Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jan 1988

Vol. 377 No. 1

Financial Resolutions, 1988. - Financial Statement, Budget, 1988.

Before calling on the Minister for Finance to make the Budget Statement, may I remind Members of the House that none of the confidential information which will be circulated in advance by the Minister to certain Members may be disclosed to anyone until the Minister has revealed it to the House. Premature disclosure of the information is considered to be a serious breach of privilege and Members should not take from the House any part of the Budget Statement before that part has been read out in the House.

I call on the Minister for Finance to make his Budget Statement.

In the Budget Statement last March, I emphasised the need to give a sense of direction to the economy. It is generally recognised that in the ten months since then this has been done successfully. Exchequer borrowing has been greatly reduced. Interest rates and inflation have come down, the outflow of capital has been halted and business confidence has been restored. Above all, there is now a belief both at home and abroad in the ability of the Irish Government to break out of the cycle of debt and depression that has been characteristic of recent years.

There will be no change of direction. Government policy has been focussed on the closely-related objectives of improving the public finances and revitalising the economy. These objectives will continue to be pursued. Already there are signs that self-sustaining economic activity is growing and this will lead to increasing opportunities for employment. The estimates of expenditure, which were published in October, underlined the commitment to the improvement of the public finances. Today's budget confirms this commitment and at the same time focuses on the importance of a developmental approach to the economy. It also incorporates major changes in our taxation system.

The Programme for National Recovery, which has been endorsed by the major social partners, is the basis on which policies for the economy will be implemented over the next few years. This budget is in harmony with its terms and provides for implementation this year of several specific initiatives included in it. The general support from different sectors for a programme based on the necessity to live within our means, while successfully exploiting our resources, reflects a new realism.

The Economy

I am today publishing separately my Department's latest assessment of economic developments in 1987 as well as an outline of the forecast for 1988 on which the budget projections are based. These take account of the revisions to the balance of payments statistics published last week and the effects of this budget.

Review of 1987

Last year there was a strong economic recovery based on a major advance in exports, substantially improved tourism and a big increase in agricultural incomes. Economic growth, at over 3½ per cent, was significantly better than envisaged early in the year. The balance of payments on current account moved into modest surplus for the first time since 1967. The trend in inflation continued downwards with consumer prices rising by little more than 3 per cent, the lowest rate for 20 years.

Prospects for 1988

There is general agreement that underlying growth prospects for 1988 are relatively constrained. The international environment, reflecting the imbalances between the major world economies, will be less favourable than in 1987. Besides, the necessary curtailment of spending in the public sector will affect domestic demand. There should, however, be a signicant increase in investment in plant and equipment. With inflation set to decline further to about 2½ per cent, and the personal tax reliefs, of which I will give details later, also improving disposable income, personal consumer spending could show a small increase.

Exports should again achieve a substantial rate of growth, although not on the scale of 1987. Both the trade surplus and the overall surplus on the current balance of payments should increase further. Real GDP growth in 1988 is projected to lie in the range of ½ to 1 per cent. The trend in GNP growth will depend on the level of net factor outflows, the outlook for which is subject to major uncertainties. If these flows were to show the same trend as in 1987, there would be positive GNP growth. Should there be a reversion to previous trends in these flows, GNP would do well to maintain its 1987 level.

Framework for Economic and Financial Policies

I indicated in last year's Budget Statement that our general approach to economic and social policy would be based on the principles set out by the National Economic and Social Council in their report entitled A Strategy for Development 1986-1990. The Programme for National Recovery closely follows this blueprint and sets out the framework of the Government's economic and budget strategy for the period to end-1990.

The programme recognises that a fiscal policy which faces the financial realities is crucial to putting the economy back on the path to sustained economic growth. The Government are committed to stabilising the National Debt/GNP ratio during the period of the programme, a commitment which requires a reduction in the Exchequer borrowing requirement to between 5 and 7 per cent of GNP. Policies to control and curtail public expenditure will have to be continued to achieve this. However, this must be done in the context of a comprehensive strategy for economic recovery, which includes maintaining a stable exchange rate within the European monetary system, while improving competitiveness through pay moderation, and changes in structural and incentive policies. In parallel, practical measures are being intensified on a sectoral basis to exploit the economy's potential and to create new job opportunities.

On a wider plane, the programme also commits the Government to pursue reform of the tax system, in order to achieve greater fairness and to promote economic development. Furthermore, it confirms greater social equity as a prime objective of Government policy. This budget will represent a major instalment in meeting the Government's commitments under the programme, and in the implementation of our plans for the economy.

Improved competitiveness is a key element in the strategy for recovery. The private sector pay agreement associated with the programme will make a substantial positive contribution in this direction. Given our pressing employment needs, the low level of price inflation now prevailing and the significant income tax relief envisaged, there is no justification for pay increases higher than the level provided.

Budget Policy

The outturn on the 1987 budget targets was most satisfactory. When these targets were announced, considerable doubts were expressed about the ability of the Government to achieve them. The results for the year confounded the critics.

The current deficit at £1,180 million was £20 million inside target and Exchequer borrowing at £1,786 million was £72 million inside target. In terms of GNP, the current deficit of 6.8 per cent was the lowest since 1980 and Exchequer borrowing of 10.3 per cent, the lowest since 1977. The 1987 results showed significant progress on 1986. The 1987 current deficit was down by £217 million or 1¾ per cent of GNP on that for 1986 while Exchequer borrowing was down by £359 million or by nearly 3 per cent of GNP.

The approach for 1988 remains unchanged. There is no choice but to continue to reduce dependence on borrowing. The main emphasis must be on reducing public expenditure and already Government policy on this has been clarified. The only other course would be to increase taxation substantially but this is not a practical option. The reductions in expenditure are being made over a wide range of public services so as to minimise the impact on individual services and to achieve as fair a distribution as possible. They are essential and overdue. The economy is already responding to the improvement in the public finances. I am confident that we can look forward to further progress towards our goals this year. This is the only basis on which our ambitions for economic growth and employment can be achieved.

1988 Opening Budget Position

The opening current deficit, based on the published 1988 Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, is £1,111 million, after allowing for the deduction of estimated departmental balances of £23 million. The opening Exchequer borrowing requirement on this basis is £1,490 million.

As explained in the notes to the 1988 Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, these figures take account of increases in pay under the public service pay agreement; lump sum and related payments under the public service early retirement — voluntary redundancy schemes; the transfer of Exchequer funding of some house purchase loans to the private sector, and technical changes arising from the enactment of the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1987.

Central Fund Services and Debt Management

The estimate for expenditure on Central Fund Services this year is £2,500 million of which £2,173 million is in respect of debt service payments. The comparable outturn figure for debt service in 1987 was £2,091 million, so that the 1988 provision represent an increase of less than 4 per cent. This is one of the lowest increases for many years but it is, nevertheless, an increase.

The low rate of increase has been made possible by the reduction in borrowing, the beneficial effects of the fall in domestic interest rates, favourable developments in international interest and exchange rates and the savings generated by the increasingly active debt management programme which my Department are pursuing.

The debt management programme has included:

—the issue of new instruments in the domestic market, such as the ECU bond and tax-exempt bonds for multinational companies, and the issue of short term notes in foreign markets, all of which have produced savings in funding costs for the Exchequer;

—the continuation of the programme for prepaying and refinancing foreign loans at lower cost;

—the extension of the programme of interest rate swaps which, especially as regards the foreign debt, is resulting in sizeable savings this year;

—an increase in the volume of Exchequer Bills sold because of the lower borrowing costs compared with gilts; and

—the promotion of the small savings schemes as a stable source of funding for the Exchequer.

It is my intention to ensure that small savers will continue to be provided with attractive investment opportunities and I look forward to an increasing contribution from this source to the financing of the borrowing requirement. My Department will be constantly searching for other ways to achieve more diversified and more flexible funding opportunities and to reduce the cost of managing the national debt portfolio.

Despite the progress already made, debt servicing costs continue to be a major drain on the public finances. The burden is evident from the fact that debt interest payments in 1987 absorbed 30p in every pound of tax revenue compared with 19p back in 1977. The only realistic solution to this problem is to continue on the present course of reducing Exchequer spending and borrowing.

The 1987 Exchequer funding programme was highly successful and resulted in a sizeable credit balance which is being brought forward to finance the 1988 Exchequer borrowing requirement. Given this favourable funding position, and the further reduction in the level of borrowing which will result from today's budget, the Government are in a position to continue to exert downward pressure on the still excessive domestic gilt yields and to help create the conditions for further falls in the general level of interest rates.

Departmental Spending 1988

During 1987, the Government carried out the most comprehensive and farreaching review of State spending programmes ever undertaken. The continuing justification for every major programme was called into question. Where programmes were seen to have insufficient justification they were curtailed or, in some cases, terminated. The results are to be seen in the 1988 Abridged Estimates Volume and summary Public Capital Programme which were published last October and which for the first time in 30 years show a reduction in the absolute level of State spending. No previous Government have been able to publish their spending plans so far in advance of the financial year.

By doing so we have enabled programme managers and spending agencies to plan for orderly management of their finances this year. I am glad to acknowledge the contribution of management in Government Departments to the review of spending programmes and their assistance, in conjunction with the managements of their respective agencies, in ensuring that budget allocations are observed.

Non-capital Supply Services Expenditure 1988

I have already referred to certain adjustments which have been made to the 1988 Estimates volume total for non-capital supply services. Also, having assessed the end-year Exchequer returns for 1987, I am making some further adjustments to the published 1988 allocations to reflect the most up-to-date information available to me on expenditure trends. Details of these adjustments are set out in the "Principal Features of the Budget", copies of which are being circulated separately.

Taking account of all these changes, the adjusted opening figure for non-capital supply services is £5,620 million or £5,597 million after allowing for estimated departmental balances of £23 million. This supersedes the figure of £5,649 million published in the 1988 White Paper on Receipts and Expenditure.

Social Welfare

Public expenditure in the social welfare area will exceed £2.6 billion in 1988. Despite this huge demand on available resources, the Government intend to honour their commitment to social equity and to protect those who are less well off in our society.

Last year, the Government brought forward the annual increase in welfare allowances from November to July to protect fully the real value of all such payments. Likewise this year a general increase of 3 per cent in personal and adult dependant rates of welfare payments from late July 1988 will at least maintain the overall value of social welfare benefits for the 12 month period from mid-1988 to mid-1989. Similar increases will be given to those in receipt of health allowances.

In line with our commitment in the Programme for National Recovery to consider special increases for those on the lowest payments, the personal rates of unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance — which are the lowest social welfare weekly payments — will be increased by significantly higher amounts. The personal rate of long term urban unemployment assistance will be increased by an overall £4.20 to £42 per week, with pro rata increases in other personal rates of unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance. This is equivalent to an increase of over 11 per cent. Child dependant allowances, payable with these payments, will be increased by 6 per cent, that is, the general increase of 3 per cent plus a special further increase of 3 per cent. Where an adult dependant allowance is payable, that allowance will be increased by the general 3 per cent rate.

At the same time, we are making a start on the rationalisation of the rates of child dependant allowances payable with social welfare weekly payments. The rate for the first and second child is being averaged; the rate for the sixth and subsequent children will be the same as that payable for the third to fifth children. These rationalised rates will then be increased in line with the general increase of 3 per cent, with an additional 3 per cent where appropriate, as I mentioned above. These increases will cost the Exchequer an additional £44.8 million this year and £101 million in a full year.

The proposed increases in social welfare payments will result in the following improvements:

—a single person on long duration unemployment assistance living in an urban area will, as I have said, get an extra £4.20 a week, giving a total of £42.00, while a married couple will benefit by £5.00 to bring them up to £70.00 a week;

—single persons in rural areas who are long term unemployed will receive an extra £4.10, bringing their weekly payment to £40.70, and a married couple will get an extra £4.90, thus providing them with £68.10 a week;

—a contributory old-age pensioner who is under 80 will get an extra £1.70 a week, bringing the pension to £56.80 a week;

—a non-contributory old-age pensioner who is under 80 will get an increase of £1.40 a week, bringing his or her maximum pension to £48.50 a week;

—where a married couple are both of pension age and under 80, the new rates of contributory pension will mean an increase of £2.90 a week, so that their total pension will be £99.10;

—the contributory pension of a widow under 66 will be £51.00 a week, an increase of £1.50;

—a widow under 66 with a non-contributory pension will benefit by £1.40, giving her a maximum of £47.60 a week; and

—the flat-rate unemployment or disability benefit rate payable to a single person will rise by £1.30 a week, while a married couple will get an extra £2.10, giving them a new total of £71.80 a week; these payments may, of course, be topped up with pay-related benefit.

While the structure of our social welfare system is being maintained and, indeed, extended to provide social insurance for the self-employed, steps will be taken to strengthen the controls already in force to reduce fraud and abuse of the system.

Jobsearch Programme

The Government have decided that the successful Jobsearch programme should be continued in 1988. Since the programme began in April last, 141,500 unemployed persons were interviewed and 40,400 were placed on either Manpower schemes, AnCo training courses or Jobsearch courses. A total of 4,200 found employment directly as a result of Jobsearch interviews, while 12,700 left the register voluntarily when invited to avail of assistance under the programme.

During 1988, a further 50,000 on the live register will be interviewed under the programme and schemes and course opportunities will be provided as in 1987. It is expected that in 1988 a further saving of some £10 million will arise as a result of the programme. These savings are already reflected in the adjusted opening position for non-capital supply services.

Equal Treatment

Equal treatment alleviating payments were introduced initially in November 1986 to ensure that the full implementation of the EC Directive on Equal Treatment did not result in hardship for those categories of beneficiaries adversely affected. These alleviating payments were due to end last November but, in order to avoid hardship for a vulnerable section of our community, were continued by the Government in the meantime. The Government have now decided that these alleviating payments will be continued until the end of 1988. There will be an additional cost this year of the order of £20 million arising from this decision.

Employee Social Insurance

Despite rising expenditure from the social insurance fund, there will be no increase this year in contribution rates to that fund. The current rates will continue to apply for the tax year 1988-89, subject only to the increase in the income ceiling from £15,500 to £16,200 which underlay the published Estimates. The ceiling for the health contribution will also be increased, from £15,000 to £15,500. The increase in the income limits for a hospital service card will, as usual, be announced by the Minister for Health at a later date. I am concerned about the solvency of the occupational injuries fund which is maintained entirely by employers' contributions. It is likely that a small adjustment to the contribution rate to that fund will be required in order to maintain its solvency. The details will be announced in due course by the Minister for Social Welfare.

Statutory Sick Pay

The Government established an interdepartmental committee to examine the various issues arising from the introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme under which employers would be responsible for paying employees for the first 13 weeks of illness. The committee consulted the interested parties and their report is currently under consideration. The Government are committed to the introduction of a scheme as soon as practicable.

PRSI for the Self-Employed

Last July, the Government decided in principle to extend social insurance to the self-employed, including farmers. That decision was affirmed in the Programme for National Recovery. Arrangements are now going ahead to implement the decision as from 6 April of this year.

The absence of a system of social insurance for the self-employed in Ireland is in contrast with the situation in other European countries. This means that the less well-off self-employed and their dependants here must rely on the social assistance schemes when their incomes are adversely affected by age or death. The cost of these assistance schemes is met directly out of general taxation and was over £300 million last year. Given the current budgetary situation, the Government concluded it was essential that the self-employed, who account for some 230,000 persons or well over a fifth of those at work, should be required to contribute directly to the financing of the social welfare system under which so many of them benefit. The Government also believe that it is important to improve the quality of income maintenance cover for the self-employed by providing them with pensions as of right and reducing their reliance on means-tested pension schemes.

The detailed provisions as regards contributions, qualification conditions and benefits of the social insurance scheme to be introduced for self-employed will be the subject of legislation to be brought to the House by the Minister for Social Welfare. I wish, at this stage, to advise the House of the main features of the scheme as decided by Government. The benefits to be extended to the new contributors will be old age and survivors' pensions. Qualification for those pensions will be subject to broadly the same conditions as regards contribution record as apply to existing contributors generally.

The National Pensions Board calculated that the appropriate rate of contribution should be 6.6 per cent. In the Government's opinion, the imposition in one step of a charge of that size would be unduly harsh. Accordingly, we have decided to phase in the charge over a period of years. This will be provided for in the enabling legislation. The initial rate that will apply from April of this year will be 3 per cent, subject to a minimum contribution equivalent of £4 per week. I believe that this rate will not give rise to serious difficulty for any of those who will be liable. Moreover, in the case of persons who have been notified by the Revenue Commissioners, on the basis of information furnished, that the scale of their operations is such that liability to income tax will not arise unless circumstances change for such as small farmers, their contribution will be limited to a flat rate of £2 per week. Farmers an smallholders' unemployment assistance will not be liable for any contribution.

The income to which the contribution rate will apply will be the same as for the health contribution and the employment levy, with capital allowances being deductible for levy, social insurance and health contribution purposes from 6 April. The same annual income ceiling of £16,200 will apply for PRSI for the self-employed as for PRSI contributors generally. I estimate that, as a result ot these changes, there will be a net £12 million gain to the Exchequer this year, reflecting a £14 million gain on the expenditure side of the budget, offset by a reduction of £2 million in tax revenue. Details are given in the Principle Features of the 1988 Budget.

The Government recognise that this initial level of contribution from the self-employed will not be adequate to finance the social insurance benefits to be extended to the self-employed. I have already mentioned the cost to taxpayers generally of over £300 million a year in providing non-contributory pensions, which largely go to former self-employed persons. Equity rules out any question of an additional Exchequer liability arising from the social insurance benefits for which the self-employed will in future be eligible. Indeed, it is the Government's intention that the extension of social insurance to the self-employed will bring about a more equitable sharing of the cost of social welfare services as a whole. Consequently, it is important that the 3 per cent rate of contribution should be widely recognised and accepted as an initial rate and one which has to be increased not only to finance the extra benefits to be provided but to ensure that the cost to taxpayers in general of providing pensions for former self-employed persons will not actually be increased. The Government have therefore decided that the 3 per cent rate for the tax year 1988-89 will rise to 4 per cent in 1989-90 and to 5 per cent in 1990-91.

At least he has a sense of humour.

The percentage rate of PRSI contributions payable by self-employed persons will be collected by the Revenue Commissioners. In the case of directors who are on PAYE but are not otherwise liable to make social insurance contributions, the collection will form part of the present PAYE-PRSI collection system. For other self-employed persons, the collection of contributions will be integrated with the new collection system for income tax for the self-employed and for corporation tax which I will further describe when I come to deal with taxation. The health contribution and employment levy will also be collected by way of this revised system as from 6 April 1988. In order to facilitate the introduction of this new, integrated collection system, income-related PRSI contributions, health contributions and the employment levy payable by self-employed persons will be calculated from the beginning of the tax year 1988-89 onwards on the aligned definition of income to which I have already referred. Liability for health contributions and employment levy in respect of earlier periods, and which was calculated on gross income, will remain unchanged.

Arrangements for the collection of the new flat rate social insurance contributions from the self-employed will be announced by the Minister for Social Welfare shortly. When I come to deal with taxation, I will outline measures which will have the effect of reducing further the Exchequer subvention to the Social Insurance Fund by £6 million.

Drugs Refund Scheme

The 1988 Estimates had included a reduced provision for the community drug refund scheme and the long term illness scheme, both of which are operated by the health boards. The Government have reconsidered this matter and have decided that the reduction contemplated would impose undue hardship on the handicapped and long term ill. Accordingly, we are providing an additional £11 million to be added to the Health Vote to ensure the continuation of these schemes at their present levels.

(Interruptions.)
Disabled Drivers

The Revenue Commissioners have operated schemes whereby indirect taxes on motor vehicles adapted for use by disabled persons may be refunded. They have also operated a scheme for refund of excise duty on petrol in respect of such vehicles. In addition, there is a scheme of remission of road tax, operated by the vehicle licensing authorities, in respect of cars suitably adapted for disabled drivers.

The administration of these reliefs to the disabled has been cumbersome and unsatisfactory and it has been decided to make an improvement in this area. It is considered that the most appropriate bodies to administer a revised scheme are the health boards. In order to ensure the continuation of assistance for the promotion of mobility among disabled persons, a sum of £2.8 million is being added to the estimate for the Department of Health in 1988. The full year cost of the existing schemes is £3.3 million. The Minister for Health will announce shortly a new scheme to be administered by the health boards and he will finalise the details in consultation with representatives of disabled drivers.

Tourism

In their preparations for this budget the Government, while continuing to deal effectively with the imbalances in our public finances, have also pressed ahead with their plans for revitalising the economy. The Programme for National Recovery recognises the existence of considerable potential in tourism for increased employment and economic growth. The tourism sector in this country has largely missed out on the expansion of tourism experienced internationally in recent years. The programme sets out ambitious, but realisable, targets for the industry. Last year was a turning point for tourism in Ireland. The measures taken by the Government, especially in the area of access fares, have been acknowledged by the industry as an important contribution to the recovery in 1987. In addition, the stimulation of tourism-related investment by the extension to tourism of the business expansion scheme, announced in last year's budget, should have effect in 1988 and subsequent years.

It is widely acknowledged that the full realisation of Ireland's tourism potential requires new initiatives, especially in the marketing area. Taking account of the recommendations from the recent tourism forum, the Government have decided to introduce another package of special measures for tourism in 1988 and to allocate £4 million for this purpose.

Fishing and Aquaculture

Fishing and aquaculture are other areas where the Government are determined to exploit fully the potential for employment creation and economic development. BIM have prepared a draft development strategy for the industry which is at present the subject of urgent consultations with the Departments and other State agencies involved. An objective of the strategy will be to improve the industry's capacity to increase fish supplies to the processing sector which will provide additional employment onshore and will facilitate a further expansion of our fish exports. It will also aim at accelerating the development of aquaculture based on high value species of which there are limited supplies from wild fisheries.

The development of both sea fishing and aquaculture will be assisted by the establishment of a marine institute which will bring together for the first time all activities relating to marine research and technology which are at present carried out by a number of different bodies. Expenditure arising from these initiatives this year will be met from the existing allocation for the Marine Vote.

Adjustments to Non-Capital Supply Services

The net impact of the changes which I have outlined above is to add almost £63 million to non-capital supply services this year, bringing the total to £5,660 million.

Details of the adjustments to the allocations for individual Votes as published in the Abridged Estimates Volume are set out in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget. They will also be incorporated in the revised post-budget Estimates volume to be published shortly.

Capital Expenditure

The 1988 public capital programme published last October totalled £1,406 million. As in the case of non-capital expenditure, this figure has to be revised to take account of developments subsequent to the publication of the programme. These changes are also detailed in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget. The most significant is a switch of funding for house purchase and improvement loans from the public to the private sector. On this basis, the opening position for the 1988 public capital programme is £1,367 million.

I now propose to make the following additions:

(a) Education

An additional allocation of £6.5 million over and above the figures originally published is being made available for the primary and post-primary school building programmes. This addition will be devoted mainly to school building in rural areas where the existing stock is in poor condition and most in need of replacement, extension or improvement. The effect of this additional allocation will be that the total amount for the national schools building programme will be £18.875 million and for the post-primary building programme, £23.625 million. Allocations to individual school projects will continue to concentrate on the provision of classroom accommodation which is urgently required.

(b) The Homeless

The problem of homelessness has reemerged in many developed countries in recent years. A solution to this problem will require commitment and cooperation from public sector and voluntary agencies. The Government have approved a special allocation of £3 million over the next three years to finance the provision of accommodation for homeless persons by voluntary housing organisations. I am including £1 million in this year's budget for this purpose. Further details of this new initiative to tackle the problem of homelessness will be announced by the Minister for the Environment. A special grant of £50,000 will also be made available in 1988 to "Focus Point" towards the cost of a project already under way to provide accommodation for the homeless in Dublin.

(c) Young Farmers Installation Aid

Under an EC Regulation member states may pay grants to young farmers who are installed on their farm for the first time. On the basis that these grants encourage the transfer of land to the younger generation, I have decided to re-introduce them for young farmers who have obtained the required educational qualifications. For this purpose, I am providing £1.4 million in the Vote for Agriculture and Food. The EC will recoup 50 per cent of this expenditure one year in arrears. Additional stamp duty on land transfers of £0.4 million is expected from this measure in 1988. The revised total for the 1988 Public Capital Programme is, therefore, £1,376 million.

Non-Programme Outlays

I have decided to reduce the provision for non-programme outlays announced in the summary public capital programme by £10 million to £40 million. Essential allocations for financial restructuring of commercial State-sponsored bodies as well as certain other miscellaneous capital payments will be met from this provision. The Government will continue to insist that commercial State-sponsored bodies should manage their affairs in accordance with the best commercial practice. Such bodies must not expect the Government to cushion them against failure in the marketplace.

ESB Capital Repayments

In earlier decades considerable sums were advanced on a repayable basis to the ESB. Some of these moneys have still to be repaid and at the beginning of this year the total outstanding was more than £31 million. In the normal course of events some £2 million, together with interest, would be repaid by the board to the Exchequer in 1988. Following completion of the Moneypoint power station, the board's borrowing requirement is reduced. In addition, their cost base has improved because of favourable movements in interest and exchange rates and major capital works are unlikely to be required for several years ahead. It has been agreed, therefore, to repay all outstanding Exchequer advances in the current year. The total of £31.385 million to be repaid will provide the Exchequer with an additional £29.33 million over and above what might normally have been expected from this source in 1988.

Taking account of the additions to the Exchequer funded capital programme and the capital resources available to the Exchequer, the 1988 Exchequer borrowing requirement for capital purposes will stand at £332 million.

Employment in the Public Service

I announced in my Budget Statement last year that there would be a complete embargo on recruitment to the public service, except for certain key posts which could be filled with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the area concerned. This policy will continue in 1988 on the same basis as last year.

The Government also decided in the course of our review of public expenditure that it was necessary to reduce the numbers of public servants, and the cost of the pay bill, more rapidly than could be achieved by relying on natural wastage. They therefore introduced last July a scheme of voluntary redundancy offering attractive terms to public servants in areas where staff numbers were surplus to requirements in health boards, local authorities, the Civil Service and other areas of the public sector. Since then the scheme has been offered on a general basis to employees aged 50 or over in the Civil Service, health boards and noncommercial State-sponsored bodies. In the period to the end of 1987, over 1,100 people have left the public service under the scheme. The redundancy terms will continue to be available during 1988.

It is estimated that the combined effect of the embargo on recruitment and of the redundancy package during 1987 will have been to reduce the number employed in the Exchequer-financed public service by about 3½ per cent or 7,000. This year, numbers employed in the public service are expected to fall by some 9,000.

Public Service Pay

For the first time in the preparation of a budget it has been possible to address the issue of public service pay against the background of a comprehensive three year agreement with the public service unions, negotiated as part of the Programme for National Recovery. The agreement provides for moderate increases in pay in each of the three years up to 1990, and allows for the orderly conduct of industrial relations in the public service. The size of the agreed increases is consistent with the Government's objective of stabilising the National Debt-GNP ratio. Because public service pay developments can be clearly forseen up to 1990, the agreement will greatly facilitate the Government in their management of the economy over the period. It also provides the basis for a prolonged period of industrial peace. The first increase under the agreement became effective in the public service from 1 January 1988, six months after the expiry of the 25th round agreement.

The cost of even these moderate increases is, however, considerable. The Exchequer pay and pensions bill will amount to £2,913 million in 1988, including £70 million in respect of the costs of the Public Service Pay Agreement and an exceptional provision of £80 million for lump sum early retirement payments.

The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, in November 1986, recommended an interim increase of the order of 15 per cent payable from 1 December 1986 for the categories within their remit, including the Judiciary, chief executives of State bodies, top level civil servants and holders of parliamentary and other offices. In their main report, submitted in December 1987, the review body recommended further increases of varying amounts to be applied on a phased basis from a date not earlier than 1 July 1989. The Government have had discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and other interested parties about the reports.

The review body are independent and impartial, and the Government accept that their recommendations were based on a careful and expert examination of all the facts and had regard to the Exchequer's present financial difficulties and public sector pay policy. The Government also accept that the morale, quality and commitment of the people at the top in the public service must be maintained. They recognise that serious pay inequities are arising, with higher staff being paid less or only very marginally more than those reporting to them. Implementation of the review body's recommendations will have to be grappled with at some stage. This year, however, is a crucial year if we are to get the public finances firmly under control and it is a year in which all groups in society are being asked to make sacrifices.

The Government regret, therefore, that they can give no commitment to any payment in 1988 on foot of the reports. They undertake, however, in the spirit of the Programme for National Recovery and the Public Service Pay Agreement, to have further discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not later than 1 May 1989 with a view to arriving at an acceptable solution to the problem of implementation.

Decentralisation

In 1987, I announced that the Government intended to revive the decentralisation programme. This has been done and over the next week or so contracts for the four centres in phase 1 of the programme — Ballina, Galway, Cavan and Sligo — will have been signed. Building work will start shortly thereafter. There has been widespread regional interest in decentralisation and the Government decided last November to proceed immediately with phase 2 of the programme, covering a further eitht centres originally selected in 1980. These centres are: Athlone, Limerick, Ennis, Nenagh, Killarney, Letterkenny, Waterford and Dundalk.

The programme is a major undertaking with very desirable regional and social consequences. It involves the construction of new, purpose-built office accommodation in the 12 regional centres mentioned and the transfer of over 3,000 staff, or one-seventh of the total Civil Service at present located in Dublin. It will provide an opportunity for those who wish to return to work in their home areas to do so. It will also provide significant local employment during the construction phase and, when complete, there will be a lasting increase in trade for local businesses.

National Lottery

The national lottery although it has been in operation for less than a year has already exceeded our most optimistic expectations. Its success has enabled the Government to undertake major spending initiatives in the areas of sport, youth and recreation, arts and culture, the Irish language and community health and welfare. Spending on these projects is now getting under way. As the lottery continues to grow, it is the Government's intention to provide support for further new projects in these areas.

This year I expect spending from the lottery on foot of projects which have already been approved by the Government to amount to £60 million — £34 million on capital projects and £26 million on current expenditure. This includes expenditure on new projects and also on items which have been financed heretofore by the Exchequer. In line with the Government's policy that spending in areas such as sport, youth affairs, the arts and community care should be borne by the lottery, the above figures include further items totalling some £10 million which are now to be financed by the proceeds of the lottery. These are identified in the Principal Features of the 1988 Budget.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair appeals to Deputies to reserve their comments and questions to that time during the debate when it will be appropriate and in order for them to speak. The Minister without interruption please.

Non-tax Revenue

I mentioned earlier the re-organisation of the Local Loans Fund and the cost of the public service voluntary redundancy — early retirement schemes. These developments have a similar impact on the revenue side of the accounts. A sum of £275 million of circular interest payments is being eliminated from non-tax revenue as a result of the re-organisation of the Local Loans Fund under the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1987. The 1988 estimate also includes, in addition to the normal Central Bank surplus income, an exceptional £80 million of advance surplus income to finance the lump sum payments arising from the voluntary redundancy and early retirement schemes.

As I have already informed the House, this advance together with the £8.4 million advanced last year will be fully repaid by 1993. Repayments will be financed out of the annual savings to the Exchequer from the redundancy and early retirement schemes. The exceptional lump sum payments will not, therefore, increase the National Debt or the cost of servicing it. With expenditure on national lottery-financed projects now expected to be of the order of £60 million this year, the lottery surplus included in non-tax revenue has been increased from the £36.5 million in the 1988 White Paper on Receipts and Espenditure to £60 million.

Taxation

Our tax structures and administration are in need of considerable overhaul. Large scale changes are desirable but the room for manoeuvre is restricted by budgetary requirements. While a cogent case can be made for substantial reductions in the level of taxation in some areas, we cannot set aside budgetary realities. Within these constraints, however, progress can be and will be made. The general thrust of Government policy is towards a broader base for tax liability and much more effective collection. The Government have looked carefully at various taxation options over recent months. The individual changes which I am announcing today add up to a balanced package from which every taxpayer will benefit. They will improve the distribution of the tax burden and give an extra impetus to economic activity.

Income Tax

In the Programme for National Recovery the Government gave a commitment to introduce income tax reductions to the cumulative value, over the next three years, of £225 million, including increases in the PAYE allowance costing £70 million. The Government also undertook to make significant progress towards having two-thirds of taxpayers on the standard rate.

To honour this commitment, tax reductions costing just over £30 million this year would be sufficient. I propose, however to go very much further than this and to provide for tax reductions costing £91 million in 1988 and £152 million in a full year. In short, the Government are providing tax reliefs which cost three times what is required in order to fulfil the first year commitment in the programme. The proposed changes are as follows:

—the personal allowance is being increased from £4,000 to £4,100 for a married couple and from £2,000 to £2,050 for a single person, with comparable increases in the widowed, single parent and widowed parent allowances;——

(Interruptions.)

Save your breath.

—the PAYE allowance is being increased from £700 to £800;

—the standard rate tax band of 35 per cent is being widened from £9,400 to £11,400 for a married couple and from £4,700 to £5,700 in the case of a single person;

—the 48 per cent rate tax band is being increased from £5,600 to £5,800 for a married couple and from £2,800 to £2,900 for a single person; and

—the general tax exemption limit is being increased from £5,300 to £5,500 for a married couple and from £2,650 to £2,750 for a single person; there will be comparable increases in the age exemption limits.

As a result of these measures, 93,000 taxpayers who would otherwise be liable at the 48 per cent rate will pay tax at 35 per cent in the 1988-89 tax year. In addition, 55,000 taxpayers who would otherwise be on the top rate of 58 per cent will now have a marginal rate of 48 per cent. Sixteen thousand taxpayers will be taken out of the tax net altogether, while a further 5,000 will become entitled to marginal relief.

These measures mean that nearly 63 per cent of taxpayers will be paying tax at the standard rate in the 1988-89 income tax year. This represents substantial progress towards the Government's objective of having two-thirds of taxpayers on the standard rate.

Let me give some examples of the impact of these changes on different categories of taxpayer:

—a single person on PAYE with a salary of £9,000 will gain £200;

—a married couple with a very low salary in the region of £5,500 will gain £120; and

—a married couple with a salary of £16,000 will gain £280.

Further details of the income tax changes, showing the impact on different income categories, are contained in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget.

The PRSI tax allowance is being renewed at an estimated cost of £50 million in 1988.

No change is being made in the terms of the mortgage interest relief. This relief was reduced last year by 10 per cent. However, the subsequent fall in interest rates — brought about in great part by firm Government action on the public finances — has had a very beneficial effect on mortgage holders. I would point out that, at budget time last year, ten months ago, the building society mortgage interest rate was 12½ per cent; it is now 9¼ per cent. This represents a saving of £530 a year on the repayments on a £20,000 loan with a 20 year term.

Withholding Tax

The list of accountable persons for the purposes of the withholding tax on professional fees is being extended to include the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. The intention is to make provision so that payments made by the board in respect of the fees of medical personnel will also be subject to the tax. This will require legislation and the expected yield this year is £6 million.

Tax Administration

In my Budget Statement last year, I stressed that further improvements in tax administration were essential. The Programme for National Recovery reiterated this objective. An intensive examination has been carried out to determine what is required. As a result, the Government are making a number of fundamental changes in tax assessment and collection procedures. Taken together, these will constitute perhaps the most radical improvement in the administrative system since the introduction of PAYE.

The broad objectives are to simplify tax assessment and collection, to eliminate the arrears which have built up over the years and, for the future, to make life significantly more difficult for the defaulting taxpayer. There is considerable public unease about the effectiveness of tax collection. While this is in part due to misunderstandings, it is a fact that many of those who have tax liabilities fail to meet their responsibilities. Among the most glaring examples of this is the late payment — and, in too many cases, the nonpayment — by some employers and traders of PAYE and VAT which they have collected from their employees or customers on behalf of the State. This has got to stop. The other main problem is the time-consuming and often ineffectual collection of income tax and levies from the self-employed.

Self-Assessment

I said last year that the Government favoured the principle of self-assessment and that this would be given priority. The Government's commitment was confirmed in the Programme for National Recovery.

Self-assessment requires radical changes in procedures both for the taxpayers concerned and for the revenue authorities. It must be phased in over a period, but the initial key steps are being put into effect this year. These will apply to income tax for the self-employed and to corporation tax. The collection of the levies and PRSI from the self-employed, other than directors who are on PAYE, will also be integrated into this new system. The changes involved in the new system for 1988 are quite complex and I cannot review them in detail in this statement. A detailed account of the changes is being sent to interested bodies and a summary is given in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget.

The key new developments are:

—first a requirement that, in general, taxpayers must make returns even if they do not receive demands to do so;

—secondly, new, simplified procedures for making initial estimates of tax by the inspector of taxes;

—thirdly, replacement in the first instance of the inspector's estimate by the taxpayer's own estimate of tax due accompanied by payment, pending the taxpayer's return of income; and

—fourthly, appeals confined to cases where the taxpayer's return of income is not accepted by the inspector.

These arrangements will put greater responsibility on each individual taxpayer to meet his tax obligations and, combined with the surcharge on late returns, should speed up considerably the collection process. In future, inspectors of taxes will as a general rule estimate tax due by reference to previous agreed tax payments and this should eliminate the problem of overstated outstanding balances. The volume of appeals should be reduced very significantly. The necessary legislation for these changes will be incorporated in the Finance Bill.

In addition to these arrangements for a phased move towards self-assessment, self-employed and corporate taxpayers will have the option of a fuller, voluntary form of self-assessment this year.

The objective of these changes is twofold:

—the complying taxpayer will have his tax liability settled faster and in a more realistic way; and

—the non-complying taxpayer will face a much stiffer collection regime, with a much higher proportion of Revenue's resources concentrated on non-compliance.

Attachment

An essential ingredient of a successful tax collection system is a speedy and costeffective response to default. At present, the Revenue rely mainly on the interest charges applying to late payment but this is not an effective deterrent where the taxpayer has little intention of paying on time or at all, and where the interest charge is itself extremely difficult to collect.

The Government have, therefore, decided that a power of attachment is necessary. This means that persons owing money to a defaulter and persons holding financial assets of a defaulter may be directed by the Revenue Commissioners to pay over such moneys to them. Attachment would apply only to the extent necessary to meet tax, interest and penalties legally due by the defaulter. This power is in operation in a number of countries operating self-assessment and was recommended by the Commission on Taxation. It will complement the existing procedures of sheriff enforcement and actions through the courts for fines, penalties and judgements. The Revenue Commissioners will continue to rely on their existing access to information in operating the power of attachment.

Tax clearance for grant applicants

I announced last year that arrangements were going ahead for the introduction of a requirement whereby applicants for grants from State and public authorities would be obliged to give their tax number and confirm that their tax affairs are in order. These arrangements are being finalised and instructions will be issued to the authorities concerned shortly.

These measures, together with the appointment of Revenue sheriffs and the special task force, the imposition of a surcharge on late returns, the pressure from Revenue to eliminate the backlog of appeals and so on, can leave the non-complying taxpayer and the tax evader in no doubt that the climate has changed and changed permanently.

There may be a lingering hope on the part of defaulters that these measures will not be fully applied and they may decide, on this basis, to opt for a ‘wait and see' approach. I want to state categorically that, not alone are these measures being introduced, but it is the firm intention of the Government that all existing and new powers and procedures will be enforced stringently, and without exception, by the Revenue Commissioners.

The emphasis underlying all these changes is on bringing tax payments up to date, and avoiding the build-up of arrears in the future.

Incentive to bring tax affairs up to date

To encourage taxpayers to bring their tax affairs up to date now, it has been decided to offer them, on a once-off basis, an opportunity to settle outstanding tax liabilities without payment of certain interest or penalties. These terms will be available in relation to income tax, PAYE, PRSI, VAT, corporation tax and capital gains tax liabilities due on or before 31 December 1987. There will be a further short interest moratorium of some weeks after which interest will begin to accumulate. Tax must be agreed and paid not later than 30 September 1988 to qualify for these incentives.

A key feature of the arrangements is that, to benefit, a taxpayer will have to pay, on or before 30 September 1988, all the relevant liabilities including current liabilities of the taxes and levies in question. The arrangements will apply to sums with the sheriffs for enforcement and to instalment arrangements for the payment of arrears. There will be a number of exceptions. Full details will be published by the Revenue Commissioners and the main elements are outlined in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget. I expect these measures, together with a number of other operational changes in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, to yield £30 million in 1988, of which £6 million relates to PRSI arrears and the balance to taxation arrears.

Corporation Tax

I announced last year that major changes in the structure of the corporation tax code were being considered. A full review has been undertaken and the Government have decided to reduce the free depreciation and initial allowance provisions whereby up to 100 per cent of capital expenditure can be claimed against tax in the first year; there will be a parallel reduction in the standard rate of corporation tax. The details are outlined in the Principal Features of 1988 Budget. In summary, accelerated capital allowances on new investment from 1 April onwards will be phased down by 1 April 1989 from 100 per cent to 50 per cent, which is still a generous provision. The standard rate of corporation tax will be reduced over the same period from 50 per cent to 43 per cent. Special lower rates of tax, other than the 10 per cent rate, will be abolished for virtually all companies. The reduction in capital allowances will not apply to qualifying services companies in the International Financial Services Centre and in Shannon Customs-free Airport, or to the special building incentives in the designated areas for urban renewal. Expenditure under contracts already signed will be eligible for the existing allowances, as will expenditure on projects which are negotiated with the industrial development agencies and approved for grant assistance before the end of 1988.

Losses incurred on activities which qualify for the 10 per cent tax rate will be eligible for group relief only against profits from other such qualifying activities.

Provision will be made whereby dividends earned abroad by Irish companies may be repatriated free of tax on certain terms. This is intended to encourage more repatriation of profits earned abroad for investment here. Companies who wish to opt for repatriation free of tax will have to show that the moneys in question are intended to be used here for specified investment purposes.

It is proposed to terminate the primary fund arrangement which requires that, in the case of companies having profits with a mix of tax liabilities, profits subjects to the 10 per cent rate of tax must be distributed to shareholders prior to other profits. Following the introduction of advance corporation tax at the full rate, this requirement is no longer necessary.

These measures, which are designed as an integrated package, represent a major reform of the corporation tax code. This reform is in line with recent trends in several other countries. The reality is that the changes are well overdue. Our incentives have been exceptionally generous and, while these incentives remain unchanged, there is no prospect of reducing the standard corporation tax rate, which is desirable for economic reasons. The excessively high reliefs for investment have favoured investment in fixed assets at the expense of jobs, contrary to the needs of the community. A broader-based tax, with less generous reliefs and a lower standard rate, will improve economic efficiency and will be fairer than the present system. This approach is in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation.

The yield from corporation tax is low by international standards. The changes which I am proposing today will not result in any additional revenue in 1988. The Exchequer will benefit, however, for some years thereafter. In the longer term, as the impact of the reduction in accelerated capital allowances diminishes, the scale of benefit will decrease.

The tax contribution from profits in the banking sector continues to be very small in relation to such profits. The bank levy was introduced to compensate in part for this but, even taking the levy into account, the contribution is still inadequate. In the meantime, the scale of banking profits has continued to grow. Accordingly, the levy is being increased by £5 million to £30 million for 1988.

There is at present a £10 annual duty on credit cards and charge cards. This duty is being extended to automated teller machine cards. The extension will provide an extra £6 million in revenue this year.

Five million on the banks, six million on the punters.

Pension Funds

Funded pension schemes enjoy a very favourable tax regime in respect of pension contributions, investment income and lumpsum benefits. Pension funds have in recent years earned exceptionally high returns on their investments. Investment income is estimated to have totalled in the region of £325 million in 1987. Virtually all of this income enjoys tax-free status. Despite the recent drop in share values, there is every expectation that the funds will continue to achieve high returns. In view of the excellent performance of recent years, it is appropriate that the funds should make a contribution to tax revenue.

Accordingly, it is proposed to impose a tax on pension fund investment income on a once-off basis. The tax will apply to gross investment income, including realised capital gains, in respect of the year 1988. The tax will be at the rate of 6 per cent on such income. Income in the form of interest which is liable to retention tax without any right to repayment will not suffer a double charge in respect of retention tax and the new tax. The first payment, which will be an estimated 90 per cent of total tax liability, will be due by 30 November 1988 and the balance will be payable by 30 June 1989. The expected yield from this tax in 1988 is £15 million. I would like to emphasise that this is a tax on income only and not on assets.

As a special concession, designed to exclude smaller funds which have low income, there will be a threshold in the case of self-administered schemes below which the tax will not apply. This threshold will be fixed at a level of £5,000 gross investment income.

International Financial Services Centre

One of the success stories of the past year has been the establishment of an International Financial Services Centre to be located in the Custom House Docks Area in Dublin. The 10 per cent rate of corporation tax has been provided for companies setting up in the centre, subject to a certification procedure. To date, some 11 projects have been approved in principle and two of these have been processed to the point of formal certification. This is outstanding progress in the relatively short period since the Government took office and it bodies well for the future of the centre.

Shannon Services

Certain non-manufacturing enterprises established in the Shannon Customs-free Airport are currently exempt from taxation. I propose to introduce a provision in the Finance Bill to enable these companies to qualify, subject to the normal certification procedure, for the 10 per cent rate of corporation tax when this scheme of exemption ceases in 1990. This measure will guarantee the continued commitment of the companies in question to the Shannon region.

Stamp Duty on Houses and Lands

The stamp duty thresholds on houses and lands have remained unchanged since the mid-1970s despite increases in property values in the meantime. Because of the big cost involved, there is no prospect at this time of any major downward adjustment in the duty. I am particularly concerned, however, at the rather drastic impact of the transition from the 4 per cent rate of tax to 6 per cent at the threshold price of £50,000. I am, therefore, introducing a rate of 5 per cent for houses and lands in the price range £50,000 to £60,000. This modification will cost the Exchequer £700,000 this year.

Relief for Rented Residential Accommodation

Due to the downturn in activity in recent years, the building industry has gone through a very difficult period.

You can say that again.

(Interruptions.)

There are now good prospects of recovery and, as an incentive to further development, I propose to restore for a three year period the tax incentive previously known as the "section 23 relief". This will provide that expenditure incurred on the construction of modest residential accommodation for renting will be an allowable deduction against total rental income. I believe that this will encourage more construction of residential accommodation for renting and at the same time reduce rent charges in the private rented sector.

Urban Renewal

A number of changes will be made to the urban renewal scheme. The boundaries of the designated areas in Dublin and Limerick will be extended on a very restrictive basis. Also, because of its unique social and economic importance, an area in and around the Tallaght Town Centre will be designated for the urban renewal incentives. In addition, the time limit applying to qualifying expenditure in the designated areas in the five county boroughs will be extended from 31 May 1989 to 31 May 1991, to bring it into line with that applying in the nine additional recently-announced designated areas.

Other Reliefs

The threshold on capital allowances and allowable running expenses in respect of motor cars required for business purposes is being increased from £4,000 to £6,000. This will cost £600,000 this year but the full year cost, by 1990, will be £14 million. This will reduce motoring expenses connected with business and it will also be of significant benefit to the motor industry.

Stock relief for farmers will be continued on the present basis for a further year.

Indirect Taxation

Proposals are under discussion at the EC for harmonisation of indirect taxes with a target date of 1992. We welcome, in principle, movement towards harmonisation and acknowledge that substantial benefits can flow to the Community as a whole from the abolition of fiscal frontiers. The adjustment required of us, however, would result in a substantial revenue loss which would be difficult to contemplate, and we must look for countervailing measures at Community level to enable us to absorb the impact on our public finances.

Value-Added Tax Electricity

With the benefit of falling oil prices and interest rates and also favourable exchange rate movements, there is scope for a reduction of 5 per cent in electricity prices. However, as electricity is now the only fuel which does not attract VAT, I propose to absorb the potential price reduction by the imposition of VAT on electricity at 5 per cent. There will, accordingly, be no increase in consumer prices. In fact, commercial customers who are able to recover the VAT element in their bills will be paying less for electricity as a result. This will enhance the competitive environment for Irish business. The additional revenue yield to the Exchequer this year will be £10 million.

VAT Refund to Farmers

Last year, as part of the revised arrangements for taxation of farmers, the flat-rate VAT refund to unregistered farmers was reduced from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent. I indicated subsequently that a further reduction would have to be considered unless there was a big improvement in payment of arrears of tax-related levies by farmers. I regret that there has been no such improvement and consequently the flat-rate refund will be reduced from 1 March 1988 to 1.4 per cent. This will yield extra revenue of £7 million this year. I will consider restoring the rate to 1.7 per cent next year provided the problem of these arrears is resolved satisfactorily through the co-operation of farmers and the range of measures to improve collection which I have already set out in this statement.

Excise Duties

Recent falls in oil prices have had a beneficial effect in reducing fuel costs. The Government propose to absorb some of this reduction at the retail level by increasing the excise duty on petrol and auto-diesel. The increases, including consequential VAT, are as follows:

Petrol — 8p per gallon;

Auto-diesel — 4p per gallon, but this will not apply to scheduled road passenger services.

There will be no increase in the duty on auto-LPG.

I propose also to increase the level of excise duty on tobacco as follows (the increase includes consequential VAT):

Cigarettes — 4p per packet of 20 cigarettes in the most popular price category, with pro-rata increases for cigars and other tobacco products.

A Deputy

Another kick for Dundalk.

Environmental Measures

In this European Year of the Environment, it is appropriate that the Government should act to promote a more healthy and clean environment. Lead pollution from petrol has been a serious environmental concern, especially because of its dangers to the health of young children. Unleaded petrol has been widely promoted in many countries and the EC requires that it should be readily available in all member states by the end of 1989. I have decided therefore that there should be no price disadvantage attaching to the use of lead-free petrol and consequently I am proposing a concession in the excise duty applicable to this fuel, which will put it on a par with premium leaded petrol at the pumps. The cost in 1988 will be minimal.

Another matter which the Government have had under consideration is the introduction of smoke control measures in the Dublin area. They have decided in principle to make a start in this area in the current year. Towards this end, £250,000 will be provided from within the existing allocation for the Environment vote this year. The Minister for the Environment will announce full details of the proposed measures in due course.

Budget Targets

The measure of success in improving the public finances is the reduction in the borrowing requirement. The target for 1988 for the Exchequer borrowing requirement is £1,457 million or 8.2 per cent of GNP which is the lowest since 1973/74 and is a reduction of 2.1 percentage points on the 1987 outturn. In 1986, the comparable percentage was 13.2 per cent. The estimated current budget deficit for this year is £1,125 million, which at 6.3 per cent of GNP represents a reduction of 2.3 percentage points on the outturn for 1986 and is the lowest percentage figure since 1980.

These targets show that further significant progress will be made this year towards reducing our dependence on borrowing. They also indicate that the Government are firmly on course to stabilise the public finances by 1990.

Medium-Term Outlook

The recent independent review by the ESRI of medium-term prospects for the Irish economy confirms the validity of the Government's economic and financial policies. This review showed that, with financial discipline, improved competitiveness and a stable external environment, we could aspire to sustained economic growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent once the public finances have been corrected. The ESRI assessment was, of course, dependent on adherence to the Government's economic and budgetary strategy in 1988 and on the maintenance of financial discipline thereafter. Given, in particular, the risks of a deterioration in the external environment, the ESRI suggested that it would be prudent to recognise that further budget adjustment may be necessary beyond 1988. The OECD takes a less sanguine view than the ESRI of the medium-term prospects for growth and, therefore, of the further need for budget adjustment. While the formulation of precise budget plans for 1989 must await a more detailed and up-to-date assessment, the Government will not baulk at the task of making further significant savings should this be necessary.

It is clear, however, that the resolution of the budgetary problems, which have for so long dominated the life of our nation, is within sight and that economic recovery is within our grasp provided there is no deviation from the path now being followed. The successful implementation of the 1988 budget strategy which I have announced today is a critical precondition for bringing about that recovery.

Conclusion

It is just ten months since we came into Government and in this relatively short period we have made great headway in restoring confidence, initiating new projects for development of the economy, and tackling longstanding problems on the tax front. It takes time, of course, to reap the benefits of this in terms of substantial increases in economic activity and new employment. It is most encouraging however to be able to report that productive investment in plant and equipment is on a steady upward trend, and that we are becoming more competitive. These are the essential preconditions for higher economic activity and better employment.

Budget control has to be maintained. Borrowing is still much too high and the burden of debt continues to have an unduly depressing impact on the economy. Curtailment of public spending is unavoidable at this time. The alternative is still higher taxation which would further damage the economy and increase dissatisfaction with the tax system. Spending reductions have been widely distributed to minimise disruption and to spread the burden as evenly as possible, but with the exercise of a reasonable degree of restraint, a real improvement in the tax burden is possible as this budget demonstrates.

At last, there are solid grounds for optimism. For several years there has been a prevailing lack of confidence which was essentially due to the belief that we did not have the capacity or the discipline to correct our public finances, and protect and develop the economy properly in the face of severe difficulties. This Government have demonstrated their determination to manage the economy better. They have maintained a fair and consistent approach in the face of strong pressures. There is now an acceptance that the Government will maintain a steady course and continue to make improvements. This, in turn, is reflected in an increasing confidence which is long overdue. Let us now build on our achievements and move forward sensibly. The rewards will come gradually in terms of higher economic growth, more employment and better living standards.

TABLE EXPLANATORY OF CURRENT BUDGET, 1988

Revenue

Expenditure

£m

£m

1. Tax Revenue

6,639.0

1. Debt Service and Other Central Fund charges

2,500.0

2. Non-Tax Revenue

400.0

2. Supply Services (non-capital)

5,649.1

3. Temporary Tax Measures:

Adjusted for:

Add: Bank Levy

Revisions to estimates due to re-estimation of 1988 requirements in light of 1987 provisional outturns

–28.9

5,620.2

(increased from £25m. to £30m.)

+30.0

Less: PRSI Allowance

–50.0

Stock Relief for farmers

–0.2

–20.2

3. New Expenditure Measures:

4. Add: New Tax Increases:

Add: Social Welfare increases

+44.8

Excise Duties

+26.0

Equal Treatment alleviating Measures

+20.0

VAT

Drugs Refund and Long Term Illness

—Reduction in flat-rate addition to farm prices

+7.0

SchemeTourism Package

+11.0+4.0

—on electricity

+10.0

Disabled Drivers' Scheme

+2.8

+82.6

Stamp Duty on bank cards

+6.0

Withholding Tax — extension to the fees of medical personnel

+6.0

Deduct: Adjustment on foot of extension of PRSI to self-employed (Net of £1 million reduction in Health contributions)

–14.0

Taxation of Pension FundsCollection of Tax Arrears

+15.0+24.0

+94.0

Adjustment due to collection of PRSI arrears

–6.0

–20.0

5. Deduct: Tax Reliefs:

Income Tax

–91.0

Stamp duty on property

–0.7

4. Estimated Departmental Balances

–23.0

Increase in capital allowances for cars

–0.6

Concession on lead-free petrol

–92.3

6. Net Effect on tax receipts of expenditure and tax changes (incl. disabled drivers arrangement and young farmers' installation aid)

+14.2

7. Deficit

+1,125.1

8,159.8

8,159.8

PART VI: BUDGET TABLES.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGETS 1987 AND 1988.

1987

1988

Provisional Outturn

Post-Budget Estimate

£m

£m

Current Budget

1. Expenditure

(i) Central Fund Services

2,403

2,500

(ii) Supply Services

5,928

5,660

8,331

8,160

2. Revenue

(i) Tax

6,493

6,635

(ii) Non-Tax

658

400

7,151

7,035

3. Current Budget Deficit

1,180

1,125

Capital Budget

4. Expenditure

(i) Public Capital Programme

1,576

1,376

(ii) Other (non-Programme)

43

40

1,619

1,416

5. Resources

(i) Exchequer

362

431

(ii) Non-Exchequer

651

653

1,013

1,084

6. Exchequer Borrowing Requirement for Capital Purposes

606

332

7. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement (3+6)

1,786

1,457

8. Total Exchequer Borrowing Requirement as % of GNP

10.3%

8.2%

Table 2:

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING CURRENT BUDGET DEFICIT) AND RESOURCES: 1987 OUTTURN AND 1988 ESTIMATE

REQUIREMENTS

£ million

1987

1988

Budget Estimate

Provisional Outturn*

Budget Estimate

1.Public Capital Programmeof which:

1,655

1,576

1,376

(a) Exchequer

954

925

723

(b) Non-Exchequer

701

651

653

2.Non-Programme Outlaysof which:

1,275

1,223

1,165

(a) Current Budget Deficit

1,200

1,180

1,125

(b) Miscellaneous

75

43

40

3.Total Requirements [1+2]

2,930

2,799

2,541

RESOURCES

4.Internally generated financingof which:

684

660

766

(a) Exchequer

291

279

331

(i) Loan Repayments, etc.

91

61

124

(ii) Sinking Funds

178

200

195

(iii) Appropriations-in-Aid

22

18

12

(b) Non-Exchequer

393

381

435

(i) State Bodies

369

358

411

(ii) Local Authorities

24

23

24

5.European Regional Development Fund

80

83

100

6.Total [4+5]

764

743

866

BORROWING REQUIREMENT

7.Public Sector Borrowing Requirement — PSBR [3-6]

2,166

2,056

1,675

Less

8.Borrowing by State bodies and Local Authorities

308

270

218

of which:

(i) State Bodies

294

254

214

(ii) Local Authorities

14

16

4

9.Exchequer Borrowing Requirement — EBR [7-8]

1,858

1,786

1,457

of which:

(a) Net sales of Domestic Securities to

—the public including non-residents

1,152

—domestic licensed banks

1,858

119

1,457

(b) Small Savings

1,858

186

1,457

(c) Foreign Borrowings

592

(d) Miscellaneous including change in liquidity of Departmental Funds

–263

10.Total Resources [6+7]

2,930

2,799

2,541

*The 1987 outturn figures are based on end-year Exchequer issues.

Table 3:

CURRENT REVENUE 1987 AND 1988

1987

1988

Outturn

Post-Budget Estimate

£m

£m

Tax Revenue

Customs

88

95

Excise Duties

1,391

1,412

Capital Taxes

40

40

Stamp Duties

169

186

Income Tax

2,713

2,706

Income Levy

3

Corporation Tax

257

280

Value-Added Tax

1,585

1,666

Agricultural Levies (EEC)

11

13

Motor Vehicle Duties

139

140

Employment and Training Levy (a)

97

97

Total Tax Revenue

6,493

6,635

Total Non-Tax Revenue

658

400

Total Current Revenue

7,151

7,035

(a) Formerly Youth Employment Levy.

Table 4:

HOW CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL BE ALLOCATED AND FINANCED 1988

Where current expenditure will go

How current expenditure will be financed

Item

1988 Post-Budget

% Total Total Gross Expenditure

Item

1988 Post-Budget

% of Total

£m

£m

Service of Public Debt

Borrowing

1,125

14

Interest

1,975

20

Sinking Funds, etc.

198

2

Tax Revenue

Customs

95

2,173

22

Excise Duties

1,412

Capital Taxes

40

Economic Services

Stamp Duties

186

Industry and Labour

233

2

Income Tax

2,706

Agriculture

407

4

Fisheries, Forestry

48

1

Corporation Tax

280

Tourism

23

Value-Added Tax

1,666

711

7

Agricultural Levies (EEC)

13

Motor Vehicle Duties

140

Infrastructure

64

1

Employment and Training Levy

97

81

Social Services

Non-Tax Revenue

400

5

Health

1,157

12

Education

1,141

12

Social Welfare

2,695

28

Housing

40

Subsidies

200

2

5,233

54

Security

683

7

Other

888

9

Gross Expenditure

9,752

100

Supply Services Receipts

1,592

TOTAL NET Expenditure

8,160

Total

8,160

100

(Limerick East): This must be the first time in the history of this House that a Minister spoke for an hour and a half on budget day and did not address himself to the problem of unemployment which on the Government's own figures is now at 256,000 on average.

(Interruptions.)

(Limerick East): Neither did the Minister mention the 30,000 emigrants, but they were written out of the Government's plans a long time ago. This is a dull uninspired unimaginative budget introduced by an administration totally bereft of ideas. It is a budget which follows a one-item agenda of controlling the national debt and it will neither inspire confidence nor establish the type of national consensus which is necessary if we are to tackle our problems. It is a budget based on an optimistic prediction of a zero growth rate in 1988 and it will not spur any growth in future years. The budget has failed to reform the tax system and it does not deal with the major structural problems of our economy, which inhibit growth by making us uncompetitive. This budget has missed a major opportunity——

(Interruptions.)

Order, please. I must ask that noise in the Chamber do cease. Members leaving should do so as quietly as possible.

(Limerick East): In this budget there has been missed a major opportunity to write a new agenda for the economic development of our country which would result in jobs in future years. This is a budget of addition and subtraction when the nation is interested in multiplication and growth rates which would lead to jobs.

Fianna Fáil are the last real party in this House to be converted to the idea that progress cannot be made here until the current budget deficit is reduced, until the Exchequer requirement is reduced and until the GNP ratios are stabilised. Things were not always like this. I would remind the Taoiseach that on 29 June 1984, he said that in his view the failure of the then Government had been significantly contributed to by the invasion of the corridors of Government of a coterie of professional economists preaching defeatist monetarist doctrines and peddling unrealistic and unacceptable policies. Every year, on every major economic debate in this House, the Taoiseach attacked the Thatcherite policies of the Coalition Government; he attacked the monetarist policies of the Coalition Government. It is pleasantly ironic to be on this side of the House now and see a budget which is based on the continuation of just these policies. The Taoiseach has come a long way over the past couple of years. His conversion was rapid but it is also welcome.

The Taoiseach is like a man who having learned a new tune can now not sing any other song. There is a consensus in this House that we must continue to tackle the problem of the national debt. This is the prerequisite for economic recovery but the debt-GNP ratio will not be stabalised without an annual growth rate of between 3 and 4 per cent. Following a one-item agenda which reads: "Reduce the debt and all will come right" will not achieve this. There is life after debt. We must plan for it and plan to get there. We must extend the agenda and the Government today failed to do so. They missed a major opportunity at this point in the life of the administration to set the extended agenda which was necessary to stimulate growth in the economy.

I propose in the later stages of my speech to suggest how this should be done. Deputy Dukes, Leader of Fine Gael, speaking to the Tallaght Chamber of Commerce on 2 September 1987 laid down the conditions for Fine Gael support for the 1988 budget and I quote:

If in 1988 the Government produces a budget which—

1. opens the way to a reduction in taxes and particularly to a reduction in personal taxes;

2. brings about a significant reduction in the current budget deficit below the figure targeted for this year;

3. holds out a strategy for real employment expansion in future years; and

4. does not add to the burden of debt service cost in future years.

I will not oppose the general thrust of its policy. I intend to measure our support for today's budget against these criteria.

Last year's budget, introduced by Fine Gael and presented to the people in the course of the 1987 general election campaign, was subsequently modified by Fianna Fáil and reintroduced. That budget makes significant progress in reducing the debt. The outturn for 1987 gave us a current budget deficit of 6.8 per cent of GNP and an Exchequer borrowing requirement of 10.3 per cent of GNP.

The Government publication of Estimates for 1988 in mid-October of last year signalled that further progress would be made in debt reduction. We welcomed the Estimates at the time and supported the overall thrust of Government policy. We in Fine Gael want to find successful and sustainable ways of expanding employment, of stimulating economic growth, of eliminating deprivation in our society and removing inequities from our economic and social system. Reducing the debt, we have always said, is a prerequisite to this. We believe, and know, that these objectives cannot be achieved until the debt-GNP ratio is, first, stabilised and subsequently the national debt is reduced. We welcome the progress made by the Government today to further reduce both the EBR and the current budget deficit.

The Minister for Finance hopes to achieve an outturn for 1988 which will reduce the current budget deficit to 8.2 per cent of GNP, the current budget deficit to 6.3 per cent of GNP and the Exchequer borrowing requirement to 8.2 per cent of GNP. He will achieve these targets if the policies which yield the cuts in public expenditure are maintained, or alternative policies producing equal savings are substituted and if his predictions for tax yields from today's proposals and the predictions in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure published last Friday are realised. There is reason to suspect that he will fall short of the targets on both sides of the balance sheet, but I can deal with that subsequently.

At this point it is worth raising our heads to look beyond the 1988 position at the medium term prospects for reduction in the debt. First, we need agreement on what the yardstick is to be. For many years, economists have talked about the overall public borrowing requirement, then the emphasis moved to the current budget deficit, then it moved to the Exchequer borrowing requirement and now, in some recent studies and in particular in the ESRI medium term review referred to by the Minister, the emphasis is on stabilising the debt-GNP ratio. If we are to measure the progress, I hope that we are all using the same yardstick. I notice from Friday's publication which the Minister is implementing now the changes he proposed to eliminate double counting in the debt. I hope that he will give us clear guidance now, if we are to talk in terms of stabilising the debt-GNP ratio, of what we are actually talking about. The ESRI report would suggest that it be stabilised at 1:1.63, that that particular ratio of debt to GNP would be the point of stabilisation. However, if we work from corrected figures which are now being produced by economists, the figure would be 1:1.35 and the Minister, who has half corrected the figures at this stage, seems to be falling somewhere in between. I hope that we can have an accommodation where we are all using the same figures when we are discussing these matters.

There are major consequences, obviously, of reducing the debt with which we agree. There is no possibility of making real progress because of the preemption of resources in interest payments. However, there are other conseqeunces, also, with which the Minister has dealt and with which we also agree, but we are disappointed at the rate of progress. Reductions have been made in interest rates. When I was Minister for Industry and Commerce, I remember predicting that a certain type of budget which we intended introducing would reduce interest rates by 5 per cent. That was greeted with guffaws by the Opposition, led by the Minister for Agriculture. I am glad now that this kind of reduction has been achieved.

It is fair to point out, however, that there is no great stimulus to investment from the reductions that have taken place. As a matter of fact, we are back just lower than the position that pertained in the summer of 1986. When we compare our interest rates with those applying internationally we are about the same rate now in any particular interest rate — if we take the triple AAA rate in particular — as that which pertains in the United Kingdom. However, the difference between our rate and the Deutsche Mark rate has actually widened in the last nine months. The point that I am making is that an economic policy that concentrates on the reduction of debt and hopes that there will be ensuing reductions in interest rates which will lead to economic growth is focusing too narrowly and will not achieve the results which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance expect and is not achieving them now.

The take-out of the economy in the Estimates laying the way for this budget published in October has been very significant indeed. It has deflated and will deflate the economy in a major way, and every prediction for growth that I have seen so far is less than 1 per cent and most of the predictions are for negative growth. The Minister has not stated quite clearly on what growth prediction rate he is basing this budget, but it seems from the figures that he is producing that it is based on a zero net growth rate. That is optimistic when we look at the predictions that have come from various sources in the last three months and there could quite easily be negative growth. Falling interest rates alone will not stimulate the economy. The Government will come to realise this very forcefully as the year progresses.

We agreed, as I said, with the Estimates which were published in October. Public expenditure was reduced dramatically, but in doing this, unnecessary trauma was created for many sectors in the community. I should like to refer briefly to the managerial mess which still exists in the health and the education services. In education now we see a review of a review of a review. The Taoiseach will have to call his Ministers aside and make sure that in the implementation of cuts the public services are managed correctly.

I should like to proceed now to the area of the specific tax measures which have been introduced in the budget. No attempt has been made by the Government to introduce major tax reform in the budget and this is a serious mistake. An opportunity has been missed. An enormous number of the working population are paying taxes at the highest marginal rates. The Minister for Finance, in his proposals today, has tricked around with some allowances but he has made no radical changes in the taxation system. I do not think it is possible that we can achieve economic growth without major changes in the taxation system and in the PRSI system. Every economic commentator points to our outdated taxation system as the major inhibitor of growth in our economy and the Minister has done nothing to change this today.

The Minister has spoken about the requirements of the national programme for economic recovery. He has claimed that his commitment in the programme is to provide relief on income tax amounting to £30 million. When we look at the total figures we realise he has done no more than this because, while he purports to give back £90 million to the income tax paying community, he takes £60 million from the same community by a variety of measures which he has introduced. Excise duties are an example. He has put 8p on petrol and 4p on cigarettes which will raise £26 million. He has introduced VAT on electricity which will weigh on the domestic consumer and that will raise £10 million. Stamp duty on bank cards, which will affect the individual holder of a bank account, will raise £6 million. The extension of withholding tax to the fees of medical personnel and the bringing of VHI into the scheme will impinge on VHI payers and on the patients rather than on the doctors. The taxation on pension funds will bring in £15 million which again by and large will come from the pensions of the ordinary PAYE workers. What purports to be a giveaway of £94 million is in effect a net £30 million, which is what the Minister was obliged to do in the plan.

The range of income tax reliefs is very modest indeed — for example, 30p per week on the single person's allowance by an extension of the personal allowance by £50. The Minister has quoted figures of £280 for a married couple on £16,000 but of course that is the maximum increase and nobody will gain any more than that. All in all, there has been a missed opportunity. The Minister could have been radical in the reform of income taxation but he missed the opportunity to do anything of a radical nature.

In one of our budgets we introduced tax relief amounting to £120 million in a nine month period, which would have cost us almost £200 million in the full 12 months. By the time the measure was implemented in April the tax relief was scarcely noticed. As the Minister is aware, PRSI is taken over ten months of the year — there is a two month moratorium on PRSI payments — and as soon as people come back on the full rate of PRSI in April the effect of modest reductions in income tax such as this is totally lost. The deduction from somebody's salary in April will exceed, even with these modest reductions in income tax, that in March. It is a very modest proposal. Obviously any relief of income tax is welcome and we welcome it in that limited extent, but a major opportunity to reform income tax and to remove one of the great inhibitors to growth in our economy was missed.

I am sure the Minister is aware that 46 per cent of the labour force is single. Most of these people are subject to the highest marginal rates of income tax on very low incomes. What the Minister has done today will not take a significant cohort of single people on the average industrial wage out of the higher marginal rates. In fact, when we allow for modest pay increases in the early half of this year I doubt that any significant number of people will transfer from the higher to the lower marginal rates.

I welcome the Minister's move to self-assessment. In December 1986, Deputy John Bruton as Minister for Finance invited a group from the IMF to study the possibility of introducing self-assessment in this country. I am glad the Minister has decided to introduce this scheme. The International Monetary Fund sent a small team to examine the possibility of self-assessment in December 1986. They concluded that self-assessment would have clear advantages and could result in the receipt of greater revenue at lesser cost but only if the system incorporated adequate powers and safeguards and provided it was widely acceptable. Self-assessment would place on taxpayers the responsibility for calculating and paying on time their own tax liabilities and would dismantle many of the existing tax collection procedures. A move to self-assessment could be made only if there was a high level of commitment to it.

The necessary preconditions for the introduction of a self-assessment system would be that there would be a clear and unequivocal commitment to all aspects of the system; that there would be public recognition and acceptance of the advantages of self-assessment; and that there would be an enhanced revenue administration structure capable of meeting the new and altered demands that would be imposed on it. If these preconditions are not satisfied a move to self-assessment will prove to be an expensive failure.

There is also the whole question of what sanctions the Minister intends to introduce. There is no point in moving to self-assessment unless the Minister has sanctions in mind and he did not speak today of any sanctions which he might implement. The report on self-assessment includes a number of them. There is a proposal that there will be a surcharge for the late filling of returns; that penalties for inaccurate returns as a result of fraud or negligence will be implemented; that an interest charge for late payment of tax will be applied; that local involvement in collection with compliance visits being made by collection officials for the premises of defaulters will be in place; that greater use of existing powers, including the powers of entry to business premises, will be used; that there will be a depository receipt system for payment of PAYE by employers and traders; that a power of attachment to allow for seizure of financial assets will be implemented — I notice the Minister said he intends bringing in a power of attachment in this respect — that there will be a seizure if necessary and the sale of real or personal property; and that the Revenue Commissioners will have power to impose civil penalties. I do not know what the Minister's intention is on self-assessment and on the penalties which should apply to non-compliance, but I do not believe that the power of attachment alone will be sufficient to achieve the ends which the Minister has in mind.

I noticed also that the Minister has ignored completely the whole question of disclosure in self-assessment. He should make it clear whether the Revenue Commissioners will have the power of establishing that full disclosure of people's assets has been made, that there has been full disclosure of accounts in banks and building societies. The Minister will have a particular problem here because nondisclosure was extended to the banks when the DIRT tax was introduced. I can see a very difficult situation arising, as the Minister moves to self-assessment, in having full disclosure but I do not think self-assessment can work unless there is full disclosure.

I would like to deal briefly with the proposals on social welfare made by the Minister. A 3 per cent increase in social welfare from July is a very modest increase. It just matches the rate of inflation. It is what was committed by the Minister in the Programme for National Recovery but it is extremely modest. The Minister has proposed a further increase for the long term unemployed and their dependants. I would like to point out that in the budget introduced by us last year such a proposal was made but this was dropped by the present Government when they came to power. We had proposed an increase of £3.50 per week for the long term unemployed and that is slightly in excess of what is now being proposed by the Minister. We welcome it. This is the poorest section of the community. I am glad that there is some targeting of particular sections in the social welfare code by the Government and I hope this can be continued.

I would now like to deal with the extension of PRSI to the self-employed. The commitment to extend PRSI to the self-employed and farmers was first proposed in the Programme for National Recovery in October 1987. The proposal, I think, is of dubious origin. It seems that separate agreements were made between the Taoiseach and the trade union movement on the one hand and with the farmers on the other. The proposal to extend PRSI to the self-employed and farmers was an attempt to keep the partners together in a marriage which was breaking down. As the Taoiseach knows, very often the children of marriages arranged or continued on this basis are not very happy and this particular proposal is going to be a very difficult one indeed.

If the proposal was simply that the same level of benefit would accrue to the farmers and self-employed as a result of making a contribution there would be no difficulty with it but what is being proposed is that there will be an extension of benefit and an increase in the liability of the State as a result of the introduction of this scheme. Beneficiaries will be entitled to contributory pensions rather than non contributory pensions and these will average approximately £8 a week extra. It is not clear from what the Minister has said whether or not other benefits will accrue to beneficiaries, or whether the Government subsequently intend to extend other benefits to new contributors. It is not clear as to what the Minister's intentions are in this case but it is quite clear benefit will extend to widows and orphans within a three to five year period.

The first question I would like to pose is at the level of principle. Is it wise, logical or consistent at a time of massive cutbacks in public services to extend the welfare state to several hundred thousand people many of whom make their own provision for pensions at present and would be quite happy to do so in the future? There would obviously be some modest cash flow advantage for the Exchequer in the early years — calculated by the Minister at £15 million in 1988. This £15 million could be used to relieve somewhat the burden on income taxpayers but it is a very modest cash flow benefit indeed. On the other hand, the potential liabilities accruing after the tenth year of the scheme have not been quantified and could be enormous. What is being presented as a scheme introduced to reduce the burden of income tax on the PAYE sector could result in massive income tax increases to pay for the scheme in the medium and long term.

As has been pointed out in the report on the extension of social insurance to the self employed recently published by the National Pensions Board, other questions also arise. Chief among these is, first, the issue of assessment. There are enormous difficulties in assessing the incomes of the self-employed which will form the basis of assessing liability as is already evident in relation to taxation. Secondly, there is the problem of evasion. It is likely that there will be acute problems and there will be every incentive to understate income and thus reduce or eliminate liability to avoid paying contributions altogether or to pay an incomplete contribution and to have an incomplete contribution record because an incomplete contribution record will not affect pension eligibility.

There will also be a major problem with collection and nothing the Minister has said would indicate that this has been solved. There are already problems in relation to the health and youth employment levies and the Minister has made no proposal which would indicate that the collection system will be any more successful in this case. In addition, for those not paying a schedule D income tax, an entirely new collection system will have to be set up. No proposals for the establishment of such a system have been made even though the Minister has now announced a start up date.

Then there is the question in regard to the rate. At what rate in equity should the self-employed contribute to the scheme? It is clear from the majority report of the National Pensions Board and two minority reports from farmer organisations that the level of contribution will be a matter of controversy. Even if the 6.6 per cent rate proposed by the National Pensions Board is adopted in future years — and the Minister's intention is that it will not be adopted — and the associated liabilities collected in full, the board's estimation is that the State will have to bear 60 per cent of the cost of pensions payable to the self-employed. Obviously, the cost would be much higher at a reduced rate. This compares with a State subsidy of 38 per cent towards the cost of payments to existing contributory beneficiaries. The Minister said that he will introduce the scheme at 3 per cent, extend it to 4 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after. At 5 per cent it will require a collection rate of 90 per cent to break even and that is with no extension of benefit.

The genesis of the scheme seems to be that there is a sizeable sum of money, £300 million, going on non contributory pensions to the self-employed and farmers at present. The presentation is that by introducing a modest contribution there will be a net advantage to the Exchequer and that, in effect, contributions would be received from people who are now getting a major benefit without making a contribution. Obviously, this appeals to the PAYE sector and to many taxpayers because the further point is made that quite wealthy people can divest themselves of property and claim non contributory pensions almost immediately, as can those with no means whatsoever.

There is a case to be made and a case to be met but as presented by the Minister it looks like a botch. It appears to give a cash flow benefit in the short term which could alleviate the burden on the PAYE sector. The total is £15 million and, as presented by the Minister, there is no doubt in my mind that the liabilities which the State is now taking on will put a huge burden on the ordinary taxpayer in the medium and long term. The burden will start between the third and fifth year in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions and very strongly after the tenth, eleventh and twelfth years in the case of old age pensions to the self-employed and farmers.

I do not understand the logic of an extension of the social welfare system to an area such as this at a point when cutbacks are being made in other areas of State services and I do not think the Government have thought this fully through. A hasty agreement was entered into in the concluding days of the preparation of the Programme for National Recovery. There is a widespread belief that the Taoiseach had separate talks and made separate agreements with, on the one hand, the trade union movement and, on the other hand, with the IFA and the ICMSA and that the two agreements did not correspond in all respects.

The least the Minister should commit himself to before the scheme is implemented is to have a proper actuarial assessment of the costs and benefits of it. At the moment it looks like it is being presented as something in relief of the income tax payer while massive IOUs are being signed which will put an enormous burden on people in the medium term. We are reaping today the difficulties of the seeds that were sown between 1977 and 1979. We should not set seeds now which will produce weeds in 1997, 1998 and 1999 and add a further massive burden to the economy. I am calling on the Minister to produce a proper actuarial assessment of the scheme to deal with the difficulties I have raised. I want him to consider the possibility of an opting out clause which could be simply constructed into the system. I want him to present the result of that to the House before this proposal proceeds any further.

In passing I mentioned the possibility of an opting out clause. Many people in private pension schemes are quite happy to remain in them, and have not made any demand that the State should get involved in this area of activity. The Government would do the income tax payer and the State a favour if they allowed people who want to arrange their own affairs for pension purposes to continue to do so. A simple form of certification to be presented to the Department of Social Welfare stating that a certain level of cover had been privately arranged by an individual should be sufficient to allow a person opt out of the scheme. Naturally, we cannot have people going in and out of a scheme like this and, therefore, the opt out clause would have to be a once-off. In that context it would be worthwhile if the Minister offered the same opting out clause to those who are not self-employed, to employees who are paying very high rates of PRSI. The sums should be done on that proposal to see if there would be a benefit to the Exchequer if people on the high rates of PRSI were allowed make their own arrangements for pension purposes and not be a burden on the State.

The whole basis of the debate that has been going on for the last six or seven years has been that State schemes were over-extensive and putting an undue burden on the taxpayer. The Minister should adopt my suggestion before the further extension is proceeded with.

I should now like to deal with some of the Minister's individual proposals, some of which are of an usual nature, some of which can be welcomed and some of which are not so welcome. I have mentioned income tax already. There is no difficulty with what the Minister is doing there but there is a major difficulty with what he has refused to do, to carry out a major reform of the income tax code not just for the benefit of the individual taxpayer but to restore incentives to the economy, treat PRSI and income tax on the same basis and reform the scheme in its entirety. I am very worried about the extension of the withholding tax on professionals to VHI payments. When the scheme was introduced on budget day last year I raised questions about it and I raised further questions during the course of the debate on the Finance Bill. I thought I had an absolute commitment from the Minister for Finance that there would be no extension to VHI payments. A proposal that the VHI deduct 35 per cent from any payment made to a patient covered by VHI and forward it to the Revenue Commissioners will be difficult to monitor and will automatically result in extra cost to the patient rather than a reduction in income for the doctor. I do not think it will be possible to ensure that it will apply only to the income of the profession and will not have to come out of the pocket of the patient who is covered by VHI. I have no doubt that we will be returning to that during the course of the debate on the Finance Bill but I want to put down a strong marker on it on this occasion.

I welcome the moves on tax administration. I do not propose to deal with them now and while there could be other improvements, at least a start has been made. I welcome, in particular, the move to self-assessment although the Minister has not given us a very clear picture of his intentions. The decision to tax pension funds is an interesting proposition. The issue has been debated for some time and it is very difficult to know if the Minister's move is justified. As I understand it, the Minister intends to take £15 million by imposing a 6 per cent once-off levy on the capital gains of pension funds. That levy will not be on the asset but on the income. I do not know what the average gain on pension funds was in the last 12 months but I suspect it was about 12½ per cent. If the Minister takes 6 per cent off that, a pension fund will be allowed to continue with a capital gain of about 3½ per cent more than the rate of inflation. On the face of it that appears to be a reasonable proposal but I always understood that the rule in regard to the taxation of pension funds was that the funds were taxed on the way in or on the way out but not taxed during the term. By and large the contributions to pension funds are exempted from tax. For example, one can make a contribution of up to 15 per cent of income, which will accrue tax relief at the highest marginal rate, to a private pension fund at the moment. No tax is applied when money is on the way into a pension fund. However, tax is applied on the way out because a person in receipt of a pension on retirement is taxed on that pension. It is not correct to say that there is no tax on pension funds.

There have been major capital gains in pension funds in the last number of years, certainly in the last three years and the current year, despite the events in October, but there were very lean years in the seventies. In the years of high inflation the gains in pension funds were negative. I am not sure whether all pension funds can bear this imposition. I would like the Minister to give us more information about this. Strong pension funds can bear the imposition but we need more information about this proposal which it appears will bear very heavily on some pension funds. I sincerely hope that it does not drive some of them into insolvency. An actuarial assessment would be of benefit to us as we debate this issue in the House.

The idea of a once-off levy has been around for a long time. The bank levy which the Minister is renewing was introduced a long time ago as a once-off levy. I have a fear of once-off levies and I suspect that if the Minister is still Minister for Finance next year we will have a once-off levy produced once more. There are a number of once-off proposals in the budget, this £15 million being one of them and another, the £30 million to be repaid by the ESB. We shall have more to say on that also.

The other taxation proposals to which I have referred are the increases in excise duties. There will not be great applause for the Minister as people drive home this evening realising that they will be paying another 8 pence per gallon of petrol. Neither will there be great applause for the Minister on the part of those who are still smoking, with an additional 4 pence on a 20 packet of cigarettes. I wonder, is that wise? I noticed, on the basis of last Friday evening's figures, a prediction that there will be an actual reduction in excise returns over the next 12 months of over £11 million. Excise duties must be approaching the level of diminishing returns. That is true particularly of the spirits industry and perhaps also the beer industry. I am glad the Minister has not raised excise duties on beers and spirits. It is time for the Minister to experiment with a scheme much loved by the Taoiseach, of self-financing tax reductions——

That mythical beast so beloved of Fianna Fáil in the past. Where is it now? It is like a unicorn, in the story books and nowhere else.

(Limerick East): Another experiment is overdue in the reduction of excise duties on spirits, and possibly on beer. The same applies to electrical equipment, televisions, videos and such items. I do not believe they are self-financing on a 12-month basis but there is evidence to suggest that reductions in excise on items with a very strong cross-Border trade — whether legitimate or smuggled — can be self-financing over a longer period of time. The Minister could experiment in that respect with very little risk to revenue.

I am disappointed the Minister has not seen fit to move on value added tax. He took off his hat to the notion that VAT rates would have to be harmonised within the Community by 1992 but since the Minister did not give any indication of how he will move I presume it is his intention to seek a derogation. The evil day cannot be postponed too long. The whole question of value added tax and excise duties has to be put in order with a view to the harmonisation of tax rates within the EC. The Minister has introduced a VAT rate of 5 per cent on electricity, while saying that there is scope for a reduction of 5 per cent in electricity prices, he is clawing back the benefit which would otherwise accrue to the taxpayer. It should be remembered that this will constitute a burden on domestic consumers only. Business and manufacturing industry can reclaim expenditure on VAT, so that there will be a clawback for that sector. However, instead of Seán Citizen and his wife having reduced electricity costs they will have to bear its present high level costs.

The value added tax refund to farmers has been almost totally eliminated. Tricking around with value added tax relief in lieu of getting taxation from the farming community is not the proper way to approach value added tax or farm taxation. The Minister is endeavouring to clawback the loss in revenue resulting from the abolition of the land tax. Last year he went halfway toward abolishing the value added tax refund and he has gone almost the whole way this year.

I should like to move now to the main thrust of my criticism of the budget. I believe we are on a one item agenda. Finally, we have got Fianna Fáil to agree to that one item and they are attacking it with a certain amount of vigour. The target of 8.2 per cent on the Exchequer borrowing requirement is one which represents substantial progress in debt control. We all agree with the arguments advanced about debt control but it represents a first step only. One can control the debt, solve the economic problems statistically, make significant statistical progress and still end up with 270,000 people unemployed and massive emigration. There are real disincentives in this economy which have not been addressed at all by the budget proposals. Indeed, the Government have given no indication that they will address them.

There is something wrong with this economy which cannot be explained totally in terms of the debt burden. For example, if we look at growth rates in OECD countries say, from 1980 to 1986 or 1987 and examine the league table, one finds Turkey tops the league with a 30 per cent cumulative growth over those years. To begin with it had certain advantages in being a very undeveloped economy, which meant that it could grow rapidly. Coming further down the league table one finds that Japan and Norway had growth rates cumulatively of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent, that the USA, Canada and Finland had growth rates cumulatively of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. For example, in the 10 per cent to 15 per cent growth rate band countries such as France and the United Kingdom are represented. In the 5 per cent to 10 per cent growth rate band, Belgium and Holland are represented, two economies that have experienced serious difficulties in recent years. There is no OECD country that had a growth rate between zero and 5 per cent and one OECD country only which is not in the table at all, that is Ireland, which had a growth rate of minus two cumulatively. This miserable performance cannot be explained in terms of the debt burden. There are serious structural problems in our economy which must be dealt with if we are to make real progress. It is not possible to stabilise the debt GNP ratio without growth much less to use the growth for the benefit of the unemployed or to raise living standards.

The ESRI medium term report to which the Minister referred in the course of his remarks says that we require growth rates of between 3 and 4 per cent starting in 1989 and being maintained into the nineties in order merely to stabilise the debt burden at a very high level. Indeed in that report the ESRI envisage that, while the debt would have been stabilised this would have no effect in real terms on unemployment or emigration, that we would still have this massive number of people unemployed and a huge number of young people emigrating. We have now over 19 per cent unemployed and we act as if this were the norm. I might draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the worst days of the American depression in the thirties, unemployment there never went beyond 20 per cent.

We must tackle the debt but unless we attack the other structural problems in our economy we have no chance of growth. The major problem is that presented by our tax system. The Minister missed an opportunity today to seriously reform taxation. He fiddled around with tax allowances. We have been doing that for the last five or six years, giving relief of, say, £70 million, £90 million, on one occasion £120 million or almost £200 million in a full year. It did not make a whit of difference. It did not restore necessary incentives in the workplace. The marginal rates are much too high and too many people are paying tax at the higher marginal rates.

It has been the practice on budget day to present tax tables, as the Minister has done on this occasion. When there were children allowances in the tax code a married couple with two children was a typical example. I might add that a married couple with two children, where one spouse only is working, represents 9 per cent only of the labour force; it is not typical at all. A typical member of the labour force now is single, on the average industrial wage, and represents 46 per cent of the labour force. How does one expect people who represent 46 per cent of the labour force to pay marginal tax rates on slightly above the average industrial wage? Is it any wonder there is emigration? If there was never any recession the drag of more benign tax climates would pull a significant number of young people out of this country. It is in the early part of the life of an administration that one can attack tax. I do not know how long this Government will last but it is still early days in their lifetime.

A recent article in the Financial Times examined tax reform in a number of countries, carrying a league table of those that had succeeded and those that had failed. Those that failed were those that had attempted such reform on an incremental basis, doing a little each year over a number of years while the countries that succeeded were the ones that rolled the claim into a package and went with the package and had the political will to sustain the package. When you think about it the reason is obvious, because no matter what tax reform system is introduced, there will be winners and losers; but the losers catch on to what you are doing quicker than the winners, so the losers put pressure on you and vote against you; the winners do not realise the benefit until the medium term and consequently do not support you either, so you lose both ways. There is a major argument for significant tax reform, for an extension of the tax code which would bring in £700 or £800 million and redistribute it to the PAYE sector to reduce the very high level of taxation which we have at the moment. That is the second pre-requisite for growth in this country. The first is on the table; it is now agreed. It is to tackle the debt.

From there we must look at the costs in the economy. Wage costs are still significantly higher than those of our competitors. Any industrialist who has a plant in this country and a similar plant in the United Kingdom will tell you that every single item of cost is higher here, with the exception of the cost of property — and the cost of property is a very insignificant input into productivity. In the final analysis, it is the UK we must watch, because that is still our main market. More important than that, it is UK firms that come in here and sell into our shops and are wiping out our own indigenous industry, and nothing in this budget is doing anything about that.

For example, electricity costs are still enormously high. I notice that the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced an inquiry last night — and he does not need any inquiry. The last thing I did before I left the Department of Industry and Commerce was to publish the review of industrial performance which was put together by the research section of the Minister's own Department, and I am sure they are giving him a copy of the book. The inquiry has been completed by officials in his own Department. Heavy fuel oil, for example, costs on average 19.3 per cent more here than the European average; electricity was 23 per cent more; postal services were 36 per cent more; telecommunications costs were 59 per cent more and, at that time, interest rates were 53 per cent more. The interest rate situation has improved somewhat, but not as dramatically as one might think because this was for the year ended 1985. Various semi-State organisations, including the ESB, would argue that the situation has improved since then. Certainly the nominal costs have come down, but the costs everywhere else in Europe have come down as well, and the relative disadvantages remain.

How can one get growth in an economy if every factor of production costs less in the nearest neighbouring country than it does here? Yet the Government have taken no steps to reform the income tax system. They have put VAT on electricity which, because of the rebate of VAT system, will help manufacturing industry slightly. But of course then the Minister and the Government have got the ESB to agree to transfer £30 million to the Exchequer. That £30 million and that capital base in the ESB could easily have been used to reduce costs in the company and to provide cheaper electricity, in particular to manufacturing industry. But that has not been done.

We have had the additional excise of course, for example in relation to petrol, again moving things in the opposite direction. I do not know why these problems are not being addressed now. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that it costs 60 per cent more to shift one metric tonne in this country than it does in the United Kingdom, and our industrial strategy is supposed to be based on the international trading sectors carrying us forward. If we cannot get it to the port at a competitive price, how can we get it out of the country, and how can we have export-led growth? It is just not possible.

So I would criticise this budget not so much on the details — we can agree with one particular detail and disagree with another — but I would criticise it very strongly on the general thrust of the economic policy. I think I understand the Taoiseach's policy, that if he reduces the debt, that will reduce interest rates and then you concentrate on certain sectors and that will give growth. I do not believe that will happen because the economy is not competitive and you can only get growth when the economy is made competitive and that means tackling wage costs, the tax system, the cost of energy, the cost of transport, the cost of telecommunications, the cost of postal services. If we got those things right we might get the kind of growth levels necessary to stabilise the debt and give us growth in the future.

This budget has absolutely no hope for unemployed people. But the pass was sold on the unemployed 20 months ago when the Programme for National Recovery was signed. On that occasion one of the most malicious practices of the trade union movement was enshrined in Government policy, that is, the trading of jobs for higher pay. Once you introduce a system which brings into the structure of a country the trading of jobs for higher pay you are heading for very high unemployment levels. It is a sad reflection on the Government that the unemployment situation was scarcely referred to in the budget speech. The only reference I can find to it was in the very last page when the Minister said that it would take time to reap the benefits in terms of substantial increases in economic activity and new employment. That is the only reference. It is a pity. There was a consensus in this House which could have backed a far more radical budget. The consensus that has emerged in this House has enabled the Government to proceed quite radically in the area of debt control, and we need an equally radical approach now to take the disincentives out of the economy to give us the growth rates which will stabilise the debt, which will reduce it and which will bring real jobs into the country.

I would like to begin by complimenting the Minister for Finance on a hard year's work in which he has made substantial achievements. The achievement that merits most praise from everyone in this House is the way in which he controlled public expenditure and kept it within the bounds he set himself last March. He had a bit of luck on occasions and he did a bit of slightly creative accounting to keep within £20 million of his target. The Taoiseach should, like Napoleon, treasure his lucky generals, because they are an attribute sometimes hard to come by. This country is better off for the efforts made by the Minister for Finance to ensure that public expenditure was kept on target last year.

There are a number of indications that public expenditure was not kept under control by some of the Minister's colleagues in Government. In particular I have to look to the question of public sector pay. The figures that emerge from this budget and from last year's budget are frightening in may respects. Public sector pay amounts now to nearly £3 billion per annum and it is one of the chief areas in which the Government can exercise control on its outgoings. It is interesting to note that on 31 March last year the Minister told this House that there was then, in that year, a 5.5 per cent increase in public sector pay. He pointed out then that that was well in excess of the prevailing rate of inflation and said he did not intend at the expiry of the then agreed wage round to increase public sector pay further.

Unfortunately, in the context of the agreement arrived at with the social partners dressed up as a programme for national recovery, further pay increases were agreed. So it comes about that in this year, taking into account the carry over of former agreements, the new agreement of 2½ per cent, increments of 1 per cent and special increases of 1.4 per cent, there is to be another 5.6 per cent increase in the public sector wage bill. The source for that is the Economic and Social Research Institute report to which the Minister referred. In two years we have had public sector pay increases roughly of the order of 10 per cent at a time when inflation was much lower. That does not show control of public expenditure.

The Programme for National Recovery, which Deputy Noonan rightly characterised as a cruel deceit on those whose jobs were consumed to pay these increases, combined with last year's public sector wage deals, means that in two years the real value of public sector pay has increased rather than decreased. That is very sad because it shows a great opportunity was lost. We are told £70 million is the cost of the public sector wage deal included in the Programme for National Recovery, that £28 million or £30 million will be spent on incremental wage increases, and that there will be more money spent on special increases and carry over from previous agreements.

Leaving aside the question of redundancies and increased superannuation costs which will arise from that, £100 million need not have been spent. I suggest that the price of that agreement made between the so called social partners was paid with jobs, and that price prevents this country from making a very substantial reduction in the amount of public expenditure which could have been achieved.

It is naive to think that public sector industrial peace was purchased by that £100 million. In a year when there is 3 per cent or 2½ per cent inflation, of course we can purchase industrial peace by a 5 per cent increase in public sector pay, but already there are signs that the trade unions who signed their names to that infamous agreement are getting cold feet because the employment targets will not be met and because some of the implications of the redundancy schemes for some of their career structures are unpalatable. It appears that if that agreement had not been struck, if another agreement had been struck, this country would have had £100 million more to devote to the real issue which faces this House today and which, yet again, we have decided to avoid and to leave out of the reckoning — that is, the burning issue of tax reform. As I said, there would have been this £100 million to apply to bringing back some incentive to work for a living.

The Minister spoke about £91 million in income tax relief, and that was in the context of a projected increase of £112 million, The yield of income tax this year will be up, not down, and it is important that everybody realises that. The Exchequer will get more money by way of income tax this year than last year. There is not a reduction in the overall level of income tax. In addition, the £91 million characterised as income tax cuts reflects £75 million needed to leave the income tax structure neutral in terms of its effect on the economy. This shows there is a very marginal effect on the overall incidence of income tax and this budget is not the beginning, or even the beginning of the beginning, of a programme of radical tax reform. It is quite the reverse. It is tinkering with the tax system. Our experience over the past 20 years has shown that tinkering with the tax system produced nothing but failure, frustration, disillusionment and emigration.

In the past 20 years we have conducted a silent revolution in our fiscal affairs. Whether you blame Fianna Fáil or the Coalition for getting rid of rates in 1977 — Fine Gael and Labour promised to do it over four years but Fianna Fáil did it in one year — the fact remains that in 1965 16 per cent of the country's tax yield came from property taxes and 23 per cent came from payroll tax, including social insurance contributions and income tax. By 1985, because of that silent revolution, 46 per cent of our tax was based on payroll taxes whereas 4 per cent of the tax yield came from property. That revolution was accomplished by the people who occupied various benches in this House. There is no point in fooling ourselves that that remarkable, dramatic and very dangerous and damaging change occurred by accident. It was deliberate, but it was concealed.

I remember talking to a senior Member of this House in 1977 about the desirability of indexing income tax and he told me that to index the income tax structure would be to end all social progress in this country. I believe successive Ministers for Finance, from both sides, and their advisers — the mandarins of Merrion Street — must have realised that the complexion of Irish taxation was changing dramatically but they never actually quantified it and, most basic of all, there has never been a clear articulation of any basic strategy in relation to our tax structure. Nobody has ever said he believes it is wrong to increase the overall burden of taxation on work and to alleviate it on property or that that proposition is right. The only group ever established to consider the issue — the Commission on Taxation — came forward with radical proposals for a transformation of our taxation system and they met with a conspiracy of unmitigated silence.

I want to ask the two biggest parties in this House a question: when did any of their spokesmen ever address their minds to the questions of fundamental tax philosophy and strategy raised by the Commission on Taxation? I hear people muttering quietly that there are problems with that commision's report, that it is difficult to achieve, that some of their proposals are undesirable, but no party in this House ever addressed themselves, in public at any rate, to the fundamental issue of where they want the Irish taxation system to go.

I welcome unreservedly Deputy Noonan's contribution this evening which shows that a huge conversion has taken place in his mind, that marginal tax reform is no longer of interest to Fine Gael, but that they are interested in wholesale radical tax reform. This is the first time we have heard this but we have not heard the direction he wants us to take. There is a political price to pay for honesty on this issue, and that price has to be paid by stating what they mean and what kind of tax strategy they advocate.

I am proud to be a member of a party who, on occasion, have told the people precisely where they want to bring the Irish taxation system, irrespective of the political opprobrium some aspects of what we propose may draw from a particular source. I note, and I repeat it again in this House, that there has never been a single statement from the Fine Gael benches on the question of a property tax. Do they believe in a property tax, or do they think that by singing dumb and allowing us and the Minister to talk about it, they can get away without adopting a position on that issue? That is radicalism indeed. It is the radicalism of obfuscation. It is a cowardly approach when you take into account that this country needs a deep rooted and far seeing honesty among its politicians rather than what we are getting at the moment: an effort to suggest that tax reform of a radical kind can come about without spelling out the down side of any particular proposal.

The Progressive Democrats believe that taxation on work is a major obstacle to people participating in the economic life of the country. You do not have to take a partisan view to accept that proposition. From the report of the ESRI, recently published, on the effects of our taxation system, it is clear that payroll taxes have got to the stage where they have a grotesque, distorting effect on the labour market. You do not have to read The Economist or agree with the views of Miss Frances Cairncross to necessarily arrive at the same conclusion. It is staring us in the face that an employer who employs someone at the average industrial wage has to put in £1.71p in terms of payroll costs to give his employee £1 in take home pay. That is equivalent to a 71 per cent VAT rate on work as a service. A person on one and a quarter times the average industrial earnings — around £12,000 to £14,000 — costs his employer £2.07p in gross payroll costs to give him £1 in take home pay. That is equivalent to a VAT rate of 107 per cent on that input, which is work.

I welcome unreservedly the beginnings of sanity in relation to the taxation breaks which have been given in the past to capital. We have subsidised capital and penalised work to our cost. We have subsidised capital to the extent of £900 million per year by tax breaks and grants to industrialists and, at the same time, we have penalised work to an extent that no OECD country has ever attempted to do. We have the highest initial tax rate of any country in the western or the developed world, 35 per cent plus PRSI for the person who initially comes into the tax net. We also had the most steeply progressive system of taxation among the OECD countries and those things have not come about by accident but by a concealed and deliberate creep in taxation which was, for various reasons, deemed acceptable in the past.

I agree with the views expressed by Deputy Noonan that we must now have radical tax reform to undo the damage that has been done but I look to this budget in vain to see any evidence of that commitment. If one looks at the allowances set in place today by the Minister, the immediate and obvious conclusion which one has to draw is that these allowances have been adjusted in a manner to discriminate against the poorest members of society. The difference for a single person earning £5,500 or thereabouts is minimal but the difference for those on larger incomes is much more substantial. The poverty trap is cemented even further into position by the niggardly increases in the tax regime for those on lowest incomes. I welcome the social welfare increases but if you increase social welfare as proposed here, without making any effort to help those who are making some effort to help themselves, the poverty trap is raised even further. The disincentive to participate in the economic life of the country is made greater and the source of social unjustice is made deeper and wider.

Recently there has been a chorus which seems to have come from editorial chairs — and others — which suggests that this country should seek to attack the issue of poverty as a national priority. Everyone agrees with that but the problem is that what is proposed by most commentators agitating for this is that there should be a system of palliatives brought in to redress the misery of those who are excluded from the economic life of the country. However, no radicalism is suggested in terms of what is needed to get those people back into the economic life of the country.

Hear, hear.

The biggest source of social injustice is the exclusion of people from the economic life of the community and no amount of remedial payments or programmes to combat this or that can ever substitute, in terms of social justice, for the basic dignity and right to participate in the economic life of the country, which we call a job. This country — whether we approach it willingly or whether we are dragged screaming to confront the proposition — must finally acknowledge the fact that we cannot pile our tax burden on to work and ignore the consequences in terms of social justice.

Deputy Desmond, speaking on television last night, suggested that there was no such thing as a high disincentive to work which is related to high taxation on work. He said that was a myth. I admire his honesty because he was reflecting what be believes. However, I am amazed at the extent of his error in the matter. If the iron laws of economics mean anything — and they do in some respects — they mean that you cannot tax work and at the same time hope to tackle the unemployment issue.

The Deputy is being very simplistic.

If the iron laws of social justice mean anything, nothing will be achieved in the long run except a two tier economy where the vast majority of people participate in one economic life and another section of the community participates in another.

How do we pay for services?

That kind of economy only exists in South Africa.

This left to right tête-a-tête is not helping.

Deputy McDowell is so far to my right that I cannot even see him.

As I said, it is the kind of economy that exists in South Africa. There are two classes, one participating in the life of the State and enjoying the spoils and the other excluded from it and perhaps providing the most menial services. That is what this country is rapidly approaching and it is doing so because we have set in place a system of taxation, the thrust of which is to trample on those who make an effort and are willing to work at whatever level but especially at the lowest one. I say very definitely to any person who thinks there is no such thing as a disincentive to work that they are flying in the face of all international orthodox opinion and of all research available. They are also flying in the face of common sense.

The taxation system must be reformed to make work worth while and that will only be done by broadening the tax base. In relation to broadening the tax base I notice no suggestion whatever in the Minister's speech that he intends to broaden the tax base by including any kind of tax on real property, but there have been leaks from the Cabinet table or at a lower level of the Government hierarchy suggesting that the Government have it in mind to give local authorities the right to raise moneys by taxation on real property. What we have heard so far does not amount to a radical extension of the tax base. The suggestion of a domestic dwellings tax based on square footage is inadequate, unjust and reprehensible, and regressive in that it does not differentiate between the value of properties occupied by various people. If that is what the Government have in mind this party will have no hand, act or part in supporting them on that issue.

The taxation system has to be viewed in terms of equity. The proposals contained in the Programme for National Recovery in relation to PRSI for the self-employed deserve close scrutiny. They are apparently put in place at the instance of some of the social partners, principally the trade unions and their purpose in putting them in place is to achieve a more suitable sharing of the burden of the Irish taxation system between those who are now in the PAYE net and those who are not in it. In that regard it is about time people on this side of the House came off the fence. The press today talk about rumblings within the Fine Gael Party on the issue. It is not good enough just to rumble on the issue, to ask a few hard, searching questions, to seek actuarial reports or to suggest that the figures may not add up.

There is a genuinely felt emotion to the effect that the self-employed and the farming sector are not sharing the burden of taxation equally, fairly or equitably. That is a well based feeling which requires government action to deal with it. There is no point in nit-picking with the substance of what the Government produce here unless those who are prepared to enter into the debate with them on the merits of bringing PRSI to the self-employed are willing to accept or reject publicly the proposition that the farming community and some sections of the self-employed are not shouldering the burden of taxation adequately.

In this country close on £1 billion, £1,000 million, of net income derives from agriculture. Out of that sum for 1987 it is anticipated that farmers will pay to the Exchequer something in the region of £34 million. That is 3.4 per cent of that £1 billion which will come back to the Exchequer in terms of direct taxation to help shoulder the burden of public expenditure, much of which is enjoyed partially or wholly by the agricultural community. That is simply unacceptable. Therefore, when we cross swords — as we will — with the Government on the idea of extending PRSI to the farmers we will do so on the express acknowledgment that that sector for one are not carrying their far share of the burden.

Neither are the self-employed in many respects. They have a better tax regime than those on PAYE. They have concessions with those on PAYE, even taking allowances into account, do not enjoy. They have the benefit of the previous year's taxation to some extent. They have in many cases the benefit of more discretionary tax reliefs such as investment and capital allowances which they can at their option chose to take on, on any individual occasion. They have a very generous system of allowances in terms of tax relief for moneys put by as savings for their pensions. Even when the self-employed pay their full share of taxation and are not evading, they have those things which give them a dramatic advantage as against a comparable earner in the PAYE sector.

It must be stated in this House as a matter of honesty that there is also a very significant degree of outright evasion. I am not suggesting that a majority do it. I do not believe they do, but a significant number of people are completely outside the whole taxation structure so that even the benefits of the favourable tax regime they enjoy are not necessary to them because they opt not even to participate in the system of taxation to a significant extent. If the Government bring forward measures calculated to redress that balance in relation to the PAYE sector we will support them.

You will not.

We will, and you will hear why in a moment.

You will support nothing.

If you were to bring in a system of taxation which brought a fair return from farmers we would support you.

You said you were going to vote against the PRSI.

What the Government have introduced is a mess.

Even if you restore the equivalent of agricultural rates, there will be the best of £100 million coming from agriculture which was struck down by a decree in the High Court five or six years ago.

You have not the guts to vote for the closing of one hospital throughout the country. You are a crowd of frauds.

You will have a chance in this debate since you will close it. If such proposals are brought forward you will be pleasantly surprised at our radicalism on the issue.

He might be surprised but I will be shocked.

We are opposed to the principle of separate PRSI——

(Interruptions.)

Deputy McDowell, perhaps if you addressed the Chair you would not be appealing to the Taoiseach's courtesy to reply to you at the moment. If you address the Chair we may have fewer interruptions.

The Taoiseach's courtesy is overweening on this occasion, and I accept that fully. We are opposed to the principle of separate PRSI because we regard it as a regressive tax on work masquerading as insurance. We recognise that its present existence is a form of taxation. I notice the Taoiseach has finally come round to the view that PRSI is a system of taxation and told the nation so recently on a Sunday afternoon.

We believe that the farmers and self-employed as a sector are not paying their fair share of taxation. Pending the introduction of a comprehensive and fair general taxation system which would include a social security tax as suggested by the Commission on Taxation, we are quite prepared to see measures put in place by the Government which would redress the balance between the PAYE sector and the self-employed and farmers. If that takes the form of a levy, or whatever, so be it. We maintain that this levy or any equalisation measures between the PAYE sector and the self-employed and farmers should not confer on the PAYE sector or the self-employed a right to a series of benefits in ten years' time. That is fundamentally what we object to about this proposal.

It is now proposed by extending the PRSI net to the self-employed to bring them into a system of social insurance which will entitle them in their old age, from 65 onwards, to contributory old age pensions as a matter of right, irrrespective of their means. That is fundamentally socially unjust. It means that a system which will be subsidised by the general fund of taxation to the extent of 60 per cent or more will be used to give pensions to those who are not at present in receipt of them. It will give pensions to those whose incomes are such that they do not need them. It will give pensions to those who have made no demand on the State for those pensions. It will give pensions to people who have no discernible social entitlement to any subsidy from the State in view of their other means. That is a fundamental social injustice.

Why should a professional man, be he a barrister, solicitor, doctor, or company director, become entitled in his 65th or 66th year to a flow of income from the State which is to be subsidised to the extent of 60, 70 or 80 per cent by the taxpayer when people in the Simon Community are living in boxes 100 yards from this House and get no such elevated level of social assistance? Why should we put in place a system to give more resources, subsidised more heavily by the taxpayer, to those who are able to look after themselves, as experience has shown in many cases to date, while we are unwilling to divert social resources to those who need them badly? It is fundamentally unstateable as a proposition that social justice requires that.

The fundamental cowardice in this measure is that the Government are acceding to a trade union demand, which is legitimately based I have to say, to try to equate the tax status of those who are in the PAYE net with those who are not. But they are doing so by mortgaging the social insurance fund by requiring it to pay out major benefits in future to the self-employed and the farming sectors. There are many people in Dublin who will never participate in the contributory pension scheme when they are 65 but it is proposed to extend the contributory pension scheme to small-holders in the West who are now receiving the dole, small-holders whom we are told are about 15,000 in number.

Is that fair? Is it fair that the ordinary poor who have never made provision for their old age — and have never been in a position to make provision for their old age because they have never had a job — should get the assistance rate of benefit while people who have a five or ten acre holding somewhere in deepest rural Ireland have been receiving the dole all their lives? Is it fair that they should be discriminated against? That is what is implicit in this measure: the ordinary poor are to continue on assistance but the 15,000 small-holders are to be given a contributory pension for the outlay of not one penny. That is outrageous. It is unstateable in terms of social justice, whatever concept one has of the issue. I do not think anyone in this House could put his hand on his heart and say that it is fair. However, it is going to be done unless somebody stops it. When the Social Welfare Bill is brought before the House it must be thoroughly and painstakingly debated. There should be no guillotine on it and there should be no rushing it through because it is mortgaging the future to pay off in a misconceived way a demand for equity.

Any examination of the National Pensions Boards report, on which all this was based, would indicate that what the Government are now proposing falls entirely between two stools. The National Pensions Board admitted that the 6.6 per cent rate, if paid, would involve a 60 per cent subsidy from the taxpayer towards the eventual cost of pensions. I noticed that in the speech by the Minister for Finance today there was a totally unsupported statement that any additional liability on the general Exchequer to fund these pensions cannot be countenanced. These things do not add up. If a 6.6 per cent rate is paid, a 60 per cent subsidy will have to come somewhere from Exchequer——

With a 100 per cent collection.

——and that is on the basis of a 100 per cent collection but we are now told that there is to be no Exchequer liability. It is a simple lie which is being forced down the throats of the people and it is not one which is in any way motivated by a clear-headed examination of what social justice requires; it is a short term quid pro quo for agreeing to the infamous social partners deal and, in the last analysis, is going in the wrong direction.

Have we in this House not understood the one fundamental fact, that this country cannot afford any more unfocused redistribution of resources to the "haves" in our society? Have we not understood that that is half of our downfall and that we have high taxation rates precisely because we give benefits to those who do not really need them? We subsidise this, that and the other to the "haves" in our society instead of taking the available resources and channelling them to the "have nots". This proposal from the Minister for Finance, when it is introduced in statutory form by the Minister for Social Welfare, will be a step emphatically in the wrong direction and deserves to be opposed on those grounds. It is nothing but window dressing. It has nothing to do with social justice and economic sense. It is the quick fix of a few million pounds here and there without any regard to its long term social consequences. I do not like using clichés too much about it but it is the proverbial pig in the poke because it is coming to us dressed up as a measure of equity when, in fact, it is a measure of social, financial and fiscal irresponsibility. We will not have anything to do with it in its present shape or form.

I would suggest that if you wanted to achieve equity you would first go out to the self-employed and the farmers and get in the tax that they owe at present. All the indications thus far are that we cannot even collect levies of the most simple kind from those areas. If we want to achieve equity by imposing an additional burden on the self-employed and the farmers, I suggest that we should do so by way of imposing a levy of some kind and giving nothing in return for it. I cannot see any social justice being served by taking a small levy now which bears no relation to the cost later involved.

A number of the features of the budget have been addressed by Deputy Noonan. I do not propose to repeat some of the comments he made but I do propose to point out that so far as the general bottom line of the budget is concerned there has been a £94 million alleviation in what would have been an increase in direct taxation and this has been funded more or less by an equivalent amount of indirect taxation. The bottom line of the budget is that there has been a shift from direct to indirect taxation of £90 million, which is 3 per cent of the total income tax yield. Since income tax was due to go up by about 4 per cent in any event by the ordinary processes of inflation, it suggests that there has been no fundamental reform undertaken in the budget by the Government. What we have had instead is a shift of a marginal 3 per cent kind from the burden of income tax, as it presently exists, to indirect taxation. That is the effect of the budget; it is nothing more or nothing less.

It is about time that we gave up the pretence in this House of Ministers for Finance standing up budget after budget indicating that they are giving massive amounts of relief to the tax paying public when all the time the sad undercurrent is that personal taxation and all other forms of taxation are increasing inexorably. We have the same business during every budget when Ministers for Finance stand up and say they are giving relief. If they are giving relief, why is taxation growing all the time? I think we have to shear away the rhetoric on this occasion. There is a lot of hype about a budget. There is a lot of waving empty brief cases in front of snap hungry photographers; a lot of speculation; a lot of keeping quiet and keeping mum; a lot of trying to look smart by saying nothing coming up to the date of a budget as if the crown jewels were at stake and maintaining secrecy about a fundamental issue of tax strategy, as if these things can be kept secret until one minute and then suddenly announced in a flash of publicity and popular adulation. All this has to stop.

This House has to have a different attitude to taxation. We need to have an attitude towards taxation whereby nobody on the Opposition benches can adopt a totally different attitude to that which they adopted when they were in Government. Sometimes what goes on between the Opposition and the Government, and certainly between the main parties here, is like a budgie in its cage pecking at a mirror. Which is the reflection and which is the budgie and what does it mean? Why do we have this sudden call now from Opposition for radical tax reform when four years were spent cementing in place the most dreadful draconian tax system? Why do we have Ministers saying today that they are relieving the tax burden when they are doing no such thing, when we are having a 3 per cent change, when they are shifting the deck chairs on the decks of the Titanic, when they are moving the burden of taxation in a tiny way from direct to indirect taxation? Why do we pretend that this is a big event, an event of note which will have dramatic effect when it will have no such effect?

As far as the excise proposals are concerned, I cannot object to the proposed increased taxation on tobacco but I have to deal with the hydrocarbon increase in excise and ask some questions in relation to it. It is suggested that 8p per gallon should be put on petrol, that 4p per gallon should be put on diesel and that the sum in relation to diesel oil should not apply to the provision of scheduled bus services. That means that the private bus owners are to pay but CIE are not to pay and that the industrialists with lorries will have to pay.

What are these two measures trying to achieve? They are trying to achieve a further increase in the cost of transport in an area of the European Community which is most disadvantaged by high transport costs. This is what these measures mean. They are not motivated by a desire to tackle the fundamental infrastructural problems of this country. They are not aimed at giving the Irish industrialist any help in transporting his goods to European markets, or at reducing the cost of getting to work for many Irish people who depend on a car to get there. These measures are increasing our transport costs which are already one of our weaknesses. At the very least these measures should be reconsidered because they seem to fly in the face of what successive Ministers said, including the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, who said on radio today that he was trying to drive down the costs to Irish industry. Yet, this afternoon we find that the costs to Irish industry are being pushed up.

The effect on tourism needs hardly to be stated. This proposal flies in the face of what the Taoiseach said last week on tourism and yet it is put forward as a reasonable measure today. The £15 million that will come from the imposition of this additional exise duty is only half of what the incremental pay increase, which should not have been paid in the public service this year, will cost, but it will cost much more in jobs foregone in tourism, in higher transport costs resulting in less competitive exports, than any number of other measures that could easily have supplied the same money.

This is another slap in the face to the motor industry. I notice that there is now a proposal to increase the capital value of a car in respect of which allowances will be made available for income tax purposes from £4,000 to £6,000. That is certainly desirable as far as the motor industry is concerned but it is not enough. The damage done by our fiscal policies to employment in the motor industry will not be undone by this measure. This is the change that will have least effect in undoing the damage already done.

There is a problem which seems to be in the permanent rather than the transient Government of this country, and that relates to transport. Why is a motor car called a luxury but white goods such as fridge freezers are treated more beneficially? Which produces more employment? Is it thought that electricity is generated from native sources? Which is more damaging in the long run, the importation of fridges, televisions and things like that or the importation of cars which could produce more, in terms of organising the economy and getting people to work, even repairing cars? Which is more likely to produce employment, white goods or cars? Why is it that in Merrion Street we have this manic preoccupation with the car as a luxury which must be stitched into the ground on every occasion? The car is not a luxury but a necessity for many people in rural Ireland. It is less of a necessity in the city, but to treat it substantially differently from white goods and other luxury goods, and to treat it in a way which suggests that in some sense it is a necessary evil, is to totally forget the thousands of people who have lost their jobs in the motor industry because of the draconian taxation which this attitude permits and encourages.

A number of features of the budget deserve praise. I commend the Government for getting to their 8.2 per cent of Exchequer borrowing requirement as a percentage of GNP. That is an achievement which this party applauds and which this party applauded when the Estimates were moved in the House.

It is all on the capital side.

It is noteworthy that when the Taoiseach on 20 October 1987 moved a motion to note the Estimates in this House, the Progressive Democrats immediately indicated that they would not nitpick their way through the Estimates and avoid responsibility for backing their fundamental beliefs by their voting pattern in this House. On that occasion the Progressive Democrats indicated that with the exception of three or four things, such as the imbalances in the educational cutbacks which we thought were unfair in relation to primary education, the Ombudsman's office and the National Social Service Board, and a few other things like that, some of which were big in terms of money and some small, we accepted the overall figures of the Estimates. Unlike Fine Gael, we decided we so accepted them that we would vote with the Government on that occasion to endorse those figures because we thought they were on the right track. We voted in accordance with our beliefs and we did not diverge one inch from what was stated in this House.

We are again endorsing the overall figures in this budget. We are particularly endorsing the harder decisions implicit in this budget but we want to make it very clear that we reserve the right, especially in relation to social insurance for the self-employed, to vote against that on the grounds already outlined by me. We will do that on the basis of an honest agreement that it was brought in to tackle an injustice but that it is the wrong solution to a real problem.

I welcome the section 23 arrangements for the building industry. They are desirable and well worth implementing. I also welcome the arrangements in relation to urban renewal and the like. All these things are matters on which the Minister and the Government deserve some degree of congratulation.

At the bottom line, however, what this budget has to be judged by is whether it is moving in the right or the wrong direction on the fundamentals in our economy, which is the real economy. Yesterday's The Cork Examiner suggested that the Government had received a shot in the arm on the eve of the budget because it appeared that international trading statistics were going somehow to assist this country and the Government in making their minds up about certain budget options. Of course, that was wrong; it was somewhat naive.

There is a two-tier economy here. There is the transfer price economy where everything is adjudged in terms of what price tag multinationals put on the produce that they export and what differentials they make between their raw materials imported and their finished product exported. We have all heard of the Coca Cola factor, the fact that syrup for Coca Cola exported from Dundalk seems to be constituting an ever-increasing share of our national product, while employing a handful of people. I am not against its being included in our national income statistics, but I am against people drawing false conclusions from it. The real economy has nothing to do with transfer pricing and its results and repatriation of paper profits manufactured in this country. The real economy is the one which is reflected in the tax figures which this Government put before the House and circulated to its Members last Friday. It showed a remarkably flat yield from income tax and from value-added taxation. That betokens a collapse in the real economic life of this country, the life that matters, that has something to do with generating resources which are available for redistribution, expenditure and the like. We should never lose sight of the real economy when we look at all these international trade statistics or balance of payments and the like. The real economy is suffering, groaning and collapsing under an increasing level of taxation. No matter how you change the figures or shift taxation from direct to indirect, the level of taxation remains the same and it is crippling the real economy.

The fundamental issue in the real economy, as I have said, is whether or not we are prepared to build here an economy which is conducive towards participation by the ordinary person, gives a reward for those who make an effort and gives an incentive to those willing to try. Incentive is not the moral monopoly of the well-off in our society. I am talking about incentive at the very bottom of society, about incentives among those who are excluded from society, those whose lives have been sold into intervention, or perpetual existence on the dole. We cannot sell our people's lives into intervention on an ongoing basis. It is in the light of that that we must judge this budget. There is very little, if anything, here to raise the hopes of those quarter of a million people who are marginalised, let alone those who are now growing up with the certainty of emigration. There is very little in this budget to stimulate hope among these. There is nothing there which really shows a radical commitment on the part of the Government to switch, in an irreversible way, the focus of our taxation off work, off economic participation. Those on the left may, if they so feel, draw down on poverty and its consequences and the fact that this budget does little for such people in terms of remedying their situation by giving them resources to exist upon and they would be right in doing that. However, I would ask them to look to the wider issue, that is, the question of how this problem is to be tackled, how we are to put in place the real engine of social justice, which is economic participation, which is work. I would ask everybody, newspaper editors in particular, to address that issue, not to talk all the time about an attack on poverty with no resources. I am not talking about an attack on poverty, a once-off effort to palliate the poor. I am talking about putting in place a taxation system which is designed to draw into the economic life of the country those who are now excluded from it. I am talking about an end to the economic apartheid which is growing up now and the figures which accompany this budget speech include one very interesting conclusion, that is, that the number of people unemployed will reduce from 256,000 people next year to 253,000 people. A change of the estimated number of unemployed has been apparently made in the last few days, but the Minister did not refer to that. He is hoping to save £8 million in unemployment assistance next year on that account. What has happened in this budget which brings about that change? Where are the 3,000 extra jobs? Of course, they are not there at all. The reality is that for those people it must be the emigrant ship, the rate of departure from this country, which has stimulated the Department to save an extra £8 million in unemployment assistance.

I give the Taoiseach this guarantee, that if he is interested in achieving equity between the self-employed and the farmers on the one hand and the PAYE sector on the other, he should not make the mistake that he has set his heart upon in extending PRSI to them now. He should come up with another proposal which is designed to achieve equity, which does not confer benefit on the haves and which does not worsen our situation, which does not mortgage our future. If he does that, he will get our support but if he does not, if he persists in folly and in tinkering over the next few years in every budget with the system of taxation, we will not support him. The choice is now with the Government. The initiative is always theirs and as far as the Progressive Democrats are concerned, the radical tax reforms will be painful. We shall spell out the painful aspects of them and we will support any Government for any unpopular measure to bring about radical tax reform, but we will not do the wrong thing for short term gain.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I appreciate that the Deputy and all of us need a sos at this stage and I do not propose to be unduly lengthy in my contribution——

That is not like the Deputy.

——despite the temptations that have been imposed on me over the past half-hour. I am disappointed, very disappointed, with the budget. Despite all the assurances that we have been given, particularly in the hype arising from the so-called Programme for National Recovery, the budget has very, very starkly failed to confront the three main problems facing the country.

We now have a situation where one in every five persons in the labour force is out of work. We all know the poverty and the degradation that this means for tens of thousands of individuals and families. I welcome in the budget the perhaps singular benefit, the decision to have an increase in payment of 6 per cent for the long-term unemployed; it is one very good feature of this budget, but, nevertheless, one must take into account that there is virtually nothing in the budget which has any thrust towards carrying out the promises of the Programme for National Recovery. There is not a single reference in the budget to the various proposals contained in that programme. Therefore there is a major failure in that regard.

I have been reading through part of the programme document, a very glossy document which cost a great deal and of which thousands were issued with magnificent hype in, I think, the Burlington Hotel in the presence of the Taoiseach and the serried ranks of Irish industry. Many assurances were given in relation to sectoral development strategy, the food industry, the beef industry, the pig processing industry, the tool making industry, mechanical engineering and right down the line. Electronics were also mentioned as was horticulture where there was to be an increase of 2,000 jobs, forestry, the marine and tourism. It was stated that there would be 25,000 extra jobs in the tourist industry and that an additional £500 million of foreign tourist revenue would be brought in over five years.

Perhaps the Deputy would give the reference to the document if he has not already done so.

It is none other than my own trade union Liberty News, in case there are any sullied origins in terms of my quotations. In the budget today the Minister announced that there would be a reduction of £956,000 in the Vote for Tourism and Transport — that has not been published in the abbreviated Book of Estimates — which includes salaries, wages and allowances. It is a drop of £1 million. That is some inducement for the development of tourism.

We are doing very well.

I am sure the Minister of State will appreciate the point I am making. A figure of £3 million is mentioned for tourism in appropriations-in-aid. We are to charge the tourists £3 million for the privilege of seeing our beautiful land.

You slept on it for four years.

There is also a tourism package, a new subhead, of £4 million. Four million pounds has been taken from Bord Fáilte's budget and is being spent in other areas. That is total cosmetic nonsense in terms of Government promotion of tourism. I could go through the rest of the budget document. I strongly urge the media to forget about the Financial Statement of the Minister for Finance and to concentrate on the principal features. The Principal Features of 1988 Budget are about the only true parts of any budget. From long experience I know this is the document the Department of Finance write. You tend to get the truth in the principal features and the political blurb is written on Sunday afternoon by the Minister for Finance.

In regard to post-primary education adjustments included in the White Paper on Receipts and Expenditure meant a reduction of £9 million. In the budget a further reduction of £6.7 million was made. That requires some teasing out and some substantial discussion in this House in the weeks ahead. Deputy O'Rourke, Minister for Education, is not known for her elaboration of the problems which face her. The dear Minister has been got at again in this budget and there has not been a word, even tonight, about what has happened in that regard.

The Minister for Finance came in here and said he was going to spend an extra £44 million on social welfare and another £20 million on equal treatment. In the Principal Features of 1988 Budget we find that the Minister is going to get £16 million more in PRSI from the self-employed under the social insurance fund. It is a very open question as to whether he will ever see that £16 million but the Department of Finance have included it anyway. The live register has been adjusted downwards by £8 million. The Government have now decided, in the light of current average underlying trends in unemployment, that there will be a drop of 3,000 on the live register, from 256,000 to 253,000. I wonder how that figure was contrived. Is there anything in this budget which seriously suggests to anybody that there will be a drop of 3,000 on the live register?

We should look at the latest quarterly bulletin from the Central Bank. I appreciate that the governor of the Central Bank has a rather black vein of humour now and again but I do not think it is as dark in terms of his projections for 1988 which indicate quite clearly that the decline in domestic demand is now forecast at 1.5 per cent. There is a decline in real GNP of one half of 1 per cent. There is a further decline of 10 per cent forecast for the construction industry for 1988 and new residential construction is likely to fall by 5 per cent. We could adjust that to 3 per cent as a result of the minor measure in the budget. That does not give me any confidence for suggesting that the live register should be adjusted downwards in the budget today. The Government said they will save £16 million on PRSI and £8 million on the live register. The voluntary bodies are to be paid out of the national lottery this year, a real sleight of hand. That is going to pay for everything. There will be a saving of £750,000 there. There will be a further saving of £15.4 million on social welfare. Where did that come from? Is it the rationalisation of child dependency? I take the Taoiseach's assurance that it is not. The Department of Social Welfare, as the Taoiseach well knows, are very careful in their calculations. The Department of Finance invariably want to cut the social welfare allocation even further. The net effect is that the Social Welfare Vote is increased by only £18 million as against £64 million of gross expenditure taking into account the £20 million for equal treatment, the exceptional provision.

There is an actual decrease.

There is an increase of £18.6 million but the Government in total propose to expend no less than £64 million on social welfare and frankly I am very dubious about the budget arithmetic.

I will refer to another aspect in relation to the Principal Features of 1988 Budget. I particularly ask the media to take note of this because this budget, like many others, has to be shredded before you find out the real meat enshrined in it. The National Museum and the National Library are to be funded in future by the national lottery. That is a major policy change. There has been a reclassification of national lottery expenditure, from current to capital, in the Department of Finance of no less than £21 million in the published Estimates. An increase of £4.6 million is proposed. Certain cultural and Irish language activities will now be funded through the national lottery as will certain youth and sport activities. I have already referred to the voluntary bodies and in that regard there has been a further revision.

Let me give another example. Restoration work on historical buildings will now be funded through the national lottery. I have already referred to the public library service. An outstanding feature of this budget is that £60 million of national lottery money which is very much under the control of the Minister for Finance is being dispersed among a number of projects. Last year the national lottery was a substantial moneyspinner and this year it is estimated that gross takings will be about £138 million with a net benefit for the Exchequer of about £60 million. To fund major areas of public expenditure through the national lottery is, to say the least of it, open to considerable question. Let me say to the Taoiseach that to propose that the National Gallery, the National Museum and the National Library should be funded out of the national lottery was a fair old stroke but we should think about this again because the country deserves somewhat better in terms of the allocation of the moneys available through the national lottery.

Let me deal with some other aspects of the principal features of the budget. It is always interesting to note the comments of the Department of Finance contained in the document but there is one huge blank. Page 18 does not contain one shred of comment in relation to capital allowances. What has happened to the Department of Finance? There is no comment either on group reliefs, Shannon companies and special reliefs on foreign dividends received by Irish companies. As the Taoiseach well knows, the reality in relation to the question of capital allowances and in particular in relation to the Custom House Dock site is that all hell has been breaking loose over the past week between the Department of Finance and the Authority. Finally, the contract was signed. I challenge the Taoiseach to disclose to the House the inter-bank skulduggery which has gone on over the past week in relation to this matter. I challenge the Department of Finance to state the extent to which they were totally opposed to what happened in regard to the signing of that contract. It did not require the Property Editor of the Irish Independent to disclose the details.

The area in and around Tallaght town centre is going to be designated for urban renewal incentives. We all know that the developer in question put a gun to the heads of the Government over the past fortnight and said he would not——

You know that is rubbish.

It is not rubbish, I can name other properties.

You are a most mischievous, irresponsible person.

We know exactly what happened. We have now reached the stage in the urban renewal scheme which we reached in the home improvement grant scheme where if the scheme had not been stopped the whole country would have ended up being double glazed. The urban renewal schemes have been extended to include Dublin, Limerick and the five county boroughs and now, uniquely, Tallaght town centre because one individual said he would not go ahead unless he got a concession and he got it. The Taoiseach knows who he is and who was involved. He is now going to develop. Let me throw a question at the Taoiseach. What about Blanchardstown? A town centre is going to be built in Blanchardstown. Are they going to get a concession? I could name a half a dozen more.

Are you recommending any?

There is one in Cork beside the Lee. Are they going to get a particular concession?

What about the Liberties?

We might as well declare the whole country an urban renewal incentive area at the rate we are going. The Custom House Dock site has now been extended and the commercial banks told the Taoiseach that they would not approve the signing of that contract unless they were given favourable treatment under the 1987 Finance Act. The Minister could take his JCB and Mr. McInerney's lorrys and drive them into the River Liffey. They were not going to approve the signing of the contract unless they were given a concession to write off capital expenditure on a capital allowance basis against corporation profit tax. The Taoiseach then decided that we had better get something off them in return and increased the bank levy from £25 million to £30 million. That is the reason for that increase, there is no other reason.

This budget has to be translated. You always have to relate a Fianna Fáil budget to what is happening in the background. It is like appointing a hospital board; it is a matter of who sells their fruit and vegetables to the hospital and who gets the hairdressing contract. Therefore, I am to say the least of it concerned about certain aspects of this budget. I am equally concerned that a number of major provisions in the budget do not stand up or hold water. I regard the decision to bring in farmers and the self-employed into the PRSI net as nothing more than a straightforward, abject capitulation to the interests concerned.

You did not do it at all, you were afraid to do it.

Let me enlighten the Taoiseach. I set up the National Pensions Board.

You set it up, my eye.

I set up the National Pensions Board.

You were there for four years and you were afraid to take it on.

I will help the Taoiseach in that regard. I set up the National Pensions Board and, in fact, I drafted their terms of reference in relation to the self-employed.

You ran away from practically everything.

Not at all, I never ran away.

You are only an old begrudger on the ditch.

In fairness, you did not run away from much yourself. Item No. 4 of the board's terms of reference was to advise the Minister for Social Welfare on the question of providing pensions for all employees related to their earnings and in particular to assess the potential of the occupational pensions schemes in that regard. It took me two years to get that through the Government but I got it through, against the Department of Finance and against at least one Minister for Finance.

But you did not do anything.

We set up the National Pensions Board and asked them to bring in a report on taxation for the self-employed. In fairness, Deputy Woods has proved to be a very good Minister for Social Welfare. The Minister for Social Welfare presented this report to the Cabinet and recommended a rate of 6.6 per cent. I think he would have settled for 5.5 per cent but he certainly would never have settled for less than 5 per cent. It now transpires that a miserable £12 million, will be collected on a proposal which is in the Programme for National Recovery to bring the self-employed into a social insurance scheme but what will those people get in return? We are paying out to the farming community alone £172 million in widows' and orphans' benefits and so on — £300 million for all the self-employed — according to an estimate of the Department of Finance in 1986.

That is all the Deputy ever got, estimates, but we have brought in the scheme. The Deputy was in Government for four years and he did nothing about this.

The Government have not brought in a proper scheme; like scalded cats they have run away from it. The Minister for Social Welfare suggested that there should be a rate of 6½ per cent. The Taoiseach, because he had given certain commitments to the IFA in order to obtain their signature to the Programme for National Recovery, capitulated and reduced the rate to 3 per cent. That 3 per cent will not cover the annual inflation increase in contributory pensions.

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I should like to dissuade him from going into detail on such matters now. Detail should be reserved for the budget debate proper.

I should like to ask the Chair to try to dissuade the Deputy from uttering untruths.

I will restrain myself. I will clinch my point by stating that the Minister for Social Welfare four months ago said in the House, and outside, that a 5 per cent rate would yield about £90 million in a full year. He revised that figure subsequently to £85 million and I revised it further for him to £77 million from 5 April but what have we got? The figure now is £12 million. The officials of the Department of Finance are aghast at this nonsense and have told the Taoiseach so.

What is wrong with the Deputy is that we brought in this scheme and he failed to do it. The great social reformer ran away from this and that is what is wrong with him.

It is like putting an old 10/- note in the hand of a newly born child knowing that the currency will never be converted because such a note cannot be cashed now. As a result of this move by the Government we are going to face a problem in the House. I want to see a responsible system introduced in accordance with the recommendations of the National Pensions Board. I do not want a general election on the insurance of the self-employed. The Fine Gael Party, who have not made up their minds on this issue, will probably oppose it. Deputy Jim Mitchell, when interviewed by John Bowman on "Day by Day" was very emphatic in stating that the matter would be discussed at a meeting of the Front Bench. The PDs will oppose this because they are opposed to everything.

Practically everything.

They want a low wage, untaxed and uninsured society with everybody having so much money in their pockets that they will not know what to do with it. They believe that everybody will become part of the high income group in society. The Taoiseach faces a problem in regard to this. Fine Gael and the PDs may vote against this before the Easter recess. We will be forced to vote against it because it is all a load of nonsense. What will happen then? The Taoiseach will be depending on our colleagues behind me but they are not likely to come to the rescue as they did on three or four occasions in 1981. They learned their lesson very rapidly.

Proinsias de Rossa

It took Deputy Desmond four years to learn his lesson.

We did more than the Deputy's party did; we did not talk only, and when in Government we implemented our policies.

Could we get back to the brief statement by the Deputy?

We do not have any apology to offer because social insurance would not have come in if it were not for the late William Norton of the Labour Party in 1952. This should have been a final effort to bring the entire population into social insurance. I do not want this to become a political football and I urge the Taoiseach to consider the rate of social insurance. If he changes it he can be assured of our support. It is a major issue in the budget. I do not want to see the Social Welfare Bill which will be introduced before the Easter recess being defeated and precipitating a general election. I would prefer to see PRSI for the self-employed and farmers enshrined in our social legislation and in operation. The chief economist of the IFA said on radio the rate was frozen at 3 per cent. Deputy MacSharry will probably be in Europe this time next year and the Taoiseach will be preparing his party for a European election and, and in my view, he will run like a scalded cat from adding on any more to bring that figure to 5 per cent. The Taoiseach should take his courage in his hands and make the rate 5 per cent. He will get our support for that move. That rate would raise £30 million or £40 million annually but there would continue to be a 70 per cent Exchequer support for such pensions.

I must advise the Deputy that he ought not to go into detail now. These statements ought to be relatively brief.

I should like to deal briefly with some other aspects of the budget. The Labour Party are anxious to make one point about the overall position in regard to taxation. I am glad the Government have not put any further excise duty on beer or spirits because there is a black economy in operation in regard to such products. I understand that in the region of 6,000 kegs of beer are sent across the Border weekly. Officials of Customs and Excise and the brewers are aware of that. In some cases beer is being transferred from one keg to another before it is sent across the Border. Representatives of the brewers are giving credit to pubs for beer that has been smuggled over the Border.

The Deputy is now referring to something that is not in the budget.

As a result of the application of the embargo on staff and the ludicrous policy in relation to the public service, in terms of smuggling of drink and tobacco the Border is wide open.

I would be happier if the Deputy directed his questions or remarks through the Chair rather than to another Member.

I am concerned about this aspect of the budget because there was a substantial fall in Excise returns in the past 12 months. There is a great need to eliminate that black market. There is no doubt that we have a very substantial cash only economy flourishing throughout the country. Built into that cash only economy there is the exploitation of young people in casual employment in the personal services sector, in the licensed drink trade, in the motor trade, in fast food outlets, in casual construction jobs. As we all know the rates of payment there can vary anything from £1.50 to £4 an hour with no questions asked. That economy is flourishing. There was a tax amnesty under the last Government. There is a tax amnesty under the provisions of this budget. It is remarkable how little the Department of Finance anticipate getting from an amnesty of that nature. I make the point strongly to the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance that the public service staff embargo should be suspended to ensure rigorous surveillance and inspection by Revenue and Social Welfare staffs in those areas of employment.

I want to refer briefly to the taxation provisions of this budget. The amount of basic tax relief provided is exceptionally low. While appreciating that there are extreme limits obtaining in regard to any tax relief at present — bearing in mind that I have always advocated a responsible degree of public taxation for the provision of essential public services — nevertheless the £91 million provided in this budget is, to say the least, sparse and, on close examination, derisory enough.

I might remind the present Taoiseach that in 1986 he assailed the then Government, attacking the then Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, whom I am delighted to see present in the House, when Deputy FitzGerald sat on those benches, and defended tax relief in the 1986 budget of £121 million which, in a full year, amounted to £205 million. Deputy Haughey spent a long evening denouncing the Taoiseach of the day for bringing in, as he called it, such a derisory amount of tax relief at the time. In fact Deputy FitzGerald and I were described by him — I well remember the words — as a cabal of right wing monetarists. It is strange to note how things have turned today in that regard.

My preoccupation with the decision of the Government today is that if I were effecting a redistribution of £91 million, most certainly I would not do so in the way it is being done here. Take the example of a Deputy of this House with a salary of £20,000. Approximately £7,000 of it is tax-free. That is another issue I will not dwell on now. If we take the example of table 5 of a married couple, one spouse earning £20,000 per annum, the tax relief amounts to £408 — that is the tax relief to a Deputy of this House. One might well ask what do we give an equivalent couple earning £9,000 a year by way of tax relief — a miserable, awful pittance of £35. Where in God's name is the equity there?

We all want to reduce the 58 per cent rate of taxation. We all want to get as many people as possible onto the standard rate of tax. But had I £91 million to distribute by way of tax relief — even if I had only £75 million — there is no way I would apply that relief to people earning upwards of £14,000 per annum. We spent many a weary hour in the previous Government examining taxation. For example, we abolished the 1 per cent income levy. We used to knock off the odd £6 million or £7 million, bringing down the 65 per cent or the 59 per cent rates of tax. But never once, in terms of social equity, did we say to ourselves: let us spend £40 million on those earning more than £13,000 or £14,000 a year. That is not equity. I will get into terrible trouble for reminding my trade union colleagues but they said, in this document, in terms of tax reform the National Plan for Economic Recovery includes a programme of changes to reform the tax system, increasing tax equity, improving tax collection and encouraging economic development. There is not very much by way of encouragement of economic development in this budget. At least I would have expected some improvement by way of tax equity. There is none, not a shred. I agree with one thing only Deputy McDowell said. He does not understand the poverty trap although he talks a lot about it. But he is right in saying — and here he used a word I gave him before standing up — it is cementing the poverty trap.

In the example I gave of a Dáil Deputy I note I used the Schedule D table whereas I should have used the PAYE one, which shows that a Deputy earning £20,000 per annum would receive tax relief of £357 whereas a corresponding married couple, one spouse earning £9,000 per annum, would receive tax relief of £70. There is a hell of a difference between £357 and £70.

Might I appeal to the Deputy not to go into detail now?

It is what it is all about.

His remarks would relate more appropriately to the general debate which will ensue.

It is on that that the Taoiseach and the Cabinet wrestled with their consciences, hour after hour before coming here with the Principal Features of the Budget. The allocaton of £75 million, as it was to have been now £91 million — of course that is the insurance policy in case there is to be a general election — constitutes a budget a bit too clever by half. The allocation of £91 million across the board is to say the least, inequitable, non-distributive and regressive. As such I do not know what in God's name, the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance were thinking about when they dragged this up from the tax models of the Department of Finance.

I welcome the Minister's decision in relation to the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. I have welcomed two budgetary proposals so far — the provision for the long-term unemployed; I am delighted that 6 per cent increase is being given to those 30,000 or 40,000 individuals. I am very upset that there has been no increase whatsoever in child benefit. I am all in favour of taxing child benefit and certain types of social welfare benefits. I am all in favour of taxing other forms of income. There is no proposal whatever in relation to capital or property tax in this budget. I am very concerned that, for the second consecutive year, there has been no increase in child benefit. I put this down to the structure of Government itself.

Since 1981 I have been involved in five or six budgets. I have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible for a Minister for Finance to carry the burden he is required to carry, as a member of the Government, no matter how supportive the Taoiseach of the day may be. It is fair to say that the present Taoiseach, to his credit, is very supportive of the Minister for Finance, as was his predecessor — and I only had the privilege of working with one in Government. We have reached a stage where it is no longer possible for the Minister for Finance to discharge his multiple responsibilities within the framework of a Department which has not been subject to fundamental governmental reform. There is a need for the Minister for Finance to become more directly responsible for revenue collection, including controlling what the Revenue Commissioners are up to. We all know, with great respect to the Revenue Commissioners, that they are a law unto themselves.

There is a great need for the Minister for Finance to be able to sit back and reflect on issues of tax reform. Here today the Minister said that a statutory sick pay scheme has gone wriggling into an inter-departmental committee. Where is this great statutory sick pay scheme of which employers were to take over the first 13 weeks? It was not worked out properly. The FUE objected. Congress objected. The inter-departmental committee got into a tizzy over it and the Department of Finance went berserk at the prospect of further Exchequer liability. The Department of Finance were unable to handle the taxation of child benefit or the interlocking of revenue and RSI social welfare numbers. There is nothing in this budget either in that regard. Really when one looks through this budget it is very catchy and a bit of a sellotape job as each decision was taken.

There is great hostility in many areas to this but I think the Minister for Finance should consider having what is already in many countries, a Minister for Public Expenditure responsible for the public expenditure division of the Department of Finance, a full blown member of the Government — not with full blown AIDS since the abolition of the HEB has doubled the number of AIDS victims in the country so that the Government are regretting the abolition of the HEB. We need in this country a Minister for Finance who can deal with the broad macroeconomic policy issues and sit back and reflect, a Minister who can deal with medium and long term economic and social planning, a Minister for Finance who can relate to the social partners and, quite frankly, deal with the enormous complexities of monetary policy on a day to day basis and bring in a budget.

Separate from him there should be a Minister for the public expenditure side. I am sick and tired of seeing successive Ministers for Finance tearing the hair off their colleagues — they had little to tear off me but they did it — over perhaps £25,000 worth of postage expenditure inside the department when far bigger issues were of critical importance. That is why we get here, in relation to the principal features, this mishmash of adjustments which have embroiled the Minister for Finance so much over recent months. They are important but in terms of the overall management of the economy, they pale into relative insignificance.

As a consequence we have all become obsessed with public expenditure questions to the exclusion of the relatively equal importance of taxation measures. That is why we have failed to bring a balance to organising a budget and implementing it in an effective way. I strongly urge that that should be done whether it is done by way of reforms or property tax. I assure the Taoiseach and the Minister that the Labour Party are in favour of a comprehensive property tax, but again no real work has been done on it apart from the Minister of State going off half cocked down in the Custom House with a particular proposal.

You will find some reason for voting against it.

I am not that perverse. Like the Taoiseach I am getting old and the older one gets the more courage one gets. The Taoiseach has his courage in his hands. He should have done it in 1981 and finally he has done it and he will yet hear the laudatory observations of my namesake, Mr. Desmond, and his colleagues in the financial circles. But the Taoiseach is not likely to get the support of the Labour Party for one reason. I think it was possible to bring down the current budget deficit without mutilating public services and social services. It was possible to bring it down in a more balanced way, and that is not the soft option.

That is what they say.

We know what they stand for. It is possible to bring it in without "getting rid of" 10,000 public service workers, to use Mr. Noel Carroll's phrase. That particular nonsense of going to the Governor of the Central Bank, asking him for £80 million, saying we will pay it back in 1990, 1991, 1992 or 1993 when the Taoiseach will not be there and we will not be there. I should say we will be there but not here——

No, I will be here.

As a consequence of that kind of policy being implemented, of flash policies with no great thought behind them, the only reason the Minister for Finance thought about applying this public service redundancy and retirement scheme to the whole of the public service was that he got a memorandum from the Department of Health. He thought it was great. They were looking for statutory mandatory payments so he said: "Let us apply it to the whole lot of them." That is how it happened. Then he was asked how much it was to cost and it was to cost about £100 million. It is now £80 million. Now £10 million has been spent, and what has happened? We need our nurses; we need our student nurses.

We do not need all of our public voluntary hospitals — I tried to rationalise these, as the Taoiseach knows — but we need the bulk of our hospital services and we need our public servants who, in many respects, have been demoralised by this proposition. It is great gas to see the Minister for Finance saying to principal officers in the Revenue Commission that he will not give them permission to retire while simultaneously another Minister is saying to the Dublin Fire Brigade: "Get rid of nine station officers." There is now a strike involving 780 people and one of the prime reasons they went on strike was the abuse they suffered from intimidatory statements made by a spokesperson for Dublin Corporation.

The Deputy is veering away from the debate altogether.

The Deputy is stirring it up.

I asked the Deputy earlier on not to go into detail now. I am asking him again.

I did not stir it up. I urge the Taoiseach, therefore, in a situation where public services have been decimated and where our social services are also under grave threat, to review the content of this budget. For a variety of reasons — and they are entirely authentic — we will have to oppose some of the principal features of this budget, notably that relating to PRSI, and we will be voting against those features of the budget. There is still time for the Taoiseach to revise the budget. He has done it before. I congratulate him on his decision in relation to the drugs refund scheme. We are delighted. I congratulate my colleague Deputy Brendan Howlin who highlighted it. We got £11 million reinstated into the health vote. This was done largely by the Labour Party. The Government caved in and we are pleased that they did so and thank them for it. We know the problems there are in Cabinet in doing a U-turn. The Government have to do one in relation to Circular 80/27 because they still have not given the Minister for Education the £12 million. The Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, still has not got that £12 million, but I have no doubt that money will be given throughout the year.

We are extremely critical of many aspects of the budget and we will be opposing it. We will vote against the increase in the price of petrol but we will not oppose the increase in the price of cigarettes because that is a health measure. We support the Minister in imposing that increase, although I would have increased the price of cigarettes by about 8p and the Exchequer could have got another £6 million or £7 million, but that is another day's work.

When the Social Welfare Bill is introduced, we will put down many amendments and we will watch the Finance Bill with great care particularly as it relates to that hyped-up nonsense known as the Custom House Dock site, giving away £15 million by way of corporation profits tax to the banks.

The Deputy is repeating himself. That is not good enough.

I will conclude, Sir.

I hope to stay within the parameters of the budget. At this stage I do not imagine there will be many people listening to the radio after four and a half hours of debate in this Chamber.

For a number of years the significance of budgets has gone. There was a time when budget day was a big day and all the bad news was given. We knew what our taxes were and what services would be provided for the year. Nothing changed. We knew exactly where we stood. But that changed and we had minibudgets, often in the autumn. Even that has gone now and we have weekly budgets. Every week we hear of cutbacks, restrictions on services, new charges, new social welfare codes, new health or education charges and so on.

Since this Government came into office we have had bad news every week. The public already knew the bad news but they were hoping the budget might change something. Apart from a few pounds here and a few pounds there, there have been no changes in the decisions already made when the Estimates were passed on 24 October 1986, cutting back expenditure on services and so on. The Estimates were passed with the full support of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats. That set the parameters for the Minister's budget today.

Praise has been lavished on the Government by commentators and representatives of big business for being the first Government in recent times to have met their targets. There is nothing particularly praiseworthy or commendable about meeting fiscal or budgetary targets at the expense of education, health, social welfare services, local government services, all the services on which many sections of our society depend. It is very easy for those commentators and representatives of big business to say this when some of them would spend as much on a business lunch as many people on social welfare would spend on themselves in a week. It is all right for these commentators to praise the Taoiseach's Thatcherism because they do not have to live with the consequences of the Fianna Fáil budget or Fianna Fáil policies and decisions.

By the absence of any change in education and health, the budget confirms the cuts in these areas. Parents are having meetings all over the country to discuss the cuts in primary and post-primary education, particularly vocational, comprehensive and community schools. Parents are having a meeting next Saturday in Athlone. These people were probably listening to the Minister hoping he would put a few extra pounds into primary and second level education. If that is what they were hoping for from this budget, then the Minister has given them nothing. The only reference to education in the budget is that £6 million is being provided for refurbishing or rebuilding some rural schools which are in very bad condition. No money is being put back into education.

In recent months many people learned a lot about the Government, the thinking of Government, who runs the Government, why decisions are made and so on. There was a very interesting poster used by the TUI over the last six months or so —"The politics of ignorance". That is a very interesting poster because there is a political significance in ignorance. Thomas Davis said, "Educate that you may be free". If you examine that you will realise that if you are not educated you cannot be free because you do not have the freedom of expression. If people are kept in ignorance they are kept in slavery and oppression, and they will not protest very much. We have all heard that it was the education system in Northern Ireland which brought the young people to the stage where they were able to express themselves in a civil rights campaign. If they had been kept in ignorance that would not have happened. The politics of ignorance means that if the people are not educated they will accept these cuts lying down and they will accept poverty, hunger, unemployment and so on.

We have seen huge cuts in the primary and second level education, particularly in the VECs. There is only one small section on education in the Programme for National Recovery of which this Government speak so much. The Minister referred in his Statement to this programme which was signed by the social partners — the employers, the trade unions, the farmers and the Government. That programme states that cuts in education will not affect the disadvantaged, and that the disadvantaged will have the opportunity of going through second level education. The document actually says that more working class children will go on to third level education. This Government have destroyed that possibility.

This budget also confirms that the health cuts which the Minister operated last summer will continue. These health cuts are being imposed at a time when this country is experiencing the greatest level of poverty in 40 years. The report of the South Inner City Community Association confirms what many teachers and a number of school principals in Dublin have said, that is, that children are hungry in school and that children's health is suffering because of lack of food. One principal told me that tuberculosis is on the way back. There are no medical examinations in schools now although there was before free education came in. Up to the age of 14, as long as pupils were in primary school, a medical examination was carried out on pupils in these schools at least once a year, and school meals were provided. Cutting back at this time of poverty is highly dangerous.

The budget confirms that hospital and ward closures, hospital charges and long queues for vitally important life saving operations will continue because the Government have decided that it is more important to ensure that the banks are paid and our debt reduced then to keep people in good health, working or on decent welfare payments. Their priority seems to be to keep the banks happy. Tax reliefs can be given on VHI contributions for people to be treated in the Blackrock Clinic or the Mater Private Hospital but there is no money for public hospitals and people have to pay a £10 charge to get the service to which they are entitled. The debt was not created by the people who have to pay for it but by a previous Fianna Fáil Government who did what no government in any country in the world ever did before — until President Reagan as Governor of California abolished taxes at a great rate — they abolished rates, car tax, wealth tax and resource tax for farmers. Indeed, they even refunded that tax to farmers who had already paid it. Last year, when that Government were returned to office, they abolished the land tax. Obviously, when a Government abolish taxes they must borrow money to make up for the lack of revenue and that is what began the process of the huge national debt.

The full deflationary impact of last year's budget on the unemployment figure was disguised by emigration and the infamous Jobsearch scheme. The figures on the live register are now higher than they were this time last year, despite emigration and the Jobsearch scheme. On the basis of figures given by the Minister for Social Welfare earlier this month regarding Jobsearch, it is clear that if the live register figures were being compiled on the same basis as this time last year, the official figure for unemployment would now be approximately 265,000, not counting the 30,000 or so who have emigrated. Indeed, but for emigration the figure would be over 300,000. There is no doubt of the deflationary impact of this year's budget and, therefore, the estimates of unemployment will be even greater. Those who vote for the budget will be voting for even longer dole queues. The only specific mention of jobs in the budget is the fact that the Minister said there will be 9,000 fewer jobs in the Civil Service.

The Jobsearch scheme was simply a method of harassing the unemployed. If people on starvation allowances — either single people or families — tried to earn some money to put food in their stomachs they were harassed and taken off the dole. The Minister, Deputy Woods said that 12,000 people voluntarily came off the dole. The implication is that they were fiddling and that when they were asked to go on the Jobsearch scheme they did not claim any more. The reason they did not claim is that they emigrated to London or other cities; it had nothing to do with the Jobsearch scheme. The Minister is trying to indicate progress in relation to unemployment but the only purpose of the Jobsearch scheme was to take 20,000 people off the live register and put them on various training schemes.

There has been a lot of talk about workers double jobbing. One of the biggest double jobbers would be someone like Mr. Tony O'Reilly who has about 40 different companies, who is chairman of them all and a director of many others which he does not own. One could say that he had 20 or 30 jobs. There are also double jobbers in the House. Before Christmas there was a very tight vote here and somebody noticed that Deputy McDowell was absent. Where was he? He was down in the Four Courts retained by the State on a case and also employed by the State to be in the House. Of course, he could not be in two places at once. I do not want to hear any of these people talking about double jobbing, especially in relation to firemen and people on low wages. I do not even want to hear them talking about people on the dole double jobbing, trying to make £10 or £15 painting somebody's door to put food in their stomachs. They are double jobbing here and it makes me sick to listen to that sort of hypocrisy.

Tá brón orm cur isteach ort ach tá tú ag imeacht beagáinín ón ghnó atá os ár gcomhair.

Tá tagairt don Jobsearch scheme san óráid a thug an tAire. I was referring to the Jobsearch scheme which has been dealt with in the budget by the Minister. In any case, I do not think in the history of the State there was ever a Government which in such a relatively short time broke so many promises and so cruelly betrayed those who voted for them. Never before have a Government engaged in such a series of U turns on almost every position which they took in opposition. There has never been a Government which contributed so much to the sense of cynicism and disillusionment that so many people feel about the whole political system here. The longer this administration remains in office the clearer it becomes that it is doing enormous damage to all our people. It has been said that this Government is a minority Government with the largest majority in the history of the State. That is so because they have the enthusiastic support of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats and the endorsement of big business, finance houses, the O'Reillys and the Smurfits.

The Taoiseach and his Government have already done enormous damage to our health services and to the concept of free education and local government services. If they are allowed to continue unchecked, unprecedented damage will be done to the whole fabric of society and we will rapidly revert to the economic and social standards of the thirties. For many people that is the case already. Class lines have been drawn more clearly than ever before and people are seeing it more clearly than ever with big business, Fine Gael and the PDs standing together with their natural allies in Fianna Fáil. The trade unions, political parties on the left and, most important of all, those suffering from the policies of this Government, must similarly stand together and work to halt this carnival of reaction by Deputy Haughey and his Government.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and his Government, or Taoiseach Haughey and his Government, if that is the correct phrase. This budget will be a very bitter blow to the unemployed, the 255,000, or whatever the figure is. The deflationary impact of the Estimates and the budget will not just condemn these 255,000 people to another year without jobs; it will almost certainly mean that tens of thousands more will join them or face the prospect of emigrating. Given the level of poverty facing those on social welfare, the levels of increases in this budget are totally inadequate. The policy of increasing social welfare simply in line with inflation would be acceptable only if the existing basic levels were adequate. This is clearly not so and was recognised by the Commission on Social Welfare as not so. In 1985, three years ago, the Commission on Social Welfare recommended that the basic income for an adult on social welfare should be between £50 and £60 per week. In today's figures that would be between £55 and £65 per week so that, even with the increase announced in the budget, the extra few shillings for the long term unemployed, most people will still get less than two-thirds of the figure recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.

There is a total absence of the kind of fundamental tax reform needed. Juggling around with the tax bands is not tax reform. Despite the changes announced, which will be of little assistance to some people on PAYE, the total income tax take, 90 per cent of which is paid by the PAYE sector, will be almost exactly the same as last year. No effort has been made to broaden the tax base. Capital taxes remain at their extraordinarily low level and are exactly the same as the outturn last year. Capital taxes outturn for 1987 was £40 million; the post budget estimate was £40 million, exactly the same. There is no change in capital taxes which are the lowest in Western Europe.

We were told that the income tax take was supposed to be in the region of a £70 million reduction, but the income tax take will be only £7 million less in 1988 than it was in 1987. There is a minimal increase in corporation tax of about 9 per cent only. There is still no wealth tax or property tax. There is no effort at tax reform in its most fundamental sense, although the Minister said we have a very low rate of corporation tax by international standards. We have been saying here year after year how low ours is by international standards. Even by American Reagan standards and Thatcherite standards we are still the lowest. An effort must be made to broaden the tax base and reduce the burden on the PAYE worker but at the same time to increase the take for the Exchequer — there should be no drop in the take to the Exchequer — to ensure that the taxes are used for the benefit of the country and our people, for our health and education services etc.

The decision on PRSI in the budget represents almost a total victory for the farmers and self-employed. Even if a decision had been made to implement the full rate of 6.6 per cent, the amount recommended by the National Pensions Board, it would have gone no way towards meeting the costs of the benefits for which farmers will now qualify. The Minister pointed out in his speech that last year the Exchequer paid out £300 million to the farmers and self-employed for these services. The cost of the assistance schemes was £300 million. By putting 3 per cent PRSI on them the Minister says he expects he will take in this year £12 million, but he has not said in his Budget Statement what the pay out will be in 1988. It was £300 million last year but now they are paying contributions and they will get contributory pensions etc. I expect the pay out will be higher than the £300 million, but the Minister's take is only £12 million. Who pays the balance? The good old reliable; who else? The total income tax take from all the farmers and all the self-employed plus the 3 per cent PRSI and the Minister's £12 million all together will not even pay the £300 million.

Of course, in addition the farmers and self-employed are paid their grants, subsidies and headage payments and get tax relief for this, that and the other. Where does that all come from? It is amazing. It comes from the same people, the ordinary working class people who pay it in their tax, their VAT, their pint and their excise duties, the same people pouring it in to the Minister so that he can hand it out to people here, there and everywhere in grants and so on, but he does not ask them to pay their share at all. Why should big farmers not pay their share to ensure that there are grants, subsidies headage payments and so on for the smaller farmers? They expect it to come out of the workers' pockets and, of course, it does.

One development in the budget of which it is important to emphasise the dangers and sinister elements is the decision to impose VAT on electricity. During the debate on the Single European Act early last year we pointed out that VAT would come on electricity and food. The process of harmonisation of VAT has now begun. The Minister has taken his first step on this in putting VAT on electricity. The next step will be VAT on food. We will almost certainly see VAT on food next year. Nothing will be free of VAT. Children's shoes, food, electricity, all will have VAT because the harmonisation process has begun.

In that regard I have referred in every budget debate to the VAT refund to unregistered farmers. I can never understand it. It began about seven or eight years ago. When it started off it was about £7 million. It went up to £20 million, then £40 million, £50 million, £60 million and last year £70 million. How did the farmers' liability for VAT increase so enormously in the past five years? Why do farmers not register for VAT and let us see they are due this money? It is only a figure. The Minister says in his Budget Statement that he will take £7 million off VAT. Why does he say that if the VAT refund is due to them? The Minister deducts the £7 million because he knows it is not due to them in any case. It is simply a method of handing out money to farmers.

There is no basis for it; it could be £70 million, it could be £40 million or it might only be £20 million. They do not know how much is due yet they hand out the money under the heading, "VAT refund to farmers". No Minister has ever explained to me — and I raise this every year — how they arrive at the figure for the VAT refund for unregistered farmers. If they are due a refund why is the Minister taking £7 million off them this year? I would like the Minister to answer that. They are not due a refund; this is another hand-out.

The ESB the firm for which I worked for 30 years and who, sadly, have been robbed before by way of levies are now to have £31 million hijacked from them by the Minister. The ESB are expected to maintain their high level of efficiency without this money and are going to be under attack from our PD privateering friends who will say how inefficient they are. Where will they get the money for maintaining their plant, machinery and stations at their highest efficiency? Where is the cash that is needed to give a better service to customers and for research and development and so on to come from? It is being grabbed by the Minister for Finance and so the privateers will be able to say: "Look how inefficient they are, how their services to their customers are getting worse and why do they not reduce the price of electricity". The ESB are under fierce pressure to reduce the price of electricity and yet the Minister, first, takes £31 million from them and, secondly, puts VAT on electricity so that if they were going to reduce the cost by 5 per cent, that 5 per cent must go back on again. In every way they lose and in every way they will be the ones who will be blamed. Neither the Minister for Finance nor any other Fianna Fáil Minister will defend them when the attack is on because the grab for the privatisation of the semi-State companies is increasing day by day.

There are people out there who are friends of the members of the parties in here who are anxious to get their piece of various semi-State companies, whether it is Aer Lingus, Irish Life, the ESB or whatever, rather than put their investment into developing their own companies. The country is wide open for development. Why do these people not put their money into developing our land, fisheries, food industry or mineral industry or into building a smelter? These industries are wide open for development and nobody would stop the privateers from engaging in such development but, no, they want to grab whatever money they can out of those companies that are good and are operating efficiently.

Every party have their friends: for the PDs, it is the Ryans of Ryanair or Guinness Peat Aviation; for Fine Gael it is the O'Reilly's or the Smurfits and for Fianna Fáil it is the Goodmans or the Purcells. It is interesting that this Fianna Fáil Government who had no money for health or education were able to find £30 million, £50 million or £100 million — nobody is really sure — what the amount is — to hand to Larry Goodman who was then able to buy Baileboro Co-Op. He was able to buy Baileboro Co-Op with our money. Killeshandra Co-Op did not stand a chance, especially when Larry Goodman had one of Fianna Fáil's top organisers, Deputy Liam Lawlor, organising his campaign. Larry Goodman was a winner from the start.

The Minister dealt with unpaid taxes and rightly condemned those who do not pay their taxes and, in particular, those who deduct PAYE and PRSI from their workers' salaries and then refuse to hand the money over to the State. He rightly condemned them and said that this has got to stop. What is the Minister going to do about it? This has got to stop because it is robbery. The money is taken from workers' wages, held by the firms and not handed over to the State. Why are these employers not prosecuted and put in jail? If a person steals a bar of chocolate he ends up in Mountjoy Prison. There is a lovely big prison in my constituency. It is brand new. We have been told that it is one of the finest prisons in the world. It boasts excellent cuisine. Why not put these offenders there? That would stop this practice very rapidly. That is the place for all the tax dodgers who, by not paying due taxes over to the State, are robbing people of their health services, education services and local government services. The Minister will not resolve this problem unless he puts the boot in and gives these people the same treatment A1 Capone got because they are, in their way, in the same line of business as he was. He was jailed for tax dodging. If these people got the same treatment it would resolve that problem.

I am glad that the Minister is at last arranging — and we have advocated this for a long time — that nobody will get a grant or subsidy until they can show a certificate that they have paid their taxes. That is only right and just. People should not be handed out money from the Exchequer when they have not paid their due share in. If they paid their due share in, money would be available for all the various services, whether by way of grants, subsidies, local government services, education services or health services. All our citizens avail of these services regardless of whether they pay their taxes so it is only right that the Minister has promised that people will not get a grant or subsidy until they have paid their taxes.

I would like to ask the Minister why he abolished the special investigation unit which I believe employed only 16 people and who identified moneys owing to the State, which had not previously been identified, to the extent of £6 million last year. Apparently because of complaints from the self-employed association — I am not sure of their proper name — who said they were being harassed by the special investigation unit, that unit were abolished. If the members of the self-employed association lived in Ballyfermot, Clondalkin or Blanchardstown I can tell them that they would be harassed every day of the week by rent inspectors from the corporation, inspectors sitting in cars for the purpose of seeing whether they own a car, or whether they are working. Michael Woods's Jobsearch inspectors are after them at every hands turn. Special phone lines have been set up so that neighbours can ring and inform on their neighbours. These phone lines are like the hotlines the RUC have. Michael Woods has a hotline going whereby a person can ring up and inform on his neighbour.

The Minister for Social Welfare.

The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Michael Woods, has a hotline set up whereby people can inform on their neighbours. Nobody could tell me that the 16 inspectors in the special investigation unit were harassing the tax dodgers to the same extent. Yet, they are being abolished because someone has complained that he is being harassed for not paying tax.

I commend the Minister for including Tallaght town centre as a special designated area. The city of Dublin has a grave responsibility for the three satellite towns of Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. These towns were planned 15 or 20 years ago and they were to accommodate 100,000 people each. People were sent from the centre of Dublin to these areas and then left to fend for themselves in a foreign environment. These towns still have few facilities, they have no town centres and the people labour under transport costs and so on. Nothing apparently is being done to assist them. I do not know whether or not the Minister's proposition will help but at least it is an indication that the Minister recognises that there are problems. I hope the Minister recognises that similar problems exist in Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. These were supposed to be towns, not surburbs of Dublin. That was the way they were planned and the plan has been dropped. I hope the Minister will pursue that matter to include the other two satellite towns in his plan to try to ensure that development takes place in the town centres.

The Government want to save money. There is no easier way to save money than to put the 250,000 unemployed people back to work. In that way the Government would save £600 million on handouts in social welfare and would get another £600 million at least in tax from the workers. That would be a net gain of £1,200 million to the Exchequer. It would also create new wealth and new jobs and growth in the economy and we could rapidly pay off all bankers and enable us to have a better health and education service. There is a question of priorities here. If the priority is to pay back bankers there will never be growth in the economy, but if the priority is the people that we represent growth is possible. The Minister should remember that of the £22 billion debt, almost £12 billion of it is owed to Irish banks. The Minister should be in charge of those banks. We only owe £9 billion in foreign debt. We should not worry about the £12 billion owed to Irish banks. The Minister should not put the public debt as a priority and he should not try to frighten people by saying that we owe £22 billion and that therefore we should cut off our health service, let people die and let people remain ignorant and so on because we owe all this money. We owe all this money to AIB, to the Bank of Ireland, to Ulster Bank and a few more banks. Why worry about them? One piece of legislation would put the Government in charge of the whole lot — which is what The Workers' Party would advocate. If we stop the robbers from bleeding us to death we could be a grand little country with a very high standard of living.

Sitting suspended at 9.15 p.m. and resumed at 9.45 p.m.
Top
Share