Financial Resolutions, 1979. - Financial Resolution No. 8: General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Thursday, 15 Mar 1979

Financial Resolutions, 1979. - Financial Resolution No. 8: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(Minister for Economic Planning and Development.)

Mr. B. Desmond

We are as wise now as we were at 10.30 this morning about the Government's report on EMS.

We must endeavour to assess the 1979 Budget and judge it by the extent to which it helps to reduce unemployment, ensures a more equitable taxation system and increases the real value of social welfare payments. These three criteria of assessment will remain valid. As we near the end of the first quarter of 1979, it is evident that unemployment continues at an exceptionally high level. It is interesting to note that many thousands of people march and stop work in relation to the income tax system, but it is ironic that they do not march through the streets or stop work in protest at the fact that over 100,000 people are registered as wholly unemployed. They, perhaps, are the section in the community who are most discriminated against and penalised and who do not have the privilege of paying taxes. There is a need to put some of our grave economic and social problems into correct perspective.

We still have an unemployment rate of 11 or 12 per cent and we have become blase and fatalistic about it. Successive Green and White Papers from the Government have had very little short-term effect on unemployment. If it were not for the job creation work of the IDA and the creation of public service employment by the Government, we would be in a far worse position. It now appears that in 1979 and 1980 we shall have to rely exclusively on the job creation programme of the IDA, because undoubtedly there is now a very considerable slowing down in the rate of new public service employment because of budgetary considerations and lack of current finance.

The Labour Party suggested in pre-budget submissions that there is an urgent need for a further substantial increase in public capital expenditure on labour-intensive projects and I am pleased to note that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has announced a major programme in relation to our telecommunications system. It is not before its time. The last major programme was initiated by his predecessor, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, and that had some impact. It was at that time a very large programme. But as a result of chaotic industrial relations, within the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, particularly within the past two years, that programme barely got off the ground. One must welcome the decision of the Minister and the Government to support our telecommunications system by a fresh input of capital expenditure.

All Members of this House are acutely aware that several thousand jobs have been lost and are being lost because of the total inadequacy of our telephone and telex system, particularly in the west. In my own constituency 30 or 40 jobs have been lost during the past 12 months because firms decided they could not expand because additional lines were not available and could not be provided by the Department. The situation is critical. Industrial firms setting up in Ireland, especially those who wish to avail of grants from CTT, generally wish to engage in marketing work and to have accounting complexes attached to their Irish concerns. This is not possible without and adequate telephone and telex system, because these firms need to communicate instantly with their offices in Europe and America. It is all very well for the Government to say that by 1983 a substantial programme will be in existence. These installations are needed now and this area needs emergency treatment by the Government.

The effect of the poor communications system on employment is critical and it also creates a lack of belief that the public service is capable of doing anything. As a result, the public service gets a thoroughly bad name which is undeserved in some respects. This saps the national morale and causes disillusionment among civil servants, particularly those working in the telecommunications area. The national economic effort splutters on, instead of going ahead in a more dynamic way.

The solution to our communications problem is an internal, domestic solution. We cannot blame the British because it is now many years since we inherited a telecommunications system. We cannot blame anyone except ourselves. The solution to the problem of industrial relations, capital investment, the purchase of sites, building on these sites and the employment of an effective corps of engineers and technicians in the Department is within our own compass. There is nothing to prevent us developing a more energetic programme in this area. A public capital programme of this nature would inevitably generate employment in technology, engineering and among Irish construction firms. That aspect of public capital expenditure, which is labour-intensive, should be extended.

I would also urge that another aspect of our communications be dealt with urgently by the Government because it is vital to our economic well-being and to the creation of jobs, that is, expenditure on our road system and on a rapid rail system. I live in the suburbs and represent a constituency which has the highest number of cars per capita. The absence of an adequate and efficient transport system is choking Dublin. Many larger European capitals have coped with a higher number of cars and a greater density of population. In Brussels, Stockholm and other European capitals they have efficient urban transport systems. The traffic situation is as bad in Cork and Limerick as it is in Dublin. I am a member of Dublin County Council. Recently we met Mr. Higgins, General Manager of CIE. He expressed grave concern for the chaotic situation in Dublin and its inevitable effect on the country. He told us that the population rise in the Dublin area with the consequent increase in the number of cars had not been accompanied by an investment in infrastructure despite the fact that the need for investment in improved road and rail services was not unforeseen.

I urge the Government not to delay the electrification of the Howth-Dún Laoghaire line and to provide capital for CIE to purchase new rolling stock. If this is not done, by the middle of this year the suburban services in Dublin will break down. I am not being dramatic when I say that CIE make no bones about the fact that their rolling stock is creaking at the seams and ready to collapse.

We have asked the Government to do a number of other things. We suggested to the Government that there is a reasonable case to be made for the examination of the possible role of a State development corporation. Every opportunity must be availed of to establish new enterprises, for example, joint ventures between the public and private sectors, or between firms in the private sector, or between State enterprises, or between foreign, State and private undertakings. We must be flexible in this regard. I am extremely critical of the almost total disappearance of the Government's Industrial Development Consortium who met six times in 1978, a few times this year, and who seem to be making little contribution to job creation.

The Government should spend more money on a national programme of oil and gas exploration. I am not too sure that we have been pressing the EEC strongly for substantial aid to supplement our exploration programme. I am glad that amending legislation concerning the ownership of mineral rights has been passed through the House but there is a need for greater Government activity in relation to oil and gas exploration. We should insist on Community aid despite opposition from several other countries because the cost of energy is returning to the 1974 increase phase. It seems that the price of a gallon of petrol will soon be more than £1.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bruton wishes to intervene for a second.

Mr. Bruton

With the permission of the Chair, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the rates of annuity under the farm retirement scheme and the increase thereto.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will ask the Ceann Comhairle to communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. B. Desmond

I approve of the Government's decision to introduce a special 10 per cent corporation tax for manufacturing industry until the year 2000. I approve of the fact that that tax applies for the first time to profits on domestic sales because that decision enhances further the prospect of a more attractive return on investment in the manufacturing sector. The overall fiscal and tax climate is still favourable and there is a need for greater incentives to maximise industrial production, particularly in processing, in beef and dairy products, in timber, which is an oncoming product. There is great potential here, and I would mention zinc particularly. The markets for metals may not be favourable at the moment but we should make an intensive effort to reap the maximum benefits from our natural resources. We could increase employment in these areas in the near future.

I hold the view that, thought we must continue to encourage foreign investment here in the coming years, we should not rely excessively on incoming firms as practically the whole part of our industrial strategy. Such a strategy would be fraught with great danger. At the moment about 60 per cent of our new job creation efforts comes from foreign industrial firms. Of course we have the age-old problem of definition of a domestic firm. Apparently when a firm has been here for a number of years and becomes integrated it is classified as domestic. I welcome such firms provided that our industrial structure does not become unduly lopsided. We have opportunities to counterbalance these matters by maximising development of our natural resources and by expanding our specialised national undertakings, such as Waterford Glass.

I will now turn to some of the more pressing issues of the past few weeks and I will be very critical of the budget strategy in this respect. In their election manifesto and during the campaign, the Government party created expectations of an ever-higher standard of living, for ever-higher increases in incomes, and these expectations were compaigned for massively in the six months before the general election. I recall vividly the Minister for Economic Planning and Development assuring audiences in our shared constituency that there was not a problem, that all we needed was a bit of growth, a bit of buoyancy, and that if there were difficult income policy problems to be resolved, growth and buoyancy would take care of them. It was difficult not to be convinced by it—that Minister convinced half the shadow cabinet at the time.

We all had the gravest reservations that life could be so gloriously easy and, of course, what has happened is that the chickens are coming home to roost in a very savage, damaging and disturbing manner. Social expectations were created by Fianna Fáil, income and standard of living expectations were created, which no budget even in the richest oil-producing State could sustain. It has not been possible for the Government to sustain that kind of society and it will not be possible to do it. Indeed it may well be that in two or three years, such is the reaction of the electorate at the moment, that the National Coalition might find themselves back in office to try to cope with these problems. I would not wish it on any Government to have to cope with such a situation.

Mr. Leyden

I would not wish it on the country to have them back.

Mr. B. Desmond

At the rate Fianna Fáil are going all we have to do is to sit back to get them kicked out on their ears. In 1977 Fianna Fáil assiduously cultivated what can only be called a grabber society. If a man had a car, no problem, car tax was to be abolished. If he had a house, it did not matter a damn what the valuation was, whether he was a millionaire or a pauper, rates were to be abolished. Income tax allowances were to be doubled—"No problem, you just vote for us". If he found a Garda Commissioner he did not like, "No bother, we will get rid of him, too."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope this is very much in passing. The Deputy has been very good so far, but if he gets into that field——

Mr. B. Desmond

I recall some of the statements made, particularly to people on the Border when gardaí were getting browned off: "We will settle that, too". And they settled it. Consequently, we now have a situation when there is not a single sector in the nation which does not feel that it should not have all it can possibly grab and to hell with the national interest. That climate is there.

One can go right down through any section of the community and ask those in it: "What about the national interest?" Is there such a thing now as the national interest? They will say: "No. Why should we give a damn when they gave £3 million to a few speculators in the Irish Trust Bank, when they handed back £10 million to wealth tax payers, when every millionaire in the country with half a dozen domestic houses and a nice holiday house in Kerry had his rates wiped out overnight and when he could put the £800 or £900 which he should be paying in rates into his pocket and go off for a winter holiday in the Canaries?"

The current climate is like that. I said that throughout 1977, and I lost hundreds of votes in Dún Laoghaire when I had to say to bank clerks what Deputy Michael O'Leary had said "I am sorry, it may be very unpopular but we will not give any more". I had to say that and of course my poll dropped. Now every economic and social group in the community, whether in poverty or plenitude, says, "To hell with the national interest. We are getting as much out of this situation as we can possibly grasp", and we see the results every day of the week.

The poor in the Irish community are not getting very much. They have no power. They get their ritualistic 12 per cent of social welfare, but that is all. They can vote or they need not vote. Politicians do not pay much heed to them. The poor, of course, do not contribute the cheques of £5,000 or £10,000 into the national collections of the political parties. In the last election the Fianna Fáil Party got about £500,000 from certain business interests.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting away from the budget.

Mr. B. Desmond

This is very relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The money that political parties get and what they spend it on are matters which do not arise. I does not come out of taxation and it does not arise on the budget. Deputy Desmond on the budget, please, or I will have to let everybody else debate political parties. This I cannot do.

Mr. B. Desmond

It is amazing what a national collection increase can do when certain interests say "We will pay your party X amount of money, you look after us and change taxation and we will get it back". That is what happens. I want to stess this regressive policy. It is no pleasure whatsoever for me and no consolation or pride to the Labour Party that we should have a situation in this country where, for the first time in the history of the State, or of Dublin certainly, we are going to be faced with a national stoppage of work. This arises from and is related to the budget strategy pursued by the Government. The Government decided to bring in a 2 per cent farm commodity levy. It was brought in with a flourish and the urban community were assured that an essential for the national wellbeing was that there be a 2 per cent farm commodity levy. Then we had the cowardly retreat of the Minister for Finance at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fhéis and people became totally cynical about that retreat. Three days later we had the abject humiliation of the Government and we found that we had two Taoiseachs in this country, Deputy J. Lynch and the president of the IFA, Mr. Paddy Lane. That is the standing joke in the urban community. We are at the critical juncture where one would expect the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance of the day to say to the workers next week—"Stop".

Let me be absolutely clear that I do not approve of one-day, half-day, two-day, weekday or any other day political strikes. As a trade unionist, as a former official of my own trade union, the ITGWU, and a former officer of the ICTU I have never supported, and will never support as long as I am in public life, the idea, concept or practice of a political one-day strike as such. I believe in the ballot box. I believe that if a Government suffer from such a about of irrationality as the Government have suffered in relation to the 2 per cent, which has exacerbated the attitude of every PAYE worker in this country, which has caused a wave of revulsion in the community and has resulted in demonstrations culminating in a stoppage next week, there is a way of curing that irrationality.

These matters must be dealt with by the workers voting in or voting out politicians who have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to introduce taxation reforms of a more egalitarian, just and positive nature. Many tens of thousands of workers will lose wages on Tuesday next and the country will lose massive industrial production. The Government are bereft of the moral authority to say anything about it because the automatic reaction on the streets will be "Who the hell do you think you are? You caved in to the farmers. You introduced a 2 per cent tax levy and then you ran away from it within a week". We have a Government naked of any moral authority to influence the course of events. That is a bad situation and is not in the national interest. It is not in the interest of any section of this community, whether they be urban workers, rural workers, employers or farmers.

The power of democracy should reside, and should be seen at the Cabinet table to reside in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the democratic exercise of power must remain at that level and not on the street. I hold that view as one who has the deepest understanding of why people react in such a manner. Their reaction is understandable but is in the long-term not particularly productive. The only productive outlet for such anger, the ultimate weapon is, of course, the ballot box. That is where people have the real and final say. The question must inevitably arise after such protests, what happens then? Do we have another one-day strike next week? Do we have a week-long strike? Do we have a national stoppage ad infinitum? It is obvious that the only redress for workers is to support politically those individuals or parties whom they believe represent clearly their economic and social interests and not to support those economic and social interests. That is the answer, it has to be stated unequivocally in Dáil Éireann.

It might be as a last refuge of argument by the Government that these events are really inspired by trade union members of the Labour Party or something like that or by some odd collection of left-wing individuals or by people who have to get something off their chest. It runs much deeper than that. As a Member of the Labour Party I can state that most certainly we do not dominate and have never dominated the Dublin Council of Trade Unions. A very large number of members of that council ionists in Dublin city vote for the Fianna Fáil Party. We have no influence whatever over them in that regard, nor would we wish to have any influence. I separate the political from the industrial and there is a clear separation.

We are not an industrial political party involved in strikes. That distinction must be continously made because people tend to confuse the situation with that of the typical one-day political strikes on the Continent in France or Italy which have the support of the Communist Party. We have not a similar political structure here. We regard ourselves as a democratic political party. Many of us have association with the trade union movement. The Minister for Finance, when speaking on the food subsidies debate wanted to know where all those people were. He wanted to know who was causing all the trouble. He had returned from Washington and he found a few Reds under his carpet in Government Buildings. He will have to think deeper why there is a current malaise and why people have reacted so critically recently in regard to the decision of the Government on the 2 per cent levy.

There has been an inconsistency of policy within the Government, which has produced this reaction. I would like to refer to the decision in the budget to phase out food subsidies. It does not seem to be appreciated by the Government that when those food subsidies were introduced they were part of a national pay agreement bargain, a contract between the then Government, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the social partners. The Taoiseach, when speaking on the White Paper on 31 January last, said they were introduced originally when inflation was running at an annual rate of more than 20 per cent. That was not the full reason. Subsidies, admittedly, were related to the exceptionally high rate of inflation at that time, the highest annual rate the country has ever experienced, and there were very definite reasons why that came about. The subsidies were part of a bargain in which workers agreed to curtail their wage increases under the National Pay Agreement.

There is a feeling abroad, not only in relation to the 2 per cent levy but in relation to the food subsidies, that the Government have violated that partticular on-going agreement. I do not know how the Minister for Economic Planning and Development can justify that abolition because its effect has been very substantial. Deputy Clinton said to me the other day that it was not just food subsidies, that I should recall that immediately prior to that a £1 million subsidy on cheese was taken off. He said at the rate we were going we would become a high food price country. That will have a substantial effect on tourism apart from the effect it will have on the cost of living for the ordinary family.

I remind the press, in particular, that this afternoon we expect to have the consumer price index figures for mid-February. I have no doubt that those figures will show an inflation rate of 11½ per cent and they will show, in relation to food items, that we are talking about something in the region of 14 per cent or 15 per cent. We certainly want to bear in mind in that critical situation that there is cause for the current concern.

I believe the income tax concessions given in the budget have provoked some of the current reaction. The 2 per cent levy was bad enough but then when people found out exactly what they got out of the income tax concessions there was further reaction. If we take the average earnings of a married couple with three children and the wife is not working, at £4,500 a year the income tax concession and the increased social welfare allowances for the three children mean that that family are better off by £125 a year. A tax concession of £125 a year is regarded as marginal in terms of a real impact on the living standard of such a family.

Part of the substantial reaction of wage and salary earners and part of the PAYE protest is undoubtedly because the Government seriously miscalculated the amount of tax relief which should have been given in the budget if it was to have any real impact on opinion among wage and salary earners. There has been a lot of criticism about the rate of inflation during the term of office of the Coalition Government. There was a lot of criticism that we had a rate of inflation of 20 per cent. Despite that horrific rate of inflation in 1973, 1974, and 1975 we attempted—there was a lot of Labour Party pressure involved—to reform the taxation structure. In a very short time we reformed the system of taxation here. It is forgotten that during our period of office indirect taxes were greatly reduced particularly on items which have substantially influenced the standard of living of workers in the lower income group. It is forgotten that within six months of taking up office the National Coalition Government removed VAT from food. Fianna Fáil, within 18 months of coming back into office, removed food subsidies. Could there be a more glaring comparison of strategy? We pledged in the 1973 election campaign that we would remove VAT from food and we did so. These things tend to be forgotten because it is contended that because of some of the other mistakes we made we deserved to be removed from office. They were not economic mistakes. By and large they were mistakes of personality and strategy by individuals, whether it was the Donegan affair or anything else which I think was the principal reason we were finally kicked-out.

It tends to be forgotten that, during our term of office, VAT was removed from clothing, as it was from electricity and footwear. That was part of our policy. One can contrast that with the decision of the Government to immediately abolish food subsidies as soon as they came back. It is reminiscent of 1957. I would point out also that in the 1975 Dáil session the Coalition Government introduced three taxes to deal with wealth, capital gains and acquisitions.

The passage of those Bills did have an impact at that time on wage and salary earners, who were satisfied that a genuine effort was being made by the Government to come to grips with the anomalies and inequities in the taxation system. We assured wage and salary earners that we would broaden the taxation system and attempted to do so. The present Government have narrowed the taxation system and have wiped out 80 per cent of that capital revenue. As a result the average worker around the city says: "Well, if that is what you did with the wealth tax, with capital gains, with the capital acquisitions tax; if that is what you are doing with food subsidies, with the 2 per cent, can you blame us feeling so strongly about the situation?" That is why there is the current, critical reaction on the part of wage and salary earners, whereas we broadened the tax base and insisted that those with wealth in our community would make a contribution.

I had a most interesting reply to a question I posed in the past week to the Minister for Finance. In that reply the Minister gave the number of returns of individuals who were assessed to wealth tax. It is enlightening to recall that in 1975 there were 1,170 people in the country who made returns of up to £250,000; there were 257 persons who made returns of up to £500,000 and 60 persons who made returns of over £500,000. That was the range of taxable wealth under the wealth tax system. It is no wonder they screamed blue murder when they had to pay £1,000 out of £500,000 in tax—a miserable £1,000 tax levy, which is about, on average, all they had to hand over.

There is one other aspect I wanted to raise that is relevant to Government policy on housing. I am extremely concerned about the present housing situation not only in the private sector but in the public sector as well. For many years this country had the unique and proud tradition of it being possible for most young married couples to aspire to buying and owning a home of their own. I regret to say that increasingly this is no longer the case. There has been a major increase in mortgage interest rates, a rapid escalation in the cost of houses, with the result that the possibility of a young couple acquiring a home of their own is going out of reach, particularly when one talks about houses costing nowadays anything from £30,000 to £35,000, particularly in the south Dublin area where I live. The Fianna Fáil stated intention to assist first-time house buyers has proved to be the most spluttering rocket ever launched in this country. The £1,000 house grant has gone—and we must repeat this in this House—straight into the pockets of builders who have become very clever on how to use and abuse the system of certificates of reasonable value. There is additionally the rocketing increases in the price of building land. Is it right that a field used for centuries to graze cattle—and which has no more an economic value as agricultural land—should suddenly increase twenty-fold in value simply because a county council—and I am a county councillor—grant planning permission or change the zoning and classify it as building land. Why should a bonanza of that nature, why should the owner of such land—with taxpayers' money going into it, servicing it—reap a massive capital gain at taxpayers' expense? I believe that the persons who profit from the sale of such lands should recompense the community so that aspiring house-owners can buy houses within their price range. Therefore I strongly urge the Government to introduce legislation along the lines recommended by the Kenny Report.

I would ask also for substantial amendments to the law relating to compulsory purchase and arbitration. It is outrageous that young married couples should have to get a mortgage of some £25,000 or £28,000, additionally have to scrounge a few thousand pounds from their parents, then get a bridging loan of another £5,000 or £6,000, spending their early married years rearing a family with a massive mortgage around their necks, living on a very reduced income for which there is no good social or economic reason. I am very critical of the failure of the Government to come to grips with the explosion in house costs and the massive increases confronting young couples in relation to the purchase of new homes. It is rather like the unemployed—those who have houses are not too worried about those who have not; those who have jobs are not too worried about those who have not. But it is an area of self-interest in relation to building land which we should close in the national interest. We should do so even if it means amending the Constitution.

These are my views on the current aspects of this budget. I regret that my comments have had to be so critical but we live in disturbing times and I regret that a Government that came to power with so much alleged talent, with the largest majority in the history of the State, should find themselves in such an abject and unpopular minority position in relation to public opinion here. I regret that that should be so but then the country, in the local elections, the European elections and the general election will have ample opportunity of putting that situation right.

Mr. Leyden

The 1979 budget which we are discussing at the moment will certainly go down in the history of the State as an historical budget. It is a further development of the election manifesto which we placed so successfully before the Irish people in June 1977.

This morning the Taoiseach came into the House and made a very good statement in relation to his meeting with the other EEC leaders on Monday of this week. I would like to congratulate the Taoiseach on his negotiations and on his efforts in bringing home £45 million this year. This will give further assistance to the development of this nation. This injection of funds was not taken into consideration at all in the budget but I am sure that in the coming year we will hear more about it in relation to the development of infrastructures and the provision of more jobs.

I would also like to comment on the Taoiseach's defence of the common agricultural policy. It is consistent with our approach facing the electorate in June in relation to the European Parliamentary elections. The Labour Party's line should be seen in the light of the objections by the British Prime.

Minister, Mr. Callaghan, to the continuation of the CAP and to improvements and increases in farm produce. I would like to say to the Leader of the Labour Party that if these are his policies as well facing the electorate in June and if they are, I can assure him that he will get very few votes for his candidates, especially in the rural constituencies because his party are totally opposed to the development of this nation. We have benefited more than any other nation in the EEC in relation to the CAP. Therefore it is vital that this policy should be continued and this Government are consistent in their approach. I know that the Taoiseach actively sought the continuation of the policy and the expansion of the grants and aids to agriculture here at the meeting on Monday. I must say that the efforts of the British Prime Minister to remove the CAP will be frowned on and indeed, as I said, the Leader of the Labour opposition in our Parliament should dissociate himself from the statements made by Mr. Callaghan at this meeting in Paris.

I would like to refer again to the budget which was put before the people here in February. This budget has been the subject of much debate and discussion since its presentation in this House. The debate was mainly in relation to the proposed 2 per cent agricultural levy and ignored the 73 pages of the Tánaiste's financial statement which provides the total package, the second stage of the Government's strategy for economic and social development recently published in the White Paper, Programme for National Development 1980-1981. Indeed this debate is presently raging about farming taxation and the contribution made by the PAYE sector. It started as a result of the budget statement of 7 February.

Many people view with admiration the brave and courageous efforts of the present Government to investigate and initiate methods of raising taxation, of sharing the burden among all working people in our community. The conservative opposition here are unable to grasp the effort this Government are making to initiate this great debate. It is only right and proper that this debate should be commenced because it will allow a situation to develop where eventually we will have a fair and equitable taxation system. This is what every section of the community is seeking.

It is regrettable that this proposed one-day stoppage should have been suggested at all. It will serve no useful purpose and it is regrettable that so many people throughout this State will suffer as a result. I hope it will be prevented even at this stage, that the trade union organisations will ask their members to call it off. The Government, in initiating this debate, are prepared to suffer a degree of unpopularity in order to arrive at a fair solution. I feel the public should realise the work which the Government are doing at this time. Unless a fair system is agreed the nation as a whole will lose out and the weaker sections of our community will suffer most.

Fianna Fáil, at all stages in our history made strong and unpopular decisions for the common good. Let this present situation be viewed in this light. This Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and take decisions in the national interest. That was always the case. It is consistent with the traditions of this party that at all stages in the history of this State when in government we were prepared to bring in legislation and to initiate debates, and in many cases these have resulted in major benefits to the nation as a whole and in some cases in a loss of support by this party. But with Fianna Fáil the nation has always come first and the party has come second. We are a national party, represented throughout the whole country. We have the largest majority in the history of the State but we are not a dictatorial party using hammer tactics to push through legislation in this House. It is a question of consideration, discussion and debate with all sections of the community, with all interests, whether farming interests or trade union interests. The fact that we have a majority in this House does not mean that we will use this majority to force our will against the interests of the nation or the public as a whole. I think if the present opposition parties had the type of support that we have at this time they would certainly be a dictatorial government, as indeed they were during their period of office. Fortunately they have not got the type of support that we have.

Coming up to the last general election it was obvious that the former Government were losing control and were adopting a dictatorial approach to all aspects of policy. This is something Fianna Fáil will not do because it is not in the best interests of the nation as a whole. We will not use the jackboot type of policy of the previous Government. Where adjustments can be made in any aspects of taxation, those adjustments should be made in discussion and consultation with all the interested parties. This is the right approach in a parliamentary democracy.

The Government are governing with the support of this House and with proper respect and regard for all sections of the community. The Government must always be prepared to listen to the wishes of the people. In the national interest they must be prepared to change or revise decisions after proper consultations and at the end of the day make decisons that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Since we took office in 1977 our fight against inflation has been successful. There was an inflation rate of 21 per cent in 1975 but this dropped to 7.6 per cent in 1978. We hope to continue on this path and to reduce the inflation rate to somewhere in the region of 5 per cent in 1979. This must be seen as an effort by the Government to tackle the great scourge of the country in the period 1973-77, namely, the scourge of inflation. During that time the earnings of people were useless.

The PAYE people were far worse off in 1973-77. We are giving those people a better deal. When the National Coalition Government were in office there were members of the ITGWU on the Labour Party benches and it is strange that there were no one-day strikes or marches in relation to PAYE. Maybe it is a coincidence, maybe it is not, but the matter must be considered in the light of developments and improvements in the PAYE sector since 1977. There is no doubt that PAYE people are paying a massive share of expenditure. All Members of this House are PAYE people and I personally am prepared to give my contribution to help those who are less well off.

It is obvious that the revenue collected by way of taxation is going to the less well off members of the community. The massive social welfare increases in the budget are welcomed. Before the budget I urged strongly that a massive increase be given to social welfare recipients and I was pleased to see that they were included in the budget. Social welfare recipients should be given priority treatment. They should be given the necessary support and aid to ensure that they have enough food, heating and electricity and that they have decent housing. Adjustments must be made in each budget in line with those made in this budget.

Old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives and other categories have been given an increase of 16 per cent and there have been short-term social welfare increases of 12 per cent. If we can bring down the rate of inflation to 5 per cent these increases will mean even more to social welfare recipients. We have given those people two to three times more than was given in the period 1973-77. The previous Government always boasted that they were the only Government who gave decent increases to social welfare recipients but they had to introduce mini-budgets every autumn in order to make up to the less well off section for the ravages of inflation which eroded the benefits of the increases given. We are giving real increases to the less well off section. These people rely totally on the Government. They have not a strong lobby and they have no union to back them. Their only voice is the elected Members of this House. I shall always support the lesser well off members of our society, particularly social welfare recipients.

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have given the benefits of taxation to the lesser well off people. Fianna Fáil will always continue this policy. It is our policy to support the old, the disabled, the widows and social welfare recipients. We have always been prepared to raise taxation, even unpopular taxation, to support those people who have not a strong voice. Unfortunately they cannot have one-day strikes. I think they will be genuinely satisfied with the increases the Government have announced.

There have been increases of roughly £2.55 and £2.20 per week for contributory and non-contributory old age pensioners. Recently I made an appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to ensure that patients and residents of welfare homes and psychiatric hospitals, including the Sacred Heart Home in Roscommon, the home in Carrick-on-Shannon, the welfare homes at Mohill and Boyle and the psychiatric hospital in Castlerea should get the increase announced in the budget for old age penisioners. I asked that the health boards should not pocket the increase of £2.20 per week granted to old age pensioners. At the moment these people get a pocket money allowance of £3 per week. An increase of 50p was granted last year and I initiated that increase by approaching the Minister for Social Welfare. He was willing to instruct the health boards to increase the allowance to £3.

That £3 allowance is totally inadequate and I appeal to the Minister to instruct the health boards to give the full increase of £2.20 per week to the old age pensioners in their institutions and homes because the increases in tax on drink and tobacco have affected those people more in relation to their allowance than any other section. Their one pleasure—perhaps a pint or two and a cigarette or a pipe—should be allowed for. The health boards that are adequately financed at present and have been adequately financed should not be allowed to take this increase. The Minister should ensure that when these increases become payable they go direct to those for whom they are meant and not the health boards. I was speaking to the Minister recently and I am confident that he will instruct the health boards to give the recipients these increases, so that they may have proper pocket money which will ensure them some enjoyment for the remainder of their lives. They are entitled to these increases. They have no union or organisation to represent them. Whenever I have spoken on the budget I have always spoken about social welfare recipients. I know that in this case my voice and their voice will be heard here in regard to these improvements.

Many social welfare improvements in the budget have been in a sense ignored. These should be noted by the public generally. I mention specifically improvements as regards means tests for old age and widows' pensions. These have been long out of date and I am delighted that the Minister for Finance has ensured in this budget that special consideration will be given when calculating the means of applicants for old age and widows' pensions. In the summary of the budget the section concerned allows for an increase from £25 in the case of claimants for old age non-contributory pensions and from £100 in the case of widows non-contributory pensions to £200 in the amount of capital that will not be assessed as means for such claims. The previous allowances were long out of date and deprived many applicants of the maximum pension. This anomaly is being removed, but again this has been ignored by the media generally in their concentration on one aspect only of the 1979 Budget.

There are many other improvements in regard to the assessment of means in the budget and also improvements in regard to the extension of free or subsidised telephone facilities to allow for a case where there are two people in the house and the second person is handicapped in some way. This was badly needed. Also, in the case of the blind and the mentally handicapped there is an extension of free travel facilities. Free travel is already available to blind persons over 21 and to mentally handicapped persons, but it is proposed to extend free travel to blind persons between 18 and 21 to enable them to travel free to special work or training. It is also proposed to exempt all mentally handicapped persons who are entitled to free travel from the restrictions applying to free travel at peak hours. These concessions should be widely welcomed by those they benefit. At present the free telephone facility applies only to pensioners living alone and it is proposed to extend this to include pensioners where the only other person residing in the house is permanently incapacitated. I welcome all these improvements which have not been given sufficient publicity in the media.

A further item is the improvement of the exgratia public service widows' pension. This scheme, which comes into operation this month, will give greater help to widows and orphans of members of the public service who have died. This is also welcome. There are also improvements for veterans of the War of Independence with effect from 1 July 1979. The means test ceiling for special allowances will be increased by £100. That will give an increase of that amount to all eligible holders over and above the increase they will receive as a result of their annual revision of public service pensions. War of Independence veterans will also have the telephone rental subsidy scheme for veterans living alone extended to apply to a veteran living with his wife or with an invalid or an old aged, blind or widowed pensioner, or with a person residing with him for the purpose of providing constant care and attention.

Recognition of the position of War of Independence veterans is always welcome because without their sacrifices this Parliament would not exist. It is only right that the Government should always recognise, as they have done since returning to office, the special position of these veterans and give them all necessary aid and assistance.

The new system of social insurance comes into force on 6 April. It will result in a real saving to widows and deserted wives of approximately £2 per week. People in receipt of low incomes will also make a saving due to the fact that social insurance contributions are related to earnings. This is a budgetary provision of 1978 which is coming into force this year. It will mean an improvement for the lower income group and it will simplify the whole system of collection of social welfare contributions. The stamp is being abolished and there is a direct percentage payment to the Exchequer which has been reduced for the lower income group.

Another aspect of the budget is the general improvement in regard to the financing of the building sector. In a speech here on 1 March the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment gave details of expenditure in his Department in regard to house building, house development, reconstruction grants and all aspects of his Department. Local authorities will benefit to a great extent by the budgetary provisions. This year the local authorities will spend £610 million of which they will raise £170 million. The role of the local authorities is vital and they are being enabled to fulfil this role by the funding they are receiving from the central authority. Because local authorities have responsibility for such essential services as roads, water, sewerage and so on we must ensure that they continue to have the necessary support, especially now that domestic rates have been removed. I am happy with the amount voted this year for the counties I represent. During the time of the previous administration we were not given any worthwhile finance for infrastructural work, but Fianna Fáil have changed that situation. In Roscommon a sum of about £3 million has been received in respect of water and sewerage schemes. This money has resulted in greater employment in the area as well as in an improvement in these services. In addition, the improved infrastructural facilities will result in more factories and more houses being built.

The grants in respect of group water schemes are very welcome. These apply to areas in which the local authorities are unable through their own efforts to provide regional water schemes. But there is one point I should like to make in this regard, and that is that the Minister might investigate the question of introducing legislation to control the organisation of these group schemes. In the present situation exorbitant sums are charged sometimes to new applicants. In many cases where the local authority provide the water and the group involved in the scheme provide the pipes and so on, those involved initially in the scheme charge newcomers a very high price for the service. Apparently the Department have no control in this regard and that is why I suggest that legislation be introduced setting out a maximum charge for new connections. Some regulations are needed to control the development of these schemes. They are very worthwhile schemes and much credit is due to the people who are involved in them, but there is some room for improvement on the lines I have suggested.

Regarding the question of house building, a very welcome aspect in this sector has been that since being returned to office Fianna Fáil have increased the local authority loan from a level of £4,500 to a maximum of £9,000. We have increased also the income level in respect of eligibility for these loans. During his contribution on the budget the former Minister, Deputy Tully, reminded us of the good work he did during his term in office, but I would remind him that during the years of Coalition rule the house-building industry reached the worst stage ever in the history of the State. Some of the reason for this situation was the difficulty in obtaining loans and also the removal to a large extent on 1 January 1976 of the grants. The £1,000 grant for new house purchasers has been a tremendous help. Last year about 12,000 applications for this grant were approved and the number paid was 7,140. The shortfall was not due to any delay on the part of the Department, but it appears that the houses were not completed at the rate expected. Such delays are normal in building, but the money is available for those who qualify for the grants.

On the question of local authority loans I would appeal to the Minister for Finance to bring to bear whatever pressure is possible on the banking institutions in relation to bridging finance. I appeal to these institutions to set the minimum interest rate in respect of bridging loans for people who have obtained sanction for the £9,000 local authority loan but who are experiencing delays in receiving the loan, because of delays in relation to title of property, for instance. The banks are exploiting these sorts of situations. Some of the massive profits they are making might well be given to subsidise the bridging finance required by people either building or buying a house for the first time. Even to confine this facility to people who qualify for the £1,000 grant would be a great help. Perhaps the banking institutions could fix the interest on bridging loans at a maximum of 1 per cent more than their deposit rates. It is grossly unfair and unjust to charge interest rates of 15 or 16 per cent on bridging finance in respect of a house, especially as this is finance that is guaranteed by the local authorities and which is paid directly to the banks. If necessary, perhaps the Minister would introduce legislation to ensure that at least some of the funds of these private banking institutions are made available to people who are first time buyers of houses.

Because of delays in regard to titles, delays in the Land Registry, delays on the part of solicitors and so on, people often have to pay interest on bridging loans for as long as two or three years. This situation is totally unacceptable. Perhaps one way of coping with the difficulty would be for the Department to set up building societies within the local authorities on the lines of a national building society which would attract finance from the public generally, pay the current rate of interest and then give special loans at a minimum rate to loan applicants. The present building society charges are exorbitant. The difference between the investment rate and the loan rate is excessive and their profits are also excessive. This situation should be investigated.

One way to deal with that problem would be for the State to set up in direct opposition to private enterprise. That could be organised efficiently and effectively through the local authorities. This would give them a new role to raise money directly from the public, as is the case in Britain and elsewhere. The local authorities have the necessary personnel to administer such a project. They would administer it at a minimum charge and the money would be available to people who are not eligible to apply for the present £9,000 local authority loan. Although the building societies are serving a need the State should and could get directly involved in the direct financing of housing. I do not advocate any nationalisation or takeover of building societies; I am advocating a national building society operated through local authorities.

Some years ago I researched this aspect of financing for local authorities. In my view the present system of local authority loans is very satisfactory. The difference between the rates paid by the local authorities for the money they get and the rate they charge is roughly about half of 1 per cent. This is the maximum which should be charged by any institution. Building societies are making massive profits and should be brought to heel, their profits should be reduced and they should give loans at better rates. If they do not do this the State should play a direct role in raising finance through local authorities. The public in each county would have tremendous confidence in placing their money with the local authorities because they would know that the money they invested directly in their own areas would be used to finance housing there. In other words, they would benefit their own area if they invested in their local authorities with the guarantee that the money would be spent locally. There is a great deal of money which could be invested in this way.

The money which will come back to the Exchequer as a result of our membership of the EMS could be channelled into this very productive development. Priority must be given to assist young married couples who are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the most important necessity of life—the provision of a home. It is Fianna Fáil policy to encourage young people to provide their own homes. Since 1977 the amount of the house loan has been increased by 100 per cent. This area still requires special attention and a fresh look should be taken at it.

This Government are prepared to bring in any legislation required in this area. I have complete confidence in their ability to take the necessary steps to ensure that anomalies will be dealt with as quickly as possible. Reconstruction grants are very welcome. The amount of finance being made available to assist the disabled to extend their homes and provide the necessary sanitary facilities has been increased. At present a disabled person can receive a maximum grant of £2,400—an increase on the maximum granted during the previous administration of £800. They can also receive, for additional reconstruction work, a grant from the Department of the Environment.

I am delighted to see that the Minister of State at that Department is present. Earlier I complimented him on his excellent speech on 1 March. I would like to compliment the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State for their excellent work in that Department. At column 18, volume 312 of the Official Report of 22 February 1979 Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government in the previous administration, was proudly boasting about his efforts in that Department. He said:

When I was sitting on the Government front bench representing a Department I took my own responsibility. While I had to report to the Government and get a Government decision on various matters, if I thought it right I made my case. If I got the right to do something I did so without going around and asking people if it was right or wrong.

From my experience of his Department he made many wrong decisions but I am delighted he is prepared to take responsibility for his mismanagement of that Department. No Department was such a disaster as that Department under Deputy Tully. He has taken responsibility for removing the grants on 1 January 1976, thereby depriving many people of the grants to which they felt they were entitled and for which they are still fighting. I am sure he was not very proud of that decision. It took this Government to bring back credibility to the Department and to ensure that there was sufficient finance available for new houses, reconstruction grants and the disabled persons' grants which are being administered by the local authorities and financed by the Government. Under the instruction of the Government local authorities are being liberal in granting disabled persons' grants. Under the previous administration one had to be almost dying to get those grants but under this Government it is relatively easy to get them and they are being granted to the people who are entitled to them.

The Minister should consider the possibility of allowing the local authorities to carry out this work directly where disabled persons are unable to arrange for the work to be done. As public representatives we can help in obtaining the grants, but we are not able to organise builders to carry out the work. That would require not only negotiation but supervision of the work. Possibly the youth employment scheme could be extended to enable local authorities to undertake this task and the grants could then be paid directly to them. I suggest that the Minister should have discussions with the managers of local authorities to see if that policy could be implemented. At present many people who are eligible for these grants are unable to benefit because they cannot organise the work. Perhaps some scheme could be devised, even on a pilot basis. Local authorities would be enabled to give more employment to skilled personnel on a permanent basis.

The role of the Department of the Environment is vital in the development of rural areas. Finance is necessary for sewerage and water works, drainage works, local improvement schemes and group water schemes. The Department are getting the necessary recognition in regard to finance and some of the money which the Taoiseach has succeeded in obtaining from the EMS could be used to improve road structures. The road from Dublin to the west is not in a satisfactory condition and it must be brought up to a proper standard. A huge volume of traffic has been generated as a result of improvements in the economy since 1977, as can be seen by the large numbers of juggernauts on the roads. Improved road structures are necessary to ensure that the products of rural Ireland are brought to the ports for export as quickly and safely as possible. Whatever finance is necessary should be directed towards this.

Deputy Barry Desmond spoke about the development of CIE services. He did not comment on services to western areas, but I would appeal to the Department of Tourism and Transport to investigate the urgent need for the improvement of the rolling stock serving the west. There is need for the development and improvement of public transport. It seems that in the years ahead there will be certain restrictions on the use of oil and energy in general and we will be relying more and more on public transport services.

Deputy Desmond neglected to mention the sale by CIE of some of their hotels. The Coalition Government, which included so-called socialists, allowed a semi-State body to sell these hotels. If they were really socialists they would have been advocating the development of all semi-State bodies and all aspects of their business and would not have allowed CIE to sell these fine hotels to private enterprise. I have always said that I am a member of the only socialist party in this country because they are the only party who are concerned with the weaker sections of the community—they are concerned with all sections.

I welcome all the improvements announced in the budget. I regret that much attention has been paid to one aspect of the budget and many of the improvements have been ignored. They will be recognised as the year proceeds.

Mr. Keating

The budget has traditionally been seen as a financial statement but it is, I believe, a great deal more than that. Traditionally budgeting procedures have rarely or never fully comprehended the basic concept of the budget. It is not so much a statement of financial accounting as a statement of political philosophy. A budget should reveal the basic thinking, the basic philosophical and ideological outline of a party's commitment to the kind of future and the kind of country they wish to create and bring about. Unfortunately, traditional budgeting procedures have never been founded on this basis and regrettably we have no fundamentalist thinking or rethinking when it comes to budget strategy. The funding of Government Departments is generally increased to take account of inflation, perhaps a little growth or development or electoral promises, and the budget is then presented as a total package. I believe many opportunities are being missed to set national targets and goals which the Government, Parliament and the country could strive towards achieving.

Therefore, budgetary procedure is becoming less relevant and less meaningful to the pattern of social development. At this stage the concept of zero budgeting would be almost incomprehensible. That is an attitude which would analyse from the first penny of expenditure upwards in any heading of the budget whether or not the money was being spent properly in that area or whether a more fundamental approach should be taken by, for example, deciding that as a national target housing lists would be abolished within five years or that full employment would be created within X number of years. The implications of accepting such targets would include that, whereas more money would have to be spent and more resources committed to these national goals, other areas would have to take a lower order in the priority list than heretofore. Unfortunately, our politicians do not seem to have the courage to set these national goals and to be able to explain to people, by utilising the leadership which is surely latent in all parties, the reason for this approach. Instead, we meander along from year to year, adding a little bit here, subtracting a little bit there, and changing very little.

Because the budget is little more than an accounting exercise there are invariably glaring omissions from budget strategy. In some cases these omissions are not new; they are repeated every year. However, there are times when the social, international or economic context of one of these omissions tends to make it more glaring than usual. I intend to deal with one such omission.

The budget is, regrettably, anti-child. I am mindful of the fact, as I am sure we all are, that this is the International Year of the Child. It would have been a marvellous opportunity for a Government inspired by vision, courage and leadership to say "Let us do something special this year. Let us decide to end the anomalous inequitous situation in which many children find themselves. Let us make this truly the Year of the Child by ensuring that all our children are equally cherished, have warm houses, adequate pre-schooling facilities, adequate nutrition; that they have the full commitment of affection, love and interest which children badly need and of which they are so often deprived.". That kind of basic headline could have been set in the budget this year.

The Minister for Health and Social Welfare spoke at a press conference in December last on the International Year of the Child and said:

At present, nearly one-third of our population is made up of children. This is the best part of a million people. This proportion is high when compared to other European countries. On the same scale, Ireland has a high birth rate compared to its neighbours. This means that we have a very large segment of our population which is totally dependent on the remainder for its well-being. The important question for the future is how do we cope with this challenge?

I agree with the Minister that our most fundamental long-term challenge is how to cope with the growing number of young people and their social needs. Unfortunately, the budget flies in the face of the Minister's challenge. All it does is undermine any confidence we have that a serious attempt is being made to meet the expressed and implicit requirements in relation to the treatment of children, either at international level in the context of the UN Declaration on children's rights or domestically in the context of our Constitution. In a number of specific respects the budget penalises the existence of children; it makes having children less rewarding; it makes it less financially feasible for a family to supplement and complement the subsistence of children.

The UN Declaration specifies that children are entitled to affection, love and understanding, to adequate nutrition and medical care, to free education, to full opportunity for play and recreation, to a name and nationality, to special care, if handicapped, to be among the first to receive relief in times of disaster, to learn to be useful members of society and to develop individual abilities, to be brought up in a spirit of peace and universal brotherhood, to enjoy these rights regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, national or social origin.

It is not necessary for me to spell out how our basic social and economic policies are the antithesis of much that is in that declaration. Specifically, the budget is anti-child, and therefore anti-family, in that it reduced the level of child tax allowances which offset the benefits of the increase in children's allowances for the average taxpayer. Last year, when the Government were giving substantial sums of money to many people who could not be said to be in the same kind of need as some of our children, they ignored the family man by leaving children's allowances and child tax allowances unchanged.

More extraordinary was the decision to penalise the family man with more than two children. If he is an average taxpayer—with the paltry increase in personal allowances, he is certain to be-the increased allowances are worth a net halfpenny a week. Apart from this decision being an uncalculated insult to many people, it reveals once again in all its ugliness, in all its narrow obsession with the rights of people of wealth and property, the basic deficiency in the social thinking of the Government, especially in relation to their barely-concealed disregard for people who are less able to speak for themselves. Surely our children are in that category.

Government expenditure and the allocation of Government expenditure in the social welfare area. In my view, there are a number of omissions here which I am trying to develop, and which I believe is right and proper to do. I ask the Chair to listen for a few moments and, if he still disagrees, I shall not continue speaking because there will not be any point to it. I am not interested in restirring the cold soup of four weeks ago and I do not want to repeat what other Deputies have been saying. I have a commitment to a certain viewpoint in the context of the budget and I would like to get an opportunity of getting it across. If that is not relevant, I will let in the next speaker. I do not wish to be out of order and I will try to bear very strongly in mind the need to relate my remarks to the budget. I can only meet the Chair half way on that.

We have seen from a number of articles and extracts from articles the need for a specific social response in the budget. A few weeks ago we had the publication of a report on North-Central Dublin which referred to unemployment, education and deprivation and showed clearly that young people once again were getting a very bad deal and were being exploited. It was said in that report, based on a survey which was undertaken, that 96.4 per cent of those surveyed, either in jobs or out of jobs in a very big part of our city, were taking home less than £30 per week. That kind of economic exploitation is a direct descendant of the exploitation of young children. I believe that, until we restructure our budgets to take into account specific local regional needs, we will continue getting that kind of report and the blinkered thinking evident in this budget.

I am not going to quote from the many reports which support my view on this, but they refer to a number of newspaper articles. One of them in The Irish Times of 21 March 1977 is headed “One in 700 Child Patients the Result of Abuse”. Why that should be and why a Government in their budget—or in their social welfare thinking which goes only so far as budgetary constraints permit—should allow it is beyond me. The whole purpose of Government is to tackle these social challenges. I have had recently extremely sad and depressing reports relating to the possibility that some children, in Dublin at least, have been deliberately maimed in order to evoke sympathy when they are used for begging purposes. That is shocking. There was the case of a child obviously badly scalded by boiling water who had been left on O'Connell Bridge and then removed, apparently by the parents, prior to being reached by any social care.

The extraordinary exploitation of children needs to be tackled, and one way of tackling it is to provide in the budget substantial funds which meet the spirit and the letter of ensuring that we care about children in this country. That spirit and that letter are not there. We find bountiful largesse in some regards but we find also the special rights of children flouted in the cruelty of allowing young children in an injured condition to be on the streets for the purpose of begging in order to supplement the incomes of those who live off them. This is an intolerable situation for any Government. It is sad that we do not get a specific social commitment in the budget to ensure that that stops, but we do not.

One could develop this at some length but, in view of the strictures of the Ceann Comhairle, I will not go on as long as I had intended in this regard. However, it is sad that reports have been made to very high authorities that day and night very small children are left to lie in filth and cold on O'Connell Bridge in Dublin and other places, often in their own excrement, for purposes of begging. I do not know, neither do I care very much, to which debate this is appropriate, but every power necessary should be taken, every appropriate Act should be invoked and every financial measure waiting to be introduced should be introduced to ensure that this deliberate exploitation of children ceases. That or analagous social thinking is what should form the mainstream of thought in a budget statement, but that is not what we have. Had there been one of the goals that I mentioned at the outset I would have understood, but there has been nothing like that. It is difficult to articulate this, but we find that in some cases not much is needed to be done, that the problems are not so very insuperable and do not need enormous sums of money in the budget. Proper analysis of the problem reveals that what they do need is the application of resources to specific groups of people. They need the invoking by the courts of certain legislation such as the Children Act, 1908, which could be used more extensively than it is in order to ensure that this exploitation of children stops. These cases of extraordinary, mindless, vindictive cruelty to children must cease. The Government have an opportunity to bring them to an end, but only if budgetary policy so allows.

Some months ago a family of small children were found abandoned, their mother being in prison and their father, an alcoholic, absent from the area. They had been left alone without food, heat or adult care for about a week before being discovered accidentally by a passerby. Their ages ranged from six months to 11 years. Children, babies even, can be left alone for as long as a week while their parents are committed to prison or perhaps to hospital. Maintenance care orders should be made mandatory in these cases by the courts. Governments in their economic strategy should underline that this is a problem which we must ensure does not continue. The various agencies already active in this field are coping with different aspects, but unfortunately there is often a weak spot in the mesh through which some cases slip. Now that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government in a more formal way than heretofore, I hope that action will follow. I will be happy to supply the Minister with more ample evidence and supportive documentation, some of it of a confidential nature and outside the context of this discussion. I believe that it is timely to raise this in the context of the budget, where the tone, in so far as it relates to children at all, is anti-child. This is tragic in the context of this International Year of the Child.

There are many children's organisations which are doing very fine work and many—indeed most of them—operate on a voluntary basis without support, interest or help. There are Dr. Barnardo's homes, CARE who have some very fine publications, Children First, HOPE, Irish Save the Child, ISPCA, The Marrowbone Lane Fund, Women's Aid and other organisations. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to consider the possibility in the next budget of funding these organisations and, in so far as it is necessary, the structures needed to ensure that once and for all exploitation of children comes to an end. I am talking about food, shelter and heat. I am talking about cruelty, about cigarette burns on children's arms. Social deprivation in terms of housing and nutrition are not as easily solved, but the basic things should be solved in a country that considers itself Christian if we have any conscience at all.

I am far from impressed when I hear people talking complacently about magnificent increases in social welfare or the magnificence of this, that or the other, when in parts of Dublin, and no doubt parts of other major cities, a great deal needs to be done. I say to the Government, "Listen. For a change seek out those who do not have a voice and who are not lobbied groups. Seek the people who are not going to make substantial contributions to you. Seek out the people who have no voice at all and try to do something for them, because they have a birthright, too, and they have the same rights as any other group." Indeed, the rights which they seek, or would seek if they had the maturity and strength to seek them, are rights which we agree in our Constitution and our laws and in the vows we make in our churches on Sundays are rights which should not have to be sought. We should seek these people out instead of inviting in the groups who come pounding on the door seeking their own salvation and benefits for their own members.

Very good work has been done in other countries, for example, in Great Britain in this area. These findings have been, and are being, reflected in budgets abroad. The report from a select committee on violence in the family, presented to the House of Commons in 1977, is full of sensible recommendations, some of which have been supported by substantial budgetary measures designed to isolate and deal with, and eventually eliminate, particular social problems. Some elements are more complex than others. I do not expect everything to be cured overnight. However, it is very sad to read reports, such as the O'Kennedy Report, which were produced through the years in relation to children and to find that, if the date was changed, many of the requests and appeals in those reports would be as relevant now as they were then. It is particularly sad when one considers the misery and turmoil that was endured.

There are many suggestions one could make. First, there is the basic budgetary one. There should be a specific budget as part of the national budget which would spell out a campaign to eradicate once and for all the discrimination against and deprivation and exploitation of children. Itinerant children particularly are at risk. Whether they are on the streets all night or living without parents in tents or huts without food or heat, they should be taken into care. A Minister with proper budgetary flexibility could ensure that the fostering services of the health boards would be developed to include itinerant children. Proper budgetary allowances to either the Department of Health and Social Welfare or to the local authorities could ensure that shelters were created where children who had nowhere to go could stay overnight. Even this evening, there will be children on the streets begging and singing for money. Many of them will not want to be given food because if they get food instead of money they will be beaten. That is a fact.

I am asking the Government when they next prepare a budget to identify areas of social need and leave aside the glancing back at last year's figures and the adding on of 2,6 or 8 per cent in the hope that the political flak will not be too strong. Obviously, the provision of jobs and houses is a major social priority. However, this year it would have been appropriate—it is still not too late—to tackle the problems I have referred to. The onus and responsibility rests with the Government and they are not taking that seriously. Their actions show no insight, care or compassion in relation to these problems.

The Government's budget in this, the Year of the Child, shows a group of men whose concern revolves on the fulcrum of the people of property and power. It reveals the hardening of the Government's attitude, which lacks moral responsibility, to the children on the mean streets—the waif whose voice is tiny and who knows nothing about politics or politicians but yet who depends on us. They put their trust in all of us and we are all failing them. Our advice to them appears to be that if they have tears to shed, they should shed them as silently as possible lest they disturb the neighbours and especially the groups we are busily attending to because they have louder voices.

The children of our cities are entitled to dream the same dreams as their peers in any other walk of life. The Government had an opportunity this year to bring together a programme which would tackle the major problems in relation to children and which would have national support and the support of everyone in this Parliament. Not alone would it help to solve the problems but it would act as a catalyst to show that we have a Government who have leadership and vision. It would help to harness the energy and focus the will of people in all walks of life who, unfortunately, seem to be only concerned about themselves to the exclusion of people who have a lot less. It would exemplify a Christian spirit in a very real way. This should be exemplified by Government. The Christian spirit is not something for church on Sundays. If the Government give a lead in this, many will respond and it could set a headline for selfless giving and selflessness in many other walks of life. Unfortunately, the clamouring we hear all around us is not heartening if we want to create that kind of society. I do not blame the people for this. Their desires and aspirations have been fuelled, perhaps unwisely, for political purposes by promises of material gain which have seduced many people into believing that there is nothing but the material to life.

Why not have a special budget for children's year? We have had special budgets for inferior reasons. If we do not tackle this problem now it will overwhelm us in the future. We cannot expect children to live indefinitely in overcrowded houses, on streets that do not have basic recreational facilities, or to cope with traffic going by a window ten feet from where a young child is sleeping or is trying to study. We cannot expect that situation to continue forever and hope that we will have a healthy society. I believe in an Ireland where the frozen attitudes of the past give way to the warmth and compassion blatant in the finest levels of all human kind. I believe in an Ireland where the greatest sin will be to deprive by act, omission or deed the young child of his birthright, that is, a birthright of bountiful investment of love, shelter, education, protection, moral training and equality of opportunity. I believe in an Ireland which sees a new its Christian missionary role of looking to other nations, not so much to supplicate for material self gain, but to give a lot to others who have a good deal less that they might have a little more. A nation that respects the child and fulfils its obligation to this most vulnerable section of the community may put its mind at rest about the future because the future will look after itself.

From this point of view, the budget is a missed opportunity. I would not be harsh in blaming the Minister or the Government for this. To some extent, we are all prisoners of the past and are blinkered by the traditions of the past. In this case, we are blinkered by the structures of budgets in the past. I should like to ask the Government and the Minister to reconsider the way budgets are structured and to reconsider the social implications of the fiscal statement which is at present in the budget and, in this momentous year for children internationally, to rise to the challenge and to take on the major programme of reform which is so necessary and so fundamental for people whose voice is weak, people who will not form a lobby, and will not take to the streets. The success of such a campaign would depend on the honesty, the integrity and the Christian conscience of the men and women in Government. With that I rest my case, and I hope my remarks will be given some consideration.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I had hoped to get in earlier because of some commitments I have this afternoon. I will endeavour to make my contribution without indulging in the repetition and reiteration we have heard from both sides of the House.

The budget introduced by the Minister for Finance was designed to accelerate the rate of economic growth. I have no doubt it will achieve that aim. Our economic record in the past two years puts us well ahead of many nations which are more developed and have greater financial and material resources. Our growth rate of 7 per cent last year was the highest in the EEC for the second year running. Our figure was almost double that of the OECD average, and almost treble that of the EEC. With this fine record it would be most unfortunate if our growth rate were to suffer a set-back because of our industrial unrest.

Since Fianna Fáil returned to power, economic activity has shown a rapid recovery. The benefits are to be seen in every county in Ireland. It was heartening to hear the Taoiseach's statement this morning on the EMS. With six million people out of work in the Community, unemployment is obviously one of the most serious and difficult problems facing Europe. In 1978, unemployment increased in Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom the level remained more or less the same. It decreased in Germany, Italy and Ireland. This is very significant in relation to the way in which our economy is moving.

Like most of my colleagues on all sides of the House, I am concerned about the increasing polarisation between our urban and rural communities. Sometimes people on both sides of the fence are not as responsible as they should be. They often help to drive a further wedge between the two communities. If this is allowed to happen, the country as a whole will suffer at a time when we have a golden opportunity to create jobs and give a decent standard of living to all our people.

To a large extent we can understand the attitude of the trade unions on behalf of the PAYE sector who have had to carry an intolerable burden in recent years. At the end of the day, the Government may decide the income-tax structure will have to be looked at again. What good will the one-day strike which is to take place next Tuesday do for the country? Driving up here this morning I listened on the radio to the "Gay Byrne Hour". I heard him read a passage from this morning's Irish Independent in which Desmond Rushe stated that he would not take part in the one-day strike. To me the reasons he gave were positive, honest and constructive. What good will it do? At the end of the day Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen are the people who will suffer.

Like many other Members of this House I subscribe to the view that farmers must make a bigger contribution to revenue from income tax. The farming community are willing to do so. I do not come from a fortified city constituency. I come from a mixed urban-rural constituency. Perhaps this is a sensitive issue for a Deputy like me to speak about, but we must speak honestly, constructively and positively. We must not polarise the farming community and the industrial workers. We must bring them together. No one can seriously suggest the farming community are not willing to make a fair contribution. I have met many of them in recent weeks and I know they are willing.

When account is taken of the £36 million from rates on land which farmers will pay in 1979, the percentage of income taken in tax and rates will amount to approximately 5½. They are the first to admit this is not enough. The problem does not begin and end with the farming community. Members of the professions across the board are not contributing their share to the Exchequer.

I have a suggestion to make which may not have been made by previous speakers. I should like to offer something new, to add some new dimension to the debate. I have often marvelled at the tolerance and patience of the Ceann Comhairle and others who have to listen to speeches being repeated on both sides of the House during a debate such as this. If we are to be serious about getting the professional people to toe the line, I have a suggestion which may be worth looking into. The clients of members of the professions should insist on getting receipts for all payments made by them. On production of those receipts, the clients should be allowed to claim income tax reductions. This arrangement would be beneficial both to the clients and to the Revenue Commissioners who would have access to the true earnings of professional people.

This type of system operates quite successfully in the United States of America. There is no reason to believe it could not be implemented here. If we are serious about introducing an equitable tax system, it behoves the Government and the Minister for Finance to look seriously at my suggestion.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 15 Mar 1979

Financial Resolutions, 1979. - Financial Resolution No. 8: General (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1979