Deputy Dennehy is in possession and has 54 minutes remaining.
Financial Resolutions, 1987. - Financial Resolution No. 3: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance.)
On the last occasion on which I spoke I had been dealing with the budget-related comments of Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) and Deputy Deasy. Deputy Noonan deliberately pointed out the three factors setting the parameters for the whole budget debate, that is, the £25 billion national debt, the 250,000 people unemployed and the one million dependent on social welfare. I pointed out that these were mainly legacies of four and a half years of Coalition mismanagement. I wanted to point out also that Deputy Deasy's contribution was entirely misleading and dishonest. He accused Fianna Fáil of having made pre-election promises of an easy budget. I might pose the question: why would Fianna Fáil project or talk of an easy budget especially when we knew the Government of which Deputy Deasy was a member had brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy with a national debt of £25 billion? There had been a projected budget deficit of £13 million to £14 million. Any promises in that regard were related entirely to dealing with the financial bankruptcy we faced.
However, there was a guarantee given that we would be more caring towards the poorer and weaker sections of our people. I believe we have honoured these promises. We have provided an extra £17 million so that we could implement increases in social welfare benefits in July rather than October. In addition the Fianna Fáil Government rescinded the decision of Deputy Deasy's Government to impose a special prescription charge on all medical card holders, a section who, by definition, are known to be incapable of making such payments.
There was no honesty whatsoever in what appeared to the general public to be a stage-managed last minute run for cover by one portion of that Government. I contend that they were four and a half years too late in adopting that Pontius Pilate attitude. The public deserve better from politicians and, in particular, from Governments. Practically all of the decisions relating to the budget were made with the objective of reducing the deficit built up particularly over the past four and a half years and reducing the massive numbers of unemployed. I sincerely hope the target set by the Government will be achieved, that interest rates will be forced down, that new areas being investigated for job creation will prove fruitful and that the general provisions of the budget will help to alleviate some of our problems. I do not believe all of those problems will be solved in the lifetime of any one Government, even if they run a full term. However, we can certainly set the nation on a correct course which is what we must encourage.
The community care programme is the area of health care which has failed to get proper funding. Perhaps that is because this programme is less glamorous and therefore less attractive to the media than are other areas of health care or it may be because there are fewer consultants involved. Whatever the cause it has a lower profile and, more importantly, is allocated only a mere fraction of the overall budget for health care. I know that the Minister and his predecessor — in fairness to him — have asked for special treatment for the community care programme but changes will not just happen. They must be made to happen. I recognise that changes made by the Minister in the budget have meant that an extra £25 million is available to the general medical services. I ask him to consider having the care of the elderly programme, including institutional geriatric care, taken from under the umbrella of general hospitals and put under the heading of community care. It is a natural progression of the community care programme. At present these institutions get swallowed up in the push for funds by the acute hospitals.
I ask the Minister also to try to finalise discussions as speedily as possible on a common contract for the consultants. The impact of private practice on the public health care area is of critical importance. It will have a vital bearing on attitudes to change. There are a series of questions relating to these discussions which could affect public finances, such as charging for the use of equipment and personnel.
Almost every provision of the budget can be viewed in a positive or negative fashion. I ask for a positive reaction both from Members of this House and the general public. Take the example of the Jobsearch programme which will give 150,000 people an opportunity to become involved, to be interviewed and, in many cases, placed. The 40,000 places and 12,000 courses under the Jobsearch programme will be made available. That is the positive side of the proposal. The negative side being flaunted by some Opposition Deputies is that this is a witch hunt, which is totally incorrect. It is important to point out that the service will be available, that these people will be helped, which will be done by the reallocation of resources within the Department of Labour and their Manpower agencies. There will also be the provision of 120 suitable people from the remainder of the Civil Service to the Department of Social Welfare. It is good to hear favourable reports already from the various depots set up to help in the implementation of this programme. The public response is good and positive. It is important that the public should judge for themselves what is being done. One can get a biased slant from a newspaper report on any issue. This tends to happen, which is a pity.
It is crucial that we do not desert the 250,000 people unemployed. It should be remembered that they are citizens of this State and are entitled to be seen as genuinely seeking work. They are not drones and are not unemployed by choice. They must be assisted in every possible way.
I might point out also that 1,500 extra places will be made available under the social employment scheme, a scheme which had been allowed to run down at the end of the previous Government's term. Many people, particularly those in Cork, had complained that the programme had almost ceased to exist. Confidence has been restored in that scheme which is now being supported by trade unionists and others who had doubts about it at the outset.
The decentralisation programme is geared to alleviate some of Dublin's problems as well as those of the provinces. This programme has been revived also. The fact that that programme had been dropped must surely be one of the crimes of the recent past. Recently in Cork an Opposition Deputy complained that Cork had not been one of the first location choices in this decentralisation programme. It should be remembered that that same Deputy's party callously rejected the very concept of decentralisation just four and a half years ago. Such public turnabout is totally dishonest, is bad for politicians generally and for the leadership of the country which must consist of Opposition as well as Government.
It is very bad that there should be this publicity seeking reaction to a positive solution to one of our major problems, that solution being the implementation of decentralisation. When such short term publicity seeking takes place the Leaders of the Opposition parties might very well discipline such people, pointing out that they cannot take that type of stand, that they must be more honest. God knows we need some honesty in this day and age.
I might emphasise that I shall be joining my colleagues in the coming months in pushing Cork's case for the location of a Government Department under the decentralisation programme proposed. I shall be highlighting the very severe unemployment problem obtaining there. I shall also be pointing to the many advantages of such location in Cork, and there are many. I will do so in the knowledge that the Government have a commitment to decentralisation. That is the positive side of that proposal and I ask people not to look at it in a negative fashion because, for once, Cork did not take precedence over the rest of the country.
I also ask the Minister for the Environment, in the area of local government to consider making funds available and giving greater discretion to local councils. I ask him in particular to refer to the possibility of giving a block grant to cover the total cost. This would allow in the case of Cork for greater discretion where the council may, for example, wish to concentrate on refurbishing older local authority dwellings rather than building new ones or where they may wish to drop some proposed new road programme temporarily to allow them to spend extra money on the maintenance of the existing road network. I have said in the past number of years that decisions such as those should be within the scope of the local authority. If the money is made available to them they should have a right to decide their own priorities. I accept that central Government must decide on the total allocation but once that is done it should be within the remit of the local council to decide how to spend the money. Massive sums of money are spent on new road works but yet the existing road network is falling asunder when it could be improved for a very small amount of money. I would like the Minister to take action on the question of the block grant.
I also welcome the Minister's assurance that he will use the time from now until the next budget to study and review the whole area of local authority funding. I accept he faced an impossible task in the short space of three weeks prior to the budget in attempting to do this. I believe he is in the process of reviewing this matter. There are areas of conflict such as local service charges and so on which need to be looked at and the Minister for the Environment is quite capable of tackling these matters.
With regard to the general area of finance there are many ways we can, as legislators, help to bring money into the country and, at the same time, hold on to the money that is in the State. We need to be far more innovative in this respect. The Minister for Finance is to be congratulated for introducing some new ideas. These include the decision on expatriate remittances which are now exempt from tax. This matter has not got enough publicity to date. This rule will apply to many people including those working in States which may pay well but where it is highly unlikely that Irish people would settle permanently — for example, Saudi Arabia and similar states. Up to now these people have been treated almost like criminals in this country. They were dodging in and out of the country and dodging customs inspectors to try to grab a few weeks or even a few days holidays in Ireland. This had to be done to avoid having their incomes taxed at home. This was a ludicrous situation. It was against the principle of bringing extra money into the country. We should have been encouraging people, as we are now doing and as other nations do, to earn money abroad and to bring it back to Ireland. Following the Minister's decision, these people can now come back home, put their money in the bank and give the benefit of its use to the State. This is a very positive measure and I would like to see it getting more publicity. There are many people who wish to send money home, have it invested here and have their financial affairs handled in the State.
There are many similar impediments which could and must be tackled by simple legislation. We should not be afraid to move quickly. In my short experience in the House, it worries me how long it can take to pass legislation. We should be able to move quickly where damage is being done to State finances. I refer to the kind of legislation similar to that introduced for the restriction of travel allowances. This has surely been the greatest scandal of all. People not alone refused to buy Irish within the State but went outside it, bought non-Irish goods and brought them back in order to save on VAT. These are the people who complain about the 250,000 people who are unemployed and yet they are not willing to pay their way in the State. They are willing to take the benefits and to accept the items which help them but they go outside the State immediately they see an opportunity to save a few pounds by so doing. This crazy situation was costing between £200 million and £300 million in purchasing power every year and was crucifying the Border areas in particular.
It had to be stopped and I congratulate the Minister for Finance on his decision, in particular because we seem to have an inferiority complex whenever we deal with an EC regulation. I have been told over and over again when complaining about problems in industry, including restrictions and so on, that we cannot tamper with something because it is an EC regulation. We seem to be the least capable group in the EC when it comes to helping ourselves. We must learn to cope with the big boys in the EC, to bend the rules as far as we can without breaking them if it helps our State and we must learn not to be afraid to take the action necessary to protect our people. Other countries where restrictions have been placed are quite happy to have the Commission test their case because at the end of the two years or whenever a decision is reached they will have achieved their target. I hope we will also have achieved ours by the time a decision is reached on our issue. We needed to break the stream of outgoing shopping expeditions. This has been achieved and again, I congratulate the Minister on doing so.
When dealing with the EC in general, there seems to be an almost split mentality with the Irish. Many people when it suits them for publicity purposes accuse us of going with the begging bowl to Europe. We are reluctant to use the system and to exploit it — I use that term deliberately — in the way that other States do. I have sought refunds of money for training unemployed people and so on and I was told funds were not available. When I was Lord Mayor of Cork city, I sought funds from EC sources as well as from national sources and I was told I was going with the begging bowl.
I will cite the example of Corby in Northamptonshire in the UK. Obviously, the UK is much larger than ourselves but yet they were not afraid, when they lost up to 9,000 jobs in the steel industry, to seek assistance from the EC. They received over £100 million in benefit for one town — the town of Corby. People from other countries are now looking at this as a textbook example of how rebuilding can take place having been devastated by EC regulations. The people in the UK did not see it as going cap-in-hand or as having the begging bowl mentality; they saw it as their right and went after it and good luck to them. We should not be afraid to do the same. When it suits people they trot out the begging bowl phrase but it is damaging our country.
I ask the Minister to clarify in the House, and to take action if necessary, the suggestion that VAT offenders should not be pursued after the duration of three years. There has been some clarification of figures in the past couple of days but there is a suggestion that such a directive was issued in December 1985. If so, it is amazing it has not come to public knowledge until now and I question the reason for this. It would be too much of a coincidence that a directive such as this should suddenly appear publicly when Fianna Fáil have taken up office. If such a directive was given and was being acted upon it should now be withdrawn immediately. I can appreciate the logic of pursuing the debts most likely to be collected but, at the same time, if such a directive was given it would destroy the morale of the general public. Unlike income tax or other direct payments, VAT is money which is collected by companies and other sources for the State and if those people are allowed to keep that money it would be condoning fraud. Such a directive would also encourage others in the knowledge that if they could survive three years it is quite likely their debts would be written-off. I ask the Minister to review this immediately to ascertain if the directive has been there since December 1985 and, if so, to have it rescinded. It must be a ministerial function, and not that of a senior inspector, to give such a directive.
I want to refer to farm taxation because this has worried me for a long time. Ireland is much too small to have any deliberately created divisions between the urban and rural sections of the community. I believe in equity of taxation. Everybody should pay their fair share. It is a scandal that any section of the community can withhold massive sums of money in health charges and this should not be allowed to continue. At the same time, however, I do not believe that we can have a witch hunt against the farming community. The steps now being taken in the budget in relation to farm taxation are the correct ones. Taxation should be based on a person's income.
There is a rejection in the budget of the land tax which was introduced by the previous Government. I agree fully with the decision to remove this tax because it did not work in practice. It was unfair to both the farming and the PAYE sectors. The real proof of the failure of this land tax — and it has to be spelt out — was that last year it raised a laughable £400,000 when it had been estimated that it would yield an income of £5 million. The collection of the land tax would have cost £6 million this year. Surely this fact alone discredited the suggestion that we should have a land tax.
The farm profile system is the correct way to do the job. There will be no running away from this issue. I heard one Opposition Deputy from Cork say that farm tax is being done away with. He was using this in an emotive way to suggest that farm taxation was being done away with. He did not point out that the land tax brought in £400,000 last year and that it would have cost £6 million to collect the tax this year. The reality is that £9 million will be collected this year from VAT refunds to farmers. That is a guaranteed income to the State. The income tax which will accrue from the farming community from the profile system of taxation can be added to this figure.
I welcome many other items in the budget, for example, the emphasis on tourism. Many of us in local government have argued all along that this is the area where real growth will take place from an employment viewpoint. There was a negative response from many people to the budget when it was first announced but I hope these people now agree with the measures proposed. Both the Minister, Deputy Wilson, and the Minister of State, Deputy Lyons, have taken steps to get a package moving. It is important that we encourage and support these moves no matter which side of the House we may sit on. Credit must go to those who are running the tourism package. It is a new package. It is being implemented and I believe there will be very positive results from tourism this year as a result of this package.
We have seen a dramatic change in the health care area. Earlier today many Opposition Deputies wanted to discuss the closure of various hospitals. I want to make the point, in their absence, that the greatest change we have seen adopted has been the approach by the Minister for Health and the Minister of State in their acceptance of the real situation facing us. I congratulate the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, and the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, on their promotions. They are in a very tough position because of the lack of finance available to them but I believe they are capable of coming through in a positive fashion. I congratulate them on adopting an honest and open approach to the problems facing health boards and the general public in the health care area.
I have to compare their approach to that of the previous Government during the past four years when there was constant conflict and aggression between the central administration and just about everybody else involved. Much of that conflict was caused by the continued denial by the Government that there were any health cuts and by the attempts to shift responsibility for such health cuts from the Government, the Minister and the Department onto the shoulders of the members and administrators of the eight regional health boards. Claims were made in this Chamber that these cuts were a figment of the imagination of politically motivated persons throughout the country.
The former Minister for Health denied on at least two occasions that there were any cuts in the health budget. That deceitful approach reached an all-time high on 22 October last when the then Taoiseach, using the privilege of this Chamber, claimed that the Southern Health Board budget was knowingly fictitious. An attempt was made to justify this character assassination by a rather simplistic comparison of projected and actual deficits for the previous year's accounts. It was deliberately ignored that the difference was accounted for by cuts, non-progression of projected improvements and the juggling of some accounts at national level. These included the refund of hospital charges from road traffic accidents which in the case of the Southern Health Board alone made a difference of two-thirds of a million pounds and changes in the forecast for inflation by the ESRI.
The cuts in financing for health were denied right to the bitter end when the accumulated deficit for the eight health boards at the end of last year was over £50 million and the deficit for the Southern Health Board was over £7 million. Surely that was no figment of the imagination and no way to run any public service. When the long term former Minister for Health dived for cover we had the spectacle of him lambasting the short term Minister for Health for under-funding health care.
He would now be canonised as a saint if the public could bring him back.
That was a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. That is an expression which is used in west Cork quite freely. The Minister allowed a deficit of over £50 million to build up over a number of years and then he dived out of office. I think this dive was stage managed. I cannot prove it but the public can judge for themselves. The junior partners dived for cover. The long term Minister for Health turned around a few weeks later and accused the short term Minister for Health of under-funding health care. The deficit is now being picked up in an honest fashion by this Government. Nobody runs up a budget deficit deliberately. The former Minister for Health stood up publicly in this Chamber and tried to insist that there were no cuts in the budget for health care. Everybody knows that this was incorrect. Deputy Sheehan may say that the former Minister would be brought back, but I do not believe he would be. He started a downward trend that could have broken the health services completely in the years to come. The present Minister is honest and he is willing to take any flak directed at him. If he makes an allocation he will stand over it and he will not blame the locals because he cannot give them the money.
At the time I repeatedly asked the Minister of the day to accept that there were financial cutbacks and to accept responsibility for these as a Minister should. I ask the Minister and his officials also to consult and co-operate with the health boards in solving the problems and not to threaten to disband them every time a genuine complaint is made. There will always be some degree of conflict and difference. There will always be need for examination of the system to see if it is efficient but these issues can be dealt with if there is a proper degree of mutual respect and understanding. There will be conflict at local level between staff trade unions, and administrators and at a higher level between boards and Departments and there will probably be conflict between the Minister and the Department, but there must be honesty, respect and understanding.
I congratulate the Minister, for adopting this approach. He has not alone met with the representatives of the eight health boards but has clearly identified the shortfall in the allocations. There are no smokescreens or confusion about the issue, just straight facts for which the Minister accepts responsibility. The first requirement in tackling the problem is to identify it clearly and to have no buck passing. Included in the health care budget is the £10 in-patient day charge. Whether one agrees with the charge, the most incredible aspect of it must be the claim by the Fine Gael spokesman that it would affect the least well off. This charge which is expected to raise £6 million nationally is substituted for the prescription charges that had been proposed and which would have taken £16.5 million from the public and would have affected medical card holders — those who had been assessed and found to be in special need before they were issued with these cards. I could not accept any suggestion that the lesser of two evils was not chosen and I sincerely hope that the 198,000 people in Cork and Kerry who are covered by medical cards are fully aware that Fine Gael had targeted them, rather than those with incomes over the medical card eligibility level as the major payers of that levy. Again they are hiding behind that issue.
I might remark, in passing, that the previous Minister said in this House that he would tackle the consultants and not allow the big money people to walk away with all the public funds, that he would take them on and make them pay, that he would charge them £1.5 million for the use of public equipment. I am not sure whether the Minister said this in 1984 or 1985. He certainly said it in 1986, but never delivered on it. The former Minister walked away from the problem. The new Minister is left with that problem and I hope he can cope with it. The percentage of beds being used for private practice and the general level of diagnostic procedures, to mention just a few, are affected by the common contract. They will have to be addressed in these discussions.
I welcome also the Minister's proposal to review the VHI as such a review is long overdue. In any area of monopoly the situation has to be kept under constant scrutiny. I believe the existence of reasonably priced insurance cover for various different risks is a vital element of any proposals which are likely to be put forward in the changing world of health care. The VHI must be very well policed as they have a monopoly. Any restrictions which are an impediment to the public in getting cover must be removed. I ask the Minister to deal with this as quickly as possible.
I wish to refer to reports and to the comments of a former Minister of State that funds for school buildings were sanctioned in the days prior to the handing over of Government. It appears also from the first Official Report I received that grants to voluntary associations were sanctioned in large numbers. I should like to emphasise that this would have taken place long after the general election, after the people had made their choice as to who they wanted to run the affairs of State.
If these reports are true — I refer specifically to school building programmes and assistance to voluntary associations — what happened is next door to criminal. Legislative action will have to be taken to ensure that when a general election is held and a decision has been reached by the public that such carry on for political reasons cannot be allowed to happen. When the appropriate Dáil committees are reconstituted I ask that they examine this situation immediately. It must be bordering on the criminal that this kind of action in the school building programme could affect the legitimate claims of many schools for improvements, that developments could be shanghaied and utilised in constituencies which might be earmarked by a particular Minister of the day despite the fact that his party would have been rejected by the public. This is important where it will hit cities and counties outside Dublin. I was shocked to read that there were 38 different grants or schemes allocated in Dublin after the general election. This practice must cease. In the days óf promises of honesty and open government we were told that none of this carry on would be allowed. We must call a halt in this regard in the interest of future generations.
As a new Deputy I was shocked to learn that such things could happen. When I inquired about school building schemes in Cork city — there are four or five schools there which require extensions or rebuilding or the replacement of obsolete sections — I was shocked to get the answer that the previous Minister had used up the year's allocation of funds for this programme. This kind of thing cannot be tolerated.
I was glad that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, stopped the grants which had been shanghaied one day prior to his taking up office. I congratulate him on that. These people will have to be disciplined. This kind of political cowboyism cannot go on.
On 31 March Deputy Desmond, in this House, forecast that most people would not support this budget. A poll taken immediately afterwards showed a public response of a 59 per cent acceptance level. The people can see now that the Government intend to adhere to the targets set and to work at righting the wrongs which were inherited after four-and-a-half years of Coalition Government. I believe that the acceptance level is even higher now. There is a desire on the part of the public to see our problems sorted out. I am happy with that and I am prepared to work to justify that level of public support.
There are some additional points I should like to refer to in passing while the Minister for the Environment is present. One concerns the question of finance for road-maintenance. In making a case for Cork I suggest that the present system of allocating per mileage of road is not a good one and should be combined with the actual use of the roads. In the urban areas a driver will make great use of the roads, unlike the rural areas, and yet the funding will be given on a mileage basis. This might be looked at. I hope the problem of decentralisation will also be looked at. The problems facing the provinces are the reverse of those facing Dublin, where 38 per cent of the population have 10 per cent of the land. We will have to change that.
One of the major local government issues in Cork is a down river crossing. I ask the Minister not to refuse this project on the grounds of lack of funding at present. If necessary an indication could be given that the project will go ahead with the rider that when finance is available, or even mention a period, say, of four years to start. This would allow the local people to make a presentation to the EC and would be a sign of support for the £100 million investment in Ringaskiddy. This issue is with the Minister, I ask him to look at it sympathetically and not to give a flat refusal on the grounds of shortage of finance.
I want to refer to the promised support by Members of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats in the interests of the country. Now is the time to live up to that promise. They went on television and radio and said they would be good democrats and they would support the Government's budgetary objectives and targets. I am asking them to fulfil that promise because they can see that we are controlling finances and that there is recognition of our natural resources — tourism, fisheries and the land. Action is being taken on each front.
I want to mention the reduction of VAT on labour intensive industries — particularly on photography, driving lessons and waste disposal — from 25 per cent to 10 per cent. This was a very good move and cost approximately £500,000 and it will protect legitimate business people. We might look at other areas and see where we could reduce VAT to 10 per cent.
I support the positive approach in the budget. I would not be afraid to be critical if it was necessary, but I recognise that criticism must be tempered by the three factors I mentioned at the beginning, factors to which Deputy Noonan refused to refer on the opening night of the budget debate when he accused Fianna Fáil of picking up their programmes, issues and ideas. The three factors to which I referred are the £25 billion debt, the 250,000 plus unemployed and one million dependent on social welfare. These are the issues we must face.
Déanaim comhghairdeas leat ag deireadh do chéad óráid.
Listening to the previous speaker one would think there was no blame attached to the massive cuts which have been introduced by the present Minister for Finance. I was a little carried away by the Deputy's Chinese word "shanghaied". This is a new one but it is probably a very adaptable word. I believe the Minister for Finance has shanghaied the finances of the country by this budget. Where is the growth we were told about? Where is the national growth we were told would be in evidence if Fianna Fáil were returned to office? It is amazing that in the short space of three to four months there can be a complete U-turn by this party in Government. They now realise the difficult task the Coalition Government faced over the past four years. If Fianna Fáil in Opposition had given the Coalition the same co-operation as we are giving them, we would not have the doleful news which has been spelled out here for the past two months. No matter how Government speakers try to camouflage the position, no matter how they try to whitewash the issues, it is evident that they are not able to deliver on the promises they made during the general election.
Every Private Members' motion handed in over the past four and a half years was critical of the Coalition Government. There was no cover up; there was an open debate every Tuesday and on Wednesday nights but when we, as a responsible Opposition, are trying to get Private Members' motions accepted, we are told by the Chair that the Minister is not yet in a position to take a Private Members' motion on serious matters, such as hospital cuts and so on. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I was a young inexperienced Member of this House in 1981 and had to share responsibility as a backbencher in Government. I remember the Opposition party bringing in a Private Members' motion dealing with Bantry County Hospital, which is in my constituency. Fianna Fáil were objecting to the cutting of a service which was not being utilised. The Ceann Comhairle, the Minister and the Taoiseach of the day condescended to have this matter aired in this chamber, and rightly so. I cannot see any reason for the change in policy now. The then Opposition, who were so vehement in exposing minor cuts, were given ample opportunity to express their opinions but the Opposition today are muzzled. They are told it is not practical for the Minister for Health to take on such a discussion.
I want to register my protest on behalf of my constituents in Cork South-West who are very angry with the steps the Government are taking, and rightly so. Listening to Government speakers one would think this had been a budget of growth. Far from it. Everybody knows this has been a dismal budget as far as the economy is concerned. I remember driving back from Dublin a few months ago and seeing along the main road from Dublin to Cork huge billboards proclaiming that health cuts hurt the poor and that there must be another way. We have not seen that other way. Fianna Fáil said that they would implement policies which would attract many American tourists but that has not been the case.
Most services have been annihilated and I protest against the serious cuts in agriculture, health, tourism, fisheries and the building industry. It is well known that agriculture is the backbone of our economy and without a vibrant agricultural industry we will not have a sound economy. If our country is to have a future it must come from the development of our natural resources. We do not have a climate to grow citrus fruits or for an all-year-round tourist industry, but our climate is suitable for producing the best agricultural and fisheries products and the best whiskey and other spirits in the world.
What did the Deputy's party do for the last five years?
What did your party do for the last 45 years? Agriculture has been starved of funds. The farm installation grant, which was most important in so far as the development of agriculture is concerned, was introduced by our Government to make sure that the young farmer would receive help in starting off in this very important industry. We paid out grants amounting to £5,600 to farmers who qualified for them. At the stroke of a pen, the Minister for Finance has erased that scheme. As 60 per cent of the population are under 25 years of age young farmers who have the courage and determination to go into that industry should be helped. Instead, they are dismayed by the lack of foresight of the Minister in terminating the installation grant. What confidence can young farmers have in a Government who took such action? They are the farmers of tomorrow but they will not have any future if they are not helped.
Only farmers in west Cork received the grant.
We made sure that farmers received a double cattle headage grant this year which Fianna Fáil never did. Farm bodies have been curtailed in their budgets. I have been a member of a county committee of agriculture since 1960 and I have seen the impact which those committees made on the agricultural industry. Those were the days when there was no red tape or departmental bureaucracy with regard to appointments in agriculture. In those days an expanding agricultural industry could make an application for an extra agricultural or horticultural instructor to the county committee in the knowledge that a temporary person would be appointed. Indeed, very often the temporary person was appointed in a permanent capacity in his native county.
We were told that the transformation in relation to agriculture would benefit farmers and the industry as a whole. The county committees have been replaced by ACOT but I am a firm believer in the small farmer and the small outfit. It was far easier to run a small concern like a county committee than it is to run a divisional body like ACOT. Indeed my fears were justified in no uncertain manner this year when it became evident at our ACOT meeting two months ago in Cork that not alone was there a major reduction in agricultural grants and moneys which were supposed to be given to ACOT offices throughout the country but that ACOT are unable to pay the travelling and subsistence allowances of their members. Did we ever think we would see that day? Did we ever think this would be the future of ACOT? Is this progress?
I agree that cuts must be made in public expenditure but they should not be made in an industry which is the backbone of the economy. Our county shows throughout the country were a monument to agriculture. The best quality cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, poultry and horticultural items were exhibited. The county committees of agriculture have never failed to give a grant each year for the past 27 years to these county shows but this year those grants have been completely axed as there is not one penny in the kitty. ACOT are now foundering for the want of finance and agricultural instructors, horticultural instructors and domestic economy instructors are not in a position to give to those who need it due to the shortage of funds. By no means is this progress. I ask the Minister for Finance to seriously consider making available a special allocation to ACOT so as to ensure that the agricultural instructor, the horticultural instructor and the farm management instructor are in a position to impart their knowledge to those who desire it. That would be progress in the right direction.
It is a disgrace that farm improvement grants have been reduced by £2.25 million. What faith can any young farmer have in an administration which reduces farm improvement grants by £2.25 million? The Taoiseach, probably with a good idea behind it, has constituted a new ministry for food and has appointed Deputy Walsh to be at its head. I have nothing against Deputy Walsh as he is a gentleman to his finger tips, a good representative and a capable man but how capable can a Minister be when his Department does not get one brown penny? The Taoiseach also appointed Deputy Kirk another very competent man, to be Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food with special responsibility for horticulture but he restricted both those gentlemen in their efforts to get their ministries off the ground by not giving them one extra penny to expand their Departments. Surely, you could describe this situation by using the phrase "the pub with no beer"? What future can there be for a Department which does not have a pound to spend?
Hundreds of millions of pounds of horticultural produce is imported into this country. At present tomatoes are making almost £1 a pound. Surely, the consumer should not have to pay that exorbitant price for tomatoes? We should have a horticultural industry which is self-sufficient. At present we are importing Italian lettuce, Dutch cabbage, German beetroot and onions from Israel and all are being sold in our supermarkets and greengrocer shops throughout the country. Previous administrations allowed the grass to grow around the doors of the Erin Foods factory in Skibbereen. It is shocking to think that a huge vegetable processing factory such as the Erin Foods factory in Skibbereen was left to lie dormant during the past 12 years due to the lack of proper guidance on finance from the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance.
I suggest to the Deputy that he go up to Monaghan where the grass is not growing around the doors of the food processing plants.
All that was needed was for the factory to change its method of processing from one of dehydration to deep freezing.
I am dehydrated.
The powers that be and the people who were in charge at that time could see no further ahead than their noses and they allowed this country to drift back into the position where millions of pounds are being spent on the purchase of vegetables from foreign sources. Agriculture will not develop until such time as it receives its rightful share of the cake and there is a future for agriculture provided it receives its rightful share of the cake and provided we do not embark on making ridiculous cuts such as we have seen during the past two months.
I now want to deal with the cutbacks in health expenditure as this is probably the only opportunity I will get in this session of voicing my disapproval at the savage cuts which have been made by the Minister for Health. The County Hospital in Bantry in south west Cork which is in my own constituency caters for an area which extends from Courtmacsherry to Dursey Island, from Ballinascarty to Mizen Head and from Kilcrohane to Kenmare in south Kerry. In that hospital 35 beds have been closed this week and 12 permanent staff have been laid off. When one considers the area which this hospital covers and the services it has provided to the people of south west Cork and to a portion of south Kerry it is shocking to think that any Minister would authorise the closure of 35 beds and the loss of 12 jobs. Less than 12 months ago the Minister for Health who was then Opposition spokesman for health gave a commitment to the Fianna Fáil organisation in south-west Cork that in Government he would not alone maintain the status quo of the county hospital in Bantry but would upgrade it. Now, within eight weeks of taking office and at the stroke of a pen he has closed 35 beds and put 12 people out of work. The Minister should come clean on this matter. We will not put an end to over-expenditure by closing essential hospital wards. In my constituency there is the district hospital in Clonakilty which is also used as a county home where at night two nurses are in charge of over 250 patients. Existing vacancies were not authorised for filling. This is the only geriatric hospital of any consequence in south-west Cork, serving the same extensive area as Bantry County Hospital. Last Friday we saw the staff and the public, amounting to almost 2,000 people, parading from Clonakilty Hospital down to the square in the town. They handed a petition duly signed by almost 5,000 people to our junior Minister in West Cork. When this happens, it is about time that the Minister responsible woke from his slumbers and took the necessary steps to alleviate the fear of the general public about the closure of wards in these hospitals.
There is a little hospital nearer home to me, the Schull District Hospital, in which the position of cook has been vacant for the past three months. The Southern Health Board, in their wisdom, advertised for a qualified cook and held an interview five weeks ago. Some of the applicants had to travel 85 to 90 miles to attend that interview in Cork city at their own expense. After interviewing over 30 applicants, each applicant last week got a nice letter from the programme manager of the board stating that owing to the lack of funds the job could not be filled. Have this administration sunk to such low depths that they cannot fill a temporary job of cook in a local district hospital? Must they axe that job?
The whole approach to the health problem is a farce. I cannot see any sense in holding interviews and then telling candidates that the post cannot be filled for lack of finance, and by order of the Minister. Surely there must be some other way out of this disastrous position. The formula proposed by the Fine Gael Party that a charge be made on prescriptions was very acceptable to the general public. It is well known that in Great Britain, a country which has made a vast recovery in its economy owing to the discovery of North Sea oil, every prescription is charged at the rate of £3. There was nothing wrong with the Fine Gael plan in the budget which they did not get the opportunity to bring forward. The prescription charge would have been far more acceptable that the charges now being imposed.
It is a shocking state of affairs that a person who is paying his or her share of PRSI contributions, the farmer and the businessman or woman, along with the health charges, must now pay £10 per day for the first ten days' stay in hospital. That is a double imposition on people who can ill afford to pay. Many of these are on the borderline of qualifying for a medical card, being only from £1 to £10 over the qualifying rate, yet they are compelled to pay this new charge. It is outrageous that any Government should have the audacity to do this. A little bit of commonsense should prevail. The Minister should not be so obstinate. He should come clean in the matter. It is never too late to learn. If the Minister was serious about the situation he would allow a debate in the Dáil, a friendly debate during which we could all make our submissions.
Friendly?
We are not going to eat the Minister or attack him. We are men and women of character in this Chamber. I have no doubt that we would talk out our grievances. There is an old saying that two heads are better than one, even if they are only two heads of cabbage. The Minister should grasp the nettle and give Deputies the opportunity to put forward their submissions on what they would like to see happening to rectify the present very serious imbalance vis-á-vis the imposition of the health charges and the curtailment of the health services.
In the election campaign there were great promises from the present Government about what they would do for the building industry. Fianna Fáil promised £200 million during the first week of the election campaign and this figure increased to £500 million in the last week of the election campaign. What has been the result? We have seen no escalation in the building industry. By contrast, there has been a complete decline in the past two months. With the abolition of the housing grants, many small builders who had registered for VAT and income tax with the idea of making a viable living are now felled down for lack of business. These small builders were employing from two to half a dozen people and were contributing by taking those people off the unemployment register. All their hopes for the future have been dashed due to the abolition of the home improvement grants. That remarkable scheme was lauded by everybody and it made a significant contribution to the building industry. Many buildings that were falling into decay were made habitable through that scheme. However, in spite of its great success the Government axed it with one stroke of the pen.
I cannot understand why the Government decided to do away with the £5,000 grant paid to local authority tenants who surrendered their houses in preference for a private house. As a result of that scheme a lot of employment was created in the building industry and the Department of the Environment were spared the need to provide new local authority houses because more secondhand houses were available for new tenants. Young people starting off in life were given an opportunity to procure a home for themselves through that scheme. The Government were short-sighted in doing away with it. The Minister should introduce a new house improvement grant scheme. I am not asking that it be as elaborate as the one that was in operation up to this year. He should also reconsider reintroducing the £5,000 grant scheme. Both schemes would have a big impact on the building industry and would relieve the pressure on the finances of local authorities.
I wonder if the Minister is aware of the effect of the 35 per cent withholding tax on professionals such as civil engineers and quantity surveyors. Those professions give a lot of employment and pay their share of income tax and VAT. It is wrong to saddle them with a further 35 per cent tax. It is an unjust tax. The Minister should have another look at it particularly in relation to those whose tax returns are in order. They should be exempt from that tax.
I abhor the decision to cut the allocation to adult education in view of the fact that many adults avail of the different education programmes financed under that scheme. Adult education courses have proved very attractive and I view a cut in the allocation to that programme as a step in the wrong direction. The decision to reduce the amount under the Teamwork scheme from £70 to £60 per week is a retrograde step. I am sure the Minister can understand how hard it is on young people who are told they will receive £10 less per week under that scheme. We should be trying to encourage our young people instead of cutting their income. Why hit the underprivileged and our young people? If reductions have to be made why not start at the top? Why not start at those who earn between £30,000 and £100,000 per year? My warning to the Minister is, hands off the weaker sections of the community; give our young people a chance to make their way in society. He should not deter the ambitions of our young people who, after all, will be the future parliamentarians.
It is clear that not alone have cuts been made in the allocation to Education but that major surgery has been performed. Many of our national schools, to the shame of many administrations, are in a deplorable state. Some of them are little more than hovels that are unfit for children. One example is the national school at Ballinalee, County Cork, where rats run in and out the doors. Temporary classrooms have had to be erected in the adjoining cemetery because of overcrowding.
I hope the temporary accommodation is not for those in the cemetery.
It is a shocking state of affairs that in this day and age children have to attend class in temporary buildings erected in a graveyard. This week I met a deputation who were crying out for assistance from the Minister for Education. They were told they would have to wait at least another year before they could get it. The money should be found to build the national schools that are badly needed in all counties from Donegal to Galway, Kerry and Cork. I am amazed that national schools have been allowed to deteriorate over the years. The Minister should find the money to relieve the plight of the unfortunate children who are compelled to attend classes in buildings that are in a shocking state.
I understand that the cost of school bus tickets will be increased substantially from September. This will be very trying for poor people. Many of the children who use the school bus services live in remote areas and if their parents have to pay the increased charges they will be unable to afford shoes for their children. There should be some flexibility in the system. I know of children in remote areas who have to walk a mile or a mile and a half to meet the school bus. How can we expect such children to settle down to school work? It would not cost that much more for the bus to travel the extra mile to pick them up. The school bus system is a good system but it should be re-examined and extended where necessary.
In the budget there were huge reductions in the allocations to local authorities. Over £1 million less than last year has been allocated to Cork West County Council for water and sewerage schemes and minor schemes cannot be carried out at all this year. It is shocking that small villages throughout the area which were listed for water and sewerage schemes this year will now be told there is not enough money to carry out the schemes which will be shelved for at least another 12 months. If there is to be growth in the building industry there must be an expansion rather than a curtailment of such schemes and I ask the Minister to have another look at that aspect.
In the budget the tourism allocation has also been reduced by £250,000 this year, yet the Minister for Tourism anticipates a huge improvement in the numbers of tourists visiting this country this year. Let us hope he is right but I doubt that he will be if the allocation is reduced by £250,000.
As a Corkman I welcome the reintroduction of the ferry services between Cork and Swansea thanks to a very nice subvention from the west Cork passage——
And thanks to me who made up the difference in the shortfall you left behind.
We did not leave any shortfall behind us. This was given the green light by our Minister for Finance when in office——
——who failed to provide the money for it in the January Estimate.
We allocated £250,000 from the west Cork passage to this very valuable industry.
Are you not going to thank me for the £650,000 extra that I topped it up with?
The green light was given by our Minister prior to your coming to office.
No, he gave it the amber light. I gave it the green light.
It was there, definitely.
Do not go down that road, P. J. or you will be in trouble.
The Chair will be introducing the red light to stop these interruptions.
If tourism is to survive we must provide appropriate facilities for tourists. Because of lack of money we cannot provide even public conveniences in most of our major resorts. This country is known as the Emerald Isle and let us hope we can keep it as an emerald isle. Tourism will play a very important role in our economy if it is assisted from the Exchequer. Until such time as this is done, it will not thrive or survive. Our prices for drink are higher than in other European countries and in comparison with some European countries our food prices are very high. We will have to make it attractive for tourists to come. We can only do that by getting the industry off the ground. We should make sure it is advertised throughout Europe, throughout America and throughout the world and we must make sure the tourists get good value for their money.
I firmly believe that the fishing industry has been treated as the cinderella industry since the foundation of the State. The allocation for harbours has been reduced by £1.670 million and the allocation to BIM has been reduced by £350,000. According to my calculations the total Vote for fisheries has been reduced by over £2 million.
In my home port of Schull a beautiful pier was constructed during the term of the last Coalition Government. The pier cost almost £1 million but the Government of the day knew it was necessary if the fishermen of south west Cork were to have a future. Thanks to agitation by myself, we made sure that this pier was completed and ready for opening. For the past four years industry in that region has made repeated requests to the Minister and BIM for an up-to-date ice plant to be erected on the pier. The industry will not survive unless such a facility is provided. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that money is provided for this plant which would benefit the fishermen in the area.
I am completely dismayed at the lack of interest shown by successive Ministers in this industry. Men with courage and ability applied to BIM for grants to build boats but were told that in no circumstances could any grants be given. Our fishermen can place boat-building orders in Norway and they get a 30 per cent rebate from the Norwegian Government, yet they cannot be given £1 in grant aid by our Government.
If the industry is to survive it is essential that a proper policy be framed by the Government. It is a very valuable industry. There are many part-time fishermen along the western seaboard. More money should be channelled into this industry and the mariculture area should be expanded. There is vast potential for job creation in areas such as fisheries, agriculture and tourism. We have not been blessed with any goldmines or oil wells but this industry is a natural resource and the Minister should ensure it gets its rightful share of the national cake.
We have the best fishing grounds and fish in the world. However, we have seen those grounds ravaged and raped by continental trawlers while we sat idly by. I hope the Minister will listen to the contributions made by various speakers and ensure that our industries are adequately catered for.
As long as Ministers play their part in bringing the country back on the right road — as we tried to do for the past four years with very little co-operation—they will be assured of our co-operation but if they stray one yard off the right path then we will oppose them vehemently.
Aontaíonn formhór na tráchtairí gur cáináisnéis dian í seo os ár gcomhair. Bhí ar an Rialtas na bearta crua seo a thógáil chun eacnamaíocht na tíre a réiteach i ndiaidh ceithre bhliain de dhrochriarachán an Rialtais roimhe. Sna blianta sin mhéadaigh ár bhfiacha nái-siúnta faoi dhó go £24 billiún punt. De bharr na bhfadhbanna a bhaineann le fiacha ollmhóra mar sin bhí orainn cloí len a lán de na socruithe sna Meastacháin a foillsíodh i mí Eanáir. Ach rinneamar beart de réir ár mbriathar agus shoc-raíomar ar na gníomhartha atá ag teas-táil chun muinín a chothú sa tír seo arís. Léiríonn an laghdú sna rátaí úis atá ag dul ar aghaidh anois go bhfuil an polasaí ceart againn. Rachaidh an laghdú seo chun tairbhe an eacnamaíocht ar fad, tionsclaíocht, talmhaíocht, tionscal na tógála agus chuile dhuine sa tír.
We are acting now to restore confidence, vitality and growth to the economy. Confidence will be restored by the constructive and decisive action of the Government in tackling the major economic problems. The measures in the budget, although tough for some sectors, are a significant step towards putting the economic and financial affairs of the State in order and thereby creating the conditions in which economic and social development can take place.
As confidence is restored, there will be an upsurge in economic activity which will lead to a reduction in unemployment. It is not necessary for me to dwell on the great improvement this will be in terms of the self-respect and social well-being of many individuals and families in all parts of our country. Everybody in this House understands that. Dealing with this problem in an effective way, as we are now doing will, at the same time, be an enormous step to easing our economic problems. For every 1,000 people gaining employment there will be a saving of several million pounds on social welfare with the added benefits of increasing income tax and PRSI receipts. Once confidence is restored — a process which has now begun — and the shackles of high interest rates begin to be removed, there will be a favourable impact on the level of demand in the economy. This is particularly important for the building industry which I will come back to later.
There is enormous potential in this country waiting to be tapped and the Government are providing the leadership needed to do just that over the next few years. The start has been made. It will not be easy but there is no alternative. I am pleased the last speaker who spoke offered his support in this regard.
Provided you do not stray off the right path.
We must have growth in the economy to enable us to afford the services which all sides of the House wish to provide for the people. The Government's Programme for National Recovery sets out the key objectives for restoring growth. The budget, through its impact on the public finances, is the first step in making a sound foundation for the implementation of the Programme for National Recovery. I am glad to see that the financial markets are reacting positively to the direction set by the Government in the budget. A first step has been taken with a small reduction in interest rates and I am sure further reductions will follow shortly.
The budget is framed on three fundamental principles, namely, the restoration of the economy by better management, a greater emphasis on productive economic activity and the progressive reduction of borrowing and the cost of servicing the national debt. The Government used the short time available to them to formulate this budget to advance these three principles, and in a way which shows our concern for and our strong commitment to those people depending on the State for support — the most vulnerable section of our society.
We have brought forward the 3 per cent increase in social welfare and health payments from November to July. That must be welcomed. We have overturned the former Government's decision to shorten the duration of entitlement to unemployment benefit from 15 to 12 months. The saving involved in such a shortening would have been achieved at the expense of some of the most dependent people in our community; we are convinced it would have been wrong to do this. In addition we have discarded the proposal to extend the waiting days for disability benefit from three to six days and the imposition of waiting days on transfer to disability benefit from maternity allowance. We have also reduced the former Government's proposed requirement of paid contributions for entended entitlement to disability benefit from 260 days to 208 days. On the health side, the Government have reversed the uncaring decision of the previous Government to impose prescription charges on medical card holders and to abolish the dispensing doctors' scheme. Even if difficult economic circumstances we have shown an understanding and caring attitude to the weak in society.
You will have a great number of prescriptions for £1,000.
The Minister, without interruption.
There is no doubt that the greatest problem facing the country today, agreed by all parties in the House, is unemployment. It is incumbent on the Government and all sectors of the economy to take whatever measures are necessary to reverse the present very high levels of unemployment. In this regard, the budget makes a start. There are many positive and worthwhile features in the budget in this respect, to which commentators have not given sufficient attention. For instance, recruitment to the social employment scheme is to be increased by 1,500 in the current year to bring total participation in the scheme to over 10,000; extra funds are being provided for a new decentralisation programme, an extra 1,000 hectares will be planted in the State forestry programme; a committee have been established to advise on and to undertake the necessary arrangements for the establishment of a major international financial services centre on the Custom House Docks Site in Dublin and VAT is being reduced from 25 to 10 per cent on photographic services, waste disposal services and driving instruction. There are other positive measures outlined in the Principal Features of the Budget such as the increase in the rate of payment under the family income supplement scheme from 33? per cent to 50 per cent from July.
One would not expect everybody to agree with everything in the budget but the general public reaction has been that the tough measures are necessary in the present circumstances. The budget has demonstrated a sense of realism and will be seen as such. I will now go on to deal in more detail with the budget in so far as its affects my areas of responsibility as Minister for the Environment.
Against the background of the present serious state of the public finances and the severe measures it has been necessary to take, the funds for which I have responsibility as Minister for the Environment, while less that I would have wished, indicate the clear appreciation of the Government of the importance of local government and of the importance in the national as well as the local scene of the services entrusted to local authorities. The amount allocated to me for current expenditure is nearly £596 million — an increase of £15 million on the 1986 outturn. On the capital side, although some reductions were unavoidable, the 1987 allocation is £616 million. These are vast sums when money is so scarce, interest rates are so high and when so much of the funds has to be borrowed. These provisions will allow the Department and local authorities to continue to provide essential services such as housing, roads, sanitary services, fire and emergency services etc. during 1987.
One of the aims of this budget is to reduce interest rates. The Government have already given a lead by taking 1.5 per cent off the interest rate they charge to local authorities on capital borrowings from the local loans fund for local authority housing, sanitary services, fire services, libraries, swimming pools and other environmental projects. As a result local authorities will have less by way of loan charges to pay this year. The reduction is in line with the Government's budgetary strategy and will give a lead for further reductions in the commercial banks' and building societies' lending rates.
We are all aware that local authority current expenditure is financed to a significant extent by the Exchequer, through a series of grants for specific services and through the rate support grants. This subvention represents a significant item of public expenditure and in present circumstances, when all areas of Government spending are subject to serve restraints, it must be accepted that local government have to bear their share of the measures necessary to restore the public finances. Notwithstanding the small reduction in this year's rate support grants, the total of all the Exchequer grants and subsidies to local authorities this year will amount to about £800 million compared with £765 million in 1986 —an increase of £35 million or nearly 5 per cent. In addition local authorities will benefit from the recent fall in bank and Exchequer interest rates both in regard to their revenue and capital programmes. In fact, further savings can be anticipated as interest rates fall further.
In considering the level of the rate support grant, account must be taken of a number of measures which influence the real level of resources available to local authorities. First, the farm tax will be abolished with effect from 1987. I am pleased to say that the Government have provided £13 million extra in place of the amount originally deducted from the grant provision in lieu of anticipated farm tax receipts. Secondly, I am continuing the practice of allowing authorities to deploy more effectively certain internal resources for revenue purposes.
Such as?
The sale of urban houses and such things. The Deputy would not understand.
Thirdly, local authorities will no longer be liable to contribute to the cost of maintenance of arterial drainage schemes, thereby relieving many of them of a particularly onerous annual expenditure demand, a demand over which they had no control whatever and which could and did cause serious distortion particularly to county councils in the west.
The abolition of the farm tax means a significant improvement in local authority finances. The £13 million extra we have provided in the budget will be fully paid by the Exchequer within the year in place of the estimated potential income from the farm tax in respect of 1987. Local authorities will not have the collection difficulties, delays, uncertainty about yield and the costs associated with the farm tax; they will get the £13 million as part of the normal monthly instalments of the rate support grants. I would emphasise that the farm tax liability incurred in relation to 1986 still applies and that local authorities will continue to pursue the full collection of tax for that year. The local authorities have adequate powers to enforce collection and I have little doubt, now that they can concentrate their efforts on clearing up these arrears, that they will be able to increase their cash flow in 1987 by the full amount of money outstanding, over £4.5 million. They lost out on it in 1986 through the non-collection of the tax before the end of the year. I could never see the sense of the farm tax. Now that I have had the opportunity as Minister for the Environment of looking more closely at it, I am satisfied that it was totally unsuitable as a source of local finance apart from any question of its suitability as a form of tax in its own right. I am glad that we have been able to terminate it now before it had been allowed to develop to a stage where it would have seriously distorted both our taxation and the local authorities' financial system. I hope very shortly to bring in legislation which will end it apart, of course, from preserving what is needed for collection of the arrears.
Heretofore, the cost of maintaining completed arterial drainage works fell on county councils. This was an onerous demand which fell disproportionately heavily on some local authorities, notably in the west. With effect from 1987, the financing of arterial drainage is the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. As a result, local authorities will save about £5 million this year in respect of this one item alone.
Finally, before I leave the general question of local authority finance, I would like to refer briefly to recent media reports about charges for services. The position is this: of the 87 local authorities which strike rates, all but nine of them levied charges for domestic services within their areas last year. Up to yesterday, a total of 56 local authorities had adopted their estimates for 1987 and the others have meetings scheduled for the next couple of weeks. In the case of each local authority it is entirely a matter for themselves to decide whether or not to have these charges. This decision is one for the elected councils to make having regard to their financial circumstances. There is no question of me, or the city or county manager for that matter, forcing the issue. Each council will have to decide, in the best democratic traditions, whether to cut back their services, effect savings on their existing services, or make use of all sources of revenue available to them.
In so far as the future financing of local authorities is concerned, we have said that we wish to install a system which will give much greater predictability to local authority financing. The present position is unsatisfactory where local authorities were only recently notified of their allocations for 1987. However, this was unavoidable this year as, in the short space of time available, it was not possible to devise an alternative system. I intend therefore, to look at the whole question later this year. In that context of course, the question of charges for services in the future can then be considered.
On 7 April, I made a substantive statement to the House on the position I faced in the housing grants area when I took up office as Minister for the Environment and on the necessary decisions taken by the Government in the context of the 1987 budget. If we are to tackle our serious economic problems, housing as one of the largest public expenditure programmes could not be exempted from the disciplines which had to be imposed on public expenditure. In line with tough measures taken in other expenditure areas and because of the large build-up of liabilities on these schemes the Government were forced to terminate three out of the four main housing grant schemes operated by my Department.
Shame on them.
The Government simply had to bring the situation under control which had been allowed to get out of control by the previous administration. As I said on 7 April, when the position is brought under control, when those entitled and waiting to be paid grants have been paid, I will be able to look at the nature, extent and type of assistance that is necessary, appropriate, and affordable in the area of improvements to the existing private housing stock.
Will the Minister honour existing applications?
Even after allowing for the decision announced in the budget the total capital provision for housing, at £388 million, is 1 per cent up on the 1986 outturn. Total Government current and capital expenditure on housing will amount to £629 million this year.
I would also like to assure Deputies that the detailed manner in which arrangements for the termination of the grants schemes as being applied by my Department ensures that persons who had entered into binding commitments are not, as was alleged, being left without the grant assistance on which they based their decisions to build or buy their homes.
That means every application in the Minister's Department.
Would the Deputy please desist from interrupting.
In the case of house improvements, applicants could, of course, under the terms of the scheme enter into commitments only after the house had been inspected by my Department. All work carried out subsequent to inspection will qualify for grant assistance in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of contributing to the budget debate at this time when the overall strategy behind the tough decisions taken by the Government is beginning to show positive results. Since budget day, as I have already said, there has been a steady downward trend in interest rates and, as Deputies are aware, all the indications are that this trend will continue.
I am glad that the building societies for their part are anxious to make their contribution to the reduction in interest rates generally. I am hoping, therefore, that in the near future the societies will be in a position to start reducing their mortgage interest rates. A reduction in mortgage rates would be a great boost to the economy in general and of particular benefit to hard-pressed mortgage holders, to house purchasers and to the building industry. I look forward to an early commitment by the building societies to effect what everybody expects will be a really decent reduction in interest rates in the short term.
As regards the local authority housing programme, Deputies are aware that there has been a large reduction in the numbers of applicants on local authority waiting lists in recent years due to a number of different factors. However, the reduction in the numbers on waiting lists does not fully reflect the progress that has been made in meeting social housing needs. Small households and single persons who previously had little prospect of local authority housing and little incentive to apply for housing are now being housed on a routine basis, particularly by the larger urban authorities. Over 50 per cent of Dublin Corporation's waiting list now consists of two person households, largely comprising an unmarried mother and one child. In many areas, accommodation is available virtually on demand and the majority of those on waiting lists for any length of time are there solely because they are seeking accommodation in specific areas.
The Government's commitment to local authority housing will continue but must be discharged within the budgetary limitations which the present economic difficulties dictate. The resources of the taxpayer are finite and capital allocations for local authority housing will only be allocated after a careful consideration of the level of need in each area. On the basis of the capital provision made in the budget, I expect that 3,500 dwellings will be completed this year.
The considerable public investment in local authority housing is often not fully appreciated. In addition to the capital provided each year for new house building the repayments by local authorities on their borrowings for the provision of houses for letting are also fully subsidised by the State. For this purpose a sum of £206.7 million has been provided in this year's Estimate, representing an increase of 18 per cent on last year's outturn of £175.6 million. In addition to this subsidy local authorities will, this year, subsidise the maintenance and management of local authority housing to the sum of £20 million.
The remedial works scheme was introduced in recognition of the need to assist local authorities to carry out major repair works to certain categories of their rented houses, thereby preventing the premature loss of dwellings from the housing stock. The aim of the scheme is to enable authorities to bring these run-down estates up to modern standards as far as possible. It is only in this context that subsidised capital may be made available. I must emphasise that the scheme is not a substitute for the necessary ongoing house maintenance programme which is the responsibility of housing authorities.
Arising from the Government review of the capital requirements of the local authority housing programme, remedial works to a number of schemes where the work has not in fact yet commenced will be rescheduled. The schemes already in progress will continue and will be financed.
Local authorities can reduce the need for expensive remedial works schemes by the proper and enlightened maintenance and management of their housing estates. I would encourage local authorities to consider ways of better housing management, including tenant consultation and participation, so that problems of anti-social behaviour and vandalism can be tackled before an estate gets to the stage of requiring expensive remedial work.
The problem of travelling families on the roadside throughout the country gives great cause for concern. The provision of adequate and suitable accommodation for these families is a matter which local authorities have been asked to deal with as part of their housing programme. The main thrust of the provision of accommodation has been housing in local authority housing estates. In some cases, however, travellers desire to be housed among their own and their needs are met by providing group housing schemes. For those travellers who do not wish to settle down serviced caravan parks are provided.
Last year ten caravan parks were completed and a further 18 are at either construction or planning stage. An increase in the rate of the provision of serviced caravan parks will help travellers to improve their lifestyle, provide them with reasonable security and thus let them take the first steps to settle down and integrate into the community, resulting in improved environmental conditions for travellers and the settled community as a whole. The overall provision for local authority housing in 1987 will allow a continuing high level of progress on this priority element of the programme.
The availability of an adequate supply of mortgage finance at reasonable rates of interest is of great importance to individuals wishing to purchase a house and to the success of the housing programme as a whole. Building societies will continue to be a major source of such finance. The financial sector is experiencing a period of rapid change. Building societies must face the challenge that this change brings. It is my intention to introduce major new legislation governing societies to enable them to operate within a framework suited to the modern financial services environment, while guarding their traditional and paramount role as providers of housing finance. This legislation will be far more wide-ranging than that enacted by the previous Government and it will be drawn up as quickly as possible and in consultation with the societies. This process of consultation has already begun through the special working party on building society legislation which I set up following my initial meetings with the Irish Building Societies' Association and representatives of the other societies. The more immediate task of the working party is to resolve the genuine problems that have arisen in the interpretation and implementation of the Building Society Regulations, 1987. Following detailed examination of these problems the working party will be advising me as to any amendments of the regulations that may be necessary. I understand the working party have been making good progress in regard to this issue.
I am glad a normal and beneficial working relationship has now been re-established between my Department and the societies. Constructive dialogue is, of course, vital in devising and implementing the new legislative and administrative arrangements now necessary for the development of the building society movement.
In so far as the construction industry as a whole is concerned, there is now a broad consensus on the realities of the current marketplace and a realisation that the Government — that is the tax-payer — cannot continue indefinitely to finance 70 per cent of any industry's output. In the medium to long term the industry can only prosper in line with an improvement in overall economic performance. The measures taken by the Government in this budget are the only alternatives to a continuing economic decline.
In framing this year's budget, the Government have, as I have indicated, faced a very serious situation regarding commitments arising under the various grants schemes operating in the private residential sector. The measures which the Government have taken are a necessary step towards restoring economic confidence, lowering interest rates and ultimately reducing taxation. The results to date in terms of lowering interest rates and the prospect of lower rates to come show clearly that the direction chosen by the Government in the budget is the correct one. It is only by reducing public expenditure, and the consequential upward pressure on interest rates and on taxation, that we can provide conditions under which the decline in private investment — investment which is crucial to the future prosperity of the construction industry — can be reversed.
This is a suitable time to say that in the immediate future it is my intention to set up the construction industry board which was promised by the Fianna Fáil Party before the election. The membership will be drawn from the industry itself and from representatives of employers, trade unions, the professions and the manufacturing sector, together with a small number from the Department and departmental nominees.
Another State body.
I will see to it that this board will have the goodwill and support of all interested parties. It is a necessary measure which will provide us with the kind of information we need to plan ahead properly. I will see that their terms of reference will seek to monitor and assess the trends in the construction industry, will encourage the development and improve the efficiency, competitiveness and effectiveness of the industry.
Another talking shop.
It will seek to minimise fluctuations in output and maximise export opportunities. It will assess the impact of various Government incentives so that we can get the best value for money.
Will it get the promised £200 million?
It will recommend options for the elimination of the black economy operations, which must attract the last speaker very much. It will deal with co-ordination of public and private capital in the investment patterns and it will seek to make efficient use of the manpower resources of that huge industry. It will certainly provide opportunities for new products and product development and it will also provide opportunities for specialised high added-value products which can be exported. I am not talking about establishing a talking shop. This board will publish reports and will make recommendations. It will be action-orientated and will provide an assessment of the state of the industry. It is being sought by the industry itself.
Will it get the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
It will provide adequate information, which has not been available, on the performance of the construction industry during the past decade. This board is being sought, and eagerly awaited, by the industry and by representatives of the industry who came to see me by way of deputation on a number of occasions in the past month. Considering the State's involvement in the financing of the industry, we must be in a position to formulate clear guidelines which will give the maximum return for the taxpayers' money that is being expended. I intend to announce further details of this matter in the next few weeks and I expect it will be warmly welcomed by all sides of the House.
I would now like to turn to the roads area and to the prospects for 1987. We are all aware of the importance of a good road network to the Irish economy. In particular, the international haulier must have a trouble-free access route from the point of production to the ports and other major distribution points. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the day-to-day domestic transport needs of the agricultural community. We need to provide a network capable of meeting our growing traffic demands while, at the same time, ensuring that the capital investment of previous years is protected by an adequate maintenance programme. Many major improvements have been brought about in the roads area in recent years, most notably since the publication in 1979 of the first centrally co-ordinated road plan.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that despite the financial difficulties facing the economy the Government have been able to provide £169.95 million for road grants and local improvements scheme allocations this year. This provision will enable local authorities to undertake a programme of improvement works on national, regional and county roads as well as a programme of maintenance works on national and non-national main roads. The provision will also permit the acceleration of the programme of works on non-public roads in the less favoured areas of the west of Ireland, through the local improvements scheme.
Because of the need to review the various financial provisions in the context of my Department's overall Estimates for 1987 and the budgetary situation generally, I had no option but to withdraw the notification of the grant allocations issued by the previous Government at the end of January. Details of the revised allocations issued to all local authorities on 9 April.
Why did the Minister withdraw them?
To make the changes which the Deputy knows are to the benefit of the people in County Kerry and in County Cork.
I hope the Minister will provide a few miles of national primary roads in west Cork.
Prior to issuing the new allocations, my Department examined how the 1987 provision could best be utilised, how we could allocate funds to the areas of greatest need while, at the same time, having due regard to value for money and employment considerations. I am particularly concerned with the deterioration which has taken place in the county road network in recent years.
In the past two decades.
Most particularly in the past five years. These roads represent 80 per cent of the total mileage of public roads and carry a little over a quarter of total traffic. Many of those roads were constructed to meet the needs of a more leisurely era and are now crumbling under the weight of the bulk milk tankers, lorries and school buses which they now have to carry. I am also concerned about the condition of our regional roads.
I, therefore, decided to increase the amount provided by the previous Government for strengthening work on the county roads from £10 million to £15 million — this will be £10 million higher than that spent in 1986. This grant may also be applied, at the discretion of the local authorities, to the strengthening of regional roads. In apportioning this grant my predecessor used a formula based on local authorities income from domestic water charges. This formula was clearly inequitable, bearing no relationship whatsoever to actual road needs. Accordingly, I decided that the grants would be allocated pro rata with the mileages of county roads in each county. The condition of county and regional roads has deteriorated to an alarming degree over the past four years——
Twenty-four years.
——with adverse publicity regarding potholes and collapsing road structures. An improvement in the condition of our rural roads will help in the drive to promote Ireland as an attractive place to visit and this will assist in the drive to promote tourism. The problem has to be addressed and what is proposed is a quick response over a short time scale to deal with the matter.
I am pleased to note from the coverage in local newspapers that county councils have appreciated the extra money I have given them to deal with their county roads. There was a need for this money. Deputy Sheehan should be the first to acknowledge that because of the increased allocation his county has got for roads that are crumbling in his district and which can now be addressed by this quick response I have made. This has been received gratefully by all county councils and I am pleased that they have seen it in that way.
Will the Minister give us a national primary road in west Cork?
Deputy Sheehan had a very good hearing and I want the same good hearing to be accorded to the Minister without interruption.
I was only asking the Minister——
The Deputy was interrupting and that is disorderly.
I decided also to increase the provision for the local improvements scheme from £2.15 million to £4 million. This scheme has brought enormous benefits over the years to landowners in isolated areas whose holdings had no proper access to a public road. I am pleased that this move was warmly welcomed by all sides on local authorities.
Increased State investment in roads, particularly on the national and major urban roads, has made an important contribution to improvements in road safety in recent years. The annual number of road deaths fell from a peak of 628 in 1978 to 410 in 1985 and to 386 in 1986. This represents a drop of 39 per cent within eight years. The 1986 level was the lowest rate for 20 years, despite the fact that the number of vehicles doubled in the meantime.
Ireland's road death rate per 10,000 population, which stood at 1.96 in 1978, fell to an estimated 1.1 in 1986. The 1986 rate was low relative to other EC member states. These reductions mean that Irish road accident rates generally now compare favourably with those in other European countries.
While our accident rates are falling, we can all agree that even one death or serious injury on the roads is one too many, particularly where the serious consequences could have been avoided by a more responsible attitude on behalf of the road user. I refer in particular to the use of seat belts and the often-repeated advice relating to drinking and driving. I was particulary pleased to note the impact made by the National Road Safety Association's seat belt and drink-driving campaigns during European Road Safety Year, 1986. Let us all make a special effort in this regard in 1987. We should aim to lead by example particularly in our example to young people whose tragic deaths make very poignant reading in our morning newspapers.
Another area of essential infrastructural development is the capital programme for sanitary services which plays a vital role in housing, industrial, tourism and agricultural development.
Since 1980, nearly £600 million has been expended on this programme. This has enabled great strides to be made in providing new and improved piped water and sewerage facilities throughout the country. Of this £600 million about £350 million was spent on water supplies and £250 million on sewerage programmes. A significant part of this latter expenditure has been used to improve the arrangements for the discharge of effluent including, where appropriate, the provision of new or better treatment facilities. This aspect of the programme is of particular value in improving our general environment on which so much of our quality of life depends — a factor which is so important to each of us in our daily lives and which is also important to the success of our efforts to attract not alone tourists but also those interested in coming here to set up industry or other enterprises. It is accepted that there is a need to examine all aspects of public expenditure critically and in this context the time is opportune for a review of the sanitary services programme focussing on the methods of assessing the need for particular schemes. It is most important that scarce financial resources should be channelled within all programmes to the areas where they will achieve most for the benefit of the whole community. An Foras Forbartha have commenced a study of the sanitary services needs of each local authority and, in conjunction with that study, the board will seek to develop a cost-benefit methodology which will be of use to my Department as one of the factors to be taken into account in the assessment of individual schemes. It will be some years before the final results of that whole exercise by An Foras Forbartha will be available but as the work progresses, I expect to get interim reports which of themselves will help me in determining the level of investment which is appropriate and the priority as between different schemes. At this stage I have asked my Department to pay more attention to the justification for each scheme and to ensure that local authorities, in formulating proposals and before commitments are entered into, provide sufficient quantified data as to the nature and the urgency of the need.
The provision of £66 million in 1987 is intended mainly to meet commitments maturing during the year on schemes under construction. Requests for supplementary funding on these schemes will be rigorously examined and will have to be fully justified by the local authorities concerned. In common with other areas of capital spending in my Department, the utmost effort will be made to attract maximum financial assistance from European sources so that the programme can continue to be sustained at its highest appropriate level on the basis of established need.
The Government are committed to securing early redevelopment of the Custom House Docks site and to maximising the impact of this project in terms of job creation and return on investment. I have impressed on all concerned the importance which the Government attach to the project and have asked the authority to expedite the preparation of the planning scheme and to have it ready for submission to me by June for approval. The whole project has exciting potential for the redevelopment of the centre of our capital city.
I announced recently that a Bill will shortly be introduced to allow for future extensions of the Custom House Docks area. The Government believe that extensions of the area are necessary in order to secure the early and satisfactory redevelopment of the existing 27 acre site. As a first step the area will be extended to the middle of the River Liffey to include the adjoining riverside facilities. The potential of the river and quayside for the purpose of communication, recreation, amenity and as a unifying link in the appearance and structural organisation of Dublin city centre will be maximised in the redevelopment plans of the site. Later, the Government will address the lands to the east of the existing area by extending, on a phased basis, the remit of the Custom House Docks Development Authority once development of the existing site is under way.
The former Government allocated £387,000 to meet the current expenditure of the authority. I am satisfied that this amount of money would not be adequate and consequently I have increased it to £600,000 — an increase of £213,000. I am confident that this amount will enable the authority to proceed rapidly with the development of the site. The Government have also allocated a sum of £2 million from non-Exchequer sources for capital expenditure. This will be sufficient to meet the authority's requirements in 1987.
This project presents a unique and exciting opportunity for a really significant development which could reverse the whole pattern of decay in the north inner city area. Considerable interest has been expressed at home and abroad by development consortia and I look forward to work commencing on the site as soon as possible. In this regard the committee established to advise on and to undertake the necessary arrangements for a major International Financial Services Centre in Dublin will identify, in conjunction with the relevant public bodies, an area in the Custom House Docks site suitable for the centre. The establishment of such an influential centre will be an enormous boost to the development of the site and will assist in the task of promoting growth and employment. No effort will be spared to meet the deadlines I have set for this project.
The funding of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission is being suspended and the provision of grants to the commission in 1987 is therefore being limited to £50,000, primarily to meet liabilities already incurred. As the House knows, the Government were obliged to look carefully at the provision for the commission in the light of the severe budgetary constraints facing us. The Government decided that the country could not afford a sum of £3.4 million in 1987 for the activities of the commission.
I am already on record in this House as recognising the importance of Dublin city in a national context and indicating that this Government will do everything possible to enhance the appearance of all parts of the city. In this context, I would remind Deputies that under section 2 of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act, 1986, Dublin Corporation are obliged, in the discharge of their functions, to have regard to the special importance in the national interest of the metropolitan central area and to have regard to the need to ensure a high environmental standard and a high standard of civic amenity and civic design in the area. I will be asking the corporation to ensure that these obligations in relation to the metropolitan central area are fully discharged and to bring forward and implement quickly the plans and projects on which they are working and which would enhance the area.
In the Adjournment debate on Tuesday, 24 March 1987, I have already commented on the action of the previous administration in allocating a total of £6 million in amenity grants the day before going out of office. Any responsible administration would have postponed the making of specific grant allocations until such time as the new Government had an opportunity to assess the budgetary situation. In addition, it is now clear that in making the allocations the previous Minister did not take due account of the merits of individual projects, or of the needs of different areas, and that there was an unfair geographical imbalance in the distribution of the funds available. Besides, it has also emerged that unofficial allocations were made by Ministers before the general election and these have been causing great confusion in the areas affected. The Government have decided, in view of the budgetary situation, to terminate this scheme and to provide a reduced allocation in 1987 to enable it to be wound up. I hope to notify local authorities of their grants for this year at an early stage, hopefully in the next few weeks.
It will be discontinued after this year.
You are reading language correctly for once; terminate means finish.
A valuable scheme axed completely.
Our Programme for National Recovery stressed the need for tighter legislation to control air and marine pollution. It particularly mentioned the desirability of greater curbs on industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide and of making lead free petrol more readily available on the Irish market. The fact that the Air Pollution Bill, 1986, was the first piece of legislation before this Dáil is a declaration of our commitment in this regard. I am determined that the good air quality enjoyed throughout most of the country should be maintained.
We will have to live on fresh air and cold water in future.
Unfortunately parts of the country have air pollution problems. Last winter's experience with smoke levels in Dublin has caused concern. The Bill will allow problems such as this to be addressed in a manner that is both cost effective and environmentally sound and I hope to implement it as quickly as possible.
The central aim of European Year of the Environment which runs from 21 March 1987 to 20 March 1988 is to bring about a change in attitudes so that the fundamental importance of the protection of the environment will not only be accepted but will be built into the planning and implementation of policies and actions in all areas of economic and social activity.
What about Sellafield?
I am pleased to say that increased funding has been provided this year to enable the Environment Awareness Bureau to participate fully in promoting the objectives of the European Year of the Environment and in organising appropriate activities during the year. The efforts of the bureau in this exercise deserve widespread support and I am hopeful that the activities they initiate will command that support from all concerned.
The tourism measures recently announced by the Government will result in a substantial increase in the number of visitors coming to our shores this year. We all have a part to play in ensuring they like what they see and decide to return, encouraging their friends to do likewise. It is imperative that the natural beauty of our countryside is not spoiled by the blight of litter and indiscriminate dumping of rubbish. While national pride should be sufficient to end this problem, we should also remember that a situation would also have £10 million annually on street cleaning alone. Local authorities and voluntary bodies gave the lead last week through their efforts in Clean-Up Ireland Week and it is now a matter for each of us as citizens to avoid littering in public places and to use our influence to prevent others from doing so.
Is í an cháináisnéis seo an chéad chéim chun ord agus eagar a chur ar chúrsaí airgeadais poiblíionas go mbeidh an Rialtas in ann ár gclár a chur i gcrích. Tá mé cinnte go gcothófaidh sí iontaoibh arís in eacnamaíocht na tíre agus de bharr sin go dtiocfaidh laghdú eile ar rátaí úis. Mar a deireann an seanfhocal "is ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine". Tá sé soiléir ó sin go gcaithfimid uilig comhoib-riú chun ár n-aidhmeanna a bhaint amach.
I welcome in general the Principal Features of the Budget introduced by the Government. I agree with the general targets set down for the public finances and with the provision on public sector pay and with most of the spending cuts. I find they are a welcome conversion for this new Government.
I am delighted the Government have done a major U-turn on economic policy and have thrown out their Fianna Fáil election slogan, "There is a better way". Even though the Government have done a 90º U-turn on every position they held during the election campaign and in their four years in Opposition, I welcome that fact because it is in the interests of the country. While I agree with the general parameters set by the Government in the budget, I deplore the way they are implementing some of their decisions, not the targets themselves.
I find it extraordinary that the Government have allowed the budget debate to continue to this late stage without allowing a full debate on health until the Progressive Democrats put down a Private Members' motion last night. This has meant that the health services have been thrown into chaos. All the vested interests, including hospitals, health boards and consultants, have been allowed to dictate health policy instead of the Minister for Health, the person statutorily responsible for providing the service. I welcome the fact that through the Progressive Democrats' motion we are to have a debate on this subject next week. One would never think from all the chaos, including threats of suicide, hospital closures and deaths, being heard outside this House, that the main function of health policy is to look after patients, and not to prop up health authorities and other parts of the bureaucratic system.
As I said, I am very disappointed the Government have allowed things to come to this pitch without intervening and explaining their priorities for the health services. I feel the Government are implementing some of their decisions very badly. This year, for example, there is an increase of £13 million in the allocation to the various health boards and the voluntary hospitals, but I condemn the Minister for Health for not coming to this House and setting down the priorities for which he is statutorily responsible. As a member of this Government he should provide a health service in the public interest.
While I agree with the budget in general, there are a few aspects I would like to raise as a member of the Progressive Democrats. One is the deployment of resources in the health budget without leading to any increase in the Estimate. This week I tried to raise a question on the future of Monkstown Hospital, which is in my constituency. The request was turned down by the Ceann Comhairle's Office on the grounds that the Minister was not going to make any detailed statement on individual hospitals at the present time. Given that the Dáil was not allowed to have a debate on the general health cutbacks and that demands for a debate on specific health cuts are not allowed, I am left with no alternative but to draw this matter to the Minister's attention in this debate.
Monkstown Hospital is an acute general hospital and it has reached crisis point largely because the Department of Health will not tell the board the plans they have for the hospital. The board deferred a decision on the closure of the hospital on Wednesday of last week hoping to get more information from the Department about their plans for the hospital. That meeting took place late last week with the Department's officials who effectively told the hospital board they could interpret the Minister's cut in their allocation as they wished. The board came away with the general impression that Monkstown Hospital was not very high on the Department's list of priorities. That is disgraceful behaviour. Monkstown Hospital lives largely within its budget. Its allocation has been cut by 22 per cent this year, but this is not the point I am complaining about. The hospital board say they could and would be prepared to live on a 10 per cent reduction in their budget this year.
The point I am making is that this hospital which has served the community very well for over 150 years, sought meetings with the Department to obtain information and direction from the Department of Health and the Department of Labour about their future but they have been left floundering without getting a proper idea of where they will fit into the health services in my constituency in the future. I appeal to the Minister to come clean and to tell the board of this hospital, and the boards of many other hospitals, where they stand. He should come into this House and set down his policy priorities.
There is no other way we can find out the future of various hospitals without raising it on this budget debate. I want to stress I am not necessarily calling for an increase in the allocation but I am asking the Minister to come before the House and make a public statement reassuring the general public and patients what service he will provide this year. I hope he will be able to do that next week when we are discussing the Progressive Democrats' motion.
Another issue I would like to raise is the Benincasa Special School, Blackrock, County Dublin, where a child care worker is on maternity leave, and there will be no replacement for three or four months. This school, which deals with emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, some of whom are autistic, have personality disorders, are sexually abused, aggressive or mute, should have a medical worker but they have been told this worker will not be available for a three month period. In my view it should be within the bounds of the Department, acting in a responsible way, to deploy workers from another area into a school like that without increasing the overall level of expenditure this year. When there are restraints and cutbacks it is more important than ever that resources are deployed in the way the Minister, as the member of the Government setting down health policy, should dictate. He is the person who is answerable for the public health policy we have this year.
While I have welcomed the budget's financial provisions in a general way, I would like to come to the most disappointing aspect from my point of view. No attempt was made to reform the tax system. In fact, new taxes have been added in an ad hoc way. The land tax is being abolished, and I note in the budget provisions that it will cost £9 million to do so. I very much doubt if the tax brought in much more than that in all the time it has been in existence.
The tax I want to discuss here is the withholding tax. The Progressive Democrats are opposed to the withholding tax on professional fees in its current form and I want to put that on the record. We are not opposed to the idea that the self-employed, like the PAYE workers should be put on a current year basis. If everyone paid tax on a current year basis this would be a significant contribution to tax equity. Our objection to this retention tax derives from the fact that it makes no distinction between legitimate taxpayers, of which there are many, and tax dodgers. It is also a tax on turnover, as the Leader of the Progressive Democrats pointed out on budget night, and not a tax on income or profit.
I recognise that this tax is not particularly objectionable in the case of, say, a sole trader without many overheads. In the case of a barrister, his turnover can be almost equated with income, if one ignores for the moment allowable items such as books, telephones and so on, but it is very different for the large accountant's, architect's or engineer's office, or even smaller ones, with huge overheads, because the net margin of profit in such a case might often be as low as 5 per cent. The withholding tax in that type of case would be a tax on turnover. That is why the tax is particularly objectionable and has caused major concern to many smaller companies. There have been threats of layoffs in some companies. Protective notice has been issued and I fear that this tax, if implemented in the way in which the Minister has proposed, will lead to a number of layoffs and produce the opposite effect to that which the Minister intends.
The withholding tax is defective in many ways. We have yet to see how it will apply to partnerships, for example. If 35 per cent is paid at source on professional fees for State work, how will this affect the individual tax liability of each partner? The Minister may say this will be sorted out in time by the Revenue Commissioners but part of the reasons for the tax system being so unfair is that the Revenue Commissioners have too much power and discretion. It is well known that they operate concessions or discretionary codes of practice for certain types of taxpayers, as witnessed by the recent VAT write off. This is often not only illegal but unfair because similarly placed taxpayers are not treated equally. We also feel that, if a body such as the Revenue Commissioners are given a blank cheque by this House, the tendency to overdraw and to abuse this power will often be irresistible.
Quite apart from anything else, the hardship clauses which provide for interim rebates are extremely restrictive. They do not, for example, apply to firms not receiving more than 50 per cent of their income from the State sector or to those which have a current dispute with the Revenue Commissioners. I call on the Minister for Finance to propose amendments to the withholding tax in the Finance Bill to cover a widening of the ground for the interim rebate, the introduction of a tax clearance system placed on a proper statutory footing instead of the informal administrative practice which it now is and to exempt firms currently up to date with their payments from the retention tax.
The Minister should also introduce amendments looking for strict time limits for repayments of tax withheld, the payment of interest to the taxpayer where these limits are exceeded and clarification of the operation of this tax as far as it affects the individual members in a partnership. I warn the Minister that the tax may have some unwelcome effects as many firms will refuse to do business with the State on these terms unless they are paid in advance, or perhaps they will charge extra because of the cost of this tax. One must be doubtful as to whether the tax will raise the revenue which the Minister says it will. We will be on our guard in case any slippage from the strict budgetary targets which the Minister correctly set in his budget speech occurs.
I welcome the provisions in the budget and I hope the Government will stick to their main financial targets, otherwise the country, politically and economically, will be in very serious trouble.
Listening to Opposition speakers over the past number of weeks, it has become increasingly apparent that they are attempting to judge the Government after only a few short months in office. They have ignored the fact that over a period of more than four years the Coalition failed the people and left the country in its present state.
It is not the first crisis which a Fianna Fáil Government have had to face or the first one which they have had to solve. The Government are trying to restore confidence to the people and to put public finances in order. I come from a part of the country where the recession began long before it happened nationally. Migration and emigration escalated in south Kerry at an alarming rate over the past four years and, as sure as night follows day, south Kerry and the west said goodbye to their youth.
I am not saying that the situation is any better in other parts of the country but my area had already suffered enough. South west Kerry declined in population by over 3,000 people since 1951 and although the population in most other parts of the county and country increased throughout the seventies, south west Kerry continued to lose its population. The seventies was a period of resurgence in rural population numbers generally but only four of the south west Kerry district electoral divisions managed to show an increase in this time. By 1980 the population of south west Kerry had fallen to 7,317 persons. Births in the region for 1970-80 were 1,204 but deaths totalled 1,269. This alarming drop in population has not stabilised.
I clearly recall that the people of south west Kerry did not look hopelessly at their predicament. They formed organisations and met Deputy Spring and Deputy Dukes but they might as well have gone to see Genghis Khan for all the notice that was taken of them. When political decisions are made, very often the weaker sections of the community suffer. In the past four years I can safely say that even if it was not a cake which was being divided, the crumbs fell very unevenly. The budget is an attempt to correct public finances and, while times are extremely difficult, it is a foundation stone on which we can build a sound economy, give hope to our people and work to our youth.
There are opportunities and possibilities all around us as was evidenced by the Minister Deputy Wilson's recent announcement on tourism. I greatly welcome his initiatives and I heartily congratulate him. I know a man living in Killarney who, in co-operation with CIE, attracted hundreds of visitors to south Kerry by offering a weekend with free travel, entertainment and bed and breakfast for £39. Everybody said it could not be done but it was done. In the context of tourism, other possibilities have either been ignored or forgotten. There is a need for a new approach, a new vision, more innovation and a discarding or modification of old moulds and practices and tired policies which have failed.
The Minister has shown that he is willing to take a fresh look at the problem and to adopt a new approach. In this context, I welcome the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill which is a clear indication of the Government's intention to take our national heritage more seriously. It is obvious, throughout the length and breadth of the country, that this aspect of tourism has been ignored. I should like to give a few examples in this regard.
Daniel O'Connell is perhaps the most famous Irishman of all. He is a prominent figure in the pages of all the important works on European history. The ruins of his birthplace stand conspicuously to the east of Caherciveen, County Kerry. A small plaque tells one that this is where he was born but the site is on a dangerous bend so that even if one did happen to see the little sign one could not stop. There is no place to park nearby. In the townland of Castlecove on the Ring of Kerry there stands one of Europe's oldest ring forts, Staigue Fort. The road into it, until recently, was inaccessible. The fort of Leaca na Buaille stands on the north side of the town of Caherciveen. There is no place to park there and there is only a mud path leading into it. There is no sign which tells one that it is even there; yet it is ancient and is of tremendous archaeological and historical importance. There is a ring fort of equal importance to the west of the village of Waterville and there is not even a signpost to tell one where it is.
I am satisfied this is the position all over the country. It would not happen in Cyprus, in Greece or in any developed country. These are national treasures of immense importance, these are natural resources which have been thrown to the wind like confetti. The National Monuments Bill has created an awareness and has begun a process whereby I hope Ireland will become one of Europe's most important archaeological countries.
We are forever striving to march to the forefront of the tourism industry but it cannot be done unless we commence to take our assets seriously and promote them in a new, imaginative and vibrant way. Have Bord Fáilte ever seriously attempted to exploit the resources such as those I have mentioned? Are they advertising on the sidewalks of New York sites of immense historical and archaeological importance, such as O'Connell's birthplace, are they marketing sites of major archaeological importance, such as the Staigue Fort, on the streets of London? If they are, have they ever even once made an approach to the Government in relation to these important places? Is their marketing system all that it might be? I do not believe that it is.
Tourism is a growth industry with the potential to create thousands of jobs. Stagnancy and a lack of aggression in the marketplace will be a moral blow to the tourism industry. I know that the Minister who has shown such tremendous imagination will seek a new aggressive and progressive approach at this crucial time in the history of our little country. He has started the process and those involved in the industry have shown they are willing to back him. Bord Fáilte must follow his lead. At present, about 40,000 people are directly employed in tourism while a further 40,000 are indirectly employed. It is predicted that tourism will grow by 93 per cent between 1985 and 1995. The intensive growth plan, details of which were announced by the Minister, should help to increase our share of the market and halt the slide of recent years. We are beginning to shift away from administration towards promotion even if it does and will mean that certain people will have to be brought, dragging and howling, into the marketplace and out of their swivel chairs where phone calls are made but no tickets are sold.
The Irish fishing industry must rank as the Cinderella of all our industries. In other countries there are six jobs onshore for every one at sea. Primary processing in this country creates only about 1.25 jobs on land for every one at sea. It is clear there must be further processing in consumer products. I do not think you can purchase an Irish processed fishfinger or cod cake for your tea. Therefore, we have to import products such as Captain Birds Eye and John West and all the rest. I would lay any money that the Arabs, for example, would not buy any sand from us. Let us be honest about it. We export our fish for a quick buck to create foreign jobs in foreign lands to benefit foreign economies while our own is falling down around our ears. It would make the barnacles on the rocks in Valentia harbour cry.
The infrastructure of the industry is in a shambles. The most important harbours between Castletownbere and Galway are Valentia and Dingle harbours. The pier in Valentia harbour is falling into the sea and the harbour at Dingle is silted up. I do not think that that would happen anywhere else. The Irish fleet was built and designed for the most part ten years ago for a type of fishing which is becoming obsolete. Six years ago there were 15 boatyards in this country employing between 600 and 700 highly skilled operatives. Today, there are three and only one of these is building boats. That is in Kerry and building on spec. Meanwhile in the British yards business is booming.
In fairness, attempts have been made to improve the position here but there appears to be no overall plan to modernise. Meanwhile, the Spaniards, the French and the Danes are raping our waters to benefit their own economies. There are complaints that some boats are interfering with the equipment of Irish fishermen at sea, stifling their attempts to diversify. It reminds me of a man who comes into a restaurant uninvited, who puts on a meal for himself, eats it and goes away without washing up. In Valentia harbour there were more people working in the fishing industry in the forties than there are today. Why is that? What has happened and who is to blame?
There must be a new look at the situation. We must develop and diversify in order to meet changing demands and circumstances. We have 25 per cent of EC fisheries but our quota is only 4.6 per cent. Every possible effort must be made to increase this quota. Catch patterns in the non-quota species must be built up now to ensure that a pattern of fishing activity is established in advance of any new quota restrictions which may be imposed at a later date, if the EC introduce quotas for these species.
The need to accelerate the development of the aquaculture sector is now a matter of some urgency. There are hundreds of applications and these must be advanced so that that development can get underway. Above all, there must be fresh initiatives, new ideas, less bureaucracy and more imagination. The industry has been ignored for years — perhaps, a better word would be blackguarded — and that is a great tragedy when one considers the huge employment potential in the catching of fish, in aquaculture and processing sectors of the industry and in its allied, associated, related and ancillary industries. Unless industries such as the fishing industry are treated seriously, we cannot hope to provide employment for our young people and they will continue to go away in the boats which should be fishing in order to provide employment on land and at sea.
Another resource with tremendous potential is forestry. There is a ready market available for our trees. This country has ideal climatic conditions for the growth of trees. Again, we must adopt a new aggressive approach to utilise this industry for the benefit of our people and economy instead of others. However, what is happening in the forestry industry is the same as that which is happening in the fishing industry; the primary product is exported creating jobs in foreign lands to benefit foreign economies and foreign peoples. In the contest of the recession that approach is no longer good enough. That approach has to change. The Minister for Tourism, Deputy Wilson, has led the way. He has shown he is prepared to take new initiatives in relation to the tourism industry. I am completely confident that other Ministers will follow that lead in relation to our other natural resources in order to create jobs for our people in these hard times.
I believe, and have always believed, that there are civil servants, not all but some, in responsible positions in our public sector who lack imagination and have about as much aggression and vision as Winnie the Pooh. Some of these people do not want change and that is no longer good enough — not now. Some of these people must carry a major share of the blame for the chaotic state of the resources which God gave us in order to survive. A major initiative must be undertaken in the horticultural industry. It is nothing short of laughable to see so many foreign vegetables being sold in our shops and supermarkets. Why is this? No economy or people can hope to be vibrant when they do not even sow their own land.
There is a new kind of famine sweeping the land — it is the lack of native grown vegetables and potatoes. The Dutch, the Cypriots and the rest are only too willing to help us out at a price. One of the saddest statements made last year was when a manager of a leading hotel here said he could not get a constant supply of native vegetables and was therefore left with no alternative but to buy them from abroad. At the same time, land was and is lying idle all over the country. We should not be importing vegetables; we should be exporting them. We should be supplying. Leadership is required in this area also. I have no doubt that this leadership will be forthcoming. If the House will excuse the pun, what is needed for the horticulture industry is a carrot, not a stick.
I read with a certain amount of amusement in the newspapers some weeks ago that Deputy Spring went to Lisbon to some conference or other and said there that we were dismantling some of our social services. Of course, it could have been a lot worse. Deputy Mac Giolla could have gone, but instead it was Deputy Spring. That kind of advertising abroad is of no assistance to this country. It serves to show the country in a very poor light. Public representatives and people in important positions should be very loth to criticise this country when they go on foreign trips.
I should like to mention today the position in relation to handicapped people. When the public finances are sorted out — and sorted out they will be — it is crucially important that the Government will ensure sheltered employment for our handicapped people. They do not have a voice of their own. The Rehabilitation Institute of Ireland have done wonderful work for them over the years. They have shown what can be done. Indeed, that organisation are to be greatly congratulated on their outstanding contribution to these people over the years. Developed countries should always provide sheltered employment for their handicapped people because in a civilised and developed society it is right that they should have equal opportunities.
It is fair to congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, on his statement here this afternoon that he hoped for a decent reduction in building society rates. This will be a tremendous boost to our construction industry and it is proof, if proof were needed, that advances are being made by the Government in recessionary and difficult times. It is extremely important that mortgage rates and interest rates generally should come down. This is beginning to happen after a few short months. The last Government could not make any decisions because they were like the cart pulling away from the horse. Neither seemed to know which way the other was going. Because Fianna Fáil have given back stability and hope to our people and because they are seen to be making a genuine effort, they are appreciated by the people.
No Government should be judged by the major Opposition party or any other Opposition party or after a few months in office. Moreover, when one considers the situation brought about in four years by the exact same critics, that kind of hypocrisy is no longer tolerated by the people. It is no longer accepted because everybody knows this Government are the only Government who can succeed. If they should fail, no other Government coming after them will succeed. At this crucial time I ask certain Opposition Members to cut out the fooling, and carping criticisms and the nonsense when they know what they did to our people during four terrible years.
I conclude by saying that pivotal to Government policy at this time and in the future must be the welfare of our young people. The young are aware that tired policies and tired practices which have failed and have been seen to fail will not suffice any longer. It is crucially important that young people should not be forced on to emigration boats or to walk up and down the streets of Camden Town or Kilburn High Road looking for work at a time when this country exports its own God given resources. If we can stop that and achieve that much, more will have been achieved in a short time than was achieved in four years of Coalition Government. I can safely say that there is hope among our young people now. We must do everything possible to find them work at home. Young people are no longer willing to accept statements from pious Opposition politicians who in recent months were acting the donkey in the House, who thought they were race horses, and were not willing to accept that the people suffered enough in the past four years. The Government's policies will bring growth back into the economy and will help our young people.
I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the budget debate. The budget was the most unique one we have had in that no budget before started out with such a degree of consensus. The strange thing about that consensus in relation to the overriding need for tough policies is that unanimity quickly dissipates as soon as the measures proposed impinge on any interest group or area of activity. It is very much a question of, not me Lord and, certainly, not now. It is accepted that it is very hard to get unanimity or consensus on economic issues and as one listens to experts, pundits and commentators projecting and prognosticating in the media one can well sympathise with the longing of the American President who said, "Oh for a one-handed economist". In fairness to the Government one must admit that the timespan for variation or change or the room for amendment between the coming to power of the Government and the formulation and presentation of the budget afforded them very little opportunity to do things imaginatively.
We are supposed to have had a tough budget, the first major step towards a foundation for economic recovery but if one looks at the figures can one say that it will solve our problems, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, that there is a plan, proposal or projection that will begin a scheme of operation that will in five or ten years time mean that we have met definite targets? Is there anything to indicate that within a number of years we will have got ourselves out of the economic morass we are in? In other words, will we have eliminated our dependence on foreign borrowing? Will we have done something substantial about our unemployment problem? Will we have eliminated budget deficiting?
Deputy Power some weeks ago ridiculed Deputy Kenny for the serious way he treated this debate. Deputy Power said that the position we now find ourselves in was nothing other than a storm in a teacup. How can any Member make such an analysis of our current economic position? We have a current deficit and borrowing requirement of £1,200 million and £2,028 million respectively. These are frightening figures and we must face realistically the problem created by them rather than dismissing it in a derisory fashion. One must add to those figures our accumulated national debt. One wonders what the founders of the State would say about the sorry mess their country is in. Our nation is wallowing in the gloom of our own inability to extricate ourselves from our self-created problems. We are not able to extricate ourselves from the grasp of the foreign concerns to whom we owe £24 million. The number unemployed is 250,000 and yet there is a feebleness to resolve to work out a national consensus that will enable self-sacrificing and self-conditioning to take place to lift us out of this mess and bring about our own salvation.
The significant achievements of the previous Government have been played down and ridiucled by Government speakers and the media. I should like to point to a number of significant successes of that administration. We had the historic achievement of the New Ireland Forum, the bringing together of the constitutional Nationalist parties in the North and the South. From that emerged the Anglo-Irish Agreement which gave the first tangible hope to the Nationalist community in the North. Thankfully, that agreement is being built on by the present Government. We also had a reasonably successful six months presidency of the EC. During that time the Leader of our party, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, played a major role in the admission of Spain and Portugal to the Community. There were considerable achievements on the economic front. In our four years in Government — Deputy O'Donoghue did not acknowledge this — we succeeded in reducing inflation from 22 per cent to 3 per cent and getting interest rates on local authority house loans down from 12.5 per cent to 10 per cent. We succeeded in getting mortgage rates down to an all time low. I have no doubt, as the Minister has stated, that the present rate is temporary and will be reduced within a short time. We succeeded for four years in succession, and for the first time since the end of the Second World War, in having a surplus in our balance of payments.
Those achievements were momentous, historic and significant. In my view history will show that the principal achievement of the last Government was that they were the first administration that sobered the nation up, that brought people to a sense of reality, made them face up to their responsibilities and brought about national conditioning that tough action needed to be taken and that the days of the gravy train were over, That conditioning process has only begun and, judging by the hostile reaction from the various sectors that have been hit by the budget, we have a long way to go. I do not think we can go back to the profligacy of the past and the ridiculous method of managing. We cannot return to the level of borrowing, to the level of economic luxury we could not afford.
I welcome the general thrust of the budget which is to curb public spending, scale down our dependence on foreign borrowing and reduce interest rates, but one must ask if the budget has created even one spark to ignite the engine that will get the necessary propulsion for growth. Our worst fears in regard to that are borne out by today's three daily newspapers which carry the prediction in banner headlines, of the Central Bank that the growth rate this year will be a mere one half of 1 per cent. That will not be sufficient to achieve the targets set by the Minister for Finance in the budget.
All one has to do is look at the building sector, the sector which traditionally has been a high density job area. It has been ravaged by unemployment. It is an area crying out for resuscitation, an area fuelled by the most expensive one liner at the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis in which it was promised that £200 million would be pumped into the industry to revive it.
What has happened? A retrospective guillotine has been applied to the most imaginative scheme introduced in this House for a long period, the house improvement grant scheme. People who yearned to carry out minor and major fabric works on their houses or to erect much needed extensions because of overcrowding were, without prior notice, prevented from doing so by the removal of the grant scheme. This was a very imaginative scheme which was managing to generate wealth in the economy. This scheme gave the lower and middle income groups the chance to carry out much needed repairs. It also coaxed tradesmen out of the black economy in the legitimate expectation that they could expect the scheme to be in operation for a period of time. Those people who were coaxed out of the black economy now find themselves high and dry and are emigrating to Britain. They are disappointed and dismayed.
People in the building and construction industry who traditionally have been the friends of Fianna Fáil both in Government and in Opposition are looking askance at the proposals being put forward. The scheme was costing money but surely between VAT on materials, additional income tax on wages, PRSI, added spending power and so on, this money was being laundered and recycled at an increasing rate so that within a matter of weeks the money spent on the scheme was finding its way back into the economy. I am disappointed that this grant has been terminated and I, too, strongly recommend that the Minister should re-examine this and look at the economic merits of what was in hand. If it is within his financial capability he should have the scheme reintroduced. I appeal especially on behalf of the people whose files were thrown in the backs of inspector's cars for weeks and months and were never inspected because people genuinely believed that this scheme would go on for two or three years.
Our history of deprivation is perhaps one of the main reasons Irish people see as their greatest expression of independence the ownership of their homes. If ever a scheme brought this dream to tangible reality, it was surely the special tenant grant scheme which enabled local authority tenants of two years duration to avail of a £5,000 grant to purchase their own houses. This scheme enabled people in the low income groups to own their own homes as it was coupled with the £2,000 new house grant, the £3,000 mortgage subisdy and a lucrative SDA loan of £21,000 over 30 years at 10 per cent. This scheme was terminated without notice. It was an imaginative scheme that was fuelling the construction industry which was about to take off before it received the sudden crude pinprick which has deflated it to its present state of demoralisation. The Minister would be well advised to have another look at it. If he has another look, the scale of logic will tilt dramatically down on the side of the re-introduction of ths scheme.
I never cease to marvel at the barrenness of imagination of the people who set down guidelines for schemes, guidelines which become sacred cows and which become so rigid and inflexible that no amount of pressure will bring about the necessary flexibility to improve the situation. The current maximum floor area to qualify for a new house grant is 1,346 square feet. If one has a house with that floor area it qualifies for a £2,000 new house grant and, before the Minister rudely intervened, it qualified for a £3,000 mortgage subsidy but if the floor area is even one square inch bigger, one gets nothing. Apart from the principle of introducing grants for larger houses in order to generate more activity, in that that more materials will be bought and more VAT will be paid and it will take longer to build a house, it is ridiculous to set down rigid criteria for all houses whether they are to accommodate one person, two persons or a family of 12 persons. It is time to re-examine the rigidity imposed on the scheme with a view to having some measure of relationship between the size of the family and the statutory minimum floor area.
One of the problems in dealing with a budget is that when a budget is presented it is presented in multi-digit millions and billions of pound figures. Everything is seen globally. Those millions are made up of minute figures from within various segments of Departments either at national or local level. If the finances of any of the Departments were examined and analysed closely I have no doubt that they could be trimmed effectively without imposing the undue hardship about which people are objecting at present. The time for rationalisation is long overdue and no area cries out for rationalisation more than the area of housing. I am thrilled that the Taoiseach saw fit to appoint from my county for the first time ever, a Minister for the Environment. I have heard the Minister, Deputy Flynn, wax lyrically as a member of Mayo County Council on the various measures he would implement when and if he were ever Minister for the Environment. A man who claims to have a monopoly on all things from the moral propriety of the nation to the leaks in the Kowloon Bridge surely should have the necessary vision to introduce measures which would rationalise the housing industry once and for all. If somebody wants to build a house in the Minister's constituency he must apply to Mayo County Council for planning permission and an engineer will come from the planning department at a cost of X number of pence per mile to visit the site. The applicant then applies for an SDA loan and another engineer arrives to see the site and the proposal. When the house is at wall-plate level another engineer arrives and inspects it. When the work is completed a third engineer arrives to examine it so there will already have been four visits made by three different engineers all of whom have been paid to do the same job. At this stage the applicant applies for a new house grant. His application goes to the Department of the Environment and an engineer is dispatched from the Dublin office to examine the proposal and ensure that the work is up to standard and meets the necessary criteria.
Debate adjourned.