The Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, was in possession. The Minister had just about commenced her speech and has some 29 minutes remaining.
Financial Resolutions, 1990. - Financial Resolution No. 9: 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.
——(The Taoiseach.)
As you say, a Cheann Comhairle, I had just commenced prior to Question Time. I will just reiterate the few remarks I had made.
The gross budget allocation for the group of Education Votes is £1,334.229 million. This is an increase of £64.313 million, corresponding to an increase of 5.1 per cent to the provisional 1989 outturn. This allocation corresponds to approximately 6.1 per cent of GNP.
In 1990 it is estimated that almost 20 per cent of the net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services will be spent on education services whereas, in 1986, the corresponding figure was 16.2 per cent. By allocating such a large portion of our limited financial resources to education this Government — and indeed previous Governments — clearly recognised the significant role which the education system plays in the economic, technological and social development of the country. We must ensure that the funds expended are used in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
At primary and post primary levels we were able to increase the capitation grants. As the Minister for Finance said in his Budget Statement the Government are making available an additional £0.9 million to provide a further increase of 5.7 per cent in the capitation grants in primary schools over and above the increase of 10.4 per cent provided in 1989. This increase is well in excess of the rate of inflation and is in accordance with the statement contained in the Programme for Government to the effect that efforts will be made to improve the level of funding for capitation grants as resources become available. Likewise, at post-primary level, there is an additional allocation of £2.1 million providing an increase of 7.1 per cent in the capitation grants payable to secondary schools.
Something which always engenders debate and legitimate representation on the part of all parties is the free school books scheme. I might add that the aid scheme for the provision of school books is intended to assist pupils coming from homes where serious difficulties are being experienced. School principals administer the scheme, have discretion in the selection of pupils and the extent of assistance which may be granted.
In 1989 the book grant for necessitous primary pupils was increased by approximately 17 per cent to £7. This year we are raising it by a further 20 per cent to £8.40. I intend to look at the free books scheme as it is operated at primary and post-primary levels in order to ascertain whether some measure of similarity can be introduced right across the board.
Increased aid for school books, coupled with the £1.096 million allocation I gave in November last for the acquisition of school library books, will ensure that all primary school children will have access to school text books, story books, reference books and so on. The Minister for Finance a few minutes ago, when answering a question about national lottery funds, made the point that there are many demands on lottery funds, all worth while. Nonetheless, I am sure the provision of school library books is one purpose that will meet with the approval of all. This was rendered possible by the £1 million which was divided among the local authorities charged with its allocation throughout the school library system. It also meant that book stocks which had been depleted alarmingly were built up again. In this way, all pupils will be encouraged and motivated to develop their reading and learning skills.
In the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 this Government — and previous Governments also — provided £500,000 to fund a programme of educational measures for schools in disadvantaged areas. Primary schools participating in this programme received special grants for home-school-community liaison initiatives for the purchase of teaching aids and equipment and extra capitation grants. Additional teaching posts were also authorised in primary schools in disadvantaged areas. There were 95 additional teaching posts authorised to make up the gap between scheme A and scheme B for disadvantaged schools. This £500,000 which was provided in the mid-eighties by the then Minister, Mrs. Hussey, has now been trebled to £1.5 million and I intend to announce details of how we will be spending that money. We will be discussing this matter with the relevant interests and we are already drawing up plans in that regard.
The Education Estimates make provision for the reduction at primary level in the pupil-teacher ratio from 27.6:1 at present to 26.7:1 in accordance with the agreement made with the Central Review Committee. This will mean 250 additional teachers in primary schools from next September. The Government are committed to a continuing review of the pupil-teacher ratios at primary and post-primary levels in consultation with the Central Review Committee.
The adult literacy and community education scheme, a very worthwhile scheme, was initiated in 1985 as part of the Building on Reality programme. Since then it has operated under the aegis of the VECs who provide literacy and community education programmes free of charge or at a nominal cost to adults. The literacy schemes, as distinct from the community schemes, are free, as indeed they should be, for people who have no basic skills whatsoever. With the community schemes, depending on the circumstances, no fee, or a small fee, is charged. In 1989 I increased the allocation for the adult literacy and community education scheme by 25 per cent to £500,000 and this year we have doubled it to £1 million, again because of a recognition of the need and also because it is International Literacy Year. We are now considering how we will disperse that money in the best possible way.
Curriculum development is ongoing in my Department and indeed the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has been appointed to advise me and the Department with regard to developments in that respect. The junior certificate has been introduced in all post-primary schools, doing away with the iniquity of the division between the pupils who took the group certificate and those who took the intermediate certificate. Levels of skills of students will be assessed. Special emphasis has been placed on the implementation of new syllabi in modern languages and the development of oral proficiency has been fostered and encouraged. Recently the NCCA submitted their recommendations regarding the actual examination and assessment in respect of the new junior certificate and I will consider that after consultation with all the interests involved. Under the aegis of the NCCA, the Primary Curriculum Review Body have almost completed their comprehensive review. That review, as well as that carried out by Mr. Tom Murphy, will be issued within the next few months and both will have a major impact on the nineties and beyond as regards primary education.
As we move towards the magical year — although we do not hear too much about it now — 1992, it is not Irish industry and business alone that face challenges and opportunities. Schools, colleges and all those involved in education must also confront the many challenges. Educational curricula and training programmes must continue to be reviewed, revised and developed and our young people's abilities must also be developed. Training programmes must give them skills in order to enable them to obtain employment in a world that is changing rapidly. There are many challenges facing educators. It will be necessary to continue to avail fully of EC sponsored national and transnational programmes in research and education, such as ERASMUS, COMETT, PETRA and other schemes which enable young people, mostly at third level, to travel between various countries and to receive training and educational opportunities.
Later this year during our Presidency of the EC I will be hosting a conference on the LINGUA programme which is designed to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages. I am glad this is one of the first initiatives which has got off the ground. Under this programme EC funding will be provided to assist pupil exchanges and to provide opportunities for foreign language students and teachers to stay for a period in the country whose language they are studying or teaching. The total EC budget for the first phase of the programme is £154 million. It certainly will have a major impact on how we teach and how we learn other languages.
In the examination marking system the House will be aware that we have been making extensive changes and planning programmes. The present grading system used for the public examinations, where each of the existing A, B, C and D grades cover a range of 15 percentage points has been criticised. One of the main criticisms is that the system is not providing sufficient discrimination for the purpose of selection. I have established a committee which have already made submissions to me in this regard. This new scheme will be in train for the leaving certificate of 1992 and onwards.
Discussions have been held with third level institutions on their admission policies and I am pleased that from next year a much simpler system will be operated whereby all applications for third level programmes in VEC colleges will be made to the Central Applications Office and all offers will be made through the CAO, as is currently the situation, for university degree programmes. I have arranged that the new system will be partly implemented this year with offers of places to students being co-ordinated by the CAO.
For technical and administration reasons applications for admission to courses this year must be made to the individual VEC colleges. Also, the practice in a limited number of colleges of requiring applicants to attend a college for the purpose of receiving an offer will be discontinued and there will be a single acceptance date for all offers. This will mean that between now and 1992 much of the trauma and sheer difficulty of deciphering a lot of the procedures of the entry system will be made somewhat easier and less stressful for young people. I want to thank the various colleges and universities who have participated quite openly and cheerfully in all of these changes, despite the fact that in some cases their bailwick was being invaded in the cause of having a simpler system.
University authorities and VEC colleges are currently considering proposals for a uniform policy in relation to a common points entry scheme for degree level programmes. All these reforms, together with the decision by the National University of Ireland to abolish the matriculation examination from 1993 onwards, will help to simplify the admission process to third level education. It will remove much of the confusion and stress on pupils as I have said.
The gross allocations for third level non-capital expenditure in 1990 is £257.443 million, which represents an increase of almost 8.6 per cent on the 1989 provisional outturn. In recent years there have been significant developments in the third level education sector. Outputs of well-qualified graduates have substantially increased and there have been significant gains in productivity. Participation in third level education has increased considerably in recent years and this trend is likely to continue. Student numbers are projected to increase by 10,000 approximately over the next decade.
The rapid advances being made in science and technology, and particularly in information technology, mean that for continued economic growth we must ensure that professional and vocational education programmes constantly adapt and change to reflect the needs and demands of the time.
A working group representative of my Department, the Department of Finance, the HEA and the universities was established in 1989 to review current mechanisms and controls for university funding and to submit recommendations, inter alia, on how to maximise the intake of students into third level institutions. Based on the recommendations of this working group, who met in October and issued their findings in the first week in December, I am providing an additional £300,000 to meet the 1990 recurrent costs associated with a new scheme to increase third level students by 1,200 over three years, as and from 1990, and a further £350,000 as an initial payment towards a fund which is being created to meet the need in specialised areas.
In our efforts to develop and reform higher vocational and professional programmes, we will be supported by the EC Structural Funds. Two important initiatives have been developed in the current academic year, the higher technical and business skills programme in the VEC colleges and the advanced technical skills programme in the universities.
The HTBS programme enables students to have their fees remitted and to receive a non-means tested allowance while attending ab initio and one-year “add on” diploma programmes in a number of specialised areas. Trainees who are following courses in VEC colleges in electronics, science, computing, business, commerce, engineering construction etc. now have their fees remitted and receive allowances. During the period of the programme for industrial development it is estimated that a total of some 21,400 students will be trained in the HTBS programme at a cost of £92 million EC aid towards the cost of the programme will be £60 million approximately, the balance being from national funds.
The ATS programmes provide opportunities to graduates to attend specific vocationally oriented post-graduate courses of one year's duration in certain specialised areas which will contribute to sectoral development objectives. Courses are provided in our universities in such areas as engineering, computing, applied science, food science, technology, marketing and management sciences. It is planned that some 21,500 graduates will be trained on the ATS programme at a total cost of £37.6 million during the period 1990-93. EC aid for the programmes will total £24.4 million.
The programme for industrial development also provides for the development and expansion of the middle level technician and the middle level retraining programmes. The primary objective of these programmes is to provide persons with relevant technician and commercial skills and special emphasis will be placed on the applications and potential uses of new technology in Irish industrial and commercial enterprises. It is estimated that 62,005 trainees will benefit from attending these middle level programmes at a cost of £184 million — of which £120 million approximately will be received in aid from the EC.
A notable feature of the work of the third level colleges in recent years is the growing level of interaction between each college. Industrial liaison can and does provide research and development assistance in a range of specialisms that can promote economic growth and expansion.
The expertise of the highly qualified staff of the colleges can be of benefit to new industries and enterprises which are in the process of being set up as well as to established industries and commercial firms.
Enterprises which are only starting can be offered technical assistance in areas such as development and testing of prototypes, materials selection, draughting patenting and production documentation, market surveys and feasibility studies, plant layout, advice on applications of the new information and communication technologies, etc.
Established industries and business firms can avail of the colleges' facilities and expertise in areas such as staff training and skills upgrading, testing and evaluation of new technologies and materials, product development and quality control, market surveys, marketing strategies, etc.
Through these interactions between the third level education section and the industrial and commercial sectors significant mutual benefits are generated. Higher education institutions become more aware of the skills and competencies required by modern enterprises and can ensure that courses offered to their students are of relevance to today's needs. They become more aware of the recurrent education and training needs of qualified personnel employed in industry and can better design updating education and training programmes.
The developments which I have outlined in relation to the EC supported programmes will further foster and promote the development of these constructive industry/college links. In addition, work is proceeding in my Department on the preparation of legislation which is designed to give greater operational autonomy to RTCs within the framework of the VEC system. This will also encourage better and more effective co-operation between colleges and industry. I would like Deputy Allen to convey to his colleague, Deputy John Bruton, that far from dragging my heels on this legislation about which he questions me frequently in the House, I am consulting with all the various interests. The legislation will allow the regional colleges and the VEC third level colleges to operate with much greater autonomy. It will allow them to do research and development on a statutory basis and to interact with industry, make money and use it in further developmental programmes, while under the aegis of the VEC which will remain the parent body for the colleges. When the legislation is brought forward, by and large the views of the people in the system who have vast experience in the third level VEC sector will have been taken into account.
I have a note of all that, Minister.
Perhaps the Deputy would convey that to Deputy Bruton. I am very excited about that legislation which will enable the colleges which have been dynamic institutions, to show their mettle. They have been doing a lot of this work anyway in an ad hoc but fruitful way, but this legislation will enable them to work in a more constructive, positive, legislative framework, allowing them to operate competently and confidently. I have provided £4 million extra for third level capital programmes over the £15.15 million allocated in the Abridged Estimates Volume. The 1990 allocation therefore is £19.15 million which is an increase of more than 55 per cent on the 1989 provisional outturn. A sum of £3 million is being provided to initiate a programme of small capital works associated with development plans to increase the student intake by 1,200 as and from 1990 in the HEA sector. A total of £1.5 million is provided for capital equipment to assist the efforts of the universities to expand their research and development capabilities in support of the needs of Irish industry and to produce graduates who are highly qualified and skilled in modern technological and scientific processes and methods.
The 1990 capital allocation is intended to enhance the capability of the third level education sector to assist and support Irish industrial enterprises in their efforts to bridge the technological gap that exists between them and their more advanced European counterparts.
Funds will be available for the new regional technical college in Tallaght, which will be fully operational in two years' time, for rationalisation, improvement and capacity enhancement programmes in the regional technical colleges and for the provision of new facilities in certain third level institutions.
Improved facilities will be provided for the College of Catering in Dublin and the development of commerce and marketing facilities on the Bishop Street site for the City of Dublin VEC.
I intend also to make funding available for preliminary work to be undertaken in relation to a number of new developments in the HEA sector, including a science and technology facility for Maynooth College, a computer science facility for University College, Galway, and facilities for the National MicroElectronics Centre in University College, Cork.
In case speakers criticise me for not mentioning various areas, what I have endeavoured to do in my budget contribution is to deal with extra measures which have been announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget last week. The debate on the Estimates which will take place in May or June will cover every aspect of education. Here I have just highlighted the extra measures announced in the budget. That does not take from the overall provision for all levels of education.
The Estimates debate and other education debates are occasions for philosophical discussion as well as for discussion on the economy as it relates to education. There have often been outstanding contributions on education in these debates from all sides of the House because education is a topic with which everybody is concerned. Lest there be criticism that this debate is not philosophical, I see this as purely a monitoring exercise relating to the extra measures included in the budget for education. In the weeks and months ahead there will be opportunities, particularly in view of the legislation which I will introduce and in view of the submssions on the major reviews on primary education and other measures which I hope the House have an opportunity to debate, to debate the whole meaning of education, what it can contribute to the lives of our people, and the need for ongoing education and debate on education.
The Exchequer borrowing requirement in 1986 was at a high rate of 13.6 per cent of GNP and the current budget deficit was then at an all time high rate of 8.6 per cent. As we know, it went down to 2.4 per cent of GNP in 1989 and the current budget deficit is 1.3 per cent of GNP. However, it is still too large and the remaining underlying thrust of policy must be to keep public finances under control and to keep to the path on which we have started.
The budgetary measures and stategies announced by the Minister for Finance will foster continued economic growth and will provide incentives for private sector investment. In 1990 there will be increased emphasis on generating employment and job creation. The programme of the Commission of the European Comunities for the completion of the internal market will greatly assist the Government in this respect.
I have initiated significant reform measures in recent times in all areas of the education system. These measures have been taken, not only for valid educational reasons, but also to promote economic growth and development. I am confident that the measures will result in a more equitable, efficient and effective education system and will provide our young people with the skills and competencies which are necessary for them to acquire in order to have full and satisfying careers in a knowledge-intensive society. Education will also help a person to be confident and at peace with themselves and, therefore, better able to face the world, no matter what the future may bring. Education helps people to relate better to others and it is to the credit of all Governments that they have always placed great emphasis on that underlying, philosophical reason for education, coupled with it economic goals.
Deputy Allen rose.
I am calling Deputy Blaney.
I have been sitting here all day and I wish to raise some very urgent matters relating to the flooding in Cork. I thought I would have an opportunity to do this during the budget debate but it seems that I will be squeezed out until next week.
The Chair is sensitive to the position of all Deputies but Deputy Allen will appreciate that there is a formula in relation to all debates which has worked, generally speaking, to the advantage of debates. It is based on the numerical strength of parties and as a result Deputy Allen's party gets two speakers as against all other Opposition speakers. Two members of his party, Deputy McGrath and Deputy Browne, have already spoken and the next Opposition spokesperson to be called is Deputy Blaney.
I understand that but I am frustrated.
We all get frustrated at times, Deputy. I call on Deputy Blaney.
I did not intend to speak on education but there was such an informative dissertation from the Minister for Education that I thought for a moment — when I dozed off and woke up again — that she was speaking on the Department of Education Estimates.
I was still speaking.
Despite the shortage of time for discussing the budget it is only fair to say that I notice a slight slackening of the strings which have almost strangled us in recent years.
I welcome the much needed improvements to primary and third level schools, universities and the Dublin Catering College but vocational schools are not getting the same kind of treatment. Will the Minister look further at this area? I know it is parochial to speak of one's own county but why should I talk about any other county? I am aware of the problems in my county because I have been a chairman of the vocational education committee for a considerable number of years. We are bursting at the seams because the numbers attending vocational schools is totally against the alleged national trend, which is downwards. I am not blaming any Department for 14 years of neglect during which nothing was built in Donegal from the early seventies into the eighties. Since then there has been a rash of building and big capital outlay but, as there had not been any building for many years, we are still short of schools. I ask the Minister to have a sympathetic look at many of our demands over recent years. We appreciate what we have but the numbers attending vocational schools are rising, unlike the rest of the country. Using the same yardstick for every county can create anomalies, which is the case in my county.
An upward surge is expected in tourism and I see that the Irish Hotels Federation intend to advertise to try to attract some of our trained people back. However, we have very few training institutions in the country and while I am glad that the Dublin School of Catering received special mention today the only residential school in the country — in Killybegs — was not mentioned. We often mentioned it to the Minister——
I had a lovely meal there.
This college is supplying the answer to a crying need and its numbers will be doubled and doubled again over the next four or five years if the tourist boom materialises. I ask the Minister and the Government to boost their output by extending and expanding the college in Killybegs and indeed any other college of that nature, whether it is a day or residential school.
I make an impassioned plea to the Minister not to give greater autonomy to the RTCs, so that they can do a better job. I was chairman of my RTC in its formative years from 1970 to 1974 and for the past four years. I know what I am talking about because my committee and I spend days — not hours — every month trying to get through to the Department the manner in which we can increase the value of the regional technical colleges in the development of industry, agriculture, fisheries and so on. However, we have to contend with the dead hand of the Department. It is not the lack of autonomy but a lack of delegation by the Department to the management boards of the colleges to do their job that causes the problem. I implore the Minister to realise that these RTCs are tiny infants on the educational scene, that they have not yet reached their fully formed stage and will not do so for many years to come. It is no use giving them a principal and staff and telling them to run it better. At present the local community run it through the local vocational committee. To talk about more autonomy under the aegis of the VECs is a lot of nonsense. It is a form of words used when discussing autonomy with those of us who are objecting. That autonomy, which we are given to understand is coming, will not be for the betterment of those colleges, their students or the community they were supposed to serve.
If one could wipe out our debt, our unemployment and emigration and look at the budget and how it would be received in normal times, if we will ever have them again, one could regard it as a nice tidy operation giving a little to everybody but not giving a great deal to anybody — giving two and taking back one. It is a fairly well spread operation and contains points of merit. However, having listened to the Minister's speech and read it later, one realises that our national debt of £25 billion was given scant attention.
Referring to unemployment the Minister told us of the downward trend but within one week that figure had shown an upward trend of 3,000, that is, about 233,000 or 17 per cent of the workforce. Unquestionably, another 250,000 of our workforce are scattered throughout the world and they left Ireland in the last five years. If one puts the two figures together one is talking about 34 or 35 per cent of the workforce being unemployed. If one applied them to the blight spots in the west of Ireland, parts of Dublin city and other large urban areas, one would find that if we had our emigrants home we would be talking about 50 per cent or more of the workforce being unemployed. Yet, the budget which has been welcomed by some people did not deal with the sad fact that we are still £25 billion in debt.
That national debt commenced in 1972, although some people attribute it to 1973. I tabled questions on today's Order Paper about the national debt but I have not received replies to them and, therefore, I do not have the accurate figure. However, my recollection is that we started to use the oil crisis as a reason for budgeting for a deficit in 1972 and continued that up to 1975. The crisis was gradually disappearing but we were borrowing more and more each year. For the 1977 election campaign we truly launched ourselves into what was a succession of elections by auction. In fact, since the sixties we have not had an election; we have had auctions with the contending parties offering the people all the goodies that they would have to pay for. The result is that we have continued to borrow. Between 1972 and 1977 we borrowed £6 million for ordinary housekeeping purposes. From 1977 to 1981 that figure rose to £12 billion. From 1981 to 1987 it more than doubled to £25 billion, and that was to run the house. We did not provide anything that would be to our benefit in the future.
I am all for borrowing, and I wish we had borrowed that money for capital and other development, but to borrow it in order to run the country was a scandal. It was not the practice and it never happened in the history of the State until the seventies. We did not have deliberate budgeting for a deficit until then. Now we are weighted down by that debt. We can trot out all the figures we like about the £25 billion being a lesser percentage of GNP than it was last year or the year before but the national debt will remain at £25 billion and there are fewer people to finance that debt through their taxes. More people are unemployed and we have to maintain them in some form. The loss of 250,000 people, educated and trained, was great. If we put that figure against the £25 billion we could not estimate what those people would be worth at a minimum in the coldest of calculation.
We have gained nothing in the last three years of cuts. We have lost and are still losing. We can clap ourselves on the back and say that our currency has been improving against other currencies by 6 per cent, but at what cost? Are we to continue to export our young people, the future of our country, and to permit our dole queues to lengthen to 250,000? Is that what we describe as progress or good housekeeping? Is that the imagination that the new form of Coalition Government were promising us? It is utter madness, and represents a cheek on the part of the Government and the main parties In Opposition. We should remember that Fine Gael have been claiming that the policies Fianna Fáil boast about, that have brought about the restructuring of our economy, were stolen from them. Despite their criticism of the budget Fine Gael applaud what the Government are doing. In fact, they claim to be the authors of the rectitude imposed on us since 1987. They are all in this and they were all involved in the borrowing of £25 billion from 1972 to 1989. That money has gone down the drain and 250,000 have left the country. Can any person in the House or outside afford to boast about those statistics?
There is no way there is any future for the country while we continue to export our trained young people and are unable to employ most of those who are coming off the belt annually. There is no future for us. There was a lot of talk about Structural Funds last year and before that. We got a bellyfull of that talk in the run up to the last election and the figure of £900 billion was trotted out. I challenged that figure and suggested that we would be lucky if we got one third of it. It was never on the cards that we would get much more than one third of it because the Structural Fund lays down that one third be provided by the EC, one third by the national Government and that there must be one third of an input by private enterprise and entrepreneurs. The £900 billion shrank to £3.7 billion and we are told that that £3.7 billion will do more for us than the £900 billion would have done one year ago. There is no talk of improving our roads, our infrastructure, our ports or our airports before the single market in 1992. We will be as far from the centre of the market then as we are now. While it will be an asset to have better roads, ports and airports we will not be able to wipe out the geographical disadvantage from which we and others living in peripheral areas suffer. It would have been far better and of long-term benefit to our Government, particularly at this time of the Irish Presidency, to have put in place the only means of securing our future in the Single European Market, the improvement of our roads, and the use of the Structural Funds to the best of our ability by seeking to get transport into the proper perspective. Unless we get freight equalisation, and it is not impossible, we cannot compete on the markets, in the heart of Europe. Because of the distance to our export markets because of the smallness of our population and our home market to make a worthwhile profit a manufacturer will export practically 100 per cent of his products. Likewise, because of the paucity of indigenous raw materials, most of what we need has got to be brought great distances and we have to pay through the nose for it in transport costs; then we add the cost of manufacturing the goods being exported. Even if we paved our roads with gold is there any possibility that our manufacturers will be able to compete with the multinational manufacturing giants based in the heart of the market, with the raw materials all round them? We do not have a hope and anybody who says otherwise and who talks about the great opportunties for 1992 is codding themselves.
It would be far better if we devoted our energies to try to get something worthwhile done to make us competitive for the future rather than blowing our horns about the opportunities that are to come. We should never have signed the Single Act. We should never have put it to a referendum until we had renegotiated our position in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and freight equalisation. But, no, we could not get it done quickly enough, it was the big thing of the future, and, it is still being peddled as such. The stark truth is that it could spell doom for most of this country and the denuding of the west and other rural areas will merely be accelerated after 1992 rather than what the Government tell us, that 1992 will make all the difference and that the opportunities will be there. It will be up to the people to make the effort.
I reckon the Irish people are capable of making as good an effort as any other people in Europe or outside it, but unless they are on a level pitch we will be second class or third class citizens and since our young people will not put up with that, the exodus will continue. In the year 2000 and beyond we will be denuded of our young population, denuded of our producing population and in the end we will be back in the Pale with the rest of Ireland — the playground for the wealthy members of the Community and elsewhere. It is a grim picture that people do not want to see but there is more truth in it than there is in the statement that 1992 is the year of opportunity. None of that is dealt with in the budget or by any of the speakers who have contributed since then.
We are not being told the stark realities; we are being given rosy pictures about how well we are doing, how our finances have been brought into line, how we are keeping house and doing it well. We are doing it well but we are not counting the cost. It looks good, it appears to be good and abroad we appear to be great people. We project ourselves as having things on hand, as having cut down on expenditure and capital development but we have cut down on building houses where there is a great need even at this stage. As I have said in this House previously, if, in the future there is a return to prosperity and an increase in jobs our people will not have a roof over their heads. You cannot stop building unless you are satisfied that the society is dying. I would take that as a corollary.
I remember Dublin Corporation, of which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle may have been a member, at the time of our first real depression in the 1955-60 period. At that time Dublin Corporation solemnly believed and stated that they did not need any more houses in Dublin because there were 1,500 vacant houses and 45,000 tenants. By 1960 what was happening? No land was bought, no planning was done, no building was done and no provision was made for the future; then peole were killed on the streets of Dublin because houses fell on them.
We learned a lesson from the depression of the sixties. We never lessened our efforts to build houses and, in fact, there were more starts in 1967 than there were in 1964. We have lost all sense of proportion since then. In my local authority where 1,100 houses are needed, even in the denuded population in Donegal, only 50 starts were sanctioned last year. Is it the Government's belief that our people, particularly those on the western seaboard, have no future whatsoever? One does not stop building houses unless one is satisfied that the population is dying. We have stopped building houses, we have stopped encouraging the building of houses, and our population will die.
The Minister for Finance had an opportunity to assist the Border counties with the few bob he had floating about — it would appear to have come as manna from Heaven — because we controlled our finances and got things in order. He has not given one thought to the Border countries because a succession of Ministers have increased excise duties on two commodities — petroleum and liquor and put prices totally askew between North and South.
There is not a petrol filling station within miles south of the line from Louth until you reach the Foyle and all the small garages have disappeared. Many of the pubs along that route could not be given away even if you tried. Unfortunately many of their later owners and their present owners are bankrupt. I am aware of two people who have spent most of the last two years receiving psychiatric treatment, and even if they were out in the morning there would be nothing for them but the dole. These are people who never found themselves in the position of having to accept money they did not earn.
The money that has been frittered around doing little good here and there could have been used to reduce excise duty. I can tell the Minister that if he had reduced the duty substantially on drink and petroleum he would have ensured that smuggling was no longer attractive and the Exchequer would not suffer the loss of one penny. These products have been smuggled across the Border in tankers and juggernauts for many years because the difference in excise duty has made it worthwhile.
The Border counties are a sort of no man's land, like the Gaza Strip. We are still paying £300 million to £400 million a year to maintain that Border, money we have not got. There is no mention of any retrenchment there. Why not? We cannot afford to maintain the Border, apart from not liking it. Why do we not rectify that financial tangle? If we are all so concerned about reserving the Border for our good friends in Britain, and Mrs. Thatcher in particular, let us be open and honest about it and ask them what jobs they want us to do to maintain this Border and then give them a price for doing it. At least that would be above board and it would not beggar this country and annoy many of our population who do not have the same outlook as our Government of today or our Government of yesterday.
These are a few of the things that need to be said and need to be thought about. We cannot just say that that is this year's budget, that everything in the garden is rosy and that next year it will be better and we will eventually stop borrowing money to run the house. What people do not fully understand, because of the propaganda that is flying around particularly at a time like this, is that we are not paying our way, our ordinary everyday costs. Until we make up our minds that we must pay our way we will get nowhere. All the money that was saved as a result of the cuts etc. should have been going to dissipate the £25 billion. Instead it is still there like the albatross and the service charges on it are the real reason we are in the mess we are in today. We are in a rotten mess and no amount of talk, of figures, percentages and GNP can disguise the fact that we are in a bad way financially.
We are told that our exports are going up, that the value of them is soaring; but how much of the profits being made here at the moment are being exported along with our people, in addition to the £700 million of investment funds that we heard about in answer to a question here today? One can double that and then we begin to see where the leakage is, the black hole, and one begins to see the £25 billion in its proper perspective. It is weighing us down; it is sinking us. The Government's wild enthusiasm for 1992 would make one believe that on the dawn of the first of the year of 1992 all our ills will disappear. I wish I could believe that, but my firm conviction is that as we approach and go into 1992 our difficulties will increase. The opportunities are a mirage and will have disappeared by then. The free market and the free movement of goods may well see many of our enterprises here swamped because we will not be able to compete. We cannot compete unless there is a level table, and the table is not level. It never can be. We have heard much talk about levelling up. The truth is that the gap between the less well off in the community and the better off has widened until it is a yawning abyss, and 1992 will mean an even greater yawning gap unless the Government cop themselves on, stop clapping themselves on the back, being applauded by Fine Gael for taking over their policy and make up their minds that they want a freight equalisation scheme set into the whole system of the EC to help Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece, to mention the obvious ones. Without that we cannot compete and there is no use talking about high technology and information technology. They are all great and they all have a place but they are not enough.
We seem to have lost the run of ourselves in this House talking about how well we are doing. We are not.
(Wexford): I would like to welcome the budget recently announced by the Minister for Finance. In 1987 the economy stood on the brink of bankruptcy. We had heavy borrowings and a mounting national debt crippling the country since the late seventies. Different Governments were to blame. While borrowings and the national debt were mounting it had disastrous effects on the people of the country, both those on social welfare and those seeking jobs. This could not be allowed to continue.
The Government, in line with the Programme for National Recovery have managed to turn the economy around from one of despondency to one of confidence, a magnificent achievement in three short years. This budget was carefully planned and thought out and will help to ensure continued economic growth while at the same time protecting the weaker and less well off sections of our society. It also has a job creation content which is important to all of us because of the high unemployment problem that still exists.
We can therefore look forward to a new decade with hope, with confidence and with renewed optimism as to our economic future. The Government have created an economic climate which should benefit industrialists and business people. Sometimes I wonder, however, if they are responding in the way that they should. The jobs that should be created are not being created quickly enough by those people. They are more interested in creaming off large profits than in playing their part in developing the country and providing jobs.
The budget includes improvements in social welfare benefits that we all welcome. People on low pay will receive a package amounting to practically £216 million. There are weekly increases of 5 per cent in social welfare and of 10 per cent and 11 per cent for the long-term unemployed and this has to be welcomed because for too long the people on social welfare were not receiving increases in line with inflation that would keep them above the poverty line. I welcome the fact that the Government are particularly concerned about the long-term unemployed. The personal long-term unemployment assistance rate has been increased from £36.70 in 1987 to £52 later this year and this has involved successive increases for three years of 11 per cent. The parties of the left sometimes amuse me because leading up to every budget they get this guilty conscience and start screaming and shouting about the less well off in our society. The Labour Party in particular were in Government from 1982 to 1987 when the long-term unemployed person had £36.70, and now they are screaming that it should be £55, £60 and £65. Yet during the five years of their term of government they made no effort whatsoever to bring in any decent standard of social welfare payments to the long-term unemployed. I wonder if they are just shouting and ranting and raving for the sake of it, since they did not take action when they had the opportunity to do so over that five year period.
The changes introduced by the Minister for Finance will help in some way to bring about a better standard of living for the people on unemployment benefit. It is unfortunate that those people have to continue to receive social welfare payments and have not the opportunity of getting back into the work environment.
Another thing I welcome is the introduction of the new clothing allowance to help recipients of social welfare to provide for their children at school time. On the budget last year I called on the Minister for Social Welfare to consider introducing a double week's payment in September to cope with this. This announcement by the Minister is, therefore, very welcome and will go a long way towards alleviating the problems particularly of large families at this time of the year. We are all aware that, come September, many families dread the fact that they have to provide school uniforms, school books, shoes, etc. for their children returning to school. In many cases they have to defer the payment of rent to the local authorities for three and four weeks because of this.
This new clothing allowance will solve the problem. The only thing I would ask the Minister is to ensure that it is wide-ranging, and that it is not bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape or skimped on. People who are receiving unemployment assistance and who are not in a position to buy clothing for their children will be able to receive this allowance. Too often in the past welfare officers acted as if they were paying money out of their own pockets. They were reluctant to pay over even a small amount of money to people to enable them to buy clothing for their children. I hope the Minister will set down strict guidelines so as to ensure that everybody who is entitled to this allowance will receive it and that it will not be left to the discretion of community welfare officers as to who should get it.
The family income supplement which provides a decent standard of living for people on low incomes has been increased. I am baffled as to why many people have not claimed this family income supplement. People on low incomes had an opportunity of receiving an extra weekly allowance but for different reasons, perhaps they were afraid of losing their medical cards, did not seem to be interested in taking it up. The Minister has redressed this situation by providing that in future people who receive the family income supplement will not lose their medical card. I welcome this provision and I hope the Minister for Social Welfare will do as he did last year and launch a campaign both on television and in the newspapers to encourage families to avail of this allowance.
People over 80 years who receive free electricity and have natural gas and free TV licences allowances will retain these entitlements even if somebody comes to live with them in future. This announcement by the Minister may not mean much to many people but I know many people over 80 years — I believe the Minister should have reduced the limit to 70 years, but at least this is a start — who would not allow their nephew, daughter or anyone else live with them because they were afraid of losing this allowance. The Minister should be complimented for introducing this concession. I hope it is only the start and that next year the age limit will be reduced to people over 70 years, or even to people who qualify for an old age pension. I believe people in their late sixties and seventies should be entitled to a free electricity allowance and other allowances because they have to use more electricity units in order to keep themselves warm and have a reasonable standard of living.
The national fuel scheme will be extended to long-term and short-term social welfare recipients. I welcome this provision. It was unfair that in a house where two people on social welfare lived they did not qualify for free fuel because one of them was on short-term social welfare assistance whereas two people in a house on long-term social welfare assistance were eligible for free fuel.
An allocation of £500,000 is being made available for programmes for women. It is essential that £150,000 is given to the rape crisis centres which are doing very good work in different parts of the country. The balance of this money will be given as grant aid to self-help groups working in local communities. I should like to point out to the Minister for Social Welfare that Dublin is not Ireland and he should not forget the rural areas. Different organisations are doing tremendous work for women in County Wexford and, I am sure, in other counties also, and they deserve to get their fair share of this £500,000. This money should not be totally centred, as has happened too often in the past, in Dublin and other major cities, but should be spread throughout the country. Country areas are as important as city areas and women in country areas are equally as important as those in cities.
There will also be a substantial increase in the allocation to voluntary organisations. Such organisations who are doing great work up and down the country receive very little financial help and I have no doubt that if they get even a small allowance from the Minister they will be able to provide far more valuable services for people at very low costs. Groups in my area, such as meals on wheels, carry out much voluntary work but have got very little support, financial or otherwise, from different Governments over the years. I hope the Minister will ensure that voluntary organisations around the country get an equal share of this money.
For 20 years our taxation system has gone in one direction only, that is, up. The PAYE sector have been crucified and carried the burden of taxation for 20 years. They have carried this burden for far too long while other sections got off practically tax free. Different Governments did not seem to be interested in tackling the powerful sections of our community who were practically refusing to pay tax and the PAYE sector had no choice but to pay increasing rates of tax year after year. I am glad that last year the Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, set about changing this anomaly. He reduced the tax rates last year and has continued this reduction in this year's budget. While we would like to see the rate of taxation reducing at a faster rate, I welcome the fact that the 32 per cent rate is being reduced to 30 per cent, with a commitment to reduce it to 25 per cent over the next three years, and that the higher rate of 56 per cent is being reduced to 53 per cent. I hope that in the very near future we will have two tax bands, a lower rate of 25 per cent and a higher rate of about 40 per cent. I believe these tax bands must also be widened.
The Minister is moving in the right direction in regard to taxation. People must be given an incentive to work but up to now they have not been given one. If people worked an hour or two overtime more often than not they moved into the higher tax band and were crucified with the amount of tax they had to pay at the end of the week. As a result, these people were no longer interested in generating increased output or working an extra few hours. If we expect people to increase output and work longer hours they must be given an incentive to do so. I hope the Minister for Finance will reduce the tax rates further next year to ensure that that incentive is there.
The Minister has also set about increasing the tax take from other sections of our society. As I said earlier — I make no apologies to anybody for saying this — I believe some sections of the community have not paid their fair share. I hope the Minister, both this year and in years ahead, will ensure that there is an equitable payment of taxation by the different sections of our community and that every section who can afford to pay will pay their fair share.
With regard to the new exemption limits, I am glad that a family with five children earning up to £8,000 per year will be exempt from income tax. This again will help the low paid workers. Even in this day and age many people are on low incomes and they find it difficult to survive. I welcome the provision whereby people on low incomes will no longer have to pay tax. They will be able to utilise the money they will save looking after their families.
I welcome the exemption in the payment of PRSI for low paid workers. Different commissions and reports have recommended that there should be an exemption for low paid workers. The exemption will apply to incomes of £60 a week or less, but I am sure that this will be increased. This would be to the benefit of lower paid and part-time workers.
In asking the Deputy to move the Adjournment I would like to indicate to him that he will have 15 minutes remaining on the resumption of the debate.
(Wexford): I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.