Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1992

Vol. 415 No. 5

Financial Resolutions, 1992. - Financial Resolution No. 22: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

THAT it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—Minister for Finance.

Mr. M. Higgins

In my opening remarks I said that it was very important to try to discern from the budget how it viewed certain social problems that affect our people. I invited any political commentator or any Member of this House to carefully read the text of the speech of the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, to look for where "unemployment" occurs in the speech. One will find in the speech an obsessive concentration on this theory of humanity that I described before we adjourned briefly, this concentration on individuals motivated by tax breaks to either stay in the social system or to leave it, individuals disposed towards being moral or otherwise, depending on their tax breaks. I described such a vision of humanity as a rather blinkered vision, one that cannot be squared with any definition of society, and it is close to the abandonment of society to the thinking of the departed and discredited Mrs. Thatcher.

This is one of the few opportunities I have to address this. The comprehensive rejection of any social responsibility in the Minister's speech apart from the tedious throwing in of a comment on our mutual futures, does not constitute the acceptance of the responsibility of being a member of society with the necessary implications for solidarity. I cannot stand up here and say that it is a good thing if people on the top incomes make £60 per week out of the budget and people on the bottom incomes make 60p out of it. That is an indication of how one thinks society should be structured. The budget can always claim to be more than it is, but people should come out openly and say where they stand on this moral political economic question. I pay tribute to the Progressive Democrats because they are an honest party. They simply say that society is not important for them, that they do not want to be bothered by any daft egalitarian notions, as they would put it, that they do not want to be bothered with dragging everybody up, as they put it. They say that their focus is on reducing tax and that then investment will break out and jobs will return. Then there is the need for them to say something about the unemployed, in case a few branches get nasty. That is how one could summarise this Minister's speech.

The speech was un-Irish, anti-social and it rejected social solidarity. The speech is based on a crass thick advancement of individualism. That policy marches us steadily backwards to a time before we had such things as the welfare state in its day, in Britain, and so on. I give the Progressive Democrats credit for honestly purveying these views. What is harder to see is the views of the other parties and where they stand in relation to this. It is worthy of some investigation. I have very little time, but I would emphasise that we have just heard powerful emotive statements about events in Northern Ireland. They should remind us above all else about the ultimate connection there must be, in any society that is going anywhere in terms of developing itself, between language, politics and action. The horrific level of death in Northern Ireland seems to focus the minds of people here to the point when we have had a rare expression, in which the language fits the events that they are describing. When is this to happen in relation to the economy, in relation to society?

I have been speaking of this for 11 years. In 1981 I stood here and said there was such a concept as the de-peopled economy, which could be doing well. I defined it as an economy with low interest rates, low inflation rate, good export levels by comparison with imports, balance of trade figures and balance of payment figures. I called that version of the economy a de-peopled economy. In speech after speech from the Government side they tossed out these mantras such as "in this difficult economic climate in which we find ourselves when at last the Government finances are being got right" and so on.

Always there was an emphasis on creating a climate of investment. The public know that the climate of investment for which they were asked to sacrifice pay levels, to pay high taxes and to sacrifice their children by way of emigration was not investment of the usual kind. It is being said that we are all affected by the current scandals. We are not all affected by them. The scandals of the past year were precisely those which came from people who put personal interest before national interest. The scandals derive from a version of investment which was about speculation, not production. The chickens are coming home to roost.

The people who got the adulation during my time in politics were those who made money, irrespective of how they did it. People acquired funds through purchasing companies and getting involved in asset stripping. They were praised week after week by people who did not want to know how many employees were dismissed when the balance sheet was cashed in. The Fitzwiltons and the others went through the Irish economy and closed down one company after another. Then we had described in the papers, by appalling low level journalism, their consumption patterns. They have all been in the headlines during the past 12 months. These people are not committed to Ireland or to Irish society. They are the worst kind of people. They are the people being lauded according to the ethics I have heard this morning, the people whom people like me should worry about keeping in the country.

A number of people trained like me in economics noticed an interesting omission from the budget. I can guarantee the Government would have support if they said they would make it illegal for offshore companies to purchase shares quoted on the Irish stock market or in the lesser markets or if they decided to impose an 80 per cent tax where it was discovered to have happened in the past two years. Here is the moral question put to me. I am supposed to accept the suggestion from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, and others that I cannot do anything about unemployment unless I make it attractive for that kind of scum to stay here pretending that they are part of the human economy when they are just speculative scum about whose departure ordinary decent people would not shed a tear if they saw the whole bloody lot of them soaring off in some jumbo jet.

The budget is an illusion. Most of the decisions are taken in relation to the Book of Estimates, but people are offered this ritual of the briefcase and the arrival and the quasi-secrecy of the whole thing as if, as is said in the case or royalty or the pigeons in Britain, there were some historical continuity in it. It is about the same level. I welcome the closing of some loopholes in relation to scams involving share options, for example. This is what the Republican Fianna Fáil and the new realism of the Progressive Democrats have presided over, as had their friends in Fine Gael in their day. One could be given a share option as part of one's income and could wait until that 50p share was worth £600 and then exercise the option to purchase. Was not that a sweet arrangement? — no 19th century gombeen man buying the cattle at the fair and leaving them to be fattened for three months. It is from that tradition it came.

If there is not an expression in the elected component of the system towards problems of unemployment, poverty, low incomes and degradation, there will be solidarities forged outside this House which will not have much patience with the kind of thinking we heard this morning. We are elected by people who know that we have a health system where one cannot grow old with dignity, where one will walk past a notice saying that one must have ones money before they will look at one. Nowadays the debt collectors will go after a person who forgets to fill in a form which is not available in the hospital anyway. Health, the elderly, educational participation, emigration and the submission on poverty made by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors — what attention is paid to these? These are problems in society.

Any Minister for Finance or member of Government, any person taking decisions which are political, must answer the fundamental question: do the people exist to serve the economic structures, that is the economy viewed in a de-peopled way, or is the economy a complex set of instruments to serve social priorities? Are these social priorities motivated by a theory of individualism or by some kind of solidarity? The honesty of Deputy O'Malley's position is that he is a naked individualist. All his individuals have a mutual co-existence in the future in their greed. He is not too worried about it. To turn politics around one has to be willing to give way on the concessions on the higher rates, even in the short term, if it means expanding the bands to enable more lower income people to escape paying tax. One must be willing to carry the cost of the transfers that are necessary in terms of social expenditure to raise the conditions of society. Nobody worth his salt who is progressive, not to speak of being socialist could do that. That is what socialism always was, a celebration of the solidarity at the heart of things. It was a comprehensive rejection of individualism which was centuries earlier. It was that to which the original impulse of socialism expressed itself before its deformed expression.

Cúrsaí eile atá tábhachtach ná an imirce, an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht. Níl éinne i mó dháilcheantar nach dtuigeann fadhb na himirce. There is no moral support here for the continual failure in trying to restore the level of overseas development aid. There is a generosity in the heart of the Irish people. There is support on this side of the House for anything the Minister may want to do to try to meet our obligations in relation to overseas development aid. For the fifth successive year its allocation has been cut in this budget.

Then I look at what has happened in relation to the money that was available to emigrants in the United States and think of its being cut from £200,000 to £50,000. When I asked about it I was told, now that some of those people had visas, the problem was not as great, whereas everyone who has ever been an emigrant knows that it is precisely now, when one has either failed to get a visa, or when some of one's friends or neighbours have got one, one becomes more marginalised than ever. There is this miserable rejection of the Irish abroad, in the case of our emigrants. The rejection of the moral impulse of the people who want to reach out to the poorest of the poor countries of the world is something that belongs within the technical thinking of an economy without people but which, I suspect, indeed I know, does not have support among the majority of the people.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Flood)

In contributing to this budget debate I shall confine my remarks specifically to the areas for which I have responsibility.

On my appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Health, the Government gave me special responsibility for the delivery of child-centred services. In particular I was given the task of co-ordinating the efforts of the Departments of Health, Education and Justice. I was also given the task of improving the level of accommodation and services for young homeless people and young offenders.

It was becoming increasingly apparent to the Government, to the Taoiseach in particular, that, because the delivery of child-centred services was spread over three major Government Departments, Health, Education and Justice, on occasions there was a tendency to encounter difficulties in the smooth and efficient provision of those child-centred services. The Taoiseach and the Government recognised the need, early in 1991, to introduce a mechanism to achieve co-ordination in the provision of these services, resulting in my appointment.

Throughout 1991 I have engaged in a considerable amount of preparatory work in terms of researching the problems obtaining, meeting the statutory and voluntary agencies involved and identifying the steps needed to be taken to effect improvements in this area. Resulting from my actions in this regard a number of initiatives are coming to fruition which will result in a much needed improvement and expansion of the services in this area. I might add that my various meetings with the statutory and voluntary agencies were extremely productive and informative. I should like to avail of this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to all those working on the statutory side, and in the voluntary sector, who provide services of one kind or another for our children. Having met them on many occasions, both on an individual basis and as representatives of the voluntary organisations, I have been struck by their dedication, commitment and ability to involve themselves in the provision of child-centred services from a wide range of sources.

Turning to the matter of homeless children, I have been working closely with the health boards and voluntary agencies with a view to effecting substantial improvements in the availability of services and accommodation for young homeless people. I contend it is totally unacceptable in a modern society such as ours that youngsters should be homeless, vulnerable to nefarious influences. Therefore, my immediate objective is to ensure that additional hostel places and other forms of accommodation are provided for them so that no young person should have to sleep rough on the streets of our cities and towns.

I am pleased to report that, since my appointment to this special position, considerable progress has been made over the past year. New services are being developed, in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Athlone, Galway and Sligo, involving the provision of extra places for young homeless people. Considerable progress has been made also in providing new services and accommodation in the Eastern Health Board area where the problem was most acute.

Among those important new developments there is a new emergency hostel, providing ten places for homeless girls at Sherrard House. We are about to open a new therapeutic unit for eight difficult adolescents, boys and girls, to be operated by the Eastern Health Board, located near Naas, County Kildare. Most of the senior and middle managment staff have already been recruited. We expect to open this facility around Easter. Essentially it is the first of its kind and has long been sought by professionals working with homeless and disadvantaged young people. Indeed, it is welcomed by both the voluntary and statutory sectors.

There is to be a new residential unit for ten boys, to be run by the Los Angeles Society, due to open in Dalkey in County Dublin in April 1992. The existing hostel for homeless boys at Percy Place, which has been run by the Catholic Social Service Conference, will be relocated to refurbished accommodation at Eccles Street within the next few weeks, a total of ten places being available there. In addition a new after-care service for up to four boys leaving that hostel has been established at Lennox Street which will work closely with the Eccles Street hostel.

In addition, the Eastern Health Board are taking a number of other initiatives. These include establishing an "after hours" social work service to deal exclusively with the young homeless, a service not available heretofore. At my various meetings, in particular with the voluntary agencies, they pointed consistently to the absence of such a service which meant, essentially, that if any young persons found themselves out of home late at night or in the early hours of the morning, there was no organised facility available to meet their needs at that time. The Garda also mentioned the fact that occasionally they would come across a young person on the streets late at night but there was no statutory facility available to which they could bring such person. The after hours social work service now being provided by the Eastern Health Board will meet this need and will link in with the voluntary sector, working closely with them in this regard.

There will be also a "carers for young people" scheme to provide family care for adolescents who have experienced difficulty in adapting to other settings. We are recruiting families to take young adolescents into their homes on an emergency basis. This is an endeavour to meet the needs of young persons who, for various reasons, may be unable to remain living in their family homes. We are endeavouring to recruit families so that young people will not have to be institutionalised in order to meet their accommodation or housing needs but rather be placed with a suitable caring family, affording such young people and the statutory services an opportunity of resolving the difficulties that led to such a young person having to leave home in the first place. The Eastern Health Board are also developing other short term accommodation such as sheltered flats and semi-independent living accommodation. We are also developing, through the health boards, a special foster care programme for young travellers.

I have initiated a series of meetings, under my chairmanship, with the Eastern Health Board and the main voluntary agencies involved with the homeless. I cannot over-emphasise the need for close and harmonious relationships between the health boards and the voluntary sector, indeed among the voluntary agencies themselves. Co-operation and liaison are essential for the most effective delivery of services and efficient use of resources. The voluntary sector has made an invaluable contribution to the development of services in the past, and, I hope, will continue to do so in the future. A number of new services approved last year are being developed by voluntary bodies in co-operation with the health boards.

As I have already said, urgent steps are being taken to increase the number of hostel and other places available for young people. In the longer term the objective must be to identify the underlying reasons for homelessness among young people and set in place preventive measures to tackle those problems at their roots. In that regard I am totally committed to the new thinking emerging within the various health boards around the country on meeting the needs of young people finding themselves out of home. In referring to young people I am confining my remarks to people of 18 years and under, thereby meeting the provisions of the Child Care Act which was passed in July 1991. The community-based response to this need has to be the ability by the statutory and voluntary agencies to provide places for young people who find themselves out of home within their own community. For that reason the establishment of hostel facilities and care of families will go towards meeting that need. I believe it is unwise to take young persons out of their own community just because they cannot live in their own family home and to place them far away from friends, schools and other connections they would have in their original home-based area. Consequently, I am happy to say that two such hostels one in Tallaght for boys and the other in Ballymun for girls are proving extremely successful. Part of the success is based on the commitment of the staff in both of those hostels. Young people who cannot remain in their family home should be accommodated and provided for within their own community setting. That will allow the young person to continue going to school in their own local areas and to continue to have contact with their own friends and in some cases with their own siblings.

The problem of youth homelessness is not, of course, confined to Dublin. I have had discussions with the chief executive officers of the other health boards concerning appropriate measures to assist the young homeless in their areas. The aim is to ensure, as far as possible, that each health board is self-sufficient in terms of the availability of residential placements for young homeless. This is fully in keeping with the Child Care Act and the new obligations it imposes on health boards to provide accommodation for homeless children. Progress is being made on a number of fronts in this regard. A new hostel for homeless youth is being established in Athlone by a voluntary group in association with the Midland Health Board. A new residential service for eight to ten adolescent boys is being developed near Limerick by the Mid-Western Health Board; it was to open during 1991 but has been delayed because of local objections.

At this point I would like to make a plea to local communities, when health boards and voluntary agencies are attempting to provide accommodation for young people, to think carefully before objecting and before taking any action which might delay the provision of such facilities. When such facilities are planned and provided you can rest assured they are needed in that area. Also, additional places have been provided in County Donegal for children and adolescents with behavioural problems. A new hostel for homeless youngsters is being developed in Sligo by a voluntary body with support from the North-Western Health Board. The building of a new residential unit for teenage boys in Cork city is nearing completion and will open early in 1992. A specialised foster care programme for difficult children is also being developed by the Southern Health Board. A new hostel for homeless girls is being developed in Galway by the Western Health Board in association with a local voluntary group.

Solvent misuse is one of the problems associated with young people who are detached from home. On 1 December last, my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Rourke, introduced new controls on the sale of solvents to young people which were brought into operation. It is now an offence for retailers or others to sell or make available any substance that he or she knows or suspects a young person will use for glue sniffing. The penalty is a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment. The Garda have also been given new powers to seize substances in the possession of young people in a public place which they believe are being misused. The new controls complement the work which is being undertaken by the health promotion unit of my Department to educate young people, their parents and those who work with them on the hazards associated with the misuse of solvents.

The need for improvements in services for the young homeless is but one aspect of the essential improvements required in our child care services. In 1991 a sum of £1 million was made available under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and a further £0.5 million from the national lottery to initiate a range of developments in our child care and family support services. These developments include: the recruitment of 30 additional social workers; the provision of new children's residential centres in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Donegal; additional hostel places — to which I have already referred — for young homeless at Dublin, Athlone, Galway and Sligo; and new child psychiatric services in the North Eastern, South Eastern and Mid-Western Health Boards.

A sum of £2 million was made available for child care in this year's budget and will be used to fund the implementation of substantial elements of the Child Care Act during the current year. Many people interested and working in the area of child care have expressed concern about the Government's commitment to expedite the implementation of the provisions of the Child Care Act. There can be no greater proof of the Government's commitment to speedily implement all the provisions of the Child Care Act than their action in including funds to continue the excellent progress made last year in developing our child-centered services and the provision of child care.

It is our intention to bring into operation most of Part II of the Act which contains many of the preventative and service delivery provisions. Section 3 imposes a statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and empowers them to provide a comprehensive range of child care and family support services. Section 5 imposes a statutory duty on health boards to provide accommodation for homeless children. Section 6 requires health boards to provide or ensure the provision of an an adoption service in their area. Section 7 requires each health board to establish a child care advisory committee to advise and assist them in the performance of their functions under the new legislation, and sections 9 and 10 enable health boards to make arrangements with voluntary bodies to provide services on their behalf and to grant aid them for that purpose.

I have made arrangements for the provision of a national lottery grant of £75,000 to the Eastern Health Board for the replacement of its mobile health clinic for travellers. Since this facility was introduced some years ago the service has proved tremendously successful in bringing health care directly to travellers living in halting sites and other encampments. The new vehicle, which is being specialy built for the purpose, will be staffed by two public health nurses.

I should like to say in this regard it is extremely difficult from a health point of view to deliver adequate and sufficient health care to travellers, and particularly to the children of travellers, when the basic facilities required in terms of accommodation are not available. It is the responsibility of the Department of Health to provide health care for travellers and we are endeavouring to concentrate additional resources in this regard — I have already referred to one specific provision for the Eastern Health Board. The sad fact remains that too many travellers are on unauthorised sites despite the fact that, through the Department of the Environment, moneys are available to local authorities to provide accommodation and to meet the needs of the travelling community. From a health-delivery point of view I appeal to all those with responsibility in this regard to ensure that basic accomodation, whether halting sites or whatever, is provided as quickly as possible for the travelling community. Only then can effective health services be provided for travellers and particularly for their children.

In regard to young offenders, a new centre for boys was opened at Oberstown, Lusk, County Dublin on 30 September 1991. Difficulties arose at one stage in recruiting a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff which necessitated a phased introduction of the new facility. It currently has a capacity to take ten boys on remand and a further four boys on long term detention. Over the next two months this will be increased to twelve remand places and 24 long term places.

Members of the House will be aware of the media attention to this issue which has concentrated, to some extent, on the lack of adequate accommodation for young offenders. The development of Oberstown, Lusk, will go a long way to meet this need.

A new long-stay unit for girls was also opened at Oberstown on 30 September 1991. This unit now forms part of the girls' centre there and complements the existing remand and assessment facility for seven girls. The new long-stay unit has a current capacity to take four girls on long term detention and this will increase to eight long-stay places when the additional staff referred to become available for duty.

Ultimately, it is proposed to transfer the girls' centre from Oberstown to a new purpose built facility which is planned for construction at Finglas. That facility is scheduled for completion in mid-1993 and will have accommodation for eight girls on remand and a further 12 on long term detention, including three places in a secure unit. I have been advised that this number of places will be sufficient to meet the need in this regard.

The transfer of girls from Oberstown will release additional capacity for use by Oberstown boys' centre. Apart from providing a significant number of additional places for boys a fully operational Oberstown boys' centre will provide for greater flexibility in accommodating young male offenders. This is particularly the case where, for example, a secure place is required and not immediately available.

I should point out in regard to young offenders that it is our aim to take whatever measures we can in the community to prevent young people getting into trouble with the law in the first place. In that regard I was very pleased with the commitment given by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, who indicated that he would be bringing forward a juvenile justice Bill during the course of 1992 to allow for greater flexibility in accommodating young male offenders.

The Government strategy to prevent drug misuse is being developed. I am the chairman of a special committee who are dealing with this matter. I wish to thank in particular all the members of the committee working with me. Since the strategy was published I have chaired a number of meetings of this committee who are working actively to oversee the implementation of the various recommendations across the different Departments and agencies involved in the prevention of drug misuse. I would like to express my appreciation to them for the long number of hours they have put into his development.

Finally, in the Estimates £3 million was provided for the provision of child centred services and to fund the new developments which had been put in place in 1991. In this year's budget an extra £2 million has been placed at the disposal of my Department for the improvement of child centred services and for the development of new facilities. This means that this year alone we will be investing £5 million specifically for the provision of child centred services and to implement important sections of the Child Care Act, 1991, fine legislation which the Government are committed to implementing fully as quickly as possible.

Mr. Nealon

I congratulate the new Minister for Finance on his appointment and on the presentation of the budget. Unfortunately, I cannot congratulate him on the contents.

I searched in vain in the Minister's speech for any proposals that the Government might have to tackle the problems of the west. Indeed, I searched in vain for even an acknowledgment that these problems exist. What is new, the Minister might ask, about the problems of the west? The west has always had its problems. From the time of Cromwell through the great Famine, through successive waves of mass emigration, it has always been a struggle for survival but always the resilience of the people, their determination and their love of the land ensured survival. I am not sure that this will be the case in this crisis.

The extent of the present crisis can be seen in cold statistics. During the past 65 years, between 1926 and 1991, Connacht lost 24 per cent of its population. At the same time the population of Munster grew by 4 per cent while the population of Leinster grew by 62 per cent. Even these figures do not tell the sad story of the decline of the west. The forces of depopulation did not strike evenly. Within the overall figures the population of County Leitrim, for instance, fell by a frightening 55 per cent during that same period. Some areas in my own native south Sligo and across the border in Mayo suffered an even greater haemorrhage of their people. In County Sligo as a whole the massive decline of some areas is consistently camouflaged by the growth around Sligo town.

That is the sad story as relayed by the statistics but those who have lived there do not need statistics. We experienced the mass exodus of the fifties. I was part of it for a while. We have also had the mass exodus of the eighties. This is not folklore and it is not history. It is what is happening now. The out-migration is naturally severest among the young. One recent study has shown that in the eighties quite a number of areas lost over 60 per cent of the people in the 17 to 30 age group.

In 1969, I did an RTE "Seven Days" television programme on emigration in south Sligo when I interviewed a great old gentleman called Davey Hegarty, then aged 82. I asked him a general question on the extent of emigration in the area and his reply was:

The way it is here, Mr. Nealon, when I go into the town of Aclare on a Friday evening to draw my pension and they ask me how are all the men in Tourard, my answer is you are looking at them. I am the oldest man in the townland and the youngest.

There have been many Tourards before that and, unfortunately, many more since. The result is a seriously imbalanced population profile, a potholed road profile, with most of the middle missing where all the action and all the traffic should be.

Once the British economy improves as the economies of the United States and mainland Europe improve, we will witness a further exodus from the west such as we have never seen before. That is what is happening and this budget does nothing about it. It does not even make an attempt. Can the west then continue to survive? The answer is no unless the Government produce a major, massive and planned programme for its survival. Sadly, there is no evidence of this in the budget.

Unless we have an acknowledgment by the Government of the problem, a commitment to do something about it and a strategic plan we will have, for a great part, a province without a people. Perhaps it will be a prosperous province for those who remain but what is a land without its people, with tourists being shown around the houses where we grew up, just as they are now being shown around the megalithic tombs at Caramore or the Ceide fields of Ballycastle?

For any kind of progress the first step must be a recognition by the Government that action is needed, then the political commitment to deliver on that action. So far that recognition and commitment is absent among politicians. It is present, however, among the Bishops of the west who are leading a campaign and drawing up their own plans. The huge attendance at their meetings is an indication of just how close they are to the feelings of the people. They are striking a responsive chord. Why should it be left to the Bishops? After all, we are the people who have been elected to do this work.

Previously we could rely on farming to sustain some population to at least keep the west alive. It has to be said that the early days of the European Community in the seventies brought considerable advances to the farming community but, unfortunately, they did not last long enough. We now have the threat of Common Agricultural Policy reform and the GATT negotiations. I predict that if the Common Agricultural Policy reforms go through resembling in any way the present proposals, we are witnessing the last generation of small farmers. People will be supplanted by trees. Those remaining will have to use the telephone to bid good day to a neighbour and they will have to look up in the air from the surrounding forests to see whether it is day or night. Forests are all right but not forests from the Shannon to the Atlantic.

In the area of forestry development there is something important the Minister can look at and that the Government can do immediately for the west, that is, to ensure that the woodpulp industry, which will come soon, is located in the north west and not on the east coast as some of the planners would have it. We are regularly reminded that there will be generous compensation cheques in the post from Brussels to make up for income loss arising from the Common Agricultural Policy reforms. The young people will not be satisfied with this kind of compensation, however generous and however long guaranteed. They want to be able to make a decent living from the fruits of their work and from the marketplace, not from cheques in the post.

I appeal to the Minister for Finance — and to his colleagues who will be conducting the final negotiations on GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy reforms — to use the veto if the survival of the west is at stake, as I believe it will be, if we accept the present proposals. Surely the survival of the west is a vital national issue.

The help coming from Brussels so far under regional and structural plans is ineffective and fragmented, a plethora of schemes without any central direction. As John Hume told the meeting of Bishops in Galway, real regional planning must become a reality in the west of the future, with the development of regional structures and decentralisation of power and decision making all properly resourced. I was very disappointed that the budget speech and the budget provisions did not contain a single suggestion that the Government might be thinking along those lines.

In the west we are on the periphery of a periphery but no major effort has been made to improve access which will become vital in the Europe of 1993. The nearest a Euro route goes in our direction is as far as Kinnegad; we had virtually to revolt, not just to get a half decent train service to Sligo, but to save the existing line from being scrapped.

In tourism, where our great potential lies, we have only been tinkering round the edges. The only initiative we have heard very much of so far is in agri-tourism. This is something which will benefit the odd farmer with a big house overlooking a lake, a river or a picturesque valley. It will not do much for anybody else. A properly developed tourist industry in the west, with all its special attractions, could give employment to 25 per cent of the population. I hope that the new tourist study group, headed by a civil servant of great imagination and inventiveness, will acknowledge this potential and recommend to the Government the ways in which it can be developed. I mentioned earlier the danger of the whole west of Ireland being turned into a heritage centre but that does not mean that a major folk park on the lines of Mellon Folk Park or the Cultra Folk Park in Northern Ireland should not be developed. The west needs major attractions to make it a destination for tourists that no decent tourist guide book can omit.

In all these developments, in the exploitation of our natural resources, there must be someone to take the initiative and with the financing to do so. Some local authorities have done just that, with excellent results. They have been very enterprising and they should be encouraged and financed to become much more involved in this development work.

Decentralisation of Government Departments is another area of considerable potential. With improved communications there should not be any insurmountable difficulties as they can be placed anywhere along the west coast, as far as Kerry and west Cork. Here I must pay tribute to my predecessor, Commissioner MacSharry, for his work in bringing the pensions section of the Department of Social Welfare to Sligo. I have seen its effects, which have been considerable, on the town and hinterland.

One of the most depressing sights travelling through the western counties are the recently vacated houses going to ruin with maybe a cow staring out a window between the remnants of the still hanging curtains. Nothing deteriorates as fast as a deserted and locked house. These houses have all the existing services, all the infrastructure is in place, with local schools and churches in danger of closing because of lack of people. Surely there must be some way, some mechanism, whereby these houses could be purchased, by the local authorities perhaps, preserved and made available to people who would live there — this would sustain the local population — instead of seeking houses, where none exist, in the towns.

The possible remedies about which I have been talking are only isolated examples, they will not solve the problems of the west. What is needed is the regionalism about which John Hume spoke when he addressed the meeting organised by the Bishops in Galway. A real political commitment and a major plan are needed. The west can be saved but it will not happen by accident. It can be done despite all the forces ranged against it. The greatest of all lies in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy because, if it goes through, as I said earlier, we will be witnessing the last generation of small farmers.

The reaction to the Bishops' meeting in recent months shows that the resilience, and the determination of the people of the west, which showed up in every generation in the past, is still there. They will do the job but the odds against them are so great that on this occasion they must be helped by central Government, a regional plan and by politicians. It is a fact that we, despite all our efforts, have consistently failed to get over to our city colleagues what is happening in the west. I hope that the Taoiseach-in-waiting — a man born on the west bank of the Shannon — will not waste any time in supplying the help to which I referred. The budget does not even acknowledge that special help is needed.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The budget introduced last Wednesday by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, provides once again, in a significant way, for the implementation by the Office of Public Works of Government policy in the areas of public sector accommodation, arterial drainage, development of inland waterways, conservation of national monuments and historic properties, management of national parks, the protection of flora and fauna and the operation of the Government Supplies Agency.

It is important that we should acknowledge at this stage, the tremendous contribution which the Office of Public Works have made to Irish life since they were established over 160 years ago. There is hardly a parish in the country which at some stage or another has not benefited from the operations of the Office of Public Works.

A number of years ago some concern was expressed about the office's handling of certain projects and there were calls for radical measures. It would have been easy to go with the tide but the Taoiseach, with his usual foresight, saw that the Office of Public Works had a vital role to play and that what was necessary was a fine tuning of their operations with greater focus on achieving their targets on time and within budget. As usual he was right and it can hardly have escaped the notice of the Members of the House that the Office of Public Works have put their affairs in order and now enjoy the confidence of Government and public alike.

The budget makes provision for the continuation of work of the highest standard in the provision of State accommodation. I could be said to be a visitor to Dublin and I can see the great improvements that have been carried out to our public buildings in recent years. Dublin's upsurge architecturally can be traced back to the work of the Office of Public Works as agent of this Government. Dublin Castle, the venue of our Presidency of the EC in the first half of 1990, the Custom House, and the former College of Science now Government Buildings, are a testimony to this — and we have not finished yet. I was particularly proud of the major contribution made by the Office of Public Works to Dublin's year as Cultural Capital of Europe.

The budget provides for a continuation of works at Dublin Castle at the Treasury Building in the lower castle yard. It also provides for the continuation of the Garda building programme as well as the completion of phase II of the major upgrading of Templemore Garda Training Centre. New courtrooms are being provided in the Four Courts this year as well.

In order that the unemployed can transact their affairs with dignity we have a programme for the provision of new and improved employment exchanges. This year the budget provides for the completion of the new exchange at Finglas and I hope that work will start later in the year in Tallaght, at the Navan Road, Dublin, and on the adaptation of Carlow employment exchange.

I am particularly proud of the role being played by the Office of Public Works in the Government's programme of decentralisation. As the House is aware, the decentralisation programme is a major policy objective of this Government. It is based on the need for a more widespread location of public service jobs and job opportunities. Over the years, many provincial regions suffered considerably from the effects of emigration of its people, particularly the young generation, to Dublin to work in the public sector. While they maintained strong ties with their native areas, there were little or no opportunities to return on a permanent basis. The decentralisation programme is giving that opportunity to substantial numbers of people. There is also the very desirable long term objective of helping to reduce regional imbalances and the pressures on the Dublin region. As a rural Deputy I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of this programme, to which Deputy Nealon also referred in his contribution.

Phase one of the programme was completed in 1989 and saw the transfer of some 850 staff to Cavan, Galway, Sligo and Ballina. Phase two is well on the way to completion: offices at Letterkenny, Killarney and Athlone are occupied by over 500 staff and projects are under way in the remaining three centres, Ennis, Nenagh and Limerick. The building in Ennis has been completed and the building in Nenagh will be completed shortly. The building in Limerick is scheduled for completion at the end of the year. Over 900 staff of the Revenue Commissioners will occupy the three buildings.

Phase three of the programme was announced last June. It involves moving sizeable sections of nine Government Departments to eight important provincial centres — Cork, Longford, Tullamore, Kilkenny, Wexford, Portlaoise, Dundalk and Waterford. The number of staff to be moved will be in the region of 1,500. A contract has been entered into in respect of accommodation in Kilkenny and work has begun on site. Tenders will be received this month for the offices in Longford and Cork and construction work is expected to begin in the summer of this year. Preparatory work in relation to the other centres is in hands.

It has been possible to implement and maintain this major capital programme through an innovative and imaginative partnership between the private sector and the State. It has resulted in a design-build-finance arrangement which is a novel approach in the context of State building development in this country. A competitive tendering arrangement results in the successful developer providing a new building for the State on a deferred purchase basis over a period of 20 years. The cost of the accommodation provided so far compares very favourably with the cost of rented space in Dublin.

It is the towns which have been selected as locations for decentralisation which will benefit most from the programme. The local economy of these towns has received a considerable boost by the injection of, on average, about £3 million annually in wages and salaries. This has major spinoff effects for local business, shopkeepers and house builders.

The benefits are not confined, however, to economic ones; there are important social effects which impact on the regions. The arrival of upwards of 200 people in a particular area will play a very important role in the regeneration process of that region and will help in no small way in the future development and vitality of the region. Immediate benefits will be felt by the various sporting, cultural and social organisations and outlets.

The decentralisation programme helps to maintain and expand employment in the building industry. It is reckoned that the completion of seven projects so far has resulted in capital expenditure of some £14.75 million. Jobs in progress at present and those scheduled to start in 1992 will involve further capital expenditure of about £22 million, and the remainder of the current programme will result in expenditure of the order of £12 million.

This substantial capital expenditure has been achieved through the use of the design-build-finance arrangement at a time when the Government are committed to reducing the debt burden. It shows the Government's support for the building industry and their determination to maintain jobs in the industry using a novel approach to the State's building programme.

The Government are proud of what has been achieved by decentralisation. The towns to which public service staff have already been moved are reaping the economic benefits of the programme. A welcome shot in the arm has been provided to the business, commercial and social life of the communities and to the building industry generally. This budget will ensure that the remainder of the programme will be carried out with similar success and with similar benefit to all concerned.

It is no idle boast to say that the Office of Public Works was "green" long before that term became fashionable. I know from experience that the Office have pursued an enlightened and imaginative approach to the protection of our environment, both built and natural. Perhaps the Office foresaw the growth in visitor numbers to this island and their capacity now to deal with the large inflow is evidence of that foresight. While always conscious that conservation of the resource is the primary objective, this has nevertheless always been balanced with the need to provide for access to monuments, or landscapes through the provision of appropriate infrastructure. I will have more to say about this later.

The conservation of areas of outstanding landscape quality and representative types of ecosystems is the most important function of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Five national parks have been established and to date 71 nature reserves, five refuges for fauna and 68 wildfowl sanctuaries have been designated. Suitable sites for conservation purposes will be acquired as they become available. Additional funds are being provided for this purpose in the current year and I expect further funds will become available through the EC later in the year under new regulations.

As all will be aware, there is an increasing interest in all sections of the community in the conservation of our environment. The National Parks and Wildlife Service are playing a major role by identifying areas which need to be conserved as part of our natural heritage. These areas have been classified as Areas of Scientific Interest, ASIs, and include such areas as peatlands, dune systems, wetlands, grasslands, bird sites and marine areas. For some time past the National Parks and Wildlife Service have been reviewing their policy on ASIs and a report will shortly be presented to Government on this important issue, taking account of the recent High Court judgment.

In the area of international co-operation the problems and challenges which face wildlife conservation are common to all states and do not recognise national boundaries. The National Parks and Wildlife Service service a number of international conventions in this area. The EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds is implemented in Ireland by the National Parks and Wildlife Service under the provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1976, as amended. The Council of Environment Ministers of the member states of the European Community agreed in December 1991 to a new Habitat Directive. This is very important for wildlife conservation and places an obligation on member states to protect habitats and species of European importance. I know that there are those who will express concern when EC Directives place strictures on us and impose new obligations. Very often local communities feel an extra burden is placed on them. Yet in the overall European Community and national interest these are necessary.

I should like to refer to one or two projects in this area which are provided for in the budget. The provision of a new interpretative centre in Coole Park Nature Reserve, County Galway, is nearing completion and will be opened to the public later this year. The interpretative centre at the Wexford Wildfowl Reserve in County Wexford has recently been upgraded and fitting out works will commence shortly. Works are continuing on the establishment of a nature park at Doneraile, County Cork. Nineteen ninety two will see the completion of the new park interpretative exhibition and information area at Muckross House in Killarney National Park. It will be open in time for the main summer season. Further improvement works are to be carried out in the area surrounding Muckross House, in particular the main car park which will be landscaped. A further contract for the eradication of rhododendron ponticum from the park will be carried out this year. This will be supplemented by summer workcamps of voluntary conservation workers. This "introduced" shrub threatens the continued existence of the native woodlands in the park and must be eradicated if this important element of our natural heritage is to survive.

Ireland's countryside has to a great extent been preserved intact partly by traditional farming methods and late industrialisation compared to other European countries. All of us have a responsibility to pass on this unique and valued heritage to future generations. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will continue to preserve this heritage and promote the conservation of our flora and fauna. I need not stress the importance of a clean environment and preservation of our natural heritage.

This budget provides for the erection of a number of major interpretative centres. At this stage I want to say how extremely disappointed I am that our actions in the Office of Public Works are misunderstood. We are, after all, the Government's principal heritage conservation agency and we have no intention of bringing about a deterioration of the great fund of national assets which we have painstakingly built up over many years. Everything we are doing at our heritage sites is a continuation of a well-defined policy relating to the management of public access to the heritage landscape. What we are doing fully conforms with Government policy in the matter, as enunciated by the Taoiseach when he opened the Council of Europe Colloquy on "Access to the Heritage Landscape" in Dublin Castle last September.

While the identification and conservation of our heritage, both natural and cultural, must remain a priority, this in itself is not enough. This heritage belongs to the people and it is essential to provide public access to that heritage where this can be done in sympathy with traditional usage and presentation. To this end my office have continued to seek control of heritage areas through acquisition and management agreements with landowners. However, conservation cannot be successful through the actions of the State alone. It is vital to inform and educate the general public so that every citizen will be aware of the importance of conservation and will approach the management of his or her own property with an eye to conservation. Interpretative centres are a key element of our strategy to inform and educate the public. At these centres the public will be given an experience of an element of our natural or cultural heritage and an interpretation of the importance of that element and what conditions are necessary so that it will survive for future generations to see and experience.

The Government have provided money in this budget to enable work to start this year on interpretative centres at Dún Caoin, An Blascaod Mór, County Kerry; Wicklow National Park, Corlea Bog, County Longford and Boyne Valley National Archaeological Park, County Meath. These centres have been designed with great sensitivity, to the highest standards and subject to strict environmental controls. Independent environmental impact statements have confirmed in the first three cases that these centres will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. The independent environmental impact statement on the Burren National Park Centre will be published this week and I would be surprised if it does not show that there will be no adverse impacts arising from this project. Should that be the case, I would expect that having gone through the appropriate public consultation process, we would be able to commence work on this centre before the end of the year. An environmental impact statement is being prepared for the Corlea Bog Centre and this will be published in due course.

I had the honour, on behalf of Ireland, to sign the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. This was done at the Third European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Cultural Heritage held in Malta on 16-17 January last. The convention aims to ensure a common Europe-wide approach to the protection of the archaeological heritage based on sound scientific principles and the best international standards. The main provisions of the convention require: statutory protection of archaeological remains and the establishment of inventories of sites, support for maintenance and research, regulation of archaeological excavation and the movement of artefacts, integration of conservation policies into the planning process, promotion of scientific study and public awareness and the exchange of information and expertise with other states. I am glad to say that Ireland, mainly through the activities of the Office of Public Works, conforms with these requirements and that, following the proposed legislative changes to give further protection to archaeological artefacts, we will have a very sound statutory basis for the protection of our archaeological heritage.

The Minister's conference also welcomed the participation of several of the newly-structured Eastern European countries and resolved to assist them by providing technical support and advice, as it is recognised that one of the most effective ways of integrating with the West is through the areas of culture and heritage. Ireland, through the Office of Public Works, will contribute to this process by offering to make available its expertise gained over the last 30 years in archaeological survey techniques. Other means of encouraging pan-European co-operation in the cultural heritage field will also be explored, including participation in exchanges of experts, professional workshops, training, studies on the effects of pollution on antiquities, archaeological research and projects to raise public awareness such as the annual European Heritage Day.

A sum of £16 million is being provided this year for national monuments and historic properties. This covers a wide range of activities reaching every corner of the country. It includes archaeological survey and excavation, conservation work on national monuments, ongoing maintenance of monuments and parks and the provision of improved facilities for the public at selected sites.

I am happy to announce that the first stage of an accelerated programme of archaeological survey will be completed this year and sites and monuments records for each country will be available. This will enable the various planning authorities and other organisations such as Coillte and the Farm Development Service to ensure that our archaeological heritage is protected from inappropiate development. With this programme drawing to a successful conclusion the Office of Public Works has now commenced an inventory of our entire post 1700 A.D. architectural heritage. This is a necessary prerequisite to establishing the mechanism which will ensure the survival of this important part of our built heritage.

This year's budget also provides over £6 million for the maintenance and development of inland waterways. Deputies will be aware that the Canals Act, 1986, transferred responsibility for the Grand and the Royal Canals and for the Barrow navigation from CIE to the Office of Public Works. This was most important legislation since it conferred on the Office of Public Works the duty to develop these waterways as a public amenity. The Commissioners set about this task with enthusiasm with the result that today the Grand Canal is fully navigable from Ringsend to the Shannon and the Barrow, which is connected to the Grand Canal by a stretch of canal known as the Barrow Line, is fully navigable to St. Mullins and all the way to Waterford for more experienced boatmen. Steady progress is also being made on the restoration of the Royal Canal, which many people had feared would prove impossible. Already navigation is possible from Mullingar to the suburbs of Dublin and it is expected that the eagerly awaited breakthrough to the Liffey will be made towards the end of this year. Restoration work is also proceeding steadily westwards from Mullingar towards Longford and the Shannon at Clondra. There are major obstacles to be overcome including low bridges and other crossings which would obstruct navigation and the availability of an adequate water supply is a critical factor. All of these matters are under active consideration in the Office of Public Works and I have every confidence now that the target of opening navigation along the full length of the Royal Canal will be attained.

An enormous amount of progress has been made in the six years since the Office of Public Works assumed responsibility for the system and it is hard to believe that not so long ago these waterways were regarded as derelict and there were proposals to fill them in and turn them into roadways. The maintenance and development of these waterways for amenity purposes is a multifaceted project. In addition to navigation they can and have been used for fishing, walking, swimming and canoeing.

The canals in particular have the potential to become very important coarse fisheries with a significant tourist potential as well as providing enjoyment for the local angling clubs. Significant progress is also being made on the development of the fisheries aspect of the waterways. The Office of Public Works have engaged the Central Fisheries Board to undertake a five year development programme involving restocking of the canals, weed control and water quality monitoring. The All-Ireland Coarse Angling Championships were held on the Grand Canal in Dublin last year and there are a number of international angling competitions being established on both the Grand and Royal Canals.

The potential of the waterways as walking routes is virtually unlimited, passing as they do through so many towns and villages. There is a great diversity of flora and fauna to be found and enjoyed throughout the system. The Commissioners have engaged botanists for the past number of years and propose to do so again this year to survey the system to identify scientifically and environmentally important areas. The policy of the Office of Public Works in managing the system is to conserve species by facilitating natural growth and development to the maximum extent possible. There are instances from time to time where the clearing of areas is essential but in such cases the areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally.

The maintenance of such a network is not, of course, without its difficulties. Deputies will, I am sure, recall the major breach which occurred on the Grand Canal at Ticknevin near Edenderry in County Offaly in 1989. This was quickly and expertly repaired.

The Commissioners have been developing facilities on the Shannon on a progressive basis for many years. Projects which were completed last year included major repair to Victoria Lock and Meelick Weir and the provision of a new pier at Portrunny. Work is currently under way on the construction of major extensions to Terryglass Pier and the harbour at Banagher. The extension of navigation to Ballinasloe along the River Suck is in progress and work will start shortly on the re-opening of Lough Allen Canal to extend navigation to Lough Allen.

Work is in progress on a major cross-Border project to re-open the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal. This work, which is jointly sponsored by the British and Irish Governments, is being undertaken under a special arrangement with the ESB. It is due for completion late next year. The Office of Public Works have commenced the task of preparing a management plan to ensure that they will be in a position to maintain and operate the canal to the highest standards once it is re-opened.

A survey of the Erne navigation was undertaken last year and work to remove some obstructions will be undertaken later this year.

I look forward eagerly to the day in the not too distant future when the cities and towns of Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Ballinasloe, Enniskillen and Belturbet will all be linked at the extremities of a fully navigable waterways network.

Following an extensive process of consultation, the Commissioners will shortly introduce by-laws for the control of the Shannon Navigation. The proposed by-laws are designed to improve the operation and enjoyment of the system for everyone. In carrying out their responsibilities for the operation and maintenance of the waterways system the Office of Public Works work in very close co-operation with voluntary organisations, local authorities and State agencies.

In the short time available to me I have demonstrated that this is a sound budget, particularly in so far as my area of responsibility is concerned, and I commend it to the House. I have touched on many aspects of the work of the Office of Public Works. The range of their operations is vast and today one will not find many serious critics of their work or the way they go about it. The Office of Public Works occupy a unique place in Irish life. They are a faithful trustee of our heritage and a loyal guardian of our environment, and that should always be the position.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

Speaking in this House in the last few years I have tried to facilitate the press by preparing my speech in written form and making it available, but I then felt I had been confined to my text. Many of us have fallen into this trap and the quality of debate in the House has suffered as a consequence. Therefore, regardless of whether a word I say appears outside, I intend to speak in a more informal manner today.

The economy of this country has a unique characteristic at present on which nobody has commented. More than any other country on which I can find information our balance of payments surplus is increasing to a point which is phenomenal. The figure in the budget for the balance of payments surplus is 6.75 per cent. In Japan it is only 2 per cent and in all other countries for which figures are given in the ESRI bulletin there are minus quantities for a balance of payments deficit. A country in our happy position is free from constraints. We have often had the experience in the past of having to limit domestic consumption and hold back the growth in living standards because of our balance of payments difficulties. We are now in a position where, if we had the means available to us, we could encourage and stimulate consumption. We cannot do this by monetary means because of the dominance of the Deutschemark and our links to it. If we reduce interest rates there will be an outflow of capital, which we could not afford. We do not have — no more than any other country in Europe — freedom in this respect. We are constrained to maintaining our interest rates at levels linked to the Deutschemark. The Deutschemark is in difficulties, Germany is in difficulty and therefore we do not have that weapon open to us.

The other weapon which could enable us to stimulate the economy is the fiscal one, that is reducing taxes, releasing money for and encouraging spending, but we cannot do this because this Government in their mishandling of the budgetary situation over the past two years have tied themselves up in such knots and have increased the level of borrowing so much that they do not now have the freedom to reduce taxes and stimulate growth, an option which is more open to us than any other economy at present. That is the ultimate mess for a Government to make — to be unable to stimulate growth when all the means are there had they not got themselves into budgetary difficulties.

That happened last year because the then Minister for Finance — who within two hours may be Taoiseach — decided, for reasons never explained and which I frankly do not understand, to virtually double the rate of borrowing when there was no great pressure on him to do so. In last year's budget he increased the underlying level of borrowing from 1.5 per cent of GNP, to which it had fallen in 1990 under the good husbandry of both Mr. MacSharry and himself in his first budget, to a figure of 2.85 per cent for 1991. That was masked for the time being by a delay in payments coming in from the EC and by putting the fortuitous, once-off privatisation money from the Greencore privatisation into the Estimates.

It thus looked as if the rate of borrowing had remained unchanged. It was not unchanged, however. It had almost doubled, but that was hidden by these fortuitous events.

Why the then Minister for Finance had allowed himself to be tempted into such an inappropriate policy, when there was no pressure to do so, merely because he had the chance to cover it up by the late arrival of moneys from the EC I do not understand, but the effect is that the present Minister for Finance — a different Minister — has to face the task of trying to reduce borrowing and he has managed to get it one-third of the way back down to the figure it was in 1990, that is to 2.4 per cent. But doing that, he has been unable to stimulate the economy. This is a neutral and not a stimulatory budget.

In terms of our budgetary position it is inadequate, for it has not done enough to get us back to the point where we were at on the way to eliminating borrowing, which we would have done this year if the original budgetary strategy had been maintained; and in terms of what is needed, it does not stimulate the economy. It is exactly the wrong budget both ways. The Government have managed to get themselves into the position where they are doing the wrong thing because they did not have a tight enough budget to get the debt-GNP ratio down rapidly enough, and at the same time are not able to stimulate growth, and this is an uniquely undesirable position for the Minister for Finance to find himself in. The budget is in both ways an inappropriate budget.

We are supposed to get our debt-GNP ratio down to 60 per cent by the year 1999 or to be approaching that figure in a consistent and continuing manner in order to qualify for entry to the single currency. The opportunity to do that was there but it has been thrown away. Because it is unlikely now in the light of the demands left to be fulfilled in 1993 that we will get back to the 1.5 per cent debt-GNP figure next year, it seems as if we will have lost four years and that it will be 1994 before our borrowing level is back to the 1.5 per cent that had been achieved in 1990. To lose four years when one has only nine years to reach the target does not seem to be sensible and whereas we had made sufficient progress towards the target that, had we not been diverted in 1990, we would be able to release some resources to stimulate growth, we cannot now do that either. We have lost out both ways. By any standards that is bad budgeting.

If Deputy Reynolds is elected leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and selected as Taoiseach next Tuesday there will be a certain poetic justice about the fact that it will fall to him as Leader of the Government to face into the difficulties in 1993 of getting the budgetary situation under control and that it is he who will have lost the possible benefit of growth stimulation as a result of taking the wrong action in 1990, whereas if he had done the right thing he might be able at this stage to use the leeway provided by the balance of payments surplus to stimulate the economy in order to mark his assumption to the office of Taoiseach, which I am sure he would have liked to do. There is some poetic justice about the fact that he cannot do that.

Next year he will not be able to take that course either because he will have to face the problem of VAT harmonisation. We now have six rates because in addition to the rate of 12.5 per cent, we now have the rate of 16 per cent, and we still have to face the whole process of rationalising the VAT rates for, as the Minister said in the budget he intended to "rationalise the coverage of VAT". The top rate of VAT is pitched too high because it is 3.5 per cent above the British rate and if we leave it at that level we could be back to the position where we may see a migration of shoppers to Belfast on a scale that would be very damaging to our Border areas. Money has to be found to reduce the top rate of VAT first.

The DIRT tax problem has to be sorted out. I hope that can be negotiated in part, at least, in Brussels and that the failure hitherto to agree on a deposit interest retention tax system throughout the Community can be overcome, and that we do not have to eliminate it, even if we have to reduce it. There is likely to be a loss of revenue in that area and it is possible that it will be quite substantial.

We need to reverse the payment of VAT at the point of entry and nothing was done about that this year. All the radical changes in the system required for the Single Market in 1993 have been left to the 1993 budget. Nothing has been done about it to date. Everything will have to be done together and God help the Minister for Finance who will have to face that problem when the time comes.

We all recall that VAT at the point of entry was introduced in the phoney budget of March 1982 when Fianna Fáil came back into power again and wanted to abolish some of the taxes we had proposed in the January budget and, hey presto, they brought forward £140 million from 1983 to 1982 by introducing VAT at the point of entry, knowing perfectly well that it could not last indefinitely and would have to be reversed in time because of the EC requirements. That little conjuring trick which produced £140 million that enabled the huge gap in the Fianna Fáil budget of March 1982 to be apparently bridged has now to be done away with and of course there will be an equivalent loss of revenue of the order of £200 million to be faced up to.

These problems will have to be faced on top of paying the 1992 as well as the 1993 public pay increases in the next budget. This is a tall order. Certainly it is very hard to see that in 1993, any more than in 1992, the Government will be able to offer a stimulation to the economy, which they otherwise could well afford because of the absence of a balance of payments constraint.

We will find that our economy will grow slowly in 1992 and grow slower than it should in 1993 and perhaps up to 1994 because the Government failed to continue the policies which they carried out successfully between 1987-90 but which they reversed for no good reason, in fact stupidly, in 1991. This is a most unfortunate result of bad Government policy.

I think it needs to be brought out into the public gaze that we cannot take advantage of the extraordinary performance of our industry and agriculture in exporting on such a scale as to create a balance of payments surplus that has to sit there unused because the Government have not the capacity and the freedom of action to encourage and stimulate demand. This is very disappointing. The increased resources would stimulate domestic demand and domestic consumption, which is more employment-intensive than exports. The exporting firms have done their job. They have produced exports on a massive scale and we now have this huge surplus. If we were free to stimulate growth, we would have growth in demand at home for domestic goods. Employment would be created in domestic industries, because true employment comes from a demand for the goods that we use ourselves. We would see a growth in employment in the less capital-intensive industries, and this would be a great relief in the present circumstances. The Government have thrown away the opportunity they had to do something about unemployment as a result of the way they handled their affairs. I think that needs to be said.

I now wish to talk about tax reliefs in the budget. Frankly, I consider them to be perverse. The influence of the Progressive Democrats on Fianna Fáil has made Fianna Fáil even worse than they were. Even before the Progressive Democrats went into Government Fianna Fáil were busy reducing the top tax rate and not concentrating on the threshold of the standard rate and on the basic allowances. The money was already being put into reducing taxes for people who were better off. With the Progressive Democrats coming into Government all of the concentration is in that area. Of course, there is talk about doing something about the threshold, and there has been a small increase in it this year, but there has been a total failure to use the resources available to look after the overtaxed people in the lower tax bracket. A huge amount of the resources has gone towards looking after those who are better off.

In total, some £200 million has been used to reduce the top tax rate by 10 per cent in the past few years. That £200 million could have been used in other ways. One way in which it could have been used — although I am not saying it is the only way — would have been to abolish the 48 per cent rate completely and to put everyone on the 48 per cent rate or the 27 per cent rate. In that way, 120,000 people would have had their tax rate reduced from 48 per cent to 27 per cent, rather than have to face an absurd marginal tax rate, including PRSI, of 56 per cent.

That was not done. Instead, this budget has done something that must be unique in the world, it has produced a marginal PRSI/tax rate for a worker on one-quarter less than the average industrial wage that is higher than the marginal tax rate for millionaires. I do not think that has ever been done, in even the most reactionary country in the world. The PRSI rate is higher for employed people than it is for a self-employed millionaire. The single man earning one-quarter less than the average industrial wage is now on the same 48 per cent tax rate as a millionaire but he pays more PRSI. Does that make sense? Is that social justice?

That is the perverse influence of the Progressive Democrats in Government. I do not know whether Fianna Fáil on their own would have gone quite so far although they had already been putting money towards reducing the top tax rate. Of course we need a lower top tax rate; it is a little on the high side, but this is not the major problem. Those who pay tax at the top rate are people whose jobs, on the whole, are reasonably interesting, and who have an incentive to work because of the kind of work they are doing. Some of them are also making money, and that is a good incentive to work hard.

Those who need relief are the ordinary workers on the factory floor who do routine repetitive work and who have 56 per cent of every extra pound earned taken off them. This budget has done very little for them and we are left with the extraordinary position that single workers who earn less than the average wage pay a higher marginal tax rate than do millionaires. That is absolutely absurd and the issue needs to be brought out in this House. I challenge any Deputy from the Government side to defend that system and say why that has been done. The only defence I can recognise is that the Progressive Democrats wanted it.

It is known that the supporters of the Progressive Democrats come from a particular category and I can see that the Progressive Democrats might have a political reason for wanting such a tax system, but they ought to have some sense of responsibility in pressing Fianna Fáil for changes that are so much against the general social interest. The Progressive Democrats are an unusual party. For the first time in this House there is a party whose support comes mainly from people who are better off. Hitherto Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil drew their support from across the spectrum and the Labour Party and The Workers Party had support from the less well-off sector. The Progressive Democrats are the first party in this House whose primary voters are people who are better off. The Progressive Democrats are in a position to use that leverage cleverly with Fianna Fáil to reduce the top tax rate at the expense of people lower down the line. The Government are not a good Government from that point of view. One would not need to be an extreme left-winger to feel that there is something wrong somewhere when such policies are being adopted.

The budget has done nothing to increase child benefits. Do people realise what has happened to the child benefit? When Fine Gael were in office between 1981 and 1986 we increased the child benefit for the first child two-and-a-half times, and for other children by two-thirds. That meant that even though the cost of living was rapidly increasing in the early years of our Government — because we had inherited a 20 per cent inflation rate from Fianna Fáil, which we brought down to 3 per cent by the end of our term in office — there was a big increase of one-third in the benefit available to a family with two children and a somewhat lesser increase for a family with more children. What has happened since we left office? There has been a 75 pence increase in the child benefit rate, an increase of 5 per cent. It is true that the cost of living is increasing less rapidly, but during the six years from 1986 to 1992 it has risen by about 20 per cent, about 3 per cent per annum. The children's allowance has been devalued by 20 per cent or more under this Government in six years, whereas our Government increased the purchasing power of the benefit by 30 per cent. That is an extraordinary contrast and I do not understand the philosophy behind it. I do not understand why in a country where children are cared for, where people are child-oriented — thank God — and where there are many children, any Government would concentrate their negative actions on that sector by reducing the value of the child benefit year after year. That is indefensible.

I hope second thoughts will prevail and that perhaps the Progressive Democrats will let up a little and give Fianna Fáil a chance to do something in that area although I have to point out that even when the Progressive Democrats were not in Government, Fianna Fáil did damn all about the child benefit. That has to be one of the worst social features of budgeting under this Government and their predecessor since 1987.

I now wish to talk about a very different aspect of the budget, the attack on profit-sharing. I have to declare an interest here. I am a director of GPA, a company that has profit-sharing arrangements with their staff. Three-quarters of the staff of GPA are shareholders of the company, which I have thought to be an ideal situation — I wish it applied elsewhere.

Having said that, this budget proposes to remove the profit-sharing tax incentive. Perhaps second thoughts will prevail before enactment of the Finance Bill. The sum of money involved is about £1.8 million, a relatively small sum. The budget also removes the tax relief on interest for people buying shares. It may be that that relief needs to be limited in some way, but if the Government want employees to become shareholders in their workplace — and I think that should be encouraged — then the staff will need help to purchase shares. Such share-holding arrangements are in the interests of the workers and in the interests of society, a society in which people have a real interest in their work and where management/labour conflict is eliminated. I have not heard before that Fianna Fáil are against that idea. Staff need some form of help to buy shares under such an arrangement because in an ordinary industrial company the dividends paid on shares are low compared to the returns from investment in gilts, for example. Sometimes the dividends paid are as low as 2.5 per cent. Even if workers have money, they cannot easily afford to invest it for such a low return in the short-term, even though the value of the shares would increase over time. That is why the tax relief is justified and why it is very damaging to remove all of the reliefs together.

I have only a limited amount of time left available to me but there are a number of points I wish to make. I deplore the decision to cut the allocation to library services. Last year £3.5 million was allocated to library services and only £2.15 million was spent. The Government saved £1 million last year, so this year they have cut the allocation to £2 million — a cut of 40 per cent. The damage done to library services in the past few years has been appalling. Libraries are not opening and there are years going by in which they buy no books.

The failure to do something about the housing problem is also to be deplored. The extent to which the Government have reduced the provision for public housing to a tiny fraction of what it was is totally unacceptable. There are now 30,000 on the waiting list.

I urge the Government to give an assurance that the extra teachers to be employed will be put into disadvantaged areas only. If the extra teachers were spread around the country and the pupil/teacher ratio was gradually lowered from 26:1 to 25:1 and then in a few years to 24:1 there would, no doubt, be a marginal benefit in having marginally lower numbers in classrooms. But that should be compared to the benefit that would occur by concentrating the extra teachers in disadvantaged areas. Classes could have half the number of pupils per teacher and the effect there would be astonishing. If classes could be cut from 30 to 15 in disadvantaged areas we could really begin to make progress for the children who need help. The benefits would be well beyond anything that could be achieved by a marginal reduction in class numbers across the country.

Finally, I deplore what has happened to development aid. The development aid figure now stands at 0.17 per cent. When Fine Gael left Government the figure stood at 0.256 per cent. Each Government in which I was involved increased development aid. This Government reduced it. In a country in which there is such remarkable private generosity to the Third World, the Government take advantage of that private generosity to cut public funding to the Third World. It is intolerable and totally against the wishes of the people. There must be some relationship between what governments do and the strong sentiment of the ordinary people of the country. The persistent reduction in this aid is another deplorable feature of this budget and of previous budgets from this and the immediately preceding Government.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I welcome the budget. It has continued down the road we have travelled since 1987. Our economic policies are clear and consistent and they will maintain low inflation and interest rates and will generate confidence in the country. With regard to our economic performance last year, we had inflation of 3.2 per cent, a growth rate of approximately 2 per cent and a rise in non-agricultural employment of 7,000 a year.

Because we are generally a caring people any Government here is a caring Government. I am glad the Minister for Social Welfare has ensured that the less well-off people will be protected. I welcome the number of significant social welfare improvements announced in the budget. There has been a general increase of 4 per cent in all weekly social welfare and health board payments, along with a special increase of 6 per cent for short term unemployed people. There has been an increase of £10 per child in the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. There has been an extension of the over 80 age allowance to those in receipt of an invalidity pension and so on. Social welfare increases above the rate of inflation ensure that people can have an adequate standard of living. It would be better if we had jobs for the people but unfortunately the present climate is not right for creating the number of jobs we would like. It is important, therefore, to protect social welfare recipients.

The budget supports people who want to employ workers. In stimulating employment we must have regard to the fact that the money must be there to back up the stimulus we may give. The Minister in the budget recognised the need to help small employers to create jobs. A subsidy of £54 per week for 12 months for up to 15,000 additional employees is available for people who have been on the unemployed register for at least two months. Employers must keep people employed for an extra six months. I hope employers who avail of this incentive will not let employees go when the scheme is finished, but will employ them permanently. In the past, a number of employers availed of training schemes and FÁS schemes only to let the people go when the scheme was finished.

In the last few years the Government created an economic climate which is good for job creation but the business people have not responded by creating jobs. Many business people creamed off massive profits because the economy is on the right track. The least they should have done was created a significant number of jobs, but that has not happened. Unemployment is our biggest social problem. Problems of broken homes and other social problems can be directly linked to unemployment. In many areas fathers, sons and daughters have not worked, and down the road, grandsons and granddaughters may not even work. That should not be allowed to continue.

County Wexford is rich in agricultural resources and in many natural resources which have not been tapped. Wexford has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. Practically every Deputy who has spoken has said that his county has the highest rate of unemployment but over the last three or four years Wexford has had an alarming rise in unemployment figures. We did not get any help or support from the IDA, the Department of Industry and Commerce, FÁS or the Department of Labour in creating jobs. In other counties special emergency task forces were set up when industries closed down but in south-east Wexford we do not seem to get any support from the different Departments. This should not be allowed to continue. We want our share of the national cake, our share of the jobs on offer. Every year the IDA produced glossy brochures saying that 30,000 jobs had been created and that 40,000 jobs had been created and that the IDA had reached their target. I do not know where the jobs are, they are certainly not in Wexford. If those jobs are being created in other parts of the country, we are getting a raw deal. This should be corrected by the Minister and the State agencies. I would ask the Minister to take a direct interest in County Wexford and ensure that we get our share of what is on offer.

Agriculture is one of our major industries. I welcome the announcement of the Minister for Agriculture in the last few days that following discussions with Teagasc a number of centres scheduled to close will not close because the Minister has announced the provision of an extra £1 million pounds for Teagasc to ensure that research and development will continue at Grange, Athenry, Belclare, Kinsealy, Oakpark and Clonroche. Clonroche and Johnstown Castle are in County Wexford. I hope they will be protected in the future. At the moment we are hearing a lot about GATT and Common Agricultural Policy and farmers are being encouraged to diversify. It is essential to have research and development in agriculture to help farmers, particularly small farmers, to diversify. The Minister mentioned the possibility of joint responsibility with other State bodies for Johnstown Castle. Will the Minister spell out what he has in mind?

Agricultural research was founded at Johnstown Castle. I hope that the Department of the Environment and the Office of Public Works will help to develop the castle, which has tremendous potential for tourism development and environmental and agricultural, research. It could be a one-stop shop for a number of Departments and would have the additional benefit of creating jobs in the county.

Small farmers throughout the country are finding it difficult to make a living for their families. Their income is too low and it is practically impossible for them to survive. I have raised this issue in three successive budget debates. We hear much talk about keeping young farmers on the land, but most young people have no interest in remaining in small farms because of the low income. I suggest that a family income support scheme for small farmers would be of great assistance. This type of income support is available in the PAYE sector and I cannot see why it is not possible to extend it to small farmers. We should be able to secure funding at Brussels, possibly for a pilot scheme initially. My experience of pilot schemes, however, is that they benefit only one or two counties. If we make a strong case to Brussels to finance such an income scheme I expect that support will be forthcoming.

I welcome the continuing reduction in tax in the PAYE sector. Since 1989 the standard rate has been reduced from 35 per cent to 27 per cent, a reduction of approximately 25 per cent. The higher rate is down to 48 per cent, which is a substantial reduction on the rate prevailing in the period 1982-87. It is right that the Government should give an incentive to work and help the PAYE sector. For ten or even 20 years the tax burden on the PAYE worker was a scandal. Others who could afford to pay were allowed to slip through the tax net. I hope that next year the lower rate will be reduced to 25 per cent and that the bands will be widened further. This would give a welcome incentive to work. Employers say that during the past few years it has been practically impossible to get people to work because of the disincentives in the tax system.

The Minister for the Environment has introduced a number of worthwhile schemes under the social housing plan. There is great interest in the shared ownership scheme. Many people feel they would be able to purchase their houses if they could avail of the shared equity system which consists in part loan and part rental subsidy. The Minister stated that 1,200 applications have been received and that a high level of interest continues to be shown in this innovative scheme. I would ask him to speed up the decision-making process. Only 20 per cent of the 1,200 applications have been approved and only 23 transactions have been completed. We have the highest level of home ownership within the EC and those who wish to become home owners should be given every encouragement. Substantial amounts of money should be provided.

Money should also be made available through the voluntary housing organisations. In the south east an organisation called Respond are building houses in a number of counties. The allocation of £11 million in 1992 for voluntary housing will assist this process. While shared ownership and voluntary housing are good ideas, we must also increase the number of houses being built by local authorities. A significant number of people will not be able to purchase their own homes and will need local authority rented dwellings. I would ask the Minister and the incoming Taoiseach to ensure that there is a substantial increase in the allocation for local authority house building. In the major urban centres increasing numbers are seeking housing and local authorities are unable to meet the demand. A cash programme is needed to reduce existing waiting lists.

The report of the task force on employment states that in 1991 65,000 students sat the leaving certificate examination and 51,000 applied for third level places. Eleven thousand failed to get the necessary minimum results to get a third level place. The Department of Education recently announced a decision to means test ESF grants because people on very high incomes can avail of ESF grants in third level colleges. In the case of middle income families the only hope of a grant for their children is through the ESF. This group have been crucified by taxation and PRSI and they now find that they are not to qualify for these grants. This matter must be seriously considered. If there is to be a means test, the base must be substantially increased. The current base is only £12,000. Families on social welfare are getting that much. An income up to £35,000 should be allowed before a grant would be disallowed. If this is not the case there will be major problems for the children of middle income families. I would ask the Minister for Education to examine this, the real issue at present. It is one which will cause many problems for our young children. If we are not in a position to offer them jobs, then we must ensure that they can avail of third level education. Indeed, since 60 per cent of the funding comes from Europe, I contend means-testing those grants is not the right direction in which to go.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I agree with many of the points made by Deputy Browne in regard to housing in that, in addition to the shared ownership scheme and so on, there should be a positive housebuilding programme. I sympathise with Deputy Byrne's disappointment that, although the climate had been created for additional jobs, they did not transpire. Rather, the Administration pocketed whatever funds they could lay their hands on, leading to even higher unemployment figures.

My main concerns vis-à-vis these budgetary provisions are in the areas of education and energy. Its most obvious omissions are what one might well have expected to have been the Government's main priorities at present — some plan for employment, for the creation of jobs, and some plan to alleviate poverty in our society, much of it stemming from lack of employment. Nonetheless, poverty in our society is reaching crisis proportions. Merely maintaining social welfare payments in line with the prevailing rate of inflation will not pull anybody out of the poverty trap.

I want to deal now with the housing crisis. Always Fianna Fáil were regarded as the great benefactors of the construction industry. It is all the more disappointing that there is no provision in this budget for any progress in local authority or private housing. It must be realised that we are in the middle of a major housing crisis, there having been practically no local authority houses built since 1987, when Fianna Fáil resumed office and ceased all such housebuilding. There are no plans in any of those areas announced in this budget, an area to which I will revert when I have dealt with education and energy.

The only comment I want to make on taxation, which most people perceive the budget to be all about, is that I cannot understand why such great concessions should be given to taxpayers on the top rate of income tax. I cannot understand why the lower income tax band cannot be widened even to a figure of, say, £30,000——

Dr. G. FitzGerald

Exactly.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Certainly, executives in State companies, doing an excellent job, earn £50,000 and £60,000 annually which is not an overstatement of their value. But when one reaches the earning levels of, say, £120,000, £130,000 or £160,000 annually obtaining in the private sector — one of the main incentives to executives of State companies for privatisation — it is grossly insulting to people in receipt of lower incomes to maintain that such executives' top income tax rate should be reduced below the level of 50 per cent.

I cannot understand why there cannot be a top rate struck, thereby ensuring that no single person earning less than, say, £5,000 annually will be liable to tax. It is unbelievable that anybody must pay tax on an income of approximately £75 weekly or, in the case of a married couple, £140 weekly. It is unbelievable that anybody in receipt of such income, almost within the poverty trap, must pay tax. I cannot understand why that anomaly has never been addressed since I have been reiterating it over the past four or five years at least. The exemption ceiling is raised annually, it being now at £3,500 for a single person, £7,000 for a married couple, and one is taxed on every penny above those figures. I cannot follow that type of thinking. I do not think anybody should be taking any great pride in our present income tax levels as representing any great tax reform, because they do not.

There is the impression given that fantastic progress is being made in education in this budget in the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio to 25:2, which the Government were obliged to effect under their commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It is amazing that people are under the impression that this reduction means that henceforth there will be no class sizes above 25:2. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will continue to be thousands of pupils in classes of over 40.

I asked the Minister for Education a parliamentary question on 4 February, when he informed me that the statistics I had been seeking were not available. The statistics available to us last year indicated there were 26,000 pupils in classes of over 40. There are tens of thousands of pupils in classes of over 30. I had sought information in regard to classes in excess of 30, 35 or 40 pupils but was informed that such statistics were not available. We are told that there are 534,000 enrolments and 20,688 teachers employed in national schools, giving an average of pupils per teacher of 26.5. Of course, there are class sizes of 13, 16, 17, and so on in small rural areas, but there are also class sizes of 40 and 45. What we have been unable to ascertain from the Minister is how many of those classes will be reduced in size. Unfortunately, these high class sizes, of 35, 40 and more, appear to be located mainly in what are described as disadvantaged urban areas. I do not like the word "disadvantaged". I prefer the description "deprived urban areas" since they are deprived of jobs, facilities and so many other things. When children in those areas enter school they are deprived because their families tend to have larger numbers of children. This means there are greater numbers of children in those areas, thereby leading to higher class sizes so that from their entry into school they are deprived; their school is deprived and they are deprived. It is for those pupils there are supposed to be all these special facilities.

There is no mention of remedial teachers, psychological services or guidance counsellors in this budget, services which had been growing in the early eighties and which it would seem have totally disappeared. There is talk about "disadvantage", but the children attending schools in those areas, because of the very nature of their family homes, in which there would be up to 70 per cent unemployment, because of the nature of the school they attend with its high number of pupils per teacher, they are deprived from the day of entry. It is true to say that such children's lives are mapped out for them from the day they enter school in that they are directed into a narrow, dull, draughty tunnel from which it becomes increasingly difficult to escape as they progress through school into later life.

One of the primary defects in the areas of education in this budget is that no special attention was devoted to remedial teaching, the allocation for which has been dramatically cut back over the part four to five years. Indeed the provision of such remedial teaching is essential in schools with higher pupil/teacher ratios located in deprived areas. This means that the problem continues into second level education, particularly in vocational schools, who do not stipulate any restrictions on entry. They do not specify that a prospective pupil must have a certain qualification; they do not pick and choose; all children can seek entry to their schools. From the day children enter those schools, having left primary school, the teachers and everybody are at a disadvantage because of the amount of remedial teaching required to bring them up to a reasonable standard where they can learn something. Ordinary reading and writing is so deficient in schools of large class sizes in disadvantaged areas that a whole year could be spent at second level in trying to bring them to a standard where they can avail of the teaching which is available.

Because of the enormous social problems in these areas the remedial and psychological school services are absolutely essential. I know of some primary schools where the first couple of hours are spent in warming up and feeding children. It is absolutely essential in these areas to have a psychological service as well. Children who cannot avail of it and who have problems at home will be scarred for life, but with a proper remedial service and a psychological service they can be helped. I would ask the Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, to press the Minister for Finance for money for those areas.

I agree with what Deputy Browne and others said with regard to the means testing of ESF grants, which will have enormous implications. The City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, of which I am a member, and some of the third level colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology have estimated that up to two-thirds of their intake next year will be affected by the means testing of maintenance grants. It will have an enormous effect on enrolment. It will not reduce the enrolment but it will reduce the enrolment of those who have attended appropriate levels of education to take advantage of the courses but have not got the money to do so. Those who have the money will get in and those who do not have the money, no matter what their qualification in the leaving certificate or any other area, will not be able to gain admittance. That issue will have to be re-examined to see whether increased funding can be got from Europe, where we are restricted to 19,000 students being able to avail of ESF funding. The matter will have to be tackled either in Europe or here at home.

I come now to energy and immediately I come face to face with the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, and his ban on the ESB using the billing system for sales of electrical goods. I was shocked at that measure and I condemned it immediately and issued a statement on it. I think its effects were not realised by the Minister, especially its effects on low income groups whose only method of purchase of electrical goods is through the ESB system, simply because they cannot obtain credit elsewhere. The do not have the cash so they go to the ESB where they do not have to pay a deposit but take away their fridge or other appliance and pay for it regularly on their ESB bill. If all the ESB shops closed down in the morning none of those people would be rushing into other electrical retailers to buy goods. Not one extra fridge would be sold in those shops because those people do not have the cash and they cannot obtain the credit. Therefore, they cannot purchase their cooker, washing machine, fridge, heater or whatever appliance they require.

I do not think the Minister took into account either the effect this would have on jobs in the ESB. There would be an enormous effect throughout the ESB because the loss of 150,000 customers purchasing on their bills would result in the shops being closed down. It is easy for the Minister to say they have the same advantage as every other electrical supplier: they can purchase the goods at competitive prices and sell them the same as everybody else. A whole market is lost, 150,000 consumers of electical goods would be gone and the market would be confined to those selling for cash. What the Minister did not understand also was the effect it would have on industry and the factories that produce these electrical goods. The ESB's particular preference for Irish produced goods would lead to the Dimplex factory in Dundalk not being able to continue in business without the ESB. As with other areas they would all import their heaters from Britain, which would probably be cheaper, but the ESB are able to keep these factories going.

In the constituency of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, Krups are also dependent on the ESB for the sale of their goods. Wang, who have recently made an arrangement with the ESB to sell computers, are on the road to recovery. This method of selling electrical appliances has been of enormous benefit in the area of job creation all along the line. I am glad to note that the Minister has climbed down on the date and now on the decision and said he was misrepresented. I do not think he was misrepresented, the meaning was very clear. I am glad he has climbed down somewhat and he is apparently making some arrangement with the ESB for some method of billing separately.

The reason I am worried about the action of the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, is that it indicates a dangerous attitude of ideological paranoia with the ESB and a gross ignorance of their role in society and in the communities. The reaction of consumers has been enormous in this regard. I include the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, with the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, in this because in the debate on the Competition Act last June he actually began this campaign against the ESB and said he would speak to his Minister for Energy to see what they could do about this matter. Instead of preparing the ESB and everybody else for 1992 — about which we have been warned for the past six or eight years — they are told to be wide open for competition from all over the world. I should say the major electrical retailers — McKennas, Power City and DID — have no crib with the ESB whatsoever. Instead of strengthening their position the Minister is putting shackles on them, tying their hands behind their back, before the major competition era enters. It is time Ministers faced up to the fact that we have to change our attitude to jobs. It is the job and the responsibility of Government not only to create the climate but to do things to create jobs.

I had been advocating for years that the forests be taken out of the hands of civil servants and I thought it was a good move to set up Coillte Teoranta. I hope the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, will not adopt the same attitude with them and that when some sawmillers in the west cry out about competition he does not put shackles on Coillte Teoranta because this is an area where not just thousands but tens of thousands of jobs can be created in the whole processing——

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

I would remind the Deputy that his time has expired.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I thought you were allowing me two minutes as you usually do.

Acting Chairman

Time is time. If you want to conclude, that is fair enough.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Instead of having some paranoid ideas about State companies, both State companies and private companies should be encouraged in every way possible to compete in the market and to develop the areas in which they have the expertise

Acting Chairman

There do not appear to be any more speakers here.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I am calling for a quorum as there is nobody listening to the debate.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Noonan

, Limerick West): I move: “That the House stands adjourned until 5 o'clock.”

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I am sorry. I have called for a quorum to continue the debate. There is a number of Deputies who want to speak.

Acting Chairman

They are not here.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Acting Chairman

We have a quorum. Is someone offering?

Mr. Farrelly

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the budget. There is a number of issues I would like to refer to. As Opposition spokesperson on Tourism, I am very disappointed that the real problems facing the tourism industry have not been dealt with in the budget. Around this time last year I said that, while 1990 was the year of the invisible tourist, 1991 would fast become the year of the invisible Minister for Tourism. This turned out to be the case. I made that comment because although many developments were taking place within the tourism industry, one of our most important industries, the Minister was not responding in the way he should.

The 1992 budget is deflationary, destructive and demoralising. Indeed, tourism only merited a few short paragraphs in the 60 page script of the Minister. The budget contained a proposal that £1 million be provided to tackle the problems facing the car hire sector, but I believe that the only way in which that sector can be helped is through the postponement of import duties on new cars bought by fleet owners until such time as those cars are resold. In view of the fact that the car fleet industry is 2,500 cars short, we will reach a stage where many cars for hire will have to be imported, which is what happened in 1991.

The tourism industry is an incredible money earner for the State. During the past 12 months it earned nearly £500 million. It benefits all regions, most notably counties along the west coast, which have few other advantages to support economic or social developments. It also spans a multitude of spinoff economic activities, from cottage crafts to high technical industries. On the evening of the budget my party spokesperson on finance asked why the potential of that great industry was not unleashed in the budget. Indeed what is the reason the problems facing the industry have not been tackled and dealt with? On 22 January, in a statement, I called on the Minister to deal with the problems facing the car hire sector and to postpone all import duties due on new cars purchased by car hire companies until such time as the cars were resold. That is the position in Denmark and I see no reason the Minister cannot deal with the matter in that way and use the £1 million to offset the loss.

Dining out constitutes a very important part of the tourism industry and sustains 17,000 jobs. I asked the Minister for Finance, when he came to consider changing the VAT rates, to seriously think about reducing the VAT rate from 12.5 per cent to 10 per cent on meals to ensure that this service continues to be subject to the lower rate rather than the higher rate of between 14 per cent and 20 per cent post-1992. It is quite obvious in the light of the decisions taken by the Minister in the budget that the higher rate of VAT will be around 18 per cent.

In relation to job creation, the budget will do nothing to create one job in the economy or stimulate the level of growth required. At present one out of every three jobs is created in the tourism industry. For instance, a substantial number of bedrooms were built by taking advantage of the business expansion scheme and every hotel built means that permanent jobs are provided in the industry. The reintroduction of the business expansion scheme to include the refurbishing and building of hotels ouside the greater urban areas would mean that the Government had their priorities right.

The grant to Bord Fáilte has declined every year, from £28.4 million in 1988 to £21.9 million in 1991 and there is a further reduction in the Estimates for 1992 to £21.5 million. In terms of the amount the industry required to implement the Government's five year plan in 1987 it is not enough as it was proposed that the industry required an extra £5 million per year to ensure that Ireland could be sold in the marketplace and that the target — 15 per cent growth on a continuous basis over five years — would be met. We are all aware that the growth lasted for only three years. The figures released in relation to tourism underline the truth which everyone, except the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, understood. Most people realised that if you do not allocate sufficient funds for the development and marketing of tourism there will not be many golden eggs laid for the benefit of the State. It is quite clear that the Government's five year plan up to 1992 has collapsed and that all targets for 1991 were not achieved.

On Monday, the Minister announced that a new forum would be set up to look at the tourist industry. That would not have been necessary if the numbers of tourists coming into the State had been correctly interpreted and if the tourist industry had not ceased to develop for the reasons we advanced last year on the night of the budget when the business expansion scheme was abolished. That certainly decimated the job potential and investment in the industry. The Culliton report — all 110 pages of it — did not devote even a single line to what is fast becoming the single biggest industry in the State, tourism.

It is no wonder that the Minister took fire brigade action on Monday. He did so for two reasons. First, he mentioned a new forum to deal with tourism and to come up with proposals and plans for the future; on Tuesday, the Minister announced possible changes in the Shannon stop-over and on Wednesday he announced a new rail link in the city. He reminded me of someone who had not been around for 12 months, who came back and saw many things with which he should have dealt over the last 12 months. He realised that there would be a change of Taoiseach and that his job might be in jeopardy so he decided to announce new initiatives. I said in the House 12 months ago that serious action was required to deal with the problem of the figures in the industry and the problem in regard to investment and marketing. I mentioned that not enough funds were being made available by the Government to deal with the problem. When the Minister for Finance introduced this budget in the House last week he ignored and insulted the industry. He seemed to be totally unaware that one in every three jobs has been created in the tourist industry in the last few years. The Government have missed a golden opportunity to lay the foundations for a major job expansion in the area. The introduction of a range of restricted business expansion schemes is vital to the industry and many small family hotel owners require such assistance to ensure that the fabric of their towns and villages is maintained and that they can benefit from the numbers of people coming to Ireland.

I have already mentioned the problem of car hire and my solution for it. The marketing abroad of this industry is most important. I was interested to note that three of the main banks have provided people to sit on the new commission which will look at the industry. For a long time I have been of the view that the main banks should facilitate and provide special loan arrangements for people who want to invest in the tourist industry in the provision of accommodation and leisure facilities which are badly needed in different parts of the country. If you take into consideration the profits which the main banks make it is right and proper that some of them should be reinvested in the State. They should not be used to pay bad debts as a result of decisions the banks made in other countries. There has been too much of that over the last few years and people in the local economy are now being put under severe pressure, on a continuous basis, because of the way the banks have been working and dealing over the last while. A report should be drawn up containing proposals to deal with some of the points I raised.

In setting up this new commission the Minister excluded any representative from Bord Fáilte, the main marketing board. Will he clarify, at the earliest possible date, why he did that? Has he decided to abolish Bord Fáilte, as has been the case in relation to other areas for which he has responsibility? Why has this decision been made? Have the Government agreed with it?

I should like to refer to some other aspects of the budget. It has been decided to end the perks which can be given by companies to their employees, for example, company cars and the option to buy shares in the company — a policy introduced by the Leader of my party, Deputy John Bruton, in 1986 when he was Minister for Finance. Under that scheme people were given the opportunity to invest in the companies for whom they worked. This gave them a return on their investment and an interest in the company. Under the budget the benefits available to employees, which amounted to £38 million, have been done away with. This has left workers in the position that they will no longer be able to benefit from such investments. This is a move against the concept of worker participation. In view of our level of unemployment, I find it hard to believe that the Minister and the Government have made this decision.

The decision to cut back on those perks will mean that in future companies will treat their managing directors differently. They will probably introduce a system similar to that which applies to civil servants, that is, managing directors will have to provide their own cars and will be paid on the basis of mileage. This is probably the right thing to do. I believe civil servants had a major input into those aspects of the budget. The decision to end the perks given by companies to their employees is a retrograde step in the context of worker participation. When one considers just how popular worker participation has become I cannot understand why the Government agreed to this proposal.

As I pointed out to the Minister for the Environment at Question Time yesterday, local authorities are often asked to introduce policies without being given the necessary funding to enable them to employ additional staff to provide extra facilities to carry out that work. The Government introduce legislation of benefit to the majority of people yet they do not allocate the necessary funds to local authorities to enable them carry out the necessary work.

There is another aspect to all of this. Many local authorities have inadequate facilities which need to be replaced or upgraded. However, no money has been forthcoming from the Department to enable them to carry out this work. I believe there are plans to provide new water schemes and new sewage treatment facilities in County Meath which will provide work for a substantial number of people for up to ten years. The Government introduce legislation which every individual in the State must obey but they do not allocate the necessary funds to local authorities to enable them to put their house in order.

As of today, Meath County Council have not been notified of their allocation for road grants; they do not know whether their allocation will be up or down on last year's allocation. If this money is allocated in the same way as the rate support grant, Meath County Council will be in the position all local authorities were in at the end of last year when they were short of money to meet the 3 per cent requirement in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The Government decided last January that this money would have to be found to keep pay in line with inflation. Many local authorities found it extremely difficult to deal with their estimates. The only way they could raise this money was by increasing water charges or rates on commercial properties.

The Government are not treating local authorities, and other agencies who are trying to get people to co-operate with them, in a fair way. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment who is present introduced some of the legislation to which I referred. I ask her to try to influence the Minister for the Environment, whoever that may be, to ensure that the necessary funds will be made available to these bodies. The Government should stop introducing legislation if they are not going to allocate the necessary funds to local authorities to enable them to implement its provisions.

Mr. Connaughton

As in the case of most budget debates, there is about as much interest in this debate at this stage as there is in the matter of where Santa Claus went last Christmas. This is one of the greatest wastes of parliamentary time. It is important that all Deputies are given an opportunity to express their views on the budget but there must be a better way of doing this than the present system. This debate makes a clear case for Dáil reform — there are only three Deputies out of a total of 166 present in the Chamber. Obviously, we need to reform the way we conduct our business.

I wish to refer to a number of specific issues — it is impossible to refer to all the proposals in a debate such as this. There are 270,000 reasons why the Government should tackle the unemployment problem in an honest, imaginative and meaningful way. I listened to the entire Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance. While the budget contains some good proposals — I will refer to them in a moment — basically it was a non-event. I believe that the morning after the budget many of the 270,000 people who are unemployed asked themselves what exactly the budget had done for them. I am sure that employment opportunities in other parts of the country are no better than they are in the west of Ireland. I do not wish to be pessimistic but I believe that the programmes, plans and strategies which have been announced over the past two years are unlikely to provide jobs in the foreseeable future for the 270,000 who are unemployed or for children who will come onto the labour market in a few years time.

There are two major problems facing this country — there are many problems facing us but we have to take them in order of priority. Obviously the terrible atrocities being committed in Northern Ireland affect the hearts and minds of all right thinking people. I wish to extend my sincere sympathy to both communities in Northern Ireland who are suffering as a result of the actions of maniac paramilitaries — obviously these people have lost the run of themselves. They are not carrying out these atrocities in my name or in the name of my colleagues on all sides of the House. While this problem will be very difficult to solve, I believe it can be solved. When one considers that most of the major conflicts throughout the world have been resolved, one has to ask why can we not find a solution to the problem in a little corner of Ireland?

I would like now to refer to unemployment. The greatest single tragedy in a family apart from illness, is the loss of a job by the bread winner, be it the husband or wife. It appears that there is a case for a national forum to deal with unemployment. As Opposition spokesman on social welfare, I would be expected to find fault with some of what the Minister for Social Welfare said on the budget, and I would be justified in doing so because there are some glaring omissions in that area. There must be a national approach to unemployment. That is why my party leader, Deputy John Bruton, called for a national jobs forum. Basically, everybody should unite to find a solution to the problem. Actions will have to be taken that will not be palatable. The opinion polls will vary, but we should decide that this is our priority and give more than lip service to the thousands of young people who have been and will be looking for jobs. I accept that everything we do will not be right but at least if we all work together progress should be made in this area. No Government came to grips with unemployment. What is needed is a system of collective expertise of people from all sides of this House and then hopefully in the next five or ten years the numbers unemployed will be reduced. Anybody who believes that the short-term strategy of this budget will change the face of Ireland in a couple of months is living in cloud cuckoo-land.

At present there are three and a half million people in this country, we owe £26 billion to foreign bankers and there are 270,000 people out of work. We pay out about £1 million per year in child benefit and a huge number of people are in receipt of the old age pension. It is the people at work who have to provide for the young and the old because that is the way society is structured. The reduction in income tax rates was a step in the right direction, but let nobody get the idea that he or she will be much better off. I understand that the total take from income tax this year will be higher than that for last year and therefore some people will have to pay more. However, there will be more disposable income at the end of the day and people will have some say in how it is spent.

I have always subscribed to the view that a Government do not create jobs despite the general perception that they do. They create the environment for job creation. This Government are the type of Government we would prefer to read about in far away countries and not one that governs this country. The people did not vote for this type of Government. Anyone who has been in politics for nine or ten years will never forget the events of the last six months, with one scandal after another, and each one worse than the other, resulting in a "High Noon" situation in the parliamentary rooms of this House at 3 p.m. today. The Minister of State, Deputy Harney, is extremely useful in more ways than one in the Government today because if she was not here there would be no member of the Government in the House for the debate. I sincerely hope that Fianna Fáil will be able to put their house in order, that the Government will make a concerted effort and that progress will be made in the next 12 months, or whatever length of time they will be in office.

As Fine Gael spokesperson on social welfare I want to say a few words on that subject. Given the problems that exist it is reasonable to assume that there is a limit to the amount of social welfare payments that can be made. The pool of money is not limitless and one must understand that in order to pay out money we must first take it in. As I said earlier, it is the working people who have to contribute this money. There is no doubt that there is much poverty in this country. Some people say it is self-induced and that people could do better if they wished. However, there are thousands of people who genuinely want to work but the jobs are not available.

I would ask the Minister how he expects a family with three children to live on £124 per week, which is the new rate for the short term unemployed. Parents of teenagers find it even more difficult to live on that amount of money. Even though these people receive medical cards and rent allowances, it is still very difficult to live on £124 a week. Let nobody tell me that society is fair while people are living on such a small sum of money. On the other hand, I am fully aware that because sufficient income is not generated it is not possible to do as much as we would like. There is no doubt that there are many black spots in the system, and I will refer to those later.

One of the most cost-effective and best targeted social welfare allowances is the children's allowance or child benefit as it is now termed. It has been of considerable assistance to thousands of families down the years. I know families whose mothers wait anxiously for the first Tuesday of every month when the child benefit is paid. There is no doubt that 99 times out of 100 this money is used for the purpose for which it is intended, to buy children's shoes, school bags, clothing and so on.

There has always been an argument about who should and who should not get child benefit. I subscribe to the view that all women caring for children, irrespective of their spouse's income, should be entitled to child benefit. I have some reservations about a tax clawback on child benefit when the spouse is a high income earner. That does not, however, take away from the central point that child benefit is money well spent. It has been borne out by many studies that 40 per cent of children live in poverty stricken homes.

I hope we will be able to initiate discussion on a better way of administering child benefit. As Members are aware, social welfare recipients got an increase of 4 per cent and the areas that were prioritised got an additional 2 per cent, but the Minister omitted to increase child benefit. I find that very difficult to understand. The Minister is new to the job, but I have no fault to find with him. I believe he has his ear to the ground, but I cannot understand for the life of me why there was no increase in child benefit. Were the children and their mothers not entitled to the 4 per cent increase, the same as everybody else?

About two years ago the former Minister for Social Welfare made great play of the fact that he was introducing a carer's allowance. We pride ourselves, and long may it continue, on our attitude and ability to care for the aged. There is no doubt that in the worst of times, when we experienced real poverty, Irish people prided themselves and aspired to look after their elderly and the handicapped. The carer's allowance was born out of the prescribed relative's allowance. At that time I formed the view that the carer's allowance would be reasonably easily obtained. The responsibility falls on our women folk. The unsung heroine is usually the daughter-in-law, because I think she is crucified with the care of the elderly and usually the woman who has no blood relationship with them ends up looking after the elderly parents of the man she married. Demands are made on her time 24 hours a day. The geriatric hospitals are not able to cater for any more people because they are already overcrowded. Unless one had a reasonably good job and qualified for a good pension one could not afford to stay in an old persons' home. Basically, the only alternative is home care. I asked the Minister for Social Welfare how many people now receive the carer's allowance. I was told that in round figures 9,000 people approximately applied for the allowance in the past year, half of which, 5,000 were turned down and of the remaining 4,000 only 2,000 qualified for the full allowance of approximately £50.

I understand that approximately 70,000 to 80,000 people are potentially eligible for the carer's allowance if we were able to pay it, yet only 4,000 are paid the allowance. We will have to look at this further. I have no doubt that this is a cheaper way of providing care than by building geriatric hospitals, where in some cases, the patient does not want to be in the first place.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy merely to inform him that his time is almost exhausted.

Mr. Connaughton

I could speak for another two hours, but I will finish by reiterating what I said at the beginning. I hope that when I stand up on the benches opposite in a year's time, after next year's budget, there will be fewer than 270,000 people unemployed.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

Which party does the Deputy hope to join?

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister will find it very hard to remain sitting on those benches if Fianna Fáil get their way with their new Leader. The "temporary little arrangement" might not work.

Miss Harney

The people will decide.

Debate adjourned.