The budget could be best described as a blunderbuss in that it fired bits and pieces everywhere without creating any impact. It did very little for the poor and underprivileged, the victims of the economic crisis in recent years. I agree with the people who described the budget as one of lost opportunities.
The euphoria which greeted the budget from the Government benches and some sections of the media has now evaporated because when people studied its provisions in detail they saw that it contained more shadow than substance. The budget was an insult to the underprivileged, those on low incomes and the unemployed. As I said, these are the people who suffered during the economic crisis and they can take very little comfort from its provisions. The damage to large sectors of our community has not been put right and there is growing evidence that the benefits of economic recovery, given to certain sections of the community, are not shared equally throughout the whole community.
We heard a lot recently about high growth rates, high exports and profits, but these terms are meaningless to the people I represent, those on the dole or receiving disability and unemployment asistance and benefits. The factors I mentioned are not being translated into sufficient jobs and, taking the current rate of job creation, it means that 250,000 people will be unemployed for the first five years of this decade. The long-term unemployed have been abandoned and have not benefited from the recently improved economic climate. Many jobs being created at present are makeshift, low paid and part-time and many unemployed people are exploited by their creation.
Inflation and interest rates are seriously affecting the living standards of many workers, especially those who, unfortunately, are on social welfare. The figures quoted in recent times bear no relation to the reality of inflation. The price of the normal shopping basket for the wife or the urban workers and the total absence of price control mean that many organisations are in a position to exploit the situation at present. I will return to the question of price controls later.
I can certainly confirm the statement that we are living in a two-tier society of the haves and have-nots. It is a society that is experiencing widespread poverty and no real sense of social concern is shown by our political leaders. The cutbacks in our health and educational services have seriously harmed the least well off in society. I was not able to take part in the debate on the health service last week but the cutbacks — to which I will refer later — mean that many medical card holders and elderly people are being treated inhumanely throughout the health board areas. The cutbacks in education mean that we also have a two-tier educational system, which has created enormous problems for chldren in disadvantaged areas, despite the lip service in recent statements to the contrary.
Earlier I described the budget as one of the lost opportunities and I will now elaborate on this. The creation of jobs and the reduction in the level of emigration must be our national priority but the budget has done very little — if anything — to tackle these problems. This is a great country for lip service. We are expert at identifying problems and solutions but we must be condemned for our failure to translate targets into real solutions. Our society and the industrial scene are dominated and controlled by restrictive practices, demarcations and vested interests. Until these issues are faced up to squarely by the Government we will continue to have high unemployment and high emigration. Our bright young people, the products of our top class educational system, will be the victims of these factors and of the unwillingness and moral cowardice of Governments to tackle these important issues.
Any Government that have the moral courage to take on the powerful groups within our society, the groups who hinder and, indeed, paralyse any attempt to bring about efficiency in our public and private sector, will have the support of the majority of our people. The people have been demoralised by inadequate leadership and are now looking to a party which will take on the groups and the vested interests who oppose change because they themselves are afraid of change as it would affect their privileged position in society.
The whole programme of job creation is being badly hindered by restrictive practices and demarcation which lead to high public liability insurance which, in turn, is linked to our inadequate and inefficient legal and courts system. This is not the occasion to deal with this matter in detail, but I will refer to it at another time. We have a high level of bureaucracy and a high level of taxation brought about by excesses in public expenditure and inefficiency in the public service. These and all the other issues I mentioned are interlinked and are hindering job creation. I would go so far as to say that the Government have no policy in relation to jobs other than measures which flow incidentally from the budget.
Emigration and unemployment cannot be separated because they are part of the same problem. They come from a number of issues to which I already referred, such as high income tax. Emigration is caused by pessimism about the future of our young people and by the perceived narrow-mindedness and boredom of Irish society.
There are seven major causes of unemployment: high income tax, PRSI and other overheads — the overlay of social legislation makes the employment of labour unattractive — workforce attitudes and habits, the cost and tax structures for certain industries such as the road transport system, a multitude of poverty traps, every one of which arises from official policy and the absence of a coherent or co-ordinated Government structure or policy to tackle unemployment. There is a widespread sense of hopelessness among our young people because of a lack of determination and dedication to treat this problem.
We can put the scale of the unemployment and emigration problems in context if we look at the figures for recent years. In August 1984 our register for unemployment was 214,000 and the net emigration for the preceding five years was 30,000 which, effectively, meant that 244,000 people were out of work. In August 1989 the register of unemployment showed a figure of 232,000 and there was a net emigration in the proceding five years of 156,000, making a total of 388,000 unemployed, an increase of 59 per cent. That is in stark contrast to the position in the UK where the register of unemployment in August 1984 stood at 3.116 million as against 1.741 million in August 1989, a decrease of 44 per cent. If the UK trend had occurred here in that period the figure of 388,000 would now be less than 107,000, a lot less than the 1984 figure. That begs the question, why the dramatic difference in trends between the UK, our nearest neighbour, and this country?
I should like to refer to some of the issues that should be faced by the Government. In the UK they have one Department of Employment, fewer poverty traps, lower income tax rates, higher allowances and industrial relations reform has reduced disincentives to employ. What should we do about our problems? I suggest we should create a new Department of Employment by merging the Department of Labour with the industrial development function of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the unemployment payments section of the Department of Social Welfare. It goes without saying that we should have a real reform of our taxation system. We should have a reform of our means testing procedure and abolish poverty traps. We should reform social insurance, reform labour relations — something that has been promised for a long time—and reform and reorganise the labour market clause. We must face up to those issues which we have failed to do over the years. Recent Governments have only been playing around with the job creation programme and the whole problem of unemployment and emigration. There is no real commitment or political courage evident in any of the proposals put forward in recent times.
What we need is a major review of industrial policy and a radical reorganising and simplification of industrial promotion agencies. We have the jungle of bureaucracy that hinders and frustrates any young person attempting to set up an industry or business here. We must look at the allowances and grant schemes which appear to put more emphasis on the provision of plant and machinery than on the creation of jobs. There must be a major investment in the construction industry which has been given a lot of lip-service in recent times but very little investment has been made in it. That labour intensive industry could create many thousands of jobs.
When we refer to job creation we must not forget the victims of the many traditional industries which closed in the early eighties. Many of those unfortunate people have not succeeded in finding other employment. Many of them live in my home city, Cork, and they were employed in the traditional labour intensive industries such as Fords, Dunlop and Verolme. I would like to see the introduction of new specific employment and training measures for the long-term unemployed. We should also be mindful of the many young people who leave our second level institutions annually and who do not wish to go on to third level education. Those young people are anxious to enter the job market at the earliest possible opportunity but their hopes and ambitions are being denied at present. It is essential that we create thousands of places for apprentices in Irish industries.
The budget contains a number of good measures such as the reductions of VAT and excise duties. However, I am worried that those reductions will not be passed on to the consumer. In that regard I agree with some of the statements made by Deputy Browne. The assurances given by different Ministers in recent days regarding price control and the intention to have inspectors on our high streets safeguarding the interests of the consumers must be taken as so much lip-service when the real facts are known. The abolition of price control in recent years has led to widespread abuse and I can supply ample evidence of that abuse. I deplore the cutbacks that took place last year in the office of the Commission on Fair Trade. Offices of the commission in Cork and Galway were closed and the service was centralised in Dublin. People from the provinces who had complaints were told that if travel outside Dublin was required their complaints could not be dealt with. That was highlighted in the House, the Minister quickly backtracked and complaints from outside Dublin are being dealt with by the office in Dublin.
Every possible step must be taken by the Government to control price increases and ensure that reductions in costs are passed on to consumers by a reduction in prices. I can quote examples where I believe consumers are being robbed left, right and centre. I should like to deal with one example, the sale of Polish coal. Earlier this year, following a complaint by a constituent, I carried out an investigation into the price of Polish coal. I contacted the Central Bank and I was told that the Polish currency in November 1989 had devalued seven-fold against the US dollar. The zloty, the Polish currency, in November 1988 stood at 496 to the US dollar or 767 zloty to the Irish punt. In November 1989 it had devalued almost seven times, to 3,450 zloty to the US dollar and 4,991 zloty to the Irish punt. At the same time the price of a 50 kg. bag of coal went up by 20p. I tabled a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce about that and he told me that price control generally was abandoned in 1986 and with it the structure for collecting and analysing a wide range of information. Accordingly, he did not have detailed information in regard to the price structure of Polish coal. That is a damning indictment of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who, it appears, does not care a whit for Irish consumers. How are our consumers being protected? We do not know where the coal is coming from because the country of origin is not stamped on the unsealed bags. If price control was introduced in regard to that product many families would get great relief but the rip-off continues.
The explanation I received from CDL was that they paid for their coal in dollars. The Minister should snap out of his inactivity and carry out a full inquiry into the activities of the conglomerates who increase prices without any notification to him. There should be a full investigation into the importation and pricing of coal. I have no doubt that if that were held we would ascertain the real facts. I will take one other example. I put down a question to the Minister for Finance on 12 December 1989, Volume 394, column 932 of the Official Report, in relation to the excise duty on non-alcoholic beers. The Minister for Finance, Deputy A. Reynolds responded:
Non-alcoholic beers bear a specially reduced excise duty charge of 37.2p per gallon or 4.65p per pint. The excise duty borne by ordinary beer is, on average, approximately 37.6p per pint.
Try visiting any pub in this or any city and ask for a bottle of non-alcoholic or a bottle of normal beer and it will be the same price. Even though there is a 40p, or 33p or 30p, difference in excise duty — and if you add 20 per cent VAT there will be a difference of 40p — they are sold at the same price. Again there is no price control. Deputy Browne is correct that there needs to be a full investigation into the price of beers, non-alcoholic beers and mineral waters because the consumer is being ripped off. Quite honestly I do not know who is doing the ripping off because everybody washes their hands of the issue when questions are asked.
In Britain an order was imposed to reduce the price of coffee but here there was total stagnation — paralysis from the Minister. The imposition of price control must be considered again at this stage because the situation is serious. Importers, distributors and shopkeepers are refusing to pass on reductions to consumers, we do not know where the problem is. There must be a full commitment from the Government on these issues.
In relation to the taxation provisions in the budget, time prevents me from dwelling on them. We have read much recently about tax reform but we have seen very little evidence of any such reform in the budget. In fact, the net result of the budget for PAYE workers is that they will pay £110 million more this year than they paid in 1989. That is the bottom line when the cosmetics, the camouflage and the juggling of figures, are taken into account. Tax exemption limits must be increased substantially as well as combining allowances for children if we are to make any progress towards improving the position. This can be done by a number of measures. Surely we can widen the tax net to take in the people — whom I can easily identify — who are under-paying.
I said I would deal with the question of public spending and this prompts me to deal briefly with the health services which, in my opinion, are inefficient, disjointed and disorganised. I want to spend a few moments on that issue because I did not get in on last week's debate on the health services.
The health services need an overall restructural plan as set out in the Fine Gael policy document — Towards a Better Health Service. I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has made no attempt to introduce most of the provisions of the report published by the commission on health funding. The Minister used the commission's existence to prevent any changes and to reject proposals put forward by the Opposition parties over the two years the commission sat. Since the commission issued their findings, the Minister has further delayed any changes in the structure of the health services using the story that he is now seeking observations from the many interested groups on the commission's report — groups that had already made their views known. As I said, there is an urgent need for an overall restructural plan for the health services, and I would hope this would be done sooner rather than later. In the meantime additional resources must be made available to certain areas of the health services.
I am deeply disappointed at the limited resources made available in the recent budget. There must be investment in the community care service if we are to decrease dependency on the hospital services which have been taking up 50 per cent of our health budget in recent years. Despite all that has been said recently, there has been no real improvement in our health services, in fact, the crisis has deepened. I will not refer to any specific cases but there are numerous horror stories I could tell this House. However, that would serve no purpose at this stage. The CEO of the Southern Health Board is on record as saying that despite the increased allocation, effectively the level of service will be the same as last year and last year's service was disastrous. Last year was a year that our so-called civilized country should be ashamed of because that was the year when the size of one's bank account or the size of one's wallet dictated the service one received.
In my two years as health spokesperson for my party I brought forward a comprehensive health policy document which has stood the test of close scrutiny. We set out clearly in that document the fundamental problems besetting the health services and we put forward radical solutions. At long last the Minister, under pressure last week, introduced some small measures which will at least stimulate him into creating some original ideas. Up to now he has cut at random, or got the health boards to carry out the cuts, but they did not always happen in accordance with medical needs but many times on political considerations.
What we have seen is an exercise of time wasting where people suffered, and are still suffering. There must be major investment in the community care service if we are to decrease dependency on the hospital services. In recent years, the Minister has displayed a Jekyll and Hyde character in his approaches to health. When he was on this side of the House he was most vociferous with his cries of wolf on many issues but when he became Minister for Health he acted very sheepishly when the issue of health was raised in this House.
I am also bitterly disappointed at the lack of investment in our educational services. Having listened to the Minister in the House on Thursday last, she has once again failed to recognise in any real way the deprivation that exists, especially in our urban areas. She has failed to recognise the dependency of some of our schools on increased resources for remedial and other works in the disadvantaged areas of our cities. The Minister has totally failed to grasp the nettle in this area and must be condemned.
I am also disappointed at the allocation for overseas development. The letter from Bishop Casey to Deputies should be taken into consideration.
It would be neglectful of me to conclude my budget speech without dealing with the budget impact on the economy of my own city. My city has suffered the trauma of the closure of many traditional industries, but Cork people, being so resilient, have fought back. Through our agencies in Cork we have put forward the development plan for Cork which became part of the regional plan which, in turn, should have been included as part of the national plan. Cork people are waiting with interest to see how the Structural Funds will be allocated. I am issuing a warning to the Government that we will fight to ensure that Structural Funds are distributed in accordance with regional needs rather than with the Government's political considerations.
I am disappointed the Minister for Finance again rejected the concept of a regional development agency. I would ask him to reconsider his position. My city has not yet emerged from the on-going trauma of closures and the present threatened closure of Sunbeam Wolsey on the north side of Cork city is a major worry for our people. Sunbeam Wolsey must not close, that would be the final, fatal blow for the people of the north side of Cork city who have already suffered badly because of Government policies in recent years. Sometimes unemployment has reached 80 per cent in certain areas. The workforce in Sunbeam Wolsey are mainly female, many of whom are the only breadwinners in families throughout the north side of Cork city.
I am calling on the Government to support, through their agencies or by direct aid, the measures that are being taken at present to save this industry. While negotiations are still going on I will not make any politically divisive statements. The people on the north side of Cork city, however, are depending on the Government to deliver the necessary provisions to secure the future of the Sunbeam Wolsey plant which has given employment to generations of Cork people.
Cork people are still concerned about the future of Irish Steel and this concern has increased substantially recently with the present uncertainty in relation to its takeover. I would ask the Government to clarify the position not only for the sake of families of the workers in Irish Steel but for the sake of confidence in the region generally. As I said on budget night, VAT on electricity will not help that plant.
I am also disappointed that there was no mention of major construction projects in the budget. I will deal specifically with the tunnel crossing of the River Lee.
