(Carlow-Kilkenny): This is my third occasion speaking on the budget in the Dáil. Each year Members who have spoken have continued the myth which is so untrue but has been repeated each year. It is incredible that the same ráiméis is being repeated so regularly. I have said before that the year 1987 was not the start of our freedom; it was the year in which a country was handed over in good shape to an incoming government and whose backbenchers, in particular, and sometimes its Ministers were telling us about the catastrophe of 1987. I want to stitch a few facts into the record because they are very important. Deputies such as Eric Byrne do a fair amount of research and, perhaps, in 50 years time he will come back, read the records and find that these were gems of wisdom.
The following are the facts. In 1981 after four years of Fianna Fáil Government, inflation was just over 21 per cent. As I said before in this House, that figure would nearly lead normal people to commit suicide rather than taking on the running of the country. This year and in the past I have heard Fianna Fáil people talking about how well this Government had got inflation under control. That is the greatest load of codswallop of all time. This Government did not get inflation under control. Deputy Garrett FitzGerald came in with a group of brave people who took on the running of this country when inflation was at 21.4 per cent. In that situation where would the Programme for Economic and Social Progress be? What would have happened to the social welfare recipients who received an increase of 4 per cent if inflation was 21 per cent? Inflation was reduced gradually to 17 per cent and when the Government left office in 1987 inflation had been reduced from 21 per cent to 4 per cent. What could be a greater achievement than that? Nevertheless, year after year here, even the media go on talking about 1987 as if it was a disaster. I want to have it recorded clearly for the third year running that inflation at 21 per cent in 1981 was a direct result of four years of Fianna Fáil Government. For Fianna Fáil to claim at this stage that they have got inflation under control is playing around with truth.
The second statement I wish to correct was made by a Fianna Fáil TD and I was surprised, knowing he was educated in a very good college. He claimed credit for the balance of payments situation. I should like to put on the record, for the third year running, that in 1981 the trade balance was in deficit to the tune of £1.8 billion. By 1985, which for those who do not want to do a calculation comes before 1987, it had been turned around and was in surplus by £315 million. It has been in surplus ever since. That is another lie nailed.
Let me mention a third fact. In 1986, for the first time ever the balance of payments was in surplus and has been in surplus ever since also. Therefore, on taking up Government in 1987, Fianna Fáil had one great advantage — inflation had been brought under control, having been reduced from a rate of 21 per cent to 4 per cent, while the balance of trade and balance of payments were both in surplus. It is unbelievable therefore that people should come along and claim credit for bringing this about. Even if the Exchequer borrowing requirement was high, it had been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent in the 1987 budget. It should also be borne in mind that in the years 1977-81 prices were out of control. We should therefore deal with the facts and face up to reality.
I suppose tomorrow the newspapers will be full of reports about the election of a new leader. That is fair enough, but it would be nice if there was a heading "Browne blasts bogus bragging"— this has to happen to highlight the bogus bragging about getting things under control — or "Fianna Fáil fiction fairly flattened" which would also get across a message. However, those headlines will not appear; it is just a dream that they would appear with the result that if these bogus claims are repeated people would say that this is wrong and had been contradicted in the newspapers. For some strange reason we cannot seem to have it contradicted. Indeed, a former Member of this House, Mr. Paddy Cooney, had to write a letter to correct the position and sort out this hassle.
There were repeated statements that we were facing doomsday in 1987. Not only were the Government of 1982-87 confronted with economic difficulties, they were also confronted with the difficulty of an Opposition who at that time opposed everything that moved.
Last evening in the House a Fianna Fáil Deputy asked us what our policies were on unemployment. This was laughable when one considers that this Deputy is a member of a party who had no policies between 1982-87 and who opposed everything that moved and, if something did, their policy was to clobber it. As it happens he must not have been listening to Deputy John Bruton, who has so often outlined what our policies are. Indeed I think Deputy Bruton's suggestion, that an all-party committee on unemployment be established, should be taken up.
When we consider the present position in relation to health care, or the lack of it, recall the slogans which appeared around the countryside, take note of the number of unemployed at present and think of the days when we had posters around the country showing queues for passports at a time when there were only 200,000 unemployed — it is now heading towards 300,000 — it is obvious people do not care about what they say and prefer to continue to talk ráiméis. Given the scandals that have taken place, the inquiries and internal problems within the Fianna Fáil Party, who are to elect a new leader, no one appears to be able to talk about the dreadful state that the country is in at present. Therefore, they are getting away with a certain amount. I do not want however to reply to the same nonsensical statements in the debate on next year's budget.
The budget has been described as many things by many people. We have been told that the influence of the Progressive Democrats is very much in evidence. I suggest that the influence of Saint Augustine is also in evidence because by turning around his prayer slightly the Minister for Finance came up with the idea "Lord, make me pay, but not this year". As far as I can see, all this budget has done is postpone some of our bills until next year. For example, an extra £350 million will have to be found for public service pay in next year's budget. Furthermore, £22 million only is being provided in this year's budget under the heading "equal pay", an issue ongoing since the mid eighties, when it is possible a figure of around £200 million may be required. By allocating such a figure we are postponing the evil day. Farmers, who are almost on their knees at present, were due to get an extra £12 million in headage payments, but only £2 million is to be made available. They, too, will have to wait until next year. So far as the farmers are concerned it is a question of maraigh capall agus gheobhair féar. Má mhaireann siad ní bheidh féar ar bith ann dóibh.
One of the difficulties is that all these issues are being postponed. As far as I can see, the Government will face an impossible task in framing next year's budget because we have pushed away the issues that we should be dealing with now. I am not dealing here with the changes in VAT which will have to be made — under the heading of VAT at the point of entry £200 million alone will disappear — or the doing away with DIRT, but these issues are waiting for us in 1993. One could define it as "Government by postponement, of postponement and for postponement". They are not facing up to reality. Furthermore, on top of what we had planned an extra £51 million will have to be borrowed, while it has been claimed that an extra £45 million will be raised by making the tax collection system more efficient. I do not know whether this is fact or fiction, an aspiration or inspiration, but it seems that we are on very shaky ground.
I have used the term "oxymoron" before in this House. At this stage we could say it is a paradox as well. We all remember that in 1977 no one had to pay car tax. This was a great gimmick and it won an election, but we found ourselves with all kinds of problems. This year car tax is to be increased by 20 per cent. Indeed, the figure is now much higher than it ever was. Perhaps Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan fame thought of this when he said "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox". The idea seems to be do away with car tax in a particular year and really clobber it the next year. There seems to be no continuity, or is it the case that we have become used to U-turns being taken?
I am pleased that the cost of petrol is to come down by 9p a gallon in May. In the case of a 1600cc car, the tax on which is to go up by £40, by simple mathematics, dividing £40 by 9p. I discovered that to balance out the two one would need to do 13,000 miles at 30 miles per gallon or 18,000 miles at 40 miles per gallon. I have no doubt that the Minister sitting opposite me will make a big splash, that is if he is still in the same Ministry, when he announces petrol prices will be reduced. It is amazing to think that a motorist will have to cover 18,000 miles when one considers that the average motorist covers around 10,000 miles. While the provision appears to be all right in the budget, people will lose out. If we take into account the increase in VAT to 16 per cent on car maintenance then it is clear that the cost of running a car will increase. Indeed, the people who have company cars are very unhappy at present, and rightly so. It is difficult to know if the budget is just a facade to make it appear that things are being done.
In regard to social welfare there was a boastful statement that allowances had kept up with inflation. Imagine a 4 per cent increase to someone who has nothing. No matter what you hear from people who do not know what it means to be on social welfare, the vast majority are barely surviving. The 4 per cent increase will mean that they are still trying to survive.
I do not know what the budget will do for the aged in hospital. Old people in hospitals are treated as objects and their relatives as millionaires. Our old people should get the best treatment possible. If they are in hospital because they are sick they should be treated fairly, because they founded this nation and put up with all kinds of hardship, difficulties and lack of facilities when they were working. It is outrageous — and it is becoming quite common — that relatives are being asked to take patients home even though they need medical care. I do not see anything in the budget which will guarantee better hospital care for the elderly. It should be a priority in any nation that the elderly are looked after.
I do not know what the budget has done for people who are queueing for operations. In my own county, for the third time in a short time, there has been a private collection to pay for a heart bypass operation for a person who urgently needs it. These people would not undergo an operation in time to save their lives if they were relying on public health care. In 1987 one party had the slogan that health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped. However, we are now worse off than ever. Last night the Minister for Health, in her usual pleasant way, praised all the medical staff, doctors and nurses. We all appreciate what they do, but our worry is that they are not given the facilities or back-up to help them in their work. Nobody blames the medical staff in any hospital; they are under pressure and cannot admit people. Cutbacks and delays are not their fault and the Minister should provide the facilities for them.
The allocation of third level grants is a scandal. The Minister set up a commission — and may have received a report — but it is time that the reality of the difficulties regarding third level education are faced. There are many intelligent children who have very high standards of education — in one case I know of someone who attained four As in honours leaving. The parents are about £500 over the limit for receiving a grant and the child could not avail of third level education even though he has so much to offer. On the other hand, four Cs may be a qualifying requirement and someone who is not a PAYE earner cannot get third level grants. We do not seem to be prepared to face this inequity and it is an injustice which cannot be tolerated any longer.
This budget will not do much for remedial teachers despite what was promised in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I never know whether the Programme for Economic and Social Progress is a promise or an aspiration to achieve something. There is a myth that remedial teachers are not really needed down the country, that there are parts of the cities which are badly disadvantaged and that therefore they must be looked after. While some teachers may be appointed in country areas the emphasis will always be on disadvantaged areas in the cities. I do not have a quarrel with any part of the country getting remedial teachers as long as it is done on a wide basis. Having taught, I have a particular interest in this subject. It is obvious that remedial teachers can do so much for children who, for several reasons, might have got a bad start in life and fallen behind.
