Deputy Gay Mitchell reported progress. He has a maximum of 59 minutes.
Financial Resolutions, 1987. - Financial Resolution No. 3: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance.)
I shall not be taking up all the time allocated to me.
I had said before Question Time that I had wanted to address three areas, one, that of defence and foreign affairs, another, that of financial control, in particular the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, third, the Department of the Environment Estimate for the coming year, to which I should like to refer as my party spokesman on urban renewal.
I will deal with them in that order. The budget for the coming year on supply services amounts to £260 million for the Department of Defence, plus £41 million for Army Pensions and £24 million for the Department of Foreign Affairs. It seems to me that we should be considering on what basis our neutrality is founded. This has been well argued by others, most notably by the late Fergus FitzGerald who wrote in an unpublished article:
Neutrality requires defence. Defence requires a deterrent force. A deterrent force costs money — a lot of money if we decide to go it alone. At present Ireland is not willing to finance such a deterrent. Ireland should abandon the pretence of neutrality, or face the consequences.
Did the Deputy give the source of his quotation?
An unpublished essay of the late Fergus FitzGerald. It seems to me we should be considering at present on what basis our neutrality is formed and what are its tenets. Have we ever properly debated our neutrality? The last debate in this House which even touched on the subject was in March 1981, if my recollection is correct. That was a debate on the post-summit meeting attended by the then Taoiseach. Even then only party Front Bench spokesmen contributed, but there was not a full debate on our neutrality.
A former Minister for External Affairs in a Coalition Government, Seán McBride, and a former Minister for External Affairs in a Fianna Fáil Government, Frank Aiken, both indicated clearly that Irish neutrality is based on one thing, that is partition. It seems to me extraordinary in this day and age that those statements should be allowed stand as the definition of our neutrality.
In his book A Singular Stance Patrick Keatinge says and I quote:
...neutrality, like any other doctrine ...should be subject to critical analysis.
It appears to me that any time anybody has tried to raise the question of Irish neutrality or of defence, they are either shouted down or made out to be some sort of oddballs who are challenging the independence of the State.
An ill-defined neutrality which does not have central tenets, which cannot be easily defended — because nobody understands those tenets or on what they are based — is not neutrality at all. It is time this House set time aside to debate the whole question of Irish neutrality. Indeed it is time this House established a full foreign affairs committee so that we should consider that and other important matters, so that we, as a Parliament and a country, would have a policy which is soundly based, which has been discussed and is understood by all concerned. Almost all of our former Heads of Government, some who held senior positions in Government, can be quoted as clearly indicating that we would depart from neutrality in certain circumstances. There are two such circumstances which come to mind immediately, one being the defence of the European Community. Can we expect other countries, parents of children of other States, to send their children out to defend the European Community if it comes under attack while we sit firmly on the fence? I do not think that is a realistic expectation. Equally, can we expect the parents of Dutch, Belgian or French children to go out and fight to protect the Community under attack while we sit firmly on the fence? We cannot do that. The essence of neutrality is being uninvolved in wars between other states. This has a strict legal basis in the Fifth and Thirteenth Hague Conventions of 1907. There seems to be a view here that there is some connection between neutralism and pacifism. There is no such connection. Many of the members of the neutral and non-aligned group are huge exporters of parts, machinery and weapons, used for defence purposes.
We must define the circumstances in which we intend to remain neutral. Could we remain neutral in these days of fast communication if there was a repeat of the holocaust in which six million Jewish men and women and children and others were sent painfully to their deaths? If such a thing recurred, in the name of common humanity we would have a duty to defend those at risk. We owe it to our European neighbours to define precisely where we stand on the question of neutrality. Irish participation at the Stockholm Conference is co-ordinated through the European Political Co-operation Group, whereas the other neutral countries are represented through the neutral and non-aligned group. That must seem peculiar to the other European countries.
The only reason given on record for our remaining neutral is partition. If partition ended we would no longer be neutral was said by Mr. Aiken, as Minister for External Affairs and by Mr. Seán McBride. Is that still true? It is time we defined and debated our neutrality. If we decide to remain neutral we should consider whether we have to provide in the Estimates of the Department of Defence to defend that neutrality. In 1982 it was estimated it would cost £500 million to defend our neutrality. That Estimate was calculated by a former senior Army officer. The entire budget for the Department of Defence at that time was something of the order of one-third of that. The position remains the same. We must ask ourselves if we are serious about neutrality, do we have a policy and, if so, what? We should look at the departmental Estimates when considering whether or not we should depart from our neutrality.
In relation to the control of the public finances those who were members of the Committee of Public Accounts will know that the legislation governing the Comptroller and Auditor General is of 19th century origin. There are two other short Acts to update that legislation for the sake of the creation of Saorstat Éireann dated 1922 and 1923. Apart from that the only mention of the Comptroller and Auditor General is in the 1937 Constitution which appoints the Comptroller and Auditor General not as an officer of the Executive but as what could be described as being an officer of this House. The Comptroller and Auditor General is independent, akin to a High Court judge, whose job is to audit and control the funds of the State. Yet, since the foundation of the State we have not seen fit to update his powers of control and audit. That reflects very badly on this House. Neither have we seen fit to update the powers of the Committee of Public Accounts, although the Taoiseach in reply to me a few days ago said he was giving consideration to this. In Great Britain they set up a review committee in the early 1980s which translated into the National Audit Act of 1983 which gave powers to the Public Accounts Committee in the UK and to the Comptroller and Auditor General and set up a basis of constant review of audit procedures in that Parliament along the lines of the Canadian principle. Some members of the Committee of Public Accounts went on one of these famous junkets to see the Canadian committee, because the Canadian Parliament have one of the most advanced systems of audit in the world. They have an Auditor General who has a great degree of independence, who has the power to carry out not just programmed audits but value for money audits and who has the power to call in outside firms of accountants to assist him in auditing the accounts of the Government of the day.
It is not the function of the Committee of Public Accounts to get involved in policy but it is their function to carry out an audit. The Committee should be more of a watchdog than a bloodhound. Policy is a matter for this House and the Government of the day. The Committee of Public Accounts have great powers to summon persons and records but they do not have the facility or the terms of reference or the back-up to carry out proper value for money audits on State expenditure. They should have that power. Furthermore, the Comptroller and Auditors General's Act should be updated to give him modern powers of audit. The reports of local government auditors who audit the accounts of health boards and local authorities should be automatically available to the Committee of Public Accounts and if they decide to call in somebody from the EHB or from Donegal County Council to examine an area of expenditure they should be free to do so. The Committee, in theory, have that power but they do not have the support and goodwill and the supporting legislation to carry out that sort of audit. Yet, the gross expenditure on supply services alone this year is £9,923 million and that does not include capital expenditure. If one were to gross all State spending one would probably find that the State spends something in the region of from £12,000 million to £15,000 million per year.
If the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General were to have the power to chase any incorrect expenditure of funds, sizeable amounts of public spending could be saved for the taxpayer. Of the figure of £15,000 million, 5 per cent would be £750 million and 1 per cent would be £150 million. Can any Member of the House say there is not at least 1 per cent waste in public spending? Would a 5 per cent waste figure be an exaggeration? With such savings we could reduce income tax by one-third or abolish the current budget deficit in less than three years. People may think that is an exaggeration but it is not. This is something which must be pursued. The starting place is to update the powers of the Committee of Public Accounts and the legislation governing that Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General so as to give him the tools to do the work and to carry out a modern audit.
On a random sample basis of audit the Comptroller and Auditor General has come up with some frightening situations leaving aside the philoprogenitive lady who claimed children's allowance for 83 children, the installation of heating systems in houses which cost over £13,000 which were built for public servants and the fact that the State had a contract to purchase two ships for £10 million but bought one ship for £12 million. Those are just random samples. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not the power, the staff or the legislation to carry out anything more than a random sample. Those things stand out like a sore thumb. Deputy Foley, as outgoing chairman of the Commitee of Public Accounts, and other members of that commitee know that every Government Department on which the Comptroller and Auditor General reports can give examples like this no matter who is in Government. What would the position be if the Comptroller and Auditor General had the power and the facility to pursue indepth auditing within Government Departments or to carry out value for money audits?
If the State contracts to buy two ships for £10 million and only buys one ship for £12 million the Comptroller and Auditor General can only bring this fact to the attention of the committee. He cannot say whether or not the ship was worth £12 million. It might have been worth only £500,000, £1 million or £3 million. He does not have the power to say whether it was value for money. We are being pilloried morning, noon and night by all our constituents because of the high rate of VAT, PAYE and everything else to pay for public expenditure. We cut public expenditure by cutting the amounts available in each of the supply services. It is time we started thinking in terms of value for taxpayer's punts. The House will accept that you do not spend other people's money as carefully as you spend your own. If you happen to be in a position where you are spending large sums of money, perhaps up to £15,000 million of taxpayers' money, you will not be as careful as you would be when spending your own money. The audit function is essential and should be considered. It would be of great benefit to the House, the public finances and the taxpayer.
In table 4 of the Principle Features of the Budget circulated by the Minister there is a heading: How Current Expenditure Will Be Allocated and Financed in 1987. On one side it shows how current expenditure will be financed. It includes borrowing, customs and excise duties, capital taxes, stamp duties, income tax, corporation tax, VAT and so on. It shows a total income of £8,417 million. On the other side it shows a gross expenditure throughout the Departments of £9,923 million. Deducted from that are supply services receipts amounting to £1,506 million. They are the same as appropriations-in-aid which are received by each Government Department. For instance, if the Department of Forestry sell a State forest or a Government Department sell a piece of machinery or a service, the income which goes directly to the Department is an appropriation-in-aid, a supply services receipt, and is deducted from the departmental Estimate. Only the net Estimates for that Department are brought before the House.
The total amount received by Departments is £1,506 million. It is greater than the borrowing for 1987 which is estimated at £1,200 million. It is greater than the excise duties for the entire year estimated at £1,449 million. It is about 60 per cent of the entire receipts from income tax, £2,722 million. It is almost equal to what we get in value-added tax for the year at £1,631 million. Yet it is simply included as a deduction on the expenditure side rather than having a heading on its own on the receipt side, which it should have. We should examine that area as a possible revenue earner. Who checks whether this £1,506 million income to these Departments represents value for money? Who checks whether whatever services or products are given in return for those receipts, perhaps it is licences in some cases, are value for money? It does not indicate that supply services receipts are taken seriously when they are simply inserted as a deduction on the expenditure side rather than a receipt on the receipt side where they can be compared annually as a percentage of the total expenditure as are customs and excise duties, capital taxes, income tax, corporation tax and VAT. That should be done. There may be an opportunity to raise funds for the State in this area where I suspect there is undercharging at present and the State probably does not get value for money.
As spokesman on urban renewal I will have more than a passing interest in the Department of the Environment in the coming year or two. The revised Estimate for that Department for this year is over £865 million. A provision of £100 million was made by the outgoing Government for special amenity projects. Most of that has been suspended in the Dublin area. That is being very shortsighted. We are abolishing grants which have a great employment potential in order to bring forward social welfare payments and in order to refund land tax. It is a very worthy objective to bring forward social welfare payments. I am sure every Member of the House is sorry that we cannot bring them forward to 1 April. About £2,200 million is spent by the Department of Social Welfare, the biggest spending Department of the State by far. There can be little doubt that there is wasteful spending in that Department. Would it not be possible for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at the duplication and replication in that Department and to cut out the wasteful spending. Then let us give an increase to those who are in need of social welfare.
Some people in receipt of social welfare do very badly. For instance, single men or women living alone on unemployment assistance do extremely badly because it is very hard to live on £37 or £38 a week and pay for food, light and heat. I would like it if we could give these people increases and the way to do that would be to cut out the wasteful expenditure in the Department of Social Welfare.
There is a lot said about unmarried mothers. In the age we are living in there are very few families, in the extended family sense, who do not have some knowledge or association with this trend. There is a great tolerance in society for these people, but where there are five, six, seven, eight or nine children, should we not be asking ourselves where are these unmarried fathers? What are their responsibilities to these children? They simply walk away from them. We should look at unmarried fathers and see what their responsibilities are. Does anybody ask these men if they are willing to make a contribution to the upkeep of these children? Surely these men do not think they can walk away from their responsibilities and have the hard pressed taxpayers — who have children to rear, mortgages to pay, and who are finding it hard to make ends meet — pay taxes to fund the unmarried fathers' responsibilities? Some thought should be given to the role of unmarried fathers. If people know they will be pursued for maintenance, many of them will be much more responsible. Members of this House will have sympathy for people who are in difficulties, but we should be looking at the responsibility of unmarried fathers. This is an area on which we should get some statistics.
If we were to find savings in the area of social welfare by cutting out wasteful spending, we could then continue to fund the special amenity projects which have been suspended. We could continue with the home improvements grants for which £100 million was provided in the Estimates by the outgoing Government. These projects give grants to people who get work done by registered employers, who have their tax liabilities up to date, and who give employment. It is ironic that at a time when there are 250,000 people unemployed we are taking funds out of an area which creates employment to spend in an area which does not help employment. This is another area which needs to be looked at.
I note that the provision in the Estimates for travelling people is not greatly increased. We have many forms of apartheid operating within our community, one being the employed versus the unemployed. There are 250,000 people on the public service payroll who have no rights, who have been priced out of their jobs because the employers cannot afford the increases which have been granted, and who have no work and no future. Travelling people are another group who suffer from a form of apartheid. The travelling people should be treated as adults. They have to take responsibility for themselves. There are indications that in some areas they do not do that. This question needs to be addressed.
This is a small country with a population of 3.5 million. There are enough people in this House to know exactly what the problems are. We should have a parliamentary policy on the travelling people. Many of them want to be settled and in some cases they want temporary settlement on halting sites but local communities will not have them. Each of us comes under pressure when there is any question of settling travelling people in our constituencies. We must have a fair, reasonable and reasoned policy on the travelling people. Their rights and responsibilities need to be defined, set down and implemented but just as firmly we must define the rights and responsibilities of the settled community, once Parliament makes up its mind on what is fair and reasonable. This is an area to which we should address our attention.
If we look at our capital city we see a great deal of urban blight — City Quay, Clanbrassil Street, Mountjoy Square and so on. This is not a party political issue or a controversial issue. It is not an issue about which Fianna Fáil know more than Fine Gael. It is not an issue on which the left or the right can take greatly differing stances on an economic basis, but it is an issue which has not been addressed on a cross-party basis. A great deal of research has been done on the need for environmental improvements, particularly by An Foras Forbartha but very little has been done of a formal nature, and certainly not by this House, on urban renewal. Any money spent on urban renewal could be recouped by what we could save on the Department of Justice Estimate — on crime and vandalism — because when people see blighted sites they presume nobody owns them and they vandalise them. We have a duty to have a policy on urban renewal which will rule out blight in our cities. I believe this could be funded also by increased tourism. The city of Dublin, as well as other beautiful cities such as Cork and Limerick, could be made a great tourist attraction if a little money was provided. What about water cascades on the River Liffey or the Royal Canal and the Grand Canal, which are greatly underused? What about the use of proper public lighting? A great deal of expenditure would not be needed to carry out improvements in these areas and there is even the possibility that they might be self-financing through increased numbers of tourists.
As regards wider urban renewal policy, what this House needs is a committee of the House. I honestly believe the committees in the last Dáil worked extremely well. The Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, the sub-committee on motor insurance costs, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Committee on Public Expenditure and the Committee on Marital Breakdown all did a very good job. I want to see these committees resurrected, but I particularly want a committee of the House on urban renewal. As I said, I do not see this as a controversial issue, and I do not think it will cause any problems across party lines. It need not necessarily cost a lot of money but it could be funded by a reduction in crime and vandalism and an increase in tourism.
I want to make a few concluding points on the Estimate for the Department of the Environment. We must look at the question of local government audits. The larger committees of the local authorities should be encouraged to appoint public accounts committees or finance committees to review, at an early date after the end of the financial year — I am not talking about one or two years later — the report of the local government auditor on the audit of the previous 12 months expenditure. That would be very useful and worthwhile. Local government audit reports should be sent to the Committee of Public Accounts. Further reform in the area of local government administration and representation is long overdue.
I do not know the present status of Dublin County Council. Are the three local authorities which were meant to come out of that in full swing? I suspect they are not. Some local authorities, particularly in the Dublin region, have become unwieldy. Dublin Corporation have 52 members; they are turning into a mini-parliament who debate everything and get nothing done. Increasingly they are a political forum, although individual councillors do a lot for their constituents on a macro basis. However, councillors spend very little time concentrating on or debating policies for, say, Dublin city, the one with which I am most familiar.
In Dublin, there are electoral areas of four councillors and it should be possible to cede statutory committee status to them, to have them serviced by an official of the city or county council with whom they work and to allow them, in turn, to give statutory rights of consultation to registered bodies such as local residents' associations so that there would be a working, local democracy on issues. That is not the case at present although the outgoing Government promised a second Bill on reorganisation of local government. That is long overdue and I hope the Government will introduce proposals in this regard as soon as possible.
I hope we will find it possible to carry out a tighter audit of public finances because it is a very worthy objective. I also hope that the incoming Committee of Public Accounts will soon be appointed so that they can get on with their work.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget and I congratulate the Minister for Finance and the Government on facing up to the serious issues facing the nation.
The budget will give a new sense of direction to the economy and I am pleased that this is the first priority. One must accept that conditions are extremely difficult. People were worried over the past four years because the economy was on a downward trend. They did not have confidence in legislators to stop this trend. However, the stand taken by the Government in the budget has instilled confidence as the message is simple — the Government will deliver and are prepared to take whatever steps are needed to right the finances of the State, which have been in disarray for many years. The cost of servicing the national debt must be tackled. The pre-Christmas report of the National Economic and Social Council states very clearly that, unless the balances in the public finances are resolved, we will face a very serious situation.
This budget lays down a framework and plan and indicates the road we must take. It has set very ambitious targets and if they succeed, which I believe they can, it could be the start of an uplift in the economy. If this is to happen, interest rates must fall shortly and the first to benefit from this will be the Government and the business sector.
Another factor which is catered for in the budget is to contain the level of public expenditure and to reduce our dependence on borrowing. The Government are taking courageous and radical meassures to encourage and foster economic growth and recovery. In this way they have shown that they are taking essential steps to create jobs, which has not been the case over the past four years. One can see that the budget contains a range of measures designed to confront our greatest challenge, unemployment. This will provide the basis for recovery which, I hope, will create more jobs. If these measures are to succeed, our priority must be to restore confidence in the economy and I am satisfied that the budget will do this.
I welcome the announcement of the job search programme to assist the long term unemployed in their efforts to seek training and employment. This will involve the National Manpower Service and AnCO and is the response needed to provide assistance to the long term unemployed, many of whom have been out of work for many years. Over 80 per cent of those on the register have been unemployed for more than 12 months. I hope the agencies involved will complete the interviews as soon as possible and, in so doing, restore confidence to the unemployed by advising them as to what is available. I also hope that these interviews will not be rushed and that people will be given a certain amount of encouragement. I understand that 29 programmes in different ranges of schemes are available, not all straightforward, and it is in this respect that the interviewers will be helpful. Over 40,000 National Manpower Service scheme opportunities have been earmarked for unemployed people. In addition, 12,000 job search places will be made available during the rest of the year.
During the recent election campaign and long before that, it was brought home to me by many unemployed people that they felt let down by many agencies. The proposals in the budget will redress that situation and will restore confidence to the unemployed.
The latest figures available in October 1986 show that more than 100,000 persons were unemployed for more than 12 months. Four years previously, in October 1982, the figure was 49,418, which means that the figure has doubled. Long term, unemployed married people with families have many domestic and social problems but they have now been given a ray of hope for the future.
The national lottery launched within the past few weeks is proving very successful as a revenue earning operation. I should like to see a percentage of this funding made available to many sporting organisations and I understand that this will be the case. I am referring in particular to the Cappenlea outdoor education centre in Kerry which may be forced to close within the next few weeks due to lack of funding. Ten people are employed in this centre, including a manager, eight instructors and a caretaker. They work as a team and each of them puts in many hours outside their normal times. The overall cost of running this centre is just under £100,000. Revenue at the centre in 1985 amounted to £20,000. In 1986 it was £30,000 and the target for 1987 is £40,000, which they are confident of achieving.
In 1986 the centre worked for 8,500 hours broken down as follows: school usage accounted for 52 per cent, youth groups accounted for 32 per cent and the adult groups accounted for 16 per cent. This involved a total of 4,590 people utilising the centre in 1986. A feature of the centre is the number of youth clubs from the North taking part in courses and I am sure it has helped to cement relationships on a North-South basis. Prior to Christmas, Cappanalea had received a commitment from Cospóir for £60,000. This had the approval of the then Coalition Government but that has now been withdrawn. For this reason, I would like to see a commitment given for national lottery assistance for this worthwhile project. I would also like to see local authorities in future years benefit as a result of the national lottery and in so doing becoming involved at local level in the administration of the lottery.
I also welcome the provision and commitment for housing in the budget for the current year of £386 million compared with £382 million in 1986. Under the present financial constraints, this is a very positive commitment. The budget also confirms the Government's commitment to the weaker sections of our community by bringing forward the social welfare increases from November to July. The refusal of the Government to levy prescription charges and the restoration of career guidance teachers is in direct contrast with the anti-social features of the Fine Gael budget.
The Government have set the pattern by cutting public expenditure. They have deferred pay increases for Minister's, TD's, judges, and top civil servants. This sets the climate where they can ask those in sound, secure, pensionable employment to accept a pay pause. The move against the ESB and the pig meat factories has resulted in the payment of £22 million which was owed to the Exchequer. It is also an indication to other defaulters that this Government mean business. The Irish Times poll published this week showing that 57 per cent of voters accepted that the budget is good for the country even though they expect their standards to fall confirms that the Government are on the right course.
I have a particular interest in tourism. As I see it, the greatest potential and the easiest way forward for creating employment is through tourism. This can be done at very little cost in comparison to industrial development, tourism of its nature being spread throughout the country. The small units would in future be less likely to lose through economic pressures and would be more likely to survive. The economic and employment base of tourism is more even and of a more permanent nature in comparison to heavy industry. Tourism is practically 100 per cent dependent on home-produced raw material with a high level of labour-added value.
The most disappointing feature of tourism at present is the lack of marketing by Bord Fáilte. I hope the Government will bring it home to Bord Fáilte that the No. 1 priority as far as tourism is concerned is marketing. Tourism has got to be developed in a natural way, thus helping the local environment. The amenities and facilities provided benefit both the local people and the visitors. We already have a number of natural products which in many countries are at a premium, mainly beaches, water sports, golf, fishing and the areas rich in culture. We have some of the top championship golf courses in the world which could not survive without the tourism contribution but yet are much used and appreciated by many local people. In the same way, our culture in general and entertainment, including the entertainers, can derive support and a direct contribution from the development of tourism.
I suggest that with very little help and effort the tourism industry could eliminate the job losses which already have been created. This should automatically reduce our unemployment and the industry would then be set for growth, creating new jobs. In the short term, it would be the quickest and most effective method of solving the unemployment problem. Therefore, with our own efforts, given a little extra help from the Government and tourism interests, such as Bord Fáilte, great potential lies in the tourist industry. I was disappointed to hear that Bord Fáilte have indicated to the regional boards that there are going to be substantial cutbacks this year, in some cases up to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. This cannot be accepted. I appeal to the Government to increase the funding.
I would like to refer to the point made by Deputy Mitchell in relation to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I agree with his sentiments. There is no doubt that updating the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General is long overdue. As a member of that committee for the past six years and as chairman for the last four, many problems with various offices were brought to our notice and all the Comptroller and Auditor General could do was to bring those problems to our notice. For this reason, these powers have to be updated, as does the legislation. Deputy Mitchell mentioned the current position in Canada where they have the most advanced type of auditing, especially value for money auditing. Any savings made through this particular office would be worth while. At this stage, I would like to congratulate Mr. P. L. McDonnell, the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the tremendous work he and his staff have been doing over the past number of years.
I am satisfied and so are many people outside this House that this budget is the first step along the road to national recovery. It is also appreciated that strong decisions had to be taken and it was further accepted that there are no instant solutions to the many problems facing the country. Only good can come out of this budget as it opens up new avenues for growth which will lead to job creation and create a climate of confidence which will encourage a return of capital into the country. Co-operation all around is the keynote to the success of the budget.
I will now call on the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Transport, Deputy Lyons, if he wishes to speak.
What about the other side? Does the Deputy opposite want to speak?
I will. Is that all right?
Acting Chairman
Yes, you may speak.
I did not come into the House prepared but nevertheless I listened with interest to what has been said. There has been a wide-ranging discussion on the budget. I am totally dismayed and disappointed by the budget. It offers no hope to the people we all claim to be concerned about, the young people of this country. In one fell swoop it has abolished the house improvement grants and the new house grant which gave so much hope to young people to either improve an old house or to build a new one. It also failed to offer any hope in the employment sector.
I am amazed at the speakers on the far side. I was totally disillusioned until the previous speaker, Deputy Foley, mentioned that he saw some hope in the remarks made by Deputy Mitchell in regard to the allocations for the tourist board. He acknowledged that the cutbacks were far from acceptable. Therefore, there is some ray of hope that the message is getting across to the backbenchers on the Government side that there is total dismay among the public. When we come back after the Easter recess, I hope the message which they seem to have been shielded from, that the people are frustrated, angry and disillusioned at the turn-about which has taken place as regards the promises which were given by the party now in Government during the election campaign, will have sunk in. It is not good to promise the people something and when elected to Government to break that promise. What has happened will not enhance our political system because people take a poor view of broken promises.
I appeal to the Minister to pay headage grants in the newly designated areas because they are of vital importance to the farming community. He should reintroduce the £5,000 installation grant for young farmers. That grant proved of great assistance to young farmers who were taking over a holding from their parents. Many young men are anxious to purchase land from their fathers but they cannot afford to do so since the £5,000 grant was abolished.
I am sure that the Government backbenchers when they return to their constituencies will discover that the people are angry at the health cuts and at the decision to introduce a £10 charge for hospital stay. That is a savage charge and it does not take into consideration the ability of people to pay. The Government should accept the proposal by Fine Gael to introduce a prescription charge which would be a better way to raise money. I accept there is a need to raise money and to eliminate abuses but the £10 charge is not the way to do that. The prescription charge would have eliminated a lot of abuses. Some people abused that system because they did not have to make a contribution. Many people would have second thoughts if they had to pay £1 for each prescription.
Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an gcáinaisnéis seo atá curtha os comhair an Tí ag an Aire agus ag an Rialtas. Ní mór dom a rá chomh maith go bhfuil sé soiléir go bhfuil glactha leis ag an bpobal i gcoitinne tríd an tír.
I support the budget introduced by the Minister for Finance. Members opposite may disagree with certain elements of the budget but they must remember that the public accept that such a budget was necessary as a foundation stone to right the wrongs imposed on the economy in recent years. There is a general acceptance by most parties in the House that the Minister for Finance took the only action open to him if the country was to achieve economic development on the scale necessary to improve conditions here. It is important that members of political parties, the social partners and the community work together to achieve economic development.
Many of us do not accept the results of opinion polls because of the small number of people interviewed but it was gratifying for the Government, and those who support the budget, to discover that according to the opinion poll published yesterday a majority of those interviewed accept that the action taken by the Minister for Finance was correct. I doubt if that occurred before. It may be said that polls were not conducted to test public reaction to a previous budget but what we learned from yesterday's poll was that the people accept the direction outlined in the budget.
For too long we have had programmes, plans, building and rebuilding, ways forward and proposals contained in many other documents but in the budget the Government took the necessary decisions to deal with the economic state of the country. The budget is the way to steer the ship of State to recovery. Certain areas of it are highlighted by different groups and described as severe but I respectfully ask those groups, or individuals, to accept the temporary discomfort or displeasure in the interest of the common good. Ireland and its people are a corporate body and we are being given an opportunity to ensure that we do not allow our sectional or personal interests to interfere with the development of our economy. We should not have individuals or groups applying pressure.
As the Taoiseach said, there can be no going back from this budget; from now on we will be moving forward. The important thing for that movement forward is that we should move together. Nobody should contemplate doing anything that will move us off the course that has been chartered by the Minister for Finance. I propose to enumerate the different areas of budgetary control and so on but I do not propose to indicate one as a priority over another. It would be inconsistent to embark on such a course.
Debate adjourned.