to have savoured the situation as a member of the community to realise the plight of the people there.
What is the position in the same area today, two-and-a-half years later? After-two-and-a-half years of putting the job creation programme, about which the Opposition appear to be so critical, into operation these are now the facts. The factory at Dunleer, the AET factory, has been taken over by an Irish company, Basic Engineering, which is now employing about 250 people. A new factory owned by Westinghouse is in the course of being built in Dunleer. They have already advertised for employees and hope to go into operation in the summer. They are expected to employ 288 people over a three-year period. The old Castleguard factory in Ardee has been taken over by another company and is now employing 100 people. A further new factory is in the course of being built in Ardee and some of the workers are already being trained to work in that factory. The furniture industry has expanded very considerably and has taken on quite a considerable number of new employees and there are prospects of another industry there. This is a complete and almost unbelievable transformation in a short space of a couple of years.
Let me add that those jobs are not jobs in the public service. Opposition speakers, particularly Deputy John Kelly, like to claim that all of the jobs created under our policy were public service jobs. All of these jobs are in the private sector. Not only were these jobs provided, but they generate further employment in the services sector. The state of despair which we had inherited from the Coalition in mid-Louth has now been dispersed and young people can look forward to the future with confidence. What was achieved there is indicative of the progress made all over the country. The people of my constituency will be hard to convince that Fianna Fáil policies have been anything but successful.
I would like to take up another point in relation to statements made by Deputy John Kelly when he criticised the creation of jobs in the public sector. There were, of course, jobs created in the public service. I am sure the Deputy is aware of the fact that those working in the technical and technological areas in the Post Office are civil servants and will continue to be such until legislation is passed by the Oireachtas to establish the statutory boards set up by me on an interim basis. There were very large numbers of technicians and installers taken on over the past two-and-a-half years to speed up the modernisation of our telecommunications system. These were jobs created in the public service. Is it suggested that these jobs were not essential? Indeed, if any criticism might apply in this area it could be that we did not recruit even more personnel.
I refer to this particular aspect of the public service because it is one for which I had a responsibility and I certainly make no apologies whatsoever for the increased employment in the public service for which I was responsible. The global condemnation of our policy by Deputy Kelly would lead those who have no knowledge of the real situation to believe that the increased employment in the public service simply meant the creation of desk jobs. Government policy in the telecommunications field was to develop the system as rapidly as possible, to make available sufficient money to develop the telecommunication system and to employ more and more technicians. It is a fact that more technicians will be needed in this area. Again, let me point out that they are in the public service. I wonder if Deputy Kelly objects to that.
While I am on this particular subject I must confess that I was somewhat surprised to find the CII issuing a statement criticising the amount of money made available this year for telecommunications development. The reality, of course, as the CII are aware, is that the Government propose to spend £650 million on telecommunications development over the next five years, that each year this development will accelerate and each year more money will be spent. The amount, therefore, being made available this year is a realistic one. The task of implementing the accelerated programme, which is aimed at raising the quality of the telephone, telex and data services to EEC levels and meeting without delay the demand for telephones is a formidable one and one which cannot be achieved without the co-operation of all concerned. I have no doubt that that co-operation will be forthcoming.
Now, to return again to my reason for speaking on this particular area, the creation of jobs in the public service, let me repeat that the creation of jobs in the telecommunications field was a vital necessity if our economy was to develop to its full potential. The Government propose to continue to concentrate on employment. Admittedly, the circumstances are more difficult but we have the will and the ability to achieve our objectives in this area as we have proven in the past.
The economic problems which arose in more recent times were not of our making. They arose mainly from the enormous increases in oil prices. When oil prices were increased by the OPEC countries it was understandable that the individual who had to pay more for oil or petrol, or indeed for the increases in prices in a varriety of goods resulting from the oil price increase, would naturally be concerned about his own particular problem in finding the extra money to pay for these commodities. The fundamental problem which faced the country, however, was the fact that the £140 million, which the increase cost the country as a whole, was, as it were, lifted out of the finances of the State and transferred elsewhere. In other words, this money which could have been turned to good account in our own economy, was now gone from it.
In the circumstances, the Government recognise that our borrowing, particularly for current purposes, had got to be cut down. I do not want to bore the House with a comparison between State borrowing and borrowing by an individual family, but a study of the consequences in both cases will show them to be very similar. Borrowing for capital purposes, wisely spent, can be good, borrowing for current expenditure can be an extremely risky venture.
So, a start has been made on reducing Government borrowing. In simple terms, we recognise the need to live within our means and we are acting accordingly. A gradual approach to this ideal has been adopted, otherwise we could create serious deflationary problems. As the Minister for Finance has pointed out, the overall borrowing requirement will fall from 13.7 per cent of GNP in 1979 to 10.4 per cent in 1980. It should, however, be noted that the Public Capital Programme will increase by 15 per cent, including a 22 per cent rise for the industrial promotion groups. This will sustain the growth of employment and of the economy generally and will continue to produce the results which I have already outlined in respect of employment.
Taxation, of course, was necessary to achieve the worthwhile results which will flow from this budget to the benefit of PAYE taxpayers and those dependent on social welfare as well as to the economy. Particular note should be taken of the fact that emphasis has been placed as far as possible on discretionary expenditure. Much of the new type of taxation will be paid by the individual only if the taxpayer himself decides to do so, by spending in the discretionary area. To that extent the individual can control the amount he pays.
This budget was specially designed to ensure a continuation of economic development, to improve the lot of those who are dependent on social welfare payments, to continue the process of initiating a fairer tax system and to start on a process of coming closer to living within our means. It is a realistic budget. It has clearly been recognised as such by the public who see in it an honest effort to deal with the serious economic problems, mainly due to outside influences, which beset us while at the same time ensuring continued improvement and development in this social area, seeing to it that the less well off sections of the community are properly cared for and ensuring employment possibilities for the young people who now account for a high proportion of our population.
Long and careful thought and preparation went into the compilation of this budget and, if one is to judge by public reaction to it, then it is the successful budget it deserves to be.