At the outset, I should like to congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his appointment and to wish him well in his performance of the arduous tasks he will face. I should like to refer to the lead up to the budget. After the general election Fine Gael invited the Labour Party to walk into their parlour and to partake with them of the fruits of office. The Labour Party then proceeded with their now well-known ritual dance of wrestling with their conscience. Having done so they acquiesced and the budget before the House is the result of that union. To say that it is difficult to see any similarity between what was promised by the two parties prior to the general election and what is contained in the budget is self-evident. It is a sad commentary on the parties which form the Government that they should have so little concern for what they said they would do before the election especially when compared with what they have done since elected. Socialism, as far as the Labour Party are concerned, is dead. Of course, there are those who never believed that the Labour Party had any socialist content in their philosophy but those who believed that there was a socialist philosophy there have got a rude awakening.
The experiences of the Labour Party in former Coalitions should have been sufficient to cause them to eschew Coalitions for evermore but it appears that the lure of office is as strong today as it ever was and that the Labour Party find themselves trapped by their own decision in a conservative Fine Gael web. The people for whose cause the Labour Party had pledged their unequivocal support, the poor, the sick, the unemployed and the under-privileged are now being made to carry a sharply disproportionate share of the burden in the Coalition's bookkeeping exercise. The increases granted to social welfare recipients have reduced their living standards in real terms, not alone because they will only be granted increases of between ten and 12 per cent — between 4 per cent and 6 per cent below the estimated rate of inflation — but also because the increases will not be paid until the end of June. Children's allowances will remain static and children's allowances for apprentices under 18 years of age are being abolished. Before I deal with the content of the budget I should like to refer to the document, Principal Features of the Budget, in which the Minister for Finance refers to what he claims Fianna Fáil were about to do and what he has done in this budget, the purpose of the comparison being to try to blame the former Government for his own Government's actions. I totally reject the Minister's attitude on this matter.
The Fianna Fáil Government published the Book of Estimates before the general election. Because of this, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties knew what the Estimates contained during the election campaign. That the Fianna Fáil Government should have published the Estimates in the circumstances was unprecedented. The Fine Gael and Labour Parties, therefore, were in a position to accept or reject the implications of the Estimates. The Labour Party rejected them almost completely out of hand before the election. Both parties were in a position to state just where they stood in relation to them.
As a simple example I will take the case where Fianna Fáil appeared to be considering altering the pupil-teacher ratio in post-primary schools. The Fine Gael and Labour Parties replied to the teachers' organisations before the election proclaiming that they would not agree to any such change in the pupil-teacher ratio. Those who had an interest in this matter were able to decide whether they agreed with what Fianna Fáil appeared to be going to do in this matter, or whether they accepted the Fine Gael and Labour stance in relation to such a change, and vote accordingly.
Because of the publication of the Estimates, the voters could vote for what were supposed to be the then Government's proposals or for the Fine Gael-Labour alternatives. They voted against the Fianna Fáil proposals and a Fine Gael-Labour Coalition ensued. The people rightly expected the implementation of the Fine Gael-Labour policy and not the Fianna Fáil policy, and they were very sadly disappointed.
The nub of what I am saying is that the Coalition Government are responsible for their actions and must be made to accept that responsibility. The people elected the two parties in the Coalition, once they formed a Coalition, to carry out their policies, and Fianna Fáil have not the slighest intention of accepting any responsibility for those policies. I could go into some detail, which I do not propose to do now, on the difference between Coalition policy and Fine Gael and Labour policies. I am accepting the situation that we have a Coalition Government which put forward their policy to the people, a policy which they told the people they would follow, and we have seen the result.
The manner of the implementation of the cuts suggested by Fianna Fáil must also be given due consideration. If we take the cuts in the education estimate, the Fianna Fáil attitude is that such cuts would be implemented only after due consideration and consultation with the parents, teachers and other interested bodies. Such consultation would have prevented the total chaos which has existed in the educational sphere since the Coalition cuts were announced.
My final point on this matter for the moment is that the Fianna Fáil Estimates must be viewed in the context of the document The Way Forward which stated the problems and difficulties facing the Government and pointed to the manner in which the Fianna Fáil Government proposed to deal with them, and how they proposed in a determined, systematic and well-thought out manner to advance the economy, to create employment, and to take care of those in need.
In the Coalition budget we have a stark bookkeeping exercise and, far from having anything of substance about employment, social welfare, health, education and so on, we have the philosophy of despair only. To create a national corporation and impose it on this type of concept will be little better than window-dressing at best, and a mean and cynical effort to delude the people at worst. We were never short of money, even during times of recession, to finance worthwhile ideas and help them to develop, and our records shows that to be so. The problem was whether worthwhile proposals and ideas were there which the Government could finance and develop.
I have already pointed out that the Labour Party, with full knowledge of the Estimates, rejected many Fianna Fáil proposals out of hand and put alternatives to the electorate which the electorate accepted. I am not concerning myself to any great extent with the Fine Gael Party because I never believed they were anything but a conservative party, in recent times trying to put on a liberal face. I would not expect the social changes from them which my party visualise for the future, any more than they accepted the really forward-looking changes we made in social legislation in the past.
The Labour Party at least should have been expected to underwrite a different social policy, and either to implement it or leave the Coalition. The Labour Party programme published prior to the election in November is now totally contradicted by their actions in respect of the budget. It is a shame that so little respect was shown by that party for the people who voted for them in all good faith. I want to quote from the Labour document Jobs, Equality and Justice published before the November general election. On page 3 under the heading “Who Pays for the Crisis?” we read:
The main parties——
—meaning Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael—
—— propose massive cuts in public spending falling especially on health and social services and affecting the weakest of the community. Labour rejects utterly any policy that makes the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the homeless and the young bear the brunt of corrective measures.
That is what they said to the electorate and it was on that policy that voters voted for the Labour Party. How has Labour Party policy, as seen in the budget, lived up to that manifesto? Labour have done the exact opposite to what they promised the electorate. In this Labour-Fine Gael Coalition budget they are making certain that the poor, the sick, the unemployed, the underprivileged and the young bear the brunt of the corrective measures. A disproportionate load has been placed on these people.
By granting a mean 10 per cent to 12 per cent increase in pensions, benefits and allowances, much below the estimated increase in inflation, by cutting back severely on short-term benefit payments for those unfortunate enough to be on short-term working, by putting 5 per cent extra taxation on the few briquettes and blocks needed for warmth, the Labour Party are forcing the poor, the needy, the underprivileged, the unemployed and the sick to carry a burden well above that which they are capable of carrying.
By imposing transport charges on young children seeking admission to post-primary schools they are inflicting an excessive burden on these young people and, more particularly, on underprivileged young people who will now be unable to attend school for financial reasons. The Labour Party now apparently believe that those who are most vulnerable must carry a disproportionate share of the load.
I again quote from page 3 of the Labour Party manifesto:
... The wealthy to pay the major share of the cost of economic adjustment....
I note that the Tánaiste pointed out recently that there were certain elements incorporated in the budget which were Labour policy in operation. One of the matters to which he referred was that if a person has a house valued at £65,000 or over and earns an income in excess of £20,000 a year he will pay a few shillings in tax. That is one of the great concessions made by Fine Gael to the Labour Party. Is this what the Labour Party manifesto meant? The man whose income is cut by £20 per week because of short time working will hardly be amused.
The Tánaiste also said that the Labour Party had gained concessions from Fine Gael because the Labour Party were responsible for the decision to make every farmer fill in a tax return. That is nonsense because everybody knows that from the date a court issued its decision in respect of poor law valuation a decision to compel every farmer to make a tax return was inevitable. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Labour policy.
I also quote from page 4 of the Labour Party manifesto:
...no further increases in VAT on essentials....
Need I say more? I wish, however, to emphasise the words "no further increases" because this clearly relates to items which are already charged at different VAT rates at present and not on articles which are zero-rated. I do this because I suspect efforts might be made by the Coalition to pretend that they were referring to zero-rated goods. When it is noted that we will now be paying almost half the normal selling price extra on some goods because of VAT, then we have some real understanding of the effect of the increases.
The policy of the Fianna Fáil Party has always had a social content. The problems of the old, sick and underprivileged have been matters of constant and deep concern to them. Their concern was shown by the fact that, for quite some time, increases of 25 per cent have been granted annually to social welfare recipients by Fianna Fáil Governments, the objective being not only to help people dependent on social welfare to keep pace with inflation but also an attempt to increase the real value of social welfare payments. We always recognised that we had a special duty to the old who had worked hard all their lives to help improve the standard of living of those who came after them. We believed that there was a consequent responsibility on us to ensure that they were not forgotten. The Coalition in this budget have certainly forgotten them. Fine Gael and Labour who in the run up to the election were so loud in their demands and in their promises of justice, fair play and equity for the poor and underprivileged have now not only gone back on their promises but have worsened the conditions in which the same poor, sick and underprivileged must live in the future.
To put it mildly, the budget in so far as the poor are concerned, is a cynical exercise of which both parties, but especially the Labour Party, should feel deeply ashamed. It is totally unacceptable that people in receipt of social welfare should be forced to carry a burden which it is clearly beyond their capacity to bear, especially when you remember the lavish promises made to those same people before the general election last November. We were told by the Coalition Party that they stood for a comprehensive health scheme and no cutbacks. Those are the exact words used in a Labour pamphlet which was circulated in my constituency before the election. Far from developing a more comprehensive health scheme, we are faced with considerable cutbacks to the tune of £12.3 million net. The drugs refund scheme, which helped those in the middle income group, but more especially those who were just outside the means test limit for medical cards to cope with the enormous cost of drugs, has been rendered almost useless. Provision for that scheme has been cut from £13 million to £8 million. How can the Government expect people who must take expensive drugs regularly to continue with their treatment? Even with costs as they were prior to the budget, there were many cases of people who, because of financial necessity, simply stopped using drugs and imperilled their health as a result. What will the position be in relation to those people now? The amount payable per month at present will have to be increased considerably and it will be impossible for many people, especially those relatively close to but above the medical card income limit, to meet the increased costs. This will result in their giving up drugs which their doctor regards as being essential for their wellbeing. I have no doubt that because of the change there will be a public demand for less stringent tests for medical cards. But however the public may protest, when we look at the Government's attitude to old age pensioners, whose medical cards are being withdrawn in very large numbers by the health boards, there can be little hope for them. It is another pointer to Government policy in the social welfare area.
When I remember the furore before the election in respect of the £5 contribution for certain outpatient services introduced by voluntary hospitals, which did not have to be paid by people holding medical cards, people covered by long-term illnesses, children under 16 years of age, emergency cases, maternity patients or by people suffering from infectious diseases, I wonder what the people who reacted so angrily to the £5 charge have had to say about the matter at that time if they realised that the £5 charge would be removed, that there would be severe cutbacks in the health services, that the drug refund scheme would be drastically reduced resulting in higher payments for drugs and that many old age pensioners would have had their medical cards withdrawn. Here again we have a situation where the poorer people are being forced to finance the better off and the effect of all of this on the health services will create further problems for many people. These problems will come to the surface when the changes in the health services become apparent, and more especially in the light of the specific promises given by the Labour Party that there would not be any cuts in the health services.
The basic problem facing the country at the moment is unemployment. The number of unemployed is at an exceptionally high level. Day after day more people are losing their jobs. The bookkeeping style of budget introduced by the Minister for Finance is unimaginative. The whole thrust of the budget is deflationary and far from holding out any prospect of more employment or even holding the level we have at the moment the opposite is the case.
As a result of the budget we face the prospect of vastly increased unemployment levels. Those whose jobs have been put in jeopardy are dreading the thought of what tomorrow may bring. The Minister's objective appears to have been a book-balancing one and it will result in slowing down economic activity considerably. When framing the budget the Minister might have been expected to give some thought to the traumatic experience being suffered by the unemployed who had been led to expect that the many promises of the new Government would be fulfilled. Instead, as a result of this budget they find a bleak future facing them. The general belief is that, as a result of the budget, many more will join the ranks of the unemployed. The feeling of despondency and hopelessness facing those people who suddenly find themselves unemployed, especially in middle age or later years, is frightening. They can see no future. They feel let down in front of their families and they feel isolated from their comrades. For these people the budget holds out no hope.
There is no plan or strategy for the provision of employment: indeed, the reverse is the case. The whole thrust of this deflationary budget is in the opposite direction. The 1 per cent levy put on all gross income and deducted from net pay, the VAT increases and the special fuel tax, among other things, will reduce the buying power of the public to such an extent and will result in such resistance to buying that of itself it will cause more unemployment.
In his speech the Taoiseach said that the Government now intend making plans to deal with unemployment. I am sure he is aware that the questions of provision of employment and of budgetary strategy are inter-related and cannot be considered in isolation. In the budget the Government have dealt with their financial strategy but that strategy is deflationary and it reduces any real prospect of progress towards the provision of jobs. It appears to me that any planning done now will be for the sole purpose of window-dressing and when in the future it fails to produce results the gloom and despair among the unemployed will be even deeper.
The development of industrial employment is vital and the IDA have done trojan work in this sphere for many years. Looking at development in the industrial sphere in my constituency, it is clear that the provision of industrial employment in large, medium and small industries is basic to overcoming the serious unemployment problems facing us. Of itself industrial employment also increases service jobs.
I do not wish to underestimate the problems facing us at the present time. I am aware of the difficulties facing industry and the IDA in their efforts to promote industry, but I fail to see how reducing the money to the IDA for the promotion of industrial development will help. I am convinced that at this critical juncture in our history we should be providing more money for the IDA to pursue their objective of creating more employment. They should be in a position to pursue more industries abroad and encourage them to come here. They should be in a position to give every assistance to industries at home as well as to seek out young people who have worthwhile ideas and who, if given the necessary financial impetus, could help to provide jobs. To reduce the allocation to the IDA is deplorable. It is an admission by the Government that they have given up all hope of improving the employment situation.
In the document giving the principal features of the budget, the Government take the attitude that because the expected level of grant payments fell below the amount anticipated they should reduce the allocation to the IDA. This is the policy of despair and it will be poor consolation for the many unemployed. The least the Government should do is to inform the IDA that if more money is needed it will be allocated immediately. Whatever cutbacks may be needed in other areas of expenditure, a job-producing agency such as the IDA should be allocated more money, and certainly the allocation should not be reduced.
More industry is needed immediately in my constituency, especially in the Drogheda, Dundalk and Ardee areas where there is a constant rise in the numbers unemployed. These people will find it very difficult to understand why money to the IDA is being reduced at a time when the unemployment queues are growing. The input of the IDA in industrial development in my constituency is well known and appreciated. The cutback now is inexplicable and will be poor encouragement for all those concerned in industrial development to give of their best. To say that the amount of money needed was not as great as anticipated is not the answer. The Minister and the Government must take another look at the situation in this area and at least see that further moneys, if needed, will be available to the IDA and they must not force the IDA to operate within the narrow confines of the amount of money now being made available to them.
I will refer to another aspect of industry which is being hit severely by this budget. An increase in taxation, which perhaps to the uninitiated would appear to be a relatively minor matter, is in reality of considerable gravity for many industries, particularly for two in my constituency of Louth. I refer to the increase of 1p per gallon on hydrocarbon oils. This increase, which appears so small in itself, will have very serious repercussions on the two industries to which I refer. One of these is already on an enforced holiday. The fact that a further 1p per gallon is added to their costings will result in a considerable increase in their costs and will do little to help this industry is also on their feet. The other industry is also a very heavy user of the type of oil in question. They have gone through very difficult times and this further imposition will not help, to put it mildly.
How deeply has the Minister examined this matter? As I have said, to the uninitiated it appears to be a relatively small matter and, if I remember rightly, the Minister in his speech said that no increase had been put on this type of oil for some time. I repeat that it is a very heavy imposition and it creates specially difficult problems for the industries I have in mind who use very large quantities of this oil. I have not got figures here of the level of excise duty on hydrocarbon oils of other member countries of the EEC but if my memory serves me rightly it is at a much lower level than it is here. I can remember not very long ago examining this situation and finding that no excise duty whatever was imposed on hydrocarbon oils in some member states of the EEC. While I have not up-to-date information on this here, nevertheless from past experience I can safely say that the duty on hydrocarbon oils is much lower in other EEC countries than it is here and, because of the level of excise duty here, it is much more difficult for industries here using large quantities of this oil to be competitive. In industries where jobs would appear to be at risk already the situation can only deteriorate. I do not propose to name the industries that I have referred to, but I suggest that if the Minister will have a look at his files in relation to this matter he will find that I have made representations on quite a number of occasions in regard to them. I feel very strongly that this tax should be reviewed. The extra income to the Exchequer can hardly justify the potential loss of jobs which is likely to arise as a result of the increase in this duty.
This budget contains a reduction of £13 million for housing. In the document entitled Principal Features of Budget the Government state that the revised assessment of the Housing Finance Agency for 1983 requirements has enabled a reduction of £10 million to be made in this provision. Of course this means in effect that this system of financing housing which was brought in by the last Coalition has proved a failure, but I do not see any reason why that £10 million which was saved in that area in respect of housing could not be used in other areas of house building. This will be the most seriously shaken sector of the economy as a result of the budget. Job losses in this area have occurred over a period but this will accelerate the number of building workers losing their employment. The forecast by those involved in the construction industry is that very large numbers of building workers will become unemployed in the course of 1983. The need for the development of roads and infrastructure generally is recognised by all. If we are to overcome the problems of the recession and particularly when these problems are overcome, we will need a worthwhile road system and the infrastructure necessary for the development of industry, but hopes in that direction have been dealt a very severe blow by this budget. In relation to road construction and development I am keeping an eye on Donore Road and Rathmullen Road in Drogheda which are in a deplorable condition. The residents there were given to understand in recent times that in a relatively short space of time all would be well. I hope that is so.
As far as my constituency is concerned there are other problems in the employment area which relate to house building and infrastructure generally. Cement Roadstone have one of their factories sited at Drogheda. This factory will be affected severely by the cutback in building construction work. They had already had problems in relation to the importation of foreign cement which I have done my utmost to counteract. Now by the Government's decision in this budget a situation is being created which can lead to more unemployment in this cement processing industry. I hope that the Minister will keep in mind the needs and problems of this factory. I also hope that he will impress on his colleagues, as I did on mine when Fianna Fáil were in office, that they should encourage the use of Irish cement and discourage by every means in their power the importation of foreign cement. Too many individuals go around to various ports throughout the country holding out prospects of a few jobs so as to be facilitated in the importation of cement from abroad. This is highly damaging to that long-established industry in Drogheda. When these individuals find their activities no longer pay high profits they will pull out of the areas in which they established themselves without the slightest regret or concern for the people they employ. In the meantime while they are there they can do irreparable damage to a very worth-while industry in Drogheda which uses home-based raw materials.
The problem on one side of the coin is the importation of foreign cement. The problem on the other side for cement workers is the cutback in demand for cement due to fewer buildings, houses or otherwise, being erected. The large cutbacks in this area do not augur well for recovery. The enormous cutbacks by the Minister for Finance in his reconsideration of the Public Capital Programme of Fianna Fáil will surely have a significant detrimental effect on building generally. The building sector will bear the brunt of these cutbacks. If one includes in one's calculation — as indeed one must — the inflation rate this year, the severe impact on costs resulting from VAT increases on construction and on building materials, it must follow that there will be quite a considerable fall in building activity which will result in lay-offs on building sites and cutbacks in the production of cement in Drogheda.
We have now a very severe unemployment problem. Unemployment among our young people is very high. A nation with half its population under 25 years should be a nation with the incentive and the will to develop. The budget has nothing in it to help young people leaving school at various levels. There is no prospect for them. They have a unique contribution to make to the development of the country but the budget, which is deflationary, has nothing to offer them. There is no prospect of employment for them and no direction as to how they can contribute. If this is allowed to continue our many unemployed young people will begin to stagnate and end up unemployable.
I have a particular interest in the tourist industry especially since I was Minister for Tourism. At that time I saw very great potential in tourism for our economic growth. At the end of the 1973-77 Coalition period tourism had become a stagnant industry. Tourist numbers were falling off considerably when I took office as Minister for Tourism. Fianna Fáil recognised the value of tourism and we underlined the importance of this industry by putting the word tourism into the Minister's title. Under Fianna Fáil's policy tourism began to develop and soon became one of our major industries. About 1978 we had the largest number of tourists ever coming here. The industry was growing at a great rate.
Tourism provided more and more employment over the years and it seemed to be well set for further development in the future. The tourist industry has had its problems over the last two years and those will now be exacerbated by this budget. The penal increase in VAT will severely hit all facets of the industry including goods and services. The two increases in the price of petrol, one in the budget and one at the beginning of January, as well as the enormous increases in the price of liquor are pricing us out of the tourist market for foreign tourists as well as for our own people to take holidays at home. There is little doubt that we will see a further decline in this industry, which has not far to drop to be on the ground.
Forecasts have already been made about the likely increases in hotel tariffs during this year. Those increases plus the cost of getting tourists to the holiday resorts will deter people from holidaying here and this will result in more money spent abroad. My constituency of Louth is a Border constituency which is very badly hit. Taxes generally and particularly the price of petrol are very much lower in Northern Ireland than they are here. The result is that there is a very considerable drop in business in the hotels and public houses in my constituency. Petrol pumps, particularly in the part of the constituency close to the Border, are lying idle. The manager of one hotel informed me that in February 1982 they already had bookings from the North for 20 to 30 weddings. At the same time this year they had one booking. This will result in a great loss for hoteliers and public house owners. It will create a serious situation for the people employed in the industry as well as the whole locality. If no action is taken the extra increases put on in the budget will mean an end to this very great industry. In some of the villages close to the Border, which had a very high reputation as tourist areas, there are hardly any visitors in the summer in comparison with a few years ago when they were crowded out.
In the course of my speech I have directed most of my criticism to the Labour Party because the budget presented to the Dáil by the Minister for Finance is exactly what we have come to expect from Fine Gael Ministers for Finance. They can only bring those budgets before the House because the Labour Party are giving support to them. In this instance they are giving support to a Fine Gael-orientated budget. The Fine Gael Party are anxious at times to give the impression that they are a radical party but it is by their deeds you will know them. Their deeds are starkly portrayed in this budget. When one examines the Labour Party election programme of November 1982 one is immediately struck by the stark differences between what was put forward then as policy and the policy now being given the full support of the Labour Party. The poor, the unemployed and the sick are not forgotten by the Labour Party. In relation to this budget they would be a lot better off if they were because the Labour Party are ensuring now that they will find 1983 a much more difficult year than 1982. What of the homeless? By a decision of the Government, which includes the Labour Party, money for housing has been reduced and this will ensure that the homeless will unfortunately remain homeless. What of the young? The Labour Party and Fine Gael Coalition by their imposition of transport charges for post-primary students are ensuring that few of these children will be able to receive further education. This is hardly the policy on which the members of the Labour Party were elected.
My other reason for concentrating on Labour Party policy is that I have noticed in my constituency that the local branch of the Labour Party, particularly in Drogheda, as soon as it was evident that the manna from heaven which was promised during the election campaign was failing to materialise, immediately attempted to distance themselves from the actions of the Coalition Government in order to give the impression that they had no responsibility for the deeds of that Government. When the Minister for Education, Deputy Gemma Hussey, announced her education cuts and when Deputy Mitchell, the Minister for Transport, made the rather silly statement that CIE workers should accept a reduction in their wages, which may I point out in respect of the latter nobody with any sense believed, they became the targets. We had headlines in the local paper of 31 January stating that the Labour TD had not ruled out the possibility of voting against the budget if, for example, substantial increases were not granted to people on social welfare payments. Let us consider what social welfare recipients are to receive by way of increases. First, the increases are well below the estimated increase in inflation and in addition they will not be paid until the end of June. The result of this is a severe drop in the standard of living of the old, the sick, the underprivileged and the unemployed and what is even worse, they will be asked to pay greatly increased VAT charges. They will have to pay a 5 per cent levy on their briquettes and logs. However, if I were to deal with all the extra costs to which the poor are to be subjected, I would not have time to talk about anything else.
In the following week The Drogheda Independent carried the heading, “Labour Hits Out at Cabinet Members”. Singled out for mention in that context were the Minister for Education because of the cuts in education, and the Minister for Transport and Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because of the suggested reduction in the pay of CIE workers. At the Labour Convention in Limerick the Drogheda branch of the Labour party voted for a coalition Government. The votes of all Labour Deputies put into office all the Members of the Government and are supporting them in office. The Minister for Education would not be in office were it not for the votes of Labour Deputies. The same can be said for the Minister for Transport and Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. If the Drogheda branch of the Labour Party were so anxious to get out from under when the cuts in education were announced, what must be their attitude now in supporting a budget that is lowering the living standards of the old and the underprivileged and which is increasing VAT charges by 5 per cent while imposing a fuel rate of up to 5 per cent in addition to collecting an income levy of 1 per cent from the worker's pay packet? At the same time, the Government are increasing petrol prices, reducing money for housing, reducing money for the IDA and so on. If the Drogheda branch of the Labour Party could go into hysterics about a rather silly statement from the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when we all know that the possibility of cuts in the wages of CIE workers is not on, how much more hysterical must these branch members be now after the budget? The simple fact is that for the purpose of achieving office, Labour, supported by the delegates from the Louth constituency, voted for a coalition. They are responsible now for the plight of those they promised faithfully to protect. They were seen as people who would bring in a new era for the poor, the jobless and the underprivileged. Certainly it is a new era but not for these groups of people in terms of what they expected from Labour.
This deflationary budget offers no hope for the unemployed. It is a budget that reduces the living standards of those who are unable to help themselves and for whom much more concern might have been shown by the Government. It is a budget which underlines a policy of despair.