Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997

Vol. 484 No. 4

Financial Resolutions, 1998 - Financial Resolution No. 9: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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

—(Minister for Education and Science)

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation (Mr. Flood)

Last July the Government decided to transfer responsibility for local development and related matters from the Department of the Taoiseach to the newly created Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. My Department's mandate covers some of the core areas of local development, all of which have a common goal — social inclusion.

Key elements in the mandate include the following —to implement the operational programme for local, urban and rural development; to implement the EU urban initiative; to co-ordinate local development initiatives and prepare for the post-1999 transition to an integrated local development and local government system; to co-ordinate overall Government policy on local development through chairing the interdepartmental policy group on local development; to promote the integrated development of the most disadvantaged urban communities by ensuring their needs are addressed on a priority and co-ordinated basis in conjunction with area partnership companies and by relevant public agencies and to take responsibility for the national drugs strategy team.

I intend to focus on those areas for which I have specific responsibility, namely local development and the national anti-drugs strategy. I refer to the issue of drugs. I have been given responsibility for the co-ordination of the Government's overall strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. The previous Government's strategy to deal with the problem of drugs demand was developed in two reports prepared by a ministerial task force chaired by my constituency colleague, Deputy Rabbitte. I will first comment on one aspect of the Government's approach which not so much differs from that of the previous Administration, but rather reflects a different emphasis.

The link between drug abuse and social and economic disadvantage is well documented and it is universally agreed that the only effective long-term solution to the drugs problem is in the area of prevention. The emphasis is on responding to the drugs problem in the context of dealing with the wider issue of social exclusion. This emphasis is reflected in two key policy decisions made since the change of Government. First, by placing responsibility for co-ordinating the drug strategy in the same Department as that of local development and sport, the Government has signalled its intention to place considerable emphasis on prevention rather than cure. Second, the Cabinet drugs committee, established on foot of a recommendation in the first ministerial task force report, has now been reconstituted into a wider Cabinet committee dealing with social inclusion, local development and drugs.

In addition to the national drug strategy, this committee considers issues pertaining to local development policy and the national anti-poverty strategy. The committee aims to ensure that the considerable resources being expended on tackling social exclusion are co-ordinated and properly targeted.

A national drug strategy team has been set up to ensure the effective implementation of the Government strategy to reduce drugs demand. Under the revised arrangements, following the change of Government, this team reports directly to me. The team effectively replicates at the centre the partnership approach of the local drug task forces which have been set up in the areas worst hit by the drugs scourge. The team comprises representatives of relevant Government Departments and State agencies with two persons from the voluntary and community sectors. It operates on the principle set out in the strategic management initiative for tackling issues which cut across a number of Government Departments or agencies. The SMI approach involves a team effort towards achieving the desired result, in this case a reduction in drugs demand rather than leaving each Department or agency to its own devices.

Local drug task forces have been established in Dublin and on the north side of Cork city. They were set up to bring together relevant statutory agencies with representatives of the community and local voluntary organisations to develop a locally based response to the drugs problem. The establishment of the task forces was a recognition of the need to target efforts and resources in a number of key areas where the drugs problem is prevalent, to integrate drug service provision in these areas and to give local communities a real and meaningful say in the development and delivery of strategies to tackle drug abuse in their areas. The involvement of local communities in the process is important for a number of reasons. It draws on their vast knowledge and experience of the local drugs problem and more importantly, it gives the people most affected by the problem the opportunity to make a positive contribution towards resolving it. I am conscious that the sheer scale of the drugs problem in some areas has led to a feeling of abandonment in the local community, a crisis of confidence in the institutions of the State and wider society.

The spirit of community which traditionally has been a strong feature of life in many of these areas has been severely tested and, in some instances, replaced by fear, anger and frustration. It is our intention that these communities, assisted by agencies such as the health board and Dublin Corporation will be given the support to develop their own local approach to the drugs problem. Thirteen task forces were set up in Dublin and Cork city. Each of these has prepared an action plan to tackle the drugs problem in its area and funding of £10 million has been provided to implement the plans. The plans contain a broad range of strategies combining elements of treatment, rehabilitation and prevention. Many of the plans contain strategies which place emphasis on the development of youth and sport activities, to which I will refer later.

Recognising that communities can play a positive role in assisting the Garda and other statutory agencies in curbing the supply of drugs locally, a number of plans also include proposals for a local response to the supply issue. The various strategies have been tailored to reflect the local situation and to meet the needs of each area but at the same time to conform to the principles of best practice.

Many of the plans contain innovative ways of dealing with the drugs problem. It is proposed to initiate a number of these proposals on a pilot basis and, if successful, to integrate them into mainstream services. In some instances drug services will be developed on a partnership basis between the statutory and voluntary and community sectors. In other cases, specific agencies will take the lead in delivering particular aspects of the overall strategy.

Many of the plans contain proposals to fill gaps in current service provision which can occur when a number of agencies have separate responsibilities for different aspects of the problem. One example of such a gap arises in relation to the case of treatment services for drug misusers who come into contact with the criminal justice system. As responsibility for their welfare transfers from agency to agency, there is a real danger that they may slip through the net due to the lack of an appropriate tracking system. Equally, agencies such as FÁS and the local employment service, whose primary objective is to create job opportunities for the unemployed, are often not structured adequately to cater for the specific needs of rehabilitated drug misusers in their attempts to obtain employment. These are some examples of issues which are being addressed by the task forces on a multi-disciplinary basis.

Efforts are also being made to eliminate duplication among agencies delivering drug programmes and services with a view to achieving better cost effectiveness. It is hoped this can be done by pooling and making better use of existing resources. I hope Deputies will have gleaned from this short description of the contents of the plans prepared by the task forces the tremendous contribution which they can make to tackling the drugs problems in their respective areas.

A number of plans contained strategies which placed emphasis on the development of youth and sport activities. In his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance announced the Government's intention to set aside £1.25 million for a youth services development fund to come into operation from next year. This fund will focus on the development of services for young people in disadvantaged areas where there is a significant drugs problem. While the scheme will be administered through the youth services section of the Department of Education and Science, arrangements are being made to ensure it is effectively integrated with the strategies being developed by the local drugs task forces. Payments will be made on the recommendation of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs, at which I represent the interests of the drug strategy team. The detailed arrangements for the administration of this fund are being finalised and will be announced shortly.

Disadvantaged areas including those with a significant drug problem will also benefit from a variety of other measures announced in the budget. These include the continuing and increased commitments in relation to the targeting of sports initiatives for young people in areas of disadvantage, a community development programme of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, community based projects by the Probation and Welfare Service of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the proposed tax relief scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas.

Local development is about engaging and harnessing the energies of local communities which are a tremendous resource in themselves. They represent a huge pool of creativity, intelligence and dynamism. That is a resource we can use or lose. We can bring it into the system or we can lock it out. If we lock it out everybody loses.

Local development policy is about devising and supporting programmes and structures which allow the great untapped resources of our local community to be developed and applied to meeting the challenges facing them.

I cannot over emphasise the importance of involving local communities as partners in the local development process. Since area based partnerships were first introduced on a pilot basis in 1991 there has been much evidence to suggest that this approach works to benefit communities in need.

My Department oversees the implementation of the operational programme for local, urban and rural development. It is also involved with the implementation of the European Union's Urban initiative. These programmes represent the foundations upon which community support frameworks, such as the area partnerships, can be built. It should be noted that the local urban and rural development programme has exceeded all expectations in its job creation achievements. At the end of June this year over 16,900 additional jobs had been created and almost 4,000 new businesses were established.

The involvement of the social partners as equal participants is vital to the success of the action programmes initiated. These include the creation of employment opportunities, education and training initiatives and community development projects. Some of our most socially excluded, the education under-achievers, early school leavers and the long-term unemployed, are targeted by these programmes. We know the outcome of self-perpetuating, long-term unemployment and disadvantage is stigmatised in depressed and marginalised communities. No society can be at peace with itself in the face of such exclusion. That is why social inclusion must continue to be at the heart of local development policy.

Over the past five or six years we have been engaged in a major experiment in local development. This has generated a large number of groups, programmes and project initiatives. Over the next year we will have to examine the best and most useful elements of the local development process. In this examination, it is the needs of the people which must be paramount, not the vested interests of organisations. We want to preserve what is most useful to the people in local communities. We will then have to work to ensure these elements are preserved and strengthened in the post-1999 context.

We must also examine the local development experience to see what can be mainstreamed into the work of various Departments and agencies. Our experience in local development has taught us the value of listening to our own people and of engaging the creativity and intelligence of local people in tackling challenges which confront them. Even in the most disadvantaged communities, we have seen that engaging local people in the process of tackling their own problems can result in meaningful change. There are many schemes, agencies, Departments, State supported organisations, etc. supplying services which impact on local development. Despite this, we continue to have severe social problems in many localities. I conclude from this that the real needs of some of the most disadvantaged communities are not being met and the State may not be getting best value for money. It suggests there is an urgent need for better targeting and integration in the delivery of State supported services in areas of great disadvantage. There is a need for greater co-ordination and better use of existing resources.

There has been an increasing acceptance of the need for improved co-ordination across the State funded sector. We have seen experiments under programmes like Operation Dóchas, the drugs task force initiatives and the area partnerships, and we sought to involve local communities in a more meaningful way. There have been initiatives also to tackle certain problems in a more integrated fashion, yet there is no one programme which attempts to integrate all of the State funded services which are being or should be delivered to disadvantaged areas. In short, there has been no model to allow for a co-ordinated, properly targeted, community informed blitz of the most disadvantaged areas with the full range of State services. This is where the real gap arises and this is the gap we must close.

That is the reason the budget contains provision for the funding of a pilot project aimed at developing a model to secure the integrated delivery of State funded services in a number of areas of severe social disadvantage. This pilot project will be overseen by the Interdepartmental Policy Committee on Local Development, which I chair. It will focus on areas of around 2,500 to 5,000 households and will build on the valuable experience gained by area partnerships and similar groups with whom we will work closely. By securing greater co-ordination and integration of the range of State services, it will help to strengthen the effectiveness of the partnership process. If the pilot project is to be effective, we will have to cut through old traditions of non consultation, non co-operation and non co-ordination. This process is fully supported by the Cabinet committee on social exclusion.

In this budget the Government is addressing the issues of exclusion, marginalisation and poverty. It is clear that tackling disadvantage in areas of high unemployment is a major priority. The Government is determined State agencies must be active, flexible and willing participants in the process of tackling social inclusion. This means defining and supporting a culture of partnership and participation and a willingness to listen, especially to those who have genuine needs. The budget is clearly showing a commitment to a more co-ordinated and integrated delivery of services to disadvantaged communities. The Government's commitment can be seen through the commitment in the budget of a further £282 million to social inclusion measures. This means that the Government has already exceeded its commitments under Partnership 2000 and has done so in two rather than three years. Nothing could be a greater indication of the Government's commitment to tackling the issue of social inclusion. I commend the budget to the House.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputy Timmins.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): That is agreed.

Mr. Ring

This budget was a missed opportunity. The middle class will be put under further pressure and the poor will be poorer. This was a rich man's budget, as acknowledged in a recent opinion poll, and the people will respond to that at a later stage. We had an opportunity because there has never been as much money available, but the Minister for Finance and the Government gave in to the demands of the Progressive Democrats and to the rich people.

I hope the Celtic tiger will be put down once and for all because it only benefits the rich. It means nothing to the middle class, who are under further pressure. The poor have gained nothing from the Celtic tiger. They are getting poorer and every report from organisations dealing with the poor — the Combat Poverty Agency, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others — know that nothing has been done to assist these people when the opportunity existed.

As the Opposition spokesperson on agriculture, I am bitterly disappointed about the blockade of agricultural food into Britain. I am appalled the Taoiseach did not call for an EU meeting on this matter. Britain must decide whether it is a member of the Commonwealth or the EU, but it cannot have it both ways. Britain takes over the Presidency of the EU in January 1998, and our people are obliged to adhere to EU regulations, but I am sick and tired of all the regulations coming from Europe. Ireland has always adhered to these regulations yet when our farmers want to bring their goods into Britain, nothing is done for them by this Government.

Fianna Fáil has let down the farmers. Tony Blair should have been told by the EU that law and order must prevail. Farmers blockading ports throughout Britain should not have been allowed to dump Irish beef in the sea or search lorries to see which goods were being carried. Is that the action of a country that is a member of the EU? Britain must decide whether it is part of Europe. If it is not, it can run its own ship but if it is part of Europe, it must obey EU regulations and allow Irish farmers bring their beef into Britain.

It is time for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food to show some back-bone. The Minister for Health and Children has destroyed the boned beef industry with his reckless statement which was not even necessary. He should issue a counter statement to the effect that Irish beef is the safest in the world. The consumers have continued to buy boned beef. I spoke to a butcher yesterday who told me he never sold as much boned beef as he did over the weekend. The consumers are happy that Irish beef is good and that message should be sent out loud and clear.

The message coming from this Government to the farmers, particularly in the west, is that it does not care about agriculture. When the Estimates were announced we saw that £35 million had been taken out of the Agriculture Vote for headage payments. Of that money, about £23 million has had to be brought back again because of pressure from Fianna Fáil backbenchers, but there is still a shortfall. The wrong signals are being sent out.

Farmers have never had a more difficult year than this one. They have had bad weather, weak prices and now they cannot bring their goods into Britain. It is time the Government, and Fianna Fail Deputies in particular, showed a commitment to farmers.

What kind of message is being given to young farmers? I know farmers who wish to retire and hand the farm over to their sons or daughters, but their children will not take over the farm while the average farm income is only £10,000, £11,000 or £12,000 per year. One could not raise a family on a farm with that kind of income. The uncertainty surrounding farming must be dealt with.

I want to deal with the issue of social welfare. Last year, when the coalition Government was in power, there was criticism from the Fianna Fáil benches——

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Genuine criticism.

Mr. Ring

——about the "measly" £3 rise. I am disappointed with the Minister of State because I thought he, as a representative from rural Ireland, would fight for the less well off. They received a £3 social welfare increase. People in rural areas must buy petrol for their cars to bring children to school, to go shopping to and from town, and to attend church. Most cars are ten or 12 years old. In rural areas we have no public transport like the DART or Luas. We depend on the car which is an essential part of rural life. On the one hand the Minister of State gives people £3 but takes £2 back on petrol. When they fill in their income form for the county councils, £1 is taken from them by way of an increase in rent.

The budget did not benefit the small person; it benefited those earning £100,000 who will be £2,000 better off. Such people have already gained enough with the pilot schemes, which I will discuss later.

The children's allowance is the one form of income that a housewife and mother gets into her hand. She is sure of that money. If a husband is fond of a drink, he may not hand over his social welfare payments to his wife. However, a woman can use the children's allowance to buy a pair of shoes, clothes or toys and to pay for items at school. Nearly every day a child goes to school he or she must bring a few pounds for one thing or another. The children's allowance is the one payment women know they can depend on, yet this Government gave them a measly increase.

One of the many things the last Government did right was to give children's allowance increases to women at home and they used them well. I was disappointed the Government did not continue that because women should be looked after. Women have been housekeepers looking after their children and husbands, but for many years they have not been given the respect and understanding they deserve by many Governments.

There are many women in the workplace who would prefer to be at home. They are not working because they wish to but because it is a necessity. They have to work to pay their mortgages and raise their families. I was disappointed in the budget. For many years politicians spoke about looking after women at home. This was an opportunity to give such women some kind of income and assistance. There are women in good jobs, and not so good jobs, who, by the time they have paid the child minder, bring home very little money. If the Government would help such women by giving them £50 or £100 per week to stay at home, they would do so. They would feel it was better for them to stay at home. They would have as much out of that system as they do by going out to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, taking their children to school, coming back at dinner hour to get them something to eat, back again in the evening to look after them and helping them at night with their homework. Some of these poor women do not get to bed until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. They have to do this day in and day out. The budget presented an opportunity for the Government to recognise the role that women play in society and at home.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Why did the Deputy's party not do it in January?

Mr. Ring

This was an opportunity to do that and I was disappointed that it did not happen. I was hoping this was the time to do so as, with the Celtic tiger economy, we have the financial resources.

While we have male carers, women are most affected by the carer's allowance. I was disappointed that we did not see a major increase in the carer's allowance in the budget. People who stay at home to mind elderly people save the taxpayer and the State a fortune.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

The Deputy's party was in Government for three years. What did he do about it?

Mr. Ring

We did things about it. The first £60 of the carer's allowance should not be means tested for people on social welfare.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Why did the Deputy's party not do that in the January budget?

Mr. Ring

Carers should be looked after but this Government did not do anything for them. The greatest disgrace concerns home helps. It is a disgrace that the health boards, the Government and we as politicians have allowed such people only £2.20 an hour. It was £1 an hour in our region up to last year. It is time the Government told the health boards that home helps should receive at least £5 an hour for looking after the elderly at home. They provide a good service and we should examine that immediately.

I want to say something about the back to work scheme to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, as well as to social welfare officers and those in charge of employment offices. Many people have come to me in the past 15 or 18 months who have found employment. However, they had been working for five or six months when they discovered that the back to work scheme was available. The Government is being dishonest because if somebody is unemployed for five or six years and then gets a job, they should qualify for the back to work scheme. They should not be barred from the scheme just because someone in the social welfare office did not tell them about it, although a colleague at work did. I have met people who were back at work for four or five weeks or even three months, but they did not qualify for the back to work scheme. It is wrong and dishonest if people are not allowed to use the scheme because they did not know about it, yet qualified for it under every criterion.

The system of qualification should be changed immediately. The Minister should issue a directive today stating that the long-term unemployed who get a job will benefit from the back to work scheme even if they had not been told about it. It is morally right to do so. The Minister should deal with that quickly in the Finance Bill that will come before the Dáil in the near future. It is only right and proper to correct this because the situation is wrong according to the spirit of the legislation. I have already written to the Minister about it and he should now change it.

Certain categories of people on low incomes who receive social welfare are allowed to have their rent deducted at source. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs should make this compulsory for anyone on the social welfare system. Many constituents of mine are in difficulty with rent arrears and want to have their rent deducted at source from their social welfare payments but are not legally allowed to do so. The Minister should change that system so that all categories of social welfare recipients can have their rent deducted at source. If a family knows its rent is being so deducted, at least the house is there for the wife and children who will not be threatened with eviction by the local authority. That change is a necessity. If people want to have their rent deducted at source they should be allowed to do so.

This budget was a wasted opportunity in relation to housing.

There is no incentive for young couples to buy a house. We hear much about the Celtic tiger, but many people are tired listening to reports about the Celtic tiger. A £3,000 grant is provided for first time buyers of new houses less than 1,360 square feet, but first time buyers of second-hand houses receive no grant. On the contrary, they are penalised by having to pay stamp duty. I accept stamp duty should be paid on second and subsequent houses, but for first-time buyers of second-hand houses it should be abolished. The Minister should consider that matter, particularly in view of the high price of houses.

People from my town have to go elsewhere to buy property because it is too expensive in the town. The local authority hopes to provide cheap sites for young couples on the housing list and will put forward proposals to that effect in the new year. I had hoped the Government would reintroduce house grants for people on middle incomes, but that was not done. There are many schemes such as the seaside resort pilot scheme, section 23 and so on, which assist millionaires. People from Cork, Dublin, London and New York can buy three or four houses in my town while the natives cannot afford them. People from outside the area are supported by tax breaks, and this budget assists them further. The upper class, with whom the Progressive Democrats deal, receive much support, which is unfair. I raised the question of the seaside resort pilot scheme with the Minister, Deputy McDaid. I know of areas where 120 or 130 houses were built under this scheme and most of them were bought by people not living in the county. The result is that the houses are empty for the winter months while the natives have to travel 20 miles to rent houses and flats. There are no tax breaks for those people. Where houses are built under this scheme, a percentage of them should be made available at a reasonable price to people on the housing list. My town will be at a disadvantage as a result of the scheme because tourists will live there for six or eight weeks in the summer but they will not be there in the winter to look after schools, churches and hospitals or to support the shopkeepers. We will pay a penalty in future for this scheme.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

What did Fine Gael do in Government?

Mr. Ring

Fianna Fáil is in Government now and it made many promises during the recent election.

There is no orthodontic service in my area. Children from Belmullet have to go to Galway for treatment, but when they get there they are told there is a shortage of staff and money. This is supposed to be a caring Government. We were told before the election that all those matters would be dealt with.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Fine Gael was in Government for three years and did nothing about that matter.

Mr. Ring

The Minister should not talk about the past. We are approaching a new year, we have a new Government and a new Minister for Finance, but he let us down last week in terms of health services. People are dying while waiting for heart by-passes and there is a delay of two or three years for hip replacement operations. People from the west who are dying with cancer cannot get into St. Luke's Hospital because there are no beds available. It is time the Government got its priorities right and looked after those in need. Ben Dunne and other millionaires are well able to look after themselves. Public representatives should look after people who are not able to look after themselves, such as those with disabilities and handicaps. Shame on the Government for letting down those people.

I ask the Minister to do something about the blockades which affect this country. If there were more people like Feargal Quinn of Superquinn, who promotes Irish goods, we would have a better country. I compliment him and hope the people support stores such as his rather than the multinationals.

Mr. Timmins

I thank Deputy Ring for sharing his time although he may disagree with some of my sentiments. I congratulate the Minister for Finance on his first budget, there is much to recommend it. On tax reductions, bands and allowances were increased in recent budgets and, while there is much to recommend that course, a large element of the PAYE sector felt alienated. I welcome the new rates of 24 and 46 per cent and particularly the intention, if resources allow it, to achieve a 20 per cent standard rate over the next few budgets. I look forward to the day when, to help increase productivity, the benefit to workers is greater than 50 per cent of their additional earnings. Any measure brought in to assist in achieving this goal should be viewed as a reward for hard work, not a social exclusion measure. I find it difficult to comprehend advocates of better services, more housing and greater benefits who decry measures taken to increase incentives to create wealth, without which social services cannot be improved.

Many commentators have depicted this as a Progressive Democrats' budget, but one aspect that does not have the stamp of the Tánaiste is the £20 million grant to the GAA to assist in the refurbishment of Croke Park. I commend the Minister and the Taoiseach for having the courage to take this step. The GAA has initiated a radical plan to construct a state-of-the-art stadium and, while it is difficult to reconcile the grant vis-a-vis the provision of £3 million for people with physical and sensory disabilities, with many people on hospital waiting lists, it gives me great pleasure to see wheelchair-bound people use the lift in the new stand at Croke Park and view matches from a sheltered location as opposed to the exposed area underneath the Nally stand. We cannot measure the number of people the GAA have kept off hospital waiting lists over the years, by encouraging them to participate in sport. Week in, week out people give assistance to the GAA without ever receiving remuneration. I hope, when other sporting organisations come forward with such innovations, they too will receive positive treatment.

There are areas of vital importance which the Minister has neglected. The budget has done nothing to address the serious problem of housing. It is unsatisfactory to say that take home pay has improved. House prices have increased by 50 per cent in the past three years and there is a predicted increase of 12 per cent for the coming year. Mortgage relief has been reduced to the standard rate in recent years while the first time buyer's grant has remained at £3,000. I would have liked the Minister to have increased significantly the first-time buyer's grant and extended it to second-hand houses since stamp duty on second-hand houses has become very punitive. Will he consider changing the price ranges falling into the various tax categories?

In the course of his Budget Statement the Minister referred to a special scheme for investment in certain hotels and listed seven counties in which there are insufficient three-star or higher standard hotels, among them Mayo where I am led to believe, according to the Irish Hotels Federation guide, there are 13 such hotels. I wish them luck. However, County Wicklow, which was not included, also has 13 such hotels and County Donegal, which is included, has 25. On the face of it, there appears to be some great discrepancy there since County Wicklow, which is not included in the scheme, has 13 hotels of three-star or higher standard while County Donegal, which is included, has 25 of that standard. I have no doubt that if I examined the assistance granted in recent years I would discover that County Donegal would have received far greater assistance than County Wicklow. Yet County Wicklow, located on the doorstep of 30 per cent of our population, is in dire need of additional high-class accommodation but has been neglected under the terms of this scheme.

I submitted a rural renewal project to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation for the Wicklow-north Carlow area and sent a copy to the Minister for Finance. I appeal to him to seriously examine its feasibility and merits since I am convinced that minimum Exchequer investment would yield an excellent return. I ask the Minister to include provision for that project and hotels in County Wicklow in the provisions of the forthcoming Finance Bill.

The Minister for Finance tabled amendment No. 57 to the Finance Bill in April l997 which, if my recollection is correct, involved an amendment of section 37 of the Finance Act, l995 and would include Bray as a designated seaside resort. Therefore, I am very disappointed to note he has not included it in his budgetary provisions. When the necessary review is completed I hope Bray will be included under the forthcoming Finance Bill because I see no reason for its exclusion.

I concur with the Minister's sentiments that our agriculture and food industry is essential to the wellbeing of our economy and shall monitor closely what measures will be introduced to assist this most important sector.

While welcoming the grant of £20 million for the redevelopment of the GAA headquarters at Croke Park, I fear it might send out the wrong signal. In view of a commitment to the funding of suitable millennium celebratory projects, the Minister might consider a gesture to the disabled, say, in the form of the construction of a Cheshire Home or similar project.

Mr. B. Smith

I wish to share my time with Deputies John McGuinness and Noel O'Flynn.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. B. Smith

While Deputy Timmins' contribution was very measured, I share his sentiments about the special allocation to the GAA to redevelop its excellent headquarters at Croke Park. Although many Members and their constituents experience considerable difficulty in obtaining tickets for major events there, it must be remembered that those headquarters belong to all members of the GAA throughout the 32 counties. As Deputy Timmins rightly said, those who participate in the work of GAA clubs in parishes throughout the 32 counties, who work day and night throughout the summer and winter to provide recreational facilities for our young people, deserve special commendation. Its further development is welcomed by all right-thinking people.

Deputy Ring must have forgotten his party was in Government up to the end of June last, or perhaps he believes, as do many people throughout the country, that Fine Gael was in Government but not in power, that that Administration was dominated by the Labour and Democratic Left parties.

Deputy Ring also referred to hospital waiting lists for hip replacement and heart transplant operations, or other surgical procedures. He quite rightly said it is deplorable that very many people endure enormous pain and suffering awaiting admission to hospital for such surgical procedures. However, I should point out that in l997 the relevant funding for health services was provided by the Government he supported in this House for two and a half years and that his Fine Gael Minister for Health failed to allocate sufficient resources to tackle our many health problems. Those of us who have been Members of this House for some years were well aware of additional delays in admissions to hospitals over the past two and a half years. I am equally aware that the present Minister for Health and Children and the Government are committed to providing the extra resources needed to speed up surgical procedures, thus abolishing those deplorable hospitals waiting lists.

This budget was introduced against the background of an 8 per cent economic growth forecast for the year l997, with exports and prevailing low inflation contributing enormously to the strength of our economy which has grown even stronger through the contributions of all sectors of our society.

In recent years we have been afforded an opportunity of increasing employment. It is predicted that by the end of this year there will be 50,000 more people at work than at this time last year, which is indeed to be welcomed. However, I am disappointed none of the inward investment here, which while very welcome, reaches any of the areas I represent in the Border region. The Cavan-Monaghan and neighbouring constituencies on the southern side of the Border suffered immeasurably over the past 27 years from the political difficulties in the area. Throughout those years we were told by successive Governments, of different political hues and all State agencies it was not possible to attract inward investment to these areas or create employment opportunities because of political difficulties. While that era of violence is behind us in the province of Ulster, we have not seen any fruits in terms of economic development or increased employment in that region. I appeal to the Government and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to give special recognition to the needs of the Border region. It is in dire need of investment to underpin and consolidate the overall peace process on both sides of the Border within the province of Ulster. In this respect also we need to provide our young people with employment opportunities and keep them in gainful employment.

I am disappointed to learn that farm incomes will drop in l997. Quite rightly the Minister for Agriculture and Food referred last evening to the scandalous circumstances which prevailed at British ports over the past ten days. It is scandalous and unacceptable that the British Government did not face up to its responsibilities to ensure that free trade would not be impeded, and the terms and conditions of the Single European Act would be adhered to. There is no point in Britain being at the Council of Ministers of Agriculture in Brussels, participating in decisions, agreeing to abide by various regulations if it will not then enforce them on its own soil. I was indeed glad the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, travelled to Downing Street last week and made strong recommendations and objections to the British Minister for Agriculture and Food. I was also glad the Taoiseach spoke directly to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on this issue, one of crucial importance to our rural and urban communities alike.

On the Order of Business this morning the Taoiseach informed the House that some progress had been made in clearing corridors to allow articulated trucks to travel through but more progress must be made if our export trade is not to be damaged irreparably. I exhort the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Taoiseach and other relevant Government Ministers to pursue with the utmost vigour the need to ensure that our export trade is not further impeded.

I was disappointed with one aspect of this budget in relation to agriculture, that is that the suspension of the control of farmyard pollution scheme was not lifted. Of course the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Yates and Fine Gael in Government, took that absolutely scandalous decision in April, l995. I call on my party in Government to lift its suspension as speedily as possible. We are all aware of the absolute need for proper on-farm facilities. As the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe knows well, farmers want to put in place proper on-farm facilities and pollution control measures, but there is a huge cost involved for the many small to medium-sized farmers. It is not possible for them to provide those facilities without grant assistance which, if restored, would create additional employment in rural areas. We are also aware the farming community always reinvests its income, so that a reinstatement of that scheme by the Government would be most welcome.

There is much drumlin soil, not free-draining, in my county, where considerable problems are encountered in the provision of additional housing for cattle over the winter months. That scheme is of particular importance to my region. I ask the Minister of State to pursue with his colleagues in Government and the Minister for Finance the provision of the necessary resources to reintroduce that scheme.

Deputy Ring referred to the house reconstruction grant scheme and such a scheme is necessary. At a time when our economy, country and society have developed so positively, it is unfortunate that so many people are living in deplorable housing conditions. Probably not a day passes without constituents contacting a rural Deputy regarding the condition of their houses which lack basic sanitary facilities. Many of them are elderly people, whose only income is their weekly pensions, and they do not have the resources to provide proper facilities. It is not beyond the financial capacity of our Government to provide a scheme that would ensure that everybody could live in decent conditions. It is deplorable that many elderly people are living in isolated rural houses that lack basic facilities. Addressing this matter would cost a small amount of properly targeted money. That would mean so much to so many people and would impose a very small charge on the Exchequer.

I make a special appeal, as I have on many previous occasions in this House, to provide resources for children with special learning disabilities and special tuition needs. Too many schools, primary schools in particular, do not have access to a remedial teacher. Too many children with special tuition needs are not getting that tuition. There is no excuse for not providing the necessary resources to enable those children to get the education they need. If they do not get the special tuition they need at primary school level they will not have any hope of remaining in close contact with their classmates. It is vital that those children get the tuition they deserve.

Mr. McGuinness

I welcome the fact that the Minister in the budget took significant steps to ease the pressure on the weaker members of our society while encouraging and rewarding those companies and individuals who have contributed so much to the current healthy state of our economy. He must be complimented for that. I am sure he does not need me to tell him to ignore the groans and moans from the ghosts of budgets past and the opportunities lost by those on the benches opposite. Deputy Ring reached new heights in his description of the previous budget, but it must be remembered that some Members of this House were members of the previous Government. I have seen little to identify their works with the descriptions outlined by Deputy Ring. It is surprising that he is within their ranks and the amount of work he outlined has not been achieved.

If I have any quibble with the budget it is that the handicapped, a relatively small and identifiable group, should have been better provided for. Twice the funding that was provided for them would still be too little, but it would bring worthwhile benefits to a deserving and often over-looked minority. I ask the Minister to review the funding allocated to that group and to find some way to increase it in the future.

The Minister has taken significant steps to generally help our underprivileged, but we still have a long way to go. I hope that future budgets will go further in closing the wide gap between the very poor and the well off in our society. We must not forget there are hundreds of thousands of people whom, to use the Minister's metaphor, "the rising tide of affluence", will not reach. For these people the Celtic tiger is merely an uncaring predator. We cannot and should not count ourselves successful while so many of our people are genuinely trapped in lives without purpose or dignity. For those people Christmas 1997 will be nothing more than another reminder of how little they have.

This country's economic success and the largely incorrect perception that the poor are doing all right because they are part of the black economy should not blind us to the reality that the majority of those on or below the poverty line benefit from neither. Many are victims of the more dangerous aspects of the black economy. "Marginalised" is a comforting description which suggests "nearly there". We should forget that because we are talking of grinding poverty with too many of our people living way beyond the margin. That problem and the many social problems it creates will have to be overcome before we can claim success or maturity. Handouts such as the dole, while necessary, are not enough for people who want to contribute to and play a useful part in our society. Handouts when not part of a coherent caring programme, as is the case here, rob people of their self-esteem and create a culture of powerlessness in families and communities which is corrosive and completely unacceptable. It is a culture which once established will take generations to eliminate.

In considering this matter within the context of the budget debate, we should not forget the cost to this country of an increasing number of people who believe our society has nothing to offer them and, consequently, they do not care about its laws or standards. The cost in terms of drug abuse, lawless-ness and anti-social behaviour of one sort or another is enormous. The cost in human terms does not bear thinking about. Ireland is a small country. We have proven ourselves to be an energetic and creative people and as a result our economy is booming. Surely it is not beyond us to find a different, radical and creative means to overcome the social cancer which is making life unbearable for a significant number of our people. We could begin by addressing the lack of social housing, which is fast becoming a national scandal.

In my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, which I am sure is no different from other constituencies, the number of houses being provided falls ridiculously short of the number required. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that only six houses were provided in 1997 to meet the needs of 750 applicants. A similar number were provided in Carlow. I am sure the Acting Chairman is well aware of that position. The number of applications is growing at an alarming rate and we will not meet their requirements.

The efforts made to provide 26 houses in Carlow town are to be admired, but the Minister's steps in relations to that development are disappointing. I ask the House and the Minister to revisit that problem and to find a solution that will allow those houses to be provided in Carlow. They are required as a matter of urgency and the people involved are committed to the self-help programme, which we must encourage. Those people are bitterly disappointed. I urge the Minister to make amends by reaching out to those people and trying to solve that problem by securing those 26 houses which are vital to an urban centre, such as Carlow town, which is continually developing.

Many young couples, some who have children, are living with their parents, with all the stress and strain that sometimes involves, or they are living in unsuitable accommodation of one sort or another. Major investment is needed in this area if we are to give some hope to the growing number of young couples who are on the housing list. Local authority and local voluntary housing organisations need much more funding and support. I am sure there is no need to tell the Minister that this is an unhealthy situation that gives rise to other social problems. The problem is becoming worse and it must be speedily attended to. I ask the Government to launch a major national housing programme, a social programme that could be directed through local authorities to deliver houses to the many thousands of people, not only in Carlow-Kilkenny but elsewhere, who are on the lengthening housing list.

Education is an escape route from poverty and we should do everything possible to ensure that children are given equal rights and opportunities within the system. Furthermore, we should introduce skills based instruction at a very early age in an attempt to maintain interest and encourage involvement in areas where it is perceived necessary. However it is done, education is the foundation on which we can build a better society. It is also a ladder to a better life which should be available to all. The cost of not providing a comprehensive educational programme would be far greater than the cost of ensuring the best we can provide is available to all. This is not happening at the moment and I advise the Minister to consider the plight of the gaelscoil and a number of other schools in Kilkenny.

The gaelscoil has been housed in prefabricated buildings for the past ten years and the vermin problem there is so acute that Kilkenny can now boast the only Irish speaking rats outside the Gaeltacht. The school is overrun with rats and it is no joke for the parents, children and teachers involved. Rats are dangerous and prefabs are inadequate. It is unacceptable, in a country doing as well as ours, that 340 children should have to be educated in such adverse and squalid conditions. I demand that the Minister for Finance, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, takes immediate steps to rectify the situation.

Educational problems in Kilkenny do not stop there. Kilkenny College, the largest boarding school in the south-east, has an application for funding before the Department seeking to upgrade a number of its facilities. I strongly recommend that the Minister provide the funds to meet the needs of the college without delay. I hope these will be met in terms of the 1998 budget in order to ensure that student levels can be kept at the correct level.

Ormonde College, the technical education facility in Kilkenny is, to put it bluntly, falling down. The roof and fabric of the building has not been maintained and now needs extensive remedial action. Again, funds must be made available to deal with this problem. A report on this is with the Minister at the moment in which the required works have been outlined. Action is needed. I urge the Minister, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, to take such action immediately. This problem must be dealt with now; it cannot be put on the long finger.

To have problems in one school is bad enough, to have problems in two is negligent but to have three schools in Kilkenny city in need of attention of one sort or another is disgraceful and I will not rest until something is done about it.

Budget debates usually centre around how much has been given and how much has been taken away. Very little attention is given to how we disburse funds and promote initiatives or to how efficient and cost effective our systems are. This area deserves the Minister's close attention when he prepares his next budget and I would like to comment on a number of aspects which might merit inspection.

It is time to stop the emasculation of local government. I feel sure that most Members in this House will agree when I say that, for many years now, the power of local government has been steadily eroded. That is not acceptable; indeed, it is not democratic.

This erosion of power does not encourage local effort or social cohesion because it undermines local leadership and local pride. I have no doubt that people want to be responsible for their own affairs and want their county councillors and corporation members to have more power and authority.

I was Mayor of Kilkenny in 1996 and I was surprised and gratified at the respect and regard accorded to that largely ceremonial role. It comes as no surprise to me that the Labour Government in England is strengthening the power of local authorities and is behind the move to have a Mayor of Greater London. It clearly recognises there is a need and demand for a strong local government system.

We should give our counties much greater power with as little interference as possible from central Government. Within such a county system, local organisations of all sorts could be encouraged and helped to get involved. Given a chance, they will get involved and do things for themselves much more efficiently and at much less cost to the Exchequer. This is the way forward if we want a caring, inclusive and responsible society. I am quite sure that the social and economic benefits to be derived from it would be substantial.

As an example of what I mean by local effort, I draw the Minister's attention to the recent flooding in parts of Kilkenny city which affected a relatively small number of houses in John Street, John's quay and Green Street. This section of the river Nore is the subject of a major Office of Public Works programme. For very little outlay, a wall could be built to protect the houses regularly affected by flooding but funds are not available. Plans are already in place and a very small amount of money is required to enable local government to deal with a problem which has been causing distress and inconvenience for longer than anyone cares to remember. I hope the Minister will find enough in his petty cash box to enable these works to proceed without delay.

I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to the initiative of the South-Eastern Health Board to create a medical campus in Kilkenny. This would incorporate paediatrics, an old people's home, a psychiatric unit, a recovery unit, a coronary unit and an up to date general hospital. The South-Eastern Health Board is attempting to provide a modern medical complex which would be fully capable of providing the usual range of medical services required by a community and a growing urban centre such as Kilkenny with a hinterland which stretches far beyond. I hope the Minister, through the Department of Health, will be ready, willing and able to support this scheme as it develops. Department approval and funding are required and I hope the Department of Health and Children will encourage its development and will be enthusiastic in its support and funding.

It must be clear that I have very little confidence in the system of semi-State bodies and agencies. There are obvious exceptions to this such as the IDA but a considerable number of these agencies could be closed down tomorrow without anyone noticing. The rest could be streamlined and made more efficient and cost effective.

I have said elsewhere — and I have no qualms about repeating it here — that we have enough safe hands on our State and semi-State bodies to provide all the goalkeepers for the forthcoming World Cup and sufficient sound men to elect an Irish pope. Safe hands and sound men are necessary —prudence and caution are worthwhile virtues which should not be ignored — but the bias on those boards and bodies which are genuinely worthwhile must be changed.

Many of our boards and bodies are involved in the disbursement of funds, often involving risk or decisions relating to financial management of one sort or another. It is perhaps counterproductive and even unfair to place that responsibility in the hands of management committees principally composed of officials and members whose training and possible temperament demand they be cautious and averse to risk. There is also far too much cross membership of these bodies which only helps to reinforce the prevailing ethos.

I am certain that giving funds to counties and encouraging local development would be a far cheaper and much more effective way of getting things done. If we must have semi-State bodies, they should come under the control of individual counties and every effort should be made to encourage the involvement of managers from the highest level of local industry on their committees.

I commend the budget and its contents and I ask that the relevant Ministers take account of the remarks I have made.

Mr. O'Flynn

I thank Deputy McGuinness for sharing his time.

Deputy Ring expressed concern in relation to County Mayo. Is it not true that all the best roads in Ireland lead to Mayo and were constructed during Deputy Ring's fellow Mayo man's, former Deputy Pádraig Flynn, term in office? I know that we, in Cork, were extremely jealous of the amount of progress made in Mayo over the past decade.

I welcome the presentation of the second 1997 budget. I remind Deputy Ring and his colleagues that the first one was presented by the previous Government. I know the budget is designed to maintain and accelerate the healthy growth we are experiencing in our economy. Nobody can say this Government has not honoured its electoral mandate. It has delivered a budget which will encourage enterprise and help create jobs. The live register figures in Cork have dropped by 10 per cent over the past 12 months. We have also been fortunate to secure more than 3,300 inward investment jobs in Cork since 26 June.

This budget will stimulate the economy and allow it to grow at an even greater rate in 1998. It is unfortunate that Deputy Ring cannot accept that the rising tide does lift all boats and that when the economy is doing well, more resources will be available to assist people who are marginalised and in need of help. I believe this economic growth will enable us to introduce further tax cuts. The current 2p in the £ reduction in the higher and standard tax rates is the first step in an overall substantial reduction in tax rates. This is essential to provide an incentive to those who are unemployed and who have justly complained for many years at what they saw as an unfair burden on the PAYE worker. This is a long awaited first step towards giving equality of treatment to this large section of our working population. Tax rates for employees must be in line with those prevailing in other EU countries.

I am delighted old age pensioners were given an increase of £5 in their pensions. That is the highest increase for many years and no sector deserves it more. Their lives of hard work brought the economy to its present level and politicians cannot claim credit for that. Widows also secured significant increases in the budget, while children's allowances have been increased. Carers have been given increases and an entitlement to free travel. I welcome the Minister's initiative for carers. It is an important issue and I welcome the proposed establishment of a working group in 1998 to examine it.

A sum of £16 million has been allocated to voluntary community groups. The farming community has also done well in view of the Minister's commitments regarding headage payments and pollution grants. The 100 per cent stock relief for qualified young farmers has been extended from two to four years. I commend the Minister on his commitments regarding PRSI. The income threshold has been increased from £80 to £100 while the ceiling has been raised from £27,000 to £29,000 for employers. I urge employers to engage people who are long-term unemployed as there are substantial tax benefits in so doing.

I commend the Minister for reducing corporation tax and for providing an additional 2,000 places on community employment schemes. There is also an additional 5,000 places in the back-to-work scheme which brings the total number of places on these schemes to 27,000. I welcome the decrease in the vehicle registration tax from 23.2 per cent to 22.5 per cent. The motor industry was expecting a larger decrease of about 3 per cent but obviously that was not possible this year. The decrease, however, will result in savings for the motorist. The motor industry deserves to be commended on the amount of revenue it raises through excise, customs and other taxes.

The Minister allocated £26 million for non-national roads. Cork has a serious problem with its urban roads and some of the allocation should be ploughed into dealing with this problem there and in other cities. Resources are not usually available from the local authorities. In Cork, for example, the local authority was obliged to spend £1 million from its resources on repairing urban roads.

I thank Deputy McGuinness for sharing his time with me.

Mr. Cosgrave

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will probably be no different from other Deputies in that I will attempt to convey the concerns and requirements of my constituency, Dublin North-East, during this debate.

It was fortunate for the Government partners to achieve power at a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. The Minister for Finance was extremely lucky to be appointed to that Department at such a prosperous time. Much was expected of the Minister prior to this budget but, sadly, the influence of the Progressive Democrats on his decisions is apparent. The Progressive Democrats have always been seen as the party for the rich and this budget has copperfastened this image. It was a budget for those who are already enjoying the effect of the Celtic tiger economy but which will change little for the less well off in society. The Minister did little for the many families and senior citizens in parts of my constituency who have been further isolated and marginalised by this budget for the rich.

In fairness, I welcome certain elements of the budget, particularly the 2 per cent reduction in the standard and higher tax rates. It is high time the hard pressed PAYE worker was given a break and I am delighted Fine Gael, when in Government with Democratic Left and the Labour Party, was instrumental in creating the proper financial climate to allow the Minister such large leverage. However, there would have been a more equitable distribution of our country's new found wealth if a Fine Gael Minister had been distributing the goodies last week.

The budget is a failure for all but the greedy. It displays no compassion for or understanding of the needs of the less well off. I have no difficulty with the £20 million grant from lottery funds to the GAA. The GAA makes a real contribution to the development of young people through its great network of clubs in every parish and its members who give up their time on a voluntary basis for their own and others' enjoyment. I wish the GAA well in its endeavours and I have long paid tribute to its vital contribution to sport and culture.

The question of whether Croke Park should be open to other sports is a matter for the GAA. I wish to see good facilities for all sports. However, voluntary youth organisations in my constituency are treated in a poor manner. These organisations endeavour to be open to all, but they receive no support. Funding through Government grants is unacceptably low and volunteers who work in the interest of their community, but receive little thanks, deserve better. Two clubs in my constituency deserve mention in this regard. Suttonians rugby club caters for large numbers of young people. They organise teams, fixtures and social events. For years the club has been trying unsuccessfully to secure a grant to complete its excellent clubhouse in Sutton. When Fine Gael was in Government I made many representations to secure grants for the club but I was unsuccessful.

Baldoyle United soccer club has also done wonders for the youth of the area. The people who run the club have tried for years to get grants for the club but they, too, have been unsuccessful. I mention these clubs because they have worked hard for the young people in their areas and should be supported by national lottery funds and by the Government.

How can one justify an allocation of £20 million for a sports stadium against a mere £7 million for the mentally handicapped and £3 million for people with physical disabilities? Prior to the budget I was optimistic that sufficient funds would be allocated to deal with hospital waiting lists. The allocation of £4 million will scarcely deal with the problem. It is also insulting when contrasted with the allocation of £20 million for the GAA.

Hospital waiting lists are increasing again with 30,453 people queuing for surgery and other procedures compared to 25,959 at the beginning of the year. These figures include 1,598 people waiting for cardiac surgery, 1,108 waiting for cardiology and 366 people waiting for dental treatment. Orthodontic treatment is not available because the health boards cannot afford to employ orthodontists to clear the work. Queues are lengthening and people are most upset that they cannot get such urgent treatment for their children. There are 6,592 people waiting for ear, nose and throat treatment, 440 awaiting neurosurgery, 5,983 awaiting orthopaedic surgery, 2,995 awaiting ordinary surgery and 2,521 awaiting vascular surgery. The Government will have to address the problem of people who urgently need bypass and hip replacement operations to relieve their suffering.

If the country is doing so well, why is there no immediate funding for St. Ita's hospital in Portrane which was featured in a television programme recently and where conditions are said to be deplorable? Something will have to be done about this. Waiting lists are proof of the serious underfunding of our hospital services and the pain and suffering inflicted on the waiting public. The hospital services need an immediate large injection of funds to save people from this ongoing misery and grief.

Little has been done to deal with the issue of poverty for families on social welfare or the elderly. A £3 increase per week means little to someone on the dole and an extra £5 per week for pensioners also falls short of what is required. Three pounds would hardly pay for two pints. Although much has been made of social welfare increases, they are terribly small.

There is no incentive for those on social welfare allowances to return to work. Through good taxation policy, the Minister could make it attractive for people to return to work. There are many job opportunities in the low income bracket. By better use of the money available, the Minister could have removed many people from the tax net by increasing allowances and allowing low paid workers take home the money they earn. The Minister's objective should have been fairness in giving hope and opportunity.

Where was relief for the hard-pressed first time house buyers who have been pushed further outside the city as a result of the property boom? I would like the abolition of government stamp duty for first time buyers to ease the hardship many young couples face. Current Government policy will eventually lead to a decline in home ownership and will force families to pay dead rent money to unscrupulous landlords. This will not benefit the Exchequer in the long run.

Does the Minister realise there is a housing crisis? What effort will be made to address Fingal County Council's housing crisis? Does the Government understand there are 1,182 applicants on the authority's housing list? There are 632 single parents on the list, most of whom have been on it for two and a half to three years, with some applicants waiting to be housed for ten to 12 years.

In the past week a small development consisting of four three-bedroomed, two two-bedroomed and six one-bedroomed dwellings became available for letting in the Baldoyle area. There were about 600 applications for those houses. It was heart rending dealing with applicants when they learned they would not be successful in getting a dwelling. Some of these applicants have been on waiting lists for six to eight years and now have no hope of getting housed. How has this budget helped these people who have been left behind by the Celtic tiger? They look to us for hope and are thrown coin — and not much of that either.

Much of the housing stock in Dublin city and county is old. The Government should consider making grants available to restore rundown dwellings and thus preserve the housing stock. This would also alleviate the housing crisis. While there are 1,182 housing applications to Fingal County Council, the allocation of £4,525,000 from the Department in 1997 will build just 140 houses. This illustrates the enormity of the list.

I welcome the Minister's concessions to environmental issues but it is now time for the Government to take the lead in ensuring society behaves in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. Taxation should be used to force attitude, redirect people from private to public transport and limit waste generation or future generations will look back in anger.

This budget has been hailed as a victory for Fianna Fáil, yet it has the Tánaiste's fingerprints all over it. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is being hailed as an early Santa Claus, but will be likened to Scrooge by the families who have yet to feel the benefits of living in prosperous Ireland.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Taking a short-term view, this budget is good if one is rich. There are merely crumbs for the poor. The Irish Times poll, published this morning shows that about two-thirds of voters do not expect any improvement in their standards of living because of this budget.

The combination of tax changes, particularly the cut in the top rate of tax, brings major benefits to 35 per cent of taxpayers who pay this rate. When the halving of capital gains tax from 40 per cent to 20 per cent and the reduction in corporation tax are added to this, most of those in the wealthy bracket score on a number of counts.

The budget will indirectly bring more benefits to the rich. The stock market has powered ahead, increasing the value of their stocks and shares, pension funds and stock options. The increase in the property market will add to the value of their homes, holiday homes and property investments. This budget will in time be seen as a charter to drive first time buyers out of the property market because the excess funds released to the rich will be invested in real estate or stocks and shares. The percentage increases in house prices and the ISEQ index will accelerate. There has been evidence of that in the past week. The ISEQ index has broken the 4,000 barrier and continues to rise.

I do not begrudge those who have gained from the budget and it is possible to argue a case for each of the direct measures individually. However, this is a rich man-poor man budget. There is a huge disproportion between the combination of handsome benefits for the well-off compared to the modest improvements for the lower-paid and even less for those who are not paid. There is virtually nothing for deserving categories such as carers or the 1,000,000 children.

A few weeks ago I launched a document on behalf of Fine Gael highlighting the opportunity for fair play for everybody in the budget. The document outlined how this could be done in the financial parameters available. This approach was not adopted and as a consequence for those seeking fair play for the weaker sections of society, this budget was a disaster. It has been correctly described by Fr. Seán Healy of CORI as the worst ever. While I do not agree with everything Fr. Healy says, he is a genuine and objective observer and it is important we listen to people like him.

The Commission for Justice and Peace said the budget consciously redistributes the benefits of economic growth to the better off, fails to meet the Partnership 2000 commitments on social exclusion, deepens the divisions in society and fails to tackle poverty, unemployment and exclusion. It is summed up as an insult to the decency of Irish people. This is an objective viewpoint with which I agree in many ways. The approach I proposed in the Fine Gael document, fair play for everybody, was not adopted, and this is the outcome. The Government attempts to justify its actions on the basis that it is payback time for taxpayers. The budget clearly involved major paybacks for those earning £50,000 a year. For others the tax benefits tapered downwards until they reached minuscule proportions for those earning £200 a week or less. The pre-election payback slogan has fallen further into disrepute and is now as shallow and shoddy as its sister slogan of zero tolerance on crime.

Those on low and medium incomes will justifiably grumble, but the 40 per cent of the adult population who are not in the tax net will feel most let down by this budget. Fairness, justice and equity all dictated an approach leading to social inclusion. Effectively the budget will lead to the widening of the rich man-poor man divide. This can only result in further social exclusion, a deepening of alienation and, for the future, a damaged sense of community, and consequently a damaged society.

Two-tier societies are unstable, have higher rates of alienation, crime and vandalism, and are damaging to all our citizens. Accordingly, the huge opportunity to have a social dividend for everybody through this budget has been lost. It is clear from the figures that the well off will gain in the short-term. However, in the medium and long-term, the well off may also lose because essentially they may well suffer most from the loss of the social dividend. Cutting the top rate of income tax by 2 per cent brings a benefit to one in six of the adult population. The cost of each point reduction at the top rate is about £50 million. The total cost, therefore, will be £100 million. The total sum available for social welfare measures next year is little more than that at £125 million. However, the majority of our people are expected to share this £125 million, including one million children who get the miserly sum of £9.46 million to divide between them in 1998. That works out at about 9p or 10p each.

We heard much talk recently about the traveller "C" family of 12 children where one young girl suffered an appalling rape. Leaving aside the court controversy, I am sure many wondered about the circumstances of our society which had such a large young family living in such appalling conditions. I do not know the details, but I understand that the health board has made a number of efforts to improve the situation there. I want to focus on what this Fianna Fáil-PDs Government has done through its budget to allow that family of two adults and 12 children, and families like them, to benefit from the Celtic tiger. The father gets an extra £3 a week, and the mother gets £1.40. Incidentally, these increased sums will only be payable from next June. Nothing extra will be payable for the children at that stage. There will be a meagre increase in child benefit payments for the 12 children of 35p a week each, but not immediately; that payment will be made next September. Is this Government really serious in claiming to be interested in social inclusion when the figures are examined? The stark contrast is that the household consisting of a married couple with no children, earning £50,000 a year, will gain £1,124 extra from the tax cuts in this budget whereas this traveller family with 12 children will get a total of £208.40 extra next year and £440.80 in a full year. The two members of the first household get an increase of £11 a week each, and the members of the other household get a miserable pittance averaging 61p per person per week in a full year. That is what this Fianna Fáil-PDs Coalition has done for the poor.

Let me refer in particular to one other group for whom I and others made a strong case prior to the budget, the 30,000 carers living with and looking after people who need full-time care and attention. They are on duty 24 hours a day every day of the year, with no holidays, no time off, no sick leave and none of the benefits and entitlements that other workers have. Families and individuals who provide full-time care for their dependent family members are deserving of State support. In many cases the State saves significantly by not having to provide residential care. There should be a carer's respite allowance for all such carers, irrespective of means, because of the common thread of additional cost or need from the point of view of respite or nursing care. Also, the existing means tested allowance should be adjusted by increasing the mean income disregard to allow a further 5,000 carers to get a weekly payment. The Carers' Association had meetings with a number of Ministers, as they had with me, and were given to understand that there would be a positive response in this budget. The outcome was an insult to carers. There is a free travel pass to recipients of carer's allowance. This is supplied to fewer than one third of the 30,000 full-time carers. Furthermore, because they are generally not in a position to have any respite, the use they would make of any such free travel pass would be nominal. The Minister plumbed the depths when he dredged up this proposal as being a response to the legitimate claims of the 30,000 carers around the country.

Spokespersons are often criticised for seeking additional expenditure when we have been critical of the level of expenditure involved in the Estimates and the budget. I reject such criticism. What I am speaking of principally is proportionality between those who gain from this budget. However, I am also willing to take on the expenditure question. The Government has totally ducked this issue. The Estimates show that there was no attempt to contain expenditure, except in the area of agriculture where it was cut. The Minister for Finance has miserably failed his own test on this score. He who spoke of the need for expenditure control but, when in a position to apply same, ran for cover and provided phoney figures in an attempt to confuse the issue. All economic commentators agree that the way in which the Government has framed its expenditure targets has allowed it to use the buoyancy of the PRSI receipts to fund general increases in spending.

If the Government was genuinely interested in social inclusion it could have directed those moneys towards the needy. I do not accept an approach which involves the neediest in our society being the only section to whom expenditure control is applied. Why must the poor always have to wait? There have been good savings in the social welfare area because of measures introduced by the last Government. The crackdown on social welfare fraud saved the State £117 million in the first nine months of this year, and the expected saving for the year is £155 million. This figure is greater than the increases allowed for social welfare expenditure next year. No credit is due to the present Government that these savings were effected. It is willing to accept the credit but not willing to take further necessary anti-fraud measures.

I brought to the attention of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, an area where such expenditure control and anti-fraud measures are absolutely necessary. I refer to supplementary welfare and rent allowances. I raised this in the Dáil with the Minister on Wednesday, 26 November last. Despite the fact that the Minister trumpets the benefits to the State from the work of specialised staff in the area of control of social welfare expenditure and is glad to have his photograph in the paper in connection with it, he sees no need to extend this approach to the area of supplementary welfare payments for which the 1998 expenditure will be around £200 million. This is despite the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out in his report on means testing that the Department of Social Welfare means test for new claims is more rigorous than the equivalent test by health boards for supplementary welfare.

I have a copy of a report from the internal audit section of the Eastern Health Board dated 8 August 1997 which confirms the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This audit arose following receipt of a letter from an external source stating the need to query the amount of rent supplements paid by the Eastern Health Board. Following a full investigation into rent allowances, the audit report highlighted a number of control weaknesses in the system which require immediate attention. It refers to area No. 3 in Dublin where more than £2 million is handed out annually in supplementary welfare and rent allowances. Yet the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs sees no need for control measures similar to those which brought about such outstanding results in the social welfare area. The Minister for Finance says he has no further moneys available for those genuinely in need.

The truth is that senior officers in health boards —I am speaking in particular about the Eastern Health Board where the documents prove the case — are totally frustrated because of the lack of control measures. Questions raised by them earlier this year include the reason there has been no formal acknowledgement of receipt of fraud documentation sent to superintendent community welfare officers, the resources available to deal with fraud and the number of cases pursued and to what end in 1996. Other community welfare officers have proposed the establishment of a control unit to promote fraud awareness and as a tool to deter fraud. However, this has all been to no avail.

The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, recently stated that every pound taken from the system through abuse is a pound less to spend on those genuinely in need. I agree that where there is a need we must provide the resources and one of the ways of doing this is to ensure that those who are scalping the system are stopped. Why has the Minister refused to ensure that control measures are introduced to cover the £200 million which will be spent next year on supplementary welfare? I will continue to press him on this issue. The documentation available from the Eastern Health Board highlights the fraud and abuse in the system and it cannot and should not be ignored.

The overall verdict on the budget is a thumbs down. Fine Gael believes that fair play is a fundamental value cherished by all people. It marks us out as a nation, not just as an economy. If we want to continue to build an inclusive society that cares then those who have not benefited from our economic success must get fair play. There should have been meaningful increases in the key rates for families on social welfare, yet they were given virtually nothing. There should also have been innovation and, in particular, support for child care and carers. There was the opportunity to ensure a social dividend for everybody in a just and cohesive society. That opportunity has been lost and the widened poverty gap created by the budget may in time be very damaging.

Mr. Aylward

I wish to share my time with Deputy Tony Killeen. I have listened to many budget debates and regard them as a charade and a circus. When we are in Government the Opposition attack our budget and vice versa . Instead of doing this we should acknowledge the good in budgets and see how we can improve on the many areas which need to be improved upon.

During the past 20 years some hairshirt budgets have been introduced. However, without these we would not have a booming economy today and the Government would not have been able to introduce a budget which gives people back some of their money. I welcome the budget and congratulate the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. I fail to understand why he has come in for so much criticism given that he is the first Minister to keep his election promises. As he emphasised in his Budget Statement, many measures remain to be taken in the next four budgets. The commitment made during the election campaign to reduce the higher and standard rates of tax have been honoured. It can be seen from the opinion polls published today that the general public agrees with this move. I welcome the 2 per cent reduction in the higher and lower rates of tax and hope this is the first step towards much greater reductions. I, too, would like to have seen a greater extension of the bands and hope this will be done in due course.

I remind my colleagues on the Opposition benches that between 1982 and 1987 we had a super rate of tax of 65 per cent and a standard rate of 35 per cent. No steps were taken to reduce these rates until the minority Fianna Fáil Government returned to office in 1987. It reduced the top rate of tax to 58 per cent and the standard rate to 27 per cent, thereby beginning the reduction process. However, in its three budgets the rainbow Government only succeeded in reducing the standard rate by 1 per cent, and this despite the fact that the circumstances allowed it to improve on that. I am not fully satisfied and much more needs to be done. At a time when the economy is booming and interest rates and inflation are at an all-time low the effort put in by people during hard times should be recognised.

I welcome the flat rate increase of £5 in old age, retirement and invalidity pensions for persons over 65 years. I am glad the Minister looked after the older and weaker sections of the community and acknowledged their contribution to society. However, I am disappointed that widows, invalidity pensioners under 65 years, the long-term unemployed, carers and the like have only received a £3 flat rate increase. I hope this anomaly will be corrected in the next budget and that the Minister will make a particular effort to look after the weaker sections of society. In this context I single out widows and widowers who do not have as strong a voice in society as others. These vulnerable people have to continue rearing their children following the death of their partners, while those in receipt of social welfare and other benefits are left to fend for themselves. I would also like to have seen an increase in the fuel allowance which has not been increased for many years. Hopefully, the qualification limits will be addressed in future budgets.

I am annoyed at the rate of £2 per hour paid to home helps in my health board region. These people provide a very necessary service practically on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, this was not recognised in the budget and perhaps it can be addressed at a later stage. I agree with the comments made by the previous speaker about carers. These people not only provide a very valuable service but also save the State huge sums of money by looking after their relatives at home, thereby freeing up acute beds in hospitals which cost much more money. The practical measures outlined by the previous speaker could be introduced at no extra cost to the State.

I welcome the fall in unemployment to less than 10 per cent. The budget provisions will further encourage enterprise and lead to greater job creation. A reduction of 1,000 in the live register means huge savings for the State in terms of social welfare payments. These savings should be directed towards the poorer sections of society.

Employers have got a fair deal in the budget and they have a responsibility to create employment. I hope they will play their part in creating the jobs required.

I am disappointed Kilkenny city and other locations in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny and neighbouring counties in the south-east have not been mentioned in employment announcements of late. There seems to be an opinion within IDA circles that people are better off living in the south-east or other parts of the country than in Dublin but nothing could be further from the truth. We have the same problems. Some years ago Fieldcrest located in Kilkenny city with a promise of 650 jobs but it went to the wall within two years and has not been fully replaced. Thomastown, Callan and Castlecomer are unemployment black spots. An IDA factory in Graiguenamanagh is lying idle. I call on the IDA and the Minister to ensure locations such as these receive their fair share of the national cake.

Few people in rural Ireland know much about the Celtic tiger, a title I am beginning to dislike. An ambitious rural development programme should be put in place immediately to revitalise towns and villages. It is imperative something is done, although I appreciate there was an announcement recently about the Leader programme.

I am delighted that £3.5 million has been allocated for the installation aid scheme. Yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture and Food announced he would contact the farm organisations with a view to putting a new scheme in place geared towards assisting small and medium-sized farmers. The control of farmyard pollution and dairy hygiene schemes should be improved. Small farmers will not benefit from the tax incentives announced in the budget as they do not have a taxable income.

It is a scandal that pickets have been placed at Welsh ports. This should not be tolerated by the Government. It has led to a crisis in cattle prices. We are entitled to sell our products within the European Union which guarantees free movement. Action should be taken immediately. Those involved in the transport sector, including truck drivers, are suffering. This year there have been two French strikes and blockades at Welsh ports. Most people in the transport sector were affected by the Bell debacle in Waterford and Dublin. They should receive special consideration.

Much has been said about the allocation of £20 million towards the further development of Croke Park to be paid over three years. Some interesting remarks were made on "Questions and Answers" on Monday night, particularly by a friend of my colleagues in Fine Gael who was last in Croke Park in 1954 and who described himself as a Blue Shirt. The Gaelic Athletic Association has done much good for well over a century. It has invested money in the development of its games. When I was Minister of State with special responsibility for sport, I would have been happy if the FAI or the Irish Rugby Football Union had presented proposals to build stadiums of their own. I would have been delighted to make the necessary grants available.

When the national lottery was established it was understood that a great percentage of the surplus would be allocated to sport. Unfortunately, during the years this has been siphoned to other Departments to replace Government revenue. Given our strong economic performance it should be redirected towards the governing bodies of sport and the many voluntary workers who do much good work. I hope this will happen gradually to the point where at least 50 per cent of the surplus is allocated to sport which is an antidote for anti-social behaviour in developing the minds and bodies of young people. Sports officers should be appointed immediately in each local authority area, as recommended in our election manifesto, to assess the needs of young people and co-ordinate the activities of schools in the area of physical education.

I applaud the efforts made to attract international events here such as the Tour de France, the Ryder Cup and the Special Olympics. This will help to enhance our status and stimulate tourism, a major contributor to the economy.

There are many matters on which I would like to dwell in the area of the environment and local government, including the performance of local authorities and the powers conferred upon them as well as the many works which require to be undertaken in our constituencies. The road network in County Kilkenny has been sorely neglected in recent years. The works that require to be undertaken include the improvement of the Kilkenny to Ballyragget and Waterford roads, the second phase of the ring road, the provision of access to the Belview portal development in south Kilkenny, a second bridge crossing on the river Suir in Waterford, the construction of bypasses in Thomastown and the provision of sewerage and water schemes in the many towns and villages which lack such facilities. The aim is to stimulate tourism and encourage people to build and live among their own.

The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy O'Dea, has specific responsibility for the school transport scheme which needs to be reviewed. The many reports produced during the years are gathering dust in the Department. It is ridiculous that one can still be debarred on the grounds laid down in the 1960s before schools began to close. If it is not possible to do something when times are good I hate to think what might happen in ten years time.

An additional allocation is required to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals for hip replacement operations, heart surgery and other minor operations. It is annoying that those covered by the VHI can be treated much more quickly.

I commend the budget to the House. In the next four to five budgets I hope the Minister will tackle the many other problems which need to be addressed, leading to a more just society by the end of this Government's period of office.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.