Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 1985

Vol. 355 No. 5

Financial Resolutions, 1985. - Financial Statement, Budget, 1985.

Before calling on the Minister for Finance to make his Budget Statement, I wish to remind Members that none of the confidential information which will be circulated in advance by the Minister to certain Members may be disclosed to anyone until the Minister has revealed it to the House. Premature disclosure of the information constitutes a serious breach of privilege.

This year's budget is designed to bring us towards the objectives set out in the national plan, Building on Reality. It is part of the three-year policy framework set out in that plan which, while taking account of the inescapable financial constraints, aims to:

—improve the environment for increasing employment;

—reform the taxation system; and

—protect those on low incomes from the impact of the recession.

It is widely held that our tax levels are now an obstacle to economic development. Reform of the tax system is needed:

—to help to create the conditions which will favour expansion of employment;

—to reduce both the opportunities and the incentive for evasion; and

—to restore the competitive balance between domestic business and commerce and their competitors in Northern Ireland.

Despite the severe constraints on the public finances in recent years, the Government have protected the incomes of the less well off and introduced important improvements. Real rates of income support have improved in the past couple of years. Today's budget measures will maintain that momentum.

These needs will be met and employment will be promoted by three of the central features of today's budget.

The first is a radical change in the income tax structure, incorporating

—a reduction in the number of tax rates to three: 35 per cent, 48 per cent and 60 per cent;

—a substantial widening of the 35 per cent tax band;

—abolition of the present top rate;

—increases in personal and other allowances; and

—reductions in tax liability all the way through the income scale for both single and married taxpayers.

The second central feature is an equally radical reorganisation of the VAT system, incorporating a reduction in the number of rates to three: the rates will now be zero, 10 per cent and 23 per cent. This new structure will, by reducing the cash-flow and administrative burdens on productive activity and removing much of the incentive for legal and illegal imports, substantially improve the employment capacity of Irish commerce and industry.

The third central feature of today's budget is an increase in social welfare payment rates by an amount slightly in excess of the expected rate of inflation between mid-1985 and mid-1986, together with improvements in a number of social welfare schemes.

Today's budget measures will ensure that developments in the public finances will be in line with the targets set out in the national plan. The effect of these measures on the cost of living will be about one-quarter of one per cent, the lowest impact since 1978.

The international economic outlook for this year is reasonably favourable, after a very strong year in 1984. Growth is expected to continue in 1985 but at a slower pace than last year. The most encouraging factors on the domestic front are the declining inflation rate, now firmly in single figures and continuing to fall, and the improvement in the balance of payments.

REVIEW OF 1984 BUDGET OUTTURN

Last year, for the first time since 1978, the budget deficit outturn was within target. This was a welcome departure from the trend in the intervening years. Improvements in budgeting procedures and controls are clearly beginning to yield results. This financial discipline will continue to be maintained at all levels.

We were able last year to take advantage of improved market conditions and of Ireland's high credit standing to prepay £637 million in foreign loans maturing in the period to 1989 and to replace them with debt carrying a longer maturity and lower cost. We were also able to renegotiate on more favourable terms and for a longer period a $500 million loan which had been raised in the United States in 1983.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION

Last year real gross domestic product grew by almost 3½ per cent, a rate of growth appreciably faster than the average for the rest of the European Community. Further significant progress was made in curbing inflation, with the average increase in consumer prices in 1984 easing to about 8½ per cent, compared with 10½ per cent in 1983 and 17 per cent in 1982. In the 12 months to mid-November last, the year-on-year average increase slowed further to 6¾ per cent.

The external account continued to improve, with the current balance of payments deficit falling to around 5 per cent of GDP, its lowest level since the mid seventies. Both the agricultural and manufacturing sectors had output increases which were among the highest in recent decades. While unemployment increased by more than 17,000, this increase was considerably smaller than the average increase of almost 30,000 a year in the preceding three years.

At the beginning of 1985, the economy is therefore well placed for the sustained expansion which is envisaged in the plan. If the conditions for sustainable growth in output and employment indicated in the plan are attained, the coming year should be one in which the Irish economy will make further significant progress. The rate of increase in consumer prices, taking account of the effects of this budget, should fall to 6 per cent or below, the lowest rate since 1968. The balance of payments deficit on current account should register a further improvement, with the possibility that the value of exports of goods and services in 1985 will, for the first time in very many years, outstrip the cost of such imports. Unemployment, taking account of the impact of special employment measures, should begin to level out and, given moderation in pay developments, there should be some pick-up in employment.

GENERAL BUDGET STRATEGY 1985

BUILDING ON REALITY

The national plan, Building on Reality sets out the overall shape of budget policy over the next three years. This year's budget targets are consistent with the plan policy.

As recognised in the plan, several factors constrain our ability to achieve reductions in the budget deficit. Interest payments on the national debt have continued to grow; the high level of unemployment has called for considerably increased resources for income maintenance; and an expanding population — now more than 3,500,000 for the first time in this century — creates a greater demand for public services. The strategy outlined in the plan reconciles the tendency towards increased expenditure with the resources likely to be available to us, and the need to generate the extra, sustained employment which we so badly require.

The budget I am presenting today is generally in line with the projections which underlay Building on Reality. The provision for central fund services is unchanged. Overall provision for current supply services will be fractionally higher than planned, but receipts will also be higher than expected, resulting in a current budget deficit almost identical with that envisaged when Building on Reality was published, and equal to 7.9 per cent of GNP. The overall provisions for capital expenditure differ only slightly from those projected in the plan.

EMPLOYMENT

Although it is projected that, given moderation in pay developments, employment should begin to pick up this year, special Government measures are needed to stop the growth in unemployment.

Provision has already been made in the Estimates for major new employment and training schemes which will soon be under way. The gross cost of the social employment scheme alone in 1985 is budgeted at almost £30 million and, when fully operational, it will provide part time employment for 10,000 persons who have been unemployed for one year or more. The success of the enterprise allowance scheme, which has already helped almost 5,000 unemployed persons to set up on their own, and of the many programmes operated under the auspices of the Youth Employment Agency, testifies to the response of this Government to the unemployment crisis.

Expanded provisions in the Estimate for the IDA, Córas Trála, the National Development Corporation and the other promotion and rescue agencies are pitched at the highest possible levels.

My main purpose today is to tackle those features of the tax code which at present inhibit the expansion of employment. In doing this, I have to be conscious of the fact that a relief in one area generally results in a higher tax burden elsewhere. The changes I will propose today have been carefully designed to have the maximum possible beneficial effect on employment.

Before going on to the details of today's budget, I should first like to set out the Government's views on public service pay and incomes policy generally.

PUBLIC SERVICE PAY AND INCOMES POLICY

PUBLIC SERVICE PAY

In the past three years substantial progress has been made in containing the growth of the Exchequer pay and pensions bill. The percentage increase in expenditure over the preceding year has fallen from 15 per cent in 1982 to 10 per cent in 1983 and to just over 7 per cent in 1984, when the provisional outturn amounted to £2,340 million.

The plan provided £2,400 million for public service pay in 1985. This is only £20 million more than the published estimate at current rates of pay. The arbitrator's recent finding of 3 per cent from January and 3 per cent from July in respect of Civil Service grades would cost £108 million if implemented and applied throughout the public service.

The Government are prepared to make provision for a twenty-fourth round in the public service based on this finding. But there must be offsetting savings to secure a budget deficit in line with that planned.

The experience in the past two years has been that public service pay has turned out about £35 million lower than estimated in each year. That is because of tight control over spending in this area. The Government have determined that a saving of £30 million can be made this year, bringing the pay figure at current rates down to £2,350 million.

The excess over the plan provision can be accommodated, taking account of the revenue position and of savings which I will detail later, while the current budget deficit will be kept within £6 million of what was envisaged in the plan arithmetic.

GENERAL INCOMES POLICY

The Government's guideline for pay in the twenty-fourth round, as set out in their statement of 2 April 1984, called for a long pay pause followed by an increase of not more than a few percentage points. The statement identified a number of criteria, particularly the impact of proposed settlements on employment prospects, which parties to pay negotiations were expected to take into account. While settlements in 1984 were more moderate than in previous rounds, and in some instances reflected employment considerations, the trend here was still out of line with trends in competitor countries. In the manufacturing sector last year, for example, hourly earnings increased by about 10 per cent compared with an increase of about 6½ per cent for our main trading partners. This undoubtedly contributed to job losses in that sector.

It is essential that there be a significant further moderation in the rate of pay increases in 1985, in order to maintain, and preferably to improve, our cost competitiveness. The Government's stated pay policy objective is that average pay increases in the private sector should not exceed those in competitor countries. It is now expected that average earnings among our main trading partners will again be limited to an increase of about 6½ per cent in 1985. Here, on the other hand, there will be a substantial carryover into 1985 from last year's settlements, leaving limited scope for new pay increases if the competitiveness of Irish labour is to be improved. The fall in the inflation rate to 6 per cent or less and the income tax improvements in today's budget will provide even further grounds for moderation this year.

CURRENT EXPENDITURE

CENTRAL FUND SERVICES

The estimate for expenditure on Central Fund Services this year, at £2,250 million, is £322 million or almost 17 per cent higher than the 1984 outturn. The debt service component is up by £286 million on 1984, and as a proportion of GNP it shows an increase of about one percentage point. This increase puts a major strain on the 1985 budget arithmetic. To attempt to offset this increase fully this year would, however, require further large-scale expenditure reductions. The Government consider that this would not be justified, particularly as the mediumterm expectations are that interest rates will fall significantly by 1987. This, combined with the absolute necessity of halting the rise in the tax burden, is the principal reason for the Government having decided that the overall level of Exchequer borrowing as a proportion of GNP in 1985 should not be reduced below the 1984 level.

CURRENT SUPPLY SERVICES

The published 1985 Estimates for the non-capital supply services amount to £5,318.5 million. I will be announcing adjustments to these provisions later, the net effect of which, taking account of the addition to the pay provision to which I have already referred, will be to add £115.7 million to current expenditure. Allowing for this, and for the deduction of £50 million Departmental balances, the post-budget provision for the non-capital supply services is just over £5,384 million. This is an increase of some 6¼ per cent in day-to-day expenditure compared with increases of 22 per cent in 1982, 11.4 per cent in 1983 and 8.8 per cent in 1984. The 1985 budget provision of £5,384 million represents a reduction in the proportion of GNP taken up by day-to-day expenditure from about 35.0 per cent in 1984 to 34.6 per cent in 1985, the first reduction in the last seven years, and a start on the way towards the plan target of under 33 per cent of GNP by 1987.

EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS

Apart from the pay saving mentioned earlier, the Government have considered closely whether other reductions could be made in the Estimates provisions for the cost of providing current services. In the light of the most up-to-date information now available about actual 1984 non-capital supply expenditure by Departments, and the recent slowing-down in the rate of inflation, they have decided on certain reductions in the published Estimates totalling £28.6 million. These reductions, and the other changes affecting expenditure which I am announcing today, will be reflected in the revised 1985 Estimates which will be published shortly.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The Government have decided, in the light of the increased provision for public service pay referred to earlier, to make an additional £9.5 million in respect of remuneration available to local authorities by way of an increase in the rates support grant.

SOCIAL WELFARE

This year's total social welfare outlays will exceed £2.25 billion. While economic difficulties have imposed a heavy burden in recent years, other factors have also contributed to the rapid growth in transfer payments. These include demographic changes and real increases in benefit levels.

Long-term Weekly Benefits

The last two budgets provided increases in long-term rates of benefit totalling almost 20 per cent to cover the period from mid-1983 to mid-1985, while inflation in this period is unlikely to exceed 15 per cent. The Government's commitment to match the rate of inflation has been more than honoured. This is in marked contrast to what has been happening during this period in many other European countries.

The Government have decided to increase long-term weekly social welfare rates by 6½ per cent with effect from 11 July 1985. Weekly health allowances will be increased correspondingly.

— This will mean an extra £3.15 a week for a contributory old age pensioner under 80, bringing the maximum pension up to £51.40 a week.

—For a married couple where both are of pensionable age, the increase will mean an additional £5.50 a week, bringing their maximum pension up to £89.75 a week.

—The non-contributory old-age pension will be increased by £2.70, bringing it to a maximum of £44 a week.

—A widow with three children on a contributory pension will receive an additional £5.25 a week, bringing her weekly income figure to £85.95.

Short-term Weekly Benefits

The Government have reviewed short-term rates of benefit, notably unemployment and disability benefits, with particular regard to the relationship with disposable earnings. It has been decided to increase weekly short-term welfare rates by 6 per cent from 11 July. However, rates of unemployment assistance for long duration recipients will be increased by 6½ per cent.

Full details of the various increases are included in the "Principal Features of the Budget".

Equal Treatment

Deputies will be aware that legislative proposals have been introduced to afford equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security. The principal beneficiaries of the proposed changes will be married women who, until now, were eligible for certain benefits at reduced rates only, or for shorter periods of time than their male counterparts and were not entitled to unemployment assistance. The proposed legislation will be debated shortly by the Oireachtas.

Action to Combat Poverty

The Government have prepared legislation to establish a new anti-poverty organisation, to be called "The Combat Poverty Agency". The functions of the agency will include the promotion of research into the nature, causes and extent of poverty, the making of policy recommendations in areas affecting people in poverty or at risk of poverty and the testing of possible new anti-poverty programmes on an experimental basis.

The second EEC combat poverty programme was recently agreed under the Irish Presidency. Under this programme, assistance will be available for a limited number of suitable projects in Ireland.

Family Income Supplement

The family income supplement scheme took effect from 1 November last with payments backdated to 6 September for those who claimed before 1 December. The purpose of the scheme is to redress the imbalance between weekly welfare rates and take-home pay for those on low incomes. As a result of the increases in short-term social welfare benefits and today's changes in personal income taxation, the weekly amounts of income which determine entitlements under this scheme will be increased from next July.

Treatment Benefits

The Government have decided that, from 11 July next, dental, optical and aural benefits under the social insurance treatment benefit scheme will be made available to all pregnant women whose husbands are fully insured. This is a first step in the extension of these benefits to all non-working wives of fully-insured persons. The cost of this measure will be met from within the published provision for social welfare.

Other Social Welfare Policy Changes

I am pleased to say that for the third year in succession the Social Insurance Fund contribution rate will not be increased, despite higher social insurance expenditure. However, the published Estimates for 1985 provide for an increase in the earnings ceiling from £13,000 to £13,800 with effect from April next. The Estimates also provide for an increase in the income ceiling applicable to the 1 per cent health levy from £12,000 to £13,000, with effect from the same date. Provision is also made for an increase from £43 to £49 from April next in the weekly earnings floor above which pay-related benefit is calculated.

Following the passage of the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act, 1984, the redundancy fund has been renamed the Redundancy and Employers' Insolvency Fund. Under this Act, certain additional charges may arise on the fund. To take account of this and of the need to maintain the solvency of the fund, it has been decided to increase the employers' standard contribution rate by 0.1 of a percentage point, that is, from 0.4 per cent to 0.5 per cent, with effect from April 1985.

Overseas Volunteers

Before leaving the area of contributions, I should mention that the Minister for Social Welfare is urgently examining the social insurance position of certain Irish volunteer development workers who go to developing countries. The Government wish to ensure that the social insurance position of such workers is safeguarded. The necessary arrangements will be made in the context of the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill.

Cost of Social Welfare Improvements

The additional cost of the foregoing improvements in social welfare benefits, together with an increase in the value of fuel vouchers which I will announce later, is estimated at £59.4 million in 1985 and £123 million in a full year. I am also making a contingency provision of £600,000 to meet outstanding claims arising from the abolition of the intermittent unemployment scheme with effect from 6 January last. Taking account of anticipated savings on the Social Welfare Vote, the net cost comes to £55.5 million.

SPECIAL EXPENDITURE PROVISIONS

I should now like to mention a number of special additional expenditure allocations which the Government have approved.

Voluntary Organisations

In each of the last two budgets the Government allocated £500,000 to provide once-off grants to meet special needs of a large number of voluntary organisations engaged in the social services area. We have included a similar provision in this year's published Estimates. In recognition of the valuable work done by these bodies, the Government have decided to increase this provision by a further £150,000 to £650,000.

Irish Welfare Centres in Britain

It has also been decided that the level of support for the Irish welfare centres in Britain should be increased from the £72,000 provided in the Estimates to £104,000.

New Park Development in Cork City

The Government are providing £300,000 towards the cost of the development of a new park at South Main Street in Cork, in conjunction with the celebrations marking the 800th anniversary of the founding of the city.

It will be somewhere for the unemployed to sit.

Give them jobs.

Order, please. The Chair must appeal to Deputies to desist from interrupting.

International Youth Year

To mark International Youth Year, the Government are providing a further £150,000 to the International Youth Year Committee. This is in addition to the £140,000 already allocated. The Government are pleased to note that many of the projects envisaged involve the development of links with young people in Northern Ireland.

European Music Year

Twenty-three European nations are taking part in European Music Year 1985. I am providing £100,000 to the Irish committee towards the cost of organising a suitable programme of events.

Youth Orchestras

A sum of £20,000 is being made available to assist three youth orchestras in their activities this year. A sum of £10,000 will be given to the National Youth Orchestra and £5,000 to both the Cork Youth Orchestra and the Irish Youth Jazz Orchestra.

Dublin Zoo

Dublin Zoo has given unique enjoyment to generations of Irish people. It is now in severe financial difficulties, and the Government have decided to give it a special grant of £250,000 to help the Zoo authorities clear an accumulated deficit.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please. I must appeal to Members of the House to restrain themselves. I ask you to remember that great numbers of people throughout the country are listening to this Statement. If you do not mind disturbing anyone here, please have regard for the people of the country and allow them to listen in quietness.

“Asgard II” Sail-Training Vessel

The sail-training ship Asgard II provides a valuable experience for young Irish people. This year the ship will make a special visit to the United States. We have decided to provide an additional £25,000 to facilitate crew changes on this voyage.

Additional Allocations for Sport

Special Olympics

The 1985 European Special Olympic Games will take place in Dublin in July. More than 2,000 mentally-handicapped athletes from 21 countries will take part. I have decided to make £50,000 available to Ireland Special Olympics to assist towards the cost of hosting these games.

Olympic Council of Ireland

Looking further ahead, I am providing a grant of £150,000 to the Olympic Council of Ireland this year to assist in the planning of this country's participation in the 1988 Olympic Games.

Other Sporting Bodies

Additional assistance totalling £75,000 is being provided for other sporting bodies: the details are set out in the "Principal Features of the Budget". The total cost of these special provisions comes to £1.3 million.

NATIONAL LOTTERY

The Government announced in the plan their intention to set up a National Lottery, part of the proceeds of which will be devoted to sport. The Government will shortly be considering detailed proposals in relation to the lottery.

TAXATION

TAXATION POLICY

Tax Reform

The national plan Building on Reality provides that there will be no increase in the overall level of taxation over the period of the plan. This is the starting point for taxation policy in the present budget. Given the overall budgetary constraints, it will be necessary to offset the reductions which I propose by a widening of the tax base and by limited tax increases in other areas. The overall result will be a very substantial improvement in the distribution of the tax burden, a gain in simplicity and, above all, a positive stimulus to economic activity and employment. The changes which I propose today will also eliminate a number of anomalies and open the way for continuing improvements over the next few years.

INCOME TAX

All Taxpayers Benefit

Government policy in relation to personal taxation is that, over the period of the plan, bands and allowances will be adjusted each year so that the overall income tax burden on taxpayers will not increase. In order to give effect to this in the coming income tax year, changes are being made in the income tax bands, allowances and exemption limits. I am also taking this opportunity, to the extent that budget constraints allow, to reorganise the income tax structure in order to remove some of the more marked disincentive effects and complexities.

I am increasing the personal allowance from £3,600 to £3,800 for a married couple and from £1,800 to £1,900 for a single person. In addition, the widowed person's allowance and the one-parent family allowance will each be increased by £100.

Last year I abolished the 25 per cent band and widened the 35 per cent band. This was a first step towards simplifying the structure for income tax deductions. This year I am making major changes which will benefit all taxpayers. The 35 per cent band will be widened by 12½ per cent to £4,500 for single persons and £9,000 for married couples. The four bands at present above the standard rate — at 45 per cent, 55 per cent, 60 per cent and 65 per cent — will be replaced by two bands, one at 48 per cent and the other at 60 per cent. The 48 per cent band will be £2,800 for single persons and £5,600 for married couples. The balance of income will be taxed at the new reduced top rate of 60 per cent.

This reform will effect changes all through the system. All taxpayers will benefit from the increases in allowances and there will be benefits from the changes in rates and bands for taxpayers all the way up the income scale.

Some 65,000 taxpayers who are now paying tax at the 45 per cent marginal rate will, as a result of these changes, see their marginal rate reduced to 35 per cent thus cutting by one-sixth the number of people paying tax at the higher rates. A further 80,000 taxpayers, who at present are paying tax at a marginal rate of 55 per cent, will now have a top marginal rate of 48 per cent. As a result of the abolition of the 65 per cent rate, more than 60,000 taxpayers will benefit from a reduction of their marginal rate from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.

In all, 220,000 taxpayers will experience substantial reductions in their marginal rates or become free of income tax. Some 124,000 taxpayers will see their marginal rate move from 45 per cent to 48 per cent, but the marginal rate will, as a result of the changes in allowances and bands, apply to a smaller amount of income than heretofore, so that the net effect for these taxpayers will nevertheless be a reduction in tax liability. The same is true of the 25,000 taxpayers whose marginal rate will move from 55 per cent to 60 per cent. For almost 430,000 taxpayers, the marginal rate will remain unchanged at 35 per cent, while, for some 55,000, the rate will remain at 60 per cent but for both of these groups the increase in personal allowances will result in a reduction in tax liability.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

In line with these changes to the rates, bands and allowances, I am also increasing the general exemption limits for those on low incomes. The limit for single and widowed persons will be increased from £2,500 to £2,650 and from £5,000 to £5,300 for married couples. In addition, the age exemption limits are being increased from £2,800 to £3,000 for persons aged 65 years or over and from £3,300 to £3,500 for persons aged 75 years or over. These limits will be doubled for married couples. Marginal relief will continue to apply to incomes which do not significantly exceed these limits. The changes to the exemption limits and the increases in personal allowances will remove about 15,500 taxpayers from liability. The cost of these adjustments will be £58 million in 1985 and £97 million in a full year.

That is certainly marginal.

This reform in the income tax system will have four main benefits. First, it will benefit every taxpayer. Secondly, it should ensure that, in respect of income arising in the 1985/86 income tax year, the overall income tax burden on taxpayers will not increase. Thirdly, it achieves a worthwhile simplification of the tax code. Taxpayers, employers and the revenue authorities will all welcome this. Fourthly, overall, the new structure will substantially improve the incentive to produce more and to earn more. I am confident that this will be recognised by the many people who say that their motivation to work has been diminished by high marginal tax rates, and that they will feel again that extra effort is worthwhile.

The special PRSI tax allowance and the temporary levy of 1 per cent on income are to be renewed for a further year.

Last year, I exempted persons earning less than £5,000 a year or less than £96 per week from the income levy. I am now raising this exemption limit to £5,300 per year, which is the equivalent of £102 per week for employees.

The estimated cost of renewing the PRSI tax allowance is £55 million in 1985, while the renewal of the temporary 1 per cent levy with the increased exemption limit will yield £41.2 million this year.

There will be improvements in a number of secondary allowances.

The incapacitated child allowance will be increased from £500 to £600.

The blind allowance will be raised from £500 to £600 and, where both spouses are blind, from £1,200 to £1,400.

Last year, I made a substantial increase in the allowance available where a person is employed to take care of an incapacitated taxpayer or taxpayer's spouse and this year I am proposing a further increase from £2,000 to £2,500.

I propose to increase the ceiling on relief for rent paid by older persons to £1,500 for married couples and £750 for single persons and to reduce the age limit for eligibility from 60 to 55 years.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The cost of these improvements in 1985 will be £800,000.

Farmer Taxation

Arrangements for the introduction of the farm tax, announced in the national plan, are in hand, and the necessary legislation will be published soon. Farmers will of course continue to be liable for income tax up to the end of the 1985-86 tax year. I propose to extend the existing stock relief arrangements for farmers for a further year at a cost in 1985 of £3 million.

Incentive for Land Leasing

In order to promote the long term leasing out of land by persons who are unable to work it to its proper potential, it is proposed to exempt from income tax liability, from 1985-86 onwards, the first £2,000 of leasing income obtained each year by a lessor of agricultural land who is over 55 years of age or who is incapacitated. In order to qualify for this concession, the lease from which the income is derived must be for a period of not less than seven years. The cost of the concession is not expected to be significant in the short term.

Confining Stallion Fees Exemption to Ireland

There will be a provision in the Finance Bill to confine the tax exemption on stallion fees to income earned from stallions at stud in this country. This change will ensure that the relief benefits the domestic Irish bloodstock industry only, as was originally intended, and not bloodstock operations outside the country.

TAXATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The bank levy will apply again in 1985 at a level of £25 million. I am looking at the possibility of making some adjustments to the basis for calculating the levy to ensure that it is operated as equitably as possible.

A higher tax contribution will be required from the building societies on interest and dividends payable to their investors. The composite rate of tax is being increased from 75 per cent to 85 per cent of the standard rate, giving a new rate of 29.75 per cent for 1985-86. This will give an extra tax yield of £4 million this year and £10 million in a full year. Should any society feel that this increase is unwarranted, the Revenue Commissioners will undertake a survey of depositors with a view to determining what the composite rate for that society should be. I propose to make permanent the payment date arrangements for building societies introduced in 1984. The combination of this change and the increase in the composite rate adds £32 million to the pre-budget tax revenue estimate for 1985.

SAVINGS RELIEF FOR OLDER PEOPLE

I am introducing a change in the tax relief for certain deposit interest to encourage older citizens to put their savings in safekeeping. For taxpayers who qualify for the age allowance, that is, taxpayers over 65 years of age, the present ceilings for tax relief on deposit interest are being doubled. This new arrangement will apply in respect of interest otherwise assessable for 1985/86.

COMPANY TAXATION

At present, all companies are due to pay a first instalment of corporation tax six months after the end of their accounting periods. The due date for payment of the second instalment varies as between companies from one day to almost nine months after the due date for the first instalment. The lack of a uniform second payment date for all companies is an anomaly which is hard to defend nine years after the introduction of corporation tax.

I propose to advance the second payment date so that all corporation tax will be due for payment six months after the end of an accounting period. To lessen the impact of this change on those companies which will be most affected, I am advancing the second payment date in the first instance by only three months for accounting periods ending in the year beginning on 28 February 1985. In no case, however, will the new second payment date be earlier than six months after the end of an accounting period. This change will yield £10 million in 1985. A similar advancement of the second payment date by a further three months in each instance will apply for accounting periods ending in each of the following two years. This will mean a single due date for payment of corporation tax for all companies by 1987 at the latest.

Continuation of Partial Relief from Advance Corporation Tax

The transitional arrangements under which advance corporation tax is payable at 50 per cent of the full rate will be extended to distributions made up to 31 December 1985. The cost of this extension of relief will be £2.5 million this year.

INCENTIVES

Continuation of Stock Relief

The system of stock relief introduced in the 1984 budget will be continued for a further year. This will cost £3 million in 1985.

Continuation of Capital Allowances

The 100 per cent initial allowance for plant and machinery and the 50 per cent initial and 4 per cent annual allowances for industrial buildings, which were due to expire on 31 March, will be extended to 31 March 1988. There will be no cost in 1985.

CAPITAL TAXATION RELIEF FOR SPOUSES

I propose to exempt from capital acquisitions tax inheritances taken by one spouse from the other on or after today. It is estimated that this relief will cost about £0.5 million in 1985.

STAMP DUTY EXEMPTION FOR YOUNG TRAINED FARMERS

The stamp duty exemption in respect of the transfer of land to young trained farmers, which is due to expire in July 1985, will be continued for a further year.

INDIRECT TAXATION

VALUE-ADDED TAX

In the course of my Budget Statement last year, I indicated that I would look at the possibility of a fundamental reorganisation of the VAT system. There is general dissatisfaction with the existing system and it is clear that we need a more rational arrangement which will give a better return in terms of efficiency and impact on the economy.

The present system gives rise to problems such as a high level of duty-free imports, both legal and illegal, substantial compliance costs for businesses, administrative costs for the revenue authorities and distortion of trading patterns. The main structural causes of these problems are the very high level of some VAT rates, particularly the 35 per cent rate, the multiplicity of rates and the application of widely divergent VAT rates to related goods and services.

In considering the reorganisation of the VAT system, I had the benefit of the Commission on Taxation's Report on Indirect Taxation. The commission recommended that the general objective should be to levy VAT at a single rate on as broad a base as possible. This would undoubtedly be the most efficient system, but the Government do not consider that a single rate is feasible at present, particularly because of the effect on food prices. They have, however, decided on a major rationalisation of VAT.

From 1 March 1985, the VAT system will comprise three rates, zero, 10 per cent and 23 per cent, rather than the present six.

Abolition of 35 per cent Rate

The 35 per cent rate will be abolished: items now charged at 35 per cent will instead be charged at 23 per cent. This will reduce the tax on a wide range of household items, including for example radios, record players, tapes, soaps and detergents, toys, cutlery, pottery and glassware, bicycles and household durables, and on a wide range of industrial materials. This will minimise the incentive for consumers to purchase these items outside the State. It will also reduce costs for a wide range of businesses and services, including for example the cost of educational materials. It will ease the cash-flow burden of VAT for industry, both at point of import and for domestic transactions, since many inter-industry goods have been liable at the 35 per cent rate. I expect this rate reduction to give a substantial stimulus to output and employment across a wide range of activity.

23 per cent Rate

The coverage of the 23 per cent rate will remain unchanged, apart from two exceptions.

VAT on Newspaper Sales

The national plan provided for a reduction in the VAT rate on newspaper sales from 23 per cent to 18 per cent. In line with the reorganisation now proposed, this rate will be reduced further to 10 per cent. This will provide a substantial relief for Irish newspapers.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I will mention the second exception in a moment.

Reduction of 18 per cent Rate on Tourism

The 18 per cent VAT rate, which covers hotel accommodation and short-term car, caravan and boat hire, will be reduced to 10 per cent. This will substantially improve the competitive position of registered businesses in these areas, with a consequent improvement in their capacity to attract new business and in their employment capacity.

These VAT reductions will allow price reductions of between 7 per cent and 10½ per cent for the items involved.

Exemption of Theatres and Live Performances

I propose to exempt from VAT theatrical and other live performances which are at present at the 5 per cent rate.

Increases

In order to complete this reorganisation of the system and at the same time provide part of the revenue required to finance the foregoing reductions, the following increases will apply:

—the 8 per cent rate on adult clothing will be increased to 10 per cent;

—the 5 per cent rate will also be increased to 10 per cent, involving mainly building, fuel other than electricity, certain agricultural contracting services, and car repairs;

—adult footwear, which is zero-rated at present, will be charged to VAT at 10 per cent.

(Interruptions).

In keeping with the generosity of my mood I would be inclined to exempt the Deputies opposite, but since they are already out of the system there is nothing further I can do for them.

The flat-rate reimbursement of VAT to unregistered farmers will be increased to 2.2 per cent in order to offset the effects of VAT increases on certain farm inputs.

Relief for Building

In order to reduce the effect on the building industry of the increase in its rate of VAT, the Government will introduce a number of special measures.

Increased Grant for First-Time House-Buyers

The level of grant for first time owner-occupiers of new houses affected by the VAT increase is being increased by 75 per cent from £1,000 to £1,750. An additional sum of £5 million is being added to the public capital programme for this purpose.

Special New Incentive for Letting

A measure will be included in the Finance Bill to provide a tax incentive in respect of certain premises let for multiple residential occupation.

Concrete Blocks

The second exception which I propose in the coverage of the 23 per cent rate is a reduction of the rate of VAT on concrete blocks from 23 per cent to 10 per cent. This will improve the competitive position of registered manufacturers and reduce the scope for evasion.

Fishery Harbour Development Works

An additional sum of £0.5 million is being provided in the public capital programme for fishery harbour development works.

A much greater proportion of public capital expenditure in 1985 than in recent years will benefit the building industry. The expansion in road construction, up 23 per cent or £23 million on 1984, and educational building, up 17 per cent or £14 million on 1984, will provide a boost to the industry. In addition, the building industry will benefit from the preservation of mortgage interest relief, the new £5,000 grant for local authority tenants and tenant purchasers who give up their houses and who acquire private houses, the increased rent relief for older people, the abolition of the 35 per cent VAT rate, the income tax reform, and the general economic recovery which is being supported by this budget.

Free Fuel Schemes

Free fuel schemes help to meet the heating needs of certain groups of people dependent on social welfare or health allowance payments. The present value of the weekly fuel voucher is £4 and the Government propose to increase it to £5 from next October, the start of the next heating season. The cost of this concession, which will far more than offset the increase in VAT on fuel, is £2.5 million this year and £5 million in a full year.

Motor Vehicle Parts: Reduction in Duty

Since the reduction in VAT on motor vehicle repairs and servicing in 1983 from 23 per cent to 5 per cent was offset by an increase in excise duty on cars, it is appropriate that today's increase in VAT to 10 per cent should also be matched by a reduction in another tax. I consider, however, that it would be more appropriate to apply the reduction to motor vehicle parts rather than cars. This will reduce the tax differential between parts sold in the State and elsewhere. A reduction in the duty from 25 per cent to 10 per cent is proposed. This will be phased in over a short period, in consultation with the trade, in order to minimise the difficulties arising.

The overall effect of this reorganisation and simplification of VAT will be to facilitate economic and commercial activity, and it will be of considerable help in expanding employment. In addition, I expect a substantial and positive effect on the volume of both legal and illegal imports from Northern Ireland, to the benefit of manufacturers and traders here.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It is estimated that the net effect of these changes in VAT in 1985 will be a reduction in revenue of £9.2 million. This takes account of gains from reductions in evasion, improved efficiency in the system, revenue from purchases diverted back to domestic sources and a net once-off loss of revenue payable at the point of import.

EXCISE DUTIES

Last October, following the announcement in the national plan, a substantial reduction was made in the duty on spirits. This was designed to win back to domestic outlets the significant proportion of purchases of spirits which had been diverted outside the State and the expectation was that no loss of revenue would arise. It is too early to say whether this expectation will be realised. The indications so far are encouraging, though the initial disruption of the market arising from the reduction, as well as the fact that the full increase in demand will take time to emerge, resulted in the 1984 revenue recipts from spirits being less than they would otherwise have been.

Excise duties are an important source of revenue. Since most of them are specific rather than ad valorem duties, increases are needed each year even to maintain the real level of the duties. In order to meet budget targets, increases in some duties are necessary on this occasion.

Alcoholic Beverages

No Increase in Duty on Beer, Wine or Spirits

Because of the significant Exchequer cost which would be involved, I am not in a position to reduce the duty on beer or wine, as was done with spirits. There will not, however, be any increase in the duty on these products.

Cider and Perry

There has been a very rapid growth in consumption of cider in recent years. The duty on cider and perry is very low compared with that on other alcoholic beverages and I consider that the gap should be narrowed. I am therefore proposing an increase, with effect from midnight tonight, of 20p per gallon in the duty, including VAT, on the ordinary-strength cider and perry, with a relatively smaller increase for middle strength cider and perry.

Hydrocarbon

I propose an increase of 10p per gallon in the duty, including VAT, on petrol and auto-diesel, with effect from midnight tonight. Existing rebates on petrol to handicapped drivers will be increased to match the duty increase. The auto-diesel increase will not apply to scheduled road passenger services. The tax on auto-LPG will be increased by a roughly similar amount through the increase in the 5 per cent VAT rate, so no excise duty increase is proposed.

Cigarettes and Tobacco

I propose a tax increase of 10p on the packet of 20 cigarettes, with pro rata increases for cigars and other tobacco products. This will have effect from midnight tonight.

“Cigarette” Lighters

The duty on "cigarette" lighters will be increased by 10p, or 13½p including VAT at 35 per cent, with effect from midnight tonight. From 1 March 1985, when the VAT rate will be reduced from 35 per cent to 23 per cent, a further 10p excise increase will be imposed, which will broadly offset the reduction in VAT. These changes are designed to bring the tax on lighters more into line with that on matches.

The total yield from these increases is estimated at £44.6 million in 1985.

In the case of petrol and auto-diesel, increases in retail prices must await new maximum price orders to be made by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, who will determine the appropriate implementation date. Today's duty increase is being applied against the background of falling pump prices in recent months, so that the net impact on the motorist over the period from November to February will be relatively small. In the case of other tax increases which apply from midnight tonight, there should be no increase in the price of goods already in the shops, as the excise duty will apply only to goods imported or removed from bond after tonight.

I propose also to make some concessions in the excise area.

Televisions: Halving of Excise Duty

The excise duty on televisions, combined with the 23 per cent rate of VAT, results in a big tax differential on these items between the State and Northern Ireland. While televisions cannot legally be imported duty-free by travellers, since they would generally exceed the £55 single item limit, it is clear that large numbers are imported illegally. The trade have been seeking a 50 per cent reduction in the excise duty, in order to reduce these illegal importations. While I do not accept that this reduction would be selffinancing, I feel that the level of illegal imports has grown to such proportions that a reduction is needed and I propose that a 50 per cent excise duty reduction be granted from an early date. The timing of the reduction will be decided following discussions with the trade.

Duty Refund on Oil Used by Sea-fishermen

Sea fishermen already benefit from a refund of part of the excise duty on the oil which they use, paying only a net 5p per gallon rather than the normal 8p. I propose to relieve them fully of this excise charge from 1 February 1985 by increasing the refund to 8p per gallon.

The loss in Exchequer revenue from these reductions and from the reduction in duty on motor vehicle parts announced earlier is estimated at £3.7 million in 1985.

Reduction in Betting Duties

Betting is an area where the level of evasion is reported to be high and it can be very difficult to obtain adequate evidence to sustain court proceedings. The 20 per cent duty on off-course betting represents an exceptionally high effective level of tax on betting, since it is applied to the amount staked, not just to the net amount lost by the punters to the bookmaker. It is very difficult to know what the effect of a substantial reduction in betting duties would be. However, I feel that there is a reasonable possibility that the cost of a significant reduction would be relatively small. I propose to make such a reduction as an experiment to test whether this is so. Accordingly, the excise duty on off-course betting will be reduced to 10 per cent with effect from 4 February next. The 1½ per cent stamp duty on on-course betting will be abolished from 1 April next at an estimated cost in 1985 of £600,000. The whole position will be reviewed before next year's budget.

ROAD TAX

Turning to road tax, I propose to increase the annual tax on private motor cars by 50 pence per horse power for cars of eight horse power or less, by £1 per horse power for cars between nine and 15 horse power, and by £2 per horse power for all cars of 16 horse power and over. These changes are specifically designed to favour smaller and more economical cars. I am also proposing that the very low rate of road tax on agricultural tractors and excavators be increased from £15 to £30 this year. These changes will take effect from 1 March and will yield an additional £7.5 million in 1985.

TAX COLLECTION

Attention was drawn in the national plan to the urgent necessity to make the tax collection apparatus more efficient. Substantial improvements have been made in recent years. In particular, wide-ranging changes were introduced in the 1983 Finance Act and these are now beginning to have an important effect. The tax clearance certificate scheme for public sector contracts, which was introduced last June, is proving very effective. Collection, however is still far from being satisfactory.

One of the biggest problem areas in the tax collection process is enforcement, where there is a large accumulation of arrears. I am determined that this log-jam should be removed. I am, therefore, setting up a working group to make recommendations to Government for substantial improvements in the enforcement process.

OVERVIEW OF TAX CHANGES

The changes which I have proposed in our income tax and VAT systems will unquestionably improve the climate for enterprise, effort and employment. Taken together with the tax concessions in other areas which I have announced today, they show clearly the Government's resolve to minimise distortions and disincentives in our system, within the constraints imposed on us by the need to continue with the necessary adjustments to the public finances.

POST-BUDGET CURRENT REVENUE

The net effect of the tax proposals which I have made will be to raise an additional £82 million this year. This includes £33 million from the continuation of temporary tax measures, £58 million by way of increased tax revenue buoyancy arising from the measures announced today and a net reduction of £9 million from the other tax changes made. The total tax revenue estimate, which comes to £5,704 million, shows an increase of 7½ per cent on 1984, which is broadly in line with the projected increase in nominal GNP, fully meeting the Government's commitment not to increase the overall burden of taxation. There is rather more uncertainty than usual about the tax revenue forecast, particularly in view of the major structural changes in VAT announced today. I am, nevertheless, confident that, following the pattern of 1983 and 1984, tax revenue will again this year be quite close to target. Total current revenue is estimated at £6,400 million. The tax changes in today's budget will raise the consumer price index by about one quarter of a percentage point — the lowest, in fact, since 1978.

CAPITAL BUDGET

1985 PUBLIC CAPITAL PROGRAMME

As I have already mentioned, I have decided to make two changes in the 1985 Public Capital Programme, published last November. The level of grant for first-time owner-occupiers of new houses affected by the VAT increase is being revised upwards from £1,000 to £1,750. A sum of £5 million is being provided for this purpose. I am also, as I mentioned earlier, providing a further £0.5 million for fishery harbour development works.

Taking account of these changes, the total provision for the public capital programme in 1985 comes to £1,806 million, of which £1,046 million is Exchequer-financed and £760 million is financed from other sources. Exchequer spending on capital projects in 1985 will be up by £131 million, or over 14 per cent on the 1984 outturn. This, as I have already mentioned, reflects the decision to allocate substantially increased resources in 1985 for road construction and for capital spending on education. Non-Exchequer public capital programme expenditure in 1985 is lower than in 1984 due to major infrastructural programmes winding down or finishing.

EXCHEQUER BORROWING REQUIREMENT FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES

Allowing for the global provision of £45 million for Exchequer-financed non-Programme outlays, total Exchequer capital expenditure in 1985 will be £1,091 million. Exchequer capital resources are estimated at £306 million, leaving a borrowing requirement for capital purposes of £785 million.

DEFICIT AND BORROWING REQUIREMENT

The estimated current deficit for 1985 is £1,234 million, which is 7.9 per cent of GNP. This compares with an outturn last year of £1,039 million, equivalent to 7.2 per cent of GNP as against the original budget target of 7½ per cent. The total Exchequer borrowing requirement for the year will be £2,019 million or 13 per cent of GNP. This compares with an outturn of 12.6 per cent for 1984, as against the original budget target of about 12¾ per cent. The total public sector borrowing requirement for 1985 will come to £2,521 million, or 16.2 per cent of GNP, down from 16½ per cent in 1984.

The target levels of the deficit and borrowing requirement are at the maximum of what it is prudent to undertake, and are closely in line with the projections underlying the national plan.

CONCLUSION

Today's budget measures represent a creative and forward-looking response to our needs and problems. The Government have put forward, within the framework set out in the national plan and within the inescapable financial constraints, a set of measures designed to produce the maximum response in terms of social justice, output and employment from the use of the resources available to us. We will realise our objectives within that framework so as to ensure that we can continue to make progress towards the financial targets set out in the national plan. This budget is an important step in the implementation of the policies which the Government have set out in that plan. Our detailed public expenditure policies have already been announced and are being implemented. A whole range of policies needed to make the economy and the public service more efficient and productive is now in train. The tax and expenditure measures announced today will underpin those policies and increase the prospect of their success. This is the only path to sustained growth in employment levels.

The Government have created the environment in which employment can be substantially increased. We have shown our readiness to meet the problems created for us by recession and by past mismanagement. We are confident that we will get a positive response and that the benefits will be felt by those — and they are many — who want to contribute and who want to work.

To sum up, this budget fully honours the Government's commitment to the less well off in our society. It reforms and simplifies the income tax system, with benefit to all taxpayers.

That is not in the Minister's statement.

It reforms our value-added system, with advantages to manufacturers and traders in terms of the effect on their cash flow and the simplicity of the system. It improves our cross-Border competitive capacity. It produces a major boost for tourism, for newspapers, for goods that are now at 35 per cent and for industry in general. Not only does it underpin financially the range of measures introduced to promote and expand employment but, as a result of this tax reform, it gives them an extra impetus; and, Sir, it achieves all of this within the financial framework set out in the national plan.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

TABLE EXPLANATORY OF CURRENT BUDGET 1985

Revenue

£million

Expenditure

1. Tax Revenue

5,622.0

1. Debt Service and Other Central Fund Charges

2,250.0

2. Non-Tax Revenue

696.0

2. Supply Services (non-capital)

5,318.5

6,318.0

7,568.5

3. Add Temporary Tax Measures to be continued:

3. Add New Expenditure:

Income Levy

41.2

Bank Levy

25.0

Social Welfare

55.5

Income Tax

Public Service Pay

108.0

—Building Societies

28.0

94.2

Grants to Local Authorities

9.5

Other

1.3

174.3

Less:

PRSI Allowance

55.0

Stock Relief

6.0

61.0

33.2

4. Add New Tax Increases:

4. Deduct:

Excise Duties

Expenditure Savings

—tobacco etc.

17.5

—hydrocarbons

27.1

—pay

30.0

—road tax

7.5

—other

28.6

Income Tax

Estimated Departmental

—Building Societies

4.0

Balances

50.0

108.6

65.7

Corporation Tax

10.0

66.1

5. Deduct New Tax Reliefs:

Excise Duties

3.7

VAT

9.2

Income Tax

—rates and bands

58.0

—other

0.8

Corporation Tax

2.5

Stamp Duties

0.6

Capital Taxes

0.5

75.3

-9.2

6. Impact of Budget on Tax

Revenue Buoyancy

58.0

7. Deficit

1,234.2

7,634.2

7,634.2

Department of Finance

30 January 1985

SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGETS

1984 and 1985

1984

1985

Provisional Outturn

Post-Budget Estimate

£m

£m

CURRENT BUDGET

1. Expenditure

(i) Central Fund Services

1,928

2,250

(ii) Supply Services

5,063

5,384

6,991

7,634

2. Revenue

(i) Tax

5,304

5,704

(ii) Non-Tax

648

696

5,952

6,400

3. Current Budget Deficit

1,039

1,234

CAPITAL BUDGET

4. Expenditure

(i) Public Capital Programme

1,775

1,806

(ii) Other (non-programme)

141

45

1,916

1,851

5. Resources

(i) Exchequer

270

306

(ii) Non-Exchequer

860

760

1,130

1,066

6. Exchequer Borrowing Requirement for Capital Purposes

786

785

7. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement (3+6)

1,825

2,019

8. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement as % of GNP (estimated)

12½%

13%

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING CURRENT BUDGET DEFICIT) AND RESOURCES, 1984 OUTTURN AND 1985 ESTIMATE

REQUIREMENTS

£ million

1984

1985

Budget Estimate

Provisional Outturn

Estimate

1. Public Capital Programme

1,798

1,775

1,806

2. Non-Programme Outlays of which

1,189

1,180

1,279

Exchequer-financed

(a) Current Budget Deficit

1,089

1,039

1,234

(b) Miscellaneous

100*

141

45

3. Total Requirements

2,987

2,955

3,085

RESOURCES

4. Non-Exchequer Resources of which

832*

860

760

(a) State Bodies

803

828

725

(b) Local Authorities

29

32

35

5. Exchequer Internal Resources of which

207

205

227

(a) Loan Repayments

59

54

58

(b) Sinking Funds

129

136

150

(c) Appropriations-in-Aid

19

15

19

6. European Regional Development Fund

74

65

79

7. Exchequer Borrowing of which

1,874

1,825

2,019

(a) Net sales of domestic securities

(i) to the public

439

(ii) to the commercial banks

475

(b) Small Savings

1,874

161

2,019

(c) Foreign Borrowing

649

(d) Increase in Central Bank's holdings of Government securities

122

(e) Miscellaneous including change in liquidity of Departmental Funds

-21

8. Total Resources

2,987

2,955

3,085

* Reduced by £17 million as compared with original published budget estimate due to reclassification of certain non-Exchequer expenditure.

CURRENT REVENUE 1984 AND 1985

1984

1985

Outturn

Post-Budget Estimate

£m

£m

Tax Revenue

Customs

92.6

105.0

Excise Duties

1,241.6

1,317.2

Capital Taxes

30.1

33.5

Stamp Duties

112.2

116.4

Income Tax

1,966.5

2,131.2

Income Levy

78.2

77.0

Corporation Tax

209.7

218.5

Value-Added Tax

1,361.6

1,483.9

Agricultural Levies (EEC)

17.4

15.0

Motor Vehicle Duties

110.8

120.5

Youth Employment Levy

83.3

85.3

Total Tax Revenue

5,304.0

5,704.0

Total Non-Tax Revenue

648.3

696.0

Total Current Revenue

5,952.3

6,400.0

HOW CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL BE ALLOCATED AND FINANCED 1985

Where current expenditure will go

How current expenditure will be financed

Item

1985 Post-Budget £m

%Total Gross expenditure

Item

£m

% of Total

Service of Public Debt

Borrowing

1,234

16.2

Interest

1,841

20

Sinking Funds, etc.

150

2

Tax Revenue

Customs

105

1.4

1,991

22

Excise Duties

1,317

17.3

Capital Taxes

34

0.4

Stamp Duties

116

1.5

Economic Services

Income Tax

2,131

27.9

Industry and Labour

267

3

Income Levy

77

1.0

Agriculture

438

5

Corporation Tax

219

2.9

Fisheries, Forestry

43

Value-Added Tax

1,484

19.4

Tourism

27

Agricultural Levies (EC)

15

0.2

Motor Vehicle Duties

120

1.6

775

8

Youth Employment Levy

86

1.1

Infrastructure

102

1

5,704

74.7

Social Services

Non-Tax Revenue

696

9.1

Health

1,057

12

Education

929

10

Social Welfare

2,300

26

Housing

212

2

Subsidies

341

4

4,839

54

Security

609

7

Other

699

8

Gross Expenditure

9,015

100

Supply Services Receipts

1,381

TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE

7,634

TOTAL

7,634

100

PRE-BUDGET TABLES

1985

INDEX

TABLE 1.Summary of current and capital budgets 1984.

TABLE 2.Summary of main heads of current government expenditure and revenue 1984.

TABLE 3.Functional classification of current government expenditure 1981-1985.

TABLE 4.Certain current receipts and expenditure of the Exchequer and of local authorities.

TABLE 5.State expenditure in relation to agriculture from 1981.

Detailed tables relating to public capital expenditure will be found in the separate publication entitled “Public Capital Programme 1985”.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGETS 1984

1984

Budget Estimate

Provisional Outturn

£m

£m

Current Budget

1. Expenditure

(i) Central Fund Services

1,940

1,928

(ii) Supply Services

5,120

5,063

7,060

6,991

2. Revenue

(i) Tax

5,344

5,304

(ii) Non-Tax

627

648

5,971

5,952

3. Current Budget Deficit

1,089

1,039

Capital Budget

4. Expenditure

(i) Public Capital Programme

1,798

1,775

(ii) Other (non-programme)

100*

141

1,898

1,916

5. Resources

(i) Exchequer

281

270

(ii) Non-Exchequer

832*

860

1,113

1,130

6. Exchequer Borrowing Requirement for Capital Purposes

785

786

7. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement (3+6)

1,874

1,825

8. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement as % of GNP (estimated)

12¾%

12½%

* Reduced by £17 million as compared with original published budget estimate due to reclassification of certain non-Exchequer expenditure.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF MAIN HEADS OF CURRENT GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE 1984

Current Expenditure

Current Revenue

Item

£m

% of gross expenditure

Item

£m

% of total

Service of Public Debt:

Budget Deficit (financed by borrowing)

1,039

14.9

Central Fund Services(1)

Interest

1,566

19.0

Sinking Funds, etc.

139

1.7

Total

1,705

20.7

Tax Revenue

Economic Services

Customs

93

1.3

Industry and Labour

211

2.6

Excise Duties

1,242

17.8

Agriculture

400

4.8

Stamp Duties

112

1.6

Fisheries, Forestry

42

0.5

Income Tax

1,966

28.1

Tourism

24

0.3

Corporation Tax

210

3.0

Income Levy

78

1.1

Value-Added Tax

1,362

19.5

Total

677

8.2

Motor Vehicle Duties

111

1.6

Capital taxes

30

0.4

Youth Employment Levy

83

1.2

Infrastructure

92

1.1

Agricultural Levies (EEC)

17

0.2

Total

5,304

75.8

Social Services

Health

1,018

12.4

Education

894

10.9

Non-Tax Revenue

648

9.3

Social Welfare

2,121

25.7

Housing

175

2.1

Subsidies

358

4.3

Total

4,566

55.4

Security

572

7.0

Other

627

7.6

Gross Expenditure

8,239

100

Supply Service Receipts

1,248

Net Expenditure

6,991

Total Revenue

6,991

100

(1) Prior to 1983, debt service costs paid from the supply services were included under this heading. As part of the revised functional classification of expenditure, these costs (e.g. Exchequer subsidy on service costs of loans for local authority housing) are now included under the appropriate functional categories. The total debt service cost in the Central Fund and Supply Services in 1984 was £1903 million of which £1746 million related to interest and £157 million to sinking funds.

TABLE 3

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF CURRENT GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 1981-1985

1981

1982

1983

1984 Provisional Outturn

1985 Estimate (1)

% change 1985 over 1984

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

%

Service of Public Debt

Central Fund Services(2)

Interest

795

1,143

1,330

1,566

1,841

+18

Sinking Fund etc.

89

106

126

139

150

+8

Sub-Total

884

1,249

1,456

1,705

1,991

+17

Economic Services

Industry and Labour

98

138

184

211

267

+27

Agriculture

255

278

360

400

438

+10

Fisheries

11

13

12

13

13

Forestry

22

27

28

29

30

+3

Tourism

18

19

23

24

27

+13

Sub-Total

404

475

607

677

775

+14

Infrastructure

Roads

21

24

26

26

28

+8

Sanitary Services

16

22

29

38

46

+21

Transport(3)

16

18

27

28

28

Sub-Total

53

64

82

92

102

+11

Social Services

Health

764

883

973

1,018

1,057

+4

Education

604

730

804

894

929

+4

Social Welfare

1,202

1,639

1,909

2,121

2,244

+6

Housing

87

109

143

175

212

+21

Subsidies(4)

277

324

346

358

332

-7

Sub-Total

2,934

3,685

4,175

4,566

4,774

+5

Security

Defence

207

244

254

271

292

+8

Garda

163

187

208

233

244

+5

Prisons

26

30

33

36

39

+8

Legal, etc.

24

30

34

32

34

+6

Sub-Total

420

491

529

572

609

+6

Other

Central Fund items

EEC Budget

118

144

194

208

250

+20

Miscellaneous

5

7

8

15

9

-40

Supply Services

298

376

353

404

439

+8

Sub-Total

421

527

555

627

698

+11

Gross Total

5,116

6,491

7,404

8,239

8,949

+9

Less: Supply Services Appropriations-in-aid, P.R.S.I. receipts

697

916

1,095

1,248

1,381

+11

Net Current Expenditure excluding expenditure on Post and Telegraphs

4,419

5,575

6,309

6,991

7,568

+8

Post and Telegraphs

322

355

378

Net Expenditure Including Post and Telegraphs(5) (Exchequer Pay and Pensions included in above excluding Post and Telegraphs)

4,7411,729

5,9301,982

6,6872,175

6,9912,340

7,5682,380

+8+2

(1) Based on the Estimates for Public Services for 1985 published on 15 November 1984.

(2) See Note (1) at foot of Table 2. The total debt service costs in the Central Fund and Supply Services are (figures for 1981-1983 include Post and Telegraphs costs)

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Interest

938

1,323

1,554

1,746

2,055

Sinking Fund

116

137

159

157

169

Total

1,054

1,460

1,713

1,903

2,224

(3) Excludes CIE subsidy.

(4) Includes food subsidies, rates support grant, CIE subsidy.

(5) The figures for 1981 to 1983 reflect actual audited expenditure.

TABLE 4

CERTAIN CURRENT RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE OF THE EXCHEQUER AND OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Exchequer

Local Authorities (a)

Revenue

Non-capital Expenditure

Expenditure from revenue (b)

State grants received

Rates collected

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

1966-67

273

272

99

51

32

1967-68

305

306

107

57

35

1968-69

345

354

121

66

38

1969-70

411

412

145

77

43

1970-71

482

490

174

94

50

1971-72

569

572

196

115

60

1972-73

659

665

240

138

70

1973-74

793

803

298

183

71

1974 (April- Dec.)

651

744

292

190

61

1975

1,091

1,350

481

332

84

1976

1,470

1,669

567

404

109

1977

1,757

1,944

684

504

111

1978

2,023

2,391

831

670

82

1979

2,384

2,893

1,007

820

91

1980

3,155

3,696

1,318

1,065

103

1981

3,973

4,741

1,575

1,291

102

1982

4,908

5,930

1,891

1,568

93

1983

5,711

6,687

2,077

1,732

104

1984

5,952

6,991

2,267(c)

1,871(c)

127(c)

1985

6,318(d)

7,568(d)

2,414(d)

1,991(d)

146(d)

Note :—(a) Local Authorities comprise County Councils, County Borough Corporations, Borough Corporations, Urban District Councils, Town Commissioners, Regional Health Boards, Vocational Education Committees and County Committees of Agriculture.

(b) The revenue of Local Authorities comprises rates, State grants (including payments on behalf of Health Boards to voluntary hospitals and homes in respect of general medical services) and other receipts e.g. rents and fees.

TABLE 5

STATE EXPENDITURE (a) IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE FROM 1981

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

£000

£000

£000

Provisional

Estimate

£000

£000

1. Aids reducing production and overhead

costs and production incentives (b):

Grant in lieu of rates on agricultural land

61,585

89,087

113,999

115,000

116,000

Non-EEC interest subsidies

13

1,633

2,170(c)

2,866(c)

5,321(c)

Assistance for extra breeding stock

2,558

7,027

8,296

4,000

Reduction of land annuities and deficiency of income from untenanted land (d)

4,031

5,545

5,642

6,616

6,674

Sheep grants, etc.

412

5

2

2

Small farm incentive bonus

10

Winter fodder schemes

2,872

2,454

3

1

Promotion of shared use of farm machinery

25

TOTAL

68,923

101,282

128,868

132,781

131,995

2. Schemes operated under EEC regulations and directives:

Farm modernisation

46,272

47,301

28,790

30,070

26,817

Farmers' retirement

1,612

1,737

931

377

651

Aids to farmers in less favoured areas

24,547

21,889

17,580

20,255

19,258

Market intervention

5,153

7,204

14,645

15,372

31,830

Programme of special measures

5,041

10,719

6,137

2,205

(-)2,810

Grants for individual projects and for marketing and processing

17

111

143

143

276

Aids for horticultural producers' organisations

30

22

30

Dairy herds conversion and suckler cow

24

4

Scheme for cessation of milk production

1,000

TOTAL

82,696

88,987

68,226

68,422

77,052

3. Education, research, advisory and inspection services:

Education (e)

11,555

14,729

16,236

17,193

17,673

Research

16,206

17,244

18,093

18,624

18,617

Farm advisory services (f)

12,964

13,523

15,215

17,104

15,664

Technical services

6,635

4,578

5,957

6,044

5,882

Inspection services

5,112

8,976

7,608

8,419

4,726

Rural organisations(e)

223

241

378

398

410

Farmer contributions to education, research and advisory services

20(g)

TOTAL

52,715

59,291

63,487

67,782

62,972

4. Disease eradication:

Bovine T.B.

12,691

13,483

15,070

17,448

23,550

Brucellosis

12,679

7,100

7,593

4,107

6,200

Hardship Fund

300

500

350

550

1,750

Other, e.g. leucosis

199

10

102

116

63

Less: Farmer contribution and EEC receipts

(-)1,900

(-)5,702

(-)1,724

(-)7,012

(-)13,702

TOTAL

23,969

15,391

21,391

15,209

17,861

5. Long-term development aids(b):

Arterial drainage

9,145

12,580

10,667

12,491

13,028

Water supplies, land project and farm buildings

1,372

1,094

572

566

513

Improvement of cattle, pigs, horses, sheep and poultry

2,463

2,478

2,349

2,458

2,530

Rural electrification

3,049

4,043

2,165

3,006

3,429

Restructuring and improvement of holdings by Land Commission

4,978

5,021

5,014

5,170

3,094

Promotion of long-term leasing of land

25

24

25

Other rural improvement schemes and grants

1,659

1,928

2,214

1,243

1,370

TOTAL

22,666

27,144

23,006

24,958

23,989

6. Marketing aids:

Meat

371

772

757

793

765

Potatoes

250

37

75

Glasshouse products

19

15

15

Export co-ordinating group

72

3

TOTAL

693

775

776

845

855

7. General administration and overhead costs

30,287

36,002

36,236

37,137

39,188

GRAND TOTAL

281,949

328,872

341,990

347,134

353,912

NOTES—(a) The figures are composed of both capital and non-capital expenditure and are net of appropriations-in-aid which include recoupments from EEC for schemes listed in the table.

(b) Further similar aids are given under EEC schemes—see section 2.

(c) Does not include tax loss element relating to the scheme for farmers in severe financial difficulties.

(d) Data adjusted from 1981 on to include the deficiency of income from untenanted land previously included in section 7.

(e) Includes Youth Employment Agency funding.

(f) Includes part of the grant in relief of rates borne on the Environment Vote.

(g) Refund.

Footnote: Irish agriculture also benefits from the Common Agricultural Policy which is largely financed from the EEC Budget (to which Ireland's estimated total contribution in 1985 is £250 million):—

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

£m

£m

£m

Provisional

Estimate

£m

£m

FEOGA GUARANTEE SECTION

302.8

342.7

436.7

649.7

680

FEOGA GUIDANCE SECTION

39.8

59.6

63.2

45.1

50

I now call on Deputy O'Kennedy, spokesman for the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Minister chose to address, just before summing up, those, as he says "who want to contribute and who want to work." I do not know if there is an implication in that phrase "who want to work" that so many of our people who are unemployed do not want to work. The reality is, for a Government who claim to face reality, to build on reality, that there are now 225,000 of those going on the live register alone — 55,000 more than when the Minister first took over responsibility — who want to contribute, who want to work, who want the dignity of contributing not just for themselves and their families but also to see an end to the day when they are seen as being dependants or parasites, if you like, on the rest who have the opportunity to work. For that reason no Minister for Finance in the history of this State has ever presented a budget on which so much depends. There were the unprecedented number of pre-budget submissions and publications from every section of our community, economic, social and voluntary groups, testifying to the sense of urgency, expectation and, we might as well acknowledge, crisis which is rampant throughout the country at present.

If we are to see today's budget as an instalment towards realising what this Government set out in their document Building on Reality 1985-1987 it should be noted that they asserted only a few months ago that they were going to build an economy and a society that provides justice and security for all its people by recognising the realities of our present situation and by confronting those realities head on.

The Minister had no easy task drawing up this budget in view of the Government's actions and the consequences of those actions in the last two years. The reality he had to confront today — on any range one cares to look at and by any criteria one cares to apply — is very much more intimidating than that which he faced on assuming office two years ago. We should endeavour to look at those and ascertain to what extent today's adjustments — because that is all they are — will make any impact on this reality.

There is, first of all, the reality of unemployment. Can anybody in this House, from any of those benches — because if they can I shall be thrilled, as will be 225,000 unemployed and the many young people out there listening would be even better pleased — point to anything in this budget that will stimulate opportunity for employment?

Deputies

Yes.

Is there any one thing in the whole of this budget that will create one extra job, that will provide the incentive to do anything that has not already been done?

(Interruptions.)

Is there any one reference, apart from a very pallid, passing reference by the Minister, that it is in line with the promotion of a climate for employment? Is there any single thing that any one of us on any side of the House can point to? That is the reality the Government said they would confront. That is the reality that the Government have again chosen to ignore, not for the first time, not even for the second because, two years ago, they said they were going to take immediate and urgent action to reduce the level of unemployment and we watched a reduction turn into an increase of the order of 55,000. And we are asked to accept that we are making progress towards realising those aims.

In any event, thousands of our young people who have been waiting have already despaired. The unemployed were awaiting some news today, some recognition, but many of the young have already despaired and have left for better hope elsewhere. For those who remain — and this is another reality we must begin to look at — the burden of taxation since this Minister assumed office has increased from £4 billion two years ago to, before today, £5.3 billion, an increase of over 35 per cent in total taxation, representing an increase of approximately 3 per cent or 4 per cent in terms of GNP. In the meantime we have watched 2,000 of our limited liability companies over the last couple of years go out of business because of the impact of the recession and crushing burden of taxation. We have watched many small businesses, family businesses, close, workers having been affected more than anybody else, suppliers and customers. Now we are being told that the burden of taxation is being lifted at last. I shall return to this aspect in some more detail.

The reality is — as distinct from the reality the Minister is trying to present — that, far from being lifted, even those he claims to help today in terms of income tax adjustments will find by the end of this year they will be worse off in net terms in take home pay than they were at the beginning of this year before he introduced his budget.

What script is that?

(Interruptions.)

For those of us who are going to remain in business might I say——

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Molony has given his indication of his commitment. But, for those of us who are going to remain in the business, I think Deputy Molony should hold his peace.

(Interruptions.)

I want to turn now to the standards the Government set for themselves, the things about which they boasted, the fiscal aggregates they were going to correct, the responsibility that was going to be introduced into the whole of our budget programme. If we look at the budget deficit we see that in 1982, when the Minister took office, it was £988 million and after today it will be increased to £1,234 million.

(Interruptions.)

This is the Government who promised in the first instance——

(Interruptions.)

Obviously the supporters for the time being in the Government benches — because that is all they will be — find the best way of trying to hide the realities is to continue this kind of obstruction.

If they will allow me to make my contribution, as we allowed the Minister to make his, then we will let the public judge. On the basis of the rectitude this Government were going to follow we were told particularly that the budget deficit in the first instance would be phased out over a four year period. Now we find that phasing out means increasing, just as reducing unemployment means increasing unemployment, just as reducing the level of taxes means increasing the level of taxation. Whether one judges it in money terms or a percentage of GNP — so beloved of this Government — the reality is that, after today's budget, and the Minister has acknowledged it here, the current budget deficit at the end will be £1,234 million or 7.9 per cent of GNP, an increase of 2 per cent of GNP over last year and up £200 million over last year. It is time then that the Government dropped this whole presentation of concern, discipline, control in bringing about a reduction in our budget deficit and consequently also in our Exchequer borrowing requirement which, if it is to be reduced as the Government promised in this budget, will rise from 12.6 per cent of GNP to 13 per cent of GNP at approximately £2.02 billion.

Might I ask Deputy Molony who already has signalled that he does not intend to remain much longer in this House to allow me make my contribution?

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy is contradicting everything he said over the last 12 months.

(Interruptions.)

The public sector borrowing requirement has gone up to £2,520 million, or 16.2 per cent of GNP. It may be all right for us here and for the Minister in particular in his stainless steel tube to speak in terms of GNP. I am speaking in those terms because the Minister and the Government have chosen to adopt them as being their direction in terms of Exchequer borrowing requirement, current budget deficits, and so on. For the public out there who have to live with the realities and have to face the brunt of the tax imposed by this Government over the past couple of years, and the increase in this budget, it will be more difficult, and not less difficult as a consequence of this budget, to have any reasonable income to provide for their needs. For those who are looking for employment it will be more of a vain hope than it was at the beginning of the year.

Last year our total national debt rose to a figure of £18.5 billion. When this Minister took office it was £12.5 billion, an increase of £6 billion, £6,000 million in two years since this Minister took office. We are being told that what is being taken from the PAYE taxpayer is needed to service that debt. Of course it is, when we see the debt spiralling under a Government who claimed they would reduce it. As a consequence, over £350 million of the extra taxes the Minister will collect this year will not go towards a regeneration in our economy. They will go a small bit of the way to cope with the huge increase in our debt, and particularly our foreign debt in the two years since this Minister took office.

We see a growth in public expenditure which is far in excess of any level of growth in the economy. We see a major collapse in investment in our economy. When it comes to their turn I ask Government backbenchers to point to any one item that will give any signal, any encouragement, any hope to those who wish to invest at home rather than hiding their money abroad or getting it into a tax climate which is more favourable than ours. The old, the unemployed, those who want to work and those who want to invest look to us, and particularly to the Minister, for something in this budget which should have been the most important budget ever introduced in this State. The Minister has not responded to them. It is no wonder that there is a degree of cynicism and perhaps hostility towards all of us who are involved in the political process. No wonder there is despair among the young.

We can now come back to what the Taoiseach said. Perhaps we should not have expected too much today. A couple of months ago the Taoiseach told us that budgets will become less important. Today his Minister has underlined just how unimportant they have become. Total public expenditure under this Government in the current and capital programme is of the order of £9,000 billion under a Government who were to control public expenditure. Even if we are making adjustments here today of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds, and even if those adjustments are not significant in the context of total expenditure under this Government we could have expected some psychological boost, some signal to the people at whatever level, that the Government have recognised the reality and would find a way to enhance the role of every citizen, and to protect those who need protection in these difficult times. We got no such boost.

I want to look at exactly what we have had today. Our total taxation is £5,704 million. That is a huge increase in the total tax since the Commission on Taxation were set up a little over four years ago by us in Government when I was Minister for Finance. It was then £2,619 million and it has now jumped to £5,704 million. By any standards the biggest single issue confronting us is to create a new environment for work, for activity and for a renewal of the economy. The Minister confined himself to mere tinkering and adjustments of margins.

Let me welcome the fact that at least we are seeing an adjustment in the income tax bands. We appealed for this last year. We called for it so many times in the past 12 months if for no other reason than that it is clearly obvious that the system is creaking under the weight of all the various bands and adjustments the Minister introduced in the past couple of years. Let me also welcome the fact that instead of the six different VAT rates which have obstructed business people who were trying to carry on and meet their obligations in their returns to the Revenue, we will now have three rates. That is welcome. I wonder why the Minister did not have the courage to go further having regard to the leakage across the Border and the loss of revenue in the areas of beer and petrol, not to mention television. The Minister guaranteed today that not only will he not stop that trend, but that it will continue. I hope it will not be aggravated beyond the point we have already seen. I do not want anything I say here to be in any way a signal for an increase in the awful haemorrhage from our business and our economy.

The Minister said that having regard to his adjustments in income taxation all taxpayers will benefit. I cannot understand how the Minister could be so bold as to make that assertion. A major element and particularly the poorer taxpayer at the lower end of the bands will be hurt significantly. We will be giving detailed figures in the course of this debate at a later stage. It is clear that, because of the minimal adjustments at the lower levels of the bands, those on lower incomes, far from benefiting, will suffer considerably as a consequence of this. They will also be paying 10 per cent on footwear and 10 per cent on clothing. The people we claim to be concerned about and the unemployed who will not get the benefit of tax allowances will pay the price for this unfeeling budget. There is no point in ignoring that reality.

If we were to have an adjustment in income tax in line with inflation at 6 per cent that would have required a tax allowance of the order of £100 million in this budget. What is provided in this budget is an adjustment of £58 million gross. This will be reduced after the impact of indirect taxation on those who get the benefit of that slight adjustment. They are mostly in the higher bands. In net terms, this will mean a cost to the Exchequer of the order of £35 million.

That is as far as the Government have been prepared to go to deal with levels of taxation, which are about the highest in the EC, but the Minister today tried to convey the notion that by introducing new tax bands and getting rid of the 65 per cent band, which has been brought down to 60 per cent — we described it last year as a penal disincentive to those who might otherwise contribute to the benefit of our economy — PAYE people will be better off. He omitted to say that many of those who were in the 35 per cent and 45 per cent bands will hereafter be in the 60 per cent bracket.

It is 48 per cent.

Others who up to this were in lower bands will be caught in the middle bands. We have minimal relief for those with higher incomes at a time when we know that our level of taxation, particularly in the higher bands, is very much in excess of any other state in the EC. If we are to make adjustments surely they should benefit those who are penalised and crippled in the lower income groups. Since the Minister came to office the yield from income tax has increased to more than £2 billion from £1.4 billion a few years ago. Yet the Minister claims to be giving benefits to taxpayers.

Those listening inside and outside the House today will have heard of the top band being abolished and adjustments made in the middle bands, and will welcome it. My advice is that they should be very cautious in their welcome because when indirect taxation seeps through to take home pay packets it will be seen that we have not even kept pace with inflation.

I will turn to indirect taxation. It is fairly clear that the levels of indirect taxation, which are the highest in the EC, have had a major crippling effect on trade and consumption and on other sectors of the economy since the Minister introduced them in 1983. I would like to have seen the Minister take the opportunity to visit the Border towns and see the impact there. Even on a short visit he would have seen the state of Border towns and the flow of our shoppers to Newry and other towns on the North side of the Border.

The adjustment made, for instance, in relation to television sets will not have the consequence he would claim for them. We all recognise that the attraction luring people across the Border is the differential in the price of petrol. In petrol we have seen a fall-off in consumption and consequently in excise yield. In 1982 the excise yield from petrol was £245 million, in 1983 it was £275 million and last year the yield increased marginally to £281 million. This, in real terms, means a huge reduction in excise yield from petrol. The obvious reasons are the levels of excise duty and VAT imposed on these products. Before today there was a differential of 65p, Irish equivalent, in the price of a gallon of petrol. After today the differential will be 75p. It will mean there will be increased traffic across the Border, particularly of people living near the Border, because it will be worth their while to travel across.

This budget, I regret to say, has the effect of aggravating the problems of those in Border regions. The Minister must be concerned, as all of us have been, about the growth in smuggling and the black economy and the impossibility for excise and revenue officers to cope with the growth. The Minister must be concerned about the breakdown effect this has in the social and economic order and the loss of about 6,000 jobs in the drink, car and electrical industries. Nevertheless, the only adjustment the Minister has made today to cope with that problem is a reduction of 50 per cent in the excise duty on TVs.

Already there is a differential of £400 in the price of a 26-inch colour set here and in the North and £360 for a 22 inch colour set. Does the Minister seriously believe that an adjustment in the excise duty of the level he has given will have any effect on the haemorrhage of Border traffic and smuggling, in the past 12 months in particular?

It would not have required any great intelligence on the part of the Minister to realise that the levels of duty and VAT have been responsible for reducing revenue yields. Ironically, we are actually getting a lower yield in revenue because of the higher levels of excise duty and VAT being imposed. The Minister should have seen those figures in the past two years and taken the necessary steps to ensure higher yields of revenue and more protection of employment. Had he done that, normal trade throughout the country, particularly in Border regions, would not continue to be undermined.

It is significant that the Minister is a hero in Newry, and no one here begrudges anything to Newry — perhaps he is also a hero in Whitehall because of the benefits from this to the British Treasury — but in Dundalk and other Border towns, he is a bandit because people have been savaged by the levels of taxation imposed in recent budgets.

I will refer to the impact of the budget on taxation generally. There has been a deduction of 25 per cent in real terms in take home pay since four years ago. This is the biggest single issue to be tackled if we are to give a signal to encourage employment, investment and incentive. The National Economic and Social Council demanded that the Minister give a clear signal in response to the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation. I have to say that the reduction in the number of bands is a move in the right direction but, equally, I must say that the levels of taxation still obtaining either in VAT or income tax are such as to ensure that the problems under which we have laboured in recent years will be massively increased in the next 12 months. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners indicated recently that our system is not capable of coping with the burden of taxation imposed on us. Clearly, that burden has been increased and I cannot imagine how the Minister can hope to make any meaningful impact by the adjustments he has made today. A £50 million reduction in income tax and an increase of the order of £50 million or £60 million in indirect taxes is not the way to move.

If the adjustments on the indirect tax side which we have asked for for so long had been measured on a selective basis, as happened in the case of spirits when the Minister eventually and reluctantly agreed, the Minister would have seen that the amount mentioned in the case of beer, petrol and electrical goods would have resulted in a major increase in revenue which in turn would have given scope for adjustments in the income tax bands.

I should now like to turn to an issue which faces us all and which the Government in their policy document two years ago, in Building on Reality some months ago and today, describe as the priority needing to be tackled if we are to get a renewal in our economy, the problem of unemployment. What is the response to that priority? We are all aware of the disincentive effect of PRSI contributions on employers and employees. It is one of the major problems in terms of generating employment. Has there been even a gesture in the budget towards lifting the level of PRSI burdens on employer or employee? Is there a proposal to move in that direction so that new jobs created will be liable for a graduated reduction of PRSI? The Minister cannot make any distinction between the need to promote new jobs and the reductions that should be given in terms of PRSI contributions and jobs that are in existence. The reality is that we cannot wait until tomorrow. For the young people, those going on the register daily, we need a signal but we did not get one today.

A scheme announced by the Minister last year was meant to be a signal to industry and those likely to invest — the tax allowance on equity participation — but it has not been referred to by the Minister today. Frankly, I believe the Minister was ashamed to make any reference to it. In introducing the scheme last year the Minister said he wanted to encourage people to invest by equity participation in manufacturing industries. We pointed out then that the scheme was too complex and was surrounded by all types of restrictions and regulations. We said that at the end of the day it would not have the effect of encouraging any significant investment of money in our industrial development programme. The Minister has deliberately avoided making a reference to that scheme because the reality is that not even five or six schemes have been launched under the programme. We had been led to believe that the scheme might be extended to the service sector and areas other than the manufacturing sector but the Minister has passed it by silently. Obviously, he has acknowledged his failure by that silence.

Nothing of the sort.

Will the Minister indicate where in his Budget Statement there is any reference to that scheme, the venture capital scheme or any scheme to encourage investment? I will give way to the Minister if he will point out that reference.

That much is right but the rest of what the Deputy said is totally wrong.

Clearly, it is not there. The Minister may wait until tomorrow, next week or next year but he must be aware that our young people who are waiting for a signal for work at home cannot wait that long. Business people anxious to invest cannot wait until tomorrow. Those who are putting their money in safe havens, are exporting their money, will not wait until tomorrow. Any opportunity to invest in renewal of our economy has been ignored in the budget although the Minister told us that one of his priorities remains the generation of employment.

We are all slow to acknowledge mistakes but the Minister for Finance finds it impossible to acknowledge mistakes. He will assert something as a fact in the face of the truth. If there has been a mistake in the area of tax it has to be the introduction of the income related property tax. The Tánaiste is present and he may say that this tax proves that the Labour Party are still alive in Government. It is about the only thing that proves that because apparently this was their price for participation in Government. The reality is that the tax last year yielded £1 million gross. In fact, in net terms it may have cost the Exchequer money when one takes all the administration costs into account. One must also take into account the cost to the private sector of filling up the various forms.

Why is it that the Minister did not make the obvious decision and get rid of this nonsense tax that does not fulfil the first requirement of any tax, to yield revenue? Had he done so the public — not just the well-off — would have got a clear signal that from now on they were free again to sell their house, buy a house or improve their house. It would have been a clear signal to the building industry that the private sector housing area, an essential element in the building industry programme, was being encouraged by the Government. The abolition of that tax could not have resulted in less than £20 million to the Revenue in terms of the enhanced activity in the building sector, stamp duty and transfers of one form or another.

The Deputy tried his sums that way in 1981 and he should have learned from that.

The admission, which I take the Minister's silence to be, of the failure of nonsense taxes like these is clear. It also has the consequence of creating unnecessary divisions and tensions between those who seek to have and those who clearly do not. The reality is that if the Tánaiste wants to make a contribution to regenerating some degree of economic activity and providing employment, in this instance in the building industry, and adding to revenue yield, he should signal to his colleagues sitting beside him that his ideological insistence on this nonsense tax is no longer worth stating and that he is prepared to face reality, as the Government claim they are.

There is another area where the Government, and the Taoiseach particularly, made very strong assertions. This Government always claimed that they would be consistent and that they would adhere to what they said; but when they said they would adhere to the current budget deficit they meant the opposite. They said they would reduce unemployment, but they did the opposite. They said they would reduce the level of taxation, but they did the opposite; and the latest is the public sector pay. Two or three months ago the Taoiseach emphatically stated that the Government would not provide anything above what had already been provided in the Estimates. He said they were determined to adhere to a 1 per cent increase for the public sector. When he makes such a strong assertion does the Taoiseach not realise that he is undermining his authority which, as leader of this nation, he is obliged to uphold? Does he not realise that by retreating from these statements without any explanation he is undermining his authority?

The actions of the Government over the past two days in calling in the public sector unions for discussions on the terms of the public sector pay award and then telling the unions to go because they had nothing to offer them is extraordinary when one considers what was announced here today. Are the Government trying to demonstrate to the public sector unions that, while they are now conceding the implementation of the arbitrator's award, they were not prepared to admit earlier that what the unions were looking for was reasonable? Could the Taoiseach explain why the Government showed such a determined negative front to the unions two days ago but today, in one casual phrase, the Minister said he will make provision for this increase in the budget? The Minister has not made provision for this increase in the budget. The reality is that he has been forced to go way beyond any of the statements the Government made in terms of the current budget deficit, far in excess of what anybody expected.

Our budget deficit is in line with the plan.

(Interruptions.)

Nobody believes the Taoiseach any more.

We are within £6 million of the planned figure.

7.9 per cent.

Deputy O'Kennedy, without interruption.

If the Taoiseach can show me any document already published by this Government or can say where he gave any indication that the current budget deficit in 1985 would be 7.9 per cent of GNP, I will give way to him. I invite him to demonstrate where this has been said.

Stand up and be counted.

(Interruptions.)

£6 million of the planned deficit.

Order, please. Deputy O'Kennedy, without interruption.

I am asking the Taoiseach to tell me where I can find this information, because he is the person who always talks in terms of percentage of GNP. Where in any Government publication, statement or document have this Government, which changed their stance so often, said in the last two years, one year, six months or three months that the current budget deficit would be 7.9 per cent of GNP?

We indicated it would be somewhat higher than 7.5 per cent; the figure in the plan was 7.8 per cent and it is now 7.9 per cent.

Order, please. You are inviting interruptions. Deputy O'Kennedy without interruption from anybody.

There are the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Government with responsibility for running this country. At some time we all have to believe what they say, whether it is in relation to borrowing, the budget deficit, taxation or unemployment. But this Government mean the opposite to what they say, and then we all suffer. But the Government suffer most and the people are most concerned because they are waiting for some relief.

May I speak now about those who have a first claim on us? There is a view abroad that in recent times we have all become selfish, that we expect too much, that we are a little unreasonable and that we will not face reality. But if there is one group who are entitled to expect, and demand, more, it must be the old, the sick and those in receipt of long term social welfare benefits. We acknowledge that inflation will be at least 6 per cent next year, but what is in this budget for those people? An adjustment of less than 6 per cent from July.

6 per cent and 6½ per cent.

Sorry, I hope everybody heard that. The Taoiseach said that a 6 per cent and, for some a 6½ per cent increase will be given from July. I am sure the old, the sick and the unemployed, knowing there is no adjustment until July, will realise that in a full year they will get a 3 per cent increase although on an optimistic assessment inflation will run at 6 per cent — and then this Government feel they have provided for these people who will get an extra ½ per cent.

In the last two years we kept the increases ahead of inflation.

5 per cent ahead of inflation.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister is saying that the old, the sick and the unemployed, the numbers of whom are growing, should be consoled by the fact that over the past two years the increases granted more than kept pace with inflation.

That is not so.

That is not true and these people know the reality. They recognise that for the next six months there will be no adjustment, but for the following six months they will get a 6 per cent increase or, in the Taoiseach's generous phrase, 6½ per cent for a few.

A 6½ per cent increase for the long term unemployed.

This gives some indication of the Government's priorities.

As against an inflation rate of less than 6 per cent.

If we are to have any sense of cohesion and a renewal of morale, this can only come through a recognition of the obligation on all to share the burden. But if in the face of difficulty we impose a burden on those who are least able to bear it, then we are creating a more selfish and less caring society and this will make it more difficult for everyone to tackle these fundamental problems.

I am not too surprised that the Tánaiste, whose party used to claim that they care for the poor and the unemployed, decides that now is the appropriate time for him to leave the House. More significantly, it might be said that this would be a more appropriate time for the Tánaiste to leave Government in view of the reactions of those they claim to represent and to care for ——

Is this speech about the budget?

It is about the Minister's budget.

I have never heard anybody descend to such steps ——

(Interruptions.)

Now that the figures are coming through from the current budget revenue for 1984, let me place on the record figures we did not have earlier. Income tax in 1985 will increase by £164.7 million. Those are included in the tables which were not made available to us before I stood up to speak. Those who might have believed the Minister when he made his assertion that all this will mean relief for every taxpayer can now see that the relief will come in the form of an extra £165 million. Those who thought that there would be relief on value-added tax in view of the adjustment see now that it will come in the form of an extra £122 million to the Revenue.

The Minister claimed that he would tackle the issues of unemployment and taxation but he is now tackling them in the way the Government always have — by increasing the revenue by imposing an extra burden, ensuring that the depressed state of the economy and our citizens will unfortunately continue next year and that we will be in an even more depressed state than last year. Everybody waited for a signal from this budget; the young waited for some opportunity for employment; the unemployed waited to see what would be indicated as a signal that their dignity would be at last respected; the old waited to see how they would be protected against the increased cost of living which is always a major concern to the old and the sick. The Minister did not hear or respond. Either the Minister has a lack of awareness — I doubt that such is the case — or a lack of concern, capacity or direction. It is time he recognised that we need broad, clear outlines which will indicate to the employed that the investment climate will improve. Those who believe in this country should be encouraged in their commitment and the problems of those who care for families and old people should be catered for. It is quite significant that there is no increase in children's allowances. I am quite prepared to give way to the Minister if I am wrong in this regard. Is the Minister going to insist that we have had an increase in children's allowances year after year? Are our taxpayers going to be better off in the future? If I have overlooked or omitted anything I should be greatful if the Minister would point it out.

No, the Deputy just cannot count.

How many increases did Fianna Fáil give in children's allowances?

There is no increase in income tax allowances in real terms or no provision for the old and the sick. There is no sign to the people that the Government believe in them. It is clear also that the Government do not believe in themselves, but a signal of belief and confidence in the people would have been very welcome.

If a new direction had been given we would all, regardless of party affiliations, have rowed in behind the Minister. However, we got the same old thing of adjustments in tax bands here and there but dressed up in slightly borrowed clothes. In the final analysis, those borrowed clothes cannot conceal the fact that we will all be worse off as a result of this budget. It is not just a question either of how much better off we will be financially. Unfortunately, we will be poorer not just in money terms but in terms of morale, respect and our confidence as a nation. If the Minister does not have respect for those essential characteristics of our people, it is time he reconsidered his responsibilities. Everyone has been waiting for a signal from the Minister but he has turned his back on them. There is an even more depressing year ahead than we have faced in the last two disastrous years since the Government came to office.

God be with the days when a budget was a budget. The Minister for Finance would open up his bag, let us hear the good news and the bad news and that would be the end of it for another year. We can no longer say that because mini budgets are now introduced and, in the past year, we had budgets every second week. The worst news was announced last August weekend when food subsidies were abolished. We do not know, therefore, what will happen in the coming year in regard to other little items. Will the other half be abolished next August?

I appreciate that VAT was removed on theatre and live performances and reduced on newspapers. Changes in the tax bands and VAT will simplify the code which is a welcome development. I specially welcome the increase in the age allowance for the old age pension. They had only been increased once in seven years and that was by about £20. The figure of £200 is long overdue and I am glad it has been allowed although it should be a much higher figure.

I do not want to go into detail on the budget which has been teased out by Deputy O'Kennedy in regard to its effects, etc. There is no alteration in the burden of taxation. I do not wish to go into detail regarding the effect of VAT and tax allowances. However, it is clear that the Minister has rejected the whole idea of tax reform. The Commission on Taxation was the only thing achieved by the thousands of PAYE marchers who looked for changes in the tax burden. The commission have now issued a number of reports but they have been dismissed in a few lines in Building on Reality. This means that the Government have decided that the tax march days are over, that the Government can forget the Commission on Taxation and continue to screw the PAYE workers. The budget indicates that that is still their attitude. There is no indication of any new taxes being imposed on anybody. Deputy O'Kennedy in his criticism of the budget did not indicate one area of new taxation where further revenues could be gained by the Exchequer. Unless there is a move towards tax reform, there is no point in introducing budgets of this nature.

Deputy O'Kennedy has more or less admitted that is the attitude of Fianna Fáil as well. In regard to that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has said that they will not allow dissatisfaction with the heavy burden of taxation being borne by workers to be used as an excuse for cuts in essential public spending and that they will resist the attempt by diverse elements to whip up anti-tax and an anti-public expenditure hysteria among the electorate. That is what has been built up over the past year in particular by this Government and by Fianna Fáil.

The Workers' Party say there is no room for further taxation on workers but there is plenty of room for more taxation on other areas and sectors which have been untouched in the budget except in so far as further relief has been given to them. To indicate what I mean, income tax in 1965 took in a total of 16.7 per cent of total tax revenue but in 1984 it brought in 34.5 per cent of total tax revenue. Of that, PAYE workers paid 86 per cent, the self-employed paid 12 per cent and farmers who constitute 20 per cent of the population paid 1.8 per cent. In 1965 tax on company profits brought in 9 per cent of tax revenue. In 1984 this was down to 3.9 per cent, just two fifths of what it was in 1965. Property tax in 1965 brought in 15.1 per cent of revenue whereas in 1984 it only brought in 3.3 per cent. Capital taxes in 1974 amounted to 11.4 per cent of revenue and in 1984 only 4 per cent of revenue. In all cases the tax on personal income has doubled while in all other areas the tax dropped dramatically.

A good example appeared in the newspapers the other day when the Guinness profits were disclosed. The profits of the Guinness group in Britain were taxed at a rate of 45 per cent whereas in Ireland they were taxed at a rate of 5.6 per cent. Jefferson Smurfit disclosed the other day that of their $45 million profit they paid $21 million in tax, in other words 46 per cent of their profit was paid in tax in the US. That is Reagan country and in Britain it is Thatcher country but here they only pay 5.6 per cent of their profits in tax. Tara Mines have never paid one penny in tax or royalties since 1978. This is the area where we say higher taxes should be imposed to help reduce the budget deficit, the level of borrowing and to stop the cuts in services which are being continued by this Government. I have not heard Fianna Fáil say they would agree with an increase in tax on capital, property or corporation profits.

A list of the significant events which have occurred over the last three years in this area is worth noting. In 1974 estate duties were abolished. Wealth tax was introduced but it was abolished in 1978. Capital gains tax was introduced in 1974 but it was reduced by Fianna Fáil in 1978. Capital acquisitions tax was introduced in 1974 and reduced by Fianna Fáil in 1978. VAT refunds to unregistered farmers were abolished in 1976 but reintroduced in 1978. In this budget it has been increased from 2 per cent to 2.2 per cent. Rates on houses were abolished, car tax was abolished in 1977 and reintroduced in 1981. The 2 per cent farm levy introduced in 1979 did not last for a year. It was abolished in 1979 also. The resource tax on farmers was introduced in 1980 but abolished in 1981. The tax was refunded to those who had paid it. Rates on agricultural land were abolished in 1982 but were replaced by water charges and charges for other local services.

As regards VAT refunds to unregistered farmers only 700 farmers are registered. In effect VAT refunds to unregistered farmers means refunds to all farmers. They are refunded a notional figure of 2 per cent VAT because they are unregistered. The Exchequer paid out £6.8 million on this in 1979. In 1981 they paid out £22 million. By 1982 it has almost doubled to £41.5 million and in 1983 they paid out £53.70 million. I am sure there must be a fiddle in that somewhere. A number of farm inputs including fertilisers are zero-rated; yet the Government have increased the VAT refund to 2.2 per cent. Why not ask all farmers to register for VAT in the same way as all shopkeepers must register?

I do not like going on too much about farmers because Joe Rea might get apoplexy. I would refer him to what the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, Mr. Séamus Parker, said. He said farmers owed the largest amount of income tax among the self-employed. He also said if farmers, traders and professional people decide not to pay tax, not to co-operate and not to participate in the body politic they could avoid tax and it would take years to go after them. The Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners accused them of refusing to participate in the body politic and I agree with that. During the American Revolution there was a slogan which stated: "No taxation without representation". That could be reversed now to no representation without taxation. How can they continue to expect services in education, health, the services of ACOT and so on and how can they expect to get £350 million from the Exchequer when only £30 million is paid in by them?

Joe Rea accuses us of being anti-farmer but he with the attitude he represents is irresponsible and against the national interest and, therefore, against the interest of farmers. This is something farmers must face up to.

The situation with regard to unemployment was bad a year or 18 months ago but then people expected it would end. I remember all the talk about the unemployed getting more than those who were at work. They were getting unemployment benefit, pay-related payments and so on but now two years later these people are on unemployment assistance. I understand more than 70 per cent of the unemployed are on assistance and that their families account for 150,000 children.

On assistance means that prior to this budget a family of four got £73.90 per week. They probably have had enough to eat but how can such a family live any kind of life on that amount? This budget will give them an increase of £4.80 but, at the same time, it will put increased VAT on clothes from 8 per cent to 10 per cent and it will put VAT on shoes and on fuel. Yesterday the price of coal was increased and there will be a further increase because of this budget. Half of the food subsidies have gone and probably the rest will go next August. Certainly they will be gone this time next year. How can a family who are on assistance survive on that kind of money?

Does the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance know that a single man, aged 36, the eldest of his family, who is living at home with his parents will get assistance of £12.80? This is a man who has worked for 14 years. This is quite common in Dublin. I understand it is not so common outside of Dublin and I cannot understand the reason. I can cite immediately two people in my constituency who have to exist on this kind of assistance. Another man aged 30 is only getting £9 assistance money because he is living at home. This is a humiliation and degradation. It is a deliberate insult to people who have worked and have paid their taxes. They have not avoided paying their taxes. This budget will not help them.

The public sector is under tremendous attack by this Government. I hear Deputy Kelly regularly on the radio uttering the same tirade against public sector companies, calling them white elephants and so on. The Tony O'Reilly papers, the Independent newspapers, also project this view. They call for privatisation and they demand that we should hive off companies to the private sector £100 million worth of equity each year. The leading article in the Irish Independent of 13 January stated that relatively successful State-sponsored enterprises should put £100 million on the stock exchange and allow private enterprise to share in the bonanza.

Let us have a brief look at what is called the burden on the taxpayers of the public sector companies, the white elephants as they are called. It may be of interest to know that not one of these companies got one penny from the Exchequer in 1984. B & I and Irish Shipping were liquidated but they did not get one penny from the Exchequer. Aer Lingus, Irish Steel, NET, ESB, Bord na Móna, An Bord Gáis, RTE, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Bord Telecom and so on are the white elephants. CIE got a subsidy for running a social service — they got £112 million — but the others did not get one penny of the taxpayers' money in 1984 and I doubt if they will get anything in 1985. Bord na Móna got £1 million but that was to hand out to private bog developers.

A sum of £490 million was given to State-sponsored companies which I list. Bord Iascaigh Mhara got £7 million to help private enterprise, namely, the fishermen. Údarás na Gaeltachta got £6 million to hand out to the private sector in the Gaeltacht area. ACOT got £18 million for the farming community. The Youth Employment Agency got £84 million, most of which went on employment incentive schemes for the private sector. Bord Fáilte got £22 million to hand out in grants and aids to hotels and guesthouses. I suppose P.V. Doyle and his friends shared in that £22 million. An Foras Talúntais got £16 million, again for the agricultural community. Córas Tráchtála got £18 million. This was because the great private sector have no marketing ability whatever and, therefore, the taxpayers had to pay the money to Córas Tráchtála to do the marketing for the private sector. That is what it is all about. Fóir Teoranta got £19 million of the taxpayers' money to bail out firms in trouble. The IDA got £123 million for grants to the private sector. That is where the taxpayers' money goes. It goes to the private sector in aid and grants.

The private sector sent nothing back to the Exchequer except the normal taxes, PRSI and so on that the public sector pays. Public sector companies gave back to the Exchequer £85 million. When one adds £132 million from the Central Bank and the £23 million the Exchequer took by way of levy on the ESB it makes a sum of £240 million which was paid to the Exchequer from public sector companies in 1984. Let us hear no more about the white elephants and the cost to the taxpayers and to the Exchequer. Let us look at what the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is doing. He said that State agencies are currently selecting 50 Irish companies whom they will assist in specific development programmes this year. They must be aided by State agencies.

We hear a lot about the entrepreneurs, about private enterprise and so on, but where are these entrepreneurs? I do not see them around. In reply to the budget last year I spoke about competitiveness. An excellent document was produced entitled "Economic background to the Budget" and from that I pointed out that as a consequence of an increase in productivity unit wage costs in Ireland fell by 1 per cent in 1983 as compared with an increase of 3½ per cent in our main trading partners. This year the Government have produced the same type of document but I had great difficulty in finding data on competitiveness. Although every other paragraph has a heading such as "income development", "inflation", "monetary development", "expenditure", etc., the piece about competitiveness has none. I had to search for it. I had to read most of the document before I found it. Again this year we see in terms of unit wage costs a relative improvement recorded in Irish manufacturing industry. It says: "In national currency terms Irish unit wage costs fell slightly in 1984 as against an increase of 2.5 per cent in our main trading partners". And we are told continuously that we are not competitive, we must lower our wages, we cannot have increases in either the public or private sectors because we are not competitive. According to the figures here before us we are far more competitive than our main trading partners, so what is wrong? We are far more competitive in productivity and unit wage costs. Why can we not compete then? Obviously the problem is in management. Despite the fact that Mr. Ivor Kenny has been running the IMI for a number of years and his great interest in management, he has not been able to develop managerial skills to compare with those of our trading partners.

Another area is marketing. We are unable to market the goods. Although our workers have increased their productivity and are competitive in wage unit costs the companies are not competitive in management, marketing or any other way. Where are the entrepreneurs? As far as I can see, it is just people looking for a fast buck. The public sector workers are being made the whipping boys for this. They are being penalised for the greed and incompetence of the private sector. They are being told that they must take less pay than those in the private sector. I do not go along with that argument. Public sector workers are entitled to the same rates as comparable workers in the private sector, and that must be maintained. It is shown that there are ample ways in which the Government can raise the revenues if they have only the guts to raise those revenues. Therefore, public sector workers should not be made to pay for either the mistakes of Government or the greed of the private sector.

Deputy John Kelly seemed to project the impression that there are no entrepreneurs in the public sector and that all in the private sector are persons of great enterprise. This is also a favourite theme of John Healy, the great verbaliser of all time who refers to all other people as verbalisers. He says that we must have four private sector workers to pay for every one public sector worker. That is complete nonsense. They are not doing it. I suppose we have the biggest colony in Spain at the moment of private entrepreneurs who ripped off workers and the Government here, who bought their villas in Spain and are living on what they made here.

There are plenty of innovators and people of enterprise in the public sector but when they show enterprise they are knocked over the head, they are not allowed to innovate or show vision or enterprise. The classic case is Michael J. Costello who was in charge of the Irish Sugar Company. Here was a man of dynamism and vision. He grabbed hold of the new technology and accelerated freeze drying to apply it to the vegetable industry. He started Erin Foods. He slogged all over the country organising farmers, co-operatives and so on to produce the vegetables; he organised workers to process the vegetables and what thanks did he get? First, the Government gave him an instruction that he could sell only 10 per cent of his product on the home market. Imagine the Government telling a State company that they could sell only 10 per cent of their product on the home market because the Government must protect the private entrepreneurs, Batchelors, Goodalls etc. Therefore, Erin Foods were forced to sell 90 per cent of their product abroad. After being thwarted in every way Michael J. Costello was thrown out. The Government did not agree with his enterprise. Erin Foods were handed over to Tony O'Reilly who lost no time in selling out to Heinz Erin, for which he was made vice-president of Heinz Erin and is today president of Heinz International and gets, I suppose, about $1 million in just salary from Heinz International, not to mention the various millions on his oil deals, Fitzwilton deals and so on. Where is Michael J. Costello? He is on the scrap heap. Nobody wants to know him any more. Nobody knows or cares where he is. I met him only once in my life, last year. He was going to a number of Deputies in regard to a commemoration that was being held in November. Certainly his are not my kind of politics. I would be totally opposed to him politically, I would have cast him a Blueshirt, probably the same as Deputy Kelly. He is very close in politics to Deputy Kelly, but Michael J. Costello is a true patriot. He knew and understood what the whole fight for freedom and independence was about. What is it about? How many people in this House know or think about what it is all about? Michael J. Costello had a very clear understanding of what it was about. It was about independence in economies as well as political independence. It was about giving greater wealth and greater opportunity and greater living standards to our people. This was what people had fought for. They fought for control of our land so that we could do all these great things with it.

We talk about freedom but we never think of what freedom means. We say there is no freedom of expression in the Soviet Union, Poland and so on, and we do not even think what freedom of expression means. What kind of freedom of expression have you if you leave school at 12 or 14 unable to read or write? If you have only a primary education you cannot express yourself. No matter what freedom we give, such a person has not the education to have freedom of expression in speech, writing literature, music, art or anything else. "Educate that you may be free" Thomas Davis said, and we are cutting back on education when the whole future of our country depends on giving a greater and higher standard of education to young people.

This type of budget does not in any way face up to the extraordinary changes in the past decade in the economy, technology and in the people themselves and their social consciousness. Even in the past five years extraordinary changes have taken place but this Government have not geared themselves for these changes. They show no change in attitude, thought or development whatsoever except to come up with the same, "We have changed the tax bands, we have put it on here and we have taken off that and everything will be hunky-dory". You borrow a few quid here and you mention something about percentages of GNP, and everything seems to be going grand. The books are right or they are not right and we will put it off now for another five years. All that nonsense which is not helping the economy of our people, which is not doing anything to develop the resources of the nation so that we might provide jobs. We must reform totally our tax system in order to bring about fairness and equity. In addition, we must be prepared to give full rein to the public sector, to the enterprise and the innovation that exist in that sector. I am not suggesting that we stop the private sector. By all means let us help those in the private sector who are working in the national interest, who are doing a good job. Grants and aid should be on the basis of productivity, in other words, we must ensure that we get value for money. We must allow the public sector companies to compete also. There is no point in hammering them. Unless we do this and develop the economy in freedom and independence we will not be able to provide jobs and a better future for all our people.

Sitting suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 6.40 p.m.
Top
Share