Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1980

Vol. 319 No. 2

Financial Resolutions, 1980. - Financial Resolution No. 19: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance).

In assessing farm incomes the Government have got it wrong. Farm incomes fell by well over 25 per cent in 1979 and the likelihood is that there will be a further fall of 20 per cent this year. Any improvement that occurred in the position of farmers vis-àvis other wage earners since we joined the EEC has not only been cancelled out but in 1980 their position relative to PAYE workers will be worse than it was before we joined the EEC. It is typical of the negative approach in the budget. It is a series of do nots.

To speak about an increase in farm taxation of 32 per cent in real terms in a year when farm incomes will be down by 40 per cent shows how crazy it is. Any sane person knows that a dynamic agriculture needs a high rate of investment. Farm incomes at present are subject to a severe price cost squeeze. With a rapidly increasing tax bill that does not make sense because farmers must rely on additional productivity to compensate for the price cost squeeze. At best real incomes will fall by another 20 per cent.

A standard definition of income tax is that it is a payment to local or central government for services provided. When the subsidy is removed from fertilisers a farmer pays more for it. It is a saving to the Exchequer and is income tax. When a subsidy is removed from rates a farmer pays more. That again is income tax. When the Minister said that the farm tax bill increased from £52 million in 1979 to £86 million in 1980 he was embracing three taxes—income tax, rates and resource tax. He conveniently ignored the 2 per cent levy, the disease levy and the removal of fertiliser subsidy. In justice and equity this cannot be done. The total expected from agriculture is £95 million. This is an increase of 32 per cent in real terms over 1978 during a period when family farm income will have fallen by from 35 per cent to 40 per cent. If the Government are serious about the development of agriculture provision must be made for investment, expansion and modernisation in addition to full depreciation on farm machinery and buildings.

In a good year in the middle seventies investment in agriculture would be as high as 15 to 20 per cent. If we get agricultural production back on its feet or, to use a Fianna Fáil phrase, get it moving again, we must have that kind of re-investment. Even if one was to tax farmers out of existence, which is what they are trying to do, one would not make a significant impact on the PAYE tax burden. If one is to help the PAYE people one's best bet is not to discourage or drive farmers out of farming but to concentrate on the development of agriculture and further it by way of grants, to fight the cause of agriculture at the negotiating tables of Europe, ensure that the farmer is allowed to produce to full capacity and that more EEC and Government grants are made available for further drainage and expansion.

As I said in another context, the salvation of the economy does not depend on the Porcupine or Kinsale Head but on a buoyant economy. Everything we produce has to be processed at home. Raw materials are available here for industries based on agriculture. It has been proved by those involved in marketing that markets are there for our produce. We have the best produce in the world. We have the most suitable climatic conditions. There is a levelling out of agricultural prices in the European market places. This means that the Dutch, Scandinavians and others who had to import large quantities of feed from California and South America will find it increasingly difficult to compete whereas the Irish farmer with his natural advantages of good grass and a suitable climate will be in a more competitive position as time goes by, given the necessary incentives and encouragement. For goodness sake, settle the tax question once and for all. Like other citizens farmers should be taxed on their profits, no more no less. Let us not predetermine any amount of tax they should pay regardless of whether or not they make money. This system was in vogue long enough with rates. In other European countries farmers pay tax but they do not pay resource tax or rates. If they have a good year they pay and if they have a bad year they do not.

The Government two years ago told farmers all that they would do for them if they got rid of the socialist complex that was running the country and that no more queer taxes such as those fellows introduced would be brought in. Instead of that the Government compounded the problem and made matters very serious. They know that that kind of revenue cannot come from the industry even with the limited allowances being given to farmers. Things are not well in the industry. Knowing that, they clap on the resource tax and try and offset some of the crazy things they have been doing to pay for some of the stupid moves they had to take to get into Government in the first place. I would hope that before it is too late, before the farmers are back on the streets again, before the whole agricultural industry is thrown into chaos, wisdom will prevail with the Minister.

The budget has been introduced for some time now and, as we go on, its faults are becoming more and more noticeable. When I told somebody at home that I would be speaking on the budget today I was asked: "Which budget?" It was a fair comment. We have one every day of the week. Farm costs have gone through the roof. Farmers' incomes have levelled out. They will be working on tight margins. They need encouragement rather than discouragement. That applies also to our fishermen who have taken a fair hammering in recent years as a result of EEC regulations.

Fishermen had just begun to develop when we joined the EEC. They had begun to invest in boats of a substantial size. They had begun to spend money, and then they found they were hampered by EEC regulations on the amount of fish they could catch, where they could fish, and so on. Apart from those restrictions, in the market place of Europe the Government are unable to fight for the cause of the fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen who are a breed of fishermen who do not exist in the other EEC countries.

Traditionally the inshore fisherman has fished for herrings off our coast line in very small boats in years gone by, and in later years in slightly bigger boats. Basically he is not the type of man who is causing the problem. He is not to be compared with the people who come in the large flotillas and vessels from Holland, Russia and all over the world, and rape our waters. It has been proved conclusively by independent people that the stocks of inshore fish in Irish waters have improved over the years. These people are not doing the damage. This point has not been made loudly enough and plainly enough by our Minister and our Government to protect these people.

We saw in yesterday's press that their leaders are now pointing out that, because of the depressed situation in fishing at the moment, Irish fishermen will have great difficulty in making their repayments to Bord Iascaigh Mhara for their boats. Because of the high cost of fuel oil, which was jacked up out of all proportion in the budget, they will find difficulties in operating this season. Surely a great case can be made for a short-term subvention of a couple of million pounds for these men to help them through their difficulties. If the Government will not help them, and if we in this Parliament will not help them, we will be doing a great disservice to that industry. While they are having some difficulties at the moment, in the long term the future for Irish fisheries must be bright.

People are now developing a taste for fish. Fish foods are becoming more and more important in Europe. People in Europe have gone crazy for shellfish of all types. We are completely ignoring that fact. Our Government and our Minister are oblivious to the value of our shellfish industry. We are now deliberately using Cork Harbour as a cesspool, a harbour which could be a £10 million shellfish industry if we had treatment plants. If a small creamery, or industry, or even a farmer starts to do something, there must be a treatment plant, and that is only as it should be. It is not extraordinary, but our local authorities are told: "We will send in an expert and he will prove that there is no need for one. The place will not be any worse than it was", forgetting that it is bad as it is. We should adopt a positive attitude—and it probably would not cost very much more money in the end—and have treatment plants in our harbours. We should set up a shellfish industry and create jobs in the process. We could create a new market, beautify our harbours and show the Europeans what we can do. We could have beautiful clear water in which people could bathe and enjoy themselves as is their right as citizens.

A Fianna Fáil speaker said we have to look at the capital side of the budget. I have been looking at the capital side. What are we doing with the money collected from the people? A Government can be judged on how they collect money and what use they make of it. The Government seem to be collecting a lot of money in this budget, but all they seem to be doing is staving off disaster. We could accept some of the damaging aspects like the savage increase in the price of petrol if, at the end of the day, the Government could say; "At the end of the year we will have our balance of payments in order. We will have curbed inflation. We will have our economy in a sound position." They are not saying that. They are budgeting in a deficit situation.

When Ministers come back from abroad we hear wonderful stories about new industries, but rarely do they seem to materialise. I hope the recent visit to America by the Minister will produce extra jobs. In the Cork Harbour area nothing has been done to create any new industry since this Government took over. Nothing has been done to encourage the creation of new industry. If the Government were serious about jobs in the harbour area, where the infrastructures are already provided, and where millions of pounds were spent during our term of office in providing water and effluent facilities, and now that we have put the natural gas into that estate, the logical step is to have a gas grid for all industries in that area. Give them a full supply of natural gas and solve the doubts that exist, real or imaginary, regarding energy. You could tell them: "There is your site, with water and everything else laid on, including energy." If we are serious about creating new industry that is the first step. Also, existing industries in the area should be offered a similar facility. They would grab it—assuming it is competitive and there is no reason it would not be.

A very important factor in this connection is the total inability of the Government to prevent imports of cheap goods from all over the world. These goods may come through places like Rotterdam but are probably coming from Taiwan, Russia or somewhere like that. It is not fair to have these products arriving in Cork Harbour while in that very harbour we have steel works capable of producing these goods just as efficiently at realistic prices. While entrepreneurs are allowed to operate and bring in these cheap goods we are doing untold damage to home industry. We have a Buy Irish campaign and a genuine appeal to people to buy Irish, but the important thing is for our Legislature to ensure that Irish products get pride of place and have a fair chance to compete at home. That does not seem to be happening at present.

I was glad to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs say at the Ard Fheis that he would soon be canvassing for phones. If any single thing has held up development of industry in our area it is the inability of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to provide phones for industry, for young people endeavouring to start in business. I could cite case after case. This very day we have a massive tyre distributing firm with a new factory complex and vans ready to roll but they have no phone. Only today they were told by the Department that there was a cable problem. They have all sorts of problems but they should get down to solving them. Otherwise, they are hindering industrial development, hindering young people trying to create jobs. There is no point in saying: "You have only five employed and you should have six". You will never have six if you do not get a phone. There is no reason why hauliers or Irish people in any business should not have a telephone on the desk in a matter of weeks. This is not happening.

As Fine Gael spokesman on tourism I must refer to the drastic effect of the budget on tourism. Inquiries I have made before speaking here indicate the general feeling among hotels and guest houses that the levy on petrol and heating oil and its effect on food prices and costs generally will do much damage to tourism this year. If people can buy petrol 20p or 25p cheaper in the UK, beer and cigarettes cheaper, that will influence them. What do people want but a few weeks driving around enjoying the scenery and basically relaxing, with limited money to spend? According to those in the tourist industry Ireland is no longer the place to look for such a holiday because we are now in the expensive bracket of the Scandinavian countries.

We were getting on nicely with tourism and the Minister sitting opposite played his part in difficult times dealing with the problems we had last year in encouraging tourism. He did his best to sort out the energy problem at that time. We had a bad year in 1979 but we were anticipating that everything would be right this year. Yet, we start off on the wrong foot by slapping 20p extra a gallon on petrol, and putting up the cost of drink. Those of us who have to stay in Dublin hotels—and we do not stay in very expensive ones—find that every week there is another pound or 50p added to the bill. They say it is due to increasing costs. We are now in the expensive league and our hotel prices will soon compare with those in Strasbourg, Dusseldorf and so on. There is no need for this. Tourism has been a major contributor to our economy.

I have been trying to make the point that the budget seems to be a series of "don'ts"—Do not do this; do not do that. It is negative. Could there not be a positive note? Could we not spend money in the tourist area and say "We will boost Bord Fáilte. We will give Ivernia a boost so that they will not have to go to the industrialists of Cork. We will undertake as a Government to put our roads right. We will not rely on money coming from the EEC and confine ourselves to roads where this money can be used. We will spend money on the roads generally." That is the first thing. This also applies to industry, agriculture and tourism. Let us spend money boosting farm guesthouses, on beaches and holiday resorts. That would be a positive approach and in the end would mean more revenue than the negative attitude of trying to clean up from everybody because in the end there would be no money left.

It is only right to mention a matter that has been sadly neglected over a number of years by the Office of Public Works, the whole business of arterial drainage. In recent years, farmers, supplemented by substantial EEC grants, carried out major land drainage work.

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the Financial Resolution before the House.

There is nothing in the budget to suggest that more work will be done. Something will have to be done because the water is flowing from our rivers on to our land. The river Blackwater scheme has been No. 22 on the priority list for many years and it appears that it will not progress from that position for some time to come. Unless the Government approach this problem realistically the assistance we got from the EEC and the work that has been carried out to date will be useless.

I should like to refer to industrial development particularly in relation to the south of Ireland. Some people hold the view that Cork has got enough as far as industrial development is concerned, that it is a region that should not be pushed. I should like to remind the House that the region is ready for massive industrial development. The groundwork has been carried out and there are almost 2,000 acres of land in public ownership. I am referring to places like Ringaskiddy, Little Island and the area adjacent to the harbour. There has been a lot of talk about the new Irish oil company refining oil here and I suggest that that work be carried out at the existing oil refinery in Cork. There is little point in looking for sites elsewhere in the country. The refinery in County Cork can cater for huge tankers. If oil is found off our coast the logical thing to do is to send it to that refinery by pipe or tanker. The workers in that area are skilled and accustomed to refining oil. The oil companies own more than 1,000 acres of land which is ready for development.

When talking to industrialists recently I got the impression that they were depressed about the state of the economy. They felt that things had got out of control and they did not know what will happen to the Irish pound. They believe we are dealing with a rudderless ship that is being buffeted about by every little economic irritant. They complained that the present squander-mania attitude spearheaded by the Government commenced after the 1977 election. They feel that because of this attitude the Irish pound will further decrease in value.

There is little point encouraging people to save because they are asked to pay tax on any interest they earn in excess of £70. Young people have abandoned the idea of thrift. I grew up in a more difficult era when the emphasis was on thrift. It was not possible to buy any item then unless one saved for it. There are many easy payment systems in operation today but they are not so easy because the item must be paid for eventually. The Government should encourage young people to save the deposit on a new house and to educate their families and one incentive they could give would be to increase the interest limit before taxation. Bankers are clamouring for such a move. If we managed to encourage people to save there would be fewer on local authority housing lists.

The increases to social welfare recipients were badly needed, but, regrettably, the benefit of them was eroded within a few weeks because of increases in the cost of food and gas. Those increases in benefit would need to be doubled to counter the rises in prices sanctioned in the meantime. I would like to think that after the hardships imposed by the budget we would be aiming towards a better economy, that we would be finding our way out of our difficulties but instead we are going further and further into debt. Last year we were told that almost all the receipts from the PAYE sector went towards paying the interest on the national debt. Where are we heading? We must encourage agricultural production and create industries based on agriculture. We must sell our agricultural produce in every market available bearing in mind that there is a great demand for our produce. However, nothing has been done in that direction.

I hope that the Minister in question will see the light and, even at this late stage, endeavour to control inflation, to control prices which have gone completely out of line. There is no way that agriculture can survive unless something is done about inflation. If we deliberately jack up road haulage costs by putting 20p a gallon on diesel that will put up the cost of transporting milk, sugar beet and so on. It will mean increased costs at farm level. Unless the Government make an effort to keep costs down farmers will not be able to offer the housewife good food at reasonable prices.

I shudder to think what the Government's policies will mean to the entire economy. The Tánaiste said yesterday that the present high rate of inflation was due to the increases in the public sector, but it was he who gave the extra employment in the public sector. He said that it was not caused by Fianna Fáil buying votes in 1977. I say that that was the cause; they raised people's expectations beyond what we, as a small exporting nation, could afford. We have absolutely nothing to offer except small industries based on agriculture. Everybody will need to show restraint if we are to survive. That was the message of the Coalition. That was the only true message.

I hope by now everybody realises that was true, that a change of government did not mean a magic wand and that any promises Fianna Fáil made would have to be paid for dearly. They have been paid for over the last couple of years. Fianna Fáil promised to get the country moving but they succeeded in bringing us down again when, under the Coalition Government, we were approaching the crest of the wave. The Government should move towards Coalition policies, towards creating new and worthwhile industries, towards salvaging industries that are going to the wall before it is too late. We were talking this morning about £20 million, £10 million of which is coming from employers. That is peanuts when it comes to saving industries at the moment. A lot of money will have to be found and spent but it is worth finding if we as a nation are to take our place with the other nations in Europe as we had been doing in the mid-seventies.

Ba maith liom traoslú leis an Aire Airgeadais mar gheall ar an airgead atá curtha i leathtaobh aige le cúnamh speisialta a thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus chun camáin a chur ar fáil don aos óg.

Is gné iontach tábhachtach dár Ghaeilge. Thiocfadh a rá, le gurb í an gné is tábhachtaí dár gcultúr í. Le breis agus dhá mhíle bliain ba í an Ghaeilge gnáth theanga mhuintir na tíre seo. Is teanga í atá i bhfad níos seanda ná an Béarla.

Tá sé cinnte, mar sin, go ndeachaigh an Ghaeilge go mór i bhfeidhm ar mhuintir na hÉireann ar feadh na céadta bliain agus gur chuidigh sé go mór le caractéir ár ndaoine a mhúnlú. Ar an adbhar sin tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go slánófar an teanga agus go mbeidh sí arís á labhairt go foirleathan ar fud na hÉireann.

Tá sé soiléir gur gnóithe práinneach atá sa ghnóithe seo, agus tá sé soiléir fosta, má chailltear an teanga Ghaeilge gur cailliúint thubaisteach a bheidh ann don náisiún agus gurb é an glún seo a bheidh freagarthach as.

Tá sé éascaí go leor a bheith corraithe faoi ghnéithe eile den náisiúnachas ach tá sé cóir a bheith cinne go socrófar na gnéithe sin sna bhlianta atá romhainn, ach ar an taobh eile dhe, mar dúirt mé cheana féin, mura n-éiríonn leis an ghlún seo an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú, caillfear go deo í agus ní mhaithfidh na glúin a thiocfaidh in ár ndiaidh dúinn é.

Tá báidh an phobail leis an Ghaeilge agus tá sé ráite ag an Aire Airgeadais gur mian leis an Rialtas iad a spreagadh chun beart dearfa dá réir a dhéanamh. Tá sé i gceist aige cúrsaí tarraingteach ar theilfis agus ar radió a chur ar fáil agus tá mé cinnte go gcuideoidh sé seo leis an phobal suim ar leith a chur sa Ghaeilge.

Tá an Ghaeilge anois, a bheag nó a mhór, ag furmhór mór muintir na tíre, idir aos óg agus daoine meán aosta comh maith, ach níl sí a labhairt chomh minic agus ar cheart dí a bheith. Is minic a smaoinigh mé ar an cheist seo ag iarraidh a dhéanamh amach cad chuige a bhfuil an scéal amhlaidh, cad chuige nach bhfuil níos mó Gaeilge le clos sa Teach seo, sa bhaile nó ar na sráideanna. Tá cuma air gur leisce intinne nó "mental laziness" is cúis leis. Caithfidh an duine gur mian leis Gaeilge a fhoghluim nó a labhairt stró a chur air féin, go mór mhór nuair a chuireann muid an comhluadar ina bhfuilimid beo ann san áireamh, chun sin a dhéanamh. Tá gach rud ag brath ar an duine aonair. Caithfidh sé a intinn a dhéanamh suas agus beart a dhéanamh dá réir. Dá mbeadh ceist na Gaeilge chomh sochorraithe ó thaobh furmhór ár ndaoine agus atá gnéithe eile den náisiúnachas bheadh leí.

Maidir le RTE agus an Ghaeilge de, tá an tUdarás atá ansin anois go mór i bhfábhar go bhfaighfidh an teanga a ceart ar an teilifis agus ar an radió, agus gnéithe eile dar gcultúr fosta, bíodh siad i nGaeilge, i mBéarla nó dhá theangach. Caithfear cuir leis an fhreastal atáthar á dhéanamh orthu siúd a bhfuil an Ghaeilge ar a dtoil acu mar atá á dhéanamh le cláracha cosúil le "Féach", "Súil Thart" agus "Aisling Ghael". Ach caithfear gan dearmad a dhéanamh ar an mhór scaifte a bhfuil measarach Ghaeilge acu agus cláracha éadrom agus tuilleadh cláracha dhá-theangach a thabhairt dóibh. Tuigim go bhfuil iarraidh mhór ar cheachtanna Ghaeilge agus tuigim gur fána choinne sin atá an céad míle punt le caitheadh. Molaim seo go mór ach tá súil agam nach gcuirfear na ceachtanna seo san áireamh mar chuid den 20 faoin gcéad de chláracha bhaile-déanta a bhéas le fáil i nGaeilge, mar adúirt Cathaoirleach an Údaráis sular fógraíodh an deontas seo san cháin fhaisnéis.

Caithfear daoine breise a mhealladh chun amharc ar chláracha Ghaeilge. Mar shampla, dá mbeadh duaiseanna ag baint le cláracha Ghaeilge bheadh méadú faoi dhó ar an lucht féachana. Is breá le daoine coimhlint.

Tá cluiche againn san iománaíocht nach bhfuil a sárú ar domhan a thairbhe scíl agus ealaíon agus ní bheadh sé deas déanta nó ceart déanta againn ligeann de ard chostas na gcamán cur isteach ar imirt an chluiche ársa seo. Tá súil agam nach ndéanfar dearmad ar na contaetha sa tír seo atá lag ó thaobh iománaíochta dhe, ach atá ag iarraidh an cluiche a fhorbairt nuair atá an t-airgead seo á chaitheamh.

The budget proposals in general are intended to provide the revenue for the many and varied services provided for the community by the State. The service for which I am responsible, Defence, has become in recent years one of the most important provided by the State. It is for that reason that the level of expenditure on the Defence Forces has continued to rise. It is also an indication of the Government's determination to strengthen the capability of the Defence Forces to meet their obligations. Stability and security are essential prerequisites to social and economic developments.

This year the Estimate for Defence shows an increase on the amount allocated in 1979 and while the cost of improved pay and allowances for the troops accounts for a considerable portion of this increase, there is also a substantial amount available for the planned programme of improvements in equipment, accommodation and facilities generally. One of the new premises to be constructed this year is the new billet for the Women's Service Corps.

The Government are especially mindful of the important national service rendered by members of the Defence Forces and every effort has been made to ensure that conditions generally are such as to provide adequate compensation for the troops. Rates of pay and allowances are, of course, a very important factor both in attracting recruits of appropriate calibre and retraining in service those soldiers whose initial term of enlistment has expired. As a result of improvements in pay and allowances and conditions generally I am glad to say that recruiting figures for the first two months of this year show substantial gains and it is confidently expected that this upward trend will continue.

Recruitment and retention in the service should also be enhanced by the easement of PAYE taxation bands announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget. This means that for all ranks the take-home pay after tax deductions will show a significant improvement in the coming months. This should give an added incentive to soldiers contemplating re-enlistment and a significant fillip to recruitment figures.

Public reaction to the budget has been very favourable. In my own constituency, and in many other parts of the country, I found that while some complaints were expressed about individual facets the consensus was that the budget is a good one. The Minister for Finance asked the public to look upon the budget as a whole and they are doing so. The public appreciate that the underlying principles on which the budget is based are sound and they recognise it as a budget which ensures the future wellbeing of the country in the social and economic fields.

A number of changes are included in the budget which are of considerable significance to many of those for whom my Department have special responsibility. Veterans of the War of Independence played a vital role in the foundation of the State and it is only fitting, despite the present difficult budgetary situation, that an effort should be made not only to maintain their financial position but also to introduce some new concessions for them and for their dependants. The budget proposals for the abolition of income tax on military service pensions, the creation of a new category of allowances in favour of widows of special allowance holders and the extension of the free electricity and free television licence concession to widows of veterans generally represent substantial innovations in the general provisions for veterans of the War of Independence and their widows. These developments are of real value to the survivors of a generation which played a key role in the foundation and emergence of the State and I have no doubt that the House will join me in welcoming their introduction.

The annual budget has come to have a direct and significant impact on the Army Pension Vote administered by my Department, which includes provision for the payment of some 20,000 pensioners and allowance holders. The Vote contains provision for pensions and allowances for retired members of the Defence Forces and their widows and dependants. It also contains provision for pensions and allowances for veterans of the War of Independence and widows of military service pensioners. In addition there is provision for the various schemes of concessions granted to veterans. These include free travel within the State for veterans and their spouses or the widows of veterans. Also included are the free electricity allowance, free television licence and telephone rental and funeral grants.

The 20,000 pensions and allowances involved are comprised mainly as follows: 3,000 military service pensions in respect of active service in the War of Independence; 6,000 special allowances to persons who had membership of certain prescribed organisations, Óglaigh na hÉireann, Cumann na mBan, Fianna Éireann and so on who are now unable to support themselves because of old age or infirmity; 5,000 pensions under the Defence Forces pensions schemes for retired members of the Defence Forces and widows of members of the Defence Forces; 500 allowances to dependants of soldiers and members of prescribed organisations killed or disabled in action; 750 wounded and disability pensions payable to soldiers and members of prescribed organisations in respect of wounds and injuries; and 4,250 allowances payable to widows of military service pensioners.

As I have said, the abolition of income tax on military service pensions is a concession which recognises in a special way the position of military service pensioners. The possession of such a pension implies active service during the War of Independence and, therefore, it is not in any way invidious to extend this concession to that category of pensioners.

I am glad also that it has been found possible to do something further by way of assistance to the widows of veterans. In particular the payment of the proposed flat rate allowance to the widow of a veteran who dies while in receipt of a special allowance will do a great deal to mitigate the hardship that arises when the special allowance ceases in such circumstances. Widows of military service pensioners are in receipt already of an annual allowance which is related to the amount of the pension of the deceased military service pensioner. This is subject to a minimum annual figure. The arrangement was introduced in 1971 and I am glad that the Minister for Finance has found it possible to provide for the widows of special allowance holders. The new allowance is at the rate of £185 per annum and will be payable with effect from 1 July of this year. This very welcome development will require amending legislation and I would hope to take the necessary steps in that regard without delay.

A military service pensioner, as the holder of the Service (1917-1921) Medal with Bar, satisfies the fundamental condition—that of being a veteran—for the award of the special allowance. Nowadays, however, in the majority of cases what is required essentially is that the applicant be the holder of a duly awarded Service (1917-1921) Medal without Bar but this gives rise to problems. With the passage of time it is becoming progressively more difficult to obtain acceptable verification for the award of medals. The Department try to be as flexible as possible in dealing with these cases but in fairness to those who are entitled to the medal it is only right that before an award is made, as a minimum, the balance of available evidence should be in favour of the applicant. Cases will arise where, because of the absence of acceptable corroborative evidence, applicants who at another time might have qualified will fail in their application for a medal. We have in effect reached the stage at which anyone who intends to apply for a medal should do so without delay.

As I have mentioned already there are some 4,000 veterans who are availing of the free electricity allowance and the free television licence. Under the present arrangements when a veteran dies the concession ceases and in many cases this can constitute a distinct hardship. Therefore, I welcome the concession in the budget whereby, from 1 July next, the concession will be applicable also to veterans' widows.

A major objective in this year's budget was to create greater equity in the taxation system. There has been dissatisfaction among the PAYE sector at the level of taxation but it is accepted by them generally, I think, that the Government in the budget proposals responded very fairly to the workers demands in this regard. Added to this is the fact that the Government have decided to establish a commission on taxation with the object of providing an equitable tax system. I am glad to note that the ICTU have accepted the setting up of such a commission and have said that they will co-operate with the commission.

Down through the years, and particularly during periods of inflation, problems have arisen with the PAYE system but it might be useful to recall that this system was sought originally by the trade unions and was, at the time of its introduction, regarded as a major achievement. Prior to then workers received bills for income tax at the end of the financial year. I recall in my early days in the Dáil being approached by workers who had received bills for what might now be regarded as relatively small amounts of money, requesting me to intercede with the Revenue Comissioners to have the amounts reduced or to agree to have them made payable during a period. Indeed, I have known incidents where workers received such bills and, being unable to meet the demand, packed their bags and went to Britain, so great was the stress on them at that time. The PAYE system, by providing for the deduction of tax as income was earned, was a very considerable advance so far as the worker was concerned on the system which had obtained up to then. Consequently, as a system PAYE is far from being totally bad, but reform is necessary and that is a question with which the commission on taxation will concern themselves.

I have taken particular note of the efforts on the part of Deputy FitzGerald and other Opposition Deputies to denigrate the very worthwhile improvements vis-à-vis income tax in the budget. The procedure they adopt seems to be that they identify the amounts which individuals with a particular level of income will receive as a result of the changes made by the Minister for Finance and then measure them against increases in living costs which they speculate may arise. Obviously, they are not comparing like with like here. The saving to the taxpayer is clear and identifiable while the increases suggested in living costs are speculative. Some of these increases may result from budget policy but many would arise in any case. For example, a very considerable factor in the cost of living to which I have referred already is the increase in world oil prices. Regardless of whether changes were brought about in taxation rates, those increases in costs would have arisen anyway. Surely it must be accepted that the improvements in the lot of the person paying tax under the PAYE system helps him to meet costs increases resulting from, for example, the OPEC increase in the price of oil, an increase over which we do not have any control.

It is a basic simple fact that the Minister for Finance has raised the tax exemption limits, thereby relieving many low-income people from the burden of paying tax—in fact, the number is 75,000 people—and by widening the income bands most taxpayers will be paying at the lower rates. These are incontrovertible facts. They are understood and appreciated by those paying tax under the PAYE system and the prophets who predict doom in the far distant future will have an extremely difficult task in convincing these people otherwise.

There are other aspects of the tax system changes which have led to very favourable mention. A special feature is that of income splitting for married taxpayers. This represents a major improvement in the system and enhances the place of the family unit in the community. I might add that, far from being forced to bring in the changes in the budget in respect of income-splitting—as alleged by some Opposition speakers—the facts are that it has come about by a positive decision of the Government. Indeed it is true to say that, in the proposals in this budget in respect of income-splitting, we are very much in advance of quite a number of countries in western Europe. All in all the budget proposals in respect of PAYE improve the lot of the taxpayer whether married or single. The changes in personal income taxation announced in the budget will have the effect of increasing the take-home pay of all ranks in the permanent Defence Forces.

For example, taking account of the special PAYE allowance of £400 and the change in the tax bands, the tax bill of a single recruit whose current basic pay is £74.13 will be reduced by about £2.50 a week. In the case of a private, Three Star, with six years' service, who is married with three children and earns £95.66 a week, his post-budgetary income tax commitment will be reduced by about £3.50 a week, while the saving for a single, Three Star Private with equivalent service and earning £92.15 a week will amount to approximately £2.50 a week. As a further example, a married sergeant with one child and nine years' service earning £108.27 a week will save £4.25 a week. Of course the position of married personnel with children will be still further improved by the increases in the children's allowances announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget statement.

The major concern of all Fianna Fáil Governments down the years has been to improve the lot of the underprivileged. The present Government is no exception and it has been their particular concern in these difficult times to protect those who, for one reason or another, are unable to help themselves, whether because of old age, unemployment, illness or whatever. Prior to the introduction of the budget there were many and varied proposals and suggestions from a wide variety of individuals and groups as to what those dependent on social welfare payments might expect, or should be granted, in the forthcoming budget. We have read in the press and heard on the radio and television of the demands of those genuinely interested in the plight of those in need and, of course, of the demands of those who are perhaps more interested in political expediency. It is very important to note that every single claim or prognostication was at a much lower level of increase than that actually provided by the Government in the budget. That very surely underlines the Government's concern for the poorer sections of the community and their determination to see to it that such people are properly looked after. Let me repeat that the increases of 25 per cent in the long-term payments, on pensions and such like, and 20 per cent in short-term payments, such as disability and unemployment assistance, are very much greater than anybody had thought likely or indeed possible. Much as the Opposition may attempt to denigrate the Government's efforts in this field there is no question but that the public have expressed their support for and appreciation of what we have done, in no uncertain terms. I should add that the budget increases, together with the increases granted last October, mean that the rates will be higher by 31 per cent and 26 per cent respectively next April than they were a year earlier. The total cost of the increases proposed in the budget in social welfare benefits comes to £95 million in 1980 and represents a major re-distribution in favour of the less fortunate members of our community.

I know the House shares the concern of the Government for those genuinely in need and have no doubt that the dramatic measures taken on their behalf will be welcomed. So far as my Department are concerned the important point to remember is that, in assessing eligibility for the granting of special allowances for veterans, many social welfare and kindred benefits are ignored and others partially assessed only. Briefly the following are not taken into account: children's allowances under the Social Welfare Acts; maintenance in a hospital, sanitorium, county home or like institution; prescribed relative allowance; home help allowance and payments for light work done by patients. In addition a nominal amount only of the old age pension, whether contributory or non-contributory, is taken into account. The same applies to widows' pensions, retirement pensions and invalidity pensions.

I have referred already to the increases of 25 per cent in long-term benefits and 20 per cent in short-term benefits, such as unemployment and disability benefit. The cost of these and other improvements to the Exchequer, including the increases in children's allowances, represents the highest allocation ever made for social welfare services in any budget. For example a contributory old age pensioner will receive an additional £4.90 a week from April next, giving him or her a pension of £24.50 a week. A married couple on old age pension will get an increase of £8.55 a week, bringing their pension to £42.80 a week. There are also increases in the supplements payable to pensioners living alone or those over 80 years of age.

In the case of widows who are receiving contributory pensions, the personal rate of pension is increased from £18 per week to £22.50, an increase of £4.50. The rate for dependent children is raised from £6 a week for each child to £7.50. Therefore, a widow with three dependent children will receive a pension of £45 a week from April next, or £9 a week more than she receives at present. The disabled maintenance allowance has been increased by £4.05 to £20.25 a week.

Of course children's allowances are an important source of income for families and go directly to the mother. I am glad that these will be increased again from July by £1 a month for the first child and £1.50 for each subsequent child. This will mean an increase of about 29 per cent in children's allowances, bringing the monthly cheque to £4.50 for one child, £11.50 for two children; £18.50 for three, £25.50 for four and £32.50 for five children.

Taken together the increases in social welfare benefits represent the highest ever allocation made to social welfare services, with a massive transfer of funds to those in greatest need. The Government are pledged to protecting the needy in these difficult economic times and have honoured that commitment significantly.

Because I had charge of tourism during the past two-and-a-half years I should like to make a few comments on statements made by Opposition speakers in regard to this area. They, including Deputy Hegarty who has just spoken, made great play of increases in a variety of taxes and charged that these increases would affect our tourism industry adversely. I do not accept that tourism, one of our vital industries, will be affected adversely by these increases.

In the first place, the increase in oil prices by the oil producing countries will have an effect on prices of oil-based products everywhere, and inevitably the prices of these products will be increased in other countries as well as here. Indeed the general economy of every country in the world is being affected by the enormous increases imposed by the OPEC people. As well, the price of petrol has been higher in many of the countries competing with us for tourists. Even after the increases in the budget here the price of petrol in some of the countries competing with us is higher than here. One cannot very well use our prices for comparison purposes with the prices last summer in competing countries. Rather the comparison must be with prices as they are today, or as they will be when those countries have introduced their own budgets.

What particularly prompted me to refer to tourism is that Deputy Barry, in his speech immediately after the budget and in his budget statement on television, referred to 1979 as a disastrous year for Irish tourism. He said that because of budget changes this year the situation will be much worse. A few moments ago Deputy Hegarty alleged that last year was a bad one for Irish tourism. I should like to point out again, as I have done on many occasions towards the close of last year, that far from being a bad year for tourism this country last year, 1979, earned the highest income in the history of the State from tourism. More than £400 million was earned and of that money more than £300 million came from tourists from outside the State. That was a remarkable achievement when one takes into account the postal strike and the petrol shortage at the height of the tourist season. It is a great credit to all concerned.

Though it is true that in real terms the income was fractionally below that of 1978, one must not forget that 1978 was a record year for tourism, when tourist income outstripped in real terms the tourist income in 1969, which had been the highest ever up to then. Despite all the problems and difficulties faced by this country in 1979, including world wide downturn in economic conditions, tourism continued to develop here and the number of visitors from Europe was much higher than in any previous year. The Government were concerned last year to protect this great industry. The extra money made available to Bord Fáilte for publicity purposes, the guaranteed fuel voucher scheme and my personal involvement with tourism promotion in Europe in 1979 infused a spirit of confidence in the industry which resulted in an income of £403.5 million as compared with £376.5 million the previous year, which has been a record year.

If the parties opposite have to rely on this well propagated Opposition hoary untruth about Irish tourism in 1979—an untruth which they continue assiduously to propagate—to bolster up a case against this budget then they are attempting to build a case against the budget on a very poor foundation indeed.

Considering the importance of the industry, it would be unpatriotic deliberately to publicise a drastic fall in the numbers coming here on holiday, if that were true. Words fail me to describe what I think of those who propagate such matters when they know them to be untrue, knowing as they must the damage they can cause to what is a vital industry. We do not exist in a vacuum. Many other countries are vying with us for tourists. If foreigners believed that last year had been a disastrous year for Irish tourism, then they would have good reason to decide not to come here this year. Visitors to Ireland can be assured of a welcome here and of a very pleasant holiday. Bord Fáilte do not have a gloomy outlook. Invariably they face up to problems and overcome them.

What surprises me is that the two parties which formed the Coalition and which had such poor tourism results should have the gall to mention tourism at all.

Listening to Opposition speakers in the course of this debate it was obvious that they found considerable difficulty in finding anything of consequence which, with any credibility, they could be really critical of in the budget. They searched around, clearly without success, in an effort to find some subject which would help them cloud the real issues, and having failed in every other area they raised for the umpteenth time the matter of the Fianna Fáil election manifesto and attempted to blame it for our economic problems, as if oil price increases had never been heard of, or worldwide economic problems did not exist.

Let us look at the facts. The promises made by us in the manifesto were put into effect, very much to the advantage of the people of this country individually and also to the general advantage of the economy as a whole. I am not referring solely to the removal of rates from private houses or tax from cars, much as these benefited the individual, but also to the much more important areas of the provision of jobs, increased production, reduction of inflation, higher investment, particularly evident in the first two years of office of this Government and before the exceptional increase in oil prices took place, which disturbed not just the economy of this country but the economies of all the countries in the world, be they big or small, even the economy of such a powerful country as the United States.

I will deal with the provision of jobs later because it is one aspect of the economy in which the Government are particularly interested.

The fact is that gross domestic product in 1977 and 1978 grew by nearly 7 per cent, which was the highest rate achieved in the EEC and OECD countries. Investment was high and kept increasing rapidly as compared with a fall in investment during most of the Coalition period of office. Inflation was brought down to manageable levels. Later the enormous increase in oil prices created the major problem.

However, it was in the field of job creation that we had our most notable success. National figures are available to show how the number of unemployed has been reduced and new jobs created. Indeed recent figures published show a significant fall in the number on the live register this year as compared with last year so I do not need to deal with the matter at that level.

I will, however, briefly refer to the situation as we found it at local level in south and mid-Louth in 1977 when we took office because this reflects the national situation. There were 1,919 registered unemployed persons in the Drogheda employment exchange in July 1977, the month in which we took office. In July 1979, two years later, the number of registered unemployed in the Drogheda employment exchange was 1,090. The number of unemployed had been practically halved in two short years. This was a tremendous achievement never before witnessed in that area, an achievement which nobody would have been willing to prophesy in July 1977, but which had resulted from the carefully planned policy of this Government and carried through effectively despite the very obvious problems facing us.

As the Taoiseach stated recently, the concern of the Government will continue to be to ensure that our people who may be unfortunate enough to be unemployed will have jobs made available to them and the young people of the country will be sure of employment when they leave school. It is true to say that there are now many employment areas where there are unfilled job vacancies.

For mid-Louth the Coalition period in office was nothing short of a disaster. When they left office the two major industries in that area, AET in Dunleer and Castleguard Textiles in Ardee, were on the verge of collapse and eventually closed their doors. One would have to live in that area, which has a great rural, industrial reputation to appreciate the gloom and despair which permeated the whole area—workers unemployed, many of them for the first time in their lives, and large numbers of young people with no prospects of employment in their own area. In a relatively densely populated rural area this was a frightening situation. As I said, one would have to have savoured the situation as a member of the community to realise the plight of the people there.

What is the position in the same area today, two-and-a-half years later? After-two-and-a-half years of putting the job creation programme, about which the Opposition appear to be so critical, into operation these are now the facts. The factory at Dunleer, the AET factory, has been taken over by an Irish company, Basic Engineering, which is now employing about 250 people. A new factory owned by Westinghouse is in the course of being built in Dunleer. They have already advertised for employees and hope to go into operation in the summer. They are expected to employ 288 people over a three-year period. The old Castleguard factory in Ardee has been taken over by another company and is now employing 100 people. A further new factory is in the course of being built in Ardee and some of the workers are already being trained to work in that factory. The furniture industry has expanded very considerably and has taken on quite a considerable number of new employees and there are prospects of another industry there. This is a complete and almost unbelievable transformation in a short space of a couple of years.

Let me add that those jobs are not jobs in the public service. Opposition speakers, particularly Deputy John Kelly, like to claim that all of the jobs created under our policy were public service jobs. All of these jobs are in the private sector. Not only were these jobs provided, but they generate further employment in the services sector. The state of despair which we had inherited from the Coalition in mid-Louth has now been dispersed and young people can look forward to the future with confidence. What was achieved there is indicative of the progress made all over the country. The people of my constituency will be hard to convince that Fianna Fáil policies have been anything but successful.

I would like to take up another point in relation to statements made by Deputy John Kelly when he criticised the creation of jobs in the public sector. There were, of course, jobs created in the public service. I am sure the Deputy is aware of the fact that those working in the technical and technological areas in the Post Office are civil servants and will continue to be such until legislation is passed by the Oireachtas to establish the statutory boards set up by me on an interim basis. There were very large numbers of technicians and installers taken on over the past two-and-a-half years to speed up the modernisation of our telecommunications system. These were jobs created in the public service. Is it suggested that these jobs were not essential? Indeed, if any criticism might apply in this area it could be that we did not recruit even more personnel.

I refer to this particular aspect of the public service because it is one for which I had a responsibility and I certainly make no apologies whatsoever for the increased employment in the public service for which I was responsible. The global condemnation of our policy by Deputy Kelly would lead those who have no knowledge of the real situation to believe that the increased employment in the public service simply meant the creation of desk jobs. Government policy in the telecommunications field was to develop the system as rapidly as possible, to make available sufficient money to develop the telecommunication system and to employ more and more technicians. It is a fact that more technicians will be needed in this area. Again, let me point out that they are in the public service. I wonder if Deputy Kelly objects to that.

While I am on this particular subject I must confess that I was somewhat surprised to find the CII issuing a statement criticising the amount of money made available this year for telecommunications development. The reality, of course, as the CII are aware, is that the Government propose to spend £650 million on telecommunications development over the next five years, that each year this development will accelerate and each year more money will be spent. The amount, therefore, being made available this year is a realistic one. The task of implementing the accelerated programme, which is aimed at raising the quality of the telephone, telex and data services to EEC levels and meeting without delay the demand for telephones is a formidable one and one which cannot be achieved without the co-operation of all concerned. I have no doubt that that co-operation will be forthcoming.

Now, to return again to my reason for speaking on this particular area, the creation of jobs in the public service, let me repeat that the creation of jobs in the telecommunications field was a vital necessity if our economy was to develop to its full potential. The Government propose to continue to concentrate on employment. Admittedly, the circumstances are more difficult but we have the will and the ability to achieve our objectives in this area as we have proven in the past.

The economic problems which arose in more recent times were not of our making. They arose mainly from the enormous increases in oil prices. When oil prices were increased by the OPEC countries it was understandable that the individual who had to pay more for oil or petrol, or indeed for the increases in prices in a varriety of goods resulting from the oil price increase, would naturally be concerned about his own particular problem in finding the extra money to pay for these commodities. The fundamental problem which faced the country, however, was the fact that the £140 million, which the increase cost the country as a whole, was, as it were, lifted out of the finances of the State and transferred elsewhere. In other words, this money which could have been turned to good account in our own economy, was now gone from it.

In the circumstances, the Government recognise that our borrowing, particularly for current purposes, had got to be cut down. I do not want to bore the House with a comparison between State borrowing and borrowing by an individual family, but a study of the consequences in both cases will show them to be very similar. Borrowing for capital purposes, wisely spent, can be good, borrowing for current expenditure can be an extremely risky venture.

So, a start has been made on reducing Government borrowing. In simple terms, we recognise the need to live within our means and we are acting accordingly. A gradual approach to this ideal has been adopted, otherwise we could create serious deflationary problems. As the Minister for Finance has pointed out, the overall borrowing requirement will fall from 13.7 per cent of GNP in 1979 to 10.4 per cent in 1980. It should, however, be noted that the Public Capital Programme will increase by 15 per cent, including a 22 per cent rise for the industrial promotion groups. This will sustain the growth of employment and of the economy generally and will continue to produce the results which I have already outlined in respect of employment.

Taxation, of course, was necessary to achieve the worthwhile results which will flow from this budget to the benefit of PAYE taxpayers and those dependent on social welfare as well as to the economy. Particular note should be taken of the fact that emphasis has been placed as far as possible on discretionary expenditure. Much of the new type of taxation will be paid by the individual only if the taxpayer himself decides to do so, by spending in the discretionary area. To that extent the individual can control the amount he pays.

This budget was specially designed to ensure a continuation of economic development, to improve the lot of those who are dependent on social welfare payments, to continue the process of initiating a fairer tax system and to start on a process of coming closer to living within our means. It is a realistic budget. It has clearly been recognised as such by the public who see in it an honest effort to deal with the serious economic problems, mainly due to outside influences, which beset us while at the same time ensuring continued improvement and development in this social area, seeing to it that the less well off sections of the community are properly cared for and ensuring employment possibilities for the young people who now account for a high proportion of our population.

Long and careful thought and preparation went into the compilation of this budget and, if one is to judge by public reaction to it, then it is the successful budget it deserves to be.

This debate has been going on for a number of weeks. The more I hear Ministers speaking on it the more I am convinced it is a bad budget. They are trying to pad it out. They talk about the income tax concessions. If a person is in the £20,000 a year bracket this budget means an extra £2,000, and that is a worthwhile concession; but the person in the £5,000 bracket is not getting anything.

The Government say there is jam for everybody but with all due respects, the public are not fooled. The Minister said he heard the odd criticism about this budget. Obviously he has not been reading the results of the opinion polls. They are chastening. This Government, who swept into power just over two years ago with a massive majority, find themselves, according to the opinion polls, in a minority position. When one reads the results of these polls one can understand why this is such a muted Government.

We hear talk of elections, not from the Government but from political pundits. The Government are staying very quiet because they have taken soundings on their recent budget. One could say that this budget was much ado about nothing, promising a lot and achieving nothing.

Let us look at local authority funding. We hear many complaints about the state of our roads—potholes, dangerous roads, unkept roads and so on—but what is the position at the end of the day? Cut-backs. We hear about a 10 per cent increase on last year's allocation. In some cases local authorities overspent on last year's allocation and that means they are going to get less than 10 per cent this year with 20 per cent inflation. Local authority funding is most important because if local authorities are run down our whole infrastructure will break down. Local authority services—water, sewerage, roads, parks and so on—are in serious jeopardy because of the Government's cut-backs.

The same can be said of housing. We are heading for a very serious housing crisis. Inflation is rampant in the building sector and the allocations we hope to get will not keep abreast of inflation. Consequently there will be a serious cut-back on public housing. Yet we see ever-increasing housing lists. There has been a dramatic decrease in money invested in building societies. This time last year the amount invested in those societies was approximately £20 million and this year it is down to £7 million. That gives an indication of the seriousness of the social and employment problems in this area.

The Government seem totally unaware and unconcerned about how people will provide homes, how they will get the necessary finance and that they are living in intolerable conditions in certain urban areas—rat infestation, overcrowding, and rundown housing with inadequate sanitation. As any public servant representing these people will admit, these are day to day problems. How do we keep these people happy having regard to what the budget holds out for them? We had housing problems before but I thought that economic progress would get rid of this social evil once and for all. However, it is developing into a very serious problem and the Government should take drastic action. It will not solve the problem to increase building society rates, with the excuse that there is no inflow of money and they need an incentive to attract it. The reason for these problems is the Government's monetary incompetence. They are muddling on from one financial problem to another, promising all but achieving nothing.

In relation to prices Fianna Fáil made all sorts of derisory comments when we were in office but they should now look at their record on prices and hang their heads in shame. Butter was 53½p and it is now 66½p and bread has also gone up. When butter went up by 15p during the Coalition term there was revolution and revulsion from the Opposition side of the House and statements that the economy would be wrecked and that the tourist industry would go by the board. When we left office petrol cost 87p a gallon, it now costs £1.51 and no doubt it will cost more shortly.

The motto of this Government before the last election was "If you have a problem we will solve it." Due to the inefficient handling of the economy there are many headaches about to-day. The price of bread, for instance, has increased by 70 per cent. This sort of thing hits not only the consumer but the whole commercial structure of our life, making us less competitive and pricing ourselves out of the market. When one looks at the price increases, the promises and the bland approach now adopted by the Government one cannot be surprised when one reads about opinion polls that show the Government up in a disastrous light.

The Government's days of codding the electorate with fancy PR exercises are over. With their majority the Government have no fear of being beaten on any issue that might come before the House, but as sure as day follows night they will have to face the electorate eventually and they will be judged on their false promises and on their performance since coming to office.

The Government talk about their concern for the less well off. They gave a reasonable increase in allowances but in the budget as a whole there is no attempt to solve the problems of the underprivileged. Sympathy and gestures of concern are of little consequence to the less well off. Some form of action is required to heal this cancer in society. While giving increases in a budget offers some form of relief it does not solve the problems that exist, particularly in the densely populated urban areas and unless these problems are tackled they will multiply. The Government should set up a task force to examine the problem areas and come to hard decisions.

One of the problems in the urban areas relates to education. Education can lift people out of their misery. When one examines the figures for the centre of the city one sees that only 10.9 per cent completed secondary education and only 1.8 per cent completed university education. That gives a fair indication of the serious social problems we have here. Are these people to be forever more condemned to be the have nots of our society? Are these people to multiply and perpetuate this problem? On the figures I have quoted, 10.9 per cent secondary and 1.8, it is clear that this is what will happen.

I have said previously in this House and I will say again and again until people get tired listening to it, that this is a vital area. People are condemned to schools that in some cases are run down. They are overcrowded and even though there is overcrowding in the classrooms there are empty rooms in the schools. This problem requires the will on the part of the Government to tackle it. We are not talking about vast sums of money, we are talking about very modest sums. If money is limited—and it is—then the amount available must be redistributed to that Department and one must take the cream off the top and give it to the bottom. The people I am talking about have not got a voice in society. A large number of them do not vote. Why vote? What is there to vote for? They are condemned to a system.

They are not educated and basically nobody gives two damns whether they are educated, and then we wonder why we have the spate of vandalism in our society. We wonder why windows are broken and cars wrecked. We should examine the causes of these happenings before we apportion blame. If we examine the causes and are honest with ourselves the blame will be apportioned to Governments who fail to take action in these areas. The INTO, crying out as a professional body seeking for something to be done, brought out a report on the education of disadvantaged children and again it fell on deaf ears. Why should this be, given the small outlay? Are the Department of Education so hidebound and caught up in their own rules and regulations that they cannot adopt educational policies and priorities for particular areas? If they cannot do that they are failing in their object which is to ensure that our children are educated. God knows, we hear the slogan that we cherish all our children equally. The children I am talking about are not being treated equally, far from it, and it is easy to dismiss them because they have not a strong voice. It is time that matters like this of social concern were dealt with quickly because if they are not they will reap a distasteful harvest. Today we see vandalism of the worst type in our cities and we must tackle that problem in every area, using all the means at our disposal.

There are ways in which we can deal with the problem, by developing proper housing and a proper environment and by job creation, particularly in the inner city. Of the children in some of the schools that I know 60 per cent of the parents do not work. In some areas 80 per cent of the people live in overcrowded, high-density flats. You can see the powder keg ready to explode if it has not exploded already.

I am at a loss and saddened when I see that nothing is done to deal with this problem. I ask the Minister responsible for this area to take his courage in his hands and if it means creaming money from another area of education he should do that. The section from which he might cream it would be loud and articulate in voice because they have the benefits of the moneys spent on their education and they have now the voice to protect their own interests while the people I am talking about would not have. Politicians are there to protect the people I am talking about, not to respond to the strongest voice in society.

This budget has not done very much about the question of industrial relations. It was felt that it had responded to people who marched in the PAYE tax campaign, but when the sums are done—and in some cases they are—these people will not have come too well out of it and, given the rate of inflation, will find at the end of the day their standard of living eroded. Instead of the hope and promise of a better standard of living they will find themselves worse off. The last thing that this country wants now is industrial unrest.

This Government will have to ensure that industrial peace is maintained and that the hopes and aspirations of workers are as far as possible attained. This can only be done by arresting our very high inflationary rate. The budget has done little to make people confident that the inflation rate can be arrested, because it can add from 4 per cent to 6 per cent on to inflation. That, coming on the heels of the savage price increases about which we have become so accustomed to reading every day, is not creating the kind of climate required to deal with the whole area of negotiations to keep demands at reasonable levels. We are all aware that if demands are excessive they will perpetuate inflation. If Governments, by their very actions in budgetary policies, create inflation, how can we expect workers to be restrained and responsible? Governments should be seen to act in a responsible way and ensure that they are doing all in their power to keep down inflation.

There is no use in going on television or going along to dinners in chambers of commerce and lecturing people as to what they should do. One leads by example; one is governed by example. If the example is not there, people will have little confidence and will not respond. What this nation needs today is leadership. It needs integrity; it needs responsibility; it needs somebody at the helm who can be looked to and responded to and to whom one can say with confidence, "We shall make the particular sacrifices that are required, because we know that we have a Government who are prepared to play their part." Sadly, this Government are not playing their part. They are not being responsible and do not inspire confidence. That is a pity, because the potential of this country for development is great. We have a population of young, vigorous men and women, a population which is reasonably well educated and would be only too anxious to respond to some call for idealism. What do we see? A series of gimmicks which started at the last election by way of a document called the manifesto, which has now been cosily tucked away and not spoken about. That is not good enough. That is the kind of irresponsibility about which I am talking.

People will not respond when they see this trick-of-the-loopery going on from time to time. People want effective, sound leadership and when they get that, they will respond accordingly. If one tricks them—and I believe that they were tricked—they will respond in the opposite way. A very serious problem facing our country in the coming year is getting down to negotiating increases to ensure that workers' living traditions are protected and improved, that we have the minimum disruption in employment and are getting the highest rate of productivity. Unless we get these things working together, we shall be going no place. We shall not achieve any real growth rate in our economy and, consequently, living standards will suffer.

Actions by this Government, prior to the last election and since, have been responsible for the problems that we have seen over the last couple of years. One must ask, when are they going to take themselves seriously? They were given a mandate, they were given a whacking majority and they have not responded to that majority in any way. Over the last year there was a squabble for power and now that the squabble is over, we have a divided house. Like all divided houses it is not peaceful, nor is it conducive to peace, nor will peace emanate from it.

The first thing that the Government must do is convince the public and the electorate that they are now a serious government, with serious policies capable of dealing with the very pressing issues of today. On the whole question of finance, cut-backs and statements from various Ministers, there is no visible policy. We hear of a transport system which is costing this country a considerable sum of money. Whether we are getting good or bad value is a rather moot point. Certainly, our transport system requires to be looked into. We had recently a rather startling report, to say the least. A lot of it I would not go along with, because it advocated the closing of our rail system. Our rail system must remain. Any country that wants to expand its economy must have proper communications. Our rail system must be preserved whatever the cost.

What disturbs me is the on-off situation of a rail system within the city. There are plans for a rapid rail system. These plans were costed but the figures are probably out of date now. Recently the Minister who is in charge of that area threw cold water on the plans and despite the great need for such a development there is a question mark over it. We are building satellite towns around our city but we have no lines of communication between them and the city. It is a crazy system. The rapid system was costed at one stage at £250 million. Surely finance could be borrowed from the various funds available for such projects. It would have the effect of saving fuel and getting people to their places of employment in an efficient and orderly way. If it was an efficient system it would induce people to leave their cars at home, again saving fuel.

We built towns in Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Clondalkin and Ballymun. These are vast areas of population but the infrastructure and road network to them is totally inadequate and unsatisfactory. It forces people to use their cars thus using a very scarce and expensive imported resource. I asked a question about the rapid rail during a debate on a Private Members' motion and was told that a transport commission were sitting and until they reported the Government could not make any decisions. New Ministers came in and made decisions. One would ask oneself what the purpose of these committees is if Governments have already made their minds up. If one does not want to do something about a particular situation one sets up a committee which meets a few times.

The Minister is saying we cannot have rapid rail. Where are we going? Surely it is easy to see that it is needed. CIE who are the transport authority who deal with this have been pressing for it because they see it will alleviate many problems and solve others. They were cast aside and time dragged on. As a result of that inflation is putting the price up and making it a bigger excuse for doing nothing.

If one travelled in any of these suburban trains lately one would notice that the rolling stock is disgraceful, dangerous and uncomfortable. Despite that one cannot get on to these trains because the demand is so great. Surely that is proof that we should have a firm commitment from the Government to this type of urban transport. It would have the effect of improving the commercial life of the inner city because people could come from areas like Tallaght in 19 minutes. In other words they would be sure of getting a train at 8 a.m. and being in their place of employment by 8.30 a.m. whereas if they got a bus at 8 a.m. they might get into their place of employment at 9.30 a.m. People tend to lose touch with the city, commercial life tends to suffer and all in all the whole situation requires serious consideration and commitment from the Government. The commitment is not forthcoming and the will is not there. The channels for getting finance are there but the Government do not see this as a priority and consequently it is put into oblivion.

Something should be done to keep the city moving. The Minister stated recently that he would ban cars from the city. One does not ban this and that unless one has an alternative ready. The way to curtail cars coming into the city is to have a viable alternative. The commuter will leave his car at home, given the price of petrol today, if he is guaranteed that he can travel from A to B in a reasonable time.

The commitment to put money into road development and developing bus lanes will have the effect of improving our transport and encouraging people to use the public transport system. To glibly say no to a rapid rail system because they have not got money for it and a few days later to say they will ban cars from the city and that will solve the congestion is indicative of the woolly thinking of the Government who do not know where they are going. It is regrettable to have to say that but it is a fact. The sooner the commission report and the Government make decisions the better. In the long run the saving on fuel will be astronomical.

As regards energy conservation I am worried about the Government's total inaction on this. The Taoiseach set up a Department of Energy. I hope they use some energy to save some energy because to date nothing much seems to be happening in that area. Even within that Department one must question the use of imported fuels and ask: "Is there no other way in which we can conserve energy?" In 1978 the bill for oil was £2 million. That figure is possibly £3 million by now. There is no real policy.

Small industries, not major industries, are building their own incinerators and burning their own refuse and, in the process, saving fuel and saving capital. That is private initiative working. The Department of Energy seem to be paralysed and totally inactive. I know a policy was presented to the then Minister for Health, now the Taoiseach, on fuel conservation in hospitals which would make a saving of the order of £2 million on oil costs by burning waste. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears. No notice seems to have been taken of it. More developed and more sophisticated countries have a fuel conservation policy and they are not as dependent on imported fuel as we are. We seem to be suffering from squander-mania and to have very little sense of responsibility about energy conservation.

Is there any incentive for firms to conserve fuel? I know there are grants. Are there any sanctions on firms who will not conserve fuel? In some countries, if an industry uses the same amount of energy as they used last year for the same unit output, a penalty clause is built in to a percentage of their fuel. They must reduce their fuel consumption per unit of cost or they are penalised. We should look at areas like that. The days of not caring much about fuel conservation because of low costs are long gone. They are gone for six years and we still have not adopted any policy in this area. Why?

I put down a motion and got it passed in my local authority to have Ballymun, which is a vast complex, heated by burning waste. This is nothing new. It is not a revolutionary idea of mine. It is done in England and all over the Continent. It costs in excess of £1 million to heat that complex and the amount of oil which could be saved gives an indication of what could be done on a national basis if we were serious about energy conservation. Our competitiveness will depend on our ability to conserve fuel and to use it in the most efficient way. If we continue to use it at its present high cost, we will price ourselves out of markets very quickly.

The effect of our oil imports on our balance of payments is very serious. We cannot go on with a major deficit in our balance of payments. This is an area we can do something about if we have the will to do it. I would have thought that the Government, in the plight they are in, would be looking for areas like this. Then there is the question of district heating—heating whole areas of houses from central boilers and cutting consumption dramatically. There is no lead from Government sources. We should try to get the private builders involved. Despite the cost of fuel, people still want central heating whether from a back boiler, or using oil, or whatever. Whatever fuel we are using must be used to maximum advantage. The ESB can play a major role in energy conservation. This is done in Germany, Denmark and Norway. The concept of district heating is not new in those countries. It is part of their whole economy and was even when fuel could be purchased at low cost. Now more than ever, we will have to consider that type of approach.

The employment premium scheme was very important in certain industries and kept them going. It played a very effective role and it now appears to be ending. This could have—I hope it will not—very serious effects on industry. Because of competition and for many other reasons, certain industries are finding it hard to be viable. This scheme should never be abandoned. It should not be a hand-out or a benefit and it should be tailored from time to time. It should be used, whether sparingly or otherwise, to create or protect jobs particularly in the clothing industry. Many of these industries are labour intensive and, if they go to the wall, this will involve relatively high unemployment, and the cost of replacing those jobs will be tremendously high.

An increased contribution by employers to the PRSI scheme was announced. We must ask ourselves are we serious about encouraging employers to take on additional workers. More and more we are making it harder and harder for employers to take them on, because the cost is becoming prohibitive. This is a very serious area. The Government have a grave responsibility to ensure that the employment we have is maintained and that we are not seen to be putting additional burdens on employers, thus preventing them from employing additional workers. I will not detain the House any longer.

I should like to speak briefly about some items in the budget. First, in general terms, I should like to say something about certain functions of the budget. We all know that a budget is necessary to regulate and readjust the economy and further to appraise the general concourse of fiscal matters, immediate, past, proximate and, in the longer term, to take cognisance of various trends and identify them, and not alone identify them but earmark them, to curb and slow down unhealthy growths within the economy and to stimulate others that would bring benefit to the economy. Another function of the budget would be to embark immediately on a course of action to pursue real advancement in the community towards proper development and social justice.

Many factors, mostly external, have contributed to a rise in Exchequer borrowing. This cannot be sustained and it would not be proper to attempt to sustain it. As a people, we must cut the cloth more to measure and by determination and effort, coupled with careful and skilful management of the economy—which fortunately we have—we must bring our fiscal situation under control. We must appreciate that deficits are not a 12 months phenomenon, not a once-off wonder, but that rather that they factually remain within the accounting system and at some stage required taxation to continually finance them. We must tailor our cloth to measure. The simple maxim would be that today's people cannot live on tomorrow's people's toil nor can to-day's gratification be at the expense of tomorrow's misery. Public finance must be kept in reasonable balance so as to improve the position of poorer sections of the community and not to negative investment growth or hinder employment.

The present budget is realistic in that when scrutinised it measures up to these criteria. Here, I consolidate my argument by welcoming the recent announcement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the IDA of over 400 jobs for the Bray area and the £5 million investment also recently announced. This is a clear example of confidence if we have people willing to continue this level of investment, which is not solely in the new industry category but is in a mixed category. It involves new industry, traditional industry and also the family business. My understanding is that there would be further investment and industry in the north Wicklow area, if land for such a purpose were available.

Deputy O'Brien was really muddled as to whether he was speaking in terms of road transportation or rail transportation. My belief is that there is provision in the Estimate and there is Government commitment to the rapid rail system from Bray to Howth. The Deputy was more than pessimistic in suggesting that there was no commitment. I assure him that there is. Also, in the Bray area I am pleased to say that we are aware of a mobile 1,000-line telephone exchange coming in. That is much needed. Also proposed is the transfer of 260 lines from the Bray to the Shankill exchange. This is an investment in the community and shows confidence in the community. I am pleased to welcome the new arrangements made by the Taoiseach in his recent very successful talks in Paris. We hope that this telephone deal will get under way very quickly.

I have read or heard many speeches relating to the budget from the Opposition. I use the term generously when I say "relating to" the budget or budgetary proposals. Many of the speeches appear to me to smack of star trekking or crystal gazing. This evening, Deputy O'Brien introduced election speculation, the latest unspecified opinion poll. He got involved in the percentage points inflation syndrome. He made sweeping statements and use of the ponderous adjectives of crisis. "Serious" crops up eight times in the space of four minutes. This was an endeavour to portray Dublin as the Dublin of "Strumpet City". It seems to me that there is a competition for some kind of medal on the Opposition benches to find who will manage to debase our community and our country. It also seems as if "Roget's Thesaurus" has been turned over repeatedly in the search for the collection of synonyms and adjectives which will create this climate. Deputy O'Brien did raise his speech at one stage to a positive level but he must have realised that he was losing ground in this competition and he fell back into the quagmire in search of his medal. Perhaps the next Fine Gael speaker will tell us if there is such a competition.

We will leave the competition to yourself.

The competition seems very much on your side. "Roget's Thesaurus" must really have been in use and Deputies must have been looking at the word "crisis". Apparently, they did not reach the word "serious" as they had to repeat it time and again. When they open their book tomorrow and look at the various adjectives there for it, they will perhaps move into that sphere. I hope that I am not helping any Deputy in his efforts to win this medal but, fair play to them, if there is a competition and if the leader of the Opposition is to announce the winner of this infamous competition, we can wait. Perhaps we on this side of the House could announce the winner.

There has been much speculation in what is supposed to be an appreciation or examination of budgetary proposals. We look at the reality of our situation. We are not a self-contained or selfsufficient economy, unfortunately, but rather an open and developing economy, vulnerable and facing many challenges. The budget offers a firm basis for the community to tackle some of these challenges.

The challenge of oil costs which amount to £800 million must be tackled. It is my hope that the increase in the price of petrol imposed in the budget will bring about the necessary and vital conserving effect. People acknowledge and appreciate the harsh leveller which this £800 million bill is. It is not sufficient to appreciate this as a leveller. There is a duty on a government and on a community to tackle such a problem. A government must introduce a measure, such as that in the budget, in order to curb the use of petrol thereby conserving fuel and leading to a better balance in our fiscal affairs.

A further challenge is the necessity to move towards taxation equity. I welcome the decision announced by the Minister for Finance to set up a commission to look into the question of taxation. That decision indicates that while a major advance on PAYE has been achieved more remains to be done before we reach a fair and equitable tax system. I wish the commission well in their deliberations and I trust that speedy recommendations will ensure. I should now like to deal with an issue on which I have received a lot of representations, the question of unearned income. That matter is very hurtful and causes genuine discontent, even anger, amongst certain people. They are annoyed when they see part of their investment strategy and savings in the form of superannuation contributions over many years being classified as unearned income and made liable to a certain taxation rate. I have confidence that the commission will deal sympathetically with this issue.

The budget will ensure an increase in take-home pay for the PAYE sector and it clearly represents a move from direct to indirect taxation. That is a good thing. It is only proper that people should be left with the majority of their earnings. They should have a discretion as to how they spend their earnings. The system of moving from direct to indirect taxation allows for two spending elements. It allows a discretionary element in relation to expenditure on drink, tobacco and some fuel, and the non-discretionary element relates to the essential commuting to work. The increase in take-home pay following the concession in the budget will more than compensate for the non-discretionary element I mentioned. We must consider the effect in villages and towns that an increase in take-home pay for workers will have. More money will be circulating within the social structures of those communities. It is a nice compliment to the implemented policy on rates abolition on domestic properties to say that people were left with a lot more money in their pockets rather than having to pay it over at some counter. That money was spent within the local community. In many cases the abolition of rates meant that people had an extra £5 per week to spend. After this budget many PAYE workers will have an extra £5 or £6 per week to spend. If that money is spent locally it ought to lead to improvements in that area. Some Deputies might consider that an insignificant amount but it is a factor that must be considered.

For those living in corporation flats it is insignificant; it does not exist.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to reply and compete for the medal. I have no doubt that he will be one of the front-runners in that title race.

I appreciate the Deputy's confidence in me.

I should now like to deal with the extra money which the lower income group will receive as a result of improvements in the social welfare code. We all welcome the 25 per cent increase in long-term benefits and the 20 per cent increase in short-term benefits. Fianna Fáil recognise the importance of the family within the community and, accordingly, have substantially increased children's allowances. The £3.50 rate is being increased to £4.50 and the £5.50 rate goes up to £7. Speakers have glossed over that and the fact that people have taken it for granted is an indication of the confidence they have in Fianna Fáil to look after the less well-off people in our community. The budget also recognises the vital part and involvement of the less privileged and handicapped in our community.

The measures relating to taxation of farmers do not greatly deviate from the proposals put forward last year. In the great climate of uncertainty which surrounds farming at present—much of this is caused by activated ideas and suggestions from the EEC—there is a lot of worry. However, it is important that we highlight a static measure in the budget, the retention, for a three-year period at least, of the lower £40 limit. I want to stress that because I am aware of the variables, the influences, speculations and anxieties that exist in relation to this matter within the farming community. Linking the issue of the resource tax with the fundamental fact that the accounts system will not be fully effective this year I am pleased that the Taoiseach has given a guarantee that the resource tax is a short-term expedient and is not intended to be a permanent feature of the system. The aim must be for a fair and equitable system of taxation for all the community. I recognise that various interest groups must play certain roles but I urge everybody to co-operate in tackling the present and evolving issues. I am confident that the proposals in the budget are tailored to our needs.

Dar liom, oireann an cháinaisnéis seo do chúrsaí na tíre san lá atá inniu ann. Féachann sé i ndiaidh lucht na cánach dírigh. Fágtar an t-airgead i bpócaí na n-oibrithe a ghnóthaigh é. Ligtear leis an saoránach a chuid féin a chaitheamh. Admhaím go bhfuil cuid den chaiteachas sin riachtanach, nach de réir a thola féin a chaitheann sé é, b'fhéidir, ach is as a stuaim fein a chaitheann sé mórchuid den phá. Is cóir go bhfaigheadh an t-oibrí an chuid is mó den tuarastal a ghnóthaionn se ina láimh ag deireadh na seachtaine. Aontaím leis sin mar bhunprionsabal.

Fáiltim roimh an córas nua cánach atá bunaithe ag an Aire Airgeadais. Tuigtear dom go bhfuilimid tosnaithe ar bhealach chun córas cothram, cóir cánach a bhunú. Is maith is eol do Theachtaí Fhianna Fáil go bhfuil míchothramaíocht sa chóras seo, ach tá tús a réitigh déanta. Féachann an cháinaisnéis freisin i ndiaidh lucht na n-óg, na sean-aoise is na n-easláinte, na daoine a bhíonn ag brath ar an gcóras shóisialach. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil ardú 25 faoin gcéad agus 20 faoin gcéad in allúntais na ndaoine seo. Fáiltionn siad roimh an airgead seo. Is airgead ina lámha acu é, airgead nach n-imíonn sara bhfaigheann siad é. I welcome the various measures in this budget. There are many aspects of the budget. I would hope people in their deliberations, in their assessment of the budgetary proposals, will disengage themselves from this race which is apparent on the Opposition benches, that Roget's Thesaurus will be left back on the shelf and that they will not start looking for the synonyms that have been sought and that there will be an effort made to contribute positively across the floor.

Let me assure Deputy Murphy that there is no competition on this side of the House at all. It would be our view that we have had adequate competition in political parties, particularly on the opposite side of the House, to suffice for a number of years. If we had had less competition and more attention to national concern and to national welfare over the last two years perhaps this budget would not be depicting the kind of picture that it is depicting.

This debate is treated seriously by us although I would like to express a personal view at the outset. I question the wisdom of the efficacy of such a debate. It is hard to be convinced that anything we say will have a great deal of impact on the Government. One gets the feeling that parliament is being debased to a significant degree by a debate which seems to be very much along the lines of discussing something which seems to have been essentially rubber stamped. Is it conceivable that we might have any changes in budgetary strategy or in budgetary detail arising out of contributions which are seriously made by speakers on both sides of the House? I do not think so.

I would appeal to the Minister for Finance in governments now and hopefully in the future to consider this Dáil as a way of gaining insight into the concerns, anxieties, criticisms and feelings of the ordinary man in the street so that we could benefit from such an input. At 8 o'clock on a Thursday evening I feel a little bit like someone who is to some extent substantially going through the motions of a debate which I do not have a great deal of confidence in in terms of its impact on anybody. It is our duty to say clearly that if we are going to continue with this kind of debate, arid and barren, probably having no effect whatsoever except filling in the time, reminiscent of the work of playwrights like Beckett or people like that, with a nihilistic view of the whole thing—which I have—I think we will find that people will eventually lose total credence and total confidence in this parliamentary system.

Certainly many of us, and particularly young people, do not believe that this Dáil is as relevant as it should be or occupies as central a part of the arena in public life as it should. This is an example of it. This debate will play itself out of its end and we will go on to something else. I wonder if there is any serious consideration given by anybody to anything that is said here? But perhaps I am unduly pessimistic. There were changes last year but unfortunately they emanated from lobbies and parties outside the House. The farming community certainly brought significant changes to budgetary strategy. Perhaps changes will emanate again from outside bodies. The farmers show every sign of repeating last year's performance. It would be better still if changes emanated from responsible spokesmen and from Members of this House who are concerned about national affairs. So the very wisdom of the budget debate in its present form is something that we should consider.

Obviously a budget such as this is not something that any member of the Opposition would wish to totally deride and pretend that there are not good elements in it. But we should see the budget in a very fundamental way. A budget is not merely a financial exercise, a question of accountancy and a question of balancing the books. A budget is primarily and fundamentally a social statement, not a fiscal one. It reveals nakedly and obviously the Government's thinking, the Government's philosophy on matters of social and economic policy; and the social policy is the fundamental one. The economic policy is the natural growth of the thinking of a Government on its order of social priorities and on the manner in which the country's finances should be ordered to accord to a view of the way the country should be run. If that is accurate—and I believe it to be not just accurate but in fact a cornerstone of budgetary policy—then we have in this budget, at this deep level, a very deficient budget. In other words it is, and it is clearly seen to be, a reactionary budget in the literal sense of that word.

It is not an economist's budget but an accountant's budget, a budget whose primary concern is to balance books and to stave off the lobby groups, to do the minimum necessary to accord to the dictates of the courts and in general to contain things so that we will emerge to live for another day. I would like to think that a budget would be a statement by a Government in economic terms of its commitment to reform those areas of public life and, indeed, public law which need reform. A budget therefore should be innovative, imaginative; it should have vision; it should be wise. I do not see any of these quaities in the budget. These are the usual peripheral gestures to small groups and I will resist the temptation to say that they are largely designed for political purposes.

I am talking about fundamental things like the idea of social justice. I have heard much about the social benefits in the budget, which were increased by 25 per cent gross. Can any member of the Government deny that the 25 per cent was eroded long before the budget by the increases in the cost of living, particularly in the necessities of life, with which people in this category have to contend? References to the CPI are not central in this respect. There have been increases of astronomic proportions in basic foodstuffs, heating and lighting, compounded by the very revealing policy of the consistent dismantling of food subsidies by this Government, clearly showing that for the poor and the poorer there is little hope of the kind of social justice to which they are entitled. An increase of 25 per cent would be significant if it were accompanied by protective subsidies and certain guaranteed minimum standards, but it has been eroded by the continuous increases which have taken place, facilitated by a Government who neglected to keep the promise in their manifesto relating to the National Prices Commission and the need for stronger price controls.

Already people appreciate that the budget is likely to be one of the most inflationary in our history. Its major effect will be to send the cost of living soaring at a higher rate than heretofore. Within days of the announcement of the magic increases in social welfare payments, the cost of a cylinder of gas commonly used in corporation flats and small houses was increased by a massive 77p.

I wish to deal with aspects of the budget which have not previously been mentioned or have not been dealt with adequately. A change of emphasis is evident in a number of respects. This is understandable when there has been a change in Government leadership but it cannot work two ways. If last year's policies were right and this year's policies are different, something must have happened in the meantime to make the earlier policies redundant. There is clearly the dropping of certain goals in, for example, the job creation area. Does this mean that last year's targets were wrong or were not successful? I see nothing wrong with such an admission. Above all people will respect truth, and time and again it has not been given to them by politicians. People are fed up with cynical double-talk. The Government are pretending that things are still the same, but we know that not only the pack has been reshuffled. There appears to be a rein on the massive borrowing which occurred until now—borrowing which was completely profligate and designed to deliver on promises made only for political expediency. People now know that the confidence tricks played during the last general election must now be paid for.

I am a bit old fashioned about the democratic process and believe that a Government need a new mandate if they decide to change economic policies, otherwise they are acting on a mandate which does not exist or which existed for some other reason. This is not the budget which the former Taoiseach and his Cabinet would have introduced, nor is it the budget for which they were given a mandate. There is to some extent an undemocratic aspect.

The budget does not take a basic look at our finances and make a fresh start by admitting that the way things have been done in the past is not satisfactory. I know there are heavy pressures on people in public life, and particularly on those in Government, which tend to depress the sense of idealism and commitment to social and political change. When a Government lose the feeling of wanting to change things they are superfluous.

I do not know if there is any way of balancing day-to-day reaction—what we might loosely call "crisis management"—with the need to innovate and lead. It is some time since people were given a lead by politicians and told that there are many things in Irish life which together we could change. There does not have to be this inevitable, almost Pavlovian, opposition between Government and Opposition. There are ways in which we can co-operate and there is much greater scope for consensus in this House so that we can work for the benefit of all the people. I am mindful of a recent debate in Private Members' time which could have been handled far better by the Government and perhaps there are aspects of the Opposition's affairs which could be better handled, given any hint that a consensus on certain issues would be forthcoming. Such an approach would be respected. People do not believe that 82 people on one side of the House——

The Ceann Comhairle is exempt. It is not credible that all the people on the Government side are right and all on the other side are wrong. It is only fair to say that in some respects there is an honest attempt in the budget to make progress but what I fault it on is the narrow definition it gives to progress because progress, so far as the other side of the House is concerned, means balancing the books and looking after those who look after you.

Should we not have a balanced budget?

Our aim should be for a stable society in which everybody gets a fair share.

The budget is designed towards that end.

I would take issue with the Minister of State in that respect. Most of my constituents, for instance, do not earn more than £8,000 per year on average. Neither do they live in large houses in respect of which the rates relief amounts to a saving of about £300. In addition, a high percentage of the people in some areas of my constituency are unemployed and this means that they will not benefit in any way from the income tax relief. There is not any social justice in that area and not a penny has been spent of the much trumpeted £1 million that was put aside for reforming it.

It will be spent.

I was told that 12 months ago. The budget, though, will benefit the articulate and, dare I say so, the well-heeled because they are the group in society to whom, sadly, the Government consider themselves as having a primary obligation. We will continue to have social injustice for as long as there is lack of courage to say to those who have that there are others who have very little even if those others are not organised.

Another factor which is important and which should be reflected in the budget is the quality of life and it is a factor which does not cost money but there is no evidence of any zeal in this regard. This Government are the most non-reformist that we have ever had. Their record of legislation since their return to office represents an appalling abdication of duty. I cannot think of one piece of initiating legislation coming before the House since Fianna Fáil assumed office again.

There are about 50 pieces of legislation before the House.

The question of the legislation before the House does not arise during this debate. Deputy Keating is in possession and should be allowed to continue without interruption but he must move away from dealing with Bills.

Much more could be done by the Government to introduce standards of social justice and fair play. Such initiatives could be taken both in the budget and in other legislation. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to consider such initiatives, many of which would not be contentious politically but which would have the support, I am confident, of all sides of the House.

I am saddened at the way in which we structure our budgets, at our failure to ask fundamental questions. What happens apparently in relation to Estimates for public services is that we take last year's figures and add to them a little if that is economically possible, judicially imperative or politically attractive and we take away from somewhere else. In other words, there is no fundamental approach. Do we ever get involved, for instance, in what is termed "zero budgeting" which is a question merely of going back to basics and asking ourselves if the relative ratios of expenditure in respect of the various Departments are any longer the right ones? Why should we continue forever to spend roughly twice as much in one area as in another? Should we, for example, give a much higher priority to education than is the case? To say that there is a cut-back in education is to give only half the picture. There are those in the House who would say that education has been always the poor relation. Of course, to give priority to education would require courageous decisions and tough public debate and the money would have to come from some other area but I should like to know who decides the order of priorities. I ask this question because the Government's order of priorities this year is more or less the same as it was last year in terms of the allocation of expenditure. Indeed, that order is much the same as it was in the previous year and in the year before that.

We should ask basic questions such as whether we get value for money from the time the first penny is spent and whether we should decide on a reformed order of priorities. Should we say, for instance, that this year we will achieve a complete new frontier in health, education, social welfare or whatever and that, consequently, more money than ever before shall be spent in those areas on the obvious understanding that the extra expenditure must come from some other area? But the situation is that much of the money is spent on the work of containing and maintaining services while very little account is taken of whether we are getting value from the money we spend. There is substantial waste in terms of the budget and there is substantial waste in the public service. It is not necessary to talk about the massive precipitation of people out of jobs. I am talking about motivating people, setting goals and targets in areas where none exists. I am talking about getting value from money and giving value to people's lives. One of the major and growing problems in Irish governmental budgetary policy is the burgeoning public service which is threatening to destabilise our whole economic equation. Sooner or later this problem must be faced.

I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of potential for good lying untapped in the public service. There are people in the public service who are anxious to do good work but the reality is different. It would seem that initiative in the public service is not only stymied but is sometimes penalised particularly if it goes wrong. The major questions that are asked are ones such as, "Is there precedence for this action?" Ministers have been known to take refuge in that line also. The result is that, instead of Government Departments operating to set goals and targets inspired by ideas of achieving these targets within a certain framework and within a certain time with the feeling among the people concerned that they were on some kind of national mission, there is a situation of reaction.

If the attitude in any part of the public service is that it is immaterial whether a job is done today or tomorrow, money is being wasted but, worse, there is being wasted massive human potential. Therefore, one of the most challenging and exciting tasks that could be undertaken by the Government and reflected in the budget would be to set goals and targets for every area of Government so that each person would know what job he had to do, the period of time in which he should do it and the manner in which it was to be achieved. Most members of the public service would respond magnificiently to such a challenge because for the first time they would have been asked to join with the respective Ministers in bringing this country somewhere. The result of that would be that we would get better value for money though my concern fundamentally relates more to the question of human wastage. Also, we would have to spend in other areas money which is not now being expended. In pure economic terms there are probably five main goals to be met by a budget. We should take a brief look at whether or not these have been achieved.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share