Garret's Gregory Deal

Charlie Haughey has been reviled for his extraordinary post election deal with Tony Gregory. But Garret FitzGerald negotiated a deal only slightly less extraordinary.

In the bid for Tony Gregory's support following the last election, Charles Haughey was not the only one trying to buy a vote in the Dail with extravagant promises. So too was Garret FitzGerald. He presented Tony Gregory with a forty-nine page packet of promises only slightly less extravagant than the Fianna Fail promises. The two "Gregory deals" cover the same range of items. The Fianna Fail document probably won out because it made more immediate commitments on specific issues. Both deals commit the parties to millions in extra expenditure.

In the area of employment, Fianna Fail topped Fine Gael's offer of 150 extra jobs for labourers in the Corporation by at least 200. FF was prepared to spend £4m, FG just £1.9m. FF promised a further 3,764 jobs over the next three years at a cost of at least £40m. FF also promised 150 jobs for maintenance workers, thus giving employment and improving the level of maintenance to Corporation housing, at a cost of £2.5m.

FG promised £7m of the Youth Employment Agency's budget for inner city programmes, and a positive discrimination scheme to encourage employers to hire city centre residents. The estimated cost of this, £500,000 (a further £250,000 was promised for similar schemes in other cities). More vaguely, FG promised "sufficient" funds for "worthwhile" AnCO programmes and community liaison groups with IDA industries established in Dublin.

FF promised, more specifically, to retrain 300 to 500 city centre adults and train and place in employment 300 to 500 young residents. It also promised tax concessions for new industries providing employment and an increase in the IDA grant from 45% to 60%. Fianna Fail promised to buy the port and docks board site and develop it with the inclusion of a leisure centre which would alone cost £.5m. FG's plan for the port and docks also included a leisure centre but was mor:e modest in that the government was to buy the site as part of a consortium which would include private interests.

More dramatically, FF promised an immediate injection of £20m to the Corporation's funds and the establishment of an Inner City Development Authority with a budget of £2m. Fine Gael had no similar offers. FF also topped FG's promises for funds for housing. FG promised an additional £16.5m in 1982 to be followed by an additional £20m in 1983. FF promised an additional £24m in 1982, a further £35.5m in 1983, and £48m in 1984. These funds are additional to what would be spent if the building programme progressed at its 1981 (pre-Gregory) rate.

FF also made promises to improve maintenance of Corporation dwellings. Not only would they provide 150 additional craftsmen, they would also restore the 40% levy on sales of Corporation property which had previously been used for maintenance. That cost a further £2.7m. FG simply promised to "review" the "unsatisfactory situation with regard to maintenance". For those living in substandard dwellings, FG again promised to "review special rent concessions". FF promised to immediately remove the rent increase on such dwellings and committed £1m to installing bathrooms in old flats and houses.

The high price of city centre land is a major obstacle to the Corporation's housing efforts. FG promised to introduce legislation regulating land prices. FF promised a "special fund" to enable the Corporation to buy land, and immediately promised the money needed (about £Im) to buy a four acre site at Shandon Park, and a further £Im for a "revolving" fund for acquiring and restoring city centre property. Both parties promised a 5% tax on derelict sites which could be expected to provide £2.5m in revenue. Fianna Fail also promised a tax on office development and expected to collect £lm from that scheme.

FG presented an extensive list of promises of educational reform, including, among other things, the establishment of an educational task force for the inner city, home management courses, youth encounter projects, special aid for third level students and a telephone in every school. The entire project is costed by the party at an unbelievably low £500,000. In addition, FG promised an unspecified number of computerised training centres costing £ I m each.

FF's educational proposals included a new community school (FG had already provided funds for a community college), money for Seville Place school, free books (FG promised this too), two ot three full time psychologists (FG promised one), family income support for second and third level students, a remedial teacher in each national school in the area (FG promised this too). Both promised extensive pre-school groups, and FG specifically committed £200,000 of money from the 1982 Bruton budget for 30 inner city playgroups.

Fianna Fail really outstripped Fine Gael on the general promises. They would nationalise Clondalkin Paper Mills (cost £Im), increase bank taxation, increase capital tax on unearned income, increase the bank levy (revenue £5m), put a I % levy on insurance companies (revenue £6m), establish a national council for children, establish a National Community Development Agency (cost £2m), close the Curragh military detention camp, take steps to bring down the lead content in petrol, establish a 40% tax of profits from land sales, stop the eastern bypass and speed up the implementation of rapid rail.

Both parties promised to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, abolish illegitimacy, and to better supervise the institutions caring for the old and disabled.

Fine Gael also proposed opening a special prison for offenders with drug problems, and suggested Loughan House as a venue. It also promised a Youth Development Centre for 31 juveniles, day care centres for abusers in Dublin, a drugs "task force", new legislation, and additional staff for Jervis Street hospital. Fianna Fail simply promised to take steps to control the abuse of drugs. FG also promised the implementation of the Trident Report on drugs which would result in significant savings for the health services.