Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1987

Vol. 372 No. 2

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 am anxious again to emphasise the main thrust of the budget, the need for national recovery of our economy. Specific areas have been identified by the Government as having the potential required to help us towards national recovery. The budget has given a boost to the economy and created an awareness in the minds of the people that we are on the correct road to recovery. The budget has been accepted in a most extraordinary manner as being what the country requires. Within the area of my responsibility as Minister of State the formation of a new Department of Tourism and Transport clearly demonstrates the importance the Government attach to the tourism industry. There has been a failure over the years to identify this sector as one of immense potential. We have had to cope with descriptions such as the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce with Tourism tagged on at the end or Forestry and Fisheries with Tourism added as an afterthought. Now we have the Department of Tourism and Transport with tourism identified as an area of immense potential. The integration of transport policy in the new Department is of major significance given the pivotal role of an efficient and competitive transport system in the development of tourism.

The new Department will identify the areas of activity of Government Departments and State agencies that can be incorporated to produce attractive packages for tourism. The regional tourism organisations need not be abolished, as somebody else had in mind but their needs should be clearly defined. There should be no duplication or overlapping of functions or activities with Bord Fáilte and the RTOs. However, there is a clear need for closer co-operation between all bodies to ensure that their contribution in their respective fields is understood and seen to be part of a coherent plan for the tourism sector.

The enormous loss to our economy of our market share relative to our main competitors is something we are addressing immediately. One matter of importance was access transport costs which remains one of the main factors in the loss to the Irish economy. Proof of a change, if it was needed, is evident in the upsurge in air passenger traffic between Dublin and London following the lowering of fares on that route in response to competition from a new carrier. A considerable increase was recorded compared with the static traffic volumes on the route between 1980 and 1985. However, we are not fully satisfied and we intend to pursue economy in fares for access transport to Ireland. Because of our location as an island nation on the periphery of Europe, we think that emphasis must be directed to the lowering of access costs for visitors.

The Government's Programme for National Recovery gave a firm commitment to achieving export growth and, in particular, to substantially increasing our share in the world tourism market. The policy document, “Putting Growth Back into Tourism”, also states that revitalising tourism must be a top priority. We are honouring that commitment and we will continue to do so. I have returned from Brussels where I attended a two day conference on tourism. It was a stimulating experience for me to find that the emphasis we have placed on tourism and the direction we are taking in the expansion of the industry are seen by our colleagues in the EC as the direction they also wish to take, realising the huge potential there is in tourism and the creation of employment from its development. In 1986, 337,000 tourists came here from mainland Europe and spent £88 million. German visitors totalled 100,000, French 90,000 and Dutch 33,000. Given the premier ranking of Germany in world tourism our performance in this market is extremely disappointing. There were also 71,000 visitors from other areas in 1986, over half of whom were Australian, realising revenue of £26.2 million. Many of these visitors were of ethnic groups, and while access transport is a major factor influencing the non-ethnic traffic, the level of domestic cost is equally important. The potential of tourism will be developed vigorously by this Government.

The current budget allocation for Bord Fáilte is in excess of £24 million. The previous Government proposed a reduction to £20 million which the current Government reluctantly endorsed in view of the necessary curbs which had to be introduced on public spending. Bord Fáilte will implement this saving by engaging in a more carefully targeted promotional campaign. In the past the board have concentrated on what is known as destination advertising where fairly large sums of money were spent on generalised media advertising campaigns. This approach to marketing may have been appropriate in the past but this Government have directed that Bord Fáilte should now utilise a more targeted strategy. It is not expected that there will be any fall-off in tourism either in revenue or in visitor number terms in the coming year. Indeed, it is expected that there will be a satisfactory increase in tourism in 1987.

The budget, while it indicated a saving need as I have outlined, allowed for an increase in capital grants. An amount of £2 million was granted in 1986 for the hotel and guest house reconstruction and development scheme which has been continued because, first, it is intended to operate for only one year and, secondly, the Government want to evaluate very carefully the impact of the scheme to see whether a grant scheme of this sort is as effective as possible in generating investment in the accommodation sector. All other capital grant schemes administered by Bord Fáilte have been continued.

In the budget also we included an extension of the business expansion scheme to tourism. That scheme offers a tax incentive to potential investors by enabling them to obtain tax concessions in respect of £25,000 per annum of their investment in approved companies. For far too long the lack of incentive to invest in this industry has had a detrimental effect on the industry. We have taken this decision conscious of the need for investment in the industry from people not directly involved in the industry who see it as an area worthy of investment. For many years the tourism sector have been pressing for an extension of this scheme which up to now was confined to manufacturing industry. We accept that substantial investment in tourism accommodation, amenities and facilities would help enormously in the necessary development and operation of the tourism product.

Finally, if I may be permitted to become a little parochial possibly in regard to the area of the country from which I come, let me say that the entire region of the south west accounts for about 30 per cent of tourist activity in this country. In that regard regional tourism organisations have a vital role to play in helping the tourist industry to develop and realise its full potential. These organisations are working on the ground and are in a unique position to assess tourism's strengths and weaknesses. If we are to achieve a sustainable level of growth the industry needs to expand into specialist markets and to package and organise the products which these segments of the market require. The concept of specialist holidays presents new opportunities for the expansion of the tourist industry. To expand on that we tend to emphasise the weather factor. Our climate is not of its nature to be concentrated on for holidays, but we have other strengths if that is a weakness and we ought to diversify into those strengths to expand our industry. At the moment a firm of consultants are examining this aspect of the industry, the cost effectiveness of State expenditure on tourism and the potential market for the various specialised products. Their findings should help us to determine areas of development which deserve priority attention. It is hoped that this examination will be concluded by the middle of next month and on receipt of the consultants' views we will have the further information that is so urgently required to point the direction for industry in future decades and also to ensure that our strengths are utilised for this year, even though we are four months into the year. We intend in all our actions to develop the industry. The Government can point the direction and give leadership, Bord Fáilte can stimulate and coordinate development but the success of the strategies adopted will depend on the response and support of those directly involved in the industry as well as those indirectly involved who benefit from tourist spending. In this regard I hope that the business expansion scheme will attract finance from those who benefit indirectly.

It is surprising that in an industry with the potential of the tourist industry we have missed our opportunity through lack of commitment and leadership but that opportunity will not continue to be missed. We will be totally committed to this industry as a means of creating jobs which in turn will boost the economy.

We often associate tourist spending only with hotels and transport, but at least 60 per cent of tourist spending goes elsewhere. The range of businesses who make their money from tourism have an obligation to invest some of it in tourism development. We appeal to the sectors who indirectly benefit from tourism, although they would not see themselves as part of the industry, to invest in tourism development. I already mentioned the RTOs who have a ready structure through which local energies can be harvested to develop tourism. We acknowledge the commitment and support already given by many businesses in the commercial sector but we want more firms in the commercial sector to get involved. We can sell more to the tourists, if we produce, stock and display the products they want.

The development of tourism is not only about selling goods and keeping the environment clean although the environment is something on which we should concentrate. As this is the year of the environment we should use the opportunity to create an awareness among people of the need for a clean environment for our wellbeing as well as to encourage visitors. First impressions are lasting impressions.

About 80,000 jobs depend directly or indirectly on tourism. There is great potential for increasing that number of jobs in the future. If we are more courteous in serving our visitors in relation to accommodation and shopping requirements, they will be encouraged to return and to spend more which means more jobs and not just in the sectors directly identified with tourism.

In relation to access transport I must express my appreciation of the efforts of the local authorities in the south west region and also the West Glamorgan County Council not to mention the commitment of the previous Government. Despite the budgetary constraints on us we intend to support by means of the start up grant, the UK link between Cork and Swansea. I had the privilege of formally launching that link recently. For an area like the south west the potential is tremendous. As a result of this link the number of visitors will increase enormously during the coming years. The commitment given by local authorities to set up this company is fully acknowledged, and I wish it well. It may be considered that the fares for access transport may not yet be at the level we would hope for, but never before have the fares by air and sea been so attractive and never before was there such a choice of ways to travel between the UK and Ireland.

The ferry link, in addition to its value to the people who use it, to the tourist industry and to the commercial life of the south west, has provided a morale boost to the people of the region. Goodness knows, the area needed the sort of morale boost that the reintroduction of the link provided for them.

It will be recalled, and it is on the record of this House, that in a plea to have that ferry service restored I made the longest contribution in any single debate in the last Dáil extending over one and a half hours. I am more than pleased that the service has been restored. Indeed to raise the morale in the area, as a Government, we have a few more things to do for the tourist industry. Despite the budgetary constraints on us I am confident that the proposals to upgrade the airport in Cork will be proceeded with as soon as possible.

I have already touched on the subject of the environment. Bearing in mind that this is the year of the environment there are a number of other matters in this area of vital importance to the tourist industry. Litter is one. I suppose I would be correct in describing its abolition as our first priority. We must create an awareness in people's minds of the damage being done to our environment by the indiscriminate dumping of litter on our streets and in our countryside generally. We must make it known that it is not acceptable to ourselves.

Planning is also very relevant in the sphere of the environment, as is water and sea pollution. Indeed marine wreckage and conservation needs fall under this heading also. As a nation we have learned what it means to have a wreck such as the Kowloon Bridge sited off our coast with its potential dangers. The action taken and continuing to be taken by this Government since assuming office must be acknowledged. There is also the tremendous work being done by the relevant local authority in ensuring that the surrounding beaches do not suffer any ill effects. While on the subject of our environment I would request that local authorities and the Departments of the Environment and of the Marine would grapple with the situation obtaining in such matters. My Department will be taking an active interest in developments in relation to all of these issues. As a further indication on this Government's commitment to tourism I might reiterate that there will now be an interdepartmental committee whose task will be the co-ordination of all efforts in regard to tourism. We hope to strengthen the hand of this committee, raising its profile, which decision will be announced shortly.

The awards of excellence, giving recognition to local authority efforts, are worthwhile. These awards are presented annually and include those nationally for tidy districts, commercial streets, tidy beaches and so on. These afford an opportunity to extend an awareness of our environment about which I have spoken.

Signposting is a matter requiring immediate attention. Last year Bord Fáilte held a three day seminar, in association with An Foras Forbartha for planning officers throughout the country. We shall implement the positive recommendations emanating from those discussions so that Bord Fáilte will continue to play a forceful role in the activities of the environmental awareness bureau by way of representation on the management committee. There are reports prepared on water pollution and a draft policy document has now been prepared.

We shall also encourage the preservation of heritage houses, the cost of maintaining which has become prohibitive in many cases and constitutes a heavy financial burden on their owners. In turn that leads to their deterioration which must be remedied. The social employment scheme has been identified as a means by which their maintenance may be assisted. I hope the provisions of that scheme will be used extensively in ensuing years.

The European year of the environment has as its overall objective the organisation and promotion of a programme of events and activities aimed at raising public awareness with regard to improving and protecting the environment. The environment awareness bureau acts as the national committee for Ireland. They have now formulated a number of flagship projects. Plans are afoot to secure sponsorship of the programme from a number of sectors.

Increasing the range and facility of the various local authority services is another primary task of the Government and my Department. In order to achieve higher growth levels our tourism industry needs to expand into specialist markets, marketing the project and amenities those markets require. It must be remembered that the modern tourist is more activity conscious than his predecessor. Bearing in mind that our weather is not something we can sell easily we must concentrate on holiday activities. In order to acquire a more significant share of that growing market it is important that we identify the activities we can offer by way of augmenting the holiday enjoyment of potential tourists. It has already been proven that there is an appreciable market for many of our amenities, amenities that are almost too numerous to outline. Some examples are golfing and inland fishing. The Department of the Marine will no doubt pay attention to our deep sea and off shore fishing and will encourage its development from a tourism point of view. Other amenities are boating, orienteering and hill climbling. Then we have our culture, our heritage and our Irish language. We can hone in on all these activities to attract visitors to our country.

Latest research shows there are other markets for special interest products such as agri-tourism and scientific tourism. The list can be added to almost daily. We intend to spur on the identification of these areas of activity and provide for the tourists the information and the direction they need in order to partake in these activities. I am aware that the consultancy team have almost finalised their study of the effectiveness of State spending on tourism. This analysis, when submitted, will provide the basis for Bord Fáilte in determining priorities when setting about the tasks of expanding and diversifying the range of products available. We must also identify areas to assist the provision of extra facilities in resorts and other locations. They have been unsuccessful in expanding these facilities, We must generate an extension of the holiday season and encourage longer stays by visitors by way of improving facilities and expanding the range of activities. In this context we need more all-weather facilities as a primary consideration.

In the internal market for tourism we must provide and encourage the provision of adequate playgrounds, adventure playgrounds, for our own children as well as for the children of visitors. A small fee could be charged for admission because when such a fee is payable, it is usually the case that more respect is shown for facilities like the ones I have mentioned. The income from the fee could be used to provide entertainment in those playgrounds and also to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children. In that way it would also create employment.

Apart from resort and holiday centre facilities, Bord Fáilte continue to fund and support individual projects in locations where there is a demonstrated tourism content. That is as it should be. We cannot of course continue to expect the Exchequer to fund all the activities. That is why, on a number of occasions, I have mentioned the need for investment from the commercial sector and from everybody who can play a part in extending this industry.

It is generally accepted — this projection is based on current trends and on discussions and meetings I had in the past few weeks — that the demand for centres offering multi-activity holidays will increase significantly during the coming years. It is therefore essential to encourage further improvements in those centres so that we can attain the standard of their counterparts in Europe. There is a range of activities, some of which I have already outlined. As I said already, the list is endless. Many of these activities are organised worldwide with affiliated international bodies. This assists greatly in identifying the size of the potential market. It enables direct marketing to the people involved. I contend that we have not done sufficient up to now in selling the strengths of our tourist industry but that is now behind us. We have set the direction in Government and we intend to pursue it. Everybody involved realises that the direction we are taking is the correct one.

I have already mentioned the RTOs. I would like to see more recognition, by way of funding, of the RTOs by the business community. The regional tourism organisations have a crucial role to play in the development of tourism. They have an abundance of local knowledge and ideas to assist the development process. Having been given encouragement, they can encourage local involvement in the development of tourism. They are ideally positioned to develop and exploit the tourism potential of their respective regions. Fifty five per cent of the budget of the RTOs is provided by Bord Fáilte. Their contribution amounted to over £2.3 million in 1986. The balance of the budget of the RTOs is provided by local authorities, about 13 per cent; membership subscriptions, about 7 per cent and commercial activities undertaken by the RTO's about 25 per cent. There is an obvious need for greater financial involvement by the local communities in the running of the RTOs. The commercial sector contributed only 7 per cent to the cost of their local RTOs, yet 60 per cent of tourist revenue is spent on items other than hotel accommodation and transport.

Value for money is an area which has been, and still is, causing some concern. The main factors which caused high prices for tourists in Ireland were the high rate of inflation in the early eighties, the high rates of VAT on essential elements of the tourism product like accommodation, car and boat hire, meals, drinks and petrol, high access costs partly attributable to the fact that we are an island and there is no road or rail access for our major markets and lower labour and other costs, particularly in the Mediterranean, and the long haul destinations.

It is acknowledged that inflation is now down to 3 per cent. VAT has been reduced to 10 per cent for accommodation, car and boat hire and meals. There has been increased competition — and this is the crucial one — leading to lower prices initially on air access routes. On the Dublin-London route there was a fairly substantial reduction and on the United States-Ireland route the prices were very competitive compared with the United States and other European city rates. It is hoped that this more competitive régime can be extended to routes other than the cross-Channel routes in order to maximise access possibility and price competitiveness.

A balance needs to be struck between low prices for the tourists and a reasonable level of profitability for the tourist operators. The hotel industry have had particularly low profitability for the past five or six years, and this inhibits not only re-investment but also an increase in employment. In this context the recent commitment by the Irish Hotels Federation in their policy document to maintain price levels is very welcome and I want to acknowledge that.

Value for money is a concept which must be kept in perspective. Good standards and quality must not be sacrificed merely to bring about low costs. At the same time it is conceded that tourists have been ripped off. This is hard to control. Community pressures and an appreciation that this attitude is unproductive in the long run will be the only way in which value for money for tourists can be ensured.

Import substitution forms part of the direction we intend to follow in the future. The sharp decline in the performance of the domestic market in recent years is a matter of serious concern. The poor summers of the past two years and the decline in the level of discretionary income has not helped, but a more forceful marketing approach by the industry and Bord Fáilte highlighting the attractions of Ireland and putting together holiday offers at competitive prices, particularly activity related holiday packages, should restore growth in the home market.

Previous Governments reduced VAT on a range of tourism related products. This, coupled with this Government's efforts to contain inflation, will make Ireland a more attractively priced holiday destination.

In the Minister's Budget Statement on 31 March he outlined the budget policy for 1987 and future years. He stated that public expenditure must be curtailed. I welcome the recognition of this fact by the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party, albeit at a late stage. I hope the measures proposed in the budget will in fact have the desired effect, as stated by the Minister. He also stated that: "The Alternative is a substantial increase in taxation which is just not acceptable". However, we have under this budget exactly that —"A substantial increase in taxation".

We have witnessed over the past ten years or so the inordinate growth of services provided by the State for the citizens. This is the reason we have such high Government expenditure, and directly related to that, high taxation on individuals. We must restrict expenditure and reduce levels of personal taxation and, as the Minister says rightly in his Budget Statement, this require that the provision of public services will be curtailed. I would welcome a definite statement from the Minister and the Government that this is in fact what they intend doing.

It seems that the restriction of services or grants under any given scheme to a certain number of people still involves large scale administrative costs. This is where the vast bulk of the State's current expenditure is going. The only way to reduce it substantially is actually to eliminate whole schemes in selected areas which will then relieve the State of the burden of administering those schemes in any way. Why should we continue to tinker with industrial grant-aid and subsidies when what we must generate is a willingness to compete in the market. Since the budget, the OECD in their recent report have urged us to abandon the strategy, if it is one, of grants and subsidies.

Grants in Ireland have become a way of life, an entitlement in the minds of many of our people. It is time that grants to industry, for instance, were reviewed in a fundamental way. Even the Telesis report and the White Paper of the previous administration did not question the rationale of their existence. If we look at the financing of industry we can readily identify the need for equity capital and loan capital at low rates for a long term. I submit that the present method of grant-aid by the State is not the best use of those State funds. It creates a dole-mentality in industry, and does not easily fit side by side with the philosophy of initiative and enterprise. The State would serve all better by considering its role as facilitating the provision of equity finance and cheap long term loan capital instead of grants. This could be done by a national equity fund managed on a commercial basis to which all people and institutions could subscribe and where a certain minimum interest rate could be guaranteed by the Exchequer. For loan capital the Exchequer should, by guarantees or by subsidised interest rates, enable much more loan capital to be available from the private lending institutions.

These schemes have merits over grants in the following way: the dole mentality is abolished in industry; much less Government funds are handed out; funds are released from private lending institutions; and in investing in the equity fund the people as a whole can become aware of and interested in the viability and growth of industry. Of course, in order to attract international investment, since grants are used by our competitors, we probably will have to continue to afford this incentive. Nevertheless, if my suggestions are accepted then a much wider range of incentives would be available to put together an attractive flexible package at less cost to the State. Grants are a blunt and unsophisticated incentive, and it is time they were critically examined.

If we turn to the area of job creation and the effect the budget will have on jobs, it is plainly evident that the thrust of this budget has been to reduce employment in the building and allied areas even further. This will undoubtedly have the effect of increasing the burden on the State for payment of more unemployment benefit and assistance. The way the three grant schemes have been abolished demonstrates a lack of foresight and understanding of the possible situation in which many thousands of people find themselves. They have entered into agreements on the basis that they would be eligible to receive grants and find that these grants have been abolished retrospectively. Whereas I realise that no Government could have continued these grants in operation because of the way they had got out of hand — which, of course, should have been foreseen long before now — Government action should not set out to create inequities. This is exactly what this measure did and it is these inequities which caused the Government to change their tune on the implementation of the abolition of these grants.

I listened to the Minister for the Environment in the Dáil on Tuesday explaining the most recent interpretation his Department were giving to the budget ruling but it remains unclear and is unhelpful to the many people who are caught in this anomalous situation. Complaints have been made over the last two weeks that it is almost impossible to get in contact with the Department even on the special telephone lines made available for queries from Deputies.

This has led to the ridiculous situation of hundreds of questions appearing on the order paper for the Minister for the Environment referring to individual queries as to whether certificates of grant approval will be issued. It is an appalling waste of civil servant's time, not to mention Deputies' time and also the time of the individuals who are attempting to clarify the position for themselves and extricate themselves from arrangements where possible. If the Minister had seen fit to publish clear and unambiguous guidelines allowing for his new interpretation of the regulations, much public money would have been saved by not having to go through the farce of answering these hundreds of queries.

Another area where the Minister showed inadequate foresight in the framing of his budget is that concerning the new 35 per cent withholding tax on professional fees. I approve the move towards the payment of tax in the current year for those who are not at present paying it in this manner. Any move which ensures that those who are not paying their fair share of tax, or are not paying their fair share of tax on a current basis, will do so is to be welcomed.

However, where this measure falls down is that it is not an attempt to gather on a fair and equitable basis. It represents yet another crude attempt at gathering funds, no matter from what source, and no matter what the result is of this exercise. It is worth pointing out that there is a very serious issue here which has become overlooked in the light of the stringent measures which the budget introduced. Many companies in construction-linked professions are presented with very real difficulties, particularly where a company are heavily dependent on State contracts. In many cases income from this source could represent up to 80 per cent of total income. Over recent years many companies in the architects', engineers' and surveyors' professions have disappeared because of the contraction in the amount of business available. Those who remain in business have cut their overheads to the bare minimum, and are employing as few staff as it is possible to operate with. In many cases fees for State contracts are received after long delays. Their cash flow is, therefore, precarious at the best of times.

The Government are implying by implementing a 35 per cent withholding tax on gross fees that these fees represent income or profit. That is very obviously not the case in the great majority of firms who take on State work. They have overheads such as salaries, wages, rent, interest payments, etc., which must first be deducted from these fees before any profit or income for the directors can be made. It seems only equitable that these firms should be required to pay tax on the same basis as everybody else in the community, that is, on the basis of tax on income over and above legitimate and necessary expenses.

There is also a further sub-category of these firms where all the principals have the status of employees and pay tax on a current or PAYE basis. In these circumstances all members of the company pay tax weekly or monthly within the PAYE system. The Minister in his budget speech made the point that he was attempting, by means of this tax, to draw into the net of taxpayers who pay on a current basis some of those who now pay on a previous year basis. As I have demonstrated, there are firms who might be in receipt of State fees who will not fall into the category of paying on a previous year basis and, therefore, should not be subject to this extra tax, which is in effect the State borrowing money at a nil interest rate, from those whom it is employing. What will happen in effect is that companies in this situation will have an intolerable burden by way of cash flow, additional financing facilities and the additional interest charges on such facilities imposed on them.

Some firms, particularly small firms, will have to close down. We will, therefore, further damage the infrastructure of the construction industry to which we are still clinging despite the deep recession. It is quite likely that foreign firms will step in to take up the slack. These firms already have the advantage that they do not have to charge VAT on their fees and will, therefore, be in a position to undercut Irish firms. The Minister in his budget speech referred to the possibility of refunds where no tax liability was incurred. This is not a solution as the refunds will only be made after the companies have ceased to exist.

I call on the Minister to immediately make adjustments in the rules guiding the implementation of this withholding tax so as to make it equitable, and to take into account situations where full tax is already being paid on a PAYE basis. The Progressive Democrats will be moving substantial amendments to the Finance Bill on this matter when it comes before the House.

I wish to confirm that the Progressive Democrats favour the transfer of taxation to a current year basis, as we have outlined in our policy documents, when we promoted the idea of self-assessment to achieve this. What we are seeing in the Minister's crude attempt to increase Government income, albeit on a once-off basis, is a measure which has not been thought out and which will have to be adjusted if the most serious and devastating consequences are to be avoided.

The Minister for Labour, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in his speech on the budget to this House laid great emphasis on the need for the Government to create new jobs as distinct from simply preserving existing employment. I applaud him when he calls for a concerted effort to be made on the part of each sector in society. I also agree with him that regular and meaningful discussions with outside bodies such as employer and trade union organisations are essential if such a concerted effort is to be co-ordinated and to take effect. However, it is the job of the Government of the day to give a lead and to show where the priorities lie for the country. We are in danger of creating, with our many work schemes and youth training programmes, the artificial phenomenon known as the tertiary sector, that is, publicly funded works to be carried out in the community which would not otherwise be done. Why must the State inevitably be the employer on these social work schemes? For example, the social employment scheme at present is funded and administered by the State. It seems to me that we could redirect our funds so that they would be benefiting other sectors of the economy, for example, such as tourism.

We could be contracting out work in each county to clean up and maintain areas, funding these contracts instead of directly employing the participants in the social employment scheme. However, the contractors would be required then to use a particular category of worker, i.e. those who were previously unemployed, or unemployed for longer than a year. Many counties and local communities would have work of this kind which they could pinpoint, and I suggest that people employed on such schemes would be happier to be directly employed by a contractor from whom they might expect to obtain more work in the future than to be doing a stint on one of the retraining or employment schemes available through the Government. It also has the advantage of placing the onus for administering the work on the community. We should avoid the creation of a parallel labour force of people asked to work for lower wages simply because they have no jobs. This also undermines the value of other insured, particularly manual, employments.

The increase in numbers involved in the social employment scheme announced in the budget of 1,500 and the increase to 40,000 on the many other manpower schemes could, in many instances, be said to be using the State funds for merely stopgap measures. This is not good enough from a party which in the past ridiculed the use of such schemes to alleviate unemployment. The fact is that young people in Ireland do not aspire to places on work experience or such schemes. They do not want to be passed on from one temporary working environment to another. Versatility and adaptability are good and perhaps necessary qualities to survive in employment today but let us not make a virtue of that necessity and let us not fuel even greater cynicism about the State's capacity to generate employment opportunities. Young Irish people are not submissive to the promise of temporary aid; their answer is more and more to follow the emigration trail.

As for the older and long term unemployed who will be directed more towards the social employment scheme, I note the allowance for single people will be reduced to £60. So be it, if that is all the State can afford. The real problem with this scheme is that by freeing participants for the remaining two or three days of the week we are actively institutionalising the black economy. If the State offers employment at all it should be seen to encourage participation in insurable employment in the white economy.

Finally, on the subject of restrictions on public service pay and recruitment, I see that the Government have no option but to tell the public sector workforce at large that enough is enough. The Minister in his Budget Statement referred to two major factors accounting for the size of the public service wage bill at £2,840 million. These were, the rates of pay and also the number of public servants. He undertook to take action on both fronts now and though there will be undoubtedly many who feel that their special pay increases are worthy of granting, the simple fact that there are simply no resources with which to pay.

He also gave notice that no provision for any further general increase after the expiry of the present pay agreement would be made. This would seem to be a basic underlying fact in any negotiations that take palce between the Government and the public service unions. However the Taoiseach was very reticent when questioned in the Dáil on Tuesday of this week. He was not prepared to say that this basic requirement of Government policy had been set forth by himself and his Ministers when they met representatives from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. To talk of exploratory talks between the social partners as to how best to tackle the nation's financial problems without each side setting out their position is a nonsense. Yet the Taoiseach was reticent about this aspect of the meeting to the Dáil. I believe the Minister for Finance was correct in his assessment of the public sector pay problem in the budget. I urge him and the Government to adhere to the terms of the budget in that regard.

The Minister also spoke about reductions in the numbers of public servants, particularly those who are employed in the public service area which is directly financed from the Exchequer. The whole question of the structure of the public service and of the curtailment of numbers in it is a very wide one. It requires us to look at each Department in turn, and as the Department of the Public Service were beginning to do until recently, to co-ordinate efforts at rationalisation. I have to confess to being very disappointed to see that the Department of the Public Service are now incorporated in the Department of Finance. It seems this Department are pivotal where reform of the public service is concerned. They simply cannot get the attention they deserve if they do not have a separate Minister. The priorities in the Department of the Public Service of reforming the service, re-allocating personnel, motivating personnel and restructuring generally will become secondary to those of the Department of Finance which are essentially concerned with setting wage limits and restricting budgets. My point is that budgets do indeed have to be restricted but they must also be restricted in the light of the most effective service we can get for this amount of money. In particular, the growth of some Departments, associated bodies and agencies is unprecedented.

It reflects on the lack of co-ordinated planning that takes place at departmental level. For instance, in the Department of Industry and Commerce most of the planning that takes place happens outside the Department and in the agencies attached to it. There is, therefore, no particular curb on the growth of these agencies, as they wish to increase the scope of their influence and control. The public service will continue to grow unless a tight hold is taken in each Department of the planning of that Department, and in particular unless existing sections are actually closed and their staff reallocated where they are particularly needed.

It would appear that the scheme of career breaks has come to an end in the Civil Service. I see this as a retrograde step. This scheme enabled those who wished to take a break from their career in the service, often in order to try out a different career. As a somewhat convoluted form of voluntary redundancy it has its virtues, particularly where reductions in the numbers of the public service employees are required. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his position with regard to this scheme as being a help in the achievement of his objective of reducing numbers.

Finally, I welcome, as I said at the outset, the conversion of Fianna Fáil to the realism which the Progressive Democrats have been speaking about since their inception. I very much regret that not alone does this budget not make any provision for any restructuring of the tax system and alleviation of individual taxpayers, but it actually heavily increases the tax burden so that from April this year 47 per cent of our taxpayers will pay tax above the standard rate. It also makes no real attempt to reduce Government expenditure. The numbers of savings increased through greater economies as set out in the Principal Features of the 1987 budget, presented with the Budget Statement, indicate that there is a very large grey area surrounding many of these proposed economies. This may well have the effect later in the year or at year's end of allowing the public finances to remain out of control. For the sake of the country I hope I am wrong but I would like to be more sure of the Government's resolve and leadership in this connection.

I would like to congratulate the Minister for Finance and the Government on the expeditious way in which they brought forward this budget. This budget is an effort to redress the situation which has arisen over the past number of years and which has not been tackled. In the short time available to the Government they have framed this budget which, with other measures taken, shows they will endeavour to get our public finances in order.

The National Economic and Social Council in their report of November 1986, "A Strategy for Development 1986 to 1990" stated:

The achievement of a more rapid and sustainable rate of growth and the correction of the chronic imbalances in the public finances will require a more considerable degree of sacrifice from this society. If such sacrifices are to be accepted without compensation being sought, it is essential that they are shared equitably across all sections of society.

The key word in that quotation is "sacrifice". It is important to stress that if this nation is to survive and if our economy is to survive we have to make sacrifices right across the board. This budget has generally been accepted as a strict and tough one. Having said that, it cannot be denied that expenditure cuts and measures have been made right across the board in an effort to see that equity prevails. These cuts being made must be made if we are to get the economy back on the road to recovery. The budget addresses itself to reducing the Exchequer's borrowing requirement. To do this, various measures have been announced which are bitter to swallow but, in order to get the finances back on the road to recovery, we as a nation must be united rather than allowing sectional interests to demand and agitate for their own political gain.

All major political parties went into the last election proclaiming that such measures had to be taken. It is now up to them to back this budget as an honest attempt to set out on the road to financial stability. Nobody can expect miracles overnight. This budget is merely doing what should have been done many years ago. Already, we have seen that the budgetary proposals are having an effect, as can be witnessed by the definite downward trend of interest rates. Also a dramatic fall in cross-Border trade is plain to be seen.

This budget goes even further than that proposed by Fine Gael in January. It proposes a further reduction of 1 per cent in the borrowing target as set down by the Fine Gael budget. It is financially more stringent on the one hand, while it is far more humane than the proposed Fine Gael budget. Most commentators on the budget have concentrated on a number of items. They have done this without highlighting the reversal by my party of a number of harsh measures in the proposed Fine Gael budget. I shall give a number of examples. We have now no prescription charges; the rural dispensing scheme has been restored; the career guidance posts have been restored; social welfare increases of 3 per cent have been brought forward to July rather than October 1987; unemployment benefit is for 15 rather than 12 months as proposed; there is no increase in the waiting period from three to six days as proposed by Fine Gael; eligibility for disability, unemployment and maternity benefits comes after four years not five as proposed by Fine Gael.

The reversal of these measures will help those who are less well off. They are the people who have suffered more than most in the last number of years. The rest of us should be prepared to make sacrifices to ensure that the burden on the less well off people in our community is lessened. This is why I say the budget leans more heavily on those sections of the community than on the very low income groups.

Coming back to the NESC report, it further advocates a more effective and equitable taxation system. Fianna Fáil in their budget started this process. They have stated that as soon as possible they will move to have two-thirds of all taxpayers paying at the standard rate. It has been recognised that our system of tax is top heavy and complicated. This is why such schemes as self-assessment are being favourably accepted. Tax equity is a much used phrase. Attaining it has eluded successive Governments over the years. However, the proposals in this budget go some way towards showing that the tax system will be fair and that no particular section will be treated more leniently than others.

The withholding tax may be a bitter pill to swallow for some but it shows that the Government are resolute in their aim to get tax equity into the system. Deduction at source has been a feature of our taxation system over the last number of years. PAYE taxpayers have had it for years. Now it has been proposed that that section of the taxpaying community which has come in for its fair share of criticism over the last number of years will have it. It will be necessary, however, to examine the workings of this tax in detail to ensure that no firm goes out of business.

The building industry suggested that the budget was not kind to them. I cannot agree with this. This budget will help to cultivate an economic climate in which interest rates will fall. This, in turn, will help to increase demand in the industry and, in particular, in the dwellinghouse sector. The recent drop in Central Bank interest rates shows that already this budget has had an effect on the economic climate. A continuation of this trend will lead to the needed growth which, in turn, will assist the building sector. The strengthening of the £ sterling is also another factor which will aid their recovery.

A feature which will help the building industry is the extension of the business expansion scheme to tourism. The decentralisation programme is also being recommenced. We still have — and I think this is forgotten by many commentators — the new house grant of £2,000 for first time purchasers and also the scheme of improvement grants for disabled persons and for essential repairs. Over the last two years the so-called black hole has led to hundreds of thousands of pounds leaving the country by one means or another. Various factors have been blamed. I come from a Border constituency and such constituencies have suffered because money has been transferred illegally across the Border to banks in the Six Counties, thus reducing the amount in circulation in these areas. The budget has targeted a number of areas which will help to redress this problem — the tax treatment of expatriate remittances and also non-residents' accounts. The trend of the reduction in interest rates will also help this aspect of our economy.

On the job front, Fianna Fáil have spearheaded an initiative to help the many long term unemployed. Jobsearch has shown already in pilot schemes around the country that it has the capability of bringing together the various State agencies in a positive effort to provide opportunities for our many unemployed. There have been 40,000 vacancies set aside in Manpower services, while 12,000 places in the special Jobsearch courses will also be available. This scheme, together with other developmental and employment creating measures as already outlined by us, will help to redress the dire unemployment problem.

The day of hand-outs is over. Before the election, many announcements were made in County Louth promising aid. These promises were made, knowing full well that it would be we who would have to implement and pay for them, not those who were making the promises. Every project from now on will be examined carefully to ensure that there is no waste of public finances. Efficiency must be the name of the game. The public will not thank us for not ensuring that their money is well spent. My own County Louth has suffered more than most over the last number of years. The January 1987 figures on the live register for Dundalk are 4,348, for Ardee 1,340 and for Drogheda 4,196. This does not take into account the many people who have emigrated from the area. There has been a massive decline, particularly in Dundalk, in the manufacturing industry. The retail and service sector there has lost nearly 400 jobs. This again has reduced the purchasing power in the Dundalk area. The cycle goes on.

Every other area in the country has had to put up with the problem of the recession. However, the Dundalk area along with other Border areas has had to deal with the further problem of cross-Border trade. Commentators and economists have estimated that somewhere in the region of £300 million per year has gone out of this economy in this fashion. For example, petrol sales in the Border counties have gone down on average by 25 per cent during the last four years. On a half-mile stretch on the Dundalk to Newry road, six petrol stations have closed in recent times while a futher three have gone out of business on the Castleblayney to Dundalk road. Many traders living across the Border in the Six Counties have become millionaires overnight because of the wide disparity of prices between one side of the Border and the other. Traders in Border areas must welcome this budget. Today a trader in Dundalk ran across the main street to ask me to congratulate Mr. MacSharry for the measures that have been taken in this budget because over the last number of weeks there has been a decided improvement in trade in my home town. Other Deputies from Border areas have told me that the same is the case in their towns.

Fianna Fáil's first step to redress the Border problem was to appoint many Border Deputies as Ministers and Ministers of State. This is in stark contrast to the last Government where there was not one Border Deputy at the Cabinet table. The next step they took was not to propose any increase in excise duties on the old reliables following on from the UK budget. Their most effective proposal of all was the restriction on duty-free allowances. This will stop the huge day trip trade across the Border which comes from all over the country. Shortly before Christmas I stood at the Border for half an hour and I counted 24 buses going northwards, apart from cars and vans. No economy could put up with that much longer.

Locals on the roads between Dundalk and the Border have confirmed to me that there has been a huge drop in traffic northwards since the budget. I have spoken with a number of customs officials on the Border and they have confirmed that the number of long distance day trippers has fallen off dramatically since the budget. This will give the customs officials much more time to patrol the Border so as to stop the more largescale smuggling which has been a very heavy drain on local economies. On Easter Sunday 1986 the road leading out of Dundalk was full of cars and buses going northwards. This year the road was bereft of this traffic, it was going the other way. One customs official stated that during a certain period on a recent Saturday in Carrickcarnan only 500 vehicles crossed over the Border whereas on the same Saturday the previous year during the same period 4,000 vehicles crossed the Border.

Some commentators and retailers in the Border areas were too quick to criticise the budgetary proposals in this regard. It is now generally accepted, even by people on the other side of the House, that these measures have been a godsend to the Border areas. Despite many representations and deputations the previous Government stood idly by and did nothing while the Border economies floundered. It has cost the State nothing to bring in these regulations and I wonder why they were not brought in by the last Government. If they had been brought in three or four years ago the Border economies would not have been allowed to go into the dire situation they are now in. The measures taken in the last few weeks show that the Government are aware and worried about the cross Border trade problem. I hope that they will be the first of many measures which Fianna Fáil will take in Government to ensure that the Border economies recover.

There has been much discussion recently concerning the Single European Act. A great proportion of this discussion related to sovereignty, neutrality and foreign policy. What has been forgotten is that the rationale behind this Act is to break down more quickly than has been happening to date the trade barriers between member states. This is something which people like myself who live along the Border must be aware of. This is one of the reasons why people should vote in favour of the Act. Not only are Border economies being crucified by the variation in duties between North and South but the main roads leading to the Border are completely clogged up with commercial vans and articulated trucks awaiting clearance at customs posts. This has caused much agitation to residents in the immediate area of the customs posts. It is no great advertisment for our country to tourists coming into the jurisdiction. The total abolition of trade barriers would herald an end to this congestion and would lead to the freer movement of goods between member states. A vote against the Single European Act would be a vote for further isolation, thus leading to further economic problems for our country.

The Taoiseach announced recently that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Connolly, would have responsibility for urban renewal affairs. I am pleased about this because I come from a town where the main street has more "for sale" signs than anywhere else in Ireland. To its detriment during the last local elections this featured on news programmes shown in England, France, Germany and America,to name but a few. It is estimated that up to 50 business premises in Dundalk town are up for sale. Dundalk must be included in any urban renewal package. Money has been set aside by the Anglo-Irish fund for urban renewal projects in Border towns. I am hopeful that these measures will give businesses in the area the necessary impetus to come back to the centre of Border towns and particularly my own town, Dundalk.

The recent announcement by the Government to extend the natural gas pipeline through Drogheda to Dundalk will be welcome news for Louth as it will help to entice new projects into the area and make relatively cheap energy available to them. It will also help the beleaguered factories in the area to survive. The public can be assured that we in Fianna Fáil will examine every possibility so as to ensure that the Border areas recover.

This budget is the first step on the long road to recovery for this nation. The Government have shown, by this budget, that they are prepared to take the necessary harsh steps to ensure this recovery while at the same time minimising the burden on those who can least afford it.

Much of the budget debate to date has been concerned with Members on this side of the House congratulating the Minister on the recognition of financial reality within the State and Members on the other side of the House saying the exact opposite to what their colleagues stated in this House for a period of four years during the lifetime of the last Government. Like everyone else in my party I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the financial realities and the need to reduce the current budget deficit. They have recognised the need for realism in the area of public pay settlements. At least to date they have given vocal expression to that recognition but whether they implement much of what they have been talking about remains to be seen. Economists outside this House and political commentators have talked of the fact that the Government are now taking the tough decisions. Leaving aside some of the mistakes made on individual issues, from the point of view of the economic well-being of the State they have welcomed generally the approach articulated by the Minister for Finance in the budget debate.

What has been ignored largely to date, except for the purpose of the odd political side-swipe, is that if the approach now taken by the party opposite had been taken during the preceding four years many of the financial difficulties the State is currently experiencing could have been tackled more effectively. I was not part of the previous Government. I was a member of the major party in that Government. I am prepared to accept, on occasion, that that Government made mistakes just as, no doubt, Members opposite will accept that while in Opposition, on occasion Fianna Fáil made mistakes. The mistakes which the Fianna Fáil Party made in Opposition were of a nature so astounding and so culpable in the light of the current approach taken by them in Government that they deserve a further comment.

For a period of four years when the previous Government were in office Fianna Fáil, as the main Opposition party, said from this side of the House that stringent financial measures were not necessary and that income tax reliefs could be provided. They encouraged and assisted every interest group in the State who were making demands on the public finances to heighten those demands and to put pressure on the Government to capitulate to financial demands many of which they are now saying cannot be met. They stirred the political pot to a degree which I would regard as politically unacceptable in the light of the acceptance of the state of our economic plight. For four years Fianna Fáil in Opposition sought to undermine the economic policies which the then Government were seeking to implement so as to bring about economic recovery. They used every ploy and every tactic, when in Opposition, to do that. We do not have to look too far to look at individual interest groups who were encouraged by Fianna Fáil to so behave. They were manipulated and used by the Fianna Fáil Party to undermine the economic policies of the previous Government and to get Fianna Fáil Government with no regard being had to the interests of the country.

An interest group worth referring to in this context are the teachers and the teachers' unions. In this House we all know the history of the teacher's pay claims. I am not going to refight old battles with the teachers' unions. We know that the previous Government took a view, in the context of the parlous state of our economy and the level of the current budget deficit, that people should not be put to paying a greater sum by way of income tax than they were paying. The Government took the view that the State finances could not meet the arbitration award which was made in favour of the teachers. There followed a massive public campaign on behalf of the teachers' unions which was supported by Fianna Fáil both inside and outside this House. It was led by people who are card carrying members of the Fianna Fáil Party who were in positions of leadership in some of the teachers' unions and who used their position to manipulate teachers into carrying out industrial action and holding public meetings which were designed to do one thing. They were not designed to protect the position of teachers. They were not designed to further increase the excellence of the Irish educational system. They were designed and organised to undermine the economic policies of the previous Government and to create a political situation whereby Fianna Fáil would be returned to Government.

What has happened since is quite clear from the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance and the position taken by the Minister for Education. The various demands made by the teachers' unions, supported by Fianna Fáil in this House less than 12 months ago, are now not acceptable to the Fianna Fáil Party, they are going to be resisted and will be opposed. They will be opposed because Fianna Fáil accept now that the economic conditions cannot sustain the type of expenditure on the public finances that the demands on the teachers' unions would seek to force.

Prior to the last general election the teachers' unions sought support from Members of this House for their £75 million outstanding wage claim. Individual teachers sought commitments from candidates to pay the £1,800 alleged registered debt due in back pay claims. I wonder how many Members elected to this House to represent the Fianna Fáil Party signed letters to individual constituents who were teachers promising to provide the £1,800 registered debt and promising that if Fianna Fáil got into Government the £75 million outstanding on the arbitration award would be met? Why is it that at least one person in a position of leadership, if not more, in one of the major teachers' unions happens to be an adviser to the Minister for Education? Is it merely a coincidence that that particular union in the weeks leading up to the general election encouraged teachers to hold public meetings in schools in constituencies throughout the country to pillory Members of the Government parties for their failure to meet demands made by those unions?

Where are the meetings since the election? What public meeting has been held in any school organised by the INTO, ASTI or the TUI seeking to make demands on public representatives because of the Government adhering to the policy adopted by the previous Government with reference to vice-principals? Where are the public meetings being held by teachers calling on Deputies and other public representatives to seek renewed commitment to their pay demands? Where are the postcards? I do not want to re-fight the battle with the teachers. Many members of the teaching profession were led up the garden path by the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition and they truly believed the promises made to them. They went along with the nod and the wink routine which was carried out in the interest of political expediency and were genuinely of the view that the previous Government were not dealing properly with the economic problems and in some way had picked out the teachers for persecution, because that was the perception that Fianna Fáil, in Opposition painted. Of course the reality is different and many of them now realise that in fact steps taken by the previous Government were not taken out of malice and were not taken because there was a failure to recognise the heavy burden placed on teachers in the job they do, but were taken out of economic necessity.

Any Government who had funds available to them and in circumstances where the financial state of the country was not such as to make wage claims of the nature processed by the teachers unpayable, would pay those moneys but what Fianna Fáil did when in Opposition was to take groups like the teachers, to heighten their expectations as to what was achievable and to manipulate and use them. They used teachers' unions to manipulate the previous Government and undermine the economic policies that that Government sought to implement. The majority of those policies are now implemented by Fianna Fáil in Government.

This raise an issue we have not yet debated in this House on this budget, that is the issue of political integrity. There is within the context of the parliamentary process a role to be played by the Opposition and a role to be played by the Government of the day, and the Opposition have a duty to oppose actions taken by the Government where they believe such actions are wrong and to tease out actions taken by the Government where they think such actions may be correct, but believe they require clarification. However, the Opposition have a duty to the country not to undermine actions taken by the Government, action which the Opposition know are in the interests of the country. They have a duty not to mislead the electorate into believing the Opposition hold views which in fact they do not hold. In effect, during the course of the last four years, the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition, as they did during the course of the general election campaign, lied to those people who voted for them to put them into government. They falsely misled the electorate as to what the policies of that party would be in government and deliberately sought——

On a point of order, I think that the word "lie" is too strong and should be withdrawn.

I am afraid the Deputy will have to withdraw that word.

It would be my understanding that as a general term to be applied to a political policy and approach adopted as opposed to a word of denigration directed at an individual Member that I am in order in using that term in that way.

Withdraw it.

To avoid creating disorder in the House I would be happy to say that Fianna Fáil misled the people they were talking to. They misled them to a gross extent and this had a debilitating effect on the Government in the conduct of financial policy and in resolving many of the economic problems that still remain to be resolved. That effect can be seen in other areas as well. For example, how many local authorities dominated by Fianna Fáil members — certainly this applies to the two in Dublin, Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council — in 1986 at the behest of members of Fianna Fáil passed motions abolishing water or other charges which the local authority had previously held to be necessary in order to provide basic local services? How many candidates representing Fianna Fáil in the local government elections in 1985 knocked on doors telling people that these charges were not necessary, and that if Fianna Fáil candidates were elected to local authorities, such charges would be abolished? How many members of Fianna Fáil in local authorities at successive local authority meetings throughout the country stated that the funding for local authority services should be provided through central government and that there was no question of local charges being necessary? How many criticised central government in 1986 for not making good the moneys that would be lost to the individual local authorities, of which they were members, if such charges were abolished?

Today we have a situation whereby Fianna Fáil, because of their actions while in Opposition considerably hampered, if not rendered it impossible, for local authorities to collect much of the moneys due by way of local charges and which were necessary to provide basic local services. The action taken by managers in local authorities to seek to recoup payments of moneys due from charges which had been made in 1984 and 1985 was undermined. Where are we as a result of this budget? Local authorities throughout the country find that their allocations from central government this year are reduced. Within Dublin city and county, Dún Laoghaire Corporation and Dublin Corporation are in a state of crisis because of the reduction in funding from central government. Dublin County Council, a local authority designed and provided to cover the entire area of local administration in the county which is the fastest growing area in western Europe, find their budgetary allocation cut by this Government by 15 per cent, a reduction of £6 million on the sum made available to Dublin County Council last year by the previous Government. What is going to happen now on Dublin County Council? What are those councillors who abolished local charges going to do when Dublin County Council seek to agree their Estimates? That local authority have in the past few weeks had to raise a loan of £6 million, so that they can simply continue to function.

The point I am making is that in office the party who sought to tell people that services could be maintained, that local charges were not necessary, that they paid their income tax and that all the funds required by local authorities should be provided by central government, have cut dramatically the capital allocations and financial allocations to local authorities. Within the city and county of Dublin there will be one of two choices: either local charges are raised or services are considerably reduced and staff are laid off and rendered unemployed. In this context we are not talking just about temporary staff, we are talking about the possibility of local authorities throughout the country having to make some of their own staff redundant for the first time in the history of this State. Legal consequences could result from that apart from the personal and major difficulties that could be created for people placed at risk in that context.

On Dublin Corporation the Fianna Fáil councillors are playing a game with the general public. They are pretending presently, for the sake of their own political face, that they are not in favour of local charges, knowing absolutely that in the event of local charges not being adopted by the corporation, corporation services will collapse. That is the party of honesty and integrity in the area of economic policy, the party who, when in Opposition sought to undermine the ability of local authorities to collect funds independently, free of central government, to provide local services that were required. This is the same party who, when in Opposition, sought to encourage different interest groups who are paid through the public sector to press demands which that party knew to be unrealistic and which they now tell us they are resisting. Is it any wonder that the credibility of politicians is so low when people observe politicians behaving in that way?

While I welcome the late conversion of the Government to the economic realities of the current plight of the State, I deplore the absence of any real political honesty or integrity in their behaviour during their years in Opposition. And I still wait to see how they are going to explain to the people who elected them the reason for that conversion and the reason why each member of that party during the course of a general election effectively made a presentation to those who voted for them which was not the correct view and the honest view of what they were going to do. I would have a great deal more respect for them if they had laid it on the line to the teachers and to other groups that they were not going to meet their claim if elected to Government and had not sought to manipulate them in the way they were manipulated during the course of those years.

What about other areas, the area of health? We have had in the past few days a very clear indicator of the impact on our health services of the policies that are now to be implemented. It is extraordinary that the man who is now Minister for Health and who was accusing the previous Government 12 months ago of trying to demolish the health services is now seeking to implement some policies that the previous Government regarded as unacceptable when in Government. This is even more extraordinary when you realise the extent to which Fianna Fáil dominated the health boards in 1985 and 1986 and sought to create enormous difficulties for the Department of Health when that Department sought to control the expenditure of the health boards. We have heard the Minister on television talking about the fact that health boards have raised overdraft facilities in previous years in order to maintain services and that each health board have commitments now to repay debts that this Government want to see discharged during this year.

What the Minister for Health has not yet publicly told the people is that nearly all of those health boards who raised those loans have a majority of Fianna Fáil members who deliberately engaged in what I would describe as health board politics to undermine the fiscal and financial controls which the previous Government sought to impose on health boards to ensure, first, that health boards did not overspend and kept within their financial parameters and, secondly, to ensure that within those parameters full and proper services were provided. The level of cuts which this Government are now seeking to implement in the area of health and some of the steps that have been taken would not have been necessary if the Fianna Fáil-dominated health boards had behaved properly and responsibly, aware of the financial realities during 1985 and 1986. It is time that was acknowledged, recognised and accepted and that we stopped playing politics with the health boards in a way that undermines the health services to a dramatic degree. What about the other promises that were made in the area of tax?

(Interruptions.)

What about other areas where promises were made? We were told there was a better way. We were told there was a way forward which contradicted the better way. The electorate were told during the last election campaign that the better way involved going for growth. All we needed was to have Fianna Fáil in Government and, like the market gardener, they would sprinkle their few seeds on the paths and all of a sudden all our problems would be solved, we would all be going for growth, jobs would be provided and tax reliefs would be implemented.

For the first time in the history of this State mortgage interest relief was not increased or maintained at previous levels but reduced.

Not for the first time; for the third time.

The young married couple who are burdened by a large mortgage cannot now rely on this Government to ensure in future years that their allowances will not be further reduced. They cannot be assured that the current Government will not renege on another commitment made when in Opposition, namely, that they would not abolish mortgage interest relief altogether. I wonder whether the reduction in mortgage interest relief this year is simply the initial step. The Government may have decided to take off a couple of hundred pounds in the first year and see how many people shout. Perhaps next year they will take off another few hundred pounds and eventually abolish mortgage interest relief altogether.

That is called tax reform.

It is imposing a greater burden of tax on people by the back door. It is not said that the basic rate of tax is being increased or that the tax bands are being reduced. The Government just start whittling away at the allowances, beginning with one of the most fundamental allowances which is relied upon by the overwhelming majority of people, especially young married couples.

The Deputy's party were the first group to abolish interest relief.

Is this the first step along the road to abolishing mortgage interest relief? Is this a once-off? Will the allowance be reduced further next year? Can people who are committed to make mortgage repayments rely on the Government to ensure that next year there will not be a further reduction in the interest allowance? Of course, Fianna Fáil in Opposition were not going to abolish mortgage interest relief or reduce it. They were going to provide tax equity and reduce everyone's tax burden.

What else in this budget casts considerable doubt on the credibility of the party opposite and their intentions? I recall many occasions during the past four years when Members opposite raised the need for new and better school facilities, pressing individual cases to ensure that the capital building programme would not only be maintained but increased. They criticised the previous Government for not providing even greater finance than was provided. It now appears that this Government are intent on sabotaging the school building programme. In saying this, I am not making an idle allegation or raising a hare for party political reasons. I am relying on replies I received yesterday to Dáil Questions with reference to three particular schools in my own constituency, which no doubt are a microcosm of what is happening throughout the country in respect of the school building programme. We know that in this budget £100 million has been wiped off capital expenditure. We are not quite sure exactly what is to be affected but it appears that the education area will be one of those most affected. There are three particular schools to which I will refer briefly since I intend on another occasion to raise the matter in the House.

Whitechurch national school is a Church of Ireland school in South Dublin which caters for an increasing and growing population of Church of Ireland children. It is currently sited in a dilapidated building, grossly overcrowded with totally inadequate facilities. Rats occasionally appear running across the floor. Under the previous Government all the preliminary steps for the provision of a new school were taken. Tenders for the work were received in November 1986 and were sent to the Department of Education. Sanction was expected in this school year for the building of a new school, which the Department had recognised was not merely necessary but essential and in respect of which the school had already acquired the site.

Sanction to commence building was expected from the new Government, of whatever political persuasion, but the school is now in a state of crisis. In reply to a Dáil Question yesterday, the Minister stated that no funding will be made available during this financial year for the building of this school. I do not know why the Minister has picked out this particular school in this way. It is a Church of Ireland school and the parents have no alternative Church of Ireland school within a reasonable distance to which they can send their children.

The second school, which is also a Church of Ireland school, is Rathfarnham national school. It currently has sufficient children to accommodate ten teachers within the Department of Education's regulations. It will have in excess of 300 children in the educational year beginning in September 1987. Tenders for the building of a large new extension have been approved and now only await sanction to sign contracts for the building of the extension.

It was expected that the new Government would give the necessary sanction, following the budget, to allow contracts to be signed and building work to commence, but, it is clear from the reply I received yesterday in the House that no such sanction will be forthcoming this year. Within one constituency there are two Church of Ireland schools that are grossly over-crowded and have children accommodated in inadequate facilities. A portion of the Rathfarnham parish school is so suspect that when snow comes in the winter the school has to be vacated in case the roof falls in on the pupils. It has been acknowledged that in the case of one area a new school is required while in the other area a major extension is needed. It was expected that sanction would be given for both projects out of this year's financial allocation following the election of the new Government.

I do not know why the Minister for Education has decided that work should not proceed on those schools. The Minister suggested that funds are not available but I am aware that more than £6 million is available in her Department that could be utilised to provide the facilities that Rathfarnham parish school requires and the new school required at Whitechurch. I wonder if anyone in Fianna Fáil in the course of the general election campaign indicated to people in the Dublin South constituency that if they were returned to office those schools would not be built. I wonder why Church of Ireland children who need proper school facilities, who have a constitutional right to a primary education, should be deprived by the Government of proper and adequate school facilities. There is no alternative school for those children to attend.

I should like to give another example of what I am talking about in the area of education. I can recall that during the lifetime of the previous Government Members suggested that that Government might not be committed to the building of a community school in Knocklyon in my constituency. Such a school is badly needed. All the preliminary work on that project had been completed and the former Government promised that it would open in September 1988. Successive Governments, of different political persuasions, made commitments to that project. Yesterday I received a reply from the Minister for Education which made it clear that not only will building not commence this year but that there is no possibility of the school opening in September 1988. It is questionable if the school will ever open. Will the Minister for Education tell the House if a commitment by a previous administration to provide a school in Knocklyon is no longer applicable? Will that school be built? What will the community in Knocklyon do with its huge young population if the school project does not proceed?

The party who talked about the need for greater capital expenditure in the area of education are not only reducing it beyond an amount never previously contemplated but are effectively preventing the building of new schools that are badly needed, and nobody can deny that. While as a general approach we may accept and applaud the Government for recognising finally the financial realities of the State we must point out that they are adopting measures in some areas that are very questionable. They are undermining, and have considerably undermined, the integrity of all Members of the House. It used be said that generally speaking one could not rely on what politicians said about anything and the Government, in their approach in the last four years, and in their conversion in recent weeks, have shown how true that saying is.

I should like to refer to the 35 per cent withholding tax included in the Minister's budget proposals. The Minister said this provision was being introduced in the interests of tax equity and referred to the fact that it would put individuals in the same position as those in the PAYE sector. It is clear that, in making the announcement about the withholding tax, the Minister had no idea about the implications of the tax, how it will be implemented, the effects it will have. It appears that he was unaware, or ignorant, of how an ordinary business operates in respect of those he envisages will be affected by this tax. The tax appears to be based on an assumption that, if the person carries out work of a consultancy nature for the State, that person is an individual, is self employed, paying no overheads, employing no staff, with virtually no outgoings and who on any fee received from a State body is receiving a fee that is purely profit. There are very few who could be said to come within that category. We await to see whether the tax will be included in the Finance Bill and I wonder whether the Minister is still as committed to the tax as he was on budget day.

We are still committed.

I would be interested to hear from a Member on the Government side if the tax will emerge in the Finance Bill in its original form or if it will be considerably modified. I suspect that if it appears at all it will be in a considerably modified form. The reason is that the possibility of this tax taking effect as and from 6 June has resulted in a big number of firms issuing protective notices to employees because they believe the implementation of that tax will render their businesses financially unviable. There are many chartered quantity surveyors, consulting engineers and a plethora of other firms and organisations who see the tax as a crude measure that will render it financially impossible for them to continue to operate.

The tax seems to pre-suppose that all those in receipt of payments directly from Government Departments, local authorities or health boards fall into the category of self employed people and that their taxes are not paid on a current or PAYE basis. There are organisations and businesses operating, for example, in the consultancy field which are established as normal trading companies within which the principals, directors or owners act in the capacity of employees of the company. In those circumstances such individuals pay income tax on a current or PAYE basis. Company profits, if any, are taxed in the normal way with the difference that there is a surcharge of 10 per cent on any profits which are not distributed. It should also be noted that in some companies distributions, if any, over and above normal salaries of principals or directors or owners are made by way of directors' fees, thus attracting immediate tax liability also on a current or PAYE basis. Many of the consultancy firms I am referring to are major commercial undertakings in their own right, operating in markets inside and outside the State, giving considerable employment and requiring a high degree of management skill to achieve the fine balances between income, expenditure, cash flow, charges and so on.

It is because of the balance of expenditure currently that the position of the construction industry is heavily dependent on the public capital sector. Many firms in the construction industry are placed at serious risk by the proposal envisaged by the Minister for Finance. That proposal will create major problems. It is inequitable and unfair and it will impose an intolerable burden by way of cash flow on a great many companies and will result in them seeking additional financial facilities from banks and incurring unnecessary interest, ultimately making themselves financially unable to operate. Construction consultancy firms are particularly placed at risk by this proposal. That is ironic considering that Fianna Fáil in Opposition proposed that they would inject an additional £200 million into the construction industry and presented themselves as the saviours of that industry and all those who work in and for it.

That was before the election.

We will get it right.

A radical rethink is necessary with reference to this tax. If that does not take place and if without further delay the Minister for Finance does not clarify his intentions with regard to this tax, jobs will be lost that we can ill afford to lose. Firms who seem currently to be financially viable will go out of business. I call on the Minister at this stage to intervene, if not in this debate as he has already spoken and must await the winding up of the debate, prior to publication of the Finance Bill which is some weeks away and which will be published very close to 6 June, the date on which it was proposed this tax would apply. I urge him to clarify the manner in which it is envisaged this tax will work. How is it to work? How will credits be given? At what stage will a company be able to reclaim moneys?

Three months later.

What gap will there be from the time an application is made to reclaim moneys withheld until those moneys are provided? Is this not effectively a financial dodge to require firms operating properly in business, completing their tax returns promptly, providing a service to the Government and Government bodies, to make in a sense an ex gratia loan to the Government to enable the Government to conduct the business of Government?

Will any interest be repayable to those firms on the moneys withheld between the time they are withheld and when they are paid back to those firms if it is accepted that there is no reason for those moneys being held? What will be the criteria applicable to determine when an application for repayment should be granted and when it should not be granted? Will it depend on someone in the Revenue Commission confirming that company accounts are in order and up to date, or will it depend on someone in the Revenue Commission confirming that all tax payments had been made up to date? What happens if a tax assessment is subject to appeal? Will a repayment of withholding tax wait for determination until some appellant decision is made? How is it to interact with the other taxes in particular where a firm establish that all of their directors receive only a salary and that they all pay PAYE? When that happens, on what basis can there be justification for ever withholding 35 per cent of the fees properly earned by that firm which that firm need to utilise to discharge their overheads and pay the wages payable to their employees?

What will happen to a firm who indicate to the State that they are not in a position to pay in full the sum due by way of PAYE by 30 April in some financial year or cannot make all their PRSI payments because the money they utilise to make those payments is withheld under the withholding tax and they are awaiting receipt of money due to them under that tax before they can make payments? It seems that this tax has opened a Pandora's box of complexity in the tax area which, if not clarified very shortly, will place many businesses at serious risk. It is creating a great deal of worry for many people——

It is only withholding tax.

—— who pay their taxes properly and who regarded themselves up to 31 March as being in stable, secure employment. They have now been served with protective notice and see their jobs clearly at risk and do not know what is to happen to them and their families from 6 June. Therefore, I call on the Minister either outside this House or within it, well before the publication of the Finance Bill, to clarify the manner in which this tax will be implemented and the legal criteria under the proposed Finance Bill that will be applicable with reference to this tax.

The party of tax equity indicated in Opposition that they would ensure that all paid their fair share of tax. Many people living in urban areas who regard themselves as burdened by the sum they have to pay by way of taxation, be they self employed or in the PAYE sector, welcomed the measures taken by the previous Government in providing a land tax to ensure that tax evasion within the agricultural sector was minimised and to ensure a proper return by way of tax from the farming community. Many people regard it as equitable that a land tax should be introduced, particularly having regard to the gigantic financial investment by this State and by every taxpayer in the State in the agricultural sector. Apparently the party of tax equity have now taken the decision that the land tax is to be abolished. I am still awaiting a detailed explanation to the PAYE sector as to why that is the case.

I am still wondering what has happened to the trade unions who were yelling for a tax of this nature during the lifetime of the previous Government and who welcomed it. I am amazed at their silence on the abolition of the land tax by the present Government. Is that an issue the trade union movement will raise with the Government during the discussions that are apparently to take place and are taking place to work out some co-operative economic policy?

Does the Deputy understand the combat situation?

It is extraordinary that any party who have talked about tax equity would come into this House and in one fell swoop in a budget statement announce the abolition of a tax that was to ensure a degree of tax equity that did not exist until that legislation was passed through this House.

I am concerned about other areas which have direct relation to the budget. I have made reference already to the mortgage tax allowance and what happened there and to the greater imposition on young people that will arise as a result of this budget because of the reduction in the mortgage interest allowance. Many of the actions taken by the previous Government were designed to ease the position of people in the purchase and acquisition of houses, to reduce the levels of expenditure incurred by them and to provide incentives to people to purchase their own houses rather than rely on the local authority housing system which costs the State so much. In respect of that many people are living in local authority houses who require a leg up to get into the private housing sector and are pleased to get such a leg up.

Two separate actions were taken in different areas by the previous Government. One related to the various subsidies and allowances made available with reference both to the surrendering of local authority houses and the acquisition of houses in the private sector by people residing in local authority houses. The other was the financial measures designed to assist the construction industry by providing various grants for the carrying out of various house improvements. Other measures also were taken in the context of building societies to ensure that the societies did not abuse their dominant position in the market or require charges or payments to be made by people borrowing money from them who were dependent on the societies and on getting a loan from them to acquire a house. It seems that this Government are less than enthusiastic about seeking to enforce the building society legislation passed through this House and which sought to ease the financial position of people and to provide them with some protection against the dominant and domineering attitude taken by many building societies.

What about the other institutions?

I would draw the attention of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment to what has taken place in the past few weeks in this area, something in respect of which there appears to be little or no public comment to date and which poses a direct challenge to Government and to the commitment of this Government in enforcing the building society legislation. That legislation was designed to ensure that couples buying houses could not be subjected to duplication in regard to legal fees. It was designed to ensure that if people employed solicitors to whom they paid fees for the acquisition of their homes they should not also be required to pay legal fees incurred by a building society for carrying out legal work on behalf of a building society. It was never logical and could never be defended that a couple purchasing a house and requiring a loan should have to pay legal fees in duplicate. It was something forced on people dependent on building society loans by building societies, because it suited them, and people could not oppose the approach they were taking. Despite the passage of that legislation and the spirit of that legislation, a number of building societies are abusing their position and are not complying with the legislation. Currently, the Educational Building Society requires a legal fee of £80 plus VAT to be paid by any person to whom they make a home loan. The First National Building Society requires a fee of between 1 to 2 per cent of the loan they provide and the Irish Permanent Building Society requires a legal fee of between 1 to 3 per cent of the loan. The approaches taken by these societies are in flagrant breach of legislation. They seek to undermine that legislation. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment have a duty to bring it to the attention of the societies that these fees should not be charged and are not lawfully enforceable. I urge the Minister to take any action he deems necessary to seek an explanation and a justification from those societies as to why they are charging those fees.

As and from 27 March 1987 the £5,000 housing grant was withdrawn, as were the entitlements to the various improvement grants. The manner in which the £5,000 surrender grant was withdrawn is probably illegal, is probably challengeable in the courts, and is politically questionable. I do not understand why in a budget delivered on 31 March 1987 these grants were cut back as at 27 March 1987. It would be quite proper and usual——

It is because there was not sufficient funds provided by your administration in office.

——that if grants were to be cut back, the cutback would apply from the date of the announcement.

(Interruptions.)

Is the Minister for Finance aware——

(Interruptions.)

The Minister of State does not have to reply now. He will get his opportunity later.

Has the Minister for Finance taken any steps through contracts with local authorities to ascertain how many people signed contracts for the purchase of new houses on 30 March 1987 expecting to be able to rely on the £5,000 surrender grant? Will the Minister for the Environment clarify the circular letter of 16 April 1987 which was sent to all local authorities with reference to the surrender grant, when he referred to the fact that applications on hand for which certificates of provisional approval had not issued on or before 27 March should also be further processed where the applicant satisfied the local authority that on or before that date he had entered into legal binding commitments on foot of a legitimate expectation of receiving the grant?

Any decent lawyer acting on behalf of a couple purchasing a house would make it a condition of the contract that they would only be bound by the terms of the contract upon a grant they were relying on being approved. If one signed a contract in October 1986, in September 1986 or even in August 1986 subject to that condition, if for some reason an approval was not yet forthcoming and one was waiting to purchase a house, it would seem that if there was a condition in that contract which stated that it was subject to this grant being made available that contract will no longer be enforceable. There is now considerable confusion in local authorities. Those people who signed contracts assuming that they would get these grants without any conditions and who could be regarded as behaving legally irresponsibly will benefit under this circular and those people who behaved legally responsibly will be discriminated against under the terms of the circular. There is an urgent necessity for the Minister to clarify what approach must be taken by the local authorities.

In relation to the trade union movement and the discussions taking place with the Government, in the light of much of what has been said by the ICTU and the leading people in the unions represented by the ICTU, it seems that the ICTU need to clarify exactly their position in the context of tackling the two major problems which face us, the level of the current budget deficit and unemployment. In recent years the unions have been more intent on seeking to get increases in wages for their union members than in seeking to protect the position of the unemployed by agreeing with Government that policies be implemented which may result in lesser wage claims being made or which may result in it being agreed that no increases in wages will take place, certainly in the public sector, over a period of years in return for the creation of employment.

There is a direct correlation between unreasonable wage claims or an insistence on maintaining a particular wage claim and the provision of alternative employment. Politicians, Governments and unions have a duty to take economic measures which are primarily designed to create employment and that area should have a priority over and above any wage claim that may be made by any individual group in any sector. The behaviour of the unions to date gives rise to considerable concern that whereas they seek to pretend they are representing the unemployed in the creation of employment, all too often actions taken by unions have not ensured additional employment but have brought firms to a close, have resulted in the loss of jobs, and all too often wage claims of an unreasonable nature have been pressed and have decimated small country towns and brought to an end major industries on which those towns relied.

A microcosm of the approach taken by unions has been seen in the Dublin area where unions which have members in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council have effectively stopped the management of Dublin Corporation and the management of Dublin County Council from fully utilising the social employment scheme and creating at least temporary jobs for many of those people who have long been on the unemployment register and who wish to obtain such jobs and get work experience and who, instead of being on the dole, could make a real contribution to the provision of social services. For the past 18 months trade unions have prevented the creation of jobs in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council. They have sought to sabotage the social employment scheme which the previous Government provided and which now appears to have the support of the present Government, although when in Opposition they questioned the validity of this scheme. No union can properly defend taking action which prevents the creation of new jobs be they full time or temporary. I would hope that, in the discussions the Government are having with the unions, the full support of the ICTU will be sought for the social employment scheme and that all the difficulties that have been created for local authorities utilising the provisions of those schemes to provide additional employment within their areas will be eliminated.

The Chair is happy to call on Deputy Flood as he embarks on his maiden contribution to the House.

It must be clear to all of us that if this country is to make real progress in the future all our efforts must be concentrated on the pursuit of real and sustained economic growth. This is the only way in which we can get our people back to productive employment vital for the country at large.

In our first budget we all have shown our willingness to begin the serious task of battling with the many problems besetting our country and which inhibit the expansion of our economy. Clearly it is necessary to restore confidence in the economy. This can be done only by making the type of decisive start initiated in our 1987 budget. In so doing it is known where Fianna Fáil stand on the task before them in the next few years, especially the need to set specific targets in terms of our budget deficit and to adhere rigidly to them. In the short period of time since they have assumed office Fianna Fáil have demonstrated that they are not content with merely balancing the books but are availing of the opportunity to take several initiatives to begin the process whereby our economy can be shaken out of its deep slumber of the last few years. The reduction in interest rates, forecast for later in the year and which has already begun, will, we hope, have a significant impact in encouraging capital investment in industry, leading to increased output, thereby helping to stimulate further economic recovery.

The initiatives recently announced by the Government to extend the national gas grid to Dundalk, to pursue diligently the redevelopment of the Port and Docks site and the establishment of a financial services centre on the site serve to demonstrate clearly this Government's commitment to stimulating job creation in an effort to get more and more of our people back to work. Once we have provided for our needs in natural gas requirements I hope that the Minister for Energy and Communications will establish contact with the Northern Ireland authorities at an early date with a view to opening negotiations for the sale of natural gas to Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that previous attempts by the Coalition Government to sell this source of energy to Northern Ireland — which would obviously be of benefit to our economy— ended in failure. In view of the acknowledged large amounts of natural gas deposits off our southern coast it would be of considerable benefit to our economy if we could become an energy exporter.

I congratulate the Minister for Finance on his decisive action to deal with the gross abuse of cross-Border traffic which has been going on for many years. Deputy D. Ahern, who represents a Border constituency gave the House graphic details of the effects on the economy of those regions of this cross-Border traffic. He was able to demonstrate clearly the effects of the decision of the Minister for Finance in relation to the changes proposed in regard to cross-Border traffic and trade. Indeed the devastation of this trade has put a whole area along the Border in the doldrums in recent years. There was the Iudicrous situation in which, on the northern side of the Border, development of shopping facilities went on at a very substantial rate in recent years while simultaneously, on the southern side, shop after shop closed down. The Dundalk situation is a case in point and has been referred to already by Deputy D. Ahern. All of us have acknowledged that something had to be done to deal with this very difficult situation. I would have to pose the question of why the Coalition did not or were unable to act on the matter. It will be remembered that Coalition Deputies raised this problem repeatedly here and elsewhere, apparently without success. The Minister has indicated that his most recent action will boost our economy by something in the region of £300 million and £400 million annually. That is the value of the trade calculated to have been lost across the Border annually.

Notwithstanding the very difficult climate in which we find ourselves, this budget has very positive features. For example, at a cost of £19 million, it has been possible to increase all weekly payments of social welfare by 3 per cent, bringing those increases forward to mid-July next. This is a distinct improvement on the proposals contained in the Fine Gael budget which had not anticipated introducing such increases until November next. The extension of dental and optical treatment benefits to dependent spouses of insured workers — sought for many years — will be welcomed by all. Fianna Fáil's commitment to achieving that extension as quickly as possible on assuming office will be realised in October 1987. It is right and proper that this should happen. I should like to mention also the considerable improvements in the family income supplement scheme. Like the social welfare changes, these will come into effect in July next. Fianna Fáil have always attempted to help the poor and weaker sections of our community. Notwithstanding the prevailing difficult economic climate in which we find ourselves this budget ensures the continuance of this trend.

Recognising the very difficult economic and financial situation obtaining the Minister for Health has very wisely taken the view that the health services should not be allowed to deteriorate through the necessary limitation of State funding. Therefore he has decided to propose alternative methods for their financing through the imposition of charges for certain services. Some confusion has arisen with regard to these charges. I believe that when their details are explained they will be found to be much more acceptable than might appear to be the case at first glance. The Minister has very humanely created categories of people who will be excluded from both out-patient and inpatient charges. He has specifically stated that it was the particular concern of the Government that these charges should be applied only to those who could afford to pay them. Special care was taken by the Government to ensure that the most needy and vulnerable in our society would be excluded. When the Minister has had an opportunity to examine the operation of the health services in greater detail I hope he will address himself to the under-utilisation of certain resources within the health services. In passing I might mention the case of Cheeverstown House in Templeogue which has received very considerable funding from the Exchequer, at present accommodating numbers of mentally and physically handicapped people far below its real potential.

Representing the constituency of Dublin South-West, which includes Tallaght and Clondalkin, I particularly welcome the restoration of career guidance posts by the Minister for Education. With the huge numbers of young people attending schools in these areas the position of a career guidance teacher has been rendered especially important. It is accepted by those in the educational sector that the proposal in the Fine Gael budget to abolish these posts would have led to very severe difficulties, particularly in deprived and disadvantaged areas.

Our national debt has doubled from £12 billion to £25.4 billion in the four years since 1982. If this country were to continue the same rate of borrowing our national debt could well reach £35 billion by 1990. For example, the servicing of the national debt in 1985 cost more than the total receipts of tax from the PAYE sector. Given the deterioration in the state of our public finances in recent years we must have the courage to face up to the essential and difficult tasks lying immediately ahead. The time has passed when we should continue to mess about with our future. We should remember that our future has been mortgaged, not once but twice or three times. What we are now attempting to do is guarantee our children's future.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share