I should like to be associated with your last remarks. Before Deputy O'Hanlon leaves the House I should like to remind him that he has a very selective memory in regard to the 1982-87 administration. It must be remembered when that Government came into office it inherited an economy in ruins, with inflation at 21 per cent. Deputy O'Hanlon also ignored the reality of price increases for petrol of 9p per gallon, according to today's newspapers. He criticised my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, in relation to spending without taxation. If that is what Deputy Sheehan meant he had very good mentors.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, has good memories of the administration led by former Deputy Garret FitzGerald and the behaviour of her Government colleagues in terms of destructive Opposition.
The Budget Statement is the backdrop to the political year and is significant for that reason. It was awaited with bated breath as it was felt in many quarters that this Government would be the Government to beat all other Governments. Public expectation was high; the people wished this Government well.
The present situation is horrendous, over one million people are living in poverty, 300,000 are unemployed, crime levels are unprecedented and there is a general disillusionment with the political process. Nobody contributed more to the level of expectation than the Labour Party and they have now disappointed more people than has any Government in the past.
In my short time here I had the opportunity to listen to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Deputy Michael D. Higgins, then Opposition Deputy speak about the "dehumanised economy". I thought it was a very apt phrase as we were led to believe that the economy was going great guns but at the same time we had appalling levels of human despair and historic levels of unemployment and poverty. At present in excess of 300,000 people are unemployed. In addition to the 300,000 unemployed, 40,000 people are on FÁS or preretirement schemes. The budget provides for an additional 30,000 people on the live register. In other words, this Government promises that level of increase in unemployment in its first year in office. That is an appalling starting point, the Government has thrown in the towel before it even started. It has to be a lesson in the practicality of Labour Party politics that they can speak out of each side of the mouth at the same time. In Opposition they can champion all the causes that need so badly to be addressed but when they join the "mercs and perks brigade" they forget completely about those whose causes they championed and upon whose backs they built their electoral success. That is an appalling betrayal of the trust people placed in the Labour Party.
During the recent election campaign we heard a great deal about the politics of exclusion and how this Government which comprises the Labour Party would end the politics of exclusion. It is interesting to note, however, that public sector pay has increased by 54 per cent since 1986 yet the numbers employed remain more or less static. The public service pay bill for 1993 is £4.35 billion. The social welfare bill has increased by 51 per cent since 1986 yet there are an additional 100,000 people dependent on social welfare. It is against that backdrop that people realised the Government would have to take radical steps to deal with the huge problems facing the country. The reality is that this budget is a budget of inaction and aspirations rather than reality and will ultimately do nothing to help those who are so badly in need of assistance.
Of course, this was not helped by the prolonged gestation period — the mating dance between Labour and Fianna Fáil took so long that the economy was dealt two knock-out blows in the intervening period. The devaluation debacle cost us dearly and we then had the further blow from Digital in Galway which has added an additional 1,000 people to the live register. That was a direct consequence of this Government's inaction because it was more concerned with positions of power and influence in the new Government than real politics. That is nothing short of a national scandal.
There are elements of the budget that I welcome. For many years we campaigned for changes in the capital acquisitions tax and indeed the provisions in the budget go a certain way to alleviating the burden that people face when inheriting property. The State expended millions on training young farmers who achieved the Green Certificate but the reality was that many were forced to walk away from their natural inheritance because they were liable to tax on inheritance. The proposals in the budget go some way to alleviating that problem. There is also provision for an early retirement scheme for farmers but this is part and parcel of the Common Agricultural Policy. Many of the carrots in the budget have been announced so many times they have been flogged to death. The £1 million provided for the early retirement scheme for farmers though inadequate is welcome. It is a step in the right direction to encourage land mobility. It will enable those on whom the State has expended a great deal of money in training to take their place in agriculture. That will be beneficial to production and should create jobs downstream. This is a welcome development.
However, this is destroyed in one fell swoop by the introduction of a 2 per cent probate tax on estates over £10,000 with the exclusion of the family home if it is inherited directly by the spouse. This is an arbitrary figure and next year it could be 5 per cent or 10 per cent. The tax on a holding valued at £250,000 — and this is not an extraordinary figure because for the purposes of this tax, the quota and the stock will be included in the valuation — will be £5,000 and this must be paid before a certificate of probate will issue. I think that undoes the good achieved by the reforms in the capital acquisitions tax. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this measure. The changes in capital acquisitions tax and the £1 million provided for the early retirement scheme will be undone in one fell swoop. Personally, I do not recall the time when death duties were the scourge of those unfortunate enough to be afflicted by a death in the family but this probate tax is a step backwards, a step into the past. It is a tax on death which will cause undue hardship to a great many families. When one inherits a farm or a business, it is only of benefit when one can generate an income. If one realises the asset to pay the tax then one no longer has an asset which can generate an income. This is a hasty measure which has not been properly thought out.
I would now like to deal with the educational provisions in the budget. They are totally inadequate. It is quite apparent the Minister for Education is incapable of fighting her corner at Cabinet. The reluctance of the Taoiseach this morning to stand over the Programme for a Partnership Government casts a dark shadow over its contents. There are a number of commitments to education in that document. It states that the priority at primary level is a reduction to 22 in the pupil-teacher ratio by September 1996 and no class should be bigger than 29 pupils.
I was interested also to note the proposed recruitment of 500 additional remedial teachers by September 1996. There is no provision in this year's Education Estimate for increasing the number of primary school teachers. Therefore, although the aspiration is to employ additional remedial teachers, none will be employed in 1993. I am sure the Minister, and other members of the Government, are aware of the necessity for remedial teachers. If children go off the rails in terms of education in primary school it is practically impossible to bring them back within the system at second level. A commitment was given in this year's programme to provide additional counselling facilities at second level. However, if it is a case of deciding between primary and secondary, I urge that the resources be targeted at primary education because counselling at second level is merely fire brigade action. One can maintain discipline and an interest in the educational system among pupils if they are identified and resources provided at primary level. Given the documented evidence of the link between employment prospects and educational attainment, it would be a prudent investment in the future to appoint additional remedial teachers.
The allocation for the school building programme, though increased, is inadequate. I have lobbied with relatively little success for improved facilities in a number of two-teacher schools in my constituency. However, it appears from the Green Paper that the Department's view is that two-teacher schools should be phased out in favour of larger ones. That is totally unacceptable, particularly because two-teacher schools are, by and large, situated in rural areas. As in the case of discrimination against rural communities in regard to the appointment of remedial teachers, the reluctance of the Department to finance improvements in basic conditions in two-teacher primary schools in rural areas is further proof that the thinking in the Green Paper is holding sway. The two-teacher schools in rural areas are being thrown to the winds in terms of achieving resources so that pupils and teachers can work in a comfortable environment which is conducive to good education.
This is the European Year of the Elderly. A Cork nursing home with capacity for 93 beds — there are approximately 60 patients there at present — will close on Friday because of inadequate financing from the Department of Health. The Minister for Health met the proprietors and relatives of patients in that nursing home last Monday, yet, it will close on Friday. That shows scant regard for the elderly in our community and flies in the face of the principles of European Year of the Elderly.
I welcome the provision of £20 million for the reduction of hospital waiting lists. On numerous occasions I have had to make representations to the Southern Health Board on behalf of constituents seeking cataract operations, hip replacement operations and so on. I acknowledge the good intentions of the Minister for Health, but unless additional consultants are appointed we will be unable to take up the additional resources because, at present, theatre facilities are being used to their full potential and there is still a waiting list for surgery appointments. Not alone do we need financial resources, we also need investment in personnel to enable health boards avail of the extra resources. The question of resources for accommodation for long term and acute geriatric patients is undoubtedly the biggest single issue facing health boards. The resources invested in this area in recent years bears no relationship to the ageing profile of the population. We have talked a great deal about targeting resources at particular areas, but that is the biggest crisis area in the health services at present.
On a regular basis I meet relatives of patients who have financed their stay in private nursing homes for a number of years. However, relatives of those patients can no longer afford to do so. It may not be possible to care for the patient at home and even when that must be considered the support services from the health boards such as community nurses and home help facilities are inadequate. Health boards are not in a position, due to financial constraints, to offer any type of support to such patients. I appeal to the Minister to target additional resources into this area of the health services. This could still be done as the Finance Bill has not yet been published. This is a cause of great concern to many patients and their relatives, many of whom contributed to the support of their relatives in private nursing homes.
A sum of £4 million is to be provided by way of subvention for public patients in private nursing homes. That is a welcome start but there is a danger, as happened in the United Kingdom, that it would be like the new house grant, it would be added to the fee. Therefore, we must be careful to target that resource at the patient rather than incorporate it in the fee.
We have heard a great deal about the politics of exclusion. This budget excludes an additional 30,000 people from having a say in Irish society. There are two fundamentals in regard to creating jobs. First, it must be attractive for prospective employers to invest money in job creation. To date it has been more attractive to invest in technology, but that must change. Second, it must be more attractive at all times for an unemployed person to take up a job offer than to remain unemployed. It is unfortunate that this budget has failed to integrate the tax and social welfare systems so that the anomalies which exist, and which in many circumstances make it financially unattractive for people to take up work, can be tackled.
I welcome the increased allocation for local authority housing, but we should learn from past mistakes. Directives should be sent to local authorities so that we do not have the knee-jerk response we had in the past of constructing large ghettoes housing people from the lower socio-economic sector. What we should instruct local authorities to do is purchase in the private market and take an integrated approach to resolving the local authority housing problem.
