: Too much attention has been focused on the specific measures adopted in this year's budget and not enough attention given to the objectives it is trying to achieve and the reasons why so severe a budget was necessary. We must ask why is it, when our economy is in the state it is in, that the Government have no room for manoeuvre and little scope for introducing remedial actions.
The answer lies with the policies adopted by each of the four Fianna Fáil Ministers for Finance in the years 1977-82. In 1977, with the Irish economy expanding and with world demand growing, Deputy George Colley introduced the wildly inappropriate measures proposed by his then colleague in Fianna Fáil, Martin O'Donoghue. Public spending was boosted for its own sake. No account was taken of the benefits this spending was to bring or the efficiency with which it was spent. This extra, wasteful and unnecessary public spending was financed not by taxation but by borrowing and we see the fruits of that policy to-day.
Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and Deputy Ray MacSharry along with Deputy Colley may walk to the beat of different Fianna Fáil drums but in the implementation of bad economic policies they all carried the same torch. Each of these former Finance Ministers, along with their Fianna Fáil colleagues, carry the responsibility for the current poor state of the public finances and the consequent inability of the State to take action to stimulate economic recovery through an expansionary budget.
In July 1981, in January 1982 and now again in February Fine Gael and Labour have shown in Government that we have the courage to face up to the economic problems of the country and we have the determination to introduce the policy measures Fianna Fáil ran away from during their years in office.
When the Leader of the Opposition became Taoiseach he went on television to inform the country of the dire straits we were in and indicated the necessary harsh measures that were required to deal with these problems. At that time he had the country behind him but, at the first chill wind of a pressure group, he collapsed like a deck of cards. That is when our problems began.
The Opposition seemed to believe when they were in Government, as they do now, that there is a choice about the policies the Government can now introduce. There is but one choice — continue the downward path along which Fianna Fáil's lack of political courage led us or face up to our problems and introduce measures to reduce our borrowing requirement and get our public finances into order again.
Measures to control Government spending and reduce our borrowings are not introduced in place of measures to stimulate growth and employment. Measures to control Government spending and to reduce our borrowings are prerequisites for putting the economy into a position where we can avail of the opportunities to produce and sell more goods and services and, as a result, boost employment.
When the Opposition accused the Government of being preoccupied with the public sector deficit they displayed the type of approach which has put the country into the difficulties we now face. This Government are determined not only to restore balance to the public finances but to introduce policies which will encourage development and improve prospects for a sound, sustained economic recovery.
Taxation for a number of years has been reaching intolerable levels and yet we are still not raising sufficient revenue to cover Government spending. There is limited scope for more taxation as is evidenced by the fact that while labour costs to employers have been rising rapidly, workers' take-home pay has been falling, as the Government steps in to take their share to pay for the services they provide. All this leaves only one course of action open to the Government. That course of action is to curb increases in Government spending and to introduce greater efficiency in the use of public funds so that the cost of providing State services can be curtailed.
The Government will strive to achieve the higher productivity and greater efficiency in the public sector on which the restoration of balance between Government revenue and spending rests. The key to increasing employment and improving living standards rests on improving efficiency and productivity in the private sector also. Measures will have to be introduced in both the public and the private sectors to improve performance. Only in this way can we produce and sell more goods and services on the home and export markets.
The management of our country's resources rests in our own hands. It is up to the people charged with utilising those resources to ensure that they are managed in a way which produces the best results at least cost. Unless we can do this in the use of resources in the State sector such as education, agriculture and industrial resources, we cannot hope to achieve the increased living standards and employment growth we all desire.
Structural change to improve performance in industry and agriculture has not been pursued so that much of the country's resources lie under-utilised. This cannot be allowed to continue while so many of our young people are left without jobs. Many people who are stewards of the country's agriculture and industrial resources have failed us as a nation by failing to obtain the full economic potential from those resources. The State, unfortunately, has propped up for too long, too many inefficient producers. This cannot be allowed to continue. State resources should be used sparingly in agriculture and industry and should be used as a lever to bring about change and not as a means of subsidising inefficiency at the expense of the taxpayer. The state of our economy is such that short-term political advantage should no longer be allowed to be the criterion for economic policies. Longer term considerations, which emphasise the efficient use of the country's resources, should be the determinant of economic action.
This budget is the first step that this Government are taking towards altering the economic direction the country is taking. It tackles the main impediment on economic performance — the imbalance in the public finances. We will go on from this budget to pursue measures to improve the use of State funds. Evidence of our commitment to this end is given in the budget speech where the Minister for Finance stated his intention to update procedures relating to public expenditure and taxation to ensure that Dáil Éireann is better informed on expenditure developments.
The budget has been criticised by commentators outside this house for failing to tackle Government spending. I would refer those commentators to the Minister's Financial Statement where he said:
In the time that has been available to this Government since we took office, we have had to concentrate on making the decisions required to restrain the built-in pressure for further growth in expenditure rather than getting down to the fundamental readjustments which will be necessary.
He went on to say that the Government's intention is that expenditure adjustments will be the primary focus of Government attention during the coming years. I welcome that intention because, as I said earlier, I believe it is the only course of action now open to us because of the extremely high rates of taxation facing taxpayers.
I welcome also the commitment to a National Planning Authority. A national plan is not a magic formula for solving our economic difficulties. It is, however, a useful tool for establishing the tasks that need to be undertaken if we are to achieve our desired objectives and it points out the constraints and obstacles that may impede the achievement of those objectives.
Unlike Fianna Fáil, I do not believe that once a plan is written it has achieved its purpose. Indeed, a plan is only a guide to the goals which you want to achieve. There was much talk about a plan that was written hastily, The Way Forward, which seems to have died somewhere along the line. This is the type of dialogue we do not want. Any planning must have positive and realistic goals which it can achieve, not pie-in-the-sky for some political advantage. That is what makes people cynical, and that is why I believe that the Minister in bringing forward a national plan will have the type of goals that can be achieved and that he can bring industry, agriculture and the trade unions with him in writing any plan that must be written. Without the social partners being brought along the road with you, you have little hope of fulfilling any type of economic plan. The time is ripe now and people in all walks of life see the necessity for remedial action, positive action and planning. We should not waste time. Time is not on our side.
At the beginning of my speech I said that debate on the budget had focused on specific measures with little or no attention being devoted to the context in which the budget was introduced or the objectives it sets out to achieve. I have tried to redress that imbalance in my speech. I showed that inappropriate policies over the past few years by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Finance have brought about the current predicament where little scope exists for fiscal policy to be used to ease the state of the economy.
The country's public finances have to be got into balance to provide the sound foundations on which we can then build economic progress. To date, as the Minister said, he has had to concentrate on raising taxation but the emphasis in the future would be on curbing spending. The Minister has also indicated that he has proposals for ensuring that Government expenditure might be made more efficient and effective. I fully support his efforts in this regard.
In the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare I for my part will do all I can to ensure that the money spent is used in ways which bring the best results. We must strive to make sure that State services get through above all else to the people who need them most. In the health services for example, this means making sure that nobody is deprived of necessary medical care through inability to pay for it.
Nevertheless, the costs of our health services have been rising rapidly in the last decade and now account for over IR£1,000 million of Government spending. We know that the demands for health services and social services far exceed society's capacity to deliver. No matter how desirable, no matter how strong the case for a particular service, it still has to be paid for and it will have to be paid for ultimately out of taxation. Furthermore, improved services in one area of Government spending such as health of necessity means fewer resources for some other area such as social welfare, job creation or education. This makes it all the more imperative that the necessary steps are taken to see that the services are provided in the most cost-effective way and that health agencies seek ways and means of meeting their obligations in the most cost-effective way. This can be done by maintaining the highest of services but by ensuring that we get value for money. The medical profession particularly seem to feel that there is no onus on management, that it is purely on the health side. In a time of scarce resources it is necessary that everybody is conscious of expenditure and that in the expenditure for which people are responsible they must see that the best value is obtained. If we adopt that attitude across the board we can improve our existing services.
Seeking the most effective way of doing this entails, for example, the elimination of wasteful practices such as that caused by unnecessary admissions to hospitals. In my experience, some outpatients departments are neither adequately accommodated nor properly organised. If deficiencies in this area are remedied, it would help to ease the demand on in-patient accommodation.
By virtue of the soaring cost of health services, it is necessary to stop and take stock of our situation particularly in the current economic climate. Even in times of strict economy, there is much that can be achieved in the planning and development of our services. This is the time to plan for a better co-ordinated service. It goes without saying that careful attention to the planning and operation of the preventive public health service makes sound economic sense. This is something which we should continue to pursue and to effect. The impact of many diseases and conditions of ill-health which are prevalent in Ireland is considerable in terms of human suffering and pressure on primary health care and hospital resources. In view of this, there is a need to develop programmes aimed at the promotion and maintenance of health practices and the prevention of disease.
A period of challenge and opportunity is facing the health services in Ireland today. Gone are the days of the old killer diseases that flourished through poor hygiene and lack of adequate prevention programmes and claimed large numbers of casualties who were beyond the help of the medical profession.
Without the dedicated involvement of people at the local community level, the efforts of governments and professional bodies will not bring results. There is no substitute for the example set or the advice given by respected, concerned members of a local community. The family doctor, the local clergyman, the public health nurse: these are people who are traditionally in a position to influence those with whom they come in contact. They meet all sections of our community, including the disadvantaged members of society, the poor, the illiterate, the very young and the very old. These are the vulnerable groups who are most at risk — these are the people who are in the greatest need of motivation to seek the help they may need, to avail themselves of services which are there for them. Yet these are the very people who are not reached by national campaigns or, indeed, by free toothbrushes. They do not relate to high-powered publicity measures. That is not part of their world. They will respond only to the advice of friends, neighbours and local community leaders. The Health Education Bureau must ensure that these sources of advice and help are well informed and motivated for their role.
Increasing attention needs to be paid to the health and welfare of mothers and young children, if we are to achieve significant effects on the health status of our people generally. Not alone must emphasis be on the cure of existing disease and the maintenance of health and safety, but also the prevention of potential mortality and morbidity in future adults. Our investment in measures to bring about substantial improvements must be related to the development of strategies designed to combat all the existing adverse factors which influence maternal and child health and safety and to anticipate and plan for future factors and conditions which may arise. This will, I feel, involve a much closer co-ordination of effort between all the planning authorities in the health, environmental, agricultural and industrial spheres than we have experienced so far.
Development in social support and income maintenance measures, technological and medical advances and health education measures are some of the areas which have dramatically affected our thinking and attitudes in recent years and which are closely related to the improvement of maternal and child health. I hope to pay a good deal of attention to these over the next few months and to look at ways and means of strengthening our services and developing them so as to combine the best traditions of the past with the knowledge and advances of the future.
I see the spearhead for achieving further progress in the field of maternal and child health as the community care service. We have developed a relatively comprehensive and sophisticated hospital and specialist maternity and paediatric service but we need, I feel, to place these more clearly in the context of an overall co-ordinated service which is accessible and acceptable to all. In the area of child care, the Children Bill will shortly be coming before the Dáil. This will be most important legislation which will be the basis for the development of a comprehensive child care service.
The community nursing service plays a vital role in bringing health services to the community for particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly. Although the numbers of nurses and the range and level of service offered have expanded considerably in the last two decades, I consider that there is scope now for reexamining ways and means of making the service even more meaningful and pertinent to the needs of the eighties. The public health nurse can have a particularly important part in a comprehensive co-ordinated maternal and child health scheme and I am anxious that the preventive aspect of their work should be geared to provide for this.
I have dealt largely with areas of the health services which I feel should be developed and can be developed, even in this time of economic stringency. At the same time I consider that cost containment in our more expensive services is also vital at this period. The objective therefore must be to ensure that the essential fabric of these services is maintained by ensuring maximum efficiency in the operation of the existing services. This policy will be pursued vigorously in the coming months and will contribute its share to the reduction of the high costs of the health services.
In framing this budget, the Government were extremely concerned to ensure that adequate provision would be made for those dependent on social welfare. It is important to note the very substantial additional provision made in relation to social welfare spending in 1983. The extent of this increase in social welfare spending, which has already been detailed, when viewed against the diffcult financial situation facing the Government, is a clear indication of a commitment to those depending on social welfare payments.
A number of speakers on the Social Welfare Bill referring to the cuts called ours a heartless Government. It is important to point out that there was a substantial increase in the overall amount allowed for social welfare this year — of the order of £250 million. It is well to remember that, and also that, out of the £1,840 million, the health services are carrying something of the order of £1,100 million. This is a very substantial figure. Looked at in the light of our economic climate, one could not but agree that the measures being taken are compassionate. The Minister for Health and Social Welfare indicated that he would have liked to do more, but the 12 per cent long-term and 10 per cent increases, given the economic climate, were good increases.
Other areas looked at included pay-related benefits, which were reduced. Some people are very unhappy about this but it is important at a time of scarce resources that these resources are spread equitably. That is what we wanted to achieve, and that is what we will achieve. The public were concerned that many people on short-term welfare had higher take-home pay than when they were working. That is a situation which every Government and society should discourage; it should not, and could not, be sustained. That is why there were changes in the pay-related benefit system. Reducing the three day social welfare benefit to two days' benefit was a good move given the economic problems and the strains and stresses under which we all work. The substantial figure of £1,840 million is being expended across the board as fairly and equitably as possible. That was the intention in the budget.
There is no intention of attacking one section of society or pitting one section against the other but in times of economic stringency governments have a grave responsibility to be seen to be fair and to do what is right. We would be failing in our duty if we did not do that. I accept that people gripe and that they have the right to have their pressure groups exert pressure on the Government to get more for their interests, but it is up to the Government to ensure that at the end of the day the people who do not belong to pressure groups are not left trailing behind. That is what we have done in giving them a greater increase than 12 per cent. That is very important.
I wish to place on the record my confidence in the Minister and his firm no-nonsense approach in these most difficult times. The Minister has been criticised unfairly for not having spelt out an economic strategy in this budget. This is to misunderstand the budget which is only one part of an economic strategy and, in the Minister's case, the first part of an economic strategy. I have every confidence that he will provide the other parts of a strategy for developing the economy with the same clarity of purpose, firmness and fairness as he has done on this occasion.
In developing a strategy it is important that we be seen to be fair, that the message being expounded is clearly put across and that we endeavour to bring all sections of society with us. Our problems are not just about Government alone: we have an intolerably high unemployment problem, especially among the youth. Everybody — industry, agriculture and the Government sector — has a role to play in developing a viable and strong economy to deal with these problems.
In Government we have a Taoiseach who will give the type of leadership the people want and are calling for. This was a necessary budget. We cannot carry on aimlessly trying to solve our problems by going to the international bankers and dipping our hands into their tills because there will come a time when they say no and we will be in disarray. Many people talk about independence but if we lose our economic independence we will be slaves to the international bankers. That is something I would not like to see. In my view, this budget will ensure that we will not be slaves to international bankers but that we will be an independent sovereign country in control of our fiscal policies. That can only be done when the people realise sacrifices will have to be made because we have been borrowing approximately £1 billion to cover day-to-day expenses. That gave a false impression and everybody tended to thing they were better off but the day of reckoning has come. The chips are being called in and we have to render an account of our stewardship. That is another reason why we introduced this budget.
I am optimistic that this is the right course of action, that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that the people have hope. That is something we must have, hope for the future. We must lay the foundation for a new economic era so that we can harness our population to provide the jobs and prosperity everybody wants.
Despite the criticisms of this budget, I believe it has the nucleus for a new way forward but this is only the first phase and there are many other phases which will have to be gone throught before we see the light at the end of the tunnel. The important thing is that there is hope because without hope there is only doom. We are not a nation of pessimists we are a nation of vitality and youth. They have the hope and we must give them the confidence, and this budget is a start in that direction.
