The final contributor to this debate on Thursday last was Deputy Callely who was very upset with members of the Labour Party who had dared to break ranks in respect of the property tax debacle. He contended that as the budget was a joint effort between both parties there should be joint responsibility for it. He expressed disappointment that members of the Labour Party should attempt to disclaim responsibility in the matter. Little did the Deputy know that the floodgates were about to open. His colleague in north Dublin, Deputy Ray Burke, on Rodney Rice's programme on radio on Saturday stated categorically that the property tax would be abolished and that there would be a radical rethink within Government circles in respect of it.
In fairness to Deputy McDowell of the Labour Party, he defended largely what was proposed in the budget. However, I was tempted to phone RTE at the time and suggest to the Deputy that since he was so good at defending the indefensible he might rush out to Landsdowne Road, don an Irish jersey and go in as a defender for the Irish Rugby Team. In such event our fate on the day might have been somewhat better.
The Sunday newspapers carried reports of various Deputies disapproving of the proposed change in the property tax but the most significant development was when the Minister for Finance, on "Morning Ireland", more or less declared that the whole thing was a storm in a teacup. He said he would change the proposal in the Finance Bill. At this stage one must ask what status the budget has if parts of it can be discounted on foot of an announcement by the Minister on a radio programme? Will the Government have to go back to the drawing board in respect of the budget?
This issue raises many questions. At this stage I am not sure of the relevance of the debate considering the discussion which has taken place relating to a few aspects of the budget and the various responses from Government representatives that certain aspects of the budget will be changed.
This budget was heralded as being a budget for jobs, but it is merely a tinkering with many sectors of our economy and the taxation system and it does not contain any real reform. It gives small concessions to many interest groups who lobbied the Minister but, unfortunately, it contains no real worthwhile changes which would have any lasting effect on or for maintaining existing jobs or creating new ones.
I welcome the reduction in employers' PRSI for employees earning under £173 per week, but on discussing this aspect of the budget with employers in my locality I learned it will benefit only a small proportion of those employed. Employers with whom I spoke could find no incentive in the budget which would encourage them to take on more employees. They said the reduction in employer's PRSI would not enable them recruit additional staff. I hope my straw-poll is inaccurate and that this budget will have the effect of creating lasting jobs for some of the 300,000 unemployed.
I welcome the inclusion of Mullingar in the proposed urban renewal programme due to commence on 1 August next. Mullingar had sought inclusion under the previous programme but, unfortunately, was overlooked.
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, in his speech, indicated that urban renewal has created long term jobs in many sectors. I agree with him. In Mullingar a section of the town centre is crying out for renewal. Under this new scheme I hope the property owners concerned will put together imaginative plans to avail of this scheme.
However, I would put down a marker that urban renewal schemes are so designed as to eliminate dereliction in towns and cities. They are not and never were intended to be an extra bonus for developers and speculators to enable them create alternative town centres and, with the incentives available to them, to be able to undercut the existing traders and put many of them out of business. Urban renewal is welcome where it creates new jobs but if it merely transfers jobs from one part of a town to another because of better tax breaks, and puts many traders in the old part of town out of business, it will not be welcome.
The commitment to the commencement of 3,500 local authority houses during 1994 is welcome also. Westmeath County Council is proceeding with plans on the basis of an allocation of 50 houses for the county. I acknowledge that this is a major improvement in the building of local authority houses. However, I must point out to the Minister that County Westmeath has a waiting list of approximately 330 family units and if that list was to remain static and house-building was to continue at its present rate, everybody on it would be accommodated within seven years. That is an unacceptable waiting time for housing and must be improved.
I contrast this with the position which existed in County Westmeath in 1986 when there were 70 family units on the approved waiting list and Westmeath County Council advertised in the local papers for people who wanted to take-up tenancy of local authority houses. The position has deteriorated dramatically in a short time.
The Minister referred to the purchase of existing houses by local authorities around the country. The Minister should have this matter examined carefully. The last batch of local authority houses built in Mullingar cost approximately £43,000 per house. They were well-built and well-finished houses on a green field site. However, former local authority houses are now available in Mullingar which can be bought for under £20,000 each. They are also well-built houses and are in good condition. Surely, it makes good economic sense that the local authorities should have a mandate to purchase back many of those houses to get better value for tax-payers' money.
The Minister should put more resources into improvement works in lieu of council housing. This is a worthwhile scheme and should be extended. This matter has been addressed to a certain extent in County Westmeath, but there are many more houses that could be improved in a short period. Such improvement works would be cheaper than rehousing people in local authority houses.
The Minister for Education, in her speech, placed great emphasis on promoting equality in education and outlined the measures she thought were important in reaching this goal. An increase in capital expenditure in the primary sector is welcome. However, the sum allocated for 1994 is still short of the 1986 allocation under the then Minister for Education, former Deputy Cooney. Under the 1987 Fianna Fáil Government the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, made savage cuts in capital expenditure for education and, having regard to the large number of substandard schools and the fact that many children and teachers are accommodated in appalling conditions, we are still paying the price for those cuts. Parents groups around the country are complaining on a regular basis on television programmes about the terrible conditions in their schools. This position reminds me of the time when money was withdrawn for capital expenditure in primary schools. The Fianna Fáil Government of the day must take responsibility for this.
The Minister indicated that all present posts in primary schools were to be retained and I would like her to clarify what she means by that statement. I, and I am sure many Deputies, have in the past year been inundated with representations from schools because their enrolment number fell a little short of the retention figure for a particular number of teachers. Their contention would be that if the Minister is realistic about retaining those posts those retention numbers should be lowered to facilitate what may be only a temporary decline in numbers. It is difficult to understand how teachers are losing school posts and being transferred when the Minister indicates that she intends to retain the number of teachers. I would appreciate if the Minister would explain this position.
The Minister also referred to resources for disadvantaged schools. Will she clarify what she means by "disadvantaged schools"? What criteria are used for measuring a school as disadvantaged? How important is the level of attainment of the pupils and the numbers in need of special attention in designating a school as being disadvantaged? Is the quality of the school building important in designating it as being disadvantaged? How important is the socio-economic profile of the parents of the students in designating a school as disadvantaged? How and by whom are those factors measured?
It is disheartening for rural primary schools to find that, despite their best efforts, they still do not have the service of a remedial teacher. I carried out a survey of primary schools in the midlands some time ago and revealed that rural primary schools are severely disadvantaged in relation to the appointment of remedial teachers. Educational and social disadvantage exists in primary schools in rural areas just as in large urban schools. Will the Minister also outline to us her criteria for the appointment of remedial teachers? Are they based on meticulous records and testing carried out in the school and assessed by her Department? What role does the local inspector have in the appointment of the remedial teacher? Are those appointments made in a politically expedient manner? A review of the allocation of remedial teachers per county certainly points to such political interference.
The Minister referred in her statement to increased capitation allowance for special schools. I look forward to receiving details on this allowance and would remind the Minister of a submission I made in relation to St. Brigid's special school in Mullingar. At that time I pointed out the anomaly which existed in relation to special primary schools.
In relation to second level schools, I was disappointed that the Minister did not refer to the optional transition year from September 1994. What resources has she put in place to make the transition year a real option for students? Will money be available for extra materials and accommodation so that schools will be in a position to say to their pupils that they will or will not have the option of availing of a transition year? How many schools will have to decline on this option because of lack of availability of resources from the Minister? For how many pupils will there be no option due to lack of resources? We are all aware of overcrowding in many of our secondary schools and if the option of a transition year is to be real we must improve the resources to make it available to pupils.
I am very disappointed the Minister did not address the major problem of the inequalities which exist in terms of the allocation of third level grants. This system is totally inequitable and militates very severely against the PAYE worker. I recently spoke to a couple in my area who, on a salary of merely £22,000 per year, had put their four children through third level education at a cost of £52,000, with no tax relief and only a partial grant for one year for one of the students. The remainder of the total outlay was raised through a series of loans and remortgaging their family home. Is it reasonable to expect a couple in that position to put their children through third level education with no help from the State?
This budget is anti-family. There are marginal tax reliefs for everybody. However, it has failed to recognise, by way of tax relief for children, the tremendous expense incurred in having and maintaining a family. When one considers that mortgage interest relief and VHI relief is to be reduced to the standard rate, this will quickly wipe out any marginal tax relief which might have been available for families. Coupled with those changes, the proposed residential tax will, even on modest houses, impose a further tax penalty. These measures are very hard to take when one recalls an advertisement in the national press on 25 November 1992 headed "An important message from Dick Spring". This advertisement gave absolute promises that Labour had no plan to introduce a new property tax or house tax. The advertisement went on to say that Labour would not reduce mortgage interest relief and VHI tax relief. Is it not ironic that, within 15 months of making that commitment, the Labour Party, in Government with Fianna Fáil, has reneged on its promises? Then we listened to Deputy Jim Kemmy, that great guardian of all that is right, say on "Morning Ireland" recently that these promises were made in the "white heat of an election" and hence were not to be taken seriously by the public. A statement such as this is pompous in the extreme and demonstrates the disdain with which Deputy Kemmy treats the public.
Is it not a demonstration of his pomposity that, despite all this, he is now presenting himself before the electorate to be their representative in the European Parliament? How can he have any credibility? Will he use the Labour phrase "Put trust back into politics" on his election literature for the European elections in June?
I, like many other Deputies, got a very worthwhile briefing from the Society of the Irish Motor Industry concerning the difficulties encountered by the motor trade. They set out very clearly the declining job opportunities within that trade and they made an excellent presentation on how new vehicle registrations could be dramatically increased, with more job opportunities in the motor trade and increasing revenue to the Exchequer. I welcome the reduction in vehicle registration tax and the consequential cheaper car prices. I also welcome increased capital allowances for companies buying new cars. However, the Minister has failed to take the decisive action which was needed to put the motor industry back in a strong commanding position. We had 33,000 imports of second-hand cars last year. Some of those cars had failed the MOT test in Northern Ireland or the UK. In reply to a parliamentary question by me, the Minister for the Environment dodged the real question and put the blame on the garage industry for allowing defective vehicles on the roads. This is not the case, because many vehicles are imported by individuals rather than through the motor trade and hence the garages have no role to play in the matter. A vehicle testing procedure for imported second-hand cars would certainly be a step in the right direction. It would improve the quality of vehicles on our roads and would provide much-needed jobs in the motor industry. The further increase of 7p on a gallon of petrol and diesel is an unwelcome step in terms of the motor trade.
I welcome the commitment by the Minister to increase social welfare payments by 3 per cent. Within the last hour I met a delegation of widows who visited this House. They talked about the £1.50 increase they would get in their pensions next July. These ladies' husbands had served in the Defence Forces and because their husbands had opted out of the pension scheme, unknown to them, those ladies are now confined to social welfare pensions of only £62 per week. A 3 per cent increase for them is not very much. The point has been validly made that these increases should take effect immediately, as is the case in the UK, rather than having to wait for a number of months before the increases are put in place. The Minister should indicate clearly to the House why the July date has been chosen for the increases to become operative.
Whereas everybody in this House would welcome the introduction of a widower's contributory pension, many of us abhor the small print in the Minister's speech which indicates that widows' and widowers' pensions will henceforth be means tested. This is a very serious proposal by the Minister which will have far-reaching consequences. No doubt there will be a court challenge to it and I believe the courts will overturn the decision of the Minister. It is surely a dramatic break with precedent that people who have contributed towards a pension find that this pension is to be means tested. This is totally at variance with natural justice and is something which we in Fine Gael will fight at all costs to have reversed. This is just another indication of the anti-family budget with which we have been presented. It seeks to means test a contribution made by a spouse for his or her partner for a pension after his or her death.
The state of county roads has reached an all-time low. This results from the failure of successive Governments to allocate sufficient funds to local authorities to maintain county roads to a reasonable standard. The resurfacing programme runs in a 25 to 30 year cycle and the damage caused to county roads in the meantime is beyond estimation. Compared with other counties the roads in County Westmeath are in a reasonable condition, although many of them are poor. We have a serious problem with pot holes and there is an urgent need to strengthen and resurface many of our roads. The £15 million allocated in the budget, when divided among all the local authorities, is a mere pittance.
There are of course many sectors which received no assistance under this budget — I refer specifically to the clothing trade. This sector experienced a huge hike to 21 per cent in VAT charges in the last couple of years. We saw the loss of a staggering 1,140 jobs in this sector in the past 12 months. The Minister has not done anything to maintain the existing jobs in this industry. The reduction in the level of employer's PRSI for employees earning less than £173 per week will be of some help, but much more needs to be done. There is a strong possibility that upwards of 1,600 jobs will be lost in the clothing industry during 1994. The Minister needs to take cognisance of these figures, which have been produced by the industry, and to examine what can be done.
The Minister has once again ignored the confectionery industry which is facing huge competition from its counterparts in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The products produced by this industry in the North and Great Britain have a zero rate of VAT, thus giving them a decided advantage over the products produced by our home-based industries. Jobs in this industry are being eroded steadily, yet the Minister has again decided to ignore the people working in this sector and to let them fend for themselves. The newspaper industry has also once again been left out of the equation. The continued imposition of VAT on newspapers gives imports a decided advantage over our national papers. These imported papers are continuing to increase their foothold in the Irish market.
The budget was a major disappointment. The Minister had room for manoeuvre with the amnesty windfall of £230 million but he failed to avail of the opportunities presented to him and has done nothing to create much needed jobs.