I wish to share my time with Deputy Seán Kenny.
Financial Resolutions, 1996. - Financial Resolution No. 7: 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 of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy J. Higgins).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
During my contribution last week I spoke about the number of welcome initiatives in this year's budget. This morning I draw attention to the areas excluded from the budget which require attention. The first is tax relief for child minding expenses. Anybody who watched RTE last night knows that this is a major issue for women. It has particular significance in encouraging women to enter the workforce. Lack of good child care facilities is one of the main impediments to women playing their full part in the workforce. It is an issue for which no Minister has an appetite.
There is a serious anomaly in this area. If a married woman wants to pay somebody to carry out child care duties in her house, she must pay the minder out of an income which has already been taxed. In effect we have double taxation. If we allowed tax relief for the purposes of paying a child minder, there would be little net cost to the Exchequer. The relief allowed on the first person's income would come back to the Exchequer by way of tax on the child minder's income. This serious anomaly requires attention.
Another area which I regret has not been covered in the budget is the need to examine systems to cater for new lifestyles, new family arrangements and new working circumstances. Our tax and social welfare systems have evolved over the years and are extremely complex and cumbersome. I appeal to the Government to start examining the question of a basic income. There are many reasons why this would be a welcome development, particularly for women who are dependent on social welfare and strongly object to the dependency concept in the social welfare system. Women who are at home looking after families while their husbands are working receive no recognition for the work they do in the home.
It is ridiculous to have people sign on for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit when we know there are no jobs for them. Many agencies have done work in this area and there is much good research from groups like CORI, the INOU and the Combat Poverty Agency. I regret that no funding was made available in this budget to research some of those progressive proposals.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The budget will be a major boost to Ireland's economic growth. Job creation is the cornerstone of Labour's economic philosophy and political agenda. This is the second budget by the Labour Finance Minister, Deputy Quinn. Last year's budget was a success. The economy performed better than any economy of the European Union or in the OECD. This was achieved through the efforts and co-operation of all the social partners.
Job creation has grown four times faster in Ireland than in the rest of the EU in recent years. Last year employment increased by 45,000, the overall growth rate as measured by GNP was more than 7 per cent, investment grew by almost 11 per cent in real terms, export volumes increased by more than 13 per cent and mortgage and short-term interest rates were at an all time low level.
The outlook for 1996 is expected to be one of continuing economic growth. Employment is projected to increase by a further 31,000, GNP to grow by 5 per cent, inflation to average about 2.25 per cent, investment to increase by almost 8 per cent and the balance of payments to remain in a substantial surplus.
The principal objective of the budget is to reward those at work. For example, the disregarding of the first £50 of weekly wages in the calculation of PRSI contributions, introduced last year, has now been increased to £80 per week. This measure will result in a gain of £1.65 per week for full rate PRSI contributors who are exempt from income tax or on marginal relief. The corresponding allowance to those on the modified PRSI rate and the self employed will be increased from £10 to £20 per week and the PRSI ceiling applicable to employers and the self employed will increase from £21,000 to £22,300.
To further reward those at work the standard income tax band is widened by £1,000 to £18,800 for married couples and by £500 to £9,400 for single persons. The personal allowance is being increased by £300 to £5,300 per annum for married couples and by £150 to £2,650 per annum for single persons. The general income exemption limits below which no income tax is payable are being increased by £400 to £7,800 per annum for married couples—£150 per week; and by £200 to £3,900 per annum for single persons—£75 per week. This measure will remove 18,800 persons from the tax net.
This year's budget consolidates the progress made and takes further steps to ensure that the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work are fully implemented and that further improvements on taxation and social progress are made. The 1994 budget delivered on the concessions forecast in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work negotiations, the 1995 budget provided considerable relief when little was forecast in the negotiations and the 1996 budget has also gone somewhat beyond the expectations of the limited room for manoeuvre.
Thanks to the taxation and PRSI concessions and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work wage increases the average take home pay for a person on average industrial earnings has increased substantially over the period of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. For example the income of a single person on average industrial earnings has increased by 14.6 per cent, the income of a married person with two children has increased by 12.6 per cent over the period of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the income of a married person with four children has increased by 16.5 per cent. These increases are ahead of inflation for the same period by about 7 per cent. For a married person with children, the increases in child benefit will further increase these gains.
As well as rewarding work the budget has introduced measures to promote enterprise, for example, in the case of employer's PRSI, to reduce the standard rate from 12.2 per cent to 12 per cent and to reduce the lower rate from 9 per cent to 8.5 per cent and to increase the threshold below which this lower rate applies from £12,000 to £13,300 per annum.
I welcome the series of initiatives which will create opportunities for those in long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment is a social reality that blights so many communities in cities and towns. It also has a devastating effect on generations of families. The new measures to tackle long-term unemployment include a recruitment subsidy of £80 per week which will be paid to employers in respect of new employees who have been unemployed for at least three years. Up to 5,000 places will be provided under these arrangements. In order to refocus community employment to concentrate on the long-term unemployed, an additional 1,000 full-time places will be provided on community employment on a pilot basis for people over 35 years of age and who have been unemployed for at least five years. This measure is aimed at targeting the groups who have been long-term unemployed.
Some 25 per cent of the 40,000 part-time places on community employment are to be reserved for those over 35 years of age and unemployed for three years or more with up to 75 per cent of places reserved for those over 21 years of age and unemployed for at least 12 months. Persons who have been unemployed for at least one year will retain their medical card for three years after entering employment. This had been an obstacle for people re-entering the workforce and this measure will allow people to return to the workforce without suffering a loss of income. Some 1,000 additional places will be provided under the VTOS scheme run by the Department of Education.
The social welfare increases of 3 per cent will protect the value of all payments. Since Labour entered Government total expenditure on social services has increased by 10 per cent and in real terms by £890 million. In the case of social welfare, total spending is up by 8 per cent in real terms. The majority of social welfare rates are now at either 95 per cent or 100 per cent of the Commission on Social Welfare recommended main rates, but some are as high as 110 per cent of the commission's recommendations. For example, the contributory old age pension is now at 110 per cent of the Commission on Social Welfare recommended rate. The non-contributory old age pension has increased from 88 per cent of the CSW rate in 1985 to 95 per cent. Widows' non-contributory pension has increased from 86 per cent to 95 per cent over the same period. Child benefit increases over the period of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work are worth more than £200 per year to a two-child family and more than £500 to a four-child family.
In education, the primary level basic capitation grant has increased from £29 in 1982 to £45 in 1996, an increase of 60 per cent since Deputy Bhreatnach became Minister for Education. The rate of disadvantage capitation primary grant has increased from £45 to £75 in the same period. The disadvantage primary fund has increased from £1.14 million in 1992 to £4.38 million in 1996. The number of VTOS places has increased from 2,060 in 1992 to 5,000 in 1996. The Outreach programme caters for 2,450 young people in 1996 compared with 1,600 in 1993.
I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, that £32 million is being provided to allow the Dublin local authorities commence a water conservation programme in 1996. Dublin Corporation has already received approval to construct a modern state of the art treatment plant at Ringsend to implement a sludge management strategy to eliminate the dumping of sludge in Dublin Bay by the required EU dead-line of 1998. This will bring to an end the dumping of untreated sewage off Howth and the pollution of beaches such as Dollymount Sutton, Portmarnock and Malahide after 1998 and will also lead to the restoration of these beaches to their former blue flag status.
I also welcome the allocation by the Government of £13.5 million to Fingal County Council for the completion of the Leixlip water refurbishment scheme. This will improve the quality and volume of water supply to areas of Fingal and the north city which for many years have endured low water pressure. These measures, together with the special amenity area order for Bull Island, represent one of the best initiatives taken on behalf of the people of Dublin to restore the amenity of Dublin Bay to its citizens.
I commend the budget.
Government is about leadership. The people elect us and trust us with the task of leading them. They give us the power to pass laws and enact all sorts of statutory measures which are supposed to make life better for everyone. These measures often cost a considerable amount of money which must come from somewhere as it does not grow on trees. In the normal course the Government must turn to the people for the money to allow it give force to the statutory measures introduced on their behalf. If the people are being asked to pay, they are entitled to know where the money goes and receive value for it.
Most taxpayers accept the need for taxation. In a humane and caring society all but the most callous and selfish members recognise that in order to provide for the less well off and most needy they must make their contribution. Most people are not altogether happy that they have to contribute so much. Nevertheless, a good Government should be able to show them whose money it is taking in tax and that it is being put to good use. It should be able to say that the burden of taxation is being shared equally among all those capable of paying.
The annual budget is the means by which each Government sets out its financial policy and how it intends to deal with the income it will receive in the relevant year. A good Government should be able to satisfy the people that, in proposing price rises and increases in taxation, they will be better off in the long run, if not necessarily in the medium term. A budget will never be to everyone's liking but the people like to know what they are paying for and why.
The last Government of which I was a member may have had it faults and it fell in circumstances which by the standards of the present Government seem utterly ridiculous. It was in control of the economy, engaged in a programme to tackle crime; it was the engine of the peace process in Northern Ireland and steadily and prudently modified the tax regime to make the system work more fairly. It provided strong leadership. History will show, particularly in the relentless drive which culminated in the historic cessation of voilence in the North, that this was its strength.
The absence of leadership is what is most striking about the present Government. Perhaps — I say this with respect — the Taoiseach is still stunned by his unlikely shove into office and genuinely engaged in a battle to balance the competing demands, both practical and philosophical, of his partners in Government. If the budget is an example of his leadership and that of the Government, it is no surprise that the peace process is becalmed. I listened to what he had to say in this regard this morning and genuinely hope — I support both him and the Tánaiste in their efforts — that all-party talks will commence before the end of this month. I have grave doubts that this will happen.
To describe the budget as a missed opportunity is a gross understatement. The measures were spread too thinly and it has left the unemployed, employed and employers cold. No one feels they have gained. Apparent gains in one area are clawed back in others. In reality, the only members of society who have gained are non-smokers, non-drivers, non-car owners, non-property owners and non-taxpayers. The rest continue to suffer under the weight of an unacceptable level of personal taxation, both direct and indirect. I wonder how long it will be before an honest assessment of the Government and its abysmal record is exposed by the media.
My job as my party's spokesperson on tourism and trade is to mark the Minister's card and highlight both the shortcomings and positive aspects of his Ministry. So far as the budget is concerned, the former is an easy task. It was a grave disappointment. There was not one penny extra and tourism and trade did not merit a mention in the Budget Statement, in spite of the ever increasing importance of tourism in the war against unemployment and in the face of the exceptional difficulties our exporters to Britain are experiencing.
The Government has failed to recognise that tourism is a major contributor to both revenue and employment. Jobs created within the sector are real jobs, not gimmicks, training schemes or temporary job experience placements designed to doctor the unemployment figures and give the Government an opportunity to crow about "further reductions in the live register". Jobs within the sector are not grant-aided and cost the taxpayer little or nothing to create. Of even greater importance, they last beyond six months or one year.
Tourism has been left to fend for itself and its strength is such that even without the support of the Government it will remain strong. This is an indication of what could be achieved if the Government woke up to the need for a proper policy to support and encourage the sector which must be fostered so that its full potential can be realised. Assistance is necessary at a time when growth rates have slowed significantly.
The Government has made no effort to ensure that the sector will continue to grow. Bord Fáilte's grant has been cut by 11 per cent at a time when some costs in the Department will rise by 5 per cent this year. How does this make sense? Cutting Bord Fáilte's grant at this time has no logical or practical basis since every indicator points towards an upturn in the number of tourists and increased prosperity for all involved in the sector for every pound wisely invested.
As well as starving the sector of development funding, the Government has also failed to expedite matters in relation to the European operational programme for tourism. As we approach the medium-term review, only £78 million has been allocated. Over £150 million remains to be allocated and spent by 1999. We will be hard pressed to complete capital projects by that date unless decisions are expedited now.
It makes no sense to delay allocations. The longer the State has to wait, the more revenue and tourists it loses. We have to compete in a competitive and sometimes harsh world of business and there is no time for leisurely reflection on how best the sector should progress. Other countries are stealing our customers and luring away tourists. They recognise that there is no time to be wasted, but what is the Government doing? It has cut the allocation for tourism development projects.
The national conference centre is one of the projects that will benefit from EU funding, but the Minister's handling of the matter has given rise to serious concern. He purported to hold a competition for the design, construction and operation of the centre, invited tenders from interested bodies, rejected all the submissions and then invited one of the applicants to the exclusion of all others to accept the project. Vast amounts of applicants' time and money have been wasted. They applied in good faith and in the belief that their applications would be given careful consideration and that they were all starting from the same position. The competition was a sham. Serious questions remain to be answered by the Minister.
How does he reconcile the selection of the RDS with the statement in the letter sent by Bord Fáilte that none of the applicants was being invited to proceed to the second stage? The RDS was one of the applicants. He has already decided that it is not suitable, yet he has selected one applicant over 11 or 12 others.
I would be keen to have sight of his legal advice on the manner in which the competition was organised. If there is a legal challenge, it could result in the project being held up for years and the money for the centre being lost if it is not completed by 1999.
He must explain why the RDS has now been selected since that it was previously rejected. Is Ballsbridge the most suitable location given that it already has immense traffic problems? The commercial problems of the RDS have only just been sorted out and it has no major financial surplus. Does it have the technical and professional capability to deal with the project, the purpose of which is to provide a facility for Ireland capable of attracting the most prestigious conferences? It must be at least as good as any other facility in the world. It must be better than all the rest if it is to stand the test of commercial competition.
The Minister seems to be stuck to the notion that the centre must be self-financing. This is one of the reasons proffered for favouring the RDS. I would like the Minister to list the national conference centres in the world that operate without Exchequer funding and on a stand alone basis. To my knowledge there is no such centre. Where will the RDS get the £8 million or £10 million necessary to match EU funding to build the centre?
The Minister claimed that as a public body the RDS will qualify for 75 per cent funding. This gives rise to a number of questions. The RDS is controlled by its members. The Minister does not have control over the manner in which it discharges its functions, nor is it accountable to the Government. It is not a public body in the same sense as a State company or Government Department. Was the Minister informed by the EU Commission that his proposals comply with normal practice for the allocation of EU funds? It is a matter of public concern that this project appears to have been hijacked by the Minister in this year of supposed openness, transparency and accountability, about which we heard a great deal last year but very little since. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing, why he is doing it and how he proposes to make it work?
Will he also explain to the groups that were rejected by him why they failed? They have been treated appallingly and have not received an adequate explanation from the Minister or Bord Fáilte. Who is advising whom? Did the Department advise them to abandon the competition or was it the Department and Bord Fáilte? There are other matters in the tourism portfolio that have not been addressed in the budget or elsewhere. The hiatus in dealing with violent crime unless tackled swiftly and comprehensively, will affect Ireland's attractiveness as a venue for tourists.
Most citizens desire to be allowed live in safety and security, without fear of being mugged in the street or attacked in their homes and happy to leave their cars parked under lock and key in the knowledge that they will be there when they return. The Government has not introduced legislation aimed at tackling crime. It is only as a result of public out-rage that a belated announcement was made about the prison at Castlerea. If that is the best the Government can do to protect the people from the type of crime that is unfortunately now all too familiar, is it not time for it to stand aside? Law and order is now on the top of the Fianna Fáil agenda. It stands alongside unemployment as the number one public enemy.
I pay tribute to the work of the Dublin tourism victim support service. I thank it for what it is doing in association with the Garda Síochána, for tourists who are the victims of crime and are lost and bewildered in a foreign city. I criticise the budget for its failure to address aspects of tourism. It was silent on the topic and it remains for me to point out some areas which need attention where the Minister has, unfortunately, failed again.
Growth in tourism is skewed significantly in favour of the east coast. Tourist numbers have increased. The growth in tourism on the east coast is twice that on the west coast and the reasons are simple. There is better access through ports and airports to the east coast, Dublin is a major capital city and there is a change in the type of holidays taken. However, there is vast untapped potential in the west and the Government must act quickly to ensure that access to the west is improved and Bord Fáilte is directed to place special emphasis on that region in its tourism marketing schemes.
I welcome the long overdue decision to tackle the condition of our roads and, while this may remove some of the quaintness of our countryside, improved country roads will be welcomed by tourists and residents alike. The Minister should not overlook the dreadful road conditions in Dublin, particularly in urban parts. He should cast his view beyond the countryside and look to the cities, where much remains to be done.
Unfortunately, there is still no progress in attracting low cost carriers to Shannon Airport and the west generally. Neither has there been progress on attracting transatlantic carriers.
Trade matters are also ignored in the budget. Many exporters are under serious pressure because of the continuing weakness of sterling. The Food, Drink and Tobacco Federation has warned that jobs will be lost in the food industry unless steps are taken to reduce costs for employers. Returns for exporters to Britain have reduced by 6 per cent in the past 12 months according to that federation. Fewer workers have been taken on by these businesses or else workers have been taken on in Britain. The Small Firms Association has cited two examples of the difficulties. It claims that a company employing 34 people in County Mayo, the constituency of the Minister for Tourism and Trade, will relocate to England unless the position improves or the Government addresses the difficulties. It also claims that the owner of a company employing 20 people in the north west, 12 miles from the Border, stated that, to all intents and purposes, the company might as well be located across the Border. It operates almost entirely on a sterling account and conducts the majority of its transactions through sterling. It has discounted the option of hedging as the costs associated with buying forward are prohibitive.
The Small Firms Association claims that 70 per cent of small companies who export do so to the United Kingdom, which remains our most important market. Approximately 60,000 jobs depend on UK trade links. Historically, sterling performs poorly at election time in the UK. Economists claim that if there is an election in Britain this year, the Irish pound could reach £1.07 or higher against sterling. The political uncertainty in Britain is not helpful, with many economists here claiming that even if there is not an election there the Irish pound could reach more than £1.04 against sterling during 1996. We have a motion on the Order Paper to address the disparity between the punt and sterling and its effects on small businesses here. That will be taken in the next few weeks.
The Government ignored all these difficulties in the budget. The PRSI breaks given are insignificant. They have been written off as useless by all the industry federations. The budget provided an opportunity to introduce targeted PRSI measures that could have specifically benefited companies under pressure due to the differential with sterling, but that opportunity was missed.
This is a bad budget for the tourism industry. We face a period of uncertainty in our relationship with our fellow inhabitants of this island. Tourism is an area in which significant cross-Border co-operation is not only possible but desirable in the process of building trust. I have made a number of proposals, arising from parliamentary questions, to the Minister in respect of cross-Border co-operation and the importance of this country being identified as one island in the context of trade and tourism, particularly tourism. I suggested that an all-Ireland tourism body should be appointed under which people from both sides of the Border could mesh to produce ongoing prosperity in the context of the peace process. I also suggested that we have a great deal to offer one another in terms of trade links. I understand that because of the vast influx of tourists, particularly from the South, as a result of the peace process, people in the North are short changed in terms of hotel accommodation. I understand that is being addressed. I hope the North gets its fair share of tourists and that people from the South go there on holidays.
There is a serious imbalance in the number of people using the tourist facilities on the east coast and those visiting our wonderful west coast. That imbalance must be addressed by the people who propagandise it. It is important not to undervalue Dublin. Dublin is my city and I am delighted it is doing so well in terms of tourism but we must be fair and ensure that the benefits of tourism are distributed equitably. The reason for the imbalance is that we have excellent access to the east coast by way of Rosslare, Dún Laoghaire, Dublin Port and Larne. In addition, we have a first class airport through which approximately seven to eight million passengers passed last year, with many more arriving this year. The problem in relation to the west, as I understand it, is access and those who are charged with identifying these problems should address them as a matter of urgency.
I wish to quote the immortal words of Deputy De Rossa on 4 March 1993 when he stated:
The sense of public disappointment has been compounded by the apparent preoccupation of Members of the Government and, unfortunately, Labour Ministers, with appointing extra advisers and staff drawn, in the case of Labour, from party supporters or family circles. What is even worse, is that all of this is adding to the public cynicism and disillusionment with politics which was at such a high level anyway and which contributed to worryingly low turn-outs at recent elections.
The potential annual cost of the special advisers, assistants and programme managers for Ministers and Ministers of State — I am not identifying solely the Labour Party element, because this applies right across the board to the Government as a whole — may amount to more than £2.25 million, according to information supplied to my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, in written replies to Dáil questions.
We had a row here this morning on the Order of Business. I know I cannot rerun that argument because I understand the Cheann Comhairle has indicated that the problem is being dealt with through the committees of the House. It has been suggested, however, that an advertisement was not placed for particular plum jobs which the Minister for Social Welfare so willingly threw out in all directions, not by way of a general public advertisement but in an advertisement in a Democratic Left magazine.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but we must not pursue that matter now.
I accept your ruling and it is not my intention to go beyond that. With your permission, I would like to place on the record of the House either viva voce or physically an advertisement outlining——
This debate is confined to taxation, expenditure and financial policy. The Deputy can raise other matters only in so far as they are connected with financial policy. We cannot pursue any other matter at this time.
I accept your ruling and I will not pursue the matter
Once again I wish the peace process well. I was part of that process at the outset for a period of six months when I sat around the all-party table, as it were, with various political parties, North and South. I believe we did very well in that regard. Unfortunately, the talks broke down and I regret the way that happened but that is the way of democracy and politics. It is important in the interest of the continuation of the peace process that all party talks are commenced again as a matter of urgency. The Taoiseach is hopeful these will take place by the end of February but I wonder whether he is being over optimistic. I hope the talks take place by the end of February; it is in everybody's interests that they do.
I am persuaded by the Tánaiste's efforts in particular to launch a new peace initiative in the context of the Dayton proposals. I am not certain that will find favour with the Unionists who seem to be suffering from one of their bouts of intransigence. That is unfortunate and I ask them to reflect again on the Tánaiste's proposal or some similar type of mechanism whereby everybody will be talking, albeit in different rooms. It is unfortunate that he has to make that proposal but now that it has been made, it should not be dismissed.
I wish the Government well in regard to the peace process. I believe I am reflecting the views of my party Leader, Deputy Ahern, I want to pay particular tribute to him for the leadership he has given in the past number of months. He has maintained the consensus in the tensions that arise from democracy but that is what democracy is all about. It is about what happened here this morning, which was not a pretty sight, but that is the way democracy operates. Deputy Ahern has given and will continue to give good leadership on the question of Northern Ireland and the peace process generally.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Eamon Walsh.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I wish to deal with aspects of public spending that relate to my Department on sport and youth affairs and I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
As we all know Ireland is a great sporting nation and over recent years we have had outstanding success at the highest level of international sport. For a small country such as ours to succeed at this level is an extraordinary tribute to the level of commitment, the vision and the ambition of all concerned.
Our success has been achieved through constant effort, the endless hours and the unselfish determination of the national governing bodies of sport, thousands of dedicated volunteers in sports organisations, local clubs and communities and myriad other agencies and bodies who work tirelessly for the good of our people. We are fortunate to have our own thriving, vibrant native games which are distinctive and unique to our country.
As Minister for Sport I have responsibility for the development of sport at all levels described in the now well established Sports Continuum — foundation, participation, performance and excellence.
Sport and active recreational pursuits cannot thrive without a sound infrastructure. Many people make a substantial investment of their own time in providing sporting opportunities for others. These people range from those who voluntarily organise sporting opportunities for young people to those who are professionally involved in the leisure industry and who approach their work with commitment and dedication. The value of this human investment is incalculable but the return on the investment will be poor unless the appropriate levels of support both financially and otherwise are provided by the State.
Shortly after taking office I set out a number of priority tasks which I would undertake as Minister of State with responsibility for sport. I was also very much aware that there was no overall coherent plan or strategy for the development of sport in all its aspects.
The priorities which I identified included: the preparation of a national strategy, the publication of codes of practice for safety at sportsgrounds and at outdoor pop concerts and other outdoor musical events, the preparation of a code of ethics and good practice for children in sport and the introduction, in co-operation with the national governing bodies of sport, of a national drug testing programme. I am pleased that substantial progress has been made on all these priority areas. The codes of practice were recently published and have been distributed to the relevant statutory bodies, Government Departments and interested organisations and individuals. The publication of the codes brings us into line with international practice and with the Council of Europe's Convention in this area.
The Code of Ethics and Good Practice for Young People in Sport is aimed at promoting positive adult-child relationships in sport. The code consists of a general set of principles which should underpin the conduct of sport in all areas, including competitive sport and non-competitive physical recreation. It is designed to assist those who work with children in sport to do so in an ethical and responsible manner and to provide a basis for good practice. The code should be formally adopted by all sporting organisations at national, regional and local level and all individuals working with children and is designed to cover all sporting activities involving children and young people up to 18 years of age and also those with disabilities. I have received the final draft report and I hope to have it published in the near future.
A considerable amount of work has been done on the introduction of a national drug testing and education programme for sport. An educational seminar was organised by the sport section of my Department for all the governing bodies of sport in December 1995. The purpose of the seminar was to outline in detail the systems, structures and procedures involved in introducing a national drug testing and education programme. Presentations were given by leading experts in the field from the Northern Ireland Sports Council, the British Sports Council and the Olympic Council of Ireland.
The responsibilities and involvement of national governing bodies include informing their athletes of the procedures involved in testing, the need to amend their constitutions and regulations to cover testing and to decide in advance what sanctions and penalties should be in place in the event of an athlete testing positive. My Department is now engaged in the preparation of plans and systems to enable the introduction of dope testing in sport in 1996. Pending consideration of the different options available, final details of these plans have not yet been decided but I expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. I wish to pay tribute to the Chairman of Cospóir, Mr. Eamon Doherty, who has been very prominent in the preparation of the plans.
The national lottery has provided virtually all the funding for sport since its establishment in 1987 and to date a total of some £90 million has been provided. The average annual national lottery allocation given to sport is approximately 13 per cent. I am aware of the criticisms which have been expressed by many sports groups in recent times that sport does not receive its fair share of national lottery funding and the increasing demands for more funding for sport. I am glad to confirm that late last year I established a working group to prepare a national strategy document for sport which will be instrumental in supporting the case for increased funding. This work is now well under way under the chairmanship of John Treacy. The working group is preparing a comprehensive detailed, rational and coherent strategy which will guide and map the road ahead for the development of sport in all its aspects and at all levels up to the year 2000 and beyond. The introduction of such a strategy is essential if sport is to move forward in a co-ordinated and structured way to the benefit of all concerned.
This national sports strategy will be of value only if it can be implemented and applied. The working group will work very closely with the various areas of sport to ensure that the goals and objectives of this document will be realistic, attainable and of real value for the future development of sport. I should mention that I am inviting submissions from organisations, groups and interested individuals through a public advertisement which appears in today's national newspapers and which will also appear in Sunday's newspapers. I am also writing to the leaders of all the parties in the House seeking submissions, including their priorities for the future development of sport in Ireland. I ask that the matter be given very careful and detailed consideration. I expect the strategy document to be completed by the end of the year.
The Sport Council for Northern Ireland is also preparing a similar strategy, we have representatives on its group and it has representatives on ours. The majority of the national governing bodies of sport operate on a 32 county basis and I expect there will be many issues arising from the work of these two groups which will benefit the country, North and South, and on which there will be potential for joint initiatives — there have already been four joint initiatives between the two councils in recent months.
I referred to the need to provide suitable, modern, well managed sports facilities and would like to outline the current position in this area. My Department administers a sports capital programme consisting of the major facilities programme and the recreational facilities scheme. The multiannual major facilities programme provides grants for national, regional and local sports facilities. This programme now comprises up to 130 major projects and the total grant aid provided since the scheme was introduced in 1988 is now in excess of £36 million. When I came to office I was faced with outstanding commitments under the programme of more than £10 million which arose from grant allocations made in previous years. In addition to the £4.1 million in the Estimates for spending in 1995 I was able to secure an additional £4 million to further new projects and, in some cases, to increase grants to existing projects to ensure that facilities are completed to acceptable standards.
I was pleased to be in a position in late 1995 to increase the value of the commitments under the scheme by £1.5 million. I subsequently allocated grants to approximately 240 projects, increasing the total value of grant allocations under the recreational facilities scheme in recent years to £10.863 million. I intend to ensure that funding similar to that provided in 1995 will be available this year to allow me make some inroads into the very high number of applications. We have received approximately 1,400 applications seeking grants of up to £65 million for projects worth in excess of £500 million.
The provision of a 50 metre swimming pool is still under consideration in my Department. The proposals developed by my Department following a detailed feasibility study is for a 50 metre swimming pool which is specifically geared to cater for the training needs of our élite swimmers, to provide for national and a wide range of international competitions and to serve as a major community facility. This project would cost an estimated £20 million which is equivalent to four years' funding for the sports capital programme.
I am also considering the Dublin International Sports Council's proposals which have been developed in consultation with the International Swimming Hall of Fame. This latter proposal is essentially for a full Olympic standard facility, including an international swimming hall of fame and other accommodation which I am satisfied will cost well in excess of £20 million. The provision of a 50 metre pool could not be financed at the expense of my sports capital programme given the huge demands from the wide range of sporting organisations, local authorities and the wider community to refurbish existing facilities and provide new facilities. The total expenditure on current programmes for sport was £7.3 million in 1995. The range of programmes available for those involved in sports at performance and excellence levels is largely dependent on the efforts of recognised national governing bodies of sport.
The rate of change in society tends to leave young people, even those who excel academically, vulnerable, confused, isolated and excluded. In such a vacuum the youth services provide opportunities and support to young people for association, the development of personal autonomy and the essential values and competencies to participate effectively in a changing society. Voluntary youth organisations, youth clubs and community youth projects provide valuable opportunities for the social and personal development of young people. Qualities and skills such as leadership, co-operation, decision-making, motivation and self-responsibility can be acquired in a learning by doing manner.
The aim of the youth service is to assist all young people to become active participants in a democratic society. This participation, essential to the full development of young people, extends to involvement in institutions of social, political, cultural and economic life. In essence, therefore, the pimary objective of the youth service is to help realise the potential of young people and to facilitate their full participation in community life.
As Minister of State at the Department of Education with special responsibility for youth affairs, I am convinced that the establishment of a proper system of formation and development for young people must be viewed as a high priority. To facilitate the emergence of a more comprehensive and accessible youth service, a revised policy on youth work was outlined in last year's White Paper on education.
Youth services operate in the area of non-formal education and I am continuing my efforts to make these opportunities available to young people. This is principally done through the provision of financial assistance to special projects for disadvantaged young people and to national youth organisations which support local clubs and units throughout the country.
State funding for the support of voluntary youth work is made available on an annual basis to voluntary youth organisations through the youth service grant scheme. Through the grant scheme for special projects to assist disadvantaged youth, my Department funds nearly 200 community-based youth projects and special youth projects targeted at young people in disadvantaged areas. Grants are allocated to organisations and groups for specific out-of-school projects which seek to address the needs of young people who are at risk due to a combination of factors ranging from early school-leaving, unemployment and isolation to drug abuse, homelessness and involvement in crime. These projects involve local communities and liaise with other voluntary and statutory services to provide learning experiences through recreation, sporting, cultural and other activities. Although the worth, by any criterion, of the existing projects has been fully demonstrated, there has been little scope to establish new projects since 1988. However, during 1995, I provided for the establishment of four new projects in areas demonstrating a significant level of need, and I intend to further extend provision under this scheme to areas of greatest disadvantage in 1996.
In addition, I will consider the advantage that might be gained from the provision of an additional youth worker to a number of existing one-worker projects where the scope for worth-while intervention is, of necessity, limited. A comprehensive network of youth information centres is a vital component of an effective youth service. Through the effective dissemination of information, the centres enable young people to identify their own resources and make decisions, promote personal autonomy, resourcefulness and encourage active participation in society. I am glad I was in a position, in 1995, to establish the national co-ordination service for youth information on a more secure basis. I will continue to examine priorities for the ongoing development of the network, including modern information technology requirements.
The increased availability of drugs, their accessibility owing to reduced cost and prevailing social attitudes have made young people the most vulnerable category in terms of the threat drugs pose to society in general. I am conscious that youth organisations, youth workers and volunteers throughout the country are faced with an increasing level of drug-related problems among young people. However, I am convinced that the flexible approach of youth work, which encourages assertiveness, self-esteem and responsibility and reaches out to those most at risk, presents an ideal medium for implementing demand reduction strategies with young people.
The initiatives and developments I have outlined are indicative of the importance I attach to the role of youth services. They will provide a solid basis to further consolidate these services as an integral and very important part of our overall educational and social provision. I am very heartened by this prospect.
I congratulate the Minister of State with responsibility for Sport, Deputy Allen, on the fine work he has done in the area of sport. I assure him of our good will in the future.
I am happy to be able to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate the Minister for Finance on delivering a fair and well balanced budget. I take this opportunity also to congratulate him on his contribution towards revitalising Ireland in the past few years. If anybody had said ten years ago that Ireland would prepare to enter the 21st century with one of the most buoyant economies in Europe, he would have been laughed at. We are now in an enviable position, and it is due in no small measure to the parties in Government particularly, the party of which I am a member, the Labour Party.
I will mention some of the criticisms levelled at this budget to see if they can stand up to examination. They include allegations that the Government has failed to deliver on taxation changes, has failed to close the gap between the Commission on Social Welfare recommendations and present payments, and has failed to honour its commitment to the long-term unemployed.
I draw attention to some of the large payments made under this budget. For public sector pay, £160 million has been provided. A sum of £92 million has been provided for income tax relief and £75 million has been provided for PRSI levy reductions. Other accumulated taxation reductions amount to £11 million. A sum of £13 million is being provided for Army pensions, and the long-term employee provision is £10 million. In the 1996 budget social welfare payments of over £80 million are provided for although there has been a dramatic increase in employment. These are just some of the large amounts of finance that have been put together to make this one of the most successful budgets. Unless we look at the scale of those figures we will not realise the importance of this financial matter.
Despite comments to the contrary from some quarters, considerable progress on taxation has been made in recent years. There has been a substantial improvement in social services and a dramatic increase in employment while interest rates have been reduced substantially. When we entered this House after the general election of 1992 fears were expressed by people whose mortgages were under severe threat and whose houses were in danger of being repossessed. We have come a long way since then.
Despite the changes, there is still an unfair burden on the PAYE taxpayer, and that burden has been shouldered by that group for a long time. It is time to look at that in the coming year to see if we can shift the burden. The farming community are now enjoying very large incomes compared to previous years. Perhaps that is an area where we should consider looking for extra returns by way of taxation. I would like to see those points addressed in the coming year.
This year's budget consolidated the progress made and is a further step to ensure that the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work are fully implemented and further improvements on taxation and social welfare are made. The budget reaffirms that this Government has three main objectives — to reward work, to promote enterprise and to strengthen social solidarity. This Government is and always has been pro employment, and the budget is an illustration of the Government's ongoing commitment to underpinning the distribution of benefits from the growing economy.
As a result of sound financial management the economy has the confidence of both the domestic and foreign investment markets. For example, over the period of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, 1994-96, inclusive, there has been an increase of 116,000 people in the workplace. This is a major achievement which, translated into percentage terms, is a 10 per cent increase. In addition, employment has grown four times faster in Ireland in recent years than in the rest of the European Union.
We have noted in the past that the private sector in Ireland has not been able to produce a sufficient number of jobs to meet the employment demands of our population and, on many occasions, the State has had to take responsibility for job creation. We should also consider the prospect of our semi-State sector becoming an engine to create employment. I would like to see the Government consider that in the coming year.
This Government has also arrested the level of public spending which absorbed the benefits of growth, thus ensuring that those benefits are instead distributed through Irish society. The real increase in current spending for 1996 is 2.5 per cent, in contrast with an average of 5.5 per cent over the preceding five years. During the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition public spending grew annually by 6.5 per cent in real terms.
Measures designed to address important problems include improving the benefits of working by easing the transition from unemployment to work thereby encouraging more people to accept employment. A central tenet of the budget is tackling the problem of long-term unemployment. Measures to support recruitment among the long-term unemployed represent a serious attempt to address this priority. One of the Government aims is to ensure that the benefits of our buoyant economy are distributed more evenly throughout society. In rewarding those at work, the Minister has increased the gains from working. The increase in the employer's PRSI exemption limit from £50 to £80 is an integral part of the Government's employment strategy. Another important aspect of the strategy is the new £80 a week recruitment subsidy to encourage employers to take on someone who has been long-term unemployed. In addition the provision to allow those who return to work to retain the child dependant allowance for 13 weeks and the medical card for three years after taking up work will help to tackle unemployment. These measures are aimed at impacting on the pressing problem of long-term unemployment.
Ireland has one of the most severe unemployment problems in Europe and for this reason the task force on the long-term unemployed recommends that special intervention is necessary. The measures aimed at tackling long-term unemployment are a component of social solidarity.
One of the problems affecting the areas of high unemployment in my constituency is drugs. A very important community initiative is now under way in Fettercairn, west Tallaght, where a group in the community has decided to tackle the drugs problem and is dealing with 25 heroin addicts in the community centre. Its work is making a significant impression on the reduction of crime in the area. Employment is an important part of this programme. When the young people have been detoxified and are able to participate in the community as fully fledged citizens, employment will be a key factor in ensuring that they do not return to drugs. I pay tribute to that group of people. Will the Government consider funding community initiatives dealing with the drugs problem?
The budget reaffirms this Government's commitment to education. Since entering Government the Labour Party has brought about fundamental changes in education at every level. Free third level education has been introduced. My colleague the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, is committed to ensuring that these changes bring about a more efficient and effective education system. I pay tribute to both the Ministers for Education and Finance for ensuring that a further 1,000 places are available on the vocational training opportunity scheme, which is an important mechanism in dealing with long-term unemployment.
This Government created 45,000 new jobs in 1995. It has also gained control of public spending which has absorbed the benefits of growth. The real increase in public spending in 1996 is 2.5 per cent whereas it was as high as 6.5 per cent during previous administrations. In the health area a comprehensive programme for women's health has been introduced. This is a well balanced and fair budget which aims to tackle long-term unemployment and at the same time reward those at work. It seeks to promote social solidarity while recognising the individual's input as a basis of a sound and healthy society.
I overheard a comment in the corridors that this was a budget for Tallaght. I regard that as a compliment as the budget addressed many problems in the constituency I represent. This is not only a budget for Tallaght but for Walkinstown, Greenhills, Templeogue and Clondalkin and for people throughout the country who are suffering from long-term unemployment and the burden of taxation that leaves them without a disposable income.
I congratulate the Government, in particular my colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn on this budget. I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, of the important question of a water leisure centre for Tallaght. I hope he will ensure that the money for this facility is provided.
No budget in the history of the State received less attention in the media. Within 24 hours there was not a word about it. On budget day there were fewer in the gallery than I have ever seen before and one must ask why. The budget was leaked. People at home on the previous Sunday were able to read in the newspapers what would be in the budget. There was nothing significant in it, which is the reason it fell flat within 24 hours.
In the programme for Government we were promised radical reform and tax concessions for those at work but there was no sign of them in the budget. Had the Minister sat at home and not introduced a budget, he would have been £800 million better off and I do not think life would have been any different for people. Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left have committed themselves in their programme to firm management of the public finances. Deputy Walsh thinks that has happened but everybody else, including economic commentators, is well aware the Government went over its spending target in 1995. Already this year it has gone over the proposed increase of 2 per cent in public spending promised in the programme for Government.
It was the best received budget in the history of the State.
The budget was a total nonentity. It is important to look at some of the comments in the programme, A Government of Renewal. An example is: "Adherence to fiscal parameters outlined above should permit for substantial tax reductions in the next three years". The reason we are not getting tax reductions in its second budget is it did not stick within the public spending parameters it laid out for itself.
Another gem from paragraph 4 of the same document reads: "The fruits of economic growth will be used in substantial measure for tax reform as well as the improvement of public services". Where is the tax reform? There was very little of it to be seen in the budget.
Public spending should be kept under control because in that way the workers, the people who produce the wealth of the country, can benefit from a fairer tax system. We can provide the funding necessary to ensure improved social welfare, health and education. It also allows us to avoid borrowing which has been a millstone around our necks since 1973.
In 1995 £1 billion was added to the national debt. In 1994, when Deputy Bertie Ahern was Minister for Finance, he brought in a surplus of £15 million on the current budget deficit — the first time in 28 years that had been achieved. What happened in 1995 at a time when the economy was booming? The Government targeted a £310 million deficit, but despite the buoyancy of the economy it could not even stay within that target and had to borrow a further £50 million, thus ending up with a current budget deficit of £362 million.
Anyone with any sense, seeing the way the economy was booming, would accept that we should eliminate the current budget deficit because of high economic growth and because we receive substantial amounts of money from the European Union. We have no guarantee that such aid will continue after 1999.
Eliminating the budget deficit would have given us lower taxes which would have been to the benefit of workers and the economy generally. Our generation does not have the right to provide a level of public services that we are not prepared to pay for and leave the bill for our children. No one would accept that principle because it is not right.
At a time of economic boom the Government should make some effort to bring public spending under control. In fact, had the Government lived within its own target of 2 per cent, not alone would we not have had a budget deficit but we would have had £130 million more to distribute in tax and PRSI relief.
The budget provides for an increase of 6.2 per cent in public spending which in real terms is an increase of 4 per cent. That is double the target the Government set for itself. Apart from the seriousness of massively increased public spending, it is interesting that that figure comes from the Principal Features of the budget. Perhaps another reason the budget fell flat after 24 hours is that the statement the Minister read out here did not contain that type of information. The document that we were not circulated with in this House on budget day was well named as the Principal Features of the budget. While we would normally hear the salient points of the budget in this House, in this instance they were hidden away in a document which was circulated afterwards.
The tax concessions were paltry and amounted to a type of circular transfer. I doubt if people will be any better off when they get their pay packets, especially if we take into account the reduction in the PRSI ceiling. Employers' PRSI is reduced by 0.2 per cent from 12.2 per cent to 12 per cent, which amounts to £20 in £10,000. I do not know how any member of the Labour Party or Democratic Left can praise that as a major tax concession. Given the current pound/punt exchange rate, employers' PRSI has a particular relevance to the Border economy and the problems of the food sector. The Minister's statement, under the heading Promote Enterprise, refers to the reduction of the employers' PRSI contribution, but that is all there is. How can one promote enterprise with a reduction of £20 in every £10,000?
While the social welfare increases were higher than last year, why is it that over two years, when the cost of social welfare increased by 28 per cent, old age pensioners have received an increase of only 5.5 per cent? They received 2.5 per cent in 1995 which saw the worst budget for old age pensioners since Ernest Blythe was Minister for Finance in 1929 and took a shilling off the old age pension. This year they received 3 per cent, making a total of 5.5 per cent altogether as against a general budget increase for social welfare of 28 per cent.
Is Charley Haughey complaining again?
The Minister introduced a tax allowance on alarms. Deputy Walsh mentioned that somebody said it was a budget for Tallaght and that he was very pleased with that. I would like to know how many people in Tallaght will benefit from an £800 tax relief on alarms. How many people around the country will benefit from it? I would be interested to hear Deputy Byrne talk about the great job it will do in the constituency he represents, and how much he welcomes it in these days of unprecedented crime.
Would the Deputy prefer if it was not in the budget?
I would prefer if a serious effort was made to tackle crime. There should be a realistic contribution for installing alarms instead of offending the elderly by saying they can have £800 tax free on their alarms when the vast majority of them do not pay any tax at all.
We should tell them that a Fianna Fáil budget would look after them. Is that what the Deputy wants?
Carlow-Kilkenny): Everybody will be given a chance to speak later on.
I am being provoked.
Some £1 million was provided for an £80 per week recruitment subsidy which amounts to £4,000 per year, and will take 250 people out of the 140,000 long-term unemployed. That is very paltry.
One of the things we have always got from left wing parties in this House— the Labour Party and Democratic Left —is an attack on the farming community. Deputy Walsh was at it again this morning and said he would love to see the Minister go after the farmers and collect more tax from them. Deputy Gallagher agrees with me that farmers are not doing as well as some members of the Labour Party who do not represent rural constituencies would make out.
Their incomes rose by 7 per cent this year.
They got great relief from the budget. The VAT refund rate was increased in the budget from 2.5 per cent to 2.8 per cent. That rise of 0.3 per cent representsd £30 in every £10,000. That is the relief the farmers got.
They are cleaning up. Some 20 per cent of their income comes from Europe.
I am sure that Deputy Browne, in the Chair, and Deputy Gallagher, both of whom represent rural constituencies, will agree with me that they would have liked to see more.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I am well able to speak for myself.
It is not the fault of Deputy Browne's party, it is the fault of the Labour Party. The Labour Minister for Finance gave no relief.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is inviting interruptions.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Farmers had a great year last year.
Livestock prices are causing difficulties for farmers at present. The Government should address this issue particularly as it relates to winter beef finishers.
The price of petrol was increased by 4.5p for ordinary petrol and 14p for super leaded petrol. The latter was a significant increase. The economy of the Border area was ignored. The former Minister for Finance, Ray MacSharry, stabilised that economy by introducing the 48 hour rule and reversed the practice of people in the South shopping in the North and buying petrol there. Clones which is a large town did not have a petrol station for eight years. An Post vans had to travel 15 miles to Monaghan to get a fill of diesel.
The sterling-punt relationship must be addressed. If employers' PRSI had been significantly reduced in the budget it would have helped the export trade to remain competitive. There are major problems in labour intensive industry particularly in the food sector. In my constituency there is a large mushroom and poultry industry. These and food processing plants have been hard hit by the punt-sterling exchange rate. During the last 14 months the value of the punt rose from 95p to £1.03 against sterling. Some 50,000 jobs are under threat as a result of the cost of our exports to Britain and the reduced price of British imports. I am aware of one successful industry which is concerned about starting a new plant until it sees what will happen with the punt-sterling exchange rate. I am disappointed that not only was nothing done about this matter but it would appear from a reply I received yesterday to a question I tabled that the Government has no intention of addressing it irrespective of what price the punt rises to. I know the Minister consulted with organisations such as IBEC and must be aware of the seriousness of the problem.
Some 27.5 per cent of our exports are to Britain and 36 per cent of our imports come from Britain. What number of jobs is involved in producing the goods we export to Britain? I suspect it is a high percentage because of the labour intensive nature of the industries.
We welcome the cessation of violence and that it has lasted for so long. No doubt it will continue. I am concerned, as are Northern Nationalists, that the British Government and the Unionists are moving towards an internal settlement in the Six Counties. That would be totally unacceptable. Successive Governments accepted the three stranded approach, Strand I, the relationship between the two communities in the North; Strand II, the relationship between North and South and Strand III, the relationship between Britain and Ireland. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that Strand II is placed firmly back on the agenda and I will support it in its efforts. It appears the British Government is not living up to the agreements it entered into with our sovereign Government. Recognition was not given in the budget to the special problems in the Border region apart from the small relief given to cross-Border workers. At a meeting in Letterkenny last October the Taoiseach stated that additional money could not be targeted at the Border areas unless it was redirected from other areas because the Government had to live within the 2 per cent. That is not legitimate because the problems of frontier areas throughout Europe have been recognised by the EU. Ireland's problems have been doubly recognised. We receive INTERREG funding and we received money after the ceasefire to try to develop Border regions. Those who support the IFI, the United States, Australia and New Zealand recognise this. It is unfortunate that the Government does not recognise it because what we are asking is that the money provided by EU taxpayers, particularly Germany and France, be allocated to the areas for which it is intended, as additional aid.
The Government did not appoint a Minister from the Border region and that is indicative of its commitment to that area. The funding provided by the EU should be additional funding and proper infrastructures should be put in place. The IDA is anxious to locate advance factories but does not have the money to do so. There is the promise of American investment. We must provide the environment in which investment can take place. Moneys should be targeted at the IDA for the purpose of building advance factories in the Border region. Infrastructural developments such as water and sewerage should be carried out in towns in the Border region to attract industry. There are no fibre optics in the Border region, except for one or two areas in Dundalk and Donegal. High technology and telecommunications should be put in place and developed to increase the opportunity of attracting high technology industry from the United States and elsewhere. It is significant that of 400 United States companies in this country only 16 are in the Border region. For that reason the Border areas should receive the funds to which they are entitled.
Road development at county, regional and national primary level must be addressed. In the last eight years there has been a substantial increase in road funding and much work has been done in that regard. Anybody who wishes to visit my constituency, which experienced serious problems, is welcome to come and see the good work carried out by the county council engineers and their staff. However, much still needs to be done. I do not understand the announcement, of the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, on Tuesday last that £750 million would be spent on county and regional roads in the next ten years. A similar announcement was made last July and I thought at that time we would receive £750 million extra——
(Laoighis-Offaly): Extra money was provided last year.
I thought that would be extra money over the ten years, but now I find it is to cover the whole programme. If, without taking inflation into account, a similar amount of money was allocated to county and regional roads as provided by Deputy Michael Smith when Minister for the Environment in 1984, it would amount to £1,070 million over ten years.
(Laoighis-Offaly): The greatest allocation was made last year and this year.
The Labour Party knows it will not be in Government after next year's election and it makes all sorts of promises but fails to deliver on them.
Is the Deputy suggesting there will be a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government next year? That will not happen.
There is need for an improved east-west national primary route and that should be addressed in the context of the substantial Structural Funds which will be available up to 1999 —there is no guarantee they will be available thereafter. It is important that industry is attracted from the greater Dublin area. The fact that the whole population might live in the greater Dublin area in 20 years' time is in nobody's interest, but if we proceed with the present policy that will be the result. The IDA can confirm that people are prepared to buy land for £120,000 an acre within 20 miles of Dublin whereas they are not prepared to pay £20,000 an acre 20 miles down the road.
All Governments have been committed to decentralisation and the decentralisation of Departments has been of great benefit to many towns. I am concerned, however, about the policy of centralisation to county towns, which is very undesirable. For example, in my constituency the Army barracks were transferred from Cootehill to Cavan Town. If there is need for only one Army barracks in County Cavan, why should it not remain in Cootehill? I accept it is necessary that some facilities are situated in county towns, but, for example, in terms of the threat to close ESB offices around the country it is not absolutely necessary to centralise them in county towns. Similarly, in regard to infrastructural development, I do not understand why massive sums of money are spent on facilities in county towns while other towns barely receive sufficient money. That matter must be addressed.
In rural areas, where post offices and Garda stations have been closed, the people who provide services— teachers, doctors and so on—have moved to the nearest towns. If that trend continues, there might be only 26 towns in Ireland in the future, and perhaps further into the future there may be only one town in every region.
Crime is an issue that has been of concern recently in my constituency and has been raised constantly at meetings. The Government should stand indicted in terms of rural crime. It gave a very bad signal when it came to office by not going ahead with the prison in Castlerea. That was a disastrous decision. People say it was the result of pressure from left wing parties such as Democartic Left who is in favour of civil liberties and believes there are too many prison spaces, but I do not know if that is true. The Government has no policy on crime. Deputy O'Donoghue, the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Justice, did excellent work in the past 12 months and produced a number of Bills. An Opposition Bill introduced by him and debated here over the last two weeks was accepted by the House last night. The Government produced a similar Bill this morning which is not quite as good. It should accept Opposition Bills as we did in Government, for which we received kudos at the time. If that practice was followed people would believe we are serious about crime.
The Government inherited a very healthy, booming economy which resulted from the policies of a single party Fianna Fáil Government in 1987-89. Perhaps it is too much to expect that it will be in the same healthy state when Fianna Fáil comes back to Government. I appeal to this Government not to do too much damage in the meantime.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I wish to share my time with Deputy Eric Byrne.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I was entertained during the last half hour by Deputy O'Hanlon's contribution in which he stated that there should be less tax and more spending. I wish to address the allocation to education. I spent a number of years before coming into this House in the education and training area and, I am particularly pleased there has been a further major increase in the education provision in this year's budget. There has been a 33 per cent increase in spending on education since the Minister for Education took office in 1992 and this year expenditure on education is well over £2 billion. Political parties who object to tax and spend policies and at every opportunity argue for cuts in public expenditure will admit that investment in education is not only an investment in the development of young people but in the future of our country. This year's allocation of moneys to the three main sectors of education is fair and balanced. A sum of £700 million will be allocated to primary education, more than £800 million to second level education and more than £500 million to third level education.
I am particularly pleased that during the past two or three years more attention has been given to primary education. As numbers declined the Minister for Education managed not only to retain but to substantially increase finance for that sector. That is a great achievement. If choices have to be made in education, I would favour investing in the primary sector. All students would benefit from such investment and it would determine whether they will be successful at second or third level and at work.
When the Minister took office there were major gaps in primary education resulting from a lack of investment, particularly in the basic capitation rate per pupil paid to all primary schools. At that time the rate was £28 per pupil and this year it will be £45 per pupil. That money covers the cost of electricity, heating and other utilities in schools. I am pleased that the local contribution has been frozen because not all schools on which extra demands have been placed have been able to meet the costs. The review of the local contribution is welcome and it might be worthwhile abolishing it at some stage.
The area of special needs whether for physical or mental disability for traveller's education or remedial education, has received much needed attention. I am pleased with the work of the Minister in this area, in my constituency during the past two or three years. The efforts of schools to provide education for travellers or children with disabilities has finally been recognised through the provision of the full level of special capitation recommended by a review committee two years ago.
I am particularly happy that the rate of capitation grant for disadvantaged schools will be increased to £75 per pupil this year. Grants of that order will enable schools to begin to address the disadvantages experienced by their students. I am pleased that the Minister directed the Combat Poverty Agency to examine the area of disadvantage, particularly rural disadvantage. Students in many schools in the rural parts of my constituency suffer from disadvantages. Many of those students would not qualify for a grant under the crude measures used to determine disadvantage prior to that review. I hope this year, the Minister will seriously examine and implement that agency's recommendations.
Another important area, associated with primary education is the level of co-operation between primary schools and the library service. For many years paltry funding was allocated to that service. When I was elected to the county council in 1991 45p per pupil per year was allocated. That rate was increased to £1 last year and £2 this year. We are nearing the point where funding allocated will allow the library service and primary schools to provide a decent service for pupils. In fostering literacy and an interest in science and literature it is important that primary pupils should be encouraged to use the library service. I hope the increase in funding to that service last year and this year will continue in the years ahead.
There have been substantial increases in the capital funding of primary schools in recent years. Money invested in a primary school building programme yields great value. All interested groups, whether the board of management, a local parish committee or the Office of Public Works, co-operate to ensure the money stretches as far as possible. When making my first speech in this House I had an opportunity to name schools in my constituency in severe need of refurbishment and extension. That number has been steadily whittled down during the past three years. I hope the work that still remains to be done in a small number of schools will be sanctioned and covered by this year's allocation.
The Minister's target of retaining 90 per cent of students in second level until leaving certificate will not be achieved unless major changes are introduced in the provision for second level students. Changes have occurred with the introduction of the junior certificate, the leaving certificate vocational programme and the alternative leaving certificate programme. As much money as possible should be invested in those programmes as it will not be possible to retain students until leaving certificate if they are offered only a traditional programme. I worked for seven years in a community training workshop where I dealt with young people who dropped out of secondary school not only for social reasons but because of dissatisfaction with the curriculum, school organisation and lack of motivation. It is possible within the mainline education system to address many of those difficulties. As much as possible should be spent on retaining potential early school leavers in the education system by providing the programmes they need. That has begun in the delivery of alternative programmes. If students are not retained in the system we will have to adopt more expensive policies to address the needs of early school leavers, some of whom may become perpetrators of crime and may have to be dealt with through the criminal justice system.
A local liaison unit was set up in every area under the social guarantee for young people by the former Department of Labour for early school leavers. It involved co-operation among youth workers, social workers, schools, vocational education committees and manpower and training agencies to identify potential early school leavers. It designed programmes targeted at retaining students in school but if they left school it quickly placed them in some form of appropriate education or training. We should consider reintroducing it.
The Youthreach programme has expanded significantly in recent years, but it is not enough to provide funding at that level. It is also necessary to ensure that mechanisms are in place at local level to ensure that the provision is delivered to those who need it, and I am not satisfied that is happening. The local liaison unit model should be re-examined and the Minister should make that a priority this year. Significant improvements can be made through local co-operation among all those interested in the welfare of young people not only in determining the length of time they spend in the education system but also the quality of education they receive.
I welcome the extra 1,000 places on VTOS which is currently under review. It has been successful in encouraging people in receipt of social welfare benefit to participate in education courses. Qualification for participation in courses under that scheme should be made as flexible as possible. Participants who require an extension of time on a course should be facilitated. I met a person who was unable to read or write before participating in a VTOS course two years ago. That person has benefited greatly from it but would need to continue to participate in it for another three or four years to reach a standard of education that would enable him or her to compete in the labour market.
I also welcome the significant increase in funding for the National Parents' Council, primary and post-primary, which has risen from £50,000 in 1992 to £150,000 this year. Parents are playing a much more structured role in education and, in the legislation to be introduced following the White Paper on Education, I look forward to them being given statutory rights. The type of funding now allocated to their representative organisations will enable them to become true partners in education rather than in name only.
Third-level education is being allocated approximately £500 million this year. Many people have almost implied that expenditure on third-level education is a sin, something in which one should not engage. However, people living in the real world know that the expectation of the majority of students nowadays is to continue into some form of third-level education and, as that expectation and demand grow, provision for it must also increase.
One of the main benefits of this year's increased allocation for third-level education, particularly in the case of middle income families, will derive from the abolition of fees in this sector which, when announced, led to much criticism of the Minister. The background to this proposal is in the establishment of the de Buitléir commission whose mandate was to review the means-testing of third-level student support and whose report recommended a number of what I considered eminently appropriate proposals for tackling the problem. Nonetheless, the Minister had to recognise that sufficient political consensus did not exist for their implementation. At the same time she was aware, as are all of us, of the many families whose income was just above the eligibility limit for the existing grant scheme, who were being fleeced by third-level tuition fees. Given that 55 per cent of students had been participating in ESF supported programmes in regional technical colleges, the Minister's method constituted the fastest method of providing some relief to those middle income families.
Since the averge third-level fee now amounts to £2,000 per annum, in the case of a middle income family in the 48 per cent tax bracket, its abolition for them is the equivalent of approximately £80 weekly earned income. That is a significant contribution to their children's education, for which I make no apology. Many such families are supported by PAYE workers and caught at every turn, through means-testing, for every penny they earn. Therefore, this relief for them should be widely welcomed and I know that such families are very appreciative.
I gladly welcome the increase in the student maintenance grant by twice the rate of inflation as recent increases were only in line with inflation. I am glad that this 5 per cent increase will move that student support grant toward a reasonable level.
I warmly welcome the overall budgetary provision for education and the Minister's continuing emphasis on primary education in all its facets. I particularly welcome the efforts being made to retain students in second-level education, through the provision of attractive programmes appropriate to their needs and, within the third-level sector, the full abolition of tuition fees.
While I gladly welcome the presence of Deputy Dan Wallace, I regret that the previous Fianna Fáil speaker, Deputy O'Hanlon, has left because I wanted to ask him a few questions. Perhaps Deputy Wallace will convery them to him.
This budget is a landmark victory for those who have had to struggle for too long on the economic and social sidelines of society. Indeed it was a victory for those who, under previous administrations, were told to wait another year to have their problems discussed.
I noted the muddled sounds of unconvinced protestation emanating from Deputy O'Hanlon and others on the Opposition benches, clearly demonstrating how good and unassailable this budget is.
Fianna Fáil, rather than engaging in a serious analysis of the contents of the budget, decided to concentrate on the old reliables. It was ironic to note Fianna Fáil's claims that the Government is not spending enough, in sharp contrast to its simultaneaous claim that it is spending too much, throwing its hands up in despair and asking: where it will all end. Deputy Wallace will be aware that this evident muddled thinking on the part of the best and brightest on the Fianna Fáil Front Bench leads one to be extremely grateful that it is in Opposition rather than Government benches, a very frightening prospect.
The Deputy's time will have expired without his having addressed the budget.
I will explain the reason. Because of Fianna Fáil's new found love of the policies of the progressive Democrats it is equally interesting to note that the contributions of members of the latter party have not been muddled; on the contrary, they have followed a clearly defined but nonetheless slightly limited path which appears to be of enormous seductive attraction to Fianna Fáil. Indeed the display of love-making in which Fianna Fáil has engaged with the Progressive Democrats has been frightening. I would go so far as to say the electorate will quickly realise the horrific prospect of, say, Deputy McCreevy, a former Minister for Social Welfare who introduced the infamous dirty dozen, as Minister for Finance—in a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition—with the equally horrific prospect of Deputy Michael McDowell —serving in the same Cabinet as Minister for Social Welfare. I do not agree with Deputy O'Hanlon about the formation of the next Government, such a scenario is sufficient to guarantee such a formula not reaping votes.
If one is to judge from some recent Progressive Democrats' statements in this House and elsewhere, clearly they are unwilling to give Thatcherism a decent burial. They are lingering at the wake of Thatcherism, muttering wistfully about the good old days when neoliberal ideologues everywhere believed that a rising tide would lift all boats. I envy Deputy Michael McDowell's touching faith in old recipes, in which I had some faith myself until fairly recently. However, I suppose one matures with age, a lesson Deputy McDowell might well learn. Certainly in my constituency thousands found their boats stranded right in the middle of an economic boom.
I really do wish that the old Thatcherite policies in which the Progressive Democrats believe had been successful and had led to all boats being lifted. Unfortunately, like the rest of the European Union, Ireland has in recent years had to contend with the modern day phenomenon of growth in unemployment. Last year we saw record levels of job creation but, unfortunately, those jobs tended to pass the long-term unemployed by. Those people have not been benefiting to date. The measures in the budget have been consciously aimed at alleviating the plight of the marginalised in our society, those with no work and those in low paid work. Instead of carping, Fianna Fáil and their Progressive Democrats allies should be applauding the excellent direction this budget is taking.
As Fianna Fáil speakers have neglected to address the specific measures in this budget, I will refresh their memories. Some 15,000 new places have been provided on three programmes, that is, 5,000 each on the back-to-work allowance scheme, the new £80 per week subsidy to employers scheme and the new work trial scheme. It is widely accepted that the older the unemployed person and the longer their time out of work, the less chance they have of making a return to the workplace. For this reason, 1,000 places on community employment schemes will be specifically reserved for people aged 35 years and over who have been out of work for five years or more. That is worthy of applause from the Opposition benches but they do not seem willing to give it.
These measures will help the long-term unemployed re-enter the world of work from which sadly they have been excluded and will, hopefully, be able to make the transition to conventional employment in the future. That transition has in the past been almost impossible due to the myriad poverty traps which confronted job seekers. Up to now, a person coming off the live register lost a range of benefits. If they took up low paid work—sadly much of the work available to the unemployed is low paid—they could have been out of pocket and at a financial disadvantage. In effect they were penalised rather than rewarded for work.
This is the only point on which I have found myself in agreement with the Progressive Democrats in the past. Unfortunately, even that small piece of common ground which existed between Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats has been swept away by the Government which, for the first time, made a concerted effort to ensure that those taking work will not lose out financially. This budget provides that, in future, the long-term unemployed will retain their medical cards for three years and their child dependent allowances for 13 weeks after taking up employment. That is probably one of the most progressive steps any Government has taken to try to reintegrate the long-term unemployed into the workplace.
Deputy Wallace knows the value that unemployed working class families attach to the medical card and how important it is in their decision as to whether a member of their family will take up employment if they are lucky enough to be offered it. These provisions will make a substantial difference to those making the transition from the dole to work. It will also ensure that people are not deterred from taking up employment simply because of financial considerations.
It is not good enough simply to provide work. We all know that people in work must also be guaranteed an income which is sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living. We must be careful that, while attempting to attract the long-term unemployed back into the main stream of work, we do not concede to the employer lobby that the only employment these people should be awarded is that with a remuneration so low as to be demoralising. We must work towards a guaranteed income to maintain an acceptable standard of living for those who take up employment.
The family income supplement scheme which is designed for the low paid, has been improved. The tax burden for the low paid has been reduced. Following this budget, single people earning less than £75 per week or married couples earning less than £150 per week will no longer be liable for tax and no PRSI will be payable on the first £80 of weekly income. Deputy McDowell, the emerging bedfellow of Fianna Fáil, and his colleagues ask us to believe that the high and middle earners are a neglected minority. According to Deputy McDowell and his ideological ilk, tax cuts, together with spending cuts, will automatically result in jobs.
The Progressive Democrats mantra is beginning to look rather threadbare. That formula was tried in Thatcher's Britain and I recommend that Deputy Wallace and his colleagues on the Opposition benches consult the research findings in the United Kingdom. They show that poverty levels have increased substantially since the Tories came to power and were able to implement Darwinian dog-eat-dog policies. The Progressive Democrats and the Fianna Fáil party are promising the people that they will form the next Government. It is sad that the economic policies of the Progressive Democrats are so seductive for Fianna Fáil and it causes me serious worry.
Rather than the wholesale tax slashing advocated by the Progressive Democrats, my party espouses tax reform. We recognise that, in order to reform the tax system and reduce the tax burden on individuals, the country must be put back to work. Until we have reduced the numbers on the live register and helped people to make the transition from social welfare to wages, we will be confronted with a tax burden that will remain unacceptably high. Democratic Left knows that there are no quick fix solutions to these problems which have evolved over decades, ironically while Fianna Fáil was in power. We are happy to be in Government to develop and implement practical, coherent and long-term responses to the challenges facing society in general and politicians in particular.
We know that short-term solutions have failed. It is worrying to see Fianna Fáil demands for short-term solutions to complex social problems such as crime. They tell us that building an extra prison will solve the problem. That farcical line will never be accepted by the Irish people because they are not stupid. They know we are dealing with a complex society which developed under the tutelage and leadership of Fianna Fáil and is now displaying unacceptable levels of social alienation, victimisation, criminality, drug addiction, marginalisation and so on. I ask our opponents in this House to cut out the messing and stop demanding short-term solutions to complex problems that evolved over the decades.
This is the second budget of three which will be introduced by the Government. The 1997 budget will build on the gains made in the 1996 and 1995 budgets. I look forward to being in this House to applaud the budget of 1997 which will be brought in by the Minister for Finance to continue the march forward that the Government commenced in its short period in office. I hope the Fianna Fáil representatives will convey my views to their leader.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Mary Wallace.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I was disappointed with Deputy Eric Byrne's contribution. I have heard some articulate contributions from him but he spent 50 per cent of his time today talking about the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats. We are here to debate the budget. He asked that I take back some messages to my party but there are few to convey. Following the next general election the Deputy will not be sitting on that side of the House. He will be back in Opposition with answers to all the problems because he is not making the decisions. The Deputy's party is now 15 months in office and there are more people on the poverty line now than there were 18 months ago. He can check the statistics. That is the message I have for the Deputy.
Any analysis of the recent budget must take account of the economic position. All economic commentators accept that the proper financial parameters are in place to allow the country prosper. In 1995, overall growth was 7 per cent, investment grew by almost 11 per cent in real terms, export volumes increased by over 13 per cent and mortgage and short-term interest rates were maintained at historically low levels. All these factors combined provided the Minister with an opportunity to introduce an innovative budget that would provide some hope to the unemployed and those on low incomes. Unfortunately, the Minister opted to tinker with the finances while at the same time he failed to offer any measure of hope for a better lifestyle to the majority who hoped to obtain something from the budget. While it is difficult to criticise much of what the Minister did, it is what he failed to do that is a cause of major concern.
The Minister in his speech indicated that his first objective was to reward those at work. However, the measures he has introduced have ensured that he has failed in his primary aim. It is worth noting that this is the first time for many years that a real opportunity existed to allow for a major reduction in income tax rates. Regrettably, the Minister declined to avail of this opportunity.
The widening of the tax bands and the increasing of personal allowances has, for the most part, been negated by the reduction in mortgage interest relief and VHI relief and also the abolition of the PRSI allowance at a time when inflation is running at 2.5 per cent. A married couple with two children earning £16,000 per year will gain less than 1 per cent and this includes the proposed increase in the child benefit allowance.
The constant whittling away of mortgage interest relief and VHI relief is a source of major concern to many middle income families who are finding it difficult to make ends meet. The position is difficult enough at present with low interest rates. If rates are increased in the future, those people will be faced with the prospect of substantial increases in their outlay without any safety valve by way of tax reliefs. Mortgage interest payments should revert to the position that obtained last year when at least 50 per cent of a person's interest could be claimed at the higher rate.
If we are serious about income tax reform, the unemployment problem and the creation of sustainable jobs it is essential that innovative ideas are introduced. The issue must be addressed on a two pronged basis. We must create a culture whereby people will consider it worthwhile to go out to work. This can only be done by reducing significantly the tax burden people in employment have to bear. At the same time we must provide incentives to employers to employ people. This can best be done by reducing drastically the level of PRSI for which employers are liable. The reduction in the budget of the main rate of employers' PRSI from 12.2 per cent to 12 per cent was derisory and insignificant for the majority of employers. We must work towards rewarding employers who create jobs rather than penalise them as at present.
I welcome the proposal to introduce a recruitment subsidy of £80 per week for employers. It should be available to any person who has been unemployed for at least one year, not three years as stated. Any person unemployed longer than 12 months is generally classed as being long-term unemployed and they should be given every incentive and assistance in their efforts to obtain work. When the terms and conditions of this scheme are outlined. I hope this aspect will be dealt with and that there will be equal opportunities for those who are unemployed for more than one year to get back to work.
The 3 per cent general increase in social welfare payments is barely keeping pace with inflation. Those on social welfare will be no better off as a result of the increases. It is important to acknowledge the employment measures introduced to assist the long-term unemployed. Under these measures the long-term unemployed will be entitled to retain their medical card for a period of three years and the child dependant allowance for 13 weeks after entering employment. Both of these measures should help to encourage people on social welfare to accept jobs which up to now were unattractive because of the loss of their anciallary benefits.
The new rate of corporation tax at 30 per cent will benefit small and medium sized industry. If the Minister had confined the change to small firms rather than making it available to all businesses, including banks and major service firms, the impact could have been greater. The majority of jobs in recent years have been created in small service companies, which is the sector most likely to create jobs in the future. If the Minister had confined the corporation tax reduction to small enterprises he would have been able to reduce the tax rate to a much more attractive level and provide a greater incentive to existing industries to expand and, in turn, to create new employment.
Many Irish employers cannot afford to increase their workforce because of the burden of PRSI and corporation tax. The Minister could have reduced this burden significantly, and at no extra cost to the Exchequer, by confining this cost in the standard rate of corporation tax to small industries and maintaining the status quo for larger companies, such as banks who are making huge profits.
The proposal to provide assistance to the elderly who wish to install alarm systems in their homes is laudable and necessary, given the widespread concern in the community about the ever increasing spate of crimes, particularly against the elderly. The proposal in its present form is fundamentally flawed as it will only provide a benefit to those who are paying tax. The majority of elderly people pay no tax as their only income is their old age pension. For that reason this proposal will be of no benefit to them. Common sense indicates that a person who is paying tax would be more likely to install an alarm system by virtue of the fact that they have a higher income and would be in a position to afford it. The proposal needs to be amended to allow for a grant to be payable to any individual over 65 years of age who wishes to install an alarm system in their own premises. Consideration should also be given to providing tax relief to those who pay for the installation of alarm systems in their parents' homes. The two year limit on this initiative should be withdrawn. It is essential to create an awareness of the need for security among the elderly. This can only be done by providing reliefs such as this on an ongoing basis.
We are all aware from radio and television reports of what is happening and have voiced our concern. There have been a number of murders, attacks and muggings in recent weeks. In my constituency recently two elderly persons were attacked in their homes late at night, which is unacceptable. We must provide the elderly with every assistance and assurance to allay their concern. The Minister should amend the scheme, which I have already acknowledged is a good one, to allow alarms to be installed. I do not suggest for one moment that this will solve the problem, but it should be made more attractive.
I am disappointed that the brief of the task force chaired by the Secretary of the Department of the Environment to consider arrangements for the development of an overall master plan for the Dublin docklands is confined to that area as other areas could benefit from such a co-ordinated planning process. My own constituency of Cork North Central is in need of urgent attention to ensure it attracts the correct type of industry and this can only be done with the help of the Government. Unfortunately, its assistance has not been forthcoming to date. I ask the Minister for the Environment to consider establishing a similar task force to deal with the problems of unemployment and deprivation evident in many parts of my constituency. The record will show that in the run-up to the by-election in Cork last year it was used by all shades of political opinion who voiced their concern about the scale of the unemployment problem and the lack of infrastructure in the area.
On Monday, the Minister for the Environment announced the road allocations. The biggest problem on the north side of Cork is the delay in commencing work on the new Mallow road. Yesterday the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, who represents the constituency, expressed dissatisfaction that only £100,000 is to be allocated for the project this year whereas millions of pounds are to be made available for the Lee tunnel project which will be of no significant benefit to the people of Blackpool and surrounding areas.
We have a tendency to highlight the major issues and neglect the minor ones. It is unacceptable to hear the Minister of State complaining about this issue; the responsibility lies with the Minister. It is easy to refer the matter to the National Roads Authority, but the Minister has a role to play. I make a strong appeal to the Minister of State present, Deputy O'Shea, to see if anything can be done to provide the necessary funding to allow work on the Blackpool bypass to commence.
The budget presented the Government with an opportunity to make bold decisions to benefit the country as a whole. However, the Government parties seemed to be either unwilling or unable to do so. The most unfortunate aspect is that a similar opportunity may not present itself again in the near future to undertake the radical overhaul of the tax system required to create significant employment.
The manner in which the various issues were handled in the run-up to the budget was also significant in that it showed that the Government parties had little or no regard for Members and were more interested in being the first bearers of good news to the media. It was extremely amusing to watch the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs competing with Democratic Left in an effort to claim credit for the measures which might be classed as of benefit to society.
It appears that Fine Gael Ministers are more than happy to hang on to their ministries and leave the general development of policy to the two left wing parties. The biggest losers were those who contribute most to the economy by way of PAYE deductions and enterprise. They looked to Fine Gael to protect their interests. However, their calls were not heard.
I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me. In the Budget Statement the Minister for Finance made much play of his objective of striving to achieve greater social cohesion. According to him, the measures he announced represented a radical step, including the disadvantaged and marginalised, in the benefits to be gained from an expanding economy.
It is useful to take a step back from the well-spun words of the Government and examine its deeds in detail. In spite of the fanfare with which it greeted its own work, subsequent analysis has exposed the budget as inconsequential when it comes to addressing any of the major social problems facing the country. The bottom line on employment, supposedly the key target, is that any significant growth in the coming year will have nothing to do with the slight measures contained in the budget, rather it will be based on the success of the economy which was turned around by a Fianna Fáil administration. It had been left in a mess by the previous Fine Gael-Labour Coalition.
Instead of going over the many areas covered so far in this debate I wish to concentrate on one of the most excluded and marginalised groups within society, people with disabilities and their families. This group has been left to bitterly reflect on the Minister's fine words about social cohesion. The reality is that the Government has failed to address any of the major issues of concern to them.
The budget contained some minor measures of relevance. By increasing certain tax allowances the Minister reversed a policy decision taken by him last year not to extend such allowances. He reasserted this policy in response to a number of questions tabled by me and I welcome this belated change.
I also welcome the minor measures announced which will be of help in the provision of care. However, when set against the diverse needs of the thousands who provide care in the community, the absence of appropriate support for care services and the many proposals put to the Minister, these measures do not scratch the surface in terms of the action required.
Disability organisations prepared detailed pre-budget submissions setting out how progress could be made in addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and their families in a number of important areas, Unfortunately, almost all these submissions were completely ignored. In response to the various ministerial speeches in the past fortnight I wish to point to a number of areas where the Government's failure to prioritise disability issues will result in lost opportunities and continued hardship in the coming year.
In a previous administration, as Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods established the respite care fund. He was the first Minister to address this need for people who care for those with disabilities. When he left office the fund was making a valuable contribution and ways of extending respite care services were being examined. Last year responsibility for the administration of the fund was transferred to the health boards. That was a massive step backwards.
The organisations which provide respite care services now have to cope with multiple applications, inaccessible bureaucracy and constant delays. Last year it took the raising of an issue on the Adjournment to have funds allocated to the health boards after a four months delay in spite of the fact that at least one major organisation which was providing an efficient and popular service was placed in severe financial difficulty because of the new arrangement.
Government inaction in the past year has meant that not only is the level of support for respite care services not expanding, in many instances it is contracting. The need for additional funding and reformed administration has not been addressed by the Minister responsible or in the budget.
The announcement by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy O'Shea, of extra funding for services for people with a mental handicap failed to live up to the Government's promise. While the extra funding is welcome it only scratches the surface.
It is estimated that there are 1,500 people with mental handicap who require residential care. If this service is expanded every year at the level proposed for 1996, and assuming other people are not put out on the waiting list, it will take more than 22 years to meet the current demand for places. Many Members have been approached by parents of people with mental handicap concerning their dismay at the Government's failure to allocate significant funding to this area in the budget.
Employment for people with disabilities is also important as approximately 80 per cent of them are unemployed. In pre-budget submissions a number of organisations dealing with the disabled set out inexpensive ways in which the Government could tackle this problem. A submission from the Rehab group showed that more than 350 jobs could be created for significantly less than that which would be required to entice an overseas company to create the same number of jobs. It proposed the extension of the pilot programme for the employment of people with disabilities. Established by Fianna Fáil in 1994, this scheme has created one of the largest integrated workforces in the world. In the light of this and other proposals, a budget supposedly targeted at creating jobs could be reasonably expected to specifically aid this section of the unemployed. It is regrettable that the Minister did not mention even one of those proposals, once again the Government failed to act on its promises.
It is now four years since the Special Education Review Committee published its report and despite continuing promises from the Minister for Education she has failed to produce the funding for a systematic programme to implement the committee's recommendations. She even refuses to give timetables and costings. As demonstrated last year in respect of third level fees, the middle class voter-friendly policies get greater priority with the Minister and her Department than real advances towards inclusion and support for children with disabilities. The budget provided no evidence of commitments being turned into action in this important area.
We are all familiar with the question of funding for voluntary bodies. Since the introduction of the national lottery voluntary bodies find it increasingly difficult to maintain the level of funds raised to support their activities. The unfair cap on lottery prize funds and the discriminatory tax relief scheme introduced last year serve to undermine the level and quality of this service provision. These issues were ignored in the budget.
In trying to provide excuses for this, the Government stated that it would address the issues in a fund raising Bill and in a White Paper and charter on the voluntary sector. Those excuses are incredibly feeble. The fund raising Bill has been repeatedly delayed and will not be published until after June at the earliest. In addition, funds have not been allocated to provide for a proposed new regulatory body and, as such, there will be no effective Government action on the fund during 1996. The White Paper and Charter on the Role of the Voluntary Sector was ready for publication at the end of 1994. Having decided that he wanted to make changes, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, repeatedly failed to meet his promised publication dates. Assuming he gets around to publishing it this year, he has not proposed legislation or allocated funds to deal with issues that may arise during 1996.
The failure of public transport operators to cater for the needs of people with disabilities represents one of the great barriers to the development of an inclusive society. Following considerable pressure from people with disabilities, CIÉ recently entered into constructive dialogue about developing accessible services and sharing their expertise with disability groups. In a pre-budget submission, the Centre for Independent Living proposed the development of a demand driven system for Dublin which would create 68 new jobs. This is another issue that was ignored in the so-called budget for social cohesion and jobs.
Following the reduction in real terms in social welfare payments last year it is believed this year's increase will at least keep pace with inflation. However, all other major social issues concerning people with disabilities have been ignored. This is all the more striking when one examines the monthly Question Time statements from the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, about his concern to help people with disabilities. Having proposed a basic allowance of £150 per week for a person with a disability only a few months before going into Government, he subsequently failed to make any extra provision. He has even failed to properly complete the transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the Department of Health after more than a year of trying. Among the issues he failed to address is the need to move to a cost of disability allowance, to pay benefits directly to people with disabilities in all cases and to give permanent guarantees on the maintenance of secondary benefits.
When I seek replies to detailed questions I am generally informed by Ministers that they are awaiting a report before deciding on action. This would not be unreasonable were it not that the reports are consistently delayed and the necessary implementation funds are not made available. A series of reports from concerned people with disabilities, commissioned by the Government, have been effectively sidelined because of its failure to provide funds to implement their recommendations. The important review group on services for people with physical and sensory disabilities was established in 1992. Its report was ready last year but it has been with the Department since then, a victim of the Minister's failure to act on his promise to give it priority attention. Unless he intends to suppress the report it should be published shortly. It is obvious that action will not be taken this year on foot of the report's recommendations because the Government has not allocated funds in the budget to implement the report's recommendations.
A similar position prevails in respect of the report of the advisory group on personal assistant services. The most important event in the coming year for people with disabilities will be the publication of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. In preparing to make a full and constructive contribution to a discussion on that report, Fianna Fáil published the most comprehensive policy document on disability ever prepared by an Irish political party. On the other hand, the Government has repeatedly promised to act immediately on the report and prepare comprehensive legislation on disability. This intention was the main reason given by the Government two weeks ago for voting down Fianna Fáil's Bill of access for disabled voters. The budget reveals that money has been allocated to publish this report but funds will not be available to implement it. The three years within which the Department of Equality and Law Reform failed to produce the promised employment equality and equal status Bills shows that comprehensive disability legislation cannot be expected during the lifetime of the Government.
The budget message for people with disabilities is similar to last year— warm words, earnest commitments and an ultimate lack of comprehensive action. Unfortunately, as is the case with so much of what the Government does, the gap between the political spin and the practical reality shows that the budget fails to meet even the modest demands of people with disabilities and their families. In the context of major increases in funding for other areas, the public funds which are readily available for the pet projects of various Ministers and the hiring of political hacks on a scale never before seen in the country, the pretence that this is a budget for social cohesion and unemployment collapses.
Overall, the Minister produced a well balanced budget. He received contrasting demands and sharply conflicting advice prior to it. Some felt that there should be a substantial cutback in borrowing while the economy is growing the EU funds are flowing. Others believe this is not a time for restraint and the final outcome was criticised by all sides. However, I am sure even the Opposition will accept that on this occasion the criticism was muted. The Minister made a correct decision in targeting the long-term unemployed for special priority in the budget. The package he produced for this purpose will be effective in not only getting substantial numbers back to work, but it will also lead to a change in attitude. People will no longer be written off if they are unemployed at the age of 35 or 45. That kind of hope is badly needed. A major survey of unemployment in the north west carried out by Pathways, which is to be announced today, found that of those between 45 and 65 years of age who have been unemployed for a considerable period, 51 per cent no longer apply for jobs despite having a trade, a skill or having completed a training course.
As a Dáil Deputy for Sligo-Leitrim, I hope the Minister has targeted some of the special problems in the west which have resulted in the present drastic loss of population. From the days of the Great Famine, which we are now commemorating, through successive waves of mass emigration, there has always been a struggle for survival but the resilience and determination of the people and their love of the land ensured that sufficient numbers remained or returned for the population to regenerate itself. With the present depopulation, I am not so sure that will be the case this time.
The population crisis can be seen in the statistics for the west. Over the past 65 years, between 1926 and the 1990s, Connacht lost 24 per cent of its population. At the same time, Munster grew by 4 per cent while Leinster grew by 62 per cent. Those figures do not tell the whole story of the present crisis. The forces of depopulation do not strike evenly, even within the confines of an area like the west of Ireland. The population of Leitrim, for instance, fell by an alarming 55 per cent in the same period. Some areas of my native south Sligo and across the border in Mayo suffered an even greater loss than that. I witnessed the mass exodus of the 1950s—indeed I was part of it for a short while—and a further mass exodus in the 1980s. This outward migration is naturally most severe among the young. A recent study indicated that in the 1980s a number of areas lost up to 60 per cent of those in the 17 to 30 age group.
There is now a serious imbalance in the population with 41 per cent living in the east coast counties. By contrast only 9 per cent live in the vast geographical area described generally as the north west and the imbalance is becoming greater all the time. The Minister may well say that many costly schemes and incentives of one kind or another are in place to address this problem in so far as any Government can address it. We have the new Leader programme, the partnership programme, the county enterprise boards, the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the INTERREG programme, the International Fund for Ireland and many other agencies, but with the vast majority of these programmes the question of matching funds to be provided locally proves the stumbling block for development. There is no shortage of good ideas or enthusiasm among the people and the communities in the west. Most areas have produced their own development plans which would qualify for Government and EU assistance but they cannot proceed because local funding is not available. This area should be targeted by the Minister who could demand a level of local contribution while making up the difference in some other way.
The Government must take special action also to assist access to the west. To an ever increasing extent, future opportunities in most activities lie with the European Union, but as far as the EU is concerned the west is not only on the periphery but on the periphery of a periphery. It is fair to say that considerable progress is being made with some of the national primary roads leading to the west, but in the overall allocation of Structural and Cohesion Funds there are no signs of equal treatment, let alone positive discrimination which I will be seeking, to take account of the remoteness of the region.
Of a total of £1.2 billion allocated for the present operational programme, only £87 million is to be spent in the area west of the Shannon from Donegal to Clare. That is 7.8 per cent of the total allocation. Broken down on a per capita basis—although I do not think that should be done—the west is faring badly. Take, for example, the N16 from Sligo to Blacklion to Enniskillen. This is a vital artery in the North-South context for tourism, trade or any kind of general movement. I looked under the various heading for some recognition of the need to upgrade this road which is now in a very bad condition, but there is no mention of it despite the fact that recent surveys show a 31 per cent increase in traffic since the peace process began. I call on the Minister to ensure that in the mid-term revision of the operational programme for Structural and Cohesion Funds this blatant omission is rectified. The same can be said about the road from Sligo to Stranorlar and indeed from Letterkenny to Bridgend. A western corridor should be opened up and, in an area where tourism will hopefully be an increasingly important part of the economy, special attention must be paid to the roads linking up with the main national primary roads.
Despite the best efforts of the various communities, Sligo Corporation, Sligo County Council, Longford and Mullingar local authorities and Members of this House, and the acknowledgment that drastic action is needed, little has been done in relation to the Sligo-Dublin railway line. I understand that this year on the line between Mullingar and Sligo only 0.75 of a mile of new continuous welded track will be laid. That is hardly the progress we were expecting.
A properly developed tourism industry in the west could give employment to 25 per cent of the population. Thankfully, arising out of the peace in Northern Ireland, we have seen a substantial increase in tourist numbers around the country and it is predicted that will continue. We must be careful to ensure, however, that the west continues to get its share of this increase and that another imbalance does not emerge, as I fear it could. The eastern regions have the distinct advantage of easier access from the population centres in Britain and the Continent. Positive discrimination is needed in this area also to prevent the creation of a new imbalance.
In this respect I was pleased with the initiative taken by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to assist the regional airports. While it was not possible for Sligo and Carrickfinn Airports to avail of this in full last year because of EU regulations, I am hopeful that this special fund for regional airports will result in second scheduled flights daily from both of these airports from next April. For whatever reason, the regional airports in Connacht—it may be somewhat different in the Kerry area—have not generated anything like the volume of tourist traffic of which they are capable. I realise it is up to the regions themselves to attract their own tourists but there is a limit to what areas inexperienced in the hard, competitive world of tourism can do. Bord Fáilte can take a leadership role in this regard in organising operators in Britain and the Continent to bring in package tours through the regional airports in the west. We have attractions such as golfing, fishing, horse riding and other activities but we need someone to actively package these types of holidays and fly in chartered aircraft to Sligo, Carrickfinn, Knock and Galway. This is another area where there should be positive discrimination. Just as the Minister targeted the long-term unemployed, I am asking him to target the west because of its depopulation problem.
Despite its many attractions and its natural beauty, County Sligo is not yet perceived as a main tourist destination as is the case with areas such as Kerry, Connemara or Donegal. These areas need a number of major attractions which tourists will want to visit, attractions which cannot be overlooked. There are some very interesting projects before the Government and I have every confidence that the Minister for Tourism and Trade, Deputy Enda Kenny, who is from the west, will ensure that these are sanctioned in due course.
I have long advocated a flagship attraction in Sligo, a Spanish Armada museum, which would be built around the artefacts recovered from three ships which were wrecked off the coast of Streedagh on the north Sligo coast. These wrecks, which were discovered approximately ten years ago in shallow waters a short distance from the shore, are known to contain 59 cannons, the most significant Armada discovery anywhere along the coast. However, because of various legal processes and the need to ensure that the artefacts become the property of the State and are not lost to the country, unfortunately the wrecks and cannons remain where they were found. I appeal to the Government to immediately start work on the recovery of these wrecks.
The decentralisation of Government Departments has considerable potential in stabilising the population in certain areas. The Departments which were decentralised to Sligo and Ballina are working well and with improved communication systems, it is time the Government considered decentralising some sections to smaller towns with populations of approximately 1,000.
One of the most depressing sights while travelling to the west is the number of recently vacated houses going to ruin. Nothing deteriorates as fast as a deserted house; it is as if some evil forces are lying in wait for the doors to be locked before starting the process of deterioration. I am not talking about houses dating from the Famine but about relatively new houses with all the necessary infrastructure and close to schools and churches which are in danger of closing down because of a lack of people. There must be some way in which these houses can be purchased by the local authority and made available to people on the housing lists. Special incentives would be required to persuade the owners to sell—for example, offering a price which is 50 per cent above market value — but it would result in a saving for the authority in the long-term.
The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs recently heard a submission from Rural Resettlement Ireland. I am very impressed with the work being done by this organisation. More than 4,000 families in urban areas, mainly Dublin, have expressed a wish to transfer to rural areas, particularly the west. The vast majority of those who wish to leave live in local authority houses. The transfer of these people to rural areas would free up a huge pool of local authority houses in urban areas which could be given to those on the waiting lists. The transfer of two or three families to a rural parish can mean a significant injection to the local economy. For example, it could help maintain a second or third primary teacher whose job may be under threat. There are no grants available to the owners of unoccupied houses to repair them and make them available to Rural Resettlement Ireland. Thousands of houses have been left vacant following the death of their owners or because of emigration.
Rural Resettlement Ireland, which must be complimented on its very successful programme, told the select committee that it is finding it very difficult to acquire suitable accommodation for the number of families who wish to transfer from Dublin. It would make economic sense to provide an incentive to encourage people to repair secondhand houses so that they could be made available for families who wish to transfer from Dublin. Rural resettlement is not a solution to the major difficulties of the west but the transfer of even three or four families into an ailing community is a great help in ensuring that it stays alive. It also goes some way towards reversing the trend of emigration and declining populations. The Minister should be able to establish a broadly based renewal scheme similar to the very successful urban renewal scheme.
Previously we relied on farming to sustain the population in the west. In this respect I was very glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, describe farmers as the custodians of the countryside. However, given the inevitable developments in this sector and the CAP. there is no way the present farming population can be stabilised and I am afraid we may be witnessing the last generation of small farmers. In vast tracts of the west people are being replaced by trees. Forests are all right in the proper place but we should not plant trees from the Shannon to the Atlantic.
There are very few jobs in forestry but there is a certain capacity for job creation in timber factories. My constituency is fortunate to have secured a major industry for Carrick-on-Shannon which has considerable employment potential. However, this came after the loss to Waterford of a wood pulp industry. To this day I do not understand the logic of locating a wood pulp industry, which depends on forest products from the north-west, in Waterford in the south-east. Any future wood pulp industry — and there is a place for at least one more — must be based where the raw material is produced—the north-west.
One of the sad consequences of the decline in the population in the west has been the withdrawal of services in rural areas. We heard recently that the number of Masses in certain areas was being curtailed and priests were being withdrawn from rural parishes. I welcome the proposal by the Minister of State with responsibility for the west, Deputy Carey, to set up a number of pilot schemes which would ensure innovative approaches to the provision of services in rural areas. He will not be able to do much about spiritual matters but I hope some of these schemes will be situated in the west.
The most threatened areas are the offshore islands. In this respect I welcome the recent announcement of an allocation of £2 million for their development. One million pounds will be allocated to the Leader programme which supports enterprises on the islands while the remainder will be used to improve outward access, which is of particular relevance in the promotion of tourism and economic development. I am disappointed that Coney Island in Sligo Bay, which is still inhabited, does not appear to have figured in the plan. I will be asking the Minister to redress this anomaly.
I understand that the headquarters of the Western Development Partnership in Sligo recently submitted a major policy programme for the west to the Government. This programme originated from the people and is based on their practical experiences. It deserves the most serious consideration and I hope the main elements will be introduced as a pilot plan for rural areas affected by a declining and ageing population.
I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of State with responsibility for the west, Deputy Carey, for the work he has undertaken in the past year and for the programmes he has developed. His dedication and enthusiasm have given new hope to the west. I commend him for the way in which he is trying to pull the various agencies together to prevent duplication and wastage in their work. His plans should receive the full backing of the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Finance.
Debate adjourned.